THE EXAMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS TOWARD CHOOSING HOSPITALITY AS A MAJOR; THE CASE OF UNDERGRADUATE HOSPITALITY STUDENTS

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337323640
THE EXAMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS TOWARD
CHOOSING HOSPITALITY AS A MAJOR; THE CASE OF UNDERGRADUATE
HOSPITALITY STUDENTS
Thesis · December 2016
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33853.20967
CITATIONS
0
READS
345
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Ethnic Tourism in India. A Case Study of Punjab View project
Ali Alalmai
Jazan University
14 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Alalmai on 18 November 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Texas Tech University, Ali Alalmai, December 2016
1
THE EXAMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS TOWARD
CHOOSING HOSPITALITY AS A MAJOR; THE CASE OF UNDERGRADUATE
HOSPITALITY STUDENTS
By
Ali A. Alalmai, B.S., MBA.
A Dissertation
In
HOSPITALITY ADMINISTRATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Approved
Dr. Shane Blum
Chairperson of the Committee
Dr. Charlie Adams
Committee Member
Dr. Natalia Velikova
Committee Member
December, 2016

2
Copyright © 2016, Ali A. Alalmai

ii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to: My father, whose faith and values shaped my entire life.
To my mother, whose love, prayers, endless inspiration, and encouragement has been a
source of light on my way through this journey. To my wife and my children, whose love,
encouragement, patience, and understanding made this journey possible. Finally, to my
brothers, sisters, and friends for their support and encouragement.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful
First and foremost, I am forever indebted to Allah (God) for allowing me to reach
my dream of earning my Ph.D. Secondly, I would like to thank the many exceptional people
whose leadership and guidance greatly impacted my work along this journey. I would like
to express my deepest appreciation to my committee chair, Dr. Shane Blum, whose positive
attitude, brilliant academic mind, and adventurous scholarly spirit provided constant
encouragement and unfailing inspiration. Without his guidance and enthusiastic
supervision, this dissertation would not have been possible. I would like to gratefully
acknowledge my honorable committee members, Dr. Charlie Adams, and Dr. Natalia
Velikova for their professional support, encouragement, and guidance. I would like to
earnestly thank my professors and colleagues who helped me to overcome all the
challenges I faced while working toward my Ph.D.
Ali Alalmai 2016

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1
Background and Setting .................................................................................................. 1
Statement of Purpose....................................................................................................... 3
Hospitality Industry......................................................................................................... 3
Hospitality Management Education................................................................................ 4
Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 8
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 8
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 11
The College Choice Process.......................................................................................... 12
Chapman’s Model of Student School Choice ............................................................... 15
Student characteristics and backgrounds................................................................... 15
External influences .................................................................................................... 16

v
General expectations of college life .......................................................................... 17
How Students Choose a Major...................................................................................... 18
Generation Y: Today’s college student......................................................................... 20
Holland Theory of Vocational Choice .......................................................................... 21
Realistic ..................................................................................................................... 23
Investigative............................................................................................................... 24
Artistic ....................................................................................................................... 24
Social ......................................................................................................................... 24
Enterprising ............................................................................................................... 25
Conventional.............................................................................................................. 25
Previous Studies on Major Choice................................................................................ 28
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 32
Student characteristics ............................................................................................... 35
External influences .................................................................................................... 36
Personality type ......................................................................................................... 37
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 37
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 39
Research Design............................................................................................................ 39
Population and Sample.................................................................................................. 39

vi
Use of Human Subjects................................................................................................. 40
Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 40
Instrumentation.............................................................................................................. 40
Data Collection.............................................................................................................. 43
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 44
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 45
Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................. 45
Demographic characteristics of student sample ........................................................ 45
Personality Types Among Hospitality Students........................................................ 49
Characteristics and Backgrounds of Hospitality Students......................................... 50
External Factors that Influenced Hospitality Students’ Major Selection .................. 56
Relationship between Personality Type and External Factors that Influence
Hospitality Students’ Major Selection....................................................................... 59
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION................. 64
Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................. 64
Summary and Discussion of Findings........................................................................... 64

vii
Demographic characteristics of hospitality students ................................................. 65
Personality types of hospitality students ................................................................... 67
Characteristics and background of hospitality students ............................................ 68
External factors that influenced hospitality students’ major selection...................... 70
Relationship between personality type and external influences on hospitality
students’ major selection ........................................................................................... 71
Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 72
Practical Implications and Recommendations .............................................................. 73
Theoretical Implications................................................................................................ 76
Suggestions for Future Research................................................................................... 77
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 79
APPENDIX A STUDENTS CHARACTERISTICS AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCES
SURVEY........................................................................................................................... 91
APPENDIX B JOHN HOLLAND’S SELF-DIRECTED SEARCH SURVEY FORM R
5TH
ED............................................................................................................................... 99
APPENDIX C TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
PROGRAM INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD...................................................... 109
APPENDIX D TABLE 4.10 THREE SUMMARY OF PERSONALITY CODE RANK
......................................................................................................................................... 111

viii
ABSTRACT
The hospitality industry experiences high turnover which could be partially attributed to a
mismatch between college students’ job expectations and realities regarding careers in
hospitality. This research examines the factors that influence students’ choice to major in
hospitality management. Furthermore, this research assessed the role of student
personality type in the academic major selection process. Data were collected from 152
undergraduate hospitality majors attending a single public university in the southern U.S.,
and personality type was assessed using the Self-Directed Search based on Holland’s
(1959) RIASEC model of vocational interest.
Students’ demographic characteristics and background of were analyzed, as well
as the external influences on their college major selection process. Most students selected
a major after college matriculation. The most influential external factors were the
atmosphere of hospitality department, faculty friendliness, teaching reputation of
department faculty, parents/guardians, friends in college, and a visit from a department
representative during high school. The most common personality type was Enterprising,
followed by Social; however, no significant relationships were found between personality
type and external influences on students’ selection of a college major. These results may
help hospitality management programs tailor recruitment materials to engage naturally
entrepreneurial and outgoing potential students. These results will also help potential
students discern career paths that may be most rewarding given their natural personality
strengths.

ix
LIST OF TABLES
4.1 Students by Gender …………………………………………………………….. 46
4.2 Students by Age ………………………………………………………………... 46
4.3 Students by State Residence …………………………………………………… 47
4.4 Students by Current Class Standing …………………………………………… 47
4.5 Students by Home Residence ………………………………………………..… 48
4.6 Students by Ethnicity …………………………………………………………... 48
4.7 Students Major or Minor ……………….………………………………………. 48
4.8 Students by Intended or Current Track ………………………………………… 49
4.9 Personality Type Rank …………………………………………………………. 50
4.10 Three Summary Personality Code Rank ……………………………………….. 50
4.11 Students by Hospitality Work Experience …………………………………...… 51
4.12 Students by High School Activities ……………………………………………. 51
4.13 Students by College Decision Year ……………………………………………. 52
4.14 Students by Major Decision Year ……………………………………………… 53
4.15 Students by Enrolled in Hospitality Program ………………………………….. 53
4.16 Students by Type of Program ……………………………………………..…… 54
4.17 Students by College Credit …………………………………………………….. 54
4.18 Students by Awareness of Various Hospitality Major ……….………………… 54
4.19 Students by Awareness of Career Opportunities ………………………………. 55
4.20 Students by Awareness of Job Opportunities ………………………………….. 55
4.21 Students by Changing Major During College …………………………………. 55

x
4.22 Students by Family Association with Hospitality ……………………………... 56
4.23 External Influence: Prior Exposure to Hospitality …………………………..… 57
4.24 External Influence: People of Influence ……………………………………….. 57
4.25 External Influence: Department Factors ……………………………………….. 58
4.26 External Influences of Student with Mean Score Greater than 5.0 ……………. 59
4.27 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients Between SDS® Preferences
and External Influences ………………………………..…………………….… 61

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Holland’s (1959) RIASEC hexagon …………………………………….. 22
Figure 2 Individual characteristics integrated into the RIASEC model …………... 27
Figure 3 Chapman’s (1981) Model of Student College Choice …………………... 32
Figure 4 Updated model of influences on student major selection ……………….. 34
Figure 2 Modified Model of Major Selection ………………………....………….. 35

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Setting
The hospitality industry is highly influential in the global economy. In most
countries, it is one of the top revenue producing industries and its effects can be felt
throughout most major economies. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016) reported
that during 2004-2014 hospitality employees’ wages increased 17% in the United States.
In 2014, there were more than 14 million employees in the leisure/hospitality sector and
this number is expected to rise annually by 0.6% through 2024.
Hospitality is one of the largest employers in countries around the world and in
the U.S. alone the industry added 312,000 jobs in 2015 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2016). The old stereotype of hospitality jobs as low-wage, entry-level positions with little
opportunity for advancement is increasingly outdated as skilled and educated people are
becoming aware of hospitality career opportunities (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2015).
The increased importance of the hospitality industry has led to new advanced
technology, more consumer choice, and rising competition among firms (Goodman &
Sprague, 1991). Increased complexity brings the challenge of maintaining a skilled and
qualified workforce that can keep up with all of the new trends. According to Goodman
and Sprague (1991), it is also becoming more problematic for the hospitality industry to
fully satisfy customer needs. Therefore, the hospitality industry needs strategies to attract
and retain an increasingly skilled workforce that can adeptly respond to customer needs.

2
Colleges and universities that offer hospitality management programs are
excellent venues at which to scout out talented employees. Hospitality education is a
rather young discipline, beginning in the U.S. at Cornell University in 1922 (Ladki,
1993). Through the 1970s, only a handful of institutions offered programs in hospitality
(Bosselman, 1999).
With soaring demand for hospitality employees and limited supply of skilled
personnel, demand for undergraduate and graduate hospitality programs has grown
significantly. In fact, hospitality management programs doubled between 1992 and 2002
(Johanson, Ghiselli, Shea, & Roberts, 2010). Barrows and Johan (2008) argued that the
growth does not rely on a single factor, however it does appear that the growth in
hospitality education parallels with industry trends. The good news for hospitality
education programs is students in hospitality and lodging who have a college degree can
expect better job opportunities than those without a degree (Canon & Gascon, 2012;
Montmarquette, Cannings, & Mahseredjian, 2002; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2015).
Educating future managers and executives poses a challenge to hospitality
programs, given the number of different operational segments included under the rubric
of hospitality industries, all unique entities sharing common hospitality and tourism
elements: restaurants, hotels, travel, attractions, conventions, and leisure (Ottenbacher,
Harrington, & Parsa, 2009).
Dredge, Airey, & Gross (2014) defined hospitality education as a
multidisciplinary study field where specific skills from other disciplines, especially social
sciences, are necessary for the benefit of all stakeholders in the industry. Dredge et al.

3
(2014) identified four branches of hospitality programs: human ecology, customer
science, education, and business. Many researchers have different views of the discipline,
essence, and fundamental nature of hospitality education.
It is often difficult for industry professionals to evaluate hospitality curricula. In
fact, hospitality industry leaders often complain that college educated students are over-
qualified and under-experienced (Min, Swanger, Gursoy, 2016). Many professionals find
that recent graduates have difficulty executing tasks in entry level positions (Way, 2006).
On the other hand, one could argue that students should be able to evaluate the education
they are receiving since they are immersed in the program and curriculum.
Past studies have identified the factors that influence students’ decisions to major
in hospitality management and their expectations of the program. According to Damonte
and Vaden (1987), the main factor influencing students’ decision on major is self-
fulfillment.
Statement of Purpose
This study expanded on others to identify factors that influence students’
decisions to pursue hospitality as a major and to identify those that have the highest level
of influence. Furthermore, the role that personality type plays in a student’s choice of
academic major was examined. Hospitality educators and professionals can benefit from
knowing what factors motivate students to study hospitality management and identifying
common personality traits of hospitality students.
Hospitality Industry
The hospitality industry is one of the largest in the world. In the U.S. for example,
millions are employed as service providers in the hospitality industry (Madanoglu,

4
Moreo, & Leong, 2003). The hospitality industry plays a major role in the U.S. economy
since billions of dollars are generated annually either directly or indirectly (Goeldner &
Ritchie, 2009). Local, state, and federal government, as well as the society at large, all
benefit from the productivity of the hospitality industry (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999).
Governmental, non-profit, and for-profit organizations are all involved in the
hospitality industry around the world. The levels of operation in the hospitality industry
are regional, national or globally. It is important to have a perspective of the industry at
large so that understanding the dynamics and the trends in the market is easier (Kent et
al., 1993). For example, the American Hotel and Lodging Association (2011) reported
that the lodging sector alone had $127 billion in sales, operated about 51,000 properties,
and employed 1.7 billion people in 2010. Similarly, the National Restaurant Association
(2016) estimated that restaurants generated $782 billion in sales at almost a million
locations, employed 14.4 million people, and consumed about half of all food dollars in
2015.
Hospitality Management Education
The heightened demand for competent managers has made hospitality education
popular (Dopson & Nelson, 2001). There are more than 209 institutions of higher
learning offering four-year hospitality-related courses in the U.S. Guide to College
Programs in Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts
(http://www.guidetocollegeprograms.com). According to Dopson and Nelson (2001), the
quality of a hospitality program can be measured by assessing the quality of new
graduates and the level of retention of those graduates in the industry.

5
In the past two decades, the hospitality industry has grown tremendously both
locally and globally. Historically, the hospitality industry was characterized by sole
proprietorships of individuals owning and managing a hotel or restaurant. However, in
recent years the industry has been characterized by corporate ownership of hotels and
restaurant run by professional managers. The rapid increase in costs of operation has
largely contributed to the new trend towards corporate ownership (Schmelzer, Costello,
& Blalock, 1987).
Most management positions in the hospitality industry are filled by graduates of
programs in hotel and restaurant administration, institutional management, or by those
with varied educational qualifications who are industry-trained (Schmelzer et al., 1987).
In the U.S., many programs offer the necessary skills to students who are passionate
about working in the hospitality industry (Dredge et al., 2014).
There are four categories of hospitality management programs: autonomous,
business, home economics, and other programs. Autonomous hospitality management
programs are offered by an independent professional school or college within the host
university, and are usually run by a director who is supervised by the vice president for
academic affairs of the university. Business hospitality programs are offered in the school
of business in a university, and the director is supervised by the dean of the school of
business. Home economics program directors are supervised by the dean of the school of
home economics within a university. Programs not classified as autonomous, business, or
home economics programs are known simply as other programs. Examples of other
programs are human development, food and natural resources, and agriculture (Dredge et
al., 2014).

6
In the 1970s, about 27 bachelor’s programs, seven master’s programs, and two
doctoral programs were offered in the U.S. (Kent et al., 1993). In 2016, 209 programs
offering bachelor, master, and doctoral programs were available in the U.S., according to
the Guide to College Programs in Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts
(http://www.guidetocollegeprograms.com/). Hospitality is a multidisciplinary field, so
students also study finance, management, marketing, accounting, and information
systems. Due to increasing demand for hospitality education, a wide variety of two- and
four-year degrees have emerged (Dredge et al., 2014).
Over the past decades, the number of students pursuing hospitality programs and
the number of programs being offered has increased dramatically (Rappole, 2000).
However, faculty have not expanded to adequately serve the growing number of students.
Most faculties are characterized by a mature population with equal distribution amid
academic levels. The most common areas of specialization in the hospitality management
education include food and beverage, marketing, and human resources (Dopson &
Nelson, 2001).
According to Raybould and Wilkins (2006), for students to be successful,
hospitality management programs must meet the needs of both students and industry,
developing skill sets needed in the industry while achieving the academic rigor demanded
by institutions. Students may be encouraged to obtain industry-based skills beyond an
internship by holding a part-time job while completing their studies; students and
graduates who do not gain extra experience may be inadequately prepared for the work
and demands of the hospitality industry (Alonso & O’Neill, 2011; Tesone, 2002).

7
Problem Statement
Barrows and Johan (2008) asserted, “The strength of the relationship between a
hospitality programme and the industry is an indication of the strength of that
programme” (p. 155). Hospitality education programs could become obsolete if the
curriculum is not revisited and reconstructed to meet industry demands (Fidgeon, 2010).
The fate of hospitality education could easily be similar to that of other specialized
programs such as insurance, investment, and conveyance, which were changed to general
business programs. In order to compete among the growing numbers of degree programs
and vocational training opportunities, hospitality management programs must tailor their
approaches to fit student and industry needs (Dredge et al., 2014; Fidgeon, 2010).
Balancing theory with practice is an ongoing challenge for hospitality
management educators (Ruhanen, 2005). In a recent study, Asirifi, Doku, Morrison, and
Sackey (2013) found substantial differences between hospitality program course content
and industry demands. Student recruitment and retention depend on programs providing
relevant training that sufficiently prepares students for employment upon graduation.
Furthermore, accurate student perceptions of the demands of both hospitality education
programs and later careers can help lower the high turnover rates in the hospitality
industry (Brown, Arendt, & Bosselman, 2014; Phelan & Mejia, 2015).
To compete among the growing numbers of degree programs and vocational
training opportunities, hospitality management programs must tailor their approaches to
fit student and industry needs. Student recruitment and retention depend on programs
providing relevant training that sufficiently prepares students for employment upon
graduation.

8
Significance of the Study
This study was conducted to gain greater insight into the academic major
selection process of college students who choose to pursue hospitality degrees. For
hospitality professionals, the results of this study provide insight into the attitudes and
expectations of recent hospitality graduates. The results of this study may be especially
valuable to hospitality educators, who can use this data to create the best curriculum and
increase program enrollment. Finally, results of this study can greatly benefit hospitality
students, who will be better served by programs that utilize this study’s findings.
Definition of Terms
Hospitality industry: Used interchangeably with tourism and tourism industry,
with emphasis on the hotels, motels and other accommodations which comprise a
significant part of tourism (Dredge et al., 2014).
Hospitality education: a multidisciplinary study field where specific skills from
other disciplines, and especially social sciences, are necessary for the benefit of all
stakeholders in the industry (Dredge et al., 2014).
College choice: “The process through which students decide whether and where
to go to college” (Bergerson, 2009, p. 2).
Self-Directed Search (SDS): The assessment booklet of SDS consists of five
sections: activities, competencies, occupations, self-estimates, and summary score.
Six Personality Types: Holland theory basically hypothesized into three
statements. First, most individuals are one of six personality types: Realistic,
Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. Therefore, individuals of
the similar personality tend to get along with each other. For example, Social individuals

9
are appealed to making friends and working with Social individuals. Second,
environment settings are also categorized into the same six personality types. Individuals
who decide to work in an environment like their personality type are more likely to be
successful and fulfilled. For example, Social individuals are more likely to be successful
and fulfilled if they pick work that has a Social environment. Third, the compatible work
environment should match up. For example, each personality type has one most
compatible work environment and another compatible work environment. Therefore, if
you are Realistic, your most compatible work environment would be Realistic, and you
might pick from work or career that fall in the Investigative or Conventional category
(Holland, 1997).
Holland Theory of Vocational Choice: Holland (1997) has studied factors which
influence career choices. Influences found to be significant include: family; peers,
teachers and other adult role models; school, work, and leisure experiences; and
socioeconomic status and ethnic background. Holland's theory is an interactive model
based on a typology of persons and environments. Different personality types and the
environments in which those individuals live and the same types can classify work can
describe individuals.
Model of Student College Choice variables. Chapman (1981) created a model to
explain factors that influence student college selection. The model is comprised of
variables related to learner characteristics, learner experiences, external stimuli, and
learner’s overall anticipations of college life. Chapman’s (1981) Model of Student
College Choice was developed to better understand the college selection process. The
relationship between the aforementioned variables and the choice of student’s major is

10
shown by Chapman’s (1981) model. The aim of the model was not only to advance
scholarly inquiry in this area but also identify ways the colleges can adjust recruitment
policies to be favorable for all stakeholders.
Summary
This chapter provided an introduction of the study and research topic. The chapter
included: background and sitting; brief explanation of hospitality industry; overview of
the hospitality management education; purpose of the study; definition of key terms; and
significance of the study. The next chapter will provide a more in-depth review of the
relevant research, the college choice process, Chapman’s model of student school choice,
how student choose a major, generation Y, Holland theory of vocational choice, previous
studies on major choice, theoretical framework, and research questions.

11
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Many college students expect to enhance their career potential by acquiring the
skills important to future employers (Canon & Gascon, 2012; Montmarquette, Cannings,
& Mahseredjian, 2002). Students who pursue post-secondary education, especially in
service fields such as hospitality, acquire unique skills not shared by those who do not
pursue higher education, including leadership, communication, work experience, ability
to prioritize work, ethics, business, nutrition and food safety knowledge (Kay & Russette,
2000). College educated workers have higher salaries and savings, leading to more
productivity overall (Baum & Payea, 2005). In general, college students tend to have
better personal lives including their overall health and longevity (Baum & Payea, 2005;
Canon & Gascon, 2012).
A college degree in hospitality management contributes to the later success of
managers in the hospitality industry (Goldmon, 2011). Those with a college degree have
higher salaries and more promotions than those who lack the credential (Goldmon, 2011).
Given the numerous advantages of college education, students naturally expend
considerable effort choosing where to attend college and what subjects to study. This
study sought to understand the decision process of those majoring in hospitality
management. The theoretical framework of this study was based in Chapman’s (1981)
Model of Student College Choice variables and Holland’s (1997) Theory of Vocational
Choice.

12
The College Choice Process
Prior to the 1940s, only upper-class individuals attended college, mainly white
males, and college guidance literature was basically nonexistent (Kinzie, Palmer, Hayek,
Hossler, Jacob, & Cummings, 2004). After World War II, millions of veterans were able
to pay for college with the GI Bill, and the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court
decision allowed African-American and other students of color greater access to higher
education. With these two monumental changes, many students formerly excluded from
college sorely needed guidance through the entire higher education experience, from
application to graduation. In addition, more students meant more competition among
schools for the best academic talent, and in the 1960s colleges began marketing to
prospective students in earnest (Kinzie et al., 2004). Thus, school choice research began
to better understand how to reach potential students.
In the 1980s, the college decision-making process made its way into the national
spotlight. In 1983, U.S. News & World Report published their first “America’s Best
Colleges” rankings—both reflecting the new focus on college choice and amplifying the
pressure on students to select the “right” school (Kinzie et al., 2004; Ladmer, 2015).
During this time, several of the leading researchers in college choice published seminal
models that remain important for the field today. These include Litten (1982), Hossler &
Gallagher (1987), Bateman and Spruill (1996) and Chapman (1981).
Hossler and Gallagher (1987) proposed a three-phase model of college choice that
focused on characteristics of both the student and college. Students move sequentially
from predisposition (Phase 1) to search (Phase 2) and finally choose a school (Phase 3).
During Phase 1, individual factors such as student characteristics, family and friends, and

13
educational activities, are especially influential. During this stage, students first consider
the option of attending college at all. Student characteristics that are especially salient at
this stage are socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, parental education, and family
expectations of college education (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987).
Later, Paulsen (1990) found that students are more likely to attend college when:
(a) they are Caucasian, (b) they are not married, (c) family income is higher, (d) parents’
educational attainment is higher, (d) the father’s occupational status is higher, (e) parental
encouragement is higher, (f) their own educational/career aspirations are higher, (g) their
academic aptitude is higher, (h) their high school academic achievement is greater, (i)
their high school provided a college preparatory curriculum, and (j) more peers plan to
attend college (p. 41).
Once students decide to attend college, the active search begins (Phase 2).
Students seek information about many colleges in order to create a list of schools to
which they will submit applications. Students must compile a variety of details about
each school, including costs and financial aid available, location, academic rigor, national
rankings, social atmosphere, and academic majors offered (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987;
Paulsen, 1990). Today, students rely heavily on Internet resources to compile a list of
roughly five schools to which they will submit applications.
Litten (1982) found that parental education is highly influential during the college
search process. College-educated parents are far more effective when assisting childrento
navigate the information-gathering process, assess the various advantages and
disadvantages of colleges, compile an appropriate list of schools, and prepare

14
applications. Litten (1982) stated “Higher levels of parental education led to substantially
greater incidence of usage of commercial guidebooks and visits to campus” (p. 394).
Related to education accomplishment, the role of a family alumnus plays a strong
role in the choice process. A student who has “a father or sibling who attended the
college greatly increases a student’s own probability of attending it” (Avery & Hoxby,
2004, p. 263). This alumnus effect has a significant impact on the possibility of
enrollment with a 70 percent increase if a father attends and a 90 percent increase if a
sibling attends. This can be a reflection of shared family values or even family loyalty to
a particular institution (Avery & Hoxby, 2004).
Phase 3 entails the final selection process, after the list has been made and
applications have been either accepted or rejected. This is the stage in which schools will
provide detailed scholarship and grant information to attract top applicants (Hossler &
Gallagher, 1987). Therefore, organizational factors are especially influential at this stage,
such as (a) cost, (b) financial aid, (c) programs, (d) size, (e) location, (f) quality, (g) social
atmosphere, (h) athletics, (i) religious emphasis, and (j) jobs available after graduation
(Paulsen, 1990).
Bateman and Spruill (1996) provide an overview of models that identify the
phases of college choice. They divide these models into four major categories:
econometric models, sociological models, combined models, and expanded models.
Econometric models specify that students exclude and assess the alternatives to higher
education based on the following standards: geographic location, economic factors, and
academic factors. The sociological model specifies a variety of individual and social
factors that lead to educational aspirations. Combined models balance the most powerful

15
indicators in the decision-making process from both econometric and sociological
models. Finally, an expanded model emphasizes personal and social phenomena that
influence the college choice process.
Chapman’s Model of Student School Choice
Chapman’s Model of Student School Choice (1981) was one of the original
conceptual models of the entire college decision-making process. It has been a valuable
tool to understand factors that influence student’s selection of colleges. The model is
composed of variables related to external influences, student characteristics and
expectations of college life.
Student characteristics and backgrounds
Variables related to students’ characteristics and circumstances include
socioeconomic position, level of educational aspiration, aptitude, and high school
performance (Chapman, 1981). According to Chapman (1981), a student’s
socioeconomic status influences his or her choice of when and where to attend college.
Student capability is measured by high school performance and standardized test
scores. Chapman (1981) argues that students consider the requirements of colleges before
applying for admission. The students are able to tell the type of college they can be
admitted to after evaluating the aptitude of students who were admitted in earlier years.
Many students prefer being around other students with similar aptitudes (Chapman &
Jackson, 1987). Students send their applications to colleges where they have high chances
of admission depending on their high school performance (Chapman, 1981). As the
academic performance of the student increases, so does the parental and teacher
influence, which in turn influences the student’s choice of college. Excellent students are

16
eligible for scholarships, and this also influences which college the student chooses
(Chapman & Jackson, 1987).
External influences
External variables include significant persons, fixed college characteristics, and
college efforts to communicate with students (Chapman, 1981). These could include
friends, family, teachers, and high school acquaintances. These are the people who play a
noteworthy role in influencing the student’s choice of college. These significant persons
could affect the student’s decision in three different ways. They could influence the
student’s decision by commenting, advising, or sharing their experiences with certain
colleges (Chapman, 1981).
Fixed college characteristics include locality, charges, campus setting, and the
availability of preferred courses (Chapman, 1981). All factors except location can be
modified with time. Chapman (1981) argued that the fixed characteristics describe the
college in the short term. That said, it is important to note that it might take a significant
amount of time for a college to redefine itself and change the opinion of the potential
students.
According to Chapman (1981), the method a college uses to identify and recruit
potential students influences enrollment numbers. The first step to addressing
matriculation issues faced by colleges could therefore be to revisit the college’s criteria of
selection and recruitment. Chapman (1981) implied that communication is not only the
easiest variable to modify but also a very sensitive area that can create a positive image
for the college.

17
A college can also apply relevant marketing techniques to increase enrollment by
attracting potential students who initially had no interest in the college (Tucciarone,
2007). Strohbehn (1991) studied the marketing and recruiting efforts used in hospitality
education graduate programs. Students rated personalized attention, such as a letter or
phone call from the program administrator, as the most effective marketing technique.
Interestingly, a phone call from a current student or alumnus was also highly persuasive
(Strohbehn, 1991). Today, contact via text or video-messaging service (e.g. FaceTime,
Skype, Snapchat, etc.) would likely be effective to attract potential students. Ladmer
(2015) emphasized the importance of admissions counselors and college fair
representatives, who often are a prospective student’s first impression of the entire
college. In a qualitative study of the lived experience of the college decision-making
process, Ladmer (2015) found that individualized service, such as the same contact
person over the course of the admissions process and personalized mail, were the most
persuasive methods of recruitment.
General expectations of college life
In 2005, Smith and Wertlieb compared the academic and social expectations and
experiences of 31 first-year college students. As found previously by Chapman (1981),
expectations and reality did not align. Unfortunately, students with unrealistically high
expectations earned lower grades during the freshman year than those with lower
expectations. Smith and Wertlieb (2005) recommended greater support during this
difficult transition time.
In a qualitative study of nine students, Keup (2007) found new novel areas of
student expectations: interpersonal relationships and personal growth. During in-depth

18
interviews, these students reported that “their relationships with their families, exposure
to new people and ideas, pursuit of personally and professionally relevant coursework,
and progress toward their goals for individual development all met or exceeded their pre-
college expectations” (p. 1). These data demonstrate that expectations can be both
positive and negative.
How Students Choose a Major
A college degree has become increasingly necessary for employment in today’s
economy (Canon & Gascon, 2012). Therefore, many studies have been conducted
regarding the relationship between college degrees, academic majors, and career success.
The return-on-investment (ROI) of a college degree is highly dependent on the student’s
academic major (Birch, Li, & Miller, 2008). Tasci, Pizam, Croes, and Chen (2014)
examined the return-on-investment (ROI) of a hospitality degree from the University of
Central Florida (UCF), and found that it is fairly good investment. Among 591 alumni
who graduated between 1986 and 2014, the average cost of an undergraduate degree in
hospitality was $44,257 (Tasci et al., 2014). The average salary was $53,291 with 10
years of work experience. Given the median debt of $35,000 and median salary of
$43,000 for students at UCF, the degree could be paid off in an average of 6.2 years if the
individual applied 20% of income to service the loan with a 6.8% interest rate. This is a
favorable ROI considering the average American takes 21 years to pay off student loans
for a bachelor’s degree (Bidwell, 2014). The estimated annual tuition for the university in
this present study is $25,776 for the 2017-2018 academic year (U.S. News and World
Report, 2016). The average debt upon graduation estimated for 4-year program is
102,800, but the average starting salary for a hospitality graduate is $48,000 (Adams

19
(personal communication, November 1, 2016). Therefore, student’s ROI in this university
will take more than 6.2 years compare to UCF students.
Montmarquette et al. (2002) collected data from nearly 600 college students to
understand how student expectations of future earnings impacted their choice of
academic major. They hypothesized that expected earnings, in addition to preferences
and family background, significantly impacted students’ choice of major in one of four
broad categories: science, business, liberal arts, and education (Montmarquette et al.,
2002). Montmarquette et al. (2002) did not specify to which category hospitality and
tourism belonged, so one must assume business as the likeliest choice. Three main factors
contributed to students’ earnings expectations: perceived likelihood of success in the
chosen field, expected earnings across all majors, and expected earnings without any
college degree.
Chuang, Goh, Stout, and Dellmann-Jenkins (2007) were also interested in the
factors influencing hospitality majors’ commitment to the profession. In a study of 360
undergraduates, Chuang et al. (2007) measured the career preferences of
freshman/sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Overall, careers in food/beverage were by far
the most popular preference, followed by lodging, and resorts at a distant third place.
Interestingly, careers managing clubs were not popular among younger students, but were
tied for third-place preference among college seniors (Chuang et al., 2007). In addition,
Chuang et al., (2007) found that students with confidence in their abilities were more
committed to a career in hospitality, and that goal selection and outcome expectations
were the strongest predictors of professional commitment to the hospitality industry.

20
Generation Y: Today’s college student
Generation Y, commonly known as Millennials, are those born during the years
1981 through 2000. Generation Y feel they earn loyalty based on sincerity rather than
tenure at an organization (Maxwell, Ogden, & Broadbridge, 2010). Members of
Generation Y also seem to have unrealistically high expectations of promotions and
raises, as well as leisure and vacation time (Hill, 2002). With this attitude, job turnover is
high among this generation (Maxwell et al., 2010).
In the hospitality industry, high turnover is especially costly. Brown, Thomas, and
Bosselman (2015) investigated the reasons hospitality graduates leave the industry and
what would cause these individuals to return. Among 107 hospitality graduates, work-
family conflict and compensation were the most common reasons cited for leaving a
career in hospitality (Brown et al., 2015). Long hours were by far the least desirable trait.
Those who remained working in hospitality stayed because they enjoyed working with
people, having new experiences, and believed the compensation was acceptable (Brown
et al., 2015). This research is quite current, as only graduates from 2006-2011 responded
to the survey.
Maxwell et al. (2010) found that hospitality students were especially demanding
employees, and acutely self-centered in terms of career goals. The most common short-
term career expectations were “being determined to succeed,” “meeting personal goals,”
receiving good pay,” and having self-development opportunities” (Maxwell et al., 2010).
Clearly, concern about one’s contribution to an employer is far less important to members
of Generation Y than concern about how an employer will help them and their careers.

21
Given the unique attitudes of the new generation of workers, there is a strong
need for hospitality educators to provide realistic career expectations to students majoring
in hospitality (Brown et al., 2015). Since many members of Generation Y are delaying
marriage and parenthood, work-family conflict may be less on an issue among newer
employees (Gursoy, Maier, & Chi, 2008). Long hours are an enduring characteristic of
many hospitality jobs, and should not be an unwelcome surprise to new graduates.
Internships during college may also prepare students for career realities (Zopiatis,
Krambia-Kapardis, & Varnavas, 2012).
Holland Theory of Vocational Choice
Personality can be measured both in terms of expressed traits and natural
preferences. Holland’s (1959) Theory of Vocational Choice is an interactive model of
vocational preferences based on a typology of persons and environments. Holland’s
(1959) model was revolutionary in that it took into account person-environment
interactions. This theory assumes that most individuals are one of six personality types:
Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, or Conventional (RIASEC).
Environment settings can also be categorized as one of the six types, and people
are likely to seek out environments conducive to following their interests. Holland (1959)
categorized these person-environment interactions as either congruence, continuity, or
differentiation. Congruence simply means that the environment matches the dominant
preferences of the individual. For example, Social individuals are more likely to be
successful and fulfilled if they pick a job with many opportunities to interact with others,
such as hospitality (Holland, 1959).

22
In Holland’s (1959, 1997) theory, the six RIASEC types are arranged on a
hexagon, with distances between types inversely proportional to the degree of similarity
between them (Figure 1). Continuity means that both individual and environment are on
the same side of the RIASEC hexagon, if not the same exact letter. Differentiation means
that the person and environment are varied. Differentiation refers to how some
individuals or environments are noticeably more defined in terms of Holland’s six types
than others (Holland, 1997). Holland states that an individual may closely align with a
single code type or an environment that is characterized and dominated by a single type.
During interest testing, this would result in a profile with sharp peaks and low valleys.
Qualitatively, this type of individual would have an affinity for particular tasks or
activities. In contrast, some individuals or environments have poor differentiation and
display similar levels of multiple types, resulting in a flat profile on interest inventories.
These individuals have a wide range of interests and “would be characterized more by
unpredictability than any other trait” (Holland, 1997, p. 26).
Figure 1. Holland’s (1959) RIASEC hexagon.

23
Holland’s (1959) Theory of Vocational Choice has several factors which
influence career choices: (a) family; (b) peers, teachers, and other adult role models; (c)
school, work, and leisure experiences; and (d) socioeconomic status and ethnic
background. This theory has been the basis of numerous assessment procedures designed
to assist individuals making career and education choices that are compatible with their
skills, interests and abilities (Nauta, 2010). The six individual types proposed by Holland
(1997) have specific defining features that result from being immersed in “our culture”
(Holland, 1997, p. 19).
Realistic
Realistic people are considered stable and active, enjoying physical activities
such as athletics, machine operation, mechanics, and building. Realistic people would
rather work with things as opposed to people and ideas (Holland, 1997). Realistic people
prefer to learn by doing and do not like spending time doing theoretical work in a
classroom. Realistic people are more likely to be motivated to study courses in the
hospitality industry because most of the courses are practical. Realistic people also have
the tendency to value material things and communicate in a direct and open manner
(Nauta, 2010).
Realistic people may excel in physical and mechanical activities, but may score
poorly in human relations. This may undermine their ability to work in hospitality
because social skills are an important element of the industry (Nauta, 2010). Realistic
people also prefer to work in environments that encourage technical competencies and
perform tasks that require them to yield tangible results. People with realistic

24
personalities often pursue engineering, military, veterinary medicine, and hospitality
careers (Nauta, 2010).
Investigative
Investigative people are analytical, observant, mathematical, and enjoy scientific
research. Investigative people enjoy solving complex problems using logic. These people
are focused and thoughtful and prefer engaging in problem solving activities, and because
of this, they do not like seeking leadership roles. Realistic people are more likely to be
motivated to study courses in the hospitality industry because most of the courses are
practical. Investigative people are not easily motivated to study courses in the hospitality
industry that require creativity as opposed to mathematical and scientific skills. Some
careers that would fit people with the investigate personality include medical technology
and other scientific courses (Nauta, 2010).
Artistic
People with Artistic personalities are imaginative, original, intuitive, and enjoy
participating in creative activities like painting, drawing, stage production, music, and
writing. These people are also more likely to look for opportunities to express themselves
using art. Artistic people are well-suited to hospitality, especially courses in food, because
it is an opportunity for artistic expression (Nauta, 2010).
Social
Social people are responsible, idealistic, and care about others. These people
prefer taking part in group activities, counselling, healing, and developing and assisting
others. Based on Holland’s (1997) theory, Social people would be more motivated to

25
study courses in the hospitality industry because they possess all the skills needed to
work in the industry (Nauta, 2010).
Enterprising
People with Enterprising personalities are self-confident, sociable, adventurous,
ambitious, and energetic. People with Enterprising personalities enjoy taking persuading
others, and are natural salesmen and leaders. This type is particularly relevant to this
research, as those with Enterprising personalities may be motivated to take courses in
hospitality, especially marketing (Nauta, 2010).
Conventional
Individuals with Conventional personalities are conscientious, organized,
conforming, careful, and efficient. These people prefer to perform duties in a well-
established hierarchical system with defined instructions as opposed to assuming
leadership roles. These people are more likely to be motivated to study courses in the
hospitality industry, especially in food and service (Nauta, 2010).
De Fruyt and Mervielde (1997) compared the RIASEC model with another well-
known model of personality traits known as the Five Factor Model or the Big Five
(Digman, 1990). The Big Five consist of Extroversion, Openness, Conscientiousness,
Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. De Fruyt and Mervielde (1997) in their study of nearly
934 students found that all of the Big Five personality traits were significantly correlated
to one or more of the RIASEC types. Extroversion was positively correlated with both
Enterprising and Social types. Openness was positively correlated with Artistic and
Investigative, and negatively correlated with Conventional. Agreeableness was positively
correlated with Social and negatively correlated with Enterprising. Neuroticism was

26
positively correlated with Realistic (for males only) and negatively correlated with
Enterprising and Conventional. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with
Conventional and Enterprising. Realistic and Investigative types were not represented in
any of the Big Five traits (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1997).
Holland’s (1959, 1997) RIASEC model of interest types is an integrative
framework for individual differences (Armstrong, Day, McVay, & Rounds, 2008).
Armstrong et al. (2008) compared RIASEC typology with other prominent models
including the Big Five (Digman, 1990), Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI; Myers,
1962), the 16-Personality Factor (16-PF) personality inventory (Cattell, Eber, &
Tatsuoka, 1970), Jackson (1977) work styles, and college students’ personal
characteristics (CSPC; Holland, 1968). Briefly, the MBTI measures preferences based on
four basic dimensions: Extroversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling,
and Judging/Perceiving (Myers, 1982). The 16-PF scores the following 16 factors:
Warmth, Intelligence, Stability, Dominance, Impulsivity, Conformity, Boldness,
Sensitivity, Suspiciousness, Imagination, Shrewdness, Insecurity, Radicalism, Self-
Sufficiency, Self-Discipline, and Tension (Cattell et al., 1970). The Jackson (1977) work
styles, measured by the Jackson Vocational Interest Survey (JVIS), includes eight scales:
Dominant Leadership, Job Security, Stamina, Accountability, Academic Achievement,
Independence, Planfulness, and Interpersonal Confidence. The CSPC (Holland, 1968)
includes Original, Academic, Dogmatic, Nonconformist, and Interpersonal.
Armstrong et al. (2008) found that a large number of individual characteristics
were effectively integrated into the RIASEC model (Figure 2). Realistic was positively
correlated with the JVIS variables Accountability and Job Security, and the 16-PF

27
variable Dogmatism. Investigative was positively correlated with the CSPC variable
Stamina. Artistic was positively correlated with the CSPC variables Academic, Original,
and Nonconformist, the Big Five variables of Openness and Neuroticism, the 16-PF
variables Dominance, Imagination, and Sensitivity, and the JVIS variable Independence.
Social was positively correlated with the CSPC variable of Interpersonal, the 16-PF
variable Impulsivity, the MBTI variable Extroversion, and the JVIS variable
Independence. Enterprising was positively correlated with the MBTI variable
Extroversion, and the JVIS variable Academic Achievement and Planfulness.
Conventional was positively correlated with the 16-PF variables Warmth, Conformity,
and Shrewdness, the MBTI variable Sensing, the CSPC variable Dogmatism, and the Big
Five variable Conscientiousness (Armstrong et al., 2008).
Figure 2. Individual characteristics integrated into the RIASEC model. M = male; MBTI
= Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; F = female; 16-PF = 16-PF personality inventory; JVIS
= Jackson Vocational Interest Survey. Adapted from “Holland’s RIASEC Model as an
Integrative Framework for Individual Differences,” by P. I. Armstrong, S. X. Day, J. P.
McVay, and J. Rounds, 2008, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, p. 7. Copyright
2008 by the American Psychological Association.

28
Previous Studies on Major Choice
College major selection is complex process with many factors. Several studies
have examined what motivates college students to choose various majors. Among
students in Nigeria, Orenuga and da Costa (2006) identified four motivational factors for
choosing dentistry: interest, prestige, good employment opportunities, and regular work
hours. Among these students, social status and prestige factors were the most influential.
Wong, Fiedler, and Liu (2007) investigated what motivates business students to
choose information systems as a major. After conducting a factor analysis for 24
motivational factors, Wong et al. (2007) found that eight factors were the primary
motivations for students: technical and functional competency, general management
competency, lifestyle, job security, geographic security, entrepreneurial creativity,
service and dedication to a cause, and pure challenge. Conversely, Calkin and Welki
(2006) conducted a study of why students do not choose economics as a major. They
found three main factors influenced the students’ perceptions against choosing economics
as major: interest in the subject, expected marketability and approachability, and the
reputation of the faculty.
Few studies have specifically investigated students’ attitudes and perceptions
toward choosing hospitality as a major. Kusluvan and Kusluvan (2000) found that
undergraduate tourism students in Turkey viewed the hospitality industry negatively.
Richardson (2008) examined career attitudes and perceptions in the hospitality industry
among Australian undergraduate students majoring in hospitality. Questionnaires were
adapted from Kusluvan and Kusluvan (2000) who focused on similar research questions
in a study conducted in Central Europe. The author narrowed the scope of the study to

29
include students who had current or previous work experience; 73.3% (n = 63) of the
original sample completed the web-based questionnaires. Student responses indicated
43.6% were unlikely to work, or would not work in the hospitality industry following
graduation; 96.3% of those students cited previous experience as their primary reason
(Richardson, 2008).
Lee, Olds, and Lee (2010) stated that students in Hong Kong reveal positive
perceptions towards hospitality and tourism education, especially when it comes to
studying abroad. Zahari, Sharif, Ahmad, and Ismail (2010) examined the factors that
influence students in Malaysia to study hospitality and later choose their career path. The
study sample included students studying different diploma programs offered in
institutions of higher learning during the 2003-2004 academic year. The study included
four public and six private institutions. The study was carried out in two phases. The first
phase included 814 students, and the second included 740 students. Most students who
took part in the study reported that their main motivator to study hospitality was
encouragement from friends, relatives and parents (Zahari et al., 2005).
The findings of Zahari et al. (2005) are in line with the theory of reasoned action,
which states that people’s motivations are influenced by key people in their lives because
support and encouragement strongly influences intentions and behaviors (Zahari et al.,
2005). However, despite the support and encouragement students receive from their
significant others, students were less positive about their future in the hospitality industry.
For example, students’ initial perceptions of the hospitality industry as exciting and
pleasant declined over time (Zahari et al., 2005).

30
Chellen and Nunkoo (2010) examined factors that influence student commitment
employment in the tourism industry. The study focused on six factors known to influence
student commitment: social status, type of work, promotion opportunities, fringe benefits,
physical working conditions, and career prospects. Chellen and Nunkoo (2010) collected
responses from over 300 students enrolled in tourism and hospitality courses in
Mauritius. The findings of this study indicated that the social status linked to working in
the hospitality industry and the career opportunities in the industry were the key
motivators for students to remain in the field (Chellen & Nunkoo, 2010).
Alananzeh (2014) explored the factors that motivate male and female students in
Jordan to join the hospitality industry, and found that cultural and social factors play a
significant role in influencing the type of programs students choose. Moreover, the
careers pursued by parents and guardians were found to motivate students, such that
students were more likely to study a course in the hospitality industry if their parents
worked in hospitality (Alananzeh, 2014). However, Alananzeh (2014) conducted his
study in Jordan where the culture favors males and consequently most students studying
hospitality are male.
Zopiatis and Kyprianou (2006) investigated the attitude of students in secondary
schools towards professions in the hospitality industry in Cyprus. Students perceived
hospitality employees as low status, mainly because the Cypriot hospitality industry does
not offer job opportunities that are attractive to young people, especially ones with above
average achievement in academics (Zopiatis & Kyprianou, 2006). These findings suggest
that the hospitality industry in Cyprus is only able to attract people with average or below
averages academic achievement, and such students normally attend public high schools.

31
Pang (2010) also examined how students studying tourism and hospitality in a
community college in Singapore perceive the industry. The findings of this study
indicated that many students who study courses in hospitality in community colleges are
reluctant to join the industry even after completing three years of study. Many students
who took part in the study indicated that they find the types of job in the hospitality
industry to be stressful. Moreover, students also gave reasons such as lengthy working
hours, low starting salary, challenging circumstances, and the nature of shift work as the
main reasons for reluctance to join the tourism industry (Pang, 2010). Furthermore, some
students cited the semi-professional nature of the tourism and hospitality industry in
Singapore compared to other sectors such as business, engineering, and education. Pang
(2010) observed that students coming from semi-traditional families in Singapore are not
motivated to study courses in hospitality because the industry is perceived as subjecting
people to servitude and getting a promotion is difficult.
Brown et al. (2014) studied the perceived experiences and significance of factors
that influenced recent hospitality graduates and professionals to either stay in the
profession or quit. Brown et al. (2014) found 11 factors that persuade graduates to
establish careers in the hospitality industry, primarily opportunities to use their degrees
and opportunities for advancement. Graduates who had left the hospitality industry
preferred pursuing a career that enabled them to contribute more to society (Brown et al.,
2014).
Huang and Lo (2014) examined the attitudes and perceptions of Taiwan Shoufu
University students regarding working in the hospitality industry. Huang and Lo (2014)
found that practical work experience encouraged students to pursue hospitality careers.

32
Students in their junior year of study were found to have positive perceptions and
attitudes towards studying and pursuing a career in the hospitality industry, which was
attributed to the positive relationship between senior and junior students (Huang & Lo,
2014).
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study was based on Chapman’s (1981) Model
of Student College Choice (Figure 3) and Williams’ (2007) Model of Student Major
Selection (Figure 4). Chapman’s (1981) model focused on two independent variables,
student characteristics and external influences, and two dependents variables, college
choice of student and student choice of college. General expectation of college life was
the moderator between the two independent variables and the one dependent variable of
student choice of college.
Figure 3. Original model of student college choice. Adapted with permission from D. W.
Chapman, 1981, “A Model of Student College Choice,” The Journal of Higher
Education, 52, p. 492. Copyright 1981 by Ohio State University Press.

33
Williams’ (2007) Model of Student Major Selection updated Chapman’s (1981)
original model by focusing the student’s major selection rather than college choice and
omits reference to the college’s choice of student. General expectations of college life are
also omitted, and replaced with personality type. While Williams’ (2007) model still
includes the two main categories of student characteristics and external influences, the
variables in these two categories differ significantly from Chapman’s (1981) original
model. These changes were based on Torres and Wildman’s (2001) previous study of
factors influencing agricultural major selection by New Mexico State University students.
Williams (personal communication, November 2, 2016) explained:
The changes we made from Chapman's model to our model were based on our
desire to capture information on how students selected their major as opposed to
which college they selected. From the right side of the model we replaced general
expectations of college life with psychological type (MBTI). We did this because
we were looking to see if there were any commonalities between our students in
this area. Essentially it was something we could measure as opposed to
Chapman's suggestions. We eliminated student's choice of college and college's
choice of students as all students were enrolling at Texas Tech. For the final box,
again we were looking at major and not choice of college.

34
Figure 4. Updated model of influences on student major selection. Adapted with
permission from K. B. Williams, 2007, Factors Influencing Choice of Academic Major:
A Comparison of Agricultural and Non-agricultural Degree Programs. Copyright 2007
by Kevin B. Williams.
For the purpose of this study, Williams’ (2007) model was slightly modified to
incorporate personality type as a moderator only between external influences and
student’s choice of academic major, and not as moderator between student characteristics
and major choice (Figure 5). The updated model was chosen for this study due to its
greater focus on college major and the inclusion of personality type as a factor in the
major selection process. This model predicts that student characteristics and external
influences are both significant factors in the student’s decision to choose hospitality as a
major in college, with RIASEC personality type moderating the external factors. Each of
these variables and sub-variables are discussed in detail below.

35
Figure 5. Modified Model of Major Selection, with personality type moderating the
effect of external influences on a student’s choice of hospitality as an academic major.
Student characteristics
Student socioeconomic status, level of educational aspiration, aptitude, and high
school performance are the main student characteristics in Chapman’s (1981) original
model. In this model, these characteristics both influence student aspirations regarding
college selection as well as college admissions decisions. Only when the student’s chosen
school also accepts that student’s application is the final outcome of this process
determined.
Personal association with the major, professional aspirations, aptitude, and high
school experience are the main student characteristics in Williams’ (2007) model and the

36
Modified Model of Major Selection. These are notably broader categories than Chapman
(1981) devised, and only aptitude remains the same for all three models.
External influences
Chapman’s (1981) model includes three main categories of external influence:
significant persons, fixed college characteristics, and college efforts to communicate with
students. Significant persons are friends, parents, and high school personnel. Fixed
college characteristics are cost (including financial aid), location, and availability of
programs. College efforts to communicate with students include written communication,
campus visits, and admissions/recruiting efforts. Both external influences and student
characteristics affect a student’s generalized expectations of college life. Together,
external influences and generalized expectations directly affect a student’s college
choice, and student characteristics indirectly influence this decision (Chapman, 1981).
In Williams’ (2007) model and the Modified Model of Major Selection, the three
main categories of external influence are significant persons, exposure to major, and
college/departmental factors. Although the first category remains the same, the sub-
variables are slightly altered to include professionals in the field of interest. Exposure to
major consists of three sub-variables: publications, family associations, and personal
experiences. In this study, personal experiences may include previous jobs in the
hospitality industry or enrollment in a high school program such as ProStart.
College/departmental factors include recruitment information, personal contact by a
department representative, and college/department reputation.

37
Personality type
Williams (2007) developed his model to study the role that psychological type has
on students’ selection of agricultural studies as an academic major. Williams (2007)
replaced the moderator in Chapman’s (1981) model—general expectation of college
life—with psychological type, and analyzed data to determine the correlations between
external influences and psychological type. Williams (2007) measured psychological type
using MBTI (Myers, 1962).
The typology used in this study was Holland’s (1959, 1997) RIASEC model,
which has been operationalized by several vocational interest tests. The best-known
interest tests are the Strong Interest Inventory (SII), Vocational Preference Inventory
(VPI), Self-Directed Search (SDS; Fox, 1995). The SDS was chosen for this study
because it is more comprehensive than the VPI, yet concentrates solely on RIASEC
attributes unlike the SII (Zarrin, Baghban, & Abedi, 2011).
Research Questions
Based upon the literature and to meet the purposes of this study, the following
research questions were developed:
1. What are demographic characteristics of students majoring in hospitality?
2. What are the most frequent personality types among hospitality students?
3. What are the most frequent SDS three letter combinations among hospitality
students?
4. What are the characteristics and background of students majoring in hospitality?
5. What are the external influences of students majoring in hospitality?
6. What is the relationship between personality type and external influences on

38
hospitality students’ selection of a college major?
Summary
In summary, many studies have investigated the factors that influence college
students’ major selection but few have examined the hospitality industry specifically. The
few hospitality studies that exist demonstrate that career opportunities, social status, and
encouragement from family and friends are highly influential for students who choose to
pursue hospitality degrees. This data can help hospitality professionals and educators
develop appropriate academic goals and curricula to engage students, as well as
effectively market hospitality programs to increase student enrollment.
Chapman’s (1981) Model of Student School Choice has been a valuable tool to
understand factors that influence student’s selection of colleges. The model comprises
variables related to external influences and student characteristics and expectations of
college life. Recently, Bobbitt (2006) approved Chapman’s model and argued that the
model could bring a positive change to the hospitality management recruitment process.
Numerous research studies have been conducted using Holland’s (1959) Theory
of Vocational Choice, especially in nonacademic settings. However, some studies applied
this theory to understand people’s behavior toward choosing career or major. Holland’s
(1959) Theory of Vocational Choice is an interactive model based on a typology of
persons and environments, and has several factors which influence career choices: (a)
family; (b) peers, teachers, and other adult role models; (c) school, work, and leisure
experiences; and (d) socioeconomic status and ethnic background.

39
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This quantitative study was non-experimental and utilized a descriptive-
correlational research design. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2006), “A major
purpose of correlational research is to clarify our understanding of important phenomena
by identifying relationships among variables” (p. 336). The phenomena assessed in this
study were factors associated with how students selected an academic major. Student
characteristics, external influences, and personality type data were collected using a
descriptive questionnaire adapted from Wildman (1997). Personality type data were
collected using the Self-Directed Search (SDS) Form R 5th
Edition (Holland, 1997).
The SDS first created in 1970 and is currently on its fifth version, which came out
in 2013 (http://www.self-directed-search.com/). This latest version is composed of 228
items. The SDS aspires to be one of the most user-friendly instruments, as it can be self-
administered, self-scored, and self-interpreted. The SDS is theoretically grounded in
Holland’s (1959, 1997) RIASEC typology, subscribing to the concepts of person-
environment fit, congruence, consistency, and differentiation. The test is broken down
into six different sections: Occupational Daydreams, Activities Scales, Competencies
Scales, Occupations Scales, Self-Estimates, and Summary Code Section.
Population and Sample
The population for this study was 297 undergraduate students at a large, public
research university in the Southwestern U.S. Data were collected from a final sample of
152 participants. All participants had selected hospitality as either an academic major or

40
minor. All data were collected in Spring 2016.
Use of Human Subjects
The Institutional Review Board declared this study exempt from the requirements
of human subject protection regulations. The exemption letter can be found in Appendix
C.
Assumptions
This study was conducted with the following assumptions: students provided true
and accurate responses to the best of their ability on instrumentation administered in this
study; data collection instruments are valid and reliable based upon previous use;
participants understood there were two instruments which had to be filled out and
incomplete surveys would be discarded; participants agreed that only students in
hospitality would take this survey; students involved in this study could read and write
English language; and since the researcher was involved in the data collection process,
the possibility of researcher bias must be acknowledged.
Instrumentation
Data were collected from participants using two instruments, the Wildman (1997)
Survey of Students and Holland’s (1997) Self-Directed Search (SDS). The Survey of
Students was adapted from a study by Wildman (1997), which evaluated factors
influencing selection of an agricultural major by students at New Mexico State
University. This instrument was divided into three sections. The first section evaluated
external factors, the second section recorded student characteristics and background
information, and the third section captured demographic information.

41
The first section of the Survey of Students measured external factors and was
divided into the following: prior exposure to a college major (4 items), people of
influence (10 items), and college or departmental factors (12 items). A ten-point Likert-
type scale was used to record students’ perceptions of each factor where “10 = very
influential” and “1 = not influential” on college major selection.
The second section of the Survey of Students provided information on situational
factors that may influence major selection. Initial questions were written in multiple
choice and fill-in-the-blank format. Four questions pertained to students’ possible
associations with hospitality, which include hospitality work experiences and family
associations. Seven questions obtained information about students’ high school activities,
knowledge of potential careers and available majors at the university, and information on
college credits earned prior to matriculation.
The third section of the Survey of Students consisted of 11 demographic questions
to collect information on gender, age, class rank, ACT or SAT scores, home state,
permanent residence, class standing, intended or current track, ethnicity, and selected
academic major. The Survey of Students (Wildman, 1997) was administered in booklet
form and participants recorded their responses on directly on the questionnaire.
Importantly, personality type was adopted to the new version of Chapman’s model
instead of the general expectations of college life.
The SDS (Holland, 1997) was used to identify personality type. It consisted of
five sections: activities, competencies, occupations, self-estimates, and summary score.
The first section was activities. This section included six RIASEC of 14 items. Each item
had two boxes where the students were asked to check the “L” box for those activities

42
they would like to do and to check the “D” box for those activities they would dislike
doing or to which they would be indifferent. At the end of each subsection, there was a
box for activities total where students were asked were asked write the total number of
Ls.
The second section is competencies. This section provided the practitioner with
some information about students’ skills. Individuals often acquire skills in things that are
important or interesting to them. This section includes six RIASEC of 14 items. Each
item had two boxes where the students were asked to check the “Y” box for those
activities they can do well or competently and check the “N” box for those activities they
have never performed or perform poorly. At the end of each subsection, there was a box
for competencies total where students
The third section was occupations. This section provides the practitioner with
some information about the feelings/attitudes the students have toward a set of
occupations. Those competencies are based on Holland’s Vocational Preference
Inventory (VPI). This section included six RIASEC of 14 items. Each item had two boxes
where the students were asked to check the “Y” box for those occupations that interest or
appeal to them and check the “N” box for those occupations that they dislike or find
uninteresting. At the end of each subsection, there was a box for occupations total where
students asked were asked write the total number of Ys.
The fourth section was self-estimates. This section was about the self-efficacy or
beliefs that students can actually complete particular task. It addressed the situation when
a student has high ability score but report low self-rating. This section had six RIASEC
scales, which were rated two times from one to seven with regard to ability and skills.

43
Students were asked to rate themselves on each of the traits as compared with other
students their own age. This section had two parts. Part one focused on abilities, which
include mechanical, scientific, artistic, teaching, sales, and clerical. Part two focusedon
skills, which include manual, math, musical, understanding of others, managerial, and
office.
The fifth section was summary code. This section was a scoring sheet from all of
the previous four sections. Students were asked to find the total for each “L” (Like) or
“Y” (Yes) column and record the total for each group of activities, competencies, and
occupations. In addition, they were asked to find the numbers circled for each of the self-
estimates and record them. At the end of this section, there was a summary code box
where students recorded the three highest numbers.
Data Collection
All data were collected between May 2-10, 2016. Professors were verbally asked
in advance for permission to enter the classes and distribute the surveys. Booklets that
consisted of the two data instruments, SDS and Survey of Students, were distributed to
five classes. Professors verified for each class that students did not take the survey twice.
Before the class started, the professor introduced the researcher to the students, who
stated the objective of this study and notified students that participation was voluntarily
and responses would remain confidential. The surveys took approximately 20 minutes to
complete. Each booklet with in a separate folder. When the students finished the surveys,
they placed the booklet inside the folder, and then placed the folder in a special box.

44
Data Analysis
The study objectives directed the data analysis procedures. Data were analyzed
using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 15.0. Data were imported
into SPSS from Microsoft Excel from which data were initially entered. To address
Research Questions 1-5, frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations were
used for description and comparison of factors that influenced academic major selection.
To address Research Question 6, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was
calculated.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the research design, population and sample,
assumptions, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. This quantitative study
was non-experimental and utilized a descriptive-correlational research design. According
to Fraenkel and Wallen (2006), “A major purpose of correlational research is to clarify
our understanding of important phenomena by identifying relationships among variables”
(p. 336). Data were collected from participants using two instruments, the Wildman
(1997) Survey of Students and Holland’s (1997) Self-Directed Search (SDS). The
Survey of Students was adapted from a study by Wildman (1997), which evaluated
factors influencing selection of an agricultural major by students at New Mexico State
University. The next chapter will summarize the study’s results and findings and provide
an analysis of the data collected.

45
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Purpose and Objectives
The objective of this study was to examine the factors that lead college students to
choose hospitality as a major. Furthermore, this research assessed the role of student
personality type in the academic major selection process. Specifically, this study
addressed the following research questions:
1. What are demographic characteristics of students majoring in hospitality?  
2. What are the most frequent personality types among hospitality students?  
3. What are the most frequent SDS three letter combinations among hospitality
students?
4. What are the characteristics and background of students majoring in hospitality?
5. What are the external influences of students majoring in hospitality?
6. What is the relationship between personality type and external influences on
hospitality students’ selection of a college major?
Population and Sample
The population for this study was 297 undergraduate students at a large, public research
university in the Southwestern U.S. Data were collected from a final sample of 152
participants. All participants had selected hospitality as either an academic major or
minor. All data were collected in Spring 2016.
Demographic characteristics of student sample
To address Research Question 1, demographic characteristics of students
majoring in hospitality were analyzed. Table 4.1 illustrates the percentages of students by
gender. The overwhelming majority (71.1%) of participants were female and only 28.9%

46
were male.
Table 4.1
Students by Gender
Gender F (%)
Female 108 71.1
Male 44 28.9
Total 152 100
Ninety percent of participants were between the ages of 20-24 years old. The
highest percentage of students (23.7%) were 22 years old (Table 4.2). The average class
rank was 25.8% (n = 137) of the student’s high school graduating class.
Table 4.2
Students by Age
Age F (%)
17 1 .7
19 3 2
20 18 11.8
21 35 23
22 36 23.7
23 33 21.7
24 15 9.9
25 5 3.3
26 3 2
27 1 .7
28 2 1.3
Total 152 100

47
As shown in Table 4.3, most participants were in-state residents (91.4%, n = 139).
Thirteen students (8.6%) were out-of-state residents.
Table 4.3
Students by State Residence
State Residence F (%)
In-state 139 91.4
Out-of-state 13 8.6
Total 152 100
As shown in Table 4.4, roughly half of the participants were seniors during the
Spring 2016 semester (47.4%, n = 72). The other reported their class standing was junior
(36.8%, n = 56), sophomore (13.2%, n = 20), and freshman (2.6%, n = 4).
Table 4.4
Students by Current Class Standing
Class Standing F (%)
Senior 72 47.4
Junior 56 36.8
Sophomore 20 13.2
Freshman 4 2.6
Total 152 100
Table 4.5 illustrates permanent residence for students in this research study.
Overall, the vast majority of students (73.7%, n = 112) came from metropolitan areas and
this was followed by small city/town (26.3%, n = 40).
Table 4.5
Students by Home Residence
Home Residence F (%)

48
Metropolitan Area 112 73.7
Small City 40 26.3
Total 152 100
The ethnicity of subjects is illustrated in Table 4.6. The majority of the students
indicated their ethnicity was White/non-Hispanic (78.3%, n = 119). The other stated
ethnicities were Hispanic (15.1%, n = 23), Black/African American (5.3%, n = 8), and
Asian/Pacific Islander (1.3%, n = 2).
Table 4.6
Students by Ethnicity
Ethnicity F (%)
White/non-Hispanic 119 78.3
Hispanic 23 15.1
Black/African-American 8 5.3
Asian/Pacific Islander 2 1.3
Total 152 100
Table 4.7 shows students who chose hospitality as a major or minor in this study.
Overall, the vast majority of students (86.2%, n = 131) chose hospitality as major and
followed by minor (13.8%, n = 21).
Table 4.7
Students Who Chose Hospitality as Major or Minor
Academic Program F (%)
Major 131 86.2
Minor 21 13.8
Total 152 100

49
The intended or current track of students is illustrated in Table 4.8. The majority
of the students indicated their intended or current track was Hospitality Management
(55.9%, n = 85). The other reported tracks were Lodging (18.4%, n = 28), Food and
Beverage (17.1%, n = 26), Wine (7.9%, n = 12), and Education (.7%, n = 1).
Table 4.8
Students by Intended or Current Track
Track F (%)
Hospitality Management 85 55.9
Lodging 28 18.4
Food and Beverage 26 17.1
Wine 12 7.9
Education 1 .7
Total 152 100
Personality Types Among Hospitality Students
Addressing Research Questions 2-3, Table 4.9 illustrates the frequencies and
percentages of the first, second, and third codes for students. Overall, students’ dominant
personality types determined by SDS were Enterprising (57.2%, n = 87), Social (22.4%,
n = 34), Conventional (6.6%, n = 10), Artistic (5.3%, n = 8), Investigative (4.6%, n = 7),
and Realistic (3.9%, n = 6). As shown in Table 4.10, the three most dominant personality
types were ESC (17.1%, n = 26), ECS (7.9%, n = 12), and ESA (5.3%, n = 8). See
Appendix D for complete results.
Table 4.9
Personality Type Rank
First Code Second Code Third Code

50
Personality Type F (%) F (%) F (%)
Realistic 6 3.9 15 9.9 15 9.9
Investigative 7 4.6 9 5.9 11 7.2
Artistic 8 5.3 15 9.9 25 16.4
Social 34 22.4 56 36.8 36 23.7
Enterprising 87 57.2 34 22.4 16 10.5
Conventional 10 6.6 23 15.1 49 32.2
Total 152 100 152 100 152 100
Table 4.10
Most Common Three-Letter Codes
Codes F (%)
ESC 26 17.1
ECS 12 7.9
ESA 8 5.3
Characteristics and Backgrounds of Hospitality Students
Research Question 4 addressed characteristics and backgrounds of students
majoring in hospitality. Student characteristics and background information for this study
contained items related to high school experiences, college choice decisions, associations
to hospitality, and considerations in selecting an academic major.
Table 4.11 shows work experiences student had before graduated from high
school. The majority of students reported that they have restaurant experience (49.3%, n
= 75). The other reported experiences were no hospitality work (33.6%, n = 51), other

51
hospitality work experiences (12.5%, n = 19), lodging (2.6%, n = 4), and theme parks
(2%, n = 3).
Table 4.11
Students by Hospitality Work Experiences
Hospitality Work Experiences F (%)
Restaurants 75 49.3
No hospitality work experience 51 33.6
Other hospitality experience 19 12.5
Lodging 4 2.6
Theme parks 3 2
Total 152 100
Table 4.12 shows activities students were involved in while in high school.
Almost all hospitality students indicated involvement in some type of high school
activities, clubs, or organizations. The five most frequently stated high school activities
by hospitality students were athletics (23.3%, n = 101), school electives (16.9%, n = 73),
National Honor Society (12.7%, n = 55), student council or government (11.5%, n = 50),
and cheerleading or spirit squad (9.5%, n = 41).
Table 4.12
Students by High School Activities
High School Activities N (%)
Athletics 101 23.3
School electives 73 16.9
National Honor Society 55 12.7
Student council or government 50 11.5

52
Cheerleading or spirit squad 41 9.5
Other vocational student organization 40 9.2
Hobby clubs 27 6.2
School newspaper or yearbook 25 5.8
School subject club 13 3
Other high school activities 8 1.8
Total 433 100
Students were asked two questions regarding when they decided to attend the
university and select a major. Students could check for these questions were 9th
grade or
below, 10th grade, 11th grade, 12th grade, or after high school. Table 4.13 illustrates
when students decided to the university. About half of the participants (48.7%, n = 74)
indicated they chose to attend the university in the 12th grade. Table 4.14 illustrates when
students chose a college major. Most participants (65.1%, n = 99) reported selecting their
major happened after high school.
Table 4.13
Students by College Decision Year
College Decision Year F (%)
9th
grade or below 13 8.6
10th
grade 9 5.9
11th
grade 14 9.2
12th
grade 74 48.7
After high school 42 27.6
Total 152 100
Table 4.14
Student by Major Decision Year

THE EXAMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS TOWARD CHOOSING HOSPITALITY AS A MAJOR; THE CASE OF UNDERGRADUATE HOSPITALITY STUDENTS

THE EXAMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS TOWARD CHOOSING HOSPITALITY AS A MAJOR; THE CASE OF UNDERGRADUATE HOSPITALITY STUDENTS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to THE EXAMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS TOWARD CHOOSING HOSPITALITY AS A MAJOR; THE CASE OF UNDERGRADUATE HOSPITALITY STUDENTS

Similar to THE EXAMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS TOWARD CHOOSING HOSPITALITY AS A MAJOR; THE CASE OF UNDERGRADUATE HOSPITALITY STUDENTS (20)

More from Dr. Ali Alalmai

More from Dr. Ali Alalmai (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

THE EXAMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS TOWARD CHOOSING HOSPITALITY AS A MAJOR; THE CASE OF UNDERGRADUATE HOSPITALITY STUDENTS