735358

research-article2017
JOAXXX10.1177/1932202X17735358Journal of Advanced AcademicsPlominski and Burns

Article
Journal of Advanced Academics
1­–24
An Investigation of Student © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Psychological Wellbeing: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1932202X17735358
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17735358
Honors Versus Nonhonors journals.sagepub.com/home/joaa

Undergraduate Education

Abigail P. Plominski1 and Lawrence R. Burns1

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe the current state of psychological wellbeing in
gifted and nongifted undergraduate student sample populations and identify undergraduate
populations experiencing heightened levels of distress within a large Midwestern public
university. Study participants included 641 honors and 386 nonhonors undergraduate
students. Each participant completed an electronic survey including a series of 10
measures of psychological adjustment to assess student psychological wellbeing.
Significant differences between honors and nonhonors student sample populations were
identified. Findings also suggest sophomore students share unique characteristics that
may be responsible for lower levels of psychological wellbeing. Potential services that
may improve the university undergraduate experience are discussed.

Keywords
psychological wellbeing, undergraduate education, gifted education, honors program,
sophomore slump

Introduction
Framework
More than 10 years ago, Rinn (2005) published a highly regarded piece examining
the relationship between academic achievement and subjective wellbeing in under-
graduate students enrolled in a university honors program. Analyzing nearly 300 self-
report questionnaires revealed significant differences between junior and senior

1Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA

Corresponding Author:
Lawrence R. Burns, Professor, Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, 1 Campus
Drive, Allendale, MI 49401, USA.
Email: burnsl@gvsu.edu
2 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

class-standing students in regard to academic self-perception, and educational and

career aspirations. However, Rinn (2005) found no significant differences between
students of freshman and sophomore class standing.
Although Rinn’s (2005) work continues to represent one of the few leading studies
to analyze the wellbeing of university honors students, her research methodology
lacked a nonhonors student sample to serve as a comparison group. Without a nonhon-
ors comparison sample, particularly one of sufficient size to permit comparisons
between students of differing class standings, any conclusions formed related to poten-
tial associations between academic giftedness and psychological wellbeing must be
interpreted with a certain degree of caution. Additionally, consistent increases in col-
legiate student mental health concerns have been observed since the 2005 publication
of Rinn’s work, warranting updated research in the field of gifted education (Center
for Collegiate Mental Health, 2015; Ibrahim, Kelly, Adams, & Glazebrook, 2013).
The present study attempts to update and supplement Rinn’s (2005) piece in light
of rising national college mental health concerns within the United States (Center for
Collegiate Mental Health, 2015). This descriptive work provides insight into the cur-
rent mental health of gifted students at the undergraduate level. Additionally, this
study attempts to investigate whether differences between honors and nonhonors
undergraduate education programs confer differential student psychological outcomes.
Astonishingly little research examining giftedness at the postsecondary level currently
exists, leading to a lack of consensus for identifying gifted undergraduates. As a result,
researchers in the field of gifted education most often rely on honors college member-
ship as a gauge for collegiate giftedness. Therefore, within the context of this study,
giftedness will be defined as membership within a university honors college (Kerr,
2009; Neumeister, 2004; Rinn, 2005; Rinn & Plucker, 2004). This work offers a non-
honors student comparison sample and a larger sample population, and analyzes more
features of student wellbeing than originally provided by Rinn (2005), effectively
making this updated work a more comprehensive examination of the topic.

Background
Assessing giftedness in a given population of any age can prove exceptionally diffi-
cult. Numerous models of giftedness currently exist, complicating our identification of
such individuals. Generally, a gifted individual may be identified according to his or
her heightened ability to perform intellectually, motivationally, and/or creatively
(Renzulli, 2011). However, giftedness is largely determined within the context of the
local setting. A student perceived as exceptional at one institution of higher learning
could be considered simply average at another (Robinson, 1997).
Undergraduate institutions typically rely upon standardized test scores (such as the
SAT or ACT), high school grade point averages, writing samples, and records of lead-
ership and extracurricular activities to determine a student’s potential for achievement.
Within the context of the university, gifted students are described as individuals report-
ing high levels of success in each of these domains, noting that the level of achieve-
ment used to determine giftedness would vary depending on the local circumstances
of each undergraduate institution (P. F. Haas, 1992; Robinson, 1997).
Plominski and Burns 3

Research has shown that gifted students may possess unique psychosocial and per-
sonality characteristics that separate them from the rest of the undergraduate popula-
tion. Gifted college students are often able to quickly learn new information,
comprehend complex and abstract ideas, identify complicated patterns, and make mul-
tidisciplinary connections (Johnsen, 2004; Rinn & Bishop, 2015; Robinson, 1997;
Roeper, 1991). Gifted students report higher levels of persistence and a greater need
for achievement, and place a higher value on studying than their nongifted peers
(Hébert & McBee, 2007).
However, giftedness may not be entirely positive. Although all students face new
challenges when beginning their college education, gifted students may experience the
onset of a unique set of problems. According to Rinn and Plucker (2004),

. . . many academically talented students are comfortable with, and perhaps dependent
upon, the strategies and support networks that have allowed them to achieve pre-
collegiate educational success. Removing these supports and encountering increased
competition may lead to unique problems that the majority of undergraduates never
encounter (p. 62).

Current research has associated giftedness in undergraduate students with perfection-

ism, feelings of isolation, fear of failure, a heightened need for approval, and a prefer-
ence for solitude, supporting Rinn and Plucker’s (2004) assertion (Neumeister, 2004;
Rinn & Bishop, 2015; Roeper, 1991).
In an effort to better serve the unique needs of gifted undergraduate populations,
some institutions offer honors colleges. As many gifted students attending public
institutions choose to participate in these honors programs, giftedness at the under-
graduate level is most often synonymous with honors college membership (Kerr,
2009; Neumeister, 2004; Rinn, 2005; Rinn & Plucker, 2004). Initially, honors col-
leges were designed to challenge academically talented students attending less repu-
table public institutions, as well as provide them with more personalized instruction
(Hébert & McBee, 2007; Rinn, 2006). Small class sizes, close student–faculty inter-
action, interdisciplinary course content, seminar-style teaching methods, and the
implementation of challenging educational platforms (such as the accelerator model)
attract high-achieving students and faculty to universities offering honors programs,
thereby bolstering an institution’s reputation (Brimeyer, Schueths, & Smith, 2014;
Fischer, 1996; Morgan & Apple, 2007; Rinn, 2004; Rinn & Plucker, 2004; Robinson,
1997). Some institutions also offer living-learning communities for their honors stu-
dents, providing students with an academically focused and socially cooperative
living environment (Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, & Johnson, 2006; Inkelas &
Weisman, 2003).
Although a substantial body of literature exists examining the psychosocial and
personality characteristics of the gifted (Hébert & McBee, 2007; Johnsen, 2004;
Rinn & Bishop, 2015; Robinson, 1997; Roeper, 1991), far less exists assessing the
subjective wellbeing of gifted undergraduates specifically (Rinn, 2005). The con-
cept of wellbeing incorporates a complex array of features from within the human
experience to describe positive functioning. For decades, numerous indicators of
4 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

wellbeing such as life satisfaction and locus of control have been used to assess
human happiness (Bradburn, 1969; Ryff, 1989). As a functional definition, wellbe-
ing “is most often interpreted to mean experiencing a high level of positive affect, a
low level of negative affect, and a high degree of satisfaction with one’ s life,” (Deci
& Ryan, 2008).
When using classical models of wellbeing to assess happiness in gifted popula-
tions, contradictory data complicate our understanding of these groups. Commonly,
our society views gifted youth as having heightened degrees of interpersonal sensitiv-
ity, greater levels of social isolation, and increased levels of stress when compared
with their average-ability peers (Neihart, 1999). The notion that giftedness is associ-
ated with lower levels of psychological wellbeing is reinforced by classic examples of
famously talented artists and writers who either committed suicide or partook in self-
injurious behaviors (Cassady & Cross, 2006). Various contemporary investigations of
gifted students have further supported this belief. A recent study of 670 secondary
students attending either gifted or nongifted high schools revealed lower reported lev-
els of life satisfaction in the gifted population than in the nongifted population
(Fouladchang, Kohgard, & Salah, 2010).
Alternately, another body of literature exists indicating that giftedness may be
associated with higher levels of psychological wellbeing. In a study examining self-
concept in secondary students identified as “intellectually gifted,” children displayed
high degrees of self-concept and a positive life outlook (Riaz & Shahzad, 2010). In a
recent piece investigating personal wellbeing in gifted students admitted to an early
college-entrance program, researchers found a healthier overall degree of wellbeing
in the gifted population than found in nongifted peers of the same age (Boazman &
Sayler, 2011).
Although the empirical body of knowledge dedicated to giftedness is slowly
growing, many studies have only examined giftedness in elementary and secondary
school populations (Eklund, Tanner, Stoll, & Anway, 2015; Zeidner & Shani-
Zinovich, 2011). Currently, a distinct paucity of research investigating the relation-
ship between giftedness and psychological wellbeing at the undergraduate level
exists. Studies that do attempt to analyze this relationship fail to offer a nonhonors
comparison group to serve as an adequate control (Boazman, Sayler, & Easton-
Brooks, 2012; Rice, Leever, Christopher, & Porter, 2006; Rinn, 2005). Additionally,
the literature indicates that students move through unique developmental stages dur-
ing the undergraduate experience, requiring that a study be conducted with a suffi-
ciently large sample such that psychological comparisons between students of
differing class standings may be completed (Broido & Schreiber, 2016; Dearnley &
Matthew, 2007; Perry, 1970; Rinn, 2005).
The current study aims to (a) describe the current state of psychological wellbe-
ing in gifted (honors) and nongifted (nonhonors) undergraduate student sample
populations within a large Midwestern university and (b) identify potential differ-
ences by class standing associated with heightened levels of distress, which may be
used to determine potential services that may improve the university undergraduate
experience.
Plominski and Burns 5

Method
Participant Demographics
Study participants included 641 undergraduate students currently enrolled in a univer-
sity honors program within a large Midwestern public university, as well as 386 under-
graduate nonhonors students enrolled in the same institution. To be admitted to the
university honors college, students are required to submit an application detailing their
relevant qualifications. A high school GPA of 3.5 or higher and an ACT score of 28 or
greater are necessary for honors college admittance, though other factors including
writing sample quality and previous honors and leadership activities are considered
when determining an individual’s honors college admission status.
Among honors participants in the current study, 23.5% (n = 152) were male, 75%
(n = 479) were female, and 1.5% (n = 10) identified as “other.” Honors participants in
the current study reported a mean undergraduate GPA of 3.62, with female respon-
dents reporting a slightly higher GPA (3.69) than male respondents (3.53). The mean
age of honors respondents was 20.7 years. A total of 13.6% (n = 87) of honors respon-
dents indicated that they held a freshman class standing, 25.9% (n = 166) held a sopho-
more class standing, 26.5% (n = 170) held a junior class standing, and 34.0% (n = 218)
reported a senior class standing.
Among nonhonors participants, 31% (n = 118) were male, 68% (n = 263) were
female, and 1% (n = 5) identified as “other.” Nonhonors participants in the current
study reported a mean undergraduate GPA of 3.2. The mean age of nonhonors students
was 21.3 years. In all, 18.4% (n = 71) of nonhonors respondents indicated that they
held a freshman class standing, 15.0% (n = 58) held a sophomore class standing,
30.8% (n = 119) held a junior class standing, and 35.8% (n = 138) reported a senior
class standing.

Materials
Each participant in this study completed a demographic survey identifying gender,
age, undergraduate GPA, academic class standing, and employment status. Survey
respondents completed a series of single-item questions assessing procrastination hab-
its and sleep quality. Additionally, participants completed a battery of measures of
psychological adjustment to assess student psychological wellbeing. These measures
included the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the 11-item Center for Epidemiologic
Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the six-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI),
the Personal Feelings Questionnaire (PFQ), the Positive and Negative Perfectionism
scale (PNP), the Preparation-Prevention Control subscale of the Desirability of Control
(DC) scale, the Academic Efficacy subscale of the Patterns of Adaptive Learning
Scales (PALS), and the General Life and Self subscales of the Extended Satisfaction
With Life Scale (ESWLS).
Each of the scales selected for use in this study are widely used, widely recognized,
and well established in higher education. A total of 10 indices were selected to most
effectively replicate and preserve the integrity of Rinn’s (2005) original work while
6 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

also acknowledging modern national mental health trends (Center for Collegiate
Mental Health, 2015). Additionally, the authors sought to design the most efficient
survey possible, seeking to optimize the participation rate and to avoid student fatigue
(Marteau & Bekker, 1992).
In designing the current study, three measures were selected that could be com-
bined together to justify a single score representative of dysthymic affect. Dysthymic
affect is a low-grade chronic mood disturbance in which sufferers experience periods
of emotional distress followed by short-lived bouts of normal mood (Dysthymia,
2013; Sansone & Sansone, 2009). Frequently, dysthymic affect is characterized by
feelings of anxiety, stress, and depression (Ravindran, Griffiths, Merali, & Anisman,
1996; Slavin-Mulford, Clements, Hilsenroth, Charnas, & Zodan, 2016). Based on
recent work explicating a general factor linking depression, anxiety, and stress (Henry
& Crawford, 2005; Moore, Dowdy, & Furlong, 2016; see also Gross & Jazaieri, 2014),
the STAI, PSS, and CES-D standard scales were combined to provide a dysthymic
affect measure.

Measures
PSS.  The PSS is a 10-item measure designed to assess the degree to which an indi-
vidual perceives situations in his or her life as stressful. Respondents use a 4-point
scale ranging from “almost never” to “very often” to report the frequency of a given
set of feelings that one might have experienced within the last month. Sample items
include “In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the
important things in your life?” and “In the last month, how often have you found that
you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?” Cronbach’s alpha ranges
from .84 to .86 for the three samples examined. The PSS showed a test-retest correla-
tion of .85 (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). A number of recent studies have
indicated that the PSS is highly effective in determining the perceived stress levels of
respondents in undergraduate populations (Nikčević, Caselli, Green, & Spada, 2014;
Pettit & DeBarr, 2011; Roberti, Harrington, & Storch, 2006; K. J. Smith, Rosenberg,
& Timothy Haight, 2014).

CES-D.  The original CES-D is a 20-item measure developed for National Institute of
Mental Health studies (Radloff, 1977). It is widely regarded as one of the most effec-
tive instruments in screening for symptoms of depressed mood in a number of diverse
study populations (Andresen, Malmgren, Carter, & Patrick, 1994). The 11-item ver-
sion of the CES-D used in the current study was developed using factor analytics
presented by Radloff (1977). A validation study conducted by Kohout, Berkman,
Evans, and Cornoni-Huntley (1993) indicates that the shorter 11-item CES-D pro-
duces results consistent with those observed using the original 20-item scale, with
little loss of accuracy (Kohout et al., 1993). The 11 items included in the CES-D 11
are a subset of the original 20-item measure. Respondents indicate the extent to which
they may have felt or behaved in the past week using a 3-point scale ranging from
“hardly ever or never” to “much or most of the time.” Sample items include “I felt
Plominski and Burns 7

everything I did was an effort” and “My sleep was restless” (Kohout et al., 1993;
Radloff, 1977). The CES-D 11 has demonstrated high internal consistency, with a
Cronbach’s alpha of .81 (Kohout et al., 1993). Test-retest reliability estimates in the
original sample ranged from 0.45 to 0.70, but this is expected, as the CES-D was
designed to measure current affective symptoms, which are predicted to fluctuate
over the course of time (Radloff, 1977). The CES-D was selected for use in this study
as it has proven useful in clinical and empirical examinations of depressed mood in
university undergraduate populations (Brinkmann, Schüpbach, Joye, & Gendolla,
2009; Gress-Smith, Roubinov, Andreotti, Compas, & Luecken, 2015; Kohout et al.,
1993; Liao & Wei, 2015).

STAI.  The six-item version of the Spielberger STAI employed in the current study is an
instrument commonly used to identify and quantify anxiety. Its frequent use by psy-
chological researchers provides a firm literature base from which sound comparisons
can be developed. Respondents use a 4-point scale ranging from “not at all” to “very
much” to indicate the extent to which they are experiencing a given set of feelings in
the present moment. Sample items include “I feel tense” and “I am worried.” Cron-
bach’s alpha for the six-item STAI is .82, indicating acceptable internal consistency
(Marteau & Bekker, 1992). Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .65 to .75 in
the original sample; however, test-retest reliability is predicted to be low for state anxi-
ety, as it expected to vary over time (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs,
1983). The STAI was selected for use in this study as several recent studies have illus-
trated its success in detecting anxious mood in university undergraduates (Huang,
Yang, Miao, Lu, & Zhu, 2012; Perea, Paternina, Gomez, & Lattig, 2012; Tluczek,
Henriques, & Brown, 2009).

PFQ.  The revised PFQ (PFQ-2) was developed by D. H. Harder and Zalma (1990) to
more accurately measure feelings of shame and guilt. Shame, in particular, has regu-
larly been linked to depressed mood and complications regarding emotional regula-
tion, making the 10-item Shame subscale of the PFQ-2 a measure of key interest in this
investigation. Questionnaire participants use a 5-point scale ranging from “you never
experience the feeling” to “you experience the feeling continuously or almost continu-
ously” to indicate the extent to which he or she experiences a given feeling. Sample
items include “Feeling humiliated” and “Feeling disgusting to others.” The Shame
subscale of the PFQ-2 demonstrates acceptable internal consistency with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .78 and high test-retest stability with a coefficient of .91 (D. H. Harder &
Zalma, 1990). The PFQ-2 has proven to be highly effective in examining feelings of
shame in undergraduate populations (Ferguson & Crowley, 1997; D. W. Harder, Cut-
ler, & Rockart, 1992; Watson, Hickman, & Morris, 1996).

PNP.  The PNP (Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995) consists of two subscales—
a Positive Perfectionism (PP) subscale and a Negative Perfectionism (NP) subscale.
These scales probe functional differences among perfectionists. These functional differ-
ences reflect distinctions between positive and negative reinforcement (Skinner, 1969).
8 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

We used a short form of the PNP consisting of 20 Likert scale items; possible responses
range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Scores were obtained by summing
the coded set of 10 items that represented PP and a set of 10 items that represented NP.
Sample items include “I gain deep satisfaction when I have perfected something,” Pro-
ducing a perfect performance is a reward in its own right,” I set impossibly high stan-
dards for myself,” and “Other people expect nothing less than perfection from me.” On
a separate sample (n = 118), test-retest values at 10 weeks were .77 and .82 respectively
for the PP and NP subscales. Cronbach’s alphas obtained in the norm sample were .87
and .89 for the PP and the NP subscales respectively (Terry-Short et al., 1995), and in the
current study were .77 and .89 in the honors sample. In the nonhonors sample, the Cron-
bach’s alphas were .81 and .89 for the PP and the NP subscales, respectively.

DC Scale.  The DC scale constructed by Burger and Cooper (1979) was designed to
quantify an individual’s motivation for control over life circumstances. The DC
scale is composed of five subscales assessing a broad range of control factors,
including a General Desire for Control, Decisiveness, Avoidance of Dependence,
Leadership, and Preparation-Prevention Control. The five-item Preparation-Pre-
vention Control subscale used in this study is a measure of anticipatory-style reac-
tivity as opposed to its mirror image of delay or procrastination tendencies. This
subscale asks respondents to indicate the extent to which a given set of statements
applies to them. Sample items include “I like to get a good idea of what a job is all
about before I begin” and “When I see a problem I prefer to do something about it
rather than sit by and let it continue.” When initially developed, Kuder-Richardson
coefficient estimates for the DC scale ranged from .80 to .81, indicating acceptable
internal consistency. The DC scale showed a test-retest coefficient of .75 (Burger &
Cooper, 1979). The DC scale was originally developed using data obtained from
university undergraduates, and continues to prove useful in psychological examina-
tions of college students (Amoura, Berjot, Gillet, & Altintas, 2014; Burger, 1986;
Burger & Cooper, 1979).

PALS. The PALS are a collection of individual subscales measuring student aca-

demic strategies, goals, perceptions, and beliefs. The PALS were developed using
goal orientation theory to assess the relationship between a student’s learning envi-
ronment and his or her academic motivations and behaviors. Due to the rigorous
academic nature of a university honors college, we believed that assessing students’
perceptions of their own academic efficiency would prove beneficial. Thus, we
selected the Academic Efficacy scale of the PALS for use in the current study. The
five-item Academic Efficacy subscale asks respondents to indicate how true a given
set of statements is to them personally. Sample items include “I’m certain I can mas-
ter the skills taught in my classes this year” and “Even if the work is hard, I can learn
it.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the Academic Efficacy scale of the PALS was .78
(Midgley et al., 1997). Numerous studies have indicated that the PALS are effective
in measuring personal perceptions of academic competency in undergraduate popu-
lations (Bembenutty, 1999; Linnenbrink, Ryan, & Pintrich, 1999; M. Smith, Duda,
Allen, & Hall, 2002).
Plominski and Burns 9

ESWLS.  The ESWLS measures one’s life satisfaction within nine domains as appraised
by the individual himself or herself. These nine domains include general life, self, marital,
family, job, sex, physical appearance, school, and social satisfaction. The ESWLS partici-
pants provide data that allow clinicians and nonclinicians alike to determine the subjec-
tive wellbeing of individual scale respondents. The General Life and Self-Satisfaction
subscales were selected for use in this study as broad measures indicative of personal
wellbeing. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a
given set of statements using a 5- and 7-point Likert scale for the General Life Satisfac-
tion and Self-Satisfaction subscales, respectively. Sample items include “The conditions
of my life are excellent,” for the General Life subscale and “I am satisfied with my person
or self as an individual,” for the Self-Satisfaction subscale. Cronbach’s alphas for the
General Life and Self-Satisfaction subscales were .89 and .87, respectively. The General
Life and Self-Satisfaction subscales both showed test-retest correlations of .83 (Alfonso,
Allison, Rader, & Gorman, 1996). A number of recent studies have indicated that the
ESWLS is an effective tool for measuring life satisfaction in university undergraduates
(Gnilka, Ashby, & Noble, 2013; Kong, Ding, & Zhao, 2015; Kustanowitz, 2000).

Procedure
The assessments were electronically distributed to all honors college enrollees through
the office of the honors college Director (n = 1,539) during the winter 2016 semester.
During the same semester 2,000 nonhonors students were randomly selected by the
university Office of Institutional Analysis to participate in the current study.
Assessments were also electronically distributed to all nonhonors students. Scale pre-
sentation was randomized and all assessments were completed using SurveyMonkey®
technology. No personally identifiable information was collected from the study par-
ticipants. As an incentive to participate in the study, all respondents in each of the
samples were offered the chance to anonymously submit their email following com-
pletion of the assessment as entry into a $100 gift card raffle.
Data collected from 641 honors and 386 nonhonors students were included in the
final study group, although approximately 150 additional assessments were collected.
Participants were excluded from this study for a multitude of reasons: (a) duplicate
submissions were excluded; (b) assessment submissions containing incomplete data
(less than 25% complete) were excluded; (c) nontraditional-aged students (age 27 or
above) were excluded, as research indicates that the life circumstances of traditional
and nontraditional students are too different to examine them as a single group
(Newbold, Mehta, & Forbus, 2010).
The Human Research Review Committee of the participating institution approved
this study.

Results
SAS/STAT® version 9.4 software (copyright © 2016 SAS Institute Inc.) was used to
compute the mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach’s alpha for each psychological mea-
sure in both the honors and nonhonors student samples. These may be found in Table 1.
10
Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients Between 10 Selected Psychological Measures.
Measure Cronbach’s α M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M (SD) Cronbach’s α Measure

  1.  Satisfaction With Life 0.89 19.34 (4.36) 1 .68** .27** .39** .32** −.37** −.61** −.53** −.59** −.48** 17.29 (4.93) 0.91 1
  2.  Satisfaction With Self 0.85 20.21 (3.95) .59** 1 .30** .37** .34** −.39** −.58** −.45** −.53** −.45** 18.79 (5.00) 0.91 2
  3.  Desirability of Control 0.63 27.14 (4.12) .19** .20** 1 .14** .36** −.10 −.23** −.18** −.21** −.20** 26.50 (4.81) 0.73 3
  4. Patterns of Adaptive 0.87 21.06 (2.73) .27** .22** .23** 1 .31** −.24** −.29** −.24** −.35** −.26** 19.48 (3.35) 0.88 4
Learning Scale
  5.  Positive Perfectionism 0.77 39.48 (4.82) .21** .25** .26** .23** 1 .06 −.21** −.21** −.21** −.16** 38.62 (5.34) 0.81 5
  6.  Negative Perfectionism 0.89 31.60 (8.30) −.49** −.39** −.10* −.26** .07 1 .53** .49** .65** .56** 33.17 (8.47) 0.89 6
  7. Center for 0.84 6.23 (4.29) −.63** −.51** −.15** −.22** −.14** .58** 1 .56** .72** .60** 7.34 (4.78) 0.85 7
Epidemiological Studies
Depression Scale
  8. State-Trait Anxiety 0.84 12.17 (3.77) −.52** −.42** −.14** −.28** −.13** .54** .62** 1 .63** .46** 13.44 (4.25) 0.86 8
Inventory
  9.  Perceived Stress Scale 0.86 22.73 (5.65) −.61** −.45** −.17** −.35** −.12* .63** .69** .63** 1 .63** 25.15 (5.86) 0.87 9
10. Personal Feelings 0.88 23.12 (6.72) −.48** −.45** −.20** −.27** −.10* .64** .62** .47** .60** 1 24.44 (6.73) 0.86 10
Questionnaire

Note. Unshaded values represent the honors student sample (n = 641). Shaded values represent the nonhonors student sample (n = 386).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Plominski and Burns 11

Table 2.  Mean Values of Dysthymic Affect by Sample and Year.

Student year

Population Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Honors 42.16a 42.59a 42.06a 38.83b
Nonhonors 48.18a 49.70a 46.31a 45.37a

Note. Means not sharing the same superscript within a given sample differ significantly (p < .05).

Within each of the five positive measures of wellbeing [ESWLS, SWS (Satisfaction
with Self), DC, PALS, PP], honors students displayed greater mean values than those
presented by nonhonors students. Within each of the five negative indices of wellbeing
(NP, CES-D, STAI, PSS, PFQ-2), nonhonors students displayed greater mean values
than those exhibited by honors students.
Significance of differences within each sample by class standing (freshman, sopho-
more, junior, and senior) and corresponding mean levels of dysthymia were tested for
using PROC GLM with the SAS 9.4 program for Windows (2016, SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, NC, USA). Based on our a priori assumptions and the limited number of orthog-
onal contrasts (only four means per sample), we selected the Tukey-Kramer Studentized
Range (HSD) Test because it adjusts for differing sample sizes and corrects for mul-
tiple pairwise comparisons while maintaining the family-wise type 1 error rate with
more power than the broader Scheffé or Bonferroni type tests (Westfall, Tobias, &
Wolfinger, 2011).
Mean values and differences in dysthymic affect by class standing are shown in
Table 2.
Honors students in their senior year exhibited significantly lower levels of dysthy-
mic affect than honors freshman, sophomores, and juniors. Nonhonors students did
not exhibit any significant differences in dysthymic affect by class standing. The high-
est level of dysthymic affect was reported in the sophomore samples of both honors
and nonhonors populations.
Significance of differences in dysthymia affect between the two samples were
determined using independent samples t tests. All analyses were completed using
PROC TTEST with the SAS 9.4 program for Windows (2016, SAS Institute Inc., Cary,
NC, USA). The Benjamini-Hochberg (B-H) procedure was used to control the false
discovery rate (Thissen, Steinberg, & Kuang, 2002). All between-sample, by class
standing, comparisons were significant, as shown in Table 2. Freshman, sophomore,
junior, and senior honors students displayed significantly lower levels of dysthymic
affect than nonhonors students in each corresponding class.
To compare psychological wellbeing between honors and nonhonors samples
within each of the four class-years included, mean values of the 10 measures used in
this study were compared using an independent-samples t test. The B-H procedure was
used to control the false discovery rate (Thissen et al., 2002). Table 3 describes these
comparisons.
12
Table 3.  Descriptive Statistics of 10 Selected Measures of Psychological Wellbeing in Honors and Nonhonors Undergraduates in four
Separate Student Years.
Student year

B-H critical B-H critical

  M (SD) 95% CI Cohen’s d p value value M (SD) 95% CI Cohen’s d p value value

  Freshman Sophomore

Satisfaction With Life 19.16 (4.49) 17.07 (4.88) [18.35, 20.24] [15.84, 18.22] 0.45 .0062 0.0050 19.04 (4.50) 15.74 (5.80) [18.35, 19.76] [14.36, 17.49] 0.64 .0002a 0.0050
Satisfaction With Self 19.70 (4.16) 18.34 (5.11) [19.11,20.77] [17.44, 19.80] 0.29 .0682 0.0150 19.83 (4.24) 17.68 (5.55) [19.18, 20.50] [16.18, 19.20] 0.44 .0098a 0.0125
Desirability of Control 27.25 (4.22) 26.25 (5.61) [26.45, 28.26] [24.03, 27.66] 0.20 .2028 0.0200 26.56 (4.46) 25.20 (5.57) [25.86, 27.26] [23.63, 26.66] 0.27 0.1020 0.0200
Patterns of Adaptive Learning 20.41 (2.56) 19.03 (3.98) [19.87, 20.98] [18.04, 19.98] 0.41 .0135 0.0075 20.85 (2.79) 19.05 (3.84) [20.43, 21.30] [18.25, 20.26] 0.54 .0018a 0.0075
Scale
Positive Perfectionism 40.11 (4.66) 39.55 (5.47) [39.10, 41.11] [38.21, 40.88] 0.11 .4976 0.0225 39.22 (5.00) 37.32 (5.85) [38.39, 39.96] [35.68, 38.90] 0.35 .0188 0.0150
Negative Perfectionism 33.52 (7.89) 33.55 (9.14) [31.82, 35.22] [31.34, 35.80] 0.00 .9808 0.0250 32.29 (8.10) 33.11 (8.33) [31.07, 33.61] [30.64, 35.18] 0.10 .5161 0.0250
Center for Epidemiological 6.05 (4.47) 8.72 (5.09) [5.08, 7.01] [7.47, 9.96] 0.56 .0007a 0.0025 6.67 (4.28) 10.11 (4.79) [5.96, 7.30] [8.66, 11.23] 0.76 .0001a 0.0025
Studies Depression Scale
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 12.60 (3.73) 13.96 (4.38) [11.80, 13.40] [12.92, 15.05] 0.33 .0396 0.0100 12.57 (3.69) 14.07 (4.83) [11.99, 13.15] [12.71, 15.23] 0.35 .0358 0.0175
Perceived Stress Scale 23.51 (6.19) 25.47 (6.01) [22.17, 24.86] [24.02, 26.92] 0.32 .0501 0.0125 23.42 (5.60) 25.80 (6.06) [22.52, 24.27] [24.10, 27.40] 0.41 .0077a 0.0100
Personal Feelings 23.54 (7.00) 25.43 (7.15) [21.86, 24.87] [23.61, 27.01] 0.27 .0980 0.0175 23.35 (6.35) 25.02 (7.62) [22.29, 24.29] [22.95, 27.11] 0.24 .1084 0.0225
Questionnaire

  Junior Senior

Satisfaction With Life 19.02 (4.46) 17.32 (4.63) [18.32, 19.68] [16.63, 18.32] 0.37 .0022a 0.0050 19.91 (4.10) 18.07 (4.68) [19.36, 20.46] [17.25, 18.91] 0.42 .0002a 0.0100
Satisfaction With Self 19.91 (4.35) 19.07 (4.74) [19.27, 20.58] [18.40, 20.17] 0.18 .1320 0.0175 20.94 (3.15) 19.27 (4.87) [20.52, 21.37] [18.57, 20.23] 0.41 .0005a 0.0125
Desirability of Control 27.11 (3.72) 26.79 (4.45) [26.60, 27.73] [26.03, 27.72] 0.08 .5071 0.0225 27.54 (4.10) 26.95 (4.23) [26.97, 28.07] [26.23, 27.72] 0.14 .6799 0.0250
Patterns of Adaptive Learning 20.85 (2.73) 19.54 (2.95) [20.43, 21.27] [18.98, 20.10] 0.46 .0002a 0.0025 21.64 (2.65) 19.85 (3.05) [21.29, 22.00 [19.34, 20.41] 0.63 .0001a 0.0075
Scale
Positive Perfectionism 39.08 (4.82) 38.87 (5.11) [38.34, 39.83] [37.91, 39.85] 0.04 .7274 0.0250 39.74 (4.74) 38.50 (5.17) [39.09, 40.37] [37.63, 39.45] 0.25 .0234 0.0200
Negative Perfectionism 32.15 (8.86) 34.01 (8.03) [30.79, 33.51] [32.28, 35.30] 0.22 .0783 0.0150 29.93 (7.92) 32.28 (8.54) [28.97, 31.09, [30.79, 33.81] 0.29 .0099a 0.0175
Center for Epidemioligical 6.65 (4.61) 8.05 (4.59) [5.97, 7.39] [7.21, 8.95] 0.30 .0129 0.0100 5.65 (3.92) 7.57 (4.60) [5.14, 6.19] [6.74, 8.37] 0.45 .0001a 0.0050
Studies Depression Scale
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 12.20 (3.99) 13.19 (3.88) [11.54, 12.76] [12.45, 13.89] 0.25 .0402 0.0125 11.67 (3.64) 13.12 (4.21) [11.17, 12.15] [12.40, 13.87] 0.37 .0008a 0.0150
Perceived Stress Scale 23.23 (5.98) 25.18 (5.47) [22.31, 24.15] [24.15, 26.27] 0.34 .0061a 0.0075 21.51 (4.99) 24.68 (6.04) [20.83, 22.17] [23.63, 25.77] 0.57 .0001a 0.0025
Personal Feelings 23.99 (7.48) 24.81 (6.85) [22.88, 25.17] [23.54, 26.08] 0.11 .3576 0.0200 22.09 (6.14) 23.34 (5.87) [21.26, 22.91 [22.31, 24.40] 0.21 .0618 0.0225
Questionnaire

Note. Unshaded values represent the honors student sample (n = 641). Shaded values represent the nonhonors student sample (n = 386). CI = confidence interval.
aDesignate comparisons for which difference is confidently interpreted at α/2 level.
Plominski and Burns 13

Freshman honors and nonhonors students indicated significant differences in only

one of the indices analyzed, with nonhonors students indicating significantly higher
levels of depressed affect than honors students. Sophomore nonhonors students
reported significantly lower levels of general life satisfaction, satisfaction with self,
and academic self-efficacy than their honors peers. Sophomore nonhonors students
also reported significantly higher levels of depressive symptomology and perceived
stress than sophomore honors students.
Junior honors and nonhonors students reported significant differences in three of
the measures analyzed. Honors juniors reported significantly higher levels of life sat-
isfaction and academic self-efficacy than their nonhonors peers. Junior nonhonors stu-
dents reported significantly higher levels of perceived stress than honors students of
the same class standing.
Senior honors and nonhonors students reported significant differences in seven of
the 10 indices examined. Senior honors students reported significantly lower levels of
negative perfectionism, depressed affect, anxiety, and perceived stress. Honors seniors
also reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with life, satisfaction with self,
and academic self-efficacy.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to (a) describe the current state of psychological wellbe-
ing in gifted and nongifted undergraduate student sample populations within a large
Midwestern university, and (b) identify potential differences by class standing associ-
ated with heightened levels of distress, which may be used to determine potential
services that may improve the university undergraduate experience. Consideration of
the data presented in this work reveals a number of notable findings.
Overall, honors students reported healthier levels of positive wellbeing on most
scales across classes, and significantly lower levels of dysthymic affect than their
nonhonors peers. Why might this be so? Current research indicates that gifted stu-
dents enrolled in a university honors program demonstrate significantly higher aca-
demic achievement and report greater levels of academic self-concept than gifted
students who choose not to participate in an honors program. This suggests that the
academic and/or social environment of the honors program plays a key role in stu-
dent success (T. J. Haas, 2015; Rinn, 2007). An examination of the different educa-
tional and social environments experienced by honors and nonhonors participants
in this study reveals that, upon their acceptance to the program, honors students are,
effectively, offered the opportunity to participate in an honors living-learning com-
munity. These student-focused living environments are designed to facilitate stu-
dent interactions with faculty and peers, encourage interdisciplinary learning, and
provide a setting for organized educational activities (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003;
Wynn, Mosholder, & Larsen, 2014). Research suggests that living-learning com-
munities may help facilitate a student’s progression through the psychosocial
developmental stages associated with undergraduate education (Inkelas et al.,
2006). Participation in a living-learning community has also been associated with
14 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

greater gains in cognitive functioning and the development of higher-order thinking

than students living in traditional residence halls (Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling,
1999; Wynn et al., 2014).
Additionally, living-learning communities offer honors students an academically
and socially supportive atmosphere, thereby possibly providing students with a greater
sense of community and belonging among their equally high-ability peers (Spanierman
et al., 2013; Wawrzynski, Jessup-Anger, Stolz, Helman, & Beaulieu, 2009). Pemberton
(1969) suggested that the supportive nature of the living-learning environment may
help ease the transition from high school to college. This combination of academic,
intellectual, and social support provided by a living-learning community may account,
in part, for why honors students reported healthier levels of psychological wellbeing
than their nonhonors peers.
The basic design of honors education may also promote higher levels of psycho-
logical wellbeing in honors students. Membership in a university honors program fre-
quently provides students with increased opportunities for autonomy in terms of
selecting the direction of their education. Honors college membership may motivate
students to finish their degree early, earn multiple degrees, and explore a wider range
of classes than their nonhonors counterparts. Additionally, honors students are heavily
encouraged to take part in experiential learning through internships, study abroad,
leadership roles, and faculty-directed research (Achterberg, 2005; Clauss, 2011).
Encouraging students to take an active role in directing the course of their educa-
tion may provide honors undergraduates with a greater perceived locus of control
(Clauss, 2011). Studies indicate that a significant positive relationship between inter-
nal locus of control and psychological wellbeing exists, with individuals reporting a
greater sense of control also describing healthier levels of happiness (April, Dharani,
& Peters, 2012; Mobarakeh, Juhari, Yaacob, & Redzuan, 2015; Myers & Diener,
1995). Given these prior findings, the relationship between an honors education and
student locus of control may account, in part, for why the honors students in the cur-
rent study reported higher levels of psychological wellbeing than their nonhonors
peers (Clauss, 2011).
To further examine the observed differences between honors and nonhonors stu-
dents in the present study, particular aspects of the honors education, itself, were con-
sidered. The honors program curriculum of the participating institution is largely
predicated on the accelerator model. The use of this educational model may account
for some of the observed greater levels of positive wellbeing and lower levels of dys-
thymic affect in honors students. This is because a central tenet of the accelerator
model is to match and then slightly exceed a student’s cognitive and affective skill sets
based on carefully and deliberately titrating the degree of challenge within a course in
order to maximize a student’s cognitive growth. The degree of engagement within the
classroom is intended to circumvent boredom and disengagement, but not to signifi-
cantly exceed students’ cognitive abilities. Student cognitive growth is maximized
when the degree of challenge encourages some level of manageable student discom-
fort, but avoids producing chronic feelings of anxiety, frustration, failure, or anger,
which appears consistent with our descriptive findings (Morgan & Apple, 2007). As
Plominski and Burns 15

honors students often have greater cognitive skill sets than typical nonhonors under-
graduates, they may be better able to cope with the challenges associated with the rigor
of a college education (Achterberg, 2005; Barfels & Delucchi, 2003). It is feasible that
some of the students reporting significant levels of dysthymic affect are facing aca-
demic challenges that exceed their cognitive and affective skill sets. If this is true, it is
important for students to communicate their concerns to their professors. Maintaining
effective communication within the teacher–student relationship is essential in assur-
ing that the learner maximizes his or her academic and professional potential (Aultman,
Williams-Johnson, & Schutz, 2009).
The accelerator model closely resembles what many researchers agree to be the
best method of facilitating a student’s progression through each of Perry’s (1970)
widely known developmental stages. Perry’s (1970) full learning model is based on a
stage model of intellectual development and encompasses nine stages or positions.
Starting with basic duality (in which knowledge is basically right or wrong), it culmi-
nates with a sense of personal identity and commitment despite uncertainty or conflict-
ing sources (Burns, Stephenson, & Bellamy, 2016; Thomas, 2008). A precise balance
of academic challenge and support (such as that found in the accelerator model) can
aid a student’s movement through each of these stages (Brand, 1988; Canon & Newble,
2000; De L’Etoile, 2008; Nilson, 1998). We believe the honors college’s use of the
accelerator model contributes to the greater level of psychological wellbeing of honors
students by means of effectively supporting students through each of Perry’s develop-
mental stages during their undergraduate education.
Another key finding of this study was the considerably lower levels of psychologi-
cal wellbeing (as indicated by greater levels of dysthymic affect) observed in sopho-
more students in both honors and nonhonors populations alike. This well-characterized
decline in sophomore undergraduate populations is commonly referred to as the
“sophomore slump.” Often, the sophomore slump is regarded as a period in which
second-year students struggle to define themselves personally, academically, and pro-
fessionally (Gump, 2007; Tower, Blacklock, Watson, Heffernan, & Tronoff, 2015;
Wang & Kennedy-Phillips, 2013). As course content becomes more complex and aca-
demic expectations intensify, sophomore students may find their sense of academic
self-efficacy and personal competency threatened. Students may begin to seek a sense
of purpose and direction for their lives as they struggle to navigate their own education
(Gahagan & Hunter, 2008; Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008; Tower et al., 2015).
While most universities do provide programs designed to help students adjust to
increasing academic and professional demands, attention is often focused predomi-
nantly on incoming freshman as they transition into the undergraduate experience.
Junior and senior students are often provided ample services meant to assist with their
integration into their chosen career path. However, many universities provide the few-
est number of support services to students in their sophomore year of study (Sanchez-
Leguelinel, 2008; Schaller, 2005).
To better address the unique challenges sophomore undergraduates face, research
suggests a multitude of potential university interventions. Institutions should consider
offering programs specifically designed for sophomore students. Effective sophomore
16 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

programming initiatives should focus on the personal and professional obstacles sec-
ond-year undergraduates may experience (Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Hunter et al.,
2010; Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008; Schaller, 2005; Wang & Kennedy-Phillips, 2013).
Programs should assist sophomore students in identifying their individual academic
and professional passions, and providing opportunities for structured exploration
through service learning, study abroad, and internships. Trained advisors should sup-
port students through the process of self-reflection, so that students may better analyze
and sort through, and learn from, their past exploratory experiences (Graunke &
Woosley, 2005; Hunter et al., 2010; Schaller, 2005).
Sophomore students may also benefit from programs designed to increase opportuni-
ties for faculty interaction. Connecting students to faculty both within and outside of the
academic environment may provide sophomores with a greater sense of belonging
within the larger university community (Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Hunter et al., 2010).
Work at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found great success with a sopho-
more peer-counseling program (Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008). Sophomore students were
required to meet with an upperclassman advisor to discuss their academic and career
planning, encouraging students to become active participants in their own education.
Yet, this program also allowed sophomores to identify and address personal and social
concerns, providing them with easy access to university support resources and ser-
vices (Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008). A peer-counseling program such as this may be
particularly beneficial in institutions that lack the financial means to launch larger
scale sophomore programming.
Although some university administrators may be weary of certain suggestions pre-
sented in this article due to time and financial considerations, we propose that institu-
tions interested in developing additional undergraduate programs designed to meet
student psychosocial needs employ the use of a brief survey such as the one used in the
current study. Using our brief psychological survey could allow undergraduate institu-
tions to use a very cost effective and minimally invasive screening assessment that
might allow them to selectively approach individuals who may be at risk for a variety
of psychological concerns.1

Limitations
Although this study presents a number of statistically significant differences both
within and between honors and nonhonors student populations, based on our measures
it is difficult to determine whether these differences can, or even should, be interpreted
in a clinically meaningful manner. This study was designed to establish and assess
undergraduate wellbeing on a large scale. While this was successfully completed, deter-
minations of a diagnostic or clinical nature are beyond study parameters. However, our
findings suggest that future research directed toward qualitatively analyzing honors and
nonhonors student wellbeing with greater specificity may prove beneficial.
Participant self-selection calls for caution in interpreting the findings. The find-
ings presented in this work are only indicative of those who chose to participate. For
example, honors students reported slightly younger ages than nonhonors students.
Plominski and Burns 17

However, the honors and nonhonors samples had comparable responses rates across
each class. Additionally, similar patterns of change over time in reported levels of
psychological wellbeing and distress were observed in sophomore and senior stu-
dents, respectively. The sample similarities identified lend a degree of confidence in
the results of this work despite some of the inherent limitations imposed its reliance
on samples of convenience.
Self-selection resulted in a substantially greater number of female participants
included in this study. However, female students were responsible for the vast majority
of assessment responses in both honors and nonhonors sample populations, allowing
the samples to remain comparable. Additionally, the gendered response rate patterns of
this study are consistent with rates observed by prior investigations of undergraduate
student survey participation (Adams, 2010; Reisenwitz, 2016; Sharkness, 2012).
Future research should aim to better quantify psychological wellbeing in university
undergraduate males.
Although nonhonors students who may have met honors college admissions criteria
were not excluded from the comparison group, the authors believe the educational envi-
ronment of the honors and nonhonors programs experienced by each group likely
accounts for the observed differences in psychological wellbeing. Although the correla-
tional nature of this study does not permit the confirmation of this belief, findings
described in Table 3 support this notion. This study found that freshman honors and
nonhonors students only differed significantly in terms of one measure of psychological
wellbeing, while sophomore, junior, and senior honors and nonhonors students differed
in a number of psychological measures. This suggests that although the freshman popu-
lation as a whole is largely similar, progression through the university undergraduate
experience through either an honors or nonhonors educational path may be, at least in
part, responsible for a psychological divergence. Future research should seek to compare
the wellbeing of solely high-achieving students in different educational programs.

Conclusions
This study has quantitatively examined the psychological wellbeing of honors and
nonhonors students alike at the undergraduate level. An association between gifted-
ness and greater levels of psychological wellbeing was observed, as well as lower
levels of dysthymic affect in that population. Our findings were consistent with ample
prior findings indicative of the “sophomore slump” phenomenon, and we have out-
lined a number of interventions that may prove helpful in reducing or alleviating soph-
omore student distress.
Additionally, this work has provided direction for further research: Why do honors
students report greater levels of psychological wellbeing than their nonhonors peers?
More specifically, what unique student psychosocial characteristics or program fea-
tures of the honors undergraduate experience might leave honors students better pre-
pared to manage the stressors of a university education? This work may be used by
university administrators and faculty to better serve undergraduate populations through
the development of directed programming initiatives.
18 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Note
1. Survey available upon request.

References
Achterberg, C. (2005). What is an honors student? Journal of the National Collegiate Honors
Council, 6, 75-83.
Adams, M. J. D. (2010). No evaluation left behind: Nonresponse in online course evaluations
(Doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Alfonso, V. C., Allison, D. B., Rader, D. E., & Gorman, B. S. (1996). The extended satisfaction
with life scale: Development and psychometric properties. Social Indicators Research, 38,
275-301. doi:10.1007/BF00292049
Amoura, C., Berjot, S., Gillet, N., & Altintas, E. (2014). Desire for control, perception of con-
trol: Their impact on autonomous motivation and psychological adjustment. Motivation
and Emotion, 38, 323-335. doi:10.1007/s11031-013-9379-9
Andresen, E. M., Malmgren, J. A., Carter, W. B., & Patrick, D. L. (1994). Screening for depres-
sion in well older adults: Evaluation of a short form of the CES-D. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 10, 77-84.
April, K. A., Dharani, B., & Peters, K. (2012). Impact of locus of control expectancy on level of
well-being. Review of European Studies, 4, 124-137. doi:10.5539/res.v4n2p124
Aultman, L. P., Williams-Johnson, M. R., & Schutz, P. A. (2009). Boundary dilemmas in
teacher–student relationships: Struggling with “the line.” Teaching and Teacher Education,
25, 636-646. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.002
Barfels, S. E., & Delucchi, M. (2003). History reproduces itself: The transmission of symbolic
capital at a private liberal arts college in the USA. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 181-
194. doi:10.1080/1356251032000052438
Bembenutty, H. (1999). Sustaining motivation and academic goals: The role of academic delay
of gratification. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 233-257. doi:10.1016/S1041-
6080(99)80002-8
Boazman, J. K., & Sayler, M. F. (2011). Personal well-being of gifted students following par-
ticipation in an early college-entrance program. Roeper Review, 33, 76-85. doi:10.1080/02
783193.2011.554153
Boazman, J. K., Sayler, M. F., & Easton-Brooks, D. (2012). Mediating factors of personal
wellbeing in gifted college students: Early-college entrants and honors college students.
Journal of Social Research & Policy, 3, 111-131.
Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Brand, M. (1988). Toward a better understanding of undergraduate music education majors:
Perry’s perspective. Council for Research in Music Education Bulletin, 98, 22-31.
Plominski and Burns 19

Brimeyer, T. M., Schueths, A. M., & Smith, W. L. (2014). Who benefits from honors: An
empirical analysis of honors and non-honors students’ backgrounds, academic attitudes,
and behaviors. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 15, 69-83.
Brinkmann, K., Schüpbach, L., Joye, I. A., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2009). Anhedonia and
effort mobilization in dysphoria: Reduced cardiovascular response to reward and pun-
ishment. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74, 250-258. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsy-
cho.2009.09.009
Broido, E. M., & Schreiber, B. (2016). Promoting student learning and development. New
Directions for Higher Education, 2016(175), 65-74. doi:10.1002/he.20200
Burger, J. M. (1986). Desire for control and the illusion of control: The effects of familiarity and
sequence of outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 66-76. doi:10.1016/0092-
6566(86)90110-8
Burger, J. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3,
4381-4393. doi:10.1007/BF00994052
Burns, L. R., Stephenson, P. L., & Bellamy, K. (2016). The socratic method: Empirical assess-
ment of a psychology capstone course. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15, 370-383.
doi:10.1177/1475725716671824
Canon, R., & Newble, D. (Eds.). (2000). Helping students learn. In A handbook for teachers
in universities and colleges: A guide to improving teaching methods (4th ed., pp. 1-13).
London, England: Kogan Page.
Cassady, J. C., & Cross, T. L. (2006). A factorial representation of suicidal ideation among
academically gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 290-304.
doi:10.1177/016235320602900303
Center for Collegiate Mental Health. (2015). 2015 annual report. (Publication No. STA 15-108).
University Park, PA: Penn State University.
Clauss, J. J. (2011). The benefits of honors education for all college students. Journal of the
National Collegiate Honors Council, 12, 95-100.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Dearnley, C., & Matthew, B. (2007). Factors that contribute to undergraduate student success.
Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 377-391. doi:10.1080/13562510701278740
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1-11. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1
De L’Etoile, S. K. (2008). Applying Perry’s scheme of intellectual and ethical development in
the college years to undergraduate music therapy education. Music Therapy Perspectives,
26, 110-116. doi:10.1093/mtp/26.2.110
Dysthymia. (2013). In Harvard Medical School (Ed.), Harvard Medical School health topics
A-Z. Boston, MA: Harvard Health Publications. Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.gvsu.
edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hhphealth/dysthymia/0?insti
tutionId=222
Eklund, K., Tanner, N., Stoll, K., & Anway, L. (2015). Identifying emotional and behavioral
risk among gifted and nongifted children: A multi-gate, multi-informant approach. School
Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 197.
Ferguson, T. J., & Crowley, S. L. (1997). Measure for measure: A multitrait-multimethod
analysis of guilt and shame. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 425-441. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa6902_12
Fischer, D. (1996). The new honors programs. U.S. News & World Report, 121, 108-110.
20 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

Fouladchang, M., Kohgard, A., & Salah, V. (2010). A study of psychological health among
students of gifted and nongifted high schools. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences,
5, 1220-1225. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.264
Gahagan, J., & Hunter, M. S. (2008). Engaging sophomores: Attending to the needs of second-
year students. College and University, 83, 45-49.
Gnilka, P. B., Ashby, J. S., & Noble, C. M. (2013). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism
as mediators of adult attachment styles and depression, hopelessness, and life satisfaction.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 78-86. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00074.x
Graunke, S. S., & Woosley, S. A. (2005). An exploration of the factors that affect the academic
success of college sophomores. College Student Journal, 39, 367-376.
Gress-Smith, J. L., Roubinov, D. S., Andreotti, C., Compas, B. E., & Luecken, L. J. (2015).
Prevalence, severity and risk factors for depressive symptoms and insomnia in college
undergraduates. Stress & Health, 31, 63-70. doi:10.1002/smi.2509
Gross, J. J., & Jazaieri, H. (2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and psychopathol-
ogy: An affective science perspective. Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 387-401.
doi:10.1177/2167702614536164
Gump, S. E. (2007). Classroom research in a general education course: Exploring implications
through an investigation of the sophomore slump. The Journal of General Education, 56,
105-125.
Haas, P. F. (1992). Honors programs: Applying the reflective judgment model. Liberal
Education, 78, 14-19.
Haas, T. J. (2015). Relevance, rigor, and return on investment: How honors enhances education.
Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 16, 45-49.
Harder, D. H., & Zalma, A. (1990). Two promising shame and guilt scales: A construct
validity comparison. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 729-745. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa5503&4_30
Harder, D. W., Cutler, L., & Rockart, L. (1992). Assessment of shame and guilt and their rela-
tionships to psychopathology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 584-604. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa5903_12
Hébert, T. P., & McBee, M. T. (2007). The impact of an undergraduate honors program on gifted
university students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 136-151. doi:10.1177/0016986207299471
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress
Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 227-239. doi:10.1348/014466505X29657
Huang, P., Yang, Z., Miao, D., Lu, H., & Zhu, X. (2012). Trait anxiety among undergrad-
uates according to the implicit association test. Psychological Reports, 111, 13-23.
doi:10.2466/09.02.16.PR0.111.4.13-23
Hunter, M. S., Toblowsky, B. F., Gardner, J. N., Evenbeck, S. E., Pattengale, J. A., Schaller, M.
A., & Schreinder, L. A. (2010). Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improv-
ing the second-year experience. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ibrahim, A. K., Kelly, S. J., Adams, C. E., & Glazebrook, C. (2013). A systematic review of
studies of depression prevalence in university students. Journal of Psychiatric Research,
47, 391-400. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.11.015
Inkelas, K. K., Vogt, K. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J., & Johnson, D. (2006). Measuring out-
comes of living-learning programs: Examining college environments and student learning
and development. The Journal of General Education, 55, 40-76. doi:10.1353/jge.2006.0017
Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student out-
comes among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College
Student Development, 44, 335-368. doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0027
Plominski and Burns 21

Johnsen, S. K. (Ed.). (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Kerr, B. A. (Ed.). (2009). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Kohout, F. J., Berkman, L. F., Evans, D. A., & Cornoni-Huntley, J. (1993). Two shorter forms
of the CES-D depression symptoms index. Journal of Aging and Health, 5, 179-193.
doi:10.1177/089826439300500202
Kong, F., Ding, K., & Zhao, J. (2015). The relationships among gratitude, self-esteem, social
support and life satisfaction among undergraduate students. Journal of Happiness Studies,
16, 477-489. doi:10.1007/s10902-014-9519-2
Kustanowitz, I. E. (2000). Characteristics of emerging adults who participated in community
service activities. New York, NY: Fordham University.
Liao, K. Y., & Wei, M. (2015). Insecure attachment and depressive symptoms: Forgiveness of
self and others as moderators. Personal Relationships, 22, 216-229. doi:10.1111/pere.12075
Linnenbrink, E. A., Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of goals and affect in work-
ing memory functioning. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 213-230. doi:10.1016/
S1041-6080(00)80006-0
Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992). The development of a six-item short form of the state
scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 31, 301-305.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., . . . Middleton, M.
(1997). Patterns of Adaptive Learning (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Mobarakeh, M. R. V., Juhari, R., Yaacob, S. N., & Redzuan, M. (2015). Locus of control and
psychological well-being among Iranian adolescent migrants in Kuala-Lumpur, Malaysia.
American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 10,
310-313.
Moore, S. A., Dowdy, E., & Furlong, M. J. (2016). Using the Depression, Anxiety,
Stress Scales-21 with U.S. adolescents: An alternatives models analysis. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(6) 1-18.
Morgan, J., & Apple, D. K. (2007). The accelerator model. In S. W. Beyerlein, D. K. Apple, &
C. Holmes (Eds.), Faculty guidebook: A comprehensive tool for improving faculty perfor-
mance (4th ed., pp. 503-506). Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10-19.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00298.x
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the
empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10-17. doi:10.1080/02783199909553991
Neumeister, K. L. S. (2004). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in gifted
college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 259-274. doi:10.1177/001698620404800402
Newbold, J. J., Mehta, S. S., & Forbus, P. (2010). A comparative study between non-traditional
and traditional students in terms of their demographics, attitudes, behavior and educational
performance. International Journal of Education Research, 5, 1-24.
Nikčević, A. V., Caselli, G., Green, D., & Spada, M. M. (2014). Negative recurrent think-
ing as a moderator of the relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms.
Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 32, 248-256. doi:10.1007/
s10942-014-0192-5
Nilson, L. B. (Ed.). (1998). Understanding your students. In Teaching at its best: A research-
based resource for college instructors (pp. 7-10). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Pemberton, C. (1969). An evaluation of a living-learning residence hall program. Newark:
University of Delaware.
22 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

Perea, C. S., Paternina, A. C., Gomez, Y., & Lattig, M. C. (2012). Negative affectivity moderated
by BDNF and stress response. Journal of Affective Disorders, 136, 767-774. doi:10.1016/j.
jad.2011.09.043
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A
scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pettit, M. L., & DeBarr, K. A. (2011). Perceived stress, energy drink consumption, and aca-
demic performance among college students. Journal of American College Health, 59, 335-
341. doi:10.1080/07448481.2010.510163
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general pop-
ulation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. doi:10.1177/014662167700100306
Ravindran, A. V., Griffiths, J., Merali, Z., & Anisman, H. (1996). Primary dysthymia: A study
of several psychosocial, endocrine, and immune correlates. Journal of Affective Disorders,
40, 73-84. doi:10.1016/0165-0327(96)00045-6
Reisenwitz, T. H. (2016). Student evaluation of teaching: An investigation of nonresponse bias in an
online context. Journal of Marketing Education, 38, 7-17. doi:10.1177/0273475315596778
Renzulli, J. S. (2011). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition: Giftedness needs
to be redefined to include three elements: Above-average intelligence, high levels of task
commitment, and high levels of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 92, 81-88.
Riaz, Z., & Shahzad, S. (2010). Self concept in intellectually gifted secondary school children.
Pakistan Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 3-13.
Rice, K. G., Leever, B. A., Christopher, J., & Porter, J. D. (2006). Perfectionism, stress, and
social (dis)connection: A short-term study of hopelessness, depression, and academic
adjustment among honors students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 524-534.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.524
Rinn, A. N. (2004). Academic and social effects of living in honors residence halls. Journal of
the National Collegiate Honors Council, 5, 67-79.
Rinn, A. N. (2005). Trends among honors college students: An analysis by year in school.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 16, 157-167. doi:10.4219/jsge-2005-479
Rinn, A. N. (2006). Major forerunners to honors education at the collegiate level. Journal of the
National Collegiate Honors Council, 7(2), 63.
Rinn, A. N. (2007). Effects of programmatic selectivity on the academic achievement, academic
self-concepts, and aspirations of gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 232-
245. doi:10.1177/0016986207302718
Rinn, A. N., & Bishop, J. (2015). Gifted adults: A systematic review and analysis of the litera-
ture. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 213-235. doi:10.1177/0016986215600795
Rinn, A. N., & Plucker, J. A. (2004). We recruit them, but then what? The educational and psy-
chological experiences of academically talented undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly,
48, 54-67. doi:10.1177/001698620404800106
Roberti, J. W., Harrington, L. N., & Storch, E. A. (2006). Further psychometric support for the
10-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale. Journal of College Counseling, 9, 135-147.
doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2006.tb00100.x
Robinson, N. M. (1997). The role of universities and colleges in educating gifted undergradu-
ates. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 217-236. doi:10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681875
Roeper, A. (1991). Gifted adults: Their characteristics and emotions. Advanced Development,
3, 85-98.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psy-
chological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Plominski and Burns 23

Sanchez-Leguelinel, C. (2008). Supporting “slumping” sophomores: Programmatic peer initia-

tives designed to enhance retention in the crucial second year of college. College Student
Journal, 42, 637-646.
Sansone, R. A., & Sansone, L. A. (2009). Dysthymic disorder: Forlorn and overlooked?
Psychiatry (Edgmont), 6(5), 46-51.
Schaller, M. A. (2005). Wandering and wondering: Traversing the uneven terrain of the second
college year. About Campus, 10(3), 17-24. doi:10.1002/abc.131
Sharkness, J. (2012). Why don’t they respond? An investigation of longitudinal survey non-
response among college students attending four-year institutions (Doctoral dissertation).
University of California, Los Angeles.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slavin-Mulford, J., Clements, A., Hilsenroth, M., Charnas, J., & Zodan, J. (2016). An examina-
tion of generalized anxiety disorder and dysthymia utilizing the Rorschach inkblot method.
Psychiatry Research, 240, 137-143. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.018
Smith, K. J., Rosenberg, D. L., & Timothy Haight, G. (2014). An assessment of the psycho-
metric properties of the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS10) with business and accounting
students. Accounting Perspectives, 13, 29-59. doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12023
Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., & Hall, H. (2002). Contemporary measures of approach and avoid-
ance goal orientations: Similarities and differences. The British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72(Pt. 2), 155-190. doi:10.1348/000709902158838
Spanierman, L. B., Soble, J. R., Mayfield, J. B., Neville, H. A., Aber, M., Khuri, L., & De
La Rosa, B. (2013). Living learning communities and students’ sense of community and
belonging. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50, 308-325. doi:10.1515/
jsarp-2013-0022
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual
for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1999). Students’ out-of-class experiences
and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of
College Student Development, 40, 610-623.
Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and
negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 663-668.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)00192-U
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Kuang, D. (2002). Quick and easy implementation of the Benjamini-
Hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons. Journal
of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 77-83. doi:10.3102/10769986027001077
Thomas, J. A. (2008). Reviving Perry: An analysis of epistemological change by gender
and ethnicity among gifted high school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 87-98.
doi:10.1177/0016986207311422
Tluczek, A., Henriques, J. B., & Brown, R. L. (2009). Support for the reliability and validity
of a six-item state anxiety scale derived from the state-trait anxiety inventory. Journal of
Nursing Measurement, 17, 19-28. doi:10.1891/1061-3749.17.1.19
Tower, M., Blacklock, E., Watson, B., Heffernan, C., & Tronoff, G. (2015). Using social media
as a strategy to address “sophomore slump” in second year nursing students: A qualitative
study. Nurse Education Today, 35, 1130-1134. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2015.06.011
Wang, X., & Kennedy-Phillips, L. (2013). Focusing on the sophomores: Characteristics associ-
ated with the academic and social involvement of second-year college students. Journal of
College Student Development, 54, 541-548. doi:10.1353/csd.2013.0072
24 Journal of Advanced Academics 00(0)

Watson, P. J., Hickman, S. E., & Morris, R. J. (1996). Self-reported narcissism and shame:
Testing the defensive self-esteem and continuum hypotheses. Personality and Individual
Differences, 21, 253-259. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00063-3
Wawrzynski, M. R., Jessup-Anger, J. E., Stolz, K., Helman, C., & Beaulieu, J. (2009). Exploring
students’ perceptions of academically based living-learning communities. College Student
Affairs Journal, 28, 138-158.
Westfall, P. H., Tobias, R. D., & Wolfinger, R. D. (2011). Multiple comparisons and multiple
tests using SAS® (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Wynn, C. T., Sr., Mosholder, R. S., & Larsen, C. A. (2014). Measuring the effects of problem-
based learning on the development of postformal thinking skills and engagement of first-
year learning community students. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 2, 1-23.
Zeidner, M., & Shani-Zinovich, I. (2011). Do academically gifted and nongifted students differ
on the big-five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions. Personality and
Individual Differences, 51(5), 566-570. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.007

About the Authors

Abigail P. Plominski is an alumni of Grand Valley State University’s Fredrik Meijer Honors
college, graduating cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in biology. Her research inter-
ests include gifted education, young adult mental health, and evolutionary psychology.
Lawrence R. Burns is a professor of clinical and personality psychology in the Department of
Psychology at Grand Valley State University. His research interests include course design and
effective teaching practices in higher education, student assessment and learning outcomes,
experiential learning models, determinants of epistemological development, dialectical pro-
cesses and other pedagogies of reflection.