The aim of this study was to test Gottfredson's (1981) compromise model by comparing the relative importance of sex-type, prestige, and interests under career preference and compromise choice situations using a policy-capturing paradigm. Thirty-seven participants rated the attractiveness of 27 hypothetical jobs created through the factorial combination of each of the 3 levels of sex-type, prestige, and interests. The unique percentage of variance accounted for by each factor for each respondent was calculated and these data were subjected to a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of variance. No support was found for Gottfredson's compromise model. Sex-type was not the most resistant to compromise nor were interests most easily compromised. Results are discussed in light of the difficulties encountered in testing Gottfredson's compromise model. The comparative advantages of process-oriented but content-free theories such as those outlined by Gati (1986) are highlighted.