understanding students choice of academic majors
This article was downloaded by: [Monash University]
On: 14 December 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912988913]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Accounting Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713683833
Understanding Students' Choice of Academic Majors: A Longitudinal
Analysis
Lin Mei Tan a; Fawzi Laswad a
Massey University, New Zealand
a
To cite this Article Tan, Lin Mei and Laswad, Fawzi(2009) 'Understanding Students' Choice of Academic Majors: A
Longitudinal Analysis', Accounting Education, 18: 3, 233 — 253
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09639280802009108
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639280802009108
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Accounting Education: an international journal
Vol. 18, No. 3, 233 –253, June 2009
Understanding Students’ Choice
of Academic Majors: A Longitudinal
Analysis
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
LIN MEI TAN and FAWZI LASWAD
Massey University, New Zealand
Received: July 2007
Revised: December 2007
Accepted: December 2007
ABSTRACT This study extends Tan and Laswad’s 2006a study by surveying the same students at the
beginning and end of their degree programme at a New Zealand university regarding their major
choices, beliefs and attitudes towards majoring in accounting or a non-accounting discipline.
Using the theory of planned behaviour, the objectives are to compare intentions with behaviour
in relation to majoring in accounting and other business disciplines and to examine changes in
attitudes and beliefs between the beginning and end of university study. The results indicate many
students choose majors that are consistent with their intentions at the beginning of their
university study but some students also change their intentions and major in other areas. Some
attitudes and beliefs change over time but the major choice tends to remain relatively stable. The
results suggest that a higher proportion of accounting students than other business students
decide on their major prior to university study. This may suggest that promoting accounting as a
career may need to focus on pre-university students.
KEY WORDS :
behaviour
Accounting major, accounting education, accounting career, theory of planned
Introduction
Over the past two decades, significant research in accounting education has been devoted
to understanding how and why students major in an accounting or a non-accounting discipline. Such research is pertinent—particularly when the number and quality of students
majoring in accounting is declining (Ashworth, 1969; Adams et al., 1994; Karnes et al.,
1997; Stice and Swain, 1997; Saemann and Crooker, 1999; Mauldin et al., 2000;
Heaton, 1999; Fedoryshyn and Tyson, 2003) and when accounting firms are facing
difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff (Ahmed et al., 1997; Marshall, 2003).
Correspondence Address: Ms Lin Mei Tan, School of Accountancy, Massey University, Palmerston North,
Private Bag 11222, New Zealand. Email: l.m.tan@massey.ac.nz
0963-9284 Print/1468-4489 Online/09/030233–21 # 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09639280802009108
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
234 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Prior research on students’ choice of major has identified a multitude of factors that
could influence students’ major decisions. They include: availability of employment
and earnings (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Adams et al., 1994; AuYeung and Sands, 1997;
Lowe and Simons, 1997), job satisfaction, aptitude, and interest in subject areas (Paolillo
and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989; AuYeung and Sands, 1997), and the influence of students’ teachers and parents (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Cangelosi et al., 1985; Gul et al.,
1989; Geiger and Ogilby, 2000). Studies that surveyed students’ perceptions were primarily conducted at specific points in time, such as in the first, second, third, or fourth year of
undergraduate study, and focused on either students’ chosen major or their intention to
major in a particular discipline. Apart from a few studies (such as by Cohen and
Hanno, 1993; Allen, 2004; Tan and Laswad, 2006a), many prior studies lack a conceptual
framework, making it difficult to generalise predictions or explain career choice decisions
(Cohen and Hanno, 1993, p. 221).
The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1988) is one conceptual framework that
has been used to provide a better understanding of the factors that influence students’
choice of major. This theory has been used successfully in explaining intentions and
behaviours in various decision-making situations such as exercising, purchasing
goods, etc. Tan and Laswad (2006a) used this theory to examine first year students’
intentions to major in accounting and other business disciplines. They found that
students’ attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of behavioural control influence
their intention to major in accounting or other business disciplines. However, they did
not examine the relationship between intention and behaviour because students’ behaviour
(i.e. ultimate major) could not be ascertained in their cross-sectional study, as the data was
collected at the beginning of the introductory accounting course. The studies conducted by
Allen (2004) and Cohen and Hanno (1993) were also cross-sectional and used surrogate
measures of intention that were not antecedents of choosing a major. They further
assumed that students would not change their major intentions during the students’ academic career.
We extend Tan and Laswad’s (2006a) research by conducting a longitudinal study that
allows us to
(i) examine the students’ attitudes and beliefs with respect to intentions to major in a
business discipline (accounting or non-accounting) at the start of their first course
in accounting that is mandatory for all business students; and
(ii) use this information to compare with their actual major choices three years later.
Such a design not only allows us to test the theory of planned behaviour but also to
understand whether there are changes in the students’ attitudes and beliefs about accounting and non-accounting disciplines over time as the students mature in terms of experience
and knowledge. Students’ intentions may change because of changes in attitudes and
beliefs, and the ultimate behaviour may therefore differ from their earlier intentions.
The results of this study extend our understanding of students’ major choices and
provide insights into ways to attract students or improve their attitudes and beliefs
toward the study of accounting as an academic discipline.
This paper is organised as follows. The next section provides a review of the literature
that examines the various influences on students’ choice of academic major. This is
followed by an overview of the theory of planned behaviour, the research method, the
data and the results. The final section discusses the conclusions and limitations of the
study.
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 235
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Literature Review
Considerable literature has emerged which examines the timing of students’ career choices
and the major influences on their choices. The following is a brief review of relevant
studies.1
Students vary as to when they make their academic major choices. Some students select
their intended major prior to commencing university study (Karnes et al., 1997; Jackman
and Hollingworth, 2005), while others make such decisions during or at the completion of
their first or second year of tertiary education (Hermanson and Hermanson, 1995; Mauldin
et al., 2000). Some students may even change their major in a later stage of their academic
study when they realise that their intended major or chosen major does not suit them for
various reasons.
A number of factors influence students’ discipline choice. Prior studies suggest
that accounting students’ discipline choice is heavily influenced by earnings potential
and job market conditions or opportunities (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989;
Inman et al., 1989; Adams et al., 1994; Felton et al., 1994; AuYeung and Sands,
1997; Lowe and Simons, 1997; Mauldin et al., 2000). For example, Ahmed et al.
(1997) found that New Zealand students who intend to pursue a career in chartered
accountancy place significantly greater importance on financial factors. Lowe and
Simons’ (1997) findings in the USA also indicate that future earnings are the most important influence for accounting, finance and management majors.
Students’ experiences with uninteresting accounting coursework and rote learning may
also discourage the best students from pursuing an accounting major (Imman et al., 1989).
Students are more likely to choose an accounting major when they consider accounting
interesting and enjoyable (Saeman and Crooker, 1999).
Students’ performance in the introductory accounting course is another possible factor
that may influence their major choice, as students tend to perceive success in the introductory course as a signal that they have an aptitude for accounting (Cohen and Hanno, 1993;
Geiger and Ogilby, 2000). Poor performance, on the other hand, may be perceived by students as a signal that they may not have the required aptitude for accounting and, therefore,
should pursue a non-accounting major. However, some studies (such as by Adams et al.,
1994; Allen, 2004; Stice and Swain, 1997) suggest that course performance is not significantly related to high performing students’ decisions to major in accounting.
The intrinsic appeal of the job itself, such as job satisfaction, opportunity to be creative,
autonomy, intellect, and a challenging and dynamic working environment, is another
factor that may influence students’ academic major choice. A number of studies indicate
that job satisfaction, for instance, is important in accounting students’ discipline choice
(Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989; AuYeung and Sands, 1997) but not as important as many other factors (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Felton et al., 1994).
Prior research suggests that college students choose specific majors that they perceive as
being compatible with their particular personal styles (Gul, 1986; Wolk and Cates, 1994)
or their own aptitude for the subject (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989; AuYeung
and Sands, 1997). Adams et al. (1994) and Mauldin et al. (2000) indicate that genuine
interest in the subject is an important selection factor. Skills and background in mathematics were also identified as factors that could facilitate or hinder students’ decisions to
major in accounting (Cohen and Hanno, 1993).
In making career choices, students may be further influenced by their accounting
instructors, parents, relatives, friends, or high school teachers. A secondary school
career counsellor or adviser may shape students’ perceptions of accounting and the
profession (Marshall, 2003). However, empirical evidence shows mixed results. Some
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
236 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
studies suggest that teachers or instructors do not play a significant role in students’ choice
of majors (see Cangelosi et al., 1985; Gul et al., 1989) whereas other studies (Paolillo and
Estes, 1982; Hermanson and Hermanson, 1995; Geiger and Ogilby, 2000; Mauldin et al.,
2000) suggest that individual instructors have a profound influence on students’ decisions
to major in accounting.
Empirical evidence regarding the influence of referents, other than instructors, was also
inconclusive. Cangelosi et al. (1985) found that friends do not influence most students
toward or away from accounting careers. Gul et al. (1989) note that parental influence
is not a significant factor in students’ discipline choice decisions. Similarly, Paolillo
and Estes (1982), Hermanson and Hermanson (1995), and Lowe and Simons (1997) indicate that friends, parents and high school teachers are less influential factors in students’
major choices. In contrast, Inman et al. (1989) and Mauldin et al. (2000) found that parents
followed by instructors, have a strong influence on students’ choice of majors.
One of the main deterrents to majoring in accountancy could be the poor public perception of the stereotypical accountant as dreary, cautious and boring number crunchers
(Luscombe, 1988; Horowitz and Riley, 1990; Fisher and Murphy, 1995; Hermanson
and Hermanson, 1995; Cohen and Hanno, 1993). Such pre-conceived ideas can result in
college students’ self-selection into or out of certain majors. Accountants’ work is also
perceived by students to be excessively time-consuming and unpleasant (Mauldin et al.,
2000), or as being narrow, audit-focused and restricted to ‘core’ accounting
(Marshall, 2003).
The literature reviewed above indicates that a number of factors may influence students
in choosing their academic majors. Moreover, students may regard some factors as more
important than others and these factors may have a different impact in different cultures
(AuYeung and Sands, 1997). The inconsistencies in results obtained from prior research
make it difficult to draw generalisations about students’ choices of majors. A theoretical
framework would provide a better understanding of the impact of various factors on
students’ academic decisions.
Theory of Planned Behaviour
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) developed by Ajzen (1988) is an extension of the
theory of reasoned action (TRA) developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). Both models
consider attitudes, subjective norms, intentions and target behaviour. In summary, the
TPB posits that people act in accordance with their intentions and perceptions of
control over the behaviour, while intentions in turn are influenced by attitudes towards
the behaviour, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioural control (Ajzen, 2001,
p. 43). The more favourable the attitude and subjective norm and the greater the perceived
behavioural control are, the greater the likelihood the person’s intention to perform the
behaviour. Figure 1 depicts the three factors that determine intentions, which lead to
behaviour.
Individual attitudes toward the behaviour reflect the degree to which a person has a positive or negative perception of the behaviour. Attitudes about behaviour are determined by
a person’s beliefs about the consequences of performing that behaviour, and each belief is
weighted by the subjective value of the outcome in question (Ajzen, 2001; Tan and
Laswad, 2006a).
Subjective norms, however, are linked to a person’s perceptions of social pressure to
perform or not perform the behaviour. It reflects a person’s beliefs that other individuals
or groups think he or she should perform the behaviour (i.e. normative beliefs). These normative beliefs, in combination with a person’s motivation to comply with the different
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 237
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Figure 1. Ajzen’s (1988) theory of planned behaviour
referents, determine the prevailing subjective norm regarding the behaviour (Ajzen, 2001;
Tan and Laswad, 2006a).
As many factors can interfere with an individual’s control over an intended behaviour
(Cohen and Hanno, 1993, p. 222), Ajzen’s (1988) theory of planned behaviour refines the
TRA by including the concept of behavioural control. Unlike attitude and subjective
norms, this third factor, perceived behavioural control, is a non-motivational factor and
represents the degree of control a person has over performance of the behaviour. To the
extent that people are realistic in their judgements of behaviour difficulties, Ajzen
posits that a measure of perceived behavioural control can act as a surrogate for actual
control. The theory further assumes that perceived behavioural control has motivational
implications for intentions. Those who believe that they have neither the means nor the
opportunities to perform certain behaviour are unlikely to form strong behavioural intentions to engage in it, even if they hold favourable attitudes toward the behaviour and
believe that important individuals would approve of their performing such behaviour
(Ajzen, 1988, p. 134).
The TPB, therefore, provides a suitable framework for examining the factors that influence students’ academic major decisions, and it has been used by Tan and Laswad
(2006a), Allen (2004), and Cohen and Hanno (1993), in their studies of students’ academic
major choices or intentions.
Based on the TPB framework, this study extends Tan and Laswad (2006a) by comparing intentions with behaviour and examining whether specific personal, referents, and
control factors influence students’ intentions and ultimate decisions to major or not to
major in accounting.
Research Method
Subjects
Prior studies have used a cross-sectional design to examine students’ major decisions,
either using accounting/non-accounting major students or accounting graduates who
have completed their career choice process (Cherry and Reckers, 1993; Cohen and
Hanno, 1993; Ahmed et al., 1997). This study, however, provides a longitudinal examination of students’ attitudes, beliefs and major decisions. Data about attitudes, beliefs and
major intentions were collected from business students in their first year at university when
they enrolled in the introductory accounting course, a compulsory course for the business
degree. Data was also collected in the third year of study for the same students, when most
students have confirmed their major choices.2
Questionnaire
The questionnaire contained items designed to assess the three major constructs in the
TPB: attitudes, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. These constructs
were assessed by means of several direct questions, which were modelled on Cohen
238 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
and Hanno’s (1993) questionnaire, with some minor modifications to reflect the New
Zealand academic environment. Prior studies have identified these constructs as having
significant effects on students’ choice of academic major or career (such as by Paolillo
and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989; Inman et al., 1989; Adams et al., 1994; Felton et al.,
1994; AuYeung and Sands, 1997; Lowe and Simons, 1997; Mauldin et al., 2000).
The questionnaire was divided into two parts. Part 1 of the questionnaire solicited information about their major. In the first year, students were asked about the discipline in which
they intended to major. In the third year survey, students were asked their study major, the
timing of their major choice and the reasons for changing their major if they did so.
Part 2 of the questionnaire was further divided into Sections A, B and C. Section A
sought the respondents’ attitudes (personal perceptions) to particular outcomes (see
Table 1) and the likelihood of achieving those outcomes if they major in accounting or
non-accounting disciplines. The steps involved:
1. evaluating 10 outcome statements on a five-point scale (1 ¼ extremely bad to 5 ¼
extremely good);
2. indicating the likelihood that each of the outcomes would occur if they choose accounting as their major, using a five-point scale (1 ¼ very unlikely to 5 ¼ very likely);
3. indicating the likelihood that each of the outcomes would occur if they choose a nonaccounting major, using a five-point scale (1 ¼ very unlikely to 5 ¼ very likely).
Section B sought the respondents’ normative perceptions of the referents’ views of their
choice of major and the degree of importance they placed on the referents’ views. Using a
five-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree), respondents were asked to
indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statement that their parents/other relatives/friends/career counsellor (see Table 1) thought that they should or should not major
in accounting. To ascertain their motivation to comply with the above referents, respondents were further asked to indicate how important that person’s opinion is to them
using a five-point scale (1 ¼ very unimportant to 5 ¼ very important).
Section C ascertained the respondents’ perceived behavioural control. Respondents
were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement on a five-point scale (1 ¼ strongly
disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree) with each statement that relates to control beliefs (see
Table 1).
Research Design
As the TPB requires measurement of students’ differential perceptions of the three constructs (personal, referents, and control) towards academic major choices, the differential
score as used by Cohen and Hanno (1993) and Allen (2004) was adopted. For personal
beliefs, respondents’ evaluations of each of the ten outcomes were first multiplied by
the likelihood of the outcome occurring if accounting was their chosen major. They
were then summed (a) to provide a measure of the beliefs toward choosing accounting
as a major. The ten outcome evaluations were also multiplied by the likelihood of the
outcome occurring if a non-accounting major was chosen. The sum (b) of these ten outcomes provides a measure of the beliefs towards choosing a non-accounting major.
A differential score is obtained by deducting b from a. Since the theory predicts that
positive scores are associated with choice of accounting major, a positive differential
score indicates that the student is more favourable towards the choice of accounting as
an academic major. Differential scores for perception of important people (referents)
and control beliefs were computed in a similar manner.
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 239
Table 1. Factors (outcomes) used to examine students’ intentions to major in accounting or other
business disciplines
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Section A—Personal
Perception
Career that deals with a lot of
numbers
Allows one to earn a high initial
salary
Broad exposure to business
Allows one a chance to establish
a private practice
Career that is challenging
Career with high future earnings
and advancement potential
Major that demands a heavy
workload
Section B—Important
Referents
Section C—Perceived
Control
Parents
Required workload
Relative(s)
Skills and background in
mathematics
Close friend(s)
Career counsellor/adviser
Performance in
accounting course
Job opportunities
Interest in accounting
Less involvement in
extracurricular
activities
Career that provides a high social
status
Major that prepares one for a
career with more job
opportunities
An academic major that is boring
A path analysis, which is an extension of the regression model, was used to test the TPB
in predicting students’ choice of major as shown in Figure 1. The model is specified by the
following path equations:
Model 1: Major Choice ¼ a0 þ b1 Major Intention þ b2 Control þ ]
Model 2: Major Intention ¼ a0 þ b1 Personal þ b2 Referents1 þ b3 Control1 þ ]
where:
Major intention ¼ the self-reported intention to major in an accounting or non-accounting
discipline at the beginning of first year, which assumes a value of 1 if the respondent
intends to major in accounting and 0 otherwise
Major choice ¼ the major choice in an accounting or non-accounting discipline at the end
of third year, which assumes a value of 1 if the respondent majors in accounting and 0
otherwise
Personal ¼ the differential personal perception of choosing an accounting versus a nonaccounting major at the beginning of first year
Referents ¼ the differential perception of important referents about an accounting and a
non-accounting major at the beginning of first year
Control ¼ the perceived differential control over choosing an accounting or a nonaccounting major at the beginning of first year
Data Collection
The study was conducted in a large multi-campus New Zealand University with 1422 students enrolled in the introductory accounting course. The first survey was conducted in
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
240 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
class at the beginning of the introductory accounting course and 1009 students participated, giving a response rate of 71%. The second survey was conducted three years
later when most students were in their third and final year of study. Since it would be difficult to conduct the survey in class for the same group of students, as they would be taking
different courses depending on their majors, the questionnaire was posted to all students
who participated in the first year study. Out of the 1009 questionnaires posted, 225 questionnaires were returned undelivered (either due to students changing address, dropping
out of study without official notification, or graduating). 304 respondents returned completed questionnaires giving a usable response rate of 39%.
Table 2 provides the respondents’ demographics. About 47% of the respondents were
international students. Most respondents (87%) were between the ages of 18 and 25.
There was also about an equal balance of female (54%) and male (46%) students. A
comparison between the self reported major intentions in the first year and the actual behaviour in relation to major choice reveals that of the 68 students who intended to major in
accounting in the first year, only 37 students (54%) did major in accounting. Alternatively,
of the 236 students who had indicated their intention to major in non-accounting disciplines, 24 (10%) chose to major in accounting.
Table 2 also shows when students decided on their majors. A high proportion of
students selected their majors prior to commencing university study. In particular,
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of respondents
Accounting majors
n ¼ 61
Non-accounting majors
n ¼ 243
Total
n ¼ 304
Gender
Female
Male
41
20
123
120
164
140
Nationality
New Zealander
International students
35
26
125
118
160
144
Age groupings
18220
21225
26229
30239
40249
25
18
8
9
1
104
117
10
9
3
129
135
18
18
4
37
31
68
24
212
236
39
5
64
33
103
38
12
3
2
123
19
4
135
22
6
Intention to major
In accounting as indicated
in first year
In non-accounting as indicated
in first year
When major decided
Before starting study at university
By end of 1st semester of
1st year study
By end of first year of study
By end of second year of study
Other times
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 241
64% of accounting majors reported that they have selected their major prior to
university compared with only 26% for non-accounting majors. This may be
attributed to the visibility of an accounting career in comparison with other business
disciplines.
Results
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
The Models
To test the prediction of the TPB, a path analysis was conducted. The Chi square statistic
for goodness of fit is 41.275 with three degrees of freedom and a P value of 0.001. As
shown in Figure 2, both students’ intention to major in a particular discipline and perceived behavioural control predicted students’ choice of major (Model 1). These two
factors accounted for 32% of the variance in major choice. The coefficients (b ¼ Beta)
for the independent variables, personal and referents, in Model 2 are positive and significantly different from zero (P , 0.001). However, the perceived control variable is not
significant which is inconsistent with prior results. Thus, only two of the three factors
made significant contributions to the prediction of intentions to major: personal factors
(P , 0.01) and referents (P , 0.001).3 The perceived behavioural control as suggested
in the TPB literature requires one to be able to make a realistic judgment of a behaviour
difficulty (Davies et al., 2002).
Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients of the three constructs (the independent variables) in Model 2 for all respondents. All three constructs were significantly correlated
with major intention (P , 0.01).
Table 4 reports the overall mean response for the constructs in Model 2 for intention
to major in accounting and non-accounting disciplines. The results show that, for
each construct, the mean response for accounting majors as predicted was higher than
the mean response for non-accounting majors and the difference was significant
(P , 0.001).
Figure 2. Theory of planned behaviour. Significant at the 5% level; Significant at the 1% level;
Significant at the 0.1% level
242 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Table 3. Correlations: Major intentions and constructs at first year
Model 2: Major intention ¼ a0 þ b1 Personal þ b2 Referents1 þ b3 Control1 þ ]
Differential
perceived control
Differential personal
perceptions
Differential
perception of referents
0.275
0.303
0.281
0.391
0.375
Major intentions
Differential perceived
control
Differential personal
perception
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
0.380
Significant at 0.1% level.
Accounting Versus Non- accounting Majors
In this section, we examine each construct at the beginning of first year in greater depth.
This provides further insights into the specific beliefs and attitudes that discriminate
between students who indicated that they intended to major in accounting, and students
who indicated that they intended to major in other business disciplines.
Table 5 presents the mean differential beliefs and the motivation to comply with referents for students who intended to major in accounting and non-accounting disciplines in
their first year. Positive scores indicate normative beliefs that favour intentions to major
in accounting while negative scores indicate normative beliefs that favour a business
area other than accounting.
With respect to the differential normative beliefs, Table 5 (columns 1 and 2) shows that
students who intended to major in accounting believed that each referent (parents, other
relatives, friends, and career advisors and counsellors) thought that they should major
in accounting, while students who intended to major in non-accounting disciplines
believed that each referent thought that they should major in a non-accounting discipline.
The t-test results indicate significant differences between the two groups’ beliefs. This
result is consistent with prior findings (Cohen and Hanno, 1993; Allen, 2004; Tan and
Laswad, 2006a).
Table 4. Mean (and standard error of the mean) response—major intentions and construct at first year
Sum—personal perceptions
Sum—perception of referents
Sum—perceived control
a
Intention—
accounting
Intention—
non-accounting;
Mean
differencea
15.000
(2.893)
7.5000
(1.535)
20.0308
(0.535)
20.1552
(1.466)
25.8904
(0.879)
24.238
(0.303)
15.155
P¼0
13.390
P¼0
3.028
P¼0
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 243
Table 5. Mean differential perception of referents and motivations to comply at first year for students
intending to major in accounting versus non-accounting
Differential perceptions
Referents
Parents
Other relatives
Friends
Career advisors
and counsellors
Motivation to comply
Intention—
accounting
Intention—
non-accounting
Intention—
accounting
Intention—
non-accounting
0.791
0.403
0.462
0.296
20.461
20.389
20.646
20.452
3.51
2.93
3.09
3.31
3.39
2.86
3.05
3.24
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significance at the 0.1% level.
1 ¼ very unimportant to 5 ¼ very important.
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Table 5 (columns 3 and 4) shows the differences in motivation to comply with each
referent. All four referents’ views were considered as being important to the students;
parents’ views were ranked as most important followed by career advisors and friends.
The t-test results indicate no significant differences between the two groups’ motivation
to comply with referents.
Table 6 presents the differential personal beliefs and outcome evaluations for first year
students intending to major in accounting or non-accounting. A positive differential score
indicates that choosing accounting is more likely to lead to the specific outcome than
choosing some other business major, while the opposite is true for a negative differential
belief score. As shown in Table 6, there are some significant differences between students
who intended to major in accounting and students who intended to major in other business
disciplines.
Although students who intended to major in accounting perceived a higher likelihood
that accounting would lead to such outcomes, both groups perceived that accounting, as
a major was more likely to lead to a career that deals with numbers and demands a
heavy workload. This suggests that those who intended to major in non-accounting disciplines have not chosen accounting as their intended major because they perceived accounting as too numbers-oriented and too demanding in terms of workload. Both groups
perceived that their major would lead to a high initial salary and future earnings,
provide them with a chance to establish a private practice, give broad exposure to business,
and offer a challenging career and greater job opportunities. The t-tests indicate significant
differences in the two groups’ perceptions.
Interestingly, students who intended to major in non-accounting believed significantly
more than those who intended to major in accounting that accounting was likely to be a
boring academic major. Such perceptions might have further discouraged them from
choosing accounting as their intended major. Overall, the differential outcome beliefs
were similar to the results of Cohen and Hanno (1993), Allen (2004), and Tan and
Laswad (2006a).
In comparing the outcome evaluation scores (columns 3 and 4) in Table 6, students who
intended to major in accounting perceived a career in a field that deals with numbers, high
initial salary, and entering a career that provides high social status as significantly
(P , 0.001) more favourable than did non-accounting majors. Students who intended to
244 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Table 6. Mean differential personal beliefs and outcome evaluations at first year for students intending to major in accounting versus non-accounting
Differential perceptions
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Intention—
accounting
A career that deals with
numbers
Earning a high initial
salary
A field with broad
exposure to business
A career with a chance to
establish a private
practice
A career that is
challenging
An academic major that is
boring
A career with high future
earnings
A major that demands a
heavy workload
A career that provides
high social status
A major that prepares for a
career with greater job
opportunities
Outcome evaluations
Intention—
non-accounting
Intention—
accounting
Intention—
non-accounting
0.877
0.710
3.68
3.27
0.333
20.015
4.49
4.21
0.208
20.284
3.94
4.93
0.468
0.067
3.99
3.96
0.375
20.239
3.98
4.02
20.020
0.892
2.03
2.07
0.458
20.000
4.42
4.33
0.333
0.215
3.09
2.96
0.145
20.132
3.94
3.70
0.291
20.436
4.51
4.41
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
Significant at the 0.1% level.
1 ¼ very unlikely to 5 ¼ very likely.
major in non- accounting viewed broad exposure to business more favourably than students who intended to major in accounting (P , 0.05).
In summary, nine of the ten outcomes (see Table 6, Columns 1 and 2) for accounting
majors are positive, indicating that these students believed that their intended majors
were more likely to lead to the outcomes evaluated. In comparison, a business major
other than accounting was perceived as more likely to lead to six of the ten outcomes
by those who intended to major in non-accounting disciplines. For all ten outcomes,
there were seven significant differences (P , 0.01) between the two groups’ personal
beliefs.
Table 7 presents the differential perceived control for those who intended to major in
accounting and non-accounting in their first year. A positive differential score indicates
that the factor would facilitate choosing accounting as a major. A negative differential
control belief score indicates that the factor facilitated choosing a business field other
than accounting. The results in Table 7 indicate that three out of the six differential
control beliefs were perceived differently by the two groups.
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 245
Table 7. Mean perceived differential control at first year
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Intention—accounting Intention—non-accounting
Workload in accounting/nonaccounting courses
Skills and background in
mathematics
Performing well in accounting/
non-accounting courses
Availability of opportunities in
accounting/non-accounting
fields
Interest in accounting/nonaccounting subjects
Less involvement in
extracurricular activities if an
accounting/non-accounting
major is chosen
0
20.302
0.257
21.136
0.121
20.425
0.015
20.630
20.121
20.269
20.272
20.275
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significance at the 0.1% level.
1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree.
Skills and background in mathematics and performing well in accounting courses
appeared to be significant factors in facilitating the intention to major in accounting.
However, those who intended to major in non-accounting felt more strongly than those
who intended to major in accounting that skills in mathematics would hinder their
choice of accounting as their major. Performing well in accounting course(s) appeared
to hinder their intention to major in accounting, whereas performing well in a nonaccounting course appeared to facilitate their intended major. Their perceptions of the
availability of opportunities in their intended major also appeared to influence their intentions. These results are generally consistent with the findings of Cohen and Hanno (1993)
and Allen (2004).
Changes in Students’ Perceptions
Students develop their attitudes and beliefs through experience. Accordingly, their attitudes and beliefs may change over time as experience may validate, reinforce or
modify their beliefs and attitudes.
As shown in Table 2, 37 of the 68 students who intended to major in accounting have
majored in accounting by the third year and 24 of the 226 students who intended to major
in non-accounting have majored in accounting by the third year. A Chi-square test indicates a significant difference (P ¼ 0.001) between intention to major and actual major
choice. This suggests that attitudes and beliefs about study majors may have changed
during the period from when the intentions were expressed at the beginning of university
study and when the major choice was confirmed.
To examine changes in attitudes and beliefs, the respondents were divided into two main
groups—the ‘No change’ group and the ‘Change’ group. The ‘No change’ group comprises
two sub-groups: those who intended to major in accounting and have actually majored in
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
246 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
accounting (Group 1), and those who intended to major in non-accounting and actually
majored in non-accounting (Group 2). The ‘Change’ group comprises two sub-groups:
those who intended to major in accounting but majored in non-accounting (Group 3), and
those who intended to major in non-accounting but majored in accounting (Group 4).
Table 8(a) presents the mean differential perception of referents for the four groups.
There were no significant differences in Group 1’s perceptions of referents between
first and third year. For Group 2, there were significant changes in perceptions of their
relatives and friends’ views. In the third year as compared to the first year, this group
had stronger beliefs that their relatives and friends thought they should major in nonaccounting.
There was also a significant difference in Group 3’s perceptions of referents in the first and
third year. In the third year, this group perceived that their referents thought they should
major in non-accounting. This is in sharp contrast to their perceptions in the first year
when they perceived that their parents, friends and career advisors thought they should
major in accounting. Perhaps they had reassessed their perceptions after the views of their
referents had changed. Group 4’s perception of referents is interesting. There is a significant
difference in perceptions that relate to the parents and the relatives’ views in the first year. In
the first year, even though they perceived that their parents and relatives thought they should
major in accounting, their intention was to major in non-accounting. In the third year, they
had stronger beliefs that their parents and relatives thought that they should major in accounting and they ultimately did major in accounting. This finding suggests that these students
might have been influenced by their parents and relatives in their decisions to change majors.4
Table 8(b) presents the results for the four different groups’ motivations to comply with
referents. The paired samples t-test showed no significant differences in views from first
year to third year for all groups except for Group 4. This group perceived their relatives’
views as being less important when they were in the third year as compared to when they
were in their first year. Generally, the results indicate that the four groups’ perceptions of
referents remained relatively stable.
Table 9 shows the four groups’ results for differential personal beliefs in the first year
and third year. There were no significant differences in beliefs for Groups 1, 3 and 4
between the first year and third year. Significant changes were found for Group 2’s perceptions. This group appeared to have higher beliefs in the third year than in the first year that
accounting dealt a lot with numbers but had lower beliefs that a non-accounting career is
more challenging and that an accounting major is boring. The perceptions of Group 2 also
changed with regard to a high initial salary. In their third year as compared with their first
year, this group had higher perceptions that an accounting major has the potential to earn a
high initial salary. However, this group did not change their intended major to accounting
even though some of their beliefs had changed.
Table 10 shows the results for outcome evaluations for the four groups. Group 1, 3 and
4’s views did not change over the years. Group 2’s evaluation of ‘a field with broad
exposure to business’ changed significantly. They had stronger beliefs in the third year
that their non- accounting major would provide them with a broad exposure to business,
as compared to their belief in first year.
Table 11 provides a comparison between control factors for the four groups. For Groups
1 and 3, there were no changes in the perceptions of control factors. Group 2’s views have
changed with regard to performing well in accounting and the availability of job opportunities. This group’s perception of availability of opportunities in accounting was more
positive from the first to the final year of study. The results further show improvement
in their perception that performance in non-accounting study would facilitate selection
of non-accounting as a major. The significant change in Group 4’s views is interesting.
No change groups
Change groups
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Intention and major in
accounting
Intention and major in nonaccounting
Intention in accounting but
major in non-accounting
Intention in nonaccounting but major in
accounting
1st Year
3rd Year
1st Year
3rd Year
1st Year
3rd Year
20.748
20.738
20.931
20.622
0.567
0.300
0.300
0.222
20.200
20.233
20.600
20.482
0.348
0.000
20.304
0.087
1.000
0.609
0.348
0.217
3.83
3.33
3.33
3.58
3.67
2.83
3.00
3.21
1st Year
3rd Year
(a) Mean differential perception of referents for different groups
Parents
1.057
0.600
20.539
Other relatives
0.486
0.286
20.426
Friends
0.486
0.486
20.426
Career advisors etc.
0.382
0.529
20.512
(b) Mean motivation to comply for different groups
Parents
3.56
3.58
Other relatives
3.03
2.81
Friends
3.19
3.00
Career advisors etc.
3.33
3.14
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
Significant at the 0.1% level.
3.33
2.80
3.02
3.21
3.32
2.70
2.95
3.17
3.47
2.80
3.00
3.24
3.67
3.07
3.10
3.24
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 247
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Table 8. Mean scores for referents
248 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Table 9. Mean differential personal beliefs for different groups
No change groups
Group 1
Intention and
major in
accounting
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
1st
Year
3rd
Year
Change groups
Group 2
Intention and
major in non–
accounting
1st
Year
3rd
Year
A career that deals with
1.000
0.923
0.750
1.006
numbers
Earning a high initial
0.423
0.346 20.698
0.273
salary
A field with broad
0.200
0
20.333 20.351
exposure to business
0.480
0.240
0.071
0.126
A career with a chance to
establish a private
practice
A career that is
0.615
0.385 20.272 20.029
challenging
An academic major that is 20.154 20.269
1.024
0.641
boring
A career with high future
0.640
0.560 20.071
0.082
earnings
A major that demands a
0.462
0.462
0.247
3.193
heavy workload
A career that provides
0.192
0.231 20.222 20.035
high social status
0.423
0.615 20.503 20.322
A major that prepares for a
career with greater job
opportunities
Group 3
Group 4
Intention in
nonIntention in
accounting but accounting but
major in
major in non–
accounting
accounting
1st
Year
3rd
Year
1st
Year
3rd
Year
0.809
0.857 0.571
0.762
0.250
0.450 0.381
0.524
0.250 20.250 0
0.053
0.450
0.100 0.050
0.400
0.050 20.050 0.167
0.222
0.150
0.300 0.316 20.316
0.200
0.250 0.579
0.632
0.150
0.450 0.158
0.421
0.050
0.200 0.526
0.421
0.150
0.100 0.526
0.211
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
They appeared to have developed some interest in accounting between their first and third
year of study.
Summary and Conclusions
This study extends the literature that uses Ajzen’s (1988) theory of planned behaviour in
examining the factors that impact on students’ intentions and their eventual decision to
major in accounting or a non-accounting discipline. A sample of business students
enrolled in an introductory accounting course participated in the study. A follow up
survey was conducted at the end of their third year of university study. The results
show that major intentions and perceived behavioural control were determinants of
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 249
Table 10. Mean differential outcome evaluations for different groups
No change groups
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Group 1
A career that deals with
numbers
Earning a high initial
salary
A field with broad
exposure to business
A career with a chance to
establish a private
practice
A career that is
challenging
An academic major that is
boring
A career with high future
earning
A major that demands a
heavy workload
A career that provides
high social status
A major that prepares for a
career with greater job
opportunities
Change groups
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Intention and
major in
accounting
Intention and
major in nonaccounting
Intention in
accounting
but major in
nonaccounting
Intention in
nonaccounting
but major in
accounting
1st
Year
3rd
Year
1st
Year
3rd
Year
1st
Year
3rd
Year
1st
Year
3rd
Year
3.78
3.70
3.23
3.25
3.55
3.23
3.63
3.79
4.46
4.32
4.19
4.10
4.55
4.19
4.46
4.54
3.94
3.83
3.90
4.06
3.97
3.87
4.27
4.23
3.94
3.86
3.93
3.99
4.03
3.93
4.17
4.04
3.94
3.88
3.99
4.04
4.00
3.93
4.30
4.35
1.94
2.03
2.07
1.96
2.13
2.23
1.95
1.91
4.41
4.43
4.32
4.35
4.43
4.23
4.61
4.70
3.00
2.91
2.92
2.88
3.18
3.04
3.26
3.00
3.82
3.85
3.72
3.62
4.06
3.94
3.64
4.09
4.62
4.57
4.39
4.32
4.40
4.33
4.61
4.48
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significant at the 5% level.
major choices and two factors (personal and referents) were determinants of students’
major intentions.
Further analysis of these factors revealed that the students’ academic major intentions
(whether accountin
On: 14 December 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912988913]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Accounting Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713683833
Understanding Students' Choice of Academic Majors: A Longitudinal
Analysis
Lin Mei Tan a; Fawzi Laswad a
Massey University, New Zealand
a
To cite this Article Tan, Lin Mei and Laswad, Fawzi(2009) 'Understanding Students' Choice of Academic Majors: A
Longitudinal Analysis', Accounting Education, 18: 3, 233 — 253
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09639280802009108
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639280802009108
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Accounting Education: an international journal
Vol. 18, No. 3, 233 –253, June 2009
Understanding Students’ Choice
of Academic Majors: A Longitudinal
Analysis
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
LIN MEI TAN and FAWZI LASWAD
Massey University, New Zealand
Received: July 2007
Revised: December 2007
Accepted: December 2007
ABSTRACT This study extends Tan and Laswad’s 2006a study by surveying the same students at the
beginning and end of their degree programme at a New Zealand university regarding their major
choices, beliefs and attitudes towards majoring in accounting or a non-accounting discipline.
Using the theory of planned behaviour, the objectives are to compare intentions with behaviour
in relation to majoring in accounting and other business disciplines and to examine changes in
attitudes and beliefs between the beginning and end of university study. The results indicate many
students choose majors that are consistent with their intentions at the beginning of their
university study but some students also change their intentions and major in other areas. Some
attitudes and beliefs change over time but the major choice tends to remain relatively stable. The
results suggest that a higher proportion of accounting students than other business students
decide on their major prior to university study. This may suggest that promoting accounting as a
career may need to focus on pre-university students.
KEY WORDS :
behaviour
Accounting major, accounting education, accounting career, theory of planned
Introduction
Over the past two decades, significant research in accounting education has been devoted
to understanding how and why students major in an accounting or a non-accounting discipline. Such research is pertinent—particularly when the number and quality of students
majoring in accounting is declining (Ashworth, 1969; Adams et al., 1994; Karnes et al.,
1997; Stice and Swain, 1997; Saemann and Crooker, 1999; Mauldin et al., 2000;
Heaton, 1999; Fedoryshyn and Tyson, 2003) and when accounting firms are facing
difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff (Ahmed et al., 1997; Marshall, 2003).
Correspondence Address: Ms Lin Mei Tan, School of Accountancy, Massey University, Palmerston North,
Private Bag 11222, New Zealand. Email: l.m.tan@massey.ac.nz
0963-9284 Print/1468-4489 Online/09/030233–21 # 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09639280802009108
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
234 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Prior research on students’ choice of major has identified a multitude of factors that
could influence students’ major decisions. They include: availability of employment
and earnings (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Adams et al., 1994; AuYeung and Sands, 1997;
Lowe and Simons, 1997), job satisfaction, aptitude, and interest in subject areas (Paolillo
and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989; AuYeung and Sands, 1997), and the influence of students’ teachers and parents (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Cangelosi et al., 1985; Gul et al.,
1989; Geiger and Ogilby, 2000). Studies that surveyed students’ perceptions were primarily conducted at specific points in time, such as in the first, second, third, or fourth year of
undergraduate study, and focused on either students’ chosen major or their intention to
major in a particular discipline. Apart from a few studies (such as by Cohen and
Hanno, 1993; Allen, 2004; Tan and Laswad, 2006a), many prior studies lack a conceptual
framework, making it difficult to generalise predictions or explain career choice decisions
(Cohen and Hanno, 1993, p. 221).
The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1988) is one conceptual framework that
has been used to provide a better understanding of the factors that influence students’
choice of major. This theory has been used successfully in explaining intentions and
behaviours in various decision-making situations such as exercising, purchasing
goods, etc. Tan and Laswad (2006a) used this theory to examine first year students’
intentions to major in accounting and other business disciplines. They found that
students’ attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of behavioural control influence
their intention to major in accounting or other business disciplines. However, they did
not examine the relationship between intention and behaviour because students’ behaviour
(i.e. ultimate major) could not be ascertained in their cross-sectional study, as the data was
collected at the beginning of the introductory accounting course. The studies conducted by
Allen (2004) and Cohen and Hanno (1993) were also cross-sectional and used surrogate
measures of intention that were not antecedents of choosing a major. They further
assumed that students would not change their major intentions during the students’ academic career.
We extend Tan and Laswad’s (2006a) research by conducting a longitudinal study that
allows us to
(i) examine the students’ attitudes and beliefs with respect to intentions to major in a
business discipline (accounting or non-accounting) at the start of their first course
in accounting that is mandatory for all business students; and
(ii) use this information to compare with their actual major choices three years later.
Such a design not only allows us to test the theory of planned behaviour but also to
understand whether there are changes in the students’ attitudes and beliefs about accounting and non-accounting disciplines over time as the students mature in terms of experience
and knowledge. Students’ intentions may change because of changes in attitudes and
beliefs, and the ultimate behaviour may therefore differ from their earlier intentions.
The results of this study extend our understanding of students’ major choices and
provide insights into ways to attract students or improve their attitudes and beliefs
toward the study of accounting as an academic discipline.
This paper is organised as follows. The next section provides a review of the literature
that examines the various influences on students’ choice of academic major. This is
followed by an overview of the theory of planned behaviour, the research method, the
data and the results. The final section discusses the conclusions and limitations of the
study.
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 235
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Literature Review
Considerable literature has emerged which examines the timing of students’ career choices
and the major influences on their choices. The following is a brief review of relevant
studies.1
Students vary as to when they make their academic major choices. Some students select
their intended major prior to commencing university study (Karnes et al., 1997; Jackman
and Hollingworth, 2005), while others make such decisions during or at the completion of
their first or second year of tertiary education (Hermanson and Hermanson, 1995; Mauldin
et al., 2000). Some students may even change their major in a later stage of their academic
study when they realise that their intended major or chosen major does not suit them for
various reasons.
A number of factors influence students’ discipline choice. Prior studies suggest
that accounting students’ discipline choice is heavily influenced by earnings potential
and job market conditions or opportunities (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989;
Inman et al., 1989; Adams et al., 1994; Felton et al., 1994; AuYeung and Sands,
1997; Lowe and Simons, 1997; Mauldin et al., 2000). For example, Ahmed et al.
(1997) found that New Zealand students who intend to pursue a career in chartered
accountancy place significantly greater importance on financial factors. Lowe and
Simons’ (1997) findings in the USA also indicate that future earnings are the most important influence for accounting, finance and management majors.
Students’ experiences with uninteresting accounting coursework and rote learning may
also discourage the best students from pursuing an accounting major (Imman et al., 1989).
Students are more likely to choose an accounting major when they consider accounting
interesting and enjoyable (Saeman and Crooker, 1999).
Students’ performance in the introductory accounting course is another possible factor
that may influence their major choice, as students tend to perceive success in the introductory course as a signal that they have an aptitude for accounting (Cohen and Hanno, 1993;
Geiger and Ogilby, 2000). Poor performance, on the other hand, may be perceived by students as a signal that they may not have the required aptitude for accounting and, therefore,
should pursue a non-accounting major. However, some studies (such as by Adams et al.,
1994; Allen, 2004; Stice and Swain, 1997) suggest that course performance is not significantly related to high performing students’ decisions to major in accounting.
The intrinsic appeal of the job itself, such as job satisfaction, opportunity to be creative,
autonomy, intellect, and a challenging and dynamic working environment, is another
factor that may influence students’ academic major choice. A number of studies indicate
that job satisfaction, for instance, is important in accounting students’ discipline choice
(Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989; AuYeung and Sands, 1997) but not as important as many other factors (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Felton et al., 1994).
Prior research suggests that college students choose specific majors that they perceive as
being compatible with their particular personal styles (Gul, 1986; Wolk and Cates, 1994)
or their own aptitude for the subject (Paolillo and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989; AuYeung
and Sands, 1997). Adams et al. (1994) and Mauldin et al. (2000) indicate that genuine
interest in the subject is an important selection factor. Skills and background in mathematics were also identified as factors that could facilitate or hinder students’ decisions to
major in accounting (Cohen and Hanno, 1993).
In making career choices, students may be further influenced by their accounting
instructors, parents, relatives, friends, or high school teachers. A secondary school
career counsellor or adviser may shape students’ perceptions of accounting and the
profession (Marshall, 2003). However, empirical evidence shows mixed results. Some
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
236 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
studies suggest that teachers or instructors do not play a significant role in students’ choice
of majors (see Cangelosi et al., 1985; Gul et al., 1989) whereas other studies (Paolillo and
Estes, 1982; Hermanson and Hermanson, 1995; Geiger and Ogilby, 2000; Mauldin et al.,
2000) suggest that individual instructors have a profound influence on students’ decisions
to major in accounting.
Empirical evidence regarding the influence of referents, other than instructors, was also
inconclusive. Cangelosi et al. (1985) found that friends do not influence most students
toward or away from accounting careers. Gul et al. (1989) note that parental influence
is not a significant factor in students’ discipline choice decisions. Similarly, Paolillo
and Estes (1982), Hermanson and Hermanson (1995), and Lowe and Simons (1997) indicate that friends, parents and high school teachers are less influential factors in students’
major choices. In contrast, Inman et al. (1989) and Mauldin et al. (2000) found that parents
followed by instructors, have a strong influence on students’ choice of majors.
One of the main deterrents to majoring in accountancy could be the poor public perception of the stereotypical accountant as dreary, cautious and boring number crunchers
(Luscombe, 1988; Horowitz and Riley, 1990; Fisher and Murphy, 1995; Hermanson
and Hermanson, 1995; Cohen and Hanno, 1993). Such pre-conceived ideas can result in
college students’ self-selection into or out of certain majors. Accountants’ work is also
perceived by students to be excessively time-consuming and unpleasant (Mauldin et al.,
2000), or as being narrow, audit-focused and restricted to ‘core’ accounting
(Marshall, 2003).
The literature reviewed above indicates that a number of factors may influence students
in choosing their academic majors. Moreover, students may regard some factors as more
important than others and these factors may have a different impact in different cultures
(AuYeung and Sands, 1997). The inconsistencies in results obtained from prior research
make it difficult to draw generalisations about students’ choices of majors. A theoretical
framework would provide a better understanding of the impact of various factors on
students’ academic decisions.
Theory of Planned Behaviour
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) developed by Ajzen (1988) is an extension of the
theory of reasoned action (TRA) developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). Both models
consider attitudes, subjective norms, intentions and target behaviour. In summary, the
TPB posits that people act in accordance with their intentions and perceptions of
control over the behaviour, while intentions in turn are influenced by attitudes towards
the behaviour, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioural control (Ajzen, 2001,
p. 43). The more favourable the attitude and subjective norm and the greater the perceived
behavioural control are, the greater the likelihood the person’s intention to perform the
behaviour. Figure 1 depicts the three factors that determine intentions, which lead to
behaviour.
Individual attitudes toward the behaviour reflect the degree to which a person has a positive or negative perception of the behaviour. Attitudes about behaviour are determined by
a person’s beliefs about the consequences of performing that behaviour, and each belief is
weighted by the subjective value of the outcome in question (Ajzen, 2001; Tan and
Laswad, 2006a).
Subjective norms, however, are linked to a person’s perceptions of social pressure to
perform or not perform the behaviour. It reflects a person’s beliefs that other individuals
or groups think he or she should perform the behaviour (i.e. normative beliefs). These normative beliefs, in combination with a person’s motivation to comply with the different
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 237
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Figure 1. Ajzen’s (1988) theory of planned behaviour
referents, determine the prevailing subjective norm regarding the behaviour (Ajzen, 2001;
Tan and Laswad, 2006a).
As many factors can interfere with an individual’s control over an intended behaviour
(Cohen and Hanno, 1993, p. 222), Ajzen’s (1988) theory of planned behaviour refines the
TRA by including the concept of behavioural control. Unlike attitude and subjective
norms, this third factor, perceived behavioural control, is a non-motivational factor and
represents the degree of control a person has over performance of the behaviour. To the
extent that people are realistic in their judgements of behaviour difficulties, Ajzen
posits that a measure of perceived behavioural control can act as a surrogate for actual
control. The theory further assumes that perceived behavioural control has motivational
implications for intentions. Those who believe that they have neither the means nor the
opportunities to perform certain behaviour are unlikely to form strong behavioural intentions to engage in it, even if they hold favourable attitudes toward the behaviour and
believe that important individuals would approve of their performing such behaviour
(Ajzen, 1988, p. 134).
The TPB, therefore, provides a suitable framework for examining the factors that influence students’ academic major decisions, and it has been used by Tan and Laswad
(2006a), Allen (2004), and Cohen and Hanno (1993), in their studies of students’ academic
major choices or intentions.
Based on the TPB framework, this study extends Tan and Laswad (2006a) by comparing intentions with behaviour and examining whether specific personal, referents, and
control factors influence students’ intentions and ultimate decisions to major or not to
major in accounting.
Research Method
Subjects
Prior studies have used a cross-sectional design to examine students’ major decisions,
either using accounting/non-accounting major students or accounting graduates who
have completed their career choice process (Cherry and Reckers, 1993; Cohen and
Hanno, 1993; Ahmed et al., 1997). This study, however, provides a longitudinal examination of students’ attitudes, beliefs and major decisions. Data about attitudes, beliefs and
major intentions were collected from business students in their first year at university when
they enrolled in the introductory accounting course, a compulsory course for the business
degree. Data was also collected in the third year of study for the same students, when most
students have confirmed their major choices.2
Questionnaire
The questionnaire contained items designed to assess the three major constructs in the
TPB: attitudes, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. These constructs
were assessed by means of several direct questions, which were modelled on Cohen
238 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
and Hanno’s (1993) questionnaire, with some minor modifications to reflect the New
Zealand academic environment. Prior studies have identified these constructs as having
significant effects on students’ choice of academic major or career (such as by Paolillo
and Estes, 1982; Gul et al., 1989; Inman et al., 1989; Adams et al., 1994; Felton et al.,
1994; AuYeung and Sands, 1997; Lowe and Simons, 1997; Mauldin et al., 2000).
The questionnaire was divided into two parts. Part 1 of the questionnaire solicited information about their major. In the first year, students were asked about the discipline in which
they intended to major. In the third year survey, students were asked their study major, the
timing of their major choice and the reasons for changing their major if they did so.
Part 2 of the questionnaire was further divided into Sections A, B and C. Section A
sought the respondents’ attitudes (personal perceptions) to particular outcomes (see
Table 1) and the likelihood of achieving those outcomes if they major in accounting or
non-accounting disciplines. The steps involved:
1. evaluating 10 outcome statements on a five-point scale (1 ¼ extremely bad to 5 ¼
extremely good);
2. indicating the likelihood that each of the outcomes would occur if they choose accounting as their major, using a five-point scale (1 ¼ very unlikely to 5 ¼ very likely);
3. indicating the likelihood that each of the outcomes would occur if they choose a nonaccounting major, using a five-point scale (1 ¼ very unlikely to 5 ¼ very likely).
Section B sought the respondents’ normative perceptions of the referents’ views of their
choice of major and the degree of importance they placed on the referents’ views. Using a
five-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree), respondents were asked to
indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statement that their parents/other relatives/friends/career counsellor (see Table 1) thought that they should or should not major
in accounting. To ascertain their motivation to comply with the above referents, respondents were further asked to indicate how important that person’s opinion is to them
using a five-point scale (1 ¼ very unimportant to 5 ¼ very important).
Section C ascertained the respondents’ perceived behavioural control. Respondents
were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement on a five-point scale (1 ¼ strongly
disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree) with each statement that relates to control beliefs (see
Table 1).
Research Design
As the TPB requires measurement of students’ differential perceptions of the three constructs (personal, referents, and control) towards academic major choices, the differential
score as used by Cohen and Hanno (1993) and Allen (2004) was adopted. For personal
beliefs, respondents’ evaluations of each of the ten outcomes were first multiplied by
the likelihood of the outcome occurring if accounting was their chosen major. They
were then summed (a) to provide a measure of the beliefs toward choosing accounting
as a major. The ten outcome evaluations were also multiplied by the likelihood of the
outcome occurring if a non-accounting major was chosen. The sum (b) of these ten outcomes provides a measure of the beliefs towards choosing a non-accounting major.
A differential score is obtained by deducting b from a. Since the theory predicts that
positive scores are associated with choice of accounting major, a positive differential
score indicates that the student is more favourable towards the choice of accounting as
an academic major. Differential scores for perception of important people (referents)
and control beliefs were computed in a similar manner.
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 239
Table 1. Factors (outcomes) used to examine students’ intentions to major in accounting or other
business disciplines
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Section A—Personal
Perception
Career that deals with a lot of
numbers
Allows one to earn a high initial
salary
Broad exposure to business
Allows one a chance to establish
a private practice
Career that is challenging
Career with high future earnings
and advancement potential
Major that demands a heavy
workload
Section B—Important
Referents
Section C—Perceived
Control
Parents
Required workload
Relative(s)
Skills and background in
mathematics
Close friend(s)
Career counsellor/adviser
Performance in
accounting course
Job opportunities
Interest in accounting
Less involvement in
extracurricular
activities
Career that provides a high social
status
Major that prepares one for a
career with more job
opportunities
An academic major that is boring
A path analysis, which is an extension of the regression model, was used to test the TPB
in predicting students’ choice of major as shown in Figure 1. The model is specified by the
following path equations:
Model 1: Major Choice ¼ a0 þ b1 Major Intention þ b2 Control þ ]
Model 2: Major Intention ¼ a0 þ b1 Personal þ b2 Referents1 þ b3 Control1 þ ]
where:
Major intention ¼ the self-reported intention to major in an accounting or non-accounting
discipline at the beginning of first year, which assumes a value of 1 if the respondent
intends to major in accounting and 0 otherwise
Major choice ¼ the major choice in an accounting or non-accounting discipline at the end
of third year, which assumes a value of 1 if the respondent majors in accounting and 0
otherwise
Personal ¼ the differential personal perception of choosing an accounting versus a nonaccounting major at the beginning of first year
Referents ¼ the differential perception of important referents about an accounting and a
non-accounting major at the beginning of first year
Control ¼ the perceived differential control over choosing an accounting or a nonaccounting major at the beginning of first year
Data Collection
The study was conducted in a large multi-campus New Zealand University with 1422 students enrolled in the introductory accounting course. The first survey was conducted in
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
240 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
class at the beginning of the introductory accounting course and 1009 students participated, giving a response rate of 71%. The second survey was conducted three years
later when most students were in their third and final year of study. Since it would be difficult to conduct the survey in class for the same group of students, as they would be taking
different courses depending on their majors, the questionnaire was posted to all students
who participated in the first year study. Out of the 1009 questionnaires posted, 225 questionnaires were returned undelivered (either due to students changing address, dropping
out of study without official notification, or graduating). 304 respondents returned completed questionnaires giving a usable response rate of 39%.
Table 2 provides the respondents’ demographics. About 47% of the respondents were
international students. Most respondents (87%) were between the ages of 18 and 25.
There was also about an equal balance of female (54%) and male (46%) students. A
comparison between the self reported major intentions in the first year and the actual behaviour in relation to major choice reveals that of the 68 students who intended to major in
accounting in the first year, only 37 students (54%) did major in accounting. Alternatively,
of the 236 students who had indicated their intention to major in non-accounting disciplines, 24 (10%) chose to major in accounting.
Table 2 also shows when students decided on their majors. A high proportion of
students selected their majors prior to commencing university study. In particular,
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of respondents
Accounting majors
n ¼ 61
Non-accounting majors
n ¼ 243
Total
n ¼ 304
Gender
Female
Male
41
20
123
120
164
140
Nationality
New Zealander
International students
35
26
125
118
160
144
Age groupings
18220
21225
26229
30239
40249
25
18
8
9
1
104
117
10
9
3
129
135
18
18
4
37
31
68
24
212
236
39
5
64
33
103
38
12
3
2
123
19
4
135
22
6
Intention to major
In accounting as indicated
in first year
In non-accounting as indicated
in first year
When major decided
Before starting study at university
By end of 1st semester of
1st year study
By end of first year of study
By end of second year of study
Other times
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 241
64% of accounting majors reported that they have selected their major prior to
university compared with only 26% for non-accounting majors. This may be
attributed to the visibility of an accounting career in comparison with other business
disciplines.
Results
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
The Models
To test the prediction of the TPB, a path analysis was conducted. The Chi square statistic
for goodness of fit is 41.275 with three degrees of freedom and a P value of 0.001. As
shown in Figure 2, both students’ intention to major in a particular discipline and perceived behavioural control predicted students’ choice of major (Model 1). These two
factors accounted for 32% of the variance in major choice. The coefficients (b ¼ Beta)
for the independent variables, personal and referents, in Model 2 are positive and significantly different from zero (P , 0.001). However, the perceived control variable is not
significant which is inconsistent with prior results. Thus, only two of the three factors
made significant contributions to the prediction of intentions to major: personal factors
(P , 0.01) and referents (P , 0.001).3 The perceived behavioural control as suggested
in the TPB literature requires one to be able to make a realistic judgment of a behaviour
difficulty (Davies et al., 2002).
Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients of the three constructs (the independent variables) in Model 2 for all respondents. All three constructs were significantly correlated
with major intention (P , 0.01).
Table 4 reports the overall mean response for the constructs in Model 2 for intention
to major in accounting and non-accounting disciplines. The results show that, for
each construct, the mean response for accounting majors as predicted was higher than
the mean response for non-accounting majors and the difference was significant
(P , 0.001).
Figure 2. Theory of planned behaviour. Significant at the 5% level; Significant at the 1% level;
Significant at the 0.1% level
242 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Table 3. Correlations: Major intentions and constructs at first year
Model 2: Major intention ¼ a0 þ b1 Personal þ b2 Referents1 þ b3 Control1 þ ]
Differential
perceived control
Differential personal
perceptions
Differential
perception of referents
0.275
0.303
0.281
0.391
0.375
Major intentions
Differential perceived
control
Differential personal
perception
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
0.380
Significant at 0.1% level.
Accounting Versus Non- accounting Majors
In this section, we examine each construct at the beginning of first year in greater depth.
This provides further insights into the specific beliefs and attitudes that discriminate
between students who indicated that they intended to major in accounting, and students
who indicated that they intended to major in other business disciplines.
Table 5 presents the mean differential beliefs and the motivation to comply with referents for students who intended to major in accounting and non-accounting disciplines in
their first year. Positive scores indicate normative beliefs that favour intentions to major
in accounting while negative scores indicate normative beliefs that favour a business
area other than accounting.
With respect to the differential normative beliefs, Table 5 (columns 1 and 2) shows that
students who intended to major in accounting believed that each referent (parents, other
relatives, friends, and career advisors and counsellors) thought that they should major
in accounting, while students who intended to major in non-accounting disciplines
believed that each referent thought that they should major in a non-accounting discipline.
The t-test results indicate significant differences between the two groups’ beliefs. This
result is consistent with prior findings (Cohen and Hanno, 1993; Allen, 2004; Tan and
Laswad, 2006a).
Table 4. Mean (and standard error of the mean) response—major intentions and construct at first year
Sum—personal perceptions
Sum—perception of referents
Sum—perceived control
a
Intention—
accounting
Intention—
non-accounting;
Mean
differencea
15.000
(2.893)
7.5000
(1.535)
20.0308
(0.535)
20.1552
(1.466)
25.8904
(0.879)
24.238
(0.303)
15.155
P¼0
13.390
P¼0
3.028
P¼0
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 243
Table 5. Mean differential perception of referents and motivations to comply at first year for students
intending to major in accounting versus non-accounting
Differential perceptions
Referents
Parents
Other relatives
Friends
Career advisors
and counsellors
Motivation to comply
Intention—
accounting
Intention—
non-accounting
Intention—
accounting
Intention—
non-accounting
0.791
0.403
0.462
0.296
20.461
20.389
20.646
20.452
3.51
2.93
3.09
3.31
3.39
2.86
3.05
3.24
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significance at the 0.1% level.
1 ¼ very unimportant to 5 ¼ very important.
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Table 5 (columns 3 and 4) shows the differences in motivation to comply with each
referent. All four referents’ views were considered as being important to the students;
parents’ views were ranked as most important followed by career advisors and friends.
The t-test results indicate no significant differences between the two groups’ motivation
to comply with referents.
Table 6 presents the differential personal beliefs and outcome evaluations for first year
students intending to major in accounting or non-accounting. A positive differential score
indicates that choosing accounting is more likely to lead to the specific outcome than
choosing some other business major, while the opposite is true for a negative differential
belief score. As shown in Table 6, there are some significant differences between students
who intended to major in accounting and students who intended to major in other business
disciplines.
Although students who intended to major in accounting perceived a higher likelihood
that accounting would lead to such outcomes, both groups perceived that accounting, as
a major was more likely to lead to a career that deals with numbers and demands a
heavy workload. This suggests that those who intended to major in non-accounting disciplines have not chosen accounting as their intended major because they perceived accounting as too numbers-oriented and too demanding in terms of workload. Both groups
perceived that their major would lead to a high initial salary and future earnings,
provide them with a chance to establish a private practice, give broad exposure to business,
and offer a challenging career and greater job opportunities. The t-tests indicate significant
differences in the two groups’ perceptions.
Interestingly, students who intended to major in non-accounting believed significantly
more than those who intended to major in accounting that accounting was likely to be a
boring academic major. Such perceptions might have further discouraged them from
choosing accounting as their intended major. Overall, the differential outcome beliefs
were similar to the results of Cohen and Hanno (1993), Allen (2004), and Tan and
Laswad (2006a).
In comparing the outcome evaluation scores (columns 3 and 4) in Table 6, students who
intended to major in accounting perceived a career in a field that deals with numbers, high
initial salary, and entering a career that provides high social status as significantly
(P , 0.001) more favourable than did non-accounting majors. Students who intended to
244 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Table 6. Mean differential personal beliefs and outcome evaluations at first year for students intending to major in accounting versus non-accounting
Differential perceptions
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Intention—
accounting
A career that deals with
numbers
Earning a high initial
salary
A field with broad
exposure to business
A career with a chance to
establish a private
practice
A career that is
challenging
An academic major that is
boring
A career with high future
earnings
A major that demands a
heavy workload
A career that provides
high social status
A major that prepares for a
career with greater job
opportunities
Outcome evaluations
Intention—
non-accounting
Intention—
accounting
Intention—
non-accounting
0.877
0.710
3.68
3.27
0.333
20.015
4.49
4.21
0.208
20.284
3.94
4.93
0.468
0.067
3.99
3.96
0.375
20.239
3.98
4.02
20.020
0.892
2.03
2.07
0.458
20.000
4.42
4.33
0.333
0.215
3.09
2.96
0.145
20.132
3.94
3.70
0.291
20.436
4.51
4.41
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
Significant at the 0.1% level.
1 ¼ very unlikely to 5 ¼ very likely.
major in non- accounting viewed broad exposure to business more favourably than students who intended to major in accounting (P , 0.05).
In summary, nine of the ten outcomes (see Table 6, Columns 1 and 2) for accounting
majors are positive, indicating that these students believed that their intended majors
were more likely to lead to the outcomes evaluated. In comparison, a business major
other than accounting was perceived as more likely to lead to six of the ten outcomes
by those who intended to major in non-accounting disciplines. For all ten outcomes,
there were seven significant differences (P , 0.01) between the two groups’ personal
beliefs.
Table 7 presents the differential perceived control for those who intended to major in
accounting and non-accounting in their first year. A positive differential score indicates
that the factor would facilitate choosing accounting as a major. A negative differential
control belief score indicates that the factor facilitated choosing a business field other
than accounting. The results in Table 7 indicate that three out of the six differential
control beliefs were perceived differently by the two groups.
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 245
Table 7. Mean perceived differential control at first year
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Intention—accounting Intention—non-accounting
Workload in accounting/nonaccounting courses
Skills and background in
mathematics
Performing well in accounting/
non-accounting courses
Availability of opportunities in
accounting/non-accounting
fields
Interest in accounting/nonaccounting subjects
Less involvement in
extracurricular activities if an
accounting/non-accounting
major is chosen
0
20.302
0.257
21.136
0.121
20.425
0.015
20.630
20.121
20.269
20.272
20.275
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significance at the 0.1% level.
1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree.
Skills and background in mathematics and performing well in accounting courses
appeared to be significant factors in facilitating the intention to major in accounting.
However, those who intended to major in non-accounting felt more strongly than those
who intended to major in accounting that skills in mathematics would hinder their
choice of accounting as their major. Performing well in accounting course(s) appeared
to hinder their intention to major in accounting, whereas performing well in a nonaccounting course appeared to facilitate their intended major. Their perceptions of the
availability of opportunities in their intended major also appeared to influence their intentions. These results are generally consistent with the findings of Cohen and Hanno (1993)
and Allen (2004).
Changes in Students’ Perceptions
Students develop their attitudes and beliefs through experience. Accordingly, their attitudes and beliefs may change over time as experience may validate, reinforce or
modify their beliefs and attitudes.
As shown in Table 2, 37 of the 68 students who intended to major in accounting have
majored in accounting by the third year and 24 of the 226 students who intended to major
in non-accounting have majored in accounting by the third year. A Chi-square test indicates a significant difference (P ¼ 0.001) between intention to major and actual major
choice. This suggests that attitudes and beliefs about study majors may have changed
during the period from when the intentions were expressed at the beginning of university
study and when the major choice was confirmed.
To examine changes in attitudes and beliefs, the respondents were divided into two main
groups—the ‘No change’ group and the ‘Change’ group. The ‘No change’ group comprises
two sub-groups: those who intended to major in accounting and have actually majored in
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
246 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
accounting (Group 1), and those who intended to major in non-accounting and actually
majored in non-accounting (Group 2). The ‘Change’ group comprises two sub-groups:
those who intended to major in accounting but majored in non-accounting (Group 3), and
those who intended to major in non-accounting but majored in accounting (Group 4).
Table 8(a) presents the mean differential perception of referents for the four groups.
There were no significant differences in Group 1’s perceptions of referents between
first and third year. For Group 2, there were significant changes in perceptions of their
relatives and friends’ views. In the third year as compared to the first year, this group
had stronger beliefs that their relatives and friends thought they should major in nonaccounting.
There was also a significant difference in Group 3’s perceptions of referents in the first and
third year. In the third year, this group perceived that their referents thought they should
major in non-accounting. This is in sharp contrast to their perceptions in the first year
when they perceived that their parents, friends and career advisors thought they should
major in accounting. Perhaps they had reassessed their perceptions after the views of their
referents had changed. Group 4’s perception of referents is interesting. There is a significant
difference in perceptions that relate to the parents and the relatives’ views in the first year. In
the first year, even though they perceived that their parents and relatives thought they should
major in accounting, their intention was to major in non-accounting. In the third year, they
had stronger beliefs that their parents and relatives thought that they should major in accounting and they ultimately did major in accounting. This finding suggests that these students
might have been influenced by their parents and relatives in their decisions to change majors.4
Table 8(b) presents the results for the four different groups’ motivations to comply with
referents. The paired samples t-test showed no significant differences in views from first
year to third year for all groups except for Group 4. This group perceived their relatives’
views as being less important when they were in the third year as compared to when they
were in their first year. Generally, the results indicate that the four groups’ perceptions of
referents remained relatively stable.
Table 9 shows the four groups’ results for differential personal beliefs in the first year
and third year. There were no significant differences in beliefs for Groups 1, 3 and 4
between the first year and third year. Significant changes were found for Group 2’s perceptions. This group appeared to have higher beliefs in the third year than in the first year that
accounting dealt a lot with numbers but had lower beliefs that a non-accounting career is
more challenging and that an accounting major is boring. The perceptions of Group 2 also
changed with regard to a high initial salary. In their third year as compared with their first
year, this group had higher perceptions that an accounting major has the potential to earn a
high initial salary. However, this group did not change their intended major to accounting
even though some of their beliefs had changed.
Table 10 shows the results for outcome evaluations for the four groups. Group 1, 3 and
4’s views did not change over the years. Group 2’s evaluation of ‘a field with broad
exposure to business’ changed significantly. They had stronger beliefs in the third year
that their non- accounting major would provide them with a broad exposure to business,
as compared to their belief in first year.
Table 11 provides a comparison between control factors for the four groups. For Groups
1 and 3, there were no changes in the perceptions of control factors. Group 2’s views have
changed with regard to performing well in accounting and the availability of job opportunities. This group’s perception of availability of opportunities in accounting was more
positive from the first to the final year of study. The results further show improvement
in their perception that performance in non-accounting study would facilitate selection
of non-accounting as a major. The significant change in Group 4’s views is interesting.
No change groups
Change groups
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Intention and major in
accounting
Intention and major in nonaccounting
Intention in accounting but
major in non-accounting
Intention in nonaccounting but major in
accounting
1st Year
3rd Year
1st Year
3rd Year
1st Year
3rd Year
20.748
20.738
20.931
20.622
0.567
0.300
0.300
0.222
20.200
20.233
20.600
20.482
0.348
0.000
20.304
0.087
1.000
0.609
0.348
0.217
3.83
3.33
3.33
3.58
3.67
2.83
3.00
3.21
1st Year
3rd Year
(a) Mean differential perception of referents for different groups
Parents
1.057
0.600
20.539
Other relatives
0.486
0.286
20.426
Friends
0.486
0.486
20.426
Career advisors etc.
0.382
0.529
20.512
(b) Mean motivation to comply for different groups
Parents
3.56
3.58
Other relatives
3.03
2.81
Friends
3.19
3.00
Career advisors etc.
3.33
3.14
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
Significant at the 0.1% level.
3.33
2.80
3.02
3.21
3.32
2.70
2.95
3.17
3.47
2.80
3.00
3.24
3.67
3.07
3.10
3.24
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 247
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Table 8. Mean scores for referents
248 L. M. Tan and F. Laswad
Table 9. Mean differential personal beliefs for different groups
No change groups
Group 1
Intention and
major in
accounting
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
1st
Year
3rd
Year
Change groups
Group 2
Intention and
major in non–
accounting
1st
Year
3rd
Year
A career that deals with
1.000
0.923
0.750
1.006
numbers
Earning a high initial
0.423
0.346 20.698
0.273
salary
A field with broad
0.200
0
20.333 20.351
exposure to business
0.480
0.240
0.071
0.126
A career with a chance to
establish a private
practice
A career that is
0.615
0.385 20.272 20.029
challenging
An academic major that is 20.154 20.269
1.024
0.641
boring
A career with high future
0.640
0.560 20.071
0.082
earnings
A major that demands a
0.462
0.462
0.247
3.193
heavy workload
A career that provides
0.192
0.231 20.222 20.035
high social status
0.423
0.615 20.503 20.322
A major that prepares for a
career with greater job
opportunities
Group 3
Group 4
Intention in
nonIntention in
accounting but accounting but
major in
major in non–
accounting
accounting
1st
Year
3rd
Year
1st
Year
3rd
Year
0.809
0.857 0.571
0.762
0.250
0.450 0.381
0.524
0.250 20.250 0
0.053
0.450
0.100 0.050
0.400
0.050 20.050 0.167
0.222
0.150
0.300 0.316 20.316
0.200
0.250 0.579
0.632
0.150
0.450 0.158
0.421
0.050
0.200 0.526
0.421
0.150
0.100 0.526
0.211
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
They appeared to have developed some interest in accounting between their first and third
year of study.
Summary and Conclusions
This study extends the literature that uses Ajzen’s (1988) theory of planned behaviour in
examining the factors that impact on students’ intentions and their eventual decision to
major in accounting or a non-accounting discipline. A sample of business students
enrolled in an introductory accounting course participated in the study. A follow up
survey was conducted at the end of their third year of university study. The results
show that major intentions and perceived behavioural control were determinants of
Understanding Students’ Choice of Academic Majors 249
Table 10. Mean differential outcome evaluations for different groups
No change groups
Downloaded By: [Monash University] At: 01:17 14 December 2009
Group 1
A career that deals with
numbers
Earning a high initial
salary
A field with broad
exposure to business
A career with a chance to
establish a private
practice
A career that is
challenging
An academic major that is
boring
A career with high future
earning
A major that demands a
heavy workload
A career that provides
high social status
A major that prepares for a
career with greater job
opportunities
Change groups
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Intention and
major in
accounting
Intention and
major in nonaccounting
Intention in
accounting
but major in
nonaccounting
Intention in
nonaccounting
but major in
accounting
1st
Year
3rd
Year
1st
Year
3rd
Year
1st
Year
3rd
Year
1st
Year
3rd
Year
3.78
3.70
3.23
3.25
3.55
3.23
3.63
3.79
4.46
4.32
4.19
4.10
4.55
4.19
4.46
4.54
3.94
3.83
3.90
4.06
3.97
3.87
4.27
4.23
3.94
3.86
3.93
3.99
4.03
3.93
4.17
4.04
3.94
3.88
3.99
4.04
4.00
3.93
4.30
4.35
1.94
2.03
2.07
1.96
2.13
2.23
1.95
1.91
4.41
4.43
4.32
4.35
4.43
4.23
4.61
4.70
3.00
2.91
2.92
2.88
3.18
3.04
3.26
3.00
3.82
3.85
3.72
3.62
4.06
3.94
3.64
4.09
4.62
4.57
4.39
4.32
4.40
4.33
4.61
4.48
Tests for differences in means are based on t-tests.
Significant at the 5% level.
major choices and two factors (personal and referents) were determinants of students’
major intentions.
Further analysis of these factors revealed that the students’ academic major intentions
(whether accountin