Value systems of representatives of different generations in the process of decision-making on choosing a university and educational program

Purpose: is to propose the methodological approach to modeling the behavior of the representatives of generations Y and Z in the process of making decisions about choosing a university and educational program based on differences in their value systems.

Methods: the theoretical and methodological basis for studying the value systems of potential and actual university students is the theory of generations. The findings of the study are based on the methods of analysis of secondary and primary data collected through an online survey of students belonging to generations Y and Z on representative samples of 380 (Y) and 788 (Z) observations in 20 large universities in Russia, as well as the methods of analysis of statistically significant differences in value systems of two generations using T-test for independent samples.

Results: the authors proposed the methodological approach to modeling the behavior of consumers of generations Y and Z in the process of making decisions on choosing a university and educational program. Based on the results of desk and field (empirical) research, at each stage of the decision-making process on selecting an educational institution and program, differences were identified in the value systems of students of generations Y and Z, which determine their behavior: statistically significant differences were identified in 19 out of 65 variables. The study provides description of the behavior patterns of students of the two generations at each stage of the decision-making process which formed the basis for dividing students into target groups. The guidelines for differentiating marketing interactions with target groups of representatives of two generations in the process of educational interactions while making decisions are proposed.

Conclusions and Relevance: differences in the value systems of representatives of generations Y and Z cause differences in behavioral patterns at each stage of the decision-making process. Understanding these differences enables us to model the behavior of the two target groups, differentiate marketing approaches to interaction with them at the stages of the decision-making process while choosing a university and educational program as well as increase the effectiveness of educational interactions in the process of education.

1. Beleeva I.D., Zaglodina Т.A., Pankratova L.E., Titova N.B. The Demand for higher education in the assessments of today’s students. Pedagogical Education in Russia. 2022; (1):37–42. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ahysju. https://doi.org/10.26170/2079-8717_2022_01_04 (In Russ.)

2. Ermolova T.V., Litvinov A.V., Savitskaya N.V., Logvinova O.K. Priorities of psychological and educational work with generation Z (foreign experience). Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology. 2020; 9(4):89–102. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/euzvqq. https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2020090408 (In Russ.)

3. Strauss W., Howe N. The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us about America's Next Rendezvous with Destiny. New York: Broadway Books. 1997. 400 p. URL: https://books.google.ru/books?id=rKViPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y (accessed 07.07.2023) (In Eng.)

4. Kolnhofer-Derecskei A., Reicher R.Z., Szeghegyi A. The X and Y generations’ characteristics comparison. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica . 2017; 14(8):107–125. https://doi.org/10.12700/APH.14.8.2017.8.6 (In Eng.)

5. Fomina A.P., Timokhina T.V. Trends in changing the value system of the young generation in modern conditions. Vestnik of State University of Humanities and Technology. 2021; (2):59–63. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/daryoy (In Russ.)

6. Zinkina Yu., Ustyuzhanin V., Shulgin S. Social Macroevolution and Changes in the Human Value Systems. How has Modernization Affected Human Values? Social Evolution and History. 2022; 21(2):91–105. https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2022.02.06 (In Eng.)

7. Shevchenko D.A. The study of consumer behavior of large segments of the market in Russia: generational approach. Practical marketing . 2014; (4(194)):4–13 EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/pxjpjd (In Russ.)

8. Bogdanov S.I., Sultanov K.V., Voscresensky A.A. Рostmaterial values and orientations of generation Z: digital natives and the education system of modern Russia. Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Sciences. 2018; (187):24–30. EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/ypnbfj (In Russ.)

9. Spasennikov V.V. Sociodesign of the generation continuity: theoretical and experimental approach. Ergodesign . 2021; (1(11)):15–26. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/txizyi. https://doi.org/10.30987/2658-4026-2021-1-15-26 (In Russ.)

10. Morozova I.A., Shevchenko S.A., Kuzmina C.V. University entrant as a representative of generation Z: personal qualities and value orientations. Issues in Journalism, Education, Linguistics . 2023; 42(1):90–104. EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/cgeiqd. https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-7451-2023-42-1-90-104 (In Russ.)

11. Bastrakova N.S., Mukhlynina O.V., Sharov A.A. Representation of the digital generation about the main values of life. Vocational education and labour market. 2020; (3):41–48. EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/ajdpik. https://doi.org/10.24411/2307-4264-2020-10306, (In Russ)

12. Suntsova Ya.S., Meshkov I.Yu. The phenomena of choice and decision-making in psychological science. Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. 2022; 32(4)4:395–404. EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/lzhpqn. https://doi.org/10.35634/2412-9550-2022-32-4-395-404 (In Russ.)

13. Suldikova I.V. A new paradigm of education in the context of the interaction of the generation of trainees – Z and ALPHA and the generation of trainers – X and Y. Educational Resources and Technologies. 2022; (2(39)):23–26. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/bbhesr. https://doi.org/10.21777/2500-2112-2022-2-23-26 (In Russ.)

14. Morelli M., Casagrande M., Forte G. Decision Making: A Theoretical Review. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science . 2022; 56:609–629 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09669-x (In Eng.)

15. Manolic ă A., Gu ță A-S., Roman T., Dragăn L.M. Is Consumer Overchoice a Reason for Decision Paralysis? Sustainability. 2021; 13:5920. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115920 (In Eng.)

16. Santos S., Gon çalves H.M. The consumer decision journey: A literature review of the foundational models and theories and a future perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021; 173:121117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121117 (In Eng.)

17. Espinoza O., González L.E., Sandoval L., Loyola J., McGinn N., Castillo D. Investigating the major factors that contribute to satisfaction with university formation in Psychology and Teaching in Chile. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 2022; 32(1):37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1807447 (In Eng.).

18. Hew K.F., Hu X., Qiao C., Tang Y. What predicts student satisfaction with MOOCs: A gradient boosting trees supervised machine learning and sentiment analysis approach. Computers and Education. 2020; 145:103724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103724 (In Eng.)

19. Muilenburg L.Y., Berge Z.L. Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance education. 2005; 26(1):29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269 (In Eng.)

20. Ryazhkin A.O. Learning satisfaction and coping strategies of university students. Psychological Studies. 2023; 16(87):3. EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/daivmt. https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v16i87.1349 (In Russ.)

21. Dvoryashina M.M., Artyomova E.V. Satisfaction with e-learning: theoretical approaches and empirical measurements. The Manager. 2019; 10(6):42–53. EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/rmrrxn. https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2019-10-6-4 (In Russ.)

22. Krushelnitskaya O.I., Tretyakova A.N., Polevaya M.V. Motivational priorities of bachelor degree course graduates. Perspectives of Science and Education. 2022; (3(57)):90–107. EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/qabjmi. https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2022.3.6 (In Russ.)

23. Wong W.H., Chapman E. Student satisfaction and interaction in higher education. High Education. 2023; 85:957–978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00874-0 (In Eng.)

24. Kanwar A., Sanjeeva M. Student satisfaction survey: a key for quality improvement in the higher educational institution. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2022; 11:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00196-6 (In Eng.)

25. Alves H., Raposo M. Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence. 2007; 18(5):571–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360601074315 (In Eng.)

26. Olmos-G ómez M.D.C., Luque-Suárez M., Ferrara C., Cuevas-Rinc ón J.M. Quality in Higher Education and Satisfaction among Professors and Students. European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education. 2021; 11(1):219–229. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11010017 (In Eng.)

27. Al-Sheeb B., Hamouda A.M., Abdella G.M. Investigating determinants of student satisfaction in the first year of college in a public university in the state of Qatar. Education Research International . 2018; 2018:7194106. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7194106 (In Eng.)

28. Kazantseva G.G., Efremkova T.I., Ivanova E.V., Zatepyakin O.A. Portrait of an applicant the university in the context of the development of the personnel potential of the region. Regional Problems of Transforming The Economy . 2023; (3(149)):23–34 EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/burwhc. https://doi.org/10.26726/1812-7096-2023-3-23-34. (In Russ.)

29. Radaev V.V. The divide among the millennial generation: historical and empirical justifications (Part one). Sociological journal. 2020; 26(3):30–63. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/pcggmh. https://doi.org/0.19181/socjour.2020.26.3.7395 (In Russ.)