Hypothesis:

1. Attempting to Improve the Academic Performance of Struggling College Students by Bolstering Their Self-Esteem: An Intervention that Backfired Hypothesis: Students would benefit from both self-esteem and internal control interventions. One intervention may prove more helpful than the other.

2. Independent Variable • Level 1: No message (control group) • Level 2: Internal control message (You will be responsible for your own performance in this course.) • Level 3: Self-esteem bolstering message (stressed the importance of maintaining high self-esteem)

3. Dependent Variable • The main dependent variable was the grade that each student received on the final exam. This would show whether or not each level of the independent variable worked.

4. Participants • 86 students who received Cs, Ds, and Fs during their academic careers. • Recruited by the experimenter by asking them to take part in a study concerning the use of e-mail.

5. Procedure • Conducted over e-mail • The participants were randomly assigned to one of the three aforementioned groups. • They would receive a message, or not receive a message, depending on which group they were in. • Duration: 6 weeks

6. Results • Self-esteem bolstering group: Great drop in grades between the midterm and final exam. • Internal control group: No significant change in grades. • No message (control) group: No significant change in grades.

7. What does this mean? • Boosting self-esteem may lead to a person adopting an arrogant attitude. • Perhaps the participants thought very well of themselves, regardless of their low grades. • Internal control: neglected going to lecture because they felt they had full control over their performance. • Self-esteem should not be bolstered independent of academic success. • Internal control over academic success should be accessed in light of actual performance.

8. Self-Regulated Teaching of Others as a Means of Improving Study Habits Hypothesis: The participants would report better study habits and less test anxiety.

9. Independent Variable • Level 1: Teaching group- Find a friend, roommate, or sibling who would be their pupil in study skills. • Level 2: Nonteaching group- Did not teach anyone about the study skills program.

10. Dependent Variable • The dependent variables are the scores the participants received when completing the Study Skills Inventory, Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes, and the Suinn Test Anxiety Scale.

11. Participants • 30 university students who responded to a letter, posters, or radio announcements describing the study skills program. • Average age: 22.67 years • 19 male, 11 female • 22 of the 30 were freshmen

12. Procedure • Prior to the Study Skills program, the participants were asked to complete the previously mentioned surveys. • Participants were randomly assigned into the two groups and attended the study skills program. • After the program, each participant completed the same three surveys again. • Duration: 4 weeks, each group met twice per week.

13. Results • Study Skills Inventory and Study Habits Survey: Increased scores after the program. Participants in the teaching group showed a higher gain. • Suinn Test Anxiety Scale: Less test anxiety following the program. • Only 6 times was it reported that those in the teaching group failed to teach their pupils some of the information from the sessions.

14. What does this mean? • Increase on the scores of the Study Habits Survey and Study Skills Inventory: Came from the study skills program. The teaching group had a higher gain than the nonteaching group. They felt more responsible for learning the skills because they had to teach another. • Decrease on the Suinn Test Anxiety Scale: The program focused on behaviors that could alleviate this anxiety (setting goals to facilitate on-task behavior, concentration, effective test-taking practices, etc.