& Cairns, 1988, p. 198). Their maps are primitive early in life, but
with increasing cognitive maturity they come to perceive the same
occupational map of the social order as adults do. The overall map
is probably common to all groups in the developed world (for exam-
ple, see Treiman, 1977, for an international occupational prestige
scale) but ought not be assumed so for impoverished or disorganized
nations in the Third World. When social orders differ, so too will
their members’ perceptions of them.
Individuals identify the occupations they most prefer by assess-
ing the compatibilityof different occupations with their images of
themselves. Compatibility is what is usually meant by the terms
congruenceandperson-environment fit.The greater the perceived
compatibility (suitability), the stronger the person’s preference.
Individuals may seek out but rarely achieve compatibility with all
elements of self. Occupations that conflict with core elements of
the self-concept will be most strongly rejected. The theory postu-
lates that (1) public presentations of masculinity-femininity will be
most carefully guarded, (2) protecting social standing among one’s
fellows will be of considerable but lesser concern, and (3) ensuring
fulfillment of activity preferences and personality needs via occu-
pation will be of least concern.
One’s most preferred occupations are not necessarily realistic or
available. Many barriers may stand in the way of implementing
them. Individuals therefore must also assess the accessibilityof occu-
pations when choosing which vocational alternatives to pursue.
What vocational psychologists typically refer to as occupational
aspirationsare the joint product of assessments of compatibilityand
accessibility.Aspirations are called expectationsorrealistic aspirations
when they are tempered by knowledge of obstacles and opportuni-
ties. They are called idealistic aspirationswhen they are not.
Social spacerefers to the range of alternatives within the cogni-
tive map of occupations that the person considers acceptable,
although the person may much prefer some of these alternatives to
others, as is illustrated in Figure 4.3. This zone of acceptable alterna-
tivesmay be large or small but reflects the individual’s view of where
he or she fits best into society.
GOTTFREDSON’S THEORY OF CIRCUMSCRIPTION, COMPROMISE, AND SELF-CREATION 91