Can u help me with my psychology homework?

My psychology homework is Journal assignment part 2 Ihave attached the aassignemnt document . just read the intruction on the document.I also have attached the article that u have to have to do the assignment . a

PSYC101Journal Article Review Assignment – Part 2
Article Analysis, Connection, and Reflection
Due: 11:55pm ET Sunday at the end of Week 6 of the 8-week course term
You may work on this assignment ahead of its deadline but may not submit it prior to Week 6.
Points Possible: 140

OVERVIEW: For Part I of this two-part assignment you identified and summarized elements of a published scholarly article selected from the classroom Resources Folder. For Part 2, which is due by the end of Week 6, you will analyze, connect, and reflect on aspects of your selected article. Note that the words “succinct” and “thorough” repeat regularly in the instructions below. They will serve as reminders that this is a formal assignment and sentence fragments, bulleted lists, conversational or other types of casual language cannot be used.

In completing Part 2 you will:
–Describe a research method alternative to the one used by your selected article’s author(s) to study the same phenomena

— Evaluate the potential impact on the “real world” of your selected article’s research;

— Apply three concepts from required textbook readings;

— Identify an aspect of the article’s topic focus about which you would like to know more

In composing your work use complete and clearly articulated sentences in one or more paragraphs, as assigned below, a minimum of 250 words each and citing sources in the body of your writing and in a References list attached to the end of it. Proofread your work carefully as proper spelling, grammar and writing structure are required. All answers must be your original words or paraphrases of material in your selected article or the course textbook. No other sources may be used. Copying from published material is a violation of the University policy on academic integrity and will void all points for this assignment with no option for revision and submission.

**You may work on this assignment ahead of its deadline but may not submit it prior to Week 6 of the 8-week course term.

Begin your Part 2 work here.

Enter your name and student ID here: _Lavanessa Young 4432096__________________

Then respond to the following succinctly and thoroughly in the spaces below

NOTE: You must complete your work in this document, save and attach it to the assignment tab; while you may want to do so as a back-up, content pasted into the assignment page Student Comments space cannot be accepted as a substitute for an on-time attachment submission and cannot be graded. Inserting your answers here will change the number of document pages and the location of particular items at the top, middle or bottom of pages.

While you may not remove or reorder items or change font size or other elements of this document and need to place your responses directly under each item, page number increases or an item moving from the top, middle or bottom of a page as a result of you entering your responses is to be expected and is not of concern.

=================================================================================

===

ANALYSIS – 30 points possible (15 points each)

The authors of the article you have selected for this assignment used a particular research design, group of participants, and set of study methods to investigate a research question (sometimes referred to in scholarly articles as the “hypothesis tested”). As you know from early assigned readings in the course textbook, research questions can be investigated using a variety of methods.

1. Write a succinct and thorough paragraph in the space below either justifying or challenging the use of your selected article’s research methods used to examine its research question. NOTE: You must base your writing on the course textbook information about which research methods are best suited for which types of studies, not on personal opinion or preference, and choose just one position here. A paragraph that both justifies and challenges the use of an article’s research methods or that states why one position cannot be chosen cannot not be assigned points. Include in the body of your writing appropriately placed and formatted source citations for both the article and the course textbook.

2. Write a succinct and thorough paragraph in the space below describing a research method other than the one noted in your selected article that the article author(s) could have used to conduct the same study and explain why it would be suitable as an alternative method. NOTE: The alternative research method you select must be suited for the article’s study so you will want to review the assigned course readings on the various types of methods. Include in the body of your writing appropriately placed and formatted source citations for both the article and the course textbook.

CONNECTION – 50 points possible (25 points each)

1. In the space below, write a succinct and thorough paragraph (250 words minimum) describing three concepts, theories or principles from the course textbook that can be related the focus of your selected article. NOTE: Research methods and statistical analyses have already been addressed earlier in this assignment and cannot be used as textbook concepts here. Include in the body of your writing appropriately placed and formatted source citations for both the article and the course textbook.

2. One of the most interesting aspects of the field of psychology is the application of its concepts, theories, and principles to everyday life. In the space below, write a succinct and thorough paragraph (250 words minimum) describing at least 3 different ways that the research conducted by your selected article’s author(s) can impact the “real world”.
Include in the body of your writing appropriately placed and formatted source citations for the article and the course textbook (if you use the latter in the construction of this paragraph).

REFLECTION – 50 points possible (25 points each)
1. Although the author(s) of your selected article addressed many aspects of its focus of study, it is inevitable that components were not discussed that might also be interesting. In the space below, write a succinct and thorough paragraph (250 words minimum) explaining one aspect of your selected article’s focus that the researchers did not mention that you would like to know more about.
Include in the body of your writing appropriately placed and formatted source citations for the article and the course textbook (if you use the latter in the construction of this paragraph).

2. Combined, the Week 3 and Week 6 portions of this assignment provided several opportunities, to identify the key components of a published scholarly journal article, to demonstrate knowledge of research methods use in studying psychological phenomena, (Week 3); and second, to develop and hone article summary and analysis skills (Week 6). With the second opportunity in mind, in the space below, write a succinct and thorough paragraph (250 words minimum) describing three aspects of summarizing and reviewing a published scholarly journal article that you now understand that you didn’t know about before starting the assignment.
NOTE: You are reflecting on your learning experience here, not summarizing or evaluating the selected article. This is the only part of the assignment to be written personal reflection style. It is expected that you would have few or perhaps no source citations here, using them only for portions of your reflective work that are directly based on either your selected article or the course textbook.

=================================================================================

SPELLING, GRAMMAR, AND CITATIONS – 10 points possible
(Nothing to type here. This is an alert to go back and proofread your writing and make any needed corrections before submitting this assignment to avoid the loss of these 10 important points. Tip: Look for basic grammar errors [ex: using “their” when you are talking about one person), misspellings and typos, correctly spelled but incorrectly used words that SpellCheck won’t catch, sentence fragments that don’t state complete thoughts, run-on sentences that should be split into smaller ones or sentences that read awkwardly or don’t make sense when you read them aloud, etc.).

==================================================================================
After you have completed your work, save and attach this document, with your name as part of the document file name, to the Journal Article Review Assignment Part 2 Assignment page.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
Vol. 54, No. 2, April 2010, 125–13

ISSN 0031-3831 print/ISSN 1470-1170 online
© 2010 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
DOI: 10.1080/00313831003637899
http://www.informaworld.com

Preoccupation with Failure Affects Number of Study Hours—Not
Academic Achievement

Geir Scott Brunborg, Ståle Pallesen, Åge Diseth and Svein Larsen
University of Bergen

Taylor and FrancisCSJE_A_464298.sgm10.1080/00313831003637899Scandinavian Journal of Education Research0031-3831 (print)/1470-1170 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis5420000002010Geir ScottBrunborggeir.brunborg@psysp.uib.no

It has been claimed that perceived academic control (AC) in combination with
preoccupation with failure (PWF) produces a strong motivation for success, and the
interaction (AC x PWF) has been shown to predict academic achievement. In a
prospective study, 442 first year psychology students completed a questionnaire about
their background, study habits, AC, and PWF. The results showed a positive main effect
of AC on academic achievement, but no main effect of PWF was found on academic
achievement. The interaction (AC x PWF) was not related to academic achievement.
There were no main effects of AC or PWF on study hours. However, the interaction
effect (AC x PWF) indicated that among students scoring low on AC, those with high
PWF worked more (24.4 hours per week) than those with low PWF (20.9 hours per
week). Among those with high AC, no difference on study hours was found between
those scoring low and high on PWF.

Keywords: academic control, preoccupation with failure, academic achievement, study
hours

Ascertaining which factors are related to academic achievement in university students
is important both for academic institutions and for their students. Academic context, such
as students’ course experiences, as well as students’ approaches to learning, have been
found to be associated with academic achievement (Diseth, 2007). Individual differences in
personality in relation to academic achievement is an avenue for research that focuses more
on how dispositional characteristics affect academic achievement (Diseth, 2003). The role
of this research is to identify the personality traits that are involved, and how these traits can
affect academic achievement. Knowledge gained from such research can contribute to
understanding why university students vary in academic achievement, and may provide
valuable input to guidance counselors and institutions that wish to improve academic
achievement among their students.

Academic control (AC) is defined as a domain-specific form of perceived control. It
describes a student’s beliefs in his/her capacity to influence achievement outcomes (Perry,

Geir Scott Brunborg, Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of
Bergen; Ståle Pallesen, Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University
of Bergen; Svein Larsen, Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of
Bergen; Åge Diseth, Research Centre for Health Promotion, Faculty of Psychology, University of
Bergen.

This research was supported by the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Bergen.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Geir Scott Brunborg, Faculty of

Psychology, University of Bergen, Christiesgate 12, 5020 Bergen, Norway. E-mail:
geir.brunborg@psysp.uib.no

126 BRUNBORG, PALLESEN, DISETH, AND LARSEN

Hladkyj, Pekrun, Chipperfield, & Chipperfield, 2005). Lately, AC has gained attention in
the higher education literature. Studies have shown that AC is a significant predictor of
achievement for first year university students (Howell, Watson, Powell, & Buro, 2006;
Perry, Hladkyj, Perkun, & Pelletier, 2001) and also for university students throughout their
undergraduate training (Perry et al., 2005). The reason for this is that high AC students may
show greater persistence in their academic work, are more attentive in understanding their
course materials, and participate more in study-relevant activities.

Academic control has been viewed as a relatively stable personality trait since it is based
on the perceived control construct (Rotter, 1966). However, because AC is a domain-
specific trait, it may be subject to influences of past experience with academic successes and
failures, and therefore the state qualities of AC are recognized as well (Perry et al., 2005).
A way to account for the influence of past experiences on AC is to include high school
grade point average (HSGPA) in studies using AC. This is especially applicable when first-
year students are used as participants.

Another variable that has been emphasized within higher education is preoccupation
with failure (PWF). Preoccupation with failure is viewed as a stable personality trait, and
measures of PWF can be used to rate the degree to which individuals focus on failure feed-
back, and the amount of time they spend brooding on things that may or may not go wrong
in their lives (Kuhl, 1994). Preoccupation with failure is a subscale of action control, which
describes individual differences in self-regulation, and classifies individuals on a continuum
ranging from a state- to an action-oriented focus for dealing with preoccupation with failure.
In higher education research, PWF has gained interest because students’ worries about
performing sub-optimally may affect their study effort and academic achievement.

Results

from studies looking at PFW and academic achievement, however, have been somewhat
inconsistent. For example, results from a classroom simulation study found that high PWF
students performed more poorly than low PWF students (Menec, Perry, & Struthers, 1995).
Prospective surveys of university students have shown both a positive relationship between
PWF and academic achievement (Perry et al., 2001), and no direct relationship (Perry et al.,
2005). An interaction effect of AC and PWF on academic achievement has also been
reported (Perry et al., 2001, 2005). These studies report that the combination of high AC
and high PWF was associated with better grades than other combinations of AC and PWF,
whilst students with low PWF generally did poorly throughout their college careers.

Researchers have also looked at the relationship between number of study hours per
week and academic achievement among university students. In higher education there
seems to be no clear association between a high number of study hours per week and greater
academic achievement. A few studies have found a significant, albeit small, relationship
between number of study hours and academic results (Kuhl & Hu, 1999; Schuman, Walsh,
Olson, & Etheridge, 1985) but most studies have not demonstrated any direct relationship
between these two variables (Cavell & Woehr, 1994; Plant, Ericsson, Hill, & Asberg, 2005;
Woehr & Cavell, 1993). For example, Plant et al. (2005) found that study hours only
predicted grades when the quality of study and previous academic performance (i.e.
HSGPA and SAT scores) were taken into consideration. Therefore, there is reason to
believe that the factors that impact on students’ number of study hours may not be the same
factors that impact on academic achievement.

Finally, studies have found a relationship between prior scholastic achievement (e.g.
high school grades) and achievement in higher education (Britton & Tesser, 1991; Larose,
Bernier, & Tarabulsy, 2005; Ting & Robinson, 1998; Woehr & Cavell, 1993), also when

ACADEMIC CONTROL AND PREOCCUPATION WITH FAILURE 127

controling for the effect of the number of study hours (Diseth, 2007). Therefore, HSGPA
should be included as a covariate when investigating different predictors of academic
achievement. In the present study HSGPA is also included since it may account for some of
the variance in the situational aspects of AC.

Because previous findings have been inconclusive, the first goal of the present study
was to investigate whether AC and PWF as well as the interaction (AC x PWF) could
predict grades in higher education when controlling for HSGPA. Secondly, we wanted to
investigate whether AC and PWF and the interaction (AC x PWF) was associated with the
number of study hours.

Methods

Participants

A total of 482 first year psychology students at the University of Bergen, Norway,
were recruited to participate in the study. Of these, 40 students had to be excluded for at
least one of three reasons: (1) failure to give their correct student identification number
so that the exam grade could not be collected; (2) not being registered for the course; and
(3) not taking the exam. An analysis of differences between attrition students and
students who took the final exam is reported elsewhere (Brunborg, Pallesen, Diseth, &
Larsen, 2007). A total of 442 students (341 women, 101 men) with a mean age of 21.8
years (SD = 4.6) participated. All measures were compiled in a questionnaire adminis-
tered to the participants. Means and standard deviations among the study variables are
presented in Table 1.

Instruments

Perceived academic control measure.

Academic control was measured using the perceived academic control measure (Perry
et al., 2001), which consists of eight items that measure different aspects of feeling of
control over one’s academic achievement. Example items are “I have a great deal of control
over my academic performance in my psychology course,” and “The more effort I put into
my courses, the better I do in them.” Participants indicated their agreement on a five-point
scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha) for the scale in the present study was .73.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations of the Study Variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. AC 31.65 4.08 –

2. PWF 18.56 2.84 −.21* –
3. HSGPA 4.63 0.40 −.02 .16* –
4. Academic achievement 3.25 1.41 .21* .01 .22* –

5. Study hours 24.52 11.02 −.02 .05 −.17* .37*

Notes: * p < .05, AC = Academic control, PWF = preoccupation with failure, HSGPA = high school grade point average.

128 BRUNBORG, PALLESEN, DISETH, AND LARSEN

Action control questionnaire.

Preoccupation with failure was measured using the action control questionnaire (Kuhl
& Hu, 1999) with item modifications suggested by Perry et al. (2001). It consists of 12 items
that all have a forced choice format, and participants indicate which of two alternatives they
agree with. Example items for the scale are: “When I have lost something that is very valu-
able to me and I can’t find it anywhere: (a) I have a hard time concentrating on something
else, (b) I put it out of my mind for a little while”; and “When I have to solve a difficult
problem: (a) It takes me a long time to adjust myself to it, (b) It bothers me for a while, but
then I don’t think about it anymore.” Internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson 20) for the
scale in the present study was .73.

High school grade point average.

Questions (self-report) about HSGPA were also included in the questionnaire. The
Norwegian high school grades range from 1 (lowest) to 6 (highest). The high school tran-
script provides an average grade with two decimals. Most students receive extra points
depending on the combination of high school courses and various post high school activities
(e.g. military service) that they later add to their average grade to make up a sum, which can
be used for application into higher education. Participants were asked to enter the average
grade without the extra points so that the students could be compared on high school
achievement.

Study hours.

Study hours were measured in the questionnaire by asking participants to write the aver-
age number of hours they spent on study activities per week, including lectures, tutorials,
private seminars, and self-study.

Academic achievement.

Academic achievement was based upon the final exam grade for the “Introduction to
Psychology” course. A list of results and corresponding student identification numbers were
obtained from the university administration. Grades were given in accordance with the
European Credit Transfer System, which ranges from A (excellent) to F (fail). In contrast
to the American scale, this scale has no minus and plus increments, hence grades were
coded in the following way: A = 6, B = 5, …, F = 1.

The participants also reported their sex and age in the questionnaire.

Procedure

The questionnaires were distributed during five lectures for the course “Introduction to
Psychology”. At the first two lectures, the participants spent ten minutes of the first half of
the lecture completing the questionnaires. At the last three lectures, questionnaires were
distributed to those who had not already participated, along with a pre-paid envelope with
the instruction to mail the questionnaire back to the university. To reach those students who
were absent from the lectures, questionnaires were mailed to those who had not already

ACADEMIC CONTROL AND PREOCCUPATION WITH FAILURE 129

participated. A letter accompanying the questionnaire assured participants’ anonymity and
option to withdraw from the survey. To assure a prospective design, all questionnaires were
collected at least one month prior to the exam. Participation was voluntary and participants
were not paid. The total population comprised a total of 724 students. Of these, 482 returned
the questionnaires, thus the response rate was 66.6%. The study was approved by the
Norwegian Social Science Data Services.

Statistics

Means and standard deviations were calculated for each variable measured with interval
and ratio scales. For these variables the interrelationships were calculated by the Pearson
product moment correlation coefficient. Academic control and PWF were dichotomized
into high and low scores by a median split procedure. In order to investigate the relationship
between AC and PWF on exam grade and number of study hours per week, a 2 × 2 factorial
ANCOVA was conducted. The first factor comprised AC (low/high) and the second factor
comprised PWF (high low). In these analyses HSGPA was entered as a covariate. To calcu-
late effect sizes for main effects and interactions, partial eta-squared (ηp

2) was used.
According to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, small, medium, and large effects measured in ηp

are around .01, .09, and .25, respectively.

Results

Bivariate correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. Academic
control was positively correlated with academic achievement, but no correlation between
PWF and academic achievement was found. Neither AC nor PWF were correlated with
number of study hours. High school grade point average was positively correlated with
academic achievement and negatively correlated with number of study hours. Number of
study hours was positively correlated with academic achievement.

A factorial ANCOVA was conducted for academic achievement. The results from the
ANCOVA showed that HSGPA was a significant covariate for academic achievements,
F(1, 421) = 21.01, p < .001, ηp

2 = .05. A significant main effect of AC on academic achieve-
ment was found, F(1, 421) = 15.96, p < .001, ηp

2 = .04. For students scoring low on AC,
mean grade was 2.88 (SD = 1.57), and for students scoring high on AC, mean grade was
3.58 (SD = 1.49). However, no main effect of PWF on academic achievement was found,
F(1, 421) = 0.03, p > .05. The interaction (AC x PWF) on academic achievement was not
significant, F(1, 421) = 0.12, p > .05. Effect sizes for both HSGPA and AC on academic
achievement are considered to be small (Cohen, 1988).

The next goal of the study was to discern how AC and PWF would relate to number of
study hours, with HSGPA as a covariate in an ANCOVA. First, HSGPA was a significant
covariate for study hours, F(1, 421) = 13.69, p < .001, ηp

2 = .03. Neither of the main effects,
for AC (F[1, 421] = 3.42, p > .05) or PWF (F[1, 421] = 0.40, p > .05) were significant.
However, the interaction effect (AC x PWF) on study hours was significant, F (1, 421) =
6.99, p < .001, ηp

2 = .02. The interaction effect indicated that PWF was unrelated to number
of study hours among students who scored high on AC. However, as shown in Figure 1,
among students scoring low on AC, those with high PWF worked more (25.2 hours per
week) than those with low PWF (21.0 hours per week). Effect sizes for both HSGPA and
the AC × PWF interaction on study hours are considered to be small (Cohen, 1988).

130 BRUNBORG, PALLESEN, DISETH, AND LARSEN

Figure 1. Mean number of study hours for the four combinations (low and high) of AC and PWF.

Discussion

The results from the present study showed a main effect of AC on academic achieve-
ment. This is in accordance with previous findings (Howell et al., 2006; Perry et al., 2005)
suggesting that students with high beliefs in their capacities to influence academic achieve-
ment prior to the examination may receive higher grades compared to students with low
such beliefs. Students with high AC may have greater mastery of their studies and may be
able to obtain more knowledge and skills from their study efforts, and hence achieve better
grades.

No main effect of PWF on academic achievement was found. This supports previous
findings (Perry et al., 2005) that PWF is unrelated to academic achievement when no medi-
ating variables are considered. Surprisingly, the results also failed to support previous find-
ings of an interaction between AC and PWF on academic achievement, i.e. that students
high on AC and high on PWF receive better grades compared to other students (Perry et al.,
2001, 2005).

No main effect of AC on number of study hours was found. High or low levels of AC
do not seem to be associated with an increase or decrease in number of study hours. Hence,
the results do not support that the relationship between AC and academic achievement is
mediated by number of study hours. There was no main effect of PWF on number of study
hours either. High PWF does not seem to be related to increased study effort and low PWF
does not seem to be related to decreased study effort.

In the present study we did, however, find a significant interaction effect of AC and
PWF on students’ number of study hours. Among students with low AC, students low
on PWF worked fewer hours per week compared to students high on PWF. One possi-
ble interpretation of this finding is that the fear of performing poorly is an important
source of motivation for students who lack perceived control over their academic
achievements.

Figure 1. Mean number of study hours for the four combinations (low and high) of AC and PWF.

ACADEMIC CONTROL AND PREOCCUPATION WITH FAILURE 131

High school grade point average was used as a covariate in the analyses to account for
both the effect of prior scholastic attainment on academic achievement, and because it can
be related to the situational aspects of AC. Academic control has been viewed as a stable
trait with state qualities, and by statistically controlling for HSGPA the effect of prior scho-
lastic attainment on AC can be reduced. However, more studies may be required to deter-
mine if AC and PWF are stable traits, and to determine the degree to which situational
aspects can influence scores on the measures.

Although previous studies have suggested that academic achievement is mainly a func-
tion of how students’ efforts are exerted, not only how much effort is exerted (Diseth, 2007;
Plant et al., 2005), number of study hours was highly correlated with academic achievement
in the present study. It is possible that achievement in introductory psychology courses is
more strongly related to study hours compared to other academic disciplines or higher
academic levels; however, studies making such comparisons are needed to investigate if this
is indeed the case.

The present study used a prospective design to investigate the relationship between AC,
PWF, and academic achievement. The measure of academic achievement was not based on
self-report, but actual grades obtained from the university administration after the self-
report part of the data collection was completed. This is a strength because respondents
could not have been affected by their exam results when completing the questionnaires.

A limitation in the study is that HSGPA and study hours were collected using self-
report. Students could hypothetically have answered untruthfully, but there was no obvious
benefit in doing so. With HSGPA this could have been avoided, for example, by requesting
an authorized copy of high school academic records. However, previous research has shown
a correlation of .85 between self-reported and transcript-based GPAs (Schuman et al.,
1985), which indicates high reliability of self-reported HSGPA.

In summary, this study found a main effect of AC on academic achievement, but failed
to find a main effect of PWF on academic achievement, or an interaction affect of AC and
PWF on academic achievement. No main effects of AC or PWF on number of study hours
were found; however, an interaction effect of AC and PWF on study hours was found,
suggesting that among students low on AC, those with low PWF study for fewer hours than
their high-PWF counterparts.

References

Britton, B.K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college grades. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 83, 405–410.

Brunborg, G.S., Pallesen, S., Diseth, Å., & Larsen, S. (2007). Rapport om primær: Og sekundærfra-
fallet på emnet PSYK100 [Report about the primary and secondary attrition from the course
PSYK100]. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.

Cavell, T.A., & Woehr, D.J. (1994). Predicting introductory psychology test scores: An engaging
and useful topic. Teaching of Psychology, 21, 108–110.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.

Diseth, Å. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement.
European Journal of Personality, 17, 143–155.

Diseth, Å. (2007). Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among under-
graduate psychology students: Testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies in
Higher Education, 32, 373–388.

132 BRUNBORG, PALLESEN, DISETH, AND LARSEN

Howell, A.J., Watson, D.C., Powell, R.A., & Buro, K. (2006). Academic procrastination: The
pattern and correlates of behavioural postponement. Personality and Individual Differences, 8,
1519–1530.

Kuhl, G.D., & Hu, S. (1999). Unraveling the complexity of the increase in college grades from the
mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 297–320.

Kuhl, J. (1994). A theory of action and state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Volition
and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 9–46). Seattle, WA: Hofgre & Huber.

Larose, S., Bernier, A., & Tarabulsy, G.M. (2005). Attachment state of mind, learning dispositions,
and academic performance during the college transition. Developmental Psychology, 41,
281–289.

Menec, V.H., Perry, R.P., & Struthers, C.W. (1995). The effect of adverse learning conditions on
action-oriented and state-oriented college students. Journal of Experimental Education, 63,
281–299.

Perry, R.P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R.H., Chipperfield, C., & Chipperfield, J.G. (2005). Perceived
academic control and fear of failure in college students: A three-year study of scholastic attain-
ment. Research in Higher Education, 46, 535–569.

Perry, R.P., Hladkyj, S., Perkun, R.H., & Pelletier, S.T. (2001). Academic control and action control
in the achievement of college students: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 776–789.

Plant, E.A., Ericsson, K.A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study time does not predict grade
point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic perfor-
mance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 96–116.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 1, 1–28.

Schuman, H., Walsh, E., Olson, C., & Etheridge, B. (1985). Effort and reward: The assumption that
college grades are affected by quality of study. Social Forces, 63, 945–966.

Ting, S.R., & Robinson, T.L. (1998). First-year academic success: A prediction combining cognitive
and psychosocial variables for Caucasian and African American students. Journal of College
Student Development, 39, 599–611.

Woehr, D.J., & Cavell, T.A. (1993). Self-report measures of ability, effort, and non-academic activ-
ity as predictors of introductory psychology test scores. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 156–160.

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.