Values are regarded as the satisfying goals or desired states that are sought but not in terms of motivating drive or specific instrumental action (Katz, 1963, 1969). The decision maker develops his own list of dominant values and scales them according to their relative "magnitude of value." For each value a "threshold level" that meets his personal requirements is identified. For each option (or alternative) the decision maker estimates the "strength of return" it offers in respect to each value's threshold level. This refers to probabilities inherent in the option itself (for example, the proportion of people earning the desired "threshold level" income in an occupational option). The sum of products of "strength of return" and "magnitude of values" provides a "value return" for each option.
Objective probabilities regarding success or entry for each option are multiplied by the value return to obtain an "expected value." The strategy is to select that option for which the expected value is greatest.
Gelatt Model: Assuming that one important purpose of counseling is to help students make "good" decisions, Gelatt (1962) suggested that a decision be evaluated by the process it follows rather than the outcome alone. He described a "proposed decision-making framework" derived from Bross' (1953) design for statistical decisions and Cronbach and Gleser's (1957) description of decision sequences. The model assumes a decision-maker who requires information as "fuel" and who produces a recommended course of action which may be terminal (that is, final) or investigatory (that is, calling for more information) depending upon how it relates to his purposes. Information is organized into three systems: (1) predictive system, information about alternatives actions, possible outcomes, and probabilities linking actions to outcomes; (2) value system, relative preferences among outcomes; and (3) decision criterion, or rules for evaluation.
A "good" decision includes adequate and relevant information in each system (Clarke, Gelatt, and Levine, 1965; Gelatt, 1962). Clarke et al. argued that, since the content of prediction and value systems is more readily observable and far less complex than the decision criterion, improving information services would increase the likelihood of good decisions. Gelatt and Clarke (1967) emphasize the importance of subjective probabilities, the place of objective probability data in modifying subjective estimates, and the indeterminable, but significant effect of subjective probability estimates on preferences. In effect, the Gelatt model prescribes characteristics of adequate informational inputs and suggests an organization to be imposed on it. No specific rules are offered for proceeding from information to commitment.
Kaldor-Zytowski Model: A model of occupational choice derived from the tenets of economic decision making was developed by Kaldor and Zytowski (1969) to specify classes of determinants and to describe their interrelationships in producing a final choice.
The occupational choice process is assumed to approximate maximizing behavior and, as such, can be described in terms of inputs and outputs. The inputs include personal resources, e.g., intellectual and physical characteristics. When applied to a given occupational alternative (in imagination), certain outputs, or consequences, follow as a function of the inputs and the alternative. Likewise, the inputs are priced in terms of what the decision maker foregoes in using them in a particular occupational alternative. The chosen alternative is the one offering the greatest net value-the highest value when input costs are balanced against output gains.
Kaldor and Zytowski present detailed forms for assessing the values of outcomes and inputs. "Occupational utility functions," the extent to which a person obtains the outcomes he wants in the proportion he wants them, are computed for successive pairs of values. An aggregate occupational utility function can be derived from each alternative. This method assumes that a decision maker can rank order relevant values for each available alternative and that he can assign a value to the sacrifices made to attain each alternative. Once these assumptions are accepted, the authors provide elaborate graphic techniques (for example, indifference curves) to plot the information and determine the maximal occupational alternative.
Other Prescriptive Models: Prescriptive models dealing specifically with college choice decisions have been offered by Hills (1964) and Hammond (1965). Thoresen and Mehrens (1967) describe variables relevant to vocational decisions and suggest research questions about the influence of information on decisions.
