even be definitive. Accessibility of training institutions, training
time required, cost of training and availability of other income
sources while training, family requirements, and future job prospects
are among the other conditions that have to be considered. One or
more of these conditions may outweigh PEC correspondence in a
choice decision at a given time.
The PEC theory just stated appears best adopted to a work set-
ting, which is not surprising, being derived as it is from TWA. How-
ever, a careful reading will show that PEC theory can be applied to
any environment, such as school, home, or even to social relation-
ships, in which one or more persons serve as “environment” to the
index person. What would be different from TWA would be the
requirements and capabilities that are salient for each E. The set of
salient requirements and capabilities would, in effect, distinguish
the E in question. In principle, all P variables (all P values and all P
abilities) would apply, although they would be weighted differently
for different Es. It is in this sense that PEC theory is a generalization
of TWA.
Validity of the PEC Theory
Dawis and Lofquist (1984) have summarized the research that has
been done to validate the propositions of PEC theory as applied to
the work environment, and the interested reader is referred to that
book for details.
Research Backing for the Propositions
In brief, there is good support for the first nine propositions of PEC
theory (on which the Work Adjustment Project concentrated its
efforts), but only a little research has been done to back up the last
eight propositions, mostly in unpublished doctoral dissertations.
Since the mid-1980s, most of our efforts shifted from theory testing
to using PEC theory in the real world. PEC theory was, and still is,
used as the guiding framework for a Vocational Assessment Clinic
454 CAREER CHOICE AND DEVELOPMENT