The Impact of Academic Development Structures on Self-Perception: Honors Versus Nonhonors University Students

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to determine if there were variations in the self-perceptions of honors and nonhonors collegiate students in areas of academic and nonacademic self-concept. This research was important as it provides emphasis on an understudied population and gathers a deeper understanding of intricacies related to self-concept by incorporating comprehensive investigative measures. A sample of 236 students from a single institution (72.6% female, 65.7% White, 20.8% honors, ages 18–51) took an online survey consisting of questions related to self-concept. By utilizing a series of two-tailed, independent samples t-tests we examined the differences between student self-perceptions of self-concept. Results indicated that honors students had statistically significantly higher academic self-concepts than nonhonors students. Both groups of students scored similarly across social self-concepts; however, nonhonors students had higher perceptions of their physical self-concepts. These findings will provide new insights into how honors enrollment impacts the formation of self-image.

Keywords

self-concept honors social self-concept academic self-concept college students

Since the late 1990s, there have been trends of universities introducing honors programs in efforts to attract higher-achieving students, most of whom have already spent the majority of their adolescent schooling in these advanced academic tracks (Fischer, 1996). Honors students refer to college students who are either selected for or choose to enroll in an honors program that distinguishes itself from the typical academic curriculum. Preliminary evidence suggests that participation in honors programming at the collegiate level may promote higher academic achievement (e.g., GPA), retention rates to junior and senior year, and on-time graduation (Bowman & Culver, 2018). Success in collegiate honors programs can also predict future career competence and achievement. In a study of university alumni 2–10 years postgraduation, honors alumni who graduated with significantly higher GPAs were more likely to pursue careers in scientific research and had a higher perceived engagement in their occupations compared to nonhonors alumni (Kool et al., 2016).

The differences between honors and nonhonors students’ self-concepts specifically are of interest because of the impact such an academic distinction can have on students in their formation of self-image and self-perception. Involvement in honors, accelerated, or gifted programs puts students on a fundamentally different academic track than their peers. Students in honors programming typically experience lower teacher-to-student ratios as well as involvement in a community of high-achieving peers (Fischer, 1996; Kool et al., 2017). When looking at adolescents, this separation of students into academic groups can impact the development of self-image through labeling. For students in late childhood and early adolescence, identification, or labeling, as a gifted student can contribute to a positive social self-concept (Bain & Bell, 2004; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993). However, this labeling process can also have potentially negative consequences by placing higher expectations on honors adolescents, leading to feelings of failure or inadequacy when expectations are not met (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993).

The purpose of the current study was to determine if there are any differences in the self-perceptions of honors students (e.g., labeled gifted, high achieving) in comparison to nonhonors students. Comparing the self-perceptions of honors and nonhonors students is understudied at the collegiate level which is why the following literature review also draws on research from younger age groups (e.g., Kool et al., 2017; Wolfensberger, 2012). This review of current research focuses on academic and nonacademic self-concepts in school-aged individuals ranging from elementary to undergraduate students in college programs.

Self-Concept

An individual's self-concept is the image they have of themselves and is composed of the attitudes, feelings, and knowledge that they hold about their own abilities, talents, physical appearance, and social acceptability (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993). Self-concept is observed across different domains where the perception of an individual can be measured in varying capacities, such as Neemann and Harter's (1986, 2012) 13 domains: creativity, intellectual ability, scholastic competence, job competence, athletic competence, appearance, romantic relationships, social acceptance, close friendships, parent relationships, humor, morality, and global self-worth. These self-perceptions are formed through an individual's experiences, interactions, and interpretations with their environment and the people in it (Shavelson et al., 1976). The combination of self-perceptions across different domains then forms an individual's general self-concept.

To simplify the individual self-concept, Shavelson et al. (1976) organized self-concept into the “academic” and “nonacademic” self-concepts. Under their model, academic self-concept consists of four subareas: English, History, Math, and Science. Nonacademic self-concept is divided into Social Self-Concept, Emotional Self-Concept, and Physical Self-Concept. The current study utilized the structural divide between academic and nonacademic self-concepts as well as the recognition of separate social and physical self-concepts to organize Neemann and Harter's (1986, 2012) Self-Perception Profile for College Students and the related literature (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Self-concept model.

Neemann and Harter (1986, 2012) identified and described 12 specific domains and one general domain of self-concept (i.e., Global Self-Worth) in their scale structure for the self-concept of university students. The three domains relating to academic self-concept that they include are intellectual ability, scholastic competence, and job competence. Intellectual ability refers to the individual's general intellectual competence in comparison with other students. Scholastic competence targets the specifics of coursework and whether or not the individual feels as if they are mastering the contents of the course and the work associated with it. Job competence includes students’ feelings of pride, confidence, and satisfaction in their own work.

In addition to academic self-concepts, this measure also captures the nonacademic self-concept, with four domains describing social self-concepts (i.e., Romantic Relationships, Social Acceptance, Close Friendships, and Parent Relationships), two domains describing the physical self-concept (i.e., Athletic Competence and Appearance), and lastly domains covering creativity, humor, and morality. Neemann and Harter (1986, 2012) measure romantic relationships by asking about an individual's feelings concerning their own romantic appeal as well as their abilities to develop new romantic relationships. Social acceptance is described as the satisfaction the individual feels in their social skills and their ability to form friendships. Also relating to relationships, the close friendship domain addresses whether the individual has the ability to make close friends, and if they get lonely without close friendships. The parent relationships domain focuses on how well the individual feels they get along with their parents as well as the comfort level and behaviors surrounding interactions with their parents.

Regarding physical self-concept, the appearance domain targets an individual's feelings of their own physical attractiveness as well as their satisfaction in the way they look. Unlike whether the individual feels they perform well in tasks involving physical activities and sports. Creativity measures the individual's perception regarding their creative and innovative abilities. Humor focuses on the ability of an individual to take a joke from friends and have positive reactions, such as being able to laugh at themselves. Finally, morality is in regard to whether or not the individual feels that their behavior is moral, such as if they ever question the ethics of their behavior (Neemann & Harter, 1986, 2012).

When studying self-perceptions, one domain is not representative of an individual's entire self-concept. In a study of 680 university students, Briganti et al. (2019) expanded on these ideas of self-concept through an analysis of the interconnections between each individual domain of self-worth. Looking at both academic and nonacademic self-concepts, they discovered that self-worth is a heterogeneous system, meaning each domain carries a different weight and develops different connections with other domains in the individual's system of self-worth. This, in contrast to a homogeneous system, demonstrates that self-perception is not equal across all domains; therefore, each individual domain is important to analyze. Collecting data from various domains relating to both academic and nonacademic self-concepts will allow for the most accurate picture of how an individual perceives themselves.

General Self-Concept

Current research examines the self-concept of students in two main areas: their perceptions in areas relating to academic competence (e.g., mathematics, intelligence, achievement) and perceptions in areas relating to nonacademic competence (e.g., parent relationships, physical appearance). General self-concept, or global self-worth, combines both academic and nonacademic self-concepts to gather a holistic measure of self-perceptions (Neemann & Harter, 1986, 2012; Shavelson et al., 1976). When observing comprehensive measures of self-concept, such as general self-concept, there have been mixed findings. Studies looking at general self-concept have found that gifted students in elementary and middle school report higher self-description scores than students identified as nongifted (Bain & Bell, 2004; Košir et al., 2016). Hoogeveen et al. (2009) contradict these findings as they found no difference in the ratings of general self-concept between groups of gifted and nongifted middle school students. Due to the complex nature of self-concept, it is likely that these various findings can be attributed to the broad overlook of a concept that encompasses many complicated and intricate domains. However, despite the mixed and limited research about the individual perceptions of general self-concept between honors and nonhonors students, the literature supports that overall self-esteem is shaped to some degree by the self-perceptions in both academic and nonacademic domains (Baudson et al., 2016; Briganti et al., 2019).

Academic Self-Concept

Studies asking gifted and nongifted students directly about their perceived academic competence have been consistent across all age groups, finding that students labeled as gifted have higher academic self-concepts in comparison to their nongifted peers (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Košir et al., 2016; Litster & Roberts, 2011; McCoach & Siegle, 2003; Rinn, 2007; Ritchotte et al., 2016; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). Specifically in the academic areas of mathematics, science, and overall perceptions of school, gifted middle and high school students have more positive self-concepts than their peers (Hoogeveen et al., 2009; Wirthwein et al., 2019). These results persist even when gifted 11th and 12th-grade students were asked to compare themselves directly against their nongifted peers: Gifted students rated themselves as being more intelligent (Wirthwein et al., 2019). These differences are also found throughout all grade-school levels. A meta-analysis of the literature found that differences in the academic self-concepts of gifted and nongifted students increase with age and grade level (Litster & Roberts, 2011). This could be related to increases in social awareness and the ability to self-evaluate that develop throughout adolescence (Litster & Roberts, 2011). As adolescents become more aware of their own abilities, they can become better at judging how they compare to their peers or the academic goals set at the classroom and institutional levels.

This relationship between age and academics becomes less consistent when looking at collegiate populations. When asking about academic measures such as perceived academic ability, motivation, creativity, and intellectual curiosity, Kool et al. (2017) found no statistically significant differences between college students who were and were not enrolled in a university honors program. This finding could be due to there being fewer discrepancies in self-perceptions of more abstract academic concepts (e.g., motivation) in comparison to measures directly related to academics like mathematical or scientific abilities. Another consideration is how the college population as a whole might share common academic self-perceptions regardless of the honors statuses due to shared academic drives to pursue higher educational qualifications. These similarities in collegiate populations could also explain some of the disparities in studies observing the long-term effects of these differing academic self-perceptions. Wirthwein et al. (2019) found that gifted high school students close to graduation had higher hopes for success and lower fear of failure than their nongifted peers; however, in a study of first and second-year college students, Rinn (2007) found that both honors and nonhonors students had similar career aspirations when looking toward their futures. Although these two studies had participants close in age, the similar positive concepts on ambition and career outlook from both honors and nonhonors populations of university students could also be related to the professional goals associated with pursuing a degree of higher education.

One more direct approach is to focus on academic self-perception in the context of achievement. Studies focusing on the relationship between academic self-perceptions and measures of academic achievement have consistently found strong correlations between the two. Across honors and nonhonors high school student populations, academic self-perception is positively correlated with GPA (McCoach & Siegle, 2003). Gifted students of all academic levels report higher grades and GPAs than nongifted peers, therefore, increasing the likelihood of developing confidence in their own scholastic abilities (Košir et al., 2016; McCoach & Siegle, 2003; Rinn, 2007; Wirthwein et al., 2019). Although nonhonors students can still be high achieving, the increased rates of honors academic achievement could account for the disparities between the two groups when measuring self-perception. Despite some mixed findings of academic self-concept concerning careers and other abstract academic variables, most literature supports that regardless of age, honors students have higher measures of academic achievement and perceptions of academic self-concept in comparison to their nonhonors peers.

Nonacademic Self-Concept

The nonacademic self-concept is divided into five subareas: social self-concept, physical self-concept, creativity, humor, and morality (see Figure 1). Most of the research comparing honors and nonhonors students’ self-concepts have been explored through measures relating to the social and physical aspects of the nonacademic self-concept. These areas capture the self-perceptions of student abilities relating to making friends, being accepted by their peers, having close family ties, their own physical appearance, as well as their physical abilities. Research on the differences between honors and nonhonors students on creativity, humor, and morality remains largely unexplored. Given this, the review of literature focuses on the social and physical self-concepts, therefore providing the basis for the current study to explore and then expand on the nonacademic self-concepts of this student demographic.

Social Self-Concept

Beliefs about gifted students used to be primarily negative, concluding that involvement in gifted programs can harm emotional and social development (Wirthwein et al., 2019). One example of this is the disharmony hypothesis from Gallagher's (1990) proposal that giftedness was related to mental health issues as well as psychosocial adjustment. However, Wirthwein et al. (2019) found that gifted high school students possess no personality-related anomalies in comparison to nongifted peers, and they even score higher on scales relating to openness to new experiences. Research supports these positive outlooks and has consistently found that gifted and nongifted students in elementary and high school have no differences in social self-concept scores and both perceive themselves to be socially well-adjusted (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Košir et al., 2016).

There are conflicting findings regarding specific domains of the social self-concept such as the perceived social competence in peer relationships between gifted and nongifted students. Some research supports that gifted and nongifted elementary students share similar scores in their social self-perceptions of social acceptance and relationships with their peers (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Košir et al., 2016). Tendencies for gifted students to report higher social self-description scores than their nongifted peers as well as experience an increase in school belonging could be a result of honors courses increasing their academic identity (Bain & Bell, 2004; Legette & Kurtz-Costes, 2021). Other research has found that in same-sex peer relationships specifically, gifted students have a more negative self-perception than their peers (Hoogeveen et al., 2009). This study by Hoogeveen et al. (2009), however, focused specifically on gifted middle school students who have been accelerated to a higher grade level, therefore, these negative social perceptions could be attributed to age differences between the gifted student and their peers rather than academic giftedness alone. Looking at gender, Košir et al. (2016) found that in elementary populations, gifted boys had higher self-concepts for peer relations in comparison to nongifted boys, and gifted girls had lower self-concepts for peer relations in comparison to nongifted girls. Another factor to consider is that these self-perceptions may not be accurate depictions of the extent to which students excel in these areas of social interaction and development. Studies have demonstrated disparities between social self-perceptions and third-party observations by teachers reporting the social behaviors of their students (Bain & Bell, 2004; Košir et al., 2016). While the students may be feeling inadequate when comparing their social abilities or acceptance levels with peers, there were no obvious differences noted when teachers were asked to measure their social skills.

Relationships with parental or guardian figures at home are another important aspect of the social self-concept as these family relationships are some of the first, and most consistent, social interactions throughout childhood and adolescence. Perceived relationships with parents contribute to the self-esteem of both gifted and nongifted students and studies have demonstrated that the strength of these relationships does not differ between these two groups (Bain & Bell, 2004; Baudson et al., 2016).

Physical Self-Concept

There have been conflicting findings regarding the physical self-concepts of gifted and nongifted students as well (Bain & Bell, 2004; Song & Ahn, 2014). Similar to the contrasts between teacher ratings and student self-perceptions of social acceptance, observations also contrasted the physical self-perceptions of gifted students in Korean high school students (Song & Ahn, 2014). While there are no measurable physical differences between gifted students and nongifted students, Song and Ahn (2014) found that gifted students rated their appearance, muscle strength, health, and sports self-concept lower than nongifted students. These findings demonstrate that these disparities in physical self-concepts are purely related to individuals’ perceptions of themselves, not objective physical differences. Studies, including meta-analyses, looking at appearance and athletic self-competence as a broader construct produced similar findings, with gifted students consistently scoring lower on physical self-concept than their nongifted peers (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Litster & Roberts, 2011; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). The findings of Bain and Bell (2004), however, are inconsistent with the other literature studying elementary and middle school age groups finding that gifted students have higher self-description scores for both physical appearance and ability. While most literature supports there being no holistic difference between the nonacademic self-concepts of students, there are conflicting findings regarding the perceptions of specific subareas of nonacademic self-concept, such as with peer relationships and physical appearance or ability.

Overall, results have been mixed when looking at differences between honors and nonhonors student self-perceptions. Self-concept is complex and can be impacted by a variety of factors including the methods and scope of which these studies are collecting and inquiring about self-concept. The methods by which gifted students are identified have also been inconsistent and can create issues when these specific groups are focused on. Studies on giftedness are hard to conceptualize and compare because of the variance in how giftedness is defined and measured (e.g., IQ tests, standardized tests, curricular tracking, subjective criteria; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Legette & Kurtz-Costes, 2021; Litster & Roberts, 2011). When looking at the collegiate level, comparisons between honors and nonhonors students are understudied (Kool et al., 2017; Wolfensberger, 2012). Studies that do include this cohort are also not in-depth and focus on either academic or social measures of self-concept.

Current Study

The current study sought to fill some of the literature gaps by examining these two understudied groups of college students (honors and nonhonors students) and following a more comprehensive investigation including multiple domains that measure academic and nonacademic self-concepts. The hypothesized relationships were based on the findings of the existing academic literature described above. The first research question was: Do students enrolled in a collegiate honors program have different academic self-perception scores (i.e., Intellectual Ability, Scholastic Competence, and Job Competence) than nonhonors university students? It was hypothesized that students in the honors program would have higher academic self-perception scores than nonhonors university students (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Litster & Roberts, 2011). The second research question asked: Do students enrolled in a collegiate honors program have different nonacademic self-perception scores (i.e., social and physical) than nonhonors university students? We hypothesized that honors program and nonhonors students would share similar social self-perception scores (i.e., romantic relationships, social acceptance, close friendships, and parent relationships), but honors program students would have lower physical self-perceptions (i.e., athletic competence, appearance; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Litster & Roberts, 2011; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). Given the lack of research between honors and nonhonors students’ creativity, humor, and morality self-concepts, we explored the differences between these groups of students with no specific hypotheses.

Method

Procedure

This was a convenience sample, as all participants were volunteers from the honors and nonhonors student populations at Georgia Southern University and were recruited through email invitations, SONA (a survey program utilized by the Psychology Department), and verbal invitations that were given out during student organization meetings. The principal investigator distributed the Qualtrics survey form through a link for participants to complete on their own. Upon clicking the link, participants were directed to the informed consent form. Consent to participate was indicated by the selection of the answer choice conveying that by proceeding to the next page of the survey, the participant is giving their informed consent. Once agreeing to the informed consent, the participant completed the survey questions and was directed to a debriefing page with a list of resources they could access with any questions or concerns regarding the study. Participants received 0.5 SONA credits for participating in the study.

Participants

We recruited 339 university students to participate by sending an email to honors college students at Georgia Southern which was also the same institution of the researchers. Participants were also recruited through SONA credits and assignments incorporated into psychology courses. The valid sample included 236 individuals who provided informed consent, indicated they were 18 or older, and fully completed the survey. The sample was comprised of 172 (72.6%) females and 64 (27%) males. Participants identified as White (155, 65.7%), Black (50, 21.2%), Hispanic (14, 5.9%), biracial (11, 4.7%; e.g., self-identified as Afro-Latina, Hispanic-black, etc.), or Asian American or Pacific Islander (4, 1.7%). The ages of the participants were typical of a university student sample (M = 20.59; SD = 4.89) and ranged from 18 to 51. The 94 (39.8%) participants who identified as freshmen made up the largest portion of participants, followed by 69 (29.2%) sophomores, 43 (18.2%) juniors, and 30 (12.7%) seniors. Nearly three-fourths of the sample (72%) reported having honors course experience sometimes within their educational career (i.e., elementary, middle, high school, and college). The majority of participants were from the general (nonhonors) student body (186, 78.8%) and (49, 20.8%) were from the honors college. One participant (0.08%) did not self-identify honor status and was excluded from group comparison analyses.

Measures

Participants completed the study through a Qualtrics survey form on their personal laptop, tablet, mobile phone, desktop, or another available electronic device. The survey consisted of questions regarding the participant's demographics (e.g., age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, year in college, honors status, years in advanced academic programming (e.g., AP/IB/honors courses), and their self-perceptions of academic and nonacademic concepts.

We used the 54 items from Neemann and Harter's Self-Perception Profile for College Students (1986; 2012) to measure self-concept in the study. This scale was created to target college students specifically since the population is understudied in much of the literature surrounding self-concept. This measure, as well as similar self-perception profiles developed by Harter that target other age groups (e.g., Profile for Children, Profile for Adults, etc.), is a reliable and valid measure of self-concept (Harter, 1985, 2012, 1982; Messer & Harter, 2012; Muris et al., 2003; Rinn & Cunningham, 2008; Wichstraum, 1995). Reflective of the lack of research on the self-concepts of college students, the self-concept scale for college students has been cited less frequently; however, in their 2011 meta-analysis, Litster and Roberts (2011) found Harter's self-concept scale for children and adolescents was one of the most frequently used measures. The Self-Perception Profile for College Students has four items dedicated to each of the 12 specific domains (i.e., Creativity [ɑ=.81], Intellectual Ability [ɑ=.81], Scholastic Competence [ɑ=.75], Job Competence [ɑ=.70], Athletic Competence [ɑ=.86], Appearance [ɑ=.85], Romantic Relationships [ɑ=.84], Social Acceptance [ɑ=.78], Close Friendships [ɑ=.80], Parent Relationships [ɑ=.84], Finding Humor in One's Life/Humor [ɑ=.77], and Morality [ɑ=.74]) and six items on Global Self-Worth (ɑ=.86).

The questions in the profile followed a structured alternative format, which reduces the frequency and tendency for participants to give socially desirable answers (Harter, 1982; Neemann & Harter, 1986, 2012). With the structured alternative format, participants were given descriptions of two types of students (e.g., some students feel confident they are mastering their coursework but other students do not feel so confident) with four options to select which student seems the most similar to them by indicating whether option one or two is “really true for me” or “sort of true for me” (see Figure 2). Participants’ answers were indicated with the selection of only one answer from either the right or left set of statements. First, participants would look at both statements and decide which was truer for them. Then, they would decide if that statement was “really true” or “sort of true” for them and select that option (see Figures 2 and 3 for examples).

Figure 2.
Structured alternative format question—scholastic competence.

Figure 3.
Structured Alternative Format Question-Global Self-Worth.

Data Analysis

To answer each research question comparing honors and nonhonors students self-perception, a series of independent samples t-tests were conducted. The grouping variable was honors status (honors vs. nonhonors). Each of the types of self-perception was examined separately as the outcome variable. All data from participants was used with the exception of one student who did not identify themselves as a honors or nonhonors student, therefore, their answers were excluded.

Results

Preliminary statistical analyses were conducted to examine the mean and standard deviation of domain variables as well as Pearson's correlations between all variables. The average self-perception score for students was above the 4-point scale midpoint in all domains except for athletic competence (M = 1.97–3.31). Across the study sample, morality, parent relationships, humor, and job competence were the areas where students had the highest levels of self-perception (see Table 2). Almost all domains were statistically significantly and positively correlated to each other (r = 0.08–0.65; see Table 1). Correlations were not statistically significant between parent relationships and creativity (r = .05, p = .20), parent relationships and athletic competence (r = .13, p = .054), and appearance and morality (r = .12, p = .08).

Table 1.
Correlations Among Domains of Self-Perception.

Domain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. IA –

2. SC .65 –

3. JC .60 .60 –

4. RR .28 .29 .29 –

5. SA .38 .29 .46 .483 –

6. CF .24 .22 .27 .302 .60 –

7. PR .28 .36 .32 .199 .28 .20 –

8. ATC .29 .20 .27 .307 .43 .40 .13 –

9. AP .48 .35 .37 .377 .46 .33** .16* .38 –

10. CR .44 .29 .37 .318 .41 .26 .08 .29 .39 –

11. HU .25 .13* .33 .337 .35 .28 .29 .26 .19 .27 –

12. MO .31 .31 .40 .200 .22** .15* .31** .13* .12 .21 .27 –

13. GSW .61 .58 .63 .419 .60 .42 .44 .38 .58 .46 .32 .44 –

Note. IA = Intellectual Ability; SC = Scholastic Competence; JC = Job Competence; RR = Romantic Relationships; SA = Social Acceptance; CF = Close Friendships; PR = Parent Relationships; ATC = Athletic Competence; AP = Appearance; CR = Creativity; HU = Humor; MO = Morality; GSW = Global Self-Worth.

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

Table 2.
Differences Between Domains of Self-Perception.

Sample H NH

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) df t Cohen's D

ASC 2.85 (0.63) 3.08 (0.64) 2.78 (0.61) 226 3.01** 0.48

IA 2.79 (0.79) 3.01 (0.81) 2.72 (0.77) 230 2.28* 0.36

SC 2.82 (0.69) 3.21 (0.61) 2.71 (0.67) 229 4.79* 0.79

JC 2.92 (0.71) 3.01 (0.77) 2.89 (0.69) 231 1.00 0.16

SSC 2.75 (0.62) 2.65 (0.55) 2.78 (0.64) 229 −1.22 −0.21

RR 2.52 (0.93) 2.35 (0.96) 2.55 (0.92) 231 −1.32 −0.21

SA 2.55 (0.87) 2.34 (0.92) 2.60 (0.85) 231 −1.83 −0.29

CF 2.79 (0.85) 2.66 (0.89) 2.82 (0.83) 232 −1.23 −0.19

PR 3.17 (0.85) 3.31 (0.83) 3.13 (0.85) 231 1.36 0.22

PSC 2.38 (0.75) 2.19 (0.71) 2.42 (0.74) 230 −1.93 −0.31

ATC 2.36 (0.91) 1.97 (0.85) 2.46 (0.90) 232 −3.43* −0.56

AP 2.40 (0.88) 2.42 (0.93) 2.39 (0.87) 230 0.19 0.03

CR 2.52 (0.78) 2.41 (0.89) 2.54 (0.75) 231 −1.00 −0.15

HU 3.13 (0.71) 3.04 (0.84) 3.16 (0.68) 230 −1.05 −0.16

MO 3.18 (0.67) 3.26 (0.76) 3.15 (0.64) 229 0.95 0.15

GSW 2.78 (0.75) 2.69 (0.82) 2.80 (0.72) 231 −0.92 −0.14

GPA 3.22 (0.82) 3.67 (0.70) 3.10 (0.80) 218 4.49*** 0.76

Notes. M and SD represent mean and standard deviation. H and NH are used to indicate honors and nonhonors status, respectively. ASC = Academic Self-Concept; IA = Intellectual Ability; SC = Scholastic Competence; JC = Job Competence; SSC = Social Self-Concept; RR = Romantic Relationships; SA = Social Acceptance; CF = Close Friendships; PR = Parent Relationships; PSC = Physical Self-Concept; ATC = Athletic Competence; AP = Appearance; CR = Creativity; HU = Humor; MO = Morality; GSW = Global Self-Worth; GPA = Grade Point Average.

p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.

Academic Self-Concept

The first research question examined if students enrolled in a collegiate honors program had different academic self-perception scores (i.e., Intellectual Ability, Scholastic Competence, and Job Competence) than nonhonors university students. A series of two-tailed, independent samples t-tests were conducted to analyze this data (see Table 2). As expected, students who identified themselves as members of the honors college (M = 3.08, SD = 0.64) had statistically significantly higher academic self-concepts than students not in the honors college (M = 2.78, SD = 0.61), t(228) = 3.01, p < .01. Within the academic self-concept variable, honors students (M = 3.00, SD = 0.81) had statistically significantly higher scores in intellectual ability than nonhonors students (M = 2.72, SD = .77), t(232) = 2.28, p < .05. Honors students (M = 3.21, SD = 0.61) also had statistically significantly higher scholastic competence self-concepts than nonhonors students (M = 2.71, SD = 0.68), t(231) = 4.79, p < .001. However, when looking at job competence, honors students (M = 3.01, SD = 0.77) and nonhonors students (M = 2.89, SD = 0.69) scored similarly, t(233) = 1.00, p = 0.32. Regarding academic achievement, honors students (M = 3.67, SD = 0.70) reported statistically significantly higher GPAs than nonhonors students (M = 3.10, SD = 0.80), t(218) = 4.49, p < .001.

Nonacademic Self-Concept

The second research question asked: Do students enrolled in a collegiate honors program have different nonacademic self-perception scores (i.e., Social and Physical) than nonhonors university students? A series of two-tailed, independent samples t-tests were conducted to analyze this data (see Table 2). As predicted, honors college students (M = 2.65, SD = 0.55) and nonhonors students (M = 2.78, SD = 0.64) scored similarly in domains relating to social self-concept, t(231) = −1.22, p = .22. Although not statistically significant, nonhonors students scored higher than honors students in all domains of social self-concept except for parent relationships.

Regarding physical self-concept, it is worth noting the difference between these types of students was trending toward significant. Nonhonors students (M = 2.42, SD = 0.74) scored higher in physical self-concept than honors students (M = 2.19; SD = 0.71), t(232) = −1.93, p = .06, though this difference was not quite statistically significant. Students from the honors college (M = 2.42, SD = 0.93) and nonhonors students (M = 2.40, SD = 0.87) had similar perceptions of their appearances, t(232) = 0.19, p = .85. Yet, looking specifically at the athletic competence domain, nonhonors students (M = 2.46, SD = 0.90) scored statistically significantly higher than honors students (M = 1.97, SD = 0.85), t(234) = −3.43, p < .001.

Given the lack of research between honors and nonhonors students’ creativity, humor, and morality self-concepts, the current study explored the differences between these groups of students with no specific hypotheses. A series of two-tailed, independent samples t-tests were performed to analyze this data (see Table 2). There were no statistically significant differences found between honors and nonhonors students in the areas of creativity, humor, and morality self-concept. Descriptively, honors students scored slightly higher on morality self-concept in comparison to nonhonors students, however, nonhonors students scored slightly higher in areas of humor and creativity than the honors students.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the presence of variations in the self-perceptions of honors and nonhonors college students in areas of academic and nonacademic self-concept. While the literature surrounding self-concept during development supports that differences in academic self-concepts increase with age and grade level, much of this research excludes college students and measures of nonacademic self-concepts (Litster & Roberts, 2011). Furthermore, the few studies that examine college students have produced conflicting findings (Kool et al., 2017; Rinn, 2007). We aimed to fill the gaps in the current literature by focusing on honors and nonhonors undergraduate students and gathering a deeper understanding of self-concept in this understudied population.

First, results support that honors undergraduate students have higher academic achievement and self-concepts than students not enrolled in a collegiate honors program. Regarding academic achievement, honors students in our sample had statistically significantly higher GPAs than nonhonors students which affirms the findings of Kool et al. (2016) and Rinn (2007). While research has provided strong support for honors students having higher academic self-concepts than nonhonors students in younger age groups, only one study observing college students has produced this finding (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Košir et al., 2016; Rinn, 2007). The results of our study complement this literature in confirming that honors students have higher academic self-concepts than nonhonors students. This was true when looking at academic self-concept and its domains of scholastic competence and intellectual ability. Surprisingly, there was no statistically significant difference between students in regard to job competence, which was also one of the highest-scoring domains across both groups. This result may be explained by the sample source and demographics: College students are all pursuing higher education which is likely related to career aspirations. Rinn (2007) found that honors and nonhonors university students had no statistically significant differences in their career aspirations as well. Furthermore, our sample consisted of only students over the age of 18, allowing for more time for students to have similar employment experiences. These high levels of self-perception in job competence can be looked at as an indicator of university success and that students will be entering the workforce feeling prepared to make positive contributions to society.

Second, our results confirmed our hypothesis that honors and nonhonors students would share similar social self-concepts (i.e., Romantic Relationships, Social Acceptance, Close Friendships, and Parent Relationships). While there was no statistically significant difference between these two groups in the domain of social self-concept, it is worth noting that overall, self-concepts of parent relationships were the second highest domain category. Research has indicated that forms of parent support are important for adjustment in emerging adulthood and college-aged students and can be positively connected to most domains of self-concept (Alegre & Benson, 2019; Briganti et al., 2019). Considering over half of our study sample consisted of underclassmen (i.e., freshmen and sophomores), high perceptions of parent relationships can be a positive indicator for successful college transitions.

Regarding physical self-concepts, previous literature focusing on younger students has found that honors students consistently scored lower in athletic competence and appearance self-concepts than nonhonors students (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Litster & Roberts, 2011; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012; Song & Ahn, 2014). Our results only found a close to significant difference between honors and nonhonors undergraduate students’ physical self-concepts with virtually no differences between appearance self-concepts. However, when focusing specifically on athletic competence, nonhonors students reported statistically significantly higher levels of self-concept.

In our exploratory analyses of creativity, humor, and morality self-concepts, there were no statistically discernible differences between honors and nonhonors students. Therefore, our results contribute to the literature of mixed findings in terms of differences between honors and nonhonors students on nonacademic self-concept domains (e.g., Bain & Bell, 2004; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012; Song & Ahn, 2014).

Limitations and Future Directions

While this is one of the few studies looking at differences in self-concepts between collegiate honors and nonhonors students, there are a few recommendations for future research on this topic. First, the sampling method used in this study was convenience sampling. Recruitment for the study was conducted primarily through the SONA survey platform and psychology classes. The nonhonors group was much larger than the honors group since there were fewer honors students enrolled at the university. Additionally, our sample was mostly female and White. These characteristics potentially limit the ability of our study results to generalize to the rest of the student population at this university and other institutions. Future researchers should strive to obtain a more diverse and representative sample of the general college student population across honors and non-honors classifications. Further, a more diverse and larger sample would allow us to examine more group differences (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, SES, year in school, etc.). Second, the sample for this study is from only one university and the honors college within it. Honors programs across the country have varying structures and requirements for students to follow. Future research should look at multiple universities and the requirements of their honors programs to determine if differences between honors programs play a role in self-concept formation.

While there is an abundance of literature examining differences in the self-concepts of primary education students, research has neglected to focus on the university populations despite their rising numbers (Fischer, 1996). This could be because of perceived similarities between groups at this age level as demonstrated by Kool et al. (2017). However, other research indicates that there are inherent differences in collegiate honors academic structures such as students in honors programming experiencing higher teacher-to-student ratios as well as involvement in a community of high-achieving peers (Fischer, 1996; Kool et al., 2017). Although we found that there are some statistically significant differences between these groups at the university level, future research should keep focusing on this age group and determine if our findings are replicated.

Furthermore, our study measured self-concept at only one point in time. Future studies should also incorporate longitudinal designs, such as the study of honors alumni by Kool et al. (2016) and determine whether academic and nonacademic domains of self-concept remain stable long term. Similarly, longitudinal studies would also be beneficial for observing formations of self-concept across development from childhood to emerging adulthood. Without longitudinal studies, it is unclear whether the cause of these differences between honors and nonhonors students is due to honors college enrollment or if early educational experiences (e.g., tracking in primary and secondary schools) contribute more to the formation of self-concepts. Additionally, studies could also pair qualitative questions with the quantitative scales utilized in this study. This would allow researchers to gain a deeper understanding of participants’ self-perceptions in their own words, as well as investigate the implications of earlier academic experiences on later outcomes.

Lastly, future research should consider more complex interconnections between these domains of self-concept. Network theory, as proposed by Briganti et al. (2019), supports that contingencies of self-worth are all a part of an interacting system of psychological constructs that mutually influence each other. This mutual influence can be observed by measuring the intercorrelations between domains of the self-concept and calculating their expected impact. Relationships between these domains are important to understand as many, specifically self-concepts involving social relations and physical appearances, can have huge impacts on the entire network of self-esteem. The current study used multiple t-test analyses which can increase the probability of Type I errors. Multiple regression analyses or structural equation modeling examining the interconnections between domains and group differences would be of interest in future research.

Implications

This study increases our understanding of the academic and nonacademic self-concepts of university students and how these self-concepts can differ between students by collegiate academic structure (i.e., honors vs. nonhonors). The results of our research indicate positive connections between honors college enrollment, academic achievement, and academic self-perceptions. Future work is needed to clarify the causal role of honors programs in these outcomes. This study, and the few similar ones preceding it, allow insight into the correlational connections between these constructs. As mentioned earlier, the field would benefit by examining longitudinal and experimental designs to identify the key components of honors programs that predict, and perhaps even cause, positive self-concepts. Our initial findings suggest that there might be common features of honors programs that would be worthwhile to implement in classes in general. Similar to work on high-impact practices in capstone courses (Kilgo et al., 2015), it might be that the smaller class sizes that enhance a sense of community with peers, as well as extracurriculars and multidisciplinary projects that challenge students in these honors classes that facilitate students’ academic self-concepts. If, in fact, there are common key ingredients to these programs that predict academic competence and success for alumni, administrators and faculty should consider how students not enrolled in honors programs can experience similar benefits to their honors peers if universities harness these features.

Domain	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. IA	–

2. SC	.65**	–
3. JC	.60**	.60**	–
4. RR	.28**	.29**	.29**	–
5. SA	.38**	.29**	.46**	.483**	–
6. CF	.24**	.22**	.27**	.302**	.60**	–
7. PR	.28**	.36**	.32**	.199**	.28**	.20**	–
8. ATC	.29**	.20**	.27**	.307**	.43**	.40**	.13	–
9. AP	.48**	.35**	.37**	.377**	.46**	.33**	.16*	.38**	–
10. CR	.44**	.29**	.37**	.318**	.41**	.26**	.08	.29**	.39**	–
11. HU	.25**	.13*	.33**	.337**	.35**	.28**	.29**	.26**	.19**	.27**	–
12. MO	.31**	.31**	.40**	.200**	.22**	.15*	.31**	.13*	.12	.21**	.27**	–
13. GSW	.61**	.58**	.63**	.419**	.60**	.42**	.44**	.38**	.58**	.46**	.32**	.44**	–

	Sample	H	NH
ASC	2.85 (0.63)	3.08 (0.64)	2.78 (0.61)	226	3.01**	0.48
IA	2.79 (0.79)	3.01 (0.81)	2.72 (0.77)	230	2.28*	0.36
SC	2.82 (0.69)	3.21 (0.61)	2.71 (0.67)	229	4.79***	0.79
JC	2.92 (0.71)	3.01 (0.77)	2.89 (0.69)	231	1.00	0.16
SSC	2.75 (0.62)	2.65 (0.55)	2.78 (0.64)	229	−1.22	−0.21
RR	2.52 (0.93)	2.35 (0.96)	2.55 (0.92)	231	−1.32	−0.21
SA	2.55 (0.87)	2.34 (0.92)	2.60 (0.85)	231	−1.83	−0.29
CF	2.79 (0.85)	2.66 (0.89)	2.82 (0.83)	232	−1.23	−0.19
PR	3.17 (0.85)	3.31 (0.83)	3.13 (0.85)	231	1.36	0.22
PSC	2.38 (0.75)	2.19 (0.71)	2.42 (0.74)	230	−1.93	−0.31
ATC	2.36 (0.91)	1.97 (0.85)	2.46 (0.90)	232	−3.43***	−0.56
AP	2.40 (0.88)	2.42 (0.93)	2.39 (0.87)	230	0.19	0.03
CR	2.52 (0.78)	2.41 (0.89)	2.54 (0.75)	231	−1.00	−0.15
HU	3.13 (0.71)	3.04 (0.84)	3.16 (0.68)	230	−1.05	−0.16
MO	3.18 (0.67)	3.26 (0.76)	3.15 (0.64)	229	0.95	0.15
GSW	2.78 (0.75)	2.69 (0.82)	2.80 (0.72)	231	−0.92	−0.14
GPA	3.22 (0.82)	3.67 (0.70)	3.10 (0.80)	218	4.49***	0.76

Footnotes

Author Contributor

Beatrice M. Bean: conceptualization; analysis and interpretation of results; visualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing; and Nicolette P. Rickert: analysis and interpretation of results; supervision; writing—review and editing.

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.

ORCID iDs

Beatrice M. Bean

Nicolette P. Rickert

About the Authors

Beatrice M. Bean is a graduate of Georgia Southern University. She holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a minor in criminal justice. Her research focuses on student experiences, educational outcomes, and how student engagement and achievement can be supported. Beatrice's educational career also included 4 years of participation in the Georgia Southern Honors College.

Nicolette P. Rickert is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Georgia Southern University. She holds a doctorate in applied psychology with a concentration in developmental science in education and a minor in quantitative statistical methodology. Her research focuses on how the complex social ecologies of youth's school and family lives shape the development of their academic engagement and motivation.

References

Alegre

Benson

M. J.

(2019). Family warmth, self-perception, social competence, and friendships in emerging adulthood. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 36(2), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2019.10

Bain

S. K.

Bell

S. M.

(2004). Social self-concept, social attributions, and peer relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800302

Baudson

T. G.

Weber

K. E.

Freund

P. A.

(2016). More than only skin deep: Appearance self-concept predicts most of secondary school students’ self-esteem. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1568. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01568

Bowman

N. A.

Culver

K. C.

(2018). When do honors programs make the grade? Conditional effects on college satisfaction, achievement, retention, and graduation. Research in Higher Education, 59(3), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9466-y

Briganti

Fried

E. I.

Linkowski

(2019). Network analysis of contingencies of self-worth scale in 680 university students. Psychiatry Research, 272, 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.080

Fischer

(1996). The new honors programs. US News & World Report, 121(11), 108–110.

Gallagher

J. J.

(1990). The public and professional perception of the emotional status of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300302

Harter

(1985, 2012). The self-perception profile for children: Revision of the perceived competence scale for children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver.

Harter

(1982). Perceived competence scale for child development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129640

10.

Hoge

R. D.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063004449

11.

Hoogeveen

van Hell

J. G.

Verhoeven

(2009). Self-concept and social status of accelerated and nonaccelerated students in the first 2 years of secondary school in the Netherlands. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208326556

12.

Kilgo

C. A.

Ezell Sheets

J. K.

Pascarella

E. T.

(2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69, 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9788-z

13.

Kool

Mainhard

M. T.

Jaarsma

A. D. C.

Brekelmans

van Beukelen

(2016). Academic success and early career outcomes: Can honors alumni be distinguished from non-honors alumni? High Ability Studies, 27(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2016.1238818

14.

Kool

Mainhard

Jaarsma

van Beukelen

Brekelmans

(2017). Effects of honours programme participation in higher education: A propensity score matching approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(6), 1222–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1304362

15.

Košir

Horvat

Aram

Jurinec

(2016). Is being gifted always an advantage? Peer relations and self-concept of gifted students. High Ability Studies, 27(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1108186

16.

Legette

K. B.

Kurtz-Costes

(2021). Curricular tracking, students’ academic identity, and school belonging. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 41(7), 961–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431620977659

17.

Litster

Roberts

(2011). The self-concepts and perceived competencies of gifted and non-gifted students: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01166.x

18.

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

(2003). The structure and function of academic self-concept in gifted and general education students. Roeper Review, 25(2), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554200

19.

Messer

Harter

(2012). The self-perception profile for adults: Manual and Questionnaires. The University of Denver, Department of Psychology.

20.

Muris

Meesters

Fijen

(2003). The self-perception profile for children: Further evidence for its factor structure, reliability, and validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(8), 1791–1802. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00004-7

21.

Neemann

Harter

(1986, 2012). Manual for the self-perception profile for college students. [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Denver.

22.

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(3), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302718

23.

Rinn

A. N.

Cunningham

L. G.

(2008). Using self-concept instruments with high-ability college students: Reliability and validity evidence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208319458

24.

Ritchotte

J. A.

Suhr

Alfurayh

N. F.

Graefe

A. K.

(2016). An exploration of the psychosocial characteristics of high achieving students and identified gifted students: Implications for practice. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X15615316

25.

Shavelson

R. J.

Hubner

J. J.

Stanton

G. C.

(1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407–441. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046003407

26.

Shechtman

Silektor

(2012). Social competencies and difficulties of gifted children compared to nongifted peers. Roeper Review, 34(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2012.627555

27.

Song

K. Y.

Ahn

J. D.

(2014). A comparative analysis of body composition, physical fitness, and physical self-concept between gifted students in math and science and non-gifted students. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 14(11), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2014.14.11.450

28.

Wichstraum

(1995). Harter's self-perception profile for adolescents: Reliability, validity, and evaluation of the question format. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6501_8

29.

Wirthwein

Bergold

Preckel

Steinmayr

(2019). Personality and school functioning of intellectually gifted and nongifted adolescents: Self-perceptions and parents’ assessments. Learning and Individual Differences, 73, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.003

30.

Wolfensberger

M. V.

(2012). Teaching for excellence: Honors pedagogies revealed. Waxmann Verlag.

	Sample	H	NH
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	df	t	Cohen's D
ASC	2.85 (0.63)	3.08 (0.64)	2.78 (0.61)	226	3.01**	0.48
IA	2.79 (0.79)	3.01 (0.81)	2.72 (0.77)	230	2.28*	0.36
SC	2.82 (0.69)	3.21 (0.61)	2.71 (0.67)	229	4.79***	0.79
JC	2.92 (0.71)	3.01 (0.77)	2.89 (0.69)	231	1.00	0.16
SSC	2.75 (0.62)	2.65 (0.55)	2.78 (0.64)	229	−1.22	−0.21
RR	2.52 (0.93)	2.35 (0.96)	2.55 (0.92)	231	−1.32	−0.21
SA	2.55 (0.87)	2.34 (0.92)	2.60 (0.85)	231	−1.83	−0.29
CF	2.79 (0.85)	2.66 (0.89)	2.82 (0.83)	232	−1.23	−0.19
PR	3.17 (0.85)	3.31 (0.83)	3.13 (0.85)	231	1.36	0.22
PSC	2.38 (0.75)	2.19 (0.71)	2.42 (0.74)	230	−1.93	−0.31
ATC	2.36 (0.91)	1.97 (0.85)	2.46 (0.90)	232	−3.43***	−0.56
AP	2.40 (0.88)	2.42 (0.93)	2.39 (0.87)	230	0.19	0.03
CR	2.52 (0.78)	2.41 (0.89)	2.54 (0.75)	231	−1.00	−0.15
HU	3.13 (0.71)	3.04 (0.84)	3.16 (0.68)	230	−1.05	−0.16
MO	3.18 (0.67)	3.26 (0.76)	3.15 (0.64)	229	0.95	0.15
GSW	2.78 (0.75)	2.69 (0.82)	2.80 (0.72)	231	−0.92	−0.14
GPA	3.22 (0.82)	3.67 (0.70)	3.10 (0.80)	218	4.49***	0.76