Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2024 Apr 22;93(2):378–393. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12935

Personal values and career‐related preferences among young adults

Yuliya Lipshits‐Braziler 1,✉, Sharon Arieli 1, Ella Daniel 2
PMCID: PMC11891975  PMID: 38646976

Abstract

Objective

The present study investigated personal values underlying career‐related preferences among young adults deliberating on their career choice. As a fundamental component of one's identity, personal values can offer valuable insights into how individuals prioritize their career‐related preferences.

Method

We employed two complementary approaches: variable‐centered and person‐centered, using a sample of 636 young adults (69.5% women; M age = 21.9, SD = 2.12).

Results

Using a variable‐centered approach, we identified 14 value‐expressive career‐related preferences, demonstrating that individuals are less willing to compromise on these preferences than on non value‐expressive preferences. Using a person‐centered approach, we applied latent profile analysis to identify four groups of young adults with distinct value profiles: (1) growth‐focus (n = 212; 33.3%), (2) protection‐focus (n = 206; 32.4%), (3) self‐focus (n = 122; 19.2%), and (4) social‐focus (n = 96; 15.1%). Importantly, the four profiles varied in 18 of 31 career‐related preferences, revealing the composition of values underlying these career preferences. Fourteen of these preferences were identified as value‐expressive in a variable‐centered approach.

Conclusion

The two complementary approaches employed in the present study introduce a fine‐grained understanding of the value‐expressiveness of career‐related preferences.

Keywords: career decision‐making, career‐related preferences, latent profile analysis, personal value profiles, young adults

1. INTRODUCTION

Choosing a career is one of the significant developmental challenges of young adulthood (Arnett, 2004). This crucial decision has long‐term effects on economic and social status, lifestyle, and emotional well‐being (Lipshits‐Braziler, 2018). Previous studies in vocational psychology have highlighted the important role of personal values in shaping and influencing career choice (see review in Arieli et al., 2020). Personal values are abstract long‐term goals guiding people's decisions and actions across multiple contexts (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). When individuals choose a career that facilitates the attainment of their values, they have greater career satisfaction and perform better (e.g., Arieli et al., 2020; Sagiv & Schwartz, 1995). Research on career decision‐making has shown that when people make a career decision they take into account not only their values but also a wide range of personal attributes (e. g., interests, skills, abilities, and needs) and factors that differentiate between the various occupations or working environments (e.g., opportunities for professional advancement, flexibility of working hours, and preferred length of training, Gati, 1998; Shimoni et al., 2019). The present study sought to understand which career‐related preferences are value‐expressive (i.e., reflect an underlying value) and which values these preferences express. We suggest that values, as a fundamental component of one's identity (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004), may play a central role in prioritizing one's career‐based preferences. By identifying value‐expressive career preferences, we may learn which are vital to one's identity. It can be assumed that individuals are less likely to compromise on career preferences that lie at the core of their values.

To allow a thorough investigation of the value‐expressiveness of career‐related preferences, we integrated two complementary approaches. The first approach is variable‐centered, identifying the value‐expressiveness of career‐related preferences by exploring the associations between personal values and career‐related preferences. The second approach is person‐centered, identifying profiles of personal values and showing how these profiles differ across career‐related preferences. By applying the two approaches, we will uncover the specific combinations of personal values that associate with career preferences.

1.1. Personal values

Personal values represent broad motivational goals (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Values are relatively stable across situations and over time, guiding decision‐making and behavior accordingly. People rely on their values to evaluate and validate their and others' choices and actions (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2022). Whereas all values assume a critical role for most people, people differ in the specific values that motivate them to action and decision‐making. Individuals adopt a unique hierarchy of values reflecting the subjective importance they attribute to each one. The higher the value in one's value hierarchy, the more the person relies on it to guide and motivate them in their choices and courses of action (Lee et al., 2021).

Schwartz's (1992) theory of personal values is the most influential psychological theory of values as it aims to cover the major motivations that underlie values. This theory has been validated in extensive cross‐cultural research (see reviews in Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Sagiv & Schwartz, 2022). Values also play a critical role in career decisions (see review in Arieli et al., 2020). For example, research has shown that personal values are associated with decision‐making behavioral styles during career counseling (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2004), vocational interests (Sagiv, 2002), and work orientations (Gandal et al., 2005). In addition, values play an important role in career counseling interventions. For example, Milot‐Lapointe et al. (2018) found that values clarification was addressed in 89% of career counseling processes among university students. Moreover, in a meta‐analysis of career counseling interventions, Whiston et al. (2017) concluded that values clarification was an effective intervention component.

Schwartz's theory (1992) presents a set of 10 values grouped into two pairs of higher‐order values to form two orthogonal dimensions. Openness‐to‐change versus conservation comprises the first dimension. This dimension reflects the conflict between independent thought, action, and feelings and openness to challenge and change (manifested in values of self‐direction, stimulation, and hedonism) on the one hand, and self‐restriction, preserving the past, preference for order, and resistance to change (manifested in values of conformity, tradition, and security) on the other.

Self‐enhancement versus self‐transcendence comprises the second dimension. This dimension encompasses the conflict between concern for others' welfare and interests (manifested in values of universalism and benevolence) on the one hand, and concern for one's interests, relative success, and dominance over others (manifested in values of power and achievement) on the other.

Schwartz (2012) also summarized the relations among values on two overriding principles: 1. Self‐focus values prioritizing personal outcomes (i.e., values of self‐enhancement and openness‐to‐change) contrast with social‐focus values prioritizing social outcomes (i.e., values of self‐transcendence and conservation); and 2. Growth‐focus values prioritizing self‐expansive and growth motivations (i.e., values of self‐transcendence and openness‐to‐change) contrast with prevention‐focus values expressing self‐protection motivations (i.e., values of self‐enhancement and conservation).

Most research on values and behavior has concentrated on the effects of distinct values on behavior (e.g., the effect of self‐transcendence values on pro‐social behavior). However, research has also shown that some behaviors can be predicted by a combination of values. For example, entrepreneurial career intentions are best predicted by the combination of values of openness to change and self‐enhancement (Gorgievski et al., 2018). Thus, taking a profile approach to investigate choices and behavior may shed new light on how values serve as guiding principles in people's lives (Arieli et al., 2020).

Some previous studies adopted a person‐centered approach to identify individuals' value profiles to understand how values co‐occur and manifest themselves within individuals and consequently impact individuals' choices and behavior (e.g., Daniel et al., 2020; Magun et al., 2016; Rudnev et al., 2014; Smack et al., 2017; Ungvary et al., 2018). In studies investigating children and adolescents, four distinct profiles emerged: Three of the profiles correspond to the organizing principles cited in Schwartz's model (2012): growth‐focus, social‐focus, and self‐focus. These profiles have been found to explain behavior (Daniel et al., 2020; Ungvary et al., 2018). For example, a social‐focus profile over time predicted more pro‐social and less aggressive behavior, behaviors that had previously been linked only to self‐transcendence values (Daniel et al., 2020).

1.2. Career‐related preferences

The Person–Environment fit (P‐E fit) stands as a prevailing paradigm in vocational psychology, positing that individuals are more likely to attain job satisfaction and success when there is congruence between their personal characteristics and the attributes of the work environment (see meta‐analyses by Hoff et al., 2020; Nye et al., 2017). This congruence considers various factors such as abilities, needs, preferences, and values, with the most common being the alignment of an individual's vocational interests with their work environment, as proposed by Holland (1997).

Holland's model identifies six vocational personality types: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional (Holland, 1997). Each personality type corresponds to specific work environments characterized by the types of individuals. Recognizing the compatibility between one's personality type and the work environment can empower individuals to make well‐informed career choices and derive satisfaction in their chosen professions (Holland, 1997; Nye et al., 2017).

Gati (1998) introduced an aspect‐based approach to person–environment fit, focusing on career‐related aspects or preferences. Unlike Holland's theory, Gati's career aspects theory encompasses not only vocational interests but also a broader spectrum of factors distinguishing between occupations. These factors include personal characteristics, such as values, interests, and skills, as well as features that differentiate between career alternatives, such as length of training, flexibility of working hours, and opportunities for professional advancement (Gati & Gutentag, 2015). Consequently, the consideration of a wide range of aspects characterizing both individuals and career options provides a more nuanced approach to career decision process compared with a decision‐making process that relies exclusively on vocational interests (Gati, 1998).

The aspect‐based approach is a data‐driven theory that incorporates 31 aspects considered relevant by many individuals in their decision‐making process and regarded as essential by career counseling experts for distinguishing among occupations (Gati, 1998; Gati et al., 1998). These 31 aspects (or factors) include independence, variety, using artistic skills, shift work, amount of travel, flexibility in work hours, economic security, income, prestige, managing and supervising, authoritativeness, advancement opportunity, negotiating and persuading, teaching and instruction, community service, mental and emotional care, working with plants or animals, close physical care, advising and counseling, work environment (indoors vs. outdoor), working with computers, using verbal skills, working with the public, personal responsibility, using organizational skills, teamwork, using analytical skills, using mathematical skills, using technical skills, length of training, and working with equipment and materials.

All of these aspects are considered in the process of career decision‐making. For example, deliberating on what college major to choose, or what job to pursue could be affected by technical issues such as duration of the programs, or need to travel, as well as by personal factors, such as vocational interests, values, and skills (Shimoni et al., 2019).

Moreover, some aspects could be regarded as an expansion of vocational interests as they pertain to the more nuanced features of each personality interest type (Gutentag et al., 2022) (e.g., the aspects of counseling, community service, and teaching align with Holland's [1997] social type). Other aspects could be viewed as an extension of interests, reflecting values (e.g., independence and variety), personal abilities and skills (e.g., using analytical skills and using mathematical skills), or encompass complementary factors that differentiate between career alternatives (e.g., length of training; Gati et al., 1998). Indeed, research has demonstrated that people tend to consider and compare career alternatives in terms of these aspects rather than limit their consideration only to vocational interests (Gati, 1998). Furthermore, the association between Person–Environment fit and job satisfaction was found to be greater when aspects were considered instead of interests (Gati et al., 1996). Preferences elicited in terms of aspects successfully predicted occupational choice satisfaction 6 years later (Gati et al., 2006).

To investigate the structure of career preferences, Gutentag and Gati (2016) used four large and diverse samples comprising a total of 40,313 participants. They employed a data‐driven approach, utilizing cluster analysis to explore the intercorrelations of 31 aspects, leading to the identification of seven broad clusters. These clusters include: (a) remuneration (e.g., income, prestige), (b) ICT occupations characteristics (e.g., using mathematical skills and working with computers), (c) analytical skills, length of training, independence, variety, (d) relationships with others (e.g., advising and counseling, mental and emotional care, artistic skill, working with plants or animals, personal physical care, and equipment and materials), (e) work conditions (e.g., amount of travel, shiftwork, and indoors–outdoors), (f) management (e.g., management, using verbal skills, personal responsibility, and advancement opportunity), and (g) organization (e.g., organizational skills and teamwork).

This structure exhibits only partial alignment with Holland's typology. Four out of the seven clusters in this structure can be interpreted in terms of Holland's model: Cluster B aligns with the realistic‐investigative type, cluster D could be characterized by the social‐artistic type, while clusters F and G are indicative of the enterprising‐conventional type. The remaining three clusters (A, C, and E) describe additional factors that are not present in Holland's model of vocational interests.

However, as Gati (1998) suggests, occupations can be better characterized using a comprehensive set of career‐related aspects rather than relying solely on broad categories. Researchers (Gutentag et al., 2022; Shimoni et al., 2019) typically prefer to use the 31 career aspects as a set of variables because of the informativeness and usefulness of the aspect‐based approach for career decision‐making and counseling. Hence, in the present study, we analyzed a set of career aspects rather than forcing them into a small number of broad categories.

1.3. The present research

In the present study, we aimed to investigate the value‐expressiveness of career‐related preferences using two approaches—variable‐centered and person‐centered. Drawing on past research on values and behavior, we define value‐expressive career preferences as preferences associated with a specific value dimension (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Lönnqvist et al., 2013).

First, we employed a variable‐centered approach to identify the value‐expressiveness of career‐related preferences by exploring the associations between personal values and career‐related preferences. Second, we used an alternative, complementary person‐centered approach that focuses on identifying profiles of personal values and how these profiles differ in individuals' career‐related preferences. We also examined how the value profiles differ in the participants' willingness to compromise on their career preferences. Considering the complex relations between the different combinations of values (i.e., value profiles) and aspect‐based career preferences can facilitate going beyond the traditional method of investigating bivariate associations between values and career preferences.

Measures, data, and scripts for the present study are publicly available on the open science framework: https://osf.io/e6rp7/?view_only=30fd681067c2464592558c1f98814cb1 (Lipshits‐Braziler et al., 2024).

1.4. Hypotheses

To identify the value(s) underlining each of the 31 career‐related preferences, we conducted a thorough literature review of research on values in general and in work settings in particular. Based on this search, we hypothesized that 18 out of 31 career preferences could be categorized as value‐expressive. Specifically, the career preferences for independence, variety, shift work, amount of travel, flexibility of work hours, and artistic skills express openness‐to‐change values of self‐direction and stimulation. In contrast, the preference for economic security expresses the conservation value of security. The career preferences for income, prestige, advancement of opportunity, managing and supervising, authoritativeness, as well as negotiating and persuading, express self‐enhancement values. In contrast, teaching and instruction, community service, mental and emotional care, close physical care, as well as working with plants or animals, express self‐transcendence values. Table 1 summarizes the hypotheses and details the literature supporting their formulation.

TABLE 1.

Hypotheses formation for value‐expressiveness of career‐related preferences.

Career preferences Hypothesis
1 Independence Autonomy in thought and action is a direct manifestation of openness‐to‐change values (self‐direction, Schwartz, 1992) Openness‐to‐change
2 Variety A direct manifestation of openness‐to‐change values (stimulation, Schwartz, 1992)
3 Using artistic skills Past research has associated artistic skills with openness‐to‐change values (e.g., Sagiv, 2002; see also review in Arieli et al., 2020)
4 Shift work Shift work (working in unconventional hours) expresses flexibility and variety seeking—two manifestations of openness‐to‐change values (Schwartz, 1992)
5 Amount of travel May reflect flexibility and variety seeking—two manifestations of openness‐to‐change values (Schwartz, 1992)
6 Flexibility in work hours May reflect autonomy as it allows employees to choose their working hours. Thus, we predict that is will be associated with openness‐to‐change values
7 Economic security Reflects the desire for having stability and security in the work sphere, and thus may express conservation values (security, Schwartz, 1992) Conservation
8 Income The desire for a high income is a direct manifestation of wealth (material possessions, money), a sub‐value of self‐enhancement values (power, Schwartz, 1992) Self‐enhancement
9 Prestige A direct manifestation of self‐enhancement values (achievement). Past research associated the pursuit of status and prestige with self‐enhancement values (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Gandal et al., 2005)
10 Managing and supervising Past research has associated management and enterprising vocational interests with self‐enhancement values (e.g., Arieli et al., 2016; Sagiv, 2002)
11 Authoritativeness Past research has associated management and enterprising vocational interests with self‐enhancement values (e.g., Arieli et al., 2016; Sagiv, 2002)
12 Advancement opportunity Pursuing advancement opportunities is a direct manifestation of self‐enhancement values (achievement, Schwartz, 1992)
13 Negotiating and persuading May reflect the motivation to promote self‐interest and gain control over people and resources associated with self‐enhancement values (Schwartz, 1992)
14 Teaching and instruction Supporting and caring for others is a clear manifestation of self‐transcendence values (Schwartz, 1992). Past research has shown that teaching is a social profession associated with self‐transcendence values (Knafo & Sagiv, 2004) Self‐transcendence
15 Community service Past research has shown that providing community service is a social profession associated with self‐transcendence values (Knafo & Sagiv, 2004)
16 Mental and emotional care Supporting and caring for others is a clear manifestation of self‐transcendence values (Schwartz, 1992)
17 Working with plants or animals Supporting and caring for the environment, including animals, is a clear manifestation of self‐transcendence values (universalism, Schwartz, 1992)
18 Close physical care Supporting and caring for others is a clear manifestation of self‐transcendence values (Schwartz, 1992)
Open in a new tab

In addition, since values represent critical motivational goals, we hypothesize that individuals would be less willing to compromise on their value‐expressive career‐related preferences than on other preferences that were not value‐expressive.

For the person‐centered approach, we expected to find at least three profiles among young adults approaching their career decisions, parallel to profiles identified in other samples (Daniel et al., 2020; Magun et al., 2016; Rudnev et al., 2014; Smack et al., 2017; Ungvary et al., 2018) and corresponding to the organizing principles cited in Schwartz's (2012) model: self‐focus, social‐focus, and growth‐focus. We expect that specific value profiles will be associated with career‐related preferences, explaining preferences beyond the contribution of single values.

2. METHOD

2.1. Participants

The questionnaires were completed by 661 Israeli young adults who visited the admission website of a research university and chose to respond to questionnaires suggested for those uncertain about their choice of major. The data of 25 (3.8%) participants were excluded from the analyses because they lacked sufficient attention to the career aspect‐based preferences questionnaire (i.e., completed the questionnaires in under 4 min, and their career preferences were undifferentiated, with no variance among the aspects). Of the remaining 636 participants, 442 (69.5%) were women, and 194 (30.5%) were men. Their mean years of education were 12.08 (SD = 0.51), and their mean age was 21.9 (SD = 2.12), indicating that most had completed mandatory military service in Israel (3 years for men and 2 years for women). Hence, young adults in Israel begin their college studies at a later age than in many other countries.

2.2. Instruments

2.2.1. Demographic questionnaire

The participants were asked to report their gender, age, years of education, country of birth, and year of immigration (if relevant).

2.2.2. Personal values

Values were assessed using a Hebrew version of the 40‐item Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ; Schwartz et al., 2001). Hedonism, stimulation, and power were measured by three items each; benevolence, tradition, conformity, achievement, and self‐direction were measured by four items each; five items measured security; six tapped universalism. Each item comprises two sentences describing a person: One sentence describes how important a particular value is for a person (e.g., “Having a good time is very important to him/her”). The second describes the person's striving or desire for that value (e.g., “He/She wants to enjoy life”). Participants were asked to rate to what extent they resemble the portrayed person on a 6‐point Likert‐type scale, ranging from 1 (not like me at all) to 6 (very much like me). The score for the importance of each value is the average rating given to the relevant items. To control for response tendency, participants' responses were centered on their average response to all 40 verbal portraits (Schwartz, 1992). The PVQ's convergent and discriminant validity have been supported, and its test–retest reliability has been reported to be moderate to high, ranging from 0.66 to 0.88 (Schwartz et al., 2001). Following Schwartz's (1992) model, we aggregated the items into the four higher‐order value dimensions: conservation (conformity, tradition, and security; 13 items; Cα = 0.77), self‐transcendence (universalism and benevolence; 10 items; Cα = 0.78), self‐enhancement (achievement and power; 7 items; Cα = 0.80), and openness‐to‐change (self‐direction, stimulation, and hedonism; 10 items; Cα = 0.78).

2.2.3. The career preferences questionnaire

The career preferences questionnaire (CPQ; Gati, 1998; Gati & Gutentag, 2015). The 31 aspects (or factors) included in the Hebrew version of the CPQ are presented in the Introduction. Aspect‐based career preferences involve the relative attractiveness of the within‐aspect variations. These variations can be represented by a number of distinct qualitative or quantitative levels (Gati, 1998); for practical purposes, five levels are often used. For example, the levels for the aspect “personal responsibility” range from “very high” to “very low” (as in a typical Likert scale), while for “work environment” the levels are: only indoors, mostly indoors, about equal indoors and outdoors, mostly outdoors, and only outdoors.

The aspect‐based approach distinguishes between two facets of an individual's within‐aspect preferences: 1. the optimal (i.e., the person's most desirable) level of an aspect and 2. the acceptable level(s) of an aspect (i.e., reflecting an individual's willingness to compromise). Therefore, participants were asked to report their preferences for each of the 31 aspects in two steps. First, they were asked to indicate their most desirable (i.e., optimal) level for the aspect; for example, for the aspect of the work environment, they were required to mark their most desirable level on a scale of 1–5, such as “5: only indoors.” Second, they were requested to mark additional acceptable level(s); for example, they could add a second level of “4: mostly indoors.” To transform within‐aspect preferences of the two facets into a continuous scale, we followed the procedure used by Gati and Gutentag's (2015): The optimal level was weighted as 2, acceptable levels as 1, and unacceptable levels as 0. For example, an individual's weighted preference for the aspect of teamwork was calculated, where Level 4 (above average) was reported as optimal, and two levels were reported as acceptable—Level 3 (average) and Level 5 (high): wp = [(5*1) + (4*2) + (3*1) + (2*0) + (1*0)]/(1 + 2 + 1 + 0 + 0) = 4. The formula for the composite of within‐aspect preferences yields a single score for each aspect. In this composite of within‐aspect preferences (labeled weighted career preferences), double weight is assigned to the optimal level compared with the acceptable level (Gati et al., 1998; Gati & Gutentag, 2015).

We also used the range of levels considered acceptable by the individual as a measure reflecting the degree of willingness to compromise (Gati et al., 1993). Compromise for each aspect was defined by the number of levels, excluding the optimal level, in each aspect that were considered acceptable by the participant. For example, a participant who indicated unwillingness to consider any levels besides the optimal one in an aspect (i.e., “no readiness to compromise”) received a compromise score of 0 for that aspect, whereas if the participant indicated a readiness to consider one, two, three, or four levels besides the optimal level, he or she received a compromise score of 1, 2, 3, or 4, respectively.

A previous study found that aspect‐based preferences are reliable (a 2‐week test–retest reliability Cɑ was 0.85) and stable (a 2‐year stability Cɑ was 0.75; Gati & Gutentag, 2015). These aspect‐based preferences were also found valid for predicting occupational choice satisfaction at a 6‐year follow‐up (Gati et al., 2006).

Using a cluster analysis, we explored the structure of the weighted career preferences (a full description is provided in online supplementary materials Appendix A). The structure of career preferences that emerged is similar (r s  = 0.73) to the structure obtained in a previous study (Gutentag & Gati, 2016). In the present study, we focused on 31 aspects‐based career preferences rather than on clusters of aspects, recognizing their role in increasing the likelihood of making better career choices by providing a detailed and refined representation of individual preferences (Gati et al., 2006).

2.3. Procedure

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the research university. The participants visiting the university's admission website were offered the opportunity to complete the research questionnaires anonymously. In return, they received a brief individualized feedback derived from their responses to the CPQ concerning how crystallized their career preferences were. This feedback was generated automatically and presented immediately after the questionnaire was completed. The participants completed first the PVQ and then the CPQ. In cases where participants skipped over an item, they received an alert and were required to complete the item; thus, there were no missing data. Completing the questionnaires took 16–21 min.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Identifying value‐expressive career‐related preferences

The Pearson correlations between the centered scores of personal values and 31 career preferences are presented in Table 2 (a full correlation matrix among the 31 weighted career preferences is provided in online supplementary materials Appendix B). The results of an analysis conducted on raw scores of personal values are presented in the supplementary online materials Appendix C. Similar correlations (r s  = 0.85) were obtained between the career preferences and both raw and centered value scores. Centering is commonly applied when analyzing circular models of values. It is highly appropriate to test the theory of personal values as all values cannot be pursued at once, and the values' relative importance in the value hierarchy is more critical than their absolute importance (Schwartz, 1992; Skimina et al., 2019). As such, centering is desirable when relating values to other variables; we thus used the centered value scores in the main analysis.

TABLE 2.

Identifying value‐expressive career preferences by Pearson correlation analysis (N = 636).

Career preferences Hypothesis Correlation support hypothesis Openness‐to‐change Conservation Self‐transcendence Self‐enhancement
1 Independence Openness‐to‐change Yes 0.33** −0.29** −0.06 0.16**
2 Variety Openness‐to‐change Yes 0.33** −0.29** 0.05 0.00
3 Using artistic skills Openness‐to‐change Yes 0.22** −0.19** 0.15** −0.14**
4 Shift work Openness‐to‐change Yes 0.28** −0.26** 0.07 0.05
5 Amount of travel Openness‐to‐change No 0.15** −0.13** 0.01 0.02
6 Flexibility in work hours Openness‐to‐change No 0.17** −0.11** −0.02 −0.02
7 Economic security Conservation No −0.13** −0.01 0.06 0.02
8 Income Self‐enhancement Yes −0.03 −0.08* −0.30** 0.40**
9 Prestige Self‐enhancement Yes 0.00 −0.09* −0.34** 0.45**
10 Managing and supervising Self‐enhancement Yes 0.01 −0.11** −0.20** 0.37**
11 Authoritativeness Self‐enhancement Yes 0.05 −0.14** −0.17** 0.36**
12 Advancement opportunity Self‐enhancement Yes 0.06 −0.12** −0.13** 0.28**
13 Negotiating and persuading Self‐enhancement Yes 0.14** −0.15** −0.08* 0.20**
14 Teaching and instruction Self‐transcendence Yes 0.12** −0.15** 0.23** −0.10*
15 Community service Self‐transcendence Yes −0.04 −0.01 0.34** −0.30**
16 Mental and emotional care Self‐transcendence Yes 0.04 −0.13** 0.32** −0.20**
17 Working with plants or animals Self‐transcendence Yes 0.12** −0.14** 0.28** −0.25**
18 Close physical care Self‐transcendence No 0.01 −0.01 0.17** −0.15**
19 Advising and counseling – Yes −0.03 −0.08* 0.18** −0.08*
20 Indoors‐outdoors – No 0.32** −0.33** 0.18** −0.09*
21 Working with computers – No −0.04 0.07 −0.23** 0.18**
22 Using verbal skills – Yes 0.09* −0.15** 0.14** −0.01
23 Working with the public – Yes −0.09* 0.03 0.14** −0.14**
24 Personal responsibility – Yes 0.08* −0.10* −0.02 0.15**
25 Using organizational skills – Yes −0.08* 0.07 −0.15** 0.17**
26 Teamwork – Yes 0.01 −0.03 0.11** −0.02
27 Using analytical skills – Yes 0.17** −0.15** 0.09* 0.03
28 Using mathematical skills – Yes 0.07 0.02 −0.16** 0.13**
29 Using technical skills – Yes 0.01 0.11** −0.08* −0.03
30 Length of training – Yes 0.00 −0.08 0.11** 0.05
31 Working with equipment and materials – Yes 0.08 0.03 −0.02 −0.09*
Median correlation (interquartile range) 0.06 (0.00 to 0.15) −0.11 (−0.15 to –0.01) 0.05 (−0.13 to 0.15) 0.02 (−0.09 to 0.17)
Mean correlation 0.08 −0.10 0.02 0.05
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.05,

**

p < 0.001.

An effect size guideline was applied to identify correlations reflecting meaningful associations (r ≥ 0.20; Funder & Ozer, 2019; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016). Recent reviews suggest that correlations of r = 0.20 are in the 50th percentile of effect sizes in individual differences research, whereas correlations of r = 0.30 are in the 75th percentile (Gignac & Szodorai, 2016). In this context, such effects are considerable and should be considered meaningful. Moreover, an effect size of r = 0.20 indicates a medium effect, offering some explanatory power and practical use in the short and long term. An effect of 0.30 comprises a large effect in the context of individual differences research, having powerful explanatory and practical power in the short and long term (Funder & Ozer, 2019). Substantial correlations between personal values and career preferences were found for 14 of the 18 career preferences hypothesized to be value‐expressive. Thus, we considered these 14 preferences to be value‐expressive.

As hypothesized, the career preferences for independence, variety, shift work, and artistic skills were significantly correlated with openness‐to‐change values (r range = 0.22–0.33). The career preferences for amount of travel and flexibility of work hours yielded only small significant positive correlations with openness‐to‐change values (r = 0.15 and 0.17, respectively). Contrary to our hypothesis, the preference for economic security did not correlate with conservation values.

As predicted, the career preferences for income, prestige, advancement of opportunity, managing and supervising, authoritativeness, as well as negotiating and persuading, correlated positively with self‐enhancement values (r range = 0.20–0.45). Interestingly, they also negatively correlated with self‐transcendence values, showing the expected contrast between opposing values. Also, as hypothesized, teaching and instruction, community service, mental and emotional care, as well as working with plants or animals correlated positively with self‐transcendence values (r range = 0.23–0.34). The career preference for close physical care yielded only a small significant positive correlation with self‐transcendence values (r = 0.17).

To examine whether the degree of participants' willingness to compromise on the 14 value‐expressive career preferences was lower than for the other 17 preferences, we conducted a paired t‐test. The results showed that, as hypothesized, participants were less willing to compromise on the 14 value‐expressive preferences (M = 2.57, SD = 0.70) than on the remaining 17 nonvalue‐expressive preferences (M = 2.63, SD = 0.72), t(635) = −5.51, p < 0.001, d = 0.22.

3.2. Latent profile analysis of personal values

We applied a latent profile analysis in Mplus 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) using a robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation. The model was intended to identify personal value profiles, using four higher‐order value dimensions as LPA indicators. 1 We estimated five consecutive models, between one and five profiles, based on previous findings (Daniel et al., 2020; Magun et al., 2016; Rudnev et al., 2014; Smack et al., 2017; Ungvary et al., 2018) and standard methods of estimation of LPA quality (Ferguson et al., 2020). The optimal profile solution was determined based on Akaike's information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and the sample‐size adjusted BIC (SABIC). In addition, we applied the bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT) and Vuong–Lo–Mendel–Rubin likelihood ratio test (VLMR) to compare each model with a simpler model (including k‐1 profiles). The model fit the data best when AIC, BIC, and SABIC scores were closest to zero and when BLRT and VLMR‐LRT scores were significant. In addition to the fit indices, we relied on parsimony, theoretical justification, and interpretability to determine the number of classes (Ferguson et al., 2020).

The fit indices (Table 3) indicated that models including two, three, and four profiles improved the fit relative to previous models. The models reduced at least 100 points in the BIC, AIC, and SABIC, resulting in significant BLRT and VLMR comparisons. The fifth and sixth models resulted in a nonsignificant VLMR comparison. In addition, the five‐profile model included a profile that was not substantively different from all other profiles in value importance. In contrast, the four‐profile model included four groups, each capturing a distinct value pattern that was theoretically relevant. Thus, the four‐profile solution was selected. The mean value importance for each profile is presented in Figure 1.

TABLE 3.

Fit indices for the LPA models of personal values (N = 636).

Model AIC BIC SABIC BLRT VLMR Entropy RFs (%)
1‐ profile 4494.121 4529.773 4504.364 – – – 100
2‐ profile 4242.774 4300.692 4259.418 p < 0.001 p < 0.001 0.63 55; 45
3‐ profile 4116.521 4196.714 4139.566 p < 0.001 p < 0.05 0.75 59; 28; 13
4‐ profile 3991.803 4094.273 4021.250 p < 0.001 p < 0.01 0.71 33; 32; 19; 15
5‐ profile 3920.405 4045.151 3956.253 p < 0.001 p = 0.27 0.72 33; 30; 16; 11; 10
6‐ profile 3890.462 4037.484 3932.712 p < 0.001 p = 0.62 0.75 32; 29; 19; 10; 8; 2
Open in a new tab

Note: Boldface type indicates the selected model.

Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike's information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; BLRT, p value for the bootstrapped likelihood ratio test; LPA, latent profile analysis; RF, relative frequency; SABIC, sample size‐adjusted BIC; VLMR, p value for the Vuong–Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood ratio test.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Means of the value dimensions for the four personal value profiles.

The largest group (n = 212, 33.3%), labeled the growth‐focus profile, was characterized by the highest preference for self‐transcendence values and a relatively high preference for openness‐to‐change values. The second largest group (n = 206, 32.4%), labeled the protection‐focus profile, indicated a relatively high preference for self‐enhancement values and was the second highest group for conservation values. The protection‐focus profile also scored lowest on self‐transcendence values. The third group in size (n = 122, 19.2%), labeled the self‐focus profile, scored the highest on self‐enhancement values and openness‐to‐change values but the lowest on conservation values. The fourth and smallest, yet still substantial group, labeled the social‐focus profile (n = 96, 15.1%), scored the highest on conservation values and relatively high on self‐transcendence values. The social‐focus profile group was the lowest among the four profiles on openness‐to‐change and self‐enhancement values. No significant gender differences were revealed between the four profiles, χ 2 (3) = 5.40, p = 0.145.

3.3. The differences among value profiles in career‐related factors

We examined if and how the four value profiles differed regarding the 31 career preferences and willingness to compromise on career preferences. 2 We tested an LPA model with distal outcomes using the Bolck‐Croon‐Hagenaars (BCH; Bakk & Vermunt, 2016) method via the BCH function in Mplus. The means of these correlates for the four value profiles are presented in Table 4. The analysis revealed statistically significant differences (corrected alpha = 0.002) between the four profiles in 18 of the 31 career preferences.

TABLE 4.

Comparison of correlates across the four personal value profiles (N = 636).

Variables Growth‐focus (n = 212) Protection‐focus (n = 206) Self‐focus (n = 122) Social‐focus (n = 96) Overall test
Career preferences
1. Independence 3.60b 3.57b 4.02a 3.22c 80.99*
2. Variety 3.81b 3.58c 4.02a 3.32d 62.92*
3. Using artistic skills 3.00a 2.53b 3.07a 2.66b 23.73*
4. Shift work 2.42b 2.22c 2.65a 2.18c 40.46*
5. Amount of travel 2.80 2.75 2.93 2.60 10.49
6. Flexibility in work hours 3.35 3.28 3.45 3.08 11.85
7. Economic security 3.89 3.75 3.55 3.73 11.13
8. Income 3.84b 4.23a 4.17a 3.84b 53.24*
9. Prestige 3.41b 4.01a 3.84a 3.36b 82.62*
10. Managing and supervising 3.02b 3.51a 3.47a 2.85b 42.82*
11. Authoritative‐ness 3.13b 3.65a 3.76a 3.09b 58.07*
12. Advancement opportunity 4.13b 4.37a 4.23ab 3.87c 33.50*
13. Negotiating and persuading 2.60b 2.73ab 3.00a 2.29c 22.43*
14. Teaching and instruction 3.25a 2.65c 3.01b 2.72bc 30.46*
15. Community service 3.58a 2.78b 3.01b 3.39a 51.58*
16. Mental and emotional care 2.99a 1.99b 2.66a 2.69a 66.29*
17. Working with plants or animals 2.49a 1.62c 2.01b 1.83bc 51.44*
18. Close physical care 2.43a 1.85b 2.03b 2.12ab 18.47*
19. Advising and counseling 3.42 2.98 3.16 3.21 13.75
20. Indoors/outdoors 2.87a 2.52b 2.94a 2.38b 58.67*
21. Working with computers 2.91b 3.28a 3.00b 2.96b 17.87*
22. Using verbal skills 3.65ab 3.39b 3.77a 3.45b 15.96*
23. Working with the public 2.93 2.52 2.58 2.83 11.34
24. Personal responsibility 3.85 3.94 3.98 3.70 6.98
25. Using organizational skills 3.12 3.51 3.29 3.32 13.50
26. Teamwork 3.60 3.47 3.39 3.34 8.28
27. Using analytical skills 3.79 3.59 3.83 3.58 9.77
28. Using mathematical skills 2.72 2.87 2.93 2.79 2.81
29. Using technical skills 2.67 2.79 2.55 2.71 3.62
30. Length of training 3.63 3.46 3.71 3.55 6.04
31. Working with equipment and materials 2.87 2.76 2.80 2.88 1.04
Compromise 2.77a 2.41b 2.75a 2.47b 23.25*
Open in a new tab

Note: Analyses were performed with the BCH procedure in MPlus 8.7. The indicated values of the correlates are mean scores. The overall significance test values are Chi‐squared values with df = 3, significant results are marked in bold at *p < 0.002. The different superscripts indicate a statistically significant difference between the respective means at *p ≤ 0.002. A mean without a superscript is not significantly different from any other mean.

First, we discuss the 14 career preferences confirmed by correlations as value‐expressive. Then, we discuss the four career preferences for which the correlations failed to support our hypotheses regarding their value‐expressive nature. Finally, we discuss the remaining 13 career preferences.

The first set of career preferences (1–4 in Table 4: independence, variety, shift work, and using artistic skills) was identified by the correlation analysis as expressing openness‐to‐change values. The subsequent paired comparisons revealed that these career aspects are mainly preferred by individuals sharing the self‐focus profile. Thus, the profile analysis supplemented a focus on self‐enhancement values to the previous emphasis on openness‐to‐change values found in the correlation analysis.

The second set of career preferences (8–13 in Table 4: income, prestige, managing, and supervising, authoritativeness, advancement opportunity, and negotiating and persuading) was identified by the correlation analysis as expressing self‐enhancement values. The subsequent paired comparisons revealed that these aspects are preferred by members of two profiles (protection‐focus and self‐focus), emphasizing self‐enhancement values. Thus, profile analyses confirmed the correlation analysis results, revealing that this set of preferences expresses self‐enhancement values, combined with openness‐to‐change and conservation values.

The third set of career preferences (14–17 in Table 4: teaching and instruction, community service, mental and emotional care, and working with plants or animals) was identified by the correlation analysis as expressing self‐transcendence values. The subsequent paired comparisons revealed that these aspects are preferred by members of the growth‐focus profile and are least preferred by individuals sharing the protection‐focus profile. The profile analysis supplemented a focus on openness‐to‐change values to the previous emphasis on self‐transcendence values found in the correlation analysis.

The career preference 18 in Table 4 (close physical care) was hypothesized as expressing self‐transcendence values, but the correlation was small. The subsequent paired comparisons revealed meaningful differences among profiles: Growth‐focus profile individuals preferred this aspect the most, whereas protection‐focus profile individuals preferred it the least. Thus, this aspect appears to express self‐transcendence values, as hypothesized, but mostly in combination with openness‐to‐change values. At the same time, the combination of conservation and self‐enhancement values (as reflected in the protection‐focus profile) conflicts with this aspect.

The career preferences 5–7 in Table 4 (amount of travel, flexibility in work hours, and economic security) were hypothesized as value‐expressive. However, these career preferences showed small to negligible correlations with the expected value dimensions. Similarly, the subsequent paired comparisons showed no significant differences among the four profiles on these career preferences. Thus, these preferences may not express a particular inherent motivational goal; indeed, they may be related to external circumstances.

The final set of career preferences (13 preferences, 19–31 in Table 4) comprises aspects not hypothesized as value‐expressive. Only two of these preferences (indoor‐outdoor and working with computers) were revealed to be correlated significantly with values. The subsequent paired comparisons revealed significant differences among the profiles in only 3 of these 13 preferences. Both of the profiles that emphasized openness‐to‐change values (growth‐focus and self‐focus) prioritize working outdoors. The self‐focus profile emphasized using verbal skills, thus combining openness‐to‐change and self‐enhancement values, whereas the protection‐focus profile emphasized working with computers.

Last, we analyzed the differences between the four values profiles in the willingness to compromise on career preferences. As seen in Table 4, the profile groups differed in their willingness to compromise on career preferences (overall test: χ 2 (df = 3) = 23.25, p < 0.001). Subsequent paired comparisons between the four profiles revealed the growth‐focus and self‐focus profile groups to be more willing to compromise on their career preferences than the prevention‐focus or social‐focus profile groups. These differences among the four profiles reflect the importance attributed to openness‐to‐change values by the first two profiles and the importance ascribed to conservation values by the latter two profiles.

4. DISCUSSION

To provide a fine‐grained understanding of the associations between personal values and career‐related preferences and to identify value‐expressive career preferences, we applied two complementary approaches—variable‐centered and person‐centered. The findings of the variable‐centered approach indicated that 14 career preferences could be classified as value‐expressive: Six preferences reflect self‐enhancement values, four preferences reflect self‐transcendence values, and another four preferences reflect openness‐to‐change values.

The six career preferences that reflect self‐enhancement values are income, prestige, managing and supervising, authoritativeness, advancement of opportunities, and negotiating and persuading. These aspects reflect dominant and self‐promoting behaviors at the core of self‐enhancement values (see review in Arieli et al., 2020). For example, research has shown that the higher the importance employees ascribe to self‐enhancement values, the higher they prioritize status and prestige (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Gandal et al., 2005), as well as to engage in management roles (Arieli et al., 2016; Knafo & Sagiv, 2004).

The four career preferences reflecting self‐transcendence are teaching and instruction, community service, mental and emotional care, and working with plants or animals. These preferences reflect the core motivation underlying self‐transcendence values—the desire to care for and support other people and the environment. Previous research has found that individuals prioritizing self‐transcendence values were more likely to pursue social occupations such as teaching and community service (Knafo & Sagiv, 2004) and to exhibit altruistic and pro‐social behavior (e.g., Arieli et al., 2014; Maio et al., 2009).

The four career preferences that reflect the openness‐to‐change values are independence, variety, using artistic skills, and shift work. Previous research on values and behavior has demonstrated similar findings. For example, research has shown that individuals who engage in behaviors expressing independence and variety‐seeking, such as initiating organizational change (Seppälä et al., 2012) and proactivity at work (Grant & Rothbard, 2013), were more likely to emphasize openness‐to‐change values. It was also found that openness‐to‐change values are associated with artistic vocational interest (Sagiv, 2002) and artistic expression (Dollinger et al., 2007).

Finally, aligning with our hypothesis, the participants were less willing to compromise on this set of 14 value‐expressive career preferences than on the others. This result is unsurprising because these values represent a fundamental motivational goal; thus, individuals would likely be more resistant to compromise on the preferences that express these motivational goals.

The career preferences not identified as value‐expressive may take different forms in different contexts and thus may express multiple values. For example, teamwork may reflect competitiveness (self‐enhancement values) or a desire to form relationships among colleagues (self‐transcendence values). The list of career preferences also includes a variety of abilities and skills that could be expressed at work (e.g., working with computers, using organizational skills, using analytical skills, using mathematical skills, using technical skills, and using verbal skills). These skills are not necessarily linked to a particular value. For example, verbal skills could be applied in competitive contexts, such as sales, and in pro‐social contexts, such as psychological therapy.

4.1. Four value profiles and their associations with career‐related factors

The profile analysis was constructed to understand the value‐expressive nature of career‐related preferences more deeply. As individuals hold a complex system of values rather than isolated and compartmentalized (Schwartz, 1992), a profile approach is more ecologically sound. Considering value combinations helps to differentiate between preferences that express a single primary value and those that express a combination of specific values. This differentiation contributes to discerning the special conditions required for an attitude or behavior to take shape.

We identified four value profiles aligning with Schwartz's (1992) theoretical structure, reflecting its two organizing principles: 1. a growth‐focus profile (high in self‐transcendence and openness‐to‐change) versus a protection‐focus profile (high in self‐enhancement and conservation); and 2. a self‐focus profile (high in self‐enhancement and openness‐to‐change) versus a social‐focus profile (high in conservation and self‐transcendence). Notably, three of these profiles (growth, self, and social) were also identified by previous research conducted among children (Daniel et al., 2020), adolescents (Ungvary et al., 2018), and adults (Magun et al., 2016; Rudnev et al., 2014). However, these studies did not identify a protection‐focus profile. An explanation for the emergence of the protection‐focus profile in our young adult sample may relate to the context of career decision‐making during young adulthood, highlighting self‐enhancement and security needs. It may also relate to the growing importance of conservation values during early adulthood (Leijen et al., 2022; Vecchione et al., 2016).

In the final step, we compared how the identified four value profiles differ in their career preferences and willingness to compromise on career preferences. The four value profiles differed in 18 of the 31 career preferences and in their willingness to compromise on their career preferences. Interestingly, 14 of the 18 distinguishing preferences were aspects defined as value‐expressive.

The protection‐focus and self‐focus profiles ascribed high preference to income, prestige, authoritativeness, managing and supervising, negotiating and persuading, and advancement opportunity. These preferences reflect self‐enhancement values expressed by concern for one's interests, success, and dominance over others (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2022). However, the self‐focus profile group preferred higher levels of independence, variety, shift work, working outdoors, artistic skills, and verbal skills than those characterized by the protection‐focus profile. It could be argued that these preferences reflect openness‐to‐change values (expressed by self‐direction, stimulation, and hedonism). Interestingly, the protection‐focus profile group preferred working with computers more than those in the other three profiles, reflecting a linkage between conservation values and self‐enhancement. While both protection‐focus and self‐focus profiles ascribe importance to power, rewards, and prestige, they may differ in their willingness to take risks.

The growth‐focus and social‐focus profiles ascribed high preferences for community service, mental and emotional care, and close physical care. These preferences reflect self‐transcendence values expressed by concern for the welfare and interests of others (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2022). However, growth‐focus profile individuals preferred higher levels of teaching and instruction, working with plants or animals, and working outdoors than did social‐focus profile individuals. These aspects may express challenge and excitement seeking as well as tolerance of uncertainty, considering that teaching and nurturing are complex processes requiring flexibility and coping with ambiguity (Sagiv, 2002). Whereas both profiles reflect a concern for others, they differ in the extent to which they pursue openness‐to‐change versus conservation values.

Finally, we found that individuals with the protection‐focus and social‐focus profiles were less willing to compromise on their career preferences than those with the growth‐focus and self‐focus profiles. Compromising requires flexibility and openness to alternatives (Gati & Kulcsàr, 2021). Thus, it is not surprising that protection‐focus and social‐focus profiles, both characterized by high conservation values—expressed by resistance to change—were relatively reluctant to compromise on career preferences.

4.2. Implications

Understanding which career preferences are value‐expressive may help individuals realize which aspects are more critical for them. Individuals will likely favor career preferences that manifest values most significant to them. For example, a person who ascribes high importance to self‐enhancement values may be less likely to compromise on career preferences that directly manifest these values (e.g., income, prestige, managing, and supervising). Furthermore, identifying individuals’ value profiles (the value cluster vital to them) and what they want to do (career preferences) can facilitate locating career alternatives compatible with their characteristics. The person‐centered approach provides a tool that considers individuals' entire value hierarchy, allowing young adults to find better‐suited options for their underlying motivations. For example, protection‐focus and self‐focus profile individuals may seek occupational alternatives that align with self‐enhancement values and corresponding career aspects (e.g., income, prestige, authoritativeness, managing and supervising, negotiating and persuading, and advancement opportunity). However, self‐focus profile individuals also prefer occupational environments aligning with openness‐to‐change values and their corresponding career aspects (e.g., independence, variety, shift work, working outdoors, using artistic skills, and using verbal skills). In contrast, however, protection‐focus profile individuals indicated low preferences for these career aspects.

4.3. Limitations and future directions

Despite the current findings' significance and implications, some limitations should be addressed. First, it is crucial to determine the replicability of the four value profiles found in this study with different samples of young adults deliberating their career choices. Second, a larger total sample size would have resulted in larger profile sizes, providing greater power to detect differences between profiles and the potential to yield more distinct profiles. Third, the study adopted a cross‐sectional design. Thus, a longitudinal approach to measuring values and career preferences would enhance the generalizability and utility of the findings. Fourth, further research may reveal additional differences between the profiles by testing their associations with other career‐related outcomes (e.g., career choice satisfaction, work orientations, career adaptability, and career indecision). Finally, future research might examine the stability of value profiles over time and what factors may contribute to possible fluctuations.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The present study spotlights the linkage between personal values and career‐related preferences. Using a variable‐centered approach, we elucidated 14 value‐expressive career preferences. In addition, using a person‐centered approach, we identified four distinct value profiles, demonstrating that they differ on 18 career‐related preferences in a meaningful manner. Fourteen of these aspects were identified as value‐expressive in a variable‐centered approach. The differences among the profiles in career preferences refined our understanding of the associations between personal values and career‐related preferences. By analyzing value combinations, we provide a more holistic perspective on what motivates young adults in career decision‐making.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Yuliya Lipshits‐Braziler: Conceptualization, methodology, data collection, formal analysis, writing—original draft, review, & editing; Sharon Arieli: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft, review, & editing, project administration; Ella Daniel: conceptualization, data analysis, writing—review & editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

ETHICS STATEMENT

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Hebrew University Business School, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Supporting information

Supporting Information

JOPY-93-378-s001.docx (71.3KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Benny A. Benjamin, Tirza Willner, Itamar Gati, Nimrod Levin, and Daniel Spitz for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. The findings have not been published or disseminated publicly in any other way. The study and analysis plan were not preregistered.

Lipshits‐Braziler, Y. , Arieli, S. , & Daniel, E. (2025). Personal values and career‐related preferences among young adults. Journal of Personality, 93, 378–393. 10.1111/jopy.12935

Endnotes

1

An analysis drawing on the 10 values yielded similar profiles. For simplification, we present the results using the four higher‐order value dimensions.

2

We also conducted LPA incorporating personal values and career preferences into the analysis (Appendix D in the supplementary materials). This analysis revealed that the 31 career preferences have similarly emerged alongside the predicted four personal value profiles.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This research was supported by a grant of the second author from the Asper Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Jerusalem School of Business Administration, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

REFERENCES

  1. Arieli, S. , Grant, A. M. , & Sagiv, L. (2014). Convincing yourself to care about others: An intervention for enhancing benevolence values. Journal of Personality, 82(1), 15–24. 10.1111/jopy.12029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arieli, S. , Sagiv, L. , & Cohen‐Shalem, E. (2016). Values in business schools: The role of self‐selection and socialization. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3), 493–507. 10.5465/amle.2014.0064 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arieli, S. , Sagiv, L. , & Roccas, S. (2020). Values at work: The impact of personal values in organisations. Applied Psychology, 69(2), 230–275. 10.1111/apps.12181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakk, Z. , & Vermunt, J. K. (2016). Robustness of stepwise latent class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling, 23(1), 20–31. 10.1080/10705511.2014.955104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bardi, A. , & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220. 10.1177/0146167203254602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Daniel, E. , Benish‐Weisman, M. , Sneddon, J. N. , & Lee, J. A. (2020). Value profiles during middle childhood: Developmental processes and social behavior. Child Development, 91, 1615–1630. 10.1111/cdev.13362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dollinger, S. J. , Burke, P. A. , & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3), 91–103. 10.1080/10400410701395028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ferguson, S. L. , Moore, E. W. G. , & Hull, D. M. (2020). Finding latent groups in observed data: A primer on latent profile analysis in Mplus for applied researchers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(5), 458–468. 10.1177/0165025419881721 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fischer, R. , & Smith, P. B. (2004). Values and organizational justice: Performance‐ and seniority‐based allocation criteria in the United Kingdom and Germany. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 35(6), 669–688. 10.1177/0022022104270110 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Funder, D. C. , & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. 10.1177/251524591984720 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gandal, N. , Roccas, S. , Sagiv, L. , & Wrzesniewski, A. (2005). Personal value priorities of economists. Human Relations, 58(10), 1227–1252. 10.1177/0018726705058911 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gati, I. (1998). Using career‐related aspects to elicit preferences and characterize occupations for a better person‐environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52(3), 343–356. 10.1006/jvbe.1997.1623 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gati, I. , Fassa, N. , & Mayer, Y. (1998). An aspect‐based approach to person–environment fit: A comparison between the aspect structure derived from characteristics of occupations and that derived from counselees' preferences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53(1), 28–43. 10.1006/jvbe.1997.1609 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gati, I. , Gadassi, R. , & Shemesh, N. (2006). The predictive validity of a computer‐assisted career decision‐making system: A six‐year follow‐up. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 205–219. 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gati, I. , Garty, Y. , & Fassa, N. (1996). Using career‐related aspects to assess person–environment fit. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(2), 196–206. 10.1037/0022-0167.43.2.196 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gati, I. , & Gutentag, T. (2015). The stability of aspect‐based career preferences and of the recommended list of occupations derived from them. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 11–21. 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.11.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gati, I. , & Kulcsàr, V. (2021). Making better career decisions: From challenges to opportunities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, Article 103545. 10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103545 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gati, I. , Shenhav, M. , & Givon, M. (1993). Processes involved in career preferences and compromises. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(1), 53–64. 10.1037/0022-0167.40.1.53 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gignac, G. E. , & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gorgievski, M. J. , Stephan, U. , Laguna, M. , & Moriano, J. A. (2018). Predicting entrepreneurial career intentions: Values and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(3), 457–475. 10.1177/1069072717714541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Grant, A. M. , & Rothbard, N. P. (2013). When in doubt, seize the day? Security values, prosocial values, and proactivity under ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 810–819. 10.1037/a0032873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gutentag, T. , & Gati, I. (2016). The consistency and structure of aspect‐based career preferences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 33–46. 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.12.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gutentag, T. , Gati, I. , & Shimoni, A. (2022). Evaluating the quality of the list of occupations recommended for further exploration. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance. Advance online publication. 10.1007/s10775-022-09569-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hitlin, S. , & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393. 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110640 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hoff, K. A. , Song, Q. C. , Wee, C. J. , Phan, W. M. J. , & Rounds, J. (2020). Interest fit and job satisfaction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 123, Article 103503. 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103503 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]
  28. Knafo, A. , & Sagiv, L. (2004). Values and work environment: Mapping 32 occupations. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 255–273. 10.1007/BF03173223 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, J. A. , Bardi, A. , Gerrans, P. , Sneddon, J. , Van Herk, H. , Evers, U. , & Schwartz, S. (2021). Are value–behavior relations stronger than previously thought? It depends on value importance. European Journal of Personality, 36(2), 133–148. 10.1177/08902070211002965 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Leijen, I. , van Herk, H. , & Bardi, A. (2022). Individual and generational value change in an adult population, a 12‐year longitudinal panel study. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 17844. 10.1038/s41598-022-22862-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lipshits‐Braziler, Y. (2018). Coping with career indecision among young adults: Implications for career counseling. In Cohen‐Scali V., Rossier J., & Nota L. (Eds.), New perspectives on career counseling and guidance in Europe (pp. 71–85). Springer International Publishing AG. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lipshits‐Braziler, Y. , Arieli, S. , & Daniel, E. (2024, March 8). Personal values and career‐related preferences among young adults. https://osf.io/e6rp7/?view_only=30fd681067c2464592558c1f98814cb1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Lönnqvist, J. E. , Verkasalo, M. , Wichardt, P. C. , & Walkowitz, G. (2013). Personal values and prosocial behaviour in strategic interactions: Distinguishing value‐expressive from value‐ambivalent behaviours. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(6), 554–569. 10.1002/ejsp.1976 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Magun, V. , Rudnev, M. , & Schmidt, P. (2016). Within‐ and between‐country value diversity in Europe: A typological approach. European Sociological Review, 32(2), 189–202. 10.1093/esr/jcv080 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Maio, G. R. , Pakizeh, A. , Cheung, W.‐Y. , & Rees, K. J. (2009). Changing, priming, and acting on values: Effects via motivational relations in a circular model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 699–715. 10.1037/a0016420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Milot‐Lapointe, F. , Savard, R. , & Le Corff, Y. (2018). Intervention components and working alliance as predictors of individual career counseling effect on career decision‐making difficulties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 15–24. 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Muthén, L. K. , & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User's Guide. Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  38. Nye, C. D. , Su, R. , Rounds, J. , & Drasgow, F. (2017). Interest congruence and performance: Revisiting recent meta‐analytic findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 138–151. 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.11.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rudnev, M. , Magun, V. , & Schmidt, P. (2014). The stability of the value typology of Europeans: Testing invariance with confirmatory latent class analysis (Research Paper No. WP BRP 51/SOC/2014) 10.2139/ssrn.2489001 [DOI]
  41. Sagiv, L. (2002). Vocational interests and basic values. Journal of Career Assessment, 10(2), 233–257. 10.1177/1069072702010002007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sagiv, L. , & Schwartz, S. H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for out‐group social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 437–448. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.437 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Sagiv, L. , & Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Values, intelligence and client behavior in career counseling: A field study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(3), 237–254. 10.1007/BF03173222 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Sagiv, L. , & Schwartz, S. H. (2022). Personal values across cultures. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 517–546. 10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-125100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), Article 11. 10.9707/2307-0919.1116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Schwartz, S. H. , Melech, G. , Lehmann, A. , Burgess, S. , & Harris, M. (2001). Extending the cross‐cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542. 10.1177/0022022101032005001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Seppälä, T. , Lipponen, J. , Bardi, A. , & Pirttilä‐Backman, A.‐M. (2012). Change‐oriented organizational citizenship behaviour: An interactive product of openness to change values, work unit identification and sense of power. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 136–155. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02010.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Shimoni, A. , Gutentag, T. , & Gati, I. (2019). Assessing career preference cohesiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 51–63. 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Skimina, E. , Cieciuch, J. , Schwartz, S. H. , Davidov, E. , & Algesheimer, R. (2019). Behavioral signatures of values in everyday behavior in retrospective and real‐time self‐reports. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 281. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Smack, A. J. , Herzhoff, K. , Tang, R. , Walker, R. L. , & Tackett, J. L. (2017). A latent class analysis of personal values in young adults. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), Article 30. 10.1525/collabra.114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ungvary, S. , McDonald, K. L. , & Benish‐Weisman, M. (2018). Identifying and distinguishing value profiles in American and Israeli adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 294–309. 10.1111/jora.12330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Vecchione, M. , Schwartz, S. , Alessandri, G. , Döring, A. K. , Castellani, V. , & Caprara, M. G. (2016). Stability and change of basic personal values in early adulthood: An 8‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 111–122. 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Whiston, S. C. , Li, Y. , Mitts, N. G. , & Wright, L. (2017). Effectiveness of career choice interventions: A meta‐analytic replication and extension. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 175–184. 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting Information

JOPY-93-378-s001.docx (71.3KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

This research was supported by a grant of the second author from the Asper Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Jerusalem School of Business Administration, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Articles from Journal of Personality are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES