The Psychology of Working Theory
Ryan D. Duffy
University of Florida
David L. Blustein
Boston College
Matthew A. Diemer
University of Michigan
Kelsey L. Autin
University of Florida
In the current article, we build on research from vocational psychology, multicultural psychology,
intersectionality, and the sociology of work to construct an empirically testable Psychology of Working
Theory (PWT). Our central aim is to explain the work experiences of all individuals, but particularly
people near or in poverty, people who face discrimination and marginalization in their lives, and people
facing challenging work-based transitions for which contextual factors are often the primary drivers of
the ability to secure decent work. The concept of decent work is defined and positioned as the central
variable within the theory. A series of propositions is offered concerning (a) contextual predictors of
securing decent work, (b) psychological and economic mediators and moderators of these relations, and
(c) outcomes of securing decent work. Recommendations are suggested for researchers seeking to use the
theory and practical implications are offered concerning counseling, advocacy, and public policy.
Keywords: psychology of working, decent work, social class, marginalization, work volition
Understanding the role of work in people’s lives has been a
centerpiece of counseling psychology since the field’s inception
(Blustein, 2006; Savickas & Baker, 2005). Over the last 60 years,
several overarching theories have been proposed attempting to
explain how individuals make career decisions and are ultimately
satisfied with work, grounded in developmental (
Gottfredson,
2005; Hartung, 2013), person-environment fit (Holland, 1997;
Swanson & Schneider, 2013), social–cognitive (Lent, 2013; Lent,
Brown, & Hackett, 1994), and constructivist (Savickas, 2013)
perspectives. These theories mainly place internal and individual-
level factors (e.g., self-efficacy beliefs, differentiation of interests)
in the conceptual foreground while placing contextual and struc-
tural factors (e.g., economic constraints, racialized or gendered
discrimination, and marginalization) in the conceptual back-
ground, often representing secondary parts of models or constructs
that are theoretically implied but receive only limited empirical
attention.
Our central thesis in this article is that these theories, while
capturing essential psychological elements of career development
and work, do not adequately explain the work-based experiences
of people on the ‘lower rungs of the social position ladder’—
people without sufficient access to financial and social capital,
marginalized people (i.e., who are marginalized on the basis of
factors such as race, ethnicity, social class, and/or gender), and
people who are forced to make involuntary work-based transi-
tions—for whom elements of context are often primary in driving
the experience of work. In addition, the contextual factors that
have shaped the lives of people on the margins are increasingly
constraining the lives of the middle class, who face a radically
transforming labor market that is being reshaped by globalization,
unemployment and underemployment, precarious work, and rapid
technological change (
Blustein, 2013; Brynjolfsson & McAfee,
2014
; Van Horn, 2014). Given the flux in the occupational land-
scape, we believe that inclusive theoretical models are needed that
integrate broader social and contextual factors with the traditional
individual focus of psychologically based theories.
Recently, the Psychology of Working Framework (PWF;
Blus-
tein, 2001
, 2006, 2008, 2013) was developed to complement
existing vocational theories by more directly highlighting the role
that social class, privilege, and freedom of choice play in career
selection and fulfillment. The PWF proposes that sociocultural
factors must be treated as primary in understanding the career
decisions and work experiences of all people regardless of back-
ground, but in particular those from poor and working-class back-
grounds and disenfranchised and marginalized populations. The
core aims of the PWF fit well with counseling psychology’s
emphasis on social justice and multiculturalism, as well as the
intersectionality perspective, by offering an integrated perspective
on work that cuts across privilege and identity statuses. Research
grounded in the PWF has clearly illustrated how social class plays
a critical role in the experience of work, particularly for poor and
Ryan D. Duffy, Department of Psychology, University of Florida; David
L. Blustein, Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology De-
partment, Boston College; Matthew A. Diemer, Combined Program in
Education & Psychology (CPEP) & Educational Studies, University of
Michigan; Kelsey L. Autin, Department of Psychology, University of
Florida.
We thank Matthew Miller, Patrick Rottinghaus, Ellen McWhirter, Terry
Tracey, and anonymous reviewers for providing helpful feedback on this
article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ryan D.
Duffy, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, PO Box 112250,
Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail: rduf@ufl.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Counseling Psychology © 2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 63, No. 2, 127–148 0022-0167/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000140
127
working class people (e.g., Ali, 2013; Blustein et al., 2002;
Noonan, Hall, & Blustein, 2007), how experiences of discrimina-
tion and marginalization impact the career development process
(
Flores et al., 2011; Eggerth, Delaney, Flynn, & Jacobson, 2012),
and how high barriers and low work volition (defined here as the
perceived capacity to make career decisions, despite constraints)
affect career decision making and fulfillment (Blustein, 2008;
Duffy, Autin, & Bott, 2015; Duffy, Diemer, Perry, Laurenzi, &
Torrey, 2012).
In the current article, we build on this research, related research
from vocational psychology, multicultural psychology, intersec-
tionality, the sociology of work, and core propositions from the
PWF to construct an empirically testable Psychology of Working
Theory (PWT). The primary function of this theory is to explain
important elements in the process of securing decent work—
conceptualized and defined below—and describe how performing
decent work leads to need satisfaction, work fulfillment, and well-
being. We present these ideas in a unified model, integrating
numerous empirically and/or theoretically supported relations that
have often been examined independently.
Additionally, we acknowledge at the outset that the conceptu-
alization of proximal and distal variables in the theory primarily
stems from a North American perspective, specifically a perspec-
tive that concerns people living in a society with free-market
capitalism where achieving individual fulfillment at work is val-
ued. Although the theory has been constructed within this context,
we believe that many of the principles and ideas may be relevant
in many regions of the world (particularly countries that have
multicultural and relatively affluent, albeit unequal, societies).
Indeed, an application of specific aspects and subsets of this theory
to diverse locations around the globe may be highly informative in
detailing how social and cultural contexts shape the process of
seeking out and attaining decent work.
We view our theory as containing elements of collectivist and
individualist approaches to work and acknowledge that our dom-
inant perspective is individualistic, with the model capturing how
contextual and psychological variables affect an individual’s abil-
ity to secure decent work and how doing so affects the fulfillment
of individual needs. Our decision to focus on individualistic as-
pects of work is not based on any implicit or explicit endorsement
of individualism; rather, our rationale is based on our intention to
embed the theory within the prevailing cultural norms in North
America with respect to work and well-being. We do believe that
many elements of this theory may be relevant to more collectivist
societies; indeed, applying specific aspects of this theory to soci-
eties that are more collectivist may help to unpack the ways in
which individualistic and collectivist factors shape work-related
behaviors and experiences. In the following sections, we review
the PWT, highlight and justify our choice of constructs and theo-
retical propositions, and discuss how this new theory may be
useful in research and practice.
Psychology of Working
Although the earliest history of the career development move-
ment included a focus on those with minimal to moderate levels of
choice about their work-based decisions (
Parsons, 1909), career
development, as a discipline and as a set of counseling practices,
gradually transitioned to highlight those with greater degrees of
volition and privilege (
Blustein, 2006). The movement toward
greater levels of volition among the growing middle-class in the
United States and other developed nations generated a rich array of
career choice and development theories, which provided the intel-
lectual backdrop for the emergence of intervention strategies to
foster adaptive choices (see
Brown & Lent, 2013, for a review of
these theories). Amid this growing world of career development
theory, research, and practice, scholars from diverse perspectives,
most notably feminist thought (e.g.,
Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987;
Harmon & Farmer, 1983) and race-based critiques of career coun-
seling (e.g.,
Smith, 1983) identified the inherent level of privilege
that had characterized the world of work for the growing middle
class and the wealthy. In short, feminist scholars noted how
traditional career theories were constructed around the experiences
of men, relegating many women to secondary consideration in the
development of theories and practices that related to the full scope
of people’s lives (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987). At the same time,
scholars from the burgeoning studies of race and culture identified
the ways in which career choice and development theories ne-
glected racism and other forms of oppression (
Smith, 1983).
Building on these critiques and on other advances in critical
psychological discourse,
Richardson (1993) and Blustein (2001),
respectively, argued that the field of vocational psychology needed
to broaden its focus to become more inclusive of everyone who
works and who wants to work. In effect, the PWF began initially
as a critique of traditional career choice and development dis-
course, which blended with other social justice-oriented critiques
that were advanced by counseling psychology scholars and prac-
titioners.
A more fully realized framework based on the broadening of
traditional career choice and development theory emerged in the
past decade (
Blustein, 2006, 2008, 2013), generating a perspective
that has included several interrelated assumptions. Blustein (2013,
pp. 7–8) recently summarized the core assumptions of the PWF,
which are presented below:
• Work is an essential aspect of life and an essential com-
ponent of mental health.
• No one epistemology should be privileged over another in
the explication of the psychological nature of working.
• The psychological study of working should be inclusive,
embracing everyone who works and who wants to work
around the globe.
• In many cases and situations, work and nonwork experi-
ences are closely intertwined.
• Work includes efforts within the marketplace as well as
caregiving work, which is often not sanctioned socially
and economically.
• Working has the potential to fulfill three fundamental
human needs—the need for survival and power; the need
for social connection; and the need for self-determination.
• To more fully understand the psychological nature of
working, careful considerations are needed of relevant
social, economic, political, and historical forces, which
shape, constrain, and facilitate many aspects of contem-
porary working.
The theoretical model (see
Figure 1) that is advanced in this
article emerges logically from each of these assumptions, with a
focus on the last assumption, which underscores the strong con-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
128
DUFFY, BLUSTEIN, DIEMER, AND AUTIN
textual nature of the PWF. Many other career choice and devel-
opment theories have attended to the role of access to opportunity,
most notably Super’s [1957; Hartung, 2013] life span, life-space
theory,
Gottfredson’s (2005) theory of circumscription and com-
promise, and Lent, Brown, and Hackett’s [1994; Lent, 2013]
Social Cognitive Career Theory. Gottfredson’s theory is particu-
larly applicable to the PWF considering its focus on how social
class and gender coincide with vocational interests to restrict
career choices, offering a Zone of Acceptable Alternatives. Other
theories emphasizing person-environment fit and/or social–
cognitive approaches may be seen as complementary to the PWF
by highlighting the precise types of careers individuals chose (e.g.,
carpenter, mechanic, or teacher) if they have relative degree free-
dom of choice to select among multiple options. In addition, both
developmental and SCCT theories do incorporate contextual ele-
ments into their formulations and have advanced ideas that have
shaped some of the key foundations for the PWF and related
contributions.
However, what is unique about the PWF and the theoretical
contribution presented in this article is placing social and eco-
nomic factors at the forefront of our conceptualizations and posi-
tioning securing decent work in general (vs. a specific type of
career) as the central outcome of the interplay between contextual,
psychological, and economic factors. Thus far, the PWF has gen-
erated considerable research, theory, and program development,
particularly qualitative scholarship that has unpacked the notions
of culture and work (
Flores et al., 2011; Guerrero & Singh, 2013),
the struggles of unemployment (
Blustein, Kozan, & Connors-
Kellgren, 2013
; Lyons, 2011), and relational influences of working
(Kenny & Medvide, 2013).
Furthermore, an expansive body of knowledge has been devel-
oped on constructs central to the PWF. For example, research on
work volition with samples of college students (
Duffy, Bott, Allan,
& Autin, 2014; Duffy, Diemer, & Jadidian, 2012), adults (Allan,
Autin, & Duffy, 2014
; Duffy et al., 2012), and the unemployed
(Duffy, Bott, Allan, & Torrey, 2013) is reshaping our thinking
about the role of choice in educational and work-based transitions.
Literature on critical consciousness (CC), defined as a careful and
systematic analysis of one’s social conditions, the perceived ca-
pacity to change them, and individual or collective action to reduce
societal inequality, has illuminated relations between how margin-
alized young people think about and renegotiate their relationships
with social, economic, and political forces to progress across a
variety of career development domains (e.g.,
Diemer & Blustein,
2006; O’Connor, 1997; Olle & Fouad, 2015) and to occupational
attainment (Diemer, 2009). In addition, the PWF has informed a
more inclusive agenda, writ large, in vocational and counseling
psychology, with greater attention being devoted to the plight of
the unemployed (Blustein et al., 2013), working poor (Ali, 2013),
irregular migrant workers (
Marfleet & Blustein, 2011), and a host
of others who have been marginalized in the career development
discourse (see Blustein, 2013, for a review).
At the present time, a number of factors are converging to create
a compelling rationale for the PWF to transition to a full-fledged
theory. Perhaps foremost among these influences are the rapid
changes in the labor market that are resulting in constricting
occupational options across an increasingly growing spectrum of
workers around the globe (
Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Stiglitz,
2012; Van Horn, 2014). The conjoint influence of a constricting
job market related to the Great Recession, particularly for those
Predictors Outcomes
Work
Fulfillment
Well-Being
Social
Connection
Needs
Self -
Determination
Needs
Survival
Needs
Economic
Constraints
Marginalization
Work
Volition
Decent
Work
Career
Adaptability
3
2
1
7
6
10
9
4
23
26
27
28
29
30
31
24
25
32
5
8
Theoretically and Empirically Supported
Theoretically Supported
Moderators
• Proactive Personality
• Critical Consciousness
• Social Support
• Economic Conditions
Figure 1. Theoretical Model. Proactive personality, critical consciousness, social support, and economic
conditions are proposed to moderate the paths from economic constraints and marginalization to work volition,
career adaptability, and decent work, respectively: proactive personality (Propositions 11–13), critical con-
sciousness (Propositions 14 –16), social support (Propositions 17–19), and economic conditions (Propositions
20 –22).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
129
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING THEORY
without high levels of skills, coupled with the rapid and pervasive
impact of technology (Frey & Osborne, 2013), has created a weak
labor market for many people. These factors, when considered
collectively, contribute to greater income suppression and greater
concentrations of income and (in particular) wealth among the top
decile of the population (
Piketty, 2014).
Accordingly, the PWF has the potential to generate theory that
can blend the best of psychological theories of work and career
with sociological (
Hotchkiss & Borrow, 1996; Vallas, 2011) and
macrolevel, psychological perspectives (Carr, MacLachlan, &
Furnham, 2012; MacLachlan, 2014). The emergence of the
blended psychological/sociological approach into a full-fledged
theory of working for the 21st century optimally will generate
considerable research that may foster the design of effective,
evidence-based theories and practices to help clients who are
facing work-based challenges. Moreover, our clear focus on con-
textual factors and decent work will provide impetus for scholar-
ship that will inform public policy. Furthermore, the PWF was
originally developed to call for a new way of conceptualizing the
work lives of those with limited privilege and volition, as opposed
to presenting a unified, empirically testable model. As such, this
article represents a logical next step in advancing the PWF, with
the potential to add unique new knowledge about the challenges
that exist for all those who are seeking out dignified and decent
work.
Decent Work
A key aspect of this model is our focus on decent work—an
important component of well-being and access to opportunity—as
an essential and central variable. Decent work is increasingly
difficult to obtain (
International Labor Organization, 2014; OECD,
2015). The changes in the labor market that were noted in the
previous section are reflected in the rise of temporary work, often
known as precarious work (Standing, 2010), which is by nature
insecure, often part-time, and time-limited. In the United States, a
significant proportion of the new jobs that have been developed
since the Great Recession (which technically spanned December
2007 to June 2009, yet its effects are continuing to reverberate) are
low-wage positions that are often limited to a circumscribed time
period and do not offer benefits (such as retirement programs and
health insurance;
Krugman, 2012; Stiglitz, 2012). Accordingly, we
position the availability of decent work as an integral part of our
model. Our definition of decent work is derived from the Interna-
tional Labor Organization (ILO), which is a specialized agency of
the United Nations. The ILO’s views about work parallel many of
the assumptions of the PWF. For example, the ILO argues that,
“work is central to people’s well-being. In addition to providing
income, work can pave the way for broader social and economic
advancement, strengthening individuals, their families and com-
munities. Such progress, however, hinges on work that is decent.
Decent work sums up the aspirations of people in their working
lives” (
http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/decent-work-agenda/
lang--en/index.htm).
According to the ILO (2008, 2012), decent work is character-
ized by four interrelated attributes. First, decent work includes a
concerted effort by governments and policy officials to create jobs,
which will ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for people
who are striving to work. Second, decent work includes guarantees
of rights for workers including, but not limited to, representation,
freedom of association, access to collective bargaining, and other
legal standards that provide human rights for workers. Third,
decent work warrants that social dialogue is sanctioned among
workers, employers, and government leaders to facilitate a com-
munitarian versus controlling world of work. Fourth, decent work
seeks to “ensure that women and men enjoy working conditions
that are safe, allow adequate free time and rest, take into account
family and social values, provide for adequate compensation in
case of lost or reduced income, and permit access to adequate
healthcare” (
http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/decent-work-
agenda/lang--en/index.htm). These four attributes represent an as-
pirational statement about the nature of working, which provides a
useful framework in an era with growing levels of contract work,
temporary work, and low wage jobs. Whereas the first three
attributes represent aspirations that apply to workers generally, the
fourth attribute is specific to an individual’s experience at the
workplace, which is the centerpiece of the PWT. As such, it is this
part of the definition that frames our conceptualization of decent
work as it applies to individual workers.
Assessing the extent to which decent work exists is complex and
has generated considerable research and debate, primarily within
labor economics and other macrolevel social sciences (e.g.,
Burchell, Sehnbruch, Piasna, & Agloni, 2013; Ghai, 2003; ILO,
2012). For the most part, global indices that assess specific aspects
of a given community’s labor market, legal context with respect to
work, social support systems, and labor protection policies have
been used to define and measure decent work. To guide macrolevel
assessments of decent work, the
ILO (2012) has developed con-
ceptual guidance and specific formulas to measure the extent to
which workers have access to the conditions that shape one’s work
life including, but not limited to, union density, occupational
safety, legal protection for workers, availability of social security,
employment opportunities, reasonable working hours, stable work,
and gender equity (see
ILO, 2012, for a detailed analysis of global
indicators of decent work).
Adapting a construct that has been primarily used within mac-
rolevel analyses to a psychologically based theory evokes chal-
lenges, yet we believe offers significant rewards for our field. Most
existing measures of job quality within psychology have emerged
from I/O psychology and vocational psychology and have focused
on a rather circumscribed set of factors, primarily pertaining to the
worker’s fit with the demands of a given position and/or a work-
er’s subjective experience of satisfaction. Given the vast chal-
lenges that working people face currently, we believe that such
indices will not suffice for the PWT. The PWT is based on an
explicit intention to integrate contextual factors with individual
factors in a systematic and theory-driven manner, which we be-
lieve is best reflected in the aspirational human rights dimensions
of decent work. In keeping with the context-rich tradition of the
PWF, we argue that a conceptualization that incorporates contex-
tual factors into an index of one’s psychological experience offer
enormous potential for advancing scholarship.
As such, we propose that within the PWT, decent work consists
of: (a) physical and interpersonally safe working conditions (e.g.,
absent of physical, mental, or emotional abuse), (b) hours that
allow for free time and adequate rest, (c) organizational values that
complement family and social values, (d) adequate compensation,
and (e) access to adequate health care. We propose decent work
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
130
DUFFY, BLUSTEIN, DIEMER, AND AUTIN
exists when all these components are present, but also note that it
is possible to have some components of decent work, such that the
construct is additive in nature. As a means of initiating research on
the PWT before the development of formal self-report scales,
scholars may find it useful to develop initial rating indices of the
main indicators of decent work. These rating scales can be culled
from the existing consensus of the primary indices of decent work,
which were presented by the
ILO (2012). In research where
multiple means of assessing a construct are used, scholars may find
it helpful to include rating scales and self-report measures in
conjunction with macrolevel indices, such as union density, em-
ployment to unemployment ratios within adult populations, avail-
ability of legal protections for workers and the like. The inclusion
of decent work in the PWT offers great promise for our field to
join the conversation about this critical aspiration for the world’s
workers, while also promoting the development of viable psycho-
logical measures that can be used in theory-building research,
program evaluation, and social advocacy efforts.
Theoretical Propositions
In the following sections, we blend research and theory to build
propositions for the empirically testable PWT. In building this
theory, our goals are (a) to encapsulate the experience of work for
all workers, (b) to position contextual factors as primary in the
experience of work, (c) to clearly define and conceptualize each
construct within the theory, and (d) to develop a theoretical model
as parsimonious as possible for ease of empirical investigation.
Specifically, we highlight contextual and psychological variables
that are hypothesized to predict securing decent work, variables
that are hypothesized to moderate the relations between predictor
variables and decent work, and variables that are hypothesized to
be outcomes of performing decent work. This theoretical model is
not intended to be exhaustive; rather, our intention is to establish
a foundation for the theoretical explication of the PWT by focusing
on variables that are conceptually connected to the broader voca-
tional psychology, multicultural psychology, intersectionality, and
occupational sociological literatures and that may inform
evidence-based interventions and policy recommendations. We
envision that the PWT can be expanded to encompass additional
constructs and contextual factors as research evolves and informs
the development of new questions and problems.
Predictors of Securing Decent Work
Intersectionality theory (
Cole, 2009) frames our thinking about
the proposed contextual inputs to securing decent work in the
PWT—marginalization and economic constraints—by advancing
our understanding of the unique experiences, restrictions, and
affordances provided by social identities and their intersections.
The intersectional perspective foregrounds inequality, power, and
access while considering the complexities of multiple social iden-
tities, beyond a “single-axis” view that only considers race or
social class or gender, in isolation. From this perspective, social
identities are products of social constructions and structured in-
equality, such that identity is not an individual characteristic, but a
socially embedded location for interlocking axes of marginaliza-
tion and privilege (
Cole, 2009). Each of these identities (e.g.,
racial, classed, and gendered demographic categories), in isolation
and in synthesis, confers some degree of privilege or marginaliza-
tion, based on the social constructions, as well as economic ar-
rangements, associated with those identities (
Shields, 2008). That
is, “[social] category memberships mark groups with unequal
access to power and resources” (
Cole, 2009, p. 173). Therefore,
every person has multiple axes of social identities, some of which
confer privilege (e.g., male, affluent, or able-bodied) and others
that confer marginalization (e.g., Latino, gay).
Identity, then, represents the multiaxial syntheses of these
unique social identities, as well as the uniqueness of specific social
identity intersections. As
Cole (2009) argues: “social class is
shaped by race in unique ways, and race is shaped by class in
unique ways” (p. 173). Some argue that multiple socially subor-
dinate identities entail additive or multiplicative levels of oppres-
sion—Black women may experience both racism and sexism, for
example. Other scholars argue that attempts to add or multiply
different forms of oppression amounts to “score keeping,” and that
these different forms of marginalization are incommensurable is-
sues that cannot be resolved scientifically (
Purdie-Vaughns &
Eibach, 2008). From this perspective, Black women experience
unique forms of marginalization that are specific to this intersec-
tion (e.g., the “intersectional invisibility” germane to membership
in multiple socially subordinate categories;
Purdie-Vaughns &
Eibach, 2008). This is distinct from the sexism experienced by
White or Latino/a women and distinct from the racism Black men
experience (Cole, 2009)—with an emphasis on distinct forms of
oppression and marginalization, rather than tallying which social
identities experience the greater levels of oppression.
Framed by this perspective, race/ethnicity, social class, gender,
and other contextual inputs are key markers of societal privilege
and marginalization (
Cole, 2009). As such, social identities func-
tion as key markers of the ways in which people (and groups of
people) are differentially privileged and marginalized in the attain-
ment of decent work. In the PWT, social class is conceptualized as
a primary marker of access, or lack thereof, to the economic and
social resources that facilitate these career development processes
and outcomes (
Diemer & Rasheed Ali, 2009). The PWT perspec-
tive also recognizes that people also develop a subjective sense of
their social class or a social class identity (Adler, Epel, Castel-
lazzo, & Ickovics, 2000
) and social class worldviews (Liu, Ali,
Soleck, Hopps, & Pickett, 2004) that also structure interpersonal
relationships and discrimination. In the PWT, race or ethnicity and
gender represent more phenotypically obvious social markers that
structure social interactions, internalized oppression, and interper-
sonal prejudice (among other phenomena)—while recognizing that
race and gender intersect with, and influence access to, the utili-
zation of economic resources in important ways (
Conley, 1999;
Shields, 2008). Finally, intersectionality helps us to consider how
racial or ethnic, class, and gender identities (as well as other social
identities) intersect and mutually constitute a matrix of privilege
and constraint in the processes of career development and securing
of decent work.
To that end, we first review marginalization, focusing primarily
on its interpersonal and intrapsychic sequelae, below. After that
review, how social class structures access to the economic “build-
ing blocks” of career development and the ability to secure decent
work is considered. We review marginalization and economic
constraints independently below, while fully aware that this is a
somewhat artificial distinction made only for conceptual clarity.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
131
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING THEORY