The Relationship Between Underachievement and Self-Concept, Motivation, and Self-Regulation: A Meta-Analysis

• In Event: Current Theoretical Perspectives and Methodological Approaches in Underachievement Research

Abstract

Many factors have been implicated to explain why students demonstrate achievement lower than their projected ability would predict. Self-conceptual, motivational, and self-regulatory factors have been of particular interest in understanding underachieving students for whom environmental challenges are not apparent or for students who demonstrate underachievement without clearly identifiable precipitating events.

Research has pointed to self-conceptual, motivational, and self-regulatory factors that may help explain chronic underachievement; however, the results have been mixed. For example, while some research has suggested that underachievers have a poor academic self-concept (e.g., Lau & Chan, 2001), other research has suggested that underachievers do not seem to differ in their self-concept from their achiever counterparts, particularly among gifted students (e.g., McCoach & Siegle, 2003a).

In sum, while a great deal of research on the topic has been conducted, mixed research findings and theoretical perspectives have led to gaps in understanding the characteristics of underachievers that lead them to fail despite their abilities. To address this omission, we synthesized existing research on the role of motivational, self-conceptual, and self-regulatory constructs in underachievement.

In the present study, various complementary search strategies were used to locate both published and unpublished research and to minimize any systematic data censoring. Using any variant of the word “underachievement” as a search term, we conducted electronic searches in PsycInfo, ERIC, and Google Scholar. We also conducted a search using seminal studies in Social Science Citation Index. We contacted listservs and notable authors in this area of research. The literature search uncovered 83 studies that met the inclusion criteria of assessing self-conceptual, motivational, or self-regulatory differences between underachievers and non-underachievers. From those studies, 336 separate effect sizes were reported based on 120 separate samples. For the data integration of the effects, we chose to apply both fixed-error (FE) and random-error (RE) models to our data.

Results indicated that underachievers had significantly lower self-concept (FE: d = -0.36, RE: d = -0.49), self-esteem (FE: d = -0.23, RE: d = -0.23), and self-regulation (FE: d = -0.38, RE: d = -0.38) compared to non-underachievers. Underachievers made significantly more external attributions compared to non-underachievers (FE: d = 0.22, RE: d = 0.23). There was a negligible difference on internal attributions between underachievers and non-underachievers (FE: d = 0.07, RE: d = -0.10). Moderator analyses on internal attributions for success versus attributions for failure indicated that the effect on internal attributions for failure was statistically larger than the effect on attributions for success.

For this study, the gifted versus non-gifted status for underachievers was also tested as a moderator for all constructs. However, moderator analyses indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in effects on self-concept and self-regulation, but differences on internal attributions, suggesting that the effect of underachievement on internal attributions is larger for gifted students.

In conclusion, underachievers tend to have a lower self-concept, self-esteem, self-regulation, and less internal attributions than their achieving counterparts, suggesting a need for interventions and instructional supports to target motivational deficits in underachieving students.

Authors

• Carlton J. Fong, Texas State University

• Erika Alisha Patall, The University of Texas - Austin

• Sara Jolly Jones, University of Houston

• Robin E. Zuniga, The University of Texas - Austin

• Kate E. Snyder, University of Louisville