Running Head: A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

A Literature Review of Undecided Students

Sara M Greicius
Virginia Tech

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

Abstract
Through an examination of the literature on undecided students at undergraduate
institutions, three major themes arise: persistence, personality traits, and advising. Analyzing
these themes on a deeper level helps undecided students during their undergraduate careers,
while also helping the university as a whole. More specifically, assessing undecided students
leads to a greater understanding of how and why students select majors, which leads to higher
student persistence, therefore positively impacting the entire university.
Keywords: undecided, persistence, personality traits, advising, self-efficacy,
multipotentiality

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

A Literature Review of Undecided Students

A significant portion of undergraduate students enters college without selecting a major,
and may continue like this for at least a year before selecting one. Alternatively, students who
come to college with a major may choose to drop it and wait to find one that is a better fit. Other
times, students tentatively choose a major with an understanding that it will change. Rejection
from selective major programs may also result in students entering college without a major.
These students are all referred to as undecided students. A handful of alternative labels exist in
undecided student literature including, scanners (Bloom, Tripp, & Shaffer, 2011),
exploratory (Cuseo, 2005, p. 2, Lorenzetti, 2011), and undeclared (Cuseo, 2005, p. 2;
Lorenzetti, 2011). The number of undecided students attending universities tends to vary, but the
range is typically between twenty and eighty percent (Bullock-Yowell, McConnell, & Schedin,
2014). Consequently, there is a significant amount of diversity within this student population.
However, the literature tends to focus on the group as a whole, with occasional distinction of
members through discussion of gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Despite this diversity
among undecided students, the population can be characterized into three general groups, though
these groups continuously evolve (Gordon & Steele, 2015). The current groups include entering
first-year students of traditional college age, students who change majors, and undecided
upperclassman (Gordon & Steele, 2015).
Given the varied nature of undecided students, it can be challenging to study exactly what
affects their decision-making abilities. As a result, student affairs professionals must take into
consideration a multitude of factors. Because college majors are a crucial component to both
students self-satisfaction and the overall satisfaction of the university experience, it is
imperative that student affairs professionals gain a thorough understanding of this population.

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

Due to undecided students ever-changing characteristics, it is essential that higher education

professionals stay on top of trends within this population. In turn, students will be more likely to
succeed academically as undergraduates, as well as in their post-graduation work. The institution
will reflect such successes in higher retention rates, job placement rates, and better overall
student body satisfaction.
The purpose of this paper to synthesize three major themes that are present in the
literature on undecided students, and to highlight how these themes have changed over time. The
themes include persistence, personality traits, and advising. An extensive amount of literature
exists on this student population and these underlying themes, with a variety of opinions,
suggestions, and questions. This paper therefore seeks to present these viewpoints, along with
their implications for future research on undecided students.
This paper consists of two parts. In part one, there are three specific sections presenting
the main themes found in the literature. Part two also has three sections discussing the evolution
of these themes over time, followed by implications for future practice and research.
Findings

The undecided student population has been a topic of interest within higher education for

decades, with an assortment of themes emerging over the years. The themes tend to examine the
factors that lead to the successes and failures of undecided students. Within the last decade,
undecided student literature has focused on three crucial themes regarding persistence,
personality traits, and advising. Persistence of undecided students refers to students decisions to
complete an undergraduate program, whether they finish consecutively in more or less than four
years, or if they take gap years. Personality traits encompass the countless mental, emotional, and
personal characteristics students have, and the impact of those characteristics on college major
choice. Personality traits may involve other external factors influencing undecided students, such

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

as the generation to which they belong. Finally, the literature offers a variety of advising
techniques, questions, and suggestions pertaining to undecided students.
Persistence
As students who seemingly enter college with no plan, it is imperative to understand what
makes undecided students persist and eventually complete a bachelors degree. Often tied to
students persistence are two key components: the initial goals and the external pressures that
influence undecided students decisions to complete undergraduate degrees. College students
enter their institutions with a variety of expectations and goals, usually related to educational
experience and career attainment. Because undecided students do not have a major, they are
often thought of as students with limited goals or limited abilities for achieving goals (Cuseo,
2005; Graunke, Woosley, & Helms, 2006). However, students who simply have a goal of
graduating have a high likelihood of persisting through college, as opposed to having more
specific goals related to major selection (Blecher, 2006; Graunke et al., 2006). Additionally,
uncertainty and switching majors can positively impact persistence of undecided students
because it exhibits a healthy decision-making process (Arms, Cabrera, & Brower, 2008; Blecher,
2006; Cuseo, 2005). This can be a problem, however, when indecision becomes regular and
continues beyond the college major decision (Arms et al., 2008). Cuseo (2005) recommends a
new way of looking at undecided students abilities to persist, suggesting that these students may
be undecided because they have too many interests, which indicates a great deal of motivation
for learning, thus leading to their persistence.
Tintos (1993) model of student attrition seeks to rationalize why students stay at or leave
an institution (as cited in Cuseo, 2005; Graunke et al., 2006), therefore acting as an important
model in persistence literature, especially in regards to undecided students. The model presents

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

two forms of commitment that are imperative to understanding student decisions. First, goal
commitment refers to a students devotion to a general target or aspiration (Graunke et al., 2006).
This goal typically relates to academics or career attainment, but is not likely a specific goal. The
second commitment is institutional commitment, which refers to the devotion to achieve
academic aspirations at a particular institution (Graunke et al., 2006). While the general goal
commitment pertains to education, the student will not necessarily have a major in mind in order
to achieve this goal (Blecher, 2006; Graunke et al., 2006), and this uncertainty is normal in the
first one to two years of college (Cuseo, 2005). Tinto (1993) also suggests that the better a
student is at adapting to college life, the better the student will be at accomplishing goal and
institutional commitments (as cited in Leppel, 2002).
As mentioned under Tintos (1993) model of student attrition, indecision is a healthy and
expected component of students goal-setting processes (as cited in Cuseo, 2005). Additionally,
persistence is not so much a result of specific goals about majors or careers, but rather a general
goal to learn and receive an effective education (Blecher, 2006; Graunke et al., 2006). Similarly,
students who have a general goal of achieving a bachelors degree, whether they have a major or
not, are more likely to complete that degree (Blecher, 2006). This suggests that undecided
students are able to persist at the same level as their decided counterparts, despite not having
detailed career plans.
In addition to the initial goals that undecided students bring to college, there are external
factors prompting these goals, all influencing a students ability to persist. The most common
external factors are familial and peer influence (Beggs, Bantham, & Taylor, 2008; Blecher, 2006;
Cunningham & Smothers, 2010; Cuseo, 2005; Firman & MacKillop, 2008). Beggs et al. (2008)
supports this notion, proposing that students admit to choosing majors with little to no rationale,

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

simply because they see peers do the same. Moreover, students may not fully understand their
personality traits and the implications they have on career aspirations, and choose majors simply
because it seems appropriate (Firman & MacKillop, 2008). On the other hand, students may
select or steer away from a certain major based on their parents majors or career choices (Beggs
et al., 2008; Cuseo, 2005). This is particularly evident among undecided business majors who are
pressured into the business school by their parents but do not necessarily know where to go
within the school (Malgwi, Howe, & Burnaby, 2005). Strayhorn (2006) backs this idea, stating
that students successes are often influenced by their parents educational experiences, as well as
their parents expectations for them.
Familial and peer influences not only impact undecided students academic decisions, but
also their transition to college, which effects persistence (Leppel, 2002). The success of this
transitional period is often based on family background and support from family and friends
(DeBerard, Spielmans, & Julka, 2004; Kahn & Nauta, 2001). Consequently, initial goals and
external factors including both pressure and support from families have a major influence on
undecided students decisions to complete a bachelors degree.
Personality traits

Personality traits play a significant role in undecided students decision-making process,

their career selection, and overall growth (DeBerard et al., 2004; Pritchard & Wilson, 2003;
Pulver & Kelly, 2008). Personality is also closely tied to students persistence, but for the
purposes of this paper, personality traits are treated as a separate theme because of the multiple
factors within the topic, such as personal characteristics, generational values, and the emerging
idea of self-efficacy. As a predictor for student-readiness for college, personality is a much more
reliable factor than focusing on whether or not a student has a major (Pritchard & Wilson, 2003).
Moreover, research implies that students with majors tied more closely to their personalities are

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

more likely to succeed in school and have a better chance of adjusting well to the university,
leading to greater persistence (Kahn & Nauta, 2001).
A variety of tools to discover personality type exist, and the one most prevalent in
undecided student research is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Pulver & Kelly, 2008).
The MBTI uses the four personality pairings of extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuition,
thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving to generate personality type (Pulver & Kelly, 2008).
Studies reveal that students with certain MBTI personalities tend to enter college undecided
(Firman & MacKillop, 2008). MBTI is therefore a useful instrument to help students gain a
better understanding of their personalities. When students have greater self-awareness, they will
have a better chance of selecting a major that fits, even if the means choosing to be undecided
(Cuseo, 2005; Firman & MacKillop, 2008).
Because personality-major match is so important to students success, it is no surprise
that studies have found that it is one the main factors of influence on major choice (Beggs et al.,
2008; Firman & MacKillop, 2008). Therefore, when students select majors because of factors
other than personality type or personal interest, they will likely have a more difficult time during
their undergraduate experience. As mentioned earlier in regards to persistence, undecided
students may have a variety of interests causing them to postpone major selection. This idea
lends itself to the importance of personality traits among this student population because it
implies they have confidence in waiting for the right fit, a personality trait some students lack
(Cuseo, 2005). While not all undecided students have this level of confidence, it is still worth
noting that such a personality trait is a key reason many undecided students wait to choose a
major.

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

Another important influence on students personalities and interests is the generation in

which they grow up. Due to major technology developments in the last several decades, current
undecided students personalities and interests are influenced by and revolve around technology.
Recent college attendees and graduates were largely a part of Generation Y, constantly
connected through technology (Begss et al., 2008). Because of the constant connection to the
Internet and other forms of digital information, they have endless choices in front of them, thus
creating difficulties when it comes to decision-making, or at least deciding on a single area of
interest (Beggs et al., 2008; Gordon & Steele, 2015). In several years, this generation will grow
even more connected and probably deal with even greater indecisiveness regarding career
choices (Gordon & Steele, 2015). This generation, known as Generation C, will be connected,
communicating, content-centric, computerized, community-oriented, (Gordon & Steele, 2015,
p. 101) and will have endless options for careers, leading to confusion over major selection.
These external factors will have a major influence over personality development and
consequently how students choose to enroll in college. Elam and Gibson (2007) also propose that
this generation of students has high expectations for their educational pursuits, and will be
interested in seeking advice and questioning all of the opportunities available to them.
Consequently, generational factors will greatly influence students confidence in their academic
abilities, as well as curiosity surrounding career opportunities, thus impacting how future
undecided students will operate.
A term that appears frequently in personality literature is self-efficacy, or the belief a
person has about their own abilities to succeed (Bullock- Yowell et al., 2014; Cunningham &
Smothers, 2010; Nauta, 2004). Self-efficacy related to career choice is imperative to the
decision-making process (Bullock-Yowell et al., 2014). More specifically, self-efficacy and

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

10

confidence in career decision-making can be linked to vocational aspirations which then

influences the actions taken to reach those aspirations (Nauta, 2004). Because undecided students
may be labeled indecisive does not necessarily mean they have low self-efficacy. Students with
low self-efficacy tend to lack confidence, leading to indecision that hinders success (BullockYowell et al., 2014). In fact, this type of indecision probably suggests that a student is regularly
indecisive and experiences other forms of anxiety (Steele, 2003). As mentioned earlier, however,
it is plausible that undecided students are confident in their decisions because they are willing to
take time when making a decision, which is a common characteristic of high self-efficacy.
Evidently, confidence and self-awareness are key personality factors that undecided students
often exhibit.
Advising
Academic advising opportunities for undecided students are abundant. However, it is
crucial that advising techniques remain up-to-date for this population of students, given its
diversity and constant evolution from generation to generation. Because the relationship between
the advisor and the student has such an immense impact on the retention and satisfaction of
undecided students, it is also key that advisors know how to support this population (Ellis, 2014).
Superior academic advising techniques for undecided students do exist, and they do contribute
significantly to the populations success (Ellis, 2014). There are, however, advising shortcomings that can inhibit undecided students accomplishments. For example, studies reveal that
undecided students are capable of making decisions at the same level as their fellow decided
students, but may be treated differently by advisors and can receive misleading advice as a result
(Bullock-Yowell et al., 2014). Often times, undecided students will be developing through the
decision-making process normally, but will not receive appropriate information from advisors

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

11

(Bullock- Yowell et al., 2014; Cuseo, 2005). Advisors should therefore have a deeper
understanding of a students indecision, rather than assuming undecided means incapable of
making a decision (Ellis, 2014). Advisors should be aware if the student typically struggles with
decision-making or only job-related decisions (Steele, 2003). This can help advisors ease
students into making decisions, or at least admitting that they are undecided, because students
often fear telling advisors they have not decided on a major (Carduner, Padak, & Reynolds,
2011). When this occurs, students may waste money and time to take unnecessary classes that
they think will lead them to the right major, and advisors should help students avoid this
(Carduner et al., 2011).
Another common critique is that advisors ask students to decide on a major too soon.
Advising programs are therefore urged to wait longer to require students to select or even
suggest a major (Beggs et al., 2008). The manner in which a university reacts to undecided
students choosing to wait on selecting a major has sizeable implications for how a student
continues to make choices as an undergraduate (Bullock-Yowell et al., 2014; Cuseo, 2005).
Additionally, the support or lack of support that advisors and advising programs offer to
undecided students is deeply impactful on a students choice to be undecided (Cuseo, 2005).
Consequently, a students future success at the university and beyond is directly tied to the
advising received regarding undecided enrollment (Cuseo, 2005). As a result, advisors working
with undecided students need a vast understanding of career development plans so as to not deter
students from declaring undecided when it is truly in their best interest (Bullock-Yowell et al.,
2014). On the other hand, undecided students may have an abundance of information and
assistance regarding career decision-making because of their undecided status (Arms et al.,

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

12

2008). This can be beneficial, but advisors must help students properly navigate this information
overload.
Considering where and how undecided students have access to advising is another
common point of discussion. Advising exists in a variety of capacities, with centralized advising,
advising within dorms, advising through student engagement opportunities, and so on. The
literature proposes that the most effective form of advising takes place in living-learning
communities because it allows both the advisor and student to be more active in the community
and have discussion outside of academic environments (Arms et al., 2008). When students feel
comfortable coming to advisors in such settings, they will offer more information, which in turn
helps advisors provide the best guidance.
Changes in the Literature
The literature surrounding undecided students has long focused on persistence,
personality traits, and advising. At one point during the 1990s, researchers discovered a lull in
undecided student literature, with a fifty percent decrease in studies on the student population
(Bullock-Yowell et al., 2014). Within the last decade, however, research and findings on those
themes have evolved to keep up with the ever-changing student body on college campuses
(Bullock-Yowell et al., 2014). Persistence, initially thought of as lower for undecided students,
now appears to be higher among such students. The literature reflects this idea by continuously
acknowledging undecided students as a likely more gifted and determined population than
initially thought. Tintos model of student attrition remains largely consistent throughout the
literature. The only significant differences are the topics to which researchers choose to apply the
model. Understanding personality traits has been tied to career selection for years, but the topic
was not always examined in relation to college major selection. Over the last decade, the

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

13

literature reveals that personality traits are a crucial component to working with all students
when it comes to choosing a major, especially undecided students. Self-efficacys relation to
undecided students has also progressed over the years, and is now seen as a key factor within the
topic of personality traits. As for advising techniques, the literature on this topic evolves with
each significant change in the undecided student population.
Persistence
Initially, persistence was perceived as higher for students who come to college with a
decided major (Cuseo, 2005). However, current literature reveals that persistence is likely high
among undecided students, and not necessarily high among decided students (Arms et al., 2008;
Blecher, 2006; Cuseo, 2005). Cuseo (2005) argues that previous studies suggesting that
undecided students are an at-risk student population is likely a result of researchers looking at
students who are naturally indecisive, as opposed to indecisiveness regarding major selection (p.
2). The literature also proposes that changes found in the research surrounding undecided
students persistence do not imply a change among the population, but rather a change in the
effectiveness of the research (Cuseo, 2005; Graunke, et al., 2006). For example, during the
1980s, researchers found that undecided students were more likely to leave their institutions
while their decided counterparts were more likely to stay (Graunke et al., 2006). Another study
also found that students who kept their majors during their freshman and sophomore years had a
higher likelihood of maintaining enrollment (Graunke et al., 2006).
Towards the end of the 1980s, however, studies began to show different results, thus
altering the literature on undecided students. For example, Cross (1989) discovered that students
who switched majors persisted longer and tended to graduate at higher rates than students who
did not change majors or came to college decided (as cited in Graunke et al., 2006). Moreover,

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

14

studies began revealing that undecided students had higher persistence rates than decided
students, as well as better grades (Graunke et al., 2006). Literature then shifted, questioning why
undecided students appeared to persist at the same level as, or even higher than, their decided
classmates.
As new research began to suggest that indecision was not a problem, but actually a
benefit in some cases, more researchers agreed that undecided students persistence was linked to
their confidence in delaying a decision (Graunke et al., 2006). Moreover, researchers started to
find that students who changed majors early had better academic records and developed better
intellectually (Cunningham & Smothers, 2010). Alternatively, students who waited to change
majors and were steadfast in keeping their original majors did not succeed academically
(Cunningham & Smothers, 2010). Over all, the evolution of literature on persistence of
undecided students changed from an implication of poor persistence to suggesting a positive link
between undecided students and persistence.
As for Tintos model of student attrition, the model remains largely the same since its
initial appearance in undecided student literature. Noteworthy changes related to Tintos model
exist in the topics to which researchers now apply it. For example, the model was originally
discussed in the context of student motivation to finish a degree program. In fact, the model was
widely used in the discussion of why students do not persist, suggesting that a majority of
students leave their university before completing a degree (Cuseo, 2005). Eventually, researchers
applied the model to major selection, as it was helpful in understanding inspirations behind
students choices. Over time, this progressed into discoveries regarding persistence of undecided
students. Because Tintos model suggests that students have general academic goals in addition
to, or even in place of, specific goals such as a major, researchers started applying the model

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

15

more to this population. Also, as it became more apparent that undecided students had strong
commitments to achieving educational goals at specific institutions, Tintos work emerged more
throughout the literature.
Personality traits
Prior to the revelation that personality traits are important to undecided students,
literature suggested that interest was more important to a students decision-making (Pulver &
Kelly, 2008). But as the literature on MBTI grew in popularity, it became more apparent that
certain personalities were more inclined to enroll as undecided. Consequently, the literature on
undecided students began to focus on personality traits. Also, as people began to use MBTI for
career decisions, higher education specialists saw that it could be a predictor of major choice and
today it is a tool used particularly for major selection (Pulver & Kelly, 2008). Similar to MBTIs
history, self-efficacy did not always appear in undecided student literature. The term tended to
remain in career-development research, away from college students. As self-efficacy literature
became more prominent as a single indicator of major selection, or lack thereof, literature also
recognized that it was closely tied to personality type (Nauta, 2004). As for generational values
and the connection to personality traits, literature has typically predicted and prepared for the
changes that come with every new generation. The most significant difference in literature
related to generational values is in relation to advising, which will be discussed in the following
section.
Advising
As expected, advising techniques tend to change over the years to keep up with students,
and the literature supports this. Perhaps the most significant changes in the literature in relation
to undecided student advising is the variety of labels that now exist for this population. With

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

16

each new label comes a new method of advising, and this has been apparent over the last 30
years. As mentioned earlier, undecided students were initially considered an at-risk student
population, and were advised accordingly (Graunke et al., 2006). This was likely the result of the
label undecided, which was often looked at as indecision. While undecided students often
experience indecision, not all of them are chronically indecisive. Advising literature evolved as
this became more apparent. In particular, advisors began calling undecided students undeclared
or exploring to create a positive connotation to the major (Bullock-Yowell et al., 2014; Cuseo,
2005).
As the research on undecided students progressed, more categories and subgroups
appeared under these labels that advisors must now consider today. Advising techniques are
continuously changing as a result, and this begins with the seemingly simple task of identifying
and naming those new groups within the population. This becomes a rather tedious project,
however, as there are countless pockets of students within the population. For example, among
the broad group of undecided students, researchers found a specific group called frequent
major-changers, who do not enter college undecided, but regularly change majors before
coming to a final decision (Carduner et al., 2011). Another precise group within the undecided
population consists of students who have a major in mind but are not ready to commit, as well as
students who commit to a major but still question that commitment (Carduner et al., 2011). Still,
other researchers chose to group the population into broad, wide-ranging clusters. For example,
Gordon and Steele (1998) suggested four types of undecided students for advisors to recognize
(as cited in Ellis, 2014). But by the next decade, Gordon and Steele (2015) revealed three new
general groups of undecided students for advisors to understand, including entering first-year
students of traditional college age, students who change majors, and undecided upperclassman.

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

17

Different categories of undecided students appeared elsewhere in advising literature as

the population evolved. In particular, multipotentiality (Bloom et al., 2011; Carduner et al.,
2011) entered the scene and undecided students were seen more than ever as a particularly bright
group. Multipotentiality describes academically and artistically talented students of high ability
who are able to perform a wide variety of tasks and skills successfully and with high levels of
enjoyment, (Bloom et al., 2011, p. 55). Consequently, advisors now have the task of working
with these students who have countless interests and talents, but have difficulties selecting a
single interest for a major or career (Bullock-Yowell et al., 2014; Carduner et al., 2011). As new
groups of undecided students enter college, more specific subgroups of this population will
appear, and advising literature will regularly change to keep up with this endlessly fluctuating
population.
Implications
Undecided students represent a large and diverse population across college campuses
today. Due to the variation within the population, research on these students is often convoluted
and difficult to navigate. For every theory and point of research on undecided students, there
exists a question or suggestion for future research. For now, it is important to understand that
undecided student literature is attempting to migrate away from generalizations of the
population, and focus on the diversity of the students. Recent literature, however, remains
focused on the three key elements of persistence, personality traits, and advising. It appears that
no matter how diverse this population becomes, those three areas will continue to influence
undecided students in the future.
Persistence has long been questioned among this group. Undecided students were first
thought to be struggling students, and while this may be true to an extent, this group tends to

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

18

persist at impressive rates. In particular, Tintos model of student attrition is an important starting
point for understanding the decision-making process of undecided students. Also, to better grasp
the persistence of undecided students, it is imperative to examine the students personality traits.
A term that commonly appears in literature regarding undecided student personalities is selfefficacy. Through a deeper analyzing of self-efficacy, researchers now recognize that undecided
students are most likely confident, and move through the decision-making process at a healthy
pace. Finally, with more insight into persistence and personality traits, advising techniques are
able to evolve to better assist undecided students. An important aspect of advising today involves
classifying undecided students more specifically. When advisors are able to place undecided
students in a precise category, they can provide specialized advice and support, leading to greater
satisfaction and success for undecided students.
The findings in undecided student literature present several implications for institutional
policies and practices. First, universities should think carefully about how advisors and advising
programs react to undecided students. Pressuring undecided students into selecting a major can
have negative effects on persistence. Additionally, assuming that undecided students are
naturally indecisive can put a strain on the advisor-student relationship. Policies should therefore
encourage advisors to inquire about a students undecided choice before offering any assistance.
Along the same lines, advisors may want to practice using different labels for undecided
students, such as undeclared or exploratory. Because the term undecided has long been
associated negatively with indecision, students will be more likely to declare themselves as
exploratory. When thinking of alternative labeling for undecided students, it is also necessary to
acknowledge that while researchers typically consolidate this population into few large groups,
there are actually numerous specific subgroups. For that reason, advisors should have

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

19

supervising techniques for every different pocket of undecided students, such as

multipotentialites and frequent major-changers. Because family and peer influences play an
important role in undecided students decision-making and transitioning, advising program
should also be well-versed in dealing with family concerns. Ultimately, with an improved
understanding of what makes undecided students wait on major selection, as well as
preparedness for change in the population, advisors and universities will be well-equipped at
working with undecided students.
Future Research
Future research on the undecided student population must better articulate the diversity
within the group. As research emerges about different types of undecided students, there is still
somewhat of a gap in literature regarding the demographics of this population (Porter, 2006).
Given that the population contributes to a significant percentage of undergraduate students today,
it is likely that there is a great deal of diversity that goes beyond personality type and interests.
Consequently, research must seek to gain more insight on these components. In doing so, student
affairs professionals will be able to pinpoint why undecided students operate the way they do.
Not only will undecided students benefit from this knowledge, but there decided classmates will,
as well. When student affairs professionals understand what drives students decisions, they will
be able to better guide all students through decision-making processes and career-planning
procedures. Ultimately, students will progress through college successfully, which will also lead
to institutional benefits.
More specifically, as student affairs practitioners and researchers continue to highlight
personal traits and academic ability among undecided students, there are countless additional
factors that contribute to this populations characteristics. While a handful of studies exist on the

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

20

impact of gender, race, and socioeconomic status on students decisions, these factors are not
typically applied directly to undecided students (John, Simmons, Carter, & Weber, 2004).
Research on family influence exists, but perhaps taking a closer look at family will provide more
insight into undecided students lives. For example, ethnic, racial, and cultural ties could be
driving family influence, but the literature has yet to examine these components on a deeper
level. Moreover, researchers can analyze how gender plays a role among undecided students as it
could be a significant factor in making academic and career decisions. Also, as researchers look
at generational issues that lead students to make educational choices, it is crucial to acknowledge
important political and social issues that are relevant to them. The literature implies that
undecided students are a curious and interested population, and perhaps these larger issues
inspire them to wait for the perfect major. When working with a dynamic and ever-changing
population, research must always think ahead in order to provide the most effective support to
undecided students.

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

21

Table 1
Literature Review Themes and References
Theme
Persistence

References
Arms, J. H., Cabrera, A. F., & Brower, A. M. (2008). Moving into
students' spaces: The impact of location of academic advising on
student engagement among undecided students. NACADA
Journal, 28(1), 8-18.
Beggs, J. M., Bantham, J. H., & Taylor, S. (2008). DISTINGUISHING
THE FACTORS INFLUENCING COLLEGE STUDENTS'
CHOICE OF MAJOR. College Student Journal, 42(2), 381.
Blecher, L. (2006). Persistence toward bachelor degree completion of
students in family and consumer sciences. College Student
Journal, 40(3), 469.
Cunningham, K. E., & Smothers, A. W. (2010). The effect of self-efficacy
and psychosocial development on major-changing behavior.
NACADA Journal, 30(2), 65-71.
Cuseo, J. (2005). Decided, undecided, and in transition: Implications for
academic advisement, career counseling, and student
retention. Improving the first year of college: Research and
practice, 27-48.
DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of
academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A
longitudinal study. College student journal, 38(1), 66.
Firman, M. W., & MacKillop, L. M. (2008). Frequent major changing:
Extrinsic and intrinsic factors. NACADA Journal, 28(2), 5-13.
Graunke, S. S., Woosley, S. A., & Helms, L. L. (2006). How do their
initial goals impact students' chances to graduate? An exploration
of three types of commitment. NACADA Journal, 26(1), 13-18.
Kahn, J. H., & Nauta, M. M. (2001). Social-cognitive predictors of firstyear college persistence: The importance of proximal
assessment. Research in higher education, 42(6), 633-652.
Leppel, K. (2002). Similarities and differences in the college persistence
of men and women. The Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 433450.

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

22

Malgwi, C. A., Howe, M. A., & Burnaby, P. A. (2005). Influences on

students' choice of college major. Journal of Education for
Business, 80(5), 275-282.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2006). Influence of gender, race, and socioeconomic
status on college choice: A National Longitudinal Survey of
Freshmen (NLSF) investigation. NASAP Journal, 9(1), 100-117.
Personality

Beggs, J. M., Bantham, J. H., & Taylor, S. (2008). DISTINGUISHING

THE FACTORS INFLUENCING COLLEGE STUDENTS'
CHOICE OF MAJOR. College Student Journal, 42(2), 381.
Bullock-Yowell, E., McConnell, A. E., & Schedin, E. A. (2014). Decided
and undecided students: Career self-efficacy, negative thinking,
and decision-making difficulties. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 22-34.
Cunningham, K. E., & Smothers, A. W. (2010). The effect of self-efficacy
and psychosocial development on major-changing behavior.
NACADA Journal, 30(2), 65-71.
Cuseo, J. (2005). Decided, undecided, and in transition: Implications for
academic advisement, career counseling, and student
retention. Improving the first year of college: Research and
practice, 27-48.
DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of
academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A
longitudinal study. College student journal, 38(1), 66.
Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2007). Welcoming a new
generation to college: the millennial students. Journal of College
Admission, 195, 20-25.
Firman, M. W., & MacKillop, L. M. (2008). Frequent major changing:
Extrinsic and intrinsic factors. NACADA Journal, 28(2), 5-13.
Gordon, V. N., & Steele, G. E. (2015). The undecided college student: An
academic and career advising challenge. Charles C Thomas
Publisher.
Kahn, J. H., & Nauta, M. M. (2001). Social-cognitive predictors of firstyear college persistence: The importance of proximal
assessment. Research in higher education, 42(6), 633-652.
Nauta, M. M. (2004). Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationships
between personality factors and career interests. Journal of Career

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

Assessment,12(4), 381-394.
Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G. S. (2003). Using emotional and social
factors to predict student success. Journal of college student
development, 44(1), 18-28.
Pulver, C. A., & Kelly, K. R. (2008). Incremental validity of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator in predicting academic major selection of
undecided university students. Journal of Career Assessment.
Steele, G. (2003). A research-based approach to working with undecided
students: A case study illustration. NACADA Journal, 23(1-2), 1020.
Arms, J. H., Cabrera, A. F., & Brower, A. M. (2008). Moving into
students' spaces: The impact of location of academic advising on
student engagement among undecided students. NACADA
Journal, 28(1), 8-18.
Advising

Beggs, J. M., Bantham, J. H., & Taylor, S. (2008). DISTINGUISHING

THE FACTORS INFLUENCING COLLEGE STUDENTS'
CHOICE OF MAJOR. College Student Journal, 42(2), 381.
Bloom, A. J., Tripp, P. R., & Shaffer, L. S. (2011) Academic and career.
advising of scanners. NACADA Journal, 31(2), 55-61
Bullock-Yowell, E., McConnell, A. E., & Schedin, E. A. (2014). Decided
and undecided students: Career self-efficacy, negative thinking,
and decision-making difficulties. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 22-34.
Carduner, J., Padak, G. M., & Reynolds, J. (2011). Exploratory honors
students: Academic major and career decision making. NACADA
Journal, 31(1), 14-28.
Cuseo, J. (2005). Decided, undecided, and in transition: Implications for
academic advisement, career counseling, and student
retention. Improving the first year of college: Research and
practice, 27-48.
Ellis, K. C. (2014). Academic Advising Experiences of First-Year
Undecided Students: A qualitative Study. NACADA
Journal, 34(2), 42-50.
Gordon, V. N., & Steele, G. E. (2015). The undecided college student: An
academic and career advising challenge. Charles C Thomas
Publisher.

23

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

Steele, G. (2003). A research-based approach to working with undecided

students: A case study illustration. NACADA Journal, 23(1-2), 1020.

24

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

25

References
Arms, J. H., Cabrera, A. F., & Brower, A. M. (2008). Moving into Students' Spaces: The Impact
of Location of Academic Advising on Student Engagement among Undecided
Students. NACADA Journal, 28(1), 8-18.
Beggs, J. M., Bantham, J. H., & Taylor, S. (2008). DISTINGUISHING THE FACTORS
INFLUENCING COLLEGE STUDENTS'CHOICE OF MAJOR. College Student
Journal, 42(2), 381.
Blecher, L. (2006). Persistence toward bachelor degree completion of students in family and
consumer sciences. College Student Journal, 40(3), 469.
Bloom, A. J., Tripp, P. R., & Shaffer, L. S. (2011) Academic and career advising of scanners.
NACADA Journal, 31(2), 55-61.
Bullock-Yowell, E., McConnell, A. E., & Schedin, E. A. (2014). Decided and undecided
students: Career self-efficacy, negative thinking, and decision-making
difficulties. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 22-34.
Carduner, J., Padak, G. M., & Reynolds, J. (2011). Exploratory honors students: Academic major
and career decision making. NACADA Journal, 31(1), 14-28.
Cunningham, K. E., & Smothers, A. W. (2010). The effect of self-efficacy and psychosocial
development on major-changing behavior. NACADA Journal, 30(2), 65-71.
Cuseo, J. (2005). Decided, undecided, and in transition: Implications for academic advisement,
career counseling, and student retention. Improving the first year of college: Research
and practice, 27-48.
DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement
and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student
Journal, 38(1), 66.
Ellis, K. C. (2014). Academic Advising Experiences of First-Year Undecided Students: A
qualitative Study. NACADA Journal, 34(2), 42-50.
Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2007). Welcoming a new generation to college: the
millennial students. Journal of College Admission, 195, 20-25.
Firman, M. W., & MacKillop, L. M. (2008). Frequent major changing: Extrinsic and intrinsic
factors. NACADA Journal, 28(2), 5-13.
Gordon, V. N., & Steele, G. E. (2015). The undecided college student: An academic and career
advising challenge. Charles C Thomas Publisher.

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF UNDECIDED STUDENTS

26

Graunke, S. S., Woosley, S. A., & Helms, L. L. (2006). How do their initial goals impact
students' chances to graduate? An exploration of three types of commitment. NACADA
Journal, 26(1), 13-18.
John, E. P. S., Hu, S., Simmons, A., Carter, D. F., & Weber, J. (2004). What difference does a
major make? The influence of college major field on persistence by African American
and White students. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 209-232.
Kahn, J. H., & Nauta, M. M. (2001). Social-cognitive predictors of first-year college persistence:
The importance of proximal assessment. Research in Higher Education, 42(6), 633-652.
Leppel, K. (2002). Similarities and differences in the college persistence of men and women. The
Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 433-450.
Lorenzetti, J. (2011). Got major? Program aims to aid undeclared students persistence.
Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 25(6), 56.
Malgwi, C. A., Howe, M. A., & Burnaby, P. A. (2005). Influences on students' choice of college
major. Journal of Education for Business, 80(5), 275-282.
Nauta, M. M. (2004). Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationships between personality factors
and career interests. Journal of Career Assessment,12(4), 381-394.
Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). College major choice: An analysis of person-environment
fit. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 429-449.
Pulver, C. A., & Kelly, K. R. (2008). Incremental validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in
predicting academic major selection of undecided university students. Journal of Career
Assessment.
Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G. S. (2003). Using emotional and social factors to predict student
success. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), 18-28.
Steele, G. (2003). A research-based approach to working with undecided students: A case study
illustration. NACADA Journal, 23(1-2), 10-20.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2006). Influence of gender, race, and socioeconomic status on college choice:
A National Longitudinal Survey of Freshmen (NLSF) investigation. NASAP
Journal, 9(1), 100-117.