J. COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION, Vol.

11(2) 227-246, 2009-2010

THE PREDICTION OF COLLEGE STUDENT ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION: APPLICATION OF
EXPECTANCY AND GOAL SETTING THEORIES

BARRY A. FRIEDMAN
RHONDA G. MANDEL
State University of New York at Oswego

ABSTRACT

Student retention and performance in higher education are important issues

for educators, students, and the nation facing critical professional labor short-
ages. Expectancy and goal setting theories were used to predict academic
performance and college student retention. Students’ academic expectancy
motivation at the start of the college significantly predicted cumulative GPA
at the end of their first year. Compared to students who did not return, students
that returned for their sophomore year reported greater peer competition
with respect to academic goals, perceived good grades to be more attractive,
and reported more effort to get good grades. Students’ SAT scores and high
school grade point average were significantly related to both cumulative
GPA and retention after the first year. Study implications are discussed with
an emphasis on the motivational set of college applicants, in conjunction
with more traditional criteria (e.g., high school GPA) that together may
increase student performance and retention.

INTRODUCTION
Retention and academic performance are important issues for U.S. colleges,
universities, and society. College attrition rates range from only 10% at some

227

! 2009, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: 10.2190/CS.11.2.d
http://baywood.com
228 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

institutions to an alarming 80% at others (Braunstein, Lessar, & Pescatrice, 2006).

During 1983-2006, average student retention rates from freshman to sophomore
years ranged from 66.4% to 70.0% for public 4-year colleges, and 60.9% to
74.8% for private 4-year schools (American College Testing Program, 2006).
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), only 63% of
students who enrolled in college and intended to earn an undergraduate degree
in 1995-96 attained their degree within 6 years, even accounting for those that
transferred to other institutions (NCES, 2005). The majority of college graduates
have higher earned income than high school graduates (Psacharopoulos, 1985),
are less likely to be welfare recipients (Blank 1989), and are less likely to be
unemployed (Kiefer & Neumann, 1979). Therefore improving college retention
and graduation rates are laudable goals worth continued effort at every institution.
Considering the high cost to the individual, institution, and ultimately to society, it
is important to know the dynamics of retention as well as academic performance.
Student retention has been studied by many researchers using a variety of
predictor variables (Astin, 1975; Bean, 1980, 1982, 1985; Cabrera & Nora, 1994;
Creamer, 1980; Daempfle, 2004; DesJardins, Ahlburg, & McCall, 1998; Gold,
1995; Heverly, 1999; Hummel & Steele, 1996; Mohr, Eiche, & Sedlacek, 1998;
Moxley, Najor-Durack, & Dumbrigue, 2001; Porter, 2003; Reason, 2003;
Wohlgemuth, Whalen, Sullivan, Nading, Shelley, & Wang, 2006). Many studies
have looked at the relationship between specific demographic and intellectual
or academic preparation variables and student retention. These include such
indicators as high school grade point average and the academic program pursued
in high school, as well as gender, socioeconomic status, and parental educational
attainment. (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridge, & Hayek, 2007). Wohlgemuth and
colleagues (2006), for example, found that demographic characteristics (e.g.,
gender), ability (e.g., standardized test scores), and active student participation
(e.g., sports) predicted college student retention.
Other studies have emphasized the effects of institutional variables on stu-
dent success. These include such variables as institutional size, student/faculty
ratios, and selectivity (Kuh et al., 2007), student engagement with the institution
(National Survey of Student Engagement, 2005), and the effectiveness of specific
programs designed to improve student retention such as first year programs
and learning communities (Boudreau & Kromrey, 1994; Noble, Flynn, Lee, &
Hilton, 2007; Schnell & Doetkott, 2003).
Finally, there are studies that investigate psychological variables such as student
motivation, institutional commitment, mattering, goal commitment and inte-
gration (Harrison, 2006; Rayle & Chung, 2007; Rayle, Kurpius, & Arredondo,
2006; Robbins, Allen, Casillas, Peterson, & Le, 2006). For example, House
(2000) reviewed the research and concluded that students’ self-beliefs about their
academic and intellectual abilities were correlated with academic performance.
Students’ initial self-beliefs in their abilities have predicted college academic
performance in several disciplines, including psychology, English, education, and
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 229

the health sciences (House, 2000; House, Keeley, & Hurst, 1996; House & Prion,
1998). Gifford, Briceno-Perriott, and Mianzo (2006) found that college students
with internal locus of control achieved higher end of first year cumulative GPA.
A number of theoretical frameworks have been postulated to make sense of the
diversity of research findings. The most widely studied of these frameworks is that
of Tinto (1993), which focuses on academic and social integration. According
to this theory, students who are academically and socially integrated into their
institutions are more likely to persist. Empirical support for the theory is mixed,
with stronger support for social integration than for academic integration (Kuh
et al., 2007). Other theories have emphasized the importance of student moti-
vational variables such as self-efficacy and self-esteem, and how these variables
interact with such things as academic persistence and performance (Bean &
Eaton, 2001). Self-efficacy theory and motivational theory both posit that
certain motivational variables lead students to select participation in certain
activities which then affect their performance inside and outside the classroom,
thus contributing to student success (Kuh et al., 2007). Davidson and Beck
(2006-2007) found that two academic orientations (efficacy and apathy) sig-
nificantly predicted students’ decision to reenroll in college. Efficacy was defined
as “the belief in one’s ability to master academic tasks and assignments and attain
one’s academic goals,” and apathy was defined as the lack of interest in academic
work and an inclination to do as little as possible’ (Beck & Davidson, 2001;
Davidson & Beck, 2006-2007). Hsieh et al. (2007) found that students in good
academic standing reported higher self-efficacy and mastery goals (developing,
demonstrating, and improving ability) than students on academic probation, but
student retention was not explored.
Two theories used extensively in the research literature in business have the
potential to provide insight into student retention. These are expectancy theory
and goal-setting theory.
The expectancy theory of motivation states that motivation is a function of
the perceived probability that effort will result in performance, that performance
will result in certain outcomes, and that these outcomes are valued (Issac,
Wilfred, & Douglas, 2001; Porter & Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964). An individual’s
perceived probability that effort will result in performance (effort to performance
probability, or E"P) is a function, in part, of past experiences in similar situations.
Past instances where effort led to performance may increase an individual’s E"P
probability with similar tasks in the future. Past failures where effort led to
poor performance may lower expectancy. The performance to outcome expec-
tancy, or P"O, is the belief that a given level of performance will lead to a given
outcome. Well designed organizational compensation plans increase employees’
P"O by establishing links between different levels of performance and incentive
payouts. As individuals with higher performance receive greater compensation,
employee P"O should increase. Of course, individuals must value the outcomes
for motivation to increase. The last expectancy theory component, valence, refers
230 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

to the anticipated satisfaction or dissatisfaction individuals anticipate with each

outcome (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005). Used predominantly to study
employee workplace motivation, expectancy theory has not been tested exten-
sively in looking at the motivation, performance, and retention of college students
(Issac et al., 2001).
Prior to college, students experience a wide range of situations that influence
their motivation to academically and socially succeed in college. Theses situations
are characterized by differences and similarities among students with respect to
school systems, teachers, administrators, expenditures per student, educational
models (e.g., different reading models in early grades), and levels and quality of
parental and community support. As school experiences are a somewhat unique
blend of these and other influences, students’ E"P, P"O, and valence levels
will vary. For example, students whose teachers are competent and address their
unique learning needs may increase students’ belief that if they exert effort,
they will achieve good grades. Similarly, students that did not receive rewards for
good performance from school or parents may experience low P"O expectancies,
and therefore may have lower motivation than students whose past performances
were rewarded. Students’ valences are likely to vary as well. Outcomes that an
individual prefers have positive (or higher) valences, and outcomes that are
not preferred or avoided have negative (or low) valences (Gibson, Ivancevich,
Donnelly, & Konopaske, 2006). Some students may prefer good grades relative
to establishing social networks, making friends, and joining student organiza-
tions. According to expectancy theory, college applicants’ motivation to perform
academically and socially at a given level varies as a function of student differ-
ences in E"P, P"O, and valence. As students’ motivation may be correlated
with performance and retention, it is important to conduct research that increases
one’s knowledge of student motivation.
Goal setting theory states that individuals who set goals are more likely to
perform at higher levels than individuals that do not set goals. Goal setting is
more complex than simply telling students to do their best (McShane & Von
Glinow, 2005). Research has also shown that setting challenging goals and
participating in the goal setting process positively influences performance
(McShane & Von Glinow, 2005). Goal setting research suggests that goal speci-
ficity, relevancy, challenge, commitment, participation, goal feedback, and peer
competition enhance performance (Locke & Latham, 1990; Mento, Steel, &
Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986).
Goals that are measurable and can be tracked over time communicate more
specific performance expectations. Students who set measurable goals may be
able to focus their efforts more efficiently than students who set vague goals or no
goals at all. Students who set specific goals that are relevant to student life and
under their control are more likely to be motivated to meet the performance
expectation set forth in the goal. Competition among peers may also be an
important element of student performance and retention. Competition among
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 231

peers is defined as students’ wanting to do better than others or to avoid doing

worse than others (Urdan & Mestas, 2006). Urdan and Mestas (2006) found
that 40% of students stated that they pursued their academic performance goals
because of peer competition. Like expectancy theory, goal setting research focuses
on employee retention and work performance in the workplace, and few attempts
to examine the reasons students have for their achievement goals exist (Urdan
& Mestas, 2006). Sorrentino (2007) evaluated an academic mentoring program
that provided mentoring and goal setting assistance for students with poor
academic performance, and found that the program increased students’ GPA
and retention rates. Unfortunately, few students utilized the program due in
part to the lack of financial resources and that the program started late in the
semester. The goal setting theory has not been tested to predict student retention
and performance.
The present study used expectancy and goal setting theories to understand
and predict student motivation to perform well and stay in college. Specifically,
students’ motivation and goal setting were used in conjunction with two tradi-
tional predictors (high school GPA and SAT scores) to predict college student
academic performance and retention. This study also tests the extent that moti-
vation and goal setting improve the prediction of performance and retention after
demographic variables, SAT scores, and high school GPA are controlled. The
National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) reports that
college admissions offices commonly use standardized tests and high school
grade point average for selection purposes, and that these measures predict
college GPA (Evans 2000; Hezlett, Kuncel, Vey, Ones, Campbell, & Camara,
2001; Gifford et al., 2006; Maggio, White, Molstad, & Kher, 2005; Sternberg,
2004; Stumpf & Stanley, 2002). To improve student performance and retention,
colleges require more information beyond the traditional criteria such as stan-
dardized tests and high school GPA used to select college students (Atkinson,
2001; Sireci, Zanetti, & Berger, 2003). Additional demographic variables that
have been shown to be related to academic performance or persistence in college
were included in the analysis as control variables (Allen, 1999).

Research Hypotheses
Three hypotheses were tested in the present study concerning the prediction
of student retention and performance.
H1: Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores (SAT) and High school GPA will predict
college academic performance and retention.
H2: Freshmen that enter college with higher motivation to perform academ-
ically and socially in college are more likely to stay in college beyond
their first year and achieve higher GPAs.
H3: Freshmen that set academic and social goals are more likely to stay in
college beyond their first year and achieve higher GPAs.
232 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

Hypothesis one tests the degree to which traditional measures predict per-
formance and retention. Tinto’s (1993) model of attrition states that students’
experiences in their academic and social life are both important. Building on
Tinto’s (1993) model, Nicpon et al. (2006-2007) found that less student loneliness
and more social support predicted more positive student persistence decisions
such as staying in school versus voluntarily dropping out. Rayle and Chung
(2007) found that high social support from friends predicted low academic stress
levels, but the relationship between academic stress and GPA was not explored.
Hypotheses two and three tests to what degree expectancy motivation (academic
and social) and goal setting theories predict performance and retention when the
traditional predictors (SAT and HSGPA) are controlled.

METHOD
Instruments
Friedman and Lechner (2005) developed the Student Motivation Questionnaire
(SMQ) to measure freshmen college students’ goal setting behaviors based on
expectancy instruments used by Nadler and Lawler (1977) and goal setting
instruments used by Locke and Latham (1990). The researchers tested Vroom’s
(1964) expectancy theory force model that represents students’ motivational
force to performing well academically and socially. Expectancy motivation to
perform well academically and socially was calculated separately, as different
items measured each expectancy.
As Campbell (2003) stated:
n
“V j # $ (Vk I jk )
k #1

Where:
Vj = the valence of the first-level outcome,
Vk = the valence of the second-level outcome
Ijk = the perceived instrumentality that Vj will lead to Vk and
n = the number of potential second level outcomes” (p. 4)
The force model is operationalized by multiplying valence (Vj) as defined above
with the expected probability that increased effort will lead to meaningful peer
ratings. Campbell (2003) states:
“Fi = (Eij Vj)
Where:
Fi = the motivational force to perform act I,
Eij = the expectancy that act I will result in outcome j, and
Vj = the valence of outcome j” (p. 4)
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 233

The SMQ contains 72 total items. Regarding expectancy theory, effort to

performance expectancies were measured using 7-point Likert scales where
1 = “never” and 7 = “extremely likely.” Performance to outcome expectancies
were measured using 7-point Likert scales were 1 = “not at all likely” and 7 =
extremely likely.” Valence was measured using 7-point Likert scales where
1 = “moderately important or less” and 7 = “extremely important.” Sixteen items
are intended to measure students’ approach to goal setting. Locke and Latham
(1990) used 16 items that measured five subscales: goal specificity; challenge;
clarity; participation; and peer competition. These items were measured using
a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree.” The
SMQ also contains four overall items that measure grade attractiveness and
the attractiveness of making friends at school (using a bi-polar 11-point scale
where –5 = very unattractive and 5 = very attractive), and effort to obtain
good grades and to make friends (measured using 11-point Likert scales where
0 = zero effort and 10 = great deal of effort). Three demographic variables were
also included in the SMQ: gender (dummy coded); race (dummy coded as
non-minority and minority); and parent’s education (dummy coded as non-college
and college educated). The SMQ may be obtained upon request from the authors.
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze student
SMQ responses.

Sample and Procedure

All freshman students who entered a state college in northern New York
during the academic year 2005-2006 were asked to participate in a voluntary
survey no later than 3 weeks after the semester began. Students were informed
that their responses were confidential. The survey was administered online using
the State University’s Intranet to 1365 first year students. A reminder e-mail
was sent to the students after 1 week had elapsed. After 3 weeks, 583 students
(43%) completed the survey.
Sixty-five percent of the respondents were female, 14% were minorities, and
60% of the responding students’ parents earned at least a college degree. Students’
response rates differed with respect to their gender, minority status, parents’
education, and retention status. Female and male response rates were 51% and
32%, respectively (%2 = 50.29, p & .001). Non-minority students responded at a
significantly higher rate than minorities: 45% and 35%, respectively (%2 = 9.58,
p & .05). Students with at least one parent with a college degree responded to the
survey more than students without a parent with a college degree: 45% and 39%,
respectively (%2 = 4.12, p & .05). Finally, student response rates differed by
retention status: currently enrolled after their freshman year (45%); did not return
(36%); and academically disqualified (37%), (F = 4.04, p & .05). Students were
academically disqualified if their GPA failed to reach 1.01 in their first semester
(15 credits), or 1.76 by the end of their first year (30 credits).
234 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

Data Analysis

The goal setting questions were factor analyzed to determine the factor
structure of the SMQ items that addressed goal-setting. The standardized factor
scores, along with control and expectancy variables, were used in subsequent
analyzes. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if students
with different retention outcomes varied with respect to their responses on the
SMQ (expectancy motivation and goal setting). The one way ANOVAs used
retention as an independent variable that consisted of three levels: academically
disqualified; left school after their first year on their own volition; and stayed in
school after their first year.
A multiple regression analysis ascertained the relationship between students’
level of motivation to perform well academically and socially (expectancies) and
goal setting upon entry as freshmen and their college GPA after 1 year. The
variables of race, gender, and parent’s education were used as control variables
based on previous research, as were the usual predictor variables of high school
grade point average and SAT score.

RESULTS

Table 1 contains means and standard deviations for the goal setting variables.
The means ranged from 5.54 to 3.72. The result of a factor analysis on these
items is found in Table 2, which contains the rotated factor matrix. The principal
component extraction and varimax rotation methods were used, and items with
cross loadings greater than or equal to .30 were dropped from further analyses.
The factor analysis resulted in three factors, accounting for 62% of the item
variance. The first factor, goal clarity and influence, measured students’ percep-
tion that they set clear and specific goals and influenced their goals themselves.
The second factor, peer competition, measured the extent that students felt that
they competed with their peers with respect to achieving good grades. The third
factor, goal performance feedback, measured the extent that students reported
that they received performance feedback on their progress toward goals. Stan-
dardized factor scores were used in subsequent analyses.
Table 3 contains means and standard deviations for the independent variables.
Most of the independent variables support the study hypotheses. Compared to
academically disqualified students and those that did not return, currently enrolled
students have higher SAT scores and HSGPAs, report higher academic, social
motivation, and peer competition for good grades. One-way analyses of variance
(ANOVA) were conducted to ascertain differences among students in three
retention groups: students that were academically disqualified; those who did not
return on their own volition; and those who returned after their first college year.
Table 4 reports the F statistics and significance levels for each of the independent
variables. Students that returned to school had significantly higher SAT scores and
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 235

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Goal Setting

Variablesa (N = 581)

Mean SD

I have a high degree of influence in determining my school goals. 5.51 1.50

I should not have too much difficulty in reaching my school goals. 5.02 1.35

I receive a considerable amount of feedback concerning the 4.34 1.45

quality of my output in school.

Most of my peers try to outperform one another on their school 3.73 1.55
goals.

My school goals are very clear and specific. 5.03 1.63

My school goals will require a great deal of effort from me. 5.71 1.67

I really have little voice in the formulation of my school goals.b 5.54 1.56

I am provided with a great deal of feedback on the quality of my 4.15 1.52

schoolwork.

I think my school goals are ambiguous and unclear.b 5.34 1.64

It will take a high degree of skill on my part to fully attain my 5.26 1.51
school goals.

The setting of my school goals is pretty much under my own 5.42 1.49
control.

My instructors seldom let me know how well I am progressing 3.97 1.43

toward my school goals.b

A very competitive atmosphere exists among my peers and me 3.41 1.63

with regard to attaining our respective school goals.

I fully understand which of my school goals are more important 5.27 1.45
than others; I have a clear sense of priorities on these goals.

My school goals are quite difficult to attain.b 4.18 1.46

I work with my instructors when determining my school goals. 3.79 1.50

aItems were measured using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = “strongly disagree,”
4 = neither agree nor disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree.”
bThe scales on this item were reversed.
236 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

Table 2. Rotated Factor Matrix of Goal Setting Questionsa

Factors

Goal Clarity Goal

and Peer performance
influence competition feedback

My school goals are very clear and .76

specific.

I think my school goals are ambiguous .74

and unclear.b

I have a high degree of influence in .73

determining my school goals.

The setting of my school goals is pretty .70

much under my own control.

I really have little voice in the .62

formulation of my school goals.b

A very competitive atmosphere .87

exists among my peers and me with
regard to attaining our respective
school goals.

Most of my peers try to outperform one .85

another on their school goals.

My instructors seldom let me know .89

how well I am progressing toward my
school goals.b

I am provided with a great deal of .65

feedback on the quality of my
schoolwork.
aExtraction method: principal component analysis with varimax with Kaiser normalization
rotation.
bScales were reversed.
 Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Students that Academically Disqualified, Did Not Return on
Their Own Volition, and Returned After Their Freshman Year
Academic disqualified Did not return Currently enrolled
(N = 58) (N = 66) (N = 457)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Control variables
Percent female .53 .50 .68 .46 .66 .47
Percent minority .17 .38 .09 .28 .10 .30
Parent education .57 .50 .59 .49 .64 .48
SAT score 1013.10 168.64 1073.18 75.71 1059.04 139.29
HS GPA 82.10 11.68 87.98 4.50 88.07 4.41

Goal settinga
Goal clarity and influence (factor 1) –.06 .90 –.04 1.06 .01 1.00
Goal peer competition (factor 2) –.35 .96 .11 1.05 .02 .98
Goal performance feedback (factor 3) .08 1.05 –.09 1.00 .01 .99

Expectancies
Academic motivation 140.57 69.05 151.45 59.74 153.33 64.97
Social motivation 117.20 64.78 112.44 61.09 128.27 68.41

Other variables
Good grades are attractive 5.93 1.49 6.41 .72 6.33 1.19
Effort to get good grades 5.28 1.77 4.54 1.39 5.76 1.46
COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION

Making friends is attractive 5.91 1.30 5.98 1.22 5.94 1.17

Effort to make friends 4.86 1.65 4.92 1.48 5.05 1.55
/ 237

aStandardized factor scores.

238 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

Table 4. Differences among Students that were Academically Disqualified,

Did Not Return on Their Own Volition, and Returned After Their
Freshman Year: Results of an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Control,
Goal Setting, Expectancy and Other Variables

Sum of Mean
squares square F

Control variables
Percent female .96 .48 2.13
Percent minority .27 .13 1.40
Parent education .39 .19 .85
SAT score 130424.44 65212.22 3.02*
HS GPA 1853.05 926.52 29.74***

Goal setting factors

Goal specificity and priority (factor 1) .44 .22 .22
Peer competition (factor 2) 8.64 4.32 4.37**
Goal participation and feedback (factor 3) 1.03 .51 .51

Expectancies
Academic motivation 8396.18 4198.09 .99
Social motivation 18748.62 9374.31 2.07

Other variables
Good grades are attractive 9.04 4.52 3.21*
Effort to get good grades 16.02 8.01 3.60*
Make friends is attractive .16 .08 .05
Effort to make friends 2.40 1.20 .49
*p ' .05. **p ' .01. ***p ' .001.

HSGPAs, reported greater competition for good grades, found good grades more
attractive, and reported greater effort to get good grades than students that did
not return to school.

Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 stated that SAT and HSGPA scores would be positively related
to academic performance and student retention. Table 5 reports the results of
the multiple regression analysis conducted with cumulative college first year
GPA regressed on the demographic, SAT score, HSGPA, expectancy, and goal
setting independent variables. In support of hypothesis 1, the standardized beta
coefficients and their corresponding t statistics were significant for both SAT
scores and HSGPA. The variance accounted for by these two variables beyond the
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 239

Table 5. Control, Demographical, Expectancy, Goal Setting, and

Other Variables Regressed on Student Cumulative Grade
Point Average (GPA) After 1 Year of Collegea

( t

Control variables
Percent female .01 .05
Percent minority .01 .01
Parent education .01 .43
SAT score .10 2.27*
HS GPA .41 9.41***

Expectancies
Academic motivation .13 2.67**
Social motivation –.09 –1.79

Goal setting factors

Goal specificity and priority (goal factor 1) .02 .67
Peer competition (goal factor 2) .03 .80
Goal participation and feedback (goal factor 3) –.03 –.85

Other variables
Good grades are attractive .02 .54
Effort to get good grades .08 1.63
Make friends is attractive –.02 –.46
Effort to make friends –.08 –1.74

aR = .50, (R2 = .25), F = 16.86, p & .001.

*p ' .05. **p ' .01. ***p ' .001.

gender, race, and parent education control variables significantly increased by

21% from R2 = .02 to R2 = .23 (F = 73.69, p < .001).
The three retention groups differed significantly with respect to SAT scores
(F = 3.02, p < .05) and HSGPA (F = 29.74, p < .001). Students that were
academically disqualified had lower SAT scores and HSGPAs than students
that returned after their first year or left school on their own volition.

Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 stated that higher motivation to perform academically and socially
would predict academic performance and be related to retention beyond the first
year in college. Table 5 contains the multiple regression results with academic
and social motivation in the regression equation added to the equation after the
240 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

demographic and SAT scores and HSGPA variables were accounted for.
Academic expectancy motivation significantly predicted cumulative GPA
(t = 2.67, p & .01). The increase in cumulative GPA variance accounted for by the
control variables alone in step one increased from .23 to .26 (F = 2.01, p & .05).
Social expectancy motivation did not achieve, but approached, statistical
significance (F = 2.07, p & .07). Students’ perception that good grades were
attractive and that they would expend effort to achieve good grades differed
significantly among the three retention groups (F = 3.21, p & .05, F = 3.60, p & .05,
respectively). As compared to academically disqualified students, currently
enrolled students reported that good grades were more attractive and that they
would expend effort to achieve good grades.

Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 stated that students that set goals would achieve higher cumulative
GPAs and stay in college beyond their first year. The three goal setting factors
(see Table 2) were regressed on cumulative GPA. Table 5 reports that these
goal-setting factors did not predict the outcome measure. With respect to retention,
academically disqualified students reported less goal achievement competition
with and among their peers (factor two) than did students that did not return on
their own volition and also with those that returned for their second year (F = 4.37,
p & .01). The student retention groups did not significantly differ with respect
to the other two goal setting factors.

DISCUSSION
The present study provided support that the traditional SAT scores and high
school GPA measures predict freshmen college student academic performance
and student retention, and that student academic performance expectancies
provide additional prediction of end of first year cumulative GPA. Perceived grade
attractiveness and effort to obtain good grades added predictive value to retention
beyond the first year in college. Unlike the previous research that found social
motivation as a predictor of student retention (Tinto, 1993, 1999), the current
study did not find social motivation as a significant predictor of student retention
beyond the first year of college. Given the consistent research findings supporting
the importance of social motivation, the lack of support in this study is surprising.
Possible explanations may be the phrasing of questions in the survey, response
bias in the sample, or in the nature of the population itself. Future research should
explore explicit differences between students that voluntarily leave school and
students that choose to remain. While not explicitly studied presently, the reasons
students voluntarily leave school vary widely (Hermanowitz, 2006-2007). One
possible avenue for future research that may help us understand how students who
voluntarily leave and those that stay differ is the concept of “mattering” (Rayle &
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 241

Chung, 2007). Mattering refers to students’ experience that others are interested
in them and are concerned about them. It may be that students seek college
environments where others care about them, and will leave schools where they
do not experience such feelings.
The prediction of student performance and retention has several theoretical
and practical implications. As a motivation model, expectancy theory states
that motivation is a multiplicative function of expectancy, instrumentality, and
valence. The results therefore suggest that motivation is related to performance
and may also be moderated by other factors such as individual competencies.
Future research should test if specific expectancies, instrumentalities, and
valences in students’ pre-college experience predict college retention and per-
formance. For example, students’ expectation that their efforts result in good
grades (effort to performance expectancy) may be influenced by individual
characteristics such as self-esteem and environmental factors such as coaching
and training.
With respect to retention, specific reasons why goal competition among peers
predicts retention needs further study. Group dynamics research may provide
insight as to how competition fosters retention (Kamphoff, Hutson, & Amundsen,
2007). Further research involves the dynamics of different types of student
retention. While students that are academically disqualified may be different
from students that leave on their own volition, other types of retention situations
are possible, such as students that transfer to another college and students that
drop out of school completely.
Prediction of college performance and retention has several practical impli-
cations. If replicated in future research, the present findings have student selection
implications. Interview results pertaining to peer competition and motivation
can supplement traditional selection methods (e.g., high school GPA and SAT
scores) to improve retention rates and student performance. Following admission
and prior to campus arrival, freshmen students can be counseled on the importance
of expectancies, notably their perception that their efforts will lead to better
test and class performance, which in turn result in good grades. Once students start
college, academic advisors with motivation and goal-setting information about
students are in a favorable position to help students succeed. Advisors can identify
students with low expectancies (i.e., motivation) to succeed or have peers that do
not set achievement goals. Advisors can encourage at-risk students to seek school
resources that increase students’ belief that they are capable of earning good
grades and help students make linkages between good grades and other valued
available outcomes.
Beyond advisement, institutions can offer first year programs and seminars
intended to increase student retention and performance (Barefoot, 2000; Noble
et al., 2007). Andrade (2007) reviews such first year “learning communities”
and concludes that such programs attain positive results but that research is
limited. Hendel (2007) found that students that participated in a first year seminar
242 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

were more satisfied with various aspects of their school experience, yet were
not more likely to stay in college than students who did not attend the first
year seminar. Cutright (2005-2006) reports mixed findings from a nine-
community-college consortium project designed to improve student retention. For
example, a “hands-on” champion for the project was reported as an effective
practice, and inadequate funding was reported as a barrier to success. Fontana
et al. (2005-2006) proposed strategic model that provide opportunities for multiple
stakeholders (e.g., advisors, faculty, students and diversity committees) to be
involved in programs intended to increase freshmen retention.
Study limitations include response bias and generalizability to other academic
institutions. The 43% survey response rate is considered acceptable for surveys
administered online, but response bias existed. Females, non-minorities, students
with college educated parents, and students that returned after their first year
had higher response rates than males, minorities, students with parents that do
not have a college education, and students that left college after their first year.
Future research should ascertain why gender, race, and parent education influence
response rate, and what methods or incentives increase college freshmen response
rate. A shorter online survey may also increase response rate for all groups. The
present study was conducted at a moderately sized New York state university
(8,000 undergraduates). The extent that the findings generalize to other public and
private institutions of various sizes and locations is not possible to determine
without further research.
Enhanced student retention and performance is an important factor in sustaining
economic growth and quality of life. The prediction of student retention and
achievement is important given the unacceptable rate of students that do not
return to college after their first year. Future research should explore methods
that supplement traditional selection measures (e.g., high school GPA and SAT
scores) with psychological considerations such as students’ expectation that they
will succeed in college and the nature of the goals they set in high school and
subsequently for college.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the State University of New York at Oswego
Institutional Research for their data collection assistance.

REFERENCES
Allen, D. (1999) Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and
persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461-485.
American College Testing Program. (2006). 2006 retention/completion summary tables.
Retrieved May 24, 2007 from http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/retain_trends.pdf
Andrade, M. (2007). Learning communities: Examining positive outcomes. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 9(1), 1-20.
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 243

Astin, A. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson, R. C. (2002). Achievement versus aptitude in college admissions. Issues in
Science & Technology, 18(2), 31-37.
Barefoot, B. O. (2000). The first year experience. Are we making it any better? About
Campus, 4(6), 12-18.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Bean, J. (1982). Conceptual models for student attrition. In E. T. Pascarella (Ed.),
New directions for institutional research: Studying student attrition, 36, 17-28. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of
college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1),
35-65.
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001). The psychology underlying successful retention
practices. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1),
73-89.
Beck, H. P., & Davidson, W. B. (2001). Establishing an early warning system: Predicting
low grades in college students from Survey of Academic Orientation scores. Research
in Higher Education, 42(6), 709-723.
Blank, R. M. (1989). Analyzing the length of welfare spells. Journal of Public Economics,
39, 245-273.
Boudreau, C. A., & Kromrey, J. D. (1994) A longitudinal study of retention and academic
performance of participants in freshman orientation course. Journal of College Student
Development, 35(6), 444-449.
Braunstein, A. W., Lessar, M., & Pescatrice, D. R. (2006). The business of freshmen
student retention: Financial, institutional and external factors. Journal of Business
& Economic Studies, 12(2), 33-53.
Cabrera, A., & Nora, A. (1994). College students perceptions of prejudic e and discrim-
ination and their feelings of alienation: A construct validity approach. Review of
Higher Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, 16(3), 387-409.
Campbell, S. V. (2003). Using expectancy theory to assess gender differences in Russian
accounting student motivation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 7(3), 1-14.
Creamer, D. (1980). Educational advising for student retention: An institutional per-
spective. Community College Review, 7(4), 11-18.
Cutright, M. (2005-2006). A consortium project to improve retention and the first year
of college: Results and recommendations. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory and Practice, 7(3), 189-199.
Daempfle, P. A. (2004). An analysis of the high attrition rates among first year college
science, math, and engineering majors. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 5(1), 37-52.
Davidson, W., & Beck, H. (2006-2007). Survey of academic orientations scores and
persistence in college freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory and Practice, 8(3), 297-305.
DesJardins, S., Ahlburg, D., & McCall, B. (1998). An event history model of student
departure. Economics of Education Review, 18, 375-390.
Evans, Z. L. (2000). Survey examines trends in college admission. NACAC Bulletin,
November, 10-13.
244 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

Fontana, L., Johnson, E., Green, P., Macia, J., Wright, T., Yanick, D. et al. (2005-2006). A
strategic model to address issues of student achievement. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 7(3), 201-216.
Friedman, B. A., & Lechner, T. A. (2005). The development of an expectancy
questionnaire to identify at risk students. National Academic Advising Association
(NACADA) Region 1 conference, March 23-25, Montreal, Canada.
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Konopaske, R. K. (2006). Organi-
zations, Behavior, Structure and Processes. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Gifford, D. D. Briceno-Perriott, J., & Mianzo, F. (2006). Locus of control: Academic
achievement in a sample of university first year students. Journal of College
Admission, 191, 18-25.
Gold, J. (1995). An intergenerational approach to student retention. Journal of College
Student Development, 36(2), 182-187.
Harrison, N. (2006) The impact of negative experiences, dissatisfaction and attachment
on first year undergraduate withdrawal. Journal of Further and Higher Education,
30(4), 377-391.
Hendel, D. (2007). Efficacy of participating in a first-year seminar on student satisfaction
and retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice,
8(4), 413-423.
Hermanowitz, J. C. (2006-2007). Reasons and reasoning for leaving college among the
academic elite: Case study findings and implications. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(1), 21-38.
Heverly, M. (1999). Predicting retention from students’ experiences with college proc-
esses. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 1(1), 3-11.
Hezlett, S., Kuncel, N., Vey, A. Ones, D. Campbell, J., & Camara, W. J. (2001). The effec-
tiveness of the SAT in predicting success early and late in college: A comprehensive
meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of
Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
House, J. D. (2000). Relationships between self-beliefs, academic background, and
achievement of undergraduate students in health science majors. International Journal
of Instructional Media, 27(4), 447-460.
House, J. D., Keeley, E. J., & Hurst, R. S. (1996). Relationships between learner atti-
tudes, prior achievement, and performance in a general education course: A multi-
institutional study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23, 257-271.
House, J. D., & Prion, S. K. (1998). Student attitudes and academic background as
predictors of achievement in college English. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 25, 29-42.
Hummel, M., & Steele, C. (1996). The learning community: A program to address issues of
academic achievement and retention. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 23(2), 28-33.
Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J. R., & Guerra, N. S. (2007). Closer look at college students: Self-
efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 454-476.
Isaac, R. Z., Wilfred, J. P., & Douglas, C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The effective
application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 1045-3695.
Kamphoff, C., Hutson, B. L., & Amundsen, S. A. (2007). A motivational/empowerment
model applied to students on academic probation. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(4), 397-412.
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 245

Kiefer, N., & Neumann, G. (1979). An empirical job search model, with a test of the
constant reservation wage hypothesis. Journal of Political Economy, 87, 89-107.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. A., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007) Piecing
together the student success puzzle. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5), 1-182.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Theory of goal setting and performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maggio, J. C., White, W. G., Molstad, S., & Kher, N. (2005). Prefreshmen summer
programs’ impact on student achievement and retention. Journal of Developmental
Education, 29(2), 2-9.
Mento, A. J, Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta analytic study of the effects of
goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 39, pp. 52-83.
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2005). Organizational behavior: Emerging
realities for the workplace revolution. McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA.
Moxley, D., Najor-Durack, A., & Dumbrigue, C. (2001). Keeping students in higher
education: Successful practices and strategies for retention. Virginia: Kogan Page.
Mohr, J., Eiche, K., & Sedlacek, W. (1998). So close yet so far: Predictors of attrition in
college seniors. Journal of College Student Development, 39(4), 343-354.
Nadler, D. A., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). Motivation: A diagnostic approach. In J. R.
Hackman, E. E. Lawler, & L. Porter (Eds.), Perspectives on behavior in organizations.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Retrieved October, 28, 2005 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/section3/indicator20.asp
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Student engagement: Exploring different
dimensions of student engagement. Bloomington: Center for Postsecondary Research,
Indiana University.
Nicpon, M., Huser, L., Blanks, E., Sollenberger, S., Befort, C., & Kurpius, S. R. (2006-
2007). The relationship of loneliness and social support with college freshmen’s
academic performance and persistence. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory and Practice, 8(3), 345-358.
Noble, K., Flynn, N. T. Lee, J. D., & Hilton, D. (2007). Predicting successful college
experiences: Evidence from a first year retention program. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(1), 39-60.
Psacharopoulos, G. (1985). Returns to education: A further international update and impli-
cations. Journal of Human Resources, 20, 583-604.
Porter, S. R. (2003). Understanding retention outcomes: Using multiple data sources to
distinguish between dropouts, stopouts, and transfer-outs. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 5(1), 53-70.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Burr Ridge,
IL: Irwin.
Rayle, A. D., & Chung, K. (2007). Revisiting first-year college students’ mattering: Social
support, academic stress, and the mattering experience. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(1), 21-37.
Rayle, A. D., Kurpius, S. E. R., & Arredondo, P. (2007). Relationship of self-beliefs, social
support, and university comfort with the academic success of freshman college women.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(3), 325-343.
246 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

Rayle, A., & Kuo-Yi Chung, K. Y. (2007). Revisiting first-year college students’ matter-
ing: Social support, academic stress, and the mattering experience. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 9(1), 2-37.
Reason, R. D. (2003). Student variables that predict retention: Recent research and new
developments. NASPA Journal, 40(4), 172-191.
Robbins, S. B., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C. H. & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the dif-
ferential effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management measures
from traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(3), 598-616.
Schnell, C. A., & Doetkott, C. D. (2003. First year seminars produce long-term impact.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(4), 377-391.
Sireci, S. G., Zanetti, M. L., & Berger, J. B. (2003). Recent and anticipated changes
in post secondary admission: a survey of New England colleges and universities.
The Review of Higher Education, 26(3), 323-342.
Sorrentino, D. M. (2006-2007). The seek mentoring program: An application of the
goal-setting theory. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and
Practice, 8(2), 241-250.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Theory-based university admissions testing for a new millennium.
Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 185-198.
Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (2002). Group data on high school grade point averages
and scores on academic aptitude tests as predictors of institutional graduation rates.
Educational & Psychological Measurement, 62(6), 1042-1053.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA
Journal, 19(2), 5-9.
Tubbs, M. E. (1986). Goal setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 474-483.
Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 98(2), 354-365.
Vroom, V. C. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wohlgemuth, D., Whalen, D., Sullivan, J., Nading, C., Shelley, M., & Wang, Y. (2006).
Financial, academic, and environmental influences on the retention and graduation of
students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(4),
457-475.

Direct reprint requests to:

Barry A. Friedman
State University of New York at Oswego
247 Rich Hall
Oswego, NY 13126
e-mail: friedman@oswego.edu