Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The interplay between subjective abilities and subjective demands and its relationship with academic success. An application of the person–environment fit theory

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we draw on person–environment fit theory to analyze whether academic success is best explained by individual abilities subjectively exceeding situational demands or by abilities matching the demands. Moreover, we disentangled effects of perceived abilities and subjective person–environment (P-E) fit on academic success. All in all, 693 teacher education students participated in an online questionnaire. Students were asked to rate general requirements of their academic programs (e.g., self-discipline) on a 5-point scale in terms of (1) their own abilities and (2) the perceived relevance for their studies. P-E fit was determined by difference scores between abilities and relevance ratings. Academic success was assessed by grades, perceived performance, and study satisfaction. Data were analyzed through structural equation modeling and suggest that academic success is best explained by a match between abilities and demands. Moreover, all three criteria for academic success were more strongly related to subjective fit than to subjective abilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Please note that the terminology is sometimes heterogeneous in this regard. For example, the molar approach is sometimes also called perceived fit, and subjective fit is sometimes used to only mark the atomistic approach (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al. 2005; Wessel et al. 2008).

  2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for his or her suggestion on this.

  3. Results were largely similar when using the U-shaped fit measure.

References

  • Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Test of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(1), 39–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camara, W. J. (2005). Broadening criteria of college success and the impact of cognitive predictors. In W. J. Camara & E. W. Kimmel (Eds.), Choosing students. Higher education admissions tools for the 21st century (pp. 53–79). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemers, M. M., Hu, L.-T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Core Team, R. (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.R-project.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dart, B. C. (1994). A goal-mediational model of personal and environmental influences on tertiary students' learning strategy use. Higher Education, 28, 453–470. doi:10.1007/bf01383937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donche, V., & Gijbels, D. (2013). Understanding learning pattern development in higher education: a matter of time, context and measurement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. (1991). Person-job fit: a conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283–357). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2007). Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In C. L. Ostroff & T. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 361–372). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: an integrative theoretical framework. In C. L. Ostroff & T. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 209–258). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & van Harrison, R. (1998). Person-environment fit theory. Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence and directions for future research. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Schurer Lambert, L., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit. Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 802–827. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzel, J. M., & Nagy, G. (2016). Students’ perceptions of person-environment fit. Do fit perceptions predict academic success beyond personality traits? Journal of Career Assessment, 24(2), 270–288. doi:10.1177/1069072715580325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, K. A., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2004). What do college students have to lose? Exploring the outcomes of differences in person-environment fits. Journal of Higher Education, 75(5), 528–555. doi:10.1353/jhe.2004.0029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georg, W. (2008). Individuelle und institutionelle Faktoren der Bereitschaft zum Studienabbruch – eine Mehrebenenanalyse mit Daten des Konstanzer Studierendensurveys [Individual and institutional factors for the readiness to drop out from higher education—a multi level analysis with data from the Konstanz Student Survey]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 28(2), 191–206. doi:10.1080/03075070802592730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 549–576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greven, S., & Kneib, T. (2010). On the behaviour of marginal and conditional AIC in linear mixed models. Biometrika, 97(4), 773–789. doi:10.1093/biomet/asq042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heise, E., Westermann, R., Spies, K., & Stephan, H. (1997). Die Übereinstimmung von Fähigkeiten und Bedürfnissen der Studierenden verschiedener Fächer mit Anforderungen und Angeboten im Studium als Determinanten der Studienzufriedenheit [The fit of abilities and needs of students of different subjects with requirements and supplies as determinants of study satisfaction]. In U. Kittler & H. Metz-Göckel (Eds.) Pädagogische Psychologie in Erziehung und Organisation. Dokumentation des 2. Dortmunder Symposions für Pädagogische Psychologie 1996 [Educational psychology in education and organization. Documentation of the 2nd Symposium of Educational Psychology Dortmund 1996] (pp. 113–129). Essen: Die blaue Eule.

  • Hell, B., Ptok, C., & Schuler, H. (2007). Methodik zur Ermittlung und Validierung von Anforderungen an Studierende (MEVAS): Anforderungsanalyse für das Fach Wirtschaftswissenschaften [Method for analyzing the demands of university studies (MEVAS)—requirement analysis for economics and business administration]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie A&O, 51(2), 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hell, B., Linsner, M., & Kurz, G. (2008). Prognose des Studienerfolgs [Prognosis of academic success]. In M. Rentschler (Ed.), Studieneignung und Studierendenauswahl. Untersuchungen und Erfahrungsberichte [Aptitude and student selection. Studies and field reports] (pp. 132–177). Shaker: Aachen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia, P., & Maloney, T. (2015). Using predictive modelling to identify students at risk of poor university outcomes. Higher Education, 70(1), 127–149. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9829-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work. A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63–82. doi:10.3102/00346543075001063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2014). Students' approaches to learning in higher education. The interplay between context and student. In D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. T. Richardson, & J. D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education. Dimensions and research perspectives (pp. 249–272). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, M. R., Sommersel, H. B., & Larsen, M. S. (2013). Evidence on dropout phenomena at universities. Copenhagen: Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research http://edu.au.dk/fileadmin/edu/Udgivelser/Clearinghouse/Review/Evidence_on_dropout_from_universities_brief_version.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Yao, X., Chen, K., & Wang, Y. (2013). Different fit perceptions in an academic environment: attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(2), 163–174. doi:10.1177/1069072712466713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Saariaho, E., Inkinen, M., Haarala-Muhonen, A., & Hailikari, T. (2015). Academic procrastinators, strategic delayers and something betwixt and between. An interview study. Frontline Learning Research, 3(2), 47–62. doi:10.14786/flr.v3i2.154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 280–295. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.3.280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnaert, A., & Janssen, P. J. (1998). The additive effect of regulatory activities on top of intelligence in relation to academic performance in higher education. Learning and Instruction, 9(1), 77–91. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(98)00019-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K. J., Quinn, C., Marrington, A., & Clarke, J. A. (2012). Good practice for enhancing the engagement and success of commencing students. Higher Education, 63(1), 83–96. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9426-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2008). The extent of variability in learning strategies and students’ perceptions of the learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 121–134. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurttila, S., Ketonen, E., & Lonka, K. (2015). Sense of competence and optimism as resources to promote academic engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 1017–1026. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paderborn University. (2012). Studierenden - und Absolventenspiegel 2012 [Statistics on students and alumni]. Paderborn: Paderborn University https://www.uni-paderborn.de/fileadmin/zv/1-3/Statistiken/Studierendenspiegel_alt/Studierendenspiegel_2012.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, J. P., Churchill, G. A., & Brown, T. J. (1993). Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 644–662. doi:10.1086/209329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170. doi:10.1177/001698620004400302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. T. (2011). Approaches to studying, conceptions of learning and learning styles in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 288–293. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. doi:10.1037/a0026838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosman, T., Mayer, A. K., & Krampen, G. (2015). Combining self-assessments and achievement tests in information literacy assessment: Empirical results and recommendations for practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 740–754. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.950554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan. An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Friede, A., Imus, A., & Merritt, S. (2008). Perceived fit with an academic environment: attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 317–335. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, U., Gutiérrez Doña, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242–251. doi:10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severiens, S., Meeuwisse, M., & Born, M. (2015). Student experience and academic success: comparing a student-centred and a lecture-based course programme. Higher Education, 70(1), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9820-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tipton, R. M., & Worthington, E. L. (1984). The measurement of generalized self-efficacy. A study of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(5), 545–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, T. J., & Robbins, S. B. (2006). The interest–major congruence and college success relation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 64–89. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J.-O. W., & Schuler, H. (2007a). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the big five and academic success at university. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 215(2), 132–151. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Weigand, S., & Schuler, H. (2007b). Die Validität von Schulnoten zur Vorhersage des Studienerfolgs - eine Metaanalyse [The validity of school grades for academic achievement—a meta-analysis]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 21(1), 11–27. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.21.1.11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 111–133. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bragt, C. A. C., Bakx, A. W. E. A., Bergen, T. C. M., & Croon, M. A. (2011). Looking for students’ personal characteristics predicting study outcome. Higher Education, 61(1), 59–75. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9325-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D., & Lodewijks, H. G. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and Instruction, 12, 263–284. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00013-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. D., & Endedijk, M. D. (2011). Patterns in teacher learning in different phases of the professional career. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 294–302. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. D., Richardson, J. T., Donche, V., & Gijbels, D. (2014). Students' learning patterns in higher education. Dimensions, measurement and change. In D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. T. Richardson, & J. D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education. Dimensions and research perspectives (pp. 295–310). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrieze, S. I. (2012). Model selection and psychological theory: a discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Psychological Methods, 17(2), 228–243. doi:10.1037/a0027127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1989). Putting together the pieces: a closer look at the determinants of job performance. Human Performance, 2(1), 29–59. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0201_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, J. L., Ryan, A. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). The relationship between objective and perceived fit with academic major, adaptability, and major-related outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 363–376. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals' turnover decisions: a meta-analytic=5?> path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309–348. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00115.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Methodology Center, University of Koblenz-Landau, Fortstr. 7, 76829, Landau, Germany

    Carla Bohndick

  2. Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information, Trier, Germany

    Tom Rosman

  3. Paderborn University, Paderborn, Germany

    Susanne Kohlmeyer & Heike M. Buhl

Authors
  1. Carla Bohndick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Rosman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne Kohlmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Heike M. Buhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carla Bohndick.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The research initiative is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Qualitätspakt Lehre.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bohndick, C., Rosman, T., Kohlmeyer, S. et al. The interplay between subjective abilities and subjective demands and its relationship with academic success. An application of the person–environment fit theory. High Educ 75, 839–854 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0173-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0173-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation