Commitment: Predicting Persistence for Low-SES Students

Abstract

Students with low socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to leave college without a degree than students with high SES, although there are fewer low-SES students who persist to graduation. The most likely time for students to leave the University is after the first year. The purpose of this qualitative study of low-SES students, both retained and not retained, is to understand their first-year experience and the factors that led to the decision to persist or not. Unlike previous research, neither satisfaction nor obstacles such as finances, academic preparation, or social integration differentiated between students who persisted or not. The difference between those who persisted and those who did not was commitment as defined by the investment model. The committed students believed education was an investment in their future, and their future without a college degree was not an attractive alternative. They were motivated to persist.

Keywords

retention persistence investment model low-income students

Public universities in the United States were created so that all would have access to the opportunity to be educated. Although participation rates have increased by 21% between 1994 and 2004 and increased 17% between 2004 and 2014 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2017), the gap in educational attainment between low-socioeconomic status (SES) and higher SES students is wider now than the gap in the 1970s. In 1970, individuals from high-SES families were 6 times more likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree than those from low-SES families. In 2013, those from high-SES families were 8 times more likely to obtain a bachelors’ degree by age 24 than those from low-SES families (Cahalan & Perna, 2015).

As one response to this inequality in opportunities to pursue a college education, Pell Grants were funded by the federal government to support low-SES students and decrease the gap in graduation rates between low-SES and higher SES students. However, in the past 40 years, students in the highest quartile of family SES have increased their graduation rates by 37%, while the students in the lowest quartile have only increased graduation rates by 3% (Cahalan & Perna, 2015).

It is important to understand what is widening the gap in graduation rates, despite the increased access to higher education, because it impacts the entire society. Without equal educational opportunity, democracy suffers, talent is lost, culture erodes, and liberty is undermined (Simmons, 2014).

According to a review of the literature on the experience of low-SES students in higher education, low-SES students are most likely to leave college without a degree (Jury et al., 2017). One area of research has identified deficits in the low-SES population as a possible root cause. They are less likely to be academically prepared for college. They may have lower grade point averages (GPAs), less social support, less financial support, less involvement on campus, more time working, and higher levels of poor health.

A second area of previous research consistently finds that social status may make a difference. In a study of the relationship between social status background, first-year retention, and college readiness, DeAngelo and Franke (2016) found that social status does affect retention of academically underprepared students with higher SES students more likely to persist. In a literature review of college-ready low-SES students defined as scoring in the top 25% on nationally normed standardized tests and whose family SESs (adjusted for family size) are below the national median, Wilson (2016) found that high-achieving, lower SES students are less likely to graduate than their higher SES peers. So higher SES students are more likely to graduate whether they are academically prepared or not. Lower SES students are less likely to graduate whether they are academically prepared or not.

A third area of research places the focus on college environment as not supporting the needs of low-SES students. Lower SES students are less likely to feel a sense of belonging. Higher education is based on middle-class to upper-class norms that give low-SES students signals that they cannot be successful in college. These signals are internalized. When students believe they are unlikely to earn a degree because their college environment is not supportive, the students may choose not to continue to invest in earning a degree (Soria & Bultmann, 2014).

Regardless of the area of research, lower SES students are viewed from a deficit model—they are part of a social class that may not define success in terms of attendance at a 4-year college (Walpole, 2003). Lower SES parents may not pass on the attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge of the college culture that contributes to success. It seems that the lower SES of students may affect their sense of not belonging and decrease their satisfaction with their college experience, ultimately, interfering with their college success.

Academic and social integration are the two main factors identified in the literature affecting retention. If academic and social integration affect student satisfaction, and social class affects academic and social integration, then lower SES students may feel less satisfied with their college experience. If low-SES students feel less satisfied with college, they may be more likely to leave without a degree unless they have made a commitment to persist regardless of satisfaction. People who are committed to a goal are more likely to achieve their goal.

Academic integration, social integration, and SES affect persistence to the second year of first-time, full-time, low-SES students. The research with these variables is only descriptive. These variables have been used to separate students who persist from those who do not. There is not a mechanism for explaining how these variables work to produce persistence. Cabrera, Nora, and Castaneda (1993) suggested that combining the student integration theory of Tinto (1975) and the student attrition model of Bean (1981) could create a better understanding of the persistence process. In their analysis, the integrated model accounted only for 45% of the variance, and the final model was not as parsimonious as there are many complex relationships among the multitude of variables.

The investment model considers variables that predict commitment to someone or something (Rusbult & Righetti, 2009). The investment model states that satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size predicts commitment and that commitment is the most direct and powerful predictor of persistence related to any goal (Rusbult, 2011). This model has been used to predict commitment to interpersonal relationships, to jobs, to residential communities, to adherence to medical regimens, to music practice, and to sports activities (Le & Agnew, 2003). Just as someone can decide to stay with or leave their romantic partners, people can decide to stay with or abandon their goal to achieve a college degree. Can the investment model more parsimoniously than previous retention models predict which first-year students are likely to persist to the second year? Are low-SES students who have made a commitment to graduate more likely to use adaptive strategies to overcome obstacles and return for the second year?

Commitment is a primary component of goal achievement. People who are committed are more likely to achieve their goals, but it is less clear how goal commitment emerges (Burkley, Anderson, Curtis, & Burkley, 2013). The investment model was developed to explain commitment in relationships especially those that are not satisfying. Of course, satisfaction with a relationship is a key to longevity, but some relationships persist despite dissatisfaction. The investment model considers other variables that predict commitment to someone or something (Rusbult & Righetti, 2009). Burkley et al. (2013) defined the investment model variables in terms of goal commitment. The investment model states that commitment is a function of (a) satisfaction level—positive affect associated with achieving progress toward a goal, (b) quality of perceived alternatives—conflicting goals that interfere with focal goal, and (c) investments—resources such as time energy, money, and effort, which people have put into pursuit of their goal. Commitment can be defined as intent to persist toward achieving some goal, whether that goal be to remain in a marriage or stay in college.

The major claim of the model is that satisfaction and commitment are not interchangeable. Satisfaction is derived from assessing the balance between rewards and costs. Satisfaction increases as rewards increase, but commitment does not necessarily decrease when the costs of staying on course increase. Commitment is more the result of feeling satisfied, having no viable alternatives, and making high investments. Commitment results from attachments that promote behaviors that cause persistence (Rusbult, 2011).

Expectations for the future also shape commitment. Lemay (2016) expanded the investment model to incorporate expectations about the future. He tested the model in four studies of romantic relationships and found strong support for the investment model of commitment and that forecasts of future relationship satisfaction shape commitment and guide behaviors. Participants who expected to be satisfied in the future felt more committed than those who forecasted dissatisfaction. This suggests that people commit to goals that should bring pleasure in the future, and this pursuit leads people to engage in behaviors that promote their goals and avoid behaviors that could undermine them (Lemay, 2016).

Studies using questionnaires to assess investment model variables of satisfaction, investments, alternatives, and goal commitment in the study of college attrition (Barry & Okun, 2011; Burkley et al., 2013; Cini & Fritz, 1996; Hatcher, Kryter, Prus, & Fitzgerald, 1992) found that students were highest in their goal commitment when they were satisfied with their goal, felt like they had invested a great deal, and perceived fewer goal alternatives. This provides support for the investment model to predict goal commitment of college persistence.

However, these questionnaires defined the investment model terms for the students. Alternatives were defined as institutional alternatives (Barry & Okun, 2011; Okun, Geogan, & Mitric, 2009). Students who indicate they are attending their top choice University would see such alternatives as less attractive and therefore be more committed than students attending an institution for which they had a low preference. Alternatives for low-SES students may be not attending college at all.

The investment model also states that commitment is increased by investment size. However, Barry and Okun (2011) found that size of the investment students claim to make in college was not significant in their study of intent to stay among college freshmen. Also, it is possible that investment size was not conceptualized to assess the depth and quality of student investments. Perhaps wanting to do what is considered to be the right thing is a form of investments that students make in their commitment to education (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993).The concept of investments in the investment model may be a type of personal goal setting that facilitates the behaviors to achieve those goals. Students who have a goal of earning a college degree may be more likely to make the investments of time and energy in their academic performance to persist to graduation.

In summary, there is much support in the literature for the investment model to be a parsimonious theory that predicts college persistence. The investment model may predict the students’ motivation to persist despite dissatisfaction. Low-SES students may not feel satisfied due to lack of social and academic integration. Their commitment may be what motivates low-SES students to persist to achieve their goals. There may be other factors affecting students’ commitment to their education. Interviewing low-SES students will give them the opportunity to describe what commitment and persistence mean to them and the adaptive strategies used by low-SES students to overcome obstacles to persistence to a degree. Interviews about the investment model variables may lead to a greater understanding of how these terms are defined by low-SES students. This informed understanding of the needs of low-SES students will enable educators to provide more effective support services that would lead to increased persistence and graduation rates.

Success in the first year is especially important to completing a degree for low-SES students as they are less likely to drop out if they return for their second year. To increase the graduation rates of low-SES students, it is especially important to understand the factors affecting the decision to stay or leave after the first year. The goal of this study is to understand the experiences of low-SES students to determine how some low-SES students are able to persist to the second year. The demographic shifts in the college-enrolled population to more low-SES students increase the importance for college administrators to understand the needs of these students to provide effective services.

Method

The goal of this study is to understand the actual experience of low-SES students regarding commitment to their education. The qualitative methodology design aims to underscore the manner in which low-SES students experience, interpret, and behave during the first year of college in ways that predicts their decision to stay or leave after the first year. The focus will be on the meaning that the participants hold about their experiences, not the perception that the researcher brings (Creswell, 2009). The lens through which the researcher will ask the questions will be through the investment model.

Research Questions

The following three research questions will be addressed. First, are low-SES students committed to achieving academic success during the first year? Second, what adaptive strategies do low-SES students use to overcome obstacles and persist to the second year? Third, can the investment model predict which students decide to leave and which students stay at UNIVERSITY? UNIVERSITY will refer to the research participant’s particular university that is a regional 4-year public university.

Participants

Eighteen students participated in the interviews. There were 10 females (55%) and 8 males (44%). There were 11 White students (61%) and 7 non-White students (39%). They were all financial aid recipients, and all but four were first-generation students (78%). Ten were retained to the second fall (55%), and eight were not retained to second fall (44%). A unique aspect of this study is that the participants included students no longer attending UNIVERSITY. Previous research includes only current students.

As seen in Table 1, the percentage of females in the sample is similar to the percentage of females in the population of students in the University who received Pell Grants during their first fall semester. The percentage of Whites in the sample is similar to the percentage of Whites in the population. The percentage of retained students in the sample is similar to the percentages of retained students in the population. The only difference between the sample and the population was the greater number of first-generation students in the sample than in the population.

Table 1.

Comparison of Sample With Population.

	Sample	Population
Females	55%	62%
White	61%	71%
First generation	78%	73%
Retained	55%	62%

Data Collection

This study consisted of face-to-face interviews with students classified as low-SES, some who persisted to the second fall at UNIVERSITY and some who did not return to UNIVERSITY. The interview questions were open-ended, so participants had the flexibility to articulate their own unique experiences. The interview questions were derived from the investment model as displayed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Questions Derived From Variables of Interest.

Variables	Definitions	Questions
Enrollment behavior	Open-ended questions to allow students to express how they experienced their first year at NKU, how they showed their commitment to academic success, and what strategies they used to overcome obstacles	Tell me about your first year of college. Did you feel academically prepared? (Follow-up with questions about relationships with faculty and connections with other students.) What were some challenges you faced? What did you do to cope with these challenges? How did you do during your first semester? (Follow-up with why did you do so well? Or explain what went wrong.)
Commitment	The intent to persist as a student at NKU	How important is it to you to graduate from college?How committed are you to graduating from NKU? Tell me about each of your classes.How did you demonstrate your commitment to each of these courses?
Satisfaction	The positive versus negative affect experienced in the first year	In general, how satisfied are you with NKU? (Do you feel happy at NKU? Do you feel like NKU is a good fit for you? What are some good things associated with being at NKU? How attached to NKU do you feel? Are there costs or hardships associated with your being here? Do you expect to be satisfied in the future if you stay at NKU?)
Alternatives	The perceived desirability of the best alternatives to being a student at NKU	All things considered, what are your alternatives to being enrolled at NKU? Would you be happy graduating from another school? Would you be happy with a degree other than a bachelor’s? Are there other kinds of credentials that would be equally attractive to you? If you were offered a job paying a good salary before you graduated, would you take it?Would you be upset if you had to leave NKU?
Investment size	The magnitude and importance of the resources that are attached to being a student at NKU and that would be lost if the student left NKU	Tell me about the effort, time, and money you have spent to be successful at NKU that you would lose if you left. What sacrifices have you had to make? How would you feel if you had to give up these investments?
Additional factors	Opportunity for students to say anything else that they would like to share about their first-year experience	Are there any other thoughts or feelings you would like to share with educators to help them work more effectively with students who have limited financial resources? Do you have any advice to give to other Pell Grant recipients to help them be successful?

Note. NKU = Northern Kentucky University.

Questions related to the investment model variables were based on operational definitions defined by Hatcher et al. (1992) who adapted the investment model survey to be used with college students. In the original survey, the researchers asked broad or global questions to assess the variables and used facet questions to teach participants the meaning of the global variables.

In this study, students were asked broad questions about the investment model variables, and the follow-up questions were to teach participants about the meaning of the global variables. This gave students an opportunity to define the investment model variables. All participants were asked the same set of original questions, so answers could be easily compared and to minimize interviewer effects and bias.

Demographic information such as race, gender, and first-generation status was obtained from the official lists of students receiving Pell Grants as these variables have been identified as important in the success of first-time, full-time students.

Results

In this qualitative study, participants were asked open-ended questions to answer the following research questions:

Are low-SES students committed to achieving academic success during the first year?

What adaptive strategies do low-SES students use to overcome obstacles and persist to the second year?

Can the investment model predict which students decide to leave and which students return for the second fall?

All the interviews were transcribed and coded to search for patterns in the data.

Research Question 1

Are low-SES students committed to achieving academic success during the first year?

To determine if low-SES students are committed to achieving academic success during the first year, I compared the data on initial commitment from the retained students to the data on initial commitment from the nonretained students. The eight nonretained students were not committed to graduation from UNIVERSITY from the very beginning as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Responses to Initial Questions for Students Not Retained to Second-Year Q1—Tell Me About Your First Year of College (The Names of the Participants Have Been Changed to Protect Their Identity).

Student	Key terms
1. Avila (WF)	Not ready for college, UNIVERSITY not first choice
3. Ben (WM)	Always disliked school, not motivated to graduate
13. Chelsea (WF)	Chose UNIVERSITY for radiology but changed major
14. Ed (WM)	School-based scholar, not committed
15. Frank (WM)	Was not prepared, dropped classes to work
16. George (WM)	Was not prepared, UNIVERSITY was default
17. Hank (BM)	Not first choice, financial problems, went into the Army
18. Louie (WM)	Undecided, unmotivated

Note. WF = White female; WM = White male; BM = Black male.

The students who were not retained did not identify a purpose in attending college when they first enrolled. Without a goal, they did not have the passion to persevere. Student 13, Chelsea, had a goal for attending UNIVERSITY initially, but when she changed her major, she was less committed to UNIVERSITY.

Starting out my major was radiology. There were no schools around here that offered it. There was one but it was really expensive so I went to UNIVERSITY because I started out in the program. I ended up changing my major.

When she encountered the obstacle of her grandmother passing away, her newly selected major made it easier for her to leave UNIVERSITY and move home.

I was planning on getting an apartment with my friend and staying at UNIVERSITY but with my grandmother passing away, I just would rather have been at home. But I loved UNIVERSITY. I wish I was still there. I just decided it would be best if I stayed home.

The students who were retained to the second year were more likely to be committed to graduating from college from the very beginning. As can be seen in Table 4 from the key terms in their responses to the open-ended questions about their first year, they were more likely to have a goal for attending college initially.

Table 4.

Responses to Initial Questions for Students Retained to Second-Year Q1—Tell Me About Your First Year of College.

Student	Key terms
2. Becca (WF)	Gave up attending high-paying job, wants to be pharmacist
4. Clare (WF)	Chose UNIVERSITY, motivated academically to be psychologist
5. Don (BM)	Chose UNIVERSITY, backup plan is not good enough
6. Ernie (WM)	Chose UNIVERSITY, not important to graduate if he can start business
7. Haley (HF)	Chose UNIVERSITY, wants to be an example to her cousins
8. Izzy (BF)	Not first choice but glad she is here now, wants to make a better life for herself
9. Jasmine (WF)	First choice because sister is an alumna, wants to be a nurse
10. Karin (BF)	First choice, wants to make her family proud
11. Lisa (BF)	Chose UNIVERSITY, motivated academically to go to law school
12. Mandy (BF)	Chose UNIVERSITY, motivated to go to graduate school

Note. WM= White male; BM= Black male; WF= White female; HF = Hispanic female; BF = Black female.

The retained students overall were more committed initially to graduating from UNIVERSITY than the nonretained students. They knew why they were there. They had a goal. Although Ernie is still enrolled, he may not come back if he can start a successful business over the summer. He was committed to graduating from UNIVERSITY initially. “I had plenty of options. I wouldn’t say cost was the main factor. Variety of circumstances. But UNIVERSITY was the best choice as far as distance and price.” He has a goal; he knows why he is here, to learn to start a business. If he can start a business now, there is no reason for him to return to school.

My goal is not to have a piece of paper that says entrepreneurship because in the corporate world having a bachelor’s degree is useless. I have started an LLC. I have been doing social media management for the past 8 months. I want a rental property portfolio and I could do that working at Toyota in Georgetown.

All of the other students who persisted to the second year had a goal that involved earning a college degree. However, did the retained students encounter the same obstacles as the nonretained students? Did the retained students use the same strategies as the nonretained students to overcome obstacles and persist to the second year?

Research Question 2

What adaptive strategies do low-SES students use to overcome obstacles and persist to the second year? The retained students encountered obstacles during the first year similar to the nonretained students. Obstacles included low grades, financial problems, work commitments, time management, and family issues. The retained students used adaptive strategies to overcome the obstacles and persist, while the nonretained students gave up and withdrew from UNIVERSITY as can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5.

Obstacles and Strategies.

Student	Obstacle	Strategy for overcoming obstacle	Retention status after first year
1. Avila	Low GPA	Dropped classes	No
3. Ben	Low GPA	Stopped attending	No
2. Becca	Low GPA	Retook classes	Yes
7. Haley	Low GPA	Work/life balance	Yes
11. Lisa	Low GPA	Work/life balance	Yes
13. Chelsea	Finances	Worked more hours	No
15. Frank	Finances	Worked more hours	No
5. Don	Finances	Saving money	Yes
9. Jasmine	Finances	Family sacrifices	Yes
16. George	Work commitments	Missed deadlines	No
17. Hank	Work commitments	Missed semester start	No
8. Izzy	Work and family issues	Got internship/broke with family	Yes
18. Louie	Time management	Skipped classes	No
14. Ed	Time management	Skipped classes, depressed	No
12. Mandy	Time management	Better time planning	Yes
4. Clare	Friends/family issues	Made new friends	Yes
6. Ernie	Friends/family issues	Steadfastness	Yes
10. Karin	Friends/family issues	Belief in opportunity	Yes

Note. GPA = grade point average.

The students who were retained used strategies to overcome obstacles and persist at UNIVERSITY, while those who were not retained interpreted the obstacles as an indication that they should leave UNIVERSITY. They did not invest their resources in overcoming the obstacles. Low GPA was one of the obstacles faced by students. Student 1, Avila, had a rocky start, and she was not retained. When she started at UNIVERSITY, she did not have a car, so she moved in with a friend who went to UNIVERSITY so that she could go to school. “It was hard because some days she didn’t want to get up and take me.” She also did not understand her financial aid, so she did not buy any books. She was taking anatomy and physiology, and without a book, she could not study. Classes were difficult. She said she was not a good writer.

I wasn’t a good writer in high school, I just got by. Here you can’t get by with doing the least amount. It takes so much time to even think of a topic because I am not a good writer. I worked and so I didn’t have time to sit down for 2–3 hours to write a paper.

She worked two jobs, weekends at a local grocery story and weekdays at a local restaurant. She dropped out after her first semester and is now attending a local vocational school.

Academic underpreparation was a contributing factor for low GPA for many students. Student 3, Ben, was not retained. He had a tendency not to do the homework. He had a hard time learning, but he did not do the work. “I was showing up for class but if you miss two days you fail so why am I still here? Even if I turn in everything I still fail.” The first half of the semester went well, but then, he met friends and started playing games with his friends. He got “booted because I stopped attending,” and he currently has two terms of tuition and fees to repay.

Low GPA was an obstacle for retained students as well, but they used different strategies than nonretained students to succeed and remain enrolled. Student 2, Becca, was retained even though her GPA hit rock bottom her first semester. She got all Fs. She was not prepared to manage her time and like Avila, skipped a lot of classes. “I didn’t realize attendance mattered.” Now she is in good standing because she “schedules tutoring for math and chemistry with the TA. I go to TA sessions in the mornings on Tuesdays and Thursdays for biology. I retook the classes I failed.” She lost her financial aid, but she “worked every single day over the summer to save to pay tuition back.” Her strategies enabled her to achieve good academic standing and persist to the second year. She admits it was difficult and can see why some students may not want to come back.

Once you mess up, how to get your GPA back up is difficult. If you do the math, you find out that every class you take afterwards you have to get straight A’s in … You can only take so many classes so it is hard to get back in good standing. It is a serious struggle.

Student 7, Haley, also had a rocky first year. Her grandmother had died while she was in high school. She had lived with “my drug abused mother who could not take care of me. I had to take care of myself.” In college, she learned what true independence was, and it was very different. “I missed being in that home. I was finally grieving about my grandmother’s death but I kept good grades. It was hard but it was the only thing that I had to keep occupied.” The second semester she had a social life, but her grades slipped. Now “I am finding the balance between social lives, homework, learning to study.” Student support services was helpful for her, and she has persisted to her second year.

Student 11, Lisa, had an easier time of her first semester. “The classes were not easy but it was a transition and I was expecting it to be a little harder because they were college level classes.” Classes were tougher for her the second semester. “Towards the second semester of my freshmen year I got into like tougher classes and I literally break down. … I know there will be hard work and I will do whatever I have to do to be successful.” This student was committed.

Finances are an obstacle for low-SES students. Financial needs often go beyond what financial aid covers. Of the nonretained students, Student 13, Chelsea, chose UNIVERSITY because it was cheaper than the alternative that had a radiology program, but she left UNIVERSITY because “I was living on campus and it was really expensive trying to do that and go to work.” Student 15, Frank, chose UNIVERSITY because it was close to where he lived, but he decided to live on campus which made it cost more. He was able to receive loans for tuition, but he had no money for living expenses. He had a job, but it was not enough to cover it. He left after one semester. “I wouldn’t ask my parents for money. I dropped most of my classes so I could work.” Therefore, this student dropped out of college, and the money that he spent on tuition was lost.

Finances were also an obstacle for the retained students, but they used different strategies to overcome the obstacle. Student 5, Don, had a girlfriend and a roommate who had to leave because they could not afford to continue. He has learned from them. “After getting financial aid, I still need $2,000. I have to take an unsubsidized loan. But you can only do that so many times. I am working now so that I can make $4,000 for my senior year.” He is wiser and is now working to save money ahead of time to get through his senior year. He is not satisfied with an alternative to graduating from college. “I have to graduate from college.” Student 9, Jasmine, had a family who sacrificed to give their children the best education possible.

My parents want me to succeed in life and do better than they did, even though they did pretty good. While you are in college, we will pay your expenses. We will support you through college. When you graduate, you can pay us back.

Her family is not wealthy, Jasmine received a Pell Grant, but they are committed to education and willing to invest in it.

Work is an obstacle to academic success for many low-SES students. Student 16, George, worked and did not take his classes seriously. He often skipped classes, “and the professors weren’t forgiving. The professors would not work around my work schedule.” He tried online classes the second semester, but then, he gave up and worked 40 hours per week. Student 17, Hank, worked between 30 and 40 hours a week and was involved in organizations. “I should have focused on my grades a little more.” In the first semester, he failed a math class, so he repeated that second semester. Then, in the second semester, he failed a course in his major. His loans were not covering everything, and he did not want to keep taking out student loans. “My mom still has student loans to try to pay and I don’t want to put myself in that predicament.” With his GPA, he was unable to receive scholarships. He went into the Army reserve to get money for school, but his training was not completed until after the semester started so he had to sit out the fall semester.

Student 8, Izzy, also had to work, and she had to miss 2 weeks of classes for training for work. Now she has an internship that works better with her class schedule. “My internship understands that school comes first. … And is much more flexible.” She got her internship through a sorority sister.

It is a wonderful situation. I can work full-time in the summer. I can take vacations. I am so happy. I work four days a week at least 21 hours to keep up with my bills. The minimum is 15 for my internship.

She was able to find a job that actually fit in with her undergraduate studies.

The inability to learn to be responsible and use the unstructured time of college wisely were obstacles for college completion for many students. Student 18, Louie, “got a little lazy. Then I started not going to some classes.” Then, he gave up and withdrew the second semester. Student 14, Ed, also found the college experience regarding structured time to be very different from high school. “It is a different atmosphere. There is no one telling you that you have to do this or follow that. It is like, you are an adult.” He did not live on campus and had a long commute. When gas prices went up, he had to work more, so his grades started slipping. He was advised to take academic renewal which is “two semester off and then any failing classes would be overlooked.” If he stayed, he would have had to repeat those courses. He decided to leave and hoped to find a job that would pay for his college education.

On the other hand, Student 12, Mandy, also remembered “teachers telling me what to do.” Now

I had a lot of free time. I didn’t really focus on what I needed to focus on. I didn’t. Really. I kinda had too much fun, I guess, in a sense. My first year was kinda rough academically. It was not the best that I have done. I passed. So what I’m doing now since I’m only a sophomore is making that up trying to boost my GPA.

She chose to use a strategy that would help her improve her grades. “I got a better planner and wrote more times down on my phone, not doing too many things at once, and actually writing down exactly what I need to do.” This student learned from her experience and developed a time management strategy to help her succeed academically.

Students who are retained may face more difficult obstacles than students who are not retained. For example, Student 6, Ernie, was accused of rape. Because of that, he was cut from the fraternity he wanted to pledge several days before the initiation. The fraternity was important to him because it gave him a sense of family that he had not had before. He lost everyone: “Everyone was told to stop talking to me.” In the middle of the investigation, his grandmother died. He stayed busy so that he did not have to think about it. He knew it was a false allegation, and everything was going to be fine. Part of his coping was networking heavily in the business community in the regional area surrounding UNIVERSITY. “On a chance encounter I started with a start-up company. I have started an LLC.” His grades were fine, but he may rethink the route to achieve his goals.

Another example is Student 10, Karin, who has no family in this country. She is from Africa and sometimes feels very lonely. Because she is unable to ask her family for advice, she reaches out to her professors. She knows this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and she is determined to make herself and her family proud. She puts in the extra effort to be successful. “So when I’m feeling down, I can’t leave here. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity so I work very hard to keep my GPA up.” Izzy had family, but they were not supportive of her goals, and she had to break her relationship with them to succeed. She moved to Kentucky and did not tell them where she lives. She remains enrolled and considers her sorority her family now.

In addition, Student 4, Clare, had friends, but they ended up dropping out, but she remains enrolled. “My roommate was my best friend but she ended up dropping out. A lot of my friends dropped out. They went and got normal jobs.” She has cut certain people out of her life, but she still has friends with whom she spends time with. “Certain friendships are too hectic to deal with.”

All students encountered similar obstacles. The retained students adopted strategies to successfully overcome the obstacles and persist, while the nonretained students gave up and did not persist. Even students who were not initially committed to graduating from UNIVERSITY overcame obstacles and persisted. What factors contributed to the persistence of some students? They were more committed but why? The investment model predicts that it was commitment.

Research Question 3

Can the investment model predict which students decide to leave and which students return for their second fall semester? According to the investment model, there are three components of commitment: satisfaction level, investment size, and quality of perceived alternatives. Satisfaction level is the subjective evaluation of the rewards and costs that a person experiences. Investment size is the resources attached to the relationship that would be lost if the person left. Quality of alternatives is the evaluation of the potential outcomes of the best alternative. The investment model states that relationships could persist even if the participants are not satisfied if there are no better alternatives and one would lose what one has invested in the relationship by leaving. As can be seen in Table 6, students may be very satisfied with UNIVERSITY but not persist.

Table 6.

Satisfaction for Students Not Retained.

Student	Rewards	Costs
Avila	Liked campus	Loans, no friends
Ben	Fun	Loans
Chelsea	Friends	Large classes
Ed	Liked NKU	Long commute
Frank	Lots of friends	Expenses
George	Liked campus, teachers	Big classes
Hank	Likes NKU	Loans
Louie	Likes NKU	Depressed

Note. NKU = Northern Kentucky University.

Satisfaction

There were no real differences between retained and nonretained students on satisfaction. Both groups expressed that they were satisfied with the campus including its looks, its size, and the feeling of safety. The nonretained students liked the campus, had fun, and made friends. Most of the costs for them came from personal or family issues, or financial reasons. For example, Avila was satisfied with UNIVERSITY. She liked the campus. “It is easy to walk around.” She had trouble with the classes and “sort of knew of support services but being me, I don’t reach out for help.” She was satisfied with UNIVERSITY and places the lack of support on herself for not reaching out. Similarly, Ben was satisfied with UNIVERSITY and places his lack of success on himself. “I cared less about school but more about friends and having fun.” Louie was satisfied with UNIVERSITY. He liked the community. The staff is nice. He liked living on campus. When he started not going to classes, he did

have one of my teachers try to reach out to me a couple of times. … But I ignored his reaching outs. I felt like I was letting the teacher down. When it comes to me letting people down, I just push myself away, just ignore me. I’m no longer here.

For some students, who were satisfied, family issues pulled them away from campus. Chelsea loved UNIVERSITY. “I joined a sorority and I got involved and I loved it.” During her second semester, her grandmother was in the hospital in Louisville, so she started going home to Louisville every weekend. Her grandmother passed away, and she wanted to be home. “But I loved UNIVERSITY. I wish I was still there. I just decided it would be best if I stayed home.”

Ed also had family members in the hospital, which distracted him from his focus on college. He liked UNIVERSITY, but even though he had a long commute, he did not live on campus. He did not want to take out too many loans because “they get hard to pay back later.” So he was commuting and had to work to pay for his gas. “And then gas went up so I had to work more. So my grades started slipping. When you live that far away it is very easy to say, I don’t want to go to college today.” On a scale of 1 to 10, he gave UNIVERSITY an 8 on satisfaction. He thoroughly enjoyed UNIVERSITY, people were friendly, and the campus was pretty. But he had a hard time with so little structure. “You could have a 7AM class and a 6 PM class on the same day with nothing in between.” In addition, Frank did live on campus and loved it.

I enjoyed my first year. It was a fun time. I met some people that I am still friends with. I love the campus, I liked the faculty. The advisors jumped through the hoop to see if I could stay.

Living on campus cost him more, and he was not financially prepared. He had a job, but it was not enough to cover expenses. He dropped his classes, so he could work more.

Moreover, work was a factor that affected satisfaction for George as well. George gave UNIVERSITY a 6 on scale of 1 to 10 for satisfaction. He liked the campus and the teachers, but they would not work around his work schedule. He prefers to work. He does not blame UNIVERSITY. “I didn’t integrate myself.”

Also, Hank loves UNIVERSITY and is glad that he is here after all. He rates UNIVERSITY at an 8 or 9 on a 10-point scale of satisfaction. He likes the class sizes, the friendships he has made, and the faculty who are dedicated to helping. Detraction from his satisfaction is that “UNIVERSITY is not as diverse or inclusive as it could or should be. Campus life could be better.” He had taken out student loans, but his financial aid was not covering everything, so he was stressed about that. He did not want to keep taking out student loans. “My mom still has student loans to try to pay and I don’t want to put myself in that predicament.” The nonretained students were satisfied with UNIVERSITY, but personal and financial reasons affected their persistence.

As can be seen in Table 7, the retained students also were satisfied with the University. They liked the campus, made friends, had fun, and were more likely to have received a scholarship. Some of the costs for them were lack of a campus social life, racism, and classes that were not challenging. Becca’s satisfaction increased after the first semester when she found out about support services. Clare was completely satisfied. Ernie started in the summer spark program that was geared to helping at-risk students adjust to college and was very satisfied with that experience. His satisfaction with UNIVERSITY decreased when he was falsely accused of rape. Haley was satisfied with UNIVERSITY because of the student support services that helped her find her voice. Costs that detracted from her satisfaction were things that happened her first semester. “It was the semester with Black Week, then the Jesus people on campus.” Both of these events tested the campus’ ability to be inclusive. Black Week refers to signs posted on campus saying “Welcome White Students” in response to signs on campus saying “Welcome Black Students.” The “Jesus people” were rabble-rousing preachers who were condemning students especially those of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community. However, Haley does appreciate the work UNIVERSITY does to promote diversity. “A lot of schools wouldn’t promote it as much. UNIVERSITY is willing to promote diversity. That is amazing. That is one of the things that I love about UNIVERSITY.”

Table 7.

Satisfaction for Students Who Were Retained.

Student	Rewards	Costs
Clare	Diversity	No disadvantages
Don	Great teachers	Not challenged
Ernie	Sense of family	False accusation
Haley	Found voice	Racism
Izzy	Personal touch	Lack of events
Jasmine	Loves campus	Poor teachers
Karin	Scholarship	Lack of events
Lisa	Feels at home	Loans
Mandy	Loves NKU	Racism

Note. NKU = Northern Kentucky University.

Izzy is very satisfied with UNIVERSITY.

Honestly I think I made the best decision for myself. … Our professors care more. Here the professors want to see you do well. You are not going to get that at a bigger University. That has been the key to me staying here, is the personal touch.

Not all students felt the same way about the professors. For example, Don is satisfied with the newer, better facilities of UNIVERSITY compared with other schools in the state. A cost that decreases his satisfaction is that he does not feel challenged. “I feel like I am doing the bare minimum when I do the work I need to do for my classes. There is not enough pressure on the students.” Another cost is that “some faculty teaching upper level courses are not competent.”

Jasmine is very satisfied. “UNIVERSITY has been really good to me. There is not a better place.” Karin is very satisfied with UNIVERSITY. She likes the campus, she got a scholarship, and staff members are friendly. She is dissatisfied with the campus social life, but overall, she has been given the opportunity of a lifetime. Lisa is very satisfied. “UNIVERSITY offers a lot of programs that make you feel at home.” The only thing that detracts from her satisfaction is the cost of tuition, but out-of-state is even more expensive. She is even satisfied with the quality of campus life because she is involved and she also likes to spend some time alone. “It does not bother me if others leave campus. I may not interact with those people anyway.” Mandy gave UNIVERSITY an 8 on the 10-point scale of satisfaction. Academics is not the issue. She likes the class sizes, the work, and the professors. UNIVERSITY does not have college life.

We are ranked the third safest University in the US, I want to say that when it comes to sexual assaults, those can be kind of like a one-sided thing here. … When it came to UNIVERSITY handling it, they didn’t give him (the accused) the opportunity to speak.

I have also experienced racism here. “I feel that many faculty here use the word inclusion but I truly feel that they don’t know what the word inclusion really means.” Retained students were also overall satisfied with UNIVERSITY, and any decreases in their satisfaction came from specific instances. Personally, they used strategies to do what they needed to do to be successful and persist. This qualitative study gives a better understanding of what the students mean by satisfaction and its relationship to commitment.

Investments

There was a slight difference between retained and nonretained students on investments as can be seen when comparing Tables 8 and 9. The nonretained students did not seem to think that they lost anything by leaving UNIVERSITY. Avila was able to have her loan deferred after she left UNIVERSITY by going to a local vocational college. Ed does not want to invest his money in his degree at UNIVERSITY. He wants his employer to pay for his education. The other students did not want to continue to take out loans to pay for their education. They felt they would be better off if they quit school to work and save up money before they come back if they come back. Although Louie was not motivated to stay in college, he did feel that he lost a sense of options that he had by choosing to go to work to pay bills instead.

Table 8.

Investments for Students Not Retained.

Student	Investments
Avila	Loan deferred
Ben	Did not lose anything
Chelsea	Lost some friends
Ed	Did not lose anything
Frank	Lost some money
George	Did not lose anything, did not integrate self
Hank	Taking different route
Louie	Lost sense of personal freedom

Table 9.

Investments for Students Who Were Retained.

Student	Investments
Becca	Degree completion
Clare	Community, lifestyle
Don	Future satisfaction
Ernie	Cincinnati network
Haley	Connection, belonging
Izzy	Future satisfaction
Jasmine	Family sacrifices
Karin	Financial assistance
Lisa	Prep for law school
Mandy	Degree completion

The retained students did make some investments that they would lose by leaving college. Becca would lose her progression to a degree. She wants the degree for security. “No matter what happens I would have a bachelors in biochem which is awesome.” Clare would lose the community and lifestyle. She has given up some social life because of her motivation to graduate. “Certain friendships are too hectic to deal with.” She has made new connections with faculty. Haley would lose her sense of connections and belonging. She feels a sense of home and has found her voice. “Leaving would be kind of dumb. UNIVERSITY is very confident in pushing you to find yourself.” The rest of the students would lose their investment in their future. They want their degree for security and for options in their future. This qualitative study indicates a stronger correlation between investment size and commitment than satisfaction level and commitment. In addition, this study has given insight into what the students mean when they are talking about investments into their education.

Alternatives

The big difference between retained and nonretained students in this study is the perception of alternatives as can be seen when comparing Tables 10 and 11.

Table 10.

Alternatives for Students Not Retained.

Student	Alternatives
Avila	Institution with shorter time to degree
Ben	Work
Chelsea	Institution closer to family
Ed	Work
Frank	Manual labor
George	Work
Hank	No alternatives
Louie	Work

Table 11.

Alternatives for Students Who Were Retained.

Student	Alternatives
Becca	NKU is the best
Clare	Dropping out not an option
Don	Failure not an option
Ernie	Starting business is an option
Haley	Homelessness, drugs, death
Izzy	No alternatives
Jasmine	NKU is the best
Karin	No alternatives
Lisa	No alternatives
Mandy	No alternatives

Note. NKU = Northern Kentucky University.

The nonretained students did perceive viable alternatives to persisting at UNIVERSITY. Two students are attending other institutions of higher education that are more attractive alternatives to UNIVERSITY for them. The goal of earning a licensed practical nursing degree in 15 months at another institution seemed more obtainable than a 4-year degree at UNIVERSITY for Avila. Chelsea preferred to be at a school that is closer to her family after her grandmother died. Programs that are geared toward working adults at another institution seemed more attractive to George, but work was his priority. Ed preferred working but would go back to school if his employer paid for it. The two nonretained students who did not see a viable alternative to getting their degree at UNIVERSITY are stopping out to work to save money to come back. Frank is not willing to do manual labor the rest of his life. He will do it to earn money in the short term, but he would like to be an artist.

Hank stopped out to join the Army Reserve to earn the money to return to school. Things are not going the way he had hoped they would, but “I realize that life can throw you curve balls and you have to take different routes but you can still get to the same destination.” Both Hank and Frank are planning to reenroll in UNIVERSITY.

Ben and Louie seemed lost and without a clear vision at all. Ben spent his time mostly in the game room with friends. He “thought about welding or trades. For two weeks I worked at a construction shipping yard where we made parts for building oil rigs and we made parts for a company that was working on raising a bridge. … Hated it.” He also talked about how he would not enjoy trade school or culinary school. Louie was depressed and spent most of his time in his dorm room.

I already missed one class, then I thought I might as well miss another one. Then in the middle depression hit and I thought I’m just horrible. I can’t even do basic work. There was a time where I wanted to end it.

Neither of them is sure about what they want to do. They have no clear alternatives. But without a goal, they have a hard time maintaining motivation to do their schoolwork.

Six of the 10 retained students specifically said that they did not see any viable alternatives or options to graduating from UNIVERSITY; it is the best. Two of the students said that dropping out or failing was not an option. Haley mentioned the only alternatives for her were homelessness, drugs, or death.

In my situation, I would probably be drugged out or dead. With recent stuff in my hometown, just two days ago, three kids from my neighborhood that were my age were dead in a period of six hours. One of them was an old high school friend. He was shot and killed and found by a dumpster for no reason. There were 5 homicides in two months. I have lost a lot of friends in the past two years and without college that could have been me.

Ernie was the only retained student who said that starting his own successful business could be an attractive alternative to returning to UNIVERSITY. However, if that does not work out over the summer, he will be back in the fall.

The variable of perceived alternatives does differentiate students who persist to the second year from those who do not. Students who do not persist to the second year immediately may persist to graduation in the future.

Emergent code

A code that emerged from reading and analyzing the data that was different from the preset codes was change. What I learned from interviewing these students that I would not have found out if I had simply surveyed them is that both the retained and nonretained students learned from their experiences and could make changes. Some students learned after the first semester that they had to attend class, do the work, and manage their time better if they wanted to succeed. These students were able to change their behavior quickly enough to improve their grades and persist. Other students may have gotten into more serious trouble, and so they had to make bigger changes. Some students had to stop out to earn money or do the academic renewal process before going back. They could still be successful UNIVERSITY graduates. Some students were not retained at UNIVERSITY but persisted in their education at another institution. None of the students said that UNIVERSITY should be doing anything differently to support them. They thought it was their decision to do the work to succeed or not. Clare, retained, said “It is about motivation and responsibility.” Ed, not retained, said “If you want to graduate, you have to do the work.” George, not retained, said “If you aren’t willing to try your best, why spend the money?”

Conclusions

Regardless of a student’s precollege characteristics, students enter college with varying degrees of commitment. However, if the students are committed to completing their education, they are likely to persist. Both committed and noncommitted students are likely to encounter obstacles. Committed students are more likely to use the available resources, while students who are not committed are unlikely to use the available resources. Commitment is more important than satisfaction with the University. Both retained and on-retained students were satisfied with the University. Students who were not committed did not persist, while students who were committed to receiving a college education persisted.

Commitment is determined by lack of desirable alternatives to being in college and willingness to invest resources such as time and money. Committed students are likely to see their time and money as an investment in their future. Students who are not committed to being in college are likely to see more desirable alternatives to being in college and the time and money needed to invest in college as a drain of their resources.

Although most low-SES students graduate at a lower rate than their peers, many low-SES students do graduate from 4-year institutions of higher education, so their experiences are worthy of our consideration. The contribution of this qualitative study is that it helped to gain a better understanding of how some low-SES students are able to persist to the second fall and how the investment model can predict which students are likely to persist.

Investments were seen differently by retained and nonretained students. The nonretained students did not seem to think that they lost anything by leaving UNIVERSITY. They seemed to think they would be better off leaving because they would not have as much debt or they could better achieve their goals somewhere else. The retained students believed that they were investing in their future, and they would lose security and options for the future if they left without a degree. They believed that UNIVERSITY was the best place for them. The students in the two groups had different attitudes toward the value of attending college.

The perception of alternatives was very different for the retained versus the nonretained groups of students. Only one retained student had a viable alternative to graduating from college and that was starting his own successful business. If he did not start a successful business over the summer, he planned to return in the fall. The nonretained students did perceive attractive alternatives such as attending other schools or working. Two nonretained students are persisting in their education at other institutions. Two other nonretained students did not see viable alternatives to getting their degree at UNIVERSITY, but they believed that stopping out to earn money would enable them to persist in the future. The other nonretained students did not seem to have a clear vision for their future, so they had no clear goals to accomplish to achieve the kind of life they wanted.

Perception of alternatives was the most significant difference between the retained and nonretained groups followed by investment size in this study. Satisfaction was not different between the two groups. In contrast, Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis of 41 studies of investment theory found that satisfaction had the highest correlation with commitment followed by investment size and then perceived alternatives. In Barry and Okun’s (2011) study comparing Rusbult’s investment model to Tinto’s integration model, investment size was not a significant predictor of college graduation intention. Again satisfaction level was the strongest predictor of commitment, and quality of alternatives was inversely related to commitment. Limitations of these quantitative studies may be the scales that were used to measure the variables. The measures were brief and “derived from studies of college satisfaction conducted approximately 40 years ago” (Barry & Okum, 2011, p. 104). In comparison, this qualitative study allowed students to identify the dimensions of college life that are most important for them. They defined the terms differently than the surveys did. Also, this study included participants who were no longer enrolled in the University, so they clearly believed they had better alternatives to attending college at UNIVERSITY.

Some low-SES students are committed to achieving academic success immediately; others may develop commitment. Those who are committed persist and are retained, and those who are not committed do not persist and are not retained. The investment model can predict which students are committed and will persist. Perceived alternatives and investment size made the difference in predicting who will persist to the second year in this study. If a student does not perceive a better life for himself or herself after graduating from college, if the alternatives are just as attractive, they are less likely to invest the time and money necessary to complete their education.

The disproportionally larger numbers of male students who were not retained and the disproportionally larger number of White students who were not retained were not addressed in this study and are directions for future research. A hypothesis that could be derived from the investment model regarding the males is that they have learned that they need to be financially responsible as adults and they may be less likely to see the costs of tuition as an investment but rather a liability. Another hypothesis that could be derived from the investment model regarding the White students is that they may be more likely to see attractive alternatives to attending college, while the non-White students see education as the only way for a better life for themselves and their families.

Recommendations

If commitment to a goal determines who will be successful, then commitment should receive as much support as any other talent or gift. Perhaps UNIVERSITY should focus their efforts on helping students develop commitment by thinking about their future and identifying their goals and what they will have to do to achieve them.

Perhaps interventions could be in a public health framework where the focus is on promoting goal achievement (wellness) not the absence of deficits (disease).

Perhaps all students could write a reflection on their imagined future and what they would need to accomplish to achieve their goals as part of the admissions process. Most people would have an idea of what they wanted to do. The students who needed more help could rewrite their reflection after some experiences designed to help them. The most at-risk students would have some additional individual interventions.

Students could write their story multiple times as they gain experiences and perspectives. They could discuss goals, alternatives, investments, obstacles, and strategies to overcome obstacles. Previous research confirms that the ability to self-reflect by examining one’s thinking and feeling to make sense of it can help one alter one’s behavior which enables successful functioning (Baxter-Magolda & King, 2007; Pajares, 2001). Writing their stories could help students imagine their future and the steps needed to achieve it. These stories could help them see the relevance of academic tasks which could motivate them to engage and achieve.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Author Biography

Isabella Zembrodt received her Doctor of Education in 2018 from Northern Kentucky University. Previous publications include: The impact of gender and sex role orientation on responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships. Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Exit, voice, loyalty, neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

References

Barry

Okun

(2011). Application of investment theory to predicting maintenance of the intent to stay among freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention, 13(1), 87–107.

Baxter-Magolda

King

(2007). Interview strategies for assessing self-authorship: Constructing conversations to assess meaning making. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 491–508.

Bean, J. (April, 1981). The synthesis of a theoretical model of student attrition. In the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA, Los Angeles, CA).

Burkley

Anderson

Curtis

Burkley

(2013). Vicissitudes of goal commitment: Satisfaction, investments, and alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 663–668.

Cabrera

Nora

Castaneda

(1993). College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123–139.

Cahalan

Perna

(2015). Indicators of higher education equity in the United States. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute.

Cini

Fritz

(1996). Predicting commitment in adult and traditional-age students: Applying Rusbult’s investment model to the study of retention. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED401451)

Creswell

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

DeAngelo

Franke

(2016). Social mobility and reproduction for whom? College readiness and first-year retention. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1588–1625.

10.

Hatcher

Kryter

Prus

Fitzgerald

(1992). Predicting college student satisfaction, commitment, and attrition from investment model constructs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(16), 1273–1296. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00950.x

11.

Jury

Smeding

Stephens

Nelson

Aelenei

Darnon

(2017). The experience of low-SES students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success and interventions to reduce social-class inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 23–41.

12.

Agnew

(2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57.

13.

Lemay

(2016). The forecast model of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(1), 34–52.

14.

Okun

Geogan

Mitric

(2009). Quality of alternatives, institutional preference, and institutional commitment among first-year college students. Educational Psychology, 29(4), 371–383.

15.

Pajares

(2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(1), 27–35.

16.

Rusbult

(2011). The investment model of commitment processes. In Van Lange

Kruglanski

Higgins

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 2 (pp. 218–231). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Rusbult

Buunk

(1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204.

18.

Rusbult

Righetti

(2009). Investment model. In Reis

Sprecher

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 927–930). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

19.

Simmons

(2014). Class dismissed: Rethinking socio-economic status and higher education attainment. Arizona State Law Journal, 46(1), 231–298.

20.

Soria

Bultmann

(2014). Supporting working-class students in higher education. NACADA Journal, 34(2), 51–62.

21.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.

22.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (2017). Graduation Rates component (provisional data). Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

23.

Walpole

(2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 45–73.

24.

Wilson

(2016). Lack of persistence in college and the high-achieving, low-SES student: A review of the literature. Community College Enterprise, 22(2), 42–51.