Academic Support From Peers as a Predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy Among College Students

Abstract

Prior theory and research indicate that psychosocial contextual factors—including students’ ability to establish and maintain satisfying relationships and interactions with peers—can play an important role in predicting college students’ academic performance and persistence. The current study contributes to this literature by examining the mechanisms by which college students come to feel academically supported by peers and the consequences of these perceptions for college students’ academic self-efficacy. Findings indicate that friends’ responses to college students’ disclosures of everyday academic challenges and successes contribute to more general perceptions of peer academic support. Perceptions of peer academic support are, in turn, a predictor of higher academic self-efficacy. The implications of these findings for programs designed to enhance college students’ academic performance and persistence are discussed.

Keywords

social support peer relationships college students academic adjustment

An abundance of theory and research indicates that psychosocial contextual factors—including students’ ability to establish and maintain satisfying relationships and interactions with peers—can play an important role in predicting college students’ academic performance and persistence (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012; Tinto, 1975). For example, empirical research on the effects of social integration and social support among college students provides evidence that students who feel connected to, involved with, and supported by members of the college community, including peers, perform better academically and are retained at higher levels than students who report lower levels of social integration and social support (e.g., Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005; Flynn, 2014; Purswell, Yazedjian, & Toews, 2008; Robbins, Allen, Casillas, Peterson, & Le, 2006). Importantly, however, the direction and strength of associations between psychosocial contextual variables and college students’ academic performance and persistence are inconsistent across studies and oftentimes weak. For example, in a recent meta-analysis, Richardson et al. (2012) reported that social integration (defined by the authors as perceived social integration and ability to relate to other students) had only a small and positive association with grade point average (GPA) that was not statistically significant (adjusted r = .04). The association between social support (defined by the authors as the availability of social support from family members and significant others) and GPA was statistically significant, but only modestly stronger (adjusted r = .08; see also Robbins et al., 2004).

One reason for the lack of strong and reliable associations between psychosocial contextual variables, including social support, and college students’ academic performance and retention is that there has been very little consistency in the conceptualization and measurement of these variables. For example, in research on college students, social support assessments are sometimes single-item measures focused on global perceptions of support (e.g., a sense that others will be able to provide assistance if needed). Although multi-item assessments of social support have been used as well, these measures have also been limited in their usefulness for assessing social support among college students (Thompson & Mazer, 2009). First, many measures have been designed for students in elementary or secondary school. Second, many measures conflate sources of support (e.g., support from peers is conflated with support from parents, college staff, and professors). Finally, many measures conflate types of support (e.g., support focused on academic difficulties is conflated with support focused on social or emotional difficulties. This state of affairs is problematic given evidence that the strength and direction of associations between social support and student adjustment can vary markedly depending on the age of the sample as well as the source and type of support (Malecki & Demaray, 2003). For example, there is some evidence that, among college students, social support from peers may play a larger role in predicting academic outcomes than social support from either parents or professors (Dennis et al., 2005; Purswell et al., 2008). In explaining these findings, Thompson and Mazer (2009) suggest that social support from peers may be especially important because it is readily available and because students feel that peers can better understand and relate to the joys and struggles students face.

In developing one of the first multi-item measures of peer academic support for college students, Thompson and Mazer (2009) sought to address many of the conceptual and methodological problems associated with other measures. Specifically, their Student Academic Support Scale was developed to assess individual differences in the degree to which college students feel that peers offer four types of social support specifically related to academics: informational support (i.e., “clarifying and explaining academic issues” and “providing information that helps other students complete assignments”), esteem support (i.e., “bolstering other students’ feelings and self-esteem”), motivational support (i.e., “motivating other students to study and attend class”), and venting support (i.e., listening as other students “vent about classes and teachers”). A handful of recent studies utilizing the scale have demonstrated that peer academic support predicts positive interpersonal outcomes for college students, including perceptions of relational closeness (e.g., Mazer & Thompson, 2011). Although research with children suggests that peer academic support should also predict positive academic outcomes, including more positive academic attitudes and behaviors (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007; Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney, 2010), empirical research that has carefully examined associations between specific types of peer academic support and positive academic outcomes among college students is both sparse and characterized by important limitations.

Social Support Following Academic Challenges and Academic Successes

One of the limitations of prior research on peer academic support among college students is that it focuses on support in the context of academic challenges. For example, Thompson and Mazer’s (2009) Student Academic Support Scale focuses on action-facilitating academic support (i.e., support in which a peer directly assists a student with academic challenges) and nurturant academic support (i.e., support in which a peer offers comfort to help a student cope with the stress associated with academic challenges).

This focus on academic challenges is unsurprising given that, until very recently, most theory and research on social support has focused on social support in the context of negative events (Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006). Nevertheless, evidence from both qualitative and quantitative studies indicates that the narrow focus on social support in the context of academic challenges is potentially problematic. In qualitative studies involving high school and college students, students spontaneously report that academic support from peers often comes in the form of being recognized, validated, and encouraged when they are doing well academically (Horvat & Lewis, 2003; Thompson & Mazer, 2009). Likewise, in quantitative studies of both children and adults, there is evidence that the perceived responses of others following positive events, including everyday academic successes (e.g., a good test grade), can play a more important role in predicting well-being than the perceived responses of others following negative events, including everyday academic challenges (Altermatt, 2015; Gable et al., 2006). In explaining these findings, Gable and Haidt (2005) note that social support following negative events can engender both positive and negative emotions—for example, both gratitude and a sense of hopelessness. In contrast, social support following positive events is believed to be less likely to trigger negative emotions. A key goal of the present study is, then, to examine college students’ perceptions of peer academic support not only when they are struggling, but also when they have met with academic success.

Perceived Support and Received Support

A second limitation of prior research on peer academic support among college students is that it—like research on social support more generally—often fails to adequately distinguish and assess associations between perceived support and received support. In the extant literature on social support, “perceived support” refers to general perceptions that others will offer (or have offered) support in times of need. In contrast, “received (or enacted) support” refers to the specific supportive actions in which partners might engage (e.g., providing advice) in times of need (Wethington & Kessler, 1986). Perceived academic support, then, might include college students’ general perceptions that their peers care about their learning and value educational success, while received academic support might include the specific responses friends give when college students share news of their everyday academic challenges and successes. In the case of academic challenges, received academic support might include having a friend offer advice on how to complete a homework assignment or listen to complaints about an instructor or class. In the case of academic successes, received academic support might include having a friend offer congratulations or a compliment on a good test grade (Altermatt, 2005; Thompson & Mazer, 2009).

It remains unclear to what degree perceived academic support will be predicted by received academic support following everyday academic challenges and successes. It is also unclear to what degree perceived academic support, received academic support, or both will predict positive academic outcomes. In the broader literature on social support, perceived support has been most clearly linked to positive adjustment (Haber, Cohen, Lucas, & Baltes, 2007). Links between received support and adjustment have been less consistent, in part because the effects of received support are sometimes negative. There is, however, some evidence that the influence of received support on adjustment may be mediated by perceived support (e.g., Haber et al., 2007; Wethington & Kessler, 1986). In other words, received support may be linked to positive adjustment to the degree that it contributes to (rather than detracts from) perceived support. The current study tests this mediational model with regard to peer academic support among college students.

Overview

The central goal of the present study was to advance our understanding of psychosocial contextual influences on college students’ academic adjustment by examining associations among perceived academic support (i.e., students’ perceptions that peers generally care about their learning), received academic support (i.e., students’ perceptions of the degree to which friends offer supportive responses to everyday academic challenge and success disclosures), and academic self-efficacy. The decision to focus on academic self-efficacy (i.e., students’ self-evaluation of their ability to succeed academically) as a key outcome variable was based on both theory (e.g., Bean & Eaton, 2001/2002) and empirical evidence from three recent meta-analyses indicating that academic self-efficacy is among the strongest predictors of college students’ academic outcomes. For example, in a meta-analysis examining traditional, psychosocial, and study skill factors that predict college students’ GPA and retention (Robbins et al., 2004), academic self-efficacy showed the largest true correlation with college GPA and the second largest true correlation with retention (just behind academic-related skills, such as study skills; see also Credé & Phillips, 2011; Richardson et al., 2012). Three sets of hypotheses were tested.

First, we hypothesized that perceived academic support would positively predict the academic self-efficacy of college students. Specifically, we expected that college students who believed that friends generally care about their learning and want them to succeed academically would be more confident in their ability to succeed academically. Consistent with findings from a handful of prior studies indicating that perceived academic support from peers may be more important than support from other sources (e.g., parents) in predicting college student adjustment (e.g., Dennis et al., 2005; Purswell et al, 2008), we, furthermore, expected that perceived academic support from peers would be a stronger predictor of academic self-efficacy than perceived academic support from either parents or professors.

Second, we hypothesized that received academic support would positively predict perceived academic support. Specifically, we expected that when college students reported that their friends typically responded to academic challenge disclosures with informational support (e.g., homework assistance), esteem support (e.g., efforts to boost self-confidence), motivational support (e.g., encouragement to study harder), and venting support (e.g., a supportive ear), students would be more likely to report that peers cared about their learning and academic success more generally. We also expected to find evidence for greater perceived academic support from peers when friends reacted to academic success disclosures with supportive responses (e.g., a compliment or congratulations). These findings would be consistent with prior research indicating that “active-constructive” (i.e., enthusiastic and engaged) responses to positive event disclosures can be a strong predictor of positive interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes, including relationship satisfaction and school adjustment (Altermatt, 2011; Gable et al., 2006). Indeed, there is some evidence that social support following positive events, including everyday academic successes, may be more important in predicting general perceptions of support and well-being than social support following negative events, including everyday academic challenges (Altermatt, 2015; Gable et al., 2006).

Finally, we hypothesized that we would find support for a mediational model in which associations between received academic support and academic self-efficacy were mediated by perceived academic support. These findings would contribute to a small literature indicating that specific interpersonal exchanges that communicate support can be predictive of positive outcomes when they contribute to more general perceptions of support (Wethington & Kessler, 1986). Because supportive responses to academic success disclosures are less likely than responses to academic challenge disclosures to elicit negative affect (e.g., feelings of embarrassment or a sense of helplessness (Gable et al., 2006), we anticipated that received academic support following success disclosures would be especially likely to predict positive perceptions of peer academic support and, in turn, positive academic self-efficacy beliefs.

Method

Participants

Participants were 107 undergraduate students (79 women, 28 men) enrolled in introductory psychology courses at a liberal arts college in the Midwest. The participants represented the full range of academic years (i.e., first year to senior) and a range of academic disciplines. All participants were of traditional college age (mean = 20.14) and the majority (92%) identified as Caucasian. Students completed an online survey approved by the college’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Perceived academic support

To assess perceived academic support from peers, we used a three-item measure (e.g., “My friends support me academically”) modeled on items from the peer academic support subscale of the Classroom Life Measure (Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson, 1983). Academic support from parents and professors were assessed with similarly worded three-item measures (e.g., “My parents support me academically” and “My professors support me academically”). Students responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α values for perceived academic support from peers, parents, and professors were .72, .85, and .93, respectively.

Supportive responses to academic challenge disclosures

To assess college students’ perceptions of received academic support following academic challenges—specifically, the degree to which students believed that friends typically responded to disclosures of academic difficulties with support—we used the Student Academic Support Scale developed by Thompson and Mazer (2009). Students were presented with a common stem (If I let friends know that I am struggling academically, they usually …) and were asked to indicate how friends typically responded. Items tapped four types of support. Specifically, seven items tapped informational support (e.g., “clarify how to do an assignment”), three items tapped esteem support (e.g., “help raise my confidence about school”), three items tapped motivational support (e.g., “encourage me to study”), and two items tapped venting support (e.g., “listen to me vent about frustrations with a class”). Students responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Cronbach’s α values were .93, .81, .82, and .81, respectively.

Supportive responses to academic success disclosures

To assess college students’ perceptions of received support following academic successes—specifically, the degree to which students believed that friends typically responded to disclosures of academic successes with support—we used an expanded, six-item version of the three-item active-constructive subscale of the Perceived Responses to Academic Success Disclosures Scale developed by (Altermatt and Painter, 2016). Students were presented with a common stem (“If I let friends know that I am doing well academically, they usually …”) and were asked to indicate the degree to which friends typically responded with enthusiastic support (e.g., “act happy and excited for me”). Students responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Cronbach’s α value was .94.

Academic self-efficacy

To assess college students’ academic self-efficacy, we used the eight-item self-efficacy (e.g., “I believe I will receive excellent grades in my courses”) subscale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). Students responded to each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me). Cronbach’s α value was .93.

Results

We calculated means and standard deviations for all study variables as well as bivariate correlations among these variables. These statistics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Perceived academic support from peers	—
2. Perceived academic support from parents	.30**	—
3. Perceived academic support from professors	.53***	.26**	—
4. Supportive responses to ACDs—Informational	.42***	.25**	.33***	—
5. Supportive responses to ACDs—Esteem	.45***	.23*	.31***	.66***	—
6. Supportive responses to ACDs—Motivational	.36***	.31***	.20*	.72***	.58***	—
7. Supportive responses to ACDs—Venting	.33***	.12	.35***	.37***	.59***	.23*	—
8. Supportive responses to ASDs	.45***	.03	.34***	.43***	.64***	.39***	.59***	—
9. Academic self-efficacy	.32***	.04	.24*	.03	.17^†	.08	.18^†	.17^†	—
Mean (SD)	4.11 (0.63)	4.71 (0.54)	4.47 (0.66)	3.14 (0.98)	3.61 (0.83)	3.34 (1.00)	4.21 (0.83)	3.79 (0.92)	5.23 (1.03)

Note. ACDs = academic challenge disclosures; ASDs = academic success disclosures.

^†p < .10. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Our first hypothesis was that perceived academic support from peers would be positively associated with academic self-efficacy. Indeed, we predicted that perceived academic support from peers would be a stronger predictor than perceived academic support from parents or professors in predicting academic self-efficacy.

To test this hypothesis, we conducted a multiple regression analysis in which we entered perceived academic support from peers, parents, and professors as simultaneous predictors of academic self-efficacy. Consistent with our first hypothesis, only perceived academic support from peers independently predicted academic self-efficacy, β = .29, t = 2.59, p < .01. Neither academic support from parents, β = −.08, t = −0.79, p > .05, nor academic support from professors, β = .11, t = 1.01, p > .05, was an independent predictor of academic self-efficacy.

Our second hypothesis was that received academic support following everyday academic challenge and success disclosures would positively predict perceived academic support from peers. To test this hypothesis—and to determine whether supportive responses to academic success disclosures would play an important role, over-and-above the role of supportive responses to academic challenge disclosures, in predicting perceived academic support from peers—we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis. At Step 1, we simultaneously entered the four types of supportive responses to academic challenge disclosures. At Step 2, we added supportive responses to academic success disclosures. As shown in Table 2, the four types of supportive responses to academic challenge disclosures were, together, a significant predictor of perceived academic support from peers, F_(4,102) = 8.04, p < .001. Indeed, 24% of the variability in perceived academic support from peers could be explained by students’ perceptions of the degree to which friends responded to academic challenge disclosures with informational, esteem, motivational, and venting support. The finding that no single type of supportive response predicted perceived academic support from peers when all four were entered simultaneously is not unexpected given the moderate to strong correlations among the four types of supportive responses, r values = .23 to .72 (see Table 1). As shown in Table 2, when we added supportive responses to academic success disclosures to the model, an additional 4% of the variability in perceived academic support was explained. This was a significant increase, F_(1,101) = 7.61, p < .001, supporting the hypothesis that friends’ responses to academic success disclosures play an additive role in predicting perceived academic support from peers. Importantly, when supportive responses to both academic challenge and success disclosures were entered simultaneously, only supportive responses to academic success disclosures emerged as a significant and independent predictor of perceived academic support from peers, β = .25, t = 2.15, p < .05.

Table 2.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Perceived Academic Support From Peers.

	Model 1			Model 2
Variable	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Supportive responses to ACDs—Informational	.11	.09	.18	.12	.09	.19
Supportive responses to ACDs—Esteem	.17	.10	.23	.09	.11	.12
Supportive responses to ACDs—Motivational	.05	.08	.08	.03	.08	.05
Supportive responses to ACDs—Venting	.08	.08	.11	.02	.09	.03
Supportive responses to ASDs				.17	.08	.25*
R ²	.24 8.04***			.28 7.61***
F for change in R²	.24 8.04***			.28 7.61***

ACDs = academic challenge disclosures; ASDs = academic success disclosures.

*p < .05. ***p < .001.

Our third hypothesis was that associations between received academic support and academic self-efficacy would be mediated by perceived academic support. In other words, we expected to find evidence that students’ perceptions of received support following everyday academic challenge and success disclosures would predict more positive academic self-efficacy because these responses contributed to perceived academic support, or more general perceptions that peers cared about students’ learning and educational success. To test this hypothesis, we followed procedures outlined in Hayes (2013) for testing mediational models where multiple independent variables (Xs) predict some outcome variable (Y) through a single mediator (M). Using bootstrapping methods, evidence for mediation exists if the confidence interval for any given indirect effect (i.e., a measure of the amount of mediation) does not cross zero (Hayes, 2013). First, we separately tested five models in which each of the five types of received support (e.g., college students’ perceptions of informationally supportive responses to academic challenge disclosures) independently predicted college students’ academic self-efficacy through perceived academic support. As shown in Table 3, none of the confidence intervals for the indirect effects crossed zero. These results indicate that all five types of received support contribute to more general perceptions of peer academic support which, in turn, predicts more positive academic self-efficacy. Next, we tested a single model in which the five types of received support, together, predicted college students’ academic self-efficacy through perceived academic support. By examining all five independent variables simultaneously, we were better able to examine if one or more types of received support were especially important in predicting academic self-efficacy through perceived academic support. As shown in Table 3, analyses indicated that, when entered simultaneously, only students’ perceptions of support following academic success disclosures predicted perceived academic support from peers and, in turn, academic self-efficacy: indirect effect = .10 (95% confidence interval: {.0158, .2432}). Confidence intervals for all other indirect effects crossed zero. Although these results should be interpreted cautiously given moderate to strong correlations among the independent variables (see Hayes, 2013), these results suggest, at very least, that the current lack of attention to received support following everyday academic success disclosures may be problematic.

Table 3.

Summary of Mediational Analyses Predicting Academic Self-Efficacy from Supportive Responses to Academic Challenge and Success Disclosures Through Perceived Academic Support from Peers.

	Independent variables Entered separately			Independent variables Entered simultaneously
Independent variable	Indirect effect	SE	95% CI	Indirect effect	SE	95% CI
Supportive responses to ACDs—Informational	.17	.05	.0803 to .2906	.07	.05	−.0044 to .1950
Supportive responses to ACDs—Esteem	.18	.06	.0762 to .3184	.05	.07	−.0556 to .2327
Supportive responses to ACDs—Motivational	.13	.05	.0453 to .2717	.02	.05	−.0624 to .1205
Supportive responses to ACDs—Venting	.12	.05	.0444 to .2659	.01	.06	−.0985 to .1317
Supportive responses to ASDs	.16	.06	.0530 to .2836	.10	.06	.0158 to .2432

Estimates of indirect effects are based on 1,000 bootstrap samples. Confidence intervals are bias corrected. ACDs = academic challenge disclosures; ASDs = academic success disclosures.

Discussion

The findings of the current study confirm prior theory and research indicating that psychosocial contextual variables—including the quality of peer relationships—can play an important role in predicting the social, emotional, and academic well-being of college students (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1975). Indeed, the current study contributes to theory and a growing body of empirical evidence from both qualitative and quantitative studies demonstrating that the impact of peer relationships may surpass the impact of parent and professor relationships in predicting some aspects of college student adjustment (Dennis et al., 2005; Purswell et al, 2008; Thompson & Mazer, 2009). At the same time, the current study extends prior research by examining the mechanisms by which college students come to feel academically supported by peers and the consequences of these perceptions for college students’ academic adjustment. In particular, the current study provides evidence that college students’ everyday interactions with peers contribute to more general perceptions of peer academic support and, in turn, to more positive academic self-efficacy beliefs.

To date, most theory and research has focused on social support and coping in the context of negative events. A key contribution of the current study is that it adds to a growing literature indicating that received support following positive events—including everyday academic successes—can also play an important role in predicting well-being (Altermatt, 2015; Gable et al., 2006). The specific processes by which social support in the context of positive events can lead to positive outcomes are still not well understood, but current theory suggests that feeling appreciated and validated when things are going well can lead to a range of positive emotions, including pride in one’s accomplishments, appreciation that others understand important aspects of the self (including one’s goals), and contentment in the knowledge that others will be available if one does begin to struggle (Gable et al., 2006). These positive emotions may, in turn, allow individuals to “broaden” their repertoire of thoughts and actions and “build” resilience, skills, and knowledge (Fredrickson, 2001). Consistent with this “broaden and build” theory of positive emotions, there is ample evidence that academic self-efficacy is associated with a range of cognitions, behaviors, and emotions that promote academic success. For example, compared with students with less positive academic self-efficacy beliefs, self-efficacious students adopt more challenging goals, put forth more effort, persist longer on challenging tasks, and experience lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression when facing academic difficulties (see Zimmerman, 2000, for a review).

Together, these findings have potentially important practical implications for the development of programs to enhance the academic performance and retention of college students. Although peer-oriented counseling, mentoring, tutoring, and advising programs are becoming increasingly popular (e.g., Mattanah et al., 2010), these programs often focus on training college students to provide informational and emotional support to their peers as they confront the inevitable academic (and other) challenges of the college experience (Thompson & Mazer, 2009). The current study suggests that, in developing these programs, faculty, staff, and administrators would do well to also consider the degree to which these programs adequately train students to provide support to their peers “when things go right” (Gable et al., 2006). One approach that might be especially fruitful is to train peer counselors, mentors, tutors, and advisors in how to provide the types of active-constructive (i.e., enthusiastic, engaged, and authentic) responses to positive academic success disclosures that were assessed—and found to be beneficial in promoting academic self-efficacy—in the current study. Ample research within a growing “positive psychology” framework suggests that, compared with other types of responses, including “passive-constructive responses” that are more delayed and low energy, active-constructive responses are associated with a variety of intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits (Gable et al., 2004). Interventions designed to teach individuals to respond to positive event disclosures in active-constructive ways are still new, but appear promising. For example, in one recent study, Woods, Lambert, Brown, Fincham, and May (2015) found that when college students were trained to provide active-constructive responses to positive event disclosures (including news of a good grade), partners appeared more satisfied with the relationship and expressed more gratitude. The effects of this type of intervention on students’ achievement-related cognitions, behaviors, and emotions have not yet been studied.

Limitations and Directions for Future Inquiry

One limitation of the current study is that it relied on college students’ reports of their perceptions of friends’ responses to everyday academic challenge and success disclosures. Future research will be important in determining whether these responses align with friends’ actual responses. Although one might hope for strong associations, prior research suggests that associations may be quite weak, in part because perceptions of responsiveness to positive and negative event disclosures are subject to social desirability biases, memory biases, and either wishful or catastrophic thinking (Gable et al., 2006). Importantly, however, there is evidence that perceptions of received support can play a critical role in predicting adjustment, regardless of their accuracy. For example, Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher (2004) found that when participants’ positive event disclosures were met with responses that were intended to be enthusiastic, but were not perceived as such, these responses did not yield the positive outcomes that are typically associated with active-constructive responses. Future research will, then, be important in identifying the characteristics of students who are especially likely to overestimate or underestimate levels of received academic support from peers as these students may be especially likely to benefit from appropriate interventions (Smith & Reis, 2011).

Two additional limitations of the current study are that it relied on a small and relatively homogeneous sample of college students (e.g., predominantly women and Caucasian) and did not examine potential moderators of the effects of received academic support following academic challenges and successes on either perceived academic support or academic self-efficacy. Although, as a group, students who reported that their friends responded supportively to disclosures of academic challenges and successes perceived higher levels of peer academic support and reported higher academic self-efficacy than students who perceived that their friends responded less supportively, it is likely that some students may not see the same benefits. Consistent with this possibility, a handful of recent studies indicate that supportive responses to positive event disclosures may, like supportive responses to negative event disclosures, sometimes lead to negative rather than positive outcomes. Specifically, compared with individuals with high self-esteem, individuals with low self-esteem appear to be less likely to interpret responses that were intended to be supportive as supportive (Smith & Reis, 2011) and more likely to report anxiety and challenge-avoidance following positive feedback (Altermatt, in press; Wood, Heimpel, Newby-Clark, & Ross, 2005). In interpreting these findings, researchers have suggested that individuals with low self-esteem are more likely than those with high self-esteem to adopt self-protection motives, including a desire to avoid revealing their shortcomings. When faced with success, positive evaluative feedback, or supportive responses to positive event disclosures, these individuals experience self-doubt and begin to contemplate the possibility that their efforts may not meet with similar success in the future (see Wood et al., 2005). Prior research suggests that minority students on predominantly White campuses or women majoring in STEM fields may be especially prone to the types of self-doubt that might mitigate the positive effects of received support following positive feedback (Croizet, Désert, Dutrévis, & Leyens, 2001). Future research using a larger and more diverse sample will, then, be important in further developing and validating the measures used in the current study, in determining the degree to which the results might be generalized to different samples, and in systematically examining self-esteem and other potential moderators of the current findings.

Conclusion

Although there is considerable evidence that peers play an important role in influencing college students’ adjustment, the specific role that college students’ everyday interactions with peers might play in influencing students’ more general perceptions of peer support and students’ achievement-related cognitions, behaviors, and emotions are not especially well understood. The current study provides a starting point for thinking about the important role that peers may play in influencing student outcomes through their responses to students’ everyday academic challenges as well as students’ everyday academic successes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Ellen Rydell Altermatt, PhD, is a professor in the psychology department at Hanover College. Her research focuses on peer influences on academic adjustment.

References

Altermatt, E. R. (in press). Academic competence perceptions moderate the effects of peer support following academic success disclosures. Social Development.

Altermatt, E. R. (2011). Capitalizing on academic success: Students’ interactions with friends as predictors of school adjustment. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 174–203. doi:10.1177/0272431610379414.

Altermatt

E. R.

(2015) Predicting day-to-day changes in students’ school-related affect from daily academic experiences and social interactions. Journal of Experimental Education 83(2): 218–235. doi:10.1080/00220973.2014.938855.

Altermatt, E. R., & Painter, J. K. (2016). I did well. Should I tell? Gender differences in children’s academic success disclosures. Sex Roles, 74, 46–61. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0549-y.

Astin

A. W.

(1993) What matters in college? Four critical years revisited, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bean

Eaton

S. B.

(2002) The psychology underlying successful retention practices. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 3: 73–89. doi:10.2190/6R55-4B30-28XG-L8U0 (Original work published in 2001).

Credé

Phillips

L. A.

(2011) A meta-analytic review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences 21(4): 337–346. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.002.

Croizet

Désert

Dutrévis

Leyens

(2001) Stereotype threat, social class, gender, and academic under-achievement: When our reputation catches up to us and takes over. Social Psychology of Education 4: 295–310. doi:10.1023/A:1011336821053.

Dennis

J. M.

Phinney

J. S.

Chuateco

L. I.

(2005) The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development 46(3): 223–236. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0023.

10.

Flynn

(2014) Baccalaureate attainment of college students at 4-year institutions as a function of student engagement behaviors: Social and academic student engagement behaviors matter. Research in Higher Education 55: 467–493. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9321-8.

11.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56(3): 218–226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218.

12.

Gable

S. L.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Strachman

(2006) Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91(5): 904–917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904.

13.

Gable

S. L.

Haidt

(2005) What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology 9(2): 103–110. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103.

14.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

Impett

E. A.

Asher

E. R.

(2004) What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87: 228–245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228.

15.

Haber

M. G.

Cohen

J. L.

Lucas

Baltes

B. B.

(2007) The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology 39: 133–144. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9100-9.

16.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, New York: The Guilford Press.

17.

Horvat

E. M.

Lewis

K. S.

(2003) Reassessing the “burden of ‘acting white’”: The importance of peer groups in managing academic success. Sociology of Education 76(4): 265–280. doi:10.2307/1519866.

18.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

Anderson

(1983) Social interdependence and classroom climate. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 114(1): 135–142. doi:10.1080/00223980.1983.9915406.

19.

Kuh

G. D.

Kinzie

Schuh

J. H.

Whitt

E. J.

Associates (2005) Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Malecki

C. K.

Demaray

M. K.

(2003) What type of support do they need? Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly 18: 231–252. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.3.231.22576.

21.

Mattanah

J. F.

Ayers

J. F.

Brand

B. L.

Brooks

L. J.

Quimby

J. L.

McNary

S. W.

(2010) A social support intervention to ease the college transition: Exploring main effects and moderators. Journal of College Student Development 51(1): 93–108. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0116.

22.

Mazer

J. P.

Thompson

(2011) The validity of the Student Academic Support Scale: Associations with social support and relational closeness. Communication Reports 24: 74–85. doi:10.1080/08934215.2011.622237.

23.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2005) How college affects students: A third decade of research, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

24.

Patrick

Ryan

A. M.

Kaplan

(2007) Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(1): 83–98. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83.

25.

Pintrich

P. R.

Smith

D. A. F.

Garcia

McKeachie

W. J.

(1991) A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), Ann Arbor, MI: National Centre for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

26.

Purswell

K. E.

Yazedjian

Toews

M. L.

(2008) Students’ intentions and social support as predictors of self-reported academic behaviors: A comparison of first- and continuing-generation college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice 10(2): 191–206. doi:10.2190/CS.10.2.e.

27.

Richardson

Abraham

Bond

(2012) Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 138: 353–387. doi:10.1037/a0026838.

28.

Robbins

S. B.

Allen

Casillas

Peterson

C. H.

(2006) Unraveling the differential effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management measures from traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology 98: 598–616. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.598.

29.

Robbins

S. B.

Lauver

Davis

Langley

Carlstrom

(2004) Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 130(2): 261–288. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.

30.

Smith

S. M.

Reis

H. T.

(2011) Perceived responses to capitalization attempts are influenced by self-esteem and relationship threat. Personal Relationships 19: 367–385. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01367.x.

31.

Thompson

Mazer

J. P.

(2009) College student ratings of student academic support: Frequency, importance, and modes of communication. Communication Education 58: 433–458. doi:10.1080/03634520902930440.

32.

Tinto

(1975) Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research 45: 89–125. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1170024.

33.

Wentzel

K. R.

Battle

Russell

S. L.

Looney

L. B.

(2010) Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 35: 193–202. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002.

34.

Wethington

Kessler

R. C.

(1986) Perceived support, received support, and adjustment to stressful life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 27: 78–89. doi:10.2307/2136504.

35.

Wood

J. V.

Heimpel

S. A.

Newby-Clark

I. R.

Ross

(2005) Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: Self-esteem differences in the experience and anticipation of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 764–780. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.764.

36.

Woods

Lambert

Brown

Fincham

May

(2015) ‘I’m so excited for you!’ How an enthusiastic responding intervention enhances close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1): 24–40. doi:10.1177/0265407514523545.

37.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2000) Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 82–91. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1016.