Parental Impact on Children's Career Choice: A Comprehensive Guide (Full article)

Parental impact on children’s career choice.

•   Driss ELMOUDEN

• Kenitra, Morocco

• Elmouden520@gmail.com

·        https://orcid.org/ 0009-0007-2738-0663

Abstract: Conventional approaches in career counseling and decision-making support have often viewed career choice as a unique individual matter. By overlooking other influencing factors, these methods, while valuable, have not provided comprehensive solutions. The notion that career choices can be explained only by employability-related information is outdated. Recent research has embraced a multifactorial perspective, emphasizing that young people’s career aspirations are influenced by multiple interconnected factors rather than existing in isolation. Among the key factors identified as influential and decisive in children’s career choice and education is the parents’ role.

Given the significant importance attributed to parental influence, this article aims to explore in detail how parents impact their children’s career choices, as discussed in the relevant literature.

Keywords: Career choice - career development - decision making - vocational choice - vocational counseling.

1.      Introduction

The question of career choice has long been of great concern and a subject of research involving several disciplines.

Conventional career counseling and decision-making approaches often viewed career choice as a purely individual matter. By neglecting external influences, these methods, despite their significance, fail to provide comprehensive solutions. As a result, conventional approaches, such as matching individuals with their environment to determine career choices, are no longer effective.

Classical approaches interested in professional guidance have conceived “career development” as a separate dimension, even isolated from overall psychological development, introducing a system of divisions in the psychological and social functioning of the individual, as if the psychological subject was not an integrated whole with regard to his personal and social development (1).

Recently, research has brought the subject closer to a multi factor vision, emphasizing that the subject of young people's professional aspirations should not be conceived as isolated, a purely individual variable, nor solely on the basis of environmental or parental influences, but in a systemic and interactionist perspective (Mischel,1977) (2).

So, researches undertaken have tried to go beyond these practices to determine the latent and apparent, conscious and unconscious, direct and indirect variables that govern career choice. Various factors have been identified, namely:

• Social factors related to parents’ situation: Their economic situation, their level of education, family composition, etc.

• Personal factors: personal interests, aptitudes and skills, values, identity, self-satisfaction or self-efficacy, genetic inheritance, etc.

• Economic factors linked to the general economic situation, job market opportunities, job market trends, etc.

Parental impact has been identified as very decisive in children’s career choice (Spera, 2005; Wallace & Walberg, 1993), regardless of race, gender and socio-economic status (Jeynes, 2003a, 2007b)(3). Given the major importance allotted to the role of parents, this article aims to detail parental impact on their children’s career choice as it has been tackled throughout the literature concerned by this subject.

 2.      Parents impact:

The professional development of the person and its association with parents has been a fertile subject throughout history. Researchers have tried to unravel the enigma of this relationship. It is through the latter that the behavior and development of the person is explained and justified. Being dyadic in nature, the parental relationship involves two people (parents/child), therefore its quality is determined by multiple underlying processes.

Building on clinical work with troubled families (e.g., Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956), family systems perspective theorists have argued that causality in family relationships is essentially circular in nature : Parents and children mutually influence each other, making adaptation a shared outcome of their dynamic relationship (4). The relationship is mutual where the two actors interact.

Given the nature of the relationship that binds parents to their children, a relationship impacted by the degree of proximity, intimacy, and above all material and emotional care, parents position themselves as primary influencers in their children's career decisions.

This influence is often underestimated by parents, who may doubt the effectiveness of their involvement. They feel less qualified due to lack of training and information. Consequently, they believe that educators or pedagogues who are best suited to carry out this task.

Hence, the position of parents remains difficult to replace despite all the means that can be mobilized beyond the family (5). Leifer and Lesser (1976) concluded that parents are the main determinants of their offspring's career choices (6). “More recently, Schumrum and Hartman (1988) found that parents directly influence their children's career choices (6)»

Clutter (2010) pointed out that the impact of parental support on children's professional development exceeds that of teachers, professors and guidance counselors, even if the latter have more in-depth knowledge of the professional field. The reason for this predominance is explained by the fact that when it comes to career choice, children only trust their parents to make this crucial decision (7). Adolescents often report that parental support is the factor that most influences their career choice, compared to teachers, peers or school counselors.

Research suggests prioritizing counseling activities for parents to align their guidance with professional advice given to their children outside the family, on the one hand, to avoid the conflict of discourse between parents and other sources of orientation; on the other hand, due to the assimilation ease of the messages conveyed by parents to their children.

The diversity that characterizes the parental relationship, whereby parents are at the same time guardians, friends, models, forces children to sacrifice their personal choices to align themselves with those of their parents (8). Thus, despite the range of choices that can be offered to them:

·       On the one hand, young people deliberately opt for professions exercised by their parents or for professions that integrate the social rank of their parents (5) especially when the parents exercise a socially valued profession to which the parents also wish their children to become their successors. The example of Bowlby's father was a surgeon. He directed his son John Bowlby (Famous British psychiatrist and psychoanalyst and reference in attachment theory) towards medical school (9).

Schroder et al. (2011) found that children of whom parents have a family business, and are self-employed, tend to engage in self-employment later than in salaried employment(10).

·       On the other hand, children align themselves with their parents' choices out of obligation, since children know that any insubordination to the parents' will, would lead to the latter's reluctance to ensure their material or even emotional commitment to accompany them.

Gottfredson (1981) indicated that children adopt their parents' aspirations and ideas about acceptable careers (3).

Consequently, by positively reinforcing desired behaviors and inhibiting those considered undesirable, parents implicitly predispose children to oriented choices.

"The use of reinforcement techniques serves to establish the power of the reinforcer and, in the young child's mind, to legitimize its authority; (also) the use of properly applied negative sanctions can be a clear statement to the child that rules are there to be followed and that disobeying is breaking a known rule” (11).

Parents' expectations largely condition their children's career choices and that the results obtained by children in studies are linked to the degree of aspiration of their parents (12). The parents use these aspirations to define the framework in which young people develop, shape their own expectations and make decisions.

Also, through a socialization process which involves the nature of the discourse established and held between children and their parents, the latter influence the children's perceptions regarding their career choice (12). It is through this socialization process that parents and their children establish a common ground and a consensus allowing intentions to converge towards the same objective, “thus, professional development can be approached as a family project, where career objectives are co-constructed with family members”(13).

Rhee et al. (2003) stated that the more children have the ability to communicate with their parents and express their feelings, the more positive self-esteem they will have (14).

Hence, due to the sensitivity of this socialization process a vigilance must be given not only to “WHAT” communicating but also to “HOW” communicating with children. As an example: in “family contexts, marked by competition, where insistent messages of success at all costs are transmitted, can lead the subject to make immediate commitments without exploring them due to the gap between parental expectations, - too high - and insufficient personal resources (Young et al., 1994)(1)".

The socialization process is also a double-edged sword. When parents use it to conform their children to their aspirations, it also induces even parents who believe in their children's freedom of choice, to direct implicitly this act of socialization towards specific choices by adopting attitudes, verbal or non-verbal, towards the behavior of their children. According to Jacobsen (1999), "adults often underestimate children's intuitive abilities and overestimate their own knowledge and self-control" (p.14) (3).

It has been noted that the professional choice of adults finds its origins in the socialization process at an early age, this is all the more evident in the case of gendered treatment exercised by parents (12). Studies have found that the career decision-making process begins well before adulthood (5).

Children react actively with what goes on within families and especially with parents and career choice or development is dependent on the nature of the internalized relationship with parents (15).

According to Biddle, Bank and Marlin (as cited in Simpson, 2003), “rather than responding directly to external pressures...students internalize parental norms and preferences and, therefore, act in accordance with those norms” (3).

The family is, par excellence, the appropriate context for the development of individuals. It is the environment where they develop the skills necessary for their eventual maturity and becoming responsible people capable of making appropriate decisions.

Families play a critical role in connecting adolescents to diverse contexts and, therefore, family relationships may serve as mediators of more distal influences on adolescents' personal development and well-being (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000) (16).

What young people think and do at the age of seventeen is strongly influenced by their family (Durkin 1995), and the views of parents, family attitudes towards education and the fact that whether or not a young person is expected to study (aspects of cultural capital) are strong influences that can sometimes be taken for granted (Payne 2002) (17).

The publication of the Coleman Report in the USA in 1966 asserted that family factors were much more important than school variables in influencing student achievement at school.(Coleman, 1988) (18).

The quality of the parent-child relationship affects the career choices of adult children. Chen (2021) showed that people who had difficulty making career choice decisions tended to come from families with reverse family interactions and relationships, that is, very close family relationships or very distant (10).

Taken as a model, the personality of the parents contributes largely to forging the model of personality expected in children. “The assertive and confident parent provides the child with a similar role model. Likewise, the parent who uses discipline techniques focused on power rather than love achieves compliance through means other than guilt” (11).

Although most studies have treated the notion of "parents" as a single factor, some studies have shown that, when it comes to career choices, children are influenced differently by their fathers and their mothers. Otto (2000) reported that young adults most often turn to their mothers for career advice. Maier (2005) suggested that this could be due to the more frequent discussions that take place between a mother and her children (3), this should encourage mothers to consider the quality of their interaction with their children.

Jacobs, Chhin & Bleeker (2006) concluded that children respond differently to maternal and paternal expectations depending on their gender (3).

Other studies have shown that the role of the father is significant compared to that of the mother (12).

Given the decisive role of parents in their children's career choice, any shortcoming at this level will be filled by other stakeholders.(8), namely :

• Pairs

• Teachers,

• Guidance counselors, etc.

The quality and nature of parent’s decisions are submitted to Several factors:

Socio-economic factors are cited, among others. Parents' material situation and level of education have a major impact on children's career choices. The more favorable these indicators are, the more flexibility children have in their decision-making and the more opportunities are offered to children to develop favorably (19). Whereas in the opposite case, a difficult economic situation and a low level of education of the parents can only constitute constraining or even inhibiting factors for children to be able to formulate satisfactory choices (5).

Paul Willis highlighted the impact of institutional and cultural factors in reproducing the social hierarchy and justifying "working class boys come to accept working class jobs through their own apparent choice"(20).

The socio-economic status of parents is a decisive indicator in school performance, an essential springboard towards professional choices for children. Children from disadvantaged families experience, on average, difficulty achieving satisfactory results.

McNamee and Miller wrote: "The race to get and stay ahead is more like a relay race in which we inherit the starting position from our parents. The passing of the baton between generations profoundly influences life outcomes." (197-8). So, children whose parents are successful are more likely to experience success in their own lives. This intergenerational transmission of advantage and disadvantage refers to the extent to which inequalities persist across generations, typically in terms of income, employment and class (17).

Differences in social belonging affect children well before they enter school and continue to exert a strong influence as they grow up to potentially deepen the performance gap among them and influence the choices to be made. A social constraint that instead of prioritizing merit, involves non-objective and non-democratic criteria, namely: economic, social, ethnic, religious situation, limiting thus the career choice of children and handicapping their chance of aspiring to others choice.

Successive studies show that students living in extreme poverty perform well below international averages on a range of measures (Berliner 2006) (21).

It has been found that fathers and mothers who are highly engaged in their children's educational training and development also tend to have high levels of education, hold high-level jobs, and have significant incomes (Crane & Heaton, 2008; Mapp et al., 2010; Wartman & Savage, 2008) (18).

However, unfavorable economic factors can be mitigated through close and intensive parental support towards their children. Therefore, the more parents are involved in their children's education, the more likely their children are to succeed in school and achieve their career aspirations.

The impact of the economic factor on children's outcomes has been the subject of great debate. Mayer 1997; Mayer 2002 identified two theories (17) on this subject :

·        The investment theory:

She argues that income has a direct effect on outcomes. The economic success of children and parents is dependent on biological characteristics and the various investments in well-being that parents make available to their children to guarantee them a favorable social climate to ensure success at various levels. Consistent with this model, children from families with economically favorable backgrounds generally achieve more than those from less advantaged backgrounds.

·        The Good Parent Theory:

She argues that income has an indirect effect. She argues that the lack of material means hinders parents from fulfilling their commitments properly towards their children. Hence the importance of employment on parents’ economic situation and the harmful consequences generated by unemployment. The family relationship becomes critical and paralyzes the social and emotional development of children. Family values ​​and dynamics can be influenced by the parents' financial situation.

(McLoyd, 1990) [emphasizes] that poverty, as a pervasive risk factor, affects children primarily through inadequate parental education that occurs under the stress of uncertain employment, low income, of overcrowded housing and deteriorated and dangerous neighborhoods (4).

Parents who model a successful career in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) or other professions have been found to contribute to schemas and perceptions of potential career paths (12).

 3.      Parenting style:

The importance of the parental role in children's career choice invites reflection on the nature of the appropriate style that parents are advised to adopt to help children formulate a suitable choice, a consensual choice which meets the parents' expectations without, however, ignoring the child's ambition. Where “parents scaffold their children while they choose a career by keeping their interest as priority, which will be a source of career satisfaction and motivation for their children in the future”(12). To put it tersely: how do parents behave toward their children so that the latter can develop the necessary skills to make satisfactory choices?

Parenting style can be defined as: “a socialization force that influences psychosocial development, such as the internalization of social values ​​such as self-esteem, responsibility, and punctuality, and that has long-term effects on an individual's development (12)".

Studies conducted at this level have identified various parenting styles:

a)      The indulgent parenting style, characterized by “parental warmth without harshness”(22):

Severity also called receptivity, acceptance or affection (22). The warmth of the relationship that characterizes this style makes it suitable for greater success in choosing a career. So, the nature of emotions is important. The more parents show positive and warm interest in their children's career choices, the more likely their children are to make optimal choices (13). Children feel more confident, interested and concerned about career choice if they feel supported and loved by their parents and vice versa. Children's interest is manifested by the search for information that allows them to formulate an appropriate career choice. This parental attitude can correspond to “positive involvement” (2) which establishes a parental relationship in phase and symbiosis.

In their reconceptualization of the influence of parenting styles on children's development, Darling and Steinberg (1993) argued that recognition of the emotional climate, which provides the context for socialization, must be assessed in order to understand the relationship between parenting practices and child outcomes (4).

b)      The authoritarian style characterized by “parental warmth with severity” (22).

Severity called here requirement or imposition (22), although this style is strict and uncompromising, it remains characterized by warmth in the relationship (22) also necessary for success;

 c)      The authoritarian and careless style:

Characterized by a warmth lack in the relationship. This style is considered less capable of helping people formulate appropriate choices. This corresponds to a “negative implication”(2) where parents become imposing and children become frustrated and submit to carry out their parents' choice.

“Hassan & Shen (2015) found that authoritative parenting style and permissive parenting style shows a significant positive correlation and negative correlation with academic achievement, respectively. Meanwhile, authoritarian parenting style had shown no significant correlation with academic achievement. Parent’s support act as a motivation force that could trigger and initiate students to excel in their academic performance. (23)

A comparison among the styles revealed that the indulgent style without severity is the most recommended to achieve better results in helping to formulate career choices.(22).

The nature of the relationship, supporting and creating balance between the parents' aspirations, and the children's ability to achieve these aspirations, all play a role in the motivation that adolescents will develop when making plans for their future.

Numerous empirical studies have shown that parents with secure attachment representations have warmer and more sensitive parental behaviors than parents with insecure attachment representations (24).

Sawitri's findings in a sample of adolescents indicate that congruence in career expectations between adolescent and parent is positively associated with a variety of career development outcomes, including career decision-making power, career self-efficacy, career aspirations, and career exploration (25).

This is why the parents’ role, and the family climate cannot in any case be accomplished with the same qualitative dimension by other stakeholders and any “de-idealization” of the parent’s role will expose children to false idols.

In this context, among the approaches that have influenced the theory of styles is the study presented by Diana Baumrind (1966, 1968, 1971). By combining the dimensions of support and control, Baumrind (1971) defines four parenting styles: authoritarian, democratic, permissive and indifferent (26).

This corresponds to other scales that qualify the degree of parental involvement. Three types of practices were determined, namely (26):

·        Supportive practices:

Also corresponding to a “democratic” attitude (11)» which recognizes the being personality and favors their autonomy allowing them to self-realize;

·        Interference practices:

Corresponding to an “authoritarian” attitude (11)» limiting the person's maneuver room and forcing him or her to be more compliant.

·        Disengagement practices:

Corresponding to an attitude of “indifference” (11) where parents disengage, deliberately or forced, from the process of their children's career choice, leaving them to their fate without any support, which exposes them to a lot of stress and therefore further complicates decision-making. This attitude is also described as “permissive” where parents exercise no power over the children. The latter, in such a situation, “were more resistant and less oriented towards success” (11).

Some studies have tried to contextualize these practices according to cultures. Thus, in individualistic cultures, the person is granted more autonomy and recognition; whereas in collectivist cultures, the group has priority and the person is only recognized if he submits to the rules and choices of the group (26).

To enable children to construct perceptions likely to enable them to formulate satisfactory choices which also meet their personal expectations; parents' commitment to their children must be initiated not only at an early age, but also support them before, during and after their schooling process. Because even when children become adults and develop other relationships outside the family; these relationships remain provisional and transient, and the presence of parents cannot ever be ignored.       

4.      Psychological foundations and dimensions:

The career choice finds its origins in the parent/child relationship from the children's early age. Lent, Brown and Hackett, 1994; Roe, 1956; Savickas, 2005; Savickas et al., 2009; Super, 1980) posit that the career choice process begins at early stages of development and is subject to various psychological and contextual factors(15). Professional patterns are formed early in life, develop and become more complex through relationships with others(27).

For example, respondents in the engineering study explained that being exposed to women in STEM early on, made their careers possible. They explained that for members of their peer group who did not have such opportunities, engineering was not even on their radar (20).

The parents’ impact on children’s cognitive and emotional development at an early age is so significant that it proves to be a vital predictor of their success throughout their school career.

In fact, the first five years are so crucial that it is often possible to predict a child's academic and overall success based on their academic performance upon entering preschool (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Salkind, 2006 ) (3).

Therefore, in general, the more we move away from the conventional family model composed of two biological parents, the more children's academic performance, psychological well-being and behavior are impacted (Jeynes, 2000b, 2002a, 2006b; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989) (18), thanks to the care provided by both parents, the permanent availability of at least one parent, and above all, the benefits of the degree of communication with two parents rather than just one.

One of the pioneering theories in this framework is that formulated by Eli Ginzberg for whom professional choice is a continuous process which takes place in a succession of three periods (Ginzberg, 1988) (3):

• fanciful choices (before the age of 11),

• Provisional choices (between 11 and 17 years old) and

• Realistic choices (between the ages of 17 and early adulthood) (Ginzberg, 1988).

According to Ginzberg (1988), During the early stages of their growth, children often consider following their parents' professions, but later they try to reconcile their own interests with the opportunities available in their environment.

This classification corresponds to Gottfredson's (1981) theory of circumscription and compromise [that] attempted to explain occupational choices through a process beginning in early childhood of narrowing alternatives and realistically evaluating opportunities (28). According to this theory (1981), career choice is affected at four different stages of cognitive development. As children mature, their career choices become narrower, leading to career choices that better correspond to their self-image, including their personal interests, abilities and values (3).

An emotional and warm relationship experienced at an early age only increases the feeling of security and develops in the child “a great tolerance for interpersonal closeness, as well as the ability to manage life problems” (29) thus referring to the famous adage: “you reap what you sow”.

And this can only come to fruition if the person's life is from the beginning surrounded by secure conditions. From his earliest studies, Bowlby (1988) was convinced that deviant or troubled behavior in late childhood and adolescence had its origins in the family system, adding that, people of all ages are "happiest when life is organized around a series of excursions, long or short, from the secure base provided by our attachment figures (30)

In terms of perceptions of others, more and more evidence indicates that secure adolescents generally have a more positive perception of their attachment figures and other people in their lives than insecure adolescents (24).

Secure attachment in adulthood is associated with greater relationship satisfaction and more positive means of conflict resolution (e.g., Selcuk et al. 2010; Carnelley et al. 1994; Rholes et al. 2006) (30).

Roe stated that children who are securely attached most often pursue person-oriented activities (Trice, 1995) (3).

Career development can be facilitated by the family environment, when it provides a safe, favorable, stimulating and encouraging context and acts as a promoter of autonomy; on the contrary, it can discourage, when family contexts are aggregated, too competitive, neglectful, strict and do not facilitate differentiation and autonomy (Young et al., 1994) (1).

Parental treatment is generally considered an "environmental influence" that has the capacity to shape children's development [...] (4).

 5.      Gender

Although  research  showed  negligible  gender  differences  on  general  intelligence  (Deary, 2003; Strand, Deary, & Smith, 2006; Halpern, 2000), males tend to perform better in  some  subtests  and  females  on  others (31).

Despite the existence of differences between the sexes, the notion of gender is a social component. Its perception is influenced more by cultural stereotypes than by biological reasons.

These gender-based discriminations have repercussions on the potential of individuals and block them from using their skills to explore other universes.

Empowered women in Laurie's study (Cohen, 2014) said that at the start of their careers, they only considered three possibilities: being a teacher, a secretary, or a nurse. They explained how this very narrow horizon had influenced their career choice, their growing sense of discontent and their apprehension about taking another path (20).

Among the areas where this discrimination is highlighted, play activities constitute another aspect through which parents often unconsciously influence the professional choice of children. Society already categorizes children's play activities by assigning specific activities and items to each genre and relentlessly puts pressure on individuals to conform to this rule. Consequently, children submit to the latter to the point where in the absence of an obvious categorization clue, the children themselves undertake their own explorations to discover them.

By promoting or even reinforcing the segregation of play activities based on gender among children, parents reinforce the orientation of each gender towards specific or even exclusive domains and discourage them from exploring activities that go beyond the traditional limits of the gender. Acts which reinforce the distance between the two sexes instead of bringing them closer together.

Gender segregation according to play activities occurs either through concrete acts that parents voluntarily undertake: for example, girls are often encouraged to be nurturing and polite, while boys are encouraged to be adventurous and independent (quoted in Bussey & Bandura 1999) (32); engage boys in rough and dynamic activities, while reserving verbal interaction, gentle behavior and domestic care for girls.

It is also carried out verbally by labeling the articles with expressions assigning the article to a particular gender: it's a boy's toy or it's a girls' toy (33); or, by adopting “the stereotype associating the color pink with girls and blue with boys (Dinella & Weisgram 2018)” (32).

These typical characteristics of men and women are like the traits and skills associated with male and female professions. So, while male-dominated professions often involve higher levels of risk, are stuff-oriented and requiring effort or risk; female-dominated professions are soft, focused on children, fashion, and helping other people (Lippa, 2005) (32).

Since these activities constitute the early field for role-playing games, including those linked to professional aspirations, this allows children to project themselves professionally into the future by developing the skills necessary for some professions.

Results of a ten-year longitudinal study revealed a link between gendered toys, play behaviors and children's later career aspirations (Kung, 2021) (32).

According to (Martin & Halverson, 1981; Martin et al., 2002) the theory of gender schemas has developed two types of cognitive schemas in children:

a.       A schema of belonging/exclusion to classify and organize elements of their environment as being "for them" or "not for them", respectively, based on what the culture has deemed appropriate for each gender(33);

b.       A genre diagram.

Children's perception of gender role play is also influenced by their parents' position at this level. Children often align themselves with the vision, traditional or liberal, in which their parents believe.

The roles parents play at home can have a strong influence on children's understanding of gender roles (Jungen, 2008). By observing their parents' communication, distribution of responsibilities at home, and power dynamics, children understand what is considered appropriate for their gender (Bussey & Bandura 1999) (32).

 6.      A few successes paths

The focus on the major importance of the parental relationship with their children in terms of career choice raises questions, on one hand, about the degree of involvement of parents in their children’s education and life in general; on the other hand, on the relevant aspects that directly influence this relationship.

Because it is not only a question of appreciating the positivity of parental involvement in the career choice process but above all determining to what extent parents' aspirations can also constitute a source of children’s frustration.

The knowledge lack until now of the precise factors that manage and control the dynamics of the parent/child relationship continually drives research to unveil this enigma.

Ballantine (1999) states that there are many aspects of parental involvement and that it would be useful for social scientists to identify those aspects of parental involvement that have the most beneficial effects on the children (18).

It is obvious to recognize that the parental relationship is not homogeneous or has the character of a one-size-fits-all recipe to be applied in all situations. Each situation is multifactorial depending, among other things, on cultural, economic, social factors, etc. of the family itself.

The parent/child relationship must not take on the aspect of a paternal, authoritarian model which consists of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of people under the pretext that “only parents know their children’s best interests”. Such a relationship now seems to be outdated and criticized. The rejection of this form of relationship is justified by the fact that it does not recognize the other's choices in life; at a time when technological development now allows adolescents to have a quantity and quality of information positioning them well ahead of their parents.

The rapid development of information technology has an impact on the amount of information obtained directly by children, so children are more confident in choosing their future career because they are more informed about career choice.

“Like many other researchers, our results demonstrated (model 1) that when mothers or fathers of preschool-age children were warmer, more receptive, more structuring and more encouraging of their child's autonomy, their children were more likely to perform better academically on tests and were less likely to be described by their teachers as having externalizing problems or internalizing behaviors as shy, withdrawn, and depressed in kindergarten and first grade (Calm, Cowan, Cowan, At Pearson, 1992;(4).

This is by no means a relationship where the child is allowed to behave as he wishes; where he has uncontrolled maneuver room; but rather recognize his independence of choice which lets him take his destiny in hand, because through choosing for themselves, “children increase their health and their satisfaction in life, while the absence of choice makes them desperate and helpless ( Langer 1975 (14).

One form of parental relationship that has been the subject of bitter criticism, by adolescents themselves, is that described as a relationship of “over-parenting” or excessive parenting. It is defined as: parental behaviors characterized by excessive responsiveness/support, excessive demands/control, and low autonomy, manifested by excessive parental assistance and guidance, anticipatory problem solving, management of affairs and influences on behalf of the child, frequent requests for information and monitoring, as well as interventions (25).

This type of relationship is criticized because it is considered a source of blockage for children. It is associated with failures in children, adolescents and adults in multiple areas of development, including psychosocial, behavioral, relational, academic and occupational (25).

Overparenting is often the result of parents placing extreme importance on children's successes under the pretext that the children's future must be better than their own. This constitutes a source of stress, frustration and a blockage for children in making vocational decisions.

Parents have become concerned about their children's future more than ever. The pejorative term "helicopter parents" has been coined to refer to the type of parents who constantly involve themselves in their children's activities, make all the decisions for them, and become furious if the children are insubordinate.

Helicopter parents exert a negative influence on the autonomy and personal effectiveness of their children by depriving them of all responsibility.

When parents constantly save their children from negative consequences, children do not learn to overcome failures (Kantrowitz & Tyre, 2006). Parental overprotection may be associated with psychological maladjustment (McLeod, Wood, & Weisz, 2007; Muris, Meesters, & van den Berg, 2003), such as anxiety (Hudson & Rapee, 2001) and low self-esteem (Laible and Carlo, 2004) (34).

Based on this, it can be argued that overparenting may contribute to adolescents' career indecision by reducing their career decision self-efficacy, proved a key success in person’s life. “According to Yusuf (2011), self-efficacy and CGPA have the highest statistical significant effect compare to achieving motivation and learning strategies (23)”.

The researchers note that the pressure exerted by career expectations interferes with individuals' independent decision-making and self-regulation, as well as with developmental tasks that become salient during these life cycles, such as maladjustment of careers (25).

To remedy the negative effects of this type of relationship, parents are called upon to involve their children in issues that concern their future. A decision that has been the subject of such consensus will not only alleviate the impact of the phenomenon of overparenting; but it is perceived by the children as an act of support.

Families must recognize that they are not raising copies of themselves, but unique individuals with their own characteristics and interests. It is essential that parents support and nurture their children's individual interests, providing them with diverse opportunities to explore varied areas (32)".

The more the parental relationship is characterized by proximity, recognition of the other's choices, the more they are synergistic and in symbiosis.

When adolescents experience emotional disconnection and distancing from their parents, they tend to persist in their career choices, regardless of their parents' approval (Jungen, 2008).(10).

The dilemma of the parental relationship is the quest to strike a compromise between the personal choice of adolescents and the satisfaction of parents' expectations, at a time when young people are looking for independence and innovative approaches (Schroder et al., 2011).

To carry out their mission appropriately, parents must, on the one hand, equip themselves with the necessary knowledge in terms of tutoring and parental education methods and the effective implementation of this knowledge. This is why some countries provide training in good parenting techniques.

Belsky summarized the factors influencing the quality of the parental relationship into three components: a) parents' personal resources, b) contextual sources of stress and support, and c) child characteristics (16).

This subject of the impact of parental relationship has raised debates centered on the question of the impact of education (nurture) compared to that of nature. Since the 1980s, much research has focused on measuring the impact of each gene and the environment in shaping the person.

Blaming the whole issue on the impact of parents and the nature of their relationship with their children can invest the role of parents with a deterministic and magical power; because, on the one hand, the family environment is complex where many factors interact; on the other hand, the child's personality is composed, consequently, other dimensions can escape the parents’ control that namely are of the order of genes.

Growing evidence, however, suggests that genetic and environmental factors help shape human development (Turkheimer 2000) (16).

Gottfredson (1981, 1996, 2002, 2005) assumes that the career choice process requires a higher level of cognitive abilities. She (2002, 2005) outlined the interaction between the concept of genetic makeup and the environment. Genetic characteristics play a vital role in influencing a person's attributes, such as skills, values ​​and interests, and in influencing the environment (35).

The genetic effect sometimes acts against the wishes of the parents. The disparities observed among children raised by the same parents and in the same home are taken as an argument by geneticists to criticize the major importance given to the impact of parents.

However, in the absence of convincing genetic results, on the one hand; and the plethora of research regarding parental impact, the latter appears more convincing so far.

7.      Conclusion

The impact of parents on their children’s career choices is undeniable, reflecting a complex dynamic where social, personal, and economic influences intersect. Parental involvement plays a key role, not only as a source of encouragement and support but also as a factor that can either limit or enhance young people’s opportunities. While some parents unconsciously shape their children’s aspirations based on their own experiences, others adopt more balanced approaches, fostering autonomy and informed decision-making.

However, it remains crucial to strike a balance between parental expectations and personal ambitions, enabling a positive co-construction of professional choices. Ultimately, open communication, encouragement, and mutual respect within the parent-child relationship foster fulfilling and sustainable career paths.

Bibliography:

1.  Gonçalves C, Coimbra JL. The family’s influences in adolescents' career development. 1998.

2. Middleton EB, Loughead TA. Parental influence on career development: An integrative framework for adolescent career counseling. J Career Dev. 1993;16:161‑73.

3. Jungen KA. Parental influence and career choice: How parents affect the career aspirations of their children. University of Wisconsin-Stout; 2008.

4. Bornstein MH. Parenting and the child’s world, influence on academic, intellectual and social-emotional development. 2002.

5. Olusola IO, Mopelola OA. Effects of Parental Influence on Adolescents’ Career Choice in Badagry Local Government Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. IOSR J Res Method Educ IOSRJRME. 2014;4(4):44‑57.

6. Hoffman JJ, Hofacker C, Goldsmith EB. How Closeness Affects Parental Influence on Business College Students’ Career Choices. J Career Dev. 1992.

7. Richards E, Ebeh EU, Ohazurike S, Omaku SA. Social media modelling, mentoring and parental support as predictor of undergraduates’ career choice. 2023;13(1).

8. Akosah-Twumasi P, Emeto TI, Lindsay D, Tsey K, Malau-Aduli BS. A systematic review of factors that influence youths’ career choices—the role of culture. Front Educ. 2018;3:58.

9. Mooney CG. Theories of attachment: An introduction to Bowlby, Ainsworth, Gerber, Brazelton, Kennell, and Klaus. 1st ed. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press; 2010.

10. Dorot R, Davidovitch N. Parental influence on adult children’s choice of career. SCIREA J Educ [Internet]. 2023 [cited 23 Jan 2024]. Available from: https://www.scirea.org/journal/PaperInformation?PaperID=10183

11. Baumrind D. Current patterns of parental authority. Dev Psychol. 1971;4(1, Pt.2):1‑103.

12. Valentine B. An analysis of parental influence on career choice and success. Can J Fam Youth J Can Fam Jeun. 2023;15(2):133‑8.

13. Bourret M, Ratelle CF, Plamondon A, Châteauvert GB. Dynamics of parent-adolescent interactions during a discussion on career choice: The role of parental behaviors and emotions. J Vocat Behav. 2023;141:103837.

14. Javed AM, Farooq MU, Hussain A. Paternalistic involvement in career choice aspiration and its impact on self-esteem. 2023.

15. Braunstein-Bercovitz H. Self-criticism, anxious attachment, and avoidant attachment as predictors of career decision making. J Career Assess. 2014;22(1):176‑87.

16. Horwitz BN, Neiderhiser JM, editors. Gene-environment interplay in interpersonal relationships across the lifespan [Internet]. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2015 [cited 11 Nov 2023]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4939-2923-8

17. Cusworth L. The impact of parental employment: young people, well-being, and educational achievement. Farnham: Ashgate; 2009.

18. Jeynes WH. Parental involvement and academic success. Routledge; 2011.

19. Akkermans J, Collings DG, da Motta Veiga SP, Post C, Seibert S. Toward a broader understanding of career shocks: Exploring interdisciplinary connections with research on job search, human resource management, entrepreneurship, and diversity. J Vocat Behav. 2021;126:103563.

20. Cohen L, Duberley J. Making sense of our working lives: The concept of the career imagination. Organ Theory. 2021;2(2):263178772110046.

21. Harris A, Andrew-Power K, Goodall J. Do parents know they matter? Raising achievement through parental engagement. London; New York: Continuum; 2009. 123 p.

22. Martinez-Escudero JA, Villarejo S, Garcia OF, Garcia F. Parental socialization and its impact across the lifespan. Behav Sci. 2020;10(6):101.

23. Zahayu MY, Masnita M, Syuhaida MR, Sharifuddin AN, Hannah SA, Ahmad MF, et al. Evaluating factors affecting university students’ academic performance by using structural equation model. Moroccan Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 2024.

24. Mayseless O, Scharf M. Attachment in adolescence: Reflections and new angles. 2007.

25. Wang Y. The influence of overparenting on college students’ career indecision: A moderated mediation analysis. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2023;16:4569‑82.

26. Dangoisse F, F Nils. Évaluation de la perception des pratiques vocationnelles parentales et adaptabilité de carrière des adolescents. L’Orientation Sc Prof. 2019;(48/3):321‑51.

27. Simosi M, Rousseau DM, Daskalaki M. When career paths cease to exist: A qualitative study of career behavior in a crisis economy. J Vocat Behav. 2015;134‑46.

28. Walsh WB, Savickas M, editors. Handbook of vocational psychology: theory, research, and practice. 3rd ed. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. 463 p. (Contemporary topics in vocational psychology).

29. Holmes J. John Bowlby and attachment theory. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2014.

30. Zayas V, Hazan C, editors. Bases of adult attachment: Linking brain, mind and behavior [Internet]. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2015 [cited 11 Nov 2023]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-9622-9

31. Beinicke de Würzburg A. Career construction across the life span: Career choice and career development. University Julius Maximilian de Würzburg; 2015.

32. Gökmeral İ. The role of parents’ gender stereotyped attitudes and gender-typed toy preferences in children’s future career aspirations. 2023.

33. Weisgram ES, Fulcher M, Dinella LM. Pink gives girls permission: Exploring the roles of explicit gender labels and gender-typed colors on preschool children’s toy preferences. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2014;35(5):401‑9.

34. Van Ingen DJ, Freiheit SR, Steinfeldt JA, Moore LL, Wimer DJ, Knutt AD, et al. Helicopter parenting: The effect of an overbearing caregiving style on peer attachment and self-efficacy. J Coll Couns. 2015;18(1):7‑20.

35. Jena L, Nayak U. Theories of career development: An analysis. 2020;(60).