Clients’ Intuitions in Career Decision Making: Should Career Counselors Trust Them?

Abstract

Intuition often plays a significant role in many decisions, including career decisions. 412 deliberating individuals who used Comparing and Choosing (C&C), a free Internet-based career-decision-support system were asked about their intuitions – which occupation on their shortlist is more suitable. The occupation they marked as more suitable intuitively was compared with the outcomes of a systematic comparison of the occupations on their shortlist using C&C. Three facets of the participants’ intuitions were compared: (1) implicit––the first occupation on their shortlist; (2) explicit––the occupation they marked as more suitable; (3) the participants’ use of intuition elicited by the Career Decision-Making Profile questionnaire. C&C provides a suitability score for each occupation based on a multi-attribute decision-making model that weighs each occupation’s advantages and disadvantages. The first-listed occupation scored higher in suitability than the second, reflecting the informativeness of implicit intuitions. 74% of participants had explicit intuitions and marked one occupation on their shortlist as more suitable; for 60% of these participants, this occupation yielded the highest suitability score in C&C. As hypothesized, participants who reported a higher reliance on intuition marked intuitively the occupation that emerged as best in C&C. The limited informativeness of intuitions in career decision making was discussed.

Many factors contribute to the difficulties individuals encounter when making career decisions. Whereas some individuals undergo a relatively smooth career decision-making process, most face difficulties along the way. In such cases, individuals often rely on their intuitions, turn to informal sources, including family, friends, and other non-professional acquaintances (Lipshits-Braziler et al., 2022; Lynch et al., 2023), or seek guidance from career counselors (Whiston et al., 1998). Among the sources of these difficulties is the growing number and variety of college majors, occupations, or jobs in the uncertain world of work of the 21^st century. Preparing a shortlist of promising occupations helps prevent “drowning in the sea of information” (Gati & Asher, 2001; Lent & Brown, 2020). Then, after exploring the alternatives on their shortlist (Gati & Kulcsár, 2021), individuals often rely on their intuition to make their choice (Epstein, 2010; Yip et al., 2021).

Intuition, the “sixth sense” or “gut feeling,” has been described as a feeling of knowing things without conscious reasoning or as a feeling that guides a person to choose one option without fully understanding why and in the absence of any apparent evidence (Epstein, 2010; Kahneman, 2002; Sinclair & Ashkanasy, 2005). It is the first thing that comes to mind – fast, effortless, and automatic (Kahneman, 2011). Hogarth proposed that “the essence of intuition or intuitive responses is that they are reached with little apparent effort, and typically without conscious awareness. They involve little or no conscious deliberation” (Hogarth, 2010, p. 14). Intuition is regarded as a fundamental construct in the behavioral sciences (Hodgkinson et al., 2008), but its malleable (Kahneman, 2009) and intangible (Sipman et al., 2019) nature makes its study and measurement challenging.

Intuition is inherent in many everyday decisions, helping us make trivial as well as significant decisions. Its input is the knowledge we often acquire unintentionally and automatically, and its output is a feeling we use as a basis for judgments and decisions (e.g., Betsch, 2008; Tversky & Kahneman, 1983). Unsurprisingly, intuition also plays a significant role in career decisions and often complements reasoning (Hartung & Blustein, 2002). Krieshok (1998) argued that most information processing does not surface at a conscious level in career decision making. Later, Krieshok et al. (2009) suggested that rational and intuitive processes are intertwined, combining reason (the conscious, System II), intuition (the unconscious, System I), and engagement (enrichment and exploration) for adaptive career decision making. Intuition plays an important role not only at the initial stages of the decision-making process––the prescreening of alternatives and their in-depth exploration––but also at the choice stage when the individual chooses one alternative from the shortlist (Gati, 2013).

Intuitions differ in several features. These features include (a) whether it is used to make a judgment (e.g., the expected rate of inflation in 2025) or a decision (e.g., which car to buy), (b) whether it is used under time pressure (to steer right or left to avoid an accident) or not, (c) whether it is used by an expert or a layperson, (d) the magnitude of the judgment or the decision (e.g., a judge’s ruling), and (e) the individual’s confidence in their intuition (high to low). The present study focused on young adults’ intuitions when choosing the most suitable occupation from their shortlist. Whereas these decisions are not made under time pressure, they are critical to an individual with no experience in making decisions of this sort.

To examine intuitions, we analyzed data from individuals who utilized Comparing and Choosing (C&C), a career decision-support module available on a free, anonymous, self-help website. This module is designed to assist individuals in an attribute-based analysis of the career alternatives on their final shortlist and guides the user in a systematic comparison between them; its outcome highlights the most suitable occupation. We compared participants’ intuitions on the more suitable occupation on their shortlist with the C&C module’s outcome. In addition, we examined the associations between participants’ self-reported inclination to rely on their intuition in their career decisions and to what extent their intuitive choice aligned with the occupation that emerged as best in C&C.

Prescreening, In-Depth Exploration, and Choice (PIC)

A salient difficulty many individuals face in their career decision-making process is a lack of knowledge about the stages involved (Amir et al., 2008). To address this issue, Gati and Asher (2001) introduced the PIC model, which guides individuals in the three key stages of the career decision-making process: Prescreening, In-depth exploration, and Choice. The PIC module offers a systematic process for gathering and processing relevant information.

The Prescreening stage focuses on identifying a small set of promising career alternatives based on the attributes, factors, or considerations important to the individual. The In-depth exploration stage mandates a thorough examination of each promising alternative from the Prescreening stage, evaluating each career alternative’s requirements, benefits, and challenges. This information helps determine how each of the promising alternatives aligns with the individual’s desired attributes, including preferences, interests, values, skills, and abilities. The outcome of this stage is a shortlist of alternatives that are not only promising but indeed suitable and feasible. The final stage, Choice, aims to ascertain the most suitable shortlisted career alternative (or rank them) by systematically comparing and evaluating their advantages and shortcomings.

Gati and his colleagues reviewed research related to the Prescreening and In-depth exploration stages (Gati et al., 2019; Gati & Kulcsár, 2021; Gati & Levin, 2015). The prescreening and in-depth exploration stages’ descriptive and predictive validity have been supported (Gadassi & Gati, 2009; Gati et al., 2006; Gati & Tikotzki, 1989). Research has underscored that decision aids, particularly computer-assisted career planning systems, significantly enhance the effectiveness of Prescreening and In-depth exploration, thereby facilitating more informed career decision making (Betz & Borgen, 2010; Gati et al., 2001; Whiston et al., 1998). Moreover, adherence to recommendations provided by these systems has been found to mitigate gender bias in career choice (Gadassi & Gati, 2009) and increase the prospect of long-term career satisfaction (Gati et al., 2006).

Facilitating Decisions at the Choice Stage

Lent and Brown (2020) proposed that after self- and career exploration, individuals can utilize the balance sheet (Janis & Mann, 1977) to compare their “finalists” using criteria relevant to them. Katz (1966) suggested a systematic approach for comparing career alternatives and choosing among them, applying a compensatory model based on the multi-criteria or multi-attribute utility theory (Pitz & Harren, 1980; Sauermann, 2005). The compensatory model assumes that the advantages of an alternative can offset its disadvantages, and thus, using this model should facilitate the decision maker choosing the alternative that best fits their preferences (von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986). In a compensatory model, each alternative is described as a set of relevant attributes (e.g., income, prospects of professional advancement, autonomy, teamwork, use of numerical abilities, shift work). Each alternative’s estimated desirability is represented by computing the sum of its perceived benefits or utility across all attributes for each alternative. This estimate considers the size of the gap between the optimal level for the individual in an attribute (e.g., only indoors for ‘work environment’) and the attribute’s corresponding level for an alternative under consideration (e.g., about equal indoors and outdoors), then weighs this gap by the attribute’s relative importance to the individual.

Empirical research addressing the Choice stage has been sparse. Using a variation of the compensatory model, Zakay and Barak (1984) reported that individuals follow a “meaning” approach, where values (i.e., utilities) are assigned to career alternatives, representing the extent to which each alternative corresponds to their ideals. In two decision realms––choosing a major and choosing a high school track––participants tend to choose the alternative most similar to their ideal one (Zakay & Barak, 1984).

Amit and Gati (2013) compared an analytical versus a holistic decision model for the Choice stage. Their findings indicated that a systematic comparison among alternatives and their compensatory-model-based evaluation was perceived by the participants to be more effective than the holistic model. However, the holistic approach, based on a global evaluation of each alternative, contributed to the participants’ confidence in their choice. Amit and Gati concluded that a computerized version of the compensatory model could benefit the deliberating individual by offering guidance through the systematic comparison among the alternatives.

Comparing and Choosing

Comparing and Choosing (C&C) is an internet-based decision-support module that guides individuals through the final stage of career decision-making – the Choice stage. C&C uses attribute-based preferences elicited from the individual, resulting in an overall suitability score for each alternative. The module aims to help individuals systematically compare the alternatives on their shortlist using a multi-attribute, compensatory model. C&C is an enhanced and expanded version of Katz’s (1966) decision table, guiding the individual through a structured sequence of steps. The specific sequence of steps in C&C is described in detail in the Method section. The module’s outcome is an overall estimate of the suitability of each alternative, reflecting the degree of compatibility between the individual’s attribute-based preferences and the perceived corresponding attributes of each occupation. In the absence of an objective criterion, the most suitable occupation (i.e., the C&C outcome) would be an indicator of the informativeness and, hence, the usefulness of the participants’ intuitions in career decisions.

Individual Differences in How People Use Intuition in Career Decisions

Individuals differ in their career decision-making styles (Harren, 1979) or profiles (Gati et al., 2012). Harren (1979) suggested that an individual’s decision-making style refers to the person’s typical mode of approaching and making decisions; he proposed three major decision-making styles: rational, intuitive, and dependent. Scott and Bruce (1995) added avoidant and spontaneous to these three styles. Gati and his colleagues proposed an alternative approach that uses a 12-dimensional profile to describe how individuals tend to make career decisions (Gati et al., 2012; Gati & Levin, 2012). One of the 12 dimensions is using intuition (much vs. scarcely); it refers to the degree to which individuals rely on internal (gut) feelings during career decision making after the information has been gathered.

Singh and Greenhaus (2004) have shown that whereas intuitive decision making is ineffective, using both the rational and intuitive approaches in career decision making can enhance the effectiveness of one’s career choice, defined as a high person-job fit. In their study, participants were professional employees who retrospectively reported the career decision-making strategies they applied in their job change decisions. The participants in the present research were actively engaged in career decision making. They used the C&C module at their initiative as part of their decision-making process to choose an occupation or major. Thus, we analyzed data gathered from individuals genuinely deliberating among a few alternatives on their shortlist during the choice stage of their career decision-making process.

The Present Research

Individuals often use their intuition during career decision making instead of or in addition to systematic reasoning. At the beginning of the career decision-making process, intuition is almost always present – most individuals begin the process with a general direction or even specific relevant options. Aside from using intuition in the Prescreening and In-depth Exploration stages, we assume intuition also plays a significant role in the Choice stage. The compatibility between the systematic comparison outcome at the choice stage and the intuitively determined suitable occupation can enhance individuals’ confidence in their choice (Gati & Asher, 2001). As intuition and systematic comparison and evaluation can be viewed as complementary rather than contradictory (Gati, 2013), a lack of compatibility may require re-examining both the systematic decision process and the intuitive choice to reveal the source of the incongruence, then resolving the mismatch to increase the prospect of a better career decision (Gati & Kulcsár, 2021).

The question most often asked regarding intuition is whether it can be relied upon. This question applies to intuition’s contribution and benefit in all career decision-making stages. In the present research, we focused on the compatibility between the occupation intuitively marked as the more suitable and the one that emerged as best in a systematic comparison during the Choice stage.

We focused on three facets of intuition: (i) implicit–– the occupation listed first on the participant’s shortlist; (ii) explicit––the occupation on the shortlist that the participant intuitively marked as more suitable; and (iii) the participant’s self-reported use of intuition, as measured by the using intuition scale of the Career Decision-Making Profile questionnaire (aimed at mapping how individuals tend to make career decisions; Gadassi et al., 2012). We compared these intuition facets with the occupation that emerged the best from the C&C module’s systematic comparison of the shortlisted occupations.

Hypotheses

(H1) The informativeness of the implicit intuitions – the order of the occupations on the shortlist. We did not ask participants to report their shortlist of occupations in any order, directly or indirectly; they were just asked to write the occupations they were considering in empty, unnumbered rectangles, one below the other. We assumed that the intuitive order of the occupations on the shortlist would not be random; rather, the order would likely be affected by the availability heuristic, reflecting recency and vividness (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Thus, the first-listed occupation reflects the participants’ gut feelings about the occupation they perceive as more suitable; we regarded this occupation as an indicator of the participants’ intuitive choice. We hypothesized that the C&C-assigned suitability score of the first-listed occupation would be higher than the second-listed occupation’s suitability score.

(H2a) Explicit intuition and its compatibility with the C&C- derived outcome. We expected that most participants could report their intuitive choice when prompted to do so and indicate which of the occupations on their shortlist seems to them to be more suitable. To test the informativeness of explicit intuition, we compared it to the outcome of the C&C - the overall suitability scores of the occupations. We hypothesized that for participants who indicate their more suitable occupation after a prompt, this occupation will have the highest suitability score in the systematic comparison by C&C.

(H2b) Comparing the participants who reported their explicit intuition and those who did not. To test the informativeness of the explicit intuitions, we compared these two groups using two criteria. First, we hypothesized that the mean suitability score of the “best” occupation in the C&C comparison (i.e., the occupation with the highest suitability score) would be higher for participants who reported their explicit intuition than for those who did not.

(H2c) Another indicator of the informativeness of explicit intuitions is the gap between the suitability scores in C&C of the “best” occupation and the “second best” occupation. We assumed that a larger difference between the suitability scores of these occupations would be reflected in a stronger intuition about their suitability. Hence, we hypothesized that this difference would be larger for those who reported their explicit intuitions by marking one of the occupations as more suitable than those without explicit intuitions.

(H3) The compatibility between explicit and implicit intuitions. If both the explicit and implicit intuitions represent gut feelings about the more suitable occupation on the shortlist, they can be expected to be compatible. Accordingly, we hypothesized that explicit and implicit intuitions tend to match: Those marking one of the occupations as more suitable will be more likely to list that occupation first on their shortlist.

(H4) The informativeness of the indirect intuitions – the participants’ self-reported use of intuition. We looked at the participants’ self-reported use of intuition when making career decisions, as reflected in their score on the Using Intuition scale of the CDMPq (Gati & Levin, 2012), and examined whether the self-reported tendency to use intuitions was associated with having explicit intuition, as reflected in marking one of the occupations as more suitable intuitively. We hypothesized that individuals having explicit intuition would report a greater use of intuition on the CDMPq than those not using explicit intuition.

(H5) The associations between the participant’s self-reported use of intuitions and the informativeness of the participant’s explicit intuitions. As noted, informative explicit intuition is defined as a match between the occupation marked intuitively and the occupations that emerged as the most suitable in the C&C comparison. We labeled this group the congruent intuition group. Uninformative explicit intuition refers to a mismatch between the occupation they intuitively marked and the occupation that emerged as the most suitable in the C&C comparison. This group was labeled the incongruent intuition group. We tested the hypothesis that those in the congruent intuition group would report greater use of intuition as measured by the CDMPq than those in the incongruent intuition group.

Method

Participants

We analyzed the data of 412 users at the www.cddq.org website (a free, anonymous, public-service in Israel aiming to facilitate career decision making; who used the Comparing and Choosing (C&C) decision-support module at their initiative. From the initial pool of 534 visitors whose data were collected, 10 participants were excluded due to technical problems with data encoding, and 26 were excluded from the analyses because their CDMPq validity item responses reflected insufficient attention. In addition, seven participants were excluded due to a lack of variance in their “fit” ratings (i.e., the fit scores of the occupations were identical), indicating they either did not understand or did not follow the instructions. Furthermore, 16 participants were excluded due to age (3 were below 17 and 13 were 41–63). Finally, 63 participants who reported “I do not even have a general direction” (n = 54) or “I am already sure of the occupation I will choose” (n = 9) in the Range of Considered Alternatives question (see Instruments) were excluded from the analyses, as these responses indicated that they were either before or after the Choice stage. Thus, we analyzed the data of 412 participants (M_age = 23.67, SD = 4.69, median 22, mode 21), reflecting that most were after their 2–3 years of mandatory military service (for women and men, respectively) or after 1–2 years of the optional civil service. Most participants were women (71.9%), and their mean education level was 12.54 years (SD = 2.04), with a mode of 12 years (78.2% of participants), reflecting that most completed high school.

Instruments

Comparing and Choosing (C&C)

C&C is a computerized module that guides deliberating individuals in a systematic comparison among a small set of career alternatives (2–4). Its goal is to help identify the best alternative based on a multi-attribute, compensatory decision-making model. Specifically, (a) participants were first asked to report: “How many occupations are you considering (between 2–4)?” and then list them: “Please list the occupations you are considering” (in empty rectangles, presented one below the other, based on the number of alternatives the participant reported). Next, (b) half of the participants, chosen randomly, were instructed, “If there is an occupation that intuitively seems more suitable for you, please click the circle on its left”; the other half of the participants were asked this question after Step (g) (see below) to control for a potential carry-over effect. Then, (c) they were asked to list 3–12 attributes that are important to them for comparing the occupations on their shortlist (e.g., length of studies, teamwork, working in shifts, income, hand dexterity, flexibility of working hours, work environment). Participants could access a list of attributes often used for comparing occupations by clicking on a link. Next, (d) participants were asked to rate the relative importance of the attributes they listed by assigning a number to each, reflecting its relative importance so that the total importance ratings would sum to 100. Then, (e) participants were requested to report their optimal (i.e., desired) level for each attribute (e.g., “only indoors” for work environment) and record it in an open text box. Subsequently, (f) for each attribute, the participants were asked to rate the extent to which each occupation is compatible with the level they reported as optimal in that attribute, using a five-point scale ranging from 0 (the occupation does not fit my preference in that attribute at all) to 4 (the occupation perfectly fits my optimal level in that attribute). For example, if the optimal level was “only indoors,” an occupation that involves working “only indoors” should get a fit score of 4, whereas an occupation that involves working “only outdoors” should get a fit score of 0. (g) This information was summarized in the Comparison Table (CT) presented to the participant. The participant was given the option of revising the relative importance of the attributes, or the number representing the degree of fit between an occupation and their optimal level in an attribute. Then, (h) the participants were presented with the computed overall suitability score of each occupation, with higher numbers indicating a better fit to their preferences. The suitability score of each occupation comprised the sum of the products of the relative importance of the attribute and the fit score (0–4), yielding a range of 0–400. These total suitability scores were presented in an additional bottom row in the Comparison Table (see Table in Appendix A). Finally, (i) participants proceeded to the final summary of the process. They received feedback about the compatibility of the intuitively marked occupation (if they marked one) with the occupation that emerged as best in the C&C module, and recommendations in case of incompatibility between the participant’s intuitions and the outcomes of the systematic comparison by C&C.

The Career Decision-Making Profiles Questionnaire (CDMPq)

The CDMPq is a self-report questionnaire that maps how individuals tend to make career decisions (Gati & Levin, 2012). The CDMPq comprises 39 statements, 36 of them representing the CDMPq’s 12 dimensions (three statements per dimension). The questionnaire also included a “warm-up” item and two validity items to verify that the participants paid adequate attention when responding (Gati et al., 2012). Each statement represents one of the two poles of each dimension. The 12 dimensions are information gathering, information processing, locus of control, effort invested in the process, procrastination, speed of making the final decision, consulting with others, dependence on others, desire to please others, aspiration for an ideal occupation, willingness to compromise, and using intuition. The following three statements represent the using intuition dimension: “When I make a decision, I rely mainly on my intuition,” “When I need to make a choice, I tend to trust my instincts,” and “At the point of decision, I am usually guided by my gut feeling.” The participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with each of the 39 statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (completely agree).

The Cronbach’s α internal-consistency reliability estimates of the 12 dimensions ranged from .75 to .88 and from .77 to .90 in two studies (Gati et al., 2012; Gati & Levin, 2012, respectively). Gati and Levin (2012) reported that the median within-participant two-week test-retest reliability was .90, and the median one-year test-retest stability was .81. In the current sample, the median Cronbach’s α internal-consistency reliability estimate of the 12 dimensions was .81 (range .76–.90); the Cα reliability of the using intuition dimension was .87. Previous research supported the concurrent, construct, incremental, and predictive validities of the CDMPq (Gadassi et al., 2012, 2013; Ginevra et al., 2012; Tian et al., 2014).

The Individual’s Career Decision Status

The Range of Considered Alternatives (RCA; Saka et al., 2008; Xu, 2023) was used to assess the individual’s career decision status, defined as the degree to which the individual has narrowed the set of considered occupations. Participants were asked to choose a single statement among six that best described them: (1) “I do not even have a general direction”; (2) “I have only a general direction”; (3) “I am deliberating among a small number of specific occupations”; (4) “I am considering a specific occupation, but would like to explore other options before I make my decision”; (5) “I know which occupation I am interested in, but I would like to feel sure of my choice”; and (6) “I am already sure of the occupation I will choose.” The RCA is a self-report measure used in previous research to assess advancement toward making a career decision (Saka et al., 2008; Xu, 2023). To ensure that the participants were considering some specific occupations and thus were likely to be at the choice stage when using C&C, we excluded those who selected options (1) or (6) in the RCA question from the analyses (see Participants).

Transparency and Openness Promotion

The English version of C&C, which served as a guide for the systematic comparison of the shortlisted occupations, is accessible at www.cddq.org. A copy of the analyzed dataset is available from the first author. The research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hebrew University #20180510.

Design

To control for potential carry-over effects, about half of the participants completed the CDMPq and then the C&C, while the other half completed them in reverse order. Another difference in the procedure was the placement of the Intuitive Choice question, where the participant was asked to intuitively mark the more suitable occupation (the Intuitive Choice; IC). Half of the participants were given the IC question before completing the Comparison Table (CT), whereas the other half were given the IC question afterward. Thus, there were four possible sequences: (1) CDMPq-C&C(IC,CT); (2) CDMPq-C&C(CT,IC); (3) C&C(IC,CT)-CDMPq; (4) C&C(CT,IC)-CDMPq. The number of participants in the four groups ranged from 95 to 116.

Procedure

The participants who chose to use the C&C module did so at their initiative during their visit to the www.cddq.org website. They first reported general demographic information (gender, age, and years of education). Next, they were asked to respond to the RCA question; then, they were randomly assigned to begin with the CDMPq and later complete the C&C or vice versa. After listing the 2–4 occupations on which they were deliberating, the participants continued with the C&C or the CDMPq. After completing both, participants were presented with their results summarized in the Comparison Table of C&C, which included the computed overall suitability scores for each occupation they listed.

Preliminary Analyses

We computed the 12 CDMPq scores for each participant, including the using intuition scale. Next, we recorded or computed the following indices for the C&C for each participant: (a) the number of occupations they listed (2, 3, or 4), (b) the computed C&C suitability score of each occupation, reflecting their overall compatibility with the participant’s ideal occupation (defined as the sum across all attributes of the product of the attribute’s relative importance rating and the fit rating in the corresponding attribute [range 0–400]), and (c) the difference between the best and the second best occupation C&C suitability scores.

The participants were classified into three groups: (a) the Without explicit intuition group included individuals who did not mark any occupation as intuitively more suitable than the others (n = 108, 26.2%), (b) the Incongruent intuition group included those who marked one of the occupations as intuitively more suitable than the other(s), but a different occupation emerged as the best in C&C (n = 121, 29.4%), and (c) the Congruent intuition group included those who marked as the more suitable the occupation that emerged as the best one in C&C (n = 183, 44.4%). The placement of the request to report their intuition (i.e., at the very beginning or in the middle of C&C) did not affect the relative frequencies of the participants in these three groups, χ² (2, N = 412) = 1.68, ns. Furthermore, there was no difference in the distribution of men and women among the three groups, χ2 (2, N = 412) = 0.04, ns.

Results

Comparing and Choosing (C&C)

The mean number of occupations compared in the C&C was 3.12 (SD = 0.74); 92 (22.3%) of the participants listed two occupations, 180 (43.7%) three occupations, and 140 (34%) four occupations. The mean number of attributes used to compare the occupations was 6.74 (SD = 2.09). The mean suitability score across occupations and participants was 303 (SD = 41.94) out of 400 for the ideal occupation (i.e., with the highest fit rating of “4” in all attributes). The mean suitability score of the occupations intuitively marked as the more suitable was 346.15 (SD = 39.41).

Intuitions

Implicit Intuition and Its Compatibility With the C&C Outcome

The first hypothesis (H1) was confirmed: The mean suitability score of the first-listed occupation (M = 316.16, SD = 59.82) was higher than the second-listed occupation (M = 303.95, SD = 59.52), t (411) = 3.32, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.20; the difference was positive for most participants (58.9%), Z = 3.59, p < .001. This finding indicates that the participants tended to first list the occupation that emerged as most suitable in the systematic comparison using C&C without being asked to do so.

Explicit Intuition

When asked, “If there is an occupation that intuitively seems more suitable for you, please click the circle on its left,” most participants (n = 304, 73.8%) marked one of the occupations, indicating that they had a “gut feeling” about the differential suitability of the listed occupations. These participants were included in the explicit intuition group, whereas 108 were included in the no explicit intuition group. Notably, the likelihood of marking one of the occupations as more suitable was not associated with the number of considered occupations – 2, 3, or 4; χ² (2, N = 412) = 1.61, ns.

Explicit Intuition and Its Compatibility With the C&C Outcome

As hypothesized (H2a), for most participants with explicit intuitions, the occupation marked as more suitable was also the option that emerged as best in the C&C outcome (n = 183, 60.2%). The placement of the request to report the more suitable occupation intuitively (immediately after listing them or after rating the occupations in terms of their fit in each attribute) did not affect whether the marked occupation matched the one that emerged as the best in the C&C results, χ² (1, N = 304) = 0.75, ns. When only two occupations were considered, 66.7% of the participants (vs. 50% expected by chance) intuitively marked the occupation that emerged as best in the C&C results, χ² (1, N = 69) = 3.97, p = .046, Cramer’s V = .24; when considering three occupations, 61.3% (vs. 33.3% expected by chance) of the participants marked the best occupation in the C&C results, χ² (1, N = 137) = 21.59, p < .001, V = .40. When four occupations were considered, 54.1% (vs. 25% expected by chance) of the participants intuitively marked the occupation that emerged as best in the C&C results, χ² (1, N = 98) = 17.99, p < .001, V = .43. The difference among these three groups was statistically insignificant, χ² (2, N = 304) = 2.81, ns. The observed frequency of intuitively marking the occupation that emerged as best in the C&C results in all three groups supports the hypothesis (H2a) that explicit intuition is informative.

Comparing the With and Without Explicit Intuition Groups

To test the informativeness of explicit intuitions (H2b), we compared the suitability score of the best occupation in the C&C for those with and without explicit intuition. As hypothesized, the mean suitability score of the best C&C-derived occupation of the explicit intuition group (M = 349.51, SD = 38.02, n = 304) was higher than that of the without explicit intuition group (M = 338.76, SD = 40.95, n = 108), t (410) = 2.46, p = .014, d = 0.28. To test the hypothesis regarding the informativeness of explicit intuitions in a different way, we compared the difference in the suitability score between the C&C-derived best and second-best occupations. This comparison revealed that, as hypothesized (H2c), this difference was greater for the explicit intuition group (M = 42.20, SD = 45.03, n = 304) than for the without explicit intuition group (M = 33.22, SD = 28.18, n = 108), t (410) = 2.16, p = .032, d = 0.24.

The Compatibility Between Implicit Intuition and Explicit Intuition

The participants were classified into four groups by the combinations of explicit and implicit intuitions. Table 1 presents the frequencies of participants in the four groups. The upper row of numbers reflects participants who reported their explicit intuitions by marking one of the listed occupations as the more suitable (n = 304), divided into two groups by their implicit intuitions: those who listed as first the most suitable C&C-derived occupation (n = 183) and those who listed another occupation first (n = 121). The middle row of numbers refers to those with no explicit intuitions; they marked none of the listed occupations as the more suitable (n = 108). They were also divided into two groups by their implicit intuitions: those who listed as first the most suitable C&C-derived occupation (n = 32) and those who listed another occupation first (n = 76). The bottom row presents the number of participants according to their implicit intuition.

Table 1.

Number of Participants Who Listed First the Most Suitable Occupation in C&C (i.e., Their Implicit Intuition) by Whether They Marked One of the Occupations as the More Suitable Occupation (i.e., Their Explicit Intuitions).

Explicit Intuition – The Most Suitable C&C Occupation	Implicit Intuition – The Most Suitable C&C Occupation
	Was Listed First	Was Not Listed First	Total
Was marked as the more suitable	183 (44%)	121 (29%)	304 (74%)
No occupation was marked as more suitable	32 (8%)	76 (18%)	108 (26%)
Total	215 (52%)	197 (48%)	412

We first examined the associations between implicit and explicit intuitions by comparing the frequencies of those who listed first the most suitable C&C-derived occupation between groups. Whereas in the without explicit intuition group (n = 108), fewer than a third (n = 32, 29.6%) listed the occupation that emerged as best in the systematic comparison as first, in the explicit intuition group (n = 304), more than half of the participants (n = 183, 60.2%) listed it as first. The statistically significant difference between the groups, χ² (1, N = 412) = 29.84, p < .001, V = .27, supports the hypothesis (H3) that explicit and implicit intuition are positively associated.

Directly comparing the explicit and the implicit intuitions revealed their association: For 183 (44%) participants, both the first-listed occupation and the one marked as more suitable matched the most suitable C&C-derived occupation, whereas for 76 (18%) participants, the most suitable occupation was neither listed first nor marked as the more suitable, reflecting the absence of both implicit and explicit intuitions. Notably, 121 participants marked the best C&C-derived occupation as the more suitable (i.e., reflecting explicit intuition) but did not list it first (i.e., lacking implicit intuition). This group was 3.8 times as large as those who listed the occupation with the highest suitability score first (i.e., reflecting implicit intuition) but refrained from marking any occupation as the best (i.e., lacking explicit intuition; n = 32).

Self-Reported Tendency to Use Intuition and Its Compatibility With Explicit Intuitions

To investigate the associations between reporting having an explicit intuition and the self-reported inclination to use intuitions, we compared the CDMPq’s using intuitions scale score of those with explicit intuition (i.e., those who marked one of the listed occupations as preferred intuitively) and those without explicit intuition. As hypothesized (H4), the mean using intuition score on the CDMPq was higher for those with explicit intuitions (M = 4.33, SD = 1.39, n = 304) than for those without explicit intuition (M = 4.00, SD = 1.36, n = 108), t (410) = 2.15, p = .032, d = 0.24.

Next, focusing on the explicit intuition group, we compared the mean using intuition scale score in the congruent intuition group (who marked the best C&C-derived occupation as the more suitable, M = 4.40, SD = 1.41, n = 183) with that of the incongruent intuition group (who marked an occupation that did not emerge as best in the C&C results, M = 4.23, SD = 1.36, n = 121). Contrary to our hypothesis (H5), the difference in the reported use of intuition between these groups was negligible (d = 0.12) and statistically insignificant, t (302) = 0.98, p = .33. The combination of the findings relating to Hypotheses 4 and 5 reflects that intuitively marking one of the occupations as more suitable was indeed related to the inclination to use intuition in career decisions (H4), but the lack of difference in the suitability score between the congruent and incongruent groups (H5) reflects that participants’ self-report about using intuition is not an indicator for the informativeness of their explicit intuition.

Finally, we tested for gender differences in the examined dependent variables. Interestingly, no gender differences were observed in the number of occupations listed, χ² (2, N = 415) = 5.13, p = .077, in the career decision status, χ² (3, N = 415) = 2.80, p = .42, in explicit intuition – whether the participant marked one of the occupations as more suitable, χ² (1, N = 415 = 0.034, p = .85, nor in the position in the shortlist of the occupation intuitively marked as more suitable – the explicit intuition, χ² (3, N = 415) = 4.67, p = .20. Furthermore, no statistically significant gender differences emerged in the score of the most suitable C&C-derived occupation (Cohen’s d = 0.02), in the difference in the suitability score between the best and the second-best occupation (Cohen’s d = 0.17), nor in the self-reported use of intuition in the CDMPq (Cohen’s d = 0.195).

Discussion

Intuition plays a significant role in decision making in many situations, and it is a prominent topic in cognitive and managerial decision-making research. Research related to career counseling has traditionally focused on intuition as one of deliberating individuals’ career decision-making styles (e.g., Harren, 1979; Krumboltz et al., 1979). Later, Hartung and Blustein (2002) proposed that intuitions complement reasoning in career decisions, and Krieshok et al. (2009) highlighted the role of unconscious information processing in career decision making.

Surprisingly, we did not locate empirical studies that focus on individuals’ use of intuition in the core journals of counseling and vocational psychology; furthermore, intuition does not appear as an index term in any core books in the field. This lacuna can likely be attributed to the lack of measurable criteria for assessing intuitions and to the malleable and intangible characteristics of intuitions that challenge eliciting them. Utilizing a unique, innovative methodology, our study tapped into individuals at the choice stage who used the C&C career decision-support module on their own initiative. The monitored data allowed within-participant analyses of the associations among implicit, explicit, and self-reported inclination to use intuition, and the compatibility among them, and then between these facets of intuition and a measurable and relevant criterion for each participant.

The results of the C&C’s structured comparison, culminating in the suitability scores of the shortlisted occupations, indicated the informativeness of the participant’s intuition. We then examined the compatibility between these suitability scores and the participants’ implicit, explicit, and self-reported use of intuitions. This approach allowed us to analyze the natural variation of intuitions among individuals engaged in real-world deliberation over their future occupations.

Implicit and Explicit Intuitions and the Association Between Them

Implicit Intuitions

Individuals often choose the first option that comes to mind based on the feeling that it is the best choice (Plessner et al., 2010). We considered the order in which the occupations were listed as an indicator of implicit intuition. As hypothesized, the first-listed occupation had a higher C&C-derived suitability score than the second-listed occupation. Although the effect size was small (d = 0.20), with slightly more participants listing the occupation with the higher suitability score first (58.9%) than expected by chance, it supported the hypothesis regarding the informativeness of implicit intuition.

Explicit Intuitions

The participants’ explicit intuition, reflected in marking one of the occupations on their shortlist as more suitable, was indeed informative: participants tended to mark the occupation that emerged best in the C&C module. Furthermore, the suitability score of their best occupation was higher for these participants than for those without explicit intuitions. In addition, the gap between the suitability score of the best and the second-best occupations was higher among those with explicit intuition than those without explicit intuition, perhaps reflecting the participants’ unconscious or subconscious perception of the shortlisted occupations’ suitability.

The Association Between Explicit and Implicit Intuitions

As hypothesized, implicit and explicit intuitions proved to be associated; the likelihood of first listing the occupation with the highest suitability score was twice as high in the explicit intuition group (60.2%) than in the without explicit intuition group (29.6%). Individuals’ gut feelings were apparently reflected in both their explicit and implicit intuitions. The confidence in the advantage of a particular occupation over others is likely to increase when implicit and explicit intuitions converge (Gati & Asher, 2001). Increased confidence in that occupation can facilitate decision-making.

Awareness of Using Intuition and Its Compatibility With Explicit Intuitions

The Career Decision Making Profile questionnaire maps the ways individuals make career decisions, including their inclination to use intuition. The participants’ self-reported inclination to use intuition, as measured by the CDMPq, likely stems from previously satisfying career decisions. The association between marking an occupation as more suitable and having a higher score on the CDMPq’s using intuition scale is another indicator of the individual’s awareness of how they make career decisions. This association further supports the using intuition scale’s validity (Gadassi et al., 2012; Gati et al., 2012; Ginevra et al., 2012; Tian et al., 2014).

Participants’ Self-Reported Tendency to Use Intuition and Its Associations With Explicit and Implicit Intuitions

As hypothesized, the mean score of the CDMPq’s using intuition scale was higher in the explicit intuition group than in the group without explicit intuition. However, surprisingly and contrary to our hypothesis, the using intuition scores within the group with explicit intuitions did not distinguish between those who marked the C&C-derived most suitable occupation as their intuitive choice or another occupation. Thus, participants’ self-reported inclination to use intuition did not reflect the informativeness of their self-reported use of intuition.

The Informativeness of Intuitions: A Caveat

The support of the hypotheses about the informativeness of implicit and explicit intuitions reported in the Results was based primarily on across-subject analysis. These findings, however, also show that for 40% of the participants, either the implicit or explicit intuitions were incompatible with the outcomes of the systematic comparison using C&C. For these participants, either they had no gut feeling at all or that their feeling was too vague to justify marking one of the listed occupations as the more suitable, whereas for others it was uninformative when they listed first or marked intuitively an occupation that did not emerge as best in the systematic comparison in C&C.

Limitations and Future Research

The participants in the present study were actively engaged in their career decisions and deliberating their future occupations. They used the C&C module at their initiative to facilitate choosing an occupation from those on their shortlist. Nevertheless, it may be claimed that participants may have biased their fit ratings during the C&C’s systematic comparison to favor the occupation they marked as best. However, we used a structured, attribute-wise rating process to elicit the fit judgments (i.e., focusing on a specific attribute and rating the compared occupations on that attribute); such a procedure activates analytical thinking that diminishes the halo effect (Wen et al., 2020) and hence is likely to reduce such a bias. Additionally, the placement of the request to mark one of the occupations as more suitable––before or after the attribute-wise fit ratings—did not influence the results significantly, suggesting negligible or minimal bias. Moreover, the consistency of the results among participants listing 2, 3, or 4 occupations also supports the notion that any intentional or unconscious “tailoring” of the fit ratings was likely negligible or insignificant.

Although most comparisons resulted in statistically significant differences supporting the hypotheses, the effect sizes were rather small to medium (0.20 < d < 0.28; .24 < Cramer’s V <.43); these relatively small effect sizes may be attributed to reliance on natural variation in malleable intuitions and that the study did not employ an experimental manipulation. Research in other career-decision situations (e.g., college or job choice) may demonstrate larger effects.

Future studies may include outcome variables like occupational or work satisfaction, or job tenure. Furthermore, a longitudinal follow-up study could compare occupational choice satisfaction among those whose chosen occupation matched the occupation they intuitively marked as the more suitable versus those whose chosen occupation was the most suitable one in the systematic comparison in C&C. This comparison may reveal which choosing mode leads to higher satisfaction. A related question concerns identifying factors that affect the inclination to choose the intuitive alternative versus the best alternative in the systematic comparison (C&C). One of the determining factors may be the content of the decision; we speculate that the inclination to adhere to the outcome of a systematic comparison will be higher for jobs than for majors. This inclination might differ also when choosing a car or one’s next vacation trip.

Future research may also focus on the counselors’ intuition about which occupation on the shortlist is the most compatible with the client’s “ideal” occupation. The counselor’s intuition can also be compared with the client’s C&C outcome; compatibility would likely increase the confidence of the counselor, whereas incompatibility would underscore the need for a “timeout” to ascertain the source of the difference between the client’s and the counselor’s intuitions as well as the outcomes of a systematic comparison based on C&C. Furthermore, future research may also focus on additional factors like contextual and environmental factors or barriers (Lent & Brown, 2020), and the individuals’ volition in their career decisions (Blustein & Duffy, 2020). Furthermore, the clients’ age, work experience, and career-decision experience could affect clients’ intuitions and their compatibility with the outcome of a systematic comparison.

Finally, we hypothesize that individual differences, such as those preferring personal counseling over online tools or individuals’ socioeconomic class, may affect the inclination to follow intuition or the systematic comparison’s outcome. In addition, because intuition is a cultural construct, future cross-cultural research should include diverse ethnic, racial, national, and religious groups (Delgado Bernal, 2016; Stich, 2018).

Implications

The present study was based on adopting a decision-making framing for career choice (Gati, 1986; Gati & Kulcsár, 2021; Katz, 1966; Pitz & Harren, 1980; Sauermann, 2005). Gati and Asher (2001) reflected on the role of intuitions in the three PIC stages; the present study empirically examined intuition’s role at the choice stage of the career decision-making process. We compared two ways to evaluate the alternatives on the shortlist––by intuition and by adhering to the outcome of a systematic process while intentionally avoiding referring to the notion of rational choice. Although rational is one of the three career decision-making styles proposed by Harren (1979), problems with rational decision making, including the limits of rationality in general, were recognized long ago (e.g., Simon, 1955; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) and later in the context of career decisions (Gati, 1986, 2013; Krieshok et al., 2009; Sauermann, 2005). Therefore, as an alternative to choosing solely by intuition, which is typically automatic and rapid, we explored the potential contribution of the outcome of a systematic comparison based on information elicited from the same individual applying a multi-attribute-based compensatory model (Bozorg-Haddad et al., 2021), which is more controlled and deliberate (Kahneman, 2002). Thus, we explored the analytical processing of information and the guided systematic comparison of the alternatives and compared its outcomes to unconscious or subconscious processing that underlies intuitions.

Decision-support systems like C&C can test and verify intuitions using systematic analysis, comparison, and evaluation of the alternatives (Sauter, 1999). The systematic comparison embedded in C&C may help individuals better understand what they know and increase their awareness of what they do not know. It can also encourage them to challenge the results of the systematic comparison if they deviate from their intuition.

The observed large between-participants variance in the gap between their intuitions and the C&C-derived outcomes suggests that the C&C systematic comparison should not be skipped; its outcome is informative and beneficial for all individuals, regardless of whether they have explicit intuitions. Specifically, for those whose explicit intuition matched the occupation with the highest C&C suitability score, it confirmed their intuitions. In light of this matching, these participants’ confidence in choosing that occupation would likely be enhanced (Gati & Asher, 2001). For those whose explicit intuition did not match the occupation with the highest C&C suitability score, it highlighted the need to look for the source of the incongruence. Finally, for those without explicit intuition, it helped identify the occupation that best matches their preferences. This is done using a systematic comparison process that relies on the individual’s perceptions of the compatibility between the desirable characteristics of their ideal occupation and the corresponding attributes of the compared occupations.

Career Counseling

The findings show that many individuals at the Choice stage, even though they were still deliberating, had some intuitions about their inclination toward one of the occupations on their shortlist and could report them when prompted. Some of the participants who are inclined to use intuition in career decision-making––but not all of them––had informative intuitions. This reflects that, in many cases, the inclination to rely on intuition or positive past experiences is not informative. Therefore, whereas counseling psychologists and career counselors should attend to their client’s intuition, they should do so cautiously.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that for 40% of the participants, the occupation marked intuitively as the more suitable occupation did not emerge as best in the systematic comparison. It suggests that although certain individuals can intuitively indicate which occupation seems more suitable at the choice stage, their intuition has only limited informative value. This is important because all the alternatives under consideration at this stage were on their shortlist after previous exploration, and therefore, the individual may naturally be inclined to follow their intuition (Gati & Asher, 2001). The limited informativeness of intuition underscores the importance of carrying out a systematic comparison by all individuals, whether or not the individual can intuitively identify one of the occupations as more suitable. Specifically, it is vital to verify that the option the client marked intuitively as more suitable is indeed the best by carrying out a “quality control” procedure through a systematic comparison. In the case of compatibility, the client’s confidence in the preferred occupation is likely to increase. Palladino Schultheiss (2008) emphasized the importance of comparing individuals’ intuitions about the preferred major with the outcomes of their systematic search, locating the reasons for incompatibility if it emerged, and working to reconcile the differences. Ultimately, an analytic, systematic comparison may enable counseling psychologists and career counselors to identify gaps in their clients’ self-knowledge or the career information they have gathered (Lent & Brown, 2020).

An incompatibility between the option that emerged as best in the systematic comparison and the option the client intuitively marked as more suitable resembles internal conflict in Gati et al.’s (1996) taxonomy of career decision-making difficulties. Internal conflict refers to the case where an individual deliberates between two alternatives (e.g., specializing in being a surgeon or psychiatrist), each of which has many attractive attributes but is also characterized by an adversative one (e.g., working also in night shifts and most of the time working only one-on-one with the patient, respectively). Often, the incompatibility between the best alternative in the systematic process and the intuitive alternative may resemble such a case – two alternatives with many similar attractive attributes, but each with a certain disadvantage. The counselor can guide the client in the dilemma by reframing the conflict from an incompatibility of the intuitively preferred alternative to the one that emerged as best in the systematic comparison to a question of the weighing of the adversative attributes. Specifically, the counselor can help the client decide on the relative importance of the adversative attributes of the compared alternatives (i.e., deciding that working with one patient most of the time, in the above example, is the unacceptable one).

Conclusions

Intuition plays a significant role in career decision making, as in many other personal decisions. Intuitive decisions have a non-trivial advantage: Generally, these decisions require less time and effort than deciding after systematically analyzing and comparing the alternatives (Kahneman, 2003). In the present study, we found that the intuitively preferred alternative on the shortlist emerged as best in the C&C’s systematic comparison only among 60% of the participants who claimed to have an intuition about it. This suggests that just being able to intuitively pinpoint an alternative as more suitable is insufficient if no additional support is available. In cases of uncertainty, the client’s intuition can be compared with the counselor’s intuition and with the outcomes of a systematic comparison of the client’s shortlisted alternatives. The compatibility of the clients’ and counselors’ intuitions and the outcome of a systematic comparison regarding the most suitable alternative can boost clients’ confidence in their choice. The basic premise of the systematic comparison of career alternatives at the choice stage is to supplement rather than supplant individuals’ intuition.