Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article focuses on how family backgrounds affect the choice to study Hispanic Philology in China. Specifically, our aim is to study the mediating effects of the motivation of choice, and the conditional indirect effect of parental values. The sample comprised 9,60 students at sixteen Liberal Arts Majors departments in twenty-one universities. To reach our goal, we combined four analytical methods, including: Principal Components analysis, Binary Logistic regression, Mediating Effects, and Moderation Effects. The results revealed that student choice was influenced by family backgrounds. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation play a partially mediating role, while parental values affect the strength and direction of that relationship as the moderating variable.

Keywords

higher education major choice family background mediating effects educational and vocational guidance

Introduction

The Chinese educational system currently combines two factors that develop the decision-making capacity of students concerning their careers. On the one hand, inrecent decades the educational system has expanded tertiary education enrolment, increasing the number of university students. On the other hand, there has been the implementation of a specific model of academic and vocational guidance which emphasizes individual decision-making throughout the educational and professional career (Doncel, 2018). Both factors construct a context where an increasing number of students have to make decisions related to their academic trajectory regarding, for example, their choice of major. Choice of major not only relates to the subjects that the students wish to take at college, but also affects the student’s future occupation. (Korfmann & Knut, 2021; Monaghan & Jang, 2017). Due to these reasons, choice of major not only affects students during their time in college, but also potentially for many years after college. (Borden & Holthaus, 2018; Charles & Bradley, 2009; Ge & Ho, 2019; Quadlin, 2020; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012). Therefore, considering the potential relevance of their career planning for their oncoming job, it is relevant to obtain more information about how and why an individual chooses one specific major or another. When choosing a major, students may have different reasons for their decisions(Maltese et al., 2014; Liu, 2019; Sovansophal, 2020; Quadlin, 2020; Aydede, 2020; Sudhana et al., 2020; S. Liu & Apple, 2016; Altmejd et al., 2021). Much research has emphasized that the root cause behind all possible reasons may be inseparable from family background (Humayon et al., 2018; Y. Liu, 2019; Sovansophal, 2020; Yang & Chen, 2021). The EMI theory is helpful in explaining the influence of family background on professional choices in the existing literature (Kleanthous, 2014). It suggests that in the context of expanding higher education, family background not only affects educational opportunities, but also influences students’ educational decisions. Although EMI theory represents the central theme of the influence of family background on major choice, it does not adequately account for the drivers of the influence of family background on educational decision making caused by the intergenerational transmission of major choice motivations and parental values. For example, Guo, Guo, and Xu (2020) found that the influence of family background on professional choice is driven by choice motives. Despite this observation, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, few studies have analyzed the influence of family background on educational decision-making from an internal logic perspective. Therefore, in order to fill the gap in the literature, the purpose of this study is to complement EMI theory with motivation theory and intergenerational transfer theory in order to analyze the internal logic of the influence of family background on major choice.

The first objective of this paper is to introduce EMI theory in order to examine the influence of family background on major choice. The second objective of this paper is to examine the influence of choice motivation and intergenerational transfer theory on major choice, a hypothesis that this paper questions by drawing on motivation theory and intergenerational transfer theory. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we develop a theoretical model based on three theories and previous research. Next, I used data from an original, nationally representative survey experiment of students at Literal Arts majors (N = 960). The data were then analyzed and the results were presented and discussed. Finally, conclusions are drawn based on these results.

Theoretical framework

Family background and logics of major choice

Much research in the social sciences has considered how students from different family backgrounds choose a major.(Humayon et al., 2018; Kleanthous, 2014; Liu, 2019; Sovansophal, 2020). EMI theory (Effectively Maintained Inequality) suggests that as higher education expands, the overall inequality of educational opportunities decreases, but educational inequality is effectively maintained, that is, the advantaged class is more likely to have greater access to quality educational opportunities and more options (Galos & Strauss, 2023; Lucas, 2001; Marks, 2013; Valentino & Vaisey, 2022). Applying EMI theory to the field of choice of major, scholars have examined thedirect impact of an individual’ s family socio-economic background on her/his choice. Prior studies have shown that students from privileged family backgrounds tend to follow a popular major, such as finance and engineering, but that students from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to choose an unpopular major, such as humanities (Kleanthous, 2014; Liu, 2019; Sovansophal, 2020; Yang & Chen, 2021).

Therefore, This article addresses various interrelated questions:

Q1: Do liberal arts students from privileged family backgrounds have a higher probability of choosing to major in Spanish?

Research often assesses the relationship between family backgrounds and choice of major. Although EMI theory represents a central theme in the relationship between family backgrounds and choice of major, it has not adequately accounted how these links operate from family background to major choice, and the choice may also be affected by other factors, especially preferences.

Family background, preferences, major choice

The question of how family background is associated with choice of major is particularly salient in the light of student preferences. Students may have many preferences when they choose a major, such as gender, personal ability, personal interest, labor market, employability, potential earnings, opportunities to help others. (Altmejd et al., 2021; Aydede, 2020; Liu, 2019; Quadlin, 2020; Sudhana et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2021). However, the preferences that students have may differ among those with different family backgrounds. Research has shown that student preferences translate their family backgrounds into choice of major differently. Scholars have evaluated several of the most frequent examples found in the literature to explain the relationship between family background, preference, and choice of major: labor market, economic rewards, and risk (Liu, 2019). In the past two years, scholars have considered the combination of various preferences to expand the EMI theory, for example, scholars have combined EMI theory and motivation theory to form a more complex and refined theoretical model that evaluates the internal logic of family background in choice of major (Guo, Guo, & Wang, 2020; Guo, Guo, & Xu, 2020; Yang & Chen, 2021). Ryan and Deci (2000) classified motivation into two types: Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Motivation, and this is widely recognized by the academic field. Intrinsic motivation refers to the motivation to engage in an activity due to one’s own interests and internal self-drive, while extrinsic motivation refers to the motivation to engage in an activity in order to obtain another outcome from the activity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Guo explored the internal logic of the influence of family background on major choice by combining EMI theory and motivation theory, and explored the internal logic of the influence of family background on major choice by using selfefficacy, personal interest, and disciplinary strengths as observational variables of Internal motivation, and job prospects, encouragement from friends and family, and future salary as observational variables of External motivation, and the results showed that the influence of family background on major choice was influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Guo, Guo, & Wang, 2020; Guo, Guo, & Xu, 2020), and this view was also confirmed by Yang and Chen (2021). It can be seen that the combination of EMI and Motivation theory can compensate for the inadequacy of EMI theory in interpreting the influence of family background on choice of major. This is the issue I will test in this paper.Therefore, the following questions are proposed.

Q2a: Does family background influence major choice through influencing intrinsic motivation?

Q2b: Does family background influences major choice through influencing extrinsic motivation?

Family background, motivation, intergenerational transmission, choice of field of study

We know that family background may affect student choice of major, and we also know that the effect between family background and students’ major choice might be influenced by student preferences. A long line of research in social education has emphasized that parental views are transmitted to children Gong et al. (2022); Wang and Yu (2020). There is a distinct possibility that student preferences are due to parental preferences, and invisibly transmitted to their children. Multigenerational transmission theory (MGT) suggests that family perceptions are transmitted multi-generationally, with parents transmitting their attitudes and perceptions to their children. Despite scholarly interest in inter-generational transmission in students, research has yet to examine the association between inter-generational transmission and choice of major. Previous research has often used family background, preferences in choice of major, and choice of major to explain how family background links affect choice of major. However, students with similar family characteristics may take different paths. If this is the case, previous research may not sufficiently explain how family background affects choice of major. Therefore, the following questions are proposed.

Q3a: Is the mediating effect of family background on major choice by the intrinsic motivation is moderated by parental values as shared with their children

Q3b: Is the mediating effect of family background on major choice by the extrinsic motivation is moderated by parental values as shared with their children.

Research model was developed systematically by above three theories and hypothesis. (As shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The effect of family background on the choice to study Hispanic Philology, the mediating effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and the moderating mediating effects of parental values.

Data source

A questionnaire was designed for this research, in which the concepts of professional educational guidance, cultural capital, economic capital, and social capital were developed based on the previous studies of Gao (2011); Li and Zhang (2013); Wu (2013); Maltese(2014); Yang (2014); Kim et al. (2016); Postiglione and Wright (2016); Liu and Apple (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Sheng (2017); Ge and Ho (2019); Ruan (2020). A first version of this, questionnaire was presented to several researchers specializing in the Sociology of Education for evaluation. After this evaluation, it was translated into Chinese, and pretested three times to reduce deviations between the translation and the intended meaning. A total of 1,088 Chinese students from 21 universities in different provinces throughout the country voluntarily participated in this research, of which 1,041 belonged to 16 Liberal Arts Majors. Specifically, the questionnaire was administered in the following provinces and municipalities in China: Tianjin, Shanghai, Hubei, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Sichuan, Gansu, Hebei and Macao. The questionnaire was administered either in person or online, between the months of November and December 2018. In both modalities, subjects were informed that the questionnaire was anonymous, and that they were taking part in a research project on educational and career guidance in China’s educational system. The survey was administered in person to the students by team members at the various university campuses. Each questionnaire was assigned a code to ensure anonymity. Eighty-six percent of the questionnaires were obtained through this method. The Wenjuanxing survey program was used for the online version. The protocol for administering the online questionnaire was established at a meeting with the heads of the universities in China and the person responsible for the online platform. Once the questionnaire was developed, a QR code was created, which was then sent via the WeChat platform. The participants had one week in which to fill in the questionnaire. Of the questionnaires collected online, 14% of the total were conducted through SOJUMP, a platform where surveys can be shared publicly through a link. On this platform, the anonymity of the participants is guaranteed at all times. In this paper, the original data have been filtered to delete data from participants that did not answer all questions and from science students. In China, liberal arts students must choose a major belonging to the liberal arts, for instance, Hispanic Philology, so only 960 of the 1,060 questionnaires were used for this research. Of the 960 questionnaires 500 students come from Hispanic Philology, and the remaining 460 samples from other liberal majors. They cover 16 liberal arts majors in Hispanic Philology, English Philology, Portuguese Philology, Thai Philology, Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (TCSOL), Pre-school Education, Applied Linguistics, History, International trade, International Economics, Trade Economy, Law, International Politics, International Affairs, International Relations, and Management.

Research method

The analysis is conducted in three parts. First, we began by examining how student family backgrounds were related to their major choice. For that we used binary logistic regression to determine this association. Secondly, we used mediating effects to determine whether students from different family backgrounds chose different majors, as influenced by their major motivation. Finally, we tested whether the model that family background influences choice motivation is limited by parental values. All analyses were carried out using the statistical software R, version 4.2.

Binary logistic regression

We used the Binary Logistic Regression model in order to explore the factors that influence the decision to study Hispanic Philology. Consequently, we made the following decisions: Dependent variable: Majors, where Hispanic Philology = 1 and other majors = 0. The variables included in the analysis are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Imputed Variables Used in the Models.

Variables	Average	Standard	Min	Max	Cases
Major	.52	0.5	0	1	960
Paternal educational achievement	1.93	.754	1	3	960
Parental work	1.90	.637	1	3	960
Type of parental work	1.76	.855	1	3	960
Gender	.78	.415	0	1	960
Grade	2.58	1.285	1	5	960
Number of siblings	1.54	.696	1	3	960
Personal interest	4.16	1.067	1	5	960
Personal ability	4.13	1.050	1	5	960
Labor market	3.92	1.099	1	5	960
More opportunities in their own province	3.83	1.115	1	5	960
Parental advice	3.81	1.131	1	5	960
Parents think you should consider your personal abilities	3.33	.948	1	5	960
Parents think should consider your personal interests	3.56	1.188	1	5	960
Parents think the job market is important	3.55	.967	1	5	960
Parents think the score required for taking the examination is important	3.47	.845	1	5	960
Parents think their decisions on your choice of major are important	3.49	.948	1	5	960

Independent variables: We divide family backgrounds into four more variables, such as: Paternal educational level, Paternal occupation, type of paternal work, and entire Family background index, calculated by weights.

• Paternal occupation: Parental occupation was classified according to the Standard Occupational Classification of Li (2005), and stratified into 3 major groups: high, middle, and low. The high level refers to at least one parent´s occupation being as an administrative manager, top corporate manager, professional technician, or large private enterprise owner = 3; the middle level, refers to at least one parent´s occupation being a technical support worker, general management and clerical worker, commercial service worker or self-employed, or private enterprise owner and other jobs = 2. The remainder is the grassroots level, agricultural (forestry, animal husbandry, fishing), workers, or unemployed = 1.

• Type of paternal work: non-government private enterprise = 1, state-owned enterprise = 2, government worker (such as teacher, doctor, civil servant) = 3.

• Paternal educational level: high school and below = 1, high school and technical secondary school = 2, junior college and above = 3.

• Family background index: Student family background is determined by various factors such as occupation, educational level, etc. However, a single index cannot reflect student family background comprehensively, and if the above family capital indexes are put into the regression together, the covariance between variables may cause the problem of insignificant regression results (Bourdieu, 2003; Guo, Guo, & Xu, 2020). Based on this, the paper will use Principal Component Analysis to determine the weight of each variable, and the weighted variables summed up to calculate the Family Background Index.¹

Control variables: including Gender: female = 1 and male = 0; Grade: freshman = 1, sophomore = 2, junior = 3, senior = 4, graduate = 5, Number of siblings: no siblings = 1, one sibling = 2, more than one sibling = 3.

Mediating effect

We used the process macro with R to examine the interrelations between independent, mediating and dependent variables, in order to obtain the direct and indirect effects of family background on student choices. As shown in Figure 1, (c) is the total effect between family background and choice of major made by students; a is the relationship between family background and motivations for the choice; b is the relationship between motivations for the choice and choice of major when the family background is controlled, c´ reflects the direct effect of family background on choice of major when motivations for choice are controlled. The total effect is c = (ab) + c´, and the effect mediating is Baron and Kenny (1986); Sidhu et al.(2021). The selection criteria for the motivations for choice of major were refined and improved on the basis of previous studies cited(Awadallah & Elgharbawy, 2021; Guo, Guo, & Xu, 2020; Yang & Chen, 2021), with this study using variables which were collected by 5-Point Likert Scale: Personal ability and personal interest were considered as the intrinsic motivation; The labor market, more opportunities in their own province, and advice from parents taken as the extrinsic motivation. In order to include the above variables into the model at the same time, we used Principal Component Analysis for integrating the above variables, which determined the weight of each variable, and summed the weighted variables to calculate the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.² As shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Scale of Motivations in Major Selection.

Motivation	Details of motivation	Description
Intrinsic	Personal ability	I have the ability to succeed in this major
Intrinsic	Personal interest	I am interested in this major
Extrinsic	Labor market	This major has good job prospects
	More opportunities in their own province	Chinese universities reserve more spots for students from their own province, and thus the lowest qualifying score for a native student may be vastly lower than the score required for a student for taking the examination in other provinces
	Advice from parents	My parents advised me to choose this major

Moderating variables

We used model 7 in Model templates for PROCESS for R by Hayes (2013) for the moderating effects analysis. All moderating variables were collected by 5 - Point Likert Scale. Moderating variable 1: Parents think you should consider your personal abilities when choosing a major, parents think you should consider your personal interest when choosing a major. Moderating variable 2: parents think the job market is important, parents think the score required for taking the examination is important when choosing a major, parents think their decisions on your major choice are important.

In order to include the above variables in the model at the same time, we used Principal Component Analysis for integrating the above variables, which determined the weight of each variable, and summed the weighted factors to calculate the moderating variable that could be placed in the model.³

Results and analysis

The effect of family background on the choice to study Hispanic Philology

We tested four models along with same variable dependent (Major choice) and variable controls (Gender, Grade and number of siblings) to determine how family backgrounds are associated with choice of major - Family background index is included in Model I as the independent variable. Paternal Educational level is included in Model II, Parental Work is included in Model III, and Type of parental work is included in Model IV (As shown in Figure 2).⁴

Figure 2.

Exponential value (EXP) of family background on the choice to study Hispanic Philology, under the control variables.

Based on model II and model IV, the ratio of parental educational level and the type of parental work are significant; with each unit increase in the years of parental educational level, and in the type of parental work, the odds of choosing Hispanic Philology increases by 1.774 and 2.065 times respectively. However, based on model 3, the value of parental work is not significant. Summarizing these results, we have found that students of Liberal Arts from families that have a high level of parental education, and also work in state-owned enterprises and government, are more likely to choose Hispanic Philology. However, the variable of paternal job has no significant effect on whether students choose a Spanish major. Based on model 1, when the family background index is calculated as the independent variable by Principal factor analysis, there is a significant value of .906 on the regression coefficient (p = .000 and under .001 significance level), which increased 2.476 times with each unit increase in family background. It can be seen that students with a higher family background index are more likely to choose a Spanish major, which confirms Q1.

In addition, all of the above variables are influenced by the control variables of gender, grade level and number of siblings. It can be determined that females are more likely to choose Hispanic Philology than male students, based on the regression coefficients of gender. Moreover, the exp value of grade level shows that the lower the student grade level, the more likely the student is to choose a Spanish major, indicating the probability of a Spanish major being chosen among liberal arts students is increasing each year. Finally, the probability of choosing Hispanic Philology decreases with each unit increase in the number of siblings, indicating that students who are an only child in their family have a greater probability of choosing Hispanic Philology. Overall, Hispanic Philology was more accepted among students from advantaged background, and was also affected by gender, grade and the number of siblings.

The mediating effects between the family background and the choice to study Hispanic Philology

Since the influence of family background on the choice of major may be indirectly affected by other factors. So, this paper used the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as the mediator to examine the interrelations among independent, mediating and dependent variables, in order to obtain the direct and indirect effects of family background on student choices. From the Table 3, we can see that among the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, path “a”and path “b”were strongly significant (p < .01). In addition, path c’ was also significant. This is known as a case of Partial Mediation. This indicates that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations account for some, but not all, of the impact between the family background and major choice. Furthermore, the Ratio of mediating effects of family background on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was 14.8% and 26.7%, measured by, which confirmed Q2a, and Q2b.

Table 3.

Mediating Effects Between the Family Background and majors’ choice of students.

Mediating variables	a	b	c(Total effct)	c´(Direct effect)	a*b(Indirect effect) BootLLCI ∼ BootULCI	${effect}_{m}$
Intrinsic motivation	.114*	1.516***	1.168***	.995***	.173 (.013–.3484)	14.8%
Extrinsic motivation	.2***	1.604***	1.202***	.881***	.320 (.153–.496)	26.7%

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Most students with the advantaged background have a deeper understanding of their own interests and ability, and want to choose a major that matches their interests and ability. Consequently, their intrinsic motivation will be stronger. In addition to that, they prefer choosing a university in their own province due to Chinese universities give more places to students from their own province, and choose a major with a good job market, in order to defend the intergenerational transmission of social class and economic status. Finally, students from the advantaged medium or upper-class value their parents’ advice, suggesting that parents with advantaged background can be better informed about different majors and professions, thus providing effective guidance for their children’s choices. Hence, their extrinsic motivation also more stronger. This also demonstrates that students from an advantaged family background have taken into account the most important aspects of their selection, and they seek to effectively combine these aspects in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome. According to the last results showed above, the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has a partially mediating effect between the family background and the choice of major. Therefore, we used model 7 in Model templates for ROCESS for R by Hayes (2013) to check whether the effect of family background on choice of major through intrinsic and extrinsic motivations differs depending on the levels of the moderator parental values, at 95% confidence intervals. Here, the independent variable X is Family Background. The dependent variable Y is Major Choice, the mediating variable M is the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, and Parental Values is the moderating variable W. We display the result of this model on Table 4. Table 5 shows the conditional indirect effect of parental values when family background affect choice of major through intrinsic motivation, based on the Bootstrap confidence intervals with parental values as the moderator, the boot 95% CI did not contain zero at 1 standard deviation above the mean of parent’s academic involvement, which significantly confirmed the mediating effect. However, the mediating effect was not significant when at 1 standard deviation below the mean of parental values, which can confirm that there is a the conditional indirect effect. Thus, we confirmed Q3a. As shown in Table 5 and confirmed by Bootstrap confidence intervals, the indirect effect of family background on choice of major through extrinsic motivation was significantly different. Although the boot 95% CI did not contain zero at 1 standard deviation above the mean neither 1 standard deviation below the mean of parental academic involvement. However, the 95% confidence interval for the Index of moderated mediation did not contain 0, suggesting that there were differences between the indirect effects between the different levels of the moderator. Thus, we confirmed Q3b. To summarize, we have observed that:

(1) When the family background index is calculated as the independent variable, it shows that Hispanic Philology was more accepted among the advantaged background, and was also affected by the gender, grade and the number of siblings;

(2) Students placed more emphasis on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, with the increase of the family background index. However, this is a case of Partial Mediation, in which these motivations account for some, but not all, of the impact between the family background and student choices;

(3) Parental academic involvement affected the direction or strength between the family background and the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation as the moderating variable when the family background affects the choice of major through intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Table 4.

Conditional Indirect Effect of Parental Values When Family Background Affects choice of Major Through intrinsic Motivation.

Parental values	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
M-1 SD	−.168	.141	−.439	.106
M	.248	.100	.056	.455
M + 1 SD	.664	.138	.411	.958
Index of moderated mediation	Index	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Parental values	.176	.041	.100	.259

Table 5.

Conditional Indirect Effect of Parental Values When Family Background Affects choice of Major Through Extrinsic Motivation.

Parental values	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
M-1 SD	.434	.123	.210	.689
M	.672	.107	.479	.903
M + 1 SD	.910	.138	.660	.206
Index of moderated mediation	Index	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Parental values	.286	.889	.111	.461

Conclusion and discussion

By way of conclusion, we can identify three main findings. Firstly, through empirical research of the effect of family background on choice of major, we have addressed questions about which students choose the Spanish major according to their family background. This discovery supports a rumor circulating in China, suggesting that students attending foreign language universities predominantly come from privileged family backgrounds. We have also validated the hypothesis that was derived by the theory of EMI, that students with more advantageous family backgrounds have a higher probability of choosing Spanish majors. Secondly, we have tested the combination of EMI theory and motivation theory by exploring the mediating effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on the relationship between family background and choice of major. Our results show that these two theories are complementary, and when combined have allowed us to obtain an important research result for our research. Thirdly, parental values are the boundary conditions in the mediating effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on the relationship between family background and choice of major. This finding not only validates the application of inter-generational transmission theory in the field of choice of major, but also enriches the explanatory perspective that family background influences choice of major through choice motivation. It further provides an important reference for relieving the negative effects of a disadvantaged family background on choice of major by adjusting parental thoughts. For example, parents from disadvantaged backgrounds acquire positive values through learning and implicitly lead their children to make rational and correct choices. We can also point out two limitations of our study. Firstly, in the current study we only tested internal and external motivation on whether family background influences choice of major through motivation in choosing. Although this measure is fully consistent with the concept of choice motivation, as defined by studies of Guo, Guo, and Xu (2020); Guo, Guo, and Wang (2020); Yang and Chen (2021), Goldthorpe adopted another criterion to classify the motivation existing in choosing, that sought to justify differentials in educational selection between students from different social classes by: 1, the cost of education, including tuition, books, and living expenses; 2, the probability of successful enrollment; and 3, expected returns in the labor market (Breen & Goldthorpe, 1997; Goldthorpe, 1998). This criterion has not been discussed as a mediating variable by previous authors. Therefore, future work can continue to explore the mediating effects of other motivations in choice, on the relationship between family background and choice of major, which will test the results found in this study from different perspectives of motivation in choosing. Secondly, we investigated parental values used as the moderating variable, and although we obtained a positive result, it is necessary to further test the internal relationship between family background and parental values. Finally, this study used the family background variables commonly used in previous studies, such as paternal occupation, paternal culture, and paternal type of occupation. Therefore, future studies can explore a wider range of family backgrounds, such as adding maternal variables. It can also conduct more subdivided studies on choice of major by focusing on one of the paternal variables, such as the mediating effect of paternal education level on choice of major.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Wenxuan Gao

David Doncel Abad

Notes

References

Afzal Humayon

Raza

Aamir Khan

ul ain Ansari

(2018). Effect of family influence, personal interest and eco- nomic considerations on career choice amongst under- graduate students in higher educational institutions of vehari, Pakistan. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 7(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2018.60333

Altmejd

Barrios-Fernández

Drlje

Good- man

Hurwitz

Kovac

Mulhern

Neilson

Smith

(2021). O brother, where start thou? Sibling spillovers on college and major choice in four countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136(3), 1831–1886. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab006

Awadallah

Elgharbawy

(2021). Utilizing the theory of reasoned action in understanding students’ choice in selecting accounting as major. Accounting Education, 30(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2020.1811992

Aydede

(2020). Assortative preferences in choice of major. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 9(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.2478/izajole-2020-0006

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173

Borden

V. M.

Holthaus

G. C.

(2018). Accounting for student success: Academic and stakeholder perspectives that have shaped the discourse on student success in the United States. International Journal of Chinese Education, 7(1), 150–173. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125868-12340094

Bourdieu

(2003). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. Culture: Critical concepts in sociology, 2003(3), 63–99.

Breen

Goldthorpe

J. H.

(1997). Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and Society, 9(3), 275–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/104346397009003002

Charles

Bradley

(2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. AJS; American journal of sociology, 114(4), 924–976. https://doi.org/10.1086/595942

10.

Doncel

D. A.

(2018). Human capital, training pathways and educational and professional guidance in China. Sinología hispánica, 7(2), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.18002/sin.v7i2.5730

11.

Galos

D. R.

Strauss

(2023). Why do women opt for gender-atypical fields of study? The increasing role of income motivation over time. Higher Education, 85(4), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00866-0

12.

Gao

(2011). Impacts of cultural capital on student college choice in China. Lexington books.

13.

K. C.

(2019). Conceptualizing the second education circuit for China’s doctoral students in Asia. International Journal of Chinese Education, 8(2), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125868-12340112

14.

Goldthorpe

J. H.

(1998). Rational action theory for sociology. British Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/591308

15.

Gong

Zhang

Wang

, et al. (2022). 价值观的代际传递性 intergenerational transferability of values. Psychological Monthly, 2022(1), 234–236. https://doi.org/10.19738/j.cnki.psy.2022.01.084

16.

Guo

Wang

(2020). 家庭背景对中国大学生专业选择的影响 the influence of family background on Chinese college students’ choice of major. The influence of family background on the major selection of Chinese college students. Education Research Monthly, 2020(6), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.16477/j.cnki.issn1674-2311.2020.06.009

17.

Guo

(2020). 家庭背景与子女专业选择: 基于结构方程模型的路径分析 Family background and children’s major choice: Path analysis based on structural equation modeling. Fujian Tribun, 2020(6), 190–200.

18.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Model templates for process for spss and sas. Model Templates Process SPSS SAS.

19.

Kim

S. W.

Brown

K.-E.

Fong

V. L.

(2016). Credentialism and career aspirations: How urban Chinese youth chose high school and college majors. Comparative Education Review, 60(2), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1086/685554

20.

Kleanthous

(2014). Indigenous and immigrant students in transition to higher education and perceptions of parental influence: A Bourdieusian perspective. Policy Futures in Education, 12(5), 670–680. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.5.670

21.

Korfmann

Müller

Ehlert

Haase

(2021). Students perceptions, academic departments image, and major choice in business administration studies. The example of Hamburg business school. Higher Education Quarterly, 75(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12258

22.

(2005).当代中国社会的声望分层—职业声望与社会经济地位指数测量. 社会学研究 Prestige Stratification in the Contemporary China: Occupational prestige measures and socio-economic index 2005(02),74-102+244. https://doi.org/10.19934/j.cnki.shxyj.2005.02.004

23.

Zhang

(2013). The impacts of student background and extracurricular activities on the output of general education; A Manuscript for the International Journal of Chinese education. International Journal of Chinese Education, 2(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125868-12340015

24.

Liu

Apple

M. W.

(2016). Parental choice of school, class strategies, and educational inequality: An essay review of school choice in China—a different tale? Educational Policy, 30(6), 940–955. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816653633

25.

Liu

(2019). Choices, risks and rational conformity: Extending boudon’s positional theory to understand higher education choices in contemporary China. Higher Education, 77(3), 525–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0285-7

26.

Lucas

S. R.

(2001). Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642–1690. https://doi.org/10.1086/321300

27.

Maltese

A. V.

Ross

Wang

(2014). Assessing multinational interest in stem: Implementing a comparative survey research study in China. International Journal of Chinese Education, 3(1), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125868-12340032

28.

Marks

G. N.

(2013). Evaluating effectively maintained inequality: School and post-school transitions, socioe- conomic background, academic ability and curricular placement. Social Science Research, 42(6), 1635–1649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.004

29.

Monaghan

Jang

S. H.

(2017). Major payoffs: Postcollege income, graduate school, and the choice of “risky” undergraduate majors. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 722–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416688445

30.

Postiglione

G. A.

Wright

(2016). Strategic alignment of tertiary education and economies in East and Southeast Asia. International Journal of Chinese Education, 5(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125868-12340067

31.

Quadlin

(2020). From major preferences to major choices: Gender and logics of major choice. Sociology of Education, 93(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040719887971

32.

Riegle-Crumb

King

Grodsky

Muller

(2012). The more things change, the more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry into stem college majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1048–1073. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211435229

33.

Ruan

(2020). Hybrid opportunities and constraints: Chinese top-Tier overseas postgraduate students and their choices to stay Abroad or return home. International Journal of Chinese Education, 9(2), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125868-12340126

34.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68

35.

Sheng

(2017). Cultural capital, family background and education: Choosing university subjects in China. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(5), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1158638

36.

Sidhu

Bhalla

Zafar

(2021). Mediating effect and review of its statistical measures. Empir Econ Lett, 20(4), 29–40.

37.

Sovansophal

(2020). Family socioeconomic status and students ’choice of stem majors: Evidence from higher education of Cambodia. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 22(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijced-03-2019-0025

38.

Sudhana

Ameen

Isaac

(2020). A multi-theoretical framework to better understand the college major choice in arts and design. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(5), 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-11-2019-0277

39.

Tan

Main

J. B.

Darolia

(2021). Using random forest analysis to identify student demographic and high school-level factors that predict college engineering major choice. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(3), 572–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20393

40.

Valentino

Vaisey

(2022). Culture and durable inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 48(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-102739

41.

Wang

(2020). 价值观代际传递与分化视角下的大学生心理特点研究 A study on the psychological characteristics of college students in the perspective of intergenerational transmission and differentiation of values. Psychological Monthly, 15(10), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.19738/j.cnki.psy.2020.10.004

42.

(2013). The school choice market in China: A case study. Educational Research, 55(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.801245

43.

Yang

(2014). Who will success in college? Effect of high school experience and socioeconomic status. International Journal of Chinese Education, 3(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125868-12340029

44.

Yang

Chen

(2021). 什么样的高中生选择就读工科类专业? 基于全国性大样本调查数据的回溯研究 Who majors in engineering? An empirical study based on national representative survey data. Global Education, 50(11), 99–114.

45.

Zhou

Gao

(2016). Career guidance and counseling in Shanghai, China: 1977 to 2015. The Career Development Quarterly, 64(3), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12055

Family background and the choice of Hispanic Philology among liberal arts students in China

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical framework

Family background and logics of major choice

Family background, preferences, major choice

Family background, motivation, intergenerational transmission, choice of field of study

Data source

Research method

Binary logistic regression

Mediating effect

Moderating variables

Results and analysis

The effect of family background on the choice to study Hispanic Philology

The mediating effects between the family background and the choice to study Hispanic Philology

Conclusion and discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Notes

References