Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Factors Influencing Career Decision-Making
Difficulties among Graduating Students from
Malaysian Private Higher Educational Institutions
Li Shan Chen* and Su Ann Liew**
The issue of career decision-making difficulties has been
and continues to be a major concern for career counsellors.
This paper examines the factors that influence career
decision-making difficulties among graduating students from
three Private Higher Educational Institutions (PHEIs) in
Malaysia. Factors associated with career decision-making
difficulties considered in this study, which was conducted
over a four-month period, are parental authority and
personality. The epistemology of this study is positivism, and
self-administered survey was employed. The Parental
Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), Mini International Personality
Item Pool (Mini-IPIP), and Career Decision-Making
Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ) were adapted and used
as the measurement instrument. After pilot testing the
modified questionnaire, convenience sampling method was
used as the sampling procedure, with a total number of 100
respondents. Data analysis was conducted using IBM
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software.
Descriptive statistics analysis, reliability analysis, factor
analysis, and multiple regression analysis were generated,
analysed, and reported. Results confirmed the hypotheses
whereby significances in both independent variables were
shown. Results also indicated that parental authority has a
positive relationship with career decision-making difficulties
whereas personality indicates a negative relationship with
career decision-making difficulties. Limitations and
recommendations for future research were identified and
proposed at the end of the paper.
Keywords: Career decision-making difficulties, Parental authority, Personality
Field of Research: Management
1. Introduction
It is believed that the career decisions made by individuals always lead to
important vocational outcomes in the future (Walker and Tracey, 2012).
However, not all individuals can perform the career decision-making process
at ease; some individuals face difficulties in the process. Difficulties in the
career decision-making process leads to three major possible consequences:
(1) the possibility for individuals to transfer the decision-making to others and
refrain from deciding themselves, (2) failure in achieving the optimal career
choice due to the delay in decision-making, and (3) temporary unemployment
(Gati, Saka and Krausz, 2001).
* Li Shan Chen, Sunway University, Malaysia. Email: lishan_chen@hotmail.com
** Dr. Su Ann Liew, Department of Economics and Management, Sunway University Business
School, Sunway University, Malaysia. Email: suannl@sunway.edu.my
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
2. Literature Review
2.1 Career Decision-Making Difficulties (CDMD)
In many studies, career decision-making difficulties (CDMD) are also known as
career indecisions or career indecisiveness. In the latest context, Burns et al.
(2013) had simplified the many definitions as the inability of an individual to
select or choose an occupation. Empirical studies have shown great interest in
CDMD as the dependent variable.
In Malaysia, Teo (2009) examined values, interests, and skills as determinants
to study career indecisions among students from the College of Business in
Universiti Utara Malaysia; results indicated that the variables are negatively
related to career indecisions. Talib and Tan (2009) also conducted a study on
career indecisions using career identity, academic achievement, and
occupational information as determinants. The sample used was
undergraduate students in four public universities; results indicated that
students with low vocational identity and occupational information were more
likely to be undecided.
Subsequently, Mojgan, Abdul Kadir and Soheil (2011) examined the
relationship between state and trait anxiety and career indecision among
Iranian undergraduate students; there was a positive relationship between the
variables. Besides that, using a sample of students from National Youth Skills
Training Institutes in Selangor, Malaysia, Mansor and Mat Rashid (2013)
tested gender, academic achievement, working experiences, and participation
in career intervention programmes as determinants for CDMD; the results
show that the students face high CDMD. However, they also found no
significant difference between the variables mentioned on career indecisions.
In short, CDMD is a current and on-going issue faced by Malaysian students.
2.2 Relationship between CDMD and Parental Authority
Parental authority is one of the factors associated with career decision-making
difficulties (CDMD). Baumrind (1971) discovered three basic parenting
authority styles, known as permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative. The
degree of parental control determines the type of parenting style. It is assumed
that permissive parents have lesser or no control over children‟s behaviour
and life decisions. Permissive parents allow and encourage their children to
make decisions independently as much as possible. The degree of parental
control in permissive parenting style is the least among the parenting styles.
Authoritarian parenting style lies on the other extreme, which can be found in
parents who expect strict obedience from their children. Parents in this
category achieve control through punishment. Children who are raised under
authoritarian parents are those who are unable to enjoy freedom and
independence, and have to live under the absolute authority of their parents.
Authoritative parenting style lies between the two extremes. Parents under this
category present a stable, clear, and flexible parental behaviour. Authoritative
parents appear to have control over situations (authoritarian characteristic),
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
but also listen to their children‟s opinions, give or respect their autonomy
(permissive characteristic), and provide direction. In other words, authoritative
parents allow their children to have freedom in making decisions, but with
boundaries and limitations.
Career decision, parenting styles and parental attachment levels were
investigated by Önder-Cenkseven, Kirdök and Işik (2010), using Turkish high
school students as sample. Parenting styles that were investigated are
authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful; results indicated that
students who have more authoritative and authoritarian parents were more
decisive, compared to those with neglectful and indulgent parents. In Greece,
parenting styles, family function, and core self-evaluations were examined with
career decision-making difficulties (CDMD) (Koumoundourou, Tsaousis and
Kounenou, 2010). Results indicated that authoritarian parenting style is able to
predict CDMD positively. It was also found that permissive and authoritarian
parenting styles and the family cohesion significantly contributed to the male
students‟ prediction of CDMD. As for female students, their CDMD were
influenced negatively only when their parents possess the authoritarian style.
Asian Chinese parenting style has been the focus of many studies due to its
significance on children‟s good academic achievement (Stewart et al., 1998).
The acceptance of parental authority is greater in the Asian culture. To many
young Asian Chinese, they do not appear to accept parental authority
passively. Markus and Kitayama mentioned that Asian societies value smooth
and harmonious relationships rather than individual self-actualization (Stewart
et al., 1998). Ahmad, Benjamin, and Ang (2004) claimed that expectations and
advice from parents are deemed important in influencing children‟s career
decision-making, especially in the Asian context. However, due to the strong
emphasis on perceived behaviour, some advice from parents lead their
children to choose a career that mismatches their personality, which will be
discussed in the next section.
Chang (2007) explained that some children during the teenage years may feel
that they have developed a sense of self and have the wish to make decisions
freely without parents‟ control. Therefore, the teenagers‟ needs and their
parents‟ wishes or controls often contradict each other. Whiston (1996) found
an unexpected negative relationship between authoritarian parenting style with
women indecision. It was reported that women who perceive a high level of
control in their families reported less career indecision and confusion. A study
by Cheung and Wu (2013) used students‟ perceived parenting styles
(permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian) and traits anxiety to predict three
variables within lack of readiness, namely lack of motivation, indecisiveness,
and dysfunctional myths to study career indecision among undergraduate
students in Hong Kong; it was found that permissive parenting style is able to
predict lack of readiness (one of the components in CDMD). The interaction
effect of permissive parenting style and trait anxiety was able to significantly
predict dysfunctional myths. Trait anxiety was also found to have a mediation
effect between authoritarian parental style and indecisiveness. Results are
similar to the study by Koumoundourou, Tsaousis and Kounenou (2010)
whereby permissive and authoritarian parenting styles significantly influences
CDMD.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
With these supporting literature, the hypothesis is developed as follows:
H1: Parental authority significantly influences career decision-making
difficulties faced by graduating students from Private Higher Educational
Institutions (PHEIs) in Malaysia.
2.3 Relationship between CDMD and Personality
Saka and Gati (2007) examined emotional and personality-related aspects
towards career decision-making difficulties (CDMD) using a taxonomy namely
the Emotional and Personality-related Career decision-making Difficulties
scale (EPCD). They discovered three major cluster of difficulties: Pessimistic
Views, Anxiety, and Self-Concept and Identity. Pessimistic Views includes
difficulties related to dysfunctional perceptions and negative cognitive biases
about the self and the world. Anxiety consists of difficulties of anxiety provoked
by decision-making process and its potential outcomes, which may then
obstruct decision-making process. Self-Concept and Identity involves deeper
and more pervasive individual‟s personality aspects in decision-making
difficulties. The EPCD can be considered the latest research model when it
comes to emotional and personality-related aspects. Results show that higher
levels of EPCD associates with high levels of neuroticism, agreeableness, and
perfectionism, and low levels of extraversion, and openness to experience.
Bethencourt and Cabrera (2011) tested personality solely with career decisionmaking, using final year Spanish undergraduate students as sample. They
hypothesized that effective personality is associated with mature career
decision-making process. Effective personality in this context is described as
the mix of personal characteristics that individuals use to successfully face
their surroundings. It is understood that individuals with high effective
personality are able to use high levels of assertiveness, possess high selfesteem and self-confidence, has the ability to problem-solve and learn from
experience, are able to use high levels of work capacity and have emotional
stability. It is also understood that people with high effective personality are
able to visualize the future, have high persuasion and independence, tolerance
of uncertainty, and are risk takers. Results confirmed the hypothesis whereby
effective personality is associated with mature career decision-making process
based on knowledge about self in understanding the world of work.
Di Fabio, Palazzeschi and Bar-On (2012) combined personality as a mediator
with core self-evaluation and emotional intelligence, and career indecisions.
They used the Big Five Questionnaire by Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni and
Perugini (1993) as the instrument, which measures the five main dimensions:
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and
Openness. Results confirmed their hypotheses, whereby core self-evaluation
and emotional intelligence compared with personality traits significantly
influence CDMD. The Big Five factor was also used by Feldt and Woelfel
(2009), but they combined with other factors namely self-efficacy, and careeroutcome expectations, with undergraduate college students as sample.
Neuroticism, agreeableness and conscientiousness were found to be
significant factors. Feldman (2003) claimed that extraversion and openness
facilitate components of career decision-making. As for individuals with high
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
openness, they are open to opportunities and are more receptive with various
sources of information, which often leads them to conflicting directions. Burns
et al. (2013) also used personality and interest as determinants, but with a
multidimensional focus. Results suggested that personality and interest are
more strongly related to CDMD than past researchers‟ findings.
With these supporting literature, the hypothesis is developed as follows:
H2: Personality significantly influences career decision-making
difficulties faced by graduating students from Private Higher Educational
Institutions (PHEIs) in Malaysia.
3. Aims of Study
3.1 Objectives of the Study
1. To find out why graduating students from Private Higher Educational
Institutions in Malaysia face difficulties in career decision-making.
2. To study the relationship between career decision-making difficulties,
parental authority and personality.
3. To understand different types of parenting styles and personality traits
towards career decision-making difficulties faced by graduating
students from Private Higher Educational Institutions in Malaysia.
With that in mind, the research question is developed as follows:
What is the most critical factor that leads to career decision-making difficulties
(CDMD) among graduating students from Private Higher Educational
Institutions (PHEIs) in Malaysia?
3.2 Theoretical Framework
Diagram 1: Theoretical Framework of Present Study
IV1:
Parental Authority
H1
Career DecisionMaking Difficulties
IV2:
Personality
DV:
H2
The present study investigates two factors namely parental authority and
personality towards career decision-making difficulties (CDMD) (Diagram 1).
Reasons for adopting these two factors together are: (1) to contribute to the
current research gap in the context of career decision-making difficulties, (2) to
analyse the importance of these factors, as literature suggests that the two
variables are significant.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
4. Research Methodology
4.1 Setting and Procedure
Convenience sampling was used as the sampling procedure in this study due
to the accessibility of respondents. The participants of this study comprised
undergraduate Bachelor‟s Degree graduating students with a balanced mix of
male and female students from three private universities in Petaling Jaya,
Selangor, namely Sunway University, Monash University, and Taylor‟s
University. This group of students are in their final year and will be entering the
workforce upon graduation. Respondents consist of Malay, Chinese, and
Indian students. Students‟ participation was voluntary with confidentiality
assured. Data collected was then processed using SPSS software to generate
results and analysed through descriptive and inferential statistics.
4.2 Survey Instrument
4.2.1 Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)
The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) by Buri (1991) was used to
assess the three types of parenting styles: permissive, authoritarian, and
authoritative. The questionnaire consists of 30 items, 10 items for each
parenting styles for both mother-based authority and father-based authority.
Responses are based on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly
disagree to (5) strongly agree. The reliability of test-retest of the PAQ are: 0.81
for permissive (mother), 0.77 for permissive (father), 0.86 for authoritarian
(mother), 0.85 for authoritarian (father), 0.78 for authoritative (mother), and
0.92 for authoritative (father). Cronbach‟s Alpha for PAQ are: 0.75 for
permissive (mother), 0.74 for permissive (father), 0.85 for authoritarian
(mother), 0.87 for authoritarian (father), 0.82 for authoritative (mother), and
0.85 for authoritative (father).
4.2.2 Mini International Personality Item Pool (Mini-IPIP)
The Mini-IPIP developed by Donnellan, Oswald, Baird and Lucas (2006) is a
simplified version of the original 50-item IPIP-Five Factor Model (IPIP-FFM)
that measures the Big Five personality traits: Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Intellect/Imagination. The Mini-IPIP has
been simplified to 20 items, with four items to measure the Big Five traits using
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).
Mini-IPIP has strong validity and reliability, its longer-term retest are as follows:
r = 0.86, 0.68, 0.77, 0.82, and 0.75, for the Big Five personality traits:
Extraversion,
Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism,
and
Intellect/Imagination respectively.
4.2.3 Career Decision-Making Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ)
The taxonomy of Career Decision-Making Difficulties, known as CDDQ which
was developed by Gati et al. (1996) consists of 44 items measuring difficulties
in the career decision-making process. The CDDQ has 3 categories of
difficulties, namely Lack of Readiness, Lack of Information, and Inconsistent
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Information. Respondents are required to indicate their responses on a 9-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (Does not describe me) to 9 (Describe me well).
The CDDQ has been proven with strong reliability and validity, whereby many
studies have used the model (Albion and Fogarty, 2002; Di Fabio, Palazzeschi
and Bar-On, 2012; Harun, 2006; Teo, 2009) with overall reliability scale of 0.94.
Internal consistency for Lack of Readiness, Lack of Information, and
Inconsistent Information are considered good as well (alpha = 0.63, 0.95, 0.89
respectively).
4.3 Questionnaire Design
In order to standardize the scales for each variable‟s instrument, a 4-point
Likert scale was used in this study. The primary reason for using an evennumbered scale is to avoid respondents being indifferent or neutral and to
force respondents to show his or her attitudinal position (Beri, 2007). As this
study requires and evokes strong opinions, an even-numbered scale is a more
appropriate choice (Zikmund, Babin, Carr and Griffin, 2012). The questionnaire
for this study has 4 sections. Section A comprises screening questions,
Section B consists of CDDQ statements, Section C consists of PAQ
statements, Section D consists of Mini-IPIP statements, and respondents‟
demographic profile is placed under Section E.
Based on the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), four items for each
parenting style were adapted and used for this study‟s questionnaire; every
statement refers to both the father and mother as one combined unit. The
present study also adopted 16 items from the original 20-item Mini
International Personality Item Pool (Mini-IPIP). An even-numbered 4-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree) is used.
For Section B on career decision-making difficulties (CDMD), the survey was
simplified to a total of 29 items based on the Career Decision-Making
Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ) and designed on a 4-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (Does not describe me) to 4 (Describes me well).
4.4 Pilot Test
Pilot test is a good method to increase the validity of the study (Bui, 2014). A
small group of respondents comprising 30 students from Sunway University
were surveyed. Data was collected and reliability analysis was conducted. The
survey questionnaire was refined through the removal of statements to
increase Cronbach‟s Alpha to at least 0.50, as Cronbach‟s Alpha that is more
than 0.50 is considered suffice and acceptable (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000;
Nunnally, 1978). However, Kline (1999) stated that when dealing with
psychological constructs, a lower Cronbach‟s Alpha value is acceptable due to
diversity of the constructs being measured. Subsequently, for the actual
survey questionnaire, there were 8, 10 and 20 items testing parental authority,
personality and career decision-making difficulties (CDMD) respectively.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
5.0 Findings
5.1 Descriptive Analysis
Table 1: Sample distribution for present study
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Malay
Chinese
Indian
University
Sunway
Monash
Taylor‟s
Birth Order
Only child
Eldest child
Middle child
Youngest child
50
50
50
50
27
45
28
27
45
28
33
33
34
33
33
34
5
32
29
34
5
32
29
34
Table 1 shows that gender was equally distributed between male and female
respondents. In terms of ethnicity, Chinese constituted 45%, followed by
Indians (28%), and the smallest group of respondents was Malays (27%).
Respondents from three private universities were selected and assessed:
Taylor‟s University (34%), Sunway University (33%), and Monash University
(33%). Based on birth order in the family, 34% of the respondents are the
youngest child, followed by the eldest child (32%), middle child (29%), and
only 5% of them are the only child in the family.
5.2 Demographic Analysis on CDMD
Table 2: Demographic Analysis using One-Way ANOVA
Demographics
Significance level
Significant?
Gender
0.650
No
Ethnicity
0.011
Yes
University
0.049
Yes
Birth Order
0.138
No
Demographic analysis on career decision-making difficulties (CDMD) was
conducted using one-way ANOVA. Table 2 reveals that both gender and birth
order do not have significant influence on CDMD. In contrast, interestingly,
ethnicity and university are significant to CDMD.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
5.3 Analysis of Parental Authority (IV1)
Table 3: Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis for Parental Authority
Component
1
2
3
Permissive
C4: My parents allowed me to form my own point
0.775
of view on family matters and generally allowed me
to decide for myself what I was going to do.
C7: My parents have always felt that what their
0.735
children need is to be free to make up their own
minds and to do what they want to do, even if it
does not agree with what they, as parents might
want.
Authoritarian
C11: My parents often told me exactly what they
0.847
wanted me to do and how they expected me to do
it.
C2: My parents did not allow me to question any
0.720
decision they have made.
C5: My parents would get very upset if I tried to
0.679
disagree with them.
C8: My parents felt that it was for my own good if I
0.670
was forced to conform to what my parents thought
was right, even if I disagree with them.
Authoritative
C3: I knew what my parents expected of me in my
0.868
family, but I also felt free to discuss those
expectations with them when I felt that they were
unreasonable.
C9: My parents were willing to discuss the decision
0.530
with me when they made a decision that hurt me,
and to admit it if they had made a mistake.
1.290
1.109
Eigenvalues
2.568
% of Variance Explained
32.096 16.123 13.867
Cumulative % of Variance Explained
32.096 48.218 62.085
Cronbach’s Alpha (Reliability)
0.643
0.516
0.187
Extraction Method: Principal Component Matrix
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
Three types of parenting styles – Permissive, Authoritarian, and Authoritative
have been assessed using Principle Component Method. Factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1 were considered, and statements with factor
loadings of lower than 0.40 were discarded. Child (2006) suggested that KMO
should be above 0.50; the KMO value for Parental Authority is 0.690, which
falls under the moderate category and hence is deemed adequate for
conducting factor analysis.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
The Varimax rotation sorted 8 questions into 3 groups (Table 3). The reliability
analysis shows Permissive parenting style has a Cronbach‟s Alpha of 0.643;
Authoritarian parenting style has a Cronbach‟s Alpha of 0.516. However,
Authoritative parenting style has a Cronbach‟s Alpha of 0.187, which is
considered poor (George and Mallery, 2010). This is possibly due to the
component comprising only 2 items. Few items can result in low reliability
(Tenenbaum, Eklund and Kamata, 2012). Furthermore, past studies have
shown high reliability for the authoritative parenting style (refer to Section
4.2.1).
5.4 Analysis of Personality (IV2)
Table 4: Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis for Personality
Component
1
2
3
4
Extraversion
D2: Talk2
0.823
D4: Background2
0.742
D3: Talk a lot to different people at
0.728
parties
Intellect
D13: Have a vivid imagination
0.867
D14: Am interested in abstract ideas
0.847
Conscientiousness
D12: Mess2
0.904
D10: Forget2
0.867
Agreeableness
D6: XInterestedProb2
0.897
D8: XInterestedOthers2
0.747
1.183
1.051
Eigenvalues
2.805 1.767
% of Variance Explained
31.171 19.633 13.140 11.676
Cumulative % of Variance
31.171 50.805 63.945 75.620
Explained
Cronbach’s Alpha (Reliability)
0.707 0.737
0.740
0.669
Extraction Method: Principal Component Matrix
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
Four types of personality (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
and Intellect) have been assessed using Principle Component Method. The
KMO value for Personality is 0.635, which falls under the moderate category
and is considered adequate for conducting factor analysis. The Varimax
rotation sorted 9 questions into 4 groups (Table 4). The reliability analysis
shows acceptable values ranging from 0.669 to 0.740 (George and Mallery,
2010; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Nunnally, 1978).
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
5.5 Inferential Statistics: Hypotheses Testing
5.5.1 Multiple Regression Analysis
Model
1
R
0.340
Table 5: Model Summary
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
0.116
0.097
0.29995
Table 5 shows the R square is 0.116, which means only 12% of the observed
variability in Y (the dependent variable: Career Decision-Making Difficulties,
CDMD) is explained by X (the independent variables: Parental Authority and
Personality). The adjusted R square of 0.097 reveals a relatively poor
explanation of the result. The correlation coefficient (R) between the observed
value of the dependent variable, CDMD and the predicted value based on the
regression model is 0.340 (R value). An R value of 0.340 indicates that the
linear regression model predicts poorly.
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Table 6: ANOVA
Sum of
Df
Mean
Squares
Square
1.141
2
0.570
8.727
97
0.090
9.868
99
F
Sig.
6.339
0.003
However, the ANOVA table above shows the F-value is 6.339 with p-value of
0.003. A p-value that is less than 0.05 indicates that it is significant, and
therefore it means that at least one of the variables is significant (Siegel, 2011).
In other words, there is a linear relationship between the dependent variable
and independent variables.
Table 7: Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Standardized t
Coefficients
Coefficients
Beta
Std.
Beta
Error
(Constant) 2.304
0.356
6.464
Parental
0.310
0.118
0.251
2.615
Personality -0.201
0.077
-0.252
-2.633
Sig.
0.000
0.010
0.010
Correlations
0.229
-0.231
The formation of equation based on the Coefficients table is:
Y (CDMD) = β0 + β1Parental Authority + β2Personality + ε
Y (CDMD) = 2.304 + (0.310) Parental Authority + (-0.201) Personality + ε
5.5.2 Hypothesis 1 (H1) Results and Interpretation
From the Coefficients table (Table 7), it shows that the beta coefficient for
Parental Authority is 0.310 and its p-value is 0.010. A positive beta (0.310)
indicates there is a positive relationship between parental authority and career
decision-making difficulties (CDMD). A p-value that is less than 0.05 means
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
that we reject H0. In short, parental authority significantly influences CDMD
faced by graduating students from Private Higher Educational Institutions
(PHEIs) in Malaysia.
This result is in line with Stewart et al. (1998) whereby the acceptance of
parental authority is greater in the Asian culture, which very much explains its
significance in the Malaysian context. As this study consists of more Chinese
respondents, it supports that many young Asian Chinese do not appear to
accept parental authority passively, which is why parents exert some degree of
control over their children‟s career decision. The acceptance of parental
authority can be explained by the Asian societies which are collectivist in
nature, and value smooth and harmonious relationships rather than individual
self-actualization or individualism. This is especially true in the Malaysian
context, as noted in a Malaysian study by Ahmad, Benjamin and Ang (2004)
whereby they claimed that particularly in the Asian context, expectations and
advice from parents are deemed important in influencing children‟s career
decision-making.
This result is also in line with Cheung and Wu‟s (2013) study that proved
parental control is a significant predictor in CDMD, as different parenting styles
have the power to influence children‟s thinking, attitudes, and behaviours. This
study reveals that the authoritarian parenting style is significant, and
contributes to the significant influence of parental authority. Koumoundourou,
Tsaousis and Kounenou (2010) also reported similar results whereby the
authoritarian and permissive parenting styles are found to be significant.
However, this study highlights an unexpected result whereby the permissive
parenting style is insignificant, which contradicts studies by Cheung and Wu
(2013) and Koumoundourou, Tsaousis and Kounenou (2010). ÖnderCenkseven, KirdÖk and Işık (2010) mentioned that students who have more
authoritative and authoritarian parents were more decisive in nature, which is
why the career indecision issue do not apply much to them and authoritative
parenting style resulted in low reliability. The positive relationship found in this
study refutes Whiston‟s (1996) study that found an unexpected negative
relationship between authoritarian parenting style and CDMD.
5.5.3 Hypothesis 2 (H2) Results and Interpretation
From the Coefficients table (Table 7), the beta coefficient for Personality is
-0.201 and p-value is 0.010. A negative beta (-0.201) indicates that there is
negative relationship between personality and career decision-making
difficulties (CDMD) faced by graduating students from Private Higher
Educational Institutions (PHEIs) in Malaysia. H0 is rejected, as there is
sufficient evidence to support the alternate hypothesis.
The result is in line with Di Fabio, Palazzeschi and Bar-On‟s (2012) study
whereby they found personality traits significantly influence CDMD. The
significant influence comes from conscientiousness, which is consistent with
Feldt and Woelfel‟s (2009) findings that conscientiousness is a significant
predictor. However, the present findings contradict Feldt and Woelfel‟s (2009)
study that stated agreeableness as a significant predictor too. The results also
counters Feldman‟s (2003) study whereby extraversion and intellect facilitate
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
components in career decision-making. This study also challenges the
taxonomy of Emotional and Personality related Career Decision-Making
Difficulties (EPCD) that proved that a high level of EPCD associates with high
level of agreeableness and low level of extraversion (Saka and Gati, 2007).
The understanding of inverse relationship is that the higher the personality
traits, the lower the CDMD. As the personality traits tested (extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, intellect) are more „positive‟ aspects, we
can infer that this pool of respondents have higher positive personality traits on
them, which is termed effective personality. This inference is similar to
Bethencourt and Cabrera‟s (2011) study on effective personality. Effective
personality is described as the mix of personal characteristics that individuals
use to successfully face their surroundings. Individuals with effective
personality are able to use high level of assertiveness, possess high selfesteem and self-confidence, have the ability to problem-solve and learn from
experience, are able to use high level of work capacity, and have emotional
stability. Thus, individuals with high effective personality face lower CDMD,
which is in line with the inverse relationship.
Table 8: Summary table of hypotheses results
Hypothesis
Results
H1: Parental authority significantly influences career decision-making Accepted
difficulties faced by graduating students from PHEIs in Malaysia.
H2: Personality significantly influences career decision-making Accepted
difficulties faced by graduating students from PHEIs in Malaysia.
5.6 Research Question Interpretation
Referring to the Coefficients table (Table 7), parental authority has a
correlation of 0.229 whereas personality has a correlation of -0.231. This
means that parental authority correlates slightly higher with career decisionmaking difficulties (CDMD) compared to personality. In conclusion, parental
authority is the most critical factor that leads to CDMD among graduating
students from Private Higher Educational Institutions (PHEIs) in Malaysia.
5.7 Further Analysis on Parental Authority (H1) and Personality (H2)
Table 9: Coefficients for each parenting styles and personality traits
Model
Unstandardized
Standardized
t
Sig.
CorreCoefficients
Coefficients
lations
Beta
Std.
Beta
Error
(Constant)
2.564
0.358
7.155
0.000
Parental Authority
Permissive
0.060
0.052
0.119
1.145
0.255 -0.043
Authoritarian
0.230
0.069
0.362
3.352
0.001
0.304
Authoritative
0.007
0.059
0.012
.121
0.904 -0.077
Personality
Extraversion
0.048
0.051
0.096
.934
0.353 -0.044
Agreeableness
-0.085
0.056
-0.156
-1.521 0.132 -0.196
Conscientiousness
-0.136
0.042
-0.299
-3.211 0.002 -0.302
Intellect
-0.089
0.052
-0.178
-1.707 0.091 -0.071
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Further analysis is performed on parenting styles and personality traits to
understand which styles and traits are significant. Under parental authority,
only the authoritarian parenting style is significant, with a p-value of 0.001.
Hence, we can infer that the significant influence of H1 comes from the
authoritarian parenting style. Under personality, only conscientiousness is
significant, with a p-value of 0.002. Thus, we can infer that the significant
influence of H2 comes from the conscientiousness trait.
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
The findings suggested that parental authority has a positive relationship with
career decision-making difficulties (CDMD) while personality has a negative
relationship. Relationships of both independent variables are justifiable.
Parental authority is not viewed passively by children in the Asian context and
parents do have a strong influence on their children‟s career decision-making.
As for personality, the inverse relationship is likely due to effective personality.
It was also found that the significant influence of parental authority comes from
the authoritarian parenting style whereas the significant influence of
personality comes from the conscientiousness trait. These findings contribute
to the existing literature, especially the contradicting findings on parental
authority, whereby literature on this aspect is limited.
Future research could also use personality as a moderator, as suggested by
Di Fabio, Palazzeschi and Bar-On (2012). The Effective Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ) could be adopted since this study highlights an inverse
relationship between personality and CDMD. Qualitative methods can also be
included to better understand the impact of the variables on CDMD. This could
also help to determine other factors that might cause CDMD among
graduating students that may be useful in future discussion and research
contribution.
7. References
Ahmad, N., Benjamin, A. M. and Ang, C. L., 2004. Career decision of
Malaysian teenagers: A study at a secondary school. Proceeding of the
International Conference on Management Education. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Albion, M.J. and Fogarty, G.J., 2002. Factors Influencing Career Decision
Making in Adolescents and Adults. Journal of Career Assessment, [online]
10(1), pp.91–126. Available at:
<http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1069072702010001006>
[Accessed 26 Apr. 2014].
Baumrind, D., 1971. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology, 4(1 (Pt.2)), pp.1–103.
Beri, 2007. Marketing Research. [online] Tata McGraw-Hill Education, p.579.
Available at: <http://books.google.com/books?id=0o7StYCy130C&pgis=1>
[Accessed 21 Sep. 2014].
Bethencourt, J.-T. and Cabrera, L., 2011. Personality and career decision
making in undergraduates. RELIEVE, [online] 17(1). Available at:
<http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v17n1/RELIEVEv17n1_4eng.htm>
[Accessed 17 Aug. 2014].
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Bui, Y.N., 2014. How to Write a Master’s Thesis. 2nd ed. [online] United States:
SAGE Publications, Inc., p.313. Available at:
<http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book237255/reviews?subject=Course1
3&sortBy=defaultPubDate desc&fs=1> [Accessed 21 Sep. 2014].
Buri, J.R., 1991. Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality
Assessment, [online] 57(1), pp.110–119. Available at:
<http://geneseo.edu/~bearden/socl212/PAQ.pdf>.
Burns, G.N., Morris, M.B., Rousseau, N. and Taylor, J., 2013. Personality,
interests, and career indecision: a multidimensional perspective. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, [online] 43(10), pp.2090–2099. Available at:
<http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jasp.12162> [Accessed 24 Mar. 2014].
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L. and Perugini, M., 1993. The “big
five questionnaire”: A new questionnaire to assess the five factor model.
Personality and Individual Differences, [online] 15(3), pp.281–288.
Available at:
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699390218R>
[Accessed 6 Sep. 2014].
Chang, M., 2007. Cultural differences in parenting styles and their effects on
teens ’ self-esteem , perceived parental relationship satisfaction , and
self-satisfaction. [online] Dietrich College Honors Theses, pp.1–46.
Available at: <http://repository.cmu.edu/hsshonors/85>.
Cheung, H.Y. and Wu, J., 2013. The influence of parental style on career
decision-making difficulties of university students: The role of trait anxiety.
International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, [online]
15(2), pp.33–50. Available at:
<http://www.fe.hku.hk/cerc/ceshk/doc/IJCED15_2.pdf> [Accessed 20 Apr.
2014].
Child, D., 2006. The Essentials of Factor Analysis. [online] A&C Black, p.180.
Available at: <http://books.google.com/books?id=rQ2vdJgohH0C&pgis=1>
[Accessed 19 Nov. 2014].
Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M. and Lucas, R.E., 2006. The miniIPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of
personality. Psychological assessment, [online] 18(2), pp.192–203.
Available at: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16768595> [Accessed
9 Jul. 2014].
Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L. and Bar-On, R., 2012. The role of personality
traits, core self-evaluation, and emotional intelligence in career decisionmaking difficulties. Journal of Employment Counseling, [online] 49(3),
pp.118–129. Available at: <http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/j.21611920.2012.00012.x> [Accessed 15 Aug. 2014].
Feldman, D.C., 2003. The antecedents and consequences of early career
indecision among young adults. Human Resource Management Review,
[online] 13(3), pp.499–531. Available at:
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482203000482>
[Accessed 1 Aug. 2014].
Feldt, R.C. and Woelfel, C., 2009. FIVE-FACTOR PERSONALITY DOMAINS,
SELF-EFFICACY, CAREER-OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS. College
Student Journal, [online] 43(2). Available at:
<http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/ehost/detail/detail?sid=
9d13cca4-ece3-462b-9a11275bb343e547@sessionmgr4004&vid=2&hid=4101&bdata=JnNpdGU9Z
Whvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#db=a9h&AN=42517491> [Accessed 18 Aug. 2014].
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Gati, I., Krausz, M. and Osipow, S.H., 1996. A Taxonomy of Difficulties in
Career Decision Making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(4),
pp.510–526.
Gati, I., Saka, N. and Krausz, M., 2001. „Should I use a computer-assisted
career guidance system?‟ It depends on where your career decisionmaking difficulties lie. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, [online]
29(3), pp.301–321. Available at:
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03069880124945>
[Accessed 15 Apr. 2014].
George, D. and Mallery, P., 2010. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple
Guide and Reference, 17.0 Update. [online] Allyn & Bacon, p.386.
Available at:
<http://books.google.com/books?id=KS1DPgAACAAJ&pgis=1>
[Accessed 14 Nov. 2014].
Harun, N.H., 2006. Career Decision Making Difficulties Among Female Final
Year BBAs’ Students at UUM. [online] Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Available at:
<http://halimlading21.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/nor_harlinda_harun__career_decision_making_difficulties_among_female_final_year_bba_stu
dents_at_uum.pdf>.
Kerlinger, F. M. and Lee, H., 2000. Foundations of behavioral research. 4th ed.
Stamford: Wadsworth.
Kline, P., 1999. The handbook of psychological testing. 2nd ed. London:
Routledge
Koumoundourou, G., Tsaousis, I. and Kounenou, K., 2010. Parental Influences
on Greek Adolescents‟ Career Decision-Making Difficulties: The
Mediating Role of Core Self-Evaluations. Journal of Career Assessment,
[online] 19(2), pp.165–182. Available at:
<http://jca.sagepub.com/content/19/2/165> [Accessed 16 Apr. 2014].
Mansor, M. and Mat Rashid, A., 2013. Career Indecision : A Cross-Sectional
Survey among Students of National Youth Skills Training Institutes.
Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 17(8), pp.1073–1079.
Mojgan, F.N., Abdul Kadir, R. and Soheil, S., 2011. The Relationship between
State and Trait Anxiety with Career Indecision of Undergraduate Students.
International Education Studies, [online] 4(3), pp.31–35. Available at:
<http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/view/11521>
[Accessed 20 Sep. 2014].
Nunnally, J. C., 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Önder-Cenkseven, F., KirdÖk, O. and Işık, E., 2010. High school students‟
career decision-makingpattern across parenting styles and parental
attachment levels. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology, [online] 8(1), pp.263–280. Available at:
<http://www.investigacionpsicopedagogica.org/revista/articulos/20/english/Art_20_379.pdf>
[Accessed 21 Sep. 2014].
Saka, N. and Gati, I., 2007. Emotional and personality-related aspects of
persistent career decision-making difficulties. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, [online] 71(3), pp.340–358. Available at:
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879107000735>
[Accessed 1 Aug. 2014].
Siegel, A., 2011. Practical Business Statistics. [online] Academic Press, p.640.
Available at:
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
<http://books.google.com/books?id=1ICwX1uWWhoC&pgis=1>
[Accessed 18 Nov. 2014].
Stewart, S.M., Rao, N., Bond, M.H., Mcbride-chang, C., Fielding, R. and
Kennard, B.D., 1998. Chinese Dimensions of Parenting : Broadening
Western Predictors and Outcomes. International Journal of Psychology,
33(5), pp.345–358.
Talib, M.A. and Tan, K.A., 2009. Predictors of career indecision among
malaysian undergraduate students. European Journal of Social Sciences,
[online] 8(2), pp.215–224. Available at:
<http://psasir.upm.edu.my/7024/1/ejss_8_2_02.pdf> [Accessed 16 Apr.
2014].
Tenenbaum, G., Eklund, R. and Kamata, A. eds., 2012. Measurement in Sport
and Exercise Psychology With Web Resource. [online] Human Kinetics,
p.551. Available at:
<http://books.google.com/books?id=pCqVsWsEtFMC&pgis=1>
[Accessed 19 Nov. 2014].
Teo, A.C., 2009. A study on the values, interests, skills and career indecision
among students at the college of business, Universiti Utara Malaysia.
[online] Universiti Utara Malaysia, pp.1–50. Available at:
<http://etd.uum.edu.my/id/eprint/1870>.
Walker, T.L. and Tracey, T.J.G., 2012. The role of future time perspective in
career decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, [online] 81(2),
pp.150–158. Available at:
<http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0001879112000930>
[Accessed 21 Mar. 2014].
Whiston, S.C., 1996. The relationship among family interaction patterns and
career indecision and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of
Career Development, [online] 23(2), pp.137–149. Available at:
<http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226980525_The_relationship_a
mong_family_interaction_patterns_and_career_indecision_and_career_d
ecision-making_self-efficacy> [Accessed 6 Sep. 2014].
Zikmund, W., Babin, B., Carr, J. and Griffin, M., 2012. Business Research
Methods. [online] Cengage Learning, p.696. Available at:
<http://books.google.com/books?id=veM4gQPnWHgC&pgis=1>
[Accessed 21 Sep. 2014].