Abstract
AbstractThis study examined the heterogeneity in temporal shifts of unrealistic optimism (UO) by analyzing students’ grade expectation throughout a semester. UO was defined as the gap between students’ estimated and current course grades, with a larger gap indicating higher UO. Final course grades were viewed as the outcome of UO. A total of 206 participants completed baseline measures of personal factors during the first week of the semester and repeated measurements at five subsequent time points. Using person-centered trajectory analysis (e.g., latent growth mixture models), we identified three distinct UO trajectories: UO-Persistent (6.8%; consistently high UO), UO-Decreasing (26.2%; diminishing UO), and Realistic (67.0%; consistently low UO). High perfectionistic standards and dysphoria predicted UO-Persistent group membership, while perfectionistic discrepancy, self-efficacy, and belief in optimism's power did not. The Realistic group achieved higher final grades than the UO-Decreasing group. Unexpectedly, no difference was found in final grades between the strongest UO group (i.e., UO-Persistent) and other two groups. These findings suggest that UO's temporal shift is not a unitary construct, and distinct UO patterns may be associated with different academic outcomes. This study underscores the significance of comprehending temporal shifts and employing person-centered analysis in UO related to academic achievement. The discussion addresses both research and practical implications.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Developmental and Educational Psychology,Social Psychology,Education
Reference75 articles.
1. Armor, D. A., Massey, C., & Sackett, A. M. (2008). Prescribed optimism: Is it right to be wrong about the future? Psychological Science, 19(4), 329–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02089.x
2. Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1998). Situated optimism: Specific outcome expectancies and self-regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 309–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60386-X
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
4. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
5. Beck, A. T. (1974). The development of depression: A cognitive model. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 3–27). Wiley.