توسعه سیستم ارزش کار در دوران بلوغ
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|21662||2007||19 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9012 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 70, Issue 1, February 2007, Pages 42–60
Work values stability, change, and development can be appreciably reduced to a living system model [Ford, D. H. (1994). Humans as self-constructing living systems: A developmental perspective on behavior and personality (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates]. This theoretical model includes discrepancy-reducing and cohesion-amplifying mechanisms that interact to govern the change in standard- and goal-oriented work values over time [Boldero, J., & Francis, J. (2002). Goals, standards, and the self: reference values serving different functions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 232–241]. Employing longitudinal data from a sample of adolescents (n = 1010) spanning the 9th through the 12th grades, the results demonstrate that the value system develops in a theoretically predictable fashion during the adolescent period. Discrepancy reduction and cohesion mechanisms interact to either maintain or increase the integrity of and harmony between standard-oriented values associated with high school part-time work experiences and goal-oriented work values related to anticipated career-oriented work during adulthood. Exploratory analyses suggest that adolescents’ educational expectations influence the relative salience of standard- and goal-oriented work values and the discrepancy reduction process linking the two over time.
Although researchers have investigated the role of human values in vocational aspirations, choice, and development for more than 70 years (Dukes, 1955), our understanding concerning the development of work values has typically been limited to the use of cross-sectional data and by a small number of studies that have employed longitudinal data spanning more than two years of life (Cotton et al., 1997, Johnson, 2001 and Skorikov and Vondracek, 1997). Whereas Deci and Ryan (1985) and Eccles and colleagues (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) have placed a great deal of emphasis on motivation in its intrinsic and extrinsic forms to understand, among other issues, academic performance during adolescence, this study seeks to examine a more durable and regulatory aspect of the motivation construct across the high school years, namely, the value system. Within vocational psychology, Super, 1957, Super, 1990, Super, 1992 and Super, 1995 has developed theory and conducted an extensive program of empirical research (Super, 1962, Super, 1973, Super, 1995, Super and Mowry, 1962 and Super and Sverko, 1995) to demonstrate that work values play a critical role in career choices and career development processes alongside interests, needs, and the self-concept. Likewise, Brown (1996) has asserted that the work value system changes and develops through transactions between the person and the environment and that these transactions variably reinforce or suppress particular values. Moreover, work values presumably govern experience, yet experiences may serve to modify the salience of values over time (e.g., Brown and Crace, 1996 and Rokeach, 1973). Both, Super and Brown identified the development of an accessible and stable value system as a critical milestone during the course of vocational development that supports the development of career aspirations and assists in career choice making and the transition from school to work. The present study combines theoretical work from the human values (Boldero and Francis, 2002, Kluckhohn, 1951, Rokeach, 1973 and Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987) and work values (Brown, 1995, Brown, 1996, Brown and Crace, 1996 and Super, 1995), literatures with living systems (Ford & Lerner, 1992) and developmental systems theory (Ford & Lerner, 1992) to create and test a conceptual and propositional model of the work value system. The conceptual model suggests that work values act as durable (Hechter, 1993), yet changing and self-constructing (Ford, 1994), preferences that can be classified into standard- and goal-oriented work value analogues (Boldero & Francis, 2002). Standard-oriented work values serve as preferences engaged with immediate work opportunities and demands while goal-oriented values serve as preferences engaged with career-oriented behaviors and choices directed toward long-term career outcomes. The propositional model suggests that standard- and goal-oriented values are dynamically engaged with one another (Boldero & Francis, 2002) as parts of a human value system (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987), which is a self-constructing part of a larger living and self-constructing human organism (Ford, 1994) that is embedded within multiple contexts (Ford & Lerner, 1992). Combining the conceptual and propositional model yields a theoretical model of the work value system as being composed of two value subsystems defined on the basis of present- and future-oriented demands and opportunities and engaged with one another in a dynamic fashion such that present-oriented values and behaviors and future-oriented values and behaviors dynamically influence one another across time. 1.1. A conceptual model of work values Theorists like Super, 1962 and Super, 1995, Kluckhohn (1951), Rokeach (1973), and Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) have identified a host of universal human values and work values and parsed the value system into two or more subsystems, classes, or domains. The most widely used value system typology has been Rokeach’s (1973) instrumental versus terminal values distinction that divides the value system into two parts devoted to instrumental or process-oriented values and terminal or goal-oriented values. Recently, Boldero and Francis (2002) proposed that the value system is not composed of exclusive parts and is best modeled as a single, flexible system that is employed to guide present functioning (standard-oriented values) and future-oriented behavior (goal-oriented values). They contended that values can be conceptually classified into two categories according to their role in behavior maintenance and change by determining whether a value is employed as a standard maintaining current behavior (akin to instrumental values) or as a goal or life task (akin to terminal values) guiding behavior toward a desired end-state. Although, at first blush, the standard- versus goal-oriented value distinction appears to be very similar to the long-standing instrumental versus terminal distinction, the two classifications are fundamentally different. Whereas Rokeach (1973) asserted that the value system has two mutually exclusive categories of values, Boldero and Francis (2002) proposed that any particular value may be employed in two unique ways to maintain present behavior or to direct a sequence of behaviors toward a goal. Essentially, the conceptual difference between standard- and goal-oriented values proposed by Boldero and Francis (2002) is akin to the difference between being and becoming. For a variety of reasons, a person may employ a value to be something quite similar to or different from what they wish to become. A person may place a high value on “honesty” and wish to become an “honest person” as a life goal (i.e., goal-oriented value), but he or she may presently value deception to achieve a more immediate work goal, because being honest may be incongruent with current work demands. For example, if an employer expects their employees to negotiate the most lucrative deal possible, then employees may place a greater value on deception in their work situation but may continue to highly value honesty in their personal negotiations and long-term work goals. Although many people may not perceive or even be concerned with such a discrepancy between their present-oriented and goal-oriented work values, others may make career choices and changes as a means of avoiding or resolving such discrepancies. 1.2. A propositional model of work values development Super, 1957, Super, 1990, Super, 1992 and Super, 1995, Brown (Brown, 1995, Brown, 1996 and Brown and Crace, 1996), and others writing in the human values literature (Feather, 1990, Kilby, 1993, Kluckhohn, 1951, Rokeach, 1973 and Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987) have clearly stated that values are organized into a dynamic system. Many of these researchers have supported this theoretical inference with cross-sectional research designs and data that demonstrated a predicted pattern of co-variation between conceptually related and unrelated values. The basic proposition of the theory pertaining to the value system (e.g., Kluckhohn, 1951, Rokeach, 1973 and Super, 1995) suggests that value reinforcement and suppression are tied to the perceived discrepancy or incongruence between conceptually related values and between a value and an associated experience. Increased discrepancies are presumed to yield increased personal dissatisfaction and this dissatisfaction prompts behavior or value changes toward decreasing discrepancies and thus decreased dissatisfaction or dissonance. Furthermore, development is presumed to be indicated by increased stability and harmony within the value system across time and fewer and smaller discrepancies between conceptually related values and between values and experience. The notions of accessibility, stability, and harmony are often subsumed under the terms values development and crystallization. Although much work has been done to determine whether or not and to what extent values are structured as a dynamic system (e.g., Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987), only a few published empirical studies have directly tested if and to what extent values function in the fashion of a dynamic system ( Rokeach, 1973 and Waller, 1994). These studies employed an experimental design and samples of college students to support the system-based proposition that a discrepancy between a preferred state (in this case values) and an actual state (other values or behaviors) prompts a change in either the preferred and/or actual state to decrease the discrepancy. Students who perceived a discrepancy between their values and choices or between their values and the values of their peers modified their values to reduce the discrepancy. This research was, however, limited to testing only one of several presumed mechanisms that promote and maintain the integrity of the value system. Furthermore, no research has been conducted to determine if the theoretically presumed mechanisms operate in a similar fashion during the high school years. A dynamic systems theory applied specifically to human functioning and development has been articulated in recent years under the label of living systems theory (Ford, 1994) and was further expanded to include complex formulations of human contexts to become what is now known as developmental systems theory (Ford & Lerner, 1992). This theoretical model asserts that humans must be defined as self-constructing living systems that are in part defined by and in part define complex human contexts. Applying these theoretical models to the value system, the various dynamic relationships between values and experiences and the development of the value system across time can be described as consisting of within-person and person-within-context discrepancies and cohesion. A developmental change in values will theoretically lead to greater stability in the salience of values and increased cohesion and decreased discrepancies (i.e., harmony) between standard- and goal-oriented applications ( Ford & Lerner, 1992) of the value system. Value salience stability is defined as the absence of intraindividual or interindividual change in the salience of a value across a defined time period. Value system cohesion is defined as the degree of association, union, or harmony (e.g., correlation in the conceptual and statistical sense) between standard- and goal-oriented applications of a value. A value discrepancy is defined as the intraindividual difference between standard- and goal-oriented applications of a value. These three mechanisms spring from the well-supported conceptual and propositional models suggesting that values are organized as a dynamic system that is situated within a living system ( Ford & Lerner, 1992) which is in turn embedded within a human ecology ( Bronfenbrenner, 1979 and Vondracek et al., 1986). Ultimately, value system development is indicated by its integrity, which can be defined by small discrepancies and strong cohesion between standard- and goal-oriented applications of the value system. Within well-developed harmonious value systems, the salience of a standard- and goal-oriented application of a value is predicted to be roughly equivalent (i.e., little or no discrepancy) and change in either the standard- or goal-oriented application of a value is predicted to yield a proportional change in the other application (i.e., high cohesion) (Oppenheimer, 1991a and Oppenheimer, 1991b). In simple terms, well-developed value systems will most likely exist in people who are presently being consistent with whom they wish to become. Moreover, people with highly developed value systems are more likely to be or function in a way that is consistent with present contextual contingencies or aim to change values and functioning in order to become consistent with anticipated opportunities and constraints in future contexts. The proposed mechanisms are, therefore, representative of the grand dynamic between person, context and time described within the developmental–contextual model of vocational development ( Vondracek et al., 1986) and developmental systems theory ( Ford & Lerner, 1992). 1.3. Testing a theoretical model of work values development The conceptual and propositional models combine to yield a theoretical model of work values development that incorporates the distinction between standard- and goal-oriented values and how these values serve to shape one another through discrepancy reduction and cohesion mechanisms. This theoretical model includes two conceptual manifestations of work values, namely, standard- and goal-oriented values. These two value system classes are presumably engaged with one another within a propositional model governed by the cohesion and discrepancy reduction mechanisms. Previous research discussed below suggests that the two mechanisms operate within the value system, yet no research has been conducted to assess how the two mechanisms interact to govern the development of the work value system. In previous research (Porfeli, 2004) as well as in the present study, adolescents were asked to report their values pertaining to present part-time work experiences and their values associated with their anticipated work experiences upon completion of their education. The standard- versus goal-oriented value distinction (Boldero & Francis, 2002) was employed to classify work values. Part-time work values (PTWV) during the high school years were viewed as standard-oriented values guiding present work choices and behavior. Full-time work values (FTWV) were considered to be goal-oriented values guiding future-oriented thought and vocational behavior consistent with the adolescents’ anticipated future career. The theoretical model of work values includes propositions suggesting that standard- and goal-oriented values should exhibit contemporaneous and ongoing cohesion. Previous research employing the dataset examined in the present study supported the cohesion mechanism because standard-oriented values (PTWV) exhibited moderate to strong cohesion (in the form of correlations) with their analogous goal-oriented values (FTWV) across the high school years (Porfeli, 2004). The interpersonal value domain exhibited the strongest standard- and goal-oriented value cohesion followed by the mastery and economic security value domains, respectively. Cohesion was not only indicated by within-wave relationships between standard- and goal-oriented reflections of a work value, but it was also indicated by relationships between cross-wave changes in standard- and goal-oriented values (Porfeli, 2004). The linear change [computed as a difference score (e.g., Time 2–Time 1)] in standard-oriented mastery values from one grade to the next was, for example, associated with the change in goal-oriented mastery values during the same interval in the range of correlation equal to about 0.40. As adolescents’ mastery values pertaining to part-time work changed, their mastery values pertaining to future full-time work changed in concert. The theoretical model of work values also suggests that standard- and goal-oriented values should work in concert to minimize discrepancies (i.e., the discrepancy reduction mechanism) between the two value systems and should, in the face of a relatively large discrepancy, exhibit discrepancy reduction across time. Previous research found that adolescents who exhibited relatively large discrepancies between a standard-oriented work value (PTWV) and its goal-oriented value analogue (FTWV) in the 9th grade demonstrated decreasing discrepancies (see the “large discrepancy” example in Fig. 1) across 10th, 11th, and 12th grades (Porfeli, 2004). Furthermore, and contrary to the conclusion that this change was an artifact of regression to the mean, the discrepancy reduction from the 9th to the 10th grade was maintained or further reduced from 10th to 12th grade. Given that previous research found that the cohesion and discrepancy reduction mechanisms appear to operate within the value system (Porfeli, 2004), the present study assessed whether or not the discrepancy and cohesion mechanisms within the propositional model interact or work in tandem to maintain system harmony. If discrepancy reduction and cohesion are fundamental mechanisms promoting value system harmony (i.e., development), then the relationship between the change in a part-time work value and its career-related analogue is likely to be different for people who exhibit large value salience discrepancies relative to those who exhibit small discrepancies. On the one hand (and as reflected in Fig. 1), small discrepancies between standard- and goal-oriented values are predicted to be generally maintained over time, while larger discrepancies will tend to be reduced over time because the latter prompts greater personal dissatisfaction than the former (e.g., Kluckhohn, 1951, Rokeach, 1973 and Super, 1995). Furthermore, those adolescents who exhibit smaller discrepancies at an earlier occasion will presumably exhibit positive relationships between cross-wave changes in standard- and goal-oriented reflections of a work value (see “small discrepancy” examples in Fig. 1). On the other hand, high school students who exhibit larger discrepancies between standard- and goal-oriented values at an earlier occasion are predicted to reduce the discrepancy over time and by necessity exhibit negative relationships between cross-wave changes in standard- and goal-oriented values (see the “large discrepancy” example in Fig. 1). The difference in how values change over time as a function of the size of the discrepancy suggests that the cohesion mechanism is conditional upon the size of the discrepancy. In statistical terms, the relationship between the change in a part-time work value and its career-related analogue across time will be moderated by the magnitude of the discrepancy between a part-time work value and its career-related analogue at an earlier occasion (see Fig. 2).