Applying social cognitive theory to interest in research among counseling psychology doctoral students: A path analysis.

Abstract

In this study, the R. W. Lent, S, D. Brown, and G. Hackett (1994) social cognitive model of interest development was applied to the prediction of interest in research. Participants included 184 counseling psychology doctoral students. Results of a path analysis indicated that 5 variables were significant predictors of interest in research: research outcome expectations, research self-efficacy beliefs, investigative interests, artistic interests, and age. In addition, several factors indirectly affected interest in research through effects on research self-efficacy-the research training environment, Holland Investigative interests, and year in program. Research training environment, Holland Investigative interests, and research self-efficacy beliefs also had an impact on interest in research indirectly through their effects on research outcome expectations.The scientist-practitioner model for psychology training programs has been endorsed since the first major training conference in counseling psychology (American Psychological Association, 1952). However, a growing body of literature indicates that counseling psychology graduate students and professionals lack interest in research and maintain low levels of research productivity (e.g., Royalty & Magoon, 1985;Royalty & Reising, 1986). Further, such behavior is not specific to counseling psychologists; Gelso (1993) maintained that a low research productivity rate exists among doctoral graduates in all professional psychology programs.Numerous investigations have attempted to identify the factors that lead to increased interest in research and research productivity. Support has been found for various factors, including personality characteristics (e.g., Kahn &

Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources

“…College competence beliefs at the end of the first semester were also associated with persistence in the next semester, controlling for college competence beliefs on the first college day and other variables such as gender, ethnicity, first-generation status, and high school academic achievement (Wright, Jenkins-Guarnieri, & Murdock, 2012). In graduate students, perceived academic competence predicted later academic persistence (Losier, 1994), while in doctoral students, competence beliefs toward research have been associated with interest in the research (Bishop & Bieschke, 1998) and research productivity (e.g., number of submitted articles, conference presentations; Brown, Lent, Ryan, & McPartland, 1996;Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002).…”

RISE 6(3) Full Issue

“…Research interest was adapted from Bishop and Bieschke (1998) as cited in Vaccaro (2009). The tool was assessed by rating 11 items, with the 1-5 Likert scale as options (from 1 = not interested at all to 5 = very interested).…”

“…Research interest was chosen also due to its detected significant relationship with research attitude variables (such as research self-efficacy and research outcome expectation) and its roles in predicting research behaviors, all clearly revealed in another line of studies employing the Social Cognitive Theory (e.g. Bishop & Bieschke, 1998;Bard, Bieschke, Herbert, & Eberz, 2000). While those studies paid serious attention on the nexus between research interest and other variables, seemingly, there has yet to be an empirical examination of relationship between research interest and research intention.…”

Investigating Relationship among Research Self-Efficacy, Research Outcome Expectation, and Research Interest of Cambodian Faculty: Testing Social-Cognitive Theory

“…However, discussions on faculty's research interest and factors affecting it have been limited and mostly conducted in the context of developed and semi-developed countries (e.g. Bishop & Bieschke, 1998;Bard, Bieschke, Herbert, & Eberz, 2000;Lambie & Vaccaro, 2011). Those existing accounts fail to offer enough knowledge and thinking on this particular issue in the developing context of higher education.…”

“…According to Kanh and Scott (1997), research interest was the key mediator that links personality types and research training environment to research productivity and career goals. Bishop and Bieschke (1998) correspondingly concluded: "Understanding the development of research interest is important precursor to building a testable, parsimonious model of research productivity." However, discussions on faculty's research interest and factors affecting it have been limited and mostly conducted in the context of developed and semi-developed countries (e.g.…”