View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Considering a Marketing Degree? Student Perceptions of General versus Specialized Majors

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Considering a Marketing Degree? Student Perceptions of General versus Specialized Majors
Language: English
Authors: Atkin, JoAnn L. (ORCID 0000-0003-4102-8942), Bowie, Anthony Alland, Cowley, Scott (ORCID 0000-0003-2333-9544), Eckert, James A., Ferrin, Bruce G., Harrison, Robert L., Lancendorfer, Karen M., Luqmani, Mushtaq, Luqmani, Zahida, Leingpibul, Thaweephan, Mumuni, Alhassan G., O'Reilly, Kelley, Quraeshi, Zahir A., Samples, Robert G., Veeck, Ann (ORCID 0000-0001-9577-9800), Xie, Hu, Zondag, Marcellis M.
Source: Journal of Marketing Education. Apr 2022 44(1):85-99.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Marketing, Majors (Students), Undergraduate Students, Student Attitudes, Self Efficacy, Comparative Analysis, Specialization, Decision Making, Social Cognition, College Faculty, Teacher Student Relationship, Career Choice
DOI: 10.1177/02734753211028888
ISSN: 0273-4753
Abstract: Many business colleges offer specialized marketing majors in addition to the general marketing major. Given the extra resources needed to maintain multiple majors, in a time when higher education budgets are being strained, a need exists to understand how students make choices among these majors and what students perceive to be the advantages of general marketing majors versus specialized marketing majors. Using social cognitive theory, we examine how students make selections among choices in marketing-related majors, focusing on influence and compatibility factors. We surveyed 608 marketing majors representing one general and five specialized marketing majors. The findings indicate that, compared with general marketing majors, students' choice of a specialized major is significantly more likely to be influenced by faculty and other students in the major. Also, the results show that students rate specialized majors better than a general marketing major in terms of self-efficacy, culture, and professional fit. On the other hand, students rate the general marketing major better than specialized majors in flexibility. These results have implications for supporting the priorities of students in both general and specialized majors.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1333672
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHy37xeS4gZv8X1rDR-vJhcAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBMrz_QWPGM77WCFnwIBEICBmzVYKCopO3zTTpTx1jz8xgBAIcWPWvWiC8Idx4scOrDRv8Zc9wwT-DtgJwEAWur7nI2_9YpSn7wZSUhUrfWbtBx3MZ1u8KYSK0-dSWm2pv_usf1VXlwFUaIJseJVFLLveSlUuLMaM01hkEz14-6DYMOqVM-6vhh409u2HwUNkHOSbwULFJ5xzs90m9ILsVVbUMnYWVa9ph6MsWUh
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0155828752;mke01apr.22;2022Mar22.02:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0155828752-1">Considering a Marketing Degree? Student Perceptions of General Versus Specialized Majors </title> <p>Many business colleges offer specialized marketing majors in addition to the general marketing major. Given the extra resources needed to maintain multiple majors, in a time when higher education budgets are being strained, a need exists to understand how students make choices among these majors and what students perceive to be the advantages of general marketing majors versus specialized marketing majors. Using social cognitive theory, we examine how students make selections among choices in marketing-related majors, focusing on influence and compatibility factors. We surveyed 608 marketing majors representing one general and five specialized marketing majors. The findings indicate that, compared with general marketing majors, students' choice of a specialized major is significantly more likely to be influenced by faculty and other students in the major. Also, the results show that students rate specialized majors better than a general marketing major in terms of self-efficacy, culture, and professional fit. On the other hand, students rate the general marketing major better than specialized majors in flexibility. These results have implications for supporting the priorities of students in both general and specialized majors.</p> <p>Keywords: major selection; major recruitment; specialized major; university enrollment; higher education; marketing advising</p> <p>Business schools faced significant challenges even prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. College enrollments have been declining since 2010, leading to a smaller pool of potential students for business colleges ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref1">40</reflink>]). According to birthrate projections, the population of people 18 to 22 years of age, the traditional age of college students, will drop by 15% between 2025 and 2029 and will continue to decline thereafter ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>]). Additionally, the future is uncertain with the economic effects that remote instruction and higher unemployment have created for enrollment and tuition dollars ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref4">13</reflink>]). For many universities, determining the best methods to attract and retain students is vital for their economic health ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>The debate regarding the best approach to meet the challenge posed by declining populations of college-age students began long before the COVID-19 pandemic began. An important strategy for attracting new students focuses on determining the optimal breadth of majors, programs, and delivery modalities to meet marketplace expectations, even as many universities are eliminating or combining majors ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref6">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref7">39</reflink>]). To remain relevant to students, and to the employers who ultimately recruit students, curricula need to evolve ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>]). A common practice that universities have used to achieve this is to modify program offerings within colleges in an attempt to more effectively respond to the demand for graduates ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref10">47</reflink>]). For some business schools, this has resulted in expanded offerings that target specialized areas of study, such as e-business, sports management, and data analytics ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]). This trend is evident within the marketing discipline, with the emergence of new specialized programs in areas like digital marketing, marketing analytics, and social media ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref12">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref13">67</reflink>]). Such programs are frequently designed to align with new skills required in marketing jobs ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref15">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>With the extra resources required to maintain multiple majors, a need exists to examine how students choose whether to deviate from a traditional marketing major and select among specialized marketing-related majors. The goal of this research is to gain insight into how students select a major and the factors they consider when assessing whether a major aligns with their values and interests. This research also seeks to provide insight that marketing departments can use to effectively position and recruit students for their marketing programs.</p> <p>As such, the two main research questions of this study are as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Research Question 1: </bold> Why do students initially choose a specialized or general marketing major?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 2: </bold> What do students perceive to be the advantages of selecting specialized marketing majors versus general marketing majors?</item> </ulist> <p>To address the two research questions, we conducted a survey of undergraduate students from general and multiple specialized marketing majors in a large marketing department of a public university in the United States. We report on the factors that influence students' choice of major and what they perceive to be the strengths and drawbacks of their major choice. We then discuss the implications of these findings for marketing departments that host, or are considering hosting, a portfolio of majors, particularly in an environment that may include increased emphasis on remote instruction ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref16">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref17">66</reflink>]). This is the first study, to our knowledge, to differentiate between general and specialized marketing majors on influences of major section and satisfaction with their major.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-2">Literature Review</hd> <p>Social cognitive theory (SCT), as posited by [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref18">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref19">9</reflink>]), provides the theoretical foundation and organizing framework for our research. Specifically, we consider the SCT tenet that focuses on human agency—that is, the belief that individuals can control essential elements of their life. SCT connects human agency and the dynamic influence of the social environment on human decision making, motivation, and behavior ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref21">34</reflink>]). Our study addresses the agency of undergraduate students who are choosing between a general and a specialized marketing major ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref23">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref24">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Consistent with earlier applications in academic- and career-choice studies for investigating student motivation and behavior, we use SCT as an organizing framework for the different literature-based choice influence factors and for its predictive proficiency in our research context (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref25">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref26">68</reflink>]). Specifically, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>] discuss three sociocognitive mechanisms that distinguish SCT from other social–psychological theories and which fit our research context well:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Self-efficacy</emph> is an important determinant in choosing one field of study over another.</item> <p></p> <item> Outcome <emph>expectations</emph> in academic performance and career options on graduation are foreseeable as factors in students' major choices.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Goals</emph> are essential determinants of human behavior and motivation; in our case, we would expect goals to influence students' choices between a general and a specialized marketing major.</item> </ulist> <p>In addition to these mechanisms (the student's appraisal of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and personal goals), SCT also captures how social influence from students' personal and academic environments will round out the decision-making process. Prior research identifies a range of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence students' major choice. Earlier studies also show that choosing a major in college is cognitively demanding. Students tend to minimize evaluation criteria to limit the amount of information to process ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>To answer our research questions, we first compile a listing of students' choice factors established by prior research and then evaluate how they align with the sociocognitive mechanisms of SCT. Following the SCT organizing structure of interaction between individual and environmental factors in determining choice behavior, we then categorize the factors into either <emph>influence factors</emph> or <emph>compatibility factors, with</emph> the first category representing extrinsic or environmental decision factors and the latter category representing intrinsic or personality-based factors. We then investigate how these two categories affect student decision making when deciding on a major.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-3">Influence Factors Affecting Choice</hd> <p> <emph>Influence Factors</emph> are the forces that help a student to narrow their choice of majors. Influence factors include (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) career outcomes and interest, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) social influence, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>) career versus noncareer factors. A student's choice of major in this area will be informed by the views of peers, family, and advisors and through initial introductory coursework with major faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-4">Career Outcomes and Interest</hd> <p>Not surprisingly, research shows that students' interest in the subject area and their ability to achieve a comfortable standard of living with growth opportunities affects the major students choose ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref34">65</reflink>]). For example, in choosing a major, a primary consideration for students is their interest in the field of study ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref36">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>]). The perception of career opportunities and meaningfulness of the work also play a role. For instance, students' perceptions that their chosen major represents a creative and people-oriented profession seem to have a strong influence on their intent to pursue marketing-related majors ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-5">Social Influence</hd> <p>Prior research focused on environmental influence from family, friends, and academic advisors ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref39">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref41">59</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref42">43</reflink>] found that some students chose a major based on the popularity of the major without fully understanding what they might be studying. Other research exposes additional nuances when examining students' attitudes and choices of a specific major. For example, influence from parents and positive perceptions of the accounting profession plays a critical role in choosing an accounting major ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref43">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>In comparison with other business majors, marketing majors tend to choose their major later in their academic career ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref44">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref45">41</reflink>]). Because of this delayed choice, research has found that exposure to major faculty in early academic coursework can affect major choice ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref46">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref47">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref48">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref49">45</reflink>]). This effect is likely amplified when considering the academic reputation and perceived quality of the program, curriculum, and faculty, as shown by [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref50">53</reflink>] and confirmed by [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref51">41</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-6">Career Versus Noncareer Factors</hd> <p>For students considering a business major (e.g., marketing, management, accounting, finance), there is no clear consensus regarding whether noncareer factors (e.g., curriculum, coursework, interest) are more influential than career factors (monetary outcomes, extensive job opportunities). While some researchers find that noncareer factors are more important than career factors (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref52">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref53">63</reflink>]), others find the opposite (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref54">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on previous research, we anticipate that students are influenced by expected career outcomes and by what their social and academic connections think about their choice in choosing a general versus specialized marketing major.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-7">Compatibility Factors Affecting Choice</hd> <p> <emph>Compatibility factors</emph> are the forces that influence a students' perceptions of their "fit" within a major. Factors affecting the perception of compatibility and fit investigated in prior research include</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Students' self-efficacy and confidence in a particular field of study</item> <p></p> <item> Students' perceptions of the flexibility offered by the major</item> <p></p> <item> Students' perception of the degree to which the major matches their self-definition</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0155828752-8">Self-Efficacy</hd> <p>Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to perform and produce specific outcomes associated with a job or major ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref55">7</reflink>]). For example, when examining choices among majors across colleges and schools (e.g., arts and humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences), research shows that the nature of an individual student's personality (e.g., realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, or conventional) is a better predictor of major choice than academic preparation, competence, or social influence ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref56">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref57">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, marketing students tend to be more qualitatively oriented ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref58">32</reflink>]), whereas accounting and finance programs attract more quantitatively oriented students ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref59">50</reflink>]). Essentially, as students consider their choice of major, the self-efficacy query is "Am <emph>I</emph> confident in <emph>my</emph> ability to succeed in this field/major?"</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-9">Flexibility and Variety of Major</hd> <p>Prior research indicates that a growing number of students face schedule constraints as they attempt to balance the demands of working, raising families, and finishing a degree. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref60">56</reflink>] likewise suggest that schedule pressures affect students major choice. This reality may necessitate new approaches to assessment—for example, "Create rigorous but efficient-to-manage assignments... and adjust traditional course structure [to] make greater use of emerging virtual education tool[s]) and supporting student success" ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref61">56</reflink>], p. 215).</p> <p>These findings suggest that many students might choose a major based on the flexibility (e.g., adaptable course sequencing, a broader choice in elective courses) offered by the major. Also, a major program that rewards—explicitly or implicitly—extracurricular activities, such as participation in student clubs, additional work outside of the classroom, and industry internships, can be perceived as compromising flexibility and, thus, affect students' choice of one major over another.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-10">Degree of Fit</hd> <p>Research suggests that students tend to assess their major based on cultural comfort and whether they perceive a personal fit to the attendant profession ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref62">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref63">60</reflink>]). For example, being creative and people oriented are job characteristics found to be decisive factors for selecting a sales major ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although offering an informative and sometimes intuitive overview of the complexity of students' academic choices, extant research provides few answers or implications for addressing our research question about students' choices among marketing majors. Since specialized marketing majors are typically resource intensive and more sequenced and demanding than general marketing majors, understanding the student choice mechanism is essential for developing departmental strategies. We conducted a broad survey of marketing students to understand the critical determinants of marketing major selection within this context.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-11">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155828752-12">Sampling and Data Collection</hd> <p>This study took place at a public university, with an overall enrollment of slightly less than 20,000 students. The marketing department offers students six different majors, including a general[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>] marketing major and five specialized majors: advertising and promotion, digital marketing and e-commerce, food and consumer package goods (CPG) marketing, integrated supply management (ISM), and sales and business marketing. The specialized majors have diverse histories. The oldest major, food and CPG marketing, dates back to 1959, and the most recent major, digital marketing and e-commerce, was added in 2010. The digital marketing and e-commerce major is interdisciplinary, shared with the business information systems department. According to data supplied by the university's [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref66">44</reflink>], the marketing department was the largest department in the university as of spring semester 2020, with 1,370 enrolled students. The marketing department's number of declared premajors and majors had increased 23.93% over the previous 5 years, despite an overall decrease in enrollment for the university, suggesting that the department's options of six majors was attractive to students.</p> <p>A survey instrument, consisting of open- and close-ended questions, was created to collect information related to the recruitment, perceptions, and satisfaction of students in the majors, consonant with factors highlighted in SCT. The online survey was administered to undergraduate students in 37 courses, consisting of marketing classes or general business courses required for all marketing majors, with email invitations from the course instructors that provided an electronic link to the survey. The students were asked to take the survey just once in the event that they were enrolled in more than one class. On the final page of the survey, students were invited to select all of the classes in which they were enrolled and provide their email address to receive credit for completing the survey. The students were assured in three places (in the email inviting them to take the survey, in the introduction to the survey, and at the top of the page where they were asked to supply their email address) that their identifying information would be deleted prior to the analysis of the data.</p> <p>Prior to analyzing the data, the responses were sorted by email address, and duplicate responses were deleted. To protect the confidentiality of the responses, the students' identifying information, necessary to award the extra credit, was deleted from all responses before the researchers received them. We then eliminated from the data set any incomplete or outlier (based on Mahalanobis distance scores) responses as well as responses completed by a nonmarketing or undecided major. Students with more than one major (5.6% of the sample) were asked to keep their "primary" major in mind when responding to the survey's questions. The survey instrument defined "primary" major as "the major that you consider most important for fulfilling your life goals."</p> <p>The final sample consists of 608 marketing majors: 137 general marketing majors and 471 specialized majors. Because of the characteristics of the classes in which students were offered the opportunity to complete the survey, students with junior or senior standing constituted the majority of the sample. The sample is 56.4% male and 42.4% female and includes 7.1% international students and 44% of the sample is transfer students. Of the sample, 22.5% of respondents are general marketing majors (the major with the highest enrollment in the department), with the remaining 77.5% of responses coming from students in one of the department's five specialized marketing majors. This distribution approximates the incidence in the department's overall student population.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-13">Open-Ended Questions</hd> <p>Eight open-ended questions were included on the survey, yielding 3,198 comments (Table 1 displays the questions). Open-ended questions that were asked related to influences on the choice of the students' majors as well as strengths and weaknesses of the students' majors. The purpose of including open-ended questions was to elicit authentic, unbiased responses from the students related to influence and compatibility ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref67">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Open-Ended Questions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Q1. Why did you choose your major?Q2. Which one person had the single most important influence on your choice of major?Q3. How did that person influence your choice of major?Q4. Was there any one class that influenced you to select your primary major?Q5. (For those who listed a class) What was the class? How did the class influence you?Q6. What is the biggest strength of your major?Q7. What is the biggest drawback of your major?Q8. Any other comments on your choice of a major?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The qualitative responses were analyzed with the aid of QSR International's NVivo software ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref68">37</reflink>]). The use of NVivo allowed the organization of the comments through a process of memo writing and coding. The researchers iteratively examined the text-based data, identifying themes (e.g., influences, goals, strengths, drawbacks) and subthemes (e.g., class availability, creativity, flexibility) across multiple categories ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]). The comments aided in the interpretation of the quantitative results as well as provided independent information ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref70">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-14">Item Selection</hd> <p>The questionnaire collected descriptive information related to the choice of students' majors, including current class standing, current major, timing of decision of current major, identification of any previously declared majors, identification of college-related activities, and basic demographics. The questionnaire also contained measures related to the perceived importance of influences on choice of marketing major, perceived importance of opportunities directly related to the major, and satisfaction with the major.</p> <p>Scale items related to the importance of influences on choice of marketing major are adapted from [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref72">11</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref73">41</reflink>]. The items were assessed in importance, using a 7-point scale, from <emph>not at all important</emph> to <emph>a great deal</emph>. Influences that were evaluated included high school influences (high school teachers and counselors), university-related influences (instructors in major, instructors outside of major, other students in majors, advisors, and career center personnel), and relatives and friends (parents, other family members, and friends).</p> <p>Importance of opportunities directly related to major was measured using a 7-point scale assessing perceived importance, from <emph>not at all important</emph> to <emph>extremely important</emph>. Opportunities or experiences were selected based on a menu of opportunities that specialized marketing majors might provide. The items consisted of scholarships, student organizations or clubs, internships, study abroad experiences, external competitions, a center or specialized lab, and a professional board of advisors.</p> <p>Measured on a 7-point scale, from <emph>poor</emph> to <emph>excellent</emph>, items related to satisfaction with major were adapted from [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref75">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref76">31</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref77">41</reflink>]. Consonant with SCT, the satisfaction scale included items related to self-efficacy (e.g., compatibility with your strengths and your personal interest in the subject), professional fit (e.g., job placement and starting salary), major culture (e.g., personal attention and quality of required classes), and flexibility (e.g., easy major and flexibility of course scheduling).</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-15">Measure Assessment</hd> <p>Descriptive statistic results and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to identity items with abnormally high kurtosis (i.e., weak item variance) or skewness ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref78">25</reflink>]). CFA helped ensure the validity of the retained measures by identifying any abnormality, such as cross or weak loadings, in the factor patterns (see [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref79">48</reflink>]). Only strong items were retained for each construct. Items that were eliminated in this process included national ranking of major, academic rigor of major, inclusiveness of diverse viewpoints, and quality of advising. Each retained measure had a parameter weight of >0.4, at a confidence level of 95%, indicating that the retained measures belong to the construct to which they loaded ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref80">25</reflink>]). Table A1 in the appendix shows the final items, following purification. All constructs had a satisfactory Cronbach's α value of ≥.7 ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref81">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref82">42</reflink>]). Since all constructs were reflective measures, the average variance extract was also calculated to test reliability ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref83">35</reflink>]), with satisfactory results (>0.5; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref84">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Exploratory and CFAs were conducted on the split data sets for the two sample groups, general and specialized majors, to ensure suitable measurement invariance ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref85">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref86">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref87">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref88">51</reflink>]). The data analysis included CFA conducted on both data sets side by side to examine the comparable loading patterns of both groups. Based on the results, the researchers discarded problematic items that loaded improperly (e.g., weak or cross loadings). CFA results showed similar loading patterns for the two groups, indicating the existence of the same simple structure for both groups. Then, the measurement model was tested for configural variance via AMOS 23 ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref89">51</reflink>]). Fit indices were determined by evaluating the unconstrained measurement models for both data sets simultaneously. The analysis (see Table 2) showed all fit indices in acceptable ranges, indicating satisfactory configural invariance ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref90">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Fit Indices From Measurement Model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Fit indices</th><th align="center">Cmin/<italic>df</italic></th><th align="center">RMSEA</th><th align="center">TLI</th><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">GFI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Recommended acceptable fit value<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td><3.0</td><td><0.08</td><td>>0.90</td><td>>0.90</td><td>>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Unconstrained model</td><td>(1527/712) = 2.145</td><td>0.040</td><td>0.929</td><td>0.938</td><td>0.867</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Cmin/<emph>df</emph> = chi-square fit statistics/degree of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index.</p> <p>2 [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref91">25</reflink>].</p> <p>The researchers also tested convergent and discriminant validity for the constructs. The findings show that the square root of the average variance extracted in the diagonals are higher than the correlation of the construct with the other constructs, demonstrating convergent and discriminant validity (see Table A2; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref92">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref93">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref94">28</reflink>]). Overall, the items in the survey instrument exhibit excellent psychometric properties.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-16">Findings: General Versus Specialized Marketing Majors</hd> <p>Responses from the open- and closed-ended items in the questionnaire were integrated to reveal meaningful differences related to the general and specialized marketing majors in two important areas: influence and compatibility. Congruent with Research Question 1, influence refers to the people, courses, and other events that persuaded students to select their majors. Congruent with Research Question 2, compatibility refers to the factors related to the perceived advantages offered by a major in conjunction with a student's "fit" for the major. The following two sections provide discussion of both influence and compatibility factors.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-17">Influence Factors</hd> <p>"Dr. A talked to me about Advertising, and I was basically immediately like 'ok, you're right, let's switch my major'" (Female, Sophomore, Advertising and Promotion Major). The qualitative and quantitative findings from this research reveal that most marketing department majors choose their majors after entering college. Specifically, almost two thirds of the students (63.1%) stated that they had not selected their graduating major when they entered the university, and about half (48.9%) did not make their final decision until after their first semester. Like the student quoted at the beginning of this paragraph, students can be very receptive to recruitment during the initial stages of their college career.</p> <p>As seen in Table 3, for all marketing department majors, the top three influences for selecting their major are instructors in the major, parents, and other students in the major. An independent samples <emph>t</emph> test was conducted to examine differences between general and specialized majors in rating of influences. On a 7-point scale, specialized marketing majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 4.79; <emph>SD</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 2.05) rate faculty as significantly more influential to selecting their major than do general marketing majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>general</subs> = 4.38; <emph>SD</emph><subs>general</subs> = 1.87; <emph>t</emph> = 2.623; <emph>p</emph> <.01; Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.215). Specialized marketing majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 4.28; <emph>SD</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 2.06) also rate other students in the major as much stronger influences than do general marketing majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>general</subs> = 3.60; <emph>SD</emph><subs>general</subs> = 1.98; <emph>t</emph> = 3.400; <emph>p</emph> <.01, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.337). While all respondents gave high school personnel relatively low ratings as influences, general marketing majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>general</subs> = 2.70; <emph>SD</emph><subs>general</subs> = 1.87) rate high school faculty significantly higher than students in specialized marketing majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 1.96; <emph>SD</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 1.52; <emph>t</emph> = 4.280; <emph>p</emph> <.01; Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.434). General marketing majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>general</subs> = 2.15; <emph>SD</emph><subs>general</subs> = 1.60) also rate high school counselors significantly higher in influence than do specialized majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 1.27; <emph>SD</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 1.60; <emph>t</emph> = 3.003; <emph>p</emph> <.01; Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.304). The data analysis showed no significant differences across the types of majors in the influence power of parents, friends, university advisors, instructors outside of the major, other family members, and career center personnel.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Importance of Influences on Choice of Marketing Major: General Versus Specialized.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Influences<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">a</xref></th><th align="center" colspan="2">General (<italic>n</italic> = 137)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Specialized (<italic>n</italic> = 471)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Cohen's <italic>d</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref></th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Instructors in major</td><td>4.38</td><td>1.87</td><td>4.79</td><td>2.05</td><td>2.623<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">c</xref></td><td>0.215</td></tr><tr><td>Parents</td><td>3.90</td><td>1.96</td><td>3.77</td><td>1.95</td><td>0.727</td><td>0.066</td></tr><tr><td>Other students in major</td><td>3.60</td><td>1.98</td><td>4.28</td><td>2.06</td><td>3.400<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">c</xref></td><td>0.337</td></tr><tr><td>Friends</td><td>3.40</td><td>1.93</td><td>3.68</td><td>2.06</td><td>1.417</td><td>0.140</td></tr><tr><td>University advisors</td><td>3.24</td><td>1.77</td><td>3.37</td><td>1.89</td><td>0.596</td><td>0.071</td></tr><tr><td>Instructors outside of major</td><td>3.07</td><td>1.69</td><td>2.97</td><td>1.89</td><td>0.695</td><td>0.056</td></tr><tr><td>Other family members</td><td>3.04</td><td>1.87</td><td>2.84</td><td>1.88</td><td>1.185</td><td>0.107</td></tr><tr><td>High school teachers</td><td>2.70</td><td>1.87</td><td>1.96</td><td>1.52</td><td>4.280<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">c</xref></td><td>0.434</td></tr><tr><td>Career center personnel</td><td>2.60</td><td>1.74</td><td>2.63</td><td>1.74</td><td>0.121</td><td>0.017</td></tr><tr><td>High school counselors</td><td>2.15</td><td>1.60</td><td>1.71</td><td>1.27</td><td>3.003<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">c</xref></td><td>0.304</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 7-Point scale anchored by <emph>not at all</emph> and a <emph>great deal</emph>. <sups>b</sups>Values of 0.2 indicate a small effect, 0.5 indicate a medium effect, and 0.8 indcate a large effect. <sups>c</sups>Significant at <emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <p>The survey also demonstrated that faculty members have the opportunity to function as recruiting "super influencers" for majors. A faculty super influencer is defined as those faculty who have a much more powerful influence than other sources of influence on students' choices of marketing majors. When asked who exerted the greatest influence on the respondent's choice of majors, about one third (33.33%) of students in one specialized major cited a single faculty member as their biggest influence. Likewise, more than one quarter of students in another specialized major cited a faculty member as the most important reason for selecting a major. The super influencers were often cited for being "passionate" and "enthusiastic" and for showing students how graduating with a particular major might open doors in the future. For example, a female junior digital and e-commerce major stated,</p> <p>Dr. B is one of the best professors I've had in college so far, and I get so excited to go to class every day. It gives me a better idea of what skills I would actually use after I graduate, and the topics we talk about all feel very relevant to the current times.</p> <p>In a different example, a male senior switched to the sales and business marketing major after sitting in the wrong room during the major advising portion of the college orientation.</p> <p>I wanted to learn about something that I felt would help out my family business the most and expand that. Then I sat in the wrong room during the orientation and happened to sit in on a Dr. C and Ms. D "lecture." Let's just say they were quite convincing and really got me pumped about Sales and Business Marketing.</p> <p>As the statements above exemplify, students cited several places where they encountered super influencers, including at incoming student orientations, at freshmen social events, and, most commonly, in classes.</p> <p>Comments from students about which classes were most influential for determining majors reinforced the importance of super influencers. The classes that were most frequently cited were (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>) marketing principles (required for all business college majors); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>) lower level business classes required of all business college majors, when taught by a marketing department professor; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref97">3</reflink>) lower level, specialized, major-related courses that require minimal prerequisites. For example, a female junior cited a conversation she had with her marketing principles professor as influencing her choice to become an advertising and promotion major:</p> <p>My Marketing Principles professor, Dr. E, and I had a conversation about the Advertising and Marketing fields, and I remember something clicking in my brain. It felt like I had finally decided what I really wanted to do and what types of goals I wanted to set for myself. That conversation was very early on in the semester, so going forward I enjoyed that class very much.</p> <p>A male sophomore food and CPG marketing major listed global business, a lower level class required of all business majors, as leading to his major choice, stating, "The first day of class Dr. F 'pumped the tires' of the major and made me give it a chance." The lower level specialized courses were also named as being influential. A senior male cited the professional selling course, open to all marketing department majors, as being the most influential because it was "competitive, challenging and pushed me outside of comfort zone. Relationship-oriented and passionate professor." Another senior male referenced the food and CPG industries course, open to all business school majors, for its influence, stating, "I liked the format of the class being group-oriented projects and the professor helps sell you on the major and the opportunities available within it."</p> <p>To examine timing differences related to when students decide to become general and specialized majors, we conducted a cross tabs with chi-square analysis. General versus specialized majors were compared according to their self-reported responses related to the timing of their decision to select their major (<emph>options</emph>: prior to the decision to attend our university, on deciding to attend our university, my first semester attending our university, or after my first semester attending our university). No significant differences exist between specialized and general majors and the timing of their decision (χ² = 2.32; <emph>p</emph> =.509).</p> <p>To determine how much cannibalization occurs among marketing department majors, we asked students who indicated that they changed majors to list their previous major(s). As shown in Table 4, about two thirds of students in both general (62.7%) and specialized (67.0%) marketing majors switched from either another business (nonmarketing) major or a nonbusiness major. In other words, the marketing department converts more students from other majors than from within its own majors. Interestingly, there is also a two-way flow between specialized and marketing majors. Of general marketing majors, 37.3% have changed from specialized majors. Of specialized majors, 19.6% have changed from the general marketing major, with the remaining percentage (13.4%) switching from another specialized major.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Major Switching Behavior of Marketing Majors: General Versus Specialized.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Previous major<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">a</xref></th><th align="center">General, % (<italic>n</italic> = 59)</th><th align="center">Specialized, % (<italic>n</italic> = 194)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>General marketing</td><td /><td>19.6</td></tr><tr><td>Specialized marketing (different)</td><td>37.3</td><td>13.4</td></tr><tr><td>Nonmarketing business</td><td>23.7</td><td>16.5</td></tr><tr><td>Nonbusiness</td><td>39.0</td><td>50.5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Answer to question: What was your previous major? (Answered by respondents who indicated that they had changed majors).</p> <p>Students who switch to a marketing major from another major often opt to go for the more general major when they become aware of the lack of flexibility of course scheduling inherent in a specialized major. For example, a female senior explained,</p> <p>I wanted to be a teacher, but it was going to take too long (I had changed my major MULTIPLE times throughout my college career, took some education classes). My academic advisor said I could be done in a year and a half with a business degree, so I took home the list and just chose general marketing. I considered food marketing, but I wanted to stay in the area after graduation.</p> <p>We also conducted a chi-square analysis to determine if the distribution of transfer students (44% of the sample) was different from that of nontransfer students in terms of declaration of general versus specialized majors. The results showed that 26.1% of responding transfer students admitted to the business college were general marketing majors, while 73.9% of responding transfer students admitted to the business college were specialized marketing majors. This distribution is not significantly different from nontransfer students (χ² = 2.51; <emph>p</emph> =.113).</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-18">Compatibility Factors</hd> <p>I've always been good at math, and my friend told me that she was switching out of ISM because it was too much math. Then, Dr. G came into my marketing class and discussed how ISM was a large avenue for global business, and with my Spanish minor I knew it would fit well. (Female, senior, integrated supply management major)</p> <p>A series of independent samples <emph>t</emph> tests were conducted to compare the satisfaction rating of general and special majors on the four constructs related to compatibility with majors: <emph>flexibility, self-efficacy, major culture</emph>, and <emph>professional fit</emph> (see Table 5).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 5. Satisfaction Ratings: General Versus Specialized.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Satisfaction scales<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">a</xref></th><th align="center" colspan="2">General (<italic>n</italic> = 137)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Specialized (<italic>n</italic> = 471)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Cohen's <italic>d</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">b</xref></th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>4.82</td><td>1.12</td><td>4.56</td><td>1.23</td><td>2.109<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">c</xref></td><td>0.221</td></tr><tr><td>Professional fit</td><td>5.69</td><td>0.79</td><td>6.15</td><td>0.86</td><td>5.830<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">c</xref></td><td>0.557</td></tr><tr><td>Major Culture</td><td>5.28</td><td>0.98</td><td>5.93</td><td>0.89</td><td>7.197<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">c</xref></td><td>0.684</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy</td><td>5.97</td><td>1.14</td><td>6.23</td><td>0.92</td><td>2.399<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">c</xref></td><td>0.251</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 7-Point scale anchored by <emph>poor</emph> and <emph>excellent</emph>. <sups>b</sups>Values of 0.2 indicate a small effect, 0.5 indicate a medium effect, and 0.8 indicate a large effect. <sups>c</sups>Significant at <emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <p>General marketing majors rate their major significantly higher in comparison with specialized marketing majors on one scale—<emph>flexibility</emph> (<emph>M</emph><subs>general</subs> = 4.82; <emph>SD</emph><subs>general</subs> = 1.12 vs. <emph>M</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 4.56; <emph>SD</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 1.23; <emph>t</emph> = 2.109; <emph>p</emph> =.035; Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.221). In comments, general marketing majors referred to the flexibility that they perceive that a marketing major offers in three areas: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>) career options, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref99">2</reflink>) course sequence, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref100">3</reflink>) course options. A common reason provided by marketing majors for their choice of major refers to the perceived greater versatility in job opportunities afforded by a general major. A female junior who is majoring in general marketing stated,</p> <p>I wanted to do something in business but also express my creative side. I also wanted to work with customer engagement and experience so I thought marketing was a great fit for that. Marketing also is more on the vague side, meaning it offers me a lot of options post graduation and I liked the thought of that.</p> <p>Students also cited the ability to be able to graduate quicker with a marketing major, due to the greater flexibility of course sequence. For example, a senior female stated that she opted for a general marketing major "because I would graduate the fastest and get the hell out of [college town]."</p> <p> <emph>Self-efficacy</emph>, consisting of compatibility with strengths and interest in the subject, is rated higher by specialized majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 6.23; <emph>SD</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 0.92) than by the general marketing majors (<emph>M</emph><subs>general</subs> = 5.97; <emph>SD</emph><subs>general</subs> = 1.14; <emph>t</emph> = 2.399; <emph>p</emph> <.01; Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.251). Consonant with [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref101">2</reflink>], both general and specialized majors frequently cited the perceived creativity and people orientation of the marketing discipline as being a draw. However, students in specialized majors often mentioned additional aspects, more characteristic of their subfield, that made that major a good fit for their skills and interests (e.g., competitive, analytic). "It's something I'd be good at" and "good fit" were common responses. A male senior advertising and promotion major stated, "I chose my major because I felt it was suited to my talents and interests. 'You'll never work a day in your life if you love what you do.'" Another male senior ISM major commented, "It suited my interests and strengths and it's more challenging than most if not all the other business majors."</p> <p>For the <emph>major culture</emph> scale, with items related to instructors and courses such as course quality, professors, classmates, personal attention, and so on, specialized majors also rated their major higher, with a mean rating of 5.93 (<emph>SD</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 0.89) versus 5.28 (<emph>SD</emph><subs>general</subs> = 0.98) for the general marketing major (<emph>t</emph> = 7.197; <emph>p</emph> <.01; Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.684). The specialized majors often encounter the same professors and classmates in multiple classes, leading students to have a closer relationship with their instructors and fellow students. These relationships can also be reinforced through major-related student organizations. A male senior majoring in sales and business marketing commented, "Joining the Food and CPG Marketing [major] was the best decision of my life. It gave me an opportunity to join the Food Marketing Association and meet some wonderful people. I am completely satisfied with my decision."</p> <p>For the <emph>professional fit</emph> scale, the mean rating by specialized majors is 6.15 (<emph>SD</emph><subs>specialized</subs> = 0.86) versus 5.69 (<emph>SD</emph><subs>general</subs> 0.79) for the general marketing majors (<emph>t</emph> = 5.830; <emph>p</emph> <.01, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> = 0.557). In comments, students referenced the opportunities for professional development (e.g., professional conferences, competitions, advisory boards) according to the features of the specific programs. A female senior, majoring in food and CPG marketing stated,</p> <p>I was very undecided within business, but I liked that I had the opportunity to explore different marketing areas within the Food and CPG industry. I also found the scholarship opportunities, conference, and professor involvement very exciting about the major.</p> <p>Students in general and specialized majors also appear to have different levels of priority related to these opportunities and experiences provided by their majors (see Table 6). In comparison with general marketing majors, students with specialized majors are significantly more likely to value access to major-associated student organizations, study abroad programs, a center or specialized lab, and internships. No differences are found with 95% confidence in the value attributed to major-associated scholarships and professional advisory boards. Many students in specialized majors commented on the extra opportunities that were directly associated with their major. For example, a female senior advertising and promotion major stated, "I think the biggest strength in this major is the professional organization, the Ad Club. This organization brings in employers once a week giving students insight on career/internship opportunities."</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 6. Importance of Opportunities Directly Related to Major: General Versus Specialized.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Opportunities or experiences<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">a</xref></th><th align="center" colspan="2">General (<italic>n</italic> = 137)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Specialized (<italic>n</italic> = 471)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Cohen's <italic>d</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">b</xref></th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Internships</td><td>6.26</td><td>1.17</td><td>6.50</td><td>2.188</td><td>0.030<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">c</xref></td><td>0.218</td></tr><tr><td>Professional board of advisors</td><td>5.61</td><td>1.46</td><td>5.70</td><td>1.50</td><td>0.596</td><td>0.061</td></tr><tr><td>Scholarships</td><td>5.55</td><td>1.67</td><td>5.81</td><td>1.49</td><td>1.658</td><td>0.164</td></tr><tr><td>External competitions</td><td>5.13</td><td>1.63</td><td>5.55</td><td>1.50</td><td>2.793<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">d</xref></td><td>0.268</td></tr><tr><td>Student organization or club</td><td>5.12</td><td>1.68</td><td>5.90</td><td>1.45</td><td>4.876<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">d</xref></td><td>0.497</td></tr><tr><td>Study abroad experience</td><td>4.56</td><td>1.91</td><td>4.97</td><td>1.75</td><td>2.258<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">d</xref></td><td>0.224</td></tr><tr><td>A center or specialized lab</td><td>4.69</td><td>1.78</td><td>5.20</td><td>1.69</td><td>3.075<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">d</xref></td><td>0.294</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 7-Point scale anchored by <emph>not at all important</emph> and <emph>extremely important</emph>. <sups>b</sups>Values of 0.2 indicate a small effect, 0.5 indicate medium effect, and 0.8 indicate a large effect. <sups>c</sups>Significant at <emph>p</emph> <.05. <sups>d</sups>Significant at <emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <p>These responses were further examined by academic standing (freshmen, sophomore, junior, senior) intersected with specialized versus general major to see if appreciation for opportunities directly associated with the major was altered by class. If, over time, the ratings of students in specialized majors increased in their appreciation of the additional opportunities that accompany these majors, then upper classmen in specialized majors would be expected to value opportunities and experiences more than lower classmen in specialized majors. However, no significant differences were found by class level in value attributed to any of the opportunities listed on the survey for specialized or general majors. Analogous differences in priorities can be found in the actual participation in activities. For example, seniors in specialized majors are much more likely than those in the general marketing major to have participated in internships (60.4% vs. 40.3%; χ² = 16.65; <emph>p</emph> <.01; Cramer's <emph>V</emph> =.169) as well as major-related student organizations (70.7% vs. 50.7%; χ² =18.07; <emph>p</emph> <.01; Cramer's <emph>V</emph> =.1765).</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-19">Discussion</hd> <p>This research examined how students choose a general versus a specialized marketing department major as well as the advantages and drawbacks that they perceive to accompany the choice of majors. Consonant with SCT ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref102">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref103">9</reflink>]), the survey's findings identify the influence and compatibility factors that shape students' decision to select a general or specialized marketing major. This research also underscores compatibility factors that determine students' satisfaction with their major choice. The results of this research support the applicability and usefulness of SCT in contrasting specialization and generalization in marketing program selection.</p> <p>As influence factors, the results reveal an outsized role for faculty and influential courses in selecting majors, particularly a specialized major. Students in specialized marketing majors tend to place more value on specific specialized program amenities than general marketing majors—particularly internships and experiences such as student groups, study abroad, and participation in major-related competitions.</p> <p>When balancing the strengths and weaknesses of marketing majors, students perceive distinct advantages and drawbacks between general and specialized majors. Specifically, the students who select a general marketing major value the major's flexibility of course choice and sequence as well as a perceived expanded range of career options ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref104">43</reflink>]). Students in specialized majors value the unique academic culture and targeted professional opportunities that align with the majors. The factors that affect students' satisfaction with their major, such as self-efficacy, flexibility, and professional fit, can be ascribed to the sociocognitive mechanisms of SCT (self-efficacy, personal goals, and outcome expectations), as shaped by environmental influences ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref105">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref106">68</reflink>]). SCT helps explains how the interplay of these factors will affect students' choice of marketing major as well as the components of their satisfaction with their majors.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-20">Implications</hd> <p>Results of this research offer multiple implications for the administration of marketing degree programs. Herein, we provide guidance on the application of these findings, informed by practices at the researchers' institution. To enhance major recruitment and satisfaction, in the simplest terms, the characteristics of generalized and specialized majors that students perceive as contributing to their compatibility with the majors should be reinforced and promoted for both types of majors. In terms of recruitment, the finding that "faculty in major" is the number one influence in choice of major for all marketing department majors indicates how important enthusiastic and passionate faculty members may be for the health of a department. Furthermore, these results reveal that specialized majors are more likely than general marketing majors to be influenced in choice of major by faculty members or other students in the major. Faculty and students should be encouraged to champion majors within an atmosphere of friendly competition to educate prospective students on their options. The more faculty in a department who are super influencers, the better.</p> <p>The super influencers in the researchers' department often volunteer to participate in events where they may have recruiting opportunities, such as university-organized calls to high school applicants, major information sessions, student organization speaker programs, new student orientations, and social events for freshmen (e.g., "Pizza with a Prof"). One of our faculty has organized a case competition for high school students, thus introducing students to this specialized major at our university earlier. Note that these time-intensive volunteer activities by professors occur despite the reality that university professors are often measured and rewarded more for their research output than for their support to students and departments.</p> <p>This study indicates that assigning super influencers to lower level business courses can improve enrollment in the major with which the super influencer is most closely identified. In recent years, our department has taken several steps to introduce the marketing major to students earlier in their academic career. First, we have placed marketing professors in charge of introductory (1000- or 2000-level) business courses, such as "business enterprise" and "global business." Next, we have opened our marketing principles course to freshmen and sophomores, when previously junior standing was required to register for the course. Allowing freshmen and sophomores to take marketing principles was a controversial decision, because professors often prefer to teach this course to more experienced students, but, and as borne out by students' comments in this research study, this class entices many students to declare a marketing department major.</p> <p>An increase in exposure to quality major-related classes can be a successful recruitment mechanism. Schools should consider the timing and enrollment size of influential courses, for example, introducing such pipeline classes to students earlier in their college experiences when major choice is potentially more malleable. Several of the department's specialized majors began offering their lower level specialized courses to all prebusiness, business, and business-related majors, including, in the case of at least a couple of the courses, to freshmen. These courses are also requirements of their corresponding majors, meaning that when students complete the courses, they have also completed a requirement toward graduation. In fact, with one 2000-level specialized course, the researchers' department recently limited the requirements of students allowed to take the course to prebusiness majors and students who have declared the specialized major, preventing students from other declared majors from taking the course; the reason is that senior business majors, with priority for course selection, were filling this popular course, leaving no seats for freshman or sophomores who are more likely to be undecided as to their majors.</p> <p>Assisting students in finding the best fit among majors is beneficial for all parties. Students value being associated with a major that is compatible with their perceived interests and strengths and that will help them fulfill their career goals ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref107">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref108">68</reflink>]). If, as some predict, online curriculum delivery becomes more prevalent in higher education, face-to-face opportunities for interaction between faculty and students earlier in their academic career may decrease ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref109">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref110">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref111">66</reflink>]). It is therefore important to develop new mechanisms to continue to provide these critical influences for students and to help students choose their majors. Virtual influencers among faculty, students, alumni, and industry professionals need to be identified, recognized, and prepared for these roles.</p> <p>The finding that students are more likely to switch from a specialized marketing major to a general marketing major than the reverse indicates that students may come to realize later in their academic career that they prefer the flexibility inherent with a general marketing major. The fluidity in switching between general and specialized marketing majors implies that when students are recruited for a marketing department major, they often remain in the marketing department even if they change majors again. The implication for marketing departments is that while being careful not to dilute the majors, they should be strategic in providing common courses or flexible substitutions within marketing department offerings.</p> <p>Since general marketing majors value flexibility, enhancing flexibility might be the most important tactic for supporting general marketing majors. Students drawn to the general marketing major should be assured that a broad education is valued by many employers and can serve them well in the long run as they pursue what could potentially be a variegated career path ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref112">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref113">64</reflink>]). General marketing majors should be encouraged to take classes and pursue programs inside and outside of the major (e.g., foreign languages, arts activities, long-term study abroad, entrepreneurial efforts, sports, social organizations, etc.) that interest them and lead them to become well-rounded or distinctive graduates ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref114">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, more overt advocacy of the benefits of a general marketing major may lead to general marketing majors not feeling that their major is "just marketing" and increase satisfaction. For curriculum development, these findings mean that it is important for marketing majors to be offered the greatest flexibility possible in course offerings and sequences, including improving online and mixed-mode delivery options for these students, while still ensuring the rigor of the core marketing curriculum ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref115">1</reflink>]). If a significant shift toward remote education occurs, the general marketing major may have an additional advantage. In this scenario, the general marketing major might be a better fit for remote education classes and alternative delivery methods, since the students who select general marketing majors appear to place less value on the community aspects of university life that are more difficult to foster with online models of learning. These students are likely to also value the convenience afforded by online education ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref116">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>The findings related to the enhanced value that students in specialized majors place on experiences and opportunities directly associated with majors is of crucial importance because these activities (e.g., developing an advisory board, coaching student teams for competitions, serving as advisors for student clubs, etc.) take a great deal of faculty time and department resources. Compared with the general marketing major, students in specialized marketing majors often have access to opportunities developed exclusively for their majors. For example, at the researchers' university, one specialized major maintains a specialized lab, another has a designated center, one hosts an annual industry conference, and several have study abroad programs directly associated with them.</p> <p>Traditionally, these resources have relied on the physical presence of industry partners. Yet, one can argue that the flexibility of remote environments offers additional opportunities to collaborate virtually with industry and educational entities, partner both domestically and internationally with other universities, build interdisciplinary programs and concentrations, and share resources and strengths in building programs ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref117">24</reflink>]). Enhancing collaborations to strengthen specialized majors might help counteract regressive student enrollments while adding to program assets and revenues. Specialized programs are also uniquely positioned to offer microcredentials and certificates, creating additional value ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref118">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>One might assume that students in general marketing majors should be offered equal extracurricular opportunities to that of specialized marketing majors to increase their satisfaction levels. Yet, these results indicate that students in general marketing majors do not necessarily value access to extracurricular opportunities to the extent that students in specialized majors do. This finding leads to a question of causality (i.e., Are students who value enriched experiences more likely to choose a major that offers these opportunities or do students who are privy to these experiences grow to understand their value a posteriori?). This question warrants further exploration. However, the findings that the values that students place on opportunities do not vary by class standing (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) and that specialized marketing majors are more likely to have an internship and belong to a major-related organization indicate that at least some self-selection is operating (i.e., students who value major-related experiences appear to be more likely to choose majors that offer these opportunities).</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-21">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>It is necessary to point out several important limitations to this research. The first is the heterogeneity of the specialized majors. By their nature, specialized majors are, well, specialized, and, as such, the perceptions of the students toward specialized majors may vary greatly according to the major. Combining the specialized majors into one segment may obscure important differences among them. Still the large number of significant differences found between perceptions of students related to general versus specialized majors indicates that the specialized majors also have meaningful commonalities. In addition, while this research identifies differences in the benefits that marketing students perceive between general and specialized majors, further study could provide greater depth to understanding. For example, conjoint analysis might weight attributes to distinguish their importance.</p> <p>Another limitation is that many of the characteristics of specialized versus general marketing majors may not translate unequivocally across universities. Future research should explore the benefits of general and specialized marketing majors at private and public universities with different-sized student bodies. For example, some students in universities with larger marketing departments may seek out specialized majors to obtain closer relationships with fellow majors and faculty. Students in universities with smaller marketing departments may not have that motivation to seek out specialized majors. Still, the knowledge gained in this study might have relevant applications for the specializations (minors, certificates, concentrations, tracks, etc.) that many business colleges offer as alternatives to the standard marketing sequences ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref119">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, this survey was conducted just prior to the onset of COVID-19, and the long-term effects of the pandemic on higher education curriculum delivery are difficult to predict ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref120">66</reflink>]). Ongoing monitoring of demand for, and satisfaction with, specialized programs is warranted. A final limitation is that students' evaluations of the benefits of majors may not be fully formed. A study of graduates who have been in the workforce for several years may provide additional perspective to the benefits of different types of majors ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>During periods of disruption, it may be even more important that universities offer relevant, up-to-date curricula that correspond to students' interests and values to attract a wider pool of students. Recruiting students during periods of declining enrollment require programs that reflect both the needs of students and the marketplace. This research compares the benefits of general and specialized majors as perceived by students. These findings offer important information to assist students with selecting the appropriate major and to improve the experience for students in all marketing department majors, particularly in light of the disruption to higher education predicted for the future ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref122">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref123">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref124">66</reflink>]). Distinguishing and elevating the strengths of heterogeneous majors should lend guidance to recruiting efforts and enhance satisfaction for all marketing students.</p> <hd id="AN0155828752-23">Appendix</hd> <p>Graph</p> <p>Satisfaction With Major Scale: Constructs, Items, Loadings, and Alpha.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Construct</th><th align="center">Item</th><th align="center">Loading</th><th align="center">Cronbach alpha (≥.70)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">Professional fit<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref></td><td>Opportunities for building a rewarding career</td><td>0.655</td><td rowspan="7">.90</td></tr><tr><td>Job placement</td><td>0.850</td></tr><tr><td>Starting salary</td><td>0.739</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term earnings potential</td><td>0.770</td></tr><tr><td>Ability to obtain an internship</td><td>0.686</td></tr><tr><td>Reputation</td><td>0.759</td></tr><tr><td>Networking opportunities</td><td>0.709</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Major culture<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref></td><td>Personal attention</td><td>0.749</td><td rowspan="7">.89</td></tr><tr><td>Overall culture</td><td>0.652</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of required classes</td><td>0.674</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of elective classes</td><td>0.680</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of the instructors</td><td>0.762</td></tr><tr><td>Class sizes</td><td>0.719</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of fellow students</td><td>0.704</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Self-efficacy<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref></td><td>Compatibility with your strengths</td><td>0.783</td><td rowspan="2">.83</td></tr><tr><td>Your personal interest in the subject</td><td>0.760</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Flexibility<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref></td><td>Easy major</td><td>0.818</td><td rowspan="3">.75</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility of course scheduling</td><td>0.751</td></tr><tr><td>Number of credits required to complete the major</td><td>0.697</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>7 7-Point scale anchored by <emph>poor</emph> and <emph>excellent</emph>.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Construct Validity: Convergent and Discriminant.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Major</th><th align="center">Flexibility</th><th align="center">Culture</th><th align="center">Self-efficacy</th><th align="center">Professional fit</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">Specialized major</td></tr><tr><td> Flexibility</td><td>0.730</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Culture</td><td>0.688</td><td>0.753</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Self-efficacy</td><td>0.475</td><td>0.333</td><td>0.884</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Professional fit</td><td>0.577</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.686</td><td>0.741</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">General major</td></tr><tr><td> Flexibility</td><td>0.731</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Culture</td><td>0.537</td><td>0.709</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Self-efficacy</td><td>0.486</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.844</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Professional fit</td><td>0.717</td><td>0.276</td><td>0.557</td><td>0.72</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>8 <emph>Note.</emph> The square root of the average variance extracted are on the diagonal, and the construct correlations are below the diagonal.</p> <ref id="AN0155828752-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ackerman D. S., Gross B. L. (2006). How many choices are good? Measurement of the effects of course choice on perceptions of a marketing option. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(1), 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475305284642</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref30" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allen C., Kumar P., Tarasi C., Wilson H. (2014). Selling sales: Factors influencing undergraduate business students' decision to pursue sales education. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(2), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475314537279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderman E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2018). 2017-18 business school questionnaire executive summary. https://<ulink href="http://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/aacsb/publications/data-reports/bsq%20data/2017-18-bsq-executive-summary.ashx?la=en&hash=D4EE75919049228AB4423D8652A56B6960A463D0">www.aacsb.edu/-/media/aacsb/publications/data-reports/bsq%20data/2017-18-bsq-executive-summary.ashx?la=en&hash=D4EE75919049228AB4423D8652A56B6960A463D0</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2020). AACSB quick-take survey on COVID-19: Business schools brace for admissions and enrollment impacts. https://<ulink href="http://www.aacsb.edu/blog/2020/may/business-schools-brace-for-admissions-and-enrollment-impacts">www.aacsb.edu/blog/2020/may/business-schools-brace-for-admissions-and-enrollment-impacts</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref121" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bacon D. R. (2017). Revisiting the relationship between marketing education and marketing career success. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(2), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475317710061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref55" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref18" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref19" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barshay J. (2018, September 10). College students predicted to fall by more than 15% after the year 2025. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/college-students-predicted-to-fall-by-more-than-15-after-the-year-2025/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bebko C. P. (1994). Awareness, timing, and reasons for choosing marketing as a college major. In Wilson E. J., Black W. C. (Eds.), Developments in marketing science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science annual conference (pp. 123-127). The Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13162-7_29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Begley T. M., Tan W. L. (2001). The socio-cultural environment for entrepreneurship: A comparison between East Asian and Anglo-Saxon countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 537-553. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490983</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bevins F., Bryant J., Krishnan C., Law J. (2020, April 3). Coronavirus: How should US higher education plan for an uncertain future?McKinsey. https://<ulink href="http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/coronavirus-how-should-us-higher-education-plan-for-an-uncertain-future">www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/coronavirus-how-should-us-higher-education-plan-for-an-uncertain-future</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boudarbat B., Montmarquette C. (2009). Choice of fields of study of university Canadian graduates: The role of gender and their parents' education. Education Economics, 17(2), 185-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290802133032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burns A. C., Veeck A. (2020). Marketing research (9th ed.). Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cobb-Walgren C. J., Pilling B. K., Barksdale H. C. (2017). Does marketing need better marketing? A creative approach to understanding student perceptions of the marketing major. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 11(1), 97-117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell J. W., Clark V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crittenden V., Crittenden W. F. (2016). Teaching and learning disrupted: Isomorphic change. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 10(2), 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2015-0097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deloitte. (2020). COVID-19 impact on higher education. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/public-sector/articles/covid-19-impact-on-higher-education.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deshpandé R., Farley J. U., Webster F. E. (2000). Triad lessons: Generalizing results on high performance firms in five business-to-business markets. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(4), 353-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(00)00009-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eriksson P., Kovalainen A. (2015). Qualitative methods in business research: A practical guide to social research. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fornell C., Larcker D. G. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galotti K. M. (1999). Making a "major" real-life decision: College students choosing an academic major. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 379-387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Govindarajan V., Srivastava A. (2020, March 31). What the shift to virtual learning could mean for the future of higher ed. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/03/what-the-shift-to-virtual-learning-could-mean-for-the-future-of-higher-ed</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair J. F., Black W. C., Babin B. J., Anderson R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair J. F., Hult G. T. M., Ringle C. M., Sarstedt M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He Y., Merz M. A., Alden D. L. (2008). Diffusion of measurement invariance assessment in cross-national empirical marketing research: Perspectives from the literature and a survey of researchers. Journal of International Marketing, 16(2), 64-83. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.16.2.64</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu L., Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hubler S. (2020, October 26). Colleges slash budgets in the pandemic, With "nothing off-limits." New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/colleges-coronavirus-budget-cuts.html">www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/colleges-coronavirus-budget-cuts.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keillor B. D., Bush R. P., Bush A. J. (1995). Marketing-based strategies for recruiting business students in the next century. Marketing Education Review, 5(3), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.1995.11488519</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim D., Markham F. S., Cangelosi J. D. (2002). Why students pursue the business degree: A comparison of business majors across universities. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaBarbera P. A., Simonoff J. S. (1999). Toward enhancing the quality and quantity of marketing majors. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475399211002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langan R., Cowley S., Nguyen C. (2019). The state of digital marketing in academia: An examination of marketing curriculum's response to digital disruption. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318823849</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lent R. W., Brown S. D., Hackett G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKenzie S. B., Podsakoff P. M., Podsakoff N. P. (2011). Validation procedures in MIS & behavioral research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293-334. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maple S. A., Stage F. K. (1991). Influences on the choice of math/science major by gender and ethnicity. American Educational Journal, 28(1), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028001037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles A. M., Huberman M. B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mintz S. (2019, October 3). Why higher education will change. Inside Higher Ed. https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/why-higher-education-will-change">www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/why-higher-education-will-change</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell M., Leachman M., Masterson K. A. (2017, August 23). A lost decade in higher education funding. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://<ulink href="http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding">www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Student Clearinghouse. (2019). Fall enrollments decline for 8th consecutive year. https://<ulink href="http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/nscblog/fall-enrollments-decline-for-8th-consecutive-year/">www.studentclearinghouse.org/nscblog/fall-enrollments-decline-for-8th-consecutive-year/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newell S. J., Titus P. A., West J. S. (1996). Investigating the undergraduate student decision-making process of selecting a business specialization: A comparison of marketing and nonmarketing business students. Journal of Marketing Education, 18(3), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/027347539601800307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunnally J. C., Bernstein I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien E. M., Deans K. R. (1995). The position of marketing education: A student versus employer perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 13(2), 47-52. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634509510083509</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Institutional Research. (2020). Enrollment. https://wmich.edu/institutionalresearch/interactivedashboards/enrollment/data</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pappu R. (2004). Why do undergraduate marketing majors select marketing as a business major? Evidence from Australasia. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475303262349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pasquerella L. (2019, September 19). Yes, employers do value liberal arts degrees. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/09/yes-employers-do-value-liberal-arts-degrees</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson J. (2019, July 10). 4 ways business schools are changing to buck declining application trends. Education Dive. https://<ulink href="http://www.educationdive.com/news/4-ways-business-schools-are-changing-to-buck-declining-application-trends/558487/">www.educationdive.com/news/4-ways-business-schools-are-changing-to-buck-declining-application-trends/558487/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff P. M., Organ D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter S. R, Umbach P. D. (2006). College major choice: An analysis of person-environment fit. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-9002-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pritchard R. E., Potter G. C., Saccucci M. S. (2004). The selection of a business major: Elements influencing student choice and implications for outcomes assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 79(3), 152-156. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.3.152-156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnick D. L., Bornstein M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlegelmilch B. B. (2020). Why business schools need radical innovations: Drivers and development trajectories. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(2), 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320922285</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt S. L., Debevec K., Comm C. L. (1987). Marketing majors' satisfaction with their college experience: Implications for strategic planning in marketing departments. Journal of Marketing Education, 9(3), 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/027347538700900311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk D. H., DiBenedetto M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott J. I., Beuk F. (2020). Sales education for engineering students: What drives interest and choice? Journal of Marketing Education, 42(3), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320906427</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smart D. T., Kelley C. A., Conant J. S. (1999). Marketing education in the year 2000: Changes observed and challenges anticipated. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(3), 206-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475399213006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steenkamp J.-B. E. M., Baumgartner H. (2000). On the use of structural equation models for marketing modeling. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(2-3), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(00)00016-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss K. (2018, February 13). 10 great marketing jobs for 2018. Forbes. https://<ulink href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2018/02/13/10-great-marketing-jobs-for-2018/#2a772e69352d">www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2018/02/13/10-great-marketing-jobs-for-2018/#2a772e69352d</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson J. L., Tokar D. M. (1991). College students' perception of barriers to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38(1), 92-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(91)90020-M</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taconis R., Kessels U. (2009), How choosing science depends on students' individual fit to "science culture." International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1115-1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802050876</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan L. M., Laswad F. (2009). Understanding students' choice of academic majors: A longitudinal analysis. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 18(3), 233-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280802009108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taparia H. (2020, May 25). The future of college is online, and it's cheaper. New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/opinion/online-college-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage&fbclid=IwAR2W052hpQHsvIJarkkLWEbou1854XRlVzpEwLU9ATrZXN36Lj6MvglJybA">www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/opinion/online-college-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage&fbclid=IwAR2W052hpQHsvIJarkkLWEbou1854XRlVzpEwLU9ATrZXN36Lj6MvglJybA</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terpening W. D., Gaertner J. F., Pitts R. E. (1982). Causal modeling of students' attitude and choice of majors in business administration. Journal of Marketing Education, 4(3), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/027347538200400204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trackmaven. (2019). The ultimate marketing careers guide. https://trackmaven.com/blog/marketing-careers-guide/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West J., Newell S., Titus P. (2001). Comparing marketing and non-business students' choice of academic field of study. Marketing Education Review, 11(2), 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2001.11488749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witze A. (2020, June 1). Universities will never be the same after the coronavirus crisis. Nature. https://<ulink href="http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01518-y">www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01518-y</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wymbs C. (2011). Digital marketing: The time for a new "academic major" has arrived. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(1), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475310392544</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young M. R., Klemz B. R., Murphy J. W. (2003). Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 130-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475303254004</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0155828752-25"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> JoAnn L. Atkin</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4102-8942 Scott Cowley</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2333-9544 Ann Veeck</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9577-9800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Our department's general marketing major is officially designated as "marketing." In this article, we often call it the general marketing major to distinguish it from the specialized marketing majors.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By JoAnn L. Atkin; Anthony Alland Bowie; Scott Cowley; James A. Eckert; Bruce G. Ferrin; Robert L. Harrison; Karen M. Lancendorfer; Mushtaq Luqmani; Zahida Luqmani; Thaweephan Leingpibul; Alhassan G. Mumuni; Kelley O'Reilly; Zahir A. Quraeshi; Robert G. Samples; Ann Veeck; Hu Xie and Marcellis M. Zondag</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref118"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1333672
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Considering a Marketing Degree? Student Perceptions of General versus Specialized Majors
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Atkin%2C+JoAnn+L%2E%22">Atkin, JoAnn L.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4102-8942">0000-0003-4102-8942</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bowie%2C+Anthony+Alland%22">Bowie, Anthony Alland</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cowley%2C+Scott%22">Cowley, Scott</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2333-9544">0000-0003-2333-9544</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eckert%2C+James+A%2E%22">Eckert, James A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ferrin%2C+Bruce+G%2E%22">Ferrin, Bruce G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harrison%2C+Robert+L%2E%22">Harrison, Robert L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lancendorfer%2C+Karen+M%2E%22">Lancendorfer, Karen M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Luqmani%2C+Mushtaq%22">Luqmani, Mushtaq</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Luqmani%2C+Zahida%22">Luqmani, Zahida</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leingpibul%2C+Thaweephan%22">Leingpibul, Thaweephan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mumuni%2C+Alhassan+G%2E%22">Mumuni, Alhassan G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22O'Reilly%2C+Kelley%22">O'Reilly, Kelley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Quraeshi%2C+Zahir+A%2E%22">Quraeshi, Zahir A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Samples%2C+Robert+G%2E%22">Samples, Robert G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Veeck%2C+Ann%22">Veeck, Ann</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9577-9800">0000-0001-9577-9800</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xie%2C+Hu%22">Xie, Hu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zondag%2C+Marcellis+M%2E%22">Zondag, Marcellis M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Marketing+Education%22"><i>Journal of Marketing Education</i></searchLink>. Apr 2022 44(1):85-99.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Marketing%22">Marketing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Specialization%22">Specialization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Cognition%22">Social Cognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Choice%22">Career Choice</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/02734753211028888
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0273-4753
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Many business colleges offer specialized marketing majors in addition to the general marketing major. Given the extra resources needed to maintain multiple majors, in a time when higher education budgets are being strained, a need exists to understand how students make choices among these majors and what students perceive to be the advantages of general marketing majors versus specialized marketing majors. Using social cognitive theory, we examine how students make selections among choices in marketing-related majors, focusing on influence and compatibility factors. We surveyed 608 marketing majors representing one general and five specialized marketing majors. The findings indicate that, compared with general marketing majors, students' choice of a specialized major is significantly more likely to be influenced by faculty and other students in the major. Also, the results show that students rate specialized majors better than a general marketing major in terms of self-efficacy, culture, and professional fit. On the other hand, students rate the general marketing major better than specialized majors in flexibility. These results have implications for supporting the priorities of students in both general and specialized majors.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1333672
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1333672
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/02734753211028888
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 85
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Marketing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Specialization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Cognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Career Choice
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Considering a Marketing Degree? Student Perceptions of General versus Specialized Majors
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Atkin, JoAnn L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bowie, Anthony Alland
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cowley, Scott
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eckert, James A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ferrin, Bruce G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Harrison, Robert L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lancendorfer, Karen M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Luqmani, Mushtaq
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Luqmani, Zahida
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Leingpibul, Thaweephan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mumuni, Alhassan G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: O'Reilly, Kelley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Quraeshi, Zahir A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Samples, Robert G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Veeck, Ann
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xie, Hu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zondag, Marcellis M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0273-4753
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Marketing Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1