Comparing Marcia, Howard, and McAdams Identity Theories

• In Event: 52.036 - Career Narratives to Understand Adolescent Career Identity Development: Exploratory Mixed-Methods Comparative Study Using Three Theories

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The fourth paper compares Howard and McAdams’ theories and then uses stepwise regression to assess the degree to which each model predicts a range of academic resiliency indicators.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE: Addressed in Studies 1 – 3

METHOD: The first set of results compares the cross-tabulations and correlations among the 84 classified youth according to Howards and McAdams’ theories. Then, each theory was coded as an ordinal scale with Marcia’s Achieved coded as 2, Moratorium as 1 and Foreclosed as 0; Howard’s Systemic Interaction coded as 3, Interaction as 2, Internal Processes as 1, and External Actor as 0; and McAdams Narrative Author as 2, Motivated Agent as 1 and Social Actor as 0.

Using stepwise regression, the three derived ordinal scales were used as predictors and the following indicators were used as criterion variables:

Career Search Self-Efficacy (34 items; α = .97) refers to one’s perceived confidence to perform self-exploration, career exploration, and planning/management tasks. The five subscales and internal consistency estimates include: Self-Management (α = .96), Career Planning (α = 91), Career Awareness (α = .88), Interviewing (α = .87), and Networking (.86) (Solberg et al., 2010).

Academic Self-Efficacy (25 items; α = .95) refers to the degree to which one believes they can successfully perform a range of academic tasks. The three subscales and internal consistency estimates include: Social (α = .92), Classroom (α = .90), and Test Taking (α = .88).

Academic Stress (23 items; α = .94) addresses how often an individual experiences difficulties completing a variety of academic-related tasks. The three subscales include: Academic (α = .85), Social (α = .86), and Financial (α = .86).

Psychological/Emotional Distress (23 items; α = .94 ) address the past month frequency of emotional/psychological and physical health-related concerns. Subcales include: Agitation (α = .87), Eating Problems (α = .72), Feeling Blue (α = .71), Sleeping Problems (α = .82), and Physical Problems (α = .78).

Career decision-making difficulty (17 items, α = .96) addresses the challenges related to engaging in career decision processes. Subscales include: Lack Information (α = .92), Undecided (α = .90), and Indecisive (α = .82).

RESULTS: McAdams’ model explained 13.6% of the variance in career decision-making difficulty (β = -.369; p= .01). McAdams’ model explained 4.9% of the variance in psychological/emotional distress (β = -.251; p = .02). McAdams’ model explained 4.5% of the variance in academic stress (β = -.238; p= .03). Howard’s model explained 5.6% of the variance in academic self-efficacy as a linear estimate (β = .259; p= .01) and 7.7% of the variance as a curvilinear estimate. Howard’s model explained 3.3% of the variance in Career Search Self-Efficacy as a linear estimate (β = .21; p= .05) and 11% of the variance as a curvilinear estimate. McAdams accounted for 6.5% of the variance as a linear estimate only (β = .277; p= .01)..

SCHOLARLY SIGNIFICANCE: Results provide evidence that career identity is associated with academic resiliency indicators that are known to have a positive influence on academic outcomes.

Author

• Kimberly A.S. Howard, Boston University