How Behavioral Biases Shape Career Choices of Students: A Two-Stage PLS-ANN Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Career decisions are among the most consequential choices individuals make, profoundly shaping their long-term stability and overall life satisfaction. The literature suggests that behavioral biases, specifically overconfidence, herd mentality, social comparison, status quo bias, and optimism bias, can exert considerable influence on these decisions, thereby shaping students’ future career trajectories. This study adopts a behavioral perspective to examine how these biases influence career choices within a collectivist social context. A survey of 360 undergraduate and graduate business students was conducted. The collected data were analyzed using an integrated approach that combines Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), enabling the use of both linear and non-linear methods to analyze the relationship between cognitive biases and career choices. Our findings reveal that while all five biases have a measurable impact, status quo bias and social comparison are the dominant factors influencing students’ career decisions. These results underscore the need for interventions that foster self-awareness, independent decision-making, and critical thinking. Such insights can guide educators, career counselors, and policymakers in designing programs to mitigate the negative effects of cognitive biases on career decision-making, ultimately enhancing career satisfaction and workforce efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".