A longitudinal study of real‐life decision making: Choosing a college

Abstract

AbstractThree hundred and twenty two college‐bound high school students described aspects of their college decision‐making processes. Students listed their criteria as well as the alternatives (i. e., schools) under consideration, rated the importance of each criterion, and rated each alternative with respect to each criterion. They also gave their overall impressions of each alternative. Finally, students rated their comfort with the decision‐making process and, at the conclusion of the study, reported on how many schools they had applied to, had or had not been accepted at, were waiting to hear from, or were waitlisted at. Students consider four or five alternatives, and use eight to ten criteria in evaluating them. These figures do not change appreciably over the course of the process, although only about half the criteria or/and slightly more than half of the schools considered at one time are considered again 6 months later, and there are several changes in the kinds of criteria considered at different points in time. There was a marginally significant trend for higher ability and average ability students to consider more criteria, more distinct types of criteria, and more alternatives than do lower ability students. There were no gender differences in this regard. Gender differences and academic ability group differences were apparent, however, in the types of criteria students reported. Participation in multiple sessions in this study had few reliable effects on decision‐making performance. Students were given a list of 34 standard criteria at each session, and incorporated some of these into their own lists of criteria during subsequent sessions. However, there was no indication that repeated participation led students to adopt a more analytical strategy than they would have otherwise. Data were compared with three linear models of information integration. Models using data with multiple criteria better fit the students' data than did a model using only the most important criterion. Higher ability students were particularly better able to integrate information according to linear models.