CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 533Higher Education Research StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Determinants of College Major Choice: Identification using an Information Experiment

Wiswall, M., Zafar, B.·2015·The Review of Economic Studies
DOI 10.1093/restud/rdu044
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article studies the determinants of college major choice using an experimentally generated panel of beliefs, obtained by providing students with information on the true population distribution of various major-specific characteristics. Students logically revise their beliefs in response to the information, and their subjective beliefs about future major choice are associated with beliefs about their own earnings and ability. We estimate a rich model of college major choice using the panel of beliefs data. While expected earnings and perceived ability are a significant determinant of major choice, heterogeneous tastes are the dominant factor in the choice of major. Analyses that ignore the correlation in tastes with earnings expectations inflate the role of earnings in college major choices. We conclude by computing the welfare gains from the information experiment and find positive average welfare gains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/restud/rdu044

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wiswall and Zafar (2015) show that many college students have incorrect beliefs regarding the distribution of average starting salaries across college majors, that students' major choices are a function of these incorrect beliefs, and that biased beliefs can be corrected by an intervention that provides accurate information.

    “For example, Wiswall and Zafar (2015) show that many college students have incorrect beliefs regarding the distribution of average starting salaries across college majors, that students' major choices are a function of these incorrect beliefs, and that biased beliefs can be corrected by an intervention that provides accurate information.”

    From Who believes in me? The effect of student–teacher demographic match on teacher expectations (2016) · cites this paper as Wiswall and Zafar (2015)

  • Students hold biased beliefs about their learning in other educational settings.

    “students hold biased beliefs in other educational settings (Jensen, 2010; Wiswall and Zafar, 2015)”

    From Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Wiswall and Zafar, 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wiswall, M., & Zafar, B.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Federal Reserve Bank of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Wiswall, M.
Venue
The Review of Economic Studies
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2014-12-17
Volume
82
Issue
2
Pages
791-824
ISSN
  • 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-937X
DOI
10.1093/restud/rdu044
OpenAlex
W3125230084
Cited by
533
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
FWCI
160.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Review of Economic Studies (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
college major choice, information experiment, perceived competence, subjective beliefs, expected earnings, welfare gains, higher education decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review