Psiholo.ka obzorja / Horizons of Psychology, 10, 1, 49-59 (2001 Dru.tvo psihologov Slovenije 2001, ISSN 1318-18y Znanstveni empirieno-raziskovalni prispeve Automatic thoughts, school success, efficiency andRsatisfaction of university students #R IVANKA .IVEIA-BEAIREVIA1* AND NADA ANIA . 1University of Rijeka, Department of Psychology, Rijeka, Croati a 2Student Health Center, Counseling Center for Learning Difficulties, Zagreb, Croati a Abstract: Student Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire for assessment of University students. typica automatic thoughts during studying and taking an exam has been developed. The scale resulted in interpretable subscales: negative expectations and discouragement regarding exam; negative attitudI toward the subject; fear of disappointing parents; lack of motivation; and positive (encouraging) autoN matic thoughts. Successful and efficient students, as well as students who are satisfied with their achieveN ments, have more positive, and less negative automatic thoughts focused on failure, parents. disapN pointment and motivation. Automatic thoughts better differentiate students by their satisfaction, tha by their success and efficiency. Negative automatic thoughts related to fear of disappointing parent 1 are the best predictor while negative automatic thoughts related to negative attitude toward the subjecs are the worst predictor of students. satisfaction, success and efficiencyp Key words: automatic thoughts, school success, satisfaction, efficiency, students, questionnaires, Croati Samodejne misli, .tudijski uspeh, ueinkovitost inRzadovoljstvo pri univerzitetnih .tudentihR IVANKA .IVEIA-BEAIREVIA1 IN NADA ANIA . 1Univerza na Reki, Oddelek za psihologijo, Reka, Hrva.k a 2.tudentski zdravstveni dom, Svetovalni center za uene te.ave, Zagreb, Hrva.k a Povzetek: Razvili smo Vpra.alnik samodejnih misli .tudentov za oceno tipienih samodejnih misli meB .tudijem in v izpitnih situacijah. Vpra.alnik je namenjen univerzitetnim .tudentom. Lestvica vsebujI pet podlestvic: negativna prieakovanja in razoearanje nad izpitom, negativni odnos do predmeta, straO pred tem, da bi razoearali star.e, pomanjkanje motivacije in pozitivne (spodbudne) samodejne mislip Uspe.ni in ueinkoviti .tudentje in .tudentje, ki so zadovoljni s svojimi dose.ki, imajo vee pozitivnih i manj negativnih samodejnih razmi.ljanj, osredotoeenih na poraz, razoearanje pri star.ih in motivacijop Samodejne misli bolje razlikujejo .tudente po njihovem zadovoljstvu kot po njihovem uspehu teQ ueinkovitosti. S pomoejo podlestvice negativnih samodejnih misli, povezanih s strahom pred tem, d #Prispevek je bil predstavljen na 3. Kongresu psihologov Slovenije oktobra 1999 v Portoro.u v okviru simpozij a .Vedenjska in kognitivna terapija v Sloveniji. o *Naslov / address: dr. Ivanka .iveia-Beairevia, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University o . Rijeka, Ivana Klobueariaa 1, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, e-mail: izivcic@human.pefri.hQ 50RI. .iveia-Beairevia in N. AniY bi razoearali star.e, najbolje napovedujemo zadovoljstvo, uspe.nost in ueinkovitost, najslab.e pa 1 podlestvico negativnih samodejnih misli, povezanih z negativnim odnosom do predmetap Kljuene besede: samodejne misli, .tudijski uspeh, zadovoljstvo, ueinkovitost, .tudenti, vpra.alnikiU Hrva.k CC=355 1 In the past 20 years, the learning disabilities field evidenced a significant increase i research activities, both basic and applied (Wong, 1996). Based on numerous researcO findings it was recognized that students with and without academic failures anB learning difficulties differ in one or more basic cognitive functions necessary i processing (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993; Trapani & Gettinger, 1996). Deficits oQ dysfunction in information processing (in any phase) is recently recognized as thI cause of learning disability in children, adolescent and adultsp Defining the term .learning disabilities., sometime called .specific learnin . disabilities., Hammill (1993), argues that this is a generic term that refers to heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in thI acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or mathematica abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due t 1 central nervous system dysfunctionp As a consequence of repeated academic failure or learning problems, learningN disabled students develop specific secondary characteristics. These are pooQ motivation for long-lasting learning, tendency to give up and withdraw, and lack i interest in acquisition of new learning strategies. The next typical secondar characteristic of learning disabled students is low self-esteem. The comparison o . groups of students with and without learning difficulties shows significant differencI in self-control regulation between them. Students with academic failure havI insufficient self-regulation (one form of metacognition), which means planning anB learning in time sequence, persistence in long-lasting learning, effort and time foQ successful learning, learning from prior experiences how to learn, ability to generalizI from one kind of tasks to similar one. They do not have flexibility and strategi learning approach in learning new subjects (Harris, 1986; Trapani & Gettinger, 1996) p Besides deficits in self-regulation many students with learning disability have als 1 other characteristics making learning more difficult. These are hopeless behaviorU external locus of control, maladaptive attributions, deficits in understanding, lo . motivation, negative affect towards tasks, poor problem solving skills, low efficacyU impulsivity etc. (Wong, Harris & Graham, 1991). There is some evidence that learnin . disabled students may have proper learning strategies but they do not use the . (Shapiro, 1989). Trapani and Gettinger (1996) state that learning disabled student 1 Authomatic thoughts, success, and satisfaction of studentR 51R differ from students without learning disability in cognitive process, cognitivI strategies and quality and quantity of private speechp Cognitive model for understanding and treating dysfunction and maladaptivI behavior presumes that cognitive functions (perception, memory, thoughts, believesU attitudes and inferences) have mediating role in interaction between an individua and his changing surrounding (Beck, 1976). Several research support clinica observations that negative automatic thoughts strongly influenced human behavioQ and affects (Dobson, 1988). Automatic negative thoughts are short, quick, like shors flash. They are usually frightening or upsetting and may appear in verbal form, e.gp (.I.ll fail again.) or as an image e.g. (the face of a strict teacher) . At the moment o . their appearance, negative automatic thoughts make the student feel anxious, les 1 concentrated on learning and in lower mood. If repeated continuously, they ca severely disturb student.s learning process on the cognitive and affective levelp According to the cognitive behavioral model for understanding learnin . disabilities, and based on our practice in students counseling centers, it seems thas negative automatic thoughts are one of the key stones in treatment programsp Cognitive techniques for identification and modification of negative automati thoughts can significantly decrease emotional tension and test anxiety (Cohn, 1998) p At the same time these techniques can improve concentration and learning efficacyp On the one hand, teaching students in using positive, encouraging thoughts (by selfN instructional training) increase their motivation and persistence in long-lastin . learning. During assessment of learning difficulties special attention must be paid t 1 the identification of the cognitions . students. thoughts, believes and attitudes abous their problems and about their own capacities to cope with themp The purpose of this study was to develop the scale for assessing students. automatic thoughts during learning and taking an exam. Such a scale could providI better understanding of the structure of dysfunctional, as well as encouragin . automatic thoughts at university students. That would give us better ideas foQ developing more precise strategies for treatment, and provide the instrument foQ evaluation of cognitive techniques used in modification of their negative automati thoughtsp The study wanted to answer the following questions 1p 2p 3p What are the factor structure and the reliability of the newly developed Studens Automatic Thoughts QuestionnaireE What type of automatic thoughts can differentiate students by their succes 1 and efficiency when taking an exam, and their satisfaction with themselvesE What type of automatic thoughts can best explain the variance of students. success, efficiency and satisfactionE 52RI. .iveia-Beairevia in N. AniY MethodR ParticipantsR The sample consisted of 279 students (133 males and 146 females) from differens faculties at the universities in Rijeka and Zagreb (age range 19-26 years, M = 21.19e SD = 2.00) p InstrumentsR The newly developed Student Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire has been useB (.iveia-Beairevia & Ania, 1999). SATQ has been developed in Croatian languagI with the aim to assess the negative and positive automatic thoughts that student 1 have during learning and taking an exam and is based on the cognitive-behaviora model of learning difficultiesp ProcedureR The data were obtained during summer and autumn exam period (in June anB September 1999) at different faculties and student dormitories at the University i Rijeka and Zagreb. ResultsR Principal axis factor analysis with Varimax rotation has been conducted on all 4 . items. There were 5 factors excluded with eigen values over 1. The repeated factoQ analysis with Varimax rotation on 33 items resulted with 5 interpretable factor thas all together explain 52 % of variance. The item analysis has been done for each o . five factor subscales. The items that were spoiling the clear factor structure or thI reliability had been excluded. Table 1. shows the number of items, means, standarB deviations and internal consistency (Cronbach a) for each subscalep The dominant factor of SATQ is the subscale .fear of failure., which has thI Table 1: The characteristics of Student Automatic Thoughts QuestionnairI subscale No. of items M SD . FAILURE 8 9.11 4.99 .90 POSITIVE THOUGHTS 11 19.48 5.28 .79 SUBJECT 5 5.48 3.09 .75 PARENTS 3 2.58 2.32 .77 MOTIVATION 5 7.55 2.90 .69 Authomatic thoughts, success, and satisfaction of studentR 53R highest reliability, while the subscale .fear of dissappointing parents. is very shors (just 3 items), so that it.s moderate internal consistency has even less informationa strengthp To determine what type of automatic thoughts can differentiate students b their success and efficiency on the exam, and their satisfaction with themselvesU several analysis of variance have been conducted. Students were treated as successfu if their mean grade on previous exams equals or exceeds 4.0, and as unsuccessful i . their mean grade is equal or below 3.0. Students were treated as efficient if the mostly pass the exams from the first trial, and as inefficient if they fail the samI exam several times. Students estimated their satisfaction on the scale from 1 to 4U and then the two subgroups with extreme estimations were compared. The results o . the analysis of variance are shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4, and Figure 1, 2 and 3. T 1 enable the comparison of the results on specific subscales with different number o . items, the results on the Student Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire shown on thI graphs were transformed in z-valuesp Table 2: Automatic thoughts and student success (differences between the two groups which were statistically important are boldfaced successful unsuccesful subscale N = 145 N = 80 F p FAILURE 9.43 8.73 .982 .323 POSITIVE THOUGHTS 18.37 20.70 10.746 .001 SUBJECT 5.55 5.33 .263 .609 PARENTS 3.19 1.51 29.440 .000 MOTIVATION 7.92 6.95 5.933 .016 Table 3: Automatic thoughts and student efficiency (differences between the two groups which were statistically important are boldfaced efficient inefficient subscale N = 149 N = 68 F p FAILURE 8.28 11.01 13.249 .000 POSITIVE THOUGHTS 20.40 17.81 12.073 .001 SUBJECT 5.29 6.12 3.366 .068 PARENTS 1.73 4.00 52.008 .000 . 0 MOTIVATION 6.94 8.79 19.207 .000 9 5 7 9 54 I. .iveia-Beairevia in N. Ania Table 4: Automatic thoughts and student satisfaction (differences between the two groups, which were statistically important are boldfaced) subscale satisfied N = 79 unsatisfied N = 27 F p FAILURE 8.60 13.88 30.100 .000 POSITIVE THOUGHTS 19.94 14.89 24.335 .000 SUBJECT 5.20 8.22 25.369 .000 PARENTS 2.34 4.85 31.723 .000 MOTIVATION 7.24 10.52 34.977 .000 Figure 1: Automatic Thoughts & Success Figure 2: Automatic Thoughts & Efficiency Authomatic thoughts, success, and satisfaction of student R 5f p 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 3: Automatic Thoughts & SatisfactioU To determine what type of automatic thoughts can best explain the variancI of students. success, efficiency and satisfaction the multiple stepwise regressio analysis have been conducted. The results on each subscale on the Student Automati Thoughts Questionnaire were treated as predictors, and the student estimation o . their satisfaction and efficiency, as well as their success (mean grade) as criteriap Tables 5, 6 and 7 show the results of the regression analysis only for those predictor 1 that were statistically significantp Table 5: Significant predictors of student succesR Predictors Beta p PARENTS -.287 < .001 POSITIVE THOUGHTS .150 .011 Table 6: Significant predictors of student efficienc Predictors Beta p PARENTS .415 < .001 POSITIVE THOUGHTS .392 < .001 MOTIVATION .125 .032 Table 7: Significant predictors of student satisfactioU Predictors Beta p PARENTS .432 < .001 POSITIVE THOUGHTS -.266 < .001 MOTIVATION .222 < .001 56RI. .iveia-Beairevia in N. AniY DiscussionR The factor structure indicates five types of students. automatic thoughts durin . learning. The first group relates to negative thoughts about failure expectation. The are significantly more often present at inefficient than at efficient students. It i 1 interesting that thoughts focused on expectation and fear of failure are not related t 1 real student success, defined by mean grade achieved on previous exams. It is cleaQ that high negative expectations can significantly increase anxiety and lower studens concentration. In that way, they could cause that the student is unable to pass thI exam that would increase his dissatisfaction. On the other side, if the student is nos so much disturbed on the exam, his negative thinking about possible failure woulB not influence the exact grade that is under stronger influence of his actual knowledgep Kamann (1989) also indicates the importance of negative expectation about succes 1 in children. His results showed that application of cognitive-behavioral copin . strategies with children who are highly anxious about mathematics could significantl improve their mathematics test performancep The second group includes positive thoughts that students use to encouragI themselves during learning and preparation for the exam. These thoughts can bess differentiate the students, based on their satisfaction, but also on their actual succes 1 and efficiency. These results support the application of self-instructional technique 1 (positive self-talk) to teach students in using encouraging, but realistic thoughtsp Some students try to use .positive. thoughts by themselves, saying sentences thas sound encouraging, but are unrealistic and, because of that, highly inefficient. SucO thoughts can even increase anxiety, because the student is soon faced with uncertaint about their realization. The examples of such thoughts are .I will surely pass., .Is doesn.t matter if I fail. etc. Clinical experience confirms the importance of usin . positive self-talk when working on a specific task, as well as in coping with anxiet in different stress situations. But, such thoughts could be efficient only if they arI realistic and if the person fully believes in them. While some people spontaneousl produce and use such thoughts, some need specialized training in their applicatio (Kamann, 1989; Meichenbaum & Butler, 1980; Meichenbaum & Turk, 1976; MilleQ & Brewster, 1992). Harris (1986) investigated the natural occurrence of regulator private speech among normally achieving and learning disabled students durin . problem solving. Her results indicated that learning disabled students produced significantly lower proportion of task-relevant private speech (and significantly higheQ proportions of task-irrelevant private speech). A self-instructional problem-solvin . intervention, using a peer model, resulted in significant and meaningful improvement 1 on all measures among both the students with learning disabilities and their normall achieving peers. But it is important that the performance of the children with learnin . disability after intervention equaled or exceeded that of their competent normall achieving peers in the no-treatment condition. Keogh, Whitman and Maxwell (1988 Authomatic thoughts, success, and satisfaction of studentR 57R found that self-instructional training improved mathematics skills in learning disableB students better than external didactic teaching. Graham and Wong (1993) came t 1 similar results. They found that self-instructional training could improve readin . skills and text comprehension better than didactic teaching of strategiesp The third group includes negative thoughts related to the subject student i 1 learning. These thoughts do not seem to be so relevant for the student success i studying and taking the exam. They differentiate the students based only on theiQ satisfaction, but not on their actual success and efficiency on the exams. They arI not significant predictors in any regression analysis. Based on these results, it coulB be concluded that the negative attitude toward and lack of interest for the subjecs could negatively influence student satisfaction and consequently contribute t 1 decrease of the motivation, which is supported by significant correlation betwee the results on these two subscales (rsubject/motivation = 0.51, p < .001). In the same timeU this negative attitude does not influence the actual achievement on the examp The thoughts related to the fear of disappointing parents formed the fourtO factor in the Students Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. These thoughts bess differentiate students, based on their success, efficiency and satisfaction. They arI also the best predictors for all three criteria of student success (efficiency, mea grade and subjective satisfaction). It is clear that these are the thoughts that distracs students. concentration during studying, disturb the process of retrieval and answerin . on the exam. Clinical experience also prove that many students coming to studens counseling centers are saying that they worry about parents. reactions on their realizeB or eventual failure. Some of them say that they might disappoint parents, that the won.t fulfill their high expectation, that they might lose parents. trust and suppors (emotional and financial), that they will provoke their anger, or that .the parents wil turn against them.. Each of these negative expectations raise negative emotions anB anticipation of very unpleasant immediate, as well as longitudinal, consequences foQ their personal life and relations with parents. Some of these expectations are surel realistic, but we can also notice that many of them are at least partly distorted anB exaggerated, and that they represent a way of catastrofizing consequences. It i 1 necessary to intervene against these distortions (using cognitive restructuring) i therapeutic work with the studentsp The fifth group includes the thoughts related to students. lack of motivatio for studying and their intention to give up of the exam. These thoughts can wel differentiate students based on all three criteria and they are significant predictors o . students. satisfaction and their efficiency, but not their success (defined by mea grade on previous exams). Even if this is relatively short subscale with the lowess reliability, it seems that this kind of thoughts play relatively significant role in students. life. These results can be pretty easy understood and interpreted. The students wh 1 are less interested and motivated for the college and for studying will normally bI less satisfied with their work. The tendency for giving up of the exam and of thI 58RI. .iveia-Beairevia in N. AniY study will more influence on their efficiency in taking exams than on their grade 1 that are supposed to be better measure of their knowledgep It could be concluded that automatic thoughts generally play a significant rolI in the process of studying and taking an exam. Automatic thoughts can betteQ differentiate students based on their satisfaction with themselves than on their actua efficiency and real success. Particularly disturbing are the thoughts indicating feaQ of disappointing parents, while the thoughts focused on the negative attitude towarB the subject and negative thoughts indicating fear of failure are less relevant for studens success. The significant role of positive, encouraging thoughts in satisfaction, a 1 well as in the efficiency and student success, is especially interesting. Based on thI only significant, and negative correlation between the results on the subscale .PositivI thoughts. and the subscale .Fear of disappointing parents. (r = -.143, p = .017), it i 1 reasonable to suppose that training in using encouraging thoughts could reduce thI fear of disappointing parents that shows the most destructive influence on the proces 1 of studying and taking the examp With this research we support the current view that difficulties in academi learning are in great deal influenced by internal mediating cognitive processes, sucO as believes, attributions and thoughts. Even students with high basic abilities, gooB working habits and learning skills could fail because of negative self-evaluationsU negative attitudes, believes and expectationsp We plan to focus further research on specific cognitions that increase students. anxiety and depression during studying and taking exams, as well as on their strategie 1 to cope with failure. Besides, we will use the Student Automatic Thought 1 Questionnaire to evaluate our therapeutic work with unsuccessful students. ReferencesR Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York International Universities Pressp Cohn, P. (1998). Why does my stomach hurt? How the learning disabled can use cognitivI strategies to reduce anxiety and stress at the college level. Journal of Learnin . Disabilities, 31 (5), 514 .516p Dobson, K.S. (1988). Handbook of cognitive-behavioral therapies. New York: GuilforB Pressp Gathercole, S.E. & Baddeley, A.D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hove Erlbaump Graham, L. & Wong, B.Y. (1993). Comparing two modes of teaching a questionN answering strategy for enhancing reading comprehension: Didactic and selfN instructional training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 270-279p Hammill, D.D. (1993). A timely definition of learning disabilities. Family Communit Health, 16 (3), 1-8p Harris, K.R. (1986). The effects of cognitive-behavior modification on private speech anB Authomatic thoughts, success, and satisfaction of studentR 59R task performance during problem solving among learning disabled and normall achieving children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 63-67p Kamman, M.P. (1989). Inducing adaptive coping self-statements in the learning-disableB through a cognitive behavioral intervention. Unpublished master.s thesis, Simo Fraser University, Burnaby, Canadap Keogh, D.A., Whitman, T.L. & Maxwell, S.E. (1988). Self-instruction versus externa instruction: Individual differences and training effectiveness. Cognitive Therap and Research, 12 (6), 591-610p Meichenbaum, D.H. & Butler, L. (1980). Toward a conceptual model for the treatment o . test anxiety: Implications for research and treatment. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Tess anxiety, theory, research and applications (pp. 187-208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaump Meichenbaum, D. & Turk, D. (1976). The cognitive-behavioral management of anxietyU anger, and pain. In P.O. Davidson (Ed.) The behavioral management of anxiety depression and pain (pp. 33-46). New York: Brunner/Mazelp Miller, G.E. & Brewster, M.E. (1992). Developing self-sufficient learners in reading anB mathematics through self-instructional training. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris &, J.Tp Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 169N 222). New York: Academic Pressp Shapiro, E.S. (1989). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and interventions. Ne . York: Guilford Pressp Trapani, C. & Gettinger, M. (1996). Treatment of students with learning disabilities, CasI conceptualization and program design. In M.A. Reinecke, F.M. Dattilio & Ap Freeman (Eds.). Cognitive therapy with children and adolescents, A casebook foQ clinical practice (pp. 251-277). New York: Guilford Pressp Wong, B.Y.L. (1996). The ABCs of learning disabilities. San Diego, CA: Academic Pressp Wong, B.Y.L., Harris, K.R. & Graham, S. (1991). Academic applications of cognitiveN behavioral programs with learning disabled students, in P.C.Kendall (Ed.). ChilB and adolescent therapy, cognitive-behavioral procedures (pp. 245-275). Ne . York: Guilford Pressp .iveia-Beairevia, I. & Ania, N. (1999). Students Automatic Thoughts Questionnairep Unpublished manuscript, University of Rijekap Prispelo/Received: 20.09.200 1 Sprejeto/Accepted: 28.01.200 1