An "Inverse" Validation of Holland's Theory
This article used an "inverse" approach to assess the validity of Holland's theory; that IS, it examined the degree of congruency between participant's least-characteristic Holland types and their least desirable occupational choice. Implications for career counselors are briefly outlined. ********** The most widely accepted method for describing occupations is Holland's (1985, 1997) theory of people and occupational environments. Holland's theory can be perceived as a direct attempt to organize and systematize the knowledge of self and, secondarily, as the matching of that self with occupational environments (Slaney, Hall, & Bieschke, 1993). The theory of careers proposed by Holland (1985, 1997) characterized persons and environments as a single set of six types. According to Holland (1985, 1997), most people in our culture can be classified as one of the six dominant types (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional). Thus an individual's personality (i.e., interests, values, abilities, fantasies) can be assessed by considering his or her three most dominant types. In Holland's typology, both personality and environment are expressed in three-letter codes. A three-letter code is formed by selecting, from Holland's six types, the three types that most closely characterize the person or his or her work-school environment. The three letter code provides a brief summary of what a person is like by showing the degree of resemblance to three occupational groups. For example, the three-letter code of CER suggests that the person has a dominant Conventional personality but also possesses the Enterprising and Realistic characteristics to a somewhat lesser degree. Extensive description of six types can be found in Holland (1985, 1997). Persons are assumed to be most satisfied, successful, and stable in a work environment that is congruent with their personality type. Much of the research on congruence includes a three-letter code comprising the person's three dominant Holland types (i.e., ASE). This study attempted to generate three-letter codes using a somewhat "inverse" method; specifically, after participants read each of the six Holland-type descriptions, they ranked each from most like to least like them. For purposes of this study, however, only the bottom three ranking were used (i.e., the three types perceived to be least like him or her). To illustrate, if a person's rank ordering of the six types was ASERIC, then the three-letter code used in this study was CIR. The method of generating three-letter codes by reading and then ranking self-descriptions of each type has been used by other researchers as a valid technique for producing a code (e.g., Cairo, 1982; Slaney, Hall, & Bieschke, 1993). In addition, instead of using a three-letter code associated with a desirable occupation, this study focused on participants' least desired occupation (i.e., an occupation they believe they would truly dislike). Given the overall validity of Holland's theory, it was hypothesized that this somewhat "inverse" method of testing Holland's typology would yield congruency figures consistent with those from studies using the more traditional approach. Congruency Defined In the context of Holland's typology, congruency is defined as the relative proximity in the hexagon between the person's dominant personality and the dominant type of his or her occupational environment, college major, or any pair of Holland three-letter codes (Gaff, 1985). The concept of congruency continues to be studied widely in the literature (Meir, 1989). For example, an entire issue of the Journal of Vocational Behavior (Spokane, 1985) was devoted to the conceptual and methodological issues of research on congruence. Generally, Holland's concept of congruency has been critiqued favorably a number of times over the past 25 years (e.g., D. Brown, 1987; Carkhuff, Alexik, & Anderson, 1967; Osipow, 1993; Spokane, 1985). …