The occupational aspirations of Singaporean students : circumscription and compromise

Deposited with permission of the author.© 1994 Dr. Peter Sinn Yeou KhorThis study examined Gottfredson's (1981) circumscription-compromise theory in relation to the occupational aspirations of Secondary Four (10th-grade) students in Singapore. In circumscription, individuals first eliminate occupations that are unacceptable to them on the basis of occupational sextype and prestige. The result would be a "zone of acceptable alternatives" (ZOAA), within which people explore occupations of acceptable sextype and prestige, and would specify the most job-self compatible options to be their occupational aspirations. These range from the ideal (most desired job)' to the realistic (expected job) to what is just acceptable (tolerable job), depending on reality factors that may require individuals to adjust their aspirations in this manner. This is the notion of compromise that is investigated in the study. Circumscription and compromise were examined in relation to students' gender, career self-efficacy, and socio-educational background. Two hierarchical regression models -- the circumscription and occupational aspirations models -- were also formulated to predict the occupational preferences of students. A total of 1695 Secondary Four students (863 males and 832 females) responded to the Student Occupational Aspirations Questionnaire (SOAQ) with the aid of a JOB LIST. Students nominated a Rejected, Ideal, Expected and Tolerable Job representing their circumscription/rejection-preference decisions (a ZOAA). Students' perceptions of these occupations in terms of job sextype, job status, career self-efficacy, reality constraints, and reasons for circumscription-compromise were examined. Criterion measures were also included to define job sextype and job status. The main findings of the study generally supported Gottfredson's (1981) theory in the Singapore context. In the results, construct validity of circumscription and the zone of acceptable alternatives was established. Students rejected unacceptable occupations on the basis of inappropriate occupational sextype, unacceptable level of occupational status, and lower career self~efficacy expectations. Educational and social-psychological constraints were perceived as the main circumscription reasons. In contrast, job status of occupational aspirations was significantly different from that of rejected occupations. Job sextype of occupational aspirations was also perceived to be more gender-appropriate than that of rejected occupations. Males generally preferred male-dominated and sex-neutral jobs, while females preferred sex-neutral occupations when given the freedom to choose. Females were more willing to choose cross-gender occupations than the males. Students also compromised job sextype and job status when aspirations were compromised. In making job sextype compromises, females reverted to choosing female dominated occupations, while males tended to maintain their sextype preferences. In terms of job status compromise, gender differences, and that due to specific socio-educational factors (expressing academic ability) were also found. In general, fewer status compromises were made between the ideal and expected job, than between the expected and tolerable job. For the models predicting occupational preferences, career self-efficacy showed the greatest influence in the rejection decisions of students. Educational constraints better predicted circumscription of higher status occupations, while social-psychological constraints better explained the circumscription of lower status occupations. Socioeconomic status and the factors expressing students' academic ability were the best predictors of job status of occupational aspirations. Both models tended to predict females' occupational preferences better than the males', especially when criterion measures were used. The results of the whole study were discussed in terms of their implications for career counselling and for future research