THE RELATIONSHIP OF GRATITUDE AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING TO

SELF-EFFICACY AND CONTROL OF LEARNING BELIEFS AMONG

COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Dustine Rey

___________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the

FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements For The Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Dustine Rey

 DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to the people who have contributed to my personal,

professional, and academic development. I have grown and evolved into this moment
of life because of you. My perspective is widened and deeper due to the interactions
we have exchanged.

My husband has been a solid motivator. He has made it easy for me to retreat to my
office and write and feel supported through this entire process.

My grandparents, parents, aunts/uncles, friends and their parents, you have all
helped to raise, mold, and shape me into the women I am today.

My mom and Al, thank you for always reminding me that I can do anything, and that
if I have determination- a path to succeed will be created.

The wise women in my life, your lessons and knowledge have helped to develop my
confidence and compassion.

Lastly, I dedicate this research to all the psychologists, educators, and authors who
made it possible for me to conduct such a study. It is your research, identification of
the constructs, and development of the theories that has ignited my curiosity of
wanting to know more and identify ways to contribute to this body of knowledge.
Thank you for identifying a science of psychology and education grounded in
positive experiences.

Namaste'

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply filled with gratitude for the kindness and guidance that has been
provided to me. I feel blessed to have a committee, family, and community of friends
who support me in my endeavors both academically and personally. Thank you Dr.
Helena Seli for believing in my research topic and guiding me through this academic
journey. You have been a wonderful role model and have always made me feel that
my research was a priority to you. Thank you for making this a positive experience. I
am also grateful to my other committee members, Dr. Kim Hirabayashi, Dr. Ginger
Clark, and Dr. Myron Dembo. Dr. Younjoo Oh, I truly appreciate your statistical
expertise and the time you took to help me during my late night emails and phone
calls.

This study would not have been possible without the motivation and
persistence of Theresa Mercsack, from The Art Institute of California at San Diego.
Thank you for directing my proposal to the right people and for believing in my
study. I am very grateful to all the executive directors and the professors at the
AICSD-you made me feel welcomed each day. Your commitment to research is
invaluable.

Throughout this doctoral program I have found inspiration and creativity

from my community of friends-you are the family that I have chosen for myself~
thank you for reminding me that my work is meaningful and valuable. Thank you for
your support!

In the past year I found inspiration from the art and clothing by Lori Mertz of
"Just Bee." Her positive affirmations have brought me joy. Her art work for the cover
of this dissertation reminds me of the beauty that is found through following your
curiosity and nurturing it with hard work and dedication.

I deeply thank everyone, those with me, those who I have lost touch with, and
those who have passed, who have inspired me to become authentic in my being, to
be truthful in my approach, and to have fun along my journey.

Lastly, I acknowledge the little things that have brought me pleasure and
comfort in life: my dogs Ferrari and Capri. They have graced me with unconditional
love and reminded me to get up and take walks frequently.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………….. ...ii

Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………… ...iii

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………….....v

List of Figures …………………………………………………………………......vi

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………….......vii

Chapter One: The Problem and its Underlying Framework ……………………. ...1

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ……………………………………….. ...17

Chapter Three: Research Methodology ……………………………………….. ...56

Chapter Four: Results …………………………………………………………. ...67

Chapter Five: Discussion ……………………………………………………… ...81

References …………………………………………………………………….. ...102

Appendix A: Information Sheet Regarding Participation in Research Study … ...117

Appendix B: Personal Background …………………………………………......120

Appendix C: Personal Study Habits and Feelings About College Classes ….. ...121

Appendix D: Personal Feelings Towards Your Life ………………………… ...123

Appendix E: Rey’s Recruitment Speech …………………………………….. ...124

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic Data …………………………………………………… ...58

Table 2. Three Religious or Spiritual Practices and Number of Participants …. ...59

and Percent

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations ……. ...68
between Variables

Table 4. Linear Regression Results Predicting General Self-Efficacy ………... ...71

Table 5. Linear Regression Results Predicting Academic Self-Efficacy ………...72

Table 6. Linear Regression Results Predicting General Self-Efficacy …………...73

Table 7. Linear Regression Results Predicting Academic Self-Efficacy ………...74

Table 8. Multiple Regression Results Predicting Academic Control of ………. ...75

Learning Beliefs

Table 9. Linear Regression Results Predicting Control of Learning Beliefs ….. ...75

Table 10. Linear Regression Results Predicting Control of Learning Beliefs …...76

Table 11. Multiple Regression Results Predicting General Self-Efficacy ……. ...77

Table 12. Multiple Regression Results Predicting Academic Self-Efficacy ….. ...78

Table 13. Relationship between Gender and Gratitude, General Self-Efficacy .. ...79
Academic Self-Efficacy Self-Regulation and Control of Learning Beliefs

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Religion Type ……………………………………………………….. ...60

Figure 2. Relationship of Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being to Academic … ...90

Performance

vi
 ABSTRACT

This study investigated the relationship between gratitude, subjective well-

being, personal and academic self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs. The

purpose of this dissertation was to extend the research on variables that contribute to

academic success in college students. A non-experimental quantitative design was

utilized. A sample of 206 four-year art college students completed a 38 item survey

assessing their level of gratitude, subjective well-being, general self-efficacy,

academic self-efficacy, and control of learning beliefs. Specifically, the survey

consisted of items from: The Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6), The Satisfaction with

Life Scale, The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), The

General Perceived Self-efficacy Scale (GPSS), and The Patterns of Adaptive

Learning (PAL).

The results of the study indicate a strong correlation between all variables.

Gratitude was significantly correlated with general self-efficacy, academic self-

efficacy, subjective well-being, and control of learning beliefs. Subjective well-being

was correlated to academic self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, control of learning

beliefs, and gratitude. Results of the linear and multiple regressions showed that

gratitude predicted 7.9% of the variance in academic self-efficacy, and 6.3% of

general self-efficacy. Subjective well-being predicted 16.3% of the variance in

general self-efficacy and 4.9% in academic self-efficacy. Results from this

exploratory study indicated that gratitude and subjective well-being were positively

correlated to both general and academic self-efficacy, and learning beliefs. In

vii
addition, gratitude and subjective well-being predicted general self-efficacy and

academic self-efficacy of college students. Future research could build on these

findings by assessing the efficacy and regulatory behaviors of students after

participating in school based interventions aimed at increasing gratitude and

subjective well-being. Suggestions for classroom and counseling interventions are

provided.

viii
 CHAPTER ONE

THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK

Introduction

Academic success involves the ability to be an active participant in one’s

own learning; specifically the ability to be a self-regulated learner (Zimmerman,

1990). Thus it is not surprising that educational psychology has a history of concern

regarding predictors of academic success. Several psychological frameworks have

addressed this concern; however, currently “social cognitive” is the most prominent

theory. Social Cognitive Theory contends that a major predictor of academic success

is self-efficacy and self-regulation (Pintrich & Degroot, 1990; Zimmerman &

Martinez-Pons, 1990). Self-efficacy beliefs affect choices of activities, persistence,

and effort (Bandura, 1997) thus creating a personal expectation about one’s ability to

successfully perform a specific task. Consequently, self-regulation is the process of

activating and sustaining cognitions, behaviors, and affects that are oriented toward

attaining ones’ goal or completing a task (Zimmerman, 1989).

Leaders in education share a common goal: that every student succeeds to

their fullest potential. The opportunity to achieve this goal may exist though

integrating Social Cognitive Theory with another psychological framework, Positive

Psychology. The relationship between constructs in Positive Psychology and Social

Cognitive Theory, and the dynamics of those constructs, is as yet unclear and

currently represents uncharted territory in the field. Yet, both theories share the

pursuit of striving to enhance cognitive processes such as learning and motivation.

1
 Another area of research that involves academic success has been the study

of students’ emotions. Students experience a wide variety of emotions in academic

settings. However, students’ academic emotions, other than test anxiety, have been

largely neglected (Pekrun, Goetz, & Titz, 2002). Emotions serve the functions of

preparing and sustaining reactions to important events and states by providing

motivational and physiological energy, by focusing attention and modulating

thinking, and by triggering action-related intentions (Pekrun, Goetz, & Titz, 2002).

This implies that emotions can affect students’ thoughts, motivation, and action. For

example, attention and recall can be focused on positive self-efficacy information in

a positive mood and on negative information in a negative mood (Olafson & Ferraro,

2001). Positive activating emotions such as enjoyment of learning (Pekrun, Goetz, &

Titz, 2002) and feeling grateful (Bono & Froh, 2008) may generally enhance

academic motivation, whereas deactivating emotions such as hopelessness and

boredom may be detrimental.

In a large scale qualitative study, Pekrun, Goetz, and Titz, (2002) found that

positive emotions were reported no less often than negative emotions among

students’ thus pointing to the need to investigate positive emotions more thoroughly

(Fredrickson, 2001). For the purpose of this study, the role of gratitude, as an

emotional trait, will be measured. Researchers in the field of Positive Psychology

have shown that the emotional state and trait of gratitude has personal benefits

ranging from increased well-being to increased satisfaction with school.

2
 Positive Psychology is the scientific study and application of optimal human

functioning in all areas of life (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Positive

Psychology contradicts the historical and traditional emphasis on assessment and

intervention practices based on pathology. Instead, Positive Psychology aims at

helping people realize their potential by capitalizing on strengths and managing

weaknesses, thereby maximizing their potential. The relationship between Social

Cognitive Theory and Positive Psychology has been alluded to; this relationship is

further evidenced by studies which have found that high levels of gratitude and well-

being influence students’ perception of their classrooms, teachers, and peers, and

they further report greater satisfaction with school and their level of engagement

with their educational pursuits (Froh, Sefick, & Emmons, 2008). Even with such

interesting findings, this area of research is still in its infancy and has not been

empirically tested. This relationship, assessed in a scientific manner, would benefit

both fields of study.

Currently, it is unknown if Positive Psychology constructs, such as gratitude

and subjective well-being, affect students’ control of learning beliefs, which is a

component of self-regulation. Self-regulated learners are known for their ability to

proactively seek out information and approach tasks with diligence, confidence, and

resourcefulness (Zimmerman, 1990). These strengths are also promoted in the study

of Positive Psychology; yet the degree to which these strengths influence self-

regulation and self-efficacy is unknown. Self regulated learning is a dimensional

construct that contains many aspects, including, but not limited to: individual

3
motivation, cognition, and goal directed behavior (Pintrich, 1995; Pintrich & Lin,

1985). The aim of this dissertation study was to explore the relationship between

gratitude and subjective well-being to general and academic self-efficacy and control

of learning beliefs among college students. This study was correlational and

exploratory in nature.

Researchers have begun to examine the origin and effects of classical virtues,

such as gratitude, and the overarching benefits of experiencing subjective well-being,

(also known as life satisfaction) as part of the movement toward Positive Psychology

(Gable & Haidt, 2005; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Psychologists have

recently emphasized the need for the promotion of positive youth development, in

addition to the already existing focus on pathology and similarly related phenomena

(Lerner, Jacobs, & Wertlieb, 2003). Because the traditional psychological approach

emphasizing deficits and disorders may be limited in fostering human excellence

(Sheldon & King, 2001) and presents a distorted view of student functioning

(Jimerson, Sharkey, Nyborg, & Furlong, 2004), it is crucial that educational leaders

commit to understanding the sources, mechanisms, processes, and outcomes of

positive psychological constructs in education.

One such construct is gratitude, which has recently attracted considerable

interest from both the popular culture (Emmons & Hill, 2001; Hay, 1996; Ryan,

2000) and the scientific community (Emmons, 2007). Gratitude has been defined by

many authors and philosophers throughout the years and its concept has been

associated with religious and spiritual beliefs. For this dissertation, gratitude is

4
defined as an emotional state characterized by self-reported feelings of thankfulness

and gratefulness, which are evolved by the beneficiary's awareness of and

elaboration on the benefactor and the benefits received. Psychologists have referred

to gratitude as a human strength (Emmons & Crumpler, 2000; Seligman, 2002 p. 155)

and as a trait that endures across situations and over time. The core relational themes

for gratitude are the recognition and appreciation of altruistic benefit.

In the past decade numerous Positive Psychology studies have been

conducted on the construct of gratitude; these studies range from topics such as the

effect of gratitude on increasing well-being (Emmons & McCollough, 2003;

Lyumbomirsky, 2005; Seligman, 2005; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006) to the effect

of gratitude on increasing the immune system (Myers, 1993). Gratitude, as an

emotion, may also be related to academic achievement, an area of salient and

particular interest for educational leaders. For example, although dispositional

gratitude was found to be unrelated to student self-reported grade-point average

(Froh & Yurkewicz, 2007), it has been suggested that gratitude might lead to goal

striving, achievement motivation, and benefit finding (Bono & Froh, 2008).

Bono and Froh (2008) indicate it is possible that gratitude may foster

intrinsic goal pursuit and achievement rather than extrinsic goal pursuit. In other

words, gratitude may elicit motivation by internal rewards, such as satisfaction, over

motivation for external rewards, such as concern for grades or facing punishment.

This is a possible explanation for how gratitude may influence academic

achievement, as individuals who report having intrinsic goals report a higher level of

5
well-being than those who report more extrinsic goals (Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Ryan

& Deci, 2000). Currently, no empirical study has indicated that a higher level of

well-being predicts academic success, yet it has been suggested in the literature as

evidenced by students’ self reports of increased satisfaction with their instructors and

optimism for the upcoming week in school (Froh, Sefick, & Emmons, 2008).

Research in the area of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation suggests that

internalized motivation promotes self-regulating behaviors with respect to activities

that people experience as useful or valuable for themselves (Deci, 1994). Further,

self-regulation is one of the most reliable predictors of academic achievement

(Pintrich & Degoot, 1990). Thus, studying the variables that influence self regulatory

behaviors and beliefs are of clear importance toward further understanding how to

increase academic achievement. Researchers are just beginning to understand the

transactions among emotion, motivation, learning, and self-regulation (Schutz &

DeCiur, 2002). The study of emotions in education has a lot of promise when it

comes to informing understanding of teaching, motivation, and self-regulated

learning. Emotions are an integral part of the educational activity setting (Schutz &

Decuir, 2002) therefore, an understanding of correlates of emotions to academic

outcomes is an important goal. The study of the emotion of gratitude and educational

outcomes is new, yet its beginning has promising implications for future research.

For example, gratitude is a key ingredient for flourishing in youth (Bono & Froh,

2007), enhanced pro-social behavior (Bartlett & Desteno, 2006; Froh & Yurkewicz,

2007; Tsang, 2006) well-being (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Lyumbomirsky,

6
2005, Seligman, 2005, Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006) and has been shown to

improve school satisfaction (Froh & Yurkowicz, 2007).

Another potential construct that may influence self-regulation, specifically

one’s control of their learning beliefs and self-efficacy is subjective well-being.

Lyumbomirsky, King and Diener (2000) compiled empirical findings on many

studies which reported that people who score higher on subjective well-being (SWB)

as measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale, have many advantages over their

lower scoring peers. They are likely to have more friends and maintain greater

intimacy which provides stronger social support networks (Okum, Staock, Haring &

Witter, 1984). Further, when it comes to professional settings, individuals with

higher subjective well-being tend to be more creative, have more energy, and

produce higher quality work than their less happy coworkers (Estrada, Isen, &

Young, 1994). Having higher levels of subjective well-being would seem to correlate

to high self-efficacy, however, this relationship has not yet been established.

While much of the literature involving gratitude has indicated that a higher

grateful disposition indicates higher well-being in school (Emmons & McCullough,

2003), many questions about the application and relevance of Positive Psychology

constructs in education still remain. This dissertation aligns itself with the goals of

Positive Psychology: to present a balanced, empirically grounded, and theoretically

rich view of human experience, learning, and optimal functioning. The purpose of

this study is to explore the relationship that gratitude and subjective well-being may

have on self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs.

7
 A student’s control of their learning beliefs is a component of self-regulation

which is defined as the exercise of influence over one's own motivation, thought

processes, emotional states and patterns of behavior (Bandura, 1994). Self-regulation

is impacted by self-efficacy, which is defined as “peoples judgments of their

capabilities to organize and execute course of action required to attain designated

types of performance” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Self-efficacy concerns the beliefs

that students can accomplish an activity or attain a goal (Linnenbrink & Pintrich,

2003). A student’s direction and execution of strategies for self-regulation depend

directly on their perception of their academic self-efficacy and feedback they receive

for their academic performance (Linnenbrick & Pintrich, 2003). An individual’s

perception of themselves is a component of subjective well-being, therefore it is

reasonable to propose that well-being and self-efficacy may have some relationship,

ultimately influencing academic achievement.

Background of the Problem

Educational psychology has experienced many paradigm shifts. However,

one major change that has not yet had significant influence on field research in the

discipline is in the area of Positive Psychology. Positive Psychology focuses on the

unique positive characteristics of an individual and maximizes his/her potential,

which is very similar to the goals of educational psychology. To date, there is an

absence of focus on understanding how constructs studied in the context of Positive

Psychology such as gratitude and subjective well-being may or may not influence

general and academic self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs. For instance, a

8
search on ERIC, Psycinfo, Psycharticles, JSTOR, and Psychology Abstracts since

1975 yielded zero articles with the key words “gratitude” “well-being” “self-

efficacy” “control of learning beliefs” and “self-regulation."

Pajares and Grahm (1999) suggest that future researchers should identify

various constructs that play a role in the general development of self-regulatory skills.

A similar recommendation confirmed that Positive Psychology constructs should be

investigated on the role of self-efficacy (Lampropoulos, 2001). As such, a rigorous

study of the relationship between gratitude and well-being on the self-regulation and

self-efficacy of college students is needed. Froh and Yurkewicz (2008) have

suggested that future research should explore various correlates of gratitude and

examine more thoroughly whether promoting gratitude improves goal striving,

academic achievement, and social development. If gratitude is found to have a

significant relationship with self-efficacy the discovery could have profound effects

on academic achievement. For example, research indicates that the relationship

between self-efficacy and academic performance is stronger for students who are

achieving below average academically (Multon, 1991). Therefore, different types of

gratitude interventions could be promoted and implemented on college campuses in

an effort to indirectly increase self-efficacy. Due to the nature of self-efficacy and

academic performance, an improvement in self-efficacy may result in a subsequent

improvement in academic achievement.

There are also areas of research that need further exploration. Noddings

(2003) suggests that subjective well-being and education should coexist and be taken

9
seriously by schools concerned with preparing young people for satisfying academic

and personal lives, yet there is little empirical evidence to support that well-being

influences the educational environment. The contribution of personal well-being

toward educational outcomes is still in its infancy and needs further inquiry.

Additionally, the literature conceptualizes gratitude as a virtuous trait and an

emotional state, yet the literature lacks clarity regarding which form of gratitude is

the most beneficial for individuals.

Finally, while there is a significant body of literature regarding variables that

influence self- efficacy and self-regulation, scholarship on gratitude and well-being

are rarely included. Moreover, as previous researches have noted (Seligman &

Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Froh & Bono, 2008) the concept of gratitude merits further

scientific scrutiny. The more empirical research on gratitude, the more benefits

science may be able to discover and substantiate. Finding a relationship between

gratitude and self-efficacy will no doubt have substantial real world significance; it

may illuminate how gratitude may serve as one of the keys to academic flourishing.

Statement of the Problem

There is a lack of understanding about the relationship between Positive

Psychology constructs, such as gratitude and subjective well-being and predictors of

academic success. There is a lack of clarity toward how these popular psychology

constructs are correlated, if at all. Due to this lack of understanding, it is difficult to

thoughtfully support the popular assumptions regarding gratitude and subjective

10
well-being in education. An area that needs further exploration is the relationship

between gratitude and subjective well-being and predictors of academic success.

Contemporary research on well-being and gratitude is still in a fledgling state

(McCollough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002) and the findings from this dissertation will

contribute to the growing body of new knowledge relating Positive Psychology to

education.

Purpose of the Study

The current study has several purposes. First, the overarching goal is to

empirically investigate the relationship between gratitude and subjective well-being

on self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs in college students. Second, this study

strives to explore previously unexamined variables that could affect self-efficacy. No

known study has investigated the correlational relationship between gratitude and

subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs, even though

gratitude has been linked with academic performance (Froh, 2007). This study is

limited by its correlational and exploratory design.

It is important to gain a deeper understanding of potential correlates of self-

efficacy as this construct is one the greatest predictors of academic success (Pintrich

& Degoot, 1990). Third, the study attempts to identify which construct (gratitude or

subjective well-being) will have a stronger relationship to self-efficacy, thus

specifically determining which of the variables is a stronger predictor towards

academic success. Fourth, this study aims to evaluate if the motivational aspects of

11
self-regulation, such as control of learning beliefs, is related to levels of gratitude and

subjective well-being.

Research Questions

The research questions guiding this dissertation are:

1. What is the relationship between gratitude and both general self-efficacy

and school self-efficacy?

2. What is the relationship between subjective well-being and both general

self-efficacy and school self-efficacy?

3. Is there a relationship between gratitude and subjective well-being and

students’ control of learning beliefs?

In addition to the findings for the primary research questions, additional

aspects of the relationships between the variables were also investigated.

Significance of the Study

The current study integrates two theories that address academic achievement:

Social Cognitive Theory and Positive Psychology. There have been significant

contributions related to the understanding of self-efficacy and self-regulation through

the rigorous study of Social Cognitive Theory. However, preliminary research in

Positive Psychology has indicated that some of its constructs, such as gratitude and

well-being, may influence academic achievement as well (Bono & Froh, 2008; Froh

& Yurkewicz, 2007). In the last few years, researchers have executed carefully

designed studies and found strong empirical support for the potency of gratitude

interventions (Kashdan, Mishra, Breen, & Froh, 2008) suggesting that gratitude is a

12
promising element for further examination in the future of psychology. Questions

remain, however, whether the concept of gratitude influences important predictors of

academic success.

This research contributes to the body of literature that assesses the roles of

positive psychology constructs in education. This study intends to further bridge the

current prominence of social cognitive theory to the emerging possibilities of

Positive Psychology. By providing a more complex understanding of the pertinent

yet understudied variables (gratitude and well-being) in education, this exploratory

study contributes to the development of future interventions that may include such

variables in an effort to increase academic achievement.

Methodology

This research maintains a quantitative approach. Data was collected in person

via surveys assessing 206 four year college students’ subjective well-being, level of

gratitude, self-efficacy, and control of learning beliefs. Additionally, demographic

information was obtained. The quantitative data was analyzed using the Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 11.0.

Definition of Terms

The following are definitions of terms that are used throughout this proposal.

A thorough explanation of terms appears in the following chapter.

Gratitude. Gratitude is defined as an emotional state characterized by self-

reported feelings of thankfulness and gratefulness, which are evolved by the

beneficiary's awareness of and elaboration on the benefactor and the benefits

13
received. Psychologists have referred to gratitude as a human strength (Emmons &

Crumpler, 2000; Seligman, 2002 p. 155) and it is viewed as a trait that endures

across situations and over time. It is also defined as maintaining a view of life events

and situations that is characterized by positive thinking while maintaining a positive

attitude toward the future (Peterson, 2000; Scheier & Carver, 1985, 1992; Seligman,

1991). The object of gratitude is other-directed, meaning to persons, or to

impersonal (nature) or non-human sources (God, fate, the cosmos).

Positive Psychology. Positive Psychology is the scientific and practical

pursuit of optimal human functioning. It focuses on identifying and enhancing the

human strengths and virtues that make life worth living and allow individuals and

communities to thrive; it is the scientific study of the good life (Seligman &

Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as people's beliefs about their

capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over

events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think,

motivate themselves and behave. Such beliefs produce diverse effects through four

major processes which include cognitive, motivational, affective and selection

processes (Bandura, 1994).

Control of learning beliefs. Control of learning beliefs is a component of

academic self-regulation which is defined as the exercise of influence over one's own

motivation, thought processes, emotional states and patterns of behavior (Bandura,

1994). These beliefs pertain to the amount of control one perceives they have over

14
their learning ability. These beliefs are measured by the "control of learning beliefs"

section of the motivation subscale of The Motivated Strategies for Learning

Questionnaire (MSLQ).

Subjective well-being. Subjective well-being (SWB) refers to how people

evaluate their lives, and includes variables such as life satisfaction, marital

satisfaction, lack of depression and anxiety, and positive moods and emotions

(Diener, Suh, & Oishi, 1997).

Organization of the Study

Chapter 1 of the study has presented the introduction, the background of the

problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be

answered, the research hypothesis, the significance of the study, a brief description

of the methodology, and the definitions of terms.

Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature. It addressed the following topics:

1) Positive Psychology and its constructs therein such as gratitude and well-being 2)

Social Cognitive Theory and major predictors of academic success such as self-

efficacy and self-regulation 3) An in depth investigation of the possibility for

gratitude and subjective well-being to affect self-regulation and its motivational

aspects. These topics will be explored through an integrative theoretical framework

that supports the notion that bridging Social Cognitive Theory and Positive

Psychology Theory together can help to meet the goal that leaders in education share,

namely that every student succeed to their fullest potential.

15
 Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the research

design, population and sampling procedure, and the instruments and their selection,

together with information on validly and reliability. Each of these sections

concluded with a rationale, including strengths and limitations of the design elements.

This chapter proceeds to describe the procedures for data collection and the plan of

analysis.

Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses the results,

and provides recommendations for future research and a conclusion.

16
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive overview of the

literature regarding psychological constructs relating to the prediction of academic

achievement. Research related to the areas of Positive Psychology, specifically

gratitude and subjective well-being will be reviewed, this is followed by research on

Social Cognitive Theory, specifically self-efficacy, self-regulation, and motivational

aspects of self- regulation. Particular focus is given to research involving the benefits

of gratitude, the relationship between subjective well-being and personal and

academic functioning, and the motivational aspects of self-regulation in college

students. Research in this area enables educational leaders to have a better

understanding of student's learning, efficacy, and regulatory behaviors.

Specifically, this literature review will integrate findings of Positive

Psychology constructs, such as well-being and gratitude, as a conduit for flourishing

academically. By proposing these constructs as indicators of self-regulation and self-

efficacy, this study aims to present a more thorough understanding of the variables

that affect student achievement.

Positive Psychology

In the past decade there has been motivation within the field of psychology to

identify a science of psychology grounded on positive experience (Bandura, 1998;

Gilham & Seligman, 1999; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Vaillant, 2000).

Positive Psychology has been described as the study of human strengths and optimal

17
functioning, and one of its key aims is to foster research on the positive personal

traits and dispositions that are thought to contribute to subjective well-being and

psychological health. Such research stands in contrast to the traditional study of

people's distress, pathology, and maladaptive functioning that continues to

characterize American psychology. The Positive Psychology movement grew out of

recognition and desire to encourage research in these heretofore neglected areas. It

should be noted that the appellation of “Positive Psychology” does not imply that the

rest of psychology is negative or adverse. According to Gable and Haidt (2000)

Positive Psychology’s aim is not the denial of the distressing, unpleasant, or negative

aspects of life, nor is it an effort to see life through rose-colored glasses. Those who

study topics in Positive Psychology fully acknowledge the existence of human

suffering, dysfunctional family systems, and ineffective institutions (Gable and Haidt,

2000).

Given the aims of Positive Psychology, the discipline is finding an expression

in higher education. Currently the most popular course at Harvard University, with

more than 800 students in the class (Diener & Dean, 2007) is Positive Psychology.

Additionally, there are over ten other universities offering classes in the field (Diener

& Dean, 2007). As a result, three APA approved universities are offering degrees in

this emerging psychological genre; University of Pennsylvania offers a Masters

Degree in Applied Positive Psychology, Claremont University offers a Ph.D in

Positive Psychology, and Breyer State University offers a Masters Degree in Positive

Psychology.

18
 Although Positive Psychology shares with other humanistic movement the

aim of advancing human fulfillment, one of the distinctive motives of Positive

Psychology is that its methodology is grounded firmly in systematic and scientific

inquiry (Myers, 2001). Building on the seminal work by Rogers (1951), Maslow

(1954), Jahoda (1958), Erikson (1963, 1982), Vaillant (1977), Deci and Ryan (1985),

and Ryff and Singer (1996), positive psychologists have enhanced the understanding

of why, how, and under what conditions positive emotions enable people to thrive

(Easterbrook, 2003; Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, & Damon, 2001).

The American Psychological Association (APA) has embraced Positive

Psychology's approach to the study of optimal human functioning by devoting the

2000 edition of the American Psychologist to the theme issue of Positive Psychology

constructs (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In the area of education,

specifically, insights available from research in Positive Psychology can impact the

quest of educational leaders who are helping students that are at risk, unmotivated, or

conversely gifted. For example, Positive Psychology seeks to shift the emphasis

from research frequently conducted on concepts such as learned helplessness to the

study of learned optimism and perseverance (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

According to Seligman (2005) the educational researcher should integrate Positive

Psychology constructs with the more traditional aspects of educational literature and

lines of inquiry. Seligman’s suggestion further supports the need for this study to

integrate the two theoretical frameworks of Positive Psychology and Social

19
Cognitive Theory to explore the relationship on student’s self-efficacy and control of

learning beliefs.

One of Positive Psychology's signature constructs is gratitude, which is

defined as maintaining a view of life events and situations that is characterized by

positive thinking while maintaining a positive attitude toward the future (Peterson,

2000; Scheier & Carver, 1985, 1992; Seligman, 1991). Although gratitude has

received attention from positive psychologists who report that it induces a positive

influence on human functioning (Lyumbomirsky, 2007; Seligman 1991; Bandura,

1998; Gilham & Seligman, 1999; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Vaillant,

2000) researchers have yet to make connections between this construct and self-

efficacy and control of learning beliefs. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the

construct of self-efficacy is one of the foremost predictors of academic achievement

(Pintrich & Degoot, 1990). Despite the neglect of that relationship, researchers have

found that possessing a grateful life view is related to academic benefits, including

academic achievement and a positive connection to the school environment

(Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Froh, Sefick, & Emmons, 2008). An ungrateful life

view is associated with negative outcomes such as anxiety, depression, and negative

affect (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995; Peterson, 1990; Seligman, 1991).

Similarly, pessimism, an individuals’ belief toward lack of ability has been

found to be associated with depression and anxiety (Kolligian & Sternberg, 1991)

and with interpersonal inflexibility (Hayes & Davis, 1993). Both subjective well-

being and gratitude expectations are related to optimal functioning, health, and

20
academic achievement. With that being said, further research into how these

variables affect academic achievement needs to be explored. This study focuses

exclusively on the constructs of gratitude and subjective well-being as they are the

most commonly researched topics in the field of Positive Psychology and is based on

the preliminary findings of Emmons and McCullough (2003) and Froh, Sefick, and

Emmons (2008) which suggests that the two constructs may be influential toward

self-efficacy and self-regulation.

Gratitude

The concept of gratitude has a long life span in the history of ideas, but in the

history of psychology it is relatively new. From ancient Greek philosophers to

contemporary thinkers, gratitude has often been viewed as an important contributor

for a virtuous life. For centuries gratitude was a prominent topic in philosophy. The

Roman Philosopher Seneca wrote an entire book on gratitude titled On Benefits

around A.D. 54. Cicero, another Roman philosopher, wrote that gratitude is “not

only the best, but the parent of all other virtues” (1851 ED. p. 139). Yet, gratitude, as

a state or a trait, is one of the most understudied concepts in other genres of

psychology. For example, gratitude is not mentioned in the Handbook of Emotions

(Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2000), it appears only once in the Handbook of Cognition

and Emotion, and it is not mentioned at all in Encyclopedia of Human Emotions

(Levinson, Ponzetti, & Jorgenson, 1999).

A number of contemporary trends have brought the study of gratitude back

into scientific and philosophical inquiry. Barbara Fredrickson (1998) argues that

21
gratitude broadens and builds, that it is not just a positive view of life; indeed, it is a

way of putting one’s life in perspective. Even before the beginning of Positive

Psychology, Graham (1988) and Peterson and Stewart (1996) reported that people

who feel more grateful after receiving some type of a benefit are more likely to help

the benefactor and other people as well. Even earlier, Baron (1984) found that

grateful people are less likely to engage in hostile, destructive behavior. Emmons

and McCullough (2004) portray gratitude as a remedy for many of life’s hardships

and a way to achieve peace of mind, happiness, physical health, improved

relationships, and well-being. According to Lazarus and Lazarus (1994), gratitude

results from recognizing another’s goodwill and appreciating the other’s generous

action as an altruistic gift. Agreeing with this conception, Tsang (2006) defined

gratitude as “a positive emotional reaction to the receipt of a benefit that is perceived

to have resulted from the good intentions of another” (p. 139).

The difference between state and trait gratitude. Gratitude may be studied as

an affective trait or affective state. An affective state is one’s immediate experience

of gratitude as an emotion. Conversely, an affective trait describes one’s tendency or

disposition to experience a particular emotion (McCullough, Emmons, Tsang, 2002;

McCullough, 2001). As an emotion, gratitude is an attributional-dependant state

(Weiner, 1985) that results from a two-step process. The first is recognizing that one

has obtained a positive outcome, and the second is the recognition that there is an

external source for this positive outcome. In sum, a person high in the affective trait

22
of gratitude might not experience grateful emotions on any given moment, but will

be more likely to experience gratitude in response to everyday situations than most.

There are two theories that frame the scientific study of gratitude. The first

theory describes gratitude as a moral emotion with three essential functions

(McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001). As a moral barometer,

gratitude signals to the beneficiary that a benefactor has bestowed a gift upon them

(Froh, Miller, Snyer, 2007). As a moral motive, gratitude encourages prosocial

behavior in the beneficiary either directly toward the benefactor or others (Froh,

Miller, Snyer, 2007). Finally, as a moral reinforcer, gratitude increases the

probability that the benefactor will act prosocially toward the beneficiary in the

future (Froh, Miller, Snyer, 2007). According to this framework, the experience of

gratitude motivates a person to carry out prosocial behavior, energizes them to

sustain moral behaviors, and inhibits them from committing destructive interpersonal

behaviors. These benefits could find an expression in academic life as the motivation

for pro-social behavior and could help students establish and maintain relationships

and social support in college, while the inhibition for destructive acts could have

numerous valuable consequences for a young person who is subjected to new ways

of thinking, new people, and circumstances.

The second theory is Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001) Broad and Build Theory of

positive emotions. Here, Fredrickson’s contention is that negative emotions restrict

one’s focus and prohibit one’s behavioral range. Positive emotions, however,

promote tendencies beyond physical action (Fredrickson, 2001). For example,

23
gratitude as an emotion can broaden one’s perspective and thus increase the

likelihood of feeling more gratitude for other areas in life. Frederickson’s theory

asserts that positive emotions generate broad thought and action repertoires that

ultimately build durable physical, intellectual, and social resources. There is

evidence suggesting that gratitude plays a role in connecting people in times of

difficulty and fuels their efforts to better cope with the situation (Affleck & Tennen,

1996; Coffmanm 1996). For instance, engagement in positive emotion such as

gratitude and interest during the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States

on September 11, 2001, buffered people against symptoms of depression

(Fredreickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003). Similarly, Coffman (1996)

reported that expressing thankfulness was one of the coping behaviors mentioned by

the survivors of a natural disaster. Thee findings suggest that positive emotions are

not only good in the moment but are also critical in coping with stressful situations.

This positive effect could have implications for college students who are adjusting to

many stressful situations such as living in a new environment, meeting new people,

and the financial concerns regarding the costs of college.

Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001) Broad and Build Theory of positive emotions

suggests that gratitude may also help individuals build other durable resources for

well-being. In an academic environment it can nurture creativity, intrinsic motivation,

purposefulness (Froh & Bono, 2008), and contribute to an upward spiral of positive

emotions and outcomes (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Grateful individuals tend

to be higher in vitality, optimism, religiousness, spirituality, (McCullough, Emmons,

24
& Tsang, 2002), well-being (Emmons & Shelton, 2002) and relationship quality

(Algoe, 2006) and lower in negative affect (McCullough, 2002; Watkins, Woodward,

Stone, & Kolts, 2003) and physical symptoms (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). For

the purpose of this study, levels of gratitude will be examined as the emotion of

gratitude has been correlated with over all well-being (r=.53) and appears to have

more relevance to the benefits to academic life.

Measuring gratitude. Two dispositional gratitude measures have been

developed. McCullough, Emmons, and Tsang (2002) constructed a self-report scale

to measure individual differences in dispositional gratitude (the Gratitude

Questionnaire-6, or GQ-6). McCullough, Emmons, and Tsang (2002) viewed the

“grateful disposition” as a tendency to recognize others’ generous contributions to

one’s own achievements and to feel thankful. The Gratitude Questionnaire-6 (GQ-6;

McCullough, 2002), has six items that measure the four facets of the grateful

disposition (i.e., intensity, frequency, span, and density). Sample items include, “I

have so much to be thankful for,” “If I had to list everything that I felt grateful for, it

would be a very long list,” and “I am grateful to a wide variety of people.” People

who score high on dispositional gratitude are expected to feel more grateful than

those scoring low following positive events, and to feel grateful for more aspects and

individuals in their lives. Another questionnaire measuring gratitude was designed by

Watkins, Porter, and Curtis (1996). They developed the Gratitude, Resentment, and

Appreciation Test (GRAT) which measures one’s sense of abundance in life and

appreciation of others. Sample items include: “I couldn’t have gotten where I am

25
today without the help of many people” and “I think it’s important to appreciate each

day that you are alive.” Both measures have been found to have reliable associations

with various subjective well-being measures, for example, both the GQ-6 and GRAT

are positively correlated with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), one of the

most frequently used measures of subjective well-being (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &

Griffen, 1985).

In two studies, McCollough (2002) found a strong positive association

between the GQ-6 and the SWLS (r = .53). While Watkins, Grim, and Hailu (1999)

found the GRAT and the SWLS to be correlated at (r =.49). For the purpose of this

study, the GQ-6 will be used to determine levels of dispositional gratitude of the

participants as the correlation with subjective well-being (r=.53) is slightly higher

than that of the GRAT.

Both researchers, McCollough and Watkins, concluded that grateful

individuals report themselves to have higher satisfaction with their lives. In support

of this finding, Watkins, Woodward, Stone, and Kolts (2003) found that grateful

people tend to experience greater “abundance” in their lives, appreciate the small

pleasures in life, and feel grateful for others’ contributions to their personal well-

being. From an educational standpoint, students who report higher levels of gratitude

have a stronger bond to their schools and teachers and report more satisfaction with

their education (Froh & Yurkewicz, 2008).

The benefits of gratitude in education. Satisfaction with school is related to

academic and social success (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002). Many students who are

26
satisfied with their school experience tend to find school interesting, feel good at

school, believe they are learning a lot, and look forward to going to school.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that college students’ experiences in school

affects their success. Yet, the degree to which level their satisfaction in life affects

their satisfaction in school, or the level of correspondence between the two is

unknown. Moreover, the relationship between gratitude and school self-efficacy is

also unknown. Consequently, there is a need to discover the relationship between

these variables as research has indicated they may have an important influence on the

academic success of students.

According to Fredrickson (2004) promoting grateful emotions in students

may help nurture beneficial processes, such as creativity and motivation to improve

one’s self. This, in turn, can build lasting resources for well-being in the future.

Robert Emmons, Editor-In-Chief of the Journal of Positive Psychology and author of

Thanks: How the New Science of Gratitude Can Make You Happier (2008) provides

a research-based synthesis on the topic of gratitude. According to Emmons (2007)

gratitude is not merely an academic discipline, but a practical framework for better

functioning in life. By cultivating gratitude, one can increase their happiness levels

by around 25%, which brings other health effects, such as longer and better quality

sleep and practicing the skill of emotional self-regulation. Better quality of sleep and

emotional self-regulation directly influence the experience and success of college

students.

27
 The most common method Emmons (2003) utilizes in his research is to ask

participants to keep a “Gratitude Journal.” This journal is composed of writing

something participants are grateful for four times a week, for three weeks. This short

intervention elicited a meaningful difference in the participants’ level of happiness.

Another exercise includes writing a “Gratitude Letter” to a person who has exerted a

positive influence on one’s life but one who has not been properly thanked in the

past. The participant is instructed to meet with that person and read the letter to them

face to face. The results indicate that the benefits were similar using both methods in

terms of enhanced happiness, health and well-being (Emmons, 2003).

In a study examining the effects of gratitude interventions on wellbeing,

Emmons and McCullough (2003) found that student and adult participants who were

in the gratitude groups reported fewer physical symptoms, more positive and

optimistic life appraisals, and more time exercising, than their counterparts in a

control group or other conditions. Their results showed that gratitude boosts

immediate positive affect and improves optimal functioning and well-being over a

longer period of time among adults.

In an effort to evaluate if these positive effects transferred to adolescents,

Froh (2008) made the first attempt at exploring the relation between gratitude and

subjective well-being in adolescents. In a daily gratitude journal-keeping exercise

(i.e., counting blessings), students in the gratitude condition reported significantly

more gratitude compared with those focused on irritants (i.e., the hassles group) and

significantly greater satisfaction with their school experience compared with both the

28
hassles and no-treatment control groups. Moreover, students in the gratitude

condition reported significantly greater optimism for their upcoming school week in

relation to those in the hassles condition. Therefore, regular doses of gratitude in

students may help counter negative appraisals of the academic experience and may

improve school bonding and social adjustment. Once more, further research needs to

examine whether positive feelings of gratitude actually affect self-efficacy, and is not

merely an overall level of optimism.

In addition to influencing optimism gratitude seems to influence intrinsic

goal pursuit, other oriented motivations, and the fulfillment of higher order needs

such as self expression and purpose (Kasser & Ryan, 1996). While goal pursuit is

similar to the motivational aspects of self-regulation, there still remains an absence

of the validation of the relationship between the two.

Because gratitude may strengthen supportive relationships and increase

prosocial behavior in adolescents (Froh & Yurkewicz, 2008) and promote intrinsic

goal striving, these benefits maybe especially useful for college students who are

new to their environment, meeting new people, and adjusting to new educational

circumstances. Previous researchers have suggested that future research should

explore other correlates of gratitude and examine more rigorously if promoting

gratitude improves goal striving, academic achievement, and social development

(Froh & Yurkewicz, 2008). This suggestion further necessitates the need for this

study to contribute to the body of knowledge in this area of research. It seems

reasonable to postulate that there is a relationship between gratitude, well-being, self-

29
efficacy, and control of learning beliefs. This proposed relationship will be discussed

in the upcoming section of self-efficacy and self-regulation.

Gender differences in gratitude. Gratitude may be an emotion in which the

expression and experience may differ between men and women (Naito, Wangwan, &

Tani, 2005; Solomon, 1995; Sommers & Kosmitzki, 1988). Men typically express

emotions associated with power and status (Brody, 1997, 1999). Because gratitude,

indebtedness, and dependency are related with each other in some ways (Solomon,

1995), some men may view the expression of gratitude as a sign of weakness, which

may threaten their masculinity and hurt their social status (Levant & Kopecky, 1995).

In an effort to protect themselves from negative emotions, such as expressing

weakness or lack of masculinity, men might avoid experiencing and expressing

gratitude (Levant & Kopecky, 1995).

In contrast, women appear more likely to experience and express gratitude

(Becker & Smenner, 1986; Gordon et al., 2004; Ventimiglia, 1982) and experience

more benefit from it (Kashdan, Mishra, Breen, & Froh, in press). In an unpublished

study, Kashdan (2008) found support for this finding across three studies with

various methodologies. Women, compared with men, evaluated the expression of

gratitude to be more interesting and exciting. Men reported it as less interesting,

more complex, uncertain, and conflicting. When asked to describe a recent episode

when they were the beneficiary of gratitude, women, compared with men, reported

fewer burdens and obligation. Lastly, over the course of 3 months, women with

greater gratitude, but not men, were more likely to satisfy the psychological needs of

30
belongingness and autonomy. Furthermore, Kashdan found that the willingness to

openly express emotions, which was greater in women, mediated these gender

differences. In sum, women may have an advantage compared with men toward

experiencing benefits from gratitude. This dissertation aims to explore this concept

further by evaluating how gender and a grateful disposition affect self-efficacy, self-

regulation, and subjective well-being.

In summary, research suggests that promoting grateful emotions in students

may help nurture beneficial processes, such as creativity and motivation to improve

one’s self. Moreover, the practice of gratitude may help students’ counter negative

appraisals of the academic experience and may improve school bonding and social

adjustment. Further research needs to examine whether positive feelings of gratitude

actually affect self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs.

Subjective Well-Being

Gratitude is a significant component of subjective well being (SWB). The

term subjective well-being and happiness are used interchangeably in the literature

and refer to the same experience. Subjective well-being (SWB) is a term for

happiness, life satisfaction, and positive affect (Howell, Kern, & Lyumbomirsky,

2007). Happiness has been defined as the experience of frequent positive emotion

(Diener, Sandvik, & Pavot, 1991) and has been measured extensively by Sonja

Lyumbomirsky at the University of California at Riverside where there is a Positive

Psychology Laboratory. According to Lyumbomirsky (2003) subjective well-being

consists of three components: 1) relatively high levels of positive affect; 2) relatively

31
low levels of negative affect; and 3) the overall judgment that one's life is a good one.

Along that same line, Diener (1984) emphasized three main characteristics of SWB

first is that such a state of being is subjective, which may be obvious yet important,

as one’s own experience of happiness is what defines subjective well-being. What an

American-born individual from an urban city defines as happiness may be quite

different from a Greek-born individual born on a rural island would define as

happiness. However, they both can report happiness as it is experienced by them.

The second characteristic according to Diener (1985) is that subjective well-being is

not merely the absence of negative factors (such as depression) but the addition of

positive factors. Third, the measurement of subjective well-being is global, meaning

it covers all aspects of a person’s life.

Happiness and life satisfaction are viewed not only as genetic, although

genetics may also play a part (Lyubomirsky, 2007), but resulting from inner

strengths shaped by social experiences and deliberate personal effort. Evidence

suggests that happiness (SWB) not only makes people feel good, but helps them

accrue numerous advantages and rewards across multiple life domains, including

health (Friedman, 1993), work (Howell, Kern, & Lyumbomirsky, 2007), marriage

(Marks & Flemmings, 1999) , and coping (Schiedeir, 1989). Lyumbomirsky, King &

Diener (2000) compiled empirical findings on many studies which reported that

people who score higher on SWB (as measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale )

have many advantages over their lower scoring peers. They are also likely to have

more friends and maintain greater intimacy which provides stronger social support

32
networks (Okum, Staock, Haring & Witter, 1984). Maintaining friends and social

support is important for students’ college experience. Further, when it comes to

professional settings, individuals with higher subjective well-being tend to be more

creative, have more energy, and produce higher quality work than their less happy

coworkers (Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1994).

Interestingly, thirty years of well-being research has indicated how poorly

demographic variables predict happiness or well-being. Variables such as gender,

age, intelligence, and material well being have predicted such a small portion of the

variance of well-being that researchers have concluded that demographics are largely

irrelevant to well-being (Diener, 1999).

Well-being is robustly correlated with greater physical and mental health as

well. Happier individuals have a greater ability to cope in situations of adversity

(Keltner & Bonnano, 1997), have a stronger immune system and are less vulnerable

to disease (Myers, 1993) and typically live longer (Danner, Snowden, & Frisen,

2001). Despite the adaptive qualities of happiness and the emphasis on well-being

from the last decade, research evaluating the effects of well-being on academic self-

efficacy and components of self-regulation is completely absent from the literature.

Further, not much of psychology’s focus has been on understanding how gratitude

and well-being may or may not influence self regulatory practices. As mentioned

earlier, an inquiry into scholarly search engines yielded zero articles with the key

words “gratitude” “well-being” “self-regulation” and “self-efficacy”.

33
 Subjective well-being in the press. Even though the empirical investigation of

the relationship between gratitude and well-being to self-efficacy is scarce, research

is blooming in the scholarly and mainstream press on the general topics of subjective

well-being and gratitude. Books in this field are flourishing. To illustrate, The How

of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want (Lyubomirsky,

2008), Authentic Happiness (Seligman, 2002), The Handbook of Positive Psychology

in the Schools: Promoting Wellness in Children and Youth (Bono & Froh, 2008), A

Psychology of Human Strengths (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003), Positive

Psychological Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures (Lopez & Snyder,

2004), Positive Psychology in Practice (Linley & Joseph, 2004), and Flourishing

(Keyes & Haidt, 2003) are just a few of the many selections that illuminate the

empirical findings and the methods used in the science of Positive Psychology and

well-being. Further, in the academic milieu, three new peer reviewed journals have

been developed in the past decade as result of the increased scientific inquiry into

well-being, The Journal of Positive Psychology, The Journal of Happiness Studies,

and The Journal of Quality of Life Aspects. However, even with all the new

literature about subjective well-being, there remains a gap in the scholarship

regarding its relationship to academic and general self-efficacy. Finding the

relationship between these important concepts would have a substantial impact on

the understanding of how well-being affects human learning and motivation.

The benefits of well-being and gratitude. Lyumbomirsky, King, and Diener

(2004) report that happy individuals are likely to have more friends, maintain

34
friendships, and have greater intimacy and depth, which ultimately provides people

with stronger social networks. Similarly, Estrad, Isen, & Young (1994) found that

happy individuals are more creative, have more energy, and produce work that is

superior to their coworkers. Happy individuals have greater ability to cope in

stressful situations (Ketner & Bonnano, 1997), live longer than unhappy people

(Danner, Snowden, & Friesen, 2001), have stronger immune systems, and are less

vulnerable to disease (Myers, 1997). McCullough (2002) has also found gratitude to

be linked to more helping behaviors, high positive emotion, life satisfaction,

increased hope, and lower feelings of depression, anxiety, envy, as well as

materialistic attitudes.

In conclusion, the review of the literature on gratitude and well-being has

brought to focus that having a grateful state or trait has been shown to lead to many

positive outcomes that are of central importance to college age students’

psychological well-being; such as satisfaction with school, having pro-social

relationships, and improved focus on priorities and fulfillment of meaningful goals.

Further expansion of well-being and gratitude research needs to include one of the

most important predictors of academic success: self-efficacy.

Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory was developed by Bandura (1986) and assumes that

people are goal-directed and capable of forethought, symbolization, self-reflection,

self-regulation, and vicarious learning. According to Social Cognitive Theory,

expectations play a very important role in shaping behavior, goals and general

35
human functioning (Bandura, 1986). Expectations regarding personal abilities and

future outcomes are central to the formation of human behavior (Bandura, 1986).

According to Bandura (1997) self-efficacy expectations are judgments about how

well a person can perform in a certain way in order to meet a goal or cope effectively

with stressful situations. Learning and motivation from the social cognitive

perspective are viewed in terms of cognitive processes that are based on self

evaluations of past experiences and involve the establishment of internal standards or

goals for behavioral tasks (Bandura, 1997)

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to the belief in one’s competence to exercise control over

his or her actions and to achieve at a given task or life-event (Bandura, 1994;

Zimmerman, 1995). Research in self-efficacy indicates that students' academic self-

beliefs are created and developed, to some degree, by the messages that students

send and receive (Bandura, 1997; Eccles, 1983; Marsh, 1990). Self-efficacy beliefs

are hypothesized to mediate the influence of other facets of academic outcomes, such

as skill level and past performance. Self-efficacy beliefs also influence broad self

beliefs, such as self concept, value, and anxiety. Research indicates that self-efficacy

beliefs mediate between self regulatory beliefs and academic engagement, such as

effort and persistence and subsequent performances (Bandura 1986, Pajares, 1997).

Bandura (1994) defined general self-efficacy as the beliefs held by people about their

capabilities to perform certain tasks and accomplish specific goals, and self-efficacy

36
affects human functioning in cognitive, motivational, affective and selection

processes.

Students who hold positive beliefs about their own competence, feelings of

self-worth, and confidence in their self-regulatory strategies engage in academic

tasks with greater optimism than do students who devalue academics or doubt their

abilities (Bandura, 1997; Eccles, 1983). As Bandura stated (1984, p. 251), self-

efficacy touches at least to some extent most everything we do. The context specific

nature of self-efficacy means students may feel efficacious about creating a painting,

yet lack the efficacy for solving statistical problems. Research findings have

documented the wide-ranging effects of efficacy perceptions on learning and

motivation. Self-efficacy theory predicts that highly efficacious students will expend

more effort on challenging learning tasks (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990), and

persist longer in the face of difficulty (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1991). In addition,

they will remain resilient and cope serenely in the face of adversity (Pajares, 1996).

Self-efficacy is among the best predictors of academic achievement and motivation

to learn (Schunk, 1991).

In contrast, low perceptions of efficacy can lead to task avoidance, passivity,

lack of task engagement and a resignation that failure is inevitable (Bandura, 1997).

Such negative beliefs can bring about stress, depression and a narrow view of how to

solve problems. Less efficacious learners also tend to be less strategic and more

teacher dependent (Pressley & Associates, 1990). These results combine to suggest

37
that high self-efficacy is related to deeper and more strategic processing of

information during learning.

In terms of feeling, a low sense of self-efficacy is associated with depression,

anxiety, and helplessness. Such individuals also have low self-esteem and harbor

pessimistic thoughts about their accomplishments and personal development (Eccles,

1983). In terms of thinking, a strong sense of competence facilitates cognitive

processes and performance in a variety of settings, including quality of decision-

making and academic achievement. When it comes to performing an action or task,

self-related cognitions direct the motivation process such that self-efficacy levels can

enhance or impede motivation.

Bandura (1994) identified four factors that positively influence self-efficacy.

They include: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and

physiological and emotional cues.

Mastery experiences. Mastery experience is the most effective at building a

strong sense of efficacy because it builds off of successes and can be guided or self-

directed and share the goal of promoting intellectual competency (Zimmerman,

2006). Building a strong sense of efficacy through mastery experiences means

developing the behavioral, cognitive, and self-regulatory tools to help navigate

challenging life experiences (Bandura, 1995). Self-directed mastery experiences

involve specific activities, incentives, and personal challenges that keep the

individual motivated in order to manage educational development. When the result

of a students’ performance is positive, self-efficacy is positively affected. For

38
example, if a student’s performance results with positive praise, or recognition, their

self-efficacy is likely to be affected in an affirmative way. Both guided and self-

directed mastery experiences help strengthen and broaden one’s sense of self-

efficacy (Zimmerman, 2006).

Vicarious experiences. Vicarious experiences are the social aspect of building

efficacy beliefs. As people see others similar to themselves succeed, they believe that

accomplishing similar tasks is possible (Bandura, 1995). Self-efficacy can be

developed simply through observation of a success or failure (Oettingen, 1997).

When the observer and the modeler have many similar qualities, vicarious

experiences are especially meaningful. However, observing the successes of a

modeler who is quite different greatly diminishes the affects (Pajares, 2002). These

vicarious experiences can also be referred to as social modeling (Kasdin, 2000;

Pajares, 2002). In regards to young adults, peer models are especially helpful.

Younger students learn from those students who are already successful by watching

their study habits and methods for learning. For example, students who are already

highly motivated and hard-working will raise their self-efficacy when they observe

models showing them a superior way of doing things (Pajares, 2002).

Social persuasion. The third way to develop efficacy is through social

persuasion and verbal messages. It is easier to weaken overall self-efficacy beliefs

through social influence than it is to inspire them positively (Bandura, 1995). Self-

efficacy beliefs are subject to verbal messages, whether intentional or accidental.

Positive influences encourage and empower, while negative influences overpower

39
and diminish self-beliefs (Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy beliefs are actually more

affected by negative appraisals than positive responses (Pajares, 2002).

Physiological and Emotional Cues. Stress, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and

other perceived emotional or physical reactions all play a part in how one determines

his or her capability and can be regarded as inefficacy (Bandura, 1995; Kasdin, 2000;

Oettingen, 1997). Even the temporary moods people have affect success levels

(Oettingen, 1997). When individuals have negative fears or thoughts about their

own abilities, additional stress and anxiety can be triggered and efficacy levels may

drop (Pajares, 2002). Enhancing self-efficacy emotionally and physically can be

done by working to reduce stress and negative emotions. This is an area where

research into well-being could prove to be very enlightening as well-being affects the

content of one’s mood.

This type of efficacy source may be the most complex to measure because of

the difficulty in interpreting emotional states (Oettingen, 1997). Gratitude, as

mentioned previously, is an emotional state, therefore theoretically it could influence

self efficacy via psychological and emotional cues, consequently affecting self-

regulation as well.

It has been found that a strong sense of personal efficacy is related to better

health, higher achievement, and more social integration. Self-efficacy is commonly

understood as being domain-specific, meaning one can have more or less firm self-

beliefs in different domains or particular situations of functioning. Smith and Fouad

(1999) found that self- efficacy, goals, and outcome expectations are specific to

40
particular subject areas and do not indicate generalization across domains. However,

there is a generalized sense of self-efficacy (Scharzer, 1994). It refers to a global

confidence in one’s coping ability across a wide range of demanding or novel

situations. General self-efficacy aims at a broad and stable sense of personal

competence to deal effectively with a variety of stressful situations (Schwarzer,

1994).

Self-efficacy is thought to form a repeating cycle, such that one increases

one’s sense of self-efficacy each time one succeeds at a given task, which leads to

high levels of self-efficacy in the future. Within this framework, the realization of

goals is preceded by thoughts and internal visualizations. Self-efficacy beliefs shape

the way one conceptualizes attaining a given goal. If one has high self-efficacy

beliefs, they visualize succeeding. This imagined success story helps to motivate the

individual when the time comes to take action. However, if the individual has low

self-efficacy beliefs, he or she imagines failure scenarios. This self-doubt will make

it difficult for the individual to create action and to achieve their goal.

Self-efficacy has been shown to be related to overall academic achievement

(Landine & Stewart, 1998; Schunk, 1995; Zimmerman, 1995). Specifically, self-

efficacy has been positively correlated with engagement, effort, and attention in

school (Caraway, Tucker, Reinke, & Hall, 2003), adjustment (Chemers, Hu, &

Garcia, 2001; Miller et al., 1999), and grade-point-average (Bouffard-Bouchard,

Parent, & Larivee, 1991; D'Amico & Maurizio, 2003; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984).

Additionally, undergraduate students with high self-efficacy beliefs persist longer in

41
their majors (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984) and consider a wider range of future

career choices than those with low self-efficacy perceptions (Church, Teresa,

Rosebrook, & Szendre, 1992).

Measurement of self-efficacy. A search on www.des.emory.edu the website of

Bandura’s work, demonstrates there are over twenty self-efficacy scales that range

from topics such as teacher self-efficacy to nursing student self-efficacy. Caution is

advised when using self efficacy measures as they need to be developed in a manner

that gauges an individual’s self-assessed capacity to either (a) achieve a certain

outcome on a particular task (outcome self efficacy), or (b) engage in the processes

likely to lead to a certain, desired outcome (process self-efficacy) (Heslin & Klehe,

2006). For instance, an outcome self-efficacy scale in the domain of college math

may include items such as “I believe that I can get a 90% or above on the next math

exam”, with response ranging from “not at all confident” to “extremely confident.”

Conversely, a process self-efficacy scale for college math would include an item

such as “I believe I can study effectively and complete my homework for this

semester” with responses similar to the outcome self-efficacy scale. The main idea

according to Heslin & Klehe ( 2006) is that measures of self efficacy are predictive,

informative, and useful for addressing areas where self-efficacy is lacking or when

they are highly focused on task specific behaviors.

There are relatively few instruments designed to assess academic self-

efficacy across subjects. Many studies have demonstrated that individuals with

stronger self-efficacy beliefs in specific content areas perform better in those

42
particular areas. These areas include academic self-efficacy and college student

satisfaction (DeWitz & Walsh, 2002); academic self-efficacy and study skills

acquisition (Zytowski & Luzzo, 2002); math and science self-efficacy (Lapan,

Boggs, & Morril, 1989); and job-seeking self-efficacy (Barlow et al., 2002). These

findings have led researchers to name the specific type of efficacy beliefs being

studied, for example, academic self-efficacy or job seeking self efficacy (DeWitz &

Walsh, 2002).

Researchers have sought for reliable and valid measures of self-efficacy in

order to appropriately assess students low in levels of this construct. While several

instruments have been created to measure academic efficacy beliefs in students of all

educational levels, many of these measures were created to assess levels of self-

efficacy in specific subjects such as reading/writing in English courses (Shell, Colvin,

& Brunning, 1995), math (Hackett & Betz, 1989; Matsui, Matsui, & Ohnishi, 1990)

and levels of student efficacy beliefs to accomplish specific academic activities such

as listening to lectures, note taking, and understanding oral presentations

(Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). The assessment of academic self-

efficacy has been primarily used by researchers to determine the role this construct

plays in academic achievement (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). Only a small number

of instruments exist that were created with the intent to assess global levels of

academic self-efficacy which is the focus for this study. Logic would indicate that

people with higher levels of gratitude and subjective well-being may be more

efficacious about their lives on the whole. What remains to be discovered is the

43
degree to which these positive psychology constructs actively influence the

assessments of academic efficacy.

This study aims to evaluate self efficacy both in general and school-specific

tasks. Currently, there are no empirically validated measures to address this area of

research, therefore, two scales that measure general self efficacy and academic self

efficacy will be merged to meet this need. The first scale is The General Perceived

Self-efficacy Scale, English Version, (GPSS) developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem

(1995), which assesses an individual’s broad and stable sense for personal

competence to deal efficiently with a variety of stressful situations. The ten item

questionnaire assesses the strength of an individual's belief in his or her own ability

to predict and manage daily hassles, as well as adapt after experiencing all kinds of

stressful life events (Schwarzer, 2001; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1993 & 2000). The

original version of this scale was in German (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1979) and it

included twenty items. The scale was revised and adapted to twenty-six other

languages by various co-authors. Studies have been conducted to examine the

revised scale's psychometric properties and have found internal consistencies

between alpha = .75 and .90.

Midgley, Maehr, Hruda, Anderman, Anderman, Freeman, Gheen, Kaplan,

Kumar, Middleton, Nelson, Roeser, and Urdan (2000) along with the University of

Michigan developed a scale that uses goal orientation theory to examine the relation

between the learning environment and students’ motivation, affect, and behavior.

Student scales assess 1) personal achievement goal orientations; 2) perceptions of

44
teacher’s goals; 3) perceptions of the goal structures in the classroom; 4)

achievement-related beliefs, attitudes, and strategies; and 5) perceptions of parents

and home life on a five point Likert scale. Many of the scales are based on research

showing that a differential emphasis on “mastery” and “performance” goals is

associated with adaptive or maladaptive patterns of learning (Ames, 1992; Dweck,

1986; Maehr, 1984; Nicholls, 1984). The PALS has an alpha of .78 and the different

PALS subscales can be used together or individually. For this reason the PALS will

be used in the current study as one of the subscales to measure academic self-

efficacy. The five items from the PALS subscale of the “academic beliefs” section

will be integrated with the ten items from the General Perceived Self- Efficacy Scale

to assess general and academic self-efficacy. As previously mentioned, there

currently is not one scale that evaluates general and academic self-efficacy, thus the

need to combine the two scales.

To summarize, Bandura (1994) defined global self-efficacy as the beliefs

held by people about their capabilities to perform certain tasks and accomplish

specific goals; and self-efficacy affects human functioning in cognitive, motivational,

affective and selection processes. Self-efficacy is global and content specific and one

the major predictors of academic success along with self-regulation.

Self-Regulation

According to Maddux and Gosselin (2003), one of the most important

consequences of the development of self-efficacy beliefs is the development of

capacity for self-regulation. While the term self-regulation can refer to the

45
management of behavior in many domains, such as internally with physical health

and emotional well being (Hong, Tan, & Chang, 2004; Norman, Abraham, & Conner,

2002) or externally with interpersonal relationships or social situations (Boekaerts,

Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000), self-regulation in this dissertation will be limited to the

evaluation of students’control for learning beliefs. Self-regulation influences goal-

setting, activity choice, persistence, effort expenditure, and problem-solving. The

ability to regulate ones’ self allows for learning strategies such as cognitive strategy

use (Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), and monitoring working time and task-

persistence (Bouffard-Bouchard et al., 1991) and is predictive of self-regulation in

specific subject domains such as math, language arts, (Garcia & Pintrich, 1995;

Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990), science, and history (Garcia & Pintrich, 1995).

Self-regulated learning is seated within the Social-Cognitive perspective

concerning goal setting and achievement. A self-regulated learner is defined by one’s

awareness of the connection between regulatory processes and learning outcomes

and his or her use of these strategies to achieve academic goals (Zimmerman, 1990).

Wolters and Pintrich (1998) found that efficacious students reported using a greater

variety of cognitive and self-regulatory strategies with greater performance

accomplishments. A strong correlation exists between high self-efficacy and self-

regulatory strategies (cognitive and metacognitive), goal setting and successful

performance (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990; Locke &

Latham, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992).

46
 Self-regulated students are those who are metacognitively, motivationally and

behaviorally active participants in their own learning process (Zimmerman 1986)

and self-regulated students have been described as confident, autonomous,

inquisitive learners who employ metacognitive strategies to facilitate their learning

(Risemberg & Zimmerman 1992, Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988).

Self-regulated learning is a cyclical process in three phases, whereby a

student monitors their learning progress and responds accordingly. These responses

take place either through changes in self-perception or changes in behavior

(Zimmerman, 1990). This dissertation will focus on the first phase of self-regulation

which is forethought, as it pertains to the motivational aspects of self-regulation. The

forethought phase involves self-motivation beliefs, such as self-efficacy, outcome

expectations and value, goal setting, and strategic planning. For example, if a college

freshman knows they have a midterm coming up, in order to study for the exam (i.e.,

engage in self-regulation strategies), they must first believe that studying for the

exam would positively influence the possible grade, and they must also value

receiving the good grade.

The use of self-regulation has been found to be empirically related

(Zimmerman, 1990) and predictive (Schunk, 1982, 1987, 1996) to academic

achievement. Students who are self-regulated are more likely to reach their goals

because they make intentional plans and monitor their learning on a regular basis

(Zimmerman, 1990). Students who engage in self-regulatory strategies have been

shown to perform better in school than students who do not use these strategies as

47
often (Grahm & Golan, 1991, Miller & Byrnes, 2001; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;

Zimmerman, 1990). Additionally, self-regulated learners are more intrinsically

motivated and are more likely to use cognitive strategies than students who are not

self-regulated (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Lastly, students who use self-regulatory

strategies are more likely to persist instead of giving up in difficult situations than

those who do not use self-regulatory strategies (Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman,

1995). Thus, self-regulation is an effective method of measuring both a commitment

to learning and academic achievement. Since well-being has also been related to

academic achievement, examining the relationship between well-being and the self

regulatory practice of control for learning beliefs would lend an insight into how and

if these constructs are related, resulting in a potentially powerful relationship and

predictor of academic success.

Motivational aspects of self-regulation. Motivation is associated with self-

efficacy and self-regulated strategies. Successful learners are most likely to be those

who possess a strong sense of efficacy, employ a wide range of self-regulatory

strategies, and maintain high motivational levels during the course of their learning

(Semmar, 2006). Educational psychology research has focused on factors that

motivate students. Pintrich and Schunk (1996) summarized a full range of theories

stemming from early psychological and philosophic views of motivation such as

volition, will, instinct, and psychical energy. Other primary areas of motivation

research include attribution (Weiner, 1974), locus of control (Rotter, 1966),

expectancy-value (Eccles, 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995), self-efficacy (Bandura,

48
1977), social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; Rotter, 1954), intrinsic/extrinsic

motivation, needs theory (Maslow, 1954), goal theory, self-regulation, and models of

interest and affect. Despite the development of so many theories, no uniform

definition of motivation has been agreed upon in the research, and this fact has been

discussed by a number of researchers (Hodges, 2004; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996;

Wlodkowski, 1999). Beyond the very general concept that motivation explains why

people think and behave as they do, no standard definition or explanation has been

identified. Even the latest motivation textbooks and reviews (Schunk, Pintrich, &

Meece, 2008; Steers, Mowday, & Shaprio, 2004) express different views on the

mechanism of motivation and the role of different motivation theories.

This literature review, and subsequent study, will focus on a few broad areas

that are taken from The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire Scale

(MSLQ) (Pintrich, 1991). The scale will be presented the following section. The

areas of motivation include 1) “Expectancy” which involves students’ belief about

their ability to perform a task, 2) “Value” which includes intrinsic and extrinsic goals

and students’ beliefs about the importance and interest of the task, and 3) “Affect”

which includes students’ emotional reactions to the task and test anxiety (Eccles,

1983; Pintrich, 1988, 1989). A thorough investigation into these topics will follow in

the next section. The theoretical framework that conceptualized student motivation

for the MSLQ is an adaptation of a general expectancy-value model of motivation

(Eccles, 1983; Pintrich, 1988, 1989). The model proposes that there are three

motivational areas for self-regulated learning, as mentioned above.

49
 Expectancy. The basic assumption of expectancy is that motivation is a

function of one’s belief about learning, in essence their self-efficacy. It suggests that

people are motivated to achieve a goal if they have a positive expectancy for success.

In this sense the expectancy component involves the student answering the question

“Can I do this task?”

Value. The value component of student motivation involves students’ goals

for the task and the subsequent belief about the importance of the task (Pintrich &

DeGroot, 1990). This involves the student answering the question “Why am I doing

this?” This area been explored in a variety of ways. The concept of intrinsic versus

extrinsic goal orientation is abundantly prevalent within the social-cognitive models

of motivation. Intrinsic motivation is defined as motivation to engage in an activity

for its own sake, whereas extrinsic motivation refers to motivation to engage in an

activity as a means to an end (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Returning to the college

student mentioned earlier, if that student is motivated to take a pottery class, which

assigns no grades, yet offers the experience to learn about pottery, that student would

be exhibiting intrinsic motivation by enrolling in that course if they are there for the

sheer pleasure of learning the skill. On the contrary, if the student’s parents, or some

other external force is driving him or her to take the class, or they need a no credit

class, then the experience of the course is motivated extrinsically.

It is not possible to elaborate on all the various lines and forms of research

that fall under the heading of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as there are many

multidimensional perspectives of intrinsic motivation. One such example is Deci and

50
Ryan's (Deci, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1991) self-determination theory. In this theory,

one of the defining features of intrinsic motivation is high personal interest in the

task or activity, also called task value in the MSLQ. Similar to other constructs in

motivation, interest is also multidimensional and should not be thought of as simply

liking or not liking a particular task or domain. For example, interest in general is

defined as the interaction between the individual and his or her environment (Krapp,

Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). Personal interest mirrors an individual's interest in a

particular topic or domain (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). It is evident by students'

reports of how much they like or enjoy a particular activity or domain. Personal

interest is thought to be somewhat stable over time and is partially a function of

individuals' preferences as well as aspects of the task (e.g., Malone & Lepper, 1987).

In contrast, situational interest is based entirely on the features of the learning

context and may be short term or long lasting (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). Both

personal and situational interest has the potential to influence academic achievement.

Personal interest is positively associated with achievement (Krapp,1992) as well as

with the use of deeper cognitive strategies (Schiefele, 1991) for children and adults.

To date there is no knowledge of how well-being or gratitude may or may not affect

the interest of a student.

Affect. This area of motivation concerns students’ affective or emotional

reactions to a particular task. This issue raises the question to students “How do I

feel about this task?” (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Multiple emotions may be

evident in this domain, such as guilt, and pride, but in the academic environment it

51
usually manifests as anxiety (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Test anxiety is related to

perceptions of competence (Nicholls, 1976) and effort management. As such, test

anxiety it is one area where linear relations are not straightforward. Benjamin (1981)

found that highly anxious students’ seemed to be persistent and effortful like their

low anxious peers, however, they were ineffective learners, compared to the low

anxious peers, even though they had appropriate cognitive strategies for academic

success. This finding indicates that anxiety compromises the long term success of

learning.

In summary, motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning are all

important Social Cognitive constructs. These hypothetical constructs are used to

provide possible explanations of human behavior (Wlodkowski, 1999) and learning.

In the context of learning, motivation, self-efficacy beliefs, and self-regulated

strategies all contribute to major influential roles of academic achievement. The

literature indicates that motivation, self-efficacy and self-regulated learning (1) can

affect learning performance, (2) are associated with both cognitive and affective

processes, and (3) can be influenced by external factors.

Measurement of self-regulation. The Motivated Strategies for Learning

Questionnaire (MSLQ) was developed to evaluate university students’ motivational

orientations and their use of different learning strategies (Pintrich, 1991). Two

essential sections of the scale are the motivation and the learning strategies sections.

The Motivation section has 6 factors and the learning strategies section has 9 factors.

Both sections can be used individually or together depending on the researcher’s

52
purpose. For this study only the “control of learning beliefs” items from the

motivation section will be used.

As mentioned above, the structure of the motivation scale consists of

expectancy, value, and affect. The 81 items of the MSLQ-TR are scored on a 7 point

Likert scale, from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me). Many researchers

have utilized the MSLQ in an effort to predict academic success and measure

academic self-efficacy. Lynch (2006) found that self-efficacy and effort regulation

predicted course grades for upper level students, and that self-efficacy and extrinsic

goal orientation predicted course grades for freshmen. Similarly, Watson, McSorley,

Foxcroft and Watson (2004) found that the motivation subscales of the MSLQ,

except for control of learning beliefs and test anxiety, were significantly related to

academic performance. In addition, Gilles (1994) indicated that self-efficacy for

learning and performance, self-regulation, and effort regulation were significantly

related to final course grade. Test anxiety was negatively related to final course

grade, not surprisingly. Thus, it appears that the MSLQ has a long standing history of

use with college students and the prediction of college course performance. Hence, it

is the selected measurement for this study.

Bringing Social Cognitive and Positive Psychology Together

While gratitude has not been studied with self-efficacy, optimism, which is

similar to gratitude and is also considered a construct of Positive Psychology, has

been shown to be related to self-efficacy. Kerademous (2006) examined the ways

that expectations interact with perceived social support in shaping well-being, as

53
well as the possible role of optimism as a mediator in the relationship of self-efficacy

and social support to well-being. Optimism, in this study, was defined as generalized

tendency to expect positive outcomes even in the face of obstacles. Depression and

satisfaction with life scales were used as indicators of well-being on 201 middle aged

individuals. Kerademous (2006) found that optimism served as a mediator between

well-being measures, and social support and self-efficacy. Self-efficacy and social

support predicted depression and satisfaction with life in two ways: directly and

indirectly through optimism. Optimism was significantly predicted by daily

emotional social support and self-efficacy. The mediatory role of optimism revealed

the possible relations between cognitive representations and human functioning.

Keredemous (2006) contends that optimism reflects an overall positive appraisal of

the future. Meaning that a positive view of the future requires a positive appraisal of

the individual themselves, their environment, and a belief that things become better.

This is similar to the constructs of gratitude and subjective well-being. This study

found that self-efficacy predicted optimism in a positive way and optimism was

positively related to satisfaction with life.

In another study involving satisfaction with life and self-efficacy, Park (2000)

found self-efficacy played a direct role in academic achievement in elementary level

students when over 3,000 K-12 students completed a measurement that looked at

social support, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy. In this case, self-efficacy directly

affected life-satisfaction and in turn, life-satisfaction directly affected academic

achievement. A major influence in academic achievement from this study was

54
support from family, teachers, and friends. These findings need to be replicated with

other populations, including college students.

Conclusion

To conclude, students’ beliefs about their own ability to succeed are essential

to setting and achieving goals. Students with high self-efficacy, regardless of

previous successes or abilities, persist in the face of adversity, have lower stress

levels, achieve more, and are more optimistic (Pajares, 2006). Most of these findings

have been under the empirical study of Social Cognitive Theory, which has been the

major contributor for the understanding of learning and motivation. Bridging Social

Cognitive Theory with Positive Psychology may lead to a deeper understanding of

the complex issues that address learning and motivation. Therefore, studying the

relationship between Positive Psychology variables and self-efficacy and self-

regulation is an important research goal for educational leaders as it may help to

increase the academic achievement of their students.

55
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The problem being investigated is the lack of understanding between the

variables of well-being and gratitude on the construct on self-efficacy and self-

regulation. As was demonstrated in both Chapter 1 and 2, gratitude has been found to

be positively related to connection with school and optimism for the upcoming week

of school. However, research had not extended this relationship to the major

predictors of academic success. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to

provide greater insight into the relationship between gratitude, well-being, self

efficacy, and students’ control of their learning beliefs. This chapter includes the

research questions and a description of the research methodology. The latter includes

the sampling procedure and population, instrumentation, and procedures for data

collection and analysis

Research Questions

1. What is the relationship between gratitude and both general self-efficacy

and school self-efficacy?

2. What is the relationship between subjective well-being and both general

self-efficacy and school self-efficacy?

3. Is there a relationship between gratitude and subjective well-being and

control of learning beliefs?

In addition to the findings for the primary research questions, additional

aspects of the relationships between the variables were investigated.

56
 Research Design

The research design was quantitative in nature and no experimental

techniques were used to explore the relationship between the independent variables

and the dependant variables. The independent variables for this study were 1) levels

of dispositional gratitude and 2) subjective well-being. The independent variables

also included demographic variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, and reported

religion or spirituality.

The dependant variables were 1) students reported self-efficacy and 2)

students reported control of learning beliefs. The data was gathered though a survey

that provided the necessary content for answering the research questions.

Population and Sample

The population of interest was college students. Participants for this study

were recruited from a private four year art college in Southern California during the

2008 – 2009 academic year. More than 200 students volunteered; therefore, no other

school was recruited for participants as the desired number of participants was

achieved. This was also the first school to allow the researcher on campus.

Anonymous self-reported surveys were completed by participants via paper and

pencil. Of the 206 participants 46% were male and 54% were female. The racial

background of the participants in this study were largely Caucasian (n = 85, 41.3%),

with the remaining participants identified as Hispanic (n = 60, 29.1%), Asian (n = 32,

15.5%), African American (n = 12, 5.8%), and other (n = 15, 7.3%). The general

characteristics of the study population included diverse backgrounds including

57
ethnicity, socioeconomic backgrounds, and spiritual preferences. Ninety-eight

percent of the students attending this school were on financial aid. The average age

of the participants was 22.8 years old with a range of 18-60 years old. All

participants were over the age of 18. The demographic data is presented in table 1.

Table 1. Demographic Data (n = 206)

Total Percent
Gender Female 111 53.9
Male 94 45.6
Ethnic Background African American/Black 12 5.8
Asian/Pacific Islander 32 15.5
Hispanic/Latino 60 29.1
Native American 0 0
White/Caucasian 85 41.3
Other 15 7.3
Age 18-20 77 37.9
21-25 89 43.9
26-30 26 12.8
31-35 5 2.5
36-40 1 .5
41-45 4 2
46-50 0 0
51-55 0 0
56-60 1 0.5

58
 To provide a further understanding into students' backgrounds, students were

asked to elaborate on their religious or spiritual practice. An open ended question

asked "If religious or spiritual, which religious or spiritual practice do you follow?"

Results from the questions indicate that almost 40% of students did not answer that

question, followed by 28% answering "Christian" and less than 20% answering

"Catholic." Table 2 presents the three most common religious or spiritual practices

reported and the number of answers and percents. Figure 1 includes a bar chart of all

religious and spiritual practices reported by the participants.

Table 2. Three Religious or Spiritual Practices and Number of Participants and

Percent

Number of Participants
Religious or Spiritual Practice Percent
(n = 206)
Christian 52 25.2
Catholic 34 16.5
Agnostic 6 2.9

59
Figure 1. Religion Type

60
 Student participants were asked to take part in the study during the beginning

of class. The classes that were surveyed included: speech, journalism, philosophy,

psychology, language and culture, sociology, critical thinking, research design, and

thesis design. All of these classes fulfill general education requirements for the

school. General education classes were selected as they represent a more general

population of students. Most college students are required to take general education

classes.

This was an appropriate sample for the current study as the sample

population was college students, which was the population under study. All

participation was voluntary and in return for participating a $20.00 Starbucks gift

card was raffled in each class after all the surveys were collected.

Instrumentation

This study assessed college students’ levels of gratitude, subjective well-

being, self-efficacy, and control of learning beliefs. The quantitative items were

presented via surveys in person. Several instruments were utilized in an effort to

adequately gather appropriate data on the variables under investigation.

Demographic data. All participants were required to address various forms of

background information. The information included age, gender, ethnicity, and

religion/spiritual orientation.

The Gratitude Questionaire-6 (GQ-6). The GQ-6 (McCullough, 2002)

measures people’s disposition to be grateful. In this study, it measured the gratitude

variable. It contains items that asses the frequency and intensity of gratitude that

61
people experience. The GQ-6 consists of six items, such as “I am grateful to a wide

variety of people” and “As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate the

people, events, and situations that have been part of my life history.” Items are rated

on a 7 point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). The gratitude

scale is reported to measure one-dimensional construct with a good internal

reliability, an alpha at .82 and .87. (Emmons, 2003). McCollough (2002)

demonstrated that scores on the GQ-6 are positively associated with the Satisfaction

With Life Scale (r=.53; Diener, Emmons, Larson, Griffin, 1985) as well as with

other variables that are related with subjective well-being such as positive affect

(r=.31) and vitality (r=.46). The GQ-6 has been found to be negatively associated

with anxiety (r=-.20), depression, (r=-.30), and negative affect (r=-.31). Two items

are reverse-scored to inhibit response bias. They include using reversed scores for

items 3 and 6. In this study, Cronbach's alpha for gratitude was .687.

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The SWLS is one of the most

commonly used measures of subjective well-being (Diener, Emmons, Larsen &

Griffin, 1985). In this study, this scale measured the variable subjective well-being.

The scale focuses on the cognitive judgment aspect of subjective well-being. The

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a

five-item scale that “is designed around the idea that one must ask subjects for an

overall judgment of their life in order to measure the concept of life satisfaction”

(Diener et al., 1985, pp. 71-72). Items include “In most ways my life is close to my

ideal” and “The conditions of my life are excellent.” Individuals indicate their

62
degree of agreement or disagreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale. The 5 items of

the SWLS were selected from a pool of 48 items based on factor analyses. Diener

(1985) reported a 2-month test-retest correlation coefficient of .82 and an alpha

coefficient of .87 for a sample of 176 undergraduates from the University of Illinois.

The SWLS has been found to be positively associated at statistically significant

levels with other measures of subjective well-being and negatively associated with

measures of psychopathology (Diener, 1985). Cronbach's alpha for subjective well-

being in this study was .834.

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The MSLQ

was designed to assess college students’ motivational orientations and their use of

different learning strategies. The variable control for learning beliefs was measured

by the subscale “control for learning beliefs” from this measurement. The MSLQ

has shown to be a reliable and valid instrument (Pintrich, Simith, Garcia, &

McKeachie, 1993; Pintrich, 1991) that has been used in a variety of studies across

various courses, content areas and countries (Bandalos, Finney, & Geske, 2003;

Zusho, Pintrich, & Coppola, 2003). The MSLQ can be used either in its entirety or

its subscales and has most frequently been applied to evaluate the motivational and

cognitive effects educational programs have on students (Bong, 2004; Bong &

Hocevar, 2002). It is an 81-item, self-report survey consisting of six motivation

scales and nine learning strategies scales. The motivation scales comprise three

broad areas: (a) value, (b) expectancy, and (c) affect. The learning strategies scales

comprise three broad areas: (a) cognitive, (b) metacognitive, and (c) resource

63
management strategies but will not be included in this study as they do not pertain to

the focus of the study. The items are presented on a 7-point Likert-type scale, from 1

(not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me). Coefficient alphas for the motivation

scales range from .62 to .93. Only the 31 items in the motivation sub-scale are

included in this study. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha's were .863 for control for

learning beliefs and .827 school self efficacy.

The General Perceived Self-efficacy Scale (GPSS). This scale measured the

variable general self efficacy. The general perceived self-efficacy scale, English

Version, (GPSS) is a ten-item questionnaire which assesses the strength of an

individual's belief in his or her own ability, to predict or manage daily hassles, as

well as adapt after experiencing all kinds of stressful life events (Schwarzer, 2001;

Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1993 & 2000). Items are rated on a four point Likert scale

and include statements such as “I am certain that I can accomplish my goals” and “I

am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events” and “Thanks to

my resourcefulness, I can handle unforeseen situations. “ Previous studies which

include the scale in English, German, Spanish, French, Hebrew, Hungarian, Turkish,

Czech, and Slovak, have validated its psychometric properties. The original twenty

item scale has been revised to a ten item version (Jerusalem, & Schwarzer, 1986,

1992; Schwarzer, & Jerusalem, 1989) which has been found to have internal

consistencies between alpha = .75 and .90. The Cronbach's alpha for general self

efficacy this study was .866.

64
 The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS). In this study, this scale

measured the variable academic self efficacy. The PALS was developed by a team of

researchers at The University of Michigan (Midgley, Maehr, Hruda, Anderman,

Anderman, Freeman, Gheen, Kaplan, Kumar, Middleton, Nelson, Roeser, & Urdan,

2000). The scales assess 1) personal achievement goal orientations; 2) perceptions of

teacher’s goals; 3) perceptions of the goal structures in the classroom; 4)

achievement-related beliefs, attitudes, and strategies; and 5) perceptions of parents

and home life. For the purpose of this study, only the five items from the “Academic-

Related Perceptions, Beliefs, and Strategies Section” was used to measure academic

self- efficacy. The five point Likert scale includes items such as “I'm certain I can

master the skills taught in class this year “and “I'm certain I can figure out how to do

the most difficult class work” and “I can do almost all the work in class if I don't

give up.” The PALS has an alpha of .78 and has been used in numerous published

studies.

Data Collection

The researcher obtained IRB approval from the University of Southern

California and the required institution along with permission from various professors

at the participating college to distribute surveys in their classrooms. The researcher

obtained 206 surveys in person at the campus over the course of one week. The

researcher personally visited multiple separate courses to obtain student consent

(Appendix A) and administered the survey questionnaire (Appendix B-D). The

instructors were asked to leave the respective classrooms to reduce the sense of

65
coercion. The researcher briefly explained the purpose of the study by reading the

recruitment speech that was approved through the University of Southern California

Institutional Review Board (Appendix E).

Data Analysis

Quantitative data was coded and prepared for statistical analysis using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 11.0 program. Descriptive

statistics include standard deviations, means, and the Pearson product moment

correlation. The relationships put forward in the research questions were completed

primarily through a series of linear and multiple regressions. The results obtained

from the present research investigation will be reported and thoroughly discussed

and analyzed in chapter 4, and chapter 5 will conclude with a discussion on future

research, theoretical, and practical implications based on the findings from the

current research effort.

66
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter presents the statistical outcomes for the previously stated

research questions:

1. What is the relationship between gratitude and both general self-efficacy

and school self-efficacy?

2. What is the relationship between subjective well-being and both general

self-efficacy and school self-efficacy?

3. Is there a relationship between gratitude and subjective well-being and

control of learning beliefs?

Specifically, this chapter includes descriptive data including the means and

standard deviations of variables. Results from the intercorrelations, linear regression,

multiple regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) are also presented.

Intercorrelations

Significance of the results of the correlations focused on relationships

between independent variables and dependent variables. Independent variables

include gratitude and subjective well-being. Dependent variables are general self-

efficacy, academic self-efficacy, self-regulation, and control of learning beliefs. The

presentations also include the results of relationships between demographic variables

and all variables. The means, standard deviations and correlations of age, gender,

ethnicity, gratitude, subjective well-being, general self-efficacy, academic self-

efficacy and control of learning beliefs are listed in Table 3.

67
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations between
Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age 22.82 5.21 - .13 -.01 .05 -.02 .03 .15* .18* .06

2. Gender - .03 -.19** -.017 .06 .03 -.04 .13

3. Ethnicity 3.78 1.46 - .09 .01 .06 -.01 .00 -.08

4. Gratitude 4.24 .58 - .45** .26** .27** .30** .13

5. Subjective Well-being 3.63 .81 - .40** .23** .35** .13

6. General Self-efficacy 4.19 .52 - .38** .45** .19**

7. Academic Self-efficacy 4.01 .50 - .66** .69**

8. Self-regulation 4.27 .57 - .31**

9. Control of Learning Beliefs 3.93 .66 -

Note. Sex was scaled (1=Male, 0=Female); Ethnicity (1= African American/Black, 2 = Asian/Pacific
Islander , 3= Hispanic/Latino, 4= Native American, 5= White/Caucasian, 6=Other)
*p < .05. **p < .01.

The correlational analysis revealed several significant relationships between

variables. Gratitude was significantly correlated with general self-efficacy, r = .26, p

< .01, indicating that students who had a high trait of gratitude also had an elevated

belief about their competency to be successful in general areas of life. The

relationship between gratitude and academic self-efficacy was also significant, r

= .27, p < .01. These results demonstrate that students who had a high level of

gratitude also had a high belief in their capability to learn and perform in academic

tasks.

68
 Gratitude and subjective well-being were also significantly related, r = .45,

p < .01. This indicates that levels of appreciation of college students were strongly

related to one's satisfaction with their life and current circumstances. This further

built upon previous research that has established this relationship (Emmons &

McCollough, 2003; Lyumbomirsky, 2005; Seligman, 2005; Sheldon &

Lyumbomirsky, 2006) and this finding also indicates that this relationship is valid for

students attending a four-year art college.

Furthermore, a significant and positive correlation emerged between

subjective well-being and general self-efficacy, r = .40, p < .01, indicating that

students who reported having higher satisfaction in life also had high general self

efficacy. Similarly, subjective well-being was also significantly correlated with

academic self-efficacy, r = .23, p < .01, indicating that students with high beliefs in

their academic achievement had a high level of satisfaction for their life. While this

relationship may appear to be common sense, it previously has been unexplored and

supported.

In addition, a positive and significant correlation emerged between gratitude

and self-regulation r = .30, p < .01. Essentially, this finding indicates that the extent

to which ones felt appreciation for their life was related to the ability to regulate

one's behavior for academic success. Similarly, subjective well-being was also

significantly related to self-regulation, r = .35, p < .01. which further builds upon the

previous finding. This finding demonstrates that those with high satisfaction for their

life regulated their behaviors for academic success.

69
 In a more expected and previously explored finding, general self-efficacy and

self-regulation were significantly related, r = .45, p < .01, indicating that

characteristics of self-efficacy were correlated with the ability to regulate one's

behavior as necessary to be successful. Moreover, academic self-efficacy was also

significantly correlated with self-regulation, r = .66, p < .01.

Control of learning beliefs, r = .19, p < .01 had a significant relationship with

general self-efficacy. Control of learning beliefs and academic self-efficacy, r = .69,

p < .01 also highly correlated to each other. Finally, control of learning beliefs, r

= .31, p < .01 was significantly related to self-regulation, indicating that a student's

perceived control over their learning was related to both their general and academic

efficacy, and subsequently their ability to regulate behaviors to be successful.

Among the demographic variables, age was significantly related to academic

self-efficacy, r = .15, p < .05, which meant that older students had more academic

self-efficacy than younger ones. This could be due to more time adjusting to college

life and experience in a classroom. Age was also correlated with self-regulation, r

= .178, p < .01. In other words, older students were more self-regulated than their

younger counterparts. Gender and gratitude also presented a significant relationship,

r = -.185, p < .01, indicating that female students had more gratitude than males.

However, the results between ethnicity and all variables did not present any

significant relationships.

70
 Research Question 1

What is the relationship between gratitude and both general self-efficacy and

school self-efficacy?

Two separate linear regressions were performed to examine the relationships.

In the first, gratitude was entered as an independent variable and general self-

efficacy as dependent variable. In the second, gratitude was entered as an

independent variable and academic self-efficacy was entered as a dependent variable.

According to the results of the two linear regression analysis, gratitude, β = .259, p

< .001 was a significant predictor of general self-efficacy of college students,

indicating that students with high gratitude had higher general self-efficacy than

those with low gratitude.

Adjusted R squared indicated that gratitude predicted 6.3% of the variance in

general self-efficacy among college students. Table 4 is a summary of a linear

regression analysis between gratitude and general self-efficacy.

Table 4. Linear Regression Results Predicting General Self-Efficacy

β Beta t p

1. Constant 3.219 12.575 .000

2. Gratitude .229 .259 3.831 .000***

3. Adjusted R Square .063

Note. Independent Variable: Gratitude; Dependent Variable: General Self-Efficacy

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

71
 The results of the second linear regression indicated that gratitude, β = .269,

p < .001 was a significant predictor of academic self-efficacy of college students.

This demonstrates that college students with high gratitude were likely to have

higher academic self-efficacy than those with lower gratitude. According to the

adjusted R squared, gratitude predicted 6.8% of variance in academic self-efficacy.

Table 5 is a summary of the linear regression analysis.

Table 5. Linear Regression Results Predicting Academic Self-Efficacy

β Beta t p

1. Constant 3.029 12.248 .000

2. Gratitude .231 .269 3.996 .000***

3. Adjusted R Square .068

Note. Independent Variable: Gratitude; Dependent Variable: Academic Self-Efficacy

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Research Question 2

What is the relationship between subjective well-being and both general self-

efficacy and school self-efficacy?

To answer this research question, two linear regression analyses were

conducted. Subjective well-being was an independent variable and general self-

efficacy and academic self-efficacy were dependent variables. According to the

results of the regression analysis, subjective well-being, β = .404, p < .001,

72
significantly predicted general self-efficacy, indicating that students with high

happiness, life satisfaction, and positive affect had high beliefs about their ability to

succeed in general aspects of life. Adjusted R squared indicated that subjective well-

being predicted 15.9% of variance in general self-efficacy of college students. Table

6 is a summary of a linear regression analysis.

Table 6. Linear Regression Results Predicting General Self-Efficacy

β Beta t p

1. Constant 3.261 21.589 .000

2. Subjective Well-Being .256 .404 6.308 .000***

3. Adjusted R Square .159

Note. Independent Variable: Subjective Well-Being; Dependent Variable: General Self-Efficacy

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Subjective well-being, β = .232, p < .001 also emerged as a significant

predictor of academic self-efficacy. This meant that college students with high

subjective well-being were more likely to have higher academic self-efficacy than

those with low subjective well-being. According to the adjusted R squared,

subjective well-being predicted 4.9% of variance in academic self-efficacy of the

participating college students. Table 7 is a summary of a linear regression analysis.

73
Table 7. Linear Regression Results Predicting Academic Self-Efficacy

β Beta t p

1. Constant 3.490 22.431 .000

2. Subjective Well-Being .143 .232 3.406 .001**

3. Adjusted R Square .049

Note. Independent Variable: Subjective Well-Being; Dependent Variable: Academic Self-Efficacy

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Research Question 3

Is there a relationship between gratitude and subjective well-being and

control of learning beliefs?

A relationship between gratitude and subjective well-being and control of

learning beliefs was found. A multiple regression analysis was performed to

determine whether gratitude and subjective well-being predicted control of learning

beliefs. Gratitude and subjective well-being were entered as independent variables

and control of learning beliefs was used as a dependent variable. Gratitude, β = .093,

p >.05 and subjective well-being, β = .087, p > .05 were not the predictors of control

of learning beliefs of college students. Table 8 summarizes the results of the multiple

regression analysis.

74
Table 8. Multiple Regression Results Predicting Academic Control of Learning
Beliefs

β Beta t p

1. Constant 3.228 9.409 .000

2. Gratitude .105 .093 1.128 .233

3. Subjective Well-Being .071 .087 1.128 .261

4. Adjusted R Square .014

Note. Independent Variable: Gratitude & Subjective Well-Being; Dependent Variable: Control of Learning
Beliefs, *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

However, when gratitude was entered as the independent variable and control

of learning beliefs as the dependent variable in a linear regression analysis, gratitude,

β = .132, p = .059 was close to a significant predictor of control of learning beliefs at

the .05 level of significance. Table 9 is a summary of a linear regression analysis.

Table 9. Linear Regression Results Predicting Control of Learning Beliefs

β Beta t p

1. Constant 3.299 9.772 .000

2. Gratitude .149 .132 1.896 .059

3. Adjusted R Square .068

Note. Independent Variable: Gratitude; Dependent Variable: Control of Learning Beliefs

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

75
 When subjective well-being was entered as an independent variable and

control of learning beliefs as a dependent variable in linear regression analysis,

subjective well-being, β = .129, p >.05 did not predict the control of learning beliefs

of college students. Table 10 lists a summary of a linear regression analysis.

Table 10. Linear Regression Results Predicting Control of Learning Beliefs

β Beta t p

1. Constant 3.552 16.885 .000

2. Subjective Well-Being .105 .129 1.854 .065

3. Adjusted R Square .012

Note. Independent Variable: Subjective Well-Being; Dependent Variable: Control of Learning Beliefs
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The study also yielded another finding that was not specifically proposed in

the research questions. When both of the constructs "gratitude and subjective well-

being" were entered together as independent variables and general self-efficacy the

dependent variable, gratitude, β = .098, p > .05 was not a significant predictor of

general self-efficacy. On the contrary, subjective well-being, β = .360, p < .001

significantly predicted general self-efficacy. These results demonstrate that

satisfaction for one's own life rather than gratitude predicted one's efficacy for

general areas of one's life. According to the adjusted R squared, subjective well-

being predicted 16.3% of the variance in general self-efficacy for the college

76
students. Table 11 is a summary of the multiple regression analysis performed on

these relationships.

Table 11. Multiple Regression Results Predicting General Self-Efficacy

β Beta t p

1. Constant 2.992 12.163 .000

2. Gratitude .087 .098 1.379 .169

3. Subjective Well-Being .228 .360 5.043 .000***

4. Adjusted R Square .163

Note. Independent Variable: Gratitude & Subjective Well-Being; Dependent Variable: General Self-Efficacy
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

When subjective well-being and gratitude were examined as independent

variables and academic self-efficacy as a dependent variable, different relationships

were found than that for general self efficacy. Gratitude, β = .207, p < .01 was a

significant predictor of academic self-efficacy, but subjective well-being, β = .140,

p > .05 was not. This could mean that subjective well-being was more influential to

general self-efficacy than academic self efficacy. However, levels of gratitude might

be more influential on academic efficacy than general efficacy. According to the

adjusted R squared, gratitude predicted 7.9% of the variance in academic self-

efficacy in the participating college students. Table 12 is a summary of the multiple

regression analysis performed on these relationships.

77
Table 12. Multiple Regression Results Predicting Academic Self-Efficacy

β Beta t p

1. Constant 2.944 11.775 .000

2. Gratitude .177 .207 2.766 .006**

3. Subjective Well-Being .086 .140 1.864 .064

4. Adjusted R Square .079

Note. Independent Variable: Gratitude & Subjective Well-Being; Dependent Variable: Academic Self-Efficacy

Gender Difference in the Levels of Reported Gratitude and its Effect on Control of

Learning Beliefs and Self-Efficacy

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to explore if a significant

gender difference was found in gratitude between male and female students. The

gratitude mean of female students was 4.34 and that of male students was 4.13 on a

5-point scale. This indicates that females in this study reported higher levels of

gratitude. On the contrary, there were no significant mean differences in gender in

general self-efficacy, (F (1,203) = .617, p >.05), academic self-efficacy, (F (1,203)

= .127, p >.05), and control of learning beliefs, F (1,203) = 3.670, p >.05 . Table

13 is a summary of the mean difference between gratitude, general self-efficacy,

academic self-efficacy, self-regulation, control of learning beliefs and significance.

78
Table 13. Relationship between Gender and Gratitude, General Self-Efficacy,
Academic Self-Efficacy Self-Regulation and Control of Learning Beliefs

Mean Difference
Variables Significance
(Female –Male)

Gratitude .2161 .008**

General Self-Efficacy -.0566 .433

Academic Self-Efficacy -.0251 .722

Self-Regulation .0454 .569

Control of Learning Beliefs -.1762 .059

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Summary

The results of the correlational analyses revealed meaningful findings.

College students with higher gratitude and subjective well-being emerged to have

corresponding higher levels of general self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy and

control of learning beliefs. According to the regression analysis, in accordance with

expectations, gratitude was a significant predictor of general self-efficacy and

academic self-efficacy of college students when gratitude was examined as an

independent variable and general self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy as

dependent variables respectively. On the contrary, when gratitude and subjective

well-being were investigated together as independent variables and general self-

efficacy as dependent variable, gratitude was not a predictor of general self-efficacy,

but only subjective well-being. This result might be possible because gratitude was

79
one of the components of subjective well-being interpreted as general happiness, life

satisfaction, and positive affect. Since subjective well-being is a general state of

happiness, it seemed to be a predictor of general self-efficacy. This will be examined

more thoroughly in Chapter 5. On the other hand, in relation to academic self-

efficacy (dependent variable), gratitude was a predictor, but subjective well-being

was not when they were entered together as independent variables. Gratitude seemed

to be a predictor of academic self-efficacy according to more specific context based

experience such as satisfaction with schools rather than subjective well-being.

However, subjective well-being was also a predictor of academic self-efficacy when

it was examined as the only independent variable excluding gratitude.

In terms of the examination of the relationship between gender and the

discussed variables above, only gratitude was found to be significantly different in

the means of females and males. Female college students appeared to have higher

gratitude than male counterparts.

80
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

This chapter presents a brief examination of the findings from the current

study, followed by a discussion of insights and implications gained as they relate to

college students and academic success. Limitations of this study and

recommendations for future practice and research will also be presented.

The current study intended to extend the literature regarding academic

success for college students by determining if a relationship exists between gratitude,

subjective well-being, general self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy and control of

learning beleifs. It has been well established that two of the greatest predictors of

academic success are self-efficacy and self-regulation (Pintrich & Degroot, 1990;

Zimmerman & Martinex-Pons, 1990). Therefore, factors that may be correlated to

those variables are of importance to research. This exploratory study found that

gratitude and subjective-well being were positively correlated to both general and

academic self-efficacy and the “control of learning beliefs” component of self-

regulation. In addition, gratitude and subjective well-being predicted general self-

efficacy and academic self-efficacy of college students.

The Relationship of Gratitude to Self-efficacy and Self-Regulation

The findings from this study indicated that the positive emotions of gratitude

and subjective well-being have a relationship with human functioning in the area of

academic success. In previous literature the use of techniques focused on positive

emotions (such as gratitude) have demonstrated improvements on health indicators

81
such as blood pressure (McCraty & Childre, 2004). Yet, research on the use of these

techniques to increase academic success has been sparse. Moreover, researchers

interested in educational applications have highlighted how emotion is intertwined

with cognition and motivation (Boekaerts, 1993) and this exploratory study partially

examined that relationship. The field of Educational Psychology needs syntheses of

various theories, including Positive Psychology, to explain the interrelations among

emotional, motivational, and cognitive processes that influence the academic success

of students.

In this current study, gratitude was significantly correlated with general self-

efficacy indicating that students who had high traits of gratitude were more likely to

have elevated beliefs about their competency to be successful in general areas of life.

Moreover, results from the linear regression analysis indicated that gratitude was a

significant predictor of general self-efficacy of college students, which suggested

that students with high levels of gratitude had higher general self-efficacy than those

with low gratitude. The positive relationship between gratitude and general self-

efficacy could be explained through Bandura's Social Learning theory (1977). To

begin, stress, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and other perceived emotional or physical

reactions all play a part in how one determines his or her capability and can be

regarded as inefficacy (Bandura, 1995; Kasdin, 2000; Oettingen, 1997). Even the

temporary moods people have affect success levels (Oettingen, 1997). When

individuals have negative fears or thoughts about their own abilities, efficacy levels

may drop (Pajares, 2002). As such, enhancing self-efficacy emotionally and

82
physically can be done by working to reduce stress and negative emotions (Pajares,

2002). Gratitude has been found to counteract negative affect (Emmons &

McCullough, 2003) and depression and anxiety (Seligman, 2005), thereby elevating

one's emotional and physiological state.

Gratitude, as mentioned previously, is an emotional state, therefore

theoretically it could influence self-efficacy via psychological and emotional cues. In

Bandura's Social Learning theory (1977) thought processes, imagery, and symbolic

representation of experience constitute cognitive events. According to Bandura

(1995) there are four main influences in people’s beliefs concerning their efficacy:

Mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and final source of

information related to competence is the somatic information conveyed by

physiological or emotional states (Bandura, 1997). It is not the arousal state per se

but the meaning given to it that affects one's perceived self-efficacy. For example,

high achievers may interpret high arousal as challenging, which bolsters their sense

of efficacy. On the contrary, low achieving students may interpret their high arousal

as nervousness or anxiety which may in the past have prohibited them from success,

ultimately declining their efficacy. Similarly, emotion also has an impact through

activation of associated memories (Bandura, 1997). A positive emotion activates

thoughts of past accomplishments, whereas a negative emotion activates memories

of past failures. One's emotions can produce a positive or negative effect. For

instance, trembling may be viewed as a sign of vulnerability to poor performance, or

it may be viewed as determination to succeed (Bandura, 1995).

83
 Froh and Yurkewicz (2007) studied the disposition of gratitude in an

adolescent population. In an effort to understand the correlates of gratitude, they

asked 221 students to complete various measures. They found that gratitude was

robustly correlated with positive affect (r =.73, p < .01) including multiple domains

of life satisfaction such as school, community and self. In this study they conducted a

two week intervention where students were assigned 1 of 3 conditions: gratitude

listing, hassles listing, and placebo control. Students in the gratitude listing condition

were instructed to list up to 5 things they were grateful for since the day before. The

students in this group reported significantly greater satisfaction with their overall

school experience up to three weeks after the intervention compared to the other two

groups. It would have been very interesting if self-efficacy was measured before and

after the intervention and if measurements for assessing emotional and physiological

states were examined as well. This is an area for future researchers to replicate.

In the current study, it should also be noted that when subjective well-being

and gratitude were entered together as independent variables and general self-

efficacy was the dependant variable, gratitude was not a significant predictor of self-

efficacy. However, subjective well being significantly predicted general self-

efficacy. These results indicate that satisfaction for one's life rather than gratitude

alone, predicts 15.9% of the variance in general self-efficacy. As mentioned earlier,

any change in expectations of personal efficacy is mediated through cognitive

processes. One reason for subjective well being to predict self-efficacy could be that

having a high level of subjective well being requires a higher ability toward

84
cognitive processes. For example, subjective well-being refers to how people

evaluate their lives in the form of cognitions or evaluative judgments about specific

aspects of his or her life. However, an evaluation of ones life also may be in the form

of affect (Diener, 1984). The cognitive and affective components of subjective well-

being are highly interrelated (Diener, 1984) and therefore may be the mediating

process that influences self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1977), regardless of the

method used to achieve psychological changes, any change in expectations of

personal efficacy is mediated through cognitive processes. Therefore levels of

gratitude may, in theory, mediate the physiological and emotional state that

contributes to self-efficacy. Thus, the disposition of gratitude creates a positive

emotion (physical state) which in turn leads to higher general self-efficacy. For

example, a college student may feel gratitude for the help from the campus writing

center which helped her finish a report on time. This elevated emotional state may

enhance her feelings about what she is capable of achieving that day or for the

success she can achieve in other classes.

According to Diener (1984) a persons beliefs about his of her own well-being

is of paramount importance for understanding their well-being. Diener (1984) posits

that subjective well-being is gained when goals and needs are reached. Thus, the

causes of well-being are not universal, but vary depending on people's values, desires

and efficacy. It should also be noted that the work of Froh (2007) and Seligman

(1995) suggest that interventions which increase well-being can mitigate signs of

depression and anxiety (which disrupt performance in school) within the student

85
population. Well-being appears to mediate not only depression and anxiety, but one's

efficacy as well. In summary, it appears as though general self -efficacy could be a

component of subjective well-being rather than just being a correlate to it. Further

research is needed to expand on the accuracy of this hypothesis.

Regarding academic self-efficacy, gratitude was correlated and through a

linear regression analysis it was found that gratitude was a significant predictor of

academic self-efficacy. Contrary to the previous findings regarding subjective well-

being, gratitude was a significant predictor of academic self-efficacy but subjective

well-being was not when they were examined as independent variables together.

This could mean that subjective well-being was more influential to general self-

efficacy than academic self-efficacy. However, levels of gratitude might be more

influential toward the academic efficacy the participants had rather than the general

efficacy they had.

Emmons (1986) found that individuals high in well-being perceived their

goals as more important and as higher in their probability of success whereas those

low in well being perceived more conflict between their goals (Emmons & King,

1988). Moreover, Brunstein (1993) found that perceived progress toward goals

caused positive changes in subjective well-being rather than vice versa. This explains

how academic self-efficacy, if described as one's perception to achieve goals,

changes levels of subjective well-being and vice versa.

With respect to self-regulation, gratitude emerged as a significant predictor of

students’ control of learning beliefs. One explanation for this may be within the

86
Social Cognitive view of self-regulation. This view articulates that self-regulated

learning consists of interactions between the personal characteristics of the learner,

their behavior, and the contextual environment. These three factors are mediated by

the learners' knowledge and sense of self-efficacy (Jakubowski & Dembo, 2002).

Self regulated learning has been described as learning that takes place based on the

actions of the learner, something that the students do for themselves rather than

something that is done to, or for, them from the outside environment (Zimmerman,

2001). It may possible that gratitude is a form of a learner’s knowledge, meaning that

an appreciative perspective is a cognitive process (in addition to being an affective

state) that connects the learner with their academic behavior and their academic

environment.

If self-regulated learning depends on personal characteristics such as

initiative, motivation, perseverance, and flexibility (Zimmerman, 2001), could a

grateful disposition mediate those characteristics? This could be an interesting

question for future research. Further studies are recommended to examine actual

academic achievements in English, math, or science to see the mediating effect of

self-regulation between gratitude and academic achievement through conducting a

structural equation model analysis.

The Relationship of Subjective Well-Being to Self-efficacy and Self-Regulation

It has been clearly established that gratitude is associated with subjective

well-being (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002; Seligman, 2005, Sheldon &

Lyumbomirsky, 2006, Watkins, 2004; Watkins, Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003).

87
However, the role subjective well-being has on self-efficacy and control of learning

beliefs has not been explored. In this study gratitude and subjective well-being were

significantly related indicating that levels of appreciation were strongly related to

one's satisfaction with their life, which built on previous research findings.

A new discovery as a result of this study provided a significant and positive

correlation between subjective well-being and general self-efficacy, indicating that

students who reported having higher satisfaction in life also tended to have higher

general self-efficacy. Similarity, subjective well-being also had a significant

relationship with academic self-efficacy. Moreover, subjective well-being

significantly predicted general self-efficacy and academic efficacy.

These results demonstrate that satisfaction for one's own life predicts one's

efficacy for general and academic areas of one's life. While this relationship may

appear to be common sense, it previously has been unexplored and supported. This

could have vast implications for future research which will be explored in following

sections.

The relationship between gratitude and subjective well-being and the aspect

of self-regulation “control of learning beliefs” yielded significant findings. A

multiple regression analysis in which gratitude and subjective well-being were

entered as independent variables and self-regulation was a dependent variable found

that gratitude and subjective well-being were significant predictors of self-regulated

behaviors of college students. This indicates that the level of the students' gratitude

and satisfaction for their lives were more likely to contribute to the beliefs that help

88
to regulate their success in learning. However, subjective well-being was a more

significant predictor than gratitude in the college students’ self-regulated behaviors.

According to Diener (1997) subjective well-being ought to follow from people using

strategies that are compatible with their personality and their environment in

pursuing their goals. This statement supports this study finding that gratitude and

subjective well-being were significant predictors of self-regulated beliefs among this

population. However, this study could have been strengthened by measuring the

specific subsets of self-regulation such as the relationship between gratitude and

subjective well-being to task value and affect. Future research could identify which

of these specific aspects are correlated. Based on the findings from this study,

Figure 2 illustrates the relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to

academic performance and motivation.

89
Figure 2. Relationship of Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being to Academic
Performance

Limitations

While this study yielded significant results, there are a number of limitations

to this study that need to be taken into account in order to put the findings into

perspective. Several limitations to this study stem from its design and procedures for

data collection. Based on the use of sample of convenience, the sample was not a

national representation and was not randomly chosen. Issues regarding self-selection

bias may exist. However, according to the Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, and John

(2004) study, this bias would be equally present with any form of recruitment

beyond that of random sampling. The impact of the use of sample of convenience is

reflected by the unique population assessed in this study. While the intent of this

study was not geared toward a specific population other than that of college students,

there was a high rate of similarity in age (mean age of 22.8) and 81.8% of the

participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 25. The similarities were also in geographic

90
location (they all lived in Southern California), all the participants attended the same

school, and their reported religious practice was similar (almost 41.7% being

Catholic/Christian). Specificity in these areas creates limitations regarding the

generalizability of the findings. Although the sample was ethnically diverse, future

research should be conducted with a more representative set of participants to permit

generalization of the results to individuals from a range of age levels, level of

education (i.e., doctoral and undergraduate students), cultural background, and

geographic location.

Additionally, the participants in this study may have been unique in that they

attend a college geared for the arts. The participating campus awards Associates and

Bachelors Degrees ranging from graphic arts design, advertising and marketing,

sound engineering, and management of culinary arts. However, it is this researchers

opinion that the predictors of academic success such as self-efficacy and control of

learning beliefs, do not vary according to the focus of the college and intended major.

In other words, the importance of self-efficacy is the same regardless of the

academic focus of the college. No research indicating the contrary has been

identified.

The method of data collection might have created additional limitations. Due

to the administration of a hard-copy measure and the researcher being present during

the survey, the possibility of social desirability might exist and issues regarding the

accuracy of the individuals self perception must be considered. The effects of self-

report bias could have been countered by incorporating a supplemental report from

91
the classroom professor or a close friend of each participant which would then be

used in comparison to the data provided by the participant. However, this type of

assessment was beyond the scope of this study.

Another caveat that should be considered is the current mood of the

individual while taking the survey. It would be beneficial for future researchers to

administer the survey multiple times throughout an academic year to gather a more

consistent and accurate source for evaluating gratitude, well-being, self-efficacy and

control of learning beliefs. Moreover, it would be interesting to identify if those

variables go up or down through the year and what factors (internal or external)

contribute to such fluctuation.

Another limitation includes the measurements being used. The findings of the

measures are presented in quantitative data only. Granted, this method provided the

field with relevant information regarding the constructs, however, it did not capture

data that was more qualitative in nature. Therefore, inferences made based on the

relationships between the variables was limited, which led to the final limitation

associated with this type of study. This study is designed to asses the relationship

between variables, thus making the outcome correlational in nature and therefore

possessing no causal claims.

Due to the correlation nature of this study, it is essential that the results be

interpreted with caution and not constructed as causation. With that said, it is

important to note that several relationships found in previous studies were

corroborated based on the present findings. For example, gratitude and subjective

92
well-being were highly correlated as McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002;

Seligman, 2005, Sheldon & Lyumbomirsky, 2006, Watkins, 2004; Watkins,

Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003, have previously found. Additionally, academic

self-efficacy and self-regulation were highly correlated, which is in line with the

previous research of Jakubowski & Dembo, 2002.

Based on these preliminary findings, it appears that the constructs of

gratitude and subjective well-being may have a well warranted path of research in

the academic arena. This arena includes Social Cognitive Theory and constructs

such as self-efficacy and self-regulation.

Implications and Suggestions

Previous research has indicated that psychological variables impacting one's

well-being may include cognitive flexibility and mental capacity to a realistic

perspective regarding stressors, a sense of self-efficacy, and the availability of

adaptive coping strategies (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Yet, the degree of how

well-being relates to a sense of self-efficacy has been understudied. This study

attempted to establish that relationship so that future research may strengthen the

correlation and find predictive value in its application.

There are several important implications for individuals working in the

academic environment, such as teachers, school counselors and educational

psychologists. Schools are unquestionably challenged to address a host of academic

and behavioral issues. Leading researchers in the area of gratitude have posited that

additional research on the subject may prove hopeful in providing a useful

93
supplement to psychological interventions (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Could

school interventions that increase positive emotions such as gratitude and well-being

also increase self-efficacy in students? Previous research has shown that positive

emotions tend to promote physical and mental well-being (Emmons & McCullough,

2004, Fredrickson, 2000; MCCraty & Childre, 2004), therefore investigation of

gratitude, which is a positive emotion, to promote general self efficacy of students in

college would be beneficial. For example, the intentional cognitive practice of

writing gratitude letters (i.e., expressing gratitude) leads to improved health and

well-being (King, 2001; Seligman, 2005; Sheldon & Lyumbomirsky, 2006) and

satisfaction with school (Bono & Froh, 2009) perhaps this intentional cognitive

practice could also be utilized in an effort to measure the levels of self efficacy

before and after the exercise.

In the current study gratitude was also found to have a positive and

significant correlation to control of learning beliefs, which is insightful as these two

variables have not been previously studied together. Essentially this finding

indicates that the extent to which one felt appreciation for their life was related to the

control they felt they had on the learning. Future research could build on this finding

by identifying more specific areas of self-regulation, such as task value and

physiological cues, that are mediated by levels of gratitude and well-being.

Additionally, schools can serve as a training ground for developing healthy

well-being. Using strategies and modeling techniques, schools can teach young

people what well-being is. We only appreciate those things we value and see as

94
meaningful in our lives. If teachers or school counselors were to model direct

affective, and behavioral and cognitive manifestations of gratitude they would be

promoting that concept in their students. For example, lesson plans can be created

explaining the value and meaning behind various things that we take for granted. At

an elementary level this would include how our food is grown and produced before it

reaches us. Also, taking into account the people we rely on such as the mail delivery

person and the people that stock the shelves at the grocery store. At a middle school

level it could include teaching students about the education and effort it took the

people of the past to build the radio towers and electrical systems that provide the

sounds we hear though the stereo. Moreover, teaching students about the trials and

tribulations that inventors and explorers went through to bring us the little things that

we may not notice in everyday life could bring appreciation for those that came

before us and made the life that we know possible. At a college level gratitude could

be promoted through integrating the concept of gratitude and appreciation in classes.

Students could be encouraged to notice what they are grateful for on campus, those

who have helped them get to where they are, and for the federal programs that assist

students to get an education. Schools could integrate different disciplines and

subjects into their curricula that incorporate healthy well-being. At all levels of

education, educators should remind their students what it means to be grateful.

Furthermore, it is important to promote the intentions behind our words as so often

that is lacking in being taught at home. Sometimes schools are the only facilitators of

that valuable lesson. College campus wellness centers or health centers could

95
continually teach students to appreciate the process and journey of their life rather

than solely the goals they set; the process of life is where we spend most of our time.

Particular attention to the value and meaningfulness of enjoying the process of

college promotes a higher daily consciousness of life experience~ thus higher well-

being.

Previous research has indicated that positive emotions, such as gratitude and

well-being incorporate a protective component with regard to physical health

(Salovery, Detweiler, Steward, & Rothman; Smith, 2002). As such, it seems

necessary to examine if gratitude and well-being also have a protective component

with regard to factors that contribute to academic success, including self-regulation

and self-efficacy.

Before this exploratory study the relationship between levels of gratitude to

self-efficacy and self-regulation were unknown. Though the relationship is

correlational in nature and limited to the population sample, the strong positive

correlation found in this study warrants more examination and continued research.

Future Direction of Research

As Positive Psychology continues to progress in the field, there will continue

to be questions surroundings virtues such as gratitude and the benefits of subjective

well-being. Research assessing the link between gratitude and well-being to

academic success will continue to advance the notion that by attending to the

positive aspects of life, one is able to enhance their academic experience.

96
 Future studies should attempt to replicate and extend this initial examination

of the relationship between gratitude, subjective well-being, self-efficacy, and

control of learning beleifs. To the extent that we can understand why and how these

cognitive activities work to improve academic success, we can optimize the

conditions under which these strategies are ultimately practiced in real-world

academic settings.

Moreover, partnerships between gratitude and other concepts such as

optimism and hope, would be helpful in determining to which degree these types of

constructs are interrelated and influential in an individuals academic life. For

example, King (2001) showed that students who wrote narrative descriptions about

the realization of all their hopes and dreams (i.e., expressing optimism) demonstrated

reductions in illness for up to five months and improvements in subjective well-

being (relative to a control group) for up to three weeks. How would this exercise

influence the self-efficacy and self-regulation of college students? Would the results

be stronger if an exercise of expressing gratitude was added?

It might prove useful for future research to examine if gratitude and well-

being have the ability to significantly impact other outcome measures apart from

self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs, such as retention and attendance in

college. Low graduation rates of college students today is presented as a national

problem, as low as 7% at some community colleges (Robbins, 2006). If high levels

of gratitude are beneficial to self-efficacy, and retention in school, it seems likely

that an intervention that promotes these constructs could have the potential to

97
robustly affect the realms of academic success. Further research is also needed to

examine if these constructs are effective with students who have low motivation and

students with learning disabilities.

Furthermore, creation and implementation of gratitude enhancing strategies

could compliment current character education programs geared at increasing student

well-being, and the development of virtues. Such curriculum could be taught and

reinforced on a regular basis by classroom teachers. For example, gratitude

increasing strategies such as "counting things to be grateful for" on a weekly basis,

as part of character education program, could be implemented into class instruction

beginning in the elementary years and continued throughout the course of schooling.

How would that affect the students by the time they reach college? It would be

interesting for future researchers to conduct a study that evaluates the effects of

students in a weekly gratitude group over the course of one academic year compared

to those in a control group who do not count weekly blessing. Would the GPA,

satisfaction with school, and overall subjective well-being be increased in the

gratitude group? If so, gratitude could be conceptualized as a value-added

component to academic and character education curriculum. The findings of such

research could lead to support for creating standardized gratitude and well-being

interventions that may directly promote academic success.

This study only measured the relationship between the variables. Follow-up

studies are needed to discern if the relationship has a predictive value. For example,

if GPA was added to the variables being measured, what percent of the variance in

98
GPA could be accounted for by levels of gratitude and well-being? Based on the

promising results of this study, it would also be of interesting for future research to

include both pre and post test measures of gratitude, subjective well-being, and self-

efficacy and self-regulation in an experimental design of gratitude induction

interventions, such as the study that has been done by Lyubomirsky, Sheldon and

Schkade (2005). These researchers conducted a six week gratitude intervention study

on college students in which regularly expressed gratitude increased well-being but

only among the participants who performed the intervention once a week. The

students who expressed gratitude through journaling each day did not have as high a

subjective well-being one month later as did the students who expressed gratitude

through journaling once a week (the authors posit that this effect may be due to

becoming bored with a daily routine). If the Lyubomirsky, Sheldon and Schkade

(2005) study was replicated and included pre and post test measurements of self-

efficacy and self-regulation, the results would shed greater light on the efficacy of a

gratitude intervention. Moreover, if the GPA was monitored during the time of the

pre and post test then a variance of the interventions efficacy could be ascertained.

In summary, future experimental research that evaluates how gratitude and

well-being enhancing strategies influence self-efficacy could be promising toward

addressing the need of having low-cost and easy to implement interventions to

increase academic success. The preliminary results from this study indicate that a

bridge between Social Cognitive Theory and Positive Psychology could help to

address the needs of students more effectively than one or the other alone.

99
 Conclusion

There were several significant factors contributing to the development and

pursuit of this research project. First there was the motivation to identify if Positive

Psychology constructs contribute to one of the best predictors of academic success:

Self-efficacy. Secondly, there was the desire to bridge the gap between the constructs

of two theories that both share the pursuit of striving to enhance cognitive processes

such as learning, emotion, and motivation: Positive Psychology and Social Cognitive

Theory. Lastly, there was the hope that by establishing a preliminary relationship

between the investigated variables, future researchers would perhaps design adequate,

readily available, and inexpensive academic interventions to increase the well-being

and academic success of students.

This is a stimulating and transformational time to be in psychological

research. The Positive Psychology movement has enlightened the role of gratitude on

human flourishing and it continues to progress at a constant pace. On the other hand,

Positive Psychology does share its skeptics and critics (Cowen & Kilmer, 2002;

Lazarus, 2003). Common criticism includes the idea that Positive Psychology is not

based on science, rather reiterating commonsense knowledge, and that the theory

conflicts with the basic tenants of other psychology theories (Peterson, 2006). While

some critics have valid arguments, this author asserts that this Positive Psychology

study is based firmly in the scientific method and it builds a valuable bridge between

Social Cognitive Theory constructs and Positive Psychology constructs, thus

100
integrating the two theories. It is this author’s hope that this research will serve to

progress the field forward and build a foundation between two theories that address

the needs of today's college students.

101
 REFERENCES

Affleck, G., & Tennen, H. (1996) Construing benefits from adversity: adaptational
significance and dispositional underpinnings. Journal of Personality, 64, 899-
922.

Alderman, M. K. (1999). Motivation for achievement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.

Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (1999). Social predictors of changes in

students' achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 21–37.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Bandura, A, (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted
in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic
Press, 1998).

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal

motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 706–722.

Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (1996). (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology.

New York: Macmillan.

Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Hawthorne,

Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J.B. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really

measure? A theoretical review and clarification. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 63,3 -
19.

102
Blumenfeld, P. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and
expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272–281.

Boekaerts, M. (1998). Coping in context: Goal frustration and goal ambivalence in

relation to academic and interpersonal goals. Learning to Cope: Devloping as
a person in complex societies (pp. 175-197). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.

Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation

among middle and high school students: Self efficacy, task value, and
achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34.

Bono, G., & Froh, J. J. (2009). Gratitude in school: Benefits to students and schools.
In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of Positive
Psychology in Schools (pp. 77-88). New York: Routledge.

Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional

retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46–53.

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Buchanan, G. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (Eds.). (1995). Explanatory Style. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carr, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Maxwell, S. E. (1991). Motivational components of

underachievement. Developmental Psychology, 27, 108–118.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The screen test for the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.

Cicero, M.T. (1851) The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Translated by C.D
Younge, Volume III. London: George Bell & Sons.

Clance, P. R. (1985). The impostor phenomenon. Atlanta, GA: Peachtree.

Coffman, S. (1996) Parents struggles to rebuild family life after hurricane Andrew.
Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 176, 353-367.

Corno, L., 1989. Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. Pages 111-141 in B.J.

103
Cowen, L. & Kilmer, P. (2002). "Positive psychology"; Some plusses and some open
issues. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 449-460.

Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan, 1987. The support of autonomy and the control of
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: D. C.

Heath.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in

personality. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation
1990 (Vol. 38, pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

DeWitz, S. J., & Walsh, W. B. (2002). Self-efficacy and college student satisfaction.
Journal of Career Assessment, 10 (3), 315-326.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.

Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities.

Social Indicators Research, 31, 103-157.

Diener, E. (1995). Subjective well-being in cross-cultural perspective. In H. Grad, A.

Blanco, & J. Georgas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Congress
of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Swets & Zeitlinger.

Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7,
181-185.

Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and
self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-
being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851-864.

Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1995). Resources, personal strivings, and subjective well-
being: A nomothetic and idiographic approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 926-935.

104
Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1993). The experience of emotional well-being. In M.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Fujita, F. (1992). Extraversion and
subjective well-being in a U.S. national probability sample. Journal of
Research in Personality, 26, 205-215.

Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between
income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators
Research, 28, 195-223.

Diener, E., & Suh, E. (in press-a). Age and subjective well-being: An international
analysis. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 17.

DiGiuseppe, R. A., & Froh, J. J. (2002). What cognitions predict state anger?
Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 20(2), 133-150.

Donald, J.G. (1997). Improving the Environment for Learning. San Francisco: Jossey.

Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W.

Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child
Psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,
pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.

Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behavior. In J. T. Spencer

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation: Psychological and
sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance goals and
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.

Elliot, A. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to

achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in
motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and

avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 218–232.

105
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement
goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.

Emmons, R. A. (2004). The psychology of gratitude: An introduction. In R. A.

Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp.
3−18). New York: Oxford University Press.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens:

An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily
life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377−389.

Emmons, R. A., & Shelton, C. M. (2002). Gratitude and the science of positive
psychology. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 459−471). New York: Oxford University Press.

Emmons, R. A. (2004). Gratitude. In C. Peterson, & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.),

Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 553-
568). New York: Oxford University Press.

Emmons, R. A. (2005). Emotion and religion. In R. F. Paloutzian, & C. L. Park

(Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 235e252).
New York: Guilford Press.

Emmons, R. A. (2007). Thanks! How the new science of gratitude can make you
happier. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Emmons, R. A. (2003). Acts of gratitude in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E.

Emmons, R. A. (2004). Gratitude. In M. E. P. Seligman & C. Peterson (Eds.),
The VIA taxonomy of human strengths and virtues. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Emmons, R. A. (2005). Emotion and religion. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park.

Gratitude in School (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and
spirituality (pp. 235-252). New York: Guilford.

Emmons, R. A., & Crumpler, C. A. (2000). Gratitude as a human strength:

Appraising the evidence. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 56-
69.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens:

An empirical investigation of gratitude and subjective wellbeing in daily life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389.

106
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General
Psychology, 2, 300−319.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the

broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56,
218-226.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and

builds. In R. A. Emmons, & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of
gratitude (pp. 145-166). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fredrickson, B.L., Tugade, M., Waugh, E., & Larkin, R. (2003). What good are
positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions
following the terrorist attacks on the United Stated on September 11th, 2001.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365-376.

Fried-Buchalter, S. (1997). Fear of success, fear of failure, and the imposter

phenomenon among male and female marketing managers. Sex Roles, 37,
847-859.

Froh, J. J., Kashdan, T. B., Ozimkowski, K. M., & Miller, N. (in press). Who
benefits the most from a gratitude intervention in children and adolescents?
Examining positive affect as a moderator. The Journal of Positive Psychology.

Froh, J. J., Yurkewicz, C., & Kashdan, T. B. (in press). Gratitude and subjective
well-being in early adolescence: Examining gender differences. Journal of
Adolescence. 32, 633-650.

Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008).Counting blessings in early

adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being.
Journal of School Psychology, 46, 213-233.

Froh, J. J., Fives, C. J., Fuller, J. R., Jacofsky, M. D., Terjesen, M. D., & Yurkewicz,
C. (2007). Interpersonal relationships and irrationality as predictors of life
satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 29-39.

Froh, J. J., Miller, D. N., & Snyder, S. (2007). Gratitude in children and adolescents:
Development, assessment, and school-based intervention. School Psychology
Forum, 2, 1-13.

Froh, J. J. (2004, May/June). The history of positive psychology: Truth be told. The
Psychologist, 16 (3),18-20.

107
Froh, J. J. (in press). Happiness. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), The encyclopedia of positive
psychology. Williston, VT: Blackwell Publishing.

Froh, J. J. (in press). Positive emotions. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), The encyclopedia of

positive psychology. Williston, VT: Blackwell Publishing.

Froh, J. J., & Bono, G. (2008). The gratitude of youth. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive
psychology: Exploring the best in people (Vol. 2, pp. 55-78). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing Company.

Gilham, J. E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). Footsteps on the road to a positive

psychology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 163-173.

Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high

school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631–645.

Graham, S. (1984). Communicating sympathy and anger to black and white students:
The cognitive (attributional) consequences of affective cues. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 40–54.

Graham & V. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental

health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 53-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational

Research, 64, 55–117.

Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C.

Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 63–
84). New York: Macmillan.

Gosling, D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, P. (2004) Should we trust Web-based
studies: A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet
questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barton, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement

goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational
Psychologist, 33, 1–21.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron. K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000).
Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting
interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
316–330.

108
Harvey, J. C., & Katz, C. (1985). If I'm so successful, why do I feel like a fake? New
York: Random House.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in

the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental
Psychology, 17, 300–312.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-

efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 20, 261-273.

Heslin, P.A., & Klehe, U.C. (2006). Self-efficacy. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 705-708).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning.
Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.

Huebner, & M. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in the schools:

Promoting wellness in children and youth. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jacubowski, T. & Dembo, M. (2002). Social cognitive factors associated with the
academic self regulation of undergraduate college students in a learning and
study strategies course. Paper presented at The Annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April, 1-5,
2002.

Joreskog, K. G., & Lawley, D. N. (1968). New methods in maximum likelihood

factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
21, 85-96.

Kashdan, T. B., Mishra, A., Breen, W. E., & Froh, J. J. (in press). Gender differences
in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narratives, the willingness to express
emotions, and changes in psychological needs. Journal of Personality.

Karademas, E. (2005) Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: The mediating

role of optimism . Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1281-1290.

Kohn, A. (1994). The truth about self-esteem. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 272-283.

Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Understanding well-being: Scientific

perspectives on enjoyment and suffering. New York: Russell-Sage.

109
Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our
emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, S. (2003). Does the positive psychology movement have legs?

Psychological Inquiry, 14, 93-109.

Li, C. E., DiGiuseppe, R. A., & Froh, J. J. (2006). The roles of sex, gender, and
coping in adolescent depression. Adolescence, 41, 409-415.

Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds). Handbook of emotions (pp. 405-415). New York:
Guilford.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic

success. School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 313-327.

Maher & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp.
99-142). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh-Shavelson

Model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623-636.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A dynamic theory of human motivation. Psychological

Review, 50, 370-396.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms underlying math self-
efficacy and learning of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37,
225-238.

McCraty, R., & Childre, D. (2004). The grateful heart: The psychology of
appreciation. In R.A Emmons, & M.E McCullough (eds), The psychology of
gratitude. (pp. 230-256). New York: Oxford Press.

McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is

gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249−266.

McCullough, M. E., & Tsang, J. (2004). Parent of the virtues? The prosocial
contours of gratitude. In R. A. Emmons, & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The
psychology of gratitude (pp. 123e144). New York: Oxford University Press.

110
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A
conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 112-127.

McKeachie, W.J., P.R. Pintrich, and Y-G. Lin, 1985. Teaching learning strategies.
Educational Psychology, 20:153160.

McKeachie, W.J., P.R. Pintrich, and Y-G. Lin, 1985. Teaching learning strategies.
Educational Psychology, 20:153160.

Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its
influence on young adolescents' course enrollment and performance in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60-70.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of

ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 710-718.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T, Anderman, E., & Kaplan,
A. (1996). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI:
Center for Leadership and Learning.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Urdan, T., Maehr. M. L., Hicks, L.,
Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. W. (1998). Development and validation of
scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 23, 113-31.

Myers, D. G. (2001). Psychology (6th ed.). New York: Worth.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to

education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pajares, F. (1994). Inviting self-efficacy: The role of invitations in the development

of confidence and competence in writing. Journal of Invitational Theory and
Practice, 3, 13-24.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational

Research, 66, 543-578.

Pajares, F., Britner, S., & Valiante, G. (2000). Writing and science achievement
goals of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28,
58-69.

111
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and
mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 24, 124-139.

Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1997). Writing self-beliefs of

elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 51-60.

Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (in press). Self-efficacy, self-concept, and academic
achievement. In J. Aronson & D. Cordova (Eds.), Psychology of education:
Personal and interpersonal forces. New York: Academic Press.

Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of writing self-efficacy beliefs on the
writing performance of upper elementary students. The Journal of
Educational Research, 90, 353-360.

Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing
self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24, 390-405.

Pajares, F., & Zeldin, A. L. (1999). Inviting self-efficacy revisited: The role of
invitations in the lives of women with mathematics-related careers. Journal
of Invitational Theory and Practice, 6, 48-68.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and

prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.

Pekrun, R. Goetz, T., Titz, W. (2002). Academic emotions in students self regulated
learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research.
Educational Psychologist, 37, (2), 91-105.

Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-55.

Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Pintrich, P.R., D.A.R Smith, T. Garcia, and W. McKeachie, 1991. A manual for the
use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).
University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999, April). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal
orientation in learning and achievement. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

112
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1997). Motivation in education. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Pintrich, R. Smith, D., Garcia, t. McKeachie, J. (1991). Motivated Strategies for

Leaning Questionnaire. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan,
NCRIPTAL.

Purkey, W. W. (2000). What students say to themselves: Internal dialogue and

school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Purkey, W., & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success (3rd. ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Robbins, S., Allen, J., Casillas, A. & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the differential
effects of motivation and skills, social, and self management measures from
traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98 (3). 598-616.

Salovey, P., Detweiler, J.B., Steward, W., & Rothman, A. (200). Emotional states
and physical health. American Psychologist, 55, 110-121.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment
and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4,
219-247.

Scheier, M. F, & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and

physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 16, 201-238.

Schmidt, J., Shields, C., & Ciechalski, J. (1998). The inviting-disinviting index: A
study of validity and reliability. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice,
5, 31-42.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational

Psychologist, 26, 207-231.

Schunk, D., Pintrich, P., & Meece, J. (2008) Motivation in Education: Theory,
Research, and Applications. Pearson Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Schutz, P., & DeCuir, J. (2002). Inquiry on emotions in education. Educational

Psychologist, 37 (2), 125-143.

113
Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem,M. (1995). ”Generalized Self-efficacy Scale”. In J.
Weinmanr, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.). Measures in Health Psychology:
A User’s Portfolio. (35-37) Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.

Seegers, G., & Boekaerts, M. (1996). Gender-related differences in self-referenced

cognitions in relation to mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 27, 215-240.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Knopf.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Eds.). (2000). Positive psychology

[Special issue]. American Psychologist, 55(1).

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An

introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.

Seligman, M. (2002a). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to

realize your potential your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY:
Free Press.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2002b). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive

therapy. In C.R. Synder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 3–9). New York: Oxford University Press.

Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An

introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Seligman, M., & Peterson, C. (2000). Positive clinical psychology. Retrieved April 4,
2008, http://www.psych.upenn.edu/seligman/posclinpsychchap.html.

Seligman, M.E.P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L., & Gillham, J. (1995). The optimistic child.
New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2004). Achieving sustainable new happiness:

Prospects, practices, and prescriptions. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.),
Positive psychology in practice (pp. 127−145). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.

Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive
emotion: The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible
selves. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 73−82.

114
Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American
Psychologist, 56, 216-217.

Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Brunning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attributions, and
outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386-398.

Schwartz, R., Jerusalem, M. (1995) Generalized Self- Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman,

S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A users portfolio.
Casual and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.

Skaalvik, E. (1997). Issues in research on self-concept. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 51-97).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Stipek, D. (1998). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Terjesen, M. D., Jacofsky, M. D., Froh, J. J., & DiGiuseppe, R. A. (2004).

Integrating positive psychology into schools: Implications for practice.
Psychology in the Schools, 41, 163-172.

Thompson, B., & Borello, G. M. (1985). The importance of structure coefficients in

regression research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 203-
209.

Urdan, T. C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M.

Vaillant, G. E. (2000). Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive
psychology.American Psychologist, 55, 89-98.

Valiante, G., & Pajares, F. (1999). Invitations, motivation, and academic

achievement. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 6, 28-47.

Wiemer, D., & Purkey, W. (1994). Love Thyself as Thy Neighbor?: Self-other
orientations of inviting behaviors. Journal of Invitational Theory and
Practice, 3, 25-33.

Weinstein, C.E., and R. Mayer, 1986. The teaching of learning strategies. Pages 315-
327 in M.C. Wittrock, ed. Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed.
McMillan, NY.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.

115
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal
setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic

learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

Zimmerman, B., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on

writing course attainment. American Education Research Journal, 31, 845-
862.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for

academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal
setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy

model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80, 284-290.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). (Eds.). Self-regulated learning and

academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer-
Verlag.

116
 APPENDIX A

INFORMATION SHEET REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN

RESEARCH STUDY

University of Southern California

Rossier School of Education

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Helena Seli, Ph.D and
Dustine Rey from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. Your participation will contribute to the completion of Dustine Rey’s
doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study
because you are both enrolled in a community college and are over 18 years of age.
Your participation is voluntary. Please take as much time as you need to read the
information sheet. You may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends.
You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is gather information regarding your perception regarding
gratitude and your experience in community college. These areas of interest will help
us understand the factors that are important for college success.

You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether to or not participate. Completion of this
questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in this research project. You are
asked to complete the following questionnaire that will take approximately 15-20
minutes to complete. A sample of the items on the survey include: “I am confident
that I can learn the material in this class.”

PROCEDURES
You will be asked to answer a survey questionnaire. The length of time for
participation is 20-25 minutes. The survey will only be taken once and no follow-up
will take place.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some
discomfort at completing the questionnaire or you may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your day to complete the questionnaire/survey instrument, etc.
Any questions that make you uncomfortable can be skipped and not answered.

117
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study. The
potential benefit you may experience is that you are helping to contribute to ongoing
research regarding college students and their success in school.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

There is no payment for participation. However, raffle tickets for one (1) $20.00
Starbucks gift card will be given in each class that participates. You have the option
to enter the raffle for the gift card if you choose. You will not receive any payment
for your participation in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study which can be
identified to you. Your name, address or other information that may identify you
will not be collected during this research study. Your responses if taking the hard
copy survey will be collected only by Dustine Rey.

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file
cabinet/password protected computer. The data will be stored for three years after
the study has been completed and then destroyed.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no

information will be included that would reveal your identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. You may stop the survey at any time without any consequences. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which
warrant doing so.

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Helena Seli, Ph.D, at Praks@usc.edu or Dustine Rey at dustinerey@yahoo.com or
call --------. You may also visit the Rossier School of Education, the University of
Southern California, WPH 600, Los Angeles, CA, 90089.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
If you are taking this survey in class, an alternate yet equal activity for those who
wish not to participate will be provided by the professor/instructor of your course.

118
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research
team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research
staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact –
Helena Seli, Ph.D, at Praks@usc.edu or Dustine Rey at dustinerey@yahoo.com or
call -------- You may also visit the Rossier School of Education, at the University of
Southern California, WPH 600, Los Angeles, CA, 90089.

119
 APPENDIX B

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

1. What is your age?

2. What is your gender? Male_______ Female_______

3. Please check off your ethnic background (how you primarily identify yourself):

_____African American/Black

_____Asian/Pacific Islander

_____Hispanic/ Latino

_____Native American

_____White/Caucasian

_____Other __________

Please rate the following question:

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree disagree nor Agree
agree

4. I am very religious or spiritual 1 2 3 4 5

5. If religious or spiritual, which religious or spiritual practice do you

follow?_____________________________

120
 APPENDIX C

PERSONAL STUDY HABITS AND FEELINGS ABOUT COLLEGE CLASSES

Directions: For each of the following statements, circle the number on the 1 to 5-
point scale that best indicates how that statement applies to you. There are no right or
wrong answers, so don’t spend a lot of time on any one question.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree disagree nor Agree
agree

1. If I study in appropriate ways, then I will be

1 2 3 4 5
able to learn the material for this course.
2. It is my own fault if I don’t learn the material
1 2 3 4 5
in this course.
3. If I try hard enough, then I will understand the
1 2 3 4 5
course material.
4. If I don’t understand the course material, it is
1 2 3 4 5
because I didn’t try hard enough.
5. I believe I will receive an excellent grade in
1 2 3 4 5
this class.
6. I’m certain I can understand the most difficult
material presented in the readings for this 1 2 3 4 5
course.
7. I’m confident I can understand the basic
1 2 3 4 5
concepts taught in this course.
8. I’m confident I can do an excellent job on the
1 2 3 4 5
assignments and tests in this course.
9. I expect to do well in this class.
10. I’m certain I can master the skills being taught
1 2 3 4 5
in this class.
11. Considering the difficulty of this course, the
teacher, and my skills, I think I will do well in 1 2 3 4 5
this class.
12. I’m confident I can understand the most
complex material presented by the instructor in 1 2 3 4 5
this course.

121
 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree disagree nor Agree
agree

13. I'm certain I can master the skills taught in

1 2 3 4 5
class this year.
14. I'm certain I can figure out how to do the most
1 2 3 4 5
difficult class work.
15. I can do almost all the work in class if I don't
1 2 3 4 5
give up.
16. Even if the work is hard, I can learn it. 1 2 3 4 5
17. I can do even the hardest work in this class if I
1 2 3 4 5
try.

122
 APPENDIX D

PERSONAL FEELINGS TOWARDS YOUR LIFE

Directions: For each of the following statements, circle the number on the 1 to 5-
point scale that best indicates how that statement applies to you. There are no right or
wrong answers, so don’t spend a lot of time on any one question.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree disagree nor Agree
agree

1. I can always manage to solve difficult

1 2 3 4 5
problems if I try hard enough.
2. If someone opposes me, I can find the ways
1 2 3 4 5
and means to get what I want.
3. I am certain that I can accomplish my goals. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with
1 2 3 4 5
unexpected events.
5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I can handle
1 2 3 4 5
unforeseen situations.
6. I can solve most problems if I invest the
1 2 3 4 5
necessary effort.
7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties
1 2 3 4 5
because I can rely on my coping abilities.
8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can
1 2 3 4 5
find several solutions.
9. If I am in trouble, I can think of a good
1 2 3 4 5
solution.
10. I can handle whatever comes my way. 1 2 3 4 5

123
 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree disagree nor Agree
agree

11. I have so much in life to be thankful for. 1 2 3 4 5

12. If I had to list everything that I felt grateful
1 2 3 4 5
for, it would be a very long list.
13. When I look at the world, I don’t see much to
1 2 3 4 5
be grateful for.
14. I am grateful to a wide variety of people. 1 2 3 4 5
15. As I get older I find myself more able to
appreciate the people, events, and situations 1 2 3 4 5
that have been part of my life history.
16. Long amounts of time can go by before I feel
1 2 3 4 5
grateful to something or someone.

17. In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 1 2 3 4 5

18. The conditions of my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I am satisfied with my life. 1 2 3 4 5
20. So far I have gotten the important things I
1 2 3 4 5
want in life.
21. If I could live my life over, I would change
1 2 3 4 5
almost nothing.

Thank you kindly for your time and attention to this important survey.

Please place your completed survey in the box

located at the back of the room.

If you have any questions regarding the statements and/or content of this survey,
please contact Dustine Rey at -------- or dustinerey@yahoo.com.

124
 APPENDIX E

REY’S RECRUITMENT SPEECH

Hello, my name is Dustine Rey and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier

School of Education at the University of Southern California. I would like to invite

you to participate in a study I am conducting as part of a requirement for my doctoral

program at USC. As part of my study, I am conducting a survey of how students’

view their life and their academic experience. Around 200 students from various

community colleges will be invited to participate in this study. You were selected as

a possible participant because you are a student enrolled in a community college and

are over the age of 18. Your participation is voluntary.

This study will also be looking at demographic data (age, gender and

ethnicity) no personal information such as your name or address will be collected.

Your responses are completely confidential. Your responses to the survey will be

held in the strictest professional confidence. Instructors will not have access to the

information you provide on this survey and your answers will not influence the

grade you receive in this course.

The survey will take between 15-20 minutes to complete. There are 38 items

on the survey. Most items will ask that you rate your opinion about the statements

using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree disagree nor Agree
agree

125
 For example, one survey item asks you to rate your opinion about the

following statement: “I have so much in life to be thankful for.” Another example

statement about which you are asked to rate your opinion is as follows: “If I am in

trouble, I can think of a good solution.”

If you would be willing to participate in this study, read the Information

Sheet and complete the survey. Once you have completed your survey, please place

it face down in the box located at the back of the room. You may take the

Information Sheet with you.

If you choose not to participate in the study, your professor will have an

alternate activity for you. Your instructor will also leave the room. Even if you

choose not to participate, you may take the Information Sheet with you.

Are there any questions regarding this study or anything I have said? Thank

you!

126