Social Cognitive Model of College Satisfaction: A Test of Measurement and Path Models.

The study examined a model that integrates social-cognitive and trait-personality constructs to examine two domains of college satisfaction. Direct and indirect effects were observed for conscientiousness, perception of institutional resources, self-efficacy, and goal progress. Paths differed for personal and institutional satisfaction. Most hypothesized paths were confirmed. ********** The study of college adjustment and satisfaction has been actively investigated in efforts to understand the first-year transition and to help college students experience success. One promising approach focuses on facets or domains of adjustment/satisfaction, such as academic, social, and personal-emotional (Baker & Siryk, 1989). This approach has utility for identifying appropriate interventions for students who experience difficulties in one or more domains. Personality trait assessment has advanced the understanding of correlates of satisfaction and subjective well-being, however, an important limitation is that personality traits may not account for all of the variance of domain satisfaction and well-being (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). One promising perspective suggests that satisfaction/well-being is a dynamic process and that students may play an important role in achieving it. Bandura's (2001) agentic perspective identifies four key features of human agency: (a) Intentionality involves thinking about future actions (e.g., thoughts about a possible career in nursing). (b) Forethought is future-oriented thinking for setting goals, considering consequences of actions, and creating action plans that yield favorable outcomes (e.g., setting a goal of completing a nursing major in four years). (c) Self-reactiveness includes motivation, monitoring, and corrections to bring courses of action to fruition (e.g., monitoring progress in completing educational requirements for a nursing major). (d) Self-reflectiveness is "the mediating capability to reflect upon oneself and the adequacy of one's thoughts and actions" (p. 10), for example, assessing one's ability to complete educational requirements for a nursing major. Building upon Bandura's foundation and an earlier model that has utility for understanding career interest and career choice and development (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), Lent (2004) and Lent and Brown (2006a) have proposed an integrative, social cognitive model that provides extensive understanding of work and educational satisfaction. The model attempts to integrate social cognitive theory and the trait personality perspective to better understand adjustment and satisfaction. It explains interest and choice by including background characteristics (e.g., gender, personality), sociocognitive mechanisms (e.g., self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals), and contextual influences (e.g., support and resources for attaining goals). Self-efficacy refers to beliefs or expectations that one has the ability to successfully attain goals. Outcome expectations are beliefs concerning consequences of actions (e.g., If I major in X, then Y). Goal progress is the belief that one's efforts to attain personal goals are effective. Perception of resources concern whether an institution has the resources to assist students in attaining goals. The hypothesized model is displayed in Figure 1. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Several tests of this model have been supportive. One study showed support for a majority of the hypothesized paths for two domains of college satisfaction, academic and social (Lent et al., 2005). In Study 1, measurement included nomothetically derived items that apply to all students. In Study 2, measurement included ideographically derived items in which students identified their personal goals. Most paths were statistically significant in both studies with the exception of paths involving outcome expectations. Additional support of the model has been observed in samples of engineering and Portugese students (Lent, do Ceu Taveira, Sheu, & Singley, 2009; Lent, Singley, Sheu, Schmidt, & Schmidt, 2007). …