tool character of its propositions, and avoids premature attempts at
stating explanatory postulates and devising logico-deductive super-
structures. The theory addresses functionalism’s main concern, that
is, adaptive patterns rather than personality traits, in asking two
central questions: What do people do? and Why do they do it?
(Marx & Hillix, 1963). To answer these questions, the theory for-
mulates data-oriented propositions that, as a series of summarizing
statements, remain closely tied to empirical findings. The theory
then organizes these propositions into an interpretive schema that
aims to be heuristic, not predictive.
A review of the theory’s evaluation by critics necessarily con-
centrates on prior versions of career construction theory, namely
vocational development theory and life-span, life-space theory. In
general, evaluations of the theory conclude that it provides a useful
description of vocational behavior and its development—one that
incorporates research findings from the main streams of psychology
and sociology and summarizes these results in the form of proposi-
tions (Borgen, 1991; Hackett, Lent, & Greenhaus, 1991; Osipow &
Fitzgerald, 1996). These two strengths relate to the theory’s greatest
weakness. Although it easily incorporates mainstream research and
comprehensively describes vocational development, the theory’s
propositions lack the fixed logical form needed to test its validity and
generate new hypotheses (Betz, 1994; Brown, 1990; Swanson &
Gore, 2000). More often than not, the theory is invoked retrospec-
tively to explain and interpret research findings, not to structure a
study prospectively (Hackett, Lent, & Greenhaus, 1991). Never-
theless, the theory does successfully provide a cogent framework for
post hocinterpretation and integration of empirical facts.
Most reviews of the empirical research on the theory (for exam-
ple, Hackett & Lent, 1992; Osipow & Fitzgerald, 1996) reach three
conclusions: (1) the data generally support the model, (2) the
developmental segment is well documented, and (3) data relative
to the self-concept segment generally agree with the theory. The
data about success in earlier tasks predicting success in later tasks
have been viewed as more equivocal (Hackett & Lent, 1992), yet
the problems of selecting appropriate predictive validity criteria for
A DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR 183