motives to study and socialization tactics among university students
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 14 November 2014, At: 10:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Motives to Study andSocialization Tactics AmongUniversity StudentsRonit Bogler a & Anit Somech ba Department of Education and Psychology , TheOpen University of Israel , Tel Aviv, Israelb Faculty of Education , University of Haifa , MountCarmel, IsraelPublished online: 03 Apr 2010.
To cite this article: Ronit Bogler & Anit Somech (2002) Motives to Study andSocialization Tactics Among University Students, The Journal of Social Psychology,142:2, 233-248, DOI: 10.1080/00224540209603897
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603897
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
The Journal of Social Psvcholoay. 2002. 142(2). 233-248
Motives to Study and Socialization Tactics Among University Students
RONIT BOGLER Department of Education and Psychology
The Open University of Israel, Tel Aviv, Israel
ANIT SOMECH Faculty of Education
University of Haifa, Mount Camel , Israel
ABSTRACT. The authors focused on the period following students’ admission to univer- sity and examined the effects of students’ motives to study and socialization tactics on their academic achievement and academic satisfaction. The authors hypothesized that socialization tactics would mediate the relation of motives to study to academic achieve- ment and satisfaction. The findings confirmed the hypotheses and highlighted the impor- tance of students’ socialization tactics in the university setting. In addition, the research provided a typology to distinguish different types of socialization tactics.
Key words: academic achievement, academic satisfaction, Israel, motives to study, social- ization tactics, university students
AS MORE STUDENTS enter institutions of higher education, one would expect greater attention to the likelihood of their surviving and succeeding in the sys- tem. Traditional measures predicting survival and academic achievement at insti- tutions of higher learning are mostly variations of psychometric tests and matric- ulation examinations taken before college or university entrance (Beller, 1994; Bond, 1989; Cronbach & Gleser, 1965; Donlon, 1984). Such measures, howev- er, have some failings, which may affect their ability to validate and predict stu- dents’ future gains (Britton & Tesser, 1991; Keller, Crouse, & Trusheim, 1994; Larose, Robertson, Roy, & Legault, 1998; Linn, 1990; McClelland, 1984; Pas- carella & Terenzini, 1991).
Address correspondence to Ronit Bogler; Department of Education and Psychology, The Open Universiw of Israel, RO. Box 39328, Tel Aviv 61392. Israel; send e-mail to [email protected].
233
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
234 The Journal of Social Psychology
In the present research, conducted during the period following admission to the university, we scrutinized students’ motives to study and their socialization tactics at the institution as predictors of academic achievement and academic sat- isfaction. We believe that, when the students are admitted to the university, they should seriously consider variables that may explain the difference in their acad- emic achievement and academic satisfaction.
Motives to Study
Students’ motives to study impel them to enroll in academic institutions. Those motives may be classified by different typologies, which Aittola (1995) described by using the extrinsic-intrinsic principle. Extrinsic motives orient the students toward working for the ultimate goal of examinations, whereas intrinsic motives are based on the students’ concern to expand their knowledge. Accord- ing to Aittola’s description, today’s students are more instrumentally oriented, motivated by extrinsic incentives, and interested “in receiving their degrees with the minimum of effort” (p. 38).
Previous researchers on motives have suggested different typologies. In examining students’ motivations to study at institutions of higher education, Douvan and Kaye (1967) described four types of motives: vocational prepara- tion, intellectual broadening, attractive social life, and release from parental con- trol. Clark (1962) and Clark and Trow (1966) characterized the student subcul- tures according to the foregoing distinctions. The vocational subculture corresponds to students interested mostly in job preparation; the academic sub- culture is oriented toward “serious students” (Clark, p. 208) who seek to broad- en their knowledge and to be associated with prominent intellectuals and schol- ars; and the collegiate subculture stresses the importance of student life on campus (i.e., sports, dating, fraternities, and sororities) as well as students’ wish- es to be released from their parents’ control. That typology was also adopted by Shapira and Etzioni-Halevy ( 1973), who studied the attitudes of Israeli students toward social and political issues.
In the present study, we used the typology of subcultures just described to examine the motives of undergraduate students to study at higher education insti- tutions. We, therefore, classified three types of motives: instrumental, which applies to students who attend institutions of higher learning to acquire degrees that pave the way to social and occupational mobility; scholastic, which refers to students driven by intellectual stimulation and purely academic reasons; and social, or collegiate, which corresponds to students’ aspirations for their social life on campus. The foregoing types of motives are only one variable that may be critical in assessing a student’s chances of high academic achievement and satis- faction. Another variable is the students’ socialization at the university. One must examine students’ socialization in relation to their motives to study and not as an independent variable.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bogler & Somech 235
Socialition Tactics
Socialization is a continuing learning process in which individuals become members of a group whose norms and culture they internalize. According to Brim (1966, as cited in Weidman, 1989), socialization is “the process by which persons acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that make them more or less effective members of their society” (p. 293). Crow and Glascock (1995) described three mechanisms of socialization to a new role: “exploration, giving up the previous role, and adjusting self and new role to each other” (p. 25). Per- sons who have become students often explore and gather much information about their new status and roles. Giving up one’s previous role may involve either “divesting of the old role or investing in a new role” (Crow & Glascock, p. 25). Our assumption was that adjusting to a new role (the third mechanism of social- ization) would indicate how well one would fit into the new organization and how well one would succeed there.
Weidman (1989). who applied the concept of socialization to the student’s world, asserted that “[ulndergraduate socialization can . . . be viewed as a process that results from the student’s interaction with other members of the college community in groups or other settings characterized by varying degrees of nor- mative pressure” (p. 304). That interaction results in different forms of social- ization that may lead to various types of newcomer adjustments to organizations (Jones, 1986). Attinasi (1989) defined two process stages of college students: One is getting ready, which refers to “behaviors and attitudes of. . . students prior to college matriculation” (p. 255); the other is getting in, which involves the behaviors and attitudes after matriculation. At the getting-ready stage, researchers (e.g., Pascarella, 1985; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger. Pascarella, & Nora, 1996; Tinto, 1987) have found that students differed in both the personal and education characteristics that they brought to college. We focused on the get- ting-in stage, so as to deepen knowledge of the importance of students’ social- ization tactics in the university milieu.
Socialization is a broad concept that may encompass the motives to study (Bush & Simmons, 1981). We assumed that there would be no single best socialization tactic for all students. Rather, we argued that the different tactics would be determined by a variety of motives that impel students to study. The congruence between one’s motives to study and one’s socialization tactics may play a key role in explaining one’s academic achievement and satisfaction. Stu- dents motivated by scholastic concerns tend to look for additional readings beyond the minimal requirement of the course. Students driven by social con- siderations tend to invest a significant portion of their time in social and politi- cal life on campus. Students motivated by instrumental variables tend to adopt a more practical approach through familiarization with the university rules and regulations; they may apply tacit knowledge, defined as “knowledge that usual- ly is not openly expressed or stated” (Onford English Dictionary, as cited in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
236 The Journal of Sociul Psychology
Wagner & Sternberg, 1986, p. 51). According to Wagner and Sternberg, tacit knowledge is more practical than academic, more informal than formal, and often not taught and transmitted directly to most people. Therefore, students may practice tacit knowledge, or practical intelligence, when they are driven to study by instrumental motives.
The congruence between one’s motives to study and one’s socialization tac- tics is rooted in the self-consistency explanation, which refers to the desire to sense and experience coherence and congruence between one’s identities and role behaviors (e.g., Markus & Wurf, 1987). Gecas (1982) argued that individu- als are motivated to act in accordance with the values and norms implied by the identities to which they have become committed. We assumed that the same pat- tern of behavior would apply to motives to study and socialization tactics-that is, that university students would strive to achieve consistency between their motives to study and their socialization tactics. Another theoretical basis for the congruence between one’s motives to study and one’s socialization tactics comes from the functionalist tradition, which is concerned with the “motivational foun- dations of people’s actions, and with the agendas that they set for themselves and that they act out in pursuit of their goals” (Snyder & Cantor, 1998, p. 642). The functionalist approach stresses the importance of the outcomes of human social behavior and states that there should be a match between motives to study and socialization tactics. In the present study, the agenda refers to the motives to study, the actions in the Socialization tactics, and the outcomes in academic achievement and satisfaction. We expected that students who were socialized according to their motives (i.e.. who adopted scholastic socialization tactics when they were driven by scholastic motives to study, instrumental tactics when they were driven by instrumental motives, or collegiate tactics when they were driven by social motives) would be more satisfied with school and more likely to gain high academic achievement.
Accordingly, we examined hypotheses about the goodness of fit between students’ motives to study and their socialization tactics and the effect of that fit on their academic achievement and academic satisfaction. Consequently, we for- mulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis I : Students’ motives to study are related to their socialization tactics at the academic institution.
On the basis of the typology of students’ motives to study and the corre-
Hypothesis fa: Students driven by the instrumental motive tend to adopt an
Hypothesis Ib: Students driven by the scholastic motive tend to adopt a
Hypothesis fc: Students driven by the collegiate motive tend to adopt a col-
sponding socialization tactics, we derived the following subhypotheses:
instrumental socialization tactic.
scholastic socialization tactic.
legiate socialization tactic.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bogler & Somech 237
In addition, we formulated our second and third hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Socialization tactics mediate the relation between motives to
Hypothesis 3: Socialization tactics mediate the relation between motives to study and academic achievement.
study and academic satisfaction.
Method
Participants
The participants were 243 undergraduates at an Israeli research university, a medium-sized institution that offers undergraduate as well as graduate studies in the faculties of humanities and social sciences and in the schools of education and social work. The university is similar to other universities in Israel. The sam- pled students were 12% of the undergraduates attending that university. Table I contains the main characteristics of the sample.
Measures and Procedures
We selected students from regular classes; they participated in the study vol- untarily. The researcher introduced herself to the students, representing herself as
TABLE 1 Frequencies of the Background Variables (N = 243)
Category Frequencies
n %
Academic discipline Education Social work Law Philosophy
Gender Male Female
Marital status Married Unmarried
85 76 57 25
69 174
35 208
35 31 23 1 1
28 72
I4 86
Nore. The participants’ mean age was 22.0 years (SD = 2.7), and their mean socioeconomic status (SES) was 4.40 (SO = 0.63). We measured SES by a composite index of father’s education, mother’s education, and family income (on a scale of 1 to 6; 1 represents the lowest value). Each item received equal weight (on the basis of Arum & Shavit, 19951.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
interested in students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward academic studies. All participants completed a questionnaire consisting of self-reported items about three facets of their university life-motives to study, socialization tactics, and academic satisfaction-and provided biographical information.
Motives to study. We measured the motives to study on a 9-item scale (3 items for each motive) based on Shapira and Etzioni-Halevy’s scale (1973). The items were listed after the question “What were the reasons that motivated you to study at the university?” For example, an item describing the scholastic motive was “the will to expand my knowledge” (for the Scholastic subscale, a = .81); an item representing the instrumental motive was “the desire to acquire a profession” (for the Instrumental subscale, a = .77); and an item referring to the collegiate motive was “the desire to be publicly and politically active” (for the Collegiate subscale, a = .76; for the full list of items for motives to study, see the Appendix.). The participants rated each item on a 6-point Liken-type scale (1 = not important at all, 6 = very importunr). To assess each motive, we averaged the responses of the corresponding subscales.
Socialization tactics. We measured socialization tactics with a questionnaire spe- cially designed for the present study, in line with our conceptualization of social- ization tactics as related to the three motives to study. The questions focused on the students’ actions and reflected their actual behavior and adjustment to the university life. Thus, the characteristics of the socialization tactics were derived from the students’ responses.
To identify the contents of the socialization tactics at the university, we inter- viewed 5 senior undergraduates. The semistructured interview focused on the students’ perspectives of the appropriate ways to succeed at the university. We asked them to list behaviors with respect to the following tasks: fulfilling their student role; being socially and politically involved in campus life; attaining high academic achievement; and recommending to a new applicant appropriate behaviors to get along at university (the last 2 items were based on the question- naire of Wagner and Sternberg, 1986). On the basis of those interviews, we con- structed a pool of 40 items representing the three socialization tactics. Two inde- pendent judges coded the items, and we included in the final version of the questionnaire only those items agreed on by both (32 items; for the full list, see the Appendix). The questionnaire consisted of three subscales:
1. The Scholastic Socialization subscale (a = .67) consists of 11 items (e.g., “I prefer courses that provide an intellectual challenge,” “I read bibliography beyond what is required for the course,” “I review my comprehensive class notes regul arl y”) .
2. The Instrumental Socialization subscale (a = .72) consists of 15 items (e.g., “I prefer classes in which I feel sufficiently confident of receiving high
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bogler & Somech 239
grades,” “I schedule my study plan according to my free time,” “I tend to consult with senior students”).
3. The Collegiate Socialization subscale (a = .75) consists of 6 items (e.g., “I am an active member of the student union,” “I am active in various social activities on campus,” “I develop social relationships with other students”). For the full list of items of socialization tactics, see the Appendix.
The participants indicated their responses on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = not important at all, 6 = very imporrunt). To assess each socialization tactic, we averaged responses of the corresponding subscales.
Academic achievement. We assessed academic achievement by the participants’ self-reported grade average. To validate the measure, we correlated the self- reported grades of 20 students with their real grades. A Pearson correlation ( r = 92, p < .OOO) indicated that the participants had adequately reported their grades.
Academic satisfaction. We calculated academic satisfaction as the mean score of 10 items based on Zak’s job satisfaction questionnaire (1975). For the present study, we modified the items (e.g., “I am satisfied with the academic level of studies at the university”) to describe the overall feeling of academic and social satisfaction (a = .84).
Results
The mean scores were 5.30 (SD = 0.75), 4.90 (SD = 1.18). and 1.50 (SD = 1 S 3 ) for the scholastic, instrumental, and collegiate motives, respectively. Because all students ranked the collegiate motive last, that motive did not seem to be meaningful. The correlation patterns evinced consistent intercorrelations among the three motives and among the three socialization tactics. The intercor- relations among the three motives revealed a positive correlation between the scholastic motive and the instrumental motive (r = .14, p c .05) and no signifi- cant relation between the collegiate motive and the two other motives (p > .05). The intercorrelations among the three socialization tactics revealed a positive relation between scholastic socialization and instrumental socialization ( r = .22, p c .05) and no significant relation between collegiate socialization and the two other socialization tactics @ > .05). Accordingly, we omitted the collegiate motive and its corresponding socialization tactic from the analyses (for descrip- tive statistics for the four variables, see Table 2).
Preliminary Ana Iyses
We performed two univariate analyses of variance to determine whether dif- ferences existed among the four disciplines represented by the participants (edu-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
240 The Journal of Social Psychology
TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations of the
Study Variables (N = 243)
Variable M
Motives to study Scholastic Instrumental Collegiate
Scholastic Instrumental Collegiate
Socialization tactics
Academic achievement Academic satisfaction
5.30 4.90 1 S O
3.10 3.20 1.70
82.40 4.10
SD
0.75 1.18 1.53
0.76 0.66 1.45 5.15 0.89
Nvre. Scores for all variables ranged from I to 6, except for academic achievement, which ranged from 0 to 100.
cation, social work, law, and philosophy) with regard to two independent vari- ables: motives to study and socialization tactics. The results of the analyses revealed no significant differences among the disciplines. Accordingly, we treat- ed the participants as one group, regardless of their academic course of study.
Correlation Analyses
We computed Pearson correlations to test Hypothesis 1 (that motives to study would be related to students’ socialization tactics). We found (a) a positive relation between the scholastic motive and scholastic socialization ( r = .17, p < .Ol); (b) a positive relation between the instrumental motive and instrumental socialization ( r = .18, p < .Ol); (c) a negative relation between the scholastic motive and instrumental socialization ( r = -. 14, p < .05); (d) no significant rela- tion between the instrumental motive and scholastic socialization @ > .05). The results supported Hypothesis 1 and its subhypotheses, which predicted a positive relation between each motive and its corresponding socialization (scholastic motive with scholastic socialization; instrumental motive with instrumental socialization).
Regression Analyses
Hypothesis 2 concerned the mediating effect of socialization tactics on the relation between motive to study and academic achievement. One can demon- strate a compIete mediation only by showing that (a) the antecedent (motive to study) is related to the consequence (academic achievement); (b) the mediator
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bogler & Somech 24 I
(socialization tactics) is related to the consequence (academic achievement); and (c) the relation between the antecedent (motive to study) and the consequence (academic achievement) is eliminated when the mediator (socialization tactics) is controlled (Baron & Kenny, 1986; James & Brett, 1984).
To test Hypothesis 2, we computed two hierarchical regressions (Table 3). Each analysis regressed the dependent variable (academic achievement) on the motive to study (scholastic or instrumental) and its corresponding socialization tactic (scholastic or instrumental). In the first equation, we regressed academic achievement on motives to study: The scholastic motive explained 4% of the variance (p < .05), and the instrumental motive explained 2% of the variance (p < .05) of academic achievement. In the second equation, we regressed acade- mic achievement on socialization tactics: Scholastic socialization explained 1 1% of the variance (p < .001), and instrumental socialization explained 6% of the variance (p < .001) of academic achievement. In the third equation, to control for the effects of socialization tactics, we entered socialization tactics in the first step and motives to study in the second step. In both regressions controlled for the effect of socialization tactics, the variable motives to study was not significant and did not contribute to the explained variance of academic achievement. Taken
TABLE 3 Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Testing the Mediating Effect of Socialization
on the Relation Between Motive to Study and Academic Achievement
Academic achievement Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3a
Independent variable P SE P SE P SE
Scholastic Socialization tactics 0.24" . I 1 0.26* . I 1
F 13.37** 36.7 1 ** 29.12** df 1,762 1,762 2,761 R2 .04 . 1 1 .I2 A R 2 .07
Motives to study 0.16* .12 0.14 . I I
Instrumental Socialization tactics -0.20* .I0 -0.26* .10 Motives to study -0.15* . l l - 0 . 1 1 . I I
F df R2 A R 2
16.84** 3 I .81** 27.96** 1,762 1,762 2,761
.02 .06 .07 .04
*For Equation 3, we entered socialization tactics in Step I and motives to study in Step 2. *p < .05. **p < .001.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
242 The Joumal of Social Psychology
together, the results of the regression analyses suggest that socialization tactics mediated the relation between motives to study and academic achievement.
To examine the mediating effect of socialization tactics on the relation between motives to study and academic satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). we conduct- ed two hierarchical regression analyses in the same manner (Table 4). In the first equation, we regressed academic satisfaction on motives to study: Each motive, the scholastic as well as the instrumental, explained 2% of the variance (p < .05) of academic satisfaction. In the second equation, we regressed academic satis- faction on socialization tactics. Scholastic socialization explained 7% of the vari- ance @ < .05), and instrumental socialization explained 9% of the variance 0, < .05) of academic satisfaction. In the third equation, we regressed academic satis- faction on motives to study and controlled for socialization: In both regressions, motives to study did not account for unique variance in academic satisfaction when socialization tactics were controlled. Hence, the results of the regression analyses supported Hypothesis 3 regarding the relation between motives to study and academic satisfaction mediated by socialization tactics.
In sum, the present results suggest that the students’ socialization tactics mediated the relation between their motives to study and their academic achieve-
TABLE 4 Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Testing the Mediatlng Effect of Socialization
on the Relation Between Motive to Study and Academic Satisfaction
Academic satisfaction Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3 O
Independent variable P SE P SE P SE
Scholastic Socialization tactics 0.30* .I0 0.27* .10 Motives to study 0.10* .09 0.11 .09
F 8.25* 9.98* 5.17* 1,762 1,762 2.762
.02 .07 .09 df R2 A R 2 -05
Instrumental Socialization tactics 0.30* . I 1 0.29 .I 1 Motives to study 0.11* .I0 0.13 .10
F df R2 A R Z
8.75* 9.45 * 5.83* 1,762 1,762 2,762
.02 .09 .10 .07
*For Equation 3, we entered socialization tactics in Step I and motives to study in Step 2. *p c .05.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bogler & Somech 243
ment and between their motives to study and their academic satisfaction. More specifically, (a) the scholastic and the instrumental socialization tactics both mediated the relation between scholastic motives to study and academic achieve- ment; and (b) scholastic and the instrumental socialization tactics both mediated the relation between the corresponding types of motive (scholastic and instru- mental) and academic satisfaction.
Discussion
Motives to Study and Socialization Tactics
The present study contributes to knowledge about academic success. The present participants’ socialization tactics played an important role in their suc- cess in the institution of higher learning: (a) The mediating variable, the students’ socialization tactics, explained about 10% of the variance in their academic achievement, and (b) the students’ motives to study were linked to their corre- sponding socialization tactics in the university setting. Students driven by instru- mental motives adopted instrumental socialization tactics, and students driven by scholastic motives adopted scholastic socialization tactics. (We did not include the collegiate motive and its corresponding socialization tactics in the data analy- sis, because the students did not describe that motive as significant in stimulat- ing them to study.) A negative significant correlation between the scholastic motive and instrumental socialization and a lack of correlation between the instrumental motive and scholastic socialization implied that congruence between the motives to study and socialization tactics is crucial in understanding students’ learning experiences at the university. That congruence between motives and tactics (a) suggests that the participants’ motives to study affected the type of socialization tactics that they chose and (b) indicates that the tactics adopted by the students were not selected randomly but were systematic behav- iors corresponding to the students’ motives to study.
We expected the “scholastic-driven” students to use academic intelligence as the key strategy for success and satisfaction at the academic institution; conse- quently, those students would prefer courses that provide intellectual challenges. We expected the “instrumental-driven” students to develop familiarity with key personnel and units in the university (e.g., department secretaries, librarians, and assistant computer staff). Such instrumental socialization tactics suggest that a practical approach in institutions of higher learning is characteristic of students who are driven to study by instrumental motives and who make use of tacit knowledge. Gerholm (1990), who studied tacit knowledge in the context of acad- emia, claimed that
It is this implicit knowledge that I refer to as tacit knowledge. It can be divided into two main categories. One is the tacit knowledge that is stored in the daily
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
244 The J o u m l of Sociul Psychology
life of a department and that is being used to order its routines . . . the ability to classify some information about the department and its personnel as “secret” and handle it accordingly. . . . The other category of tacit knowledge is the sim- ilarly implicit knowledge generated among the students themselves as a conse- quence of their encounter with the department: semi-automatic, barely con- scious interpretations of what teachers say and do, the students’ own conclusions and recipes for action, etc. (Gerholm, 1990, pp. 263-264; empha- sis in original)
Tacit knowledge, then, refers to one’s ability to obtain access to the “inner cir- cles’’ that are important for the success of one’s career (Gerholm, p. 267). Such implicit knowledge helps the student to gain acquaintance with key figures i n the university.
Motives, Socialization Tactics, Academic Achievement, and Satisfaction
The present findings demonstrate the power of socialization tactics as a medi- ating variable between students’ motives to study and their academic achievement and satisfaction. When we added socialization to the hierarchical model, the con- tribution of the motives to the model disappeared. Thus, the present study evinced the important role of socialization tactics in enhancing success in and satisfaction with one’s academic studies. Both types of socialization tactics, the scholastic and the instrumental, affected academic achievement and satisfaction.
Conclusion
The contribution of the present study is manifested in two main aspects: First, we applied the concepts of students’ motives to study and socialization tac- tics to the university setting, demonstrating their importance for students’ acade- mic achievement and satisfaction. Second, we offered an application of the typol- ogy of subcultures to conceptualize students’ socialization tactics in the academic institution, an attempt that had not been made before.
In the present study, the participants as individuals acted rationally. They linked their motives to study (scholastic or instrumental) with the corresponding socialization tactics. Scholastic socialization was more significant in affecting stu- dents’ academic achievement and satisfaction. However, because the magnitude of most relationships examined and the corresponding variances accounted for were relatively small, we recommend that future researchers examine other variables that may explain responses on the measures of academic achievement and satis- faction. Moreover, as with many studies, the results of the present one did not fully address the causality issue. Although we treated motives to study and social- ization tactics as predictors, we could also have used the students’ academic achievement and satisfaction as predictors of their motives to study and socializa- tion tactics. Further research is needed with longitudinal designs and time-lagged
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bogler & Somech 245
correlations to address causality more adequately. In addition, the present data analysis was based on the students’ self-reported measures. That method of inquiry refers to the actual socialization tactics as perceived by the students, but it lacks the organization’s view of how it addresses this issue (see, e.g., Jones, 1986, who studied the ways in which socialization tactics, offered by the organization, affected newcomers’ adjustments to organizations). Future researchers may use independent sources to approach the subject from a different angle.
The present findings regarding the congruence between scholastic motives to study and scholastic socialization tactics is in accordance with the mission and the spirit of the university. In a university setting, we anticipated finding people impelled by purely academic motives, striving to satisfy their intellectual curios- ity and challenges and, thereby, to meet higher order needs. Yet we also found a practical type of intelligence (i.e., tacit knowledge), which played a notable role in the instrumental socialization tactic. We suggest that the contribution of tacit knowledge to the socialization of students be studied further. What is the added value to a student who is practically as well as academically intelligent? How can students use practical intelligence to enhance their academic achievement and satisfaction?
Our findings raise an important question about the role of the university administrative and academic staff in assisting students to adjust, survive, and suc- ceed. When students have passed the hurdle of admission criteria, it is vital to take into account the tactics that they may adopt to socialize to the norms and the values of the university. A socialization tactic congruent with the motive to study may advance a student’s standing in academic achievement and satisfaction. More research is needed to study the interaction between the two types of social- ization, scholastic and the instrumental, and to examine the effects of practical intelligence on each of them. Investigation of academic intelligence (as measured by the SAT scores and other admission criteria) may broaden the inquiry and may indicate the contribution of each type of intelligence to knowledge of students’ academic achievement and satisfaction. We hope that the present research has placed another brick in the edifice of knowledge about the learning experiences of students in academic institutions.
REFERENCES Aittola, T. (1995). Recent changes in student life and study processes. Scandinavian Jour-
nu1 of Educational Research, 39, 37-49. Arum, R., & Shavit, Y. (1995). Secondary vocational education and the transition from
school to work. Sociology of Education, 68, 187-204. Attinasi, L. C., Jr. (1989). Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university attendance and
the implications for freshman year persistence. Journul of Higher Education, 60,
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personaliry and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1 182.
247-277.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
246 The Journal of Social Psychology
Beller, M. (1994). Psychometric and social issues in admissions to Israeli universities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13, 12-20.
Bond, L. (1989). The effects of special preparation on measures of scholastic ability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 429-444). New York: Macmillan.
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,405410.
Bush, D. M., & Simmons, R. G. (1981). Socialization processes over the life course. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspective (pp. 134-164). New York: Basic Books.
Clark, B. (1962). Educating the expert society. San Francisco: Chandler. Clark, B. R., & Trow, M. (1966). The organization context. In T. Newcomb & E. Wilson
(Eds.), College peer groups: Problems and prospects for research (pp. 17-70). Chicago: Aldine.
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Crow, 0. M., & Glascock, C. (1995). Socialization to a new conception of the principal- ship. Journal of Educational Administration, 33, 22-34.
Donlon, T. E (Ed.). (1984). The college board technical handbook for the Scholastic Apti- tude Test and achievement tests. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Douvan, E., & Kaye, C. (1967). Motivational factors in college entrance. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American college. A psychological and social interpretation of the higher learning (pp. 199-224). New York: Wiley.
Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Psychology, 8, 1-33. Gerholm, T. (1990). On tacit knowledge in academia. European Journal ofEducation, 25,
263-27 I . James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321. Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262-279. Keller, D., Crouse, J., & Trusheim, D. (1994). The effects of college grade adjustments on
the predictive validity and utility of SAT scores. Research in Higher Education. 35,
Larose, S., Robertson, D. U., Roy, R., & Legault, F. (1998). Nonintellectual learning fac- tors as determinants for success in college. Research in Higher Education, 39, 275-298.
Linn, R. L. (1990). Admissions testing: Recommended uses, validity, differential predic- tion. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 297-31 8.
Markus, H. R.. & Wurf. E. (1987). The dynamic of self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
McClelland, D. C. (1984). Motives, personality, and society: Selected papers. New York: Praeger.
Pascarella. E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 1-61). New York: Agathon.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college afects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shapira, R., & Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1973). Mi ata ha-student ha Yisraeli? [Who is the Israeli student?]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Am Oved.
Snyder, M., & Cantor, N. (1998). Understanding personality and social behavior: A func- tionalist strategy. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 635-679). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora A. (1996). First-gen-
I 9 5-208.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bogler & Somech 247
eration college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37, 1-22.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Tacit knowledge and intelligence in the every- day world. In R. J. Stemberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence. Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 51-83). New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. C . Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5, pp. 289-322). New York Agathon.
Zak, I. (1975). AMim irguni ve-svi’ut ratzon: Model sibatti [Organizational climate and job satisfaction: A causal model], Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University, School of Edu- cation.
APPENDM: QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS Motives to Study
Scholastic 1. The will to expand my knowledge. 2. Intellectual challenge and interest. 3. The desire for self-fulfillment.
1. The desire to acquire a profession. 2. The desire to achieve a high-status job and social class. 3. The desire to acquire an academic degree.
1. The desire to be associated with a high-status group of people. 2. The desire to be publicly and politically active. 3. The desire to meet a boyfriendlgirlfriend.
Instrumental
Collegiate
Socialization Tactics
Scholastic 1. I review my comprehensive class notes regularly. 2. I prefer courses that provide an intellectual challenge. 3. I read bibliography beyond what is required for the course. 4. At the end of the class, I usually ask the professor for clarifications. 5. I choose a subject for my term paper that is interesting and exciting, regardless
6. It is important for me that my term paper expresses my academic skills. 7. I tend to take advantage of the library and the computer services. 8. I meet with professors after class and discuss academic issues with them. 9. I am trying to get a job as a research assistant for professors in my department.
of whether I have any previous material on it.
10. I tend to take an active role during class (e.g., ask questions, express my opin
1 1. I tend to take classes that provide me with challenge, even if I don’t need to study ion).
them.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
248 The Journal of Social Psychology
instrumental 1. I appeal any low grade that I receive. 2. I tend to Xerox class notes from other students. 3. I prefer to copy assignments from other students instead of doing my own work. 4. I tend to learn the university’s procedures in general, and the departmental ones
5. I make an effort to get acquainted with the secretary of the department. 6. I choose to study classes in which students receive good grades. 7. I schedule my study plan according to my free time. 8. I will use any means to succeed in examinations. 9. I usually try to get Hebrew translations of the English reading material.
specifically.
10. I tend to consult with senior students. 1 1. I will choose the subject for my term paper according to the ease of getting mat
12. I prefer classes in which I feel sufficiently confident of receiving high grades. 13. I will choose a subject for my term paper that requires the least investment. 14. I choose only those “practical” courses that will be relevant to my professional
15. I attend only those classes that will assist me in achieving high grades.
rial on it.
career.
Collegiate 1. I am active in various social activities on campus. 2. 1 am an active member of the student union. 3. I develop social relationships with other students. 4. I prefer to study in a group. It allows me to get acquainted with other students
5. I usually spend time on campus, even beyond my formal studies. 6. I am involved in political activities on campus.
beyond the lecture hours.
Received June 2,2000 Accepted December 20, 2000
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
34 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014