what are the Implications of a study that found a negative correlation between happiness and academic achievement?

Question

I have conducted a multiple regression analysis for a dissertation looking a the relationship between academic achievement and happiness, and academic achievement and self-esteem. The results were irregular and unusual as it was shown that happiness was negatively correlated with academic achievement by 30% and a nonsignificant result was calculated for self-esteem and academic achievement.

In my discussion, I need to find implications for my study. But my study has essentially found that universities should make students as sad as possible to get better grades. Obviously makes no sense. My nonsignificant result for self-esteem also makes it difficult to generalise or conclude anything from my study. Any ideas as to what to say?

Answer 1

Since your results were discrepant from the existing body of literature, it would be virtually impossible to provide concrete answers/explanations for the disparity, as the first tutor indicated. 

However, the following variables could be mentioned as possibilities which necessitate further research to confirm:

-Level of stress and personality type (ie, a very high-achieving student, particularly a Type-A Personality which high-achievers preferentially are, is far more likely to feel chronic stress and anxiety during college than a lower-achieving student with a Type-B Personality, for whom the unattainable ideal of perfectionism isn't a goal). 

Research indicates Type-A personalities do not feel any joy from completing their goals, as they are highly self-critical. The lack of joy and/or sense of accomplishment subsequent to completion of a goal could plausibly account for the negative correlation you observed.

-Quantity and quality of social interactions (Ie, a very studious individual is arguably far less likely to spend a significant amount of time socializing outside of the classroom given the time dedicated to studying, and we know from existing research that social bonds contribute substantially to happiness, particularly when in novel or stressful scenarios)

-Time period of study (ie, if this was conducted during the past year, whilst the COVID pandemic substantially changed the college experience for students, then the novelty of the pandemic could very well have contributed to the disparity between your results and what you found during your lit review). 

I would imagine that high-achieving students have been particularly negatively impacted by the pandemic, since that personality type necessitates a predictable set schedule/curriculum to eliminate the element of uncertainty and consequent feeling of unpreparedness, which exacerbates stress levels.

Finally, the lifestyle habits of high- vs low-achieving students should be considered. The former is arguably more prone to sleep deprivation, (which we know significantly raises levels of cortisol and wreaks havoc on mood regulation, executive functioning, etc), given the time dedicated to schoolwork, while the latter is more likely to prioritize sleep and/or relaxation over grades. 

Here is one interesting full-text study about personality types associated with academic performance and respective levels of coping:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300088193_Action-Emotion_Style_Learning_Approach_and_Coping_Strategies_in_Undergraduate_University_Students

Best of luck with your dissertation!

Answer 2

The first thing to say is that someone seems to have fallen for the causality - correlation fallacy.

"One of the first things taught in introductory statistics textbooks is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten.”

― Thomas Sowell,

You are generally jumping down several rabbit holes and making some basic mistakes

The first is over generalizing, even in your question. Without providing to the reviewers any information in your question concerning any of the actual numbers, statistics, or definitions that you are using , you want to get a cognizant response.

The second is confusing correlation with causality. In the case of student happiness (I assume that you are measuring happiness of the student while a student and NOT the happiness of the student after the graduate can take advantage of their academic achievements) The causal relationship that you think you see is most probably from a third (or confounding) variable. Time is my first guess. As more time is spent on research, study, course preparation, and scholastic work there would less time available for social activities, play, and even sleep. The 'cost' in this case would be more time spent. The result would be increased academic achievement on one hand and less time for relaxation on the other. Time, in this example (and in this example only) would be the causal agent. Spending more time on study will 'cause' better academic achievement. Spending less time on partying will 'cause' less happiness. There is no direct tie between happiness and academic achievement. NOTE: This example of time being a causative agent was made for illustration. I am not proposing that this is the causal agent in your study and you may not include this example in your study.

Third. Your measures of happiness , self esteem , and even academic success are NOT listed. They may be flawed. They may measure something else altogether if incorrectly collected. How? A true example from a Doctoral Dissertation that I personally observed. A candidate had conducted his doctoral dissertation based on a single survey of 27 people. He asked for some demographic information to include race. Students were asked to reply 0 if they were hispanic, 1 if they were caucasian, 2 if they were African American, and 3 if other. He summed all the responses, got a numerical average of 0.45 and concluded thereby that the average student was hispanic. This was a totally flawed measure. If 14 of the students were hispanic, 1 was asian American, and 12 were African-American the average of the responses would have been 1.0 and the conclusion would have been that the average student was white. Obviously a flawed measure. Be careful of flawed measures.

Have hope sir. All is not lost. The example I gave was for the final version of the students dissertation as presented during his oral defense. The student still got his Ed Doctorate and taught in the University after that. You may have no problem at all. No sarcasm sir. True example.

I can not tell you what to say. I can only tell you what NOT to say. Don't quote any of my purely hypothetical examples . They were for examples in describing common research fallacies. (for more on this theme see "Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments" by SH Hurlbert )

Answer 3

correlation is not causation

and you may have a spurious correlation, 2 variables seemingly linked but are not.

"happiness" is not the most easily measured quantifiable variable. that could be a major source of error