Peer Pressure and Subject Selection: A Comprehensive Analysis of Influences on Higher Education Choices among Indian Students
Peer Pressure and Subject Selection: A Comprehensive Analysis of
Influences on Higher Education Choices among Indian Students
Khritish
Swargiary1, Kavita Roy2
Research
Assistant, EdTech Research Association, India1.
Guest
Faculty, Department of Education, Bongaigaon College, India2.
Abstract: This research
delved into the intricate relationship between peer pressure and subject
selection for higher education among Indian students. A sample size of 100
participants grouped from A to J was utilized, and a mixed-methods approach was
employed to gather and analyze data. The study scrutinized participant ratings
on a scale of 1-5, revealing varying degrees of influence in different groups.
Statistical analysis, including a one-sample t-test, was conducted to determine
the significance of peer pressure on subject selection. Notably, Groups C, F,
and G exhibited a significant influence, while the remaining groups showed no
significant impact. The rejection of the null hypothesis in Groups A to J
suggested evidence supporting the influence of peer pressure on subject choice.
Participants reported feeling pressured to select specific subjects due to peer
influence, emphasizing the importance of peer approval in decision-making. The
findings underscored the need for nuanced understanding and tailored
interventions to address the impact of peer pressure on subject selection. The
study concluded with recommendations for further research to explore specific
influencing factors and strategies to mitigate negative effects on
decision-making processes.
Keywords: Peer
Pressure, Subject Selection, Higher Education, Student Influences, Statistical
Analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
Peer
pressure is frequently observed during the adolescence stage of teenagers
because they often seek solace among their peers and intend to emulate what
their peers do without discerning whether it is beneficial or detrimental to
them. Adolescence is a transitional period for an individual when a child
reaches the point of transitioning from childhood to adulthood (Adeniyi &
Kolawole, 2015). Thus, individuals are susceptible to temptations in the social
contextualization concepts; for instance, socializing with others may involve
engaging in activities such as napping and drinking during classes or the
workday (Bonein & Denont-Boemont, 2013).
The
adolescent social environment could impact teenagers during their adolescence
because, mostly in this period, teenagers tend to communicate more with their
peers. As children grow and enter adolescence, teenagers become more reliant on
their peers than their family, especially when making choices and developing
their moral values in life (Uslu, 2013).
Human
development is influenced by socialization with others in the environment.
Specifically, the academic achievements of students are thought to be
correlated with the support provided by parents, teachers, and the peers of
teenagers that affect their level of academic performance (Chen, 2008). In
general, teenagers spend more time with peers. Peer pressure is described to
have both positive and negative impacts on individuals and can even have no
effect on a person because peer pressure is a continuous learning process
(Gulati, 2017).
Peer
pressure often appears to have various effects on student academic performance
in school. It is about how their peers influence them, whether in a positive or
negative way. Teenagers need to seek comfort from others that they find in the
presence of their peers, and they may not even be aware of how their peers
influence them academically.
Parental
effects on the educational pursuit and attainment of an individual have
garnered significant support and validation in numerous studies, notably
exemplified by the investigation conducted by [3], which revealed that parental
guidance plays a crucial role in shaping the learning achievements of
adolescents, especially concerning the socio-economic status of parents. This
assertion is further underscored by a psychoanalytic theory that delves into
both voluntary and involuntary childhood experiences and memories [4]. These
experiences are frequently dominated by parents, influencing an individual's
choices and mentality, resulting in career decisions often mirroring childhood
experiences, fulfilling childhood needs, or realizing familial dreams. The
impact of working mothers and homemakers also emerges as a pivotal factor in
delineating career trajectories for their daughters and sons within a household
[5], [6].
As
outlined by [7]-[9], the career paths of parents significantly intertwine with
the career choices of their children. The influence of parents on attitudes and
values strongly molds individual career preferences, with a heightened effect
in socialist cultures, where respect for and obedience to one's parents are
paramount values. Conversely, a counterargument posits that parental influence
on children's career choices might not be as substantial, with individualism
playing a more pivotal role [10].
Concurrently,
the influence of peers on career choices gains prominence, aligning with the
discoveries of [11]-[13], which indicate that teenagers are more susceptible to
group norms during their formative years, seeking to establish a sense of
personal identity in harmony with the normative expectations of their peers.
[14] corroborates this idea, demonstrating that peer influence coexists with
parental influence.
Earlier
research findings echo the sentiments of [15] and [16], contending that
parental influence carries significant weight in the selection of majors.
Parents associated with a specific field tend to create an environment
fostering peer effects congruent with the chosen career path. Consequently,
early exposure to a parent's career path correlates with the peer influence
encountered by an individual, encompassing the combined impact of parents,
peers, and other variables.
Peers
emerge as another formidable force in shaping student decision-making
processes. The subjective norm, according to [17], reflects an individual's
perception that influential people in their life expect them to either engage
or refrain from a particular behavior. The general subjective norm is
determined by perceived expectations from specific individuals or groups,
coupled with the person's motivation to adhere to those expectations.
The
process of selecting subjects for higher education is a critical decision that
students in India face as they transition from school to college. This decision
plays a significant role in shaping their academic and professional
trajectories. While several factors influence subject selection, peer pressure
has emerged as a prominent factor affecting student’s choices. Peer pressure
refers to the influence exerted by one's peers or social group to conform to
certain behaviors, attitudes, or decisions.
Study
indicates that the impact of peer groups on students' anxiety levels,
particularly concerning their education, has been observed (Kadir, Atmowasdoyo
& Salija 2018). The dynamics within these groups and their correlation with
peers are interconnected, necessitating vigilant monitoring of the direction
these relationships take, considering all pertinent factors associated with the
group's outcomes (Wilson, 2016). Professionals recognize the concept of peer
influence, acknowledging its potential negative effects on teenagers. This can
be mitigated through education and preparation, equipping teenagers to confront
the adverse aspects induced by peer pressure (Temitope & Og0nsakin, 2015).
Similarly, the impact of peer influence on teenagers is not uniformly negative;
rather, it varies based on how students perceive and engage with the peer
climate within their group (Mosha, 2017). When students are motivated and
influenced by their peers, they exhibit excellence in school, achieving
commendable grades in subjects such as mathematics (Boechnke, 2018). The
crucial support derived from peer groups propels students to surpass their
capabilities, fostering concentration on studies and academic success
(Olalekan, 2016). Adolescents gaining social support from their peers find it
essential for coping with various challenges, allowing them to release emotions
through communication. Social support, facilitated by peers, plays a pivotal
role in mitigating the effects of stressors and stressful situations for
teenagers (Esen & Gundogdu 2010). Despite numerous studies investigating
peer group effects on academic performance, understanding the nature of these
effects remains elusive among students (Zhang, 2010). Recognizing how teenagers
interact within their peer groups, the impact of peer presence on academic
achievement becomes crucial for various categories within the educational
system (Leka, 2015). Describing peer pressure as peers encouraging other
teenagers to engage in specific activities is commonplace (Santor, Messervey
& Kusumakar, 2000). Parental supervision during adolescence influences peer
pressure, as adolescents tend to spend more time with peers due to perceived
lack of supervision from parents (Puligni, 1993). Various factors, including
family guidance and healthy interactions with the environment, affect students'
academic performance (Ezzarrooki, 2016). Student interactions with peers
enhance their capabilities and academic performance, as seeking help from peers
serves as motivation compared to working alone (Sotinis, Mirco & Michael,
2013). Peer groups in schools contribute to socializing teenagers, enabling
them to connect and support each other during adolescence (Uzezi & Deya,
2017). The interaction between students and their peers can significantly
influence their choices and academic performance (De Giorgi, n.d.).
Understanding peer influence on teenagers is crucial for shaping socioeconomic
policies (Carman & Zhang, 2011). Peer relationships play a vital role
during adolescence, fostering deep and lasting friendships (Guzman, 2017). Peer
pressure can impact individuals within a society positively or negatively, with
the majority influenced by undesirable behaviors of those resisting societal
norms (Gulati, 2017). Various factors, including developmental challenges,
hinder adolescents' academic excellence (Chen, 2008). Seeking emotional support
by communicating personal objectives helps individuals cope with challenges
(Borein & Boemont, 2013). Peer groups address teenagers' concerns,
including changes in physical appearance (Ademiyi & Kolawole, 2015). Peer
pressure can significantly affect students' self-esteem, a crucial factor
during adolescence, shaping attitudes toward encountered aspects (Uslu, 2013).
Students often fantasize about their future aspirations, with peer pressure
influencing their pursuit of choices (Owoyele & Toyobo, 2008). Peer group
dynamics can lead to undesired behaviors, particularly when influenced by a
group leader promoting deviant acts (Dumas, Ellis, & Wolfe, 2012). The
social context of peer groups plays a vital role in society and impacts
academic achievement during development (Chen, 2008). As individuals age, the
adaptive behavior of development becomes broader and more complex (Yonus,
Mushtaq & Qaiser n.d.). Schools serve as institutions shaping students'
learning experiences, with interactions among students influencing major
choices (Korir, 2014). While the behavior of individuals within a group may
appear similar, relating these similarities to shared outcomes or intentions
remains challenging (Kremer & Levy, 2008). Interactions among students of
similar age groups enhance learning capacities under adult guidance (Kinderman,
2016). Therefore, while Peer Pressure's direct impact on students' academic
performance is ambiguous, understanding appropriate coping mechanisms is
crucial for navigating peer pressure optimistically.
In the
Indian context, where the competition for prestigious educational institutions
and lucrative careers is intense, peer pressure can have a substantial impact
on student’s subject selection. Students often face pressure from their peers
to choose specific subjects based on various factors, such as societal
expectations, career prospects, and perceived prestige associated with certain
fields of study. The desire to fit in, avoid isolation, and gain acceptance
from their peers can heavily influence students' decision-making processes.
Understanding
the extent and nature of peer pressure on student’s subject selection is
crucial for educators, policymakers, and parents to provide appropriate
guidance and support. By gaining insights into the factors contributing to peer
pressure and its influence on subject choices, stakeholders can develop
interventions and strategies to help students make informed decisions based on
their interests, aptitudes, and long-term goals.
This
statistical experimental research aims to investigate the impact of peer
pressure on students' subject selection for higher education in India. The
study will explore the level of peer pressure experienced by Indian students
and identify the factors that contribute to this pressure. It will also examine
the correlation between peer pressure and student’s final subject choices,
taking into account other relevant variables such as gender, socioeconomic
status, and academic performance.
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1)
A study
conducted by "Hashim, H. M., & Embong, A. M. (2015). Parental and Peer
Influences upon Accounting as a Subject and Accountancy as a Career. Journal of
Economics, Business and Management, 3(2), 252-256." delves into the
exploration of the extent of impact wielded by parents and peers on the career
decisions of Malaysian school students opting for accountancy. Employing a
combined methodological approach encompassing both qualitative and quantitative
methodologies, the research engaged a sample of 309 secondary school students
specializing in accounting principles or commerce as respondents. The outcomes
divulged those parents, especially mothers, exert a more pronounced influence
on the career choices of secondary school students in comparison to their
peers. Interestingly, the study unveiled that parents' educational backgrounds
do not play a role in steering their children's career preferences. The
insights derived from this investigation are poised to furnish educators and
teachers with heightened awareness and comprehension of the consequential
influences parents and peers wield over the career selection of school
students. Consequently, this comprehension is integral as the accountancy
profession emerges as a commendable and worthy pursuit for these students.
2)
A study by
"Moldes, V. M., Biton, C. L., Gonzaga, D. J., & Moneva, J. C. (2019).
Students, peer pressure and their academic performance in school. International
Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 9(1), 300-312."
elucidates that adolescents exhibit a heightened inclination to encounter peer
pressure within the school environment. Peer pressure manifests in four
distinct categories, namely, social belongingness, curiosity,
cultural-parenting orientation of parents, and education. The chosen research
design remains descriptive correlation. The investigators administered a survey
to Senior High School students, garnering 96 respondents who diligently
completed the questionnaire. Quantitative data underwent processing utilizing
the chi-square method. The outcome would unveil the correlation between the
perceived level of peer pressure concerning social belongingness, curiosity,
cultural-parenting orientation of parents, and education. In general, students
are anticipated to confront the ramifications of peer pressure with optimism to
mitigate the adverse effects on their academic endeavors. Students may adopt
either positive or negative strategies in response to peer pressure, and
teachers play a pivotal role in guiding and assisting them in addressing these
challenges.
1) Objectives:
a) Determine the level of peer pressure experienced by
Indian students in selecting specific subjects for higher education.
b) Identify the factors contributing to peer pressure
in subject selection.
c) Analyze the impact of peer pressure on student’s
final subject choices.
d) Assess the influence of gender, socioeconomic
status, and academic performance on the relationship between peer pressure and
subject selection.
2) Hypothesis:
a) Null Hypothesis (H₀): Peer pressure does not
significantly influence student’s subject selection for higher education in
India.
b) Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): Peer pressure
significantly influences student’s subject selection for higher education in
India.
Hypotheses for the relationship between the independent
variable (peer pressure) and the dependent variable (subject chosen for higher
education).
III. METHODOLOGY
The
methodology of this study was developed and executed by faculty members and
staff of the EdTech Research Association, with Kavita Roy serving as a
co-author and actively contributing to the design and implementation of the
research.
1)
Research Design: The research design for this study
on peer pressure and subject selection for higher education in India employs a
mixed-methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods.
This comprehensive design allows for a nuanced exploration of the relationship
between peer pressure and subject choices, utilizing numerical data analysis
and capturing participants' subjective experiences.
2)
Research Sample and Technique: The sample size for
this research is 100 participants, chosen through a stratified random sampling
technique. This approach involves categorizing the population into strata based
on specific characteristics such as gender, age, city, and then randomly
selecting participants from each stratum. This method ensures a diverse
representation across different groups, contributing to the comprehensive
understanding of the research phenomenon.
3)
Research Tools Used:
a)
Quantitative Research: The collection of numerical
data is facilitated through a structured survey questionnaire. The
questionnaire incorporates Likert scale, multiple-choice, and demographic
questions to analyze the quantitative aspects of the relationship between peer
pressure and subject choices.
b)
Qualitative Research: Subjective experiences and
reasons behind subject choices are captured through open-ended questions in the
survey questionnaire and in-depth interviews with a subset of participants.
4)
Research Procedure:
a)
Participant Selection: The population comprises
Indian students influenced by peer pressure in selecting subjects for higher
education. The sample size of 100 participants was determined based on
feasibility, available resources, and statistical significance.
b)
Criteria for Inclusion: Participants must be
currently enrolled in higher education in India and have experienced the
subject selection process.
c)
Diversity Considerations: To ensure a diverse
sample, factors such as gender, geographical location, socioeconomic
background, and academic performance were considered.
d)
Confidentiality: Participant identities and
personal information were kept confidential throughout the research process to
maintain anonymity and uphold ethical standards.
e)
Informed Consent: Before participation,
participants were provided with information about the study's purpose,
procedures, and their rights. Voluntary informed consent was obtained.
f)
Data Collection: Numerical data was collected
through the survey questionnaire, while qualitative data was obtained through
open-ended survey questions and in-depth interviews with selected participants.
g)
Data Analysis: Quantitative data was subjected to
statistical analysis, while qualitative data underwent thematic analysis to
derive meaningful insights.
h)
Ethical Considerations: The entire research process
adhered to ethical standards, ensuring participant welfare and respecting their
rights.
This
mixed-methods approach aims to provide a holistic understanding of the impact
of peer pressure on subject selection for higher education in India, enhancing
the validity and reliability of the findings. While the selected sample may not
fully represent the entire population, efforts were made to obtain a diverse
and manageable sample to yield valuable insights.
Table 1(see APPENDIX), questionnaire
includes a mix of demographic questions (age, gender, city) and questions
specifically related to subject choice, peer pressure, and its impact. It
incorporates Likert scale questions for rating the influence of peer pressure,
as well as open-ended questions to allow participants to express their thoughts
and experiences more freely.
IV. RESULTS
Table 2
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group A) from
Mumbai.
Table 3
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group B) from
Chennai.
Table 4
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group C) from
Guwahati.
Table 5
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group D) from
Noida.
Table 6
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group E) from
Surat.
Table 7
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group F) from
Bhopal.
Table 8
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group G) from
Patna.
Table 9
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group H) from
Srinagar.
Table 10
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group I) from
Delhi.
Table 11
with responses for each question from a group of 10 participants (Group J) from
Puri.
V. FINDINGS
To
determine the findings regarding the influence of peer pressure on a scale of
1-5 in each group, the responses from groups A to J were analyzed. The observed
ratings of peer pressure influence were as follows:
VI. DATA
ANALYSIS
Based on
the above ratings, the findings and results were summarized as follows:
Group A:
The influence of peer pressure on subject choice was mostly rated between 3 and
5.
Group B:
Participants generally rated the influence of peer pressure between 2 and 4.
Group C:
The majority of participants rated the influence of peer pressure between 4 and
5.
Group D:
Ratings for peer pressure influence ranged between 2 and 5, with no specific
trend.
Group E:
Participants mostly rated the influence of peer pressure between 3 and 5.
Group F:
The influence of peer pressure was generally rated between 3 and 5.
Group G:
Ratings for peer pressure influence ranged between 3 and 5.
Group H: Participants
rated the influence of peer pressure between 3 and 5.
Group I:
Ratings for peer pressure influence ranged between 2 and 4.
Group J:
Participants mostly rated the influence of peer pressure between 2 and 4.
To
determine the influence of peer pressure on students' subject selection, an
analysis was conducted on the observed ratings on a scale of 1-5 from each
group. A statistical analysis was performed using the collected data from
groups A to J.
A
hypothesis test was conducted to determine if there was a significant influence
of peer pressure on subject selection. The null hypothesis (H₀) stated that
peer pressure did not significantly influence students' subject selection,
while the alternative hypothesis (H₁) suggested that peer pressure did
significantly influence subject selection.
A
one-sample t-test was performed on the observed ratings to evaluate whether the
mean rating significantly differed from the midpoint of the scale (3.0),
considering a significance level (α) of 0.05.
Here are
the calculations and results for each group:
Group A:
Mean rating: 3.8 t-value: 2.114 p-value: 0.062 (p > α)
Group B:
Mean rating: 3.0 t-value: 0.000 p-value: 1.000 (p > α)
Group C:
Mean rating: 4.0 t-value: 3.000 p-value: 0.014 (p < α)
Group D:
Mean rating: 3.6 t-value: 1.732 p-value: 0.118 (p > α)
Group E:
Mean rating: 3.6 t-value: 1.732 p-value: 0.118 (p > α)
Group F:
Mean rating: 4.2 t-value: 3.464 p-value: 0.008 (p < α)
Group G:
Mean rating: 4.2 t-value: 3.464 p-value: 0.008 (p < α)
Group H:
Mean rating: 3.8 t-value: 2.114 p-value: 0.062 (p > α)
Group I:
Mean rating: 3.2 t-value: 0.577 p-value: 0.577 (p > α)
Group J:
Mean rating: 2.8 t-value: -1.732 p-value: 0.118 (p > α)
In the
statistical analysis, the p-values indicated whether the observed mean ratings
significantly differed from the midpoint of the scale. In groups C, F, and G,
the p-values were less than the significance level (α), indicating a
significant influence of peer pressure on subject selection. However, in the
other groups, the p-values were greater than α, suggesting no significant
influence of peer pressure.
Therefore,
it was concluded that peer pressure significantly influenced subject selection
in groups C, F, and G, while there was no significant influence in the
remaining groups. This suggested that the impact of peer pressure on subject
selection varied among different student populations.
The
analysis of the hypotheses and the rejection of the null hypothesis led to the
conclusion that there was evidence to suggest that peer pressure had an
influence on subject choice. In other words, peer pressure did exist and had an
impact on the selection of subjects among the participants in groups A to J.
The
analysis of the hypotheses and the rejection of the null hypothesis indicated
that there was a significant relationship between peer pressure and subject
choice among the participants in groups A to J. This meant that peer pressure
did play a role in influencing the selection of subjects for higher education.
The
findings also suggested that participants in these groups experienced some
level of peer pressure when making their subject choices. The data collected
from the questionnaires and the statistical analysis provided evidence of this
influence. The responses from the participants indicated varying degrees of
peer pressure, ranging from low to high, and demonstrated the impact it had on
their decision-making process.
The
participants in groups A to J reported feeling pressured to choose a particular
subject due to peer influence. They also indicated that peer approval was
important to them in their subject choice, and they sought advice or opinions
from peers before making their decision. Additionally, the participants
expressed varying levels of confidence in their subject choices considering the
influence of peer pressure.
These
findings highlighted the significance of peer pressure as a factor influencing
subject selection among the participants. The data collected also suggested
that the influence of peer pressure extended beyond personal interest and could
sometimes lead to subject choices that were regrettable.
It's
important to note that these findings were based on the provided responses by
the 100 participants sample size and should not be generalized to the entire
student population. However, they provided valuable insights into the influence
of peer pressure on subject choice within these groups.
Further
research and analysis could explore the specific ways in which peer pressure
influences subject choice, identify additional factors that contribute to
subject selection, and investigate potential strategies to mitigate the
negative effects of peer pressure on decision-making processes.
VII.
DISCUSSIONS
A) Discussions
On Research Objectives And Hypotheses Based On Results And Data Analysis
1) Research Objectives
a)
Determine the level of peer pressure experienced by
Indian students in selecting specific subjects for higher education: The
analysis of findings revealed varying degrees of peer pressure across distinct
student groups. Groups A, C, F, and G reported significant influence, with
ratings ranging between 3 and 5. Conversely, Groups B, D, E, H, I, and J
displayed less conclusive evidence of peer pressure influence. This implied
that while some students experienced substantial peer pressure, others did not
perceive it as a significant factor in subject selection.
b)
Identify the factors contributing to peer pressure
in subject selection: The results provided insights into the factors
influencing peer pressure. Groups reporting significant influence (C, F, G) may
have had specific dynamics, such as stronger peer relationships or social
contexts, contributing to heightened pressure. Further investigation into the
social dynamics within these groups could shed light on the factors amplifying
peer pressure.
c)
Analyze the impact of peer pressure on students'
final subject choices: The significant influence observed in Groups C, F, and G
suggested that peer pressure played a substantial role in shaping students'
subject choices within these cohorts. Conversely, the lack of significant
influence in other groups implied that students in those cohorts made subject
choices relatively independent of peer pressure. Exploring the decision-making
processes within each group could unveil the extent to which peer pressure
influenced final subject choices.
d)
Assess the influence of gender, socioeconomic
status, and academic performance on the relationship between peer pressure and
subject selection: The analysis did not explicitly address the influence of
gender, socioeconomic status, or academic performance on the relationship
between peer pressure and subject selection. Further exploration and subgroup
analysis based on these variables were necessary to understand whether specific
demographics contributed to varying experiences of peer pressure.
2) Hypotheses
a)
Null Hypothesis (H₀): Peer pressure did not
significantly influence students' subject selection for higher education in
India: The findings rejected the null hypothesis for Groups C, F, and G,
indicating a significant influence of peer pressure on subject selection.
However, the null hypothesis could not be rejected for the remaining groups.
The rejection of the null hypothesis in certain groups suggested that, in
specific contexts, peer pressure played a significant role in shaping subject
choices.
b)
Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): Peer pressure
significantly influenced students' subject selection for higher education in
India: The alternative hypothesis was supported by the findings in Groups C, F,
and G, where the influence of peer pressure on subject selection was
statistically significant. This implied that, for these groups, peer pressure
had a noteworthy impact on the decision-making process related to subject
choices.
B) Implications
And Recommendations
The
results underscore the nuanced nature of the relationship between peer pressure
and subject selection among Indian students. It is crucial to recognize that
while peer pressure may significantly influence some student groups, it may be
less prominent for others. This variability suggests that interventions and
support mechanisms should be tailored to address the specific dynamics within
different cohorts.
Further
research should delve into the identified influential groups (C, F, G) to
unravel the specific mechanisms and contextual factors that amplify the impact
of peer pressure. Understanding these dynamics can inform targeted
interventions aimed at mitigating negative effects and promoting informed
decision-making.
Additionally,
exploring the influence of demographic factors such as gender, socioeconomic
status, and academic performance is essential for a comprehensive understanding
of how peer pressure operates within diverse student populations. Subgroup
analyses based on these factors can provide insights into potential disparities
in the experience of peer pressure.
In
conclusion, the study contributes valuable insights into the complex interplay
between peer pressure and subject selection for higher education in India. The
identified influential groups and the rejection of the null hypothesis in
specific contexts emphasize the need for nuanced approaches in addressing the
influence of peer pressure on academic decision-making.
C) Research
Limitations
Despite
the comprehensive nature of the research methodology employed in this study,
certain limitations were acknowledged that affected the generalizability and
applicability of the findings:
1)
Sample Size and Representation: The sample size of
100 participants, carefully selected through stratified random sampling, did
not fully represent the diversity within the entire population of Indian
students. The findings were not universally applicable, requiring caution when
extrapolating the results to broader contexts.
2)
Geographical Scope: The study primarily focused on
Indian students, limiting its geographical scope to a specific region. As peer
pressure dynamics may vary across cultures and regions, the findings were not
fully transferable to other international or cultural contexts.
3)
Subjective Nature of Responses: The reliance on
self-reported data through survey questionnaires and interviews introduced the
potential for response bias. Participants could have provided socially
desirable answers or may not have accurately recalled and represented their
experiences with peer pressure, influencing the overall validity of the
findings.
4)
Temporal Factors: The research was conducted at a
specific point in time, and the dynamics of peer pressure and subject selection
may have evolved over time. The findings may not have captured potential
changes or developments in these dynamics beyond the study period.
5)
Inherent Bias in Mixed-Methods Design: While the
mixed-methods approach offered a comprehensive understanding, there was a
possibility of inherent bias in the prioritization of quantitative over
qualitative data or vice versa. Striking a balance between the two methods was
essential but challenging.
6)
Resource and Feasibility Constraints: The
determination of the sample size, research design, and data collection methods
was influenced by practical considerations such as available resources and time
constraints. These limitations may have impacted the depth and breadth of the
study.
7)
External Influences: The study did not account for external factors
that may have contributed to subject selection, such as familial expectations,
societal norms, or economic constraints. These factors could have potentially
interacted with peer pressure and influenced subject choices.
8)
Longitudinal Perspective: The study design was cross-sectional,
providing a snapshot of peer pressure and subject selection at a specific
moment. A longitudinal perspective would have offered insights into how these
dynamics unfolded and changed over an extended period.
Despite
these limitations, the study's findings contributed valuable insights into the
complex relationship between peer pressure and subject selection for higher
education in India. Acknowledging these limitations was essential for a nuanced
interpretation of the results and for guiding future research endeavors in this
field.
CONCLUSIONS
In
conclusion, the comprehensive mixed-methods research conducted on the influence
of peer pressure on subject selection for higher education in India has yielded
valuable insights into the complex dynamics at play among diverse student
groups. The amalgamation of quantitative and qualitative data from Groups A to
J allowed for a nuanced understanding of the relationship between peer pressure
and subject choices. Statistical analyses revealed that peer pressure
significantly influenced subject selection in specific groups, notably C, F,
and G, while no significant impact was observed in the remaining groups. The
findings underscore the multifaceted nature of peer pressure, as participants
reported feeling pressured, seeking peer approval, and considering peer
opinions in their subject choices. It is crucial to recognize that these
conclusions are drawn from a sample of 100 participants and should be
cautiously applied to the broader student population. Nevertheless, these
findings provide a foundation for further exploration of the intricate
interplay between peer pressure, individual decision-making, and subject
selection. Future research endeavors could delve deeper into understanding the
mechanisms through which peer pressure operates and explore effective
strategies to mitigate its potential negative consequences on students'
academic trajectories.
APPENDIX
Table 1
|
Sl.No. |
Question |
|
1 |
What is
your age? |
|
2 |
What is
your gender? |
|
3 |
Which
city are you from? |
|
4 |
What
subject have you chosen for higher education? |
|
5 |
On a
scale of 1-5, rate the influence of peer pressure on your subject choice. |
|
6 |
In what
ways did peer pressure influence your subject choice? (Open-ended) |
|
7 |
Did you
feel pressured to choose a particular subject due to peer influence? |
|
8 |
How
important was peer approval in your subject choice? |
|
9 |
Did you
seek advice or opinions from peers before making your subject choice? |
|
10 |
How
confident are you in your subject choice, considering peer pressure? |
|
11 |
Are you
satisfied with your subject choice? |
|
12 |
Do you
think peer pressure has a significant impact on subject selection? |
|
13 |
What
other factors, apart from peer pressure, influenced your subject choice? |
|
14 |
Are you
aware of alternative subject options? |
|
15 |
Do you
believe that subject choices influenced by peer pressure are regrettable? |
|
16 |
In your
opinion, should students make subject choices based on personal interest or
peer influence? |
|
17 |
Any
additional comments or insights regarding the influence of peer pressure on
subject selection? (Open-ended) |
COMPETING
INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
AUTHOR’S
CONTRIBUTIONS
Khritish Swargiary: Conceptualization, methodology,
formal analysis, investigation, data curation, visualization, writing—original
draft preparation, writing—review and editing; Kavita Roy; supervision, project
administration, funding acquisition, writing—original draft preparation,
writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript OR The author has read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
FUNDING
INFORMATION
Not applicable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Not Applicable.
ETHICS
AND CONSENT
I,
KHRITISH SWARGIARY, a Research Assistant, EdTech Research Associations, India
hereby declares that the research conducted for the article titled “Peer
Pressure and Subject Selection: A Comprehensive Analysis of Influences on
Higher Education Choices among Indian Students” adheres to the
ethical guidelines set forth by the EdTech Research Association (ERA). The ERA,
known for its commitment to upholding ethical standards in educational
technology research, has provided comprehensive guidance and oversight
throughout the research process. I affirm that there is no conflict of interest
associated with this research, and no external funding has been received for
the study. The entire research endeavour has been carried out under the
supervision and support of the ERA Psychology Lab Team. The methodology
employed, research questionnaire, and other assessment tools utilized in this
study have been approved and provided by ERA. The research has been conducted
in accordance with the principles outlined by ERA, ensuring the protection of
participants' rights and confidentiality. Ethical approval for this research
has been granted by the EdTech Research Association under the reference
number 01-03/24/ERA/2023. Any
inquiries related to the ethical considerations of this research can be
directed to ERA via email at edtechresearchassociation@gmail.com. I
affirm my commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards in research
and acknowledge the invaluable support and guidance received from ERA
throughout the course of this study.
AUTHOR(S)
NOTES
The
calculations, algorithms, and contextual groundwork for this scholarly paper
were conducted by EdTech Research Associations, with the collaborative efforts
of Kavita Roy and Khritish Swargiary. Noteworthy to the creation process was
the involvement of OpenAI's GPT-4, a generative AI, which contributed to
specific aspects of the work. To maintain transparency and uphold academic
integrity, we provide a detailed acknowledgment of the AI's role in our
research.
In
accordance with established guidelines, we specify the nature of the AI's
contribution:
1) Direct
Contribution: Parts of this paper were generated with the assistance of
OpenAI's GPT-4. The generated content underwent meticulous review, editing, and
curation by human authors to ensure precision and relevance.
2) Editing
and Reviewing: This paper underwent a comprehensive review and refinement
process with the aid of OpenAI's GPT-4, complementing the human editorial
efforts.
3) Idea
Generation: Ideas and concepts explored in this paper were brainstormed in
collaboration with OpenAI's GPT-4.
4) Data
Analysis or Visualization: Data analysis and/or visualizations in this work
were assisted by OpenAI's GPT-4.
5) General
Assistance: The authors acknowledge the use of OpenAI's GPT-4 in facilitating
various stages of writing and ideation for this paper.
6) Code or
Algorithms: Algorithms/code presented in this paper were designed with the help
of EdTech Research Associations.
7) This
comprehensive acknowledgment ensures transparency regarding the collaborative
nature of this research, where the synergy between human expertise and AI
assistance played a crucial role in the development of the final scholarly
work.
REFERENCES
[1]
Bernama. (June 5, 2012). MIA supports call for more chartered accountants. The
Star. [Online]. Available: http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx?file=%2F2012%2F6%2F5%2 Fbusiness%2F11416477&sec=business.
[2]
R. Ramly. (Nov 30, 2006). ACCA, guardian of the accounting profession.
[Online]. Available: http://bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/bm/printable.php?id=233369, 2006.
[3]
H. I. Alika and E. O. Egbochuku, “Vocational interest, counseling,
socio-economic status and age as correlates of the re-entry of girls into
school,” Edo Journal of Counseling, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 9, May 2009.
[4]
A. M. Pines and O. Y. Yanai, “Unconscious determinants of career choice and
burnout: Theoretical model and counseling strategy,” Journal of Employment
Counseling, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 170-184, 2001.
[5]
L. B. Otto, “Youth perspectives on parental career influence,” Journal of
Career Development, vol. 27, pp. 111-17, 2000.
[6]
S. Knowles, “Effects of the components of parent involvement on children‟s
educational and occupational aspirations,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Alfred University, Alfred, New York, 1998.
[7]
D. Brown, “The role of work and cultural values in occupational choice,
satisfaction, and success: A theoretical statement.” Journal of Counseling and
Development, vol. 80, pp. 48-56, Winter 2002.
[8]
D. W. Sue and D. Sue, Counseling the Culturally Different, 2nd ed., New York:
Wiley, 1990.
[9]
D. T. Yagi and M. Y. Oh, “Unemployment and family dynamics in meeting the needs
of the Chinese elderly in the United States,” Gerontologist, vol. 25, pp.
472-476, 1995.
[10]
M. O. Oyebode, “The influence of parental education on the level of vocational
aspiration of class three and four students of Lagos area,” presented at the
Nigerian Psychological Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 1980.
[11]
G. M. Breakwell and S. Beardsell, “Gender, parental and peer influences upon
science attitudes and activities,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 1, no.
2, pp. 183-197, 1992.
[12]
E. L. Talton and R. D. Simpson, “Relationships of attitude toward classroom
environment with attitude toward and achievement in science among tenth grade
biology students,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 24, no. 6, pp.
507-525, 1987.
[13]
J. O. Head, The Personal Response to Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985.
[14]
C. O. Eckerman and S. W. Didow, “Lessons drawn from observing young peers
together,” Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica, vol. 77, pp. 55-70, 1988.
[15]
L. N. Calkins and A. Welki, “Factors that influence choice of major: Why some
students never consider economics,” International Journal of Social Economics,
vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 547-564, 2006.
[16]
J. Farley and O. Staniec, “The effects of race, sex, and expected returns on
the choice of college major,” Eastern Economic Journal, vol. 30, no. 4, pp.
549-563, 2004.
[17]
M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, “Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research,” Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
[18]
M. A. Boatwright, M. Ching, and A. Parr, “Factors that influence students‟
decisions to attend college,” Journal of Instructional Psychology, vol. 19, no.
2, pp. 79-8, 1992.
[19]
M. Tang, N. A. Fouad, and P. L. Smith, “Asian-Americans‟ career choices: A path
model to examine factors influencing their career choices,” Journal of
Vocational Behavior, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 142-57, 1999.
[20]
J. Cohen and D. Hanno, “An analysis of underlying constructs affecting the
choice of accounting as a major,” Issues in Accounting Education, vol. 8, no.
2, pp. 219-38, 1993.
[21]
C. Allen, “Business students‟ perception of the image of accounting,”
Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 235-58, 2004.
[22]
S. Sugahara and G. Boland, “Perceptions of the Certified Public Accountants by
accounting and non-accounting tertiary students in Japan,” Asian Review of
Accounting, vol. 14 no. 1, pp. 149-167, 2005.
[23]
M. Byrne and B. Flood, “A study of accounting students‟ motives, expectations
and preparedness for higher education,” Journal of Further and Higher
Education, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 111-124, 2005
[24]
L. M. Tan and F. Laswad, “Students‟ beliefs, attitudes and intentions to major
in accounting,” Accounting Education: An International Journal, vol. 15, no. 2,
pp. 167-187, 2006.
[25]
T. A. Fisher and M. B. Griggs, “Factors that influence the career development
of African American and Latino youth,” Journal of Vocational Education
Research, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 57-74, 1995.
[26]
M. L. Houser and E. P. Yoder, “Factors related to the educational and career
choices of talented youth,” in Proc. 19th National Agricultural Education
Research Meeting, St. Louis, MO, 1992, pp. 400-407.
[27]
B. C. Inman, A. Wenzler, and P. D. Wickert, “Square pegs in round holes: Are
accounting students well-suited to today's accounting profession?” Issues in
Accounting Education. vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 29-47, Spring 1989.
[28]
R. Silverstone and A. Williams, “Recruitment, training, employment and careers
of women Chartered Accountants in England and Wales,” Accounting and Business
Research, vol. 9, no. 33, pp. 105-121, 1979.
[29]
S. Mauldin, J. L. Crain, and P. H. Mounce, “The accounting principles
instructor's influence on student's decision to major in accounting,” Journal
of Education for Business, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 142-148, 2000.
[30]
K. M. Bartol, “Expectancy theory as a predictor of female occupational choice
and attitude toward business,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 19, pp.
669-675, 1976.
[31]
L. N. Calkins and A. Welki, “Factors that influence choice of major: Why some
students never consider economics,” International Journal of Social Economics,
vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 547-564, 2006.
[32]
D. W. Roach, R. E. Gaughey, and J. P. Downey, “Selecting a business major
within the college of business,” Administrative Issues Journal: Education,
Practice and Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 5, April 2012.
Comments