An Investigation of Student Psychological Wellbeing: Honors Versus Nonhonors Undergraduate Education

Abstract

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

Keywords

psychological wellbeing undergraduate education gifted education honors program sophomore slump

Introduction

Framework

More than 10 years ago, Rinn (2005) published a highly regarded piece examining the relationship between academic achievement and subjective wellbeing in undergraduate students enrolled in a university honors program. Analyzing nearly 300 self-report questionnaires revealed significant differences between junior and senior class-standing students in regard to academic self-perception, and educational and career aspirations. However, Rinn (2005) found no significant differences between students of freshman and sophomore class standing.

Although Rinn’s (2005) work continues to represent one of the few leading studies to analyze the wellbeing of university honors students, her research methodology lacked a nonhonors student sample to serve as a comparison group. Without a nonhonors comparison sample, particularly one of sufficient size to permit comparisons between students of differing class standings, any conclusions formed related to potential associations between academic giftedness and psychological wellbeing must be interpreted with a certain degree of caution. Additionally, consistent increases in collegiate student mental health concerns have been observed since the 2005 publication of Rinn’s work, warranting updated research in the field of gifted education (Center for Collegiate Mental Health, 2015; Ibrahim, Kelly, Adams, & Glazebrook, 2013).

The present study attempts to update and supplement Rinn’s (2005) piece in light of rising national college mental health concerns within the United States (Center for Collegiate Mental Health, 2015). This descriptive work provides insight into the current mental health of gifted students at the undergraduate level. Additionally, this study attempts to investigate whether differences between honors and nonhonors undergraduate education programs confer differential student psychological outcomes. Astonishingly little research examining giftedness at the postsecondary level currently exists, leading to a lack of consensus for identifying gifted undergraduates. As a result, researchers in the field of gifted education most often rely on honors college membership as a gauge for collegiate giftedness. Therefore, within the context of this study, giftedness will be defined as membership within a university honors college (Kerr, 2009; Neumeister, 2004; Rinn, 2005; Rinn & Plucker, 2004). This work offers a nonhonors student comparison sample and a larger sample population, and analyzes more features of student wellbeing than originally provided by Rinn (2005), effectively making this updated work a more comprehensive examination of the topic.

Background

Assessing giftedness in a given population of any age can prove exceptionally difficult. Numerous models of giftedness currently exist, complicating our identification of such individuals. Generally, a gifted individual may be identified according to his or her heightened ability to perform intellectually, motivationally, and/or creatively (Renzulli, 2011). However, giftedness is largely determined within the context of the local setting. A student perceived as exceptional at one institution of higher learning could be considered simply average at another (Robinson, 1997).

Undergraduate institutions typically rely upon standardized test scores (such as the SAT or ACT), high school grade point averages, writing samples, and records of leadership and extracurricular activities to determine a student’s potential for achievement. Within the context of the university, gifted students are described as individuals reporting high levels of success in each of these domains, noting that the level of achievement used to determine giftedness would vary depending on the local circumstances of each undergraduate institution (P. F. Haas, 1992; Robinson, 1997).

Research has shown that gifted students may possess unique psychosocial and personality characteristics that separate them from the rest of the undergraduate population. Gifted college students are often able to quickly learn new information, comprehend complex and abstract ideas, identify complicated patterns, and make multidisciplinary connections (Johnsen, 2004; Rinn & Bishop, 2015; Robinson, 1997; Roeper, 1991). Gifted students report higher levels of persistence and a greater need for achievement, and place a higher value on studying than their nongifted peers (Hébert & McBee, 2007).

However, giftedness may not be entirely positive. Although all students face new challenges when beginning their college education, gifted students may experience the onset of a unique set of problems. According to Rinn and Plucker (2004),

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

Current research has associated giftedness in undergraduate students with perfectionism, feelings of isolation, fear of failure, a heightened need for approval, and a preference for solitude, supporting Rinn and Plucker’s (2004) assertion (Neumeister, 2004; Rinn & Bishop, 2015; Roeper, 1991).

In an effort to better serve the unique needs of gifted undergraduate populations, some institutions offer honors colleges. As many gifted students attending public institutions choose to participate in these honors programs, giftedness at the undergraduate level is most often synonymous with honors college membership (Kerr, 2009; Neumeister, 2004; Rinn, 2005; Rinn & Plucker, 2004). Initially, honors colleges were designed to challenge academically talented students attending less reputable public institutions, as well as provide them with more personalized instruction (Hébert & McBee, 2007; Rinn, 2006). Small class sizes, close student–faculty interaction, interdisciplinary course content, seminar-style teaching methods, and the implementation of challenging educational platforms (such as the accelerator model) attract high-achieving students and faculty to universities offering honors programs, thereby bolstering an institution’s reputation (Brimeyer, Schueths, & Smith, 2014; Fischer, 1996; Morgan & Apple, 2007; Rinn, 2004; Rinn & Plucker, 2004; Robinson, 1997). Some institutions also offer living-learning communities for their honors students, providing students with an academically focused and socially cooperative living environment (Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, & Johnson, 2006; Inkelas & Weisman, 2003).

Although a substantial body of literature exists examining the psychosocial and personality characteristics of the gifted (Hébert & McBee, 2007; Johnsen, 2004; Rinn & Bishop, 2015; Robinson, 1997; Roeper, 1991), far less exists assessing the subjective wellbeing of gifted undergraduates specifically (Rinn, 2005). The concept of wellbeing incorporates a complex array of features from within the human experience to describe positive functioning. For decades, numerous indicators of wellbeing such as life satisfaction and locus of control have been used to assess human happiness (Bradburn, 1969; Ryff, 1989). As a functional definition, wellbeing “is most often interpreted to mean experiencing a high level of positive affect, a low level of negative affect, and a high degree of satisfaction with one’ s life,” (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

When using classical models of wellbeing to assess happiness in gifted populations, contradictory data complicate our understanding of these groups. Commonly, our society views gifted youth as having heightened degrees of interpersonal sensitivity, greater levels of social isolation, and increased levels of stress when compared with their average-ability peers (Neihart, 1999). The notion that giftedness is associated with lower levels of psychological wellbeing is reinforced by classic examples of famously talented artists and writers who either committed suicide or partook in self-injurious behaviors (Cassady & Cross, 2006). Various contemporary investigations of gifted students have further supported this belief. A recent study of 670 secondary students attending either gifted or nongifted high schools revealed lower reported levels of life satisfaction in the gifted population than in the nongifted population (Fouladchang, Kohgard, & Salah, 2010).

Alternately, another body of literature exists indicating that giftedness may be associated with higher levels of psychological wellbeing. In a study examining self-concept in secondary students identified as “intellectually gifted,” children displayed high degrees of self-concept and a positive life outlook (Riaz & Shahzad, 2010). In a recent piece investigating personal wellbeing in gifted students admitted to an early college-entrance program, researchers found a healthier overall degree of wellbeing in the gifted population than found in nongifted peers of the same age (Boazman & Sayler, 2011).

Although the empirical body of knowledge dedicated to giftedness is slowly growing, many studies have only examined giftedness in elementary and secondary school populations (Eklund, Tanner, Stoll, & Anway, 2015; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011). Currently, a distinct paucity of research investigating the relationship between giftedness and psychological wellbeing at the undergraduate level exists. Studies that do attempt to analyze this relationship fail to offer a nonhonors comparison group to serve as an adequate control (Boazman, Sayler, & Easton-Brooks, 2012; Rice, Leever, Christopher, & Porter, 2006; Rinn, 2005). Additionally, the literature indicates that students move through unique developmental stages during the undergraduate experience, requiring that a study be conducted with a sufficiently large sample such that psychological comparisons between students of differing class standings may be completed (Broido & Schreiber, 2016; Dearnley & Matthew, 2007; Perry, 1970; Rinn, 2005).

The current study aims to (a) describe the current state of psychological wellbeing in gifted (honors) and nongifted (nonhonors) undergraduate student sample populations within a large Midwestern university and (b) identify potential differences by class standing associated with heightened levels of distress, which may be used to determine potential services that may improve the university undergraduate experience.

Method

Participant Demographics

Study participants included 641 undergraduate students currently enrolled in a university honors program within a large Midwestern public university, as well as 386 undergraduate nonhonors students enrolled in the same institution. To be admitted to the university honors college, students are required to submit an application detailing their relevant qualifications. A high school GPA of 3.5 or higher and an ACT score of 28 or greater are necessary for honors college admittance, though other factors including writing sample quality and previous honors and leadership activities are considered when determining an individual’s honors college admission status.

Among honors participants in the current study, 23.5% (n = 152) were male, 75% (n = 479) were female, and 1.5% (n = 10) identified as “other.” Honors participants in the current study reported a mean undergraduate GPA of 3.62, with female respondents reporting a slightly higher GPA (3.69) than male respondents (3.53). The mean age of honors respondents was 20.7 years. A total of 13.6% (n = 87) of honors respondents indicated that they held a freshman class standing, 25.9% (n = 166) held a sophomore class standing, 26.5% (n = 170) held a junior class standing, and 34.0% (n = 218) reported a senior class standing.

Among nonhonors participants, 31% (n = 118) were male, 68% (n = 263) were female, and 1% (n = 5) identified as “other.” Nonhonors participants in the current study reported a mean undergraduate GPA of 3.2. The mean age of nonhonors students was 21.3 years. In all, 18.4% (n = 71) of nonhonors respondents indicated that they held a freshman class standing, 15.0% (n = 58) held a sophomore class standing, 30.8% (n = 119) held a junior class standing, and 35.8% (n = 138) reported a senior class standing.

Materials

Each participant in this study completed a demographic survey identifying gender, age, undergraduate GPA, academic class standing, and employment status. Survey respondents completed a series of single-item questions assessing procrastination habits and sleep quality. Additionally, participants completed a battery of measures of psychological adjustment to assess student psychological wellbeing. These measures included the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the 11-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the six-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Personal Feelings Questionnaire (PFQ), the Positive and Negative Perfectionism scale (PNP), the Preparation-Prevention Control subscale of the Desirability of Control (DC) scale, the Academic Efficacy subscale of the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS), and the General Life and Self subscales of the Extended Satisfaction With Life Scale (ESWLS).

Each of the scales selected for use in this study are widely used, widely recognized, and well established in higher education. A total of 10 indices were selected to most effectively replicate and preserve the integrity of Rinn’s (2005) original work while also acknowledging modern national mental health trends (Center for Collegiate Mental Health, 2015). Additionally, the authors sought to design the most efficient survey possible, seeking to optimize the participation rate and to avoid student fatigue (Marteau & Bekker, 1992).

In designing the current study, three measures were selected that could be combined together to justify a single score representative of dysthymic affect. Dysthymic affect is a low-grade chronic mood disturbance in which sufferers experience periods of emotional distress followed by short-lived bouts of normal mood (Dysthymia, 2013; Sansone & Sansone, 2009). Frequently, dysthymic affect is characterized by feelings of anxiety, stress, and depression (Ravindran, Griffiths, Merali, & Anisman, 1996; Slavin-Mulford, Clements, Hilsenroth, Charnas, & Zodan, 2016). Based on recent work explicating a general factor linking depression, anxiety, and stress (Henry & Crawford, 2005; Moore, Dowdy, & Furlong, 2016; see also Gross & Jazaieri, 2014), the STAI, PSS, and CES-D standard scales were combined to provide a dysthymic affect measure.

Measures

PSS

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

CES-D

The original CES-D is a 20-item measure developed for National Institute of Mental Health studies (Radloff, 1977). It is widely regarded as one of the most effective instruments in screening for symptoms of depressed mood in a number of diverse study populations (Andresen, Malmgren, Carter, & Patrick, 1994). The 11-item version of the CES-D used in the current study was developed using factor analytics presented by Radloff (1977). A validation study conducted by Kohout, Berkman, Evans, and Cornoni-Huntley (1993) indicates that the shorter 11-item CES-D produces results consistent with those observed using the original 20-item scale, with little loss of accuracy (Kohout et al., 1993). The 11 items included in the CES-D 11 are a subset of the original 20-item measure. Respondents indicate the extent to which they may have felt or behaved in the past week using a 3-point scale ranging from “hardly ever or never” to “much or most of the time.” Sample items include “I felt everything I did was an effort” and “My sleep was restless” (Kohout et al., 1993; Radloff, 1977). The CES-D 11 has demonstrated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .81 (Kohout et al., 1993). Test-retest reliability estimates in the original sample ranged from 0.45 to 0.70, but this is expected, as the CES-D was designed to measure current affective symptoms, which are predicted to fluctuate over the course of time (Radloff, 1977). The CES-D was selected for use in this study as it has proven useful in clinical and empirical examinations of depressed mood in university undergraduate populations (Brinkmann, Schüpbach, Joye, & Gendolla, 2009; Gress-Smith, Roubinov, Andreotti, Compas, & Luecken, 2015; Kohout et al., 1993; Liao & Wei, 2015).

STAI

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

PFQ

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

PNP

The PNP (Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995) consists of two subscales—a Positive Perfectionism (PP) subscale and a Negative Perfectionism (NP) subscale. These scales probe functional differences among perfectionists. These functional differences reflect distinctions between positive and negative reinforcement (Skinner, 1969). We used a short form of the PNP consisting of 20 Likert scale items; possible responses range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Scores were obtained by summing the coded set of 10 items that represented PP and a set of 10 items that represented NP. Sample items include “I gain deep satisfaction when I have perfected something,” Producing a perfect performance is a reward in its own right,” I set impossibly high standards for myself,” and “Other people expect nothing less than perfection from me.” On a separate sample (n = 118), test-retest values at 10 weeks were .77 and .82 respectively for the PP and NP subscales. Cronbach’s alphas obtained in the norm sample were .87 and .89 for the PP and the NP subscales respectively (Terry-Short et al., 1995), and in the current study were .77 and .89 in the honors sample. In the nonhonors sample, the Cronbach’s alphas were .81 and .89 for the PP and the NP subscales, respectively.

DC Scale

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

PALS

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

ESWLS

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

Procedure

The assessments were electronically distributed to all honors college enrollees through the office of the honors college Director (n = 1,539) during the winter 2016 semester. During the same semester 2,000 nonhonors students were randomly selected by the university Office of Institutional Analysis to participate in the current study. Assessments were also electronically distributed to all nonhonors students. Scale presentation was randomized and all assessments were completed using SurveyMonkey^® technology. No personally identifiable information was collected from the study participants. As an incentive to participate in the study, all respondents in each of the samples were offered the chance to anonymously submit their email following completion of the assessment as entry into a $100 gift card raffle.

Data collected from 641 honors and 386 nonhonors students were included in the final study group, although approximately 150 additional assessments were collected. Participants were excluded from this study for a multitude of reasons: (a) duplicate submissions were excluded; (b) assessment submissions containing incomplete data (less than 25% complete) were excluded; (c) nontraditional-aged students (age 27 or above) were excluded, as research indicates that the life circumstances of traditional and nontraditional students are too different to examine them as a single group (Newbold, Mehta, & Forbus, 2010).

The Human Research Review Committee of the participating institution approved this study.

Results

SAS/STAT® version 9.4 software (copyright © 2016 SAS Institute Inc.) was used to compute the mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach’s alpha for each psychological measure in both the honors and nonhonors student samples. These may be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients Between 10 Selected Psychological Measures.

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

Note. Unshaded values represent the honors student sample (n = 641). Shaded values represent the nonhonors student sample (n = 386).

p < .05. **p < .01.

Within each of the five positive measures of wellbeing [ESWLS, SWS (Satisfaction with Self), DC, PALS, PP], honors students displayed greater mean values than those presented by nonhonors students. Within each of the five negative indices of wellbeing (NP, CES-D, STAI, PSS, PFQ-2), nonhonors students displayed greater mean values than those exhibited by honors students.

Significance of differences within each sample by class standing (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior) and corresponding mean levels of dysthymia were tested for using PROC GLM with the SAS 9.4 program for Windows (2016, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Based on our a priori assumptions and the limited number of orthogonal contrasts (only four means per sample), we selected the Tukey-Kramer Studentized Range (HSD) Test because it adjusts for differing sample sizes and corrects for multiple pairwise comparisons while maintaining the family-wise type 1 error rate with more power than the broader Scheffé or Bonferroni type tests (Westfall, Tobias, & Wolfinger, 2011).

Mean values and differences in dysthymic affect by class standing are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Mean Values of Dysthymic Affect by Sample and Year.

	Student year
Population	Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior
Honors	42.16^a	42.59^a	42.06^a	38.83^b
Nonhonors	48.18^a	49.70^a	46.31^a	45.37^a

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

Honors students in their senior year exhibited significantly lower levels of dysthymic affect than honors freshman, sophomores, and juniors. Nonhonors students did not exhibit any significant differences in dysthymic affect by class standing. The highest level of dysthymic affect was reported in the sophomore samples of both honors and nonhonors populations.

Significance of differences in dysthymia affect between the two samples were determined using independent samples t tests. All analyses were completed using PROC TTEST with the SAS 9.4 program for Windows (2016, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The Benjamini-Hochberg (B-H) procedure was used to control the false discovery rate (Thissen, Steinberg, & Kuang, 2002). All between-sample, by class standing, comparisons were significant, as shown in Table 2. Freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior honors students displayed significantly lower levels of dysthymic affect than nonhonors students in each corresponding class.

To compare psychological wellbeing between honors and nonhonors samples within each of the four class-years included, mean values of the 10 measures used in this study were compared using an independent-samples t test. The B-H procedure was used to control the false discovery rate (Thissen et al., 2002). Table 3 describes these comparisons.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of 10 Selected Measures of Psychological Wellbeing in Honors and Nonhonors Undergraduates in four Separate Student Years.

	Student year
	M (SD)		95% CI		Cohen’s d	p value	B-H critical value	M (SD)		95% CI		Cohen’s d	p value	B-H critical value
	Freshman							Sophomore
Satisfaction With Life	19.16 (4.49)	17.07 (4.88)	[18.35, 20.24]	[15.84, 18.22]	0.45	.0062	0.0050	19.04 (4.50)	15.74 (5.80)	[18.35, 19.76]	[14.36, 17.49]	0.64	.0002^a	0.0050
Satisfaction With Self	19.70 (4.16)	18.34 (5.11)	[19.11,20.77]	[17.44, 19.80]	0.29	.0682	0.0150	19.83 (4.24)	17.68 (5.55)	[19.18, 20.50]	[16.18, 19.20]	0.44	.0098^a	0.0125
Desirability of Control	27.25 (4.22)	26.25 (5.61)	[26.45, 28.26]	[24.03, 27.66]	0.20	.2028	0.0200	26.56 (4.46)	25.20 (5.57)	[25.86, 27.26]	[23.63, 26.66]	0.27	0.1020	0.0200
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale	20.41 (2.56)	19.03 (3.98)	[19.87, 20.98]	[18.04, 19.98]	0.41	.0135	0.0075	20.85 (2.79)	19.05 (3.84)	[20.43, 21.30]	[18.25, 20.26]	0.54	.0018^a	0.0075
Positive Perfectionism	40.11 (4.66)	39.55 (5.47)	[39.10, 41.11]	[38.21, 40.88]	0.11	.4976	0.0225	39.22 (5.00)	37.32 (5.85)	[38.39, 39.96]	[35.68, 38.90]	0.35	.0188	0.0150
Negative Perfectionism	33.52 (7.89)	33.55 (9.14)	[31.82, 35.22]	[31.34, 35.80]	0.00	.9808	0.0250	32.29 (8.10)	33.11 (8.33)	[31.07, 33.61]	[30.64, 35.18]	0.10	.5161	0.0250
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale	6.05 (4.47)	8.72 (5.09)	[5.08, 7.01]	[7.47, 9.96]	0.56	.0007^a	0.0025	6.67 (4.28)	10.11 (4.79)	[5.96, 7.30]	[8.66, 11.23]	0.76	.0001^a	0.0025
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory	12.60 (3.73)	13.96 (4.38)	[11.80, 13.40]	[12.92, 15.05]	0.33	.0396	0.0100	12.57 (3.69)	14.07 (4.83)	[11.99, 13.15]	[12.71, 15.23]	0.35	.0358	0.0175
Perceived Stress Scale	23.51 (6.19)	25.47 (6.01)	[22.17, 24.86]	[24.02, 26.92]	0.32	.0501	0.0125	23.42 (5.60)	25.80 (6.06)	[22.52, 24.27]	[24.10, 27.40]	0.41	.0077^a	0.0100
Personal Feelings Questionnaire	23.54 (7.00)	25.43 (7.15)	[21.86, 24.87]	[23.61, 27.01]	0.27	.0980	0.0175	23.35 (6.35)	25.02 (7.62)	[22.29, 24.29]	[22.95, 27.11]	0.24	.1084	0.0225
	Junior							Senior
Satisfaction With Life	19.02 (4.46)	17.32 (4.63)	[18.32, 19.68]	[16.63, 18.32]	0.37	.0022^a	0.0050	19.91 (4.10)	18.07 (4.68)	[19.36, 20.46]	[17.25, 18.91]	0.42	.0002^a	0.0100
Satisfaction With Self	19.91 (4.35)	19.07 (4.74)	[19.27, 20.58]	[18.40, 20.17]	0.18	.1320	0.0175	20.94 (3.15)	19.27 (4.87)	[20.52, 21.37]	[18.57, 20.23]	0.41	.0005^a	0.0125
Desirability of Control	27.11 (3.72)	26.79 (4.45)	[26.60, 27.73]	[26.03, 27.72]	0.08	.5071	0.0225	27.54 (4.10)	26.95 (4.23)	[26.97, 28.07]	[26.23, 27.72]	0.14	.6799	0.0250
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale	20.85 (2.73)	19.54 (2.95)	[20.43, 21.27]	[18.98, 20.10]	0.46	.0002^a	0.0025	21.64 (2.65)	19.85 (3.05)	[21.29, 22.00	[19.34, 20.41]	0.63	.0001^a	0.0075
Positive Perfectionism	39.08 (4.82)	38.87 (5.11)	[38.34, 39.83]	[37.91, 39.85]	0.04	.7274	0.0250	39.74 (4.74)	38.50 (5.17)	[39.09, 40.37]	[37.63, 39.45]	0.25	.0234	0.0200
Negative Perfectionism	32.15 (8.86)	34.01 (8.03)	[30.79, 33.51]	[32.28, 35.30]	0.22	.0783	0.0150	29.93 (7.92)	32.28 (8.54)	[28.97, 31.09,	[30.79, 33.81]	0.29	.0099^a	0.0175
Center for Epidemioligical Studies Depression Scale	6.65 (4.61)	8.05 (4.59)	[5.97, 7.39]	[7.21, 8.95]	0.30	.0129	0.0100	5.65 (3.92)	7.57 (4.60)	[5.14, 6.19]	[6.74, 8.37]	0.45	.0001^a	0.0050
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory	12.20 (3.99)	13.19 (3.88)	[11.54, 12.76]	[12.45, 13.89]	0.25	.0402	0.0125	11.67 (3.64)	13.12 (4.21)	[11.17, 12.15]	[12.40, 13.87]	0.37	.0008^a	0.0150
Perceived Stress Scale	23.23 (5.98)	25.18 (5.47)	[22.31, 24.15]	[24.15, 26.27]	0.34	.0061^a	0.0075	21.51 (4.99)	24.68 (6.04)	[20.83, 22.17]	[23.63, 25.77]	0.57	.0001^a	0.0025
Personal Feelings Questionnaire	23.99 (7.48)	24.81 (6.85)	[22.88, 25.17]	[23.54, 26.08]	0.11	.3576	0.0200	22.09 (6.14)	23.34 (5.87)	[21.26, 22.91	[22.31, 24.40]	0.21	.0618	0.0225

Note. Unshaded values represent the honors student sample (n = 641). Shaded values represent the nonhonors student sample (n = 386). CI = confidence interval.

Designate comparisons for which difference is confidently interpreted at α/2 level.

Freshman honors and nonhonors students indicated significant differences in only one of the indices analyzed, with nonhonors students indicating significantly higher levels of depressed affect than honors students. Sophomore nonhonors students reported significantly lower levels of general life satisfaction, satisfaction with self, and academic self-efficacy than their honors peers. Sophomore nonhonors students also reported significantly higher levels of depressive symptomology and perceived stress than sophomore honors students.

Junior honors and nonhonors students reported significant differences in three of the measures analyzed. Honors juniors reported significantly higher levels of life satisfaction and academic self-efficacy than their nonhonors peers. Junior nonhonors students reported significantly higher levels of perceived stress than honors students of the same class standing.

Senior honors and nonhonors students reported significant differences in seven of the 10 indices examined. Senior honors students reported significantly lower levels of negative perfectionism, depressed affect, anxiety, and perceived stress. Honors seniors also reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with life, satisfaction with self, and academic self-efficacy.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to (a) describe the current state of psychological wellbeing in gifted and nongifted undergraduate student sample populations within a large Midwestern university, and (b) identify potential differences by class standing associated with heightened levels of distress, which may be used to determine potential services that may improve the university undergraduate experience. Consideration of the data presented in this work reveals a number of notable findings.

Overall, honors students reported healthier levels of positive wellbeing on most scales across classes, and significantly lower levels of dysthymic affect than their nonhonors peers. Why might this be so? Current research indicates that gifted students enrolled in a university honors program demonstrate significantly higher academic achievement and report greater levels of academic self-concept than gifted students who choose not to participate in an honors program. This suggests that the academic and/or social environment of the honors program plays a key role in student success (T. J. Haas, 2015; Rinn, 2007). An examination of the different educational and social environments experienced by honors and nonhonors participants in this study reveals that, upon their acceptance to the program, honors students are, effectively, offered the opportunity to participate in an honors living-learning community. These student-focused living environments are designed to facilitate student interactions with faculty and peers, encourage interdisciplinary learning, and provide a setting for organized educational activities (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003; Wynn, Mosholder, & Larsen, 2014). Research suggests that living-learning communities may help facilitate a student’s progression through the psychosocial developmental stages associated with undergraduate education (Inkelas et al., 2006). Participation in a living-learning community has also been associated with greater gains in cognitive functioning and the development of higher-order thinking than students living in traditional residence halls (Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling, 1999; Wynn et al., 2014).

Additionally, living-learning communities offer honors students an academically and socially supportive atmosphere, thereby possibly providing students with a greater sense of community and belonging among their equally high-ability peers (Spanierman et al., 2013; Wawrzynski, Jessup-Anger, Stolz, Helman, & Beaulieu, 2009). Pemberton (1969) suggested that the supportive nature of the living-learning environment may help ease the transition from high school to college. This combination of academic, intellectual, and social support provided by a living-learning community may account, in part, for why honors students reported healthier levels of psychological wellbeing than their nonhonors peers.

The basic design of honors education may also promote higher levels of psychological wellbeing in honors students. Membership in a university honors program frequently provides students with increased opportunities for autonomy in terms of selecting the direction of their education. Honors college membership may motivate students to finish their degree early, earn multiple degrees, and explore a wider range of classes than their nonhonors counterparts. Additionally, honors students are heavily encouraged to take part in experiential learning through internships, study abroad, leadership roles, and faculty-directed research (Achterberg, 2005; Clauss, 2011).

Encouraging students to take an active role in directing the course of their education may provide honors undergraduates with a greater perceived locus of control (Clauss, 2011). Studies indicate that a significant positive relationship between internal locus of control and psychological wellbeing exists, with individuals reporting a greater sense of control also describing healthier levels of happiness (April, Dharani, & Peters, 2012; Mobarakeh, Juhari, Yaacob, & Redzuan, 2015; Myers & Diener, 1995). Given these prior findings, the relationship between an honors education and student locus of control may account, in part, for why the honors students in the current study reported higher levels of psychological wellbeing than their nonhonors peers (Clauss, 2011).

To further examine the observed differences between honors and nonhonors students in the present study, particular aspects of the honors education, itself, were considered. The honors program curriculum of the participating institution is largely predicated on the accelerator model. The use of this educational model may account for some of the observed greater levels of positive wellbeing and lower levels of dysthymic affect in honors students. This is because a central tenet of the accelerator model is to match and then slightly exceed a student’s cognitive and affective skill sets based on carefully and deliberately titrating the degree of challenge within a course in order to maximize a student’s cognitive growth. The degree of engagement within the classroom is intended to circumvent boredom and disengagement, but not to significantly exceed students’ cognitive abilities. Student cognitive growth is maximized when the degree of challenge encourages some level of manageable student discomfort, but avoids producing chronic feelings of anxiety, frustration, failure, or anger, which appears consistent with our descriptive findings (Morgan & Apple, 2007). As honors students often have greater cognitive skill sets than typical nonhonors undergraduates, they may be better able to cope with the challenges associated with the rigor of a college education (Achterberg, 2005; Barfels & Delucchi, 2003). It is feasible that some of the students reporting significant levels of dysthymic affect are facing academic challenges that exceed their cognitive and affective skill sets. If this is true, it is important for students to communicate their concerns to their professors. Maintaining effective communication within the teacher–student relationship is essential in assuring that the learner maximizes his or her academic and professional potential (Aultman, Williams-Johnson, & Schutz, 2009).

The accelerator model closely resembles what many researchers agree to be the best method of facilitating a student’s progression through each of Perry’s (1970) widely known developmental stages. Perry’s (1970) full learning model is based on a stage model of intellectual development and encompasses nine stages or positions. Starting with basic duality (in which knowledge is basically right or wrong), it culminates with a sense of personal identity and commitment despite uncertainty or conflicting sources (Burns, Stephenson, & Bellamy, 2016; Thomas, 2008). A precise balance of academic challenge and support (such as that found in the accelerator model) can aid a student’s movement through each of these stages (Brand, 1988; Canon & Newble, 2000; De L’Etoile, 2008; Nilson, 1998). We believe the honors college’s use of the accelerator model contributes to the greater level of psychological wellbeing of honors students by means of effectively supporting students through each of Perry’s developmental stages during their undergraduate education.

Another key finding of this study was the considerably lower levels of psychological wellbeing (as indicated by greater levels of dysthymic affect) observed in sophomore students in both honors and nonhonors populations alike. This well-characterized decline in sophomore undergraduate populations is commonly referred to as the “sophomore slump.” Often, the sophomore slump is regarded as a period in which second-year students struggle to define themselves personally, academically, and professionally (Gump, 2007; Tower, Blacklock, Watson, Heffernan, & Tronoff, 2015; Wang & Kennedy-Phillips, 2013). As course content becomes more complex and academic expectations intensify, sophomore students may find their sense of academic self-efficacy and personal competency threatened. Students may begin to seek a sense of purpose and direction for their lives as they struggle to navigate their own education (Gahagan & Hunter, 2008; Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008; Tower et al., 2015).

While most universities do provide programs designed to help students adjust to increasing academic and professional demands, attention is often focused predominantly on incoming freshman as they transition into the undergraduate experience. Junior and senior students are often provided ample services meant to assist with their integration into their chosen career path. However, many universities provide the fewest number of support services to students in their sophomore year of study (Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008; Schaller, 2005).

To better address the unique challenges sophomore undergraduates face, research suggests a multitude of potential university interventions. Institutions should consider offering programs specifically designed for sophomore students. Effective sophomore programming initiatives should focus on the personal and professional obstacles second-year undergraduates may experience (Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Hunter et al., 2010; Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008; Schaller, 2005; Wang & Kennedy-Phillips, 2013). Programs should assist sophomore students in identifying their individual academic and professional passions, and providing opportunities for structured exploration through service learning, study abroad, and internships. Trained advisors should support students through the process of self-reflection, so that students may better analyze and sort through, and learn from, their past exploratory experiences (Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Hunter et al., 2010; Schaller, 2005).

Sophomore students may also benefit from programs designed to increase opportunities for faculty interaction. Connecting students to faculty both within and outside of the academic environment may provide sophomores with a greater sense of belonging within the larger university community (Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Hunter et al., 2010).

Work at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found great success with a sophomore peer-counseling program (Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008). Sophomore students were required to meet with an upperclassman advisor to discuss their academic and career planning, encouraging students to become active participants in their own education. Yet, this program also allowed sophomores to identify and address personal and social concerns, providing them with easy access to university support resources and services (Sanchez-Leguelinel, 2008). A peer-counseling program such as this may be particularly beneficial in institutions that lack the financial means to launch larger scale sophomore programming.

Although some university administrators may be weary of certain suggestions presented in this article due to time and financial considerations, we propose that institutions interested in developing additional undergraduate programs designed to meet student psychosocial needs employ the use of a brief survey such as the one used in the current study. Using our brief psychological survey could allow undergraduate institutions to use a very cost effective and minimally invasive screening assessment that might allow them to selectively approach individuals who may be at risk for a variety of psychological concerns.¹

Limitations

Although this study presents a number of statistically significant differences both within and between honors and nonhonors student populations, based on our measures it is difficult to determine whether these differences can, or even should, be interpreted in a clinically meaningful manner. This study was designed to establish and assess undergraduate wellbeing on a large scale. While this was successfully completed, determinations of a diagnostic or clinical nature are beyond study parameters. However, our findings suggest that future research directed toward qualitatively analyzing honors and nonhonors student wellbeing with greater specificity may prove beneficial.

Participant self-selection calls for caution in interpreting the findings. The findings presented in this work are only indicative of those who chose to participate. For example, honors students reported slightly younger ages than nonhonors students. However, the honors and nonhonors samples had comparable responses rates across each class. Additionally, similar patterns of change over time in reported levels of psychological wellbeing and distress were observed in sophomore and senior students, respectively. The sample similarities identified lend a degree of confidence in the results of this work despite some of the inherent limitations imposed its reliance on samples of convenience.

Self-selection resulted in a substantially greater number of female participants included in this study. However, female students were responsible for the vast majority of assessment responses in both honors and nonhonors sample populations, allowing the samples to remain comparable. Additionally, the gendered response rate patterns of this study are consistent with rates observed by prior investigations of undergraduate student survey participation (Adams, 2010; Reisenwitz, 2016; Sharkness, 2012). Future research should aim to better quantify psychological wellbeing in university undergraduate males.

Although nonhonors students who may have met honors college admissions criteria were not excluded from the comparison group, the authors believe the educational environment of the honors and nonhonors programs experienced by each group likely accounts for the observed differences in psychological wellbeing. Although the correlational nature of this study does not permit the confirmation of this belief, findings described in Table 3 support this notion. This study found that freshman honors and nonhonors students only differed significantly in terms of one measure of psychological wellbeing, while sophomore, junior, and senior honors and nonhonors students differed in a number of psychological measures. This suggests that although the freshman population as a whole is largely similar, progression through the university undergraduate experience through either an honors or nonhonors educational path may be, at least in part, responsible for a psychological divergence. Future research should seek to compare the wellbeing of solely high-achieving students in different educational programs.

Conclusions

This study has quantitatively examined the psychological wellbeing of honors and nonhonors students alike at the undergraduate level. An association between giftedness and greater levels of psychological wellbeing was observed, as well as lower levels of dysthymic affect in that population. Our findings were consistent with ample prior findings indicative of the “sophomore slump” phenomenon, and we have outlined a number of interventions that may prove helpful in reducing or alleviating sophomore student distress.

Additionally, this work has provided direction for further research: Why do honors students report greater levels of psychological wellbeing than their nonhonors peers? More specifically, what unique student psychosocial characteristics or program features of the honors undergraduate experience might leave honors students better prepared to manage the stressors of a university education? This work may be used by university administrators and faculty to better serve undergraduate populations through the development of directed programming initiatives.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

About the Authors

Abigail P. Plominski is an alumni of Grand Valley State University’s Fredrik Meijer Honors college, graduating cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in biology. Her research interests include gifted education, young adult mental health, and evolutionary psychology.

Lawrence R. Burns is a professor of clinical and personality psychology in the Department of Psychology at Grand Valley State University. His research interests include course design and effective teaching practices in higher education, student assessment and learning outcomes, experiential learning models, determinants of epistemological development, dialectical processes and other pedagogies of reflection.

References

Achterberg

(2005). What is an honors student? Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 6, 75-83.

Adams

M. J. D.

(2010). No evaluation left behind: Nonresponse in online course evaluations (Doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Alfonso

V. C.

Allison

D. B.

Rader

D. E.

Gorman

B. S.

(1996). The extended satisfaction with life scale: Development and psychometric properties. Social Indicators Research, 38, 275-301. doi:10.1007/BF00292049

Amoura

Berjot

Gillet

Altintas

(2014). Desire for control, perception of control: Their impact on autonomous motivation and psychological adjustment. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 323-335. doi:10.1007/s11031-013-9379-9

Andresen

E. M.

Malmgren

J. A.

Carter

W. B.

Patrick

D. L.

(1994). Screening for depression in well older adults: Evaluation of a short form of the CES-D. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10, 77-84.

April

K. A.

Dharani

Peters

(2012). Impact of locus of control expectancy on level of well-being. Review of European Studies, 4, 124-137. doi:10.5539/res.v4n2p124

Aultman

L. P.

Williams-Johnson

M. R.

Schutz

P. A.

(2009). Boundary dilemmas in teacher–student relationships: Struggling with “the line.” Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 636-646. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.002

Barfels

S. E.

Delucchi

(2003). History reproduces itself: The transmission of symbolic capital at a private liberal arts college in the USA. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 181-194. doi:10.1080/1356251032000052438

Bembenutty

(1999). Sustaining motivation and academic goals: The role of academic delay of gratification. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 233-257. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80002-8

10.

Boazman

J. K.

Sayler

M. F.

(2011). Personal well-being of gifted students following participation in an early college-entrance program. Roeper Review, 33, 76-85. doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.554153

11.

Boazman

J. K.

Sayler

M. F.

Easton-Brooks

(2012). Mediating factors of personal wellbeing in gifted college students: Early-college entrants and honors college students. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 3, 111-131.

12.

Bradburn

N. M.

(1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

13.

Brand

(1988). Toward a better understanding of undergraduate music education majors: Perry’s perspective. Council for Research in Music Education Bulletin, 98, 22-31.

14.

Brimeyer

T. M.

Schueths

A. M.

Smith

W. L.

(2014). Who benefits from honors: An empirical analysis of honors and non-honors students’ backgrounds, academic attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 15, 69-83.

15.

Brinkmann

Schüpbach

Joye

I. A.

Gendolla

G. H. E.

(2009). Anhedonia and effort mobilization in dysphoria: Reduced cardiovascular response to reward and punishment. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74, 250-258. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.09.009

16.

Broido

E. M.

Schreiber

(2016). Promoting student learning and development. New Directions for Higher Education, 2016(175), 65-74. doi:10.1002/he.20200

17.

Burger

J. M.

(1986). Desire for control and the illusion of control: The effects of familiarity and sequence of outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 66-76. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(86)90110-8

18.

Burger

J. M.

Cooper

H. M.

(1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 4381-4393. doi:10.1007/BF00994052

19.

Burns

L. R.

Stephenson

P. L.

Bellamy

(2016). The socratic method: Empirical assessment of a psychology capstone course. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15, 370-383. doi:10.1177/1475725716671824

20.

Canon

Newble

(Eds.). (2000). Helping students learn. In A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges: A guide to improving teaching methods (4th ed., pp. 1-13). London, England: Kogan Page.

21.

Cassady

J. C.

Cross

T. L.

(2006). A factorial representation of suicidal ideation among academically gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 290-304. doi:10.1177/016235320602900303

22.

Center for Collegiate Mental Health. (2015). 2015 annual report. (Publication No. STA 15-108). University Park, PA: Penn State University.

23.

Clauss

J. J.

(2011). The benefits of honors education for all college students. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 12, 95-100.

24.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.

25.

Dearnley

Matthew

(2007). Factors that contribute to undergraduate student success. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 377-391. doi:10.1080/13562510701278740

26.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1-11. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1

27.

De L’Etoile

S. K

. (2008). Applying Perry’s scheme of intellectual and ethical development in the college years to undergraduate music therapy education. Music Therapy Perspectives, 26, 110-116. doi:10.1093/mtp/26.2.110

28.

Dysthymia. (2013). In Harvard Medical School (Ed.), Harvard Medical School health topics A-Z. Boston, MA: Harvard Health Publications. Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hhphealth/dysthymia/0?institutionId=222

29.

Eklund

Tanner

Stoll

Anway

(2015). Identifying emotional and behavioral risk among gifted and nongifted children: A multi-gate, multi-informant approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 197.

30.

Ferguson

T. J.

Crowley

S. L.

(1997). Measure for measure: A multitrait-multimethod analysis of guilt and shame. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 425-441. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6902_12

31.

Fischer

(1996). The new honors programs. U.S. News & World Report, 121, 108-110.

32.

Fouladchang

Kohgard

Salah

(2010). A study of psychological health among students of gifted and nongifted high schools. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1220-1225. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.264

33.

Gahagan

Hunter

M. S.

(2008). Engaging sophomores: Attending to the needs of second-year students. College and University, 83, 45-49.

34.

Gnilka

P. B.

Ashby

J. S.

Noble

C. M.

(2013). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism as mediators of adult attachment styles and depression, hopelessness, and life satisfaction. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 78-86. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00074.x

35.

Graunke

S. S.

Woosley

S. A.

(2005). An exploration of the factors that affect the academic success of college sophomores. College Student Journal, 39, 367-376.

36.

Gress-Smith

J. L.

Roubinov

D. S.

Andreotti

Compas

B. E.

Luecken

L. J.

(2015). Prevalence, severity and risk factors for depressive symptoms and insomnia in college undergraduates. Stress & Health, 31, 63-70. doi:10.1002/smi.2509

37.

Gross

J. J.

Jazaieri

(2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and psychopathology: An affective science perspective. Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 387-401. doi:10.1177/2167702614536164

38.

Gump

S. E.

(2007). Classroom research in a general education course: Exploring implications through an investigation of the sophomore slump. The Journal of General Education, 56, 105-125.

39.

Haas

P. F.

(1992). Honors programs: Applying the reflective judgment model. Liberal Education, 78, 14-19.

40.

Haas

T. J.

(2015). Relevance, rigor, and return on investment: How honors enhances education. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 16, 45-49.

41.

Harder

D. H.

Zalma

(1990). Two promising shame and guilt scales: A construct validity comparison. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 729-745. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5503&4_30

42.

Harder

D. W.

Cutler

Rockart

(1992). Assessment of shame and guilt and their relationships to psychopathology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 584-604. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5903_12

43.

Hébert

T. P.

McBee

M. T.

(2007). The impact of an undergraduate honors program on gifted university students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 136-151. doi:10.1177/0016986207299471

44.

Henry

J. D.

Crawford

J. R.

(2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 227-239. doi:10.1348/014466505X29657

45.

Huang

Yang

Miao

Zhu

(2012). Trait anxiety among undergraduates according to the implicit association test. Psychological Reports, 111, 13-23. doi:10.2466/09.02.16.PR0.111.4.13-23

46.

Hunter

M. S.

Toblowsky

B. F.

Gardner

J. N.

Evenbeck

S. E.

Pattengale

J. A.

Schaller

M. A.

Schreinder

L. A.

(2010). Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

47.

Ibrahim

A. K.

Kelly

S. J.

Adams

C. E.

Glazebrook

(2013). A systematic review of studies of depression prevalence in university students. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47, 391-400. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.11.015

48.

Inkelas

K. K.

Vogt

K. E.

Longerbeam

S. D.

Owen

Johnson

(2006). Measuring outcomes of living-learning programs: Examining college environments and student learning and development. The Journal of General Education, 55, 40-76. doi:10.1353/jge.2006.0017

49.

Inkelas

K. K.

Weisman

J. L.

(2003). Different by design: An examination of student outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 335-368. doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0027

50.

Johnsen

S. K.

(Ed.). (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

51.

Kerr

B. A.

(Ed.). (2009). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

52.

Kohout

F. J.

Berkman

L. F.

Evans

D. A.

Cornoni-Huntley

(1993). Two shorter forms of the CES-D depression symptoms index. Journal of Aging and Health, 5, 179-193. doi:10.1177/089826439300500202

53.

Kong

Ding

Zhao

(2015). The relationships among gratitude, self-esteem, social support and life satisfaction among undergraduate students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 477-489. doi:10.1007/s10902-014-9519-2

54.

Kustanowitz

I. E.

(2000). Characteristics of emerging adults who participated in community service activities. New York, NY: Fordham University.

55.

Liao

K. Y.

Wei

(2015). Insecure attachment and depressive symptoms: Forgiveness of self and others as moderators. Personal Relationships, 22, 216-229. doi:10.1111/pere.12075

56.

Linnenbrink

E. A.

Ryan

A. M.

Pintrich

P. R.

(1999). The role of goals and affect in working memory functioning. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 213-230. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(00)80006-0

57.

Marteau

T. M.

Bekker

(1992). The development of a six-item short form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 301-305.

58.

Midgley

Maehr

Hicks

Roeser

Urdan

Anderman

. . . Middleton

(1997). Patterns of Adaptive Learning (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

59.

Mobarakeh

M. R. V.

Juhari

Yaacob

S. N.

Redzuan

(2015). Locus of control and psychological well-being among Iranian adolescent migrants in Kuala-Lumpur, Malaysia. American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 10, 310-313.

60.

Moore

S. A.

Dowdy

Furlong

M. J.

(2016). Using the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales-21 with U.S. adolescents: An alternatives models analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(6) 1-18.

61.

Morgan

Apple

D. K.

(2007). The accelerator model. In Beyerlein

S. W.

Apple

D. K.

Holmes

(Eds.), Faculty guidebook: A comprehensive tool for improving faculty performance (4th ed., pp. 503-506). Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.

62.

Myers

D. G.

Diener

(1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10-19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00298.x

63.

Neihart

(1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10-17. doi:10.1080/02783199909553991

64.

Neumeister

K. L. S.

(2004). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 259-274. doi:10.1177/001698620404800402

65.

Newbold

J. J.

Mehta

S. S.

Forbus

(2010). A comparative study between non-traditional and traditional students in terms of their demographics, attitudes, behavior and educational performance. International Journal of Education Research, 5, 1-24.

66.

Nikčević

A. V.

Caselli

Green

Spada

M. M.

(2014). Negative recurrent thinking as a moderator of the relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 32, 248-256. doi:10.1007/s10942-014-0192-5

67.

Nilson

L. B.

(Ed.). (1998). Understanding your students. In Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors (pp. 7-10). Bolton, MA: Anker.

68.

Pemberton

(1969). An evaluation of a living-learning residence hall program. Newark: University of Delaware.

69.

Perea

C. S.

Paternina

A. C.

Gomez

Lattig

M. C.

(2012). Negative affectivity moderated by BDNF and stress response. Journal of Affective Disorders, 136, 767-774. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.09.043

70.

Perry

W. G.

(1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

71.

Pettit

M. L.

DeBarr

K. A.

(2011). Perceived stress, energy drink consumption, and academic performance among college students. Journal of American College Health, 59, 335-341. doi:10.1080/07448481.2010.510163

72.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. doi:10.1177/014662167700100306

73.

Ravindran

A. V.

Griffiths

Merali

Anisman

(1996). Primary dysthymia: A study of several psychosocial, endocrine, and immune correlates. Journal of Affective Disorders, 40, 73-84. doi:10.1016/0165-0327(96)00045-6

74.

Reisenwitz

T. H.

(2016). Student evaluation of teaching: An investigation of nonresponse bias in an online context. Journal of Marketing Education, 38, 7-17. doi:10.1177/0273475315596778

75.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2011). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition: Giftedness needs to be redefined to include three elements: Above-average intelligence, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 92, 81-88.

76.

Riaz

Shahzad

(2010). Self concept in intellectually gifted secondary school children. Pakistan Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 3-13.

77.

Rice

K. G.

Leever

B. A.

Christopher

Porter

J. D.

(2006). Perfectionism, stress, and social (dis)connection: A short-term study of hopelessness, depression, and academic adjustment among honors students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 524-534. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.524

78.

Rinn

A. N.

(2004). Academic and social effects of living in honors residence halls. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 5, 67-79.

79.

Rinn

A. N.

(2005). Trends among honors college students: An analysis by year in school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 16, 157-167. doi:10.4219/jsge-2005-479

80.

Rinn

A. N.

(2006). Major forerunners to honors education at the collegiate level. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 7(2), 63.

81.

Rinn

A. N.

(2007). Effects of programmatic selectivity on the academic achievement, academic self-concepts, and aspirations of gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 232-245. doi:10.1177/0016986207302718

82.

Rinn

A. N.

Bishop

(2015). Gifted adults: A systematic review and analysis of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 213-235. doi:10.1177/0016986215600795

83.

Rinn

A. N.

Plucker

J. A.

(2004). We recruit them, but then what? The educational and psychological experiences of academically talented undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 54-67. doi:10.1177/001698620404800106

84.

Roberti

J. W.

Harrington

L. N.

Storch

E. A.

(2006). Further psychometric support for the 10-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale. Journal of College Counseling, 9, 135-147. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2006.tb00100.x

85.

Robinson

N. M.

(1997). The role of universities and colleges in educating gifted undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 217-236. doi:10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681875

86.

Roeper

(1991). Gifted adults: Their characteristics and emotions. Advanced Development, 3, 85-98.

87.

Ryff

C. D.

(1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

88.

Sanchez-Leguelinel

(2008). Supporting “slumping” sophomores: Programmatic peer initiatives designed to enhance retention in the crucial second year of college. College Student Journal, 42, 637-646.

89.

Sansone

R. A.

Sansone

L. A.

(2009). Dysthymic disorder: Forlorn and overlooked? Psychiatry (Edgmont), 6(5), 46-51.

90.

Schaller

M. A.

(2005). Wandering and wondering: Traversing the uneven terrain of the second college year. About Campus, 10(3), 17-24. doi:10.1002/abc.131

91.

Sharkness

(2012). Why don’t they respond? An investigation of longitudinal survey nonresponse among college students attending four-year institutions (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.

92.

Skinner

B. F.

(1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

93.

Slavin-Mulford

Clements

Hilsenroth

Charnas

Zodan

(2016). An examination of generalized anxiety disorder and dysthymia utilizing the Rorschach inkblot method. Psychiatry Research, 240, 137-143. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.018

94.

Smith

K. J.

Rosenberg

D. L.

Timothy Haight

(2014). An assessment of the psychometric properties of the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS10) with business and accounting students. Accounting Perspectives, 13, 29-59. doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12023

95.

Smith

Duda

Allen

Hall

(2002). Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(Pt. 2), 155-190. doi:10.1348/000709902158838

96.

Spanierman

L. B.

Soble

J. R.

Mayfield

J. B.

Neville

H. A.

Aber

Khuri

De La Rosa

(2013). Living learning communities and students’ sense of community and belonging. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50, 308-325. doi:10.1515/jsarp-2013-0022

97.

Spielberger

C. D.

Gorsuch

R. L.

Lushene

Vagg

P. R.

Jacobs

G. A.

(1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

98.

Terenzini

P. T.

Pascarella

E. T.

Blimling

G. S.

(1999). Students’ out-of-class experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 610-623.

99.

Terry-Short

L. A.

Owens

R. G.

Slade

P. D.

Dewey

M. E.

(1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 663-668. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)00192-U

100.

Thissen

Steinberg

Kuang

(2002). Quick and easy implementation of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 77-83. doi:10.3102/10769986027001077

101.

Thomas

J. A.

(2008). Reviving Perry: An analysis of epistemological change by gender and ethnicity among gifted high school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 87-98. doi:10.1177/0016986207311422

102.

Tluczek

Henriques

J. B.

Brown

R. L.

(2009). Support for the reliability and validity of a six-item state anxiety scale derived from the state-trait anxiety inventory. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 17, 19-28. doi:10.1891/1061-3749.17.1.19

103.

Tower

Blacklock

Watson

Heffernan

Tronoff

(2015). Using social media as a strategy to address “sophomore slump” in second year nursing students: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 35, 1130-1134. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2015.06.011

104.

Wang

Kennedy-Phillips

(2013). Focusing on the sophomores: Characteristics associated with the academic and social involvement of second-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 541-548. doi:10.1353/csd.2013.0072

105.

Watson

P. J.

Hickman

S. E.

Morris

R. J.

(1996). Self-reported narcissism and shame: Testing the defensive self-esteem and continuum hypotheses. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 253-259. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00063-3

106.

Wawrzynski

M. R.

Jessup-Anger

J. E.

Stolz

Helman

Beaulieu

(2009). Exploring students’ perceptions of academically based living-learning communities. College Student Affairs Journal, 28, 138-158.

107.

Westfall

P. H.

Tobias

R. D.

Wolfinger

R. D.

(2011). Multiple comparisons and multiple tests using SAS® (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

108.

Wynn

C. T.

Sr., Mosholder

R. S.

Larsen

C. A.

(2014). Measuring the effects of problem-based learning on the development of postformal thinking skills and engagement of first-year learning community students. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 2, 1-23.

109.

Zeidner

Shani-Zinovich

(2011). Do academically gifted and nongifted students differ on the big-five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 566-570. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.007