View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

How Does Stereotypic Thinking Affect the Choice of Major for Undergraduate Business Students?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How Does Stereotypic Thinking Affect the Choice of Major for Undergraduate Business Students?
Language: English
Authors: Caley Zack, Carl F. Larsson, Gizem Atav
Source: Journal of Education for Business. 2025 100(1):1-12.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Stereotypes, Majors (Students), Decision Making, Undergraduate Students, Undergraduate Study, Business Education, Gender Differences, Bias, Student Attitudes, Finance Occupations, Influences, Introductory Courses, Family Work Relationship
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2024.2430216
ISSN: 0883-2323
1940-3356
Abstract: Using a large survey of undergraduate business students, we identify common stereotypes, analyze gender differences in stereotypic thinking, and examine how stereotypes impact a student's choice of major. We document gender differences in stereotypic thinking and find that stereotypes can introduce biases on students' attitudes toward our study's major of interest, finance. While we focus on finance stereotypes for tractability, our results have more general implications for understanding how students discern business majors using limited information sets. We conclude by suggesting ideas to mitigate stereotypic thinking and help students to better discern majors.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1459089
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEIub4GmJ5SsCCX_N-HYHsHAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLEPg-fsAOqiXN2hiAIBEICBmpmo4g1OOmKfYSgwb5LPJHfr-bx1XLovcan0v0Sq1IgqeZ3lfaIwtQB_FbrCQDeFn1vO3RZ25iHtGSTMuC6fAL2CuJeWiW3V9vlNWNh0yM2GcrxfRUmFognh6HiHUMvrJ6iww-fkphd4u78-PMWt6zqW72z1qHCGUysrCGmQ-YqmKV3SeAF_LMaOuPmkA1ZkN7oegjT3z53I_rw=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182506422;jeb01jan.25;2025Jan30.04:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182506422-1">How does stereotypic thinking affect the choice of major for undergraduate business students? </title> <p>Using a large survey of undergraduate business students, we identify common stereotypes, analyze gender differences in stereotypic thinking, and examine how stereotypes impact a student's choice of major. We document gender differences in stereotypic thinking and find that stereotypes can introduce biases on students' attitudes toward our study's major of interest, finance. While we focus on finance stereotypes for tractability, our results have more general implications for understanding how students discern business majors using limited information sets. We conclude by suggesting ideas to mitigate stereotypic thinking and help students to better discern majors.</p> <p>Keywords: College-major choice; finance major; major-specific ability; perception and stereotype bias; stereotype threat</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Choosing an undergraduate major is a significant decision. Not only does it affect the student's coursework and overall academic experience while in college, but it can also impact their career trajectory post-graduation (Bordon & Fu, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>In theory, students should ideally choose a major that matches their unique set of interests, as well as their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). In practice, however, this matching process involves significant frictions. First, students may face parental or peer pressure to choose a certain major that is not necessarily a good match (Leppel et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]). Second, students might not take the time needed to reflect and inventory their own set of interests and KSAs (e.g., Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]). Third, students may hold stereotypes and/or not fully understand the KSAs inherent to each major, thus leading them to choose or reject a major based on a biased and/or incomplete information set (Hunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]). This third friction, specifically the impact of stereotypic thinking on the choice of major, is the focus of this article.</p> <p>Stereotypes, defined as "beliefs, knowledge, and expectations of social groups" (Lippmann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>], as cited in Banaji, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]), can influence decision-making in a variety of areas including the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) field (Beasley & Fischer, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]), promotions and paid work-leave (Rosen & Jerdee, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]), leadership and organizational practices (e.g., Eagly & Karau, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]; Stamarski & Son Hing, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]), marketing strategies (Chattalas et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]), and career choice (Gadassi & Gati, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref12">13</reflink>]). In this study, we argue that students may choose majors based on an incomplete information set that relies to some extent on stereotypes about a major, rather than a thorough understanding of the major's inherent competencies, defined under Standard 4 of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) as "...educational expectations...intellectual and behavioral capabilities a program is intended to instill, as well as the knowledge, skills, and abilities expected as an outcome of a particular program" (AACSB, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>], p. 42). As many colleges across the country face declining enrollment and varying degrees of public skepticism about the value of an undergraduate business degree, it is more important than ever for business faculty to help students choose majors that will maximize their return-on-investment both financially and in terms of overall fulfillment.</p> <p>As a first step, it is important for business faculty and staff to identify the specific stereotypes held by students and how they impact students' choices of majors. The first step of our research is thus to identify stereotypes held by students at a mid-Atlantic regional university about the finance major and those working in finance. We focus solely on one major, finance, to maintain tractability, although our main findings—described below—should remain generalizable across different institutions and disciplines.</p> <p>After identifying a set of finance stereotypes held by students, we then turn to testing two main hypotheses surrounding stereotypic thinking and the choice of undergraduate business major. Our first hypothesis is that stereotypic thinking will influence a student's attitude toward choosing finance as a major. While our results are specific to the finance major, they have more general implications on how limited or incorrect information can bias a student's choice of undergraduate business major. Second, we hypothesize there will be gender differences in stereotypic thinking. The finance major provides a unique laboratory to study gender differences in stereotypic thinking, as there is a significant gender gap in finance (e.g., women represent less than one-i five CFA charterholders (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>])). We motivate and further elaborate on these hypotheses in "Hypothesis development."</p> <p>In "Survey instrument and results," we introduce our survey instrument and test our hypotheses. We receive survey responses from 416 undergraduate business students, yielding 402 usable responses for our qualitative analysis and 299 complete surveys for our quantitative analysis. We first inventory a set of stereotypes held by undergraduate business using both open-ended and seven-point Likert scale questions. We then use factor and regression analysis to show that stereotypes significantly relate to a student's attitude toward majoring in finance. This result suggests that, in the worst-case-scenario, stereotypes could potentially bias students either toward a major that may not be a good individual match or away from majors that would be a better match based on their individual interests and KSAs. Finally, we examine gender differences in stereotypic thinking. We find that male students tend to agree with stereotypes at a higher level than female students, on average, and, consistent with findings from Hawash et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]), that female students exhibit lower self-reported confidence in math. We furthermore demonstrate that both of these factors are significantly related to student attitudes toward finance. In "Study limitations and future research," we discuss limitations to our study, and in "Discussion," we discuss ideas to mitigate the effects of stereotypic thinking on a student's all-important decision of which major to choose.</p> <p>Our work adds to past research on stereotypes in several ways. Hunt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref16">19</reflink>]) find negative stereotypes about accountants bias students' view of accounting, but that acquaintance with accountants mitigates the bias. Our study reexamines this issue through a different major (finance) while updating the literature with a more recent inventory of students' current stereotypes. Our study also relates to work by Schlee et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref17">28</reflink>]), which examines student perceptions of various business majors. Among their findings, they show that students tend to rate finance and accounting students low on a set of various social skills. Our study extends this research by testing how the perceptions held by the current generation of students impact their choice to declare a certain major.</p> <p>Our work also relates to the literature on factors that influence a student's choice of major. Most relevant to our study is research on the decision to major in finance. For example, Brau et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref18">6</reflink>]) who find that motivated and hardworking students are more likely to major in finance. Hawash and Stephen ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]), and Hawash et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]) find that gender differences in perceived quantitative skills are an important explanatory factor in why female students are less likely to choose finance as a major. Our study validates these findings, while simultaneously examining the effects of stereotypic thinking on student attitudes toward finance. More generally, research on the choice of major outside of finance finds that students consider—to varying degrees - a wide range of factors such as personal interests, skills, projected earnings, advice of others, and the perceived difficulty of the major.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>] Again, our study contributes to this literature by testing the influence of stereotypic thinking on the choice of major.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-3">Hypothesis development</hd> <p>There are many ways that stereotypic thinking could potentially affect our thought patterns, attitudes, and decisions. In the workplace, Rosen and Jerdee ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]) document the effects of sex role stereotypes on promotions and paid work-leave. In the academy, Hunt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]) show that the number of accounting majors is declining nationwide partly because of misinformation and myths about accountants. Chattalas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]) examine stereotypes and marketing strategies, and Gadassi and Gati ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]) study the effects of stereotypes on career choice. We contribute to this literature by testing how current patterns in stereotypic thinking about finance affect students' attitudes toward majoring in finance.</p> <p>Stereotypes are easily formed, as they "can be activated by the mere presentation of symbols of social group or group-related attributes" (Banaji, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>], p. 15103). Previous literature finds stereotypes present in STEM majors (Beasley & Fischer, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]) and accounting (Hunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>]). Given its shared quantitative nature to these disciplines, we expect to find similar results with finance majors.</p> <p>Our first research question is to investigate how stereotypic thinking affects the choice of student major, within the laboratory of student attitudes toward finance. The first step of our study is thus to document the stereotypes that students currently hold about finance and those working in finance. We discuss our methodology for this in "Survey instrument and results." Once we have identified patterns in stereotypic thinking, we then turn to testing their implications for decision-making.</p> <p>Stereotypes—whether positive or negative—can cloud a student's perception of a certain field of study or career path. It follows that the more strongly the students hold any given stereotype, the more likely it is for that stereotype to influence their attitude toward the field, and thus their decision to major in that field. Our first hypothesis thus follows as:</p> <p>H1: If students hold strong stereotypes about finance and those working in finance, then these stereotypes are likely to influence their attitude toward finance.</p> <p>For example, a student who holds strong views that finance professionals are generally self-centered and egotistical may be reluctant to major in finance, even if it would otherwise be a good fit for that student's mix of KSAs. In the following sections, we will discuss in more detail how we measure both the magnitude of students' stereotypic thinking amongst a variety of stereotypes, as well as their overall attitude toward finance. We then run tests to determine the relationship between the strength of their stereotypic thinking and their attitude toward finance.</p> <p>Our second main research question is to examine how stereotypic thinking and choice of major varies by gender. Past research uncovers how the patterns and impacts of stereotypic thinking can vary by gender. For example, gender-related stereotypes can negatively impact the performance and interest of female students in STEM fields (e.g., Dasgupta & Asgari, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]; Davies et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref30">10</reflink>]; Shapiro & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref31">29</reflink>]). Relatedly, Hawash and Stephen ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>]) and Hawash et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>]) find that gender differences in perceived (rather than actual) quantitative skills help to explain the gender gap in finance majors.</p> <p>Building on these past studies, we hypothesize that the mechanisms by which stereotypes influence attitudes toward finance will differ between male and female students:</p> <p>H2: The relationship between stereotypic thinking and attitude toward finance will differ by gender.</p> <p>Given the large gender gap in finance majors, our survey data presents a unique opportunity to investigate how stereotypic thinking varies by gender. We test our second hypothesis via mediation analyses on our measures of stereotypic thinking, attitude toward finance, and gender. To explain this in further detail, we must first turn to describing our survey instrument and sample in the section that follows.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-4">Survey instrument and results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182506422-5">Survey instrument</hd> <p>To examine stereotypes and their effects on the choice of major, we administer an online survey in two upper-level classes in an AACSB accredited college of business at a mid-Atlantic regional university. The survey is Institutional Review Board approved (IRB Protocol Number 23-3881).</p> <p>Faculty members for these courses administer the survey at the beginning of the Spring 2023 semester and the beginning of the following Fall 2023 semester. To mitigate the possibility for social desirability bias in survey responses (Breda et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]), we make it clear that all responses are completely anonymous and confidential.</p> <p>We survey students in an introductory marketing course taken by all business majors immediately after acceptance into the college of business. The surveyed students have not yet taken any major-level coursework, and thus do not yet have firsthand experience of different majors. This course is required for all B.B.A. degrees in the college, resulting in a sample that is demographically diverse and representative of the college's overall student body. We also administer our survey to a business law course required for all B.B.A. degree programs in business. Because of the course progression in this college, the likelihood of duplicate student responses across course sections is negligible.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-6">Measures</hd> <p>Students are asked to rate their interest in (1 = not interested at all, 7 = very interested) and perceived difficulty of (1 = not difficult at all, 7 = very difficult) all business majors, including finance, on seven-point Likert scales. They are also asked to assess the -perceived math intensity of these majors by rating their agreement with the statement "You have to be good at math to major in..."(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).</p> <p>To measure stereotypic thinking, the survey includes 12 statements reflecting common stereotypes about finance professionals that we based on a recorded interview on finance stereotypes (Wang, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]) as well as our collective experiences as faculty and students. Respondents rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point scale, from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Sample statements included "<emph>People in finance are hard-working and driven</emph>," "<emph>Finance is a male-dominated field</emph>," and "<emph>People in finance are more concerned about making money than liking their job</emph> (see Table 2 for full list)." To reduce the 12 stereotypical statements into meaningful dimensions, we conduct an exploratory factor analysis using principal component analyses. Student stereotypes around finance are also measured using an open-ended question, "When you think of someone who majors/works in finance, what do you think of? Please simply write down the first things that come to mind."</p> <p>Students reported their overall attitude toward finance on a seven-point scale (1= very negative, 7= very positive). We also collected measures that could potentially influence their opinion on finance. These include their confidence in their math ability ("I have confidence in my math ability"; 1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree; Brau et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]); whether they have a parent, sibling, or close associate who works in finance (1 = yes, 2 = no; Brau et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref37">6</reflink>]); and their gender. Our survey also includes an attention check measure (Oppenheimer et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref38">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-7">Sample demographics</hd> <p>We receive survey responses from 416 students. Of these students, 402 students responded to an open-response, qualitative question, which we analyze below. We also include an attention check question later in the survey to ensure that the respondents are carefully reading and responding to the battery of multiple-choice survey questions. After filtering for students who correctly responded to the attention check question, we are left with a sample of 299 usable responses. We thus have a final sample of 402 students for our qualitative analysis, and a final sample of 299 students for the quantitative factor and regression analysis that follow. We use IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 28) to conduct our statistical analyses.</p> <p>We present sample demographics in Panel A of Table 2. Among the sample of 299 students, 63.5% are male and 36.5% are female. For class year, 10.4% marked freshman, 1.0% sophomore, 82.3% junior, and 6.4% senior.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>] We observe the following percentages for declared majors: 17.1% accounting, 20.7% computer information systems, 0.3% economics, 19.4% finance, 1.3% international business, 16.1% business management, 18.4% marketing, and around 7% were still undecided. These figures are consistent with actual enrollment data. For race, 84.6% are White or Caucasian, 6.4% Asian or Pacific Islander, 4.0% Hispanic or Latino, 2.3% Black or African American, 1.7% Multiracial or Biracial, and 1.0% did not disclose their race. Finally, 38.5% responded that they have a parent, sibling, or close associate who work in finance.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-8">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182506422-9">Identifying stereotypes and the strength of stereotypic thinking</hd> <p>To identify stereotypes currently held by students, we first analyze the 402 student responses to the open-ended question: "When you think of someone who majors/works in finance, what do you think of (what do they look like, what is their gender, their personality, etc.)? Please simply write down the first things that come to mind."</p> <p>We summarize student responses in <emph>Table 1</emph>. Overall, the top-5 adjectives and the number of responses that included the adjective were: "Male(s)" (<reflink idref="bib165" id="ref40">165</reflink>), "White" (in reference to race, 53), "Smart" (<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref41">43</reflink>), "Number(s)" (<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref42">36</reflink>), and "Good" (<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref43">34</reflink>), closely followed by "Suit(s)" (<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>). Every time the term "white" was used, it was accompanied by a male related term. 60.7% of responses included a male term (male, guy, frat, etc.), while only 3.2% include a female term (female, women, woman, and girl). It is important to note the disproportionate absence of female-related terms, given that 38% of respondents are female students. Furthermore, two of these responses including a female term simply express that there are more males than females in finance.</p> <p>Table 1. Open-ended student perception of worker in finance statistics (N = 402).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Panel A</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Number of responses that include a gender term:</bold> (No responses are counted twice for having two adjectives of the same gender)</td></tr><tr><td>Male term <italic>(male, males, men, man, guy, boy, bro, dude, frat/fraternity)</italic></td><td char=".">60.70%</td></tr><tr><td>Female term <italic>(female, women, woman, girl)</italic></td><td char=".">3.23%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Number of responses that specifically describe a single gender:</bold> (i.e., the above statistics excluding responses that state "man or woman")</td></tr><tr><td>Male description</td><td char=".">58.46%</td></tr><tr><td>Female description</td><td char=".">0.50%</td></tr><tr><td>Panel B</td></tr><tr><td>Top 7 Adjectives Included in Responses</td></tr><tr><td>Adjective</td><td>Number of responses</td></tr><tr><td>Male(s)</td><td char=".">165</td></tr><tr><td>White* (Every description including white also includes a male term)</td><td char=".">53</td></tr><tr><td>Smart</td><td char=".">43</td></tr><tr><td>Number(s)</td><td char=".">36</td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td char=".">34</td></tr><tr><td>Suit(s)</td><td char=".">33</td></tr><tr><td>Frat/Fraternity</td><td char=".">31</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *In reference to race.</p> <p>The remaining 36% of responses that do not mention genders typically speak to the quantitative skills and white-collar appearance of finance professionals. For example, "smart" and "number(s)" are the third and fourth most used words, respectively. In addition, "suit" (also, "Patagonia vest," "clean," "dressed in business attire") and "frat" are mentioned more than 30 times each. These terms evoke the stereotype that those in finance "work hard and party harder," a stereotype we measure in the quantitative analysis that follows. Reflecting a money-driven stereotype of those in finance, both "money" and "driven" were mentioned over 20 times.</p> <p>Next, we measure the magnitude of stereotypic thinking by looking at student agreement with a list of stereotypes. Table 2 provides means for student agreement with these stereotypes from our final quantitative analysis sample of 299 students. Using a minimum cutoff of 4.5 to indicate above-average agreement, the stereotypes that are most strongly agreed upon and their means are as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> S5: People who like working with numbers go into finance.(4.85)</item> <p></p> <item> S6: People in finance are hard-working and driven. (5.19)</item> <p></p> <item> S7: People in finance are more concerned about making money than liking their job. (4.56)</item> <p></p> <item> S9: People in finance are "corporate" people (4.59)</item> <p></p> <item> S12: Finance is a male-dominated field. (4.78)</item> </ulist> <p>The stereotypes that are least agreed upon by students (using a maximum cutoff of <emph>3</emph> to indicate disagreement) are "S1: men perform better in quantitative fields than women" (2.84) and "S4: finance is 'for the boys'" (2.60).</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-10">Factor analysis: Finance work/life balance and personality stereotypes</hd> <p>Using our final sample of 299 responses, we conduct an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation to explore the underlying structure of the 12 stereotypical statements. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was.81, and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant (χ<sups>2</sups> = 1034.03, <emph>p</emph> <.001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis.</p> <p>The factor analysis reveals three distinct factors with eigenvalues greater than one, accounting for 57.42% of the total variance. After examining the factor loadings, we identify two primary factors:</p> <p> <emph>Factor 1: Perceived personality of potential colleagues in finance (Colleague Stereotypes)</emph>. Our first factor exhibits strong loadings (ranging from.54 to.79) and a Cronbach's alpha of.78, indicating good internal consistency. We label this factor Colleague Stereotypes because it appears to capture stereotypes related to the perceived personality traits of <emph>others</emph> who work in finance, and with whom the students may envision themselves working should they pursue a career in finance. Factor 1 (Colleague Stereotypes) includes the following stereotypes:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> S7: People in finance are more concerned about making money than liking their job.</item> <p></p> <item> S8: People in finance are cutthroat</item> <p></p> <item> S9: People in finance are "corporate" people</item> <p></p> <item> S10: People in finance work hard, and party harder</item> <p></p> <item> S11: People in finance are self-absorbed and egotistical</item> <p></p> <item> S12: Finance is a male-dominated field</item> </ulist> <p>Interestingly, these stereotypes appear to capture how current students would perceive the personalities of potential <emph>other</emph> colleagues in finance, were they to pursue that field of study and work (i.e., "what would my <emph>colleagues</emph> look like if I were to work in finance?"). In contrast, our second factor appears to capture instead how students would perceive their own, personal work-life balance of a career in finance (i.e., "what would <emph>my</emph> life look like in finance?").</p> <p> <emph>Factor 2: Perceived view of gender and work-life balance (Work-Life Vision)</emph>. This factor also had strong loadings (ranging from.57 to.80) and a Cronbach's alpha of.74, indicating satisfactory reliability. We label this factor, Work-Life Vision, because it includes the following stereotypes related to how students perceive the gender and work-life balance of a career in finance:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> S1: Men perform better in quantitative fields than women.</item> <p></p> <item> S2: Working in finance means you work more than 40 hours a week</item> <p></p> <item> S3: It would be hard to have a family while working in finance</item> <p></p> <item> S4: Finance is "for the boys."</item> </ulist> <p>Stereotypes 5 and 6 (listed in Table 2) initially loaded onto a third factor, but the reliability analysis for this factor indicated low internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of.58. Due to the low reliability and lack of coherence in these items, we choose to exclude Factor 3 from further analyses, thus retaining two reliable and meaningful factors in the final model.</p> <p>To assess the relationship between these two factors, we calculated Pearson correlations. The correlation between Colleague Stereotypes and Work-Life Vision was moderate and significant, (r = 0.511, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). This indicates that while the factors are related, they remain distinct constructs, supporting the use of both factors in subsequent analyses.</p> <p>Table 2. Univariate statistics of survey responses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Panel A: Survey respondent demographics (N = 299)</td><td /></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Gender</bold></td><td /><td><bold>Declared Major</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">36.5%</td><td>Accounting</td><td char=".">17.1%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td char=".">63.5%</td><td>Computer Information Systems</td><td char=".">20.7%</td><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Academic Class</bold></td><td /><td>Economics</td><td char=".">0.3%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Freshman</td><td char=".">10.4%</td><td>Finance</td><td char=".">19.4%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Sophomore</td><td char=".">1.0%</td><td>International Business</td><td char=".">1.3%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Junior</td><td char=".">82.3%</td><td>Business Management</td><td char=".">16.1%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Senior</td><td char=".">6.4%</td><td>Marketing</td><td char=".">18.4%</td><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Race</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>White or Caucasian</td><td char=".">84.6%</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Asian or Pacific Islander</td><td char=".">6.4%</td><td><bold>Have a parent, sibling, or close associated that work in finance</bold></td><td char=".">38.5%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Hispanic or Latino</td><td char=".">4.0%</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Black or African American</td><td char=".">2.3%</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Multiracial or Biracial</td><td char=".">1.7%</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>No race listed</td><td char=".">1.0%</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Panel B: Summary statistics (N = 299)</td><td /><td>Mean</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>N</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td><td>Full Sample</td><td>Male vs. Female t-stat</td></tr><tr><td>Question Type: 7-point Likert Scale (1= "Not Interested At All," 7= "Very Interested")</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char="."><bold>1. How interested are you in the following majors?</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Accounting</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.3684</td><td char=".">3.7523</td><td char=".">4.1438</td><td char=".">−2.509*</td></tr><tr><td> Computer Information Systems</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.2947</td><td char=".">2.8716</td><td char=".">3.7759</td><td char=".">−5.793</td></tr><tr><td> Economics</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.6842</td><td char=".">2.5138</td><td char=".">3.2575</td><td char=".">−5.919</td></tr><tr><td> Finance</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">5.9105</td><td char=".">3.4495</td><td char=".">4.3779</td><td char=".">−6.497***</td></tr><tr><td> International Business</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.9895</td><td char=".">3.5138</td><td char=".">3.8161</td><td char=".">−2.211***</td></tr><tr><td> Business Management</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.5211</td><td char=".">4.6330</td><td char=".">4.5619</td><td char=".">.524</td></tr><tr><td> Marketing</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.4474</td><td char=".">5.1009</td><td char=".">4.6856</td><td char=".">3.066*</td></tr><tr><td> Quantitative Finance</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.4789</td><td char=".">2.3119</td><td char=".">3.0535</td><td char=".">−5.930*</td></tr><tr><td>Question Type: 7-point Likert Scale (1= "Not difficult at all," 7= "Very difficult")</td></tr><tr><td char="."><bold>2. How difficult do you believe the following majors are?</bold></td></tr><tr><td> Accounting</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">5.1895</td><td char=".">5.7431</td><td char=".">5.3913</td><td char=".">3.551</td></tr><tr><td> Computer Information Systems</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">5.4105</td><td char=".">5.8991</td><td char=".">5.5886</td><td char=".">3.779</td></tr><tr><td> Economics</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.8211</td><td char=".">5.3578</td><td char=".">5.0168</td><td char=".">3.525</td></tr><tr><td> Finance</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">5.3158</td><td char=".">5.5780</td><td char=".">5.4114</td><td char=".">1.983</td></tr><tr><td> International Business</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.2316</td><td char=".">4.4587</td><td char=".">4.3144</td><td char=".">1.436</td></tr><tr><td> Business Management</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.6263</td><td char=".">3.9541</td><td char=".">3.7458</td><td char=".">2.199</td></tr><tr><td> Marketing</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.5632</td><td char=".">3.8073</td><td char=".">3.6522</td><td char=".">1.554</td></tr><tr><td> Quantitative Finance</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">6.0158</td><td char=".">6.0459</td><td char=".">6.0268</td><td char=".">.221*</td></tr><tr><td>Question Type: 7-point Likert Scale (1= "Strongly Disagree," 7= "Strongly Agree")</td></tr><tr><td char="."><bold>3. How strongly do you agree with the following statement: "You have to be good at math to major in..."</bold></td></tr><tr><td> Accounting</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">5.5000</td><td char=".">5.8991</td><td char=".">5.6455</td><td char=".">2.459***</td></tr><tr><td> Computer Information Systems</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.4211</td><td char=".">4.8532</td><td char=".">4.5786</td><td char=".">2.396</td></tr><tr><td> Economics</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">5.0421</td><td char=".">5.2477</td><td char=".">5.1171</td><td char=".">1.227</td></tr><tr><td> Finance</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">5.8263</td><td char=".">6.0734</td><td char=".">5.9164</td><td char=".">1.846*</td></tr><tr><td> International Business</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.6763</td><td char=".">3.8073</td><td char=".">3.7224</td><td char=".">.772</td></tr><tr><td> Business Management</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.3842</td><td char=".">3.6789</td><td char=".">3.4916</td><td char=".">1.782</td></tr><tr><td> Marketing</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.6368</td><td char=".">3.6789</td><td char=".">3.6521</td><td char=".">.229</td></tr><tr><td> Quantitative Finance</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">6.3053</td><td char=".">6.2018</td><td char=".">6.2676</td><td char=".">−.773</td></tr><tr><td char="."><bold>4. How strongly do you agree with the following statements?</bold></td></tr><tr><td> S1: Men perform better in quantitative fields than women.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.1789</td><td char=".">2.2477</td><td char=".">2.8394</td><td char=".">−5.039**</td></tr><tr><td> S2: Working in finance means you work more than 40 hour weeks.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.6421</td><td char=".">3.8440</td><td char=".">4.3512</td><td char=".">−4.370</td></tr><tr><td> S3: It would be hard to have a family while working in finance.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.3632</td><td char=".">2.6422</td><td char=".">3.1004</td><td char=".">−4.065</td></tr><tr><td> S4: Finance is "for the boys."</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">2.9316</td><td char=".">2.0367</td><td char=".">2.6054</td><td char=".">−4.646***</td></tr><tr><td> S5: People who like working with numbers go into finance.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.8368</td><td char=".">4.8624</td><td char=".">4.8461</td><td char=".">.146</td></tr><tr><td> S6: People in finance are hard-working and driven.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">5.1053</td><td char=".">5.3486</td><td char=".">5.1940</td><td char=".">1.735</td></tr><tr><td> S7: People in finance are more concerned about making money than liking their job.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.7895</td><td char=".">4.1468</td><td char=".">4.5552</td><td char=".">−3.698</td></tr><tr><td> S8: People in finance are cut throat.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.1895</td><td char=".">3.8624</td><td char=".">4.0703</td><td char=".">−1.989*</td></tr><tr><td> S9: People in finance are "corporate" people.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.5737</td><td char=".">4.6239</td><td char=".">4.5920</td><td char=".">.319</td></tr><tr><td> S10: People in finance word hard, and party harder.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.1474</td><td char=".">3.9358</td><td char=".">4.0703</td><td char=".">−1.162</td></tr><tr><td> S11: People in finance are self-absorbed and egotistical.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.3842</td><td char=".">2.9541</td><td char=".">3.2274</td><td char=".">−2.443</td></tr><tr><td> S12: Finance is a male-dominated field.____________________________</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.7158</td><td char=".">4.8991</td><td char=".">4.7826</td><td char=".">1.093</td></tr><tr><td> I would be comfortable working in a workplace that was predominately the other gender.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.9053</td><td char=".">4.0917</td><td char=".">4.6087</td><td char=".">−4.2662</td></tr><tr><td> I have confidence in my math ability.</td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">5.3000</td><td char=".">4.8624</td><td char=".">5.1405</td><td char=".">−2.385**</td></tr><tr><td>Question Type: 7-point Likert Scale (1= "Very Negative," 7= "Very Positive")</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Question 7: How would you rate your overall attitude toward (perception of) the finance field?</bold></td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">4.9474</td><td char=".">4.3853</td><td char=".">4.7425</td><td char=".">−3.900</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Significance codes: <emph>p</emph>-value 0.1 "*"; <emph>p</emph>-value 0.05 "**"; <emph>p</emph>-value 0.01 "***."</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-11">Testing H1: The impact of stereotypes on student attitude toward finance</hd> <p>We conduct a multiple regression analysis to examine the effects of the Colleague Stereotypes and Work-Life Vision stereotype factors student attitude toward finance. To control for other factors that could impact student attitudes, we also include the following control variables in the regressions: gender, whether the student has a parent, sibling or close associate who works in finance, and whether the student is in a quantitative major.</p> <p>We present results in <emph>Table 3</emph>. The overall model is statistically significant (F(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref45">6</reflink>, 272) = 12.932, <emph>p</emph> <.001; R<sups>2</sups> =.22, Adjusted R<sups>2</sups> =.21). The Colleague Stereotypes factor is a statistically significant negative predictor of attitudes toward finance (B = −0.253, <emph>p</emph> =.001). Students who strongly associate those in finance with certain personality traits (e.g., cutthroat, self-absorbed) had more negative attitudes toward the field. The Work-Life Vision stereotypes factor is a positive predictor that is statistically significant at the 10% level (B = 0.123, <emph>p</emph> =.072). This indicates that some students may be attracted to the prospect of a challenging career in a male-dominated field.</p> <p>Table 3. Multiple regression: Predicting attitude toward finance.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Attitude toward Finance</td></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td>B</td><td>SE B</td><td>β</td><td>t</td><td><italic>p</italic>-value</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Colleague Stereotypes</td><td char=".">−0.253</td><td char=".">0.079</td><td char=".">−0.203</td><td char=".">−3.212</td><td char=".">0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Sibling in Finance</td><td char=".">0.478</td><td char=".">0.137</td><td char=".">0.189</td><td char=".">3.479</td><td char=".">0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Math Confidence</td><td char=".">0.234</td><td char=".">0.048</td><td char=".">0.266</td><td char=".">4.837</td><td char="."><0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.131</td><td char=".">0.156</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.839</td><td char=".">0.402</td></tr><tr><td>Quantitative Major</td><td char=".">0.494</td><td char=".">0.147</td><td char=".">0.195</td><td char=".">3.368</td><td char=".">0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Work-Life Vision Stereotypes</td><td char=".">0.123</td><td char=".">0.068</td><td char=".">0.12</td><td char=".">1.803</td><td char=".">0.072</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">3.662</td><td char=".">0.372</td><td /><td char=".">9.834</td><td char="."><0.001</td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td char=".">278</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>R-Square</td><td char=".">0.222</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R-Square</td><td char=".">0.205</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For the control variables, both confidence in math (B = 0.234, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and having a family member or close associate in finance (B = 0.478, <emph>p</emph> <.001) were significant positive predictors of attitude toward finance. Finally, students who have already declared a quantitative major had significantly more positive attitudes toward finance (B = 0.494, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Taken together, our results are consistent with H1 that stereotypic thinking is significantly related to student attitudes toward finance, even when controlling for other possible factors.</p> <p>Interestingly, gender was not a significant predictor of attitudes toward finance in this regression model, suggesting that differences in male and female attitudes may be explained through other mechanisms, as explored in the analyses that follow.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-12">Testing H2: Gender differences in stereotypic thinking</hd> <p>To examine gender differences in stereotypic thinking, we first conduct independent samples t-tests comparing males and females on the two factors derived from the exploratory factor analysis: Colleague Stereotypes and Work-Life Vision.</p> <p>The results of the t-test indicate a significant difference between males and females in their agreement with stereotypes regarding colleagues in finance (t(<reflink idref="bib297" id="ref46">297</reflink>) = −6.11, <emph>p</emph> <.001). On average, male students (M = 3.53, SD = 1.17) held stronger stereotypical beliefs about finance colleagues compared wth female students (M = 2.69, SD = 1.08). This suggests that males tend to perceive finance professionals as more driven by traits such as cutthroat or egotistical behavior than females.</p> <p>For the Work-Life Vision factor, the results also revealed a marginally significant difference between males and females (t(<reflink idref="bib297" id="ref47">297</reflink>) = −1.96, <emph>p</emph> =.051). Males (M = 4.30, SD = 0.99) agreed slightly more with the stereotypes related to work-life balance in finance as compared with females (M = 4.07, SD = 0.95). This suggests that male students may be more likely to perceive finance as a field dominated by men and associated with more work-dominated life balance.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-13">Testing H2: Mediation analysis #1 on stereotypic thinking, attitude toward finance, and gende...</hd> <p>We first conduct a mediation analysis (Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]; Model 4) to examine whether the Colleague Stereotypes factor mediates the relationship between gender and attitudes toward finance, while controlling for confidence in math. We present results in <emph>Table 4.</emph></p> <p>Table 4. Mediation analysis #1 (N = 299).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Model: Colleague Stereotypes</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Coefficient</td><td>se</td><td>t</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>LLCI</td><td>ULCI</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">3.8221</td><td char=".">.2132</td><td char=".">17.9285</td><td char=".">0.0000</td><td char=".">3.4703</td><td char=".">4.1738</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (Male = 0)</td><td char=".">.2073</td><td char=".">.1185</td><td char=".">1.7498</td><td char=".">.0812</td><td char=".">.0118</td><td char=".">.4028</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence in Math (Covariate)</td><td char=".">.0511</td><td char=".">.0394</td><td char=".">1.2956</td><td char=".">.1961</td><td char=".">−.0140</td><td char=".">.1161</td></tr><tr><td>Model: Attitude toward Finance</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Coefficient</td><td>se</td><td>t</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>LLCI</td><td>ULCI</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">3.8753</td><td char=".">.3581</td><td char=".">10.8230</td><td char=".">0.0000</td><td char=".">3.2845</td><td char=".">4.4661</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (Male = 0)</td><td char=".">.4910</td><td char=".">.1385</td><td char=".">3.5455</td><td char=".">.0005</td><td char=".">.2625</td><td char=".">.7196</td></tr><tr><td>Colleague Stereotype</td><td char=".">−.1837</td><td char=".">.0676</td><td char=".">−2.7179</td><td char=".">.0070</td><td char=".">−.2952</td><td char=".">−.0722</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence in math (Covariate)</td><td char=".">.2587</td><td char=".">.0460</td><td char=".">5.6286</td><td char=".">.0000</td><td char=".">.1828</td><td char=".">.3345</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect: Gender on Attitude toward Finance via Colleague Stereotype</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Effect</td><td>Boot SE</td><td>Boot LLCI</td><td>Boot ULCI</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Colleague Stereotype</td><td char=".">−.0381</td><td char=".">.0287</td><td char=".">−.0919</td><td char=".">−.0008</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Consistent with our second hypothesis, the relationship between gender and Colleagues Stereotypes is positive and statistically significant at the 10% level (B = 0.21, <emph>p</emph> =.08), suggesting that male students tend to hold this set of stereotypes more strongly as compared with female students. The Colleagues Stereotypes factor in turn is a significant negative predictor of attitudes toward finance (B = −0.18, <emph>p</emph> =.01), indicating that those who more strongly hold this set of stereotypes tend to have less favorable attitudes toward the field.</p> <p>The indirect effect of gender on attitudes toward finance through the Colleagues Stereotypes factor is negative (as expected), and significant (indirect effect = −0.04, 90% CI [−0.0919, −0.0008]) indicating that Colleagues Stereotypes has a negative impact on male attitudes toward finance.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-14">Testing H2: Mediation analysis #2 on the role of confidence in math</hd> <p>We conduct a second mediation analysis (Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref49">18</reflink>]; Model 4) to assess whether confidence in math mediates the relationship between gender and attitudes toward finance, while controlling for stereotypic thinking. We present results in Table 5. Our results indicate that, consistent with H2, gender is in fact a significant positive predictor of confidence in math. The coefficient estimate and high level of statistical significance (B = 0.41, <emph>p</emph> =.02) indicate that males reported higher confidence in their math abilities compared wiith females. Confidence in math is also a significant positive predictor of attitudes toward finance (B = 0.26, <emph>p</emph> <.001), suggesting that students with higher math confidence had more positive attitudes toward finance.</p> <p>Table 5. Mediation analysis #2 (N = 299).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Model: Confidence in math</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Coefficient</td><td>se</td><td>t</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>LLCI</td><td>ULCI</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">4.4129</td><td char=".">.3732</td><td char=".">11.8243</td><td char=".">0.0000</td><td char=".">3.7971</td><td char=".">5.0286</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (Male = 0)</td><td char=".">.4123</td><td char=".">.1735</td><td char=".">2.3759</td><td char=".">.0181</td><td char=".">.1260</td><td char=".">.6985</td></tr><tr><td>Colleague Stereotype (Covariate)</td><td char=".">.1104</td><td char=".">.0852</td><td char=".">1.2956</td><td char=".">.1961</td><td char=".">−.0302</td><td char=".">.2511</td></tr><tr><td>Model: Interest in Finance</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Coefficient</td><td>se</td><td>t</td><td>p</td><td>LLCI</td><td>ULCI</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">3.8753</td><td char=".">.3581</td><td char=".">10.8230</td><td char=".">0.0000</td><td char=".">3.2845</td><td char=".">4.4661</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (Male = 0)</td><td char=".">.4910</td><td char=".">.1385</td><td char=".">3.5455</td><td char=".">.0005</td><td char=".">.2625</td><td char=".">.7196</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence in math</td><td char=".">.2587</td><td char=".">.0460</td><td char=".">5.6286</td><td char=".">0.0000</td><td char=".">.1828</td><td char=".">.3345</td></tr><tr><td>Colleague Stereotype (Covariate)</td><td char=".">−.1837</td><td char=".">.0676</td><td char=".">−2.7179</td><td char=".">.0070</td><td char=".">−.2952</td><td char=".">−.0722</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect: Gender on Interest in Finance via Confidence in Math</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Effect</td><td>Boot SE</td><td>Boot LLCI</td><td>Boot ULCI</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Confidence in Math</td><td char=".">.1066</td><td char=".">.0528</td><td char=".">.0272</td><td char=".">.1990</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The indirect effect of gender on attitudes toward finance through confidence in math was statistically significant (indirect effect = 0.11, 90% CI [0.0272, 0.1990]), indicating that part of the relationship between gender and attitudes toward finance is mediated by math confidence. This suggests that females' lower math confidence contributes to their less favorable attitudes toward finance.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-15">Summary of gender differences and mechanisms</hd> <p>The results indicate that different mechanisms influence attitudes toward finance for males versus females. Confidence in math plays a significant mediating role in shaping attitudes toward finance, particularly for females. Our analysis shows that females' lower confidence in math significantly mediates their less favorable attitudes toward finance. This finding aligns with previous research by Hawash et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref50">17</reflink>]), which shows that more females than males attributed their decision to not pursue finance as a major to a perceived lack of quantitative skills, despite performing similarly to males in finance courses.</p> <p>On the other hand, stereotypic thinking about finance professionals also impacts attitudes toward the field, though its mediating role is more modest. Although males may hold stronger stereotypes on average, the marginal significance of the mediation effect suggests that these stereotypes are only one piece of the puzzle. Importantly, those who hold fewer negative stereotypes about finance professionals tend to have more favorable attitudes toward the field. This highlights an opportunity for educators: reducing negative stereotypes about finance professionals could help to improve overall attitudes toward finance, particularly for males, even if it does not fully explain the gender differences.</p> <p>Together, these findings underscore the importance of addressing both math confidence and gender stereotypes in educational interventions. Efforts to boost math confidence in female students and to challenge stereotypic perceptions about finance professionals could help to close the gender gap in attitudes toward finance and encourage more equitable participation in the field.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-16">Study limitations and future research</hd> <p>In this section, we discuss limitations of our study and the impact of these limitations on the generalizability of our main results, as well as suggesting some ideas for future research.</p> <p>First, it is important to note that there can be significant variation in the demographic makeup of undergraduate business majors across universities. While our sample is highly representative of the overall student body at our surveyed college, it is not necessarily representative of the student body at other business schools across the country. Some schools may not even offer a formal finance degree, and yet will still graduate many students who go on to work in the finance industry. We therefore suspect that there could potentially be variation in the specific stereotypes held by students at different schools. The levels of student agreement with any given, individual stereotype is therefore likely not to be generalizable at schools with different student body demographics, and it is important for educators to keep a pulse on the specific stereotypes that may be most prevalent at their own institution. For example, the finance-related stereotypes at a school outside of a major finance-center such as New York City or Charlotte, NC may be quite different than those in more rural areas, because of the differing levels and types of exposure that these students have to the industry.</p> <p>Second, the marginal significance of the mediating role of stereotypic thinking suggests that the specific stereotypes examined in this study may not fully capture all relevant beliefs about finance professionals. Future research could broaden the range of stereotypes examined, including perceptions of political leanings in finance, the extent to which students are motivated by future potential earnings, ethical concerns about finance, and others. Future work could thus build on our findings to provide a more comprehensive picture of how students form attitudes toward finance or any other field of interest.</p> <p>Third, we use a cross-sectional design, which limits our ability to draw causal conclusions about the mediating roles of math confidence and stereotypic thinking. Future research could employ longitudinal designs to track changes in student attitudes over time, particularly as s<bold>t</bold>udents progress through finance-related coursework or gain more exposure to finance professionals.</p> <p>While the limitations above make it potentially difficult to generalize our findings about individual, finance-specific stereotypes, our main three results likely remain more generalizable: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>) students are prone to stereotypic thinking, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>) there are gender differences in stereotypic thinking, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>) stereotypic thinking (regardless of what the stereotypes may be) can have a significant effect on the choice of business major. Future research could further test these findings in other disciplines.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-17">Discussion</hd> <p>In this section, we discuss ideas to mitigate the biases of stereotypical thinking when choosing a major.</p> <p>First, our results show strong patterns of belief that the stereotypical finance major or employee is male. What steps can faculty take to help students overcome the inherent biases of these stereotypes, potentially helping to address the gender gap in finance?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Faculty should speak of those in the field inclusively.</emph> Dwivedi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref54">11</reflink>]) revealed that one recipe for a woman's success as CEO is that her organization either has founders that support gender inclusion or organizational programs that promote diversity within the company. The study finds specifically that male predecessors to a female CEO play an important role in making the organization more inclusive. Within the classroom, all faculty (regardless of gender) thus have an important role to play in creating an inclusive learning environment.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Increase female faculty representation.</emph> Krishna and Orhun ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref55">22</reflink>]) show that grades for female students in quantitative classes improved by 7.7% when the class was taught by a female professor. Student interest and performance expectations also improved while fulfilling the female students' need for role models.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Invite women in finance to guest lecture.</emph> The CFA Institute research emphasizes the need to "pursue university outreach" to attract and attain women professionals (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]). Not only does this create exposure to successful women in the field, but it also provides the opportunity for female students to network with possible mentors and thus further mitigate stereotypes by forming personal relationships with professionals in the field (e.g., Hunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Foster learning, community, and mentorship opportunities for female finance students.</emph> This goal could be through a accomplished via a college-specific group, or by partnering with a national organization such as Girls Who Invest (GWI), a "non-profit organization dedicated to transforming the investment management industry by attracting and advancing women investors, change-makers, and leaders" (Girls Who Invest, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref58">14</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Close the gender gap in mathematics.</emph> Our mediation analysis indicates that female students exhibit lower confidence in their math ability, which in turn results in overall less favorable attitudes toward finance. This finding suggests that interventions aimed at improving math confidence may be particularly effective for increasing female interest in finance. An article from MIT's Women in Mathematics (Glazer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]) suggests several recommendations to close the gender gap in mathematics, many similar to the recommendations listed above: hire female faculty members, employ mandatory unconscious bias training, invite female mathematicians to speak, host mentorship programs, encourage collaborative environments, restructure introductory courses, and provide funding to organizations working to create diversity in mathematics departments.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Create more opportunities for female students to learn about and work in finance.</emph> In addition to suggesting ideas similar to those stated above, Hawash et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref60">17</reflink>]) also recommend that finance departments consider increasing their presence in high schools to provide female students with information about finance before college. They also recommend that finance departments work closely with corporations with the aim of attracting more female students into the finance industry.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0182506422-18">How can business schools help students to better discern career paths?</hd> <p>As many business schools face declining enrollment and public skepticism about the value of an undergraduate business degree, it is critical for business faculty to help set up their students for success by choosing a major that will maximize their finances and personal fulfillment. One way to help students discover their unique set of interests, KSAs, and possible matching career paths is through a process of guided reflection either in class or as part of extracurricular programming. For example, Boston College has successfully implemented a retreat program featuring "Three Key Questions" for students to reflect on (What brings me joy? What am I good at? Who does the world need me to be?).[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref61">3</reflink>] Actively examining and reflecting on these three questions provides students with a fuller information set, less prone to the biases of stereotypical thinking, that they can then use to home in on a few possible career paths that might be a good fit. Work by Larsson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>]) empirically documents the benefits to business students of an in-class project that incorporates this type of reflection in conjunction with alumni mentoring relationships.</p> <p>There are also many self-guided resources that students can use to discern possible career paths. For example, many colleges career centers offer a wide variety of self-assessments that students can use to learn about their KSAs, values, and personality traits.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>] Of course, knowing one's own KSAs, values, and personality traits are only half of the equation; students also need to know which careers will be the best match for them personally. It can thus be helpful for colleges to sponsor career panels and corporate excursions for students to hear from alumni working in different fields, to encourage students to take part in corporate externships and internships, and to provide students with access to resources (e.g., print or online career guides, videos, etc.) where they can learn about the wide range of career opportunities available to them after graduation. Meeting and interacting with professionals should help to mitigate stereotypic thinking as students instead gain a first-hand understanding of the field.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>We survey undergraduate students to inventory stereotypes, analyze the effects of stereotypical thinking on the choice of major, and examine gender differences in stereotypical thinking. We find that stronger levels of stereotypic thinking are significantly related to a student's attitude toward finance. We also identify significant gender differences in stereotypical thinking, primarily that male students tend to hold stereotypes more strongly and that female students tend to self-report lower confidence in their math ability, both of which are related to attitudes toward finance. We conclude by suggesting ideas to mitigate stereotypical thinking and to help students better discern majors based on their individual interests and KSAs. Given the importance of the choice of major on one's personal fulfillment and career trajectory, it is our hope that this study will equip business faculty to combat the biases of stereotypical thinking and set our students up for personal and professional success.</p> <hd id="AN0182506422-20">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0182506422-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> AACSB. (2022, July 1). 2020 guiding principles and standards for business. Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. https://<ulink href="http://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/documents/accreditation/2020-aacsb-business-accreditation-standards-july-2021.pdf?rev=64fccbbef854490c9c5c3b8e8bd7f7dd">www.aacsb.edu/-/media/documents/accreditation/2020-aacsb-business-accreditation-standards-july-2021.pdf?rev=64fccbbef854490c9c5c3b8e8bd7f7dd</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref14" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, R., Fender, R. (Eds.), & CFA Institute. (2016, January 1). Gender diversity in investment management. CFA Institute. https://<ulink href="http://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/survey/gender-diversity-report.pdf">www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/survey/gender-diversity-report.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Banaji, M. R. (2001). Stereotypes, social psychology of. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 15100–15104). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01754-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beasley, M. A., & Fischer, M. J. (2012). Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Social Psychology of Education, 15 (4), 427 – 448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9185-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bordon, P., & Fu, C. (2015, May 15). College-major choice to college-then-major choice. OUP Academic. https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/82/4/1247/2607352</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref18" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brau, B. J., Brau, J. C., Holmes, A. L., & Ringwood, M. (2020). Factors of the desire to become a finance major: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Education, 46 (1), 18 – 40. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/48630135">www.jstor.org/stable/48630135</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref34" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Breda, T., Jouini, E., Napp, C., & Thebault, G. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117 (49), 31063 – 31069. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008704117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chattalas, M., Kramer, T., & Takada, H. (2008). The impact of national stereotypes on the country of origin effect. International Marketing Review, 25 (1), 54 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330810851881</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref29" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (5), 642 – 658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D. M., & Gerhardstein, R. (2002). Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (12), 1615 – 1628. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dwivedi, P., Joshi, A., & Misangyi, V. F. (2018). Gender-inclusive gatekeeping: How (mostly male) predecessors influence the success of female CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 61 (2), 379 – 404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109 (3), 573 – 598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gadassi, R., & Gati, I. (2009). The effect of gender stereotypes on explicit and implicit career preferences. The Counseling Psychologist, 37 (6), 902 – 922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009334093</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Girls Who Invest. (2024). Girls Who Invest—Advancing women in finance | Diversifying the investment industry. Retrieved September 18, 2024, from https://<ulink href="http://www.girlswhoinvest.org">www.girlswhoinvest.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glazer, A. (2019, March 10). National Mathematics Survey—Women in math. https://math.mit.edu/wim/2019/03/10/national-mathematics-survey/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawash, R., & Stephen, S.-A. K. (2019). Where are all the female finance majors? An examination of gender and performance in undergraduate corporate finance. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 19 (8), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v19i8.2674</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawash, R., Stephen, S.-A., & McCormick, M. (2020). Is finance for me? Gender differences in choice of finance as a college major. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20 (8), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i8.3231</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunt, S. C., Falgiani, A. A., & Intrieri, R. C. (2004). The nature and origins of students' perceptions of accountants. Journal of Education for Business, 79 (3), 142 – 148. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.3.142-148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IBM Corp. (2021). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 28) [Computer software].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, D., Markham, F. S., & Cangelosi, J. D. (2002). Why students pursue the business degree: A comparison of business majors across universities. Journal of Education for Business, 78 (1), 28 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krishna, A., & Orhun, Y. (2020, December 23). How business schools can help close the gender gap. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/12/how-business-schools-can-help-close-the-gender-gap</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larsson, C. F., Marshall, B., & Ritchie, B. (2022). The alumni project: Fostering student-alumni engagement in the curriculum. Journal of Education for Business, 97 (4), 253 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2021.1932704</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leppel, K., Williams, M. L., & Waldauer, C. (2001). The impact of parental occupation and socioeconomic status on choice of college major. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22 (4), 373 – 394. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012716828901</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oppenheimer, D.M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 867–872. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1974). Influence of sex role stereotypes on personnel decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (1), 9 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlee, R. P., Curren, M. T., Harich, K. R., & Kiesler, T. (2007). Perception bias among undergraduate business students by major. Journal of Education for Business, 82 (3), 169 – 177. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.3.169-177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls' and women's performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66 (3-4), 175 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stamarski, C. S., & Son Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers' sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, J. (Trans.). (2017, November 12). Finance stereotypes. Dartmouth Folklore Archive. Retrieved July 9, 2022, from https://journeys.dartmouth.edu/folklorearchive/2017/11/12/finance-stereotypes/</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0182506422-22"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> See, for example, Kim et al. ([21]). Hawash et al. ([17]) contains a helpful summary of the larger literature on factors that influence students' choice of major.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matching this data with actual enrollment figures, it is likely that the 10% of students who marked "freshman" are in fact junior-level transfer students starting their first year at this particular university.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Developed by Rev. Michael J. Himes; for more information, reference: https://<ulink href="http://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/campus-community/students/becoming.html">www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/campus-community/students/becoming.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> As one example, see the governmental O*Net Skills Search at https://<ulink href="http://www.onetonline.org/skills/soft/">www.onetonline.org/skills/soft/</ulink>. There are also many corporate solutions available online for students to use.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Caley Zack; Carl F. Larsson and Gizem Atav</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib165" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib297" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref62"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1459089
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: How Does Stereotypic Thinking Affect the Choice of Major for Undergraduate Business Students?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Caley+Zack%22">Caley Zack</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carl+F%2E+Larsson%22">Carl F. Larsson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gizem+Atav%22">Gizem Atav</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Education+for+Business%22"><i>Journal of Education for Business</i></searchLink>. 2025 100(1):1-12.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stereotypes%22">Stereotypes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Study%22">Undergraduate Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+Education%22">Business Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bias%22">Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Finance+Occupations%22">Finance Occupations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Influences%22">Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Introductory+Courses%22">Introductory Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Work+Relationship%22">Family Work Relationship</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/08832323.2024.2430216
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0883-2323<br />1940-3356
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Using a large survey of undergraduate business students, we identify common stereotypes, analyze gender differences in stereotypic thinking, and examine how stereotypes impact a student's choice of major. We document gender differences in stereotypic thinking and find that stereotypes can introduce biases on students' attitudes toward our study's major of interest, finance. While we focus on finance stereotypes for tractability, our results have more general implications for understanding how students discern business majors using limited information sets. We conclude by suggesting ideas to mitigate stereotypic thinking and help students to better discern majors.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1459089
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1459089
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/08832323.2024.2430216
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Stereotypes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Business Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Finance Occupations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Introductory Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Work Relationship
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: How Does Stereotypic Thinking Affect the Choice of Major for Undergraduate Business Students?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Caley Zack
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carl F. Larsson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gizem Atav
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0883-2323
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-3356
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 100
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Education for Business
              Type: main
ResultId 1