PSY Research Topic and Abstract
|
Research Title
|
The Impact of Motivational and Emotional Regulation on Group Task Satisfaction Among University Students the Moderating Role of Group Member Relationship Quality
|
|
Research Abstract
(around 200 words)
|
Abstract: In educational settings, a group or team is characterized as two or more individuals interacting with each other in one or more sessions to accomplish shared goals (Joo, 2015). With the prevalence of collaborative learning environments, understanding the psychological factors that influence group dynamics has become increasingly important. This study investigates the impact of motivation regulation and emotional regulation on university students' satisfaction with group task, contains key variables such as group member relationship quality. Data will be collected from 200 students at University who are participating in group projects. The aim of this study is to validate and extend current theories, filling gaps in previous studies. It seeks to provide practical insights for improving educational practices and enhancing the group work experience, and improving students' academic performance. Additionally, the study will suggest new directions for future research in this area.
Keywords: motivational and emotional regulation; group task satisfaction; group member relationship quality;
|
|
Number of Variables
|
5
|
|
Motivational Regulation
|
Theoretical definition
(Please include references follow APA 7th)
|
In daily life, motivational regulation is a challenge that individuals are usually faced with (Steuer et al., 2019). It involves the process through which individuals activate, maintain, and enhance their motivation to achieve specific goals or sustain task engagement (Eckerlein et al., 2019).
|
|
Operational definition
(How will you measure/manipulate this variable?)
|
Participants can report their general tendency for motivation regulation using the Brief Regulation of Motivation Scale (BRoMS; Kim et al., 2018). Strong validity of the BRoMS within college student populations has already been proved in previous studies (Wolters et al., 2023). The scale consists of 8 items (α = 0.72), with all items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (Kim et al., 2023).
|
|
Emotional Regulation
|
Theoretical definition
|
Emotional regulation involves both external and internal processes that monitor, assess, and modify emotional responses, particularly their intensity and duration (Hu & Liu, 2017). It serves as a mechanism for adjusting our behavior. to fit the current environment and accomplish goals (Rosales et al., 2013).
|
|
Operational definition
|
Emotion regulation can be measured by the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003). The questionnaire consists of 10 items that evaluate emotion regulation strategies. Respondents will be asked to rate on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
A 10-item scale designed to measure respondents’ tendency to regulate their emotions in two ways: (1) Cognitive Reappraisal- 6 items- α=0.79, and (2) Expressive Suppression- 4 items- α=0.73.
Test–retest reliability across 3 months was .69 for both scales.
|
|
Group Task Satisfaction
|
Theoretical definition
|
Group task satisfaction can be referred to the collective equivalent of individual job satisfaction, reflecting the group's overall attitude toward the task and work environment (Mason & Griffin, 2005). This concept arises from the uniformity of individual job satisfaction among group members, shaped by common work conditions, social influence mechanisms, dynamics of attraction-selection-attrition, and emotional contagion that occur within work groups (Mason & Griffin, 2002).
|
|
Operational definition
|
Group task satisfaction was assessed using a modified version of the Group Task Satisfaction Scale. For each item, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement "in your team as a whole" on a 7-point scale, where 1 represents "strongly disagree" and 7 represents "strongly agree." The Cronbach's α coefficients for the scale exceeded 0.6, suggesting satisfactory internal consistency. Furthermore, the three-factor model showed a good fit with the data (Mason & Griffin, 2005).
|
|
Group Member Relationship Quality
|
Theoretical definition
|
Group member relationship quality refers to the overall level of relationships between group members, reflecting the health of their interactions, the degree of trust, mutual assistance, and support, as well as the emotional connection and quality of cooperation between them (Romá et al., 2023). Ural (2009) identified four key components of relationship quality: the sharing of information, the quality of communication, a long-term orientation toward the relationship, and overall satisfaction with the relationship.
|
|
Operational definition
|
The Group Member Relationship Quality will be measured using the Student-to-Student Relationship Scale from Kim (2021). The questions consist of a five-point Likert scale, with possible response options including "Strongly Agree," "Agree," "Neither Agree nor Disagree," "Disagree," and "Strongly Disagree." These items have been widely adopted in previous studies that used the Add Health (e.g., Kim, 2020; Sutton et al., 2018). Additionally, we will further adjust the items by changing the reference experience from "at school" to "in group work."
|
|
Main hypothesis/objectives
|
H1a: Motivational regulation positively affects group task satisfaction.
H1b: The impact of motivational regulation is more pronounced when the quality of relationships among group members is high.
H2a: Emotional regulation has a positive effect on group task satisfaction.
H2b: The influence of emotional regulation is more significant when team member relationship quality is high.
|
|
Literature gap of previous studies
|
Most studies have focused on the factors influencing motivation regulation or emotional regulation (Eckerlein et al., 2019; Vilenskaya, 2020). Few concentrate the roles of them in group work. Additionally, while research has shown the importance of the quality of relationships among team members for task performance (Nasim & Iqbal, 2019), the role of relationship quality as a moderating variable in the mechanisms of motivation and emotional regulation has not been sufficiently explored.
More importantly, existing studies tend to concentrate on workplace environments or other specific psychological populations, while research on motivation and emotional regulation in group work among university students is relatively scarce. The unique challenges and dynamics faced by university students in group work require more attention to provide more instructive suggestions for educational practice.
(不过这里老是用group work,感觉可以的话，还是用group task跟标题和变量更对应些)
|
|
Significance of your study
|
The study provides a comprehensive exploration of the relationships between motivation regulation, emotional regulation, group member relationship quality, and group work satisfaction, aiming to fill the gap in the existing literature and enrich the relevant theoretical framework. Through empirical research, the study will offer evidence on how motivation regulation and emotional regulation influence group work satisfaction, validating and expanding existing theories. The findings will provide practical recommendations for educators and curriculum designers to improve teaching methods for group work, enhance group work satisfaction, and ultimately improve learning outcomes. At the same time, by exploring the impact of group members' relationship quality on motivation and emotional regulation, the study will offer a theoretical basis for improving interpersonal relationships and team dynamics, promoting students' mental health and social adaptability. Finally, this research will provide new insights and directions for future studies, encouraging further in-depth research on teamwork and student psychology.
|
References
Dao, P. (2021). Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(3), 315-334. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0188
Eckerlein, N., Roth, A., Engelschalk, T., Steuer, G., Schmitz, B., & Dresel, M. (2019). The role of motivational regulation in exam preparation: Results from a standardized diary study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00081
Engelschalk, T., Steuer, G., & Dresel, M. (2016). Effectiveness of motivational regulation: Dependence on specific motivational problems. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.011
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Hu, Y., Wang, Y., & Liu, A. (2017). The Influence of Mothers' Emotional Expressivity and Class Grouping on Chinese Preschoolers' Emotional Regulation Strategies. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(3), 824-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0606-3
Kim, J. (2020). Gender differences in the educational penalty of delinquent behavior. Evidence from an analysis of siblings. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10940-020-09450-0
Kim, J. (2021). The quality of social relationships in schools and adult health: Differential effects of student–student versus student–teacher relationships. School Psychology, 36(1), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000373
Kim, Y. E., Brady, A. C., & Wolters, C. A. (2018). Development and validation of the brief regulation of motivation scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 259-265.
Kim, Y. E., Zepeda, C. D., Martin, R. S., & Butler, A. C. (2023). Situating cost perceptions: How general cost and motivational regulation predict specific momentary cost dimensions. Educational Psychology, 43(8), 855-873. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2023.2267806
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 33(3), 271-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/10496402033003001
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2005). Group task satisfaction: The group's shared attitude to its task and work environment. Group & Organization Management, 30(6), 625-652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104269522
Romá, V. G., Hernández, A., Ferreres, A., Zurriaga, R., Yeves, J., & González-Navarro, P. (2023). Linking teacher-student relationship quality and student group performance: A mediation model. Current Psychology, 42(24), 21048-21057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03206-8
Rosales, J.-H., Jaime, K., Ramos, F., & Ramos, M. (2013). An emotional regulation model with memories for virtual agents. In Proceedings of the 2013 12th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics & Cognitive Computing (ICCI CC 2013) (pp. 260–267). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCI-CC.2013.6618881
Steuer, G., Engelschalk, T., Eckerlein, N., & Dresel, M. (2019). Assessment and relationships of conditional motivational regulation strategy knowledge as an aspect of undergraduates' self-regulated learning competencies. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 33(2), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000237
Sutton, A., Langenkamp, A. G., Muller, C., & Schiller, K. S. (2018). Who gets ahead and who falls behind during the transition to high school? Academic performance at the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender. Social Problems, 65, 154–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spx044
Ural, T. (2009). The effects of relationship quality on export performance: a classification of small and medium-sized turkish exporting firms operating in single export-market ventures. European Journal of Marketing, 43(1-2), 139-168.
Vilenskaya, G. A. (2020). Emotional regulation: Factors of development and forms of manifestation in behavior. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 41(5), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920011083-7
Wolters, C. A., Iaconelli, R., Peri, J., Hensley, L. C., & Kim, M. (2023). Improving self-regulated learning and academic engagement: Evaluating a college learning to learn course. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102282