Expanding the Dual-Process Theory of Career Decision Making: Ambiguity Management Under Environmental Adversity

A Missing Account of Systemic Issues with Ambiguity Management

The DTC, however, is not without limitations. A notable one is that like decision science in general, the DTC focuses on the psychological process of career decision making and adaptation and has not placed contextual challenges in its conceptual foreground. As a result, other than acknowledging the general importance of contextual factors, the DTC has not specified important contextual factors and detailed how they relate to ambiguity management. Although this gap does not necessarily mean that the DTC overstates personal volition and responsibility, it certainly limits the DTC’s capacity to contribute to an emerging dialogue in vocational psychology, which draws on critical psychology and intersectionality frameworks to center systemic issues in career development (e.g., (Ali et al., 2022; Blustein et al., 2019). This social-justice-oriented dialogue turned the spotlight on environmental adversity and advocated more direct attention to the joint operation of multiple layers of oppressive societal structures (Ali et al., 2022; Blustein et al., 2019; Duffy et al., 2016). Therefore, viewing the DTC in the broader literature of vocational psychology, the DTC can be strengthened by incorporating a detailed account of how systemic issues affect ambiguity management and consequently hinder the career and life outcomes of marginalized populations.

Adding a contextual perspective to the DTC not only enhances its utility for understanding and helping marginalized populations but also lends an important decision-making perspective to the social-justice-oriented dialogue in vocational psychology. Notably, while contextually driven models, such as the Psychology of Working Theory (PWT; (Duffy et al., 2016), shed light on privilege, oppression, and equity in career development, they mainly explain how systemic issues shape career outcomes or the translation of choice goals to attained career, rather than the formulation of choice goals. For example, PWT (Duffy et al., 2016) builds on two forms of environmental adversity, marginalization and economic constraints, and delineates how they lead to career and life outcomes through access to decent work. While admittedly, people do not always have privileges or power to exercise their agency and select their career path, they still need to make decisions within the constraints of contextual affordances, even though the decision process might entail a nonnegligible compromise. Those decisions include but are not limited to selecting the most adaptive choice among feasible and likable options and balancing short-term necessity and long-term aspiration. Given the motivational nature of career choice (Kulcsar et al., 2020; Lent & Brown, 2013), we argue that career decisions have an important motivational function for directing career behaviors and can be used as intervention points. Thus, understanding how systemic issues shape career choice is important.

Three Forms of Environmental Adversity

Research on environmental adversity generally follows two frameworks of environmental adversity (Ellis et al., 2022; Usacheva et al., 2022): harshness-unpredictability (focusing on evolutionary and developmental motives or why) and threat-deprivation (focusing on neurobiological mechanisms or how). Building on the two frameworks, Ellis and colleagues (Ellis et al., 2022) recently proposed an integrated framework that consists of three relatively distinct adversity dimensions: threat-based harshness, deprivation-based harshness, and unpredictability. Research has supported this three-factor model in factor-analytic results and in the differential associations of the three forms of adversity with developmental criteria, including cognitive ability, physical health, aggressive behavior, emotional reactivity, and risk-taking behavior (Sheridan et al., 2020; Usacheva et al., 2022). Although the three forms of adversity represent conceptually distinct sources of stress, they often co-occur and can lead to similar psychopathologies through different pathways (Carozza et al., 2022). The three forms of adversity cover contextual and structural challenges that have been noted in career research (e.g., racism and poverty) but also call attention to a less explored issue, unpredictability.

Specifically, threat (or threat-based harshness) denotes experienced or anticipated harm to the physical integrity or psychological wellbeing of individuals (Ellis et al., 2022). Threat can manifest in many ways across the lifespan, such as with adverse childhood experiences, discrimination, and insecure employment. Racism is a classic example of threat that has implications for health and career development and can be harmful when it is experienced or anticipated. For example, anticipated racial discrimination predicts poorer career decision-making self-efficacy and vocational outcome expectations among youth of color (Conkel-Ziebell et al., 2019). Vocational theories similarly identify lifelong marginalization as a threat to occupational choice and adaptability (Duffy et al., 2016), and marginalization can include the many ways that intersecting forms of oppression cause harm to vulnerable workers, such as ableism, classism, transphobia, and sexism (Allan et al., 2021). In the integrative dimensional model of adversity, threat is expected to impact fear learning and disrupt emotional regulation (Ellis et al., 2022; Sheridan et al., 2020).

Deprivation (or deprivation-based harshness) denotes inadequate monetary or psychosocial resources (Ellis et al., 2022). At the broadest level, poverty is the primary cause of deprivation, and childhood poverty is particularly linked to disruptions in all life domains, such as cognitive and relationships (Mistry et al., 2002). In the work domain, working poverty, which is also concentrated among marginalized workers, also prevents workers from meeting their basic needs, such as food, housing, and health care, as well as advancing their careers through education and skill development. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States had among the highest proportions of people working in poverty among postindustrial nations (BLS, 2022), and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these inequities, with low wage workers disproportionately experiencing its effects because they were less likely to be able to work from home and socially distance (Cubrich, 2020). Therefore, working poverty not only deprives people of a living wage but also exposes people to a range of additional risks, such as workplace hazards. Deprivation can also represent inadequate psychosocial resources, often operationalized as social, human, and cultural capital, which are similarly linked to poorer outcomes (Author Citation). In the integrative dimensional model of adversity, deprivation is expected to constrain cognitive development (Ellis et al., 2022; Sheridan et al., 2020).

Adversity to Ambiguity and Career Choice

The first mechanism of environmental adversity shaping career pursuit concerns the mediation of decision ambiguity in the link between environmental adversity and career choice. Unless otherwise specified, career choice in the current model focuses on choices regarding pursuing careers that facilitate resource accumulation (i.e., resource-accumulating careers), which often entails moving beyond the socially prescribed or anticipated zone for marginalized populations. More specifically, depending on the intersectional identities of a specific marginalized population, socially prescribed or anticipated occupations can include but are not limited to precarious, labor-intense jobs for people from lower or working class backgrounds and traditionally female-dominated occupations for women and people who are nonbinary. This type of work ultimately denies equitable financial and social opportunities for marginalized populations because it consumes the mental, physical, and time resources of marginalized populations in exchange for precarious, low wage salaries or social approval. In other words, while this type of work might be necessary at a particular point, it meets proximate needs at the potential cost of resources that can empower life improvement and thriving (e.g., low-paying but busy service jobs meet basic survival needs but deprive people of the energy and time needed for further education).

Conversely, pursuing careers that move beyond normative constraints and facilitate resource accumulation likely has salient psychological, social, and financial benefits, especially for marginalized populations, which is a key motivation for the current article to focus on this line of careers. These careers can be assessed either through self-reported measures that directly capture perceived potential for resource accumulation or through specific career fields that are likely to lead to resource accumulation (e.g., professional careers). However, as Gottfredson’s (2005) circumscription model suggests, moving beyond the socially acceptable zone of occupations is likely an adventure with unpredictable outcomes.

More specifically, while decision ambiguity is inevitable for most people, environmental adversity could give rise to ambiguity in evaluating resource-accumulating careers due to plausible impacts of threat, deprivation, and unpredictability. Based on the relational perspective of work and Gottfredson’s circumscription (Gottfredson, 2005), when people’s backgrounds and identities (e.g., lower social class) are underrepresented or threatened in careers of interests (e.g., legal practice), such threats conflict with the potential benefits of resource-accumulating careers and could create uncertainty about committing to such careers. Deprivation likely gives rise to decision ambiguity about pursuing resource-accumulating careers because they deviate from life norms and socially modeled choices for given positionalities and often require additional resources and support (e.g., information and role modeling) that marginalized people have trouble accessing. Relatedly, psychosocial deprivation (particularly in childhood) disrupts cognitive development due to inadequate social cognitive stimulation (Ellis et al., 2022). However, higher-order cognitive abilities are crucial for the weighing process for resource-accumulating careers because they involve more parameters to consider than socially prescribed careers (e.g., socioemotional challenges). Unpredictability likely gives rise to decision ambiguity because the experiences of unstable contextual affordance and safety could sensitize individuals to risks (Ellis et al., 2022) and consequently heighten the risk perception of resource-accumulating careers (e.g., identity-based maltreatment). In addition, concerns about unstable affordance and safety could cultivate a general sense of uncertainty about committing to a single career because no career has a guaranteed reward structure.

Although research that directly examined the association between environmental adversity and decision ambiguity is still nascent, Xu (2022a) found that racial/ethnic and sexual minorities experienced more career decision ambiguity than White and heterosexual individuals, respectively. Additionally, Xu’s (2022a) study offered initial evidence for the association between deprivation and career decision ambiguity by revealing that people with lower social class tended to experience more career decision ambiguity. Given the theoretical reasoning and preliminary evidence, we propose that environmental adversity leads to decision ambiguity (Proposition 1).

While we anticipate environmental adversity to give rise to decision ambiguity, the DTC (Xu, 2021a, 2023; Xu & Flores, 2023) suggests that decision ambiguity could influence choice goals. Thus, ambiguity may function as a mediator between environmental adversity and career choice. Laboratory evidence in decision science has shown that when people anticipate a gain, they tend to avoid options with uncertain outcomes (Kahneman, 2003; Thaler, 2016). Career decision making clearly represents a gain scenario in that individuals anticipate gaining psychological, social, or financial benefits through their selected work. Therefore, we propose that decision ambiguity influences career choice because marginalized individuals who experience ambiguity about the outcomes of resource-accumulating careers tend to avoid choosing such options (Proposition 2).

Adversity to Instant Gratification and Career Choice

In addition to the experience of ambiguity, environmental adversity could shape career choice through ambiguity management strategies. Specifically, environmental adversity could restrict people’s ability to delay gratification, which could subsequently influence their intent for resource-accumulating careers. Gratification delay denotes forgoing immediate, smaller rewards in the hope of obtaining larger rewards in the future (Hoerger et al., 2011), while its opposite (i.e., instant gratification) refers to prioritizing readily available or foreseeable rewards over unpredictable but potentially larger future rewards. Gratification delay is a core paradigm in research on self-control and persistence and has spawned extensive research on its role in development, physical health, and psychopathology (Hoerger et al., 2011). In a nutshell, gratification delay was found to facilitate time-consuming human endeavors that emphasize long-term rewards, including exercise and academic and socioemotional development (Daugherty & Brase, 2010; Green & Myerson, 2004).

Following Amir and colleagues’ (2018) uncertainty management perspective, we conceptualize gratification delay, or more precisely, instant gratification, as an important ambiguity management strategy that influences career choice. As noted by the DTC (Xu, 2021a, 2023; Xu & Flores, 2023), heuristics can serve as ambiguity management strategies because they allow individuals to ignore part of the information and consequently help people circumvent ambiguity and make decisions more quickly, more frugally, and even more accurately (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011). Prioritizing immediate rewards is a decision heuristic that has an evolutionary root because long-term rewards might not be realized in the harsh and unstable survival environment that human beings historically experienced and thus could be discounted to save cognitive resources. In modern human endeavors (such as career development), workers experiencing environmental adversity are likely forced to focus on short-term goals to meet their survival needs and are deprived of the opportunities and resources to conduct long-term career planning. In this context, prioritizing immediate rewards is necessary in the short term but might function at a suboptimal level in the long run, particularly when the pattern is prolonged and overgeneralized while the goal is to accumulate resources to improve living standards. Other than its socioeconomic necessity, instant gratification, by quickly ending decision-making scenarios like other heuristics, also serves an emotional need: to protect individuals from ambiguity-induced stress (Kahneman, 2003; Thaler, 2016). Likely due to its evolutionary, socioeconomic, and emotional functions, prioritizing short-term benefits remains powerful in decision making and persistence (Meier & Sprenger, 2012; Reynolds & Schiffbauer, 2005; Saunders & Fogarty, 2001).

The present article focuses on instant gratification not only because it can function as an ambiguity management strategy but also because it is subject to contextual influences and likely has an important role in shaping career choice. In other words, we anticipate that prioritizing readily available or predictable rewards could serve as an ambiguity management mechanism through which environmental adversity affects intent for resource-accumulating careers. The evolutionary and neurobiological perspectives on environmental adversity shed light on the role of environmental adversity in gratification delay. According to the evolutionary perspective, environmental cues such as physical/emotional abuse (threat), poverty (deprivation), and parental employment instability (unpredictability) likely promote a fast life history strategy, which features prioritizing immediate rewards (Ellis et al., 2022). According to the neurobiological perspective, environmental adversity likely enhances emotional reactivity and undermine higher-order cognitive functions and thus are anticipated to thwart the emotional and cognitive foundations of gratification delay (Ellis et al., 2022).

Ample evidence has supported the link from environmental adversity to instant gratification. For example, Callan and colleagues (2009) found that when experiencing threat to a just world belief, individuals exhibited preference for smaller, immediate monetary rewards. Carr and Steele (2010) found in three studies that stereotype threat, which denotes concerns about confirming negative stereotypes about one’s group, led to risk-aversion behaviors among women (prioritizing immediate rewards is essentially a way to avoid risk; (Green & Myerson, 2004). Regarding deprivation, Amir et al. (2018) found that individuals with higher socioeconomic status exhibited greater gratification delay. Carvalho et al. (2016) found that low-income individuals exhibited present-focused choices in decisions concerning monetary rewards, which is understandable given the struggle to meet survival needs. Regarding unpredictability, Martin et al. (2012) found that family chaos was negatively associated with gratification delay among children, and Martinez et al. (2022) found that childhood unpredictability positively predicted delay discounting. Building on this body of research, we propose that environmental adversity gives rise to instant gratification (Propositions 3).

Given the inherent challenges in moving beyond normative constraints for workers experiencing environmental adversity, individuals’ ability to prioritize long-term rewards despite immediate needs and hardship could translate into career choice. Resource-accumulating careers often represent a combination of larger rewards and longer investment timeframes. For example, although professional jobs offer a pathway to resource accumulation, they typically entail a good deal of training and competition; consequently, people who cannot afford long-term educational investment and need to prioritize immediate rewards often cannot pursue these options. Additionally, these careers often involve a battle with systemic barriers (Fouad & Santana, 2017), which likely require persistence and appreciation of long-term payoffs. Saunders and Fogarty’s (2001) study offered evidence for the role of instant gratification in career preferences. They found that employees increasingly preferred a middle management position available earlier to a senior management position available later when the delay difference between the two options became increasingly meaningful. Similarly, Hesketh et al. (1998) and Schoenfelder and Hantula (2003) found that the subjective values of career options decreased when reward delay increased, supporting the applicability of gratification delay to career decision making. Xu and colleagues (Xu, 2021c; Xu & Yin, 2020) more directly examined the role of gratification delay in career decision making and persistence. They found that the cognitive and emotional foundations of gratification delay, delay discounting and distress tolerance, together with gratification delay, facilitated persistent career pursuit (indicated by career commitment) and career satisfaction. Given the theoretical and empirical support, we propose that instant gratification discourages marginalized people from pursuing resource-accumulating careers (Proposition 4).

Interaction of Decision Ambiguity and Instant Gratification

The DTC adversity model not only embraces the additive, separative roles of decision ambiguity and instant gratification in shaping career choice but also anticipates that decision ambiguity interacts with instant gratification in shaping career choice. The interactionist mechanism of decision ambiguity and instant gratification builds on a proposition of the DTC that ambiguity management strategies interact with ambiguity perception in shaping career choice (Xu & Flores, 2023). In other words, ambiguity perception could trigger the use of ambiguity management strategies. This theoretical position resonate with two theoretical frameworks, the strength model of self-control (Baumeister et al., 2007) and trait activation theory (Tett et al., 2021).

The strength model of self-control posits that self-control behaviors (including gratification delay) consume mental resources and will be hindered once resources are depleted (termed ego depletion; (Baumeister et al., 2007). The reason is that overriding the short-term goal tendency entails combating energy-saving decision shortcuts and thus requires energy (Baumeister et al., 2007). Both experimental and neurobiological research has supported the strength model of self-control (Hagger et al., 2010; Yu, 2016). For example, Hagger et al. (2010) meta-analytically summarized 83 tests of ego depletion and found that depleting tasks undermined self-control performance and increased the perceptions of effort, difficulty, and fatigue. Similarly, Yu (2016) reviewed behavioral and neuroimaging studies on decision making under stress and found that when stressed, individuals tend to rely on decision heuristics to make intuitive decisions as opposed to making deliberate, goal-directed decisions. Thus, he proposed that stress likely triggers activities in subcortical regions (responsible for intuition) and diminishes activities in the prefrontal cortex (responsible for deliberation).

While the strength model of self-control speaks to diminished gratification delay under the presence of ambiguity-induced stress, trait activation theory (Tett et al., 2021) offers a supplementary perspective regarding why instant gratification could be activated when ambiguity is present. Trait activation theory (Tett et al., 2021) addresses a special case of person-environment interaction and posits that environments, when requiring behaviors that are relevant to certain traits, can encourage the expression of those traits and consequently enhance the trait-behavior link. Research has shed light on the validity and application of trait activation theory in explaining personality-performance links. For example, Judge and Zapata’s (2015) study offers important evidence for trait activation theory in that several Big Five traits were found to better predict job performance in contexts that require trait-relevant behaviors/skills (e.g., extraversion in environments requiring social skills). Tett et al. (2021) recently reviewed 99 key sources applying trait activation theory and found support for the theory in theory-prescribed moderation effects. Drawing on trait activation theory, one could argue that decision ambiguity likely promotes the expression of individual differences that help manage ambiguity, which as discussed before include prioritizing immediate rewards.

The interactionist mechanism, which is informed by decision and organizational science, is supported by initial evidence in career decision-making research. Although direct research on decision ambiguity as a moderator is still in its early stages (Xu, 2022b), Xu’s (2020b) study demonstrated that ambiguity-induced stress moderated the relationship between intuitive decision-making styles and job satisfaction. Specifically, people experiencing greater stress due to ambiguity found intuitive decisions more helpful. Because instant gratification is a type of intuitive decision responding to emotional and economic needs, Xu’s (2020b) study may suggest that ambiguity-induced stress could trigger employing instant gratification as a way to cope with decision stress. Therefore, we propose that decision ambiguity enhances the power of instant gratification in shaping career choice (Proposition 5).

Career Choice to Attained Career: Direct Influence of Environmental Adversity

Through the mechanisms discussed above, environmental adversity could inhibit the intent for resource-building careers. Because of the motivational function of choice goals (Lent et al., 1994), career choice is generally expected to lead to the attainment of corresponding careers (Proposition 6). However, one could argue that attained career is not fully determined by career choice. For example, the constructivist perspective of career development (Savickas, 2019; Xu, 2020a) disputes a deterministic relationship between choice goals and attained career, and the systemic issues of career development (Duffy et al., 2016) also challenge a context-blind view regarding personal agency in translating choice goals to attained career. Technically, the translation process of choice goals can be understood from two perspectives that hold that contextual constraints could directly control what careers are accessible (direct prediction) and diminish the importance of personal factors (moderation). However, these two mechanisms go hand in hand because controlled accessibility naturally suppresses the power of personal motivation. Given this consideration, we do not differentiate the two mechanisms in the current analysis and use the term, the translation of career choice, to broadly denote the process that leads to attained career based on career choice.

Threat could directly influence the translation of career choice because physical or psychological harms, such as various forms of marginalization, often involve derogatory messages about threatened individuals and could create unfair hiring processes and limit access to resource-accumulating careers. Deprivation could directly influence the translation of career choice because individuals with inadequate resources, partly represented by lower socioeconomic status, will likely have trouble accessing necessary training or education and find themselves in disadvantaged positions when applying for jobs that lead to resource accumulation. Similarly, unpredictability could directly influence the translation of career choice because unstable affordance and safety cannot support the long-term and persistent investment that is needed for marginalized individuals to excel in resource-accumulating careers. The well-documented hiring bias clearly speaks to the direct influence of environmental adversity on the translation of choice goals (Hardy et al., 2022). Therefore, we propose that environmental adversity directly shapes the translation of career choice in that the three forms of adversity diminish the predictive power of career choice and hinder the attainment of corresponding careers (Proposition 7).

Theoretical Implications

While the DTC unravels and raises awareness of a key psychological mechanism in career decision making (i.e., ambiguity management), the current discussion on environmental adversity in relation to ambiguity management has the potential to enhance the utility of the DTC by connecting it to the conversation about contextual barriers in work. We specify three broad types of environmental adversity that could shape ambiguity management, which correspond to a wide array of specific forms of oppression and inequities. This theoretical effort clarifies how ambiguity perception and responses are developed under the influence of systemic issues. In other words, the present article supplements existing DTC models in demonstrating not only the importance of ambiguity management but also the development of ambiguity perception and responses in the context of environmental adversity. Such an expansion enables the DTC to align itself with the forefront of the conversation in vocational psychology regarding systemic work-related issues and uncover the DTC’s potential contributions to this discourse.

The present article also expands theoretical perspectives derived from other frameworks about the linkage between contextual challenges and career choice. First, the PWT’s focus on marginalization and economic constraints is a reasonable choice given the theoretical and practical importance of the two issues; however, while marginalization and economic constraints capture aspects of threat and deprivation, respectively, they do not fully account for unpredictability, which is a core adversity dimension particularly in the evolutionary framework of environmental adversity (Ellis et al., 2022). We argue that this type of adversity is particularly relevant for decision making about resource-accumulating careers because these careers involve inevitable ambiguity about their potential outcomes for marginalized individuals and marginalized individuals may learn how to handle ambiguity frequently through interaction with unpredictable environments (Allan et al., 2021; Kalleberg, 2018; Shoss, 2017). Second and relatedly, the ambiguity management perspective of the present article has the potential to complement existing career choice models, such as SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) and Holland (1997), in explaining the linkage between environmental adversity and career choice.

Research Implications

The current article offers theoretical guidance for researchers who are interested in the link between environmental adversity and career pursuits through the ambiguity management lens, but perhaps one of the most important tasks moving forward is to examine the validity of the seven propositions through data. Note that like any new models, the proposed mechanisms build on evidence in several bodies of literature (including decision science, self-control, and vocational psychology) but still needs more research to solidify its validity, particularly on the structural relations among environmental adversity, decision ambiguity, instant gratification, and career choice. In this regard, our propositions (especially Propositions 1–5) create direct research opportunities. To unlock this research program, it is necessary to develop formal measurement tools that specifically target ambiguity about the outcomes of resource-accumulating careers and intent for such careers. An economical, alternative strategy in this regard is to adapt existing measures, such as the Career Decision Ambiguity scale (Xu, 2022a) and scales about intent/aspiration for careers that are financially rewarding (e.g., STEM fields).

Although it might not be the primary focus of the current article, our discussion on instant gratification being an ambiguity management strategy points to a potentially interesting but less explored research area: competing goals about reducing stress versus improving decision quality. Conventionally, research tends to focus separately on how to reduce decision stress and improve decision quality, which implicitly assumes that the two processes work synergistically. However, the current analysis suggests (if further supported by evidence) that long-term decision quality (in terms of accumulating resources and improving living standards) could be compromised by a coping strategy that responds to normative, short-term emotional and survival needs. In other words, individuals, particularly those facing multiple forms of environmental adversity, likely experience a decision dilemma/trade-off between decision stress and quality. This dilemma perspective differs from Gottfredson’s (2005) circumscription and compromise model because the latter does not focus on the competition of short- and long-term rewards. However, the dilemma perspective is much in line with the broader literature on intertemporal choice in decision science and economics (Green & Myerson, 2004). We hope that the current analysis can encourage more research on the possible competition between reducing stress versus improving quality.

Practical Implications

Since research remains needed to test the validity of the propositions, we offer tentative recommendations for practice at this moment, describing how practitioners can possibly use the mechanisms discussed to facilitate career development in the presence of environmental adversity. As noted by the DTC and the current article, decision ambiguity is inevitable for career choice in general and resource-accumulating careers in particular and cannot be eliminated through enhanced information collection. At the highest level, career practitioners have a role in addressing systemic inequities with those who experience environmental adversity. Many scholars in vocational psychology have written extensively on these inequities, such as how racism, sexism, heterosexism, and classism shape opportunities for careers. However, such discrimination will inevitably continue into the future without a radical liberatory transformation of society, which undoubtedly has implications for the career decisions of marginalized workers. For example, gender- or race-related discrimination in STEM fields is a continual problem, which renders potential threat a persistent concern and could lead to persistent ambiguity about the goodness of STEM careers. Thus, the goal of individual interventions concerning decision ambiguity is not necessarily to reduce decision ambiguity; rather, it is probably more helpful to help clients/students be cognizant of the impact of ambiguity on their career choice and possibly encourage them to keep exploring ambiguous career options despite emotional discomfort.

Perhaps one of the most important practical implications of the current article concerns the double-edged effects of ambiguity management strategies. We recommend that counselors and educators develop (and help clients/students develop) critical conscientiousness regarding the double-edged effects of ambiguity management strategies and facilitate a more mindful approach to employing these strategies. According to the current model, people facing environmental adversity might gravitate toward careers of immediate returns and deem these careers a good fit given their positionality. While this is not necessarily maladaptive and likely helps meet survival needs, counselors and educators should remind clients/students of the long-term ramification of their career choice. On the flip side, this article recommends that counselors and educators develop empathy for clients/students’ career dilemmas and support their career choice without judgment (even though the choice might be reinforcing the status quo for the time being). Ideally, counselors and educators should consider helping clients/students strategically employ ambiguity management strategies in that the short-term benefits of these strategies (e.g., easing decision making and enabling a quick start of career preparation) should be used to facilitate a sustainable, liberating career in the long run.