The article (originally in German in 1931) examines empirical studies on adolescents’ motives in occupational choice, highlighting methodological and conceptual difficulties in interpreting the data. Early surveys of 14-year-olds across several German and Austrian cities revealed large disparities in reported motives, both across sites and between sexes. Motives such as “interest” or “inclination” dominate responses, yet these are tautological and analytically uninformative, pointing instead to young respondents’ limited capacity for self-reflection. Other categories—aptitude, practical considerations, material motives, and parental influence—appear inconsistently and reflect both the framing of interview questions and the social environment. Comparative data suggest that boys’ career choices are more shaped by parental traditions, while girls’ choices show relatively greater emphasis on individual considerations, though both groups display largely superficial forms of reasoning. Lazarsfeld argues that what appear as stable “motives” are in fact condensed outcomes of prior life experiences, situational influences, and suggestive contexts, rather than deeply rooted psychological drivers. He further demonstrates that attempts to map a linear schema of external suggestions and internal inclinations leading to definite occupational aspirations collapse under closer scrutiny, since the very concept of “motive” lacks a precise definition and shifts with the researcher’s assumptions. The study thus cautions against naïve interpretations of reported career motives and stresses the methodological implications for vocational guidance and sociological research.