The PIC Model Prof. Itamar Gati The Hebrew University Jerusalem.
-
date post
22-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of The PIC Model Prof. Itamar Gati The Hebrew University Jerusalem.
The PIC Model
Prof. Itamar Gati
The Hebrew University Jerusalem
Today’s presentation will present (and try to justify) the claim that
Career counseling may be viewed as decision counseling, which aims at facilitating the clients' decision-making process, and promoting better career decisions.
How?
By presenting the PIC model (Prescreening, In-depth exploration and Choice), highlighting the ways it addresses the shortcomings of the theoretical approaches which dominate the career-guidance field
By demonstrating PIC’s clinical applicability by presenting MBCD - an Internet-based career guidance system based on the model’s rationale
By presenting research which examined the theoretical validity and practical effectiveness of the PIC model and MBCD for facilitating clients' career decision-making.
Part 1The PIC Model: Rationale and Stages
Or: Who needs another model?
Theoretical approaches dominating the field of career decision-making
Career development theories -- focus on the developmental circumstances in which decisions are made and the effects of these changes on career decisions
Person-Environment Fit approach --
focuses on the congruence between individuals' characteristics and the characteristics of an occupation
The problem: Lack of reference to the essence of the decision-making process
P-E Fit approach – focus mainly on the outcomes of the decision-making process
Career development theories focus on the developmental changes that occur before and between decision tasks
the challenge is to design a systematic procedure that can facilitate the process of locating the congruent occupational alternatives in specific situations requiring choices along the developmental continuum
Career Decision-Making in the 21th Century
Today, career decision-making is a multi-decisional, un-predictable, dynamic, and life-lasting process with numerous transitions; thus, individuals should be trained as autonomous decision-makers (while P-E Fit models typically focus on a static match)
Today, cultural emphasis on self-fulfilment and personal satisfaction increases individuals' awareness to changes in their preferences over time (while P-E fit models make a one-time classification of the individual into one or more personality types – a snap-shot)
Choosing a Career as a Decision-Making Process: Unique Features
Amount of Information: Often large N of alternatives Large N of considerations and factors Within-occupation variance Practically unlimited
Quality of Information Soft, subjective Fuzzy Inaccurate or biased
Choosing a Career as a Decision-Making Process: Unique Features (Cont.)
Uncertainty about the individual’s future preferences about future career options unpredictable changes and opportunities choice implementation
Non-cognitive Factors emotional and personality-related factors necessity for compromise actual or perceived social barriers and biases
CDM Difficulties of 15,000 surfers on the Future Directions website (Gati & Meyers, 2003)
• Are you experiencing difficulties in making your career decision?
Implications and Conclusion
Many factors contribute to the complexity of the career decision-making process, and to the difficulties involved
Decision-making models can be adapted to facilitate career decision-making
Career counseling may be viewed as decision counseling, which aims at facilitating the clients' decision-making process and promoting better career decisions.
Among the salient difficulties is “lack of information about the career decision-making process” (4)
The Distribution of the Three Levels of Difficulties (negligible, moderate, salient difficulty) in the Ten Difficulty Categories and Four Groups (N = 6192; H-Hebrew, E-English, p-paper and pencil, I-Internet)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
H H E E H H E E H H E E H H E E H H E E H H E E H H E E H H E E H H E E H H E E
p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I p I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
salient difficulty moderate difficulty no difficulty
Types of decision-making models 1- Normative models:
Dominated decision theories for many decades
Aim at developing procedures for making optimal choices, based on the assumption that human beings are rational decision-makers
Empirical evidence demonstrates that this assumption typically does not hold, especially when the number of potential alternatives is large
Thus, normative models are overly rational, too abstract and too quantitative for everyday decisions as well as for decision counseling
Types of decision-making models 2- Descriptive models:
Investigate the ways people actually make decisions; reveal biases, inconsistencies and limited rationality, leading to less than optimal decisions.
Because descriptive models cannot serve as a reference point for justifiable decisions, they cannot be used as a basis for adequate decision-guidance.
Types of decision-making models 3- Prescriptive decision models:
Aim at outlining a framework for making better decisions, while acknowledging human limitations
Correspond with the intuitive ways individuals make decisions
In the context of career decision making, aim at providing a framework for a systematic process for making better career decisions, instead of striving for rational ones
Prescriptive models should:
be intuitively appealing be feasible – compatible with cognitive and
material limitations avoid complicated calculations on the one hand,
and fuzzy abstraction on the other strive for maximal simplification but at the same
time minimize the potential loss resulting from a non-comprehensive search process
offer multi-level complexity
Our proposal - The PIC Model Prescreening, In-depth exploration, Choice (Gati & Asher, 2001)
PIC is a prescriptive model designed to possess these desirable features by offering a systematic framework for career-decision making
Facilitates the decision-making process by separating it into three distinct stages:
- Prescreening
- In-depth exploration
- Choice
The PIC Model
Encompasses the entire career-decision making process
Clients can begin the process from any of the stages according to their progress in the decision-making process
Is a dynamic and flexible decision process Encourages clients to move back and forth
between the stages in order to rethink and reinforce their previous responses
Before Beginning the Decision-Making Process: Assessing and Increasing the Client’s Readiness
Evaluating the client’s general level of career indecision
Examining his or her specific difficulties in reaching a decision
Assessing career choice anxiety
Identifying dysfunctional beliefs
Explaining the steps of the decision-making process to the client
Prescreening
Goal: Locating a small set (about 7) of promising alternatives that deserve further, in-depth exploration
Method: Sequential Elimination (based on the elimination-by-aspects strategy - Tversky, 1972, which was shown to be compatible with the ways people actually make decisions)
Outcome: A list of verified promising alternatives worth further, in-depth exploration
Locating and prioritizing aspects or factors
Explicate the within-factor preferences of the most important factor not yet considered
Eliminate incompatible alternatives
Too many promising alternatives?
This is the recommended list of occupations
worth further, in-depth exploration
yes
no
Steps in Sequential Elimination
Career-Related Aspects
The search for promising career alternatives is based on individuals' preferences in career-related aspects -- all variables that can be used to characterize either individuals' preferences and abilities or career alternatives
The use of a large set of career-related aspects provides a more accurate description of both preferences and occupations, thus leading to a better person-environment fit
1) Selecting the relevant aspects to be used in the search
it is impractical to consider all possible aspects; hence, the individual must choose a subset of aspects to focus on
The list should include objective constraints (e.g., disability), personal competencies (e.g., creativity, technical skills), and core personal preferences
2) Ranking the aspects by importance
The sequential elimination process begins with the most important aspect, continues with the aspect second in importance, and so on, until the list of remaining alternatives is short enough (i.e., 7 or less)
Ranking is necessary in order to avoid stopping the search before the most important aspects have been considered
3) Defining the range of acceptable levels for the more important aspects
Within aspect preferences: descriptive labels are used to represent within-aspect qualitative variations
The individuals’ preferred level is labeled the optimal level. Additional levels, which are less desirable but still acceptable, are labeled acceptable levels
The choice of a compromise range explicitly guides individuals to consider compromise, encouraging a more realistic perspective
4) Comparison of individuals’ range of acceptable levels with the alternatives characteristic levels
Occupations are also characterised by a range of levels ( within-occupation variations)
For each aspect, the characteristics of all potential alternatives are compared with the individual’s preferences, and incompatible alternatives are eliminated
The process is repeated for the remaining aspects (in descending order of importance) until the number of remaining “promising” alternatives is manageable.
A Schematic Presentation of theSequential Elimination Process (within aspects, across alternatives)
Potential Alternatives
1 2 3 4 . . . . N
Aspects
a (most important)
b (second in
importance)
c
.
n Promising Alternatives
Sequential elimination is a non-compensatory decision strategy
even a small gap between the individual's preferred levels and the characteristics of the occupation is enough to eliminate an alternative
an advantage in one attribute cannot compensate for a disadvantage in another (indeed, in important decisions such as career decisions, not all disadvantages can be compensated for)
(a) Inclusion (b) Partial Overlap (c) No Overlap (d) Almost Overlap
ar
ar
arcl
cl
cl
cl
ar
LA-L8
Four Examples of a within-aspect compatibility test: A comparison between the Acceptable Range for the individual (ar), and the Characteristic levels of an alternative (cl)
Sensitivity Analysis
A potentially suitable alternative might be eliminated because of a slight mismatch in a single aspect – therefore, there is a need for a "safety check“; reexamining the implications of changes in the individual's inputs upon the outcome – the list of "promising" career options: Rethinking the range of acceptable levels reported Understanding why certain alternatives considered
intuitively appealing before the systematic search were eliminated
Locating alternatives that were discarded due to only a small discrepancy in a single aspect and considering compromise
The Five Steps of the Prescreening Stage
List of Promising Alternatives
(b) Ranking Aspects by Importance
(a) Selecting Relevant Aspects
(c) Defining the Range of Acceptable Levels for the Most Important Aspect Not Yet Considered
(e) Sensitivity Analysis
Initial List of Potential Alternatives
Is the list of remaining
occupations too long?
Yes
(d) Comparing the Individual’s Range of Acceptable Levels with the Characteristic Levels of the Alternatives: Eliminating Incompatible Alternatives
No
LA-L7b
In-depth exploration
Goal: Locating alternatives that are not only promising, but suitable for the individual.
Method: “zoom in" on one promising alternative at a time, collecting additional, comprehensive information about it: Is the occupation INDEED suitable for me?
verifying compatibility with one’s preferences in the most important aspects
considering compatibility within the less important aspects
considering willingness to meet the occupation’s requirements
Am I suitable for the occupation? probability of actualization
fit with the core aspects of the occupation
Outcome: A few most suitable alternatives (about 3-4)
Core Aspects
While many aspects are required to describe any career option, usually only a few of them are crucial for the characterization of a particular occupation.
core aspects significantly contribute to the prediction of occupational-choice satisfaction
A Suitability Test for a promising Alternative during the In-depth Exploration Stage
Confirming the fit to the core aspects of the
alternative
Considering compatibility with preferences in the
less important aspects as well
Verifying compatibility with preferences in the
most important aspects
Examining probability of actualization
Unsuitable Alternative
Suitable Alternative
Do I fit the alternative?
Does the alternative suit
me?
Promising Alternative
LA-L10
A Schematic Presentation of the In-depth Exploration Stage (within-alternative, across aspects)
Promising AlternativesPromising Alternatives1 2 3 4 5 6
Suitable Suitable AlternativesAlternatives
LA-L9
2 4 5
Choice
Goal: To choose the most suitable alternative and rank-order additional, second-best alternatives
Method: A detailed, refined comparison among the suitable alternatives,
focusing on the differences among them
pinpointing the most suitable alternative
is it likely that I can actualize it? if not: selecting second-best alternative(s)
if yes: am I confident in my choice? if not: Return to In-depth exploration stage
if yes: Done!
Outcome: An alternative or a rank-order of alternatives
Comparing and evaluating the suitable alternatives
The comparison can now be based on a normative-compensatory model, aimed at locating the optimal alternative, because: the number of alternatives under
consideration is small it is possible to evaluate each alternative across all aspects
the considered alternatives are all acceptable, thus the compromises involved in a trade-off are more subtle
The Cancellation Operation (based on the search for dominance model, Montgomery, 1989)
Attributes that the individual perceives as advantageous and as related to one another are grouped and used to counterbalance an advantage of the other alternative on a different combination of attributes, which are equivalent in desirability until the net advantages of one alternative will show that it is more suitable
A Schematic Presentation of the Choice Stage
Return to In-depth exploration stage
Compare the suitable alternatives and choose the most suitable one
Select second-best alternative(s)
No
No
Yes
No
Suitable Alternatives
Done!
Am I confident with my choice?
Is there only one suitable alternative?
Is its actualization certain?
Yes
Yes
The choice is made
Most suitable alternative identified
LA-L11
CriterionStage
Direction of comparison
PrescreeningHorizontal: within aspect, across alternatives
In-depthsVertical: within alternative, across aspects
choiceDepends on the number of suitable alternatives and the type of model used for the search
FocusPrescreeningWhat doesn’t fit the preferences?
In-depthsVerifying degree of match
choiceThe optimal level
Combining preferences and abilities
PrescreeningFocus on preferences
In-depthsFocus on preferences and abilities
choiceFocus on preferences and abilities
Criterion-
continued
Stage
CompromisePrescreeningExtending range of acceptable levels in the most important aspects
In-depthsComprehensive examination, increasing odds for implementation
choiceDecreasing weight of certain aspects, willingness to prioritize also second-best alternatives
Dealing with uncertainty
PrescreeningExtending range of acceptable levels (taken into consideration the possibility for change in preferences in the future)
In-depthsUsing information for reducing insecurity regarding the match among the individual and the alternative
choiceIdentifying second-best alternatives if implementation of the chosen alternative is uncertain
PIC versus P-E Fit Approaches
Common Feature: The goal is to maximize the fit between the individual and work
environment.
Differences: P-E Fit mainly focuses on the outcome, whereas PIC also
focuses on the process. Screening which is based on aspects (rather than on interests or
needs only) is “richer” and more flexible. P-E Fit implies a single-step prescreening (without explicating
additional steps), whereas PIC prescribes a multi-step, systematic, and interactive process.
The notion of core aspects yields a promise for improving congruence.
PIC versus Normative Decision Theory
Common Feature: The choice is the outcome of a systematic, analytic
decision process.
Differences: “Bounded Rationality” in PIC substitutes Rationality in
NDT. PIC is less quantitative (but still permits a structured
search during prescreening). PIC is less complex and more natural. PIC is especially useful in cases where N of potential
alternatives is large
To sum up: The PIC model
The search for suitable alternatives is based on:
a wide set of career-related aspects rather than only vocational interests,
A range of levels to represent both the individual's preferences and the occupations
Includes a reexamination of one's input
therefore the P-E fit resulting from it should lead to greater career-associated well-being than that based on a single-step-based person-occupation match.
Summary (Continued)
The PIC model turns the complex process of career choice into a sequence of well-defined tasks
Career-guidance based on the PIC model allows the deliberating client to play not only an active role, but a leading one in the decision-process
The PIC model deals with career choice from a cognitive point of view, however, some of the emotional problems and indecisiveness in choosing a career may be attributed to the lack of a framework for approaching career decision making - provided by PIC