See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273167789

Family Influence on Career Decision Making

Article  in  Journal of Career Assessment · January 2015

DOI: 10.1177/1069072714565782

CITATIONS READS

10 3,317

5 authors, including:

Arpita Ghosh Wenhsin Chang

University of Kansas University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
9 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Contextual influences on career decision-making View project

Adaptation to career transitions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arpita Ghosh on 05 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Journal of Career Assessment
2016, Vol. 24(1) 197-212
ª The Author(s) 2015
Family Influence on Career Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Decision Making: Validation DOI: 10.1177/1069072714565782
jca.sagepub.com
in India and the United States

Nadya A. Fouad1, Shin-ye Kim1, Arpita Ghosh1,

Wen-hsin Chang1, and Catia Figueiredo1

Abstract
This study examined the nomological network for the Family Influence Scale in the United States and
India. Specifically, the study assessed the relationship between family influences on career decision
making and the constructs of family obligation, work volition, calling, work values, and occupational
engagement across two countries. A total of 136 U.S. participants and 377 participants from India
responded to a survey via Amazon Mechanical Turk. The study found support for the construct
validity and the four different types of family influences both between the United States and the
Indian population. Family influence was correlated in expected ways with family obligation, work
volition, work values, calling, and occupational engagement.

Keywords
family influence, career decision making, career development

Within the field of vocational psychology, researchers have explored the wide spectrum of influences
that affect the career decision-making process. Among those factors, family influence has been given
increasing attention (e.g., Paa & McWhirter, 2000; Schulenberg, Vondracek, & Crouter, 1984; Whis-
ton & Keller, 2004). Since it is more likely that people look for assistance within their family structure,
at least initially, it is critical for counseling psychologists to have a better understanding of the influ-
ence that family has on career development so that they might facilitate positive decision making
(Whiston & Keller, 2004). Due to the varying role of family across cultures, it is important to assess
how family influence is related to various career constructs in different cultural groups.
Since Roe’s preliminary work on family influence on career development in the 1950s, research
in this area has been prominent within vocational psychology. Chope (2005) argued that there are
other earlier theories that have helped career counselors take family into account. These include
Bowlby’s (1982) attachment theory, drawn from family systems theory and its influence on career

1
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Corresponding Author:
Nadya A. Fouad, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, PO 413, Milwaukee, WI
53211, USA.
Email: nadya@uwm.edu
198 Journal of Career Assessment 24(1)

and life planning, Bratcher’s (1982) perspective on family’s myths, rules, and boundaries and their
likelihood to affect the individual’s career development, and Ulrich and Dunne’s (1986) emphasis
on family dynamics in terms of work changes.
The early work that examined the relationship between family background and work values
orientation confirmed the critical role of family influences on the development of work values (Kin-
nane & Pable, 1962). A number of studies revealed that people of color, especially ones who are less
acculturated, tend to be more influenced by family expectations regarding their career decisions, and
they also have a tendency to endorse extrinsic work values over intrinsic work values (e.g., Fouad
et al., 2008; Leong & Chou, 1994; Leong & Hayes, 1990; Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999).
It has also been argued that people from different cultures might not necessarily benefit from tra-
ditional career counseling that focuses on the individual (Sue & Sue, 2003). Therefore, the need to
recognize the community and family when working with certain populations has been emphasized
(Fouad et al., 2010; LaFramboise, Trimble, & Mohatt, 1990). Although there are tools that were
developed to measure some aspects of family influence, such as the Parent Support Scale (PSS;
Farmer et al., 1981) and the Sibling Support Scale (SSS; Ali, McWhirter, & Chronister, 2005), most
scales focus on just one component of family influence, rather than looking at the broader picture of
the way family influences career decision making (Fouad et al., 2010).
The Family Influence Scale (FIS) was developed by Fouad and her colleagues to identify the
degree to which family members may influence career decision making and to assess perceptions
of how one’s family origin influences career and work choices. Unlike existing scales that tend
to measure single component of familial aspects (e.g., parental and sibling), the FIS measures dif-
ferent aspects of a family of origin’s influences. The FIS captures four distinct types of support from
family, including financial, informational, and emotional support, but also assesses the perceptions
of familial expectations about career choices. This could include perceptions that only certain
careers are acceptable. These four constructs were identified through an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) and two confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs; Fouad et al., 2008, 2010). Fouad, et al.’s
research was conducted with large groups of U.S. participants, but more information is needed to
understand how contextual factors are related to family influence. Clearly, perceptions of family
expectations and support will differ across many types of cultural context, including race, ethnic
group, and national origin and socioeconomic status.
We were interested in exploring the construct validity of the FIS by examining aspects of the
nomological network of family influence (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). First, we wanted to examine
whether those who perceived greater influence of family on career decisions also reported higher
sense of obligation to family. Family obligation refers to a sense of obligation to assist, support, and
respect the family’s collection of values and behaviors related to the children’s provision of assis-
tance, support, and respect for their parents, siblings, and extended family (Fuligni, 1999]). Studies
that have investigated family obligation among American adolescents from various backgrounds
found that children and adolescents from immigrant families expressed a strong sense of obligation
to support, assist, and respect the family, especially Asian and Latin American adolescents (Fuligni,
2001; Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). These adolescents had to balance academic demands and fam-
ily obligations, translating for parents or taking care of siblings (Yeh & Lempers, 2004). We
hypothesized that participants who perceived a greater sense of family obligation would also have
a stronger perception of familial influence on their career decision making. Specifically, we
hypothesized that family obligation will be strongly related to family influence of people from col-
lectivist cultures, such as Asian or Indian cultures.
Second, we wanted to examine whether strong family influence is related to an individual’s sense
of choices about work. Work volition is conceptualized as an individual’s perceived capacity to
make occupational choices despite constraints (Duffy et al., 2012b) and is theoretically based on the
Psychology of Working Framework (PWF; Blustein, Kenna, Gill, & Devoy, 2008). Traditional
Fouad et al. 199

career choice theories have focused on White, middle to upper class college students, so many con-
temporary researchers have taken steps to examine the groups of people who have been overlooked
(e.g., Ali et al., 2005; Fouad & Kantamneni, 2008). With that effort, the PWF was developed to explain
people’s experience of work from the point of view of all individuals, not just those from a privileged
background but also those with a limited capacity or the resources to make occupational choices (Blus-
tein et al., 2008; Duffy et al., 2012b). Duffy incorporated this PWF into the basic definition of volition
which is the power of choosing or determining (Duffy et al., 2012b), defining work volition as a capac-
ity to make occupational choices, despite one’s constraints. It is argued that with the dynamic aspects
of work life today, understanding the occupational choices of people with limited capacity is more
important than ever, and it is likely that the majority of American workers experience volitional con-
straints in one way or another (Duffy et al., 2012b). The construct of work volition is closely related to
career barriers, as they likely occupy a similar scholarly space (Duffy, Diemer & Jadidian, 2012a).
Among many different career barriers, perception of family demands is a critical one. Specifically,
it can be hypothesized that the more family demands one perceives, the less sense of agency one feels
regarding their career decision-making process and therefore less volition one perceives. As such, we
wanted to explore how perceptions of volition in making career choices was related to familial influ-
ences on career decision making. Specifically, we would expect that individuals from Asian or Indian
cultures would have higher sense of work volition than people from the United States.
We were also interested in exploring the relationship between the FISs and an individual’s sense
of calling. Although the idea that work can be understood in the context of calling dates back to the
16th century, empirical investigation of calling is relatively new (Dik, Eldridge, Steger, & Duffy,
2012). Recently, Dik, Eldridge, Steger, and Duffy (2012) developed and validated the Calling and
Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ) in response to measurement challenges associated with earlier
instruments (e.g., lack of a psychometric report). Dik and Duffy (2009) conceptualized calling as
two overlapping aspects of the construct, namely, presence and search. Presence refers to the notion
that some individuals may perceive that they currently have a calling. Search refers to others who
may not currently have a sense of calling but are actively looking for one (Dik et al., 2012). Calling
has also been examined in relation to the meaning of life and how people derive meaning from work
(Steger, 2009). Dik and Duffy (2009) defined calling as a career, which arises from an external
source that includes family legacy. For example, if individuals perceive a strong family influence
on their career decision-making process, they will likely feel the need to continue their family legacy
in work/career. As such, we were interested to examine whether a stronger sense of family influence
in career decision making was related to a perception of being called to a particular work or
occupation.
In addition to the above-mentioned constructs, we examined the relationship of work values to
the FIS. Work values have been used to explain a variety of notions ranging from business ethics
to work preferences, although limited attempts have been made to understand this as a multidimen-
sional construct. The importance of identifying personal values when planning a career has long
been recognized. From Super’s (1970, 1973) theoretical framework, work values can be divided into
two functional categories, namely, intrinsic and extrinsic. In our study, intrinsic values refer to val-
ues that relate to specific interest in the activities of the work itself or values that are associated with
intangible rewards such as the benefits that an individual or society provides or values that relate to
motivation or satisfaction from work. Extrinsic values refer to certain tangible advantageous or
favorable conditions that are created through working, such as instrumental benefits or compensa-
tion, physical settings, job titles, or other external features (Taris & Feij, 2001). Conceptually, it can
be hypothesized that if one perceives higher family expectation to support his or her family, it is
possible that person likely places higher value on external aspects of work, such as monetary com-
pensation. As such, we wanted to explore whether familial influence was more related to extrinsic
work values than intrinsic work values.
200 Journal of Career Assessment 24(1)

Our final construct was to examine family influence on career decision making and occupational
engagement. The latter construct is referred to as the optimal quality of decision making that a career
decision maker employs when he or she recognizes the limitations of rational or intuitive processing
(Krieshok, Black, & McKay, 2009). Although it is important to acknowledge the importance of both
rational and intuitional aspects of career decision making, the full development and optimal tuning
of career decision making is possible only when occupational engagement is taking place (Krieshok
et al., 2009). From this point of view, it seems possible that individuals who perceive their family as
supportive of their career development will likely report higher levels of occupational engagement.
As such, occupational engagement is hypothesized to be related to individuals from collectivist cul-
tures that have a higher level of familial influence.
We examined the relationships among the variables in this study for participants in the United
States and India. Although studies have examined the relationship between contextual factors and
vocational interests in Asian Americans (e.g., Tang et al., 1999), very little attention has been paid
to Asian Indians and their career development. This allowed us to examine influences on family
influence in two cultures but also to continue to contribute to our understanding of career constructs
in India.
Asian Indians have been found to feel the pressure of achieving their parents’ dreams (Bhatta-
charya, 2000). Specifically, they tend to equate career choice with status, and students’ achievement
can be considered as family’s status and reputations within the community (Joshi, 2005). A separate
study by Roysircar and colleagues examined that parents’ perceived prejudice and preferences for
science and math contributed significantly to their second-generation children’s preferences for sci-
ence and math. Although second-generation children preferred nonscience majors more than their
first-generation parents, the majority reported that their actual majors were in science and math
(Roysircar, Carey, & Koroma, 2010).
Research on career development of Asian Americans are derived from distinguishing their occu-
pational choices from other ethnic and racial groups (Fouad et al., 2008). It has been noted that fam-
ily influence is a significant factor for career development of people from collectivistic culture, and
yet few studies have examined the influence of family on career-related constructs from a cross-
cultural perspective.

Current Study
The purpose of this study is to twofold. First, we wanted to examine the nomological network and
construct validity of the FIS. Second, we examined differences in family influence between the
United States and India, also investigating the relationships between family influence variables and
sense of family obligation, work volition, work values, and sense of calling.

1. Research Question 1: Is the factor structure of the FIS the same for Asian Indian and U.S.
populations?
2. Research Question 2: What are the relationships among family influence, family obligation,
work volition, work, values, and sense of calling for each cultural group?

Method
Procedure
Participants responded to a request for participation in a survey through Amazon Mechanical Turk, a
‘‘crowd-sourcing internet market place’’ that is affiliated with Amazon.com and allows researchers
to ‘‘hire’’ workers interested in work that requires human intelligence. In this case, participants
responded to a request to complete a survey about factors involved in career change. Amazon Turk
Fouad et al. 201

is increasingly used by psychological researchers to reach a broad sample of adults. The survey is
posted on Amazon Turk and participants can choose to sign up for the Human Intelligence Task
posted by our research team. Participants were given a survey link with all the surveys on Qual-
trics, including informed consent. Participants were given US$.40 through their Amazon account,
but the team was not able to link responses back to individual’s identifying information. Eligibility
criteria for participation were identifying as 18 years and older and speaking English. The study
received full institutional review board approval through the team’s university.

Participants
Overall, 568 participants responded to the study and completed all of the surveys. Of those, 136 were
from the United States, 377 were from India, and 48 were from a variety of other countries, ranging
from Brazil to China. This study only included the U.S. participants and Indian participants to allow
us to examine the role of family influence on career decision making in those two countries. All of
the surveys were completed in English.
U.S. participants included 59 who identified as men (42%), 77 as women, and 1 as transgendered.
The majority (63%) of participants identified as White/Caucasian, while 15% identified as Asian
American, 5% as African American, 5% as Hispanic/Latino, 2% as Native American, and 10% as
multiracial. Thirty-four percent had a bachelor’s degree, 32% had some college education, 20% had
a graduate degree, and 6% had some graduate school education. When asked about their current
socioeconomic status, 46% indicated poor or working class, 40% indicated middle class, and
13% indicated upper middle class or wealthy. Twenty-two percent said they had grown up in a rural
community, 54% in a suburban community, and 22% in an urban environment. The most frequent
occupations in which participants worked, as coded by Standard Occupational Codes, were manage-
ment (16%), teaching (15%), design and media (12%), business and finance (8%), and engineering
(7%). Fifty-four percent of the participants indicated it was likely or very likely they would be
changing jobs in the near future, while an additional 26% said it was somewhat likely they would
be changing jobs.
One hundred ninety eight (63%) of the Indian participants were male, 40% had a bachelor’s
degree and 33% had a graduate degree, 3% had a high school diploma, and the remainder had had
some postsecondary training. Fourteen percent indicated their socioeconomic status as poor or work-
ing class, 71% as middle class, and 16% as upper middle class or wealthy. When asked to describe
the community in which they were raised, 32% indicated they were raised in a rural community,
25% in a suburban community, and 41% in an urban community. Participants’ current occupations
were coded using the Standard Occupational Classification. Although participants indicated they
were working in a wide range of occupations, the most common were management (19%), business
and finance (12%), computing/information systems (12%), engineering (12%), teaching (11%), and
administrative support (6%). Finally, 61% indicated it was likely or very likely they would be chang-
ing jobs in the near future, while 24% said it was somewhat likely they would be changing jobs.

Instruments
Please refer to Tables 1 and 2 for reliability estimates, means, and standard deviations for all scales
and subscales according to U.S. participants and Indian participants, respectively.

FIS. The FIS (Fouad et al., 2010) was developed to assess individuals’ perceptions of the types of
influences their families had on their decision making. The scale has four subscales that are infor-
mational support, financial support, family expectations, and values and beliefs (Fouad et al., 2010).
The informational support subscale includes 8 items assessing how much information was provided
202 Journal of Career Assessment 24(1)

Table 1. Reliability, Means, and Standard Deviations of Scales and Subscales for U.S. Participants.

Scale N Items a M SD

Occupational Engagement
Curiosity 10 .88 3.69 0.77
Involvement 10 .91 3.22 0.93
Family Obligation
Current assistance to family 11 .93 3.65 0.91
Respect for family 7 .89 3.49 0.96
Future support 6 .88 3.12 1.06
Work volition
Constraints 9 .87 2.5 0.89
Volition 7 .86 3.54 0.81
Family Influence Scale
Financial support 3 .88 2.95 0.71
Family expectations 6 .91 2.57 0.81
Values and beliefs 3 .9 2.26 1.27
Informational support 8 .95 3 1.09
Calling and Vocation Questionnaire
Transcendent summons—presence 2 .76 3.01 0.76
Transcendent summons—search 4 .85 3.61 0.86
Purposeful work—presence 4 .84 3.55 0.87
Purposeful work—search 4 .79 3.77 0.84
Prosocial orientation—presence 4 .81 3.44 0.91
Prosocial orientation—search 4 .83 3.61 0.87
Work Values Inventory
Extrinsic value 27 .92 3.82 0.58
Intrinsic value 18 .92 3.6 0.71

to individuals, such as sharing information about different careers and how to go about choosing a
career. The financial support subscale is comprised of 3 items, assessing one’s family financial sup-
port for career choices. The family expectations subscale includes 5 items assessing expectations
that career choices will fit with one’s family’s wishes, including expectations based on gender and
culture. The values and beliefs subscale contains 3 items that ask individuals if their career choices
reflect their family’s belief that career choices should reflect their values or spiritual beliefs. Fouad
et al. (2010) demonstrated convergent validity for the FIS.

Work Volition. The Work Volition Scale Student Version (WV-S; Duffy, Diemer, & Jadidian, 2012a)
was used in the survey. Although an adult version is available (Duffy, Diemer, Perry, Laurenzi,
&Torry, 2012b), the Student Version asks questions about future choices, which were more closely
related to the research questions in this study. The WV-SF has 16 items describing a number of
future work situations, answered in a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (not like me) to 5 (very much
like me). The WV-SF has two scales, Work Volition (7 items) and Constraints (9 items). Examples
of items in the Volition scale include ‘‘I will be able to change jobs if I want to’’ and ‘‘Discrimination
will not affect my ability to choose a job’’; higher scores indicate greater levels of volition in work
choices in the face of constraints. Items in the Constraints Subscale include both financial constraints
(e.g., Due to my financial situation, I will need to take any job I can find) and social constraints (e.g.,
I feel that my family situation limits the types of jobs I might pursue). Higher scores indicate con-
cerns about constraints that may limit work volition. Duffy, Diemer, and Jadidian (2012a) demon-
strated construct validity for the scales, including expected relationships between locus of control
and perceptions of barriers.
Fouad et al. 203

Table 2. Reliability, Means, and Standard Deviations of Scales and Subscales for Indian Participants.

Scale N Items a M SD

Occupational Engagement
Curiosity 10 .84 3.71 .56
Involvement 10 .88 3.78 .63
Family Obligation
Current assistance to family 11 .91 3.99 .65
Respect for family 7 .85 4.02 .66
Future support 6 .86 4.05 .68
Work Volition
Constraints 9 .89 29.40 7.94
Volition 7 .84 26.41 4.84
Family Influence Scale
Financial support 3 .78 3.66 .64
Family expectations 6 .84 3.51 .79
Values and beliefs 3 .76 3.69 .85
Informational support 8 .92 3.73 .78
Calling and Vocation Questionnaire
Transcendent summons—presence 4 .64 3.48 .67
Transcendent summons—search 4 .69 3.57 .66
Purposeful work—presence 4 .69 3.81 .63
Purposeful work—search 4 .71 3.82 .63
Prosocial orientation—presence 4 .78 3.68 .67
Prosocial orientation—search 4 .73 3.68 .76
Work Values Inventory
Extrinsic value 27 .91 3.83 0.51
Intrinsic value 18 .89 3.85 0.53

Family Obligation Scale. The Family Obligation Scale (FOS; Fuligni et al., 1999) is a 24-item scale that
assessed youth’s attitudes toward family obligation. The FOS has three subscales, namely, (1) Cur-
rent Assistance to Family (2) Respect for Family, and (3) Future Support (Fuligni et al., 1999). The
Current Assistance to Family has 11 items to assess the adolescents’ expectation of the frequency
and the amount of household tasks they need to assist the family with (Fuligni & Pedersen,
2002]). It also assesses how long they should spend time with their family. Participants answered
in a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Sample items for
this subscale are ‘‘Help take care of your brothers and sisters’’ and ‘‘Eat meals with your family’’
(Fuligni & Pedersen, 2002). The 7 items of respect for family measure the adolescents’ beliefs about
the importance of taking other family member’s thoughts, wishes, and opinions into consideration.
The scale ranges from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important); sample items are as follows:
‘‘follow your parents’ advice about choosing a job or major in college’’ and ‘‘respect your older
brothers and sisters.’’ The last scale has 6 items related to young adults’ expectation of their obliga-
tions to support and live close with their family in the future. The sample items are ‘‘help your par-
ents financially in the future’’ and ‘‘live or go to college near your parents.’’

Calling. The Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVW; Dik et al., 2012) was used to assess parti-
cipants’ perceptions of their vocational choice as responding to a sense of calling or vocation. The
CVQ has 24 questions that assess participants’ sense of their vocational choice either the presence or
search for a sense of calling in six 4-item scales: a summons from or search for a transcendent being,
sense or search for work that has a sense of purpose, and sense of or search for work as contributing
to the common good. Sample items from Presence of Transcendent Summons include ‘‘I was drawn
204 Journal of Career Assessment 24(1)

by something beyond myself to pursue my current line of work’’ and ‘‘I am pursuing my current line
of work because I believe I have been called to do so.’’ Examples of a Transcendent Summons
include ‘‘I’m searching for my calling in my career’’ and ‘‘I’m trying to identify the area of work
I was meant to pursue.’’ Sample items for Presence of Purposeful Work include ‘‘My work helps
me live out my life’s purpose’’ and ‘‘My career is an important part of my life’s meaning.’’ Search
for Purposeful Work includes ‘‘I am looking for work that will help me live out my life’’ and ‘‘Even-
tually, I hope my career will align with my purpose in life.’’ Items in Presence of Prosocial Orienta-
tion include ‘‘Making a difference for others is the primary motivation in my career’’ and ‘‘My work
contributes to the common good,’’ while items in Search for Prosocial Orientation include ‘‘I am
trying to find a career that will give my life meaning’’ and ‘‘I am looking for a job where my career
clearly benefits others.’’ Dik et al. (2012) demonstrated construct validity for the CVQ in a multi-
method, multitrait analysis. CVQ scores correlated in expected ways with participants’ self-reports
and scores on scales assessing work hope, life meaning, and search for meaning.

Occupational Engagement. The Occupational Engagement Scale Worker (OES-W; Krieshok et al.,
2009) was used to assess the curiosity about work-related decision making and involvement in career
decision making. Krieshok, Black, and McKay (2009) propose that occupational engagement among
working adults consists of engagement within their current position (Involvement) and curiosity
about alternative options (Curiosity). The 20-item scale includes two 10-item subscales measuring
each of these concepts, with higher scores corresponding to higher levels of involvement and curi-
osity. Items on the Curiosity subscale include ‘‘I imagine how another job might feel’’ and ‘‘I push
myself to find jobs that pay more.’’ Items on the Involvement subscale include ‘‘I network with peo-
ple in my field’’ and ‘‘I am fixed on my career path.’’ Krieshok et al. (2009) report evidence of con-
struct validity for the OES-W, including expected relationships among the subscales and personality
dimensions.

Work Values Inventory. The Work Values Inventory (WVI; Super, 1970) was used to assess for par-
ticipants’ work values. The scale was developed to measure 15 work values which are altruism, aes-
thetics, creativity, intellectual stimulation, independence, achievement, prestige, management,
economic returns, security, surroundings, supervisory relations, associates, variety, and way of life
(Super, 1970). Based on Dagenais’s (1998) work on intrinsic and extrinsic categories, we split the
WVI into extrinsic and intrinsic values. Extrinsic values include economic returns, security, super-
visory relations, surroundings, prestige, way of life, and associates. Intrinsic values include creativ-
ity, intellectual stimulation, altruism, esthetics, and management (Dagenais, 1998). The current
inventory uses a 5-point scaled response format from not important at all to crucial.

Results
Research Question 1: Similarity in Factor Structure
Based on the literature review and past research with the FIS, four factors of family influence for
each group of participants were proposed. A principal axis factor analysis extraction with a varimax
rotation was used to identify the factors of family influence on U.S. participants’ and Indian parti-
cipants’ career development. Factor solutions were based on an examination of the scree plots, a
minimum of 3 items per factor, eigenvalues greater than 1.0, minimum factor coefficient of .40 for
each item, and interpretation of the factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Ideally, we would have had the sample size to split the sample to conduct separate EFA and
CFAs. However, we were not able to do that and used the whole sample of both groups to conduct
two separate CFAs to examine the factor structure of the FIS for U.S. participants and Indian
Fouad et al. 205

participants. We evaluated the fit on both samples using a number of different indicators. We used
the chi-square statistic (w2), the comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). CFI values greater than .90 and
RMSEA and SRMR values below .08 indicate an acceptable fit of the observed data to the model
(Hu & Bentler, 1999) with higher and lower values, respectively, indicating greater fit.

U.S. sample. The fit indices indicated that the predicted 4-factor model (Informational Support,
Financial Support, Family Expectations, and Values and Beliefs) was an acceptable fit to the
observed data for the U.S. participants. The w2 (273.48, p < .001) was significant (CFI ¼ .95,
RMSEA ¼ .07, and SRMR ¼ .06). The factor loadings for the four factors for the U.S. sample are
presented in Table 3; the items that loaded on the four factors are identical to those found in Fouad
et al.’s (2010) study.

Indian sample. The fit indices for the four-factor model did not fit the data for the Indian group of
participants unless we removed the item ‘‘My family expected me to select a career that has a certain
status’’ and allowed the residuals to correlate for items ‘‘My family showed me how to be successful
in choosing a career’’ and ‘‘My family showed me what was important in choosing a career.’’ With
these modifications, the w2 statistic was significant, w2 ¼ 284.73 (128), p < .001, CFI was .94,
RMSEA was .06, and SRMR was .05, indicating acceptable fit. The factor loadings for the four fac-
tors for the Indian sample are presented in Table 4. Eliminating the item ‘‘My family expects me to
select a career that has a certain status,’’ the items that loaded on the four factors are similar to those
of the U.S. sample, with two exceptions. The items ‘‘My family expects me to make career decisions
so that I do not shame them’’ and ‘‘My family expects my career to match my family’s values/
beliefs’’ load on both the Values and Beliefs subscale and on the Family Expectations subscale. The
latter is slightly higher (.53 vs. .50) on the Family Expectations subscale, while the former is slightly
higher on the Values and Beliefs (.47 vs. 49) subscale, suggesting these could be avenues for further
exploration.

Research Question 2: Convergent Validity of FIS

Correlations between FIS and the other variables are presented in Tables 5 and 6. For the U.S. par-
ticipants, all three aspects of family obligation were highly correlated with all four FIS subscales,
with the exception of Current Assistance to Family and the Family Expectations and Values and
Beliefs subscales. The Curiosity subscale of Occupational Engagement was not related to any of the
FIS subscales, but Involvement was highly positively correlated with all four subscales, particularly
Informational Support (r ¼ .50), Financial Support (r ¼ . 47) and Family Expectations (r ¼ .40).
Family influence did not correlate strongly with either of the work volition scales. External work
values did not correlate with any of the FISs, but Internal work values correlated strongly with
Financial Support (r ¼ .38), Family Expectations (r ¼ .33) and Informational Support (r ¼ .37).
Finally, several of the CVQ subscales correlated with the FIS scales. Financial Support correlated
with Search for and Presence of Transcendent Summons subscales (r ¼ .27 and .36, respectively),
and Search for and Presence of Purposeful work (r ¼ .39 and .31, respectively), and Presence of
Prosocial Orientation (r ¼ .27). Family Expectations also correlated significantly with Search for
and Presence of Transcendent Summons and Search for Purposeful work subscales (r ¼ .27, .41, and
.33, respectively). Values and Beliefs only correlated with Presence of Purposeful work (r ¼ .22),
while Informational Support correlated strongly with Presence of Transcendent Summons Presence
of Purposeful work subscales (r ¼ .28 and .32, respectively).
Correlations for the Indian participants indicated several similar patterns of relationships,
although, overall, the correlations for the Indian participants were higher than the U.S. participants.
206 Journal of Career Assessment 24(1)

Table 3. Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Family Influence Scale in U.S. Sample.

Information Family Financial Values and

Item Support Expectation Support Beliefs

My family shared information with me about how to obtain a .74 .16 .09 .17
job
My family discussed career issues with me at an early age .87 .16 .08 .10
My family showed me how to be successful in choosing a .86 .21 .16 .18
career
My family showed me what was important in choosing a .86 .22 .17 .18
career
Watching my family work gave me confidence in my career .77 .09 .15 .08
My family provided guidance on which careers would be best .83 .18 .17 .14
for me
My family has given me information about obtaining .85 .01 .08 .15
education/training
My family supported me asking career-related questions .87 .01 .06 .08
My family expects me to select a career that has a certain .19 .71 .09 .17
status
My family expects me to make career decisions so that I do .08 .81 .09 .27
not shame them
My family is only willing to support me financially if I choose a .09 .83 .00 .06
career of which they approve
My family expects that my choice of occupation will reflect .16 .82 .08 .24
their wishes
My family expects people from our culture to choose certain .22 .81 .04 .11
careers
My family’s career expectations for me are based on my .01 .69 .16 .14
gender
Because my family supports me financially, I can focus on my .42 .41 .55 .15
career development
If I wanted to get additional education after high school, my .38 .33 .67 .00
family would provide financial support
If I were to experience a difficult career situation, my family .52 .33 .59 .06
would support me financially
My family expects that I will consider my religion/spirituality .23 .27 .03 .83
when making career decisions
My family explained how our values and beliefs pertain to my .36 .42 .00 .74
career choices
My family expects my career to match our family’s values/ .27 .51 .03 .69
beliefs
Eigenvalues 6.53 4.77 2.43 2.1
% of variance 29.69 21.69 11.05 9.46
Note. N ¼ 136. Bold values indicate factor loadings for items that went with each subscale.

All subscales of family obligation correlated moderately with all FIS subscales, with Informational
Support having the highest correlations with Respect for Family and Future Support for Family (r ¼
.51 and .53, respectively). FIS scales correlated moderately positively with both types of occupa-
tional engagement, although Curiosity did not correlate significantly with Values and Beliefs. Both
Volition subscales correlated moderately with all FIS subscales with the exception of Constraints
correlating with Informational Support. All of the CVQ scales had significant positive relationships
with Family Influence subscales, with the exception of Values and Beliefs and Search for Purposeful
Work. Finally, both Values scales correlated moderately with all FIS subscales.
Fouad et al. 207

Table 4. Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Family Influence Scale in Indian Sample.

Factor Loadings

Information Family Financial Values and

Item Support Expectation Support Beliefs

My family shared information with me about how to obtain a .71 .06 .22 .07
job
My family discussed career issues with me at an early age .76 .23 .09 .08
My family showed me how to be successful in choosing a .76 .17 .09 .23
career
My family showed me what was important in choosing a .81 .14 .05 .15
career
Watching my family work gave me confidence in my career .65 .06 .18 .23
My family provided guidance on which careers would be best .72 .17 .14 .16
for me
My family has given me information about obtaining .72 .03 .18 .26
education/training
My family supported me asking career-related questions .66 –.04 .22 .25
My family is only willing to support me financially if I choose a .06 .78 .15 .03
career of which they approve
My family expects that my choice of occupation will reflect .15 .56 .46 .08
their wishes
My family expects people from our culture to choose certain .12 .70 .29 .08
careers
My family’s career expectations for me are based on my .15 .67 .22 .09
gender
My family expects me to make career decisions so that I do .12 .15 .76 .18
not shame them
My family explained how our values and beliefs pertain to my .33 .27 .56 .12
career choices
My family expects that I will consider my religion/spirituality .09 .47 .49 .05
when making career decisions
My family expects my career to match our family’s values/ .23 .53 .50 –.06
beliefs.
Because my family supports me financially, I can focus on my .37 .15 .14 .62
career development
If I wanted to get additional education after high school, my .27 –.02 .12 .81
family would provide financial support
If I were to experience a difficult career situation, my family .40 .03 .15 .71
would support me financially
Eigenvalues 4.95 3.58 2.55 1.97
% of variance 22.49 16.29 11.61 8.93
Note. N ¼ 315. Bold values indicate factor loadings for items that went with each subscale.

Thus, we found support for the hypothesized relationships between family obligation and family
influence subscales for both groups of participants. We conducted an analysis of the difference
between the correlations for each scale for each group, correcting for experiment-wise error with
p value of .001; none of the correlations were statistically significantly different between the Indian
and the U.S. participants. The correlational analyses between family influence and the career-related
variables of occupational engagement, work values, work volition, and calling were exploratory.
Interestingly, Involvement in work-related decisions was more strongly related to family influence
subscales than curiosity in both groups. Also, for both groups, intrinsic values were more strongly
208 Journal of Career Assessment 24(1)

Table 5. Family Influence Scale Subscales Correlations with Occupational Engagement (OE), Family Obligation
(FO), Work Volition, Calling, and Work Values Inventory (WV) for U.S. Population.

Information Financial Family Values and

Support support Expectations Beliefs
A A A a

OE Curiosity .11 .15 .15 .11

OE Involvement .50** .47** .40** .30**
FO Current assistance to family .46** .31** .23 .22
FO Respect for family .55** .40** .33** .34**
FO Future support .53** .48** .47** .44**
Volition Volition subscale .22 .27 .16 .09
Volition Constraints subscale .13 .10 .25 .19
Calling Transcendent summons— .11 .27** .27** .17
search
Calling Transcendent summons— .28** .36** .41** .22
presence
Calling Purposeful work—presence .32** .39** .33** .22**
Calling Purposeful work—search .16 .31** .25 .20
Calling Prosocial orientation—search .06 .22 .16 .07
Calling Prosocial orientation— .29** .27** .25 .19
presence
WV Extrinsic Value .26 .24 .22 .13
WV Intrinsic Value .37** .38** .33** .27

**p < .001.

Table 6. Family Influence Scale Subscales Correlations With Occupational Engagement (OE), Family Obligation
(FO), Work Volition, Calling, and Work Values Inventory (WV) for Indian Participants.

Information Financial Family Values and

Support Support Expectations Beliefs
a A A a

OE curiosity .32** .32** .28** .18

OE involvement .37** .32** .28** .20**
FO current assistance to family .51** .37** .33** .31**
FO respect for family .53** .41** .38** .35**
FO future support .39** .36** .34** .31**
Volition volition subscale .44** .45** .46** .42**
Volition constraints subscale .19 .36** .46** .42**
Calling transcendent summons— .32** .31** .32** .29**
search
Calling transcendent summons— .31** .28** .34** .31**
presence
Calling purposeful work—presence .29** .21** .21** .28**
Calling purposeful work—search .28** .21** .21** .17
Calling prosocial orientation—search .31** .29** .28** .24**
Calling prosocial orientation— .31** .28** .32** .34**
presence
WV extrinsic value .41** .32** .32** .30**
WV intrinsic value .47** .38** .38** .41**
**p < .001.
Fouad et al. 209

related to family influence subscales than extrinsic values. Finally, family influence was related to
the construct of calling for both groups.

Discussion
Family influence is a key factor in career-related decisions and therefore of direct importance to
researchers and clinicians developing effective career interventions for a diverse population. How-
ever, limited research on the scales to measure the overarching influence of the family has curtailed
the study of family influence on people’s careers and also investigation of population differences in
family influence. The present research addressed this need by examining the construct validity of
FIS across samples from two countries—the United States and India. The data set collected and ana-
lyzed for this study is noncollege population and is diverse in terms of educational background and
socioeconomic status. Therefore, it affords an opportunity to examine the psychometric properties of
the FIS with a more diverse sample, particularly the factor structure cross nationally.
This study’s primary goal was to investigate the nomological network and construct validity of
the FIS scale in two populations. Specific research questions examined the validity of FIS in Asian
Indian and U.S. populations. Results indicated that a four-factor model was identified in both U.S.
populations and Asian Indian populations, with some modifications in Asian Indian population. In
regard to the second research question, examining the link between family influence and other
related variables, results indicated support for the relationship between family influence and family
obligations as well as with a number of career-related constructs.
The factor analytic results suggest a very similar four-factor structure to the original FIS within
the United States and for Indian participants. In the Indian participants group, 19 of 20 items, or
95%, loaded on the original U.S. factors. The internal consistencies across country groups of work-
ers (.76–.95) were consistent with previous report based on samples of college students (.85–.94;
Fouad et al., 2010). The estimates of construct validity suggest similar relationships between the FIS
and the career-related variables in both U.S. participants and Indian participants. These results sug-
gest that the factors in FIS—informational support, financial support, family expectations, and value
and belief—are cross-culturally applicable, and given these findings, it seems that overall the FIS
assesses a construct that can be meaningfully measured across two cultural groups. Interestingly,
1 item was eliminated from the scale for Indian participants; that item was ‘‘My family expects
me to have a career that has a certain status.’’ It may be that success is more culturally transmitted
by the larger society in India than by individual families as appears more the case in the United
States. In addition, the items ‘‘My family expects me that I will consider my religion/spirituality
when making career decisions’’ and ‘‘My family expects my career to match my family’s values/
beliefs’’ loaded highly on two subscales, suggesting that the difference between the perceptions
of expectations from family and the transmission of values and beliefs are not that conceptually dis-
tinct in this Indian group of participants.
With regard to the Research Question 2, the current investigation also examined the validity of
the FIS by examining its relationship with a sense of obligation to family and to four conceptually
meaningful career variables. Results indicated that FIS scales are moderately to highly correlated
with different aspects of family obligation, suggesting that, indeed, those who have a sense of obli-
gation to family also perceive that their family has influenced their decision making. This was the
case for both groups of participants. Family influence was also related in expected ways to involve-
ment in work-related decisions, intrinsic work values, and calling in both the U.S. populations and
Indian populations. Family influences were not related to work volition in the U.S. group but was
related to volition for the Indian group, suggesting a strong relationship between families and moti-
vation to work. These findings demonstrate convergent validity of the FIS across two different cul-
tures, adding to evidence of the construct validity of the FIS.
210 Journal of Career Assessment 24(1)

Limitations
This study serves to contribute to the existing literature about the role of family influence on career-
related choices among two specific populations. Among the studies that have researched family
influence, the majority focus on U.S. samples. However, this study is not without its limitations.
First, the measures we used were limited as they relied on participants’ self-report. The constructs
we examined may be conceptualized in different ways between the two populations. For example,
other confounding variables, such as cultural values, could have influenced the roles of family, call-
ing, work volition, family obligation, and occupational engagement. Second, access to the survey
may have prevented individuals who wanted to participate from doing so. We utilized Amazon
Mechanical Turk that was beneficial in obtaining a broader sample of participants. However, if
potential participants did not have access to the Internet, did not have an Amazon.com account,
or did not know about Amazon Mechanical Turk, they could not participate. Further, Mechanical
Turk requires individuals to have an Internet connection and English-specific language skills, which
restricts participation. It is also difficult to determine which wage will attract participants to com-
plete the survey. This issue is compounded by recruiting internationally due to changes in currency.

Implications and Future Research

This study has several implications. For instance, there is limited research on the overall career
development process of Asian Indians. Therefore, it is important to continue examining these con-
structs with Asian Indians to gain a better understanding of how this population makes career-related
choices. Our results suggest that family plays an important role in career decision making for
Indians, and further research should examine the nature of that influence.
Findings from this study also encourage researchers and clinicians to think critically about how
contextual factors, such as family influence, impact career decision making, especially for U.S.
racial/ethnic minority populations. These factors are important to examine within various theoretical
frameworks such as Social Cognitive Career Theory, as they may impact one’s self-efficacy, out-
come expectations, and personal goals (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Examining family influence
can be particularly important in examining how specific career interests are developed and ulti-
mately expressed through career choices. One example is to learn whether the family’s choice for
an individual is a stronger influence for some Asian American students than it is for dominant cul-
ture students in the United States.
From a counseling perspective, it is important that counselors assess for the role of family for clients
who present with career concerns. Items from the FIS can be used practically in sessions to determine
clients’ family influence on information about careers, degree of financial support, and expectations
and values around careers. For U.S. clients who have a South Asian or Indian background, counselors
may want to further explore how religion/spirituality may have played a role for their families and how
that may be related to career influences. Clients can explore the messages their families have given
them about career choices and career decision making, also examining which messages they choose
to accept and the cultural consequences of accepting or rejecting those messages.
Methodologically, we used Amazon Mechanical Turk to recruit a diverse sample and demon-
strate validity for the FIS with U.S. participants and Indian participants. It may be beneficial in the
future to further investigate family influence with Indian participants residing both in India and in
the United States to obtain more information about cross-cultural differences.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Fouad et al. 211

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Ali, S. R., McWhirter, E. H., & Chronister, K. M. (2005). Self-efficacy and vocational outcome expectations for
adolescents of lower socioeconomic status: A pilot study. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 48–50.
Bhattacharya, G. (2000). The school adjustment of south Asian immigrant children in the United States.
Adolescence, 35, 77–85.
Blustein, D. L., Kenna, A. C., Gill, N., & Devoy, J. E. (2008). The psychology of working: A new framework
for counseling practice and public policy. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 294–308. doi:10.1002/j.
2161-0045.2008.tb00095.xBrissette
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bratcher, W. E. (1982). The influence of the family on career selection: A family systems perspective.
Personnel & Guidance Journal, 61, 87–91.
Chope, C. R. (2005). Qualitatively assessing family influence in career decision making. Journal of Career
Assessment, 13, 395–414.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52,
281–302.
Dagenais, F. (1998). Super’s work values inventory scales as intrinsic or extrinsic constructs. Psychological
Reports, 83, 197–198.
Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and
practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 424–250.
Dik, B. J., Eldridge, B. M., Steger, M. F., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Development and validation of the Calling and
Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ) and Brief Calling Scale (BCS). Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 242–263.
Duffy, R. D., Diemer, M. A., & Jadidian, A. (2012a). The development and initial validation of the Work
Volition Scale-Student Version. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 291–319.
Duffy, R. D., Diemer, M. A., Perry, J. C., Laurenzi, C., & Torrey, C. L. (2012b). The construction and initial
validation of the Work Volition Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 400–411.
Farmer, H. S., Keane, J., Rooney, G., Vispoel, W., Harmon, L., Lerner, B., et al. (1981). Career motivation and
achievement planning (C-MAP). Champaign, IL: Department of Educational Psychology, University of
Illinois.
Fouad, N. A., Cotter, E. W., Fitzpatrick, M. E., Kantamneni, N., Carter, L., & Bernfeld, S. (2010). Development
and validation of the family influence scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 276–291.
Fouad, N. A., & Kantamneni, N. (2008). Contextual factors in vocational psychology: Intersections of individ-
ual, group, and societal dimensions. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.). Handbook of counseling psychol-
ogy (4th ed., pp. 408–425). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Fouad, N. A., Kantamneni, N., Smothers, M. K., Chen, Y. L., Fitzpatrick, M., & Terry, S. (2008). Asian
American career development: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 43–59.
Fuligini, A. J. (1998). Authority, autonomy, and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion: A study of adoles-
cents from Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European backgrounds, Developmental Psychology, 34, 782–92.
Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Family obligation and the academic motivation of adolescents from Asian, Latin
American, and European Backgrounds. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 94, 61–76.
Fuligni, A. J., & Pedersen, S. (2002). Family obligation and the transition to young adulthood. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 856–68.
Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American Adolescents
with Asian, Latin American, and European Backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030–1044.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
212 Journal of Career Assessment 24(1)

Joshi, A. (2005). Understanding Asian Indian families: Facilitating meaningful home-school relations, Young
Children, 60, 75–78.
Kinnane, J. F., & Pable, M. W. (1962). Family background and work value orientation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 9, 320–325.
Krieshok, T. S., Black, M. D., & McKay, R. A. (2009). Career decision making: The limits of rationality and the
abundance of non-conscious process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 275–290.
LaFramboise, T. D., Trimble, J. E., & Mohatt, G. V. (1990). Counseling intervention and American Indian tra-
dition: An integrative approach. The Counseling Psychologist, 18, 628–654.
Leong, F. T. L., & Chou, E. L. (1994). The role of ethnic identity and acculturation in the vocational behavior of
Asian Americans: An integrative review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 155–172.
Leong, F. T. L., & Hayes, T. J. (1990). Occupational stereotyping of Asian Americans. Career Development
Quarterly, 39, 143–154.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unified social cognitive theory of career/academic
interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.
Paa, H. K., & McWhirter, E. H. (2000). Perceived influences on high school students’ current career expecta-
tions. Career Development Quarterly, 49, 29–44.
Roysircar, G., Carey, J. C., & Koroma, S. (2010). Asian Indian college students’ science and math preferences:
Influences of cultural contexts. Journal of Career Development, 36, 324–347.
Schulenberg, J. E., Vondracek, F. W., & Crouter, A. C. (1984). The influence of the family on vocational devel-
opment. Journal of Marriage & Family, 46, 129.
Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp.
679–687). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, S. (2003). Counselling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (4th ed.). New York, NY:
John Wiley.
Super, D. E. (1970). Manual, Work values inventory (p. 155). Chicago, IL: Riverside.
Super, D. E. (1973). The work values inventory. In D. Zytowski (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to interest
measurement (pp. 189–205). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tang, M., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1999). Asian Americans’ career choice: A path model to examine fac-
tors influencing their career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4, 142–157.
Taris, R., & Feij, F. A. (2001). Longitudinal examination of the relationship between supplies-values fit and
work outcomes. Applied Psychology, 50, 52–81.
Ulrich, D. N., & Dunne, H. P. (1986). To love and to work: A systematic interlocking of family, workplace, and
career. New York, NY: Brunner Mazel.
Whiston, S. C., & Keller, B. K. (2004). The influences of the family of origin on career development: A review
and analysis. Counseling Psychologist, 32, 493–568.
Yeh, H., & Lempers, J. D. (2004). Perceived sibling relationship and adolescent development. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence. 33, 133–147.

View publication stats