Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
College students in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)
disciplines are increasingly faced with highly competitive and
demanding degree programs and are at risk of academic overconfidence.
Following from theory and research highlighting the psychological and
developmental risks of unrealistic expectations, the present exploratory
study evaluated the longitudinal effects of a motivational intervention
encouraging college students in STEM degree programs (
N = 52) to
consider the importance of downgrading one’s expectations in response
to academic setbacks. Contrary to study hypotheses, the results showed
intervention participants to report significantly higher expectations
and optimism on post-test measures administered 4 months later, no
significant gains in emotional well-being or achievement goal
orientations, and lower GPAs over five subsequent semesters. These
paradoxical effects underscore the need for additional larger-scale
research on the nature of students’ responses to potentially
ego-threatening motivational programs in STEM disciplines so as to
minimize achievement deficits at the expense of preserving motivational
resources.
Introduction
For many students, adaptation to college life includes
both academic and developmental demands, with students in demanding
degree programs facing numerous challenges including marked pressure to
succeed academically, increased expectations for independence and
maturity, as well as the need for successful adjustment to unfamiliar
tasks and environments (
Bozick, 2007;
Schrader and Brown, 2008).
These and other transition-related demands can serve to impede student
success, with many bright and motivated students experiencing academic
setbacks due to their inability to successfully adapt – a “paradox of
failure” that for many leads to disengagement and dropping out (
Perry et al., 2005).
This paradox is especially prevalent among STEM (science, technology,
engineering, mathematics) students, as failure in these highly demanding
degree programs is very costly not only to one’s motivation but career
potential (
Rask, 2010).
In response to these academic realities, students in STEM programs are
often found to exhibit academic overconfidence in an effort to reconcile
their high prior achievement with the highly aversive nature of
potential failure (
Armor and Sackett, 2006;
Reuben et al., 2013) which can further contribute to academic disengagement after setbacks (
Perez, 2012).
In an effort to redress this problematic trend, the present study
evaluated the long-term effectiveness of a motivational program
encouraging realistic aspirations for academic success among STEM
undergraduates so as to improve psychological adjustment and preserve
long-term achievement outcomes for students in these challenging
academic domains.
Challenges in STEM Disciplines
For most undergraduates, the selection of one’s major is
reflective of their identity and critical to their psychological
well-being throughout their studies and future career (
Galotti, 1999).
For students in STEM disciplines, this decision is often accompanied by
significant anxiety and impairments to physiological and psychological
health due to heightened competition and the resulting need for superior
academic performance (
Wai et al., 2010).
For these reasons, STEM students, particularly females, are more likely
to switch to a non-science major, effectively opting out of a natural
science career (
Daempfle, 2003;
Rask, 2010;
Lee, 2011), prompting institutional as well as national efforts to retain students in STEM disciplines (
Perez, 2012). Not surprisingly, two of the most often cited reasons for opting out of STEM disciplines include loss of interest (
Seymour and Hewitt, 1997) and academic difficulties in STEM courses with respect to both absolute GPA and one’s grades relative to peers (
Strenta et al., 1994;
Rask, 2010; for more on competition and the Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect among STEM undergraduates, see
Almarode et al., 2014;
Van Soom and Donche, 2014).
Accordingly, students identified as having high ability in science
disciplines are also likely to leave STEM majors due to considerable
academic pressure and associated physical and psychological distress (
Webb et al., 2002).
As such, recent research underscores the need for greater
research on motivational variables in STEM students related to
interest, perceived ability, and expected success that represent
important predictors of engagement, achievement, and attrition in the
natural sciences (
Perez, 2012).
More specifically, given the particular threats to physical and
psychological health for students in competitive STEM programs, it is
critical that students’ perceptions of their personal resources and
academic expectations be adaptive in accurately reflecting the
challenging realities of their chosen post-secondary domain (
Moore and Healy, 2008).
Appropriately calibrated expectations are of particular significance
for students in demanding degree programs with pursuing unattainable
goals having been found to result in student disengagement (
Wrosch et al., 2003), performance declines (
Rask, 2010;
Perez, 2012), and impaired psychological well-being (
Seymour and Hewitt, 1997;
Wrosch et al., 2003)
due to high personal investment (e.g., time, effort, expenses, deferred
personal goals). It is therefore hypothesized that an inability to
accurately assess one’s potential success, more specifically, an
overestimation of one’s personal resources, can lead to unrealistic
academics expectations for students in demanding STEM programs that, if
not met, could serve to erode subsequent motivation, performance, and
well-being (
Armor and Sackett, 2006).
Academic Overconfidence
Overconfidence in higher education has consistently been
found to adversely affect students’ personal and academic development.
Although moderate optimism has consistently been demonstrated to be
beneficial for maintaining achievement motivation (
Krypel and Henderson-King, 2010),
overly optimistic expectations concerning one’s academic performance
has also been observed to have negative consequences in achievement
settings. For example,
Stone (2000)
suggests that academic overconfidence can impair self-regulated
learning due to inaccurately calibrated perceptions of knowledge gains
(i.e., overestimating how much one has learned) and, consequently,
neglecting to develop more advanced self-regulation skills (e.g.,
self-monitoring, reflection, realistic goal-setting) that are crucial
for academic success. Additionally, numerous studies suggest that
although overoptimistic expectations may be adaptive in the short term
for motivation and self-esteem, they can also be detrimental for
students’ long-term goal attainment (
Robins and Beer, 2001;
Klein and Helweg-Larsen, 2002;
Nowell and Alston, 2007).
In two studies with undergraduates,
Robins and Beer (2001)
found that students who were particularly invested in a learning task
(i.e., high ego involvement) were more likely to inflate their
self-perceptions, report greater narcissism, and inaccurately evaluate
their personal performance, suggesting that self-enhancement in
challenging achievement settings may be used as a defensive strategy to
maintain self-esteem (
Lobel and Teiber, 1994).
Further, these authors found self-enhancing students to disengage from
their studies sooner over a 4-year period, as evidenced by lower
self-esteem and graduation rates. These findings are consistent with
those of a meta-analytic review by
Klein and Helweg-Larsen (2002)
who found academic overconfidence (optimistic bias) to correspond with a
lower perceived risk of academic disappointment relative to one’s peers
(cf. miscalibrated perceptions of academic ability;
Kruger and Dunning, 1999) as well as longitudinal research from a developmental perspective (
Heckhausen and Schulz, 1995)
showing overconfident undergraduates to neglect cognitive strategies
for maintaining persistence and performance after initial setbacks
(e.g., positive reappraisal;
Hall et al., 2006b).
It is important to note that greater optimism is
typically beneficial for students, leading to lower stress, lower
devaluing of educational goals, and more adaptive academic coping
strategies as compared to pessimistic beliefs (e.g.,
Krypel and Henderson-King, 2010).
However, social-psychological research in higher education also shows
overly high optimism levels to predict a tendency to deny information
that threatens one’s self-worth; a defensive strategy corresponding to
both short-term emotional well-being and long-term educational deficits
including inflated expectations and poorer levels of metacognition and
achievement (
Burson et al., 2006; cf. the “above average effect,”
Kruger and Dunning, 1999).
Findings further suggest that inaccurate perceptions of competence and
future success are more likely in performance-oriented settings where
information concerning contributing factors beyond ability is limited (
Moore and Healy, 2008) and in demanding academic domains in which the likelihood of success is often uncertain (
Burson et al., 2006).
With respect to studies addressing overconfidence
specifically among students in STEM domains, emerging findings suggest
that overconfident students are significantly more common in natural
science disciplines as compared to business or humanities programs (
Reuben et al., 2013; see also
Schulz and Thöni, 2014).
Findings further underscore the importance of confidence in one’s
mathematical skills, over and above demonstrated ability levels, in
predicting pursuit of STEM careers (
Halpern et al., 2007)
with perceptions of fixed high abilities corresponding to lower
persistence, poorer learning strategies, and performance deficits in
STEM courses (e.g., chemistry, pre-medicine students;
Dweck, 2006). Males are also consistently found to overestimate their math abilities relative to females (e.g.,
Goetz et al., 2013),
with recent finding showing gendered confidence beliefs to predict
stronger intentions to pursue math-intensive post-secondary studies
(e.g.,
Sáinz and Eccles, 2012;
Bench et al., 2015;
Simon et al., 2015).
This pattern of overconfidence in STEM, as typically represented by
higher performance expectations among males relative to females in
mathematics and science domains despite equivalent aptitude (e.g.,
Hyde et al., 2008), as well as corresponding gender stereotypes (e.g.,
Brotman and Moore, 2008),
are often cited as contributing to disproportionately lower enrollment
and greater dropout among women in STEM domains (e.g.,
Larose et al., 2006;
Ceci and Williams, 2010;
Cheryan, 2012).
The Motivational Theory of Life-Span Development
As noted above, academic overconfidence has recently
been examined from a developmental self-regulation perspective, with
students adopting unrealistic motivational beliefs (e.g., high
persistence, few back-up strategies) showing poorer psychological and
achievement outcomes relative to their peers (e.g.,
Hall et al., 2006c). Following from the motivational theory of life-span development by
Heckhausen et al. (2010),
this work is based on premise that how individuals choose to interact
with their environment depends largely on how much control they perceive
over it. Individuals who perceive themselves as having personal control
over changes in their environment tend to use motivational strategies
aimed at improving the situation and modify their behavior to achieve
their goals. These types of control behaviors and motivational
strategies (e.g., persistence, seeking assistance) are referred to as
primary control. For example, after a non-satisfactory grade on an exam,
a student who believes that they can improve their performance is
likely to invest more time studying to improve their grade.
On the other hand,
Heckhausen and Schulz (1998,
p. 53) postulate that “repeated experiences of failure may… lead to low
perceptions of personal control” that pose “major threats to the
individual’s motivational resources for future action.” Thus, when faced
with critical setbacks, optimal adjustment is hypothesized to be better
promoted by changing one’s cognitions through secondary control so as
to reconcile the discrepancy between the environment and one’s
expectations (see also
Morling and Evered, 2006;
Skinner, 2007).
For example, after a non-satisfactory grade on an important exam, a
student who attributes their performance to factors beyond their
personal control (e.g., extreme test difficulty) may attempt to find the
“silver lining” or downwardly adjust their expectations for future
exams to compensate for the motivationally threatening nature of the
experience. This adaptive use of secondary control strategies to
compensate for past or potential failure experiences is further
hypothesized to maximize future primary control efforts and personal
development in critical life domains (e.g., work, health) across the
life-span (
Heckhausen et al., 2010).
Given the importance of selecting appropriately
challenging goals during critical developmental periods (e.g., emerging
adulthood), empirical research based on
Heckhausen et al.’s (2010)
theory has examined the role of compensatory secondary control
strategies involving both positive reappraisal (e.g., benefit-finding)
and downgrading (e.g., importance, aspirations) in educational settings.
With respect to positive reappraisal, studies show that beyond the
detrimental effects of maintaining high primary control in the absence
of secondary control for overconfidence and achievement (e.g.,
Hall et al., 2006c),
post-secondary students who calibrate their emphasis on persistence vs.
positive reappraisal based on their grades are more motivated later in
the academic year (
Hall, 2008), with positive reappraisal further predicting better health outcomes (
Hall et al., 2006a) as well as higher academic motivation and achievement levels (
Hall et al., 2006c).
Concerning downgrading of unrealistic aspirations as a
motivational strategy, although primary control (persistence) has
consistently been found to predict career goal attainment for graduating
high-school students (e.g., females;
Haase et al., 2008),
students are also typically found to downgrade their career aspirations
in the months prior to graduation (e.g., calibrating one’s “dream job”
based on employment opportunities;
Heckhausen and Tomasik, 2002).
Additionally, studies show downgrading aspirations after failure in
finding employment after graduation to predict greater well-being
compared to sustained primary control (
Tomasik et al., 2009), a finding also observed following unsuccessful college applications (
Tomasik and Salmela-Aro, 2012).
Multiple studies further show undergraduates who shift their focus from
unachievable to more attainable goals to report better well-being (
Wrosch et al., 2003,
2007). In sum, research based on
Heckhausen et al.’s (2010)
theory consistently shows compensatory strategies involving positive
reappraisal and downgrading to better predict goal attainment and
well-being in challenging academic conditions than unmitigated
persistence, suggesting that motivational programs in which these
strategies are encouraged may be of benefit, particularly in disciplines
characterized by academic overconfidence.
Motivational Interventions and Academic Overconfidence
Existing motivation research has evaluated the benefits
of intervention programs for struggling college students based on varied
social-psychological perspectives including self-theories of
intelligence (e.g.,
Aronson et al., 2002), expectancy-value theory (e.g.,
Durik and Harackiewicz, 2007;
Acee and Weinstein, 2010;
Hulleman et al., 2010;
Shechter et al., 2011), and achievement goals (e.g.,
Barron and Harackiewicz, 2001;
Hoyert and O’Dell, 2006), with intervention studies in STEM domains showing considerable promise (e.g.,
Betz and Schifano, 2000;
Harackiewicz et al., 2012). However, the most extensive research on motivational interventions in higher education has to date been based on
Weiner’s (2010)
attribution theory. Referred to as “attributional retraining” (AR),
these programs encourage college students to adopt personally
controllable explanations for academic setbacks (primary control) with
studies over the past 30 years showing motivational, emotional, and
achievement benefits for primarily social science students (e.g.,
Forsterling and Morgenstern, 2002;
Wilson et al., 2002;
Haynes et al., 2009).
With respect to intervention content, AR programs are
typically informational (vs. persuasive) in nature and highlight the
motivational and achievement benefits of adopting attributions for
disappointing academic experiences (e.g., low grades) that are
personally controllable (e.g., lack of effort) as opposed to
uncontrollable (e.g., low ability). Whereas the intervention typically
results in modest yet consistent gains in motivation (e.g., mastery
goals;
Haynes et al., 2008)
and achievement (e.g., GPA), findings consistently show the most
substantial performance benefits for students at risk of poor
performance due to initial low grades (e.g.,
Perry et al., 2010), maladaptive attributions (e.g.,
Struthers and Perry, 1996;
Jackson et al., 2009), poor learning strategies (
Hall et al., 2004,
2007), and low self-esteem (e.g.,
Hall et al., 2011).
Additionally, multiple studies have recently demonstrated long-term
psychological and achievement benefits of this program for overly
confident post-secondary students.
In a study by
Ruthig et al. (2004),
AR led to better GPAs, test anxiety, and course attrition specifically
for overly optimistic social science students relative to their peers.
These findings were replicated by
Haynes et al. (2006),
showing AR to increase attributions to effort specifically among overly
optimistic social science students as well as improve both
course-specific and cumulative achievement outcomes. Finally, an
intervention study by
Hall et al. (2006b) incorporated both
Weiner’s (2010) attribution theory and
Heckhausen et al.’s (2010)
dual-process model in encouraging overly confident social science
students to consider both primary control (controllable attributions)
and secondary control strategies (positive reappraisal;
Hall et al., 2006c).
In addition to overconfident students in the intervention condition
obtaining 10% higher final course grades relative to controls, their
expectations were also lower (more realistic) 5 months later as compared
to overconfident control participants whose grades were, on average,
17% lower than expected. Thus, whereas previous research based on
Heckhausen et al.’s (2010)
life-span theory shows clear psychological and achievement benefits of
discouraging a focus on fixed abilities and encouraging realistic
expectations specifically for overly optimistic students, no research to
date has evaluated intervention programs for overconfident students in
STEM programs addressing the benefits of realistic aspirations for
well-being and academic success.
To address this research gap, the present study
represented an exploratory evaluation of a brief motivational
intervention informing students in STEM degree programs of the potential
psychological and achievement benefits of realistic expectations
following academic setbacks. In line with
Heckhausen et al. (2010),
Hypothesis 1 proposed that students in the intervention condition would
report more adaptive (slightly lower) aspirations with respect to their
academic success as compared to controls that were expected to report
notably high expectations (cf.
Hall et al., 2006c).
Hypothesis 2 further proposed that the intervention would lead to
better psychological adjustment relative to controls. Finally,
Hypothesis 3 proposed that participation in the intervention condition
should lead to higher long-term academic achievement relative to
controls following from anticipated gains in motivation due to
attainable aspirations.
Materials and Methods
Participants
Fifty-two undergraduates enrolled in STEM degree programs
and completing introductory-level STEM courses at a North American
research-intensive university were recruited in the winter semester for a
three-phase study via mass emails from faculty deans and students
affairs directors. Participants were primarily enrolled in the
biological sciences (84.5%) and were additionally enrolled in the
physical sciences (10.3%) as well as engineering and related programs
(5.2%). The majority of participants were female (61.5%) and in their
first year of study (84.6%) with an average age of 18.25 (SD =
0.52). Participants’ ethnic backgrounds included Asian American/Pacific
Islander (71.2%), Caucasian (15.4%), African American (3.8%), and others
(9.6%), with most reporting English as their first language (79%).
Participants’ reported high-school grades showed 89% to have graduated
with a GPA of 85% or higher (M = 90.20, SD = 5.46), with participant attrition found to not significantly differ as a function of gender [χ2(1, N = 52) = 1.02, p = 0.60], age [F(1,51) = 0.1.19, p = 0.31], ethnicity [χ2(1, N = 52) = 1.02, p = 0.11], English as first language [χ2(1, N = 52) = 1.35, p = 0.51], discipline [χ2(1, N = 52) = 0.87, p = 0.93], high-school grades [F(1,45) = 0.91, p = 0.41], or intervention condition [χ2(1, N = 37) = 1.52, p = 0.32].
Intervention Content
The intervention and control conditions consisted of
three components, and utilized specific techniques consistent with those
commonly employed in motivational intervention research with
undergraduates based on Weiner’s attribution theory (i.e., AR exercises;
Haynes et al., 2009).
First, participants completed a difficult GRE-type aptitude test
(Abstract Reasoning and Abilities Test, ARAT) used previously in AR
research as a simulated failure experience (for previous findings on the
efficacy of the ARAT as a failure priming task, see
Hall et al., 2004),
after which they were immediately debriefed of its intended use to
prime failure-related cognitions. Second, participants were provided a
brief handout containing either intervention content (
n = 20) or a control group reading (
n = 17) to be reviewed individually. The handout content was derived directly from
Heckhausen et al.’s (2010) life-span theory of motivation and related empirical research (e.g.,
Tomasik et al., 2009;
Tomasik and Salmela-Aro, 2012)
in briefly outlining the risks of unrealistic aspirations as well as
benefits of downgrading expectations in an academic context. The handout
contrasted statements such as “Anything less than the best is failure”
with more realistic alternatives and supporting rationales (e.g.,
“Overly high goals can make you feel like a failure even when you
succeed”). Participants in the control group completed a similarly
formatted reading addressing the science behind medical myths (e.g.,
“You only use 10 percent of your brain”). Finally, a writing exercise
was administered in both the intervention and control conditions that
required participants to summarize and discuss the main points of the
handout (depth), provide examples of the issues discussed (breadth),
explain how they could apply the content in their own lives (personal
structure), and share their emotions concerning academic failure (cf.
writing interventions,
Pennebaker, 1997; elaborative processing,
Entwistle, 2000).
Dependent Measures
Descriptive statistics (ranges, means, and standard
deviations) and scale reliability for the academic- and domain-general
self-report measures, as well as sessional achievement outcomes obtained
from student records, are presented in Table
1.
Academic Expectations
Academic expectations were assessed utilizing two
measures evaluating both global and specific expectations for academic
success. The first measure consisted of a single general academic
expectation item: “I expect to do very well overall at university this
year” (Likert; 1 = Very Unsuccessful, 10 = Very Successful).
The second measure consisted of two averaged items that more
specifically evaluated students’ expected future achievement including
“What GPA do you expect to obtain at the end of this semester?”
(possible range: 0–4.00) and “What overall GPA do you expect to have by
the upcoming fall semester (your total cumulative GPA including all
previous semesters)?” [possible range: 0–4.00; inter-item correlation at
Time 1/2: r(48/31) = 0.77/0.63].
Optimism
Six Likert-style items from
Scheier and Carver’s (1992)
Life Orientation Test (LOT) were summed to provide a domain-general
measure of dispositional optimism (e.g., “In uncertain times, I usually
expect the best”; 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree; α
T1/T2 = 0.81/0.86).
Achievement Motivation
To assess achievement motivation, two four-item measures of achievement goal orientations were adapted from
Pintrich et al. (1989)
and included items such as “I prefer course material that really
challenges me so I can learn new things” (mastery orientation; α
T1/T2
= 0.81/0.74) and “If I can, I want to get better grades in my classes
than most of the other students” (performance orientation; α
T1/T2 = 0.77/0.87; 1 =
not at all true of me, 7 =
very true of me).
Academic Emotions
Three learning-related emotions were assessed using
six-item, five-point Likert scales adapted from the Academic Emotions
Questionnaire (AEQ;
Pekrun et al., 2005).
Following a modified preamble asking students to reflect on their
experiences in a common core class in which they were enrolled that
semester, the item to follow assessed their learning-related enjoyment
(α
T1/T2 = 0.77/0.55; e.g., “I enjoy learning new things”), anxiety (α
T1/T2
= 0.78/0.80; e.g., “When studying the material in this course, my heart
rate increases because I get anxious”), and boredom in that class (α
T1/T2 = 0.87/0.86; “When studying for this course, I feel bored”; 1 =
not at all true, 5 =
completely true).
Illness Symptoms
An eight-item symptom checklist derived from the Cohen–Hoberman Inventory of Physical Symptoms (CHIPS;
Cohen and Hoberman, 1983) was used to assess how often during the last month (α
T1/T2 = 0.72/0.80; 1 =
not at all a week to 5 =
5 or more times a week)
students experienced the following symptoms: sleep problems, headaches,
low energy, muscle tension, fatigue, stomach pain, heart pounding, and
poor appetite.
Depression
Mild depressive symptomology was assessed using the ten-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D; α
T1/T2 = 0.76/0.80;
Radloff, 1997) in which participants were asked how often (1 =
rarely or none of the time, 4 =
most or all of the time) during the last month they felt as described (e.g., “my sleep was restless,” “I felt depressed”).
Grade Point Average (GPA)
Six sessional GPAs were obtained from the registrar’s
office for the fall semester prior to study recruitment (evaluated as a
baseline covariate), the winter, spring, and fall semesters of the
calendar year in which participants were recruited, as well as winter
and spring semesters of the following year. Each sessional GPA consisted
of the mean grade obtained across all courses completed during that
semester.
Procedure
In Phase 1 (January-February), participants completed an
online questionnaire including demographic items and the self-report
measures (∼15 min). Following the questionnaire, students selected one
of two in-person sessions to attend for Phase 2 (April) in which
intervention or control activities were completed (sessions were
randomly assigned to administer experimental or control protocols; ∼30
min). Approximately 4 months after the in-person Phase 2 session, Phase 3
required students to again complete the online questionnaire including
the self-report measures. Students’ sessional GPA and course load were
subsequently obtained from registrar’s office for the preceding fall
semester, for the winter semester in which they were recruited (Year 1),
and for the following four semesters (spring and fall Year 1, winter
and spring Year 2). As an incentive for participation, students who
completed Phases 1 and 2 of the study were entered into a raffle for one
of four iPods, with students who completed Phase 3 entered into an
additional raffle for multiple bookstore gift certificates ranging from
$10 to $50.
Results
One-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were used to
evaluate the effects of the downgrading intervention on self-report
variables (Hypotheses 1 and 2), with a repeated-measures ANCOVA
conducted to assess treatment effects on long-term achievement (five
subsequent sessional GPAs; Hypothesis 3). No significant initial
differences (chi-square analyses,
t-tests,
p < 0.05)
were observed between the experimental conditions on baseline levels of
the study outcomes nor potentially confounding background measures (age,
gender, English as first language, ethnicity, discipline, year of
study). Nevertheless, the covariates evaluated included not only
baseline levels of each study outcome assessed (e.g., prior sessional
GPA as covariate when assessing effects on post-intervention GPAs) but
also participants’ gender as per prior research on gendered
overconfidence in STEM domains (e.g.,
Hyde et al., 2008;
Goetz et al., 2013),
but also high-school grade and year of study consistent with published
motivational intervention research with undergraduates (cf.
Haynes et al., 2009). Covariate-adjusted means and standard deviations for the experimental conditions are provided in Table
2.
Significant treatment effects were observed on students’ general expectations for academic success, F(1,23) = 6.49, p = 0.018, η2p
= 0.22, as well as global optimism levels,
F(1,23) = 8.05,
p = 0.009,
η2p = 0.26, with results showing students in the intervention condition to report higher post-intervention academic expectations (
M = 5.85) and optimism (
M = 22.89) compared to students in the control condition (
M = 4.71;
M
= 19.82; respectively). Although the results for anxiety and
performance goal orientations were in the expected directions, one-way
ANCOVAs showed no significant treatment effects on the remaining
self-report outcome measures. Finally, a repeated measures ANCOVA
revealed a significant between-subjects, omnibus treatment effect on
GPA,
F(1,27) = 5.38,
p = 0.028,
η2p
= 0.17. However, the direction of this effect was contrary to that
hypothesized, with participants in the intervention condition (M = 2.96) obtaining consistently lower GPAs over the subsequent 2-year period relative to controls (M = 3.25).
Discussion
Hypothesis 1: Academic Expectations and Optimism
According to the first hypothesis, participants in the
intervention condition were expected to demonstrate better adjusted
(i.e., slightly lower) aspirations as part of becoming better calibrated
with their highly achievement-oriented academic reality and potential
for academic disappointment (e.g., non-admission into a medical
program). These results instead showed students in the intervention
condition to report
higher levels of optimism as well as general
expectations for academic success relative to controls, a finding that
although is positive, is contrary to that expected following our
intervention addressing the downgrading of aspirations. One possible
explanation is that when overconfident students who are highly
ego-involved in a domain encounter failure, they often engage in
self-enhancement to maintain their self-esteem (
Robins and Beer, 2001).
In other words, reminding these students of possible setbacks in an
academic program in which they were heavily invested may have triggered a
defensive overcompensation in expectation levels. As students in STEM
programs are likely to have their self-esteem closely tied to their
performance (
Perez, 2012),
it is therefore possible that the intervention was perceived not as
informative but rather a threat to one’s self-concept as a successful
student. Alternatively, it is possible that whereas lower aspirations
may have occurred immediately following the intervention, greater
optimism and expected success 4 months later may indeed reflect genuine,
longer-term motivational gains assumed to follow from encouraging
students to consider the importance of downgrading following setbacks
(Hypothesis 2). Given a similar pattern of encouraging findings on the
other motivational and adjustment measures, these findings may reflect
the motivating as opposed to threatening nature of the intervention
program.
Hypothesis 2: Achievement Motivation and Well-Being
Following from
Heckhausen et al.’s (2010)
life-span theory of motivation, the second study hypothesis proposed
that sustained motivational resources resulting from a greater
appreciation of the role of realistic expectations in challenging
academic settings would contribute to greater psychological and physical
well-being and more adaptive achievement goals. Although an encouraging
pattern of results was observed showing intervention participants to
report higher levels of enjoyment and mastery goal orientation, as well
as lower anxiety and boredom relative to controls, these treatment
effects did not reach significance. As such, our findings did not
provide clear support for Hypothesis 2 and are not in line with previous
studies showing significant motivational and well-being benefits from
downgrading as a motivational strategy (e.g.,
Wrosch et al., 2000;
Heckhausen and Tomasik, 2002;
Tomasik et al., 2009) or related research on the drawbacks of pursuing unrealistic goals in young adulthood (
Wrosch et al., 2003,
2007).
Instead, these findings suggest that whereas the expectancy variables
directly targeted by the intervention were significantly impacted over a
4-month period, similar changes on psychological outcomes not directly
addressed in the intervention were not found. However, although it is
possible that the narrow program focus may have limited the range of
benefits observed, the lag between the intervention and follow-up
questionnaire was shorter than in typical AR studies (e.g., 6 months;
Hall et al., 2006c)
preventing the detection of effects that require more time to emerge
(e.g., for students to experience some academic setback and meaningfully
apply downgrading strategies).
Hypothesis 3: Academic Performance
Due to the highly demanding and competitive nature of
STEM degree programs, academic setbacks and disappointment represent an
unfortunate reality for many students in these disciplines. According to
Hypothesis 3, participants in the intervention condition were expected
to gain a greater appreciation of how realistic aspirations can help
students preserve their motivational resources in the face of academic
difficulties, leading to sustained personal well-being and higher GPAs
over time relative to controls. The present findings revealed that in
direct contrast to this hypothesis, students in the intervention
condition demonstrated consistently lower grades following the
intervention in comparison to students in the control condition who
received no intervention. Given the large magnitude of the treatment
effect (>0.14,
Cohen, 1969),
and that it was observed controlling for not only baseline GPA (from
the preceding term) but also students’ course load and demographic
background variables (age, gender), we can reliably attribute the poorer
performance observed to the intervention content addressing the
downgrading of academic aspirations as opposed to potential critical
confounds.
As noted previously, one explanation for this
discouraging result may involve the possibly ego-threatening nature of
the failure-oriented intervention for STEM students (
Robins and Beer, 2001;
Perez, 2012)
who may have reacted defensively, overcompensated with higher
expectations, and pursued even more challenging goals thereby increasing
their chances of failure and disengagement (e.g., self-handicapping).
This interpretation is consistent with studies showing students with
particularly high self-esteem to experience lower grades (
Hall et al., 2010) and job interview success (
Hall et al., 2011)
following otherwise effective interventions encouraging persistence,
likely due to threated self-perceptions as high-ability students (vs.
high-effort students). However, given slightly greater well-being and
motivation for intervention participants, and a lack of higher negative
affect, it is also plausible that the intervention prompted STEM
students to demand less of themselves with respect to their persistence,
leading to lower yet stable performance (vs. declines indicating
disengagement).
This alternative explanation is consistent with studies
showing self-esteem enhancement programs to negatively affect both
students’ academic self-concept (
Wade et al., 2003) and achievement (
Forsyth et al., 2007).
Whereas these self-esteem bolstering initiatives encouraged struggling
students to view themselves in a more positive light, as a corollary,
there were also likely encouraged to implicitly perceive their present
poor performance as an acceptable standard thereby decreasing their
motivation for personal improvement. It is therefore possible that the
present intervention in which STEM students were explicitly encouraged
to consider the importance of adopting more attainable academic goals
may have resulted in downgraded aspirations (e.g., shortly following the
program), greater hope of achieving these more attainable standards (4
months later), as well as lower persistence and performance levels.
However, as short-term changes in expectancy were not assessed,
indicators of persistence were not examined, and no clear emotional
benefits of participating in the downgrading intervention were observed
beyond greater optimism and expectations, further research is required
to more substantively evaluate this hypothesis.
Limitations and Future Directions
First, it should be noted that although the present
study is consistent with emerging findings highlighting academic
overconfidence in post-secondary STEM programs (e.g.,
Reuben et al., 2013;
Bench et al., 2015),
study participants were not prescreened with respect to overconfidence
levels (e.g., low grades combined with high expectations; cf.
Haynes et al., 2006).
Thus it is possible that our recruitment protocols advertising the
study as examining motivation topics may not have attracted already
motivated and confident students, as suggested by the majority of study
participants being female (61%) who are commonly found to report lower
self-efficacy and performance expectations relative to males in
mathematics and science domains (e.g.,
Hyde et al., 2008;
Goetz et al., 2013).
As such, future larger-scale research with STEM students in which
baseline overconfidence is clearly demonstrated, baseline levels are
examined as moderating variables (e.g., low/moderate/high), or at-risk
students are exclusively preselected for participation is warranted to
more specifically examine the potential benefits and risks of the
present intervention for overly confident students in STEM programs.
Second, as the limited sample size of this exploratory
study may have contributed to a lack of significant findings for some
measures (e.g., well-being, goal orientation), research with larger
samples is needed to replicate the present findings. Based on power
analyses conducted with G
∗Power software (
Faul et al., 2009), a sample of at least 58 participants is recommended to ensure 80% power to detect equivalent effects (
p
< 0.05; i.e., the between-subjects ANCOVA effect on achievement).
Third, as the present pilot study employed a quasi-experimental design
in that intervention conditions were randomly applied to experimental
sessions (vs. participants), future research using true random
assignment is recommended to replicate our results. Fourth, although
this study evaluated multiple indicators of psychological adjustment,
motivation, and achievement, it did not assess measures of self-esteem
and persistence (e.g., hours worked, assistance sought), nor did it
directly evaluate students’ perceived self-regulatory use of downgrading
strategies (e.g., post-intervention manipulation check). Accordingly,
longitudinal research with multiple short- and long-term follow-ups in
which these potential and hypothesized mediators are also evaluated is
recommended to better determine whether STEM students reacted
defensively to the program or opted to preserve their well-being by
reducing unmitigated persistence at the expense of their grades.
Finally, given that the narrow intervention focus on
downgrading unrealistic expectations neglected to mention other
motivational variables consistently found to predict achievement in
college students (e.g., perceived competence, utility value; see
Robbins et al., 2009),
future studies in which downgrading content is combined or contrasted
with more traditional motivational messages (e.g., personally
controllable attributions for failure experiences;
Hall et al., 2007) or higher-order motivational constructs (e.g., purposeful enactment of realistic action plans;
Han, 2015)
are encouraged to provide a more balanced motivational perspective and
possibly mitigate achievement risks. In sum, the present exploratory
findings underscore the importance of further research on how to better
encourage students in STEM disciplines to consider the psychological
risks of unrealistic expectations as well as the potential benefits of
downgrading aspirations following setbacks encountered in these
challenging degree programs.
Author Contributions
NH conducted data collection, statistical analysis, and
manuscript writing. AS conducted statistical analysis and manuscript
writing.
Funding
This study was supported by a grant from the Fonds de
Recherche sur la Société et la Culture (FQRSC 2013-NP-165885) and an
Insight Development Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRC 430-2013-0226) to NH.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in
the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
