Tinsley on Holland: A Misshapen Argument

In response to Tinsley (2000) we dispute his conclusions that congruence is a myth and the Holland hexagonal model lacks validity. We suggest that existing meta-analyses on the congruence-satisfaction relationship fail to account for significant sources of error, resulting in inaccurate conclusions. Tinsley's assertions concerning Holland's model are demonstrated to be based on a misunderstanding of Holland's hexagonal model and misrepresentation of Hubert and Arabie's inferential strategy for evaluating order relations. Once it is clear that Holland's model is a RIASEC order model (and not an equilateral hexagon) that enjoys strong support, Tinsley's argument fails.