This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 07 February 2014, At: 04:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing for Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20

Differences in College Choice Criteria BetweenDeciding Students and Their ParentsGreg M. Broekemier PhD a & Srivatsa Seshadri PhD aa University of Nebraska at Kearney , Kearney, NE, 68849Published online: 22 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Greg M. Broekemier PhD & Srivatsa Seshadri PhD (2000) Differences in College Choice Criteria BetweenDeciding Students and Their Parents, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9:3, 1-13

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v09n03_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Differences in College Choice CriteriaBetween Deciding Students

and Their Parents

Greg M. BroekemierSrivatsa Seshadri

ABSTRACT. This paper reports the findings of a study involving themeasurement of the relative importance of numerous college choice crite-ria. This study includes a comparison of importance ratings of these crite-ria by high school students and their parents. Significant student/parentand student gender differences are discussed and safety is identified as animportant choice criterion. Important influencers on college choice deci-sions from both student and parent perspectives are also identified. Theresults can help college administrators and recruiters tailor their marketingstrategies to each group by providing important information to the princi-pal parties involved in making college choice decisions. [Article copies avail-able for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678.E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com <Website: http://www.haworthpressinc.com>]

KEYWORDS. College choice criteria, parents, deciding students

The decision to go to college may be one of the most importantdecisions a young person will ever make (Carnegie Foundation,1986). Students’ futures depend heavily on the quality of educationthey receive from the schools they choose to attend. Students andparents expect a significant return on the sacrifices made and the timeand money spent earning a college degree. As colleges and universi-

Greg M. Broekemier, PhD, and Srivatsa Seshadri, PhD, are both Associate Pro-fessors of Marketing, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849.

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 9(3) 1999E 1999 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION2

ties strive to recruit students, they should provide relevant informationto both students and parents in order to enhance the students’ likeli-hood of success in the educational environments they choose.

The Carnegie Report (1986) stated that ‘‘while most students do notmake the college decision without the guidance of others, little isknown about the key variables that influence student choices.’’ In theyears since that report was issued, a number of studies have addressedthe topic of college choice criteria. However, only a few investigationsinvolving both deciding students and their parents have been reported.

The present study examines the importance ratings of collegechoice criteria of high school students and their parents and, in addi-tion, tests for differences in importance ratings between male andfemale students. It also investigates how influential parents are in thischoice process from both the deciding students’ and their parents’perspectives.

EXTANT LITERATURE

Considerable research has been done in the 1990s regarding thechoice sets of students when selecting a college or university to attend.In a study involving high school juniors and seniors in New York state,Canale et al. (1996) found that ‘‘excellent teachers’’ and ‘‘areas ofstudy’’ ranked significantly higher in importance than nine other col-lege characteristics. Academic reputation, cost, and teacher availabil-ity were also relatively important, while being within commuting dis-tance, both large student population and small student population,sports/extracurricular programs, teachers with diverse backgroundsand well-known teachers were less important. However, no gender-related differences were reported in that study.

Coccari and Javalgi (1995), in suggesting that students differamong themselves regarding the criteria they use to select a college oruniversity, pointed out that little attention has been paid to the differ-ing importance ratings for college choice criteria between variousstudent segments. In their examination of retrospective reports fromstudents of the importance of college-related attributes, Coccari andJavalgi (1995) found that quality of faculty, degree programs, cost(tuition fees), variety of offerings, and classroom instruction had thehighest average importance ratings of the twenty attributes investi-gated, while campus police (security), handicapped facilities, health

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Greg M. Broekemier and Srivatsa Seshadri 3

services, computer labs, and university library had the lowest impor-tance ratings for their total sample. In addition, significant differencesin attribute importance across races and majors were found, althoughno significant gender differences were reported.

Kallio (1995) investigated factors influencing the college choices ofgraduate students. A multivariate analysis suggested at least six prima-ry decision factors for graduate students including residency status,characteristics of the academic environment of the institution and itsprograms, work-related concerns, spouse considerations, financial aid,and the social environment of campus life. Of these factors, residency,academic, and work considerations appeared to have the greatest in-fluence on graduate students’ decisions. No significant gender differ-ences were found in that study. Galotti and Mark (1994), in an inves-tigation of the relative importance of college choice criteria, found thatthe factors students reported considering during the college/universitychoice process varied by whether the interviews were conducted whenstudents were early or late in the choice process. While factors relatingto cost, majors/programs offered, size, location, and extracurricularprograms were consistently mentioned in greater numbers in all timeperiods, other factors such as admissions requirements, course offer-ings, campus atmosphere, class size/student faculty ratio, and financialaid varied in percentage of mentions by time period. The factors withthe fewest mentions, consistently across time periods, in this longitu-dinal study were faculty quality/credentials, parents’/friends’ advice,school policies/regulations, and peers/friends at school. Although fewmales were interviewed relative to females, several gender differenceson factors such as success of graduates and dorms/residence hallswere reported by these authors.

In summary, many college choice studies do not report investigat-ing gender differences. In addition, the relative importance of collegechoice criteria to both prospective students and their parents, who area major influence on these decisions, has received little attention.These are the areas that this paper addresses.

HYPOTHESES

Parents have frequently been identified as the primary influence onhigh school students’ college choice decisions. In their review ofliterature, Hossler and Stage (1992) found that both parental expecta-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION4

tions and parental encouragement were related to the likelihood of astudent’s attending a postsecondary educational institution and indica-tions were that parents’ expectations exerted the strongest influenceon students’ predispositions toward postsecondary education.

In 1986, The Carnegie Foundation reported that high school seniorsidentified parents as the most influential people in helping them selecta college. Dixon and Martin (1991) also identified parents as theprimary influence on students’ college choice decisions. Flint (1992)found parents play a seminal as well as persistent role in the formationof high school students’ college choice sets. However, none of thesestudies investigated parents’ college choice criteria and whether theimportance ratings of these criteria differ from those of their child(ren)choosing a college. Hypothesis 1 was formulated to address this issue.

Hypothesis 1: Parents and their students will differ in their impor-tance ratings of college choice criteria.

Some researchers report finding gender differences while others donot. Based upon the mixed gender difference results that have beenreported, hypothesis 2 was formed.

Hypothesis 2: Male students will differ from female students intheir importance ratings for various college choicecriteria.

Cowart (1988) investigated high school students’ major and minorinformation sources and influences used in their college choice deci-sions. Parents and other relatives were mentioned most frequently asinfluencers, followed by friends at college, high school counselors,teachers, classmates, college representatives who visit high schools,and college alumni. However, the most frequently mentioned sourcesof information in Cowart’s (1988) study were college brochures/pam-phlets and catalogs.

Although Smith and Bers (1989) investigated personal influencesources, such as high school teachers/counselors and spouses, used byparents of community college students, no studies were found whichcompared the information sources that students report using with theinformation sources that parents of deciding students believe theirstudents to be using. It may be that parents do not have a full under-standing of the influences on their deciding students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Greg M. Broekemier and Srivatsa Seshadri 5

In addition, parents may be less influential than they think. Murphy(1981) reported that students saw their parents as one important sourceof influence, but they also relied heavily on their friends. Siblingswere also reported by students to have much greater influence thanparents believed them to have. Results from a recent survey of collegefreshmen indicate that fewer than ten percent of first-year students saida relative’s wishes played an important part in their college choice(Archer and Hasday 1996). This leads to the following two hypotheses.

Hypothesis 3: Students self-reported personal information sourcesfor the college choice decision will differ from infor-mation sources that parents believe their studentsare using.

Hypothesis 4: Parents will rate themselves as a more importantinformation source in the college choice decisionthan will students.

METHODS

Instrument Development

The first stage of instrument development began with the develop-ment of a preliminary list of choice criteria based on previous litera-ture. A focus group comprised of undergraduate students, who hadrecently made college choice decisions, discussed this initial list andproposed additions or deletions. A number of parents of deciding highschool students also reviewed this list. Based upon information fromthese sources, a list of logical college choice criteria was developed forpretesting. Additional classification questions were then added to theinstrument.

Stage two of the instrument development process involved adminis-tering the questionnaire to a small number of students and parents.Few problems were identified, but after reviewing these pretest re-sults, several minor changes were made and the final student andparent versions were completed. The questionnaires were identicalexcept for some minor wording changes such as adding ‘‘My highschool student is . . . ’’ to questions about gender, class standing, etc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION6

Data Collection

Four undergraduate students from a medium-sized midwestern uni-versity were recruited to collect data in ten high schools in a midwest-ern state. High schools were chosen so that most regions of the state,and high schools from both urban and rural communities, were repre-sented.

The field workers were trained by the researchers and permission tocollect data in each of the schools was secured. Once at an individualschool, the field worker(s) attended one or more classes identified bythat school’s administrators as being senior-level and typically takenby college-bound students. Data were collected by field workers atonly one time at each school in order to insure that respondents did notcomplete more than one questionnaire. It took approximately 7-10minutes for respondents to complete the instrument.

Data from parents were collected in the following manner. Eachparticipating high school student was asked to address an envelopeprovided to his/her parent(s). These envelopes were collected alongwith the completed student questionnaires by the field workers. Ques-tionnaires with stamped return envelopes were then mailed to theparents of participating students with instructions to avoid discussingthe issues with their college bound child.

Sample

Three hundred and ninety-eight questionnaires were distributed tostudent respondents in senior-level high school classes. Only threestudents refused to participate, resulting in 395 usable responses, for aresponse rate of over 99%. Sixteen students provided incomplete in-formation regarding addresses, so 380 questionnaires were sent toparents. Ninety-one usable responses were subsequently received,yielding a parental response rate of 24%. Since gender is an importantclassification variable in this study, Table 1 identifies the numbers and

Gender Students % Parents %Female 214 54.2 49 53.8Male 181 45.8 42 46.2Totals 395 100 91 100

TABLE 1. Parent and Student Respondent Genders

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Greg M. Broekemier and Srivatsa Seshadri 7

percentages of males and females for both the student and parentrespondent groups.

Data Analysis

The t-test procedure available in SPSS was used to analyze the data.Means for the dependent variables for the various hypotheses werecalculated for the appropriate groups and tested for statistically signifi-cant differences using this procedure.

RESULTS

All Students

As shown in the first column of Table 2, the importance ratings forthe college choice criteria by all students in this study are similar toresults reported by other researchers, with two noteworthy exceptions.

TABLE 2. Average Importance Ratings of College Choice Criteria for Male andFemale Students

All Students Males FemalesAttributes Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean RankProgram of Study 4.47 1 4.39 1 4.55 1*Cost 4.34 2 4.32 2 4.36 4Financial Aid/Scholarships 4.32 3 4.29 3 4.37 3Job Placement After Grad. 4.25 4 4.27 4 4.24 5Facility Quality 4.24 5 4.21 5 4.26 6Safe Campus 4.10 6 3.70 11 4.44 2***Housing Availability 4.03 7 4.07 7 4.02 8Social Life 3.97 8 4.10 6 3.87 11**Academic Reputation 3.95 9 3.82 8 4.06 7**Attractive Campus 3.81 10 3.73 9 3.88 10Part-Time Job Opportunities 3.80 11 3.71 10 3.89 9Average Class Size 3.71 12 3.61 12 3.78 14College Size 3.70 13 3.61 12 3.79 12City/Town Size 3.70 13 3.61 12 3.79 12Geographic Location 3.60 15 3.55 15 3.64 15Friends Attend 3.18 16 3.26 17 3.11 16Athletic Programs 3.01 17 3.38 16 2.71 17***

5 = very important, 1 = very unimportant* < .05** < .01*** < .001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION8

The first exception, ‘‘having a safe campus,’’ has the sixth highestimportance rating of all criteria. This criterion has been examined byfew researchers and no investigation has shown safety to be this im-portant.

The second exception involves academic reputation. When ex-amined across genders, academic reputation has only the ninth highestimportance rating. Most previous research shows academic reputationto be more important than is indicated by this research. Perhaps, theserespondents see ‘‘college education’’ to be a generic product.

Hypothesis 1-Gender Differences

Several statistically significant results emerged as exhibited inTable 2. Gender differences occurred in the relative importance ratingsfor program of study, social life, academic reputation, safe campus,and athletic programs. Males reported that social life and athleticprograms were more important than females did, while females gavehigher importance ratings to program of study, safe campus, and aca-demic reputation. Thus, partial support is found for hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2-Student/Parent Differences

Hypothesis 2 is well supported. There are significant differencesbetween the importance ratings of students and parents on nine of theseventeen college choice criteria used in this investigation. As shownin Table 3, students identified social life, friends attending an institu-tion, and athletic programs as more important than did parents. Con-versely, parents provided higher importance ratings for program ofstudy, cost, facility quality, academic reputation, average class size,and safe campus.

Hypothesis 3-Sources of Influence

As shown in Table 4, parents don’t realize the amount of influencethat some sources may have on their students’ college choices. Parentsbelieved college representatives, other relatives, and teachers to bemore influential than students identified them to be, although only the‘‘other relative’’ result is statistically significant. However, the ‘‘col-lege representative’’ result, with a p-value of .057 may be consideredmarginally significant.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Greg M. Broekemier and Srivatsa Seshadri 9

Students ParentsAttributes Mean Rank Mean RankProgram of Study 4.47 1 4.72 1**Cost 4.34 2 4.56 3*Financial Aid/Scholarships 4.32 3 4.34 7Job Placement After Grad. 4.25 4 4.37 6Facility Quality 4.24 5 4.42 5*Safe Campus 4.10 6 4.61 2***Housing Availability 4.03 7 4.16 8Social Life 3.97 8 3.22 15***Academic Reputation 3.95 9 4.53 4***Attractive Campus 3.81 10 3.78 11Part-Time Job Opportunities 3.80 11 3.68 13Average Class Size 3.71 12 4.16 8***College Size 3.70 13 3.78 11City/Town Size 3.70 13 3.68 13Geographic Location 3.60 15 3.82 10Friends Attend 3.18 16 2.82 16**Athletic Programs 3.01 17 2.40 17***

5 = very important, 1 = very unimportant* < .05** < .01*** < .001

TABLE 3. Average Importance Ratings of College Choice Criteria forStudents and Parents

Influence Source Students ParentsParents .85 .89High School Friends .48 .25***Friends Attending College .35 .19**College Representative .25 .36High School Counselor .25 .22Other Relatives .23 .35*Teacher .18 .21Other .07 .12

1 = mentioned as one of the top three influences, 0 = not mentioned* < .05** < .01*** < .001

TABLE 4. Sources of Influence on Students’ College Choice Decisions Reportedby Students and Parents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION10

Conversely, students identified high school friends and friends cur-rently attending a college or university as major influences on theircollege choice decision much more frequently than did parents. Thedifferences in means for both of these variables were statisticallysignificant (p < .05). Although similar results have been reportedpreviously (Murphy 1981), parents still do not seem to realize theimport of these friendship groups on the college choice decision.

Finally, there was little difference in means for parents, high schoolcounselors, high school teachers, and ‘‘other.’’ Parents were clearlythe most influential people identified, while counselors and teachershad relatively little influence. The ‘‘other’’ category consisted primari-ly of mentions of boyfriends/girlfriends, other friends (who were nei-ther college nor high school friends), people in the workforce or co-workers, college professors or coaches, and God.

Hypothesis 4- Influence of Parents

Although the means for the identification of parents as major influ-encers shown in Table 4 are in the anticipated direction, i.e., parentsmore frequently identify themselves as one of the top three influencersthan do students, the difference between the student and parent groupmeans is not statistically significant. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is notsupported. Both students and parents most frequently identify parentsas the major influence in the college choice decision.

DISCUSSION

Several significant differences in importance ratings of collegechoice criteria between male and female students were found. Thesedifferences indicate that female high school students are more con-cerned with academic or education-specific issues than are their malecounterparts. Safety was also of great concern to female respondents.

Conversely, males report that some non-academic factors, namelysocial life and athletic programs, are more important to them than theyare to females. While we would not recommend downgrading theimportance of academics, college recruiters should also incorporatesome non-academic issues more prominently into their communica-tions with college-bound males, while safety issues should receivegreater emphasis when communicating with female deciding students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Greg M. Broekemier and Srivatsa Seshadri 11

A considerable body of research exists in the consumer behaviorliterature which supports the notion that successful marketers must notonly provide decision-makers with appropriate information, but otherswho influence purchase decisions must be reached as well. Murphy(1981) used product marketing concepts to introduce the concept ofvarious roles into the college decision process literature. He reportedthe key roles enacted in college decisions to be: the initiator, theinfluencer, and the decider. It is crucial for marketers of higher educa-tion to promote colleges to each decision-maker based on the choice-criteria deemed important by him or her.

The results of this study endorse the 1986 Carnegie Foundationreport which states that ‘‘colleges that want to communicate effective-ly with prospective students should also consider ways to communi-cate effectively with parents.’’ This study indicates that students andparents, together taking on the roles of initiators, influencers, anddeciders, must be attracted by convincing them of an institution’s‘‘fit’’ between their choice criteria and institutional strengths. To stu-dents, institutions should emphasize available programs of study, costadvantages, availability of financial aid/scholarships, job placementafter graduation, and facility quality. In addition, greater emphasisshould be placed on academic reputation and safety when attemptingto attract female students. To parents, available programs of study,safety, cost advantages, academic reputation, and facility quality arethe most important criteria.

IMPLICATIONS

Mass customization (Kotler 1989) is the appropriate marketingstrategy for colleges. Appropriate information dissemination to bothprospective students and their parents should be at the core of custo-mization of universities’ promotional strategies. Each influencing en-tity must primarily be given information that it deems important.Additional information on issues that students believe are importantwill further enhance the persuading ability of the influencing agent tobetter ‘‘promote’’ institutions. These actions can then help reducecollege choice cognitive dissonance (Wiese 1994) by enhancing thelikelihood that students and parents made an informed choice basedupon meaningful criteria.

Institutions should deliver on the most important criteria identified

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION12

by both students and parents. Important criteria to both groups includeoffering desired programs of study, affordable cost, facility quality,and having a safe campus. Competitive advantages in these areasshould be promoted heavily, while deficiencies should be corrected asquickly as possible. It may be that satisfactory performance in otherareas is acceptable.

FUTURE RESEARCH

These results indicate several avenues for future research. Since thisstudy involved students and parents from communities of sizes rangingfrom 1000 residents to 400,000 residents, more research is needed todetermine whether rural vs. urban high school students and parentshave varying importance ratings for college choice criteria. This may beanother useful segmentation base for marketers of higher education.

In addition, research that compares high school counselors’ collegechoice importance ratings with those of students and parents would beuseful. One could then determine whether high school counselorsunderstand the types of information that prospective college studentsand their parents desire to help them make appropriate collegechoices.

REFERENCES

Archer, J. and Hasday, L. (1996). ‘‘Whose School is it Anyway? (parental interfer-ence in college applications).’’ U.S. News & World Report, 121(11), 105.

Canale, J.R., Dunlap, L., Britt, M. and Donahue, T. (1996). ‘‘The Relative Impor-tance of Various College Characteristics to Students in Influencing Their Choiceof a College.’’ College Student Journal, 30(2), 214-216.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1986). ‘‘Parents: A Key toCollege Choice.’’ Change, 18(6), 31-33.

Coccari, R.L. and Javalgi, R.G. (1995). ‘‘Analysis of Students’ Needs in Selecting aCollege or University in a Changing Environment.’’ Journal of Marketing forHigher Education, 6(2), 27-39.

Cowart, S.C. (1988). ‘‘College Choice and the Student Transition Process.’’ IowaCity: Research Report of the American College Testing National Center for theAdvancement of Educational Practices.

Dixon, P.N. and Martin, N.K. (1991). ‘‘Measuring Factors That Influence CollegeChoice.’’ NASPA Journal, 29(l), 31-36.

Flint, T.A. (1992). ‘‘Parental and Planning Influences on the Formation of StudentCollege Choice Sets.’’ Research in Higher Education, 33(6), 689-708.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Greg M. Broekemier and Srivatsa Seshadri 13

Galotti, K.M. and Mark, M.C. (1994). ‘‘How Do High School Students Structure anImportant Life Decision? A Short-Term Longitudinal Study of the College Deci-sion-Making Process.’’ Research in Higher Education, 35(5), 589-607.

Hossler, D. and Stage, F.K. (1992). ‘‘Family and High School Experience Influenceson the Postsecondary Educational Plans of Ninth-Grade Students.’’ AmericanEducational Research Journal, 29(2), 425-451.

Hossler, D. and Gallegher, K.S. (1987). ‘‘Studying Student College Choice: A ThreePhase Model and the Implications for Policy Makers.’’ College and University,2(3), 207-221.

Kallio, R.E. (1995). ‘‘Factors Influencing the College Choice Decisions of GraduateStudents.’’ Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 109-124.

Kotler, P. (1989). ‘‘From Mass Marketing to Mass Customization (creating differenti-ation strategies for various markets).’’ Planning Review (a publication of thePlanning Forum), 17(5), 10-15.

Martin, N.K. and Dixon, P.N. (1991). ‘‘Factors Influencing Students’ CollegeChoice.’’ Journal of College Student Development, 32, 253-257.

Murphy, P. (1981). ‘‘Consumer Buying Roles in College Choice: Parents’ and Stu-dents’ Perceptions.’’ College and University, 56(2), 140-150.

Smith, K. and Bers, T.H. (1989). ‘‘Parents and the College Choice Decisions ofCommunity College Students.’’ College and University, Summer, 335-348.

Wiese, M.D. (1994). ‘‘College Choice Cognitive Dissonance: Managing Student/In-stitutional Fit.’’ Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 5(1), 35-47.

Received: 10/02/97Revised: 05/12/98

Accepted: 07/01/98

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

47 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014