iting options unnecessarily, it renders both circumscription and
compromise non-optimal.
Group Differences
The same ambiguities that plague the interpretation of so much re-
search on individual differences also plague research on group dif-
ferences. Although there are now statistical methods to decompose
average group differences into their genetic and nongenetic com-
ponents, few such analyses have yet been done. It seems likely,
however, that many group differences in career-related traits and
behaviors—particularly sex differences—have genetic as well as
nongenetic origins.
Specifically, we might expect some gene-based sex differences
in profiles of interests, abilities, and temperaments related to deal-
ings with people versus things. The sexes overlap greatly in most
abilities and interests, but the same fundamental sex differences in
interests and abilities tend, in fact, to exist the world over. It is also
highly likely that cultures either magnify or suppress any gene-based
sex differences in behavior. For instance, some traditional societies
may suppress individual differences among men or among women,
and some may even enforce adherence to cultural roles that exag-
gerate natural differences between the sexes. No matter how well a
culture’s sex roles may fit the average man or woman, however, the
fit will pinch for many. Some modern societies are attempting to
mute or eradicate sex differences in behavior, thereby perhaps
enforcing an unnatural similarity that may pinch a different subset
of men and women—but pinch equally painfully.
Nature-Nurture Partnership
Approach to Career Counseling
The original circumscription and compromise theory directed
attention to two underappreciated problems in career development.
First, many young people unnecessarily and unwittingly narrow
GOTTFREDSON’S THEORY OF CIRCUMSCRIPTION, COMPROMISE, AND SELF-CREATION 133