Research in Higher Education, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2000
AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
AMONG ACADEMIC STRESS,
COPING, MOTIVATION, AND
PERFORMANCE IN COLLEGE
C. Ward Struthers, Raymond P. Perry, and Verena H. Menec
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Empirical evidence suggests that a domain-specific coping style may play an important
role in the way students manage stressful academic events and perform at college.
The purpose of this research was to examine the extent to which college students'
academic coping style and motivation mediate their academic stress and
performance. A structural equation analysis showed that the relationship between
college students' academic stress and course grade was influenced by problem-focused
coping and motivation but not emotion-focused coping. As expected, greater
academic stress covaried with lower course grades; however, students who engaged
in problem-focused coping were more likely to be motivated and perform better than
students who engaged in emotion-focused coping. Strategies for promoting more
effective coping in college students are discussed.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
College students confront many challenges in pursuit of their educational
goals. When such experiences are perceived as negative, they can have an adverse
effect on students' motivation and performance (Ames, 1992; Amirkhan,
1998; Covington, 1993; Perry, 1991; Weiner, 1979). Moreover, if prolonged
and perceived as unmanageable, these experiences have been shown to elicit
helplessness (Abramson, Garber, and Seligman, 1980; Sedek and Kofta, 1990),
depression (Peterson and Barrett, 1987), and stress (Carver and Scheier, 1994;
Folkman and Lazarus, 1985), thereby placing some students' academic futures
in jeopardy. In comparison, other students have the capacity to successfully
withstand the deleterious consequences of negative academic experiences. They
are easily encouraged following minor setbacks and generally view negative
C. Ward Struthers, Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto. Raymond P. Perry,
Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba. Verena H. Menec, Manitoba Centre for Health
Policy Evaluation, Manitoba.
Address correspondence to: C. Ward Struthers, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700
Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3.
581
0361-0365/00/1000-0581$18.00/0  2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
582 STRUTHERS, PERRY, AND MENEC
challenging events as surmountable (e.g., Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Perry and
Magnusson, 1989; Struthers and Perry, 1996).
To account for the discrepancy in students' responses to negative threatening
events, Lazarus (1966) proposed a process in which their perceived capacity to
cope with such events plays a central role. According to Folkman and Lazarus
(1985), students cope with negative events in three stages: (1) primary appraisal
of the situation or realizing the threat, (2) secondary appraisal or bringing to
mind the potential responses that can be made, and (3) coping or the execution
of coping responses. Nested within this process are two ways of coping: (1)
Problem-Focused Coping (PFC) and (2) Emotion-Focused Coping (EFC). Problem-focused
coping involves thoughts, actions, and strategies geared toward removing
or diminishing a stressful event or its impact, and tends to operate when
people believe that something can be done to alter their situation. Emotionfocused
coping involves thoughts, actions, and strategies directed toward the
management and reduction of distressing emotions associated with a threatening
event, and is invoked when one perceives that a stressor must be endured (Folkman
and Lazarus, 1980).
Although some researchers have conceptualized coping as a dynamic process
that varies over the stages of coping (e.g., Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), others
have conceptualized it as a relatively stable process associated with various
personality characteristics (e.g., Moos, 1974). Research on the latter position
has shown that students who are extraverted (Gallagher, 1990), optimistic (Cantor
and Norem, 1989; Carver and Scheier, 1987), and higher in self-esteem
(Baumeister, Heatherton, and Tice, 1993; Tice, 1991) and control (Aspinwall
and Taylor, 1992) are shielded from the demotivating effects of negative events.
Despite these findings, the research on personality characteristics has had limited
success in predicting coping (Costa, Somerfield, and McCrae, 1994). However,
this limited success may be more informative about specific personality
characteristics than individual differences more generally. One individual difference
variable receiving increasing research attention is coping style, or one's
routine way of managing stressful events (Amirkhan, 1998; Carver and Scheier,
1994; Endler, Kantor, and Parker, 1994).
In one study, Carver, Scheier, and Weintaub (1989) examined the relationship
between coping style and situational coping in a sample of college students.
Results indicated that compared to their typical stress responses, a difference
between students' routine and situational ways of coping emerged. However,
there were meaningful correlations found between subscales on the dispositional
and situational COPE scale, indicating a degree of consistency between college
students' coping style and their situation-specific way of coping.
In a more recent study conducted by Carver and Scheier (1994), both situational
and dispositional coping were examined in an actual academic stressful
ACADEMIC COPING STRATEGIES 583
transaction. Like Folkman and Lazarus (1985), Carver and Scheier focused on
the three phases associated with college examination: anticipation (before the
exam), waiting (after the exam but before grades are known), and outcome (after
grades are known). Results indicated that coping with an academic stressor differed
from one stage to another; however, dispositional coping did predict comparable
situational coping, albeit at low levels.
One reason that might account for the low correlation between dispositional
and situational coping is the application of a general coping style scale to a
specific academic situation. That is, students may not approach stressful academic
situations with general routine coping strategies. Instead, they may bring
with them a preferred set of tailored academic coping strategies that enable them
to adapt to academic-specific situations. In other words, because Carver et al.'s
(1989) COPE scale was designed to measure coping in the general population
across many different situations, it may be less sensitive in measuring how
college students specifically cope in an academic setting. For instance, COPE
is comprised of more general thoughts, actions, and strategies than academicspecific
ways of coping such as asking questions in class and studying harder.
Thus, the primary purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship
among academic stress, coping, motivation, and performance in college students
using an academic-specific measure of students' coping style.
We predicted that the relationship between stress and course grade should be
mediated by students' academic coping style (cf. Endler, Kantor, and Parker,
1994). Specifically, we anticipated that a positive relationship should be found
between stress and both PFC and EFC, suggesting that students should be more
likely to invoke coping strategies following greater stress (Carver and Scheier,
1994). Because PFC involves strategies geared toward altering or diminishing
a stressful event or its impact (see Pearlin and Schooler, 1978), it was predicted
to relate positively with motivation. However, because EFC involves
strategies directed toward managing the emotional distress associated with a
stressful transaction, it was not expected to relate to motivation (cf. Endler,
Kantor, and Parker, 1994). Finally, a positive relationship between motivation
and course grade was expected (cf. Aspinwall and Taylor, 1992). Previous research
has examined the relationship among coping, stress, health, adjustment,
and so on, in one structural equation model, and motivation and performance
in another (Aspinwall and Taylor, 1992). That is, two separate coping
and motivation models were tested suggesting orthogonality between these processes.
It is posited in this article, however, that these processes are related (cf.
Lazarus, 1991), and therefore, should be tested within the same model. It is
likely that negative academic events that are perceived as stressful, and subsequent
performance more generally, would be influenced by coping style and
motivation.
584 STRUTHERS, PERRY, AND MENEC
METHOD
Participants
The participants were 203 college students who also received course credit in
exchange for their participation. The participants were enrolled in a variety of
faculties including arts, human ecology, engineering, management, education,
science, physical education, nursing, and social work.
Materials
Academic Stress
Students' stress associated with their introductory psychology course was assessed
with three items concerning how worried, helpless, and stressed they felt
about their performance. Because the focus of the study was to test our model
in an academic-specific situation, we chose domain-specific items of perceived
stress rather than a more general perceived stress scale. Each item was assessed
with a 10­point Likert scale. The anchor labels for the scales were (1) not at
all and (10) a great deal, and were summed so that higher scores indicated
greater stress ( = .84).
Student Coping Instrument (SCOPE)
Based largely on Carver et al.'s (1989) dispositional COPE scale, 48 items
assessing various thoughts, actions, and strategies associated with routine coping
following poor academic performances were used to measure students' coping
style. These items were administered to 312 college students using the following
stem, "When I do poorly on an important test at school/University, typically
. . . ." Then students responded to items such as: I think about how I might
best handle the problem, I buy a study guide, I drop out of the class I'm doing
poorly in. Responses to the items are made using a 10-point Likert scale ranging
from (1) "extremely uncharacteristic" of them to (10) "extremely characteristic"
of them.
Next, a factor analysis with a principal component extraction and varimax
rotation was performed on these items. Ten factors emerged that had eigenvalues
greater than 1.0. The items in each subscale were then summed and subjected
to a second order factor analysis (i.e., using scale totals as the raw data
for the factor analysis). Two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were
interpreted. Factor 1, which was labeled Problem-Focused Coping (PFC), consisted
of 15 items and four subscales: General Active Coping (factor loading =
.77), Academic Planning (.77), Active Study Coping (.67), and Efficacy (.62).
ACADEMIC COPING STRATEGIES 585
Factor 2 was labeled Emotion-Focused Coping (EFC) and consisted of 15 items
and four subscales, Emotional Venting (.41), General Emotional Support (.37),
Denial (.78), and Academic Disengagement (.72). The reliability of SCOPE was
within acceptable limits, overall  = .80, PFC  = .80, EFC  = .70. See Table
1 for the 30 items and factor loadings.
For the purpose of this study, we labeled the modified version of the scale--
SCOPE--an acronym for Student Coping Scale. SCOPE consists of eight subscales
which measure two ways of coping: Problem-Focused Coping (PFC) involves
thoughts, actions, and strategies directed toward altering the source of
stressful events, and Emotion-Focused Coping (EFC) involves thoughts, actions,
and strategies geared toward the management of the emotional distress associated
with stressful events. Responses to the items are made using a 10­point
Likert scale ranging from (1) "extremely uncharacteristic" of them to (10) "extremely
characteristic" of them.
Motivation
Students' motivation was measured by three items related to expectations and
importance for success: How well the students expected to do this year in their
introductory psychology course; How important it was for students to do well
this year in their introductory psychology course; How important it was for
students to do well overall. The items were assessed using a 10-point Likert
scale. The anchor labels for the items were (1) not well at all, not at all important
and (10) very well, extremely important and were summed to create a composite
motivation measure ( = .98).
Performance
Students' introductory psychology course grades (%) were obtained from
their course instructors.
Procedure
At the beginning of the academic year, groups of approximately 30 students
each were administered a questionnaire containing the stress items, SCOPE
items, motivation items, and a grades consent form. Students read a general
overview of the study that described the nature of the study and what they were
to do during the session. Final grades were obtained from course instructors at
the end of the academic year. Students were debriefed through a written summary
of the research and expected findings.
586 STRUTHERS, PERRY, AND MENEC
TABLE 1. Student Coping (SCOPE) Subscales, Factor Loadings ( ), and Alphas
Problem Focus Coping (PFC  = .80)
(1) Academic Planning
I think about how I might best handle the problem (.87)
I make a plan of action (.86)
I try to come up with a strategy about what to do (.84)
I think hard about what steps to take (.84)
(2) General Active Coping
I do what has to be done one step at a time (.57)
I think about the reason(s) why the situation occurred (.51)
I concentrate my efforts on doing something about it (.47)
I take additional action to try to get rid of the problem (.36)
(3) Efficacy
I feel competent (.77)
I feel confident (.69)
I feel hopeful (.59)
I feel motivated (.51)
(4) Active Study Coping
I buy a study guide (.83)
I use my study guide (.78)
I try a different study technique (.23)
Emotion Focussed Coping (EFC  = .70)
(1) General Emotional Support
I try to get emotional support from friends and family (.87)
I discuss my feelings with someone (.85)
I talk to someone about how I feel (.81)
(2) Denial
I act as though it hasn't happened (.77)
I refuse to believe that it happened (.75)
I say to myself "this isn't real" (.70)
I pretend that it hasn't really happened (.65)
(3) Emotional venting
I let my feelings out (.84)
I feel a lot of emotional distress and I find myself
expressing those feelings (.79)
I get upset an let my emotions out (.76)
I get upset and am really aware of it (.38)
(4) Academic Disengagement
I skip class (.77)
I reduce the amount of effort I put in to solving the problem (.63)
I drop out of the class I'm doing poorly in (.59)
I give up trying to reach my goal (.57)
SCOPE TOTAL  = .80
Note. INSTRUCTIONS: Students are instructed to take a moment to imagine themselves doing
poorly on a test at school/university. Next, students respond to SCOPE with the items presented in
a random order. The students respond to the SCOPE scale based on the following prime:
When I do poorly on an important test at school/University, typically . . .
ACADEMIC COPING STRATEGIES 587
RESULTS
Structural Equation Model
To examine the role of academic-specific coping and motivation on college
students' performance, a structural equation model was conducted. An a priori
structural equation model was used to test the relationship between stress and
performance, and how the relationship was mediated by students' coping style
and motivation. See Figure 1 for the model tested and Table 2 for the zero-order
correlations among the variables. All predicted paths had significant correlation
coefficients. Because PFC and EFC were correlated (r = .28, p < .05,  = .09, p
> . 05), their errors were allowed to covary. Standardized beta coefficients were
estimated using the Maximum Likelihood procedure. Bentler's (1990) Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) was used to evaluate the fit of the data to the model. The
value of this index for our model was CFI = .996, a value of 1 indicates a perfect
fit. The fit of the data to the model was therefore acceptable and supported
further by a nonsignificant 2
(2 df, N = 180) = 2.96, p = .227.
FIG. 1. Path diagram for college students' stress, coping style, motivation, and grade.
Note. 2
(2 df, N = 180) = 2.96, p = .23, CFI = .996, Method of Estimation = Maximum Likelihood,
Significant paths *p < .05, Path values = standardized  coefficients; Stress = Academic Stress, PFC
= Problem-Focused Coping, EFC = Emotion-Focused Coping, Motivation = Academic Motivation,
Grade % = Introductory Psychology Course Grade %.
588 STRUTHERS, PERRY, AND MENEC
TABLE 2. Zero-Order Correlations and Standard Deviations of
the Structural Equation Model Variables
1 2 3 4 5
1. Stress 1.000
2. PFC 0.443** 1.000
3. EFC 0.458** 0.275** 1.000
4. Motiv 0.725** 0.619** 0.415** 1.000
5. Grade -0.148* 0.100 0.047 0.059 1.000
M 6.96 72.92 55.23 11.68 71.72
SD 5.43 18.07 13.89 10.19 10.96
R -- .90 .89 .60 .96
Note. PFC = Problem-Focused Coping, Motiv = Motivation, R = Residual Error from the structural
equation model.
**p < .01, *p < .05, N = 180.
As can be seen in Figure 1, college students' stress at the beginning of the
academic year (Time 1) directly and positively predicted their use of PFC ( =
0.44) and EFC ( = 0.46), their motivation ( = 0.53), and inversely predicted
their introductory psychology course grade at the end of the academic year (
= -0.40, Time 2, all ps < .05). Additional direct positive relationships emerged
between PFC and motivation ( = 0.36) and motivation and grade ( = 0.35, ps
< .05). These relationships accounted for meaningful proportions of variance in
motivation (64%) and grade (8%). A nonsignificant path was found between
EFC and motivation ( = .07, p > .05) suggesting no relationship between students'
EFC style and their motivation at the beginning of the academic year.
Surprising was the significant positive correlation between academic stress and
motivation. One possible explanation for this finding might be attributed to the
nature of the motivation items. Of the three motivation items used, two focused
on the importance or value of doing well. It could be that academic stress jeopardized
students' academic goals, thereby making them more important or valu-
able.
To examine whether paths directly from the two ways of coping to students'
grades were related, an alternative model was tested. The results show an acceptable
fit of these data to the model, method of estimation = Maximum Likelihood,
CFI = .998 which was supported by a nonsignificant 2
(1 df, N = 180) =
1.47, p = .225. However, the relationship between PFC and EFC and students'
course grade were weak and nonsignificant (ps > .05, s = .10, .11, respectively).
A 2
difference test was then calculated between the original model and
ACADEMIC COPING STRATEGIES 589
the saturated model to determine whether the direct paths significantly improved
the fit statistics. The findings indicate no significant improvement in the fit
when the direct paths are included, 2
(1 df, N = 180) = 1.49, p > .05 (compared
to 2
critical [df model #1 - df model #2 = 1 df] = 1.49).
DISCUSSION
A negative event can elicit a complex set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral
responses depending on a person's perceived capacity to deal with that
event (Lazarus, 1966). When a student feels that he or she cannot improve his or
her future performance, then he or she is likely to experience stress, motivational
deficits, and attenuated performance (Aspinwall and Taylor, 1992). However,
experiencing negative events does not invariably mean that future goal attainment
is perceived as unlikely. In fact, many students experience negative events
and feel upset, but also believe that they have the ability to cope successfully
and as a result become motivated to achieve their goals. A growing body of
research is beginning to show that students have a relatively enduring way of
managing stressful events that can account for these differences (Aspinwall and
Taylor, 1992; Carver and Scheier, 1994; Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub, 1989;
Endler, Kantor, and Parker, 1994; Terry, 1994); however, a low correlation between
dispositional and situational coping has also been found. This may be due
to greater use of general rather than domain-specific measures of students' coping
style. The purpose of this research was to examine the capacity of a academic-specific
measure of college students' coping style to predict students'
academic motivation and performance.
The relationship between academic stress and course grade was predicted to
be mediated by students' coping style and motivation. Our findings confirm the
hypothesis that students' academic stress is inversely related to their course
grade. The results further confirm the hypothesis that the relationship between
college students' stress and course grade is qualified by their academic coping
style and motivation. Specifically, greater academic stress is associated with
greater problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Because PFC involves
strategies directed toward altering or diminishing a stressful event, however,
it was predicted to covary with academic motivation. In contrast, given
that EFC involves strategies geared toward managing emotional distress, it was
neither predicted or found to relate to motivation. In turn, academic motivation
positively relates to course grade as expected. This study extends previous research
by demonstrating that academic specific coping styles significantly predict
college students' management of stress at college. In addition, this research
indicates that coping and motivation are related processes and should be considered
within the same model.
One unexpected finding was the positive relationship between academic stress
590 STRUTHERS, PERRY, AND MENEC
and motivation. This finding may be explained by two of the items used to
measure academic motivation--importance for doing well in their course and
importance for doing well overall. In other words, because academic stress
threatens students' course grade, the value of doing well becomes more salient.
These data suggest that college instructors who encourage their students to
make a study plan, manage their time, and use their study guide, should facilitate
greater motivation and performance. College instructors who understand how
students' motivation and performance is affected by their way of coping can
teach students to be more effective copers, and therefore, they will be better
equipped to teach students more effectively. In addition, these data also suggest
that students who take advantage of study skills and time management courses
should be able to more effectively manage many of the academic stresses that
are characteristic of college life. Thus, institutions of higher education that offer
such courses would appear to be serving their students well.
Moreover, the provision of a remedial intervention to assist ineffective copers
who are at risk would appear to be salient. The results of this research indicated
that students' problem-focused coping plays a meaningful role in their motivation
and performance, whereas emotion focused coping does not. Given that
PFC and EFC are characterized by thoughts and strategies used by individuals
to reduce the effects of negative events, interventions such as attributional retraining,
mental simulation training, and strategy training would be important
avenues to consider for future research and practice. For instance, students who
are unlikely to engage in PFC may do so because they believe that there is
nothing they can do to improve their situation (i.e., stable, uncontrollable attributions).
Attributional retraining (Perry, Hechter, Menec, and Weinberg, 1993) can
be used to change dysfunctional attributions such as stable and uncontrollable
ones to more functional ones (e.g., unstable and controllable). In turn, such
attributions are posited to facilitate thoughts and strategies to directly cope with
academic stress.
Additional research should examine the role that EFC plays in coping and
self-regulation. That is, whether EFC effects other academic variables such as
adjustment to college given that it did not relate to motivation. Because college
students will face many challenges throughout their higher education that will
influence the fulfillment of their goals, it is important to understand how they
will or will not manage these challenges. A more in-depth understanding of this
process could lead instructors to assist students more effectively and students to
become more adaptive.
Acknowledgments. Support for this research was provided by Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC) doctoral fellowships to the first and
third authors, a University of Manitoba doctoral fellowship to the first author, and a
SSHRCC postdoctoral fellowship to the first and third authors. In addition, this research
ACADEMIC COPING STRATEGIES 591
was also supported by three SSHRCC standard research grants: (410-98-1016) to the
first author and (410-91-1296, 410-95-0152) to the second author. Portions of this research
were presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research
Association (AERA), San Francisco, 1995. The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful
comments of Bernard Weiner, Norman Endler, and the UCLA Attribution Research
Group. Also appreciated was the assistance of the Higher Education Research Group at
the University of Manitoba.
REFERENCES
Abramson, L. Y., Garber, J., and Seligman, M. E. P. (1980). Learned helplessness in
humans: an attributional analysis. In J. Garber and M. E. P. Seligman (eds.), Human
Helplessness: Theory and Application, pp. 3­34. New York: Academic Press.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology 84: 261­271.
Amirkhan, J. H. (1998). Attributions as predictors of coping and distress. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 1006­1018.
Aspinwall, L. G., and Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modelling cognitive adaptation: a longitudinal
investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college adjustment
and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63: 989­1003.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., and Tice, D. M. (1993). When ego threats lead to
self-regulation failure: negative consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 64: 141­156.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin
107: 238­246.
Cantor, N., and Norem, J. K. (1989). Defensive pessimism and stress and coping. Social
Cognition 7: 92­112.
Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a
stressful transaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 184­195.
Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (1987). Expectancies and coping: from test anxiety to
pessimism. In R. Schwarzer, H. M. Van Der Ploeg, and C. D. Spielberger (eds.),
Advances in Test Anxiety Research, Vol. 6, pp. 3­11. Berwyn, PA: Swets.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., and Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies:
a theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56: 267­
283.
Costa, P. T. Jr., Somerfield, M. R., and McCrae, R. R. (1994). Personality and coping:
a reconceptualization. In M. Zeidner and N. S. Endler (eds.), Handbook of Coping,
Chapter 4. New York: John Wiley.
Covington, M. V. (1993). A motivational analysis of academic life in college. In J. Smart
(ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Ttheory and Research, Vol. 9, pp. 50­93. New
York: Agathon Press.
Dweck, C. S., and Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review 95: 256­273.
Endler, N. S., Kantor, L., and Parker, J. D. A. (1994). State-trait coping, state-trait anxiety,
and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences 16: 663­670
Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R. L. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of
emotion and coping during 3 stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 48: 150­170.
Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R. L. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community
sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21: 219­239.
592 STRUTHERS, PERRY, AND MENEC
Gallagher, D. J. (1990). Extraversion, neuroticism and appraisal of stressful academic
events. Personality and Individual Differences 11: 1053­1057.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1984). Appraisal, Stress, and Coping. New York:
Springer.
Moos, R. H. (1974). Psychological techniques in the assessment of adaptive behavior. In
G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, and J. E. Adams (eds.), Coping and Adaptation, pp.
334­399. New York: Basic Books.
Pearlin, L. I., and Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 19: 2­21.
Perry, R. P. (1991). Perceived control in college students: implications for instruction in
higher education. In J. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research,
Vol. 7, pp. 1­56. New York: Agathon Press.
Perry, R. P., Hechter, F. J., Menec, V. H., and Weinberg, L. (1993). A review of achievement
motivation and performance in college students from an attributional retraining
perspective. Research in Higher Education 34: 687­723.
Perry, R. P., and Magnusson, J.-L. (1989). Causal attributions and perceived performance:
consequences for college students achievement and perceived control in different
instructional conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology 81: 164­172.
Peterson, C., and Barrett, L. C. (1987). Explanatory style and academic performance
among university freshmen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 603­
607.
Sedek, G., and Kofta, M. (1990). When cognitive exertion does not yield cognitive gain:
toward an informational explanation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 58: 729­743.
Struthers, C. W., and Perry, R. P. (1996). Attributional style, attributional retraining, and
inoculation against motivational deficits. Social Psychology of Education 1: 171­187.
Terry, D. J. (1994). Determinants of coping: the role of stable and situational factors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 895­910.
Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection of enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and
attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
60: 711­725.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
Educational Psychology 71: 3­25.
Received April 2, 1999.