Optimism and College Retention: Mediation by Motivation,

Performance, and Adjustment1

L S N, D R. E,  S C. S2

University of Kentucky

Although higher education has been linked to better income, longer life expectancy,
and better health, about 25–45% of incoming college freshmen never graduate. The
current study examined whether optimistic expectancies are associated with college
retention. Participants (N = 2,189) were given surveys when entering college, and
academic records were attained after freshman year completion. Dispositional and
academic optimism were associated with less chance of dropping out of college, as
well as better motivation and adjustment. Academic optimism was also associated
with higher grade point average (GPA). Structural equation models revealed that
dispositional optimism predicted retention through motivation and adjustment,
which in turn predicted retention. Academic optimism, on the other hand, predicted
retention through its effect on GPA, motivation, and adjustment. jasp_508 1887..1912

Higher education is greatly valued in the contemporary world. In the

U.S., more than two thirds of adults age 25 and older have completed high
school, and about one fourth of these have college degrees. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, lifetime earnings for people with bachelor’s degrees are
almost twice as much as for those with high school diplomas. In 2001, the
average annual income for adults with a high school diploma was about
$27,000, while the income for people with a bachelor’s degree averaged
$51,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002).
In addition to generating better jobs and salaries, higher education has
been found to promote a wide range of gains, such as better general health,
longer life expectancy, increased personal and professional mobility,
improved personal status, more hobbies and leisure activities, and improved
quality of life for graduates’ offspring (Institute for Higher Education Policy,
1998). Clearly, successful completion of a college degree can have a signifi-
cant impact on a person’s life.

1
The authors thank Philip J. Kraemer for making this project possible, and Roger P.
Sugarman and Gary Lindl for their helpful assistance with these data. The authors also thank
Monica Harris Kern and Richard H. Smith for their comments on an earlier version of this
manuscript, and Olga Dekhtyar and Greg T. Smith for their statistical advice and help with the
structural equation model.
2
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Suzanne C. Segerstrom,
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, 115 Kastle Hall, Lexington, KY 40506-
0044. E-mail: scsege0@uky.edu

1887

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2009, 39, 8, pp. 1887–1912.

© 2009 Copyright the Authors
Journal compilation © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1888 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

According to the National Center for Education (2004), only 33% of

students who enroll in college graduate within 4 years, and as much as 15%
take more than 6 years or never graduate at all. The American College
Testing Service (2005) reports that 26% of college freshmen at 4-year colleges
and 45% of college freshmen at 2-year colleges never graduate. This is not
new information, however, as the attrition rate in American colleges appears
to have been stable at around 45% for almost a century (Braxton, 2000;
Tinto, 1982).
One variable that may impact college success is positive outcome expect-
ancy, or optimism. Dispositional optimism associates with better adjustment
to college (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992) and better performance (Chemers,
Hu, & Garcia, 2001). However, little evidence exists regarding the relation-
ship between optimism and retention, as well as the underlying factors
contributing to these relationships. The current study, therefore, examines
whether optimistic expectancies can predict success in college life; and if so,
why this might be.

Optimism and Predictors of College Success

The positive impact of a higher education and the alarmingly high attri-
tion rate from colleges have led educators and researchers to strive to identify
predictors of college success, specifically graduation. Motivation is crucial,
and academically motivated students are generally more likely to succeed in
school (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Pajares & Urdan, 2002). Motivation is
affected by importance of an outcome, expectancy of an outcome, physical or
emotional energy and strength, and perhaps also personality (Bandura, 1991;
Pajares & Urdan, 2002).
Motivation may follow from optimistic expectancies. Optimists see posi-
tive outcomes as possible. Hence, they are motivated to invest continued
effort in order to achieve their goals (Carver & Scheier, 1998). In experimen-
tal tasks, optimistic expectancies have been associated with increased persis-
tence on line-drawing and anagram tasks (Carver, Blaney, & Scheier, 1979;
Carver, Peterson, Follansbee, & Scheier, 1983; Solberg Nes, Segerstrom, &
Sephton, 2005). In more naturalistic settings, longitudinal and cross-sectional
investigations have found optimists to have higher goal engagement, as
reflected in goal importance and commitment to achievement (Segerstrom &
Solberg Nes, 2006). In these studies, optimists were also less likely to
abandon their goals prior to achievement. In addition, dispositional
optimism has been associated with conscientiousness (r = .31; Segerstrom,
Castaneda, & Spencer, 2003), which contains a motivation or persistence
component. Goal engagement is, hence, one consequence of optimism that
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1889

could contribute to success in college. In the current study, therefore, it is

expected that optimism will predict motivation and retention, and that moti-
vation will mediate the relationship between optimism and retention.
Previous academic performance is another important component for
college success and graduation, and high school grade point average (HGPA)
and results from academic aptitude tests, such as the American College Test
(ACT) and the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) are essential in determining
college admission. The ability of HGPA, ACT, and SAT to predict college
freshman grade point average (GPA) is imperfect, however, with correlations
ranging from .30 to .50 (Bridgeman, McCamley-Jenkins, & Ervin, 2000). The
ability of HGPA, ACT, and SAT to predict graduation from college is
somewhat better, with correlations between ACT/SAT and college gradua-
tion ranging from .62 to .73, and between HPGA and college graduation
around .50 (Stumph & Stanley, 2002). There is little doubt that previous
academic performance is an essential component for college success. In addi-
tion, academic success during the early years of college can be important in
building a foundation for future success and graduation.
Better performance may follow from optimistic expectancies. Because
more optimistic people often work harder or longer to achieve their goals,
they tend to perform better than do more pessimistic people (Brown &
Marshall, 2001; Taylor & Brown, 1988). This has been seen in experiments
involving difficult problem-solving tasks (Brown & Marshall, 2001; Carver
et al., 1983; Carver & Scheier, 1982) and in better academic performance for
first-year college students, as seen in more positive narrative evaluations
written by instructors (Chemers et al., 2001). Research in this area is incon-
clusive, however, as optimists have been found to persist longer, but not
perform better, on difficult anagram tasks (Solberg Nes et al., 2005). Simi-
larly, in a study on college freshmen, optimism was not found to have any
direct effect on GPA (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992).
The aforementioned studies utilized dispositional optimism, which
involves a generalized positive outlook on important life outcomes, and it
is possible that a more task specific measure, such as academic optimism,
could capture the relationship between optimism and academic perfor-
mance more accurately. A number of theories specify that expectancies best
predict behavior if the specificity of the expectancy matches that of the
behavior itself (Lefcourt, 1976; Rotter, 1954). In fact, a study examining
the moderating effects of achievement striving and situational optimism
found academically related situational optimism to be associated with
higher cumulative GPA and higher performance perceptions (Nonis &
Wright, 2003). In the current study, therefore, it is expected that specific
academic optimism will predict performance better than will dispositional
optimism. Optimism is predicted to be linked to academic performance,
1890 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

and academic performance is predicted to mediate the relationship between

optimism and retention.
Another important factor for college success is the ability to adjust to
stressful and difficult situations. The transition from high school to college
can be a taxing and stressful experience, and continued success may depend
on ability to adjust to the new situation. Similarly, college performance as
well as persistence may depend on whether the student can adjust to the many
tasks and demands at hand throughout college. Research has found social,
emotional, and academic adjustment to be associated with college perfor-
mance and retention (Brunelle-Joiner, 1999; Hishinuma et al., 2001; Stoever,
2002), and ability to adjust or face multiple situations without distress
appears to be another crucial component associated with academic success.
Optimism may also result in positive feelings and better subjective well-
being. When faced with difficult or stressful situations, a belief in positive
rather than negative future outcomes has often been found to be adaptive;
and positive outcome expectancies, or optimism, have been associated with
better psychological adjustment to stressors (Scheier & Carver, 1992; Seger-
strom, Taylor, Kemeny, & Fahey, 1998; Stanton & Snider, 1993). Research
on college freshmen has found optimism to have a direct, positive effect on
adjustment to college (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992) and to be associated with
decreased stress, which again is associated with decreased health problems
and better adjustment (Chemers et al., 2001). Dispositional optimism has
been associated with increased and more satisfying social support (Brissette,
Scheier, & Carver, 2002; Segerstrom, 2001), as well as positive appraisals
(Armor & Taylor, 1998), all of which contribute to adjustment. It is predicted
that optimists in the current study will report less distress as they adjust
to college life, and that distress will mediate the impact of optimism on
retention.

The Current Study

A majority of college dropouts occur during the first year, and according
to American College Testing’s annual National Dropout and Graduation
Rates report (2005), approximately 26% to 29% of incoming students drop
out before the sophomore year. Successful completion of the first year in
college appears essential for graduation, and the current study, therefore,
focuses on retention, motivation, performance, and adjustment during and at
the end of the freshman year. In the current study, more optimistic college
freshmen are expected to have better retention after the freshman year. This
relationship is expected because motivation, performance, and adjustment
have been found to impact academic success and to be associated with
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1891

optimism. Therefore, it is predicted that the impact of optimism on retention

will be mediated by motivation, academic performance (GPA), and adjust-
ment (distress). Furthermore, the relationship between optimism and GPA is
expected to be stronger for academic (specific) optimism than for disposi-
tional (general) optimism.

Study Hypotheses

We propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Dispositional and academic optimism will be
associated with increased retention.
Hypothesis 2. Dispositional and academic optimism will be
associated with motivation, performance, and adjustment.
Hypothesis 3. Motivation, performance, and adjustment will
mediate the impact of dispositional and academic optimism on
retention.

Method

Participants

Participants were 2,189 college students at the University of Kentucky,

who were given a survey by the Department of Education and the Office of
Institutional Research at the beginning and end of the first year in college.
They were drawn from a pool of 3,718 freshman students, but only students
who had completed at least one of the two optimism measurements were
included in the study.
The sample was 40.4% male (n = 884) and 59.6% female (n = 1,305), which
roughly corresponds to the freshman class as a whole (46.0% and 54.0% for
males and females, respectively). The majority of students in the sample were
White (93.0%), but the sample also included African American (3.4%), Asian
(1.5%), Hispanic (0.8%), and other ethnicities (1.4%). The sample did not
differ significantly from freshman students not participating in the study in
terms of ACT/SAT scores (participants, M = 22.85, SD = 2.78; non-
participants, M = 23.66, SD = 3.64), F(2, 185) = 0.26, p = .22; and HGPA
(participants, M = 3.33, SD = 0.76; non-participants, M = 3.40, SD = 0 .76),
F(2, 188) = 0.22, p = .64.
1892 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

Procedure

During the advising and registration period in the summer before they
started college, some incoming first-year students were given a survey that
included optimism measures that they were asked to complete and return to
the university representatives. Not all students attended these advising and
registration sessions; from the pool of 3,718 freshman students, a total of
1,839 students completed an academic optimism measure, 830 students com-
pleted a dispositional optimism measure, and of these, 480 students com-
pleted both.
The discrepancy in number of students completing the optimism measure-
ments was a result of idiosyncratic administration of measures by the uni-
versity. We believe that any differences between these groups are the result of
a random process, and ANOVAs reveal no significant differences between
these groups with regard to motivation, performance, distress, and retention
rate (see Table 1). ANOVAs were also computed to examine differences
between the optimism groups (dispositional vs. academic optimism), and no
significant results were found from these analyses (see Table 1), indicating
that there were no significant differences between the dispositional (N = 830)
and academic optimism (N = 1,839) groups on these variables.
In the first weeks in the fall semester, all participants who were enrolled in
the English 101 class (N = 1,846) were given a survey that included questions
about demographics and questions related to expectations about the first
year in college and other comparable issues. A similar survey related to
experiences during the first year was administered during the last weeks of the
spring semester to all participants who were enrolled in the English 102 class
(N = 1,291). After completion of the freshman year, university records of
HGPA, ACT, and SAT scores, as well as fall and spring GPA were obtained.
Retention after the first year was operationalized as enrollment in the fall
semester of the following year.

Measures

Dispositional optimism: Life Orientation Test–Revised (LOT-R).

Dispositional optimism was measured with the LOT-R (Scheier, Carver, &
Bridges, 1994), a 10-item measure of generalized positive outcome expectan-
cies. In this measure, three items are phrased positively (“In uncertain times,
I usually expect the best.”), three are phrased negatively (“If something can
go wrong for me, it will.”), and four are filler items that do not contribute to
the total optimism score. Responses are provided on a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The LOT-R has
Table 1

ANOVA Comparisons

Dispositional Academic
Participants Nonparticipants optimism optimism
(N = 2,189) (N = 1,529) (N = 830) (N = 1,839)

OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION

Variable M SD M SD F p M SD M SD F p
Motivation 1.91 0.80 1.89 0.84 0.14 .712 1.92 0.83 1.90 0.79 0.09 .760
GPA freshman year 2.75 0.73 2.88 0.72 0.10 .828 2.94 0.67 2.73 0.74 0.22 .690
(cumulative)
Distress 1.48 0.59 1.46 0.58 0.51 .476 1.45 0.60 1.49 0.59 0.42 .523
Retention after first year 0.75 0.43 0.79 0.41 1.23 .267 0.82 0.38 0.74 0.44 1.01 .344

1893
1894 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

acceptable internal consistency (.78) and construct validity (Scheier et al.,

1994).
Academic optimism. Academic optimism was measured with a 10-item
scale designed to measure expectancies for academic success (Segerstrom
et al., 1998). In this scale, five items are phrased positively (e.g., “I am
optimistic about my chances of success.”), five items are phrased negatively
(e.g., “I will be less successful than most of my classmates.”), and the entire
scale is keyed toward the first year of college. Responses are rated on a
5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Test–
retest correlation for this scale has been established around .66 over a
10-week period, and alpha reliability is acceptable, in the .86 to .94 range
(Segerstrom et al., 1998).
The correlation between dispositional and academic optimism in first-
year law students (r = .30; Segerstrom et al., 1998) suggests that these two
constructs, although related, tap into separate dimensions of optimism. Simi-
larly, the correlation between academic optimism and the Law School Stan-
dard Admission Test (LSAT) scores in first-year law students (r = .15:
Segerstrom, 2001; r = .39: Segerstrom et al., 1998) suggests that this scale is
not redundant with traditional academic predictors.
Academic outcomes (retention/performance). Fall and spring GPA, as
well as whether students were enrolled in classes in each semester, were
provided to the research team from the Office of Institutional Research (with
specially assigned identification numbers). For students who dropped out
after the fall semester, their fall GPAs were used as the cumulative GPAs in
the analyses.
Motivation. At the end of the spring semester, participants who were
enrolled in English 102 were asked to respond to 11 items with the stem “How
often during the past year have you felt . . . ?” Responses were rated on a
5-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always) for motivation and distress.
The two items related to motivation (“tired and lacking in energy,” “unmo-
tivated”) created a motivation measure with an alpha reliability of .58. Cor-
relation with the same two items from the fall questionnaire was .61. A
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the two-item motivation factor also
demonstrates acceptable loadings of .61 and .63, respectively. Note that the
creation of a latent variable in the structural equation model (SEM) allows us
to measure motivation without error, which reduces concern about the mar-
ginal reliability of this measure.
Distress. Items related to loneliness (“isolated from others at the Uni-
versity of Kentucky,” “lonely,” “concerned about meeting new people,”
“supported by your friends”), stress (“a lot of stress in your life,” “sad or
depressed,” “anxious or nervous”), and negative appraisals (“out of
control,” “worthless”) comprised a nine-item distress factor with an alpha
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1895

reliability of .77. Correlation with five parallel items from the fall
questionnaire (“isolated from others at your school or college,” “lonely,”
“supported by your friends,” “a lot of stress in your life,” “out of control”)
was .52.
The SEM used parcels for the nine-item distress factor. It was necessary to
confirm first that the factor was unidimensional. Therefore, using a randomly
selected half of the data set, an exploratory factor analysis was performed on
the distress construct using principal axis factoring with promax rotation in
SPSS 15.0. The scree plot suggested the presence of only one factor. In
addition, a two-factor solution would have created factors with a correlation
of .64, a value higher than most of the factor loadings. After confirming that
the distress factor was unidimensional, the nine-item factor was randomly
divided into three parcels of three items each. Using the other half of the data
set, a CFA for the distress factor showed acceptable loadings for the three
parcels of .67, .72, and .80, respectively.
Traditional academic predictors. HGPA and ACT scores with specially
assigned identification numbers (so that students could not be identified)
were provided to the research team from the Office of Institutional Research
at the University of Kentucky. Some students had SAT scores that were
converted to equivalent ACT scores by the university.

Results

Data Analysis

The effect of optimism (either dispositional or academic) on retention was

tested with logistic regression. The effect of optimism (either dispositional or
academic) on motivation, GPA, and distress was tested using linear regres-
sions. No substantial relationships were found between optimism and gender
or minority status. Therefore, neither gender nor ethnicity was included in
the analysis. Optimism was treated as a continuous variable for analysis.
However, for purposes of illustration, optimism is represented in Figure 1 as
low, moderate, or high. Low optimism was defined as scoring 3 or below,
moderate optimism was defined as scoring above 3 but at or below 4, and high
optimism was defined as scoring above 4.
In order to understand the mechanisms through which optimism might
impact outcomes, first, a series of regression analyses was conducted to show
(a) that optimism was correlated with retention; and (b) that optimism was
correlated with motivation, performance, and adjustment. Next, SEMs
simultaneously tested the relationships among optimism, previous academic
performance, college GPA, motivation, distress, and college retention. The
1896 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

100

95

90

85 Low
% Retention

Moderate
80
High
75

70

65

60
Dispositional optimism Academic optimism

Figure 1. Mean impact of optimism on retention after first year in college.

M1 M2

+
Optimism Motivation +
+
_
+ _
+ GPA + Retention
ACT
_
+ _

+
HGPA Distress

D1 D2 D3

Figure 2. Hypothesized structural equation model with predicted pathways and covariances.
HGPA = high school grade point average; ACT = American College Test; GPA = 1st-year
college GPA; M = motivation; D = distress.

hypothesized SEM is shown in Figure 2. The same model is postulated for

both dispositional and academic optimism.
Several assumptions were made regarding the structural model. First,
because it was hypothesized that optimism would increase levels of
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1897

motivation but decrease levels of distress, motivation and distress were

allowed to covary in the model. Second, based on evidence of the association
between motivation and GPA (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Pajares & Urdan,
2002), as well as between distress and GPA (Brunelle-Joiner, 1999; Hishi-
numa et al., 2001), motivation and distress were each allowed to covary with
GPA. Third, HGPA and ACT were allowed to covary because of previous
research suggesting a significant association between the two (Stumph &
Stanley, 2002).
The underlying measurement components of the model were analyzed
before testing the structural model. The hypothesized model was fit to the
variance–covariance matrix of the observed variables using the WLSM esti-
mation method in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2002). Model fit was judged on
estimated residuals and fit indexes. Comparative fit index (CFI) is an incre-
mental fit index that compares the improvement in model fit over a baseline
model in which zero population covariances are assumed between all
observed variables. CFI values between .90 and .95 are often considered
acceptable, though it has been suggested that values indicating good fit
should be above .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1995). Root mean square error of approxi-
mation (RMSEA) is a parsimony-adjusted index based on measures of
residual variance. An RMSEA value less than .05 is considered a good fit,
while a value of .05 to .08 is considered a reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck,
1993).

Sample Characteristics

Consistent with most optimism research (Taylor & Brown, 1988), our
participants were, on average, moderately optimistic (dispositional opti-
mism, M = 3.63 of 5; academic optimism, M = 3.98 of 5). Most people
reported average motivation (M = 1.90 of 4), average GPA was 2.75, and
most people reported a low degree of distress (M = 1.50 of 4). Of the incom-
ing freshmen, 10% were not enrolled in classes after the first semester, and
25% were not enrolled in classes after the first year. Correlations show
associations among optimism, motivation, GPA, distress, and retention; as
well as among previous academic performance, GPA, and retention (see
Table 2).

Optimism and Retention

Research has shown retention to be associated with motivation, academic

performance, and distress or adjustment, all of which can result from
 1898 SOLBERG NES ET AL.
Table 2

Correlations Among Study Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. LOT-R —
2. AO .51** (480) —
3. ACT/SAT score .02 (829) .17** (1,837) —
4. HGPA .07 (830) .08** (1,839) .24** (2,186) —
5. Gender .09** (830) .00 (1,839) -.10** (2,186) .05* (2,189) —
6. Ethnicity -.00 (830) .03 (1,839) .17** (2,186) .06** (2,189) -.02 (2,189) —
7. Motivation .28** (512) .16** (1,073) -.08* (1,288) .01 (1,288) -.04 (1,288) .03 (1,288) —
8. CGPA 1st year .05 (753) .10** (1,640) .38** (1,960) .29** (1,963) .13** (1,963) .04 (1,963) .16** (1,287) —
9. Distress -.35** (507) -.22** (1,059) .01 (1,270) .01 (1,270) -.01 (1,270) -.04 (1,270) -.51** (1,266) .09** (1,269) —
10. Retention 1st year .09* (830) .06* (1,839) .12** (2,186) .18** (2,189) .05* (2,189) .01 (2,189) .10** (1,285) .42*** (1,963) -.13** (1,270)

Note. Parenthetical entries represent the number of participants who received questionnaires. As is evident, the numbers varied widely. LOT-R = Life
Orientation Test–Revised (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994); AO = academic optimism; ACT = American College Test; SAT = Scholastic Assessment Test;
GPA = grade point average; HGPA = high school GPA; CGPA = cumulative GPA.
*Significant at .05 level. **Significant at .01 level.
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1899

optimism. We predicted that optimism would also be associated with reten-

tion and, more specifically, that retention would be higher among optimists
than among pessimists. Supporting Hypothesis 1, there was a main effect of
both dispositional (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40, p = .01) and academic optimism
(OR = 1.33, p = .02) on retention (see Table 3), such that the more optimistic
participants were, the less likely they were to drop out of college after the first
year (see Figure 1).
In order to examine whether the optimism variables predicted retention
above and beyond traditional predictors, we included ACT scores and
HGPA in the first step of the regression. The main effect for dispositional
optimism was still present after including traditional predictors in the model,
whereas inclusion of traditional predictors significantly reduced the beta
weights for academic optimism (see Table 3). These results are expected
insofar as dispositional optimism overlaps less with traditional predictors
than does academic optimism. This could be a result of the fact that dispo-
sitional optimism relates to a generalized positive outlook on life and is more
closely related to motivation and affect. Academic optimism, on the other
hand, relates more closely to academic or college specific expectancies. There-
fore, its overlap with previous HGPA and ACT scores may indicate that
these expectancies arose, to some degree, from previous experience and
success.

Mediators of the Optimism–Retention Relationship

We have already established that optimism—dispositional as well as

academic—is associated with less chance of dropping out of college. Hence,
the first condition required for mediation has been fulfilled. The next step is
to examine whether optimism is associated with the mediators; and the
proposed mediators in the present study are motivation, performance (GPA),
and adjustment (distress).
Motivation. Supporting Hypothesis 2, there were main effects of disposi-
tional (b = .28, p < .001) and academic (b = .16, p < .001) optimism on moti-
vation in the spring (see Table 3), such that the higher students were in
optimism, the more motivated they were. In this study, motivation was not
highly correlated with previous performance (see Table 2). Therefore, it was
not necessary to test motivation after controlling for traditional predictors.
There was also evidence for a relationship between optimism and changes in
motivation. After controlling for fall motivation, optimism continued to
predict spring motivation: dispositional, b = .07, t(450) = 0.18, p < .05; situ-
ational, b = .05, t(925) = 0.12, p < .05.
Performance. GPA is likely to be dependent on how confident students
are in their academic outcomes. This type of expectancy is highly specific and
Table 3

1900 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

Impact of Optimism on Retention, GPA, Motivation, and Distress

N B c2(1) SE OR p
Retention
Dispositional optimism 830 .34 5.85 .14 1.40 .01
Academic optimism 1,839 .29 5.81 .12 1.33 .02
Controlling for ACT/SAT/HGPA
Dispositional optimism 829 .31 4.64 .14 1.37 .03
Academic optimism 1,837 .17 1.80 .12 1.18 .18
N b df t DR2 p
GPA
Dispositional optimism 753 .05 1, 752 1.37 .001 .17
Academic optimism 1,640 .10 1, 1639 4.19 .01 <.001
Controlling for ACT/SAT/HGPA
Dispositional optimism 751 .04 3, 748 1.16 .22 .25
Academic optimism 1,637 .04 3, 1634 1.59 .17 .11
Motivation
Dispositional optimism 512 .28 1, 511 6.12 .08 <.001
Academic optimism 1,073 .16 1, 1072 5.06 .03 <.001
Distress
Dispositional optimism 507 -.35 1, 506 -8.30 .12 <.001
Academic optimism 1,059 -.22 1, 1058 -7.24 .05 <.001
Note. ACT = American College Test; SAT = Scholastic Assessment Test; HGPA = high school grade point average; OR = odds
ratio.
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1901

is related to academic confidence and ability. Therefore, it was expected that

specific academic optimism would predict GPA better than the more gener-
alized dispositional optimism. This prediction was supported, as there was a
main effect of academic optimism on GPA after the first year (b = .10,
p < .001; see Table 3) such that the higher participants were in academic
optimism, the higher were their cumulative GPAs. Although dispositional
optimism tended to be positively related to semester GPA, there was no main
effect of dispositional optimism on GPA after the first year (see Table 3).
Including traditional predictors in the model significantly reduced the beta
weights for academic optimism on GPA (see Table 3).
Adjustment. Supporting Hypothesis 2, there were main effects of dispo-
sitional (b = -.35, p < .001) and academic optimism (b = -.22, p < .001) on
distress in the spring (see Table 3), such that the higher students were in
optimism, the less distress they experienced. In this study, distress was not
highly correlated with previous performance (see Table 2). Therefore, it was
not necessary to test distress after controlling for traditional predictors.
There was also evidence of a relationship between optimism and changes in
distress. After controlling for fall distress, optimism continued to predict
spring distress: dispositional, b = -.17, t(447) = -4.15, p < .001; situational,
b = -.78, t(911) = -2.73, p < .01.

Structural Equations Model

Having established direct relationships between optimism and

retention—as well as between optimism, motivation, performance, and
distress—the pathways among these variables must be examined. SEMs were
used to test the relationships between optimism, previous academic perfor-
mance, motivation, distress, and college retention (see Figure 2).
As noted earlier, available data on optimism included those with dispo-
sitional optimism values only, those with academic optimism values only,
and those with both dispositional and academic optimism scores. We first
created a model using data from the entire pool of 2,189 students in order to
obtain the best possible estimates of population values for the pathways
other than optimism. Using the results from this model, in which all path-
ways were found to be significant, we tested separate models for dispositional
optimism and academic optimism in which all pathways other than those for
optimism were constrained to those values from the first model. Missing data
(approximately 2% of the total) were imputed using expectation maximiza-
tion, a procedure that produces less biased estimates of population param-
eters than alternative methods of imputation (Gold & Bentler, 2000).
The overall goodness of fit of the hypothesized model for dispositional
optimism was good (CFI = .95; RMSEA = .058). Significant pathway
1902 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

Dispositional
.247
optimism Motivation
12
-.12
-.408 .036
.169 -.697
.27
27 GPA .470 Retention
ACT
-.086
.595
.341 -.252
HGPA Distress

Figure 3. Dispositional optimism structural equation model. HGPA = high school grade point
average; ACT = American College Test; GPA = 1st-year college GPA. Significant ( p < .05)
pathway coefficients and correlations appear in boldface. For greater clarity, indicators of latent
variables and arrows indicating measurement error are not shown.

coefficients and correlations are shown in Figure 3. The only predicted

pathway that was not significant was from dispositional optimism to GPA.
The pathways between motivation, GPA, and distress were related to each
other; and after modeling these relationships, dispositional optimism was
directly related to motivation and distress.
Therefore, the effects of dispositional optimism on retention appear to
pass through distress and motivation to retention, as well as through distress
and motivation to GPA. Total indirect effects in the dispositional optimism
model equaled .167. Using the binominal effect size display (Rosenthal &
Rubin, 1982), predicted odds of retention based on the indirect effect were .84
for high dispositional optimism and .68 for low dispositional optimism.
These predictions are in line with the obtained data (see Figure 1) and suggest
that dispositional optimism affects retention mainly through motivation and
adjustment above and beyond the effects of traditional predictors.
The model hypothesized in Figure 2 was also tested with academic opti-
mism in place of dispositional optimism. Note that while the values for all
pathways other than those involving optimism were fixed, the values for these
pathways are slightly different between the two models because of the differ-
ent standard errors for the two different sample sizes. The model fit for
academic optimism was acceptable (CFI = .92; RMSEA = .07). Significant
pathway coefficients and correlations are shown in Figure 4. All predicted
pathways and correlations were found to be significant.
As was true in the dispositional optimism model, distress, motivation, and
GPA were all related to one another. However, in the academic optimism
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1903

Academic
.14
optimism Motivation
.11
.088
-.245 .18 -.80
.28
28 GPA .481
481 Retention
ACT

-.09
53
.53
.35 -.24
HGPA Distress

Figure 4. Academic optimism structural equation model. HGPA = high school grade point
average; ACT = American College Test; GPA = 1st-year college GPA. Significant ( p < .05)
pathway coefficients and correlations appear in boldface. For greater clarity, indicators of latent
variables and arrows indicating measurement error are not shown.

model, optimism was significantly and directly related to GPA, as well as to

motivation and distress. For the academic optimism model, the total indirect
effects equaled .139. Using the binominal effect size display (Rosenthal &
Rubin, 1982), predicted odds of retention based on the indirect effect were .83
and .69 for high and low academic optimism, respectively. These predicted
values are similar to obtained values from the raw data (see Figure 1). The
model suggests that academic optimism, like dispositional optimism (sup-
porting Hypothesis 3), affects retention through motivational and affective
pathways above and beyond the effects of traditional predictors. In addition,
academic optimism affects GPA above and beyond its effects on motivation
and affect.

Discussion

The benefits of a college education are extensive. However, a substantial

proportion of students who begin college fail to graduate, and it is crucial to
identify factors that may contribute to college retention. The present inves-
tigation provides compelling support for the impact of optimism on college
success. Generalized dispositional optimism and more specific academic opti-
mism were associated with an increased chance of remaining in college,
increased motivation, and decreased distress. Academic optimism was also
associated with better performance; that is, increased GPA. The current
study shows that the impact of optimism on retention is mediated by
relationships among optimism and motivation, performance, and adjust-
ment, as suggested by the initial mediational regression analysis and con-
firmed by the results of the SEMs.
1904 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

Optimism and Retention

The benefits of a college education are numerous, probably more exten-

sive than generally recognized (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1998);
thus, failing to graduate from college may have a negative impact on a
person’s life outcomes. As optimistic beliefs are likely to lead to persistence
without giving up (Carver et al., 1979, 1983; Solberg Nes et al., 2005)—as
well as better performance (Brown & Marshall, 2001; Chemers et al., 2001;
Nonis & Wright, 2003; Taylor & Brown, 1988) and better emotional
adjustment (Carver et al., 1993; Duke, Leventhal, Brownlee, & Leventhal,
2002)—it was expected that optimistic students would be more likely to
remain in college instead of dropping out. The fact that students high in
optimism were less likely to drop out of college supports the self-regulatory
models claiming that optimists are more likely to be motivated and to persist
at tasks, they are more likely to perform well, and they are better at adjusting
to stressors, all of which may prevent them from giving up on something as
essential as a college education.

Optimism and Motivation, Performance, and Adjustment

Because optimists expect positive outcomes, they appear to be more moti-

vated to achieve what they set out to do; that is, they appear to persist and
engage until their goal is accomplished (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Segerstrom &
Solberg Nes, 2006; Solberg Nes et al., 2005). The current study supports this
notion, as students high in dispositional as well as academic optimism had
higher levels of motivation. These results may also reflect the fact that dispo-
sitional as well as academic optimism are correlated with conscientiousness
(dispositional optimism, r = .31; academic optimism, r = .43, Segerstrom
et al., 2003), indicating a strong motivation or persistence component in
optimism.
Again, because optimists expect positive outcomes, they often work
harder and longer in order to achieve their goals; hence, better results may be
achieved. The current study supports this notion, as students high in aca-
demic optimism were found to achieve higher college GPAs. Academic
grades are a circumscribed outcome, and the fact that academic optimism
specifically relates to academic performance (e.g., grades) may explain why
academic optimism was more clearly associated with GPA than was dispo-
sitional optimism in the current study. These results may also explain why
optimism sometimes has been associated with better performance (Brown &
Marshall, 2001; Chemers et al., 2001; Taylor & Brown, 1988), and sometimes
has not (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Solberg Nes et al., 2005).
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1905

Finally, because of their positive outcome expectancies, optimists appear

to adjust better to stressors. Optimistic students, therefore, were expected to
experience better subjective well-being than were more pessimistic students.
As predicted, dispositional optimism as well as academic optimism were
associated with decreased distress or better adjustment. This is consistent
with the notion that optimists make use of approach coping strategies aiming
to manage, decrease, or eliminate stressors or the emotional consequences of
stressors (Solberg Nes & Segerstrom, 2006); and it is also consistent with
notions that associations exist between goal pursuit, life satisfaction, and less
negative affect (Brandstadter & Renner, 1990; Carver & Scheier, 1990;
Emmons & King, 1988). The degree of persistence or motivation often dis-
played by optimists may also contribute to the positive impact of optimism
on adjustment; and, as suggested by the SEMs, motivation and distress are
strongly related to each other.
Because optimism was associated with motivation, performance, and
emotional adjustment, it was predicted that these variables would mediate
the relationship between optimism and retention. The initial mediational
regressions, as well as the SEMs, support this prediction. The first model that
we tested suggests that dispositional optimism is associated with increased
retention, though not directly through its association with GPA. In particu-
lar, we found that dispositional optimism predicted motivation and distress,
both of which covaried with GPA, all of which, in turn, predicted retention.
Academic optimism, on the other hand, demonstrated more of an expected
effect on retention through its effects on GPA, distress, and motivation.
These pathways were indicated by the mediational regression results, as well
as by the fit of the SEMs, as both dispositional and academic optimism were
associated with increased retention through these pathways.

Optimism and Specificity

The current investigation was expected to demonstrate differences in the

influence of dispositional and specific optimism on the first year in college,
and the results support the notion that these variables can have distinctly
different impacts, depending on outcome measure. While it is not possible to
directly compare the optimism pathways of the dispositional and academic
optimism models because of their different sample sizes, it appears that
dispositional optimism had more impact on general distress, and academic
optimism had more impact on domain-specific performance (e.g., GPA).
These findings support the idea that dispositional optimism, which is consid-
ered to be a stable personality trait, is likely to be associated with broader
outcomes; whereas specific optimism, which is more situation-specific, is
1906 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

likely to be associated with more specific outcomes (Carver & Scheier, 1998).
Nevertheless, the correlation between the variables in this study was signifi-
cant (r = .51), which indicates that generalized and specific optimism do
overlap to a certain extent.
The impact of previous experience on academic optimism may raise the
question of whether self-efficacy is involved in these processes. Self-efficacy
refers to a belief in one’s own ability to plan, organize, and perform specific
tasks (Bandura, 1986, 1997) and can be enhanced by prior success at doing
so. People can have self-efficacy beliefs about any type of endeavor, including
academic performance. Whereas the concepts of academic optimism and
self-efficacy both focus on academic success, self-efficacy is a belief in one’s
ability to act in such a way as to cause a positive outcome, whereas academic
optimism is broader and does not specify that positive outcomes should be
caused by one’s own actions.
Academic self-efficacy could, however, be subsumed under the concept of
academic optimism, possibly playing a part in the actual impact of academic
optimism. An important direction for future research is to determine whether
positive expectancies—particularly positive academic expectancies—affect
academic success, regardless of the causal mechanisms (e.g., one’s actions,
luck, help from others) or whether some mechanisms involved in positive
expectancies are more beneficial than others.

Optimism and Traditional Predictors of Academic Success

Optimism may have incremental predictive validity for academic out-

comes over traditional predictors (e.g., HGPA, standardized test scores).
When controlling for traditional predictors in the regressions, the main
effects of dispositional optimism on retention persisted. Dispositional opti-
mism is assumed to arise more from affective and motivational sources
(Armor & Taylor, 1998) than from previous experience, and the current
results support the notion that dispositional optimism involves expectancies
distinct from those based on past success alone. The fact that dispositional
optimism in the current study was barely correlated with ACT scores (r = .02)
underlines this idea further.
The current results raise the question of whether optimism should
become a new “traditional” predictor or admissions criterion. Dispositional
optimism was measured on a 5-point scale (Scheier et al., 1994) and is usually
treated as a continuous variable ranging from 1 (low optimism) to 5 (high
optimism). In comparison, GPAs range from 0 to 4, and ACT scores range
from 1 to 36. In the current study, the direct effects (i.e., regression results)
indicate that 1 point on the optimism scale had the same impact on retention
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1907

as 1.76 points on the HGPA scale or 3.27 points on the ACT scale. This
means, for example, that a difference between 3 and 4 on the LOT-R (Scheier
et al., 1994) can have the same impact on college retention as a difference
between an HGPA of 2.04 and 3.80, or between an ACT score of 25 and 28.
The indirect effects of both dispositional and academic optimism were com-
parable to the results of the regressions and the raw data (see Figure 1). The
fact that the total indirect effects are similar to those of the total direct effects
suggests that the mediational pathways have the same practical importance
as the direct effect.
Clearly, information about optimism levels can be beneficial in the admis-
sions process. Including the LOT-R (Scheier et al., 1994) in the admissions
process would require little time and effort, as this measure contains only 10
items. However, considering the thorough coaching of high school students
prior to applying for college, such a straightforward measure could be vul-
nerable to distortion or misrepresentation of true optimism scores for admis-
sion purposes only.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Existing research on college success has, for the most part, employed
traditional predictors, such as HGPA and standardized tests like the ACT
and SAT. Other studies have examined the impact of motivation and interest
(Hidi, 1996, 2001; Pajares & Urdan, 2002), self-esteem (Aspinwall & Taylor,
1992), and self-efficacy (Chemers et al., 2001; Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1995).
Only a few studies have examined the impact of dispositional optimism on
college adjustment and performance (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Chemers
et al., 2001). This study adds to former investigations addressing optimism
(both specific and dispositional) not only to motivation, performance, and
adjustment, but also to retention.
Considering the importance of a college education and the vast implica-
tions that higher education is likely to have on life outcomes, information
about variables contributing to college retention are clearly of great impor-
tance. In addition, the current study identifies fundamental components in
the optimism–retention relationship, further enhancing the understanding of
essential contributing factors to college success.
There are some limitations of the current study that must be addressed.
First, not all students received both optimism measures, and more students
completed the academic optimism measure than completed the dispositional
optimism measure. However, the smallest number of students completing
one measure was 830; hence, the power should be satisfactory, and the
probability of a Type 2 error should not be high.
1908 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

Second, both the logistical regression and the SEMs show that students
higher in optimism were more likely to remain in college, and, accordingly,
participants who dropped out were less optimistic. If those who dropped out
had lower college GPAs, this relationship may have resulted in a restricted
range for the GPA analyses. The regressions show a main effect of college GPA
on retention (B = 1.14), c2(1, N = 2189) = 260.88, SE = .08, odds ratio = 3.12,
p < .001, such that the higher the GPA, the more likely students were to remain
in college and not drop out. The SEMs confirm this relationship. However,
because optimism was associated with retention, restricted range here would,
if anything, lead to an underestimation of the influence of optimism.
Future investigations on the influence of outcome expectancy on college
retention, performance, motivation, and adjustment could help further
examine and identify paths to college success. Future research might also
include investigations involving the entire undergraduate career of students,
so that the influence of outcome expectancy can be assessed on a more
long-term basis.
The current study identifies the components contributing to optimists’
success in college, and a natural question might be whether these findings
have practical implications for intervention. Situational optimism can be
induced to a certain degree, possibly through enhancing self-efficacy in stu-
dents. Dispositional optimism, on the other hand, is usually considered to be
a personality trait that rarely changes. However, recent research (Segerstrom,
2007) has suggested that this trait may be less stable than previously assumed,
indicating that changes in resources could possibly induce changes in opti-
mism over time. Nevertheless, this study shows that the key to success is a
combination of motivation, performance, and adjustment. If we can find a
way to increase belief in a positive outcome, students can succeed in the
academic world, regardless of whether or not they are optimists.

References

American College Testing Service. (2005). ACT college readiness benchmarks,

retention, and first-year college GPA: What’s the connection? Retrieved
June 11, 2007, from www.act.org/research/policymakers/briefs.html
Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1998). Situated optimism: Specific outcome
expectancies and self-regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 30, 309–379.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Individual differences, coping, and
psychological adjustment: A longitudinal study of college adjustment and
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 989–
1003.
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1909

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory
and self-reactive mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on
motivation: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69–164).
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Brandstadter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible
goal adjustments: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and
accommodative strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5, 58–67.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Bridgeman, B., McCamley-Jenkins, L., & Ervin, N. (2000). Predictions of
freshman grade point average from the revised and recentered SAT I:
Reasoning Test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Brissette, I., Scheier, M. E., & Carver, C. S. (2002). The role of optimism in
social network development, coping, and psychological adjustment
during a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
102–111.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Great expectations: Optimism and
pessimism in achievement settings. In E. C. Chang (Eds.), Optimism and
pessimism, implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 239–255).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation model
(pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brunelle-Joiner, K. M. (1999). Effects of an extended orientation program on
personal resiliency and adjustment to college as it relates to academic
performance and retention. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section
A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 60, 354.
Carver, C. S., Blaney, P. H., & Scheier, M. F. (1979). Reassertion and giving
up: The interactive role of self-directed attention and outcome expect-
ancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1859–1870.
Carver, C. S., Peterson, L. M., Follansbee, D. J., & Scheier, M. F. (1983).
Effects of self-directed attention on performance and persistence among
persons high and low in test anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7,
333–354.
Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson,
D. S., et al. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on
distress: A study of women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 375–390.
1910 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Outcome expectancy, locus of attri-

bution for expectancy, and self-directed attention as determinants of
evaluations and performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
18, 184–200.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive
and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97,
19–35.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and
first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 93, 55–64.
Duke, J., Leventhal, H., Brownlee, S., & Leventhal, E. A. (2002). Giving up
and replacing activities in response to illness. Journal of Gerontology:
Psychological Sciences, 57B, P367–P376.
Emmons, R. A., & King, L. A. (1988). Conflict among personal strivings:
Immediate and long-term implications for psychological and physical
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1040–1048.
Gold, M. S., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Treatments of missing data: A Monte
Carlo comparison of RBHDI, iterative stochastic regression imputation,
and expectation–maximization. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 319–355.
Hidi, S. (1996). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learn-
ing. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical
considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191–209.
Hishinuma, E. S., Foster, J. E., Miyamoto, R. H., Nishimura, S. T., Andrade,
N. N., Nahulu, L. B., et al. (2001). Association between measures of
academic performance and psychosocial adjustment for Asian/Pacific-
Islander adolescents. School Psychology International, 22, 303–320.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle
(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications
(pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998). Reaping the benefits: Defining
the public and private value of going to college. In The New Millennium
Project on Higher Education Costs, Pricing, and Productivity (pp. 13–20).
Washington, DC: Author.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and
research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to
decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Model-
ing, 4, 599–620.
 OPTIMISM AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1911

National Center for Education. (2004). The condition of education, 2004.

Retrieved June 9, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?
pubid=2004077
Nonis, S. A., & Wright, D. (2003). Moderating effects of achievement striv-
ing and situational optimism on the relationship between ability and
performance outcomes of college students. Research in Higher Education,
44, 327–346.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement setting. Review of
Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (2002). Academic motivation of adolescents.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of
magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
166–169.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York:
Prentice Hall.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing
optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-
esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological
and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cog-
nitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201–228.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E.
Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research,
and application (pp. 281–303). New York: Plenum.
Segerstrom, S. C. (2001). Optimism, goal conflict, and stressor-related
immune change. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 441–467.
Segerstrom, S. C. (2007). Optimism and resources: Effects on each other
and on health over 10 years. Journal of Research in Personality, 41,
772–786.
Segerstrom, S. C., Castaneda, J. O., & Spencer, T. E. (2003). Optimism
effects on cellular immunity: Testing the affective and persistence models.
Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1–10.
Segerstrom, S. C., & Solberg Nes, L. (2006). When goals conflict but people
prosper: The case of dispositional optimism. Journal of Research in
Personality, 40, 675–693.
Segerstrom, S. C., Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., & Fahey J. L. (1998).
Optimism is associated with mood, coping, and immune change in
response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1646–
1655.
1912 SOLBERG NES ET AL.

Solberg Nes, L., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2006). Dispositional optimism and

coping: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10, 235–251.
Solberg Nes, L., Segerstrom, S. C., & Sephton, S. E. (2005). Engagement and
arousal: Optimism’s effects during a brief stressor. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 111–120.
Stanton, A. L., & Snider, P. R. (1993). Coping with a breast cancer diagnosis:
A prospective study. Health Psychology, 12, 16–23.
Stoever, S. A. (2002). Multiple predictors of college success: Investigation of
an empirical model. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering, 62, 3367.
Stumph, H., & Stanley, J. C. (2002). Group data on high school grade point
averages and scores on academic aptitude tests as predictors of institu-
tional graduation rates. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62,
1042–1052.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social
psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
193–210.
Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of
Higher Education, 53, 687–700.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). The big payoff: Education attainment and
synthetic estimates of work life earnings. Retrieved June 9, 2007,
from http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://
www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23%2D210.pdf