906427

research-article2020
JMDXXX10.1177/0273475320906427Journal of Marketing EducationScott and Beuk

Article

Journal of Marketing Education

Sales Education for Engineering Students:

2020, Vol. 42(3) 324­–338
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
What Drives Interest and Choice? sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0273475320906427
https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320906427
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmd

Joseph I. Scott1 and Frederik Beuk1

Abstract
Universities increasingly make their sales curriculum available for groups other than dedicated sales students. This study
investigates engineering students’ drivers that predict interest in sales certification, as well as drivers that predict actual choice
for a sales curriculum. We focus on engineering students (n = 204) and contrast our findings with business students (n = 179).
Based on social cognitive theory, we investigate how personality (Big Five personality factors and Trait Competitiveness),
ability (ACT, GPA, and Academic Self-Efficacy), and social factors (role models, and perception of salespersons) affect interest
and choice. Our results indicate that although the regression models explain a reasonable amount of variance, models that
work for business students do not work equally well for engineering students. Also, our analysis reveals that factors that
explain interest do not explain actual choice, and vice versa. In addition, we uncover subtle gender difference when it comes
to actual choice for a sales curriculum. Finally, the benefits that engineering students perceive of sales certification differ
primarily based on whether students are taking sales classes, and not on degree sought.

Keywords
sales education, Big Five personality factors, role model, perception of salespeople, engineering students

Nearly a century ago, Moore (1921) was interested in under-
standing which engineers would go on to be salesmen,
designers, or executives of production, especially since they
all “receive essentially the same technical training” (p. 5). A
lot has changed since then. Unlike 100 years ago, some of
today’s engineers are presented opportunities to study sales
in college. But which engineering students take advantage of
these new opportunities and become those 21st-century
salespeople?
Extant research into drivers for the choice for sales educa-
tion typically compares what motivates students from differ-
ent business majors (e.g., Sojka et al. 2000). Some have also
investigated the perceptions of nonbusiness students (e.g.,
Bumblauskas et al., 2017; Inks & Avila, 2018; Spillan et al.
2011), but these investigations have not included choice for
a sales curriculum for nonbusiness college students, or have
focused on a single sales class. That is surprising considering
current salespersons’ educational backgrounds. The U.S.
Census Bureau (2014) reports that of all college educated
salespeople, 39% hold a business degree. At the same time,
more than 18% graduated from a Science, Technology,
Engineering, or Math (STEM) program. Some universities
have started offering programs focusing on these STEM stu-
dents, but the literature does not address how these nonbusi-
ness sales students are different from the traditional business
sales student.
In the current study, we address this gap by using a frame-
work based on Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory to
study the drivers of interest in and choice for a sales curricu-
lum for engineering students. To contrast our findings, we
compare between four groups of students at a U.S. public
university: engineering students, engineering students who
decide to take sales classes, business students, and business
students who decide to take sales classes.
The Importance of Sales Training
The benefits of sales training for business students are well-
known (Bolander et al., 2014; Leasher & Moberg, 2008) and
include improved job prospects and better performance after
graduation. It is likely that similar benefits apply to students
of engineering. Employers of engineers have long com-
plained about the lack of communication, teamwork, and
business skills of recent graduates (Felder, 2012), areas that
are frequently covered in collegiate sales education. From a
corporate perspective, making sales curricula available for
nonbusiness students who will work in sales roles makes
sense. Formal sales education in college has the effect of
lowering turnover and improving performance relative to
nonsales educated peers (Bolander et al. 2014; Fogel et al.,
1
University of Akron, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Frederik Beuk, Marketing Department, University of Akron, Polsky 563C,
Akron, OH 44325, USA.
Email: beuk@uakron.edu
Scott and Beuk 325
Figure 1.  Conceptual model.
2012). Moreover, it typically reduces the costs of initial
training and helps reduce potential conflict between nonsales
and sales functions (V. Shaw & Shaw, 1998).
From a student perspective, sales training can be equally
beneficial. Many students, including those outside the field
of marketing, believe they will work in a sales position at
some point during their career (Karakaya et al. 2011).
Moreover, to stay competitive, engineers need to be equipped
with skills that include critical thinking, creativity, and entre-
preneurship (Felder, 2006), competencies that are integrated
and practiced in most sales education programs. Formal sales
training in college may also serve as a low-risk exploration
of options outside the field of engineering for those students
who are considering an educational career switch. According
to the National Center for Education Statistics (2014), 48%
of freshmen engineering students will not graduate with an
engineering degree.
And even for educators interested in addressing the nega-
tive stereotypes about sales and salespeople that still prevail
today (Inks & Avila, 2018; Lee et al., 2007), sales education
in itself is important, as it reduces such negative stereotypes
directly (Sojka et al., 2000).
Given these benefits, it is no surprise that the offering of
sales curricula has grown tremendously in recent decades
(Bolander et al. 2014). The most recent trend in collegiate-
level sales education is the offering of more concise certifi-
cate programs or concentrations in sales. The University
Sales Center Alliance (2019) reports that 44 of their 53 mem-
ber schools now offer certificate or similar programs, up
from only 22 schools one year earlier. A small but increasing
number of these programs are open to, or even specially
geared toward engineering students.1
Conceptual Framework
The framework for this study is based in Bandura’s (1986,
1991) social cognitive theory, which describes the interac-
tion of the person, their external social context, and their
response to stimuli in the environment. This framework has
been extensively used to explain career interest and choice
(Lent et al., 1994). Moreover, the framework is consistent
with other work that suggest that abilities, interests, and per-
sonality develop interdependently (Ackerman & Heggestad,
1997).
In our approach, we focus on two person factors: person-
ality and ability, as well as one environmental factor: social
influence, in order to investigate engineering students’ and
business students’ response to the availability of sales classes.
We particularly focus on how these factors translate into
stated interest in taking sales classes, and actual taking of
sales classes (Figure 1).
Hypotheses Development
In line with our conceptual framework, we develop the
hypotheses in three sections. Hypothesis 1 deals with person-
ality factors, Hypothesis 2 with ability factors, and Hypothesis
3 with social factors. Based on the framework, the formation
and elaboration of career-relevant interests is a first step
toward the actual selection of academic choice options (Lent
et al. 1994). Most students will point out they selected their
major because it interests them, but drivers of this interest are
less frequently articulated (Allen et al., 2014). In addition,
Swenson et al. (1993) point out that student perceptions and
attitudes toward personal selling as a career have received
326 Journal of Marketing Education 42(3)
substantially more academic attention than understanding
the actual choice for a sales career. More recent work is
addressing this gap (e.g., Peltier et al. 2014), but the focus
remains on intent and stated interest. For example, a rich
stream of work is linking classroom experiences with the
stated intent to pursue a sales career (e.g., Cummins et al.,
2015; Nielson & Cummins 2019; Peltier et al. 2014). One
contribution of our study is that we investigate stated inter-
est and actual choice for sales classes concurrently. In addi-
tion, because most research so far has been conducted into
sales education for business students (Allen et al. 2014;
Cummins et al. 2013), this article’s hypotheses will focus on
the much less explored area of sales education for engineer-
ing students.
The Influence of Personality
Prior research has demonstrated a sizable relationship
between student personality traits and their preference for a
major (Lakhal et al., 2012). The Big Five personality traits
framework, sometimes referred to as the five-factor model, is
frequently used for personality research and has also been
successfully deployed in the study of sales performance
throughout different career stages (Thoresen et al., 2004). As
such, it is a logical instrument to investigate the role of per-
sonality not only on different stages of one’s sales career but
also on the choice for such a career in the first place.
Noël et al. (2003) find that the matchup between business
majors and personality traits mostly follows stereotypes. In
their research, more socially skilled and extraverted individ-
uals prefer marketing and sales as an educational career path.
Similarly, Lee et al. (2007) also link stereotypical personality
characteristics, particularly extraversion, to a preference for
a sales career. The question is whether this focus on extraver-
sion translates to engineering students with an interest in
sales. In terms of Mount et al. (2005), typical engineering
students prefer to interact with things, whereas typical sales
students prefer to interact with people. In turn, the work of
Digman (1997) in conjunction with Mount et al. (2005) sug-
gests that the high-level “things” versus “people” dichotomy
can be associated with Big Five personality characteristics.
The “things” preference of typical engineering students
would be associated with higher levels of conscientiousness,
emotional stability, and agreeableness, whereas the “people”
preference of typical sales students would be associated with
higher levels of Extraversion as well as higher levels of
Openness to Experience (Digman, 1997; Mount et al. 2005).
We hypothesize that the personality profile of engineering
students who are taking sales classes or are interested in
doing so, is more like the profile of sales students with a
focus on Extraversion and Openness to Experience. We
therefore hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Engineering students who are interested
in obtaining a sales certificate or take sales classes score
higher on the Extraversion trait than those who do not
take sales classes or are not interested in doing so.
In addition to the “people” versus “things” argument
aforementioned, Thoresen et al. (2004) suggest that Openness
to Experience is a particular useful trait for salespeople.
Highly open individuals are more open to experiment with
new ways of doing things (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Not only
does that allow salespeople to approach new products and
customers easier, it is also associated with more rapid perfor-
mance improvements and slower performance delay over a
salesperson’s career (Thoresen et al. 2004). For engineering
students, being more open to new experiences may also
facilitate them to expand on their standard engineering cur-
riculum and explore areas of study outside of their own col-
lege. Hence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1b: Engineering students who are interested
in obtaining a sales certificate or take sales classes score
higher on the Openness to Experience trait than those who
are not interested in doing so.
Although Big Five personality traits are often seen as the
cornerstone for personality research (O’Connor, 2002), spe-
cific contexts can see additional variance explained by look-
ing beyond the Big Five traits alone (Paunonen & Ashton
2001). An important characteristic that is germane to the
sales context is Trait Competitiveness (Plouffe et al. 2013).
Trait Competitiveness reflects a person’s enjoyment of inter-
personal competition and their desire to be “number one”
(Brown et al., 1998). As sales is often regarded as a highly
competitive field, Trait Competitiveness is linked to better
performance (Schrock et al., 2016; Wang & Netemeyer,
2002). Specifically, Trait Competitiveness is seen as a posi-
tive attribute for salespeople to possess by both academics
(Plouffe et al. 2013; Plouffe et al. 2017) and practitioners
(e.g., Marsh, 2013; McGirl, 2014). Even in more popular ref-
erences, salespeople are often stereotypically depicted as
highly competitive (Iannarino, 2018). Therefore, based on
the stereotype matchup argument of Noël et al. (2003) that
predicts that students select their major in part based on their
stereotypical understanding of the match between their self-
perceived personality types and stereotypical views of what
success in a given educational field requires, we hypothesize
the following:
Hypothesis 1c: Engineering students who are interested
in obtaining a sales certificate or take sales classes score
higher on Trait Competitiveness than those who do not
take sales classes or are not interested in doing so.
The Influence of (Self-Perceived) Ability
Both perceived and actual abilities influence the career
choice of students (Allen et al. 2014). Aggarwal et al. (2007)
Scott and Beuk 327
note that students and academic advisors believe that mar-
keting and sales curricula are among the least challenging of
an undergraduate business degree. Moreover, a critical
examination of the quality of incoming undergraduate mar-
keting students based on high school grades and standard-
ized college entry test scores, as well as their level of
preparedness for continuing education at graduation supports
that view (Aggarwal et al. 2007). One effect of these beliefs
can be that engineering students with a low GPA seek out
sales classes because they are perceived to be easier, to boost
their overall GPA. Such a strategy appears to be supported by
the exploratory focus group comments collected by Mobley
et al. (2009).
Second, engineers, particularly R&D engineers, consider
sales engineers to be the lower echelons of the professional
engineering hierarchy (Darr, 2000). Engineering students are
known to quickly internalize the career beliefs of employed
engineers when it comes to perceptions of different engineer-
ing specialties (Shivy & Sullivan, 2005). Lower ability engi-
neering students may therefore see sales classes as easier and
be more open to such nonengineering course work, in part
because they may struggle with the typical engineering
coursework. They may also believe that because of their real
or perceived lower ability, it will be less likely for them to
become an archetypical R&D engineer, and they may more
likely become employed as a sales engineer. We are particu-
larly interested in two measures of academic ability. First, we
investigate the score that students obtained for the American
College Testing (ACT) test when they applied for college, as
it provides a standardized test taken by students regardless of
the academic career path they aspire to. Second, we focus on
the GPA students obtained while in college. This measure of
ability is contingent on the classes taken, but serves as a good
proxy for how well a student is doing in their academic pur-
suit. Hence, we therefore hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2a: Engineering students with lower ACT
scores are more likely to be interested in obtaining a sales
certificate and are more likely to take sales classes than
engineering students with higher ACT scores.
Hypothesis 2b: Engineering students with a lower GPA
are more likely to be interested in obtaining a sales certifi-
cate and are more likely to take sales classes than engi-
neering students with a higher GPA.
The role of (academic) self-efficacy is central to the social
cognitive theory framework (Bandura, 1991). Self-efficacy
is defined as a person’s confidence in their ability to pursue
courses of action required for a specific task, especially if the
task is new or unfamiliar (Krishnan et al., 2002; Pajares,
1996). Academic Self-Efficacy is the context-specific form
of general self-efficacy, and specifically points toward stu-
dents’ beliefs about their efficacy to regulate their own learn-
ing and academic performance (Bandura et al., 1996).
Engineering students who doubt their academic ability will
be more likely to investigate educational alternatives (E. J.
Shaw & Barbuti, 2010) and may be interested in broadening
their skill set to compensate for their perceived lower aca-
demic ability.
Although a strong correlation between ACT scores, GPA,
and Academic Self-Efficacy is expected, these three factors
are not identical. For example, the archetypical late bloomer
may have a lower ACT score, but higher GPAs and Academic
Self-Efficacy. Similarly, the self-doubting diligent student
may score high on ACT scores and GPA, but not on Academic
Self-Efficacy. And last, the calculating student who purposely
picks the “easy-A classes,” may not have been a high ACT-
performer, nor hold a very high degree of Academic Self-
Efficacy. For these reasons, we hypothesize that Academic
Self-Efficacy will have an independent effect on engineering
students’ interest in obtaining sales certification:
Hypothesis 2c: Engineering students with less Academic
Self-Efficacy are more likely to be interested in obtaining a
sales certificate and are more likely to take sales classes than
engineering students with more Academic Self-Efficacy.
The Influence of Social Factors
Social factors are the third component in our conceptual
model predicting engineering students’ interest and choice
for sales education. An important source of information
about the opportunities of a sales career comes from close
exposure to salespersons. Waldeck et al. (2010) suggest that
having family and friends with relevant sales work experi-
ence influences student perceptions about salespeople and
the sales role. However, the empirical evidence about having
a role model on career interest and choice is mixed. Sojka
et al. (2000) find that having family members who work in
sales does not affect perceptions of a sales career. Similarly,
Spillan et al. (2007) find no difference in desire to work in
sales for students regardless of their family members’
employment in sales. However, in a very similar study,
Spillan et al. (2011) find that for African Americans, having
family members working in sales is associated with a greater
desire of the student to work in sales. A possible explanation
for these inconsistencies comes from Ballestra et al. (2017)
who find that when explaining sales career intentions, having
a role model plays no significant role above “feelings toward
selling.” In other words, simply knowing someone who dis-
likes their sales job or having a relative who holds a stereo-
typical dead-end retail sales job is unlikely to increase the
student’s interest in pursuing a sales career by taking sales
classes. Given these nuances, we believe that having a close
role model working in a sales position will in fact improve
student’s perception of sales as a career and consequently
increase their interest in taking sales classes during college.
We therefore hypothesize the following:
328 Journal of Marketing Education 42(3)
Hypothesis 3a: Engineering students who report having a
close role model who works as a salesperson are more
likely to be interested in sales certification and are more
likely to take sales classes.
Many students, especially those without a close role
model have been exposed to only a limited range of sales
roles (Inks & Avila, 2018). This limited exposure to profes-
sional salespeople increases the likelihood of holding nega-
tive perceptions about salespeople (Bahhouth et al., 2014).
As consumers, students are primarily exposed to business-to-
consumer salespeople who specialize in less complex sales,
as well as to stereotypical, often negative depictions of sales-
persons in the media (Lee et al. 2007). In fact, Waldeck et al.
(2010) suggest that greater media use will lead to a more
negative Perception of Salespeople and the sales role. The
“social image” of a field of study and its students is an impor-
tant influencer for the choice of a major in college (Allen
et al., 2014; Kumar & Kumar, 2013). Given this, it is con-
cerning that students often regard a career in sales as less
than desirable (Ballestra et al., 2017; Inks & Avila, 2018;
Karakaya et al., 2011) and that most stereotypes about sales-
people are negative (Lee et al. 2007). Not surprisingly, Inks
and Avila (2018) report that high school students who hold
negative perceptions of salespeople are more likely to choose
a college career other than sales. Honeycutt et al. (1999) and
Karakaya et al. (2011) find that the link between perceptions
of salespeople and intentions to pursue a career in sales exist
across different national and cultural contexts. In addition,
despite changes in the sales role over time, Ballestra et al.
(2017) uncover that the generally negative student percep-
tion of a sales career has remained relatively stable. Having
such a persistent image problem among students (Peltier
et al., 2014) is not without consequences. It likely affects the
willingness of students to pursue a curriculum that would
lead to such a career (Ballestra et al., 2017; Bristow et al.
2006; Karakaya et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2007). Consistent with
this body of evidence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3b: Engineering students with a more nega-
tive Perception of Salespeople are less interested in
obtaining a sales certificate.
When it comes to actual choice for a sales curriculum, a
causal relationship is much less clear. Did students of sales
choose their major because they already had more positive
perceptions of salespeople and the sales role, or did their per-
ception become more positive after they started taking sales
classes? Cross-sectional research such as this study is not
ideal to answer questions about causation. Nevertheless, sev-
eral authors do find a relationship between exposure to sales
courses and perception. For example, Bristow et al. (2006)
find that student perceptions differ between those students
who completed personal selling courses and students who
had not. Similarly, Sojka et al. (2000) find that students hav-
ing taken two or more sales classes have a more positive
view of a career in sales, and Honeycutt et al. (1999) find in
their U.S. sample a correlation between having completed a
sales course or having actual sales experience and the appeal
of a sales career. More recent work by Cummins et al. (2015)
and Nielson and Cummins (2019) show that even small
interventions in a principle of marketing class can positively
affect students’ Perception of Salespeople and sales as a
career. We therefore expect that there is a positive effect of
sales education on the Perception of Salespeople, and that
this effect will be stronger for students that have been
exposed to more sales classes. We therefore hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 3c: As they advance in their academic career,
sales students will have a more positive Perception of
Salespeople.
Finally, we investigate the motives why engineering stu-
dents take sales classes. We focus on perceived benefits of
adding a sales certificate, as students are primarily driven by
positive factors of the new study than by negative factors of
their original field of study (Malgwi et al., 2005). However,
as the literature is sparse on the stated motivations of non-
business students to take sales classes in college, we first
invited engineering students to two separate short focus
groups. Each was moderated by the first author, video
recorded, and later transcribed. The emphasis of these focus
groups was on uncovering reasons for engineering students
to take sales classes. Each focus group lasted approximately
a half hour. About 90% of the participants were male. This
proportion was deemed high, but not necessarily too high
given our ex-ante perception that both engineering and sales
programs are most popular among male students. Six motives
to take sales classes were uncovered during these focus
groups: Sales classes offer engineers a break from engineer-
ing coursework, an opportunity to meet new people, a poten-
tial differentiation in the job market, the expectation of a
higher starting salary, an immediate GPA boost, and an
opportunity to improve soft skills.
We anticipate that engineering students who take sales
classes toward a sales certificate perceive the benefits of
doing so more positively than engineering students who do
not take sales classes. For example, meeting new people
could be seen as a positive factor, or be perceived as threat-
ening to the most introvert of engineering students (Mount
et al. 2005). Likewise, improving one’s GPA through taking
classes outside the college of engineering may not be desir-
able for those engineers who already perceive their current
GPA as adequate. Hence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4: Engineering students who take sales
classes perceive the six identified reasons to add a sales
Scott and Beuk 329
Table 1.  Demographics of Respondents.
Engineering students, % Business students, %
Gender
 Female 38 55
 Male 61 45
 Othera 1 0
Year in school
 Freshman 11 7 self-reported ACT score at acceptance into university, the
 Sophomore 14 20
 Junior 30 36
 Senior 40 38
  Year 5+ 5 0
a
For the purpose of the Gender control variable, we have eliminated
these two individuals from our analysis.
certificate as more beneficial than engineering students
who do not take sales classes.
Sample
The sample population consists of all students in the College
of Engineering and the College of Business of a U.S. public
university. Students were invited to an online survey by the
dean’s offices of each college. The school’s institutional
review board approved the protocol for the study, and the
Dean’s office of one of the colleges required that students
would remain anonymous and thus no incentives were
offered. Of the 2,405 invited engineering students, 204
usable responses were obtained (8.5%). Of the 1,637 invited
business students, 179 usable responses were obtained
(11%). In addition, nine students from the school of commu-
nication also participated in the survey, as they were taking
sales elective classes and learned about the survey that way.
In total, the sample comprised 392 students, of which 383
were members of the two colleges of interest. In line with the
gender make up of each of these colleges, 55% of business
respondents were female, whereas only 38% of engineering
respondents were female. The proportion of freshman, soph-
omore, juniors, and seniors was comparable for both col-
leges. See Table 1 for more details.
Measures
Several previously established independent variables were
collected. For the measures relating to personality factors, we
assess the Big Five personality traits with the 10-item short
version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10) developed by
Rammstedt and John (2007). This shortened version typically
performs slightly worse than the full 44-item Big Five
Inventory (BFI-44) but has the benefit of using less than a
quarter of the items. Typically, the BFI-10 scale captures 70%
of the variance present in the BFI-44 inventory, and retains
85% of the test–retest reliability. Discriminant and structural
validity are essentially the same for the BFI-10 and BFI-44
instruments (Rammstedt & John, 2007). Given the online
nature of our survey instrument and the lack of incentives we
could provide participants, we opted for this trade-off between
instrument length and psychometric advantages. We further
assessed student’s Trait Competitiveness (Brown et al. 1998)
with items developed by Spence and Helmreich (1983).
For the measures relating to student ability, we captured
grade point average at university, and Self-efficacy for
Academic Achievement (Zimmerman et al. 1992) based on
three items by Bandura (1997). Even though these ability
measures are self-reported, the anonymous nature of the sur-
vey makes social desirable reporting less likely. Moreover,
none of the ability items were forced responses, allowing
students to leave them blank, for example, in case they did
not feel comfortable disclosing.
For measures relating to social factors we evaluated the
Perception of Salespeople with three items from the Intent to
Pursue Sales Career scale: “Salespeople are perceived favor-
ably by others,” “Salespeople are respected by others,” and
“Salespeople are admired by others.” This measure was cho-
sen over the sales profession measure that is also part of the
Intent to Pursue Sales Career scale because of the smaller
number of items, and the fact that no university specific dif-
ferences were reported, as is the case for the sales profession
measure (Peltier et al., 2014). Our measure for exposure to a
Role model working in engineering or sales is measured with
a single yes-or-no item each (“Do you have an immediate
role model [e.g., parent, close friend, other close relative]
who is a salesperson”), see Table 2.
We collected two key dependent variables. First, we focus
on Interest in obtaining a sales certificate, and second,
whether Students are taking sales classes. The first variable
is assessed with two items: one 5-point Likert-type scale ask-
ing if the student is interested, and another reverse-coded
item asking how much of a scholarship the student would
have to receive in order to consider taking sales classes.
Options ranged from “I’m already interested without a schol-
arship” to “Yes, but only a $2,000 or more scholarship would
influence my decision-making,” in $500 increments. See
Table 3 for a correlation between these measures.
Finally, we collected six perceived benefits of obtaining a
sales certificate. These items are generated for this study as
the result of the two focus groups described previously in
which engineering students discussed their motives for tak-
ing sales classes. Control variables are gender and year in
school. On average, respondents took 6.3 minutes to com-
plete the survey.
Results
Hypotheses 1 through 3b were simultaneously tested. First, a
multiple linear regression is conducted to predict interest in
330 Journal of Marketing Education 42(3)

Table 2.  Averages Per Group.

Engineering students Business students

  No sales classes Sales classes Sales classes No sales classes Full sample

  n = 163 n = 41 n = 29 n = 150 N = 392

  Items M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Interest in sales certificate 2 2.42 1.09 4.55 0.75 3.45 1.45 2.41 1.07 2.73 1.28
Big Five: Extraversion 2 5.95 2.03 7.20 1.98 7.93 1.51 6.09 1.99 6.29 2.06
Big Five: Agreeableness 2 7.15 1.57 7.56 1.72 8.04 1.35 7.50 1.40 7.40 1.52
Big Five: Conscientiousness 2 7.94 1.62 8.12 1.73 8.07 1.44 8.06 1.40 8.02 1.53
Big Five: Neuroticism 2 5.91 2.10 5.15 1.78 4.82 2.06 5.96 1.85 5.76 2.00
Big Five: Openness 2 7.11 1.66 6.76 1.74 6.57 1.91 6.89 1.91 6.94 1.79
Trait Competitiveness 5 18.23 3.84 19.46 3.99 21.29 2.49 17.44 3.61 18.29 3.82
Role Model: Sales 1 0.29 0.45 0.64 0.49 0.64 0.49 0.34 0.48 0.37 0.48
Role Model: Engineer 1 0.64 0.48 0.72 0.46 0.32 0.48 0.39 0.49 0.53 0.50
Perception of Salespeople 3 9.35 2.70 11.54 2.08 12.61 2.25 9.88 2.27 10.05 2.63
College GPA 1 3.49 0.39 3.32 0.41 3.26 0.40 3.36 0.48 3.40 0.44
ACT score 1 28.46 3.76 26.82 3.30 25.08 4.14 25.34 3.75 26.89 4.01
Academic Self-Efficacy 3 13.31 1.94 13.00 1.91 13.54 1.77 12.71 2.13 13.06 2.01
Gender (0 = male) 1 0.41 0.49 0.31 0.47 0.29 0.46 0.61 0.49 0.46 0.50
Year in school 1 3.09 1.11 3.32 0.97 3.43 0.63 2.97 0.95 3.10 1.01

obtaining sales certification for those students who currently
are not taking any sales classes. The model investigates the
effects of personality factors, ability factors, and social fac-
tors, while also controlling for gender and the year in col-
lege. The multiple regression model significantly predicts
interest for nonsales engineering students as well as nonsales
business students, F(14, 120) = 2.48, p < .01 and F(14, 93) =
4.73, p < .01, respectively. However, the portion of variance
in interest explained is 13% for engineering students,
whereas it is 33% for business students, see Table 4.
Extraversion and Openness to Experience were both pre-
dicted to influence interest in obtaining a sales certificate but
fail to do so for both engineering and business students. Trait
Competitiveness is positively related to an interest in sales
certification for engineering and business students, t = 2.27,
p < .03 and t = 2.75, p = .01, respectively. Having a positive
Perception of Salespeople approaches significance for the
full sample, t = 1.88, p = .06, but is not significant in either
of the subgroups. There is some indication that lower ACT
scores lead to higher interest in sales classes for engineering
students, t = −1.94, p = .06, but the effect is most evident for
business students, where both ACT scores and Academic
Self-Efficacy are negatively related to interest in sales certi-
fication, t = −1.94, p = .05. Finally, the further engineering
and business students are in their academic careers, the less
interested they are in obtaining a sales certificate, t = −2.18,
p = .03 and t = −2.81, p = .01, respectively.
Second, a binomial logistic regression was performed to
ascertain the effects of personality factors, ability factors,
and social factors on the likelihood of being a sales student,
while controlling for gender and year in college. Logistic
regression is warranted in this case as the dependent variable
is dichotomous (yes or no). The regression model is statisti-
cally significant for both engineering and business students,
χ2(14) = 52.3, p < .01 and 51.4, p < .01, respectively. It
explains almost 42.5% of the variance (Nagelkerke R2) in
choice for a sales curriculum for engineering students.
Moreover, it correctly classifies 83% of cases.
For engineering students, Extraversion is associated with
an increased likelihood of taking sales classes, odds ratio
(OR) = 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI: 1.02, 1.81], p =
.04. However, Openness to Experience fails to predict actual
choice for sales classes. Similarly, Trait Competitiveness
does not influence engineering students’ likelihood of taking
sales classes, OR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.86, 1.13], p = .84.
When evaluating the influence of social factors, we find that
engineering students who have a close role model working in
sales are 2.87 times more likely to take sales classes, 95% CI
[1.06, 7.78], p = .04. Similarly, having a positive Perception
of Salespeople is associated with a 1.5 times higher likeli-
hood of studying sales, 95% CI [1.18, 1.92], p < .01.
Interestingly, with an OR = 0.59, female engineering stu-
dents appear more than a third less likely to be a sales stu-
dent, but this number fails to be significant, see Table 5.
When we repeat the analysis for business students and the
combined sample, similar patterns are uncovered, with three
noticeable differences. First, as originally hypothesized for
engineers, Trait Competitiveness is in fact a significant pre-
dictor of taking sales classes for business students, OR =
1.39, 95% CI [1.08, 1.78], p = .01, whereas it was not a factor
 Table 3.  Correlation Table.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 1 Interest in sales certificate 1.00  
 2 Taking sales classes (0 = no) .51** 1.00  
 3 Competitiveness .27** .24** 1.00  
 4 Self-efficacy −.16** .04 .18** 1.00  
 5 Big Five: Extraversion .16** .28** .28** .14** 1.00  
 6 Big Five: Agreeableness .02 .11* −.08 −.01 .23** 1.00  
 7 Big Five: Conscientiousness −.06 .03 .08 .30** .19** .23** 1.00   
 8 Big Five: Neuroticism −.08 −.18** −.21** −.21** −.28** −.08 −.25** 1.00   
 9 Big Five: Openness −.04 −.07 −.03 .09 .08 .02 .10 .04 1.00  
10 Perception of Salespeople .29** .35** .21** .08 .26** .15** .07 −.15** −.01 1.00  
11 Role model: Sales .11* .27** .23** .03 .24** .05 .15** −.16** .02 .24** 1.00  
12 Role model: Engineering .01 .03 .09 .10* −.04 −.01 .09 −.02 .04 −.07 .16** 1.00  
13 Gender (0 = male) −.17** −.16** −.22** .07 .04 .10* .12* .31** .08 .02 −.04 −.04 1.00  
14 Year in school −.11* .13* −.01 .07 .12* .03 .10 −.18** .04 .02 .10 .00 −.05 1.00  
15 College GPA −.23** −.12* −.08 .37** −.02 −.02 .26** .05 −.06 −.23** −.04 .06 .18** −.08 1.00
16 ACT score −.22** .00 .00 .32** −.10 −.14* .14* −.12* .10 −.22** −.04 .20** −.06 .09 .41**

Note. ACT = American College Testing.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

331
332 Journal of Marketing Education 42(3)

Table 4.  Multiple Linear Regression for Interest in Sales Certification.

Engineering students Business students Full sample

  β t p β t p β t p
Constant 3.67 .00** 3.11 .00** 4.42 .00**
Big Five: Extraversion .03 0.31 .76 .07 0.75 .46 .04 0.66 .51
Big Five: Agreeableness −.11 −1.10 .27 −.07 −0.78 .44 −.07 −1.16 .25
Big Five: Conscientiousness −.02 −0.15 .88 .05 0.54 .59 −.02 −0.35 .73
Big Five: Neuroticism −.09 −0.86 .39 .35 3.75 .00** .10 1.43 .15
Big Five: Openness .12 1.39 .17 −.05 −0.53 .60 .05 0.82 .41
Trait Competitiveness .21 2.27 .03* .26 2.75 .01** .23 3.53 .00**
Role model: Sales −.11 −1.29 .20 −.02 −0.24 .81 −.08 −1.30 .20
Role model: Engineer .01 0.06 .95 −.11 −1.31 .19 −.02 −0.37 .71
Perception of salespersons .10 1.14 .26 .14 1.57 .12 .12 1.88 .06†
College GPA −.08 −0.78 .44 −.11 −1.04 .30 −.10 −1.39 .17
ACT score −.19 −1.94 .06† −.22 −2.32 .02* −.14 −1.94 .05*
Academic Self-Efficacy −.17 −1.63 .11 −.19 −1.99 .05** −.14 −1.94 .05*
Gender (0 = male) .04 0.38 .71 −.12 −1.30 .20 −.07 −1.05 .30
Year in school −.19 −2.18 .03* −.23 −2.81 .01** −.19 −3.09 .00**
Model F(14, 120) 2.48 .00** F(14, 93) 4.73 .00** F(14, 227) 5.05 .00**
n 134 107 241  
Adjusted R2 13% 33% 19%  

Note. ACT = American College Testing.

†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

for engineering students at all. Second, Extraversion is a pre-
dictor in both the full sample model, OR = 1.35, 95% CI
[1.09, 1.67], p = .01, as well as the engineering students
model, but the larger standard error and slightly smaller effect
size make it insignificant as a predictor for business students,
OR = 1.32, 95% CI [0.93, 1.87], p = .13. Third, for business
students, we do not find a significant effect of having a sales
role model on the likelihood of taking sales classes, OR =
1.17, 95% CI [0.31, 4.46], p = .82, notwithstanding the fact
that the four groups differ significantly in the percentage of
students with a role model. However, after controlling for the
effect of the other variables in our model, it is clear that hav-
ing a role model in itself is insufficient to explain differences
in likelihood of taking sales classes for business students.
To test Hypothesis 3c, we conducted another multiple
linear regression analysis to further investigate the drivers
of the Perception of Salespeople for current sales students.
We use the same independent and control variables as in
the previous two regression analyses: Big Five personality
traits, Trait Competitiveness, Role models (Engineering
and Sales), GPA, ACT, Academic Self-Efficacy, Gender,
and Year in School. Given the number of independent
variables and our sample size, we can only run the analy-
sis for business and engineering students combined. The
model significantly predicts students’ Perception of
Salespeople, F(13, 44) = 3.35, p < .01, and explains 35% of
the variance in the perception score. Surprisingly, sales
students with higher GPAs hold a more negative Perception
of Salespeople, β = −.67, t = −4.61, p < .01. On the other
hand, Big Five Conscientiousness and “having a sales role
model” are positively related to Perception of Salespeople,
β = .45, t = 3.31, p < .01 and β = .23, t = 2.00, p = .05,
respectively. Taking all these other variables into account,
the effect of Year in School is positive, but not significant,
β = .21, t = 1.62, p = .11. We therefore find no support
for Hypothesis 3c.
Table 6 summarizes how these results relate to our first
three stated hypotheses.
Finally, to further investigate the motivation of students
to take sales classes, we investigated what engineering stu-
dents would consider benefits of sales certification. Based
on six analyses of variance, we find that engineering stu-
dents with and without sales classes and business students
with and without sales classes differ significantly on all six
motivation items, with the F(3, 365)-statistic ranging between
6.87 and 14.99, p < .01 and medium effect-sizes, with η2
ranging from .05 to .11 (Cohen, 1988). The mean values for
each group are reported in Table 7. Consistent with our
hypothesis, the difference primarily occurs between stu-
dents taking sales classes and those not taking sales classes,
regardless whether an engineering or business degree is
sought. In fact, the nonsales taking student population was
homogenous in their perception of the benefits of obtaining
a sales certification. There are two benefits that are particu-
larly perceived by engineering students who take sales
classes: the benefit of the anticipated GPA boost, and the
 Table 5.  Binomial Logistic Regression for Likelihood of Taking Sales Classes.

Engineering students Business students Full sample

  B SE p Exp(B) B SE p Exp(B) B SE p Exp(B)

Big Five: Extraversion 0.30 0.15 .04* 1.36 0.28 0.18 .13 1.32 0.30 0.11 .01** 1.35
Big Five: Agreeableness 0.14 0.18 .45 1.15 0.24 0.25 .33 1.27 0.16 0.13 .23 1.17
Big Five: Conscientiousness 0.26 0.19 .18 1.29 −0.23 0.28 .40 0.79 0.09 0.14 .53 1.09
Big Five: Neuroticism 0.06 0.15 .70 1.06 0.00 0.20 .99 1.00 0.06 0.11 .51 1.05
Big Five: Openness −0.22 0.16 .17 0.80 −0.11 0.16 .52 0.90 −0.09 0.10 .39 0.92
Trait Competitiveness −0.01 0.07 .84 0.99 0.33 0.13 .01** 1.39 0.07 0.06 .19 1.08
Role model: Sales 1.06 0.51 .04* 2.87 0.16 0.68 .82 1.17 0.73 0.37 .05* 2.08
Role model: Engineer 0.55 0.56 .32 1.74 0.06 0.64 .93 1.06 0.32 0.37 .39 1.38
Perception of salespersons 0.41 0.12 .00** 1.50 0.43 0.16 .01** 1.53 0.40 0.09 .00** 1.49
College GPA −0.86 0.76 .26 0.42 −0.02 0.91 .98 0.98 −0.55 0.54 .31 0.58
ACT score 0.00 0.08 .97 1.00 −0.09 0.09 .32 0.91 −0.01 0.05 .88 0.98
Academic Self-Efficacy −0.21 0.16 .19 0.82 0.03 0.19 .88 1.03 −0.06 0.11 .56 0.94
Gender (0 = male) −0.54 0.62 .39 0.59 −0.63 0.69 .37 0.54 −0.83 0.43 .05† 0.43
Year in school −0.11 0.25 .67 0.90 0.48 0.40 .23 1.62 0.17 0.19 .37 1.19
Constant −4.19 4.18 .32 0.02 −13.34 4.91 .01 0.00 −8.80 2.78 .00** 0.00
Model χ2(14) 52.3 .00** 51.43 .00** 88.0 .00**  
Nagelkerke R2 42.5% 51.8% 40.6%  
Correct classification 83.3% 85.7% 85.7%  

Note. ACT = American College Testing.

†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

333
334 Journal of Marketing Education 42(3)

Table 6.  Summary of Hypotheses 1a to 3b.

Predicts interest Predicts choice

  Engineering students Business students Engineering students Business students

Personality factors
H1a: Extraversion positive  
H1b: Openness to Experience  
H1c: Trait Competitiveness positive positive positive
Ability factors
H2a: ACT score negative negative  
H2b: College GPA  
H2c: Academic Self-efficacy negative  
Social factors
H3a: Sales Role model positive  
H3b: Perception of Salespersons positive positive
Controls
Gender (being female) negative
Year in school negative negative  

Note. H = hypothesis; ACT = American College Testing. The effect of gender only manifests itself in the combined sample of engineering and business
students. In each of the smaller subsamples, the effect fails to reach statistical significance. Also, without removing two individuals who identified their
gender as “other,” the combined effect just fails to be significant.

Table 7.  Perceived Benefits of Pursuing a Sales Certificate.

Engineering Engineering Business student Business student Effect size

student no sales student with sales with sales no sales (η2)
Sample size (n) 156 40 28 145  
Break from coursework 1.87 2.63 2.18 1.84 0.10
Meet new people 2.21 2.65 2.79 2.28 0.07
Differentiation in job market 2.27 2.85 2.86 2.39 0.11
Pay difference in career 2.09 2.58 2.75 2.18 0.08
GPA boost 2.14 2.60 2.25 2.03 0.05
Improving soft skills 2.49 2.75 2.79 2.33 0.07

Note. Answers ranged from 1 = not a benefit for me at all to 3 = substantial benefit for me. Analysis of variance test results indicate significant differences
between the groups on perceived benefits of pursuing a sales certificate. Bold values are significantly different from the other values at the p < .01 level
based on Tukey HSD (honestly significant difference) post hoc tests.

break from other coursework that taking sales classes would
offer. All other students perceived these factors as less ben-
eficial. In sum, we consider Hypothesis 4 supported.
Discussion
Our results indicate that although the regression models
explain a reasonable amount of variance, models that work
for business students may not work equally well for engi-
neering students. Also, our analysis reveals that factors that
explain interest do not explain actual choice, and vice versa.
For example, where Trait Competitiveness is the strongest
driver of interest for engineering and business students com-
bined, it plays no role in explaining the actual choice for
engineering students. Conversely, Extraversion plays a key
role in explaining actual choice for a sales curriculum, but
does not explain interest.
Controlling for personality and other factors, we find only
partial support for the role model theory. There is a positive
effect of having a sales role model on the likelihood of taking
sales classes, but only for engineers. For these students, hav-
ing a close role model working in sales is an important pre-
dictor of taking sales classes, even when controlling for the
effect of a positive perception of the sales role. For business
students, the effect of having a role model appears to be more
closely related to the perception of the sales role, in line with
Ballestra et al.’s (2017) findings. Moreover, our test of
Hypothesis 3c investigating the drivers of students’
Perception of Salespeople also suggests that personality, spe-
cifically conscientiousness, may have indirect effects, in
addition to the direct effects for Extraversion, Neuroticism,
and Competitiveness observed in the regression analyses of
interest and actual choice.
Scott and Beuk 335
When it comes to ability factors, we find a negative rela-
tion between ACT score and Academic Self-Efficacy, but
only when it comes to interest, suggesting lower ability stu-
dents are more interested in a career in sales. However, the
effect is not present with the actual choice of taking sales
classes. It is important to note that these effects are observed
only in ACT scores, and not GPA. The latter indicator may in
fact be endogenous to the decision for a specific major.
One surprising finding related to our test of Hypothesis 3c
is that after controlling for all other variables in our model,
sales students with higher GPAs tend to hold more negative
perceptions of salespeople. Our study does not provide an
adequate explanation for this finding. It could be that those
students with the highest GPAs are disappointed by the per-
formance of their lower GPA sales classmates, and project
that onto (future) salespeople. It should also be noted that
even for sales majors, their GPA only depends for a small
portion on sales classes, typically less than 30 credits on a
full bachelor’s degree of 120 credit hours or more. The GPA
reported in our survey therefore reflects mostly grades earned
outside of sales classes.
Finally, when it comes to our control variables, it is no
surprise that more advanced students are less interested in
adding a sales certificate to their degree, as doing so may not
be feasible without delaying graduation. Allen et al. (2014)
note that there is a shortage of studies that look at the effect
of exposing students early or later in their career to sales edu-
cation. Although our current study does not explicitly answer
the question of a differential effect of academic career tim-
ing, additional descriptive questions in our survey instrument
indicate that engineering students and nonsales business stu-
dents alike believe that it is best to start a sales certificate
between their sophomore and junior year.
Our models further reveal that gender does play a subtle
role. Women in our sample are equally interested in, but less
likely to enroll in sales classes. However, the effect is direc-
tional for each of the subgroups, and only reaches signifi-
cance in the full sample. On the surface, this appears in line
with Ballestra et al.’s (2017) findings that there is no effect of
gender on the interest into a sales career, but at the same
time, it suggests that the interest-leads-to-action mechanism
that underlies the social cognitive theory operates differently
based on gender.
The effect of gender that we find for actual choice is in
line with Allen et al. (2014), Cook and Hartman (1986),
Karakaya et al. (2011), and Spillan et al. (2007) who collec-
tively find that women tend to be approximately half to one
third less likely to choose sales education. Sojka et al. (2000)
suggest that the limited gender differences in perception of
the sales role are because of more nuanced differences. Men
and women hold different views of sales, but these differ-
ences are not necessarily related to a more or less favorable
overall perception. For example, in Sojka et al.’s (2000)
study, men saw sales as a high risk, high reward career,
whereas women saw sales as a relationship-oriented, higher
job security career.
Conclusions and Implications for
Education
Our study sheds light on the sometimes inconsistent findings
when it comes to predicting the choice for sales classes. The
drivers that we identified based on our conceptual model and
the literature appear to be context specific, that is, they oper-
ate differently for engineering student and business students,
as well as explain interest and actual choice differently. This
means that findings obtained for teaching marketing and sales
classes to business students may not translate directly to a
context where nonbusiness students take these same classes.
Other actionable insights come from the background of
students. Although women are equally interested in obtain-
ing a sales certificate, we find that this does not equally
translate into taking sales classes. Further research is neces-
sary to investigate what causes this blockage from interest to
action for female students. However, for educators and sales
program administrators, it may be necessary to approach
women differently, with an approach that encourages taking
a first class in sales as opposed to signing up immediately for
a concentration or certificate. If there is a blockage between
interest and action, requiring a lower initial commitment
may perhaps pave the way for a more in-depth exposure to
sales education down the road. We also find that having a
close role model who works in sales is an important driver
for engineering students. Interestingly, the same role model
effect is not observed for business students. In approaching
engineering students, it is important to realize that although
the effect of role models is substantial, a substantial portion
of students do not have access to them. Of the engineering
students who do not take sales classes, 71% reports not hav-
ing a close role model who works in a sales role. Conversely,
of the engineering students who do take sales classes, 64%
reports having a close role model who works in sales. For
sales educators, providing access to such role models may be
beneficial when informing engineering students about the
opportunity to participate in sales education. However, it
should be noted that engineering students identify more with
sales engineers, and less with pure salespeople (Darr, 2000).
In fact, there is evidence that sales engineers do not see
themselves as salespeople and define their professional iden-
tity differently from those working exclusively in sales (Darr,
2000). Taking this nuance into account while designing pro-
motion tactics for sales classes geared toward engineering
students may be necessary, as work with business students
has shown that the quality of in-class presentations greatly
affects its effectiveness (Nielson & Cummins, 2019).
Another noteworthy insight is that business and engineer-
ing students who take sales classes perceive the benefits of
sales certification very differently from business and
336 Journal of Marketing Education 42(3)
engineering students who do not take sales classes. The most
notable differences between engineering sales students and
business sales students are regarding the perceived break of
other coursework, and the GPA boost. It may be advisable to
emphasize these anticipated benefits in communications with
engineering students who could be interested in pursuing a
sales certificate.
Last, when communicating with nonsales students, timing
is important. We controlled our findings for the “year in
school” and find a strong negative effect for this control vari-
able on interest in taking sales classes. This is no surprise;
closer to graduation, the interest of adding extra courses that
could delay graduation may be diminished. Therefore, con-
necting with students and informing them about benefits of
adding sales classes should be done earlier in their undergrad-
uate career. Obviously, this requires a balance as some of the
perceived benefits of sales classes that students reported may
not be as salient to these younger students yet: a break from
coursework when you are just getting started, or meeting new
people, when you have just been introduced to hundreds of
new faces may not be as appealing to freshmen students as it
would be to students more advanced in their collegiate career.
It may therefore make most sense to concentrate student out-
reach efforts in the middle, sophomores or early juniors.
Limitations
The study has some limitations that can be addressed in
future research. First, our sample was collected at a single
university. It is impossible to tell how much of our findings
were influenced by that. Another important limitation
relates to the measures we used. Because of the online
nature of the survey instrument and the lack of incentives
we could offer, it was necessary to keep the survey instru-
ment as short as possible. This meant that we used the
reduced version of the Big Five Inventory instrument, and
only one of the antecedents of the Intent to Pursue a Sales
Career scale. Last, or measure of role models could have
benefited from understanding whether the role model had a
complex or relatively straightforward sales role, and how
satisfied the role model was with that role. Collecting the
full versions of these instruments and constructs may
uncover more nuanced relationships between interest and
choice for a sales curriculum on the one hand, and personal-
ity, ability, and the student’s social environment on the
other hand. Another potential limitation is that the focus
groups used to inform our work on reasons to pursue sales
education for engineering students showed a strong gender
bias. At the start of our research, we did not know how
many female engineers are taking sales classes. Our focus
groups with engineers were for 90% attended by male stu-
dents. Ex-post, it is clear that in our population about 30%
of the engineering students who take sales classes are
female. A female-only focus group could potentially
uncover additional motivations for taking sales classes.
Acknowledgments
This work is based on the honors project of the first author. The
authors would like to thank Dr. Hanlon and Dr. Shiban for provid-
ing access to business students, and Dr. Carletta and Ms.
Schindewolf for their assistance with obtaining access to engineer-
ing students.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Frederik Beuk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5924-7097
Note
1. See for example the Professional Selling Certificate for
Engineering Majors offered at the University of Akron (https://
www.uakron.edu/cba/undergraduate/minors-certificates/sell-
ing-certificates-majors.dot) or Weber State University where
the sales program is housed in the engineering technology pro-
gram (Bumblauskas et al. 2017).
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personal-
ity, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological
Bulletin, 121(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.121.2.219
Aggarwal, P., Vaidyanathan, R., & Rochford, L. (2007). The
wretched refuse of a teeming shore? A critical examina-
tion of the quality of undergraduate marketing students.
Journal of Marketing Education, 29(3), 223-233. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0273475307306888
Allen, C., Kumar, P., Tarasi, C., & Wilson, H. (2014). Selling sales:
Factors influencing undergraduate business students’ decision
to pursue sales education. Journal of Marketing Education,
36(2), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475314537279
Bahhouth, V., Spillan, J., & Karsaklian, E. (2014). Are students
driven by negative or positive perception about sales profes-
sion in France? European Journal of Business and Social
Sciences, 3(1), 16-32. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e5e7/6
3ad4eea06b79645b3ae2c76f55366551a3f.pdf
Ballestra, L. V., Cardinali, S., Palanga, P., & Pacelli, G. (2017).
The changing role of salespeople and the unchanging feel-
ing toward selling: Implications for the HEI programs.
Journal of Marketing Education, 39(3), 176-189. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0273475317724842
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory, Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50(2), 248-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Macmillan.
Scott and Beuk 337
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C.
(1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on aca-
demic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206-1222.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1131888
Bolander, W., Bonney, L., & Satornino, C. (2014). Sales education
efficacy: Examining the relationship between sales education
and sales success. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(2), 169-
181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475314536733
Bristow, D. N., Gulati, R., Amyx, D., & Slack, J. (2006). An empir-
ical look at professional selling from a student perspective.
Journal of Education for Business, 81(5), 242-249. https://doi.
org/10.3200/JOEB.81.5.242-249
Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1998). Effects
of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganiza-
tional competition on salesperson goal setting and perfor-
mance. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 88-98. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224299806200407
Bumblauskas, D. P., Carberry, A. R., & Sly, D. P. (2017).
Selling technical sales to engineering learners. Advances in
Engineering Education, 6(1), 1-19. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context=imse_pubs
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, R. W., & Hartman, T. (1986). Female college student interest
in a sales career: A comparison. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 6(1), 29-34.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personal-
ity assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality
Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5
Cummins, S., Peltier, J. W., Erffmeyer, R., & Whalen, J. (2013).
A critical review of the literature for sales educators.
Journal of Marketing Education, 35(1), 68-78. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0273475313481157
Cummins, S., Peltier, J. W., Pomirleanu, N., Cross, J., &
Simon, R. (2015). Evaluating educational practices for
positively affecting student perceptions of a sales career.
Journal of Marketing Education, 37(1), 25-35. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0273475314568431
Darr, A. (2000). Technical labour in an engineering boutique:
Interpretive frameworks of sales and R&D engineers.
Work, Employment and Society, 14(2), 205-222. https://doi.
org/10.1177/09500170022118374
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246-1256.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246
Felder, R. M. (2006). A whole new mind for a flat world. Chemical
Engineering Education, 40(2), 96-97.
Felder, R. M. (2012). Engineering education: A tale of two par-
adigms. In B. McCabe, M. Pantazidou, & D. Philips (Eds.),
Shaking the foundations of geo-engineering education (pp. 9-
14). CRC Press.
Fogel, S., Hoffmeister, D., Rocco, R., & Strunk, D. P. (2012).
Teaching sales. Harvard Business Review, 90(7), 94-99.
Honeycutt, E. D., Jr., Ford, J. B., Swenson, M. J., & Swinyard, W.
R. (1999). Student preferences for sales careers around the
Pacific Rim. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(1), 27-36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(98)00020-0
Iannarino, A. (2018). Eat their lunch: Winning customers away
from your competition. Portfolio/Penguin.
Inks, S. A., & Avila, R. A. (2018). An examination of high schools
students’ perceptions of sales as an area to study in college, and
factors influencing their interest in sales as a career to pursue
after college. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(2), 128-139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475317752451
Karakaya, F., Quigley, C., & Bingham, F. (2011). A cross-national
investigation of student intentions to pursue a sales career.
Journal of Marketing Education, 33(1), 18-27. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0273475310389151
Krishnan, B. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Boles, J. S. (2002). Self-
efficacy, competitiveness, and effort as antecedents of sales-
person performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 22(4), 285-295.
Kumar, A., & Kumar, P. (2013). An examination of factors
influencing students’ selection of business majors using
TRA framework. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 11(1), 77-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4609.2012.00370.x
Lakhal, S., Frenette, É., Sévigny, S., & Khechine, H. (2012).
Relationship between choice of a business major type (thing-
oriented versus person-oriented) and Big Five personality
traits. International Journal of Management Education, 10(2),
88-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2012.03.003
Leasher, M. K., & Moberg, C. R. (2008). Evaluating the impact of
collegiate sales training and education on early salesperson per-
formance. Journal of Selling & Major Account Management,
8(4), 32-45.
Lee, N., Sandfield, A., & Dhaliwal, B. (2007). An empirical study of
salesperson stereotypes amongst UK students and their impli-
cations for recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management,
23(7-8), 723-744. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707X230018
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying
social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice,
and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-
122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
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. https://doi.org/10.3200/
JOEB.80.5.275-282
Marsh, B. (2013). Gamification trend: Salespeople thrive off com-
petition, so up their game. https://www.inc.com/bob-marsh/
salespeople-thrive-off-competition-so-up-their-game.html
McGirl, K. (2014, May 22). Are salespeople born competi-
tive? SellingPower Blog. https://blog.sellingpower.com/
gg/2014/05/-are-salespeople-born-competitive-.html
Mobley, C., Brawner, C. E., & Ohland, M. W. (2009). The South
Carolina merit scholarship: Strategies used by engineering stu-
dents to keep their life scholarship. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 25(6), 1249-1256. https://engineering.
purdue.edu/MIDFIELD/assets/files/2009-the-south-carolina-
merit-scholarship-strategies-used-by-engineering-students-to-
keep-their-life-scholarship.pdf
Moore, B. V. (1921). Personnel selection of graduate engineers:
The differentiation of apprentice engineers for training as sales-
men, designers, and executives of production. Psychological
Monographs, 30(5), 1-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093191
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J.
(2005). Higher-order dimensions of the Big Five personal-
ity traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel
338 Journal of Marketing Education 42(3)
Psychology, 58(2), 447-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2005.00468.x
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). STEM attrition:
College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (Statistical
Analysis Report NCES 2014-001). https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
Nielson, B., & Cummins, S. (2019). Recruiting sales students: The
value of professionals in the classroom. Marketing Education
Review, 29(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2018.
1537717
Noël, N. M., Michaels, C., & Levas, M. G. (2003). The relationship
of personality traits and self-monitoring behavior to choice of
business major. Journal of Education for Business, 78(3), 153-
157. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320309599713
O’Connor, B. P. (2002). A quantitative review of the comprehen-
siveness of the five-factor model in relation to popular per-
sonality inventories. Assessment, 9(2), 188-203. https://doi.
org/10.1177/10791102009002010
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings.
Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543066004543
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and
facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524
Peltier, J. W., Cummins, S., Pomirleanu, N., Cross, J., & Simon,
R. (2014). A parsimonious instrument for predicting students’
intent to pursue a sales career: Scale development and valida-
tion. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1), 62-74. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0273475313520443
Plouffe, C. R., Beuk, F., Hulland, J., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2017).
Elaboration on potential outcomes (EPO) and the consultative
salesperson: Investigating effects on attributions and perfor-
mance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 37(2),
113-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2017.1283231
Plouffe, C. R., Nelson, Y. H., & Beuk, F. (2013). Testing an
enhanced, process-based view of the sales process. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 33(2), 141-163. https://
doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134330201
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one
minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory
in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality,
41(1), 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
Schrock, W. A., Hughes, D. E., Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A., & Jones,
E. (2016). Better together: Trait competitiveness and com-
petitive psychological climate as antecedents of salesperson
organizational commitment and sales performance. Marketing
Letters, 27(2), 351-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-
9329-7
Shaw, E. J., & Barbuti, S. (2010). Patterns of persistence in intended
college major with a focus on STEM majors. NACADA Journal,
30(2), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.2.19
Shaw, V., & Shaw, C. T. (1998). Conflict between engineers and
marketers: The engineer’s perspective. Industrial Marketing
Management, 27(4), 279-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-
8501(97)00060-6
Shivy, V. A., & Sullivan, T. N. (2005). Engineering stu-
dents’ perceptions of engineering specialties. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 67(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2003.05.001
Sojka, J. Z., Gupta, A. K., & Hartman, T. P. (2000). Student percep-
tions of sales careers: Implications for educators and recruiters.
Mid-American Journal of Business, 15(1), 55-64. https://doi.
org/10.1108/19355181200000006
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement-related
motives and behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Eds.), Achievement
and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological
approaches (pp. 7-74). Freeman.
Spillan, J. E., Totten, J. W., & Chaubey, M. D. (2011). Exploring
personal selling as a career option: A case study of the per-
ceptions of African-American students. Academy of Marketing
Studies Journal, 15(2), 93-106.
Spillan, J. E., Totten, J. W., & Ziemnowicz, C. (2007). What are
students’ perceptions of personal selling as a career? Journal
for Advancement of Marketing Education, 11(winter), 19-30.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5586/c893f97ff64b2b57de-
c8e82b7f7eb850142b.pdf
Swenson, M. J., Swinyard, W. R., Langrehr, F. W., & Smith, S. M.
(1993). The appeal of personal selling as a career: A decade later.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13(1), 51-64.
Thoresen, C. J., Bradley, J. C., Bliese, P. D., & Thoresen, J. D.
(2004). The Big Five personality traits and individual job per-
formance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional
job stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 835-853.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.835
University Sales Center Alliance. (2019). 2018-2019 University
Sales Center Alliance Annual report.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Where do college graduates work? A
special focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math.
https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/stem/stem-html/
Waldeck, N. E., Pullins, E. B., & Houlette, M. A. (2010). Media
as factor in student perceptions for sales jobs: A framework
for research. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
30(4), 343-353. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134300404
Wang, G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). The effects of job auton-
omy, customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness on
salesperson learning, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 217-228. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0092070302303003
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992).
Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of
self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00028312029003663