The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Master's Theses Spring 5-1-2016 Congruence with College Major in Light of Cognitive Infuence and Work Roles Erica L. Mathis University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses Part of the Counseling Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Mathis, Erica L., "Congruence with College Major in Light of Cognitive Infuence and Work Roles" (2016). Master's Theses. 166. https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/166 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact CONGRUENCE WITH COLLEGE MAJOR IN LIGHT OF COGNITIVE INFLUENCE AND WORK ROLES by Erica Lynn Mathis A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Schoo l and the Department of Psychology of The University of Southern Mississipp i in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement s for the Degree of Master of Arts Approved: ________________________________________________ Dr. Emily Bullock Yowell, Committee Chai r Associate Professor, Psychology ________________________________________________ Dr. Melanie Leuty, Committee Member Assistant Professor, Psychology ________________________________________________ Dr. Bonnie Nicholson, Committee Membe r Associate Professor, Psychology ________________________________________________ Dr. Karen S. Coats Dean of the Graduate School May 2016 ABSTRACT CONGRUENCE WITH COLLEGE MAJOR IN LIGHT OF COGNITVE INFLUENCE AND WORK ROLES by Erica Lynn Mathis May 2016 Using Holland’s theory, the author examined moderators that may influence students’ academic success and satisfaction while accounting for cognitive influence. Data from 233 undergraduate students was analyzed using a series of hierarchical multiple regressions. The study sought to determine if student employment and the level of interest profile elevation were significant moderators of the relationship between congruence with college major and academic major satisfaction, as well as academic major success. Uniquely, academic major success was determined through GPA and a 10-subscale self-report measure. Cognitive influences were operationalized as positive and negative thinking and accounted for in all analyses . Correlation results suggested that student employment has a negative relationship with academic success as measured by GPA. No study hypotheses were supported , but regression analyses did reveal significant impact of cognitive influences on both academic major satisfaction and academic major success in both research questions. Based on these findings, clinicians are encouraged to aid students in strategically planning the relationshi p between required work and educational responsibilities. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1 Academic Major Satisfaction and Success Person-Environment Fit Holland’s Theory Students as Employees Profile Elevation Cognitive Influence Present Study II. METHOD ...................................................................................................25 Participants Procedure Measures Data Analysis III. RESULTS ..................................................................................................38 Data Clean-Up and Preliminary Analyses Primary Analyses IV. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................51 Research Question 1 Research Question 2 Clinical Implications Limitations and Directions for Future Research APPENDIXES ...................................................................................................................66 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................79 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample ................................................................25 2. Scale Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations.............................................39 3. Intercorrelations of Variables ................................................................................40 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Hours Worked as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Congruence and Academic Major Satisfaction ...........41 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Hours Worked as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Congruence and Academic Major Success as Measured by GPA...................................................................................................................43 6. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Hours Worked as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Congruence and Academic Major Success as Measured by Self-Report ........................................................................................................45 7. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Profile Elevation as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Congruence and Academic Major Satisfaction .......46 8. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Profile Elevation as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Congruence and Academic Major Success as Measured by GPA ..................................................................................................48 9. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Profile Elevation as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Congruence and Academic Major Success as Measured by Self-Report .......................................................................................50 iv 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Students’ college experience is shaped by a variety of factors, including academic major satisfaction and success (Kreig, 2013; Webber, Krylow, & Qin, 2013). Past research has shown various influences on academic major satisfaction and academic success (Bercher, 2014; McIlveen, Beccaria, & Burton, 2013). One issue that students regularly face is the interaction between their personality and the environment of their institution and college major. Therefore, an important construct to investigate in relation to academic major satisfaction and academic success is person-environment fit. The current study used congruence, as established by Holland’s theory (Holland, 1997), to measure person-environment fit. Potential moderators and cognitive influences were also explored. Academic Major Satisfaction and Success Academic Major Satisfaction Academic major satisfaction has been defined as the “enjoyment of one’s roles or experiences as a student” (Lent, Singley, Sheu, Schmidt, & Schmidt, 2007, p. 87; Ojeda, Flores, & Navarro, 2011). Although this construct has gained its own definition, academic major satisfaction has also been referred to as a way to measure the decision- making outcomes of college students in place of job satisfaction (Nauta, 2007). Many studies have focused on job satisfaction, leading to parallels in the research exploring job and academic major satisfaction. Nauta (2007) asserted that academic major satisfaction is like job satisfaction for college students in that different academic settings lead to different opportunities to utilize skills and interests. 2 Nauta (2007) also noted that academic major satisfaction is influenced by a number of factors. Lent et al. (2007) found academic goal progress, self-efficacy, and environmental supports to be individually and collectively predictive of academic major satisfaction. Additionally, Soria and Stebleton (2013) found intrinsic motivation to be positively related to academic major satisfaction. This is an important finding since intrinsic motivations are typically what one finds to be inherently interesting, supporting Holland’s proposition that engaging in activities that one finds interesting create satisfaction (Holland, 1997). Academic major satisfaction is an important concern for higher education institutions due to its relationship with issues such as student retention. Elliott and Shin (2002) found that student satisfaction had a positive impact on factors such as motivation, retention, and recruitment. More specifically, academic major satisfaction is an important issue for academic advisors. Light (2001) noted that student satisfaction with academic advising constitutes a substantial portion of a successful college experience. The result of Bailey, Bauman, and Lata’s (1998) study supports this idea in that they found non- persisting students to have a significantly lower level of satisfaction with academic advising than persisting students. The current study sought to examine possible predictors and moderators of academic major satisfaction in order to inform issues such as student retention and academic advising. Academic Success In addition to academic major satisfaction, academic success is an important factor that influences the college experience. Welles (2010) noted that “the concept of academic success in college is complex and multifaceted” (p. 2). Many researchers have 3 studied academic success by using grade point average (GPA) (Bauer & Liang, 2003; Duff, Boyle, Dunleavy, & Ferguson, 2004; Farsides & Woodfield, 2003; Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & McDougall, 2002; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Gray & Watson, 2002; Lievens, Coetsier, De Fruyt, & De Maeseneer, 2002; Phillips, Abraham, & Bond, 2003; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995) or exam results (Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 2000; De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996; Diseth 2003; Dollinger & Orf, 1991). However, a meta-analysis by Robbins et al. (2004) found that psychosocial and study skills explained variance in academic outcomes above and beyond standardized tests scores and GPA when predicting academic outcomes in college students. Therefore, it is important to consider factors in addition to GPA when defining and studying academic success. One example of the investigation of other factors that influence academic success is the development of the Academic Success Inventory for College Students (ASICS; Prevatt et al., 2011). The measure stemmed from Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), Achievement Goal Theory (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002), Self-Regulation Theory (Zimmerman, 1989), Input-Environment-Outcomes Model (I-E- O) (Astin, 1993), Student Integration Model (Tinto, 1993), and the Student Engagement Model (Kuh, 2001). Factors included on the ASICS are skills, quality of instruction, career decidedness, external motivation/future, confidence in abilities, personal adjustment, concentration and self-regulation, socializing, internal motivation/interest, and lack of anxiety. While the large amount of factors may seem overwhelming, understanding academic success as more than just GPA is of utmost importance to higher education institutions. Academic success is directly related to degree attainment. This is troubling 4 considering that 40% of students will leave an institution without attaining a degree (Newby, 2002; Porter, 1990). Leaving college without a degree can cause students to earn less money and be financially unstable, as well as to have fewer career opportunities (Kane & Rouse, 1995). Understanding factors affecting academic success could aid higher education institutions in preventing academic failure. The current study explored the influence of person-environment fit on academic major satisfaction and academic success, as well as potential moderators and cognitive influences’ effects on this relationship. These influential variables will be discussed below. Person-Environment Fit Person-environment fit, or congruence, has been defined as the compatibility in the relationship between an individual’s characteristics and the characteristics of his or her environment (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). If an individual’s personality matches the characteristics of his or her environment, he/she should experience positive outcomes (Holland, 1997). Studies have found person-environment fit as a predictor of success, satisfaction, and overall well-being (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2006; Holland, 1997; Nauta, 2013). However, person-environment fit has been most often studied within the world of work and less often in the college environment. This study focused on broadening the understanding of person-environment fit in an academic setting and its relationship to academic major satisfaction and academic success. Holland’s theory suggests that individuals who work in environments that align with their personalities are more satisfied and successful than individuals who work in environments that are different from their personalities (Holland, 1997). Holland stated 5 that his research on person-environment fit also applies to higher education settings (Holland, 1997). However, there are differences between the factors that shape work environments and higher education environments. For instance, a typical work environment may be shaped by superiors, co-workers, and the nature of the work itself. However, higher education environments may be shaped by academic departments and faculty. Smart, Feldman, and Ethington (2000) noted that faculty in different academic departments create different academic environments based on their teaching approaches and academic preferences. For example, Smart and McLaughlin (1974) found that departments categorized as Holland’s Investigative and Realistic types were more focused on research and graduate education while Social, Artistic, and Conventional departments were more focused on “the provision of a congenial work environment for faculty” (Smart et al., 2000, p. 83). While the factors that shape typical work environments are determined by the job itself, factors that shape higher education environments may be determined by academic major. Fit between one’s personality and environment may have benefits such as increased performance, satisfaction, and commitment to an organization, as well as reduction in intention to quit (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Holland, 1997; Supeli & Creed, 2014; Tracey, Allen, & Robbins, 2012). Specifically in the college environment, fit between personality and major is related to higher GPAs and persistence in major and career field (Tracey et al., 2012). Satisfaction and persistence in one’s major are important outcomes of person-environment fit as they lead to commitment to college and timely degree attainment (Allen & Robbins, 2008; Tinto, 1993). In line with these outcomes, the goal of academic advisors is often to aid students in finding a major that