Tinsley on Holland: A Misshapen Argument

James Rounds, Molly C. McKenna, Lawrence Hubert, Susan X. Day

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialpeer-review


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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)205-215
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Vocational Behavior
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 2000

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Applied Psychology
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
  • Life-span and Life-course Studies


Dive into the research topics of 'Tinsley on Holland: A Misshapen Argument'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this