Survey study demonstrates gender-specific links between volitional self-regulation and subjective academic success in first-year computer science students, suggesting tailored strengths-based support.
The present study examines action orientation and achievement goal orientations as psychological resources for students’ subjective expectations of academic success in computer science degree programs in higher education. Drawing on a positive psychology perspective, volitional self-regulation processes are conceptualized as key personal resources that support motivation, persistence, and academic success in demanding study contexts. We utilize the theory of volitional action control and achievement goal theory, focusing on two volitional domains—prospective action orientation (maintenance and implementation of intentions) and action orientation following failure (adaptive emotional processing of setbacks)—as well as mastery and performance goal orientations. These characteristics are understood as developable strengths that may be particularly relevant in competitive and gender-segregated STEM environments. Empirically, the study is based on a survey of first-year computer science students at two German universities ( N = 174). Separate binary logistic regression analyses for female and male students examined associations between volitional resources and two subjective indicators of academic success: study satisfaction and the subjectively perceived likelihood of degree completion. Gender was conceptualized as an analytical differentiation perspective rather than a causal predictor. The findings reveal distinct patterns across gender groups, indicating that volitional self-regulation processes relate differently to students’ subjective academic success evaluations for female and male students. Overall, the study contributes to positive psychology–informed higher education research by highlighting the relevance of gender-sensitive, strength-based approaches in STEM degree programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prinz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: