Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 

C 2013, Decision Sciences Institute

Volume 11 Number 1 Journal compilation 

C 2013, Decision Sciences Institute

January 2013
Printed in the U.S.A.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

An Examination of Factors Influencing

Students Selection of Business Majors Using
TRA Framework
Anil Kumar†
Business Information Systems, College of Business Administration, Central Michigan
University, 150 E. Bellows, Grawn 339, Mt. Pleasant, MI, e-mail: [email protected]

Poonam Kumar
Department of Advanced Educational Studies, College of Education, Saginaw Valley State
University, EN 286, Regional Education Building, 7400 Bay Road, University Center,
MI 48710, e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Making decisions regarding the selection of a business major is both very important
and challenging for students. An understanding of this decision-making process can
be valuable for students, parents, and university programs. The current study applies
the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) consumer decision-making model to examine
factors that influence college students’ intentions to choose a business major. A total
of 670 undergraduate students enrolled at a large midwestern university participated
in the study. Social image, job availability, and aptitude were found to be significant
factors that impact students’ decisions to select a business major. The results also reveal
that family, high-school counselors, and professors have a major influence on students’
decisions. Furthermore, some unique differences were found related to gender and
decided/undecided status of students. The implications of these results for promoting
different majors and future research are discussed.
Subject Areas: Choice of Business Major, Decision Making, and Theory of
Reasoned Action.

INTRODUCTION
Deciding a major is a critical decision that impacts a student for the rest of their
life. This decision is not only critical but also challenging. The challenge arises due
to the deluge of information that a student experiences and the time for analysis
that the student has. Galotti (1999) found that students considered the process of
choosing a major very stressful and made the decision by limiting their criteria for
selection. Begley (2011, para 3) provided an interesting example of this scenario
when she stated the following, “Maybe you were this close to choosing a college,
when suddenly older friends swamped your inbox with all the reasons to go
† Corresponding author.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Wynne W. Chin for providing PLS Graph 3.0 software for data
analysis for this study.

77
78 Students Selection of Business Majors

somewhere else—which made you completely forget why you’d chosen the other
school.” Choosing a major can be a similar overwhelming experience for a student
as the options are unlimited and so is the information onslaught (Schwatrz, 2004).
The available information especially with the advent of the Web coupled with the
speed at which it is available may exceed the ability of a student to process the
information in a timely and useful manner. Decisions made in such a scenario may
come back to haunt a student, as they realize that they are stuck with a major that
they don’t like.
Adding to the challenge is the fact that humans are limited in their decision
making by their cognitive abilities. Ariely (2009) stated that while we are willing to
accept our physical limitations we often fail to recognize our cognitive limitations.
He states that if we “understood our cognitive limitations . . . we could design a
better world” (p. 329). As a result, irrationality may often creep in the decision-
making process of a student. The irrationality may explain the number of students
who change their major several times or have undecided majors. In a recent article,
Grupe, the founder of MyMajors.com, pointed out that “eighty percent of college-
bound students have yet to choose a major,” and of the ones that do choose a major
“It is little wonder 50 percent of those who do declare a major, change majors —
with many doing so two and three times during their college years” (as cited in
Ronan, 2005, para 2).
It is obvious that students and parents incur a huge cost, financial as well
as emotional, in the process of selecting their major. This cost can be reduced
significantly by assisting students and parents in the decision-making process.
Advisors and counselors at high schools and universities and university Web sites
can play a meaningful role in helping students in this process. To do an effective
job in helping students, it is important to understand what factors impact their
decision-making process when choosing a business major. In this study, we address
the following questions:
a. What are the factors that influence the decision-making process of a
student in choosing a business major?
b. Are the factors that influence the decision-making process of a student
in choosing a business major different based on gender?
c. Are the factors that influence the decision-making process of a student in
choosing a business major different based on decided/undecided status
of students?
The article is organized as follows. The next section describes the theo-
retical framework, the research model for the study, and proposed hypotheses.
The “Methodology” section describes how the study was conducted including the
sample description and data analysis procedures. In the “Discussion” section, we
present the key findings of this study. Finally, we conclude the article by discussing
the limitations of the study and directions for future research.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Different studies over the years have identified factors that impact students’ choice
of major. These studies have identified factors like personality traits (Leppel,
Kumar and Kumar 79

2001; Noel, Michaels, & Levas, 2003), starting expected salary (George, Valacich,
& Valor, 2004; Turner & Bowen, 1999), career earnings (Berger, 1988), student
existing skill set (Pritchard, Potter, & Saccucci, 2004), interest in the subject
(Malgwi, Howe, & Burnaby, 2005), and parental socioeconomic status and
occupation (Leppel, Williams, & Waldauer, 2001). Although these studies have
examined the factors influencing undergraduate students’ decision making in
choosing college majors, very few have employed validated theoretical models
to examine these factors. There are many consumer behavior and decision-making
models used in business that can be applicable in this context to gain a better under-
standing of the different factors that influence students’ decision-making process
in choosing a business major (Kaynama & Smith, 1996). This study applies the
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) to investigate factors that influence students’ decisions
in choosing a business major. TRA is a well-established theory that originated
from social psychology to explain behavioral intentions and has been widely used
in marketing (Barkhi, Belanger, & Hicks, 2008; Fu, Richards, Hughes, & Jones,
2010), information technology (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989),
health education (Walsh, Edwards, & Fraser, 2009), and many other fields.
According to the TRA theory, an individual’s behavior is a function of a
person’s intention, which in turn is determined by an individual’s attitude toward
performing the behavior and the subjective norms held by the individual. Attitude
toward performing a specific behavior refers to an individual’s evaluation of the
outcomes of performing that behavior. If the person believes that there are positive
outcomes in performing the behavior, the person is more likely to perform that
behavior, and likewise, if a person believes that there are negative outcomes, the
person is not likely to perform the behavior. Subjective Norm refers to influences
of social pressure on whether a particular behavior will be performed or not. In
other words, Subjective Norm is an individual’s view that other people important
to the individual such as family, friends, coworkers would approve or disapprove
of the intended behavior (Franzoi, 2003).
Although the TRA is a well-accepted model for understanding decision
making, very few studies so far have applied the TRA framework to understand
the factors impacting students’ choice of a business major. The TRA framework is a
very useful framework for understanding the decision-making process in choosing
a business major, as it helps us to identify decision-relevant factors that can be
influenced rather than factors like personality traits or factors related to student
background that cannot be influenced. Therefore, by using this framework, one can
identify factors that can help us to develop appropriate strategies for influencing
these factors. Furthermore, the few studies that have used TRA have only focused
on identifying factors that impact students’ intention to choose a specific business
major like Information Systems or Accounting. Examining intentions to choose
a specific business major may not capture all the factors. This study extends
the research done by Zhang (2007) and Kuechler, McLeod, and Simkin (2009)
by examining the choice of majors in a broader context and applies the TRA
framework to identify factors that impact students’ choice of any business major.
Prior research related to this area has indicated that students’ choice of different
majors is impacted by similar factors as were identified by Zhang (2007) and
80 Students Selection of Business Majors

Figure 1: Research model (adapted from Zhang, 2007).

Research Model

Job Related Beliefs

Job Availability
Job Security
Job Salary

Image Related Beliefs

Social Image
Attitude
Cost Related Beliefs
Aptitude
Difficulty of the Major
Difficulty of the
Curriculum
Intention to
Experiential Beliefs Choose a
Genuine Interest in the Business Major
intended major

Salient Referents
Family
Friends
Fellow Students
Advisors
Professors
High school counselors

Kuechler et al., (2009) (Kim, Markham, & Cangelosi, 2002; Lee & Lee, 2006;
Lowe & Simmons, 1997; Malgwi et al. 2005). Therefore, the current study can help
us to better understand the factors that influence students’ intentions to choose one
business major rather than another. Furthermore, the current study is conducted
with a larger sample size from a different demographic population at a midwestern
university in the United States. In the following section, we describe how the TRA
model was used in the study and the hypotheses.

Research Model and Hypotheses

In this study, the TRA decision-making framework was used to develop the research
model and hypotheses. According to the TRA model, students’ intentions to choose
a business major are impacted by their attitudes toward the intended major and the
influence of subjective norms (Figure 1). Based on the TRA model, we propose
that intention to choose a business major is influenced by attitude toward that major
and subjective norm. Students who have positive attitudes about the intended major
will be more likely to select that major, and the intention to choose a business major
will also be influenced by subjective norms. Both attitude and subjective norms
are in turn influenced by several beliefs. Previous studies examining students’
choice of different majors have identified several factors that impact students’
choice of majors. For example, some studies have noted the importance of job-
related opportunities as one of the major factors influencing students’ decisions
in choosing a major (Lee & Lee, 2006; Malgwi et al., 2005). Other studies have
reported that students choose certain majors due to their interest in the field and
Kumar and Kumar 81

their aptitude for the discipline (Lowe & Simmons, 1997; Cohen & Hanno, 1993).
Factors like self-image and difficulty of the coursework have also been highlighted
as important determining factors in the selection of a major (Adams, Pryor, &
Adams, 1994). Finally, several studies have also suggested that parents, friends,
peers, and advisors have a major influence on students’ decisions to choose a
major. Based on a comprehensive literature review of previous research Zhang
(2007) identified several beliefs that influence attitudes toward choosing a major.
Zhang (2007) categorizes these beliefs that impact attitudes into the following four
categories:

Job-related beliefs
Many studies have found that students’ choice of a major is impacted by the
job opportunities available in the chosen field (Cohen & Hanno, 1993; Lee &
Lee, 2006; Malgwi et al., 2005). If students believe that they have plenty of job
opportunities available in the field upon graduation, they are more likely to choose
that field. Job-related beliefs also include views about job salary and job security.

Image-related beliefs
Some prior studies have also identified image-related beliefs to be a determining
factor for students in choosing a particular major. Some studies have reported
that students have certain perceptions and images related to majors. For example,
Cohen and Hanno (1993) found that students perceived the accounting major to be
a boring subject associated with numbers. Similarly, the Information Technology
majors are perceived as “geeks” (Zhang, 2007). Noland, Case, Francisco, and Kelly
(2003) found that prestige of the profession also influenced choice of majors like
Accounting and Information Systems.
In the current study, we only included social-image related beliefs since
personal image related beliefs are only relevant if you are asking about the choice
of a specific major, in this study we examined students’ intention to choose a
business major in general.

Cost-related beliefs
Aptitude for a major refers to a student’s perception of their ability to succeed in
a certain field. For example, students who are good in mathematics may believe
that they will succeed in quantitative majors, such as Accounting and Finance.
Several studies have found aptitude to influence a student’s choice of business
majors (Lowe & Simmons, 1997; Malgwi et al., 2005). Students also consider
the amount of coursework and the difficulty of the curriculum in choosing majors
(Adams et al., 1994; Cohen & Hanno, 1993). If students believe that the curriculum
is difficult and it will take a long time in completing a degree in a particular major,
they are not likely to choose that major.

Experiential beliefs
Zhang (2007) defines experiential beliefs as “the expectation of the psychological
reward that will result from performing a behavior” (p. 449). Students tend to
choose majors because they believe they will enjoy the selected major due their
82 Students Selection of Business Majors

interest in the field. Several studies have consistently reported that genuine interest
in a field is one of the most important factors in choosing a major (Zhang, 2007).
Furthermore, within the TRA framework subjective norms are influenced by
the opinions of salient referents, such as family, friends, fellow students, professors,
and advisors (Zhang, 2007). We added the influence of high-school counselors in
the model to examine its impact of students’ selection of college majors as some
studies have highlighted the influence of high-school counselors (Tang, Pan, &
Newmeyer, 2008; Ware & Lee, 1988). Walstrom, Schambach, Jones, and Crampton
(2008) reported that 55% of the students they surveyed had decided their major in
high school. Finally, we propose that there will be differences related to gender and
decided/undecided status. Although some studies have reported gender differences
in the students’ choice of majors (Kuechler et al., 2009; Lackland & DeLisi, 2001;
Malgwi et al., 2005; Summer & Brown, 1996; Zhang, 2007), no studies so far have
examined the difference in decided/undecided status. Consequently, we propose
the following hypotheses and subhypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: Attitudes towards the intended business major will directly
influence a student’s intention to choose that major.
Hypothesis 1a: Job-related beliefs will influence attitudes toward the in-
tended business major.
Hypothesis 1b: Social-image-related beliefs will influence attitudes toward
the intended business major.
Hypothesis 1c: Cost-related beliefs will influence attitudes toward the in-
tended business major.
Hypothesis 1d: Experiential beliefs will influence attitudes toward the in-
tended business major.
Hypothesis 2: Subjective norms will directly influence the intention to
choose a business major.
Hypothesis 2a: Family will influence the subjective norm.
Hypothesis 2b: Friends will influence the subjective norm.
Hypothesis 2c: Fellow students will influence the subjective norm.
Hypothesis 2d: Advisors will influence the subjective norm.
Hypothesis 2e: Professors will influence the subjective norm.
Hypothesis 2f: High-School Counselors will influence the subjective norm.
The research model adapted from Zhang (2007) used in the study is provided
in Figure 1.

METHODOLOGY
Sample and Data Collection Procedures
Participants of the study included undergraduate students enrolled in multiple sec-
tions of introductory business courses at a large public University in the Midwest.
Of the 670 participants, 404 were males and 241 were females, 25 students didn’t
provide this information on the surveys. Most of the students (n = 510) were
freshman, 127 sophomore, 28 juniors, and 5 seniors. Three hundred and sixty stu-
dents had decided their majors and 310 were undecided. Of the students that had
Kumar and Kumar 83

Figure 2: Student majors.

Table 1: Sample profile.

Measure Items Number Percent

Gender Male 404 60.3

Female 241 36
Academic standing Freshman 510 76.1
Sophomore 127 19.0
Junior 28 4.17
Senior 5 .75
Decided/ Undecided status Decided 360 53.73
Undecided 310 46.27

decided their majors the majority were marketing majors, followed by management
(Figure 2). Table 1 shows a summary of the sample profile.

Measures
Data were collected in 2009 using a survey methodology. The survey was based
on the TRA framework and was adapted from previous studies (Kuechler et al.,
2009; Zhang, 2007). The survey developed by Zhang (2007) measured students’
intentions to major in Information Systems, in this study the survey was adapted
to measure students’ intention to major in business. Similar to the survey de-
veloped by Zhang (2007), in this study all behavioral beliefs were measured
using reflective measures and normative beliefs were modeled using formative
indicators. The items related to “aptitude,” “difficulty of business curriculum,”
“difficulty of intended major,” “job availability,” “job security,” “job salary,” “so-
cial image,” and “genuine interest in the chosen/intended major” were modeled as
84 Students Selection of Business Majors

reflective indicators. Items related to the influence of “family,” “advisors,” “profes-

sors,” “friends,” “fellow students,” and “high-school counselors” were modeled as
formative indicators. The items measuring “personal image” were not included in
our survey as the survey examined students intentions to choose a business major
in general and we thought personal image is relevant only if we were asking about
a particular major like IS or Accounting. Also, the items related to “Difficulty of
the Intended Major” and “Workload” were combined into one category “Difficulty
of the Major.” The survey included 29 items on a five-point Likert scale where
1 indicated “Strongly Disagree” and 5 indicated “Strongly Agree.” The survey is
provided in the Appendix. In addition to these items, the survey also included three
open-ended questions to elicit more information regarding the choice of majors.
In total, 720 surveys were collected of which 670 were found usable and
were used in the analysis. The research model was tested using the structural
equation modeling (SEM) approach. SEM is a statistical analysis technique for
building and testing causal models, which allows the simultaneous modeling of
relationships among multiple independent and dependent variables (Gefen, Straub
& Boudreau, 2000). Data were analyzed using PLS-Graph 3.0 software. Unlike
covariance-based SEM tools such as AMOS and LISREL, PLS is a variance-based
tool that allows the flexibility to use both formative and reflective latent constructs
and places minimal demands on measurement scales, sample size, and distribution
assumptions (Chin, 1998a,b; Fornell & Bookstein, 1982; Gefen & Straub, 2005;
Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000; Roberts & Thatcher, 2009). As this study used
both formative and reflective indicators to measure the latent constructs, PLS Graph
3.0 was an appropriate tool for data analysis.

The Measurement Model

The PLS-SEM analysis involves a two-step approach. First, the measurement
model is evaluated to determine the validity and reliability of the measurement
items and then the structural model is evaluated to examine the relationships
between the independent latent variables and dependent variable (Gefen et al.,
2000). The measurement model was evaluated by examining the loadings of ob-
served items (indicators) on their expected latent constructs. In this study similar
to the Zhang (2007) study, all behavioral beliefs were measured using reflective
constructs and the subjective norms were modeled as formative constructs. The
psychometric properties of the reflective measures were evaluated by examin-
ing the variables’ composite reliabilities, the average variances extracted by the
constructs from their respective indicators, the correlation among variables and
indicator-factor cross-loadings (Chin, 1998a,b; Gefen & Straub, 2005). Conver-
gent validity is shown when each of the indicators loads significantly on a latent
construct and the discriminant validity is shown when the measurement items load
highly on their respective construct and not on others (Gefen & Straub, 2005). Ac-
cording to Gefen and Straub (2005), convergent validity is established when each
of the measurement items loads with a significant t-value on its latent construct.
In PLS, the composite reliability scores and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
can be used to determine the convergent validity of the measured constructs. The
composite reliability (also known as ICR) is the standardized component loading
of an indicator on its construct and should be at least .70 (Chin, 1998a). Table 2
 Kumar and Kumar

Table 2: ICRs, AVE square roots, and correlations among latent constructs.
AVE
Square Attitude Intention
Roots . . . toward to Choose
Latent Difficulty of Difficulty Genuine Job Job Job Social Business a Business
Constructs ICR Aptitude Curriculum of Major Interest Availability Salary Security Image Major Major

Aptitude .95 .95

Difficulty of curriculum .92 .43 .90
Difficulty of the major .68 .37 .62 .70
Genuine interest .93 .61 .34 .34 .93
Job availability .93 .40 .36 .30 .29 .93
Job salary .88 .47 .46 .35 .35 .49 .88
Job security .86 .39 .35 .32 .31 .59 .47 .87
Social image .87 .60 .55 .42 .45 .46 .61 .49 .84
Attitude toward major .97 .46 .36 .27 .32 .43 .39 .32 .59 .97
Intention to choose a business major .98 .36 .28 .21 .22 .27 .28 .19 .37 .75 .95
85
86 Students Selection of Business Majors

Table 3: Latent variable loadings and cross-loadings.

Indicator I A JA JSE JSA SI INT DIFC DIFM APT

I1 .98 .16 .09 .06 .07 .07 .02 .00 .02 .06
I2 .96 .28 .07 .09 .10 .17 .07 .09 .11 .13
A1 .21 .97 .16 .15 .13 .15 .07 .09 .07 .11
A2 .12 .97 .04 .10 .05 .04 .05 –.01 .00 .05
JA1 .25 .41 .94 .56 .46 .41 .28 .36 .28 .37
JA2 .26 .40 .99 .54 .46 .45 .27 .32 .29 .38
JSE1 .07 .06 .13 .92 .16 .13 .06 .13 .03 .13
JSE2 .06 .09 .11 .82 .12 .12 .05 .11 .00 .08
JSA1 .09 .12 .08 .09 .91 .13 .07 .12 .01 .11
JSA2 .03 .01 .12 .11 .86 .09 .04 .03 .01 .04
S1 .01 .02 .09 .15 .05 .80 .04 .02 -.07 .02
S2 .08 .12 .08 .27 .17 .84 .09 .15 .05 .16
S3 .06 .10 .04 .04 .09 .88 .04 .06 .07 .06
INT1 .02 .01 .07 .08 .07 .08 .93 .02 .07 .11
INT2 .32 .60 .26 .29 .35 .45 .94 .32 .33 .60
DC1 .06 .07 .08 .04 .12 .07 .05 .87 .14 .06
DC2 .07 .04 .05 .04 .09 .07 .06 .90 .13 .07
DC3 .00 .05 .07 .10 .09 .07 .03 .91 .09 .09
DM1 –.02 –.05 .00 .00 .00 .04 –.04 .19 .12 –.06
W1 .20 .28 .29 .31 .33 .42 .34 .60 .95 .36
W2 .12 .13 .21 .20 .23 .28 .18 .47 .74 .21
APT1 .09 .09 .14 .14 .13 .14 .11 .08 .07 .94
APT2 .33 .45 .37 .37 .45 .57 .55 .43 .36 .95
I = Intention to choose business major; A = Attitude toward choosing business major;
JA = Job availability; JSE = Job security; JSA = Job salary; SI = Social image; INT =
Genuine interest in the major; DIFC = Difficulty of curriculum, DIFM = Difficulty of
major, APT = Aptitude.

reports square root of AVEs and the composite reliability and the correlations
among latent variables (reflective measures only). As the table shows the compos-
ite reliabilities for all variables exceed .70 (except “Difficulty of Intended Major”
which is very close to .70). Furthermore, all AVEs were used to assess the conver-
gent validity of the latent variables. AVE measures the amount of variance that a
latent variable captures from its measured items relative to the amount of variance
due to measurement errors. It is recommended that the AVEs should be greater
than .5 meaning that at least 50% of the measurement variance should be captured
by the latent variables (Chin, 1998b; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gefen & Straub,
2005). In this study; all estimates of AVEs were above .5 for all latent variables.
The discriminant validity of the measurement model was evaluated by exam-
ining the indicator-factor loadings and cross-loadings and square root of AVEs (on
the diagonal in bold in Table 3). The analysis of the loadings and cross-loadings
indicates that all items loaded higher on their respective variables than any other
latent variable in the model. In our model, all the items loaded on their respective
constructs with significant value except the item “DM1” (difficulty of the major).
Furthermore, as the table shows, the square root of AVEs are larger than .70 and
Kumar and Kumar 87

Table 4: Indicator weights for subjective norm.

Indicators Weight Standard Error T-statistic p-value

Influence of family .32 .12 5.39** .00**

Influence of friends .42 .20 1.46 .14
Influence of fellow students .49 .22 .86 .39
Influence of the advisor .54 .20 2.22* .03*
Influence of professor .06 .15 3.48** .00**
Influence of high-school counselor .61 .14 4.10** .00**
Significant at *p < .05, **p < .01.

larger than the correlations between that construct and all other constructs. All
diagonal elements exceed the off-diagonal elements, which provide evidence for
discriminant validity.
Measurement properties of the formative construct, subjective norm, were
determined by examining the indicator weights that measure the contribution of
each formative indicator toward the variance of the latent formative construct
(Petter, Straub, & Rai, 2007; Roberts & Thatcher, 2009). Table 4 provides the
indicator weights for the subjective norm construct. The item weights for four
indicators were significant suggesting that these indicators explain a significant
portion of the variance in the construct, subjective norm. The influence of family,
friends, professor, and high-school counselor was found to be significant but the
indicators were not significantly related to subjective norm. In summary, these
results provide sufficient evidence to establish the reliability and convergent and
discriminant validity of the measurement model in the study.

The Structural Model

A structural model provides information on how well the relationship between dif-
ferent constructs predicts the research model. PLS Graph 3.0 was used to estimate
the structural paths in the research model and to test the hypotheses. The analysis
was done using the bootstrapping procedure that generated 200 subsamples (Chin,
1998b; Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). The output provided path coefficient estimates,
standard errors, t-statistics and squared multiple correlations (R2 ) for each en-
dogenous construct. The R2 indicates the percentage of construct’s variance in the
model and the path coefficients (β) indicate the strengths of relationships between
constructs (Chin, 1998b). Unlike SEM models in AMOS and LISREL, PLS Graph
3.0 does not generate goodness-of-fit metrics for the structural model. According
to Chin (1998a,b), both β and R2 are sufficient for evaluating the structural model
in PLS Graph 3.0 and β values between .20 and .30 are considered sufficient for
meaningful interpretations.
Table 5 presents the R2 , path coefficients, and t-test statistics for the model and
Figure 3 shows the results of the structural model. The hypotheses were considered
supported based on the significance level of .05. Overall, the model accounted
for approximately 67% variance in predicting students’ intentions to choose a
business major (R2 = 66.8). The results indicated that the biggest predictor of
students’ intention to choose a business major was their attitude toward the major
88 Students Selection of Business Majors

Table 5: Measures for the structural model.

Hypothesis Path Coefficient (β) T-Value (p-Value) Support

Attitude→Intention .81 40.77*** (.00) Yes

Subjective norm→Intention .04 1.78 (.08) No
Job availability→Attitude .23 4.12*** (.00) Yes
Job security→Attitude .05 1.01 (.31) No
Job salary→Attitude .02 .44 (.66) No
Social image→Attitude .28 4.81*** (.00) Yes
Aptitude→Attitude .19 3.64*** (.00) Yes
Difficulty of the major→Attitude − .02 .49 (.62) No
Difficulty of the curriculum→Attitude .06 1.24 (.22) No
Genuine interest→Attitude .01 .17 (.87) No
Family→Subjective norm .69 5.01*** (.00) Yes
Friends→Subjective norm .47 1.89 (.06) No
Fellow students→Subjective norm .07 .25 (.80) No
Advisors→Subjective norm .26 1.02 (.31) No
Professors→Subjective norm .43 2.12*** (.03) Yes
High-school counselors→Subjective norm .68 3.27*** (.00) Yes
Mediating Effect
Subjective norm→Attitude .07 1.93*** (.05)

Figure 3: Structural model results (total sample).

*Significant at .05, **Significant at .01, ***Significant at .001.

Kumar and Kumar 89

(β = .80, p < .001). Surprisingly, subjective norm didn’t have a significant direct
impact on the students’ intentions to choose a major however the indirect effect of
subjective norm on intention to choose a business major was found to be significant
at .05- level. Subjective norm acts as a mediating variable and impacts intentions
to choose a business major by influencing attitude toward the major.
Three beliefs were found to be significant: “Social Image,” “Aptitude,” and
“Job Availability” significantly influenced attitudes toward a business major. Pre-
vious studies have also reported that “Job Availability” has a significant influence
on students’ intentions to choose a business major (Kuechler et al., 2009; Zhang,
2007). Similarly to the previous studies; “job salary and “job security” didn’t influ-
ence students’ intentions to choose a business major. Like Kuechler et al. (2009),
we found “social image” to be a significant factor in the selection of a business
major. Furthermore, we also found “aptitude” to have a significant influence on the
selection of a business major. The role of “aptitude” in the selection of a business
major has also been documented in previous studies (Lowe & Simmons, 1997).
Neither “difficulty” of the curriculum nor “genuine interest” in the field had any
influence on intentions to choose a business major.
Of the six formative indicators for subjective norm, three were found to
be significant. “Family,” “Professors,” and “High-School Counselors” contributed
to the influence of subjective norms. The influence of family, advisors, high-
school counselors, and professors was significant on subjective norms affecting
the attitudes toward the business majors. Several other studies have also reported
the strong influence of families on the choice of major (Beggs, Bantham, & Taylor,
2008; Chung, Loeb, & Gonzo, 1996).
In conclusion, the results suggest that the TRA model is a useful framework
in predicting students’ choice of business major. The model explained 67% of
the variance in behavioral intentions to choose a business major. As expected,
attitude toward the major has a significant influence on the intentions to choose
that business major. Surprisingly, in our study, we didn’t find subjective norm to
have a direct influence on the intentions to choose business major, rather subjective
norms had a mediating influence on intentions.

Gender effects
In order to examine gender effects the data set was split based on gender and
analysis was done for each group separately using the same model. As Table 6
and Figures 4 and 5 indicate there are certain gender differences related to the
decision-making process. For example, for females both attitude and subjective
norm significantly influence the intentions to choose a business major but for males
only attitudes influence the intentions to choose a business major. For females “job
availability” and “social image” were important determinants of attitude toward
choosing a business major whereas for males in addition to “job availability” and
“social image,” “aptitude” was also an important factor influencing attitudes. Zhang
(2007) also found similar gender differences and reported that attitude played a
significant role in influencing the intentions for choosing a business major for
both genders but the influence of subjective norm was significant only for females
and not for males. The results of this study also revealed some interesting gender
differences related to subjective norm. For males, “family,” “friends,” “college
90 Students Selection of Business Majors

Table 6: Results of analysis for gender differences.

Path Coefficient (β)

Hypothesis Male (N = 404) Female (N = 241)

Attitude→Intention .81*** .81***

Subjective norm→Intention .04 .11*
Job availability→Attitude .17** .33***
Job security→Attitude .01 .01
Job salary→Attitude .07 .17
Social image→Attitude .24** .43***
Aptitude→Attitude .20** .16
Difficulty of the major→Attitude − .02 − .04
Difficulty of the curriculum→Attitude .11 .06
Genuine interest→Attitude .00 .02
Family→Subjective norm .42* .73**
Friends→Subjective norm .75** .06
Fellow students→Subjective norm .52 .62
Advisors→Subjective norm .76** .32
Professors→Subjective norm .63** .01
High-school counselors→Subjective norm .52* .63*
Mediating Effect
Subjective norm→Attitude .08 .09
Significant at *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 4: Structural analysis (males).

*Significant at .05, **Significant at .01, ***Significant at .001

Kumar and Kumar 91

Figure 5: Structural model results for females.

*Significant at .05, **Significant at .01, ***Significant at .001

advisors,” “high-school counselors,” and “professors” influenced subjective

norms, but “friends,” “advisors,” and “professors” had a stronger influence than
“family.” On the contrary, for females only “family” and “high-school counselors”
had a significant influence on subjective norm. The strong influence of “family”
for females has also been reported by Zhang (2007) and Kuechler et al. (2009).

Differences in decided versus undecided status

The study also examined differences related to the decided and undecided status of
students. The two groups of students had some interesting differences in factors that
influenced their intentions to choose a business major. Table 7 and Figures 6 and
7 show that for students who had decided their major both attitude and subjective
norms significantly influenced their intentions to choose a business major whereas
for students who were undecided subjective norm did not directly influence the
behavioral intentions to select a business major. In their case, subjective norm had
a mediating effect by influencing attitudes. For students who were decided, “job
availability” and ‘social image” were the strongest predictors of the intentions
to choose a business major. “Aptitude” was also a significant factor influencing
the intentions to choose a business major. For the “undecided” group also “social
image” and “aptitude” were significant factors in influencing their selection of
a business major. For both groups, “high-school counselors” had a very strong
influence on subjective norm. For students who had already decided their majors,
92 Students Selection of Business Majors

Table 7: Results of analysis for differences in decided/undecided status.

Path Coefficient (β)

Hypothesis Decided (N = 360) Undecided (N = 310)

Attitude→Intention .77*** .81***

Subjective norm→Intention .10* .02
Job availability→Attitude .26*** .14
Job security→Attitude .03 .09
Job salary→Attitude .00 .06
Social image→Attitude .28*** .27**
Aptitude→Attitude .17* .16*
Difficulty of the major→Attitude − .02 − .01
Difficulty of the curriculum→Attitude .09 .03
Genuine interest→Attitude .02 .01
Family→Subjective norm .26 .94***
Friends→Subjective norm .18 .42
Fellow students→Subjective norm .49 .29
Advisors→Subjective norm .31 .17
Professors→Subjective norm .72* .12
High-school counselors→Subjective norm .60** .71**
Mediating Effect
Subjective norm→Attitude .03 .14*
a
Significant at *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 6: Structural analysis for students who had decided their major.

*Significant at .05, **Significant at .01, ***Significant at .001

Kumar and Kumar 93

Figure 7: Structural analysis for students who were undecided.

*Significant at .05, **Significant at .01, ***Significant at .001

“professors” greatly influenced their intentions to choose a business major. For

students who were undecided, “family” influenced the subjective norm.
In addition to the survey questions, we asked the following three open-ended
questions to find out where students received information regarding different ma-
jors and to get their feedback about disseminating information related to different
majors. Table 8 provides a summary of the responses to those three questions.

DISCUSSION
Key Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the factors impacting students’ decision
making in choosing a business major. The results of the study provide important
insights into students’ decision-making processes and in their intentions to choose
business majors. The study used the TRA model to examine students’ decision
making, and it extended the research conducted by previous studies (Kuechler et al.,
2009; Zhang, 2007). This study validates the usefulness of the TRA framework
in predicting students’ choice of business majors and helps us to understand the
different factors influencing students’ intentions to choose a business major. The
results of the study indicate that attitude toward the business major is the main
factor influencing students’ intentions to choose this type of major. Students’
attitude toward the business major is in turn influenced by factors such as “job
availability,” “social image,” and “aptitude.”
94 Students Selection of Business Majors

Table 8: Student responses to open-ended questions.

Where did you get the What tools/technology/ Please add any comments
information about information sources do that will help us to
different majors and you think the university understand what
careers? should use to inform influenced your choice
you about different of a major.
majors?
Online information The University needs to Personal research related
Personal research using provide more to job opportunities/
Web sites like information online demand
careers.com, specific to majors and
monster.com, and google career opportunities in
those majors
Family, friends Create an online Family
High-school counselor and informational portal of Skills/abilities match the
teachers all majors and link major
majors to jobs Professors
Provide more information
about jobs, what it
entails
University and college Web Need to use up-do-date Classes that I took in high
site technology school
Professors Use Facebook/
blogs/youTube
Advisors
Classes Taken as a
Freshman

Economic data indicate that the demand for business majors has been and
continues to be high. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data,
business services are one of the three industries that are projected to experience
the highest employment growth during 2008–2018. For example, Accounting,
Management, Sales, and Information Systems are forecasted to have high job
growth. The financial system meltdown that began in October 2008 leading to
an economic downturn has led to high unemployment in the United States, which
currently stands at approximately 9%. However, business majors that were included
in this study have not experienced high unemployment rates. Data in Table 9 show
that unemployment in business majors continues to be considerably lower than
overall unemployment in the United States. An online poll conducted by Wall
Street Journal in November 2011 indicates that approximately 28% of respondents
(n = 12,036) would prefer to pick business as a college major if they had to make
a choice today. This was the second most popular major after STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) majors.
In this study, Economics (1%), Entrepreneurship (4%), and Information Sys-
tems (7%) were the least preferred business majors by students that had declared
their major (Figure 2). Economics is projected to experience a 5.8% employment
growth during the 2008–2018 decade. It is important to note that the BLS data
Kumar and Kumar 95

Table 9: Unemployment, popularity, and median earnings for business majors.

Unemployment Percent Popularity Median Earnings

Marketing & Hospitality 5.9 6 $59,000

Management 6.0 1 $56,000
Accounting 5.4 3 $61,000
Finance & Law 4.5 12 $65,000
Information Systems 5.6 31 $62,000
Economics 6.3 16 $69,000
Entrepreneurship n.a. n.a. n.a.

Source: http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term (Accessed November 15,

2011).

indicate that a master’s degree in Economics is needed to become a professional in

the occupation as an economist. A Masters’ degree requirement for a job in Eco-
nomics may possibly explain the low number of students who chose Economics
as their undergraduate major. BLS data do not include Entrepreneurship as an
independent occupation category though for all other occupational categories, it
does provide a percentage for people that are self-employed. One would expect
that success stories such as Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Michael
Dell would inspire more students to choose an Entrepreneurship major. Since all
four dropped out of school to pursue their dreams, it can be argued that students
perceive that Entrepreneurship cannot be taught. Skills needed for marketing prod-
ucts or services and managing funds can be acquired in majors such as Marketing,
Accounting, or Finance. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most entrepreneurial
activity is concentrated on the coastal regions in the U.S. and might not evoke
much student interest in a midwestern setting. Low enrollments in information
systems are intriguing given the high job availability in the area.
The highest growth in occupations for 2008–2018 includes several ones that
are in the computer specialist occupation group. For example, network systems
and data communications analysts, computer software engineer, and applications
engineer are among the list of occupations that are forecasted for highest growth
during 2008–2018. The information systems major at most educational institutions
in the U.S. prepare students to work in these occupations. When asked what
matters most in their decision to vote, jobs was identified as the most important
issue by the millennial generation (18–30 years) (Crowley, 2011). Despite high
median earnings (Table 9), highest forecasted growth for these occupations, and
the importance of this occupation that impacts on their vote, only 7% of students in
this study had declared information systems as their major. This finding does not
align with job availability and earnings facts. A couple of reasons can potentially
explain this misalignment. Either the students are not well informed about job
availability data, or they have a negative social image about certain majors and/or
don’t believe they have the aptitude for these majors.
An Information Systems major does not seem to have a favorable social
image as compared to other business majors. As indicated in Table 9, information
systems are the least popular business major. Declining enrollments in information
96 Students Selection of Business Majors

systems majors despite high job availability in the last decade reinforces this fact.
Light & Silverman (2011) point out that during 2001–2009, there was a decrease of
14% in students choosing a computer and information sciences major despite the
fact that overall college graduates increased by 29%. Though information systems
majors have declined consistently in the last decade, technology companies in the
United Stats are ranked very highly as potential employers. In a recent survey
conducted in the first quarter of 2011 by Universum, business students (36% of
61,726 students) identified Google and Apple as the top two employers along with
Facebook and Microsoft in the top 15 (Di Meglio, 2011). It is interesting to note
that despite a preference to work for technology companies, business students shy
away from the information systems major. It is possible that students perceive that
they do not have the aptitude for the information systems major. Similar findings by
Downey, McGaughey, and Roach (2011) and Zhang (2007) reinforced a student’s
aptitude as a key factor that impacts their attitude toward their choice of a major.
Why they believe they don’t have the aptitude for a specific business major can be
an interesting question for a future research study.
Contrary to our expectations, subjective norm did not directly impact stu-
dents’ intentions to select a business major, but rather influenced it indirectly by
impacting attitude toward the business major. Family, professors, and high-school
counselors were found to be significant referents in influencing students’ inten-
tions to choose a business major by influencing their attitudes toward that major.
These results are consistent with other studies that have found that family (Walm-
sley, Wilson, & Morgan, 2010; Zhang 2007), professors (Calkins & Welki, 2006;
Downey, McGaughey, & Roach, 2011; Walmsley et al., 2010; Zhang, 2007), and
high-school counselors (Tang et al., 2008; Ware & Lee, 1988) influence a student’s
intention to choose a major. In response to the open-ended question, “where did
you get the information about the different majors and careers,” students refer to
family, professors, and high-school counselors; it is obvious that students value
opinions and advice from these groups of people. The indirect influence of sub-
jective norms can be explained by a couple of reasons. Perhaps referents shape
students’ perceptions based on job availability data and social image, which in-
fluences their attitude toward a certain major. Positive experiences in a classroom
and interactions with referents might impact a student’s aptitude toward a major.
Another important contribution of this study is that it also investigated dif-
ferences related to gender (Table 6) and decided/undecided status (Table 7) of
students. The findings provide interesting insights into the differences in factors
that impact these different groups. We found that the influence of referent groups
was stronger for females than for males in influencing their decision of selecting a
business major. Similar to previous studies (Kuechler et al., 2009; Zhang, 2007),
our study also found that for females, “family” was the most significant influence
in their decisions to select a business major. In addition to family, high-school
advisors also influenced their intentions in this regard. On the other hand, for
males, “friends,” “advisors,” and “professors” had a stronger influence than “fam-
ily.” Studies have attributed these gender differences to the differences in which
families communicate expectations to girls versus boys. For example, Medved,
Brogan, McClanhan, Morris, and Shephard (2006) pointed out that “women re-
ceived significantly different messages than men about choosing particular ca-
Kumar and Kumar 97

reers and exiting the paid labor force in relation to anticipated family obligations
(pp. 161–162).” Perhaps this explains the strong family influence and the lack of
influence of friends, advisors, and professors on females in this study. Students
responding to the open-ended questions identified both family and professors as
factors influencing their choice of majors. It must be noted that these responses
were not categorized by gender.
Some interesting differences also emerged between students who had al-
ready decided their major and students who were undecided. For students who had
already decided their business major, both attitude and subjective norm influenced
their decisions to choose that major. For them, job availability was one of the most
significant factors in influencing their attitudes toward that major. Furthermore, for
this group, professors had the strongest influence in helping them select a business
major. On the contrary, for students who were undecided about their majors, only
social image and aptitude were significant factors impacting their intentions to
choose a business major. Students with undeclared majors probably spend more
time in college thinking about a major. In this study, approximately 24% of the
students had spent more than 1 year in college. Lack of adequate information, too
much information related to majors, or the social image of a career in a specific
major can make it difficult for students to make decisions in a timely manner. Fur-
thermore, experiences in introductory courses may lead students to think that they
may not have the aptitude for a specific major. Perhaps students want to take more
time and more courses before they make a decision about their major. Responses to
the open-ended question (seeking input on tools/technology/information resources
that the university should make available to help students decide their majors)
suggested that providing more information on how different majors are linked to
jobs can help students make a decision. The respondents also recommended using
social media tools to disseminate this information.
In summary, our results provide support for the use of TRA model for under-
standing the factors that influence students’ decision-making process in selecting
business majors. Job availability, social image, and aptitude for the subject appear
to be the most important factors that students consider in selecting business majors.
The study also suggests that professors, high-school counselors, and family play a
major role in influencing students’ intentions to choose the business major directly
or indirectly.

Implications for Practice

As the findings indicate, students’ attitudes toward the business majors play a
significant role in influencing their intentions to choose a business major. These
attitudes are shaped by the availability of jobs in the intended major, perceptions
related to social image of the major and aptitude toward that major. High job
availability, low unemployment despite economic downturn, and high projected
growth of jobs for business majors imply that students will continue to be attracted
to these majors in the coming years. Declining and low enrollments in majors
such as Economics, Entrepreneurship, and Information Systems in this study need
to be addressed in future studies. The TRA framework helps us to identify those
factors that can be influenced to help students with the decision-making process
while selecting business majors. Myriad options exist and can be implemented by
98 Students Selection of Business Majors

schools seeking to understand and influence enrollments in these majors. First and
foremost, departments need to promote the different majors emphasizing informa-
tion related to job opportunities in the field. The university, college, and department
Web sites should include pertinent information related to job demand, availability,
unemployment, and growth in different majors. Data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics provide a rich source of such data and should be used in combination
with data from industry to present a holistic picture. Students’ recommendations
to use social media technologies (Table 8) should be taken seriously, and different
marketing and promotional strategies should be designed and used to dissemi-
nate this information. An increasing number of higher education institutions are
using social media for recruiting and admission process. Social media can also
be a valuable tool in helping students connect with former students who are cur-
rently working in industry and potential employers so that current students can get
valuable job-related advice from their predecessors.
Student perceptions on social image of a major can be influenced by a com-
bination of traditional and innovative approaches. Care should be taken to ensure
that social image is based on facts rather than misperceived notions. Using a tra-
ditional approach by showcasing success stories of people who represent different
majors such as Warren Buffet, J.P. Morgan, Carly Fiorina, and Meg Whitman,
for example, from the corporate world might inspire students to choose a specific
major. An innovative approach would require schools to present information in
different and unique ways to influence students in their decision-making process.
For example, the ability to make a positive difference in the world can be used to
encourage students to sign up for a specific major. Entrepreneurial projects such as
collaborateforchange.com and Deforest Action can be used as strong motivators
for students to major in Entrepreneurship because both the above-mentioned ex-
amples demonstrate innovative uses of technology and entrepreneurship to solve
complex problems. Although most schools focus on the business applications of
information systems, it must be pointed out that majoring in information systems
can prepare one to work in diverse fields, such as health and medicine, space explo-
ration, and environmental monitoring. Similarly, unique and interesting examples
of the use of information systems, such as analyzing data sets for putting together
a baseball team, as depicted in the popular movie Moneyball, may attract students
toward majoring in information systems.
On the other hand, students also choose majors based on a perception of
a good fit or aptitude, which can be influenced using different strategies. Family,
high-school counselors, and professors are salient referents that influence students’
attitudes toward the business majors and their intentions to choose a particular
major. Universities and business colleges need to work with high-school counselors
to inform students about the different majors and job opportunities available in each
field. Efforts should also be made to include parents in such discussions because
on many occasions, parents can be the best persons to explain to their children the
importance of making a good choice of major that will ultimately affect their future
career prospects. In responses to the open-ended questions, students emphasized
the need for information related to jobs and suggested that online resources related
to jobs should be made available to them by the university authorities. Since
students are searching job-related information online, we recommend the use of
Kumar and Kumar 99

social media technologies, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, and wikis to
help students. A better-coordinated effort is needed between universities, business
colleges, and high schools to help students discover their aptitudes for different
majors by exposing them to these majors through job shadowing, lectures by guest
speakers, and other informational sessions. Business majors seeking to increase
student-enrollments can leverage faculty expertise for impacting enrollments. For
example, “star” faculty can be assigned to teach introductory business courses
where interesting examples of applications of a particular discipline can be used
to nudge students toward a major.
Finally, as the results of the study reveal, there are some differences related
to gender and the decided/undecided status of students in the factors that impact
students’ decision-making process in the selection of a college major. Therefore,
these students should not be considered a homogenous group. These groups use
different criteria in selecting their business majors. For example, for females, the
influence of family and high-school counselors is very prominent; including parents
in discussion sessions related to different majors and informing both parents and
female students of the career potential in each major is likely to influence their
decision to choose a business major. Further attempts should be made to reach
out to high-school counselors on a regular basis to update them on changes in job
demands of different business majors. Similarly, there are some distinct differences
between the decided and undecided groups. Incorporating the key referents (such
as professors) and addressing the influence of factors (such as job availability,
social image, aptitude) can be effective in encouraging students to make a decision
regarding a major, especially the undecided students; this can help them save
both time and money. For example, social image is an important influencer for
undecided students. Successful alumni, both male and female, should be invited to
communicate with the current students about the opportunities in different business
majors. Clear communication can be a very effective tool to nudge students toward
a major.

CONCLUSION
The selection of a business major is a complex and challenging task for students.
An understanding of this decision-making process and of the factors that impact
the process can help us to better guide students so that they can make informed
decisions. This research offers useful information regarding the factors impacting
students’ decision-making process while choosing a business major. The study
validates the use of the TRA framework for understanding and influencing stu-
dents’ decision-making process in this regard and supports the findings of previous
research by Kuechler et al. (2009) and Zhang (2007). The findings of the study
suggest that students’ decision to select a business major is influenced by the
social image of the discipline, job availability in the field, and students’ aptitude
toward that major. Family, high-school counselors, and professors have significant
influence on students’ intentions to choose a business major. Furthermore, there
are some unique differences in results related to gender and decided/undecided
status of students that can be helpful in designing marketing programs to address
the unique needs of students.
100 Students Selection of Business Majors

Limitations and Future Research

The study provided important insights about the factors that impact students’
decision-making process in choosing business majors. However, the research has
some limitations that can be addressed in future studies. First, the sample for the
study was not randomly selected, but it was specific to a midwestern university,
thus, limiting the generalizability of the results. It is possible that the factors that
influence students’ selection of business majors may vary based on geographical
regions. For example, factors may differ in coastal areas such as the Silicon Valley
where there is a lot of information technology related entrepreneurial activity.
Future studies can explore potential differences based on geographic location.
Second, it is possible that there are other factors in addition to the ones used in
the study that could influence students’ attitudes toward business majors. Though
our model explains 35% variation in attitudes, these factors need to be examined
in future studies. Third, some studies have reported differences in factors related
to the number of years students have been in college (Malgwi et al., 2005). In our
study, the majority of the students were freshman; it is possible that different factors
impact students who are in their sophomore and junior years. Future studies can
examine how different factors influence freshmen and sophomores, as they make
decisions regarding the choice of a business major. Finally, as an increasing number
of students use blogs, forums, and other social networking sites to get information
related to colleges and majors, future research should consider the influence of
social networking sites in students’ decision-making process in the selection of a
business major.

REFERENCES
Adams, S. J., Pryor, L. J., & Adams, S. L. (1994). Attraction and retention of high-
aptitude students in accounting: An exploratory longitudinal study, Issues in
Accounting Education, 9(1), 45–58.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our deci-
sions. New York, HarperCollins Publishers.
Barkhi, R., Belanger, F., & Hicks, J. (2008). A model of the determinants for
purchasing from the virtual stores. Journal of Organizational Computing
and Electronic Commerce, 18(3), 177–196.
Beggs, J., Bantham, J., & Taylor, S. (2008). Distinguishing the factors influencing
college students’ choice of major. College Student Journal, A 42(2), 381–394.
Begley, S. (2011, February 27). I Can’t Think. Newsweek. Retrieved from
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/i-can-t-think.html.
Berger, M. C. (1988, April). Predicted future earnings and choice of college major.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 41(3), 418–429.
Calkins, L. N., & Welki, A. (2006). Factors that influence choice of major: Why
some students never consider Economics. International Journal of Social
Economics, 33(8), 547–564.
Kumar and Kumar 101

Chin, W. W. (1998a). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS

Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.
Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach to structural equation mod-
eling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research.,
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 295–336.
Chung, Y. B., Loeb, J. W., & Gonzo, S. T. (1996). Factors predicting the educa-
tional and career aspirations of black college aspirations. Journal of Career
Development, 23(2), 127–135.
Cohen, J., & Hanno, D. (1993). An analysis of underlying constructs affecting
the choice of accounting as a major. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(2),
219–238.
Crowley, M. (2011, November 14). The new generation gap. Time, 36–40.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P, & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science,
35(8), 982–1003.
Di Meglio, F. (2011, May 12). Dream jobs: College students make their
picks. Bloomberg Businessweek, Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.
com/bschools/content/may2011/bs20110511_024823.htm.
Downey, J. P., McGaughey, R., & Roach, D. (2011). Attitudes and influences
towards choosing a business major: The case of information systems. Journal
of Information Technology Education, 10, 231–251.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the boot-strap. New York:
Chapman & Hall.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and
PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research,
19, 440–452.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39–50.
Franzoi, S. L. (2003). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A., Hughes, D. E., & Jones, E. (2010). Motivating sales-
people to sell new products: The relative influence of attitudes, subjective
norms, and self-efficacy. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 61–76.
Galotti, K. M. (1999). Making a “major” real-life decision: College students choos-
ing an academic major. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 379–
387.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-
graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association
for Information Systems, 16, 91–109.
102 Students Selection of Business Majors

Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling
and regression: Guidelines for research practice, Communications of the
Association Information Systems, 4(7), 1–77.
George, J. F., Valacich, J. S., & Valor, J. (2004). Does information systems still
matter? Lessons for a maturing discipline. Paper presented at the 25th Inter-
national Conference on Information Systems, Washington, DC.
Kaynama, S. A., & Smith, L. W. (1996). Using consumer behavior and decision
models to aid students in choosing a major. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 7(2), 57–73.
Kim, D., Markham, F. S., & Cangelosi, J. D. (2002). Why students pursue the busi-
ness degree: A comparison of business majors across universities. Journal of
Education for Business, 78(1), 28–32.
Kuechler, W. L., McLeod, A., & Simkin, M. G. (2009). Why don’t more students
major in IS? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(2), 463–
488.
Lackland, A., & DeLisi, R. (2001). Students’ choice of college majors that are gen-
der traditional and nontraditional. Journal of College Student Development,
42(1), 39–48.
Lee, Y., & Lee, S. J. (2006). The competitiveness of the information systems major:
An analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Information Systems Education,
17(2), 211–221.
Leppel, K. (2001). The impact of major on college persistence among freshmen.
Higher Education, 41(3), 299–325.
Leppel, K., Williams, M. L., & Waldauer, C. (2001). The impact of parental
occupation and socioeconomic status on choice of college major. Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, 22(4), 373–394.
Light, J., & Silverman, R. E. (2011, November 9). Students pick easier majors
despite less pay. Wall Street Journal, B6.
Lowe, D. R., & Simmons, K. (1997). Factors influencing choice of business majors-
some additional evidence: A research note. Accounting Education, 6(1), 39–
46.
Malgwi, C. A., Howe, M. A., & Burnaby, P. A. (2005). Influences on students
choice of college major. Journal of Education for Business, 80(5), 275–282.
Medved, C. E., Brogan, S. M., McClanhan, A. M., Morris, J. F., & Shephard, G.
J. (2006). Family and work socializing communication: Messages, gender,
and idealogical implications. The Journal of Family Communication, 6(3),
161–180.
Noel, N. M., Michaels, C., & Levas, M. G. (2003). The relationship of personality
traits and self-monitoring behavior to choice of business major. The Journal
of Education for Business, 78(3), 153–157.
Noland, T., Case, T., Francisco, W., & Kelly, J. (2003). An analysis of academic
major selection factors: A comparison of information systems and accounting
students. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the International
Academy for Information Management, 18, 150–156.
Kumar and Kumar 103

Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in infor-
mation systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656.
Pritchard, R. E., Potter, G. C., & Saccucci, M. S. (2004, January-February). The
selection of a business major: Elements influencing student choice and im-
plications for outcomes assessment. The Journal of Education for Business,
79(3), 152–156.
Roberts, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2009). Conceptualizing and testing formative
constructs: Tutorial and annotated example. The DATA BASE for Advances
in Information Systems, 40(3), 9–39.
Ronan, G. B. (2005, November 29). College freshmen face major dilemma.
Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10154383/ns/business-
personal_finance/t/college-freshmen-face-major-dilemma/.
Schwatrz, B. (2004). The tyranny of choice. Chronicle of Higher Education,
50(20), B6–B8.
Summer, K., & Brown, T. (1996). Men, women and money: Exploring the role of
gender, gender-linkage of college major and career-information sources in
salary expectations. Sex Roles, 34, 11–12, 823–840.
Tang, M., Pan, W., & Newmeyer, M. D. (2008). Factors influencing high schools
career aspirations. The School Counselor, 11(5), 285–295.
Turner, S. E., & Bowen, W. G. (1999). Choice of major: The changing (un-
changing) gender gap. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52(2), 289–
313.
Walsh, A., Edwards, H., & Fraser, J. (2009). Attitudes and norms: Determinants
of parents’ intentions to reduce childhood fever with medications. Health
Education Research, 24(3), 431–545.
Walstrom, K. A., Schambach, T. P., Jones, K. T., & Crampton, W. J. (2008). Why
are students not majoring in Information Systems? Journal of Information
Systems Education, 19(1), 43–54.
Walmsley, A., Wilson, T., & Morgan, C. (2010). Influences on a college student’s
major: A developmental perspective. Journal for the Liberal Arts and Sci-
ences, 14(2), 25–46.
Ware, N. C., & Lee, V. E. (1988). Sex differences in choice of college science
majors. American Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 593–614.
Zhang, (2007). Why IS: Understanding undergraduate students’ intentions to
choose an information systems major. Journal of Information Systems Edu-
cation, 18(4), 447–458.

APPENDIX
Survey (adapted from Zhang, 2007)

Students’ Intention to Choose a Business Major

I intend to choose a business major
It is likely that I will choose a business major
104 Students Selection of Business Majors

Attitude toward Choosing a Business Major

Choosing a business major seems like a good idea to me
It will be wise for me to choose a business major

Salient Referents
My family influenced (may influence) my choice of major
My friends influenced (may influence) my choice of major
Fellow students influenced (may influence) my choice of major
My advisor influenced (may influence) my choice of major
My professor/s influenced (may influence) my choice of major
My high-school counselor influenced (may influence) my choice my major

Job Availability
There will be plenty of job opportunities available in my chosen (intended) major
There will be job openings available in my chosen (intended) major when I graduate

Job Security
There will always be great market demand for my chosen (or intended) major
There will be high job security for my chosen (intended) major

Job Salary
I can get a high paying job in my chosen (intended) major
My starting salary will be satisfying in my chosen (intended) major

Social Image
The business world looks up to my chosen (intended) major
My chosen (intended) major will lead to a respectable career
The business world will treat my chosen (intended) major with great respect

Difficulty of the Curriculum

Courses in my chosen (intended) major will be intensive
Courses in my chosen (intended) major will be challenging
Courses in my chosen (intended) major will be demanding

Difficulty of the Major

My chosen (intended) major may require me to take too many courses to complete
it
In my chosen (intended) major I will spend a lot of time studying it
My chosen (intended) major will require a lot of time to complete it

Aptitude
I believe I will be good in my chosen (intended) major
I believe I have the aptitude for my chosen (intended) major
Kumar and Kumar 105

Genuine Interest in the chosen major

I have chosen (or will chose) a major based on my interest in the field
I like my major or will choose a major based on what I like

Anil Kumar is a Professor of Information Systems at Central Michigan Univer-

sity. He is a GITMA fellow and the 2012–2013 Towle professor of Information
Systems at Central Michigan University. His research interests include manag-
ing information resources, technology-mediated learning, and creating value from
social media technologies. He has published in Journal of Global Information Tech-
nology Management, Decision Support Systems, The TQM Journal, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Information Processing and Management and several other journals. Dr. Kumar
has presented more than 50 papers at international and national conferences.

Poonam Kumar is a professor of Educational Technology at Saginaw Valley

State University, Michigan. She received her doctorate in Education from the
University of Memphis and a post-doctoral certificate in Marketing from Virginia
Polytechnic and State University. Her research interests include the use of emerging
technologies in online learning, social media marketing and consumer privacy.
She has published papers in premier education and business journals and presents
regularly at international and national conferences.