Abstract
In almost all OECD countries, a significant proportion of students drop out of their studies and, despite a long tradition of research, the influence of a partnership has hardly been analyzed in this context. This paper examines whether the expectations and demands (the realistic and idealistic aspirations) of the partner influence the student’s dropout intention. In a first step, relationships are investigated on the basis of a pooled data set. The results clearly show that there is a negative correlation such that when the partner has higher realistic aspirations the student is less likely to have high dropout intentions. In a second step, possible dynamics associated with the course of studies are considered. By means of fixed-effects regressions it can be shown that when the partner’s realistic aspirations increase, the dropout intention decreases. This effect proves to be stable. With regard to idealistic aspirations, however, none of the models show negative effects. The analysis shows that the partner is important for the course of studies and should also be considered.
Introduction
In almost all OECD (2009) countries a large number of students leave university without a degree, albeit to different extents. Countries like Japan (10%), Denmark (15%), and France (21%) have rather low values, while some other countries such as Great Britain (36%) and Norway (35%) have significantly higher values (OECD, 2009). Countries differ in their access rates to higher education and the possible alternatives in tertiary education due to the different education systems (for an overview, see OECD, 2022). Despite structural differences in education systems, the rates point to a cross-national phenomenon. This is seen as problematic, especially considering the high demand for academic specialists, but also with regard to the individual malinvestment of time and resources (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2019).
In several studies, numerous factors influencing dropout from higher education have been identified, in particular prior academic achievements, state of health, and the socioeconomic status of the family of origin (Heublein et al., 2017; Larsen et al., 2013; Ulriksen et al., 2010). Studies have also shown the importance of motivation to study, and social background, but also study conditions at university such as the structure of degree programs and the lack of practical relevance (Heublein, 2014; Heublein et al., 2017). However, less consideration has been given to influences from other areas of life. In this regard, theoretical considerations from the life course approach suggest that students are also exposed to influences from adjacent areas of life that affect their attitudes and actions (Huinink & Feldhaus, 2009; Mayer, 2004). In particular, the expectations of central reference persons constitute an important influence. Thus, students are not only exposed to their own demands, but also include the expectations held by people close to them into their considerations and actions. Individuals try to meet these educational aspirations, especially those of their partner, whose importance is also emphasized in the concept of “linked lives” (Elder, 1994). These theoretical considerations propose that a partner can shape one’s own attitudes to a high degree.
Therefore, in the present study, the importance of the partner’s aspirations on students’ dropout intentions is analyzed. This does not include the partner’s aspirations for their own studies, but the partner’s aspirations in regard to the student. Aspirations are attitudes that relate to the achievement of specific future educational goals, in this analysis the attainment of a Bachelor’s degree. In particular, it will be examined whether the partner’s aspirations can reduce dropout intentions. Therefore, aspirations are measured as the student perceives them. In this context, the distinction made between idealistic and realistic educational aspirations enables to separate effects of demands, that reflect wishes and norms regarding the qualification, and expectations, that take possible limitations in this respect into account.
In the analysis, the first step is to focus on the cross-sectional relationship between the partner’s aspirations and the student’s dropout intention. In the second step it is considered that educational aspirations can change during the educational process. Therefore, the effects of the partner’s changing aspirations over time are analyzed here.
On this basis, the following questions are to be answered:
If there are educational aspirations of the partner in regard to the student, does a correlation exist between these and the student’s dropout intention?
If there are educational aspirations of the partner in regard to the student, do changes in those aspirations have an impact on the student’s dropout intention?
By examining these research questions, this study aims to expand the state of research on the importance of the partner in educational processes.
Literature Review
There are already a number of empirical findings on the topic of dropout. In an international meta-study, Kehm et al. (2019) found that individual characteristics influence dropping out of university: for example, older students, men, and students with lower cognitive skills are significantly more likely to drop out. The student’s motivation also plays a central role, as various studies have shown (Heublein et al., 2017; Schiefele et al., 2007). Especially students with a strong intrinsic motivation were more likely to complete their studies (Heublein et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2014; Robbins et al., 2004). Numerous studies show that educational outcomes are influenced by individual competencies and skills, but also by factors such as gender and age (Larsen et al., 2013). Findings also show that social background is still important in this educational phase (e. g. Becker & Hecken, 2009a, 2000b; Isleib et al., 2019). Performance problems are one of the most important causes of a dropout (Heublein, 2014). The current state of research also shows that the frequency of discontinued studies differs considerably between subject groups (Heublein et al., 2017). Linguistics, sports, cultural sciences have the highest dropout rates, while law, economics, and social sciences have the lowest. Mathematics, natural, and engineering sciences also display high dropout rates (Heublein et al., 2020). Persons with a clear occupational goal tend to drop out less frequently, like students with the occupational goal of becoming school teachers (Heublein et al., 2020). In connection with the university the importance of the social environment was also confirmed. Contact with students and lecturers at the university has been analyzed in several studies, as numerous findings on the effects of social integration show (e. g. Heublein, 2014; Tinto, 1975): The frequency and quality of contacts with fellow students and lecturers show a positive effect on remaining at university. The same is true for academic integration, which reflects whether individuals are able to meet the content requirements (Tinto, 1975).
In addition to these general findings, studies also confirm the relevance of central reference persons for the educational process. In this context, numerous studies show the great importance of educational aspirations. This applies both to the aspirations of the students themselves and to the aspirations of significant others (Stocké, 2013). Basically, aspirations are understood as a “cognitive orientational aspect of goal-directed behaviour” (Haller, 1968, p. 484). Therefore, not only the individual, but other people are also important for the educational career. In particular, the relevance of parental educational aspirations for the school sector has been confirmed (Seginer & Vermulst, 2002). The effect of aspirations held by important reference persons, hereinafter referred to as significant others (Sewell et al., 1969), such as peers, can also be considered as well documented (Duncan et al., 1968; A. M. Ryan, 2001). Baier and Hadjar (2004) provided evidence that the educational aspirations of the mother and father also transfer to the subjective importance that 14-year-olds assign to education. Davis et al. (2002) showed that among 10th grade students that the perceived educational aspirations of relevant reference persons (those of parents, relatives, and peers) have an impact on the educational aspirations of the learners themselves. Parental educational aspirations influenced students’ decisions to study and the choice of their major, as well as their career orientations (Schultheiss et al., 2001; Whiston & Keller, 2004). There were positive relationships between aspirations of parents, teachers, close relatives, and peers and those of students (Cheng & Starks, 2002), expectations of others showed an influence on motivation to complete high school (Davis et al., 2002), and friends influenced the decision-making process regarding higher education (Brooks, 2003). Friendships with peers who have positive attitudes toward school and learning and who highly value education had a positive effect on academic achievement over time (Stewart, 2008). This relationship was evident across countries (Buchmann & Dalton, 2002). Research results also showed that the significance of educational aspirations is strong in Germany both in the early phase of the education system (Maaz & Nagy, 2010; Neugebauer, 2010) and for the transition to university (Neugebauer et al., 2013). Peers have also been repeatedly shown to have an impact on the course of studies and academic achievement, for example, by influencing motivation or performance (Dupéré et al., 2021; Poldin et al., 2016; Swenson Goguen et al., 2010; Zimmerman, 2003).
However, the influence of the partner’s aspirations on students’ dropout intentions has not yet been investigated. Contrarily, the relevance of the partner in the professional context has been analyzed comprehensively. There are several findings on the significance of the partner to the professional career, which has been confirmed in international studies (Blossfeld & Drobnič, 2001; Busch et al., 2014; Rusconi & Solga, 2011; Vohlídalová, 2017). For the school sector, Giordano et al. (2008) found evidence that the romantic partner’s performance in the first survey had a significantly positive effect on the pupil’s (age 12–19 years) grades at the time of the second survey. In the study, the duration of the partnership and the degree of intimacy did not show any significant moderating effect, but this may be due to the young age of the interviewees (Giordano et al., 2008). Research focusing on the importance of the partner in the context of higher education is rare. Studies dealing with the effect of partnerships on educational outcomes are often limited to the effect of the relationship status (e.g., Pham et al., 2013). Schmidt and Lockwood’s (2017) analysis showed that students in a relationship were less likely to attend lectures. However, they could not identify any negative impact on academic performance. The authors pointed out though that relationship characteristics were not considered. In a cross-sectional analysis, Cutrona et al. (1994) examined the effect of social support on the average grades of students and found positive correlations between parental support and performance, but not for that of friends or partners. Manning et al. (2011) stated that, on the one hand, partners can be a distraction from educational and career goals, but, on the other hand, the partner can encourage the student by having high demands or encouraging behavior that leads to further educational or career development.
While during the early stages of the education system decisions are mainly made by parents, the relevance of the child’s decisions increases with age (Stocké, 2013). Solga and Becker (2012) emphasized that this so-called life course hypothesis cannot be clearly confirmed for the German education system. Reference persons are also relevant at a later age: Analysis of the transition to university showed that there is still a strong correlation between the educational aspirations of parents and children (Maaz, 2006), whereby the educational aspirations vary according to socioeconomic status (Paulus & Blossfeld, 2007; Stocké, 2013). In this context, the aspirations of the social environment can be differentiated into idealistic and realistic ones (Stocké, 2013), which is rarely done. When differentiating aspirations, research has mostly focused on their determinants (Gölz & Wohlkinger, 2019; Kurz & Paulus, 2008). For the transition to secondary school, Paulus and Blossfeld (2007) were able to show that both types of aspirations are relevant. Roth (2017) found that the idealistic aspirations held by parents and friends had significantly influenced the realistic aspirations held by secondary school students in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.
In summary, it can be stated that reference persons do affect educational pathways. The analysis of the effects of the reference group on educational objectives was usually limited to the investigation of correlations and focused on the school sector (Buchmann & Dalton, 2002; Cheng & Starks, 2002). Analysis of the importance of the partner in the education process has mostly been limited to examining relationship status and schooling. The various aspects of the partner’s importance in regard to their studies are still unclear. Merely observing relationship status cannot depict the partner’s influence. There are no multivariate studies that examine the influence of the partner’s aspirations on tertiary education.
Theoretical Approach
The aim of life course theory is to consider mutual influences of different areas of life that are relevant to specific individual decisions (Huinink & Feldhaus, 2009; Mayer, 2004). The basic assumption is that individual biographies are characterized by multidimensionality and that biographical decisions are not made regardless of the environment. Depending on the decision, adjacent areas of life such as partnership and family, friends, or employment, can become relevant. Life course theory postulates a reciprocal influence, so the different areas of life such as partnership can therefore have an impact on the course of study and vice versa.
The individual’s personality, cognitive skills, and current performance are just as relevant as their motivation to study and their own education. Against this background, a process of setting individual goals and priorities takes place (Huinink & Feldhaus, 2009). According to Breen and Goldthorpe (1997), three factors are particularly important in relation to education, such as the costs incurred by remaining in the education system. The second factor is the subjective probability of successfully completing the chosen educational path, that is, in this case, university studies. A third, very central, factor is the value or utility associated with graduation. The utility can lie in the status maintenance motive, in which the social background is reflected. This benefit consists in the preservation of the family class position through the attainment of at least the same degree as the parents. Or, as in a later variant of the model, avoiding falling below parental occupational status (the so-called loss aversion (Breen & Yaish, 2006). The life course approach also postulates that individuals make certain decisions from which they expect to achieve the highest possible degree of subjective welfare. Education-related investment also counts as an “instrumental goal” (Lindenberg, 1996), which is necessary for the fulfilment of longer-term plans, that is, the completion of a university degree. The relevance of the degree for the student is reflected in the individually different educational aspirations. Aspirations, “are stable refigurative orientations composed of specific beliefs about one’s future trajectory through the educational system and one’s ultimate class or status position” (Morgan, 2006, p. 1528f). According to the life course approach, however, close reference persons are also of central importance here. In this context, Elder (1994) has emphasized the importance of social relationships for the life course in his concept of “linked lives.” Thus, central reference persons can influence individual decisions to a large extent through their views, ideas, desires, and expectations. These social relationships, like individual preconditions, can also become relevant for educational decisions and educational pathways. The partner as a central reference person has their own expectations, ideas, and wishes toward the student, which can directly or indirectly affect the individual. The student could thus be influenced by their partner’s educational aspirations. It is assumed that individuals pursue the goal of achieving positive relationships with significant others (Davis et al., 2002, 2003; Watermann & Maaz, 2006) and achieve this regulation by taking into account the educational expectations of those others.
In this respect, the differentiation between the individual’s attitudes and the aspirations of their social environment can be adequately captured with the distinction between push and pull factors. This distinction has become widely known in educational sociology (Gambetta, 1987). The student’s own motivation is a pull factor (Stocké, 2013). Assessing the subjective benefit of an educational pathway while at the same time considering promoting or inhibiting factors also identifies further pull factors central to the explanation (Erikson & Jonsson, 1996). The individual is regarded here as a rational actor pursuing instrumental goals (Stocké, 2012). A high intrinsic motivation, which reflects the importance of the course of studies to the student, is an important pull factor. In contrast, push factors influence the individual and can consist of social, structural, institutional, or psychological constraints that influence their educational processes (Stocké, 2013). Individual educational aspirations are largely shaped by expectations and aspirations of relevant reference persons. Educational aspirations held by the partner can, just like the aspirations held by parents or peers, be regarded as push factors for educational biographical decisions (e. g. Sewell et al., 1970, 1969).
The aspirations of the social environment, which, affect the individual to varying degrees, can be differentiated into idealistic and realistic educational aspirations (Haller, 1968; Stocké, 2014a, 2014b). Stocké (2013) considers idealistic educational aspirations as demands and realistic aspirations as expectations of the social environment. Idealistic aspirations depict desires without taking given or expected limitations into account. Idealistic aspirations show the importance that individuals attach to a certain educational qualification. These aspirations are defined by how exactly a desired educational attainment is assessed and are hardly influenced by restrictions (Stocké, 2014a). In contrast, realistic educational aspirations are formed by considering the probability of success. Thus, realistic educational aspirations are the assumed probability of achieving an educational goal (Stocké, 2014b). This differentiation can provide valuable indications of possible different effects of aspirations on educational pathways. Since realistic aspirations interact with academic achievement, it can be assumed that they change as the course of studies progresses. Contrarily, idealistic aspirations are assumed to remain unaffected by academic achievement (Stocké, 2013).
Hypotheses
With regard to educational decisions, it is assumed that the importance of the one’s own attitudes and those of reference persons change over the life course. With increasing age, individual preferences become increasingly important the focus is increasingly on the learner (Stocké, 2013). As explained above, the individual’s intrinsic motivation is a central pull factor. Therefore, when analyzing the partner’s aspirations, it is essential to first consider the student’s intrinsic motivation. The following hypothesis is therefore put forward:
The higher the intrinsic motivation of the student, the lower their dropout intention (hypothesis 1 [H1]).
The partner potentially is a central influencing factor for life-course-related decision-making processes. In terms of positive regulation, the students take their partner’s attitudes into account with the effect that their dropout intention is reduced by the partner’s higher demands and expectations.
Given this background, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Higher idealistic aspirations of the partner have a negative effect on the student’s dropout intention (Hypothesis 2a [H2a]).
Higher realistic aspirations of the partner have a negative effect on the student’s dropout intention (Hypothesis 2b [H2b]).
Especially in the context of a course of study, it is central to also consider over-time changes in the student’s motivational structure.
Performance expectations can be met or disappointed in the process of studying, which can have an impact on the educational aspirations held by the environment (Stocké, 2013). Students’ motivation can also change during the course of their studies. It is to be expected that the effect of intrinsic motivation on the dropout intention will also become apparent over time.
Increasing intrinsic motivation of the student has a negative effect on their dropout intention (Hypothesis 3 [H3]).
Aspirations are not only relevant for transitions in the educational system but also in the education process itself (Rumberger, 1995). Equivalent to the attitudes of the student, the attitudes of the partner may also change in terms of the demands and expectations placed on the student. The growing educational demands or expectations of the partner during their course of studies can have a positive effect on the motivation of the student. This, in turn, has a negative impact on the student’s dropout intention. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Increasing idealistic aspirations of the partner have a negative effect on the student’s dropout intention (Hypothesis 4a [H4a]).
Increasing realistic aspirations of the partner have a negative effect on the student’s dropout intention (hypothesis 4b [H4b]).
In the literature on dropout or academic success, various factors are repeatedly highlighted as relevant to the course of studies. These include the student’s academic performance, contact with fellow students and lecturers, the student’s cognitive abilities and their major. Aspects such as age, gender, social background, and state of health can also have an effect on the intention to drop out. These factors are also included to ensure the reliability of the results.
Data and Methods
Data
This study tests the influence of the partner’s aspirations on the basis of a student survey at the University of Oldenburg (Germany). The dataset has rich potential for analysis: In addition to the general conditions set by the university and the students’ individual dispositions, further information were collected on adjacent areas of life such as a possible partnership. The analysis is based on data from a panel study that began in the 2017/2018 winter semester and surveyed students once per semester repeatedly over a 2-year period (LAST, 2017). The survey focused on first and third semester students participating in all Bachelor’s programs and covers various aspects of their studies. The dataset was developed to analyze the importance of central areas of students’ lives and allows statements to be made about longitudinal effects over the course of studies and especially effects of the partner’s attitudes. In the LAST study, special instruments were developed to assess the relevance of the partner, peers, parents, and general study conditions over the course of study. In many cases, however, instruments from other surveys have been applied, especially those of the National Education Panel Study (NEPS) in Germany. The NEPS study examines educational pathways of all age groups in an interdisciplinary manner and is currently the largest social science research project ever conducted in Germany (Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, 2020a, 2020c).
The central dependent variable is the student’s dropout intention, the central independent variables are the partner’s aspirations and the student’s intrinsic motivation. According to theoretical considerations, aspirations are differentiated into idealistic and realistic aspirations. Equivalent to the procedure in NEPS (for the starting cohort of first year students), students were asked to assess the attitudes of others.
Variables
Main Variables
Dropout intention: Dropout intention was measured by a scale (α = .78). Three items of the academic integration scale (Fulfilment of Achievement Expectations Scale) from Trautwein et al. (2007) were used for operationalization, as applied in the NEPS (Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, 2020b). The question was: How much do the following statements apply to you and your studies? The items are:
I have often thought about quitting my studies.
I am seriously thinking of quitting studying.
I will complete these studies no matter what (reversed).
Measured from 1 (does not apply at all) to 4 (does completely apply).
Intrinsic motivation, student: To measure different learning motives, the scale of Müller et al. (2007) was used. This scale is based on a translation of the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire according to R. M. Ryan and Connell (1989) and was adapted for the university context.
The intrinsic motivation was formed using three items (α = .74): I learn because I enjoy it.
I learn because I want to learn new things.
I learn because I consider the contents to be very significant.
Measured from 1 (is not true at all) to 5 (is absolutely right).
Idealistic aspirations, partner: The item is from the NEPS and has been slightly reworded. The NEPS questionnaire also asks about the importance of graduation for central reference persons, but not for those of the partner. (Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, 2020b). It now reads: It is very important to my partner that I am successful in my studies. Measured from 1 (does not apply at all) to 5 (is absolutely true).
Realistic aspirations, partner: Following the wording in NEPS on the probability of completion, the following item is used for measurement: My partner is convinced that I will successfully complete my studies. Measured from 1 (does not apply at all) to 5 (is absolutely true).
Control Variables
The following central influencing factors are controlled for in the analysis:
Academic integration: Academic integration was measured by a scale (α = .77). Three items of the academic integration scale (Fulfilment of Achievement Expectations Scale) from Trautwein et al. (2007) were used for operationalization, as applied in the NEPS (Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, 2020b). The question was:
How much do the following statements apply to you and your course of study?
The items read: I am satisfied with my academic performance.
My performance expectations and requirements were fully fulfilled during my studies.
My academic achievements are better than I had originally expected.
Measured from 1 (does not apply at all) to 4 (does completely apply).
Social integration: Social integration was measured by a scale (α = .72). Three items from Schiefele et al. (2002) were used for measurement, as applied in the NEPS (Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, 2020b). The question was:
How much do the following statements apply to you and your studies?
The items read: I have been successful in building contacts with other students during my studies up to now.
I know a lot of classmates with whom I can exchange ideas about questions in my field of study.
I have many contacts with students in my class.
Measured from 1 (does not apply at all) to 4 (does completely apply).
Cognitive abilities: The average grade of the school-leaving qualification that entitles students to attend university is used here as a proxy for cognitive abilities. Higher values represent poorer school performance and lower values indicate better performance.
Relationship commitment: The influence of the partner can vary according to the level of commitment of the partnership. It is therefore checked whether the couples live in the same household. If this is not the case, the variable is given the value 0, the value 1 was assigned to shared households.
Change of subject: It is checked whether there was a change of subject between surveys. If there was a change, the variable receives the value 1, otherwise 0.
Educational background: Social background in terms of parents’ education is considered in the cross-sectional analysis. If at least one parent has an academic degree (regardless of whether from an university or an university of applied sciences), the value 1 was assigned, otherwise the value 0.
Subject groups: Three groups are constructed: linguistics/sports/cultural studies, law/economics/social sciences and mathematics/natural and engineering sciences. Students with the occupational goal of teaching form a separate group.
Current health: The empirical analyses check for the students’ state of health. Health status was measured with a German version of the Short Form Survey (SF-12) as used in the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) (German Institute for Economic Research, 2020). This is a short version of the longer original instrument (SF-36) developed by Ware et al. (1993). The scale measures dimensions of mental health in addition to various dimensions of physical health (Gill et al., 2007; Hjorth et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2015). Eleven items on physical and mental health status were summarized in a subscale (α = .89). An example item is:
Please think about the last four weeks. How often during this time have you been restricted in your activities due to physical health problems at work or in your daily activities? Measured from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Age: The age of the interviewees (in years) is controlled.
Gender: The gender of the interviewees is controlled (male/female).
Sample
The dataset contains 3,569 cases of people who stated that they were in a partnership at the time of the respective survey. Cases that contained missing values were deleted, leaving 2,987 observations in the pooled data set for cross-sectional analysis. For the longitudinal analyses, only persons who had provided information in at least two waves of the survey could be considered. This reduced the number of cases considerably. Furthermore, persons could only be considered if they were still in the same partnership. Therefore, the number of cases for the longitudinal analysis was n = 734.
In the descriptive examination of the variables used (see Table 1), it becomes clear that the mean dropout intention is low (1.43). The average values of the student’s intrinsic motivation and the partner’s idealistic educational aspirations are similar (3.60 and 3.74). By contrast, their partner’s mean realistic aspirations are higher (4.69).
Descriptive Results (n = 2,987).
Both the student’s academic integration and their social integration, health, and grade entitling them to attend university are in the middle range of their respective scales. Over 40% of couples live in the same household and only a small proportion of students changed subject between the survey waves. The proportion of people in the sample studying for a teaching degree is higher than at the University of Oldenburg as a whole (60%, 45% in the winter semester 2015/16), just like the proportion of women in the sample (77% in the sample compared to 56% overall in November 2019). The interviewees are 25 years old on average.
Statistics
The central analysis takes place in two steps. First, OLS (ordinary least squares) regressions are calculated based on the pooled dataset. This procedure makes it possible to investigate correlations between central variables while simultaneously controlling both time-constant and time-varying factors. The basic approach of this procedure is to compare different individuals, for example, individuals with high intrinsic motivation with individuals with lower intrinsic motivation (Brüderl, 2010). This procedure is the approach for testing hypotheses H1 to H3 and answering the first research question. The structure of the models is derived from the theoretical foundation and the research questions. Central for the course of the study is the individual and their attitude toward the studies, which is why in the first model only the effect of the intrinsic motivation of the student is considered. In the second model, the influence of the partner is analyzed. For this purpose, in addition to the intrinsic motivation, the effects of the idealistic and the realistic educational aspirations are included. In connection with the course of the study, academic, and social integration are of great importance, as well as the student’s cognitive abilities. These are integrated in the third model. In the fourth, complete model, an analysis of the central aspects is carried out with simultaneous consideration of further control variables in order to check the robustness of findings.
In a second step, the effect of changes over time is investigated. This procedure is the approach for testing hypotheses H4 and answering the second research question. The previous cross-sectional calculations can provide initial indications for correlations, but they do not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the effect of the student’s motivation and the partner’s aspirations on the process of studying. Since the student’s attitude may change over the course of their studies, as may the partner’s educational aspirations, it is important to analyze the effects over time. One advantage of longitudinal approaches is the possibility to track intraindividual variance, that is, changes within individuals over time (Brüderl, 2010). Compared to cross-sectional methods, which always look at the differences between individuals, in addition to modeling a temporal sequence, another key advantage is the elimination of unobserved heterogeneity. By focusing on intraindividual changes, the results remain unaffected by systematic time-constant differences between individuals (e.g., gender, course of study, migration background) (Allison, 2009; Brüderl, 2010; Pohlenz et al., 2016); moreover, this type of analysis is relatively robust to self-selection effects (Pohlenz et al., 2016). The longitudinal analysis is conducted using fixed-effects panel regressions. Here, the consideration of time (survey wave) is essential for the modeling. With regard to dropout intentions, for example, it is to be expected that these will change over the course of studies. Due to the fact that all respondents participated at several points in time and their observations are therefore not independent of each other, panel-robust standard errors are used.
Findings
First, the correlations between the central variables were investigated. According to Cohen’s (1988) convention, the central variables mostly show low correlations, only rarely medium ones (see Table 2). However, all correlations are statistically significant at least at a 5% level.
Correlations Between Central Variables (Wave 1; n = 1,195).
All variables show the expected correlations. The highest correlation is between academic integration and dropout intention. The partner’s idealistic educational aspirations are much less strongly related to dropout intention than the partner’s realistic aspirations (−0.02 to −0.24). Cognitive abilities also show the expected effects. It is noteworthy that cognitive abilities only correlate to a small extent with academic integration. It can also be seen that although there is a significant correlation between the partner’s idealistic and realistic aspirations, this correlation is small (0.23). Of particular interest is the connection between the partner’s aspirations and the student’s motivation: the correlations between these factors are rather small (0.02 and 0.10, respectively).
The OLS calculations based on the pooled data can provide a first indication of connections between the partner’s aspirations and dropout intentions (see Table 3). In interpreting this, it should be noted that a negative coefficient means that the corresponding variable is associated with a reduction in the student’s intention to drop out. Thus, the student is less likely to question whether they should remain at the university. By contrast, a variable with a positive coefficient is associated with a higher dropout intention. The first model shows a significant negative effect of the student’s intrinsic motivation on their dropout intention. Model 2 shows that there are significant correlations between both idealistic and realistic educational aspirations and the student’s dropout intention. Contrary to expectations, however, this relationship is positive for idealistic aspirations, whereas higher realistic aspirations of the partner are negatively related to dropout intention. In the third model, the relationship between the partner’s idealistic educational aspirations and dropout intention is no longer significant, but the effect of realistic aspirations remains, albeit with a lower coefficient. Also, central variables affecting the student were considered. Both the student’s motivation as well as their academic and social integration are significantly negatively related to their dropout intention. In the fourth model, central control variables concerning the individual or their partnership are taken into account. It can be seen that neither cognitive abilities, nor changing subject between the interview dates are related to dropout intentions. There is a significant correlation between health and dropout intention: with higher physical and psychological issues, dropout intention increases. This model can explain 28% of the variance in dropout intention. The coefficients of the partner’s realistic educational aspirations and of the student’s motivation are significant in all models although the coefficient of intrinsic motivation is halved across the four models and the coefficient of realistic aspirations is reduced by about one third. The coefficients of academic performance and social integration decrease slightly, but remain highly significant.
Linear Regressions With the Dependent Variable Dropout Intention.
Note. Pooled sample, cluster robust standard errors in parentheses, n = 2,987. Key findings have been italicized.
p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
In accordance with the theoretical assumptions, the student’s intrinsic motivation has a negative effect on dropout intention. This effect remains significant even after controlling for central variables such as social and academic integration or health status. Contrary to expectations, there is no connection between the partner’s idealistic educational aspirations and the student’s dropout intention, or even a positive connection if only the student’s intrinsic motivation and the two types of aspirations are considered (see model 2). In this case, a higher idealistic educational aspiration is associated with a higher dropout intention. This result is surprising since theory suggests effects in the opposite direction.
In the following section potential influences of the variables are examined over time (see Table 4). The first model shows that an increasing intrinsic motivation is negatively associated with students’ dropout intention. In the second model, the coefficient of intrinsic motivation is slightly lower with simultaneous analysis of the partner’s aspirations, but remains significant. However, in regard to the partner’s aspirations, only the effect of realistic educational aspirations is statistically significant. In the third model, the analysis of the partner’s aspirations is carried out while simultaneously considering the factors directly affecting the student. Comparable to the corresponding model in the cross-sectional analysis, the student’s intrinsic motivation has a significant negative effect, as does academic and social integration. In the fourth model, the coefficient of realistic educational aspirations remains highly significant and nearly unchanged, just like the coefficients of the student’s intrinsic motivation and the student’s academic and social integration. The degree of relationship commitment (measured by moving in together) has no effect on dropout intention, in contrast to health status: increasing physical and/or psychological problems go along with an increasing dropout intention. Changing subject has no significant negative effect.
FE-models With the Dependent Variable Dropout Intention.
Note. Robust standard cluster errors in parentheses. Key findings have been italicized.
p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
To sum up the findings concerning the central independent variables, it turns out that as intrinsic motivation increases, dropout intention decreases. Even with the stepwise addition of other influencing factors, the coefficients of the student’s intrinsic motivation are always significant and remain nearly the same across the models.
Although the sign of the coefficient of the partner’s idealistic educational aspirations is negative in all models, the variable does not come close to a significant level. If the partner’s idealistic aspirations increase, this is not accompanied by a reduction in the student’s dropout intention. In contrast, the negative effect of the partner’s realistic aspirations is clearly evident. The coefficient is highly significant and negative across all models, which clearly proves that the more the partner expects the student to graduate, the more the student’s dropout intention is reduced.
Discussion
The present study confirms that a student’s intrinsic motivation and their partner’s realistic educational aspirations are negatively related to their dropout intention. These findings were evident in both the cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.
Hypothesis 2a postulated that Higher idealistic aspirations of the partner have a negative effect on the student’s dropout intention which could not be confirmed. It turned out that idealistic educational aspirations do not have the expected negative effect. The second model in the cross-sectional analysis even shows a positive correlation (see Table 3). These findings could be an indication that the demands from the environment are not effective or only effective under certain conditions. Trinidad (2019) found that high and unrealistic parental aspirations can even negatively affect student achievement. If parental idealistic aspirations were higher than the student’s realistic aspirations, this had a negative effect on the chances of entering college. Trinidad assumes that unnecessarily high external aspirations from parents can actually hinder their children from obtaining higher educational outcomes. Findings from motivational research indicate that extrinsic motivation, including push factors such as the partner’s demands, may also exert pressure on the student and may not necessarily contribute to a more successful educational process (Blüthmann et al., 2008; Heublein, 2014). Hypothesis 4b was that Increasing idealistic aspirations of the partner have a negative effect on the student’s dropout intention and could not be confirmed either.
The empirical findings were able to confirm the two hypotheses Increasing idealistic aspirations of the partner have a negative effect on the student’s dropout intention [H2a] and Increasing realistic aspirations of the partner have a negative effect on the student’s dropout intention [H4b]. Therefore, with regard to realistic aspirations, both research questions can be answered in the affirmative. The partner’s expectations have a clear negative effect on the student’s dropout intention. This finding is highly plausible given that the partner gains their conviction through the student’s actual performance and the assessment of the framework conditions. The findings of the present study as well as those of Murayama et al. (2016) could be an indication that idealistic aspirations held by significant others could be perceived as pressure, which does not reduce a dropout intention but possibly even increases it. However, if significant others, in this case the partner, are convinced of a successful conclusion, this could have a positive effect on the student in so far as any doubts about their own performance are alleviated or the student’s motivation is enhanced. Further research could make a valuable contribution at this point to the precise mechanisms of action.
Both hypotheses The higher the intrinsic motivation of the student, the lower their dropout intention [H1] and Increasing intrinsic motivation of the student has a negative effect on their dropout intention [H3] could be confirmed. The empirical analysis displayed that a higher intrinsic motivation is associated with a lower dropout intention. The analyses over time also showed that an increase in intrinsic motivation is accompanied by a decrease in dropout thoughts. These results are consistent with the theory that the individual’s intrinsic motivation is acentral pull factor. The individuals set their own goals, which are instrumentally relevant for the achievement of subjective welfare (Huinink & Feldhaus, 2009). This assumption is also supported by numerous empirical studies (e.g., Heublein et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2014; Robbins et al., 2004) and shows the importance of the student’s attitudes toward their studies for successful completion.
In the present study, central factors were controlled for. Among the factors directly affecting the student, academic integration had high coefficients. The same also applies to social integration. Academic integration is also a significant factor in the longitudinal analysis. Overall, it is noteworthy that the student’s health shows a clear effect on their dropout intention. This confirms findings by Heublein et al. (2017) that highlight the great importance of students’ mental and physical health in connection with dropping out of university. Cognitive abilities and educational background do not show significant correlations in any of the models. Further analysis could indicate whether both factors are mediated by academic integration and the student’s intrinsic motivation. It is noteworthy that even when controlling for the two central characteristics according to Tinto (1975), academic and social integration, the importance and level of the coefficient of the partner’s realistic educational aspirations remains.
The analysis provides clear indications of the partner’s relevance to dropping out of higher education. However, the study has limitations. Panel surveys are associated with methodological difficulties, the first being panel attrition. The dataset of the LAST project, on which this study is based, showed considerable panel mortality (see section 4). Better access to universities’ statistical data could improve the data basis in the future. The present study also did not measure the actual dropout rate, but dropout intention. The dropout intention covers whether the student has already given serious thoughts about giving up their studies and leaving university without a degree. These thoughts are of particular importance to higher education policy because they can be seen as an early warning signal for an impending dropout (Brandstätter et al., 2006). They reveal dissatisfaction with the subjectively perceived study situation and that the student is reflecting on the possibility and consequences of dropout (Blüthmann et al., 2011). Earlier studies showed that between 20% and 25% of students with a serious dropout intention actually terminated their studies without a degree (Gold, 1988). Meyer et al. (1999) were able to prove that one third of students with frequent thoughts of dropping out did in fact drop out within the next 2 years. Given the age of these studies and the difficulties in attracting students to participate in a study, especially if they have dropped out, the use of official university statistics should also be made possible. A further limitation lies in the subjectivity of the assessments. In the present survey, the information of the partner’s aspirations were not collected from the partners themselves, but from the student. This approach is chosen in almost all studies (Roth, 2017; Sewell et al., 1969), but may cause problems: There is a danger that objective attitudes will not be recorded in this way (Stocké, 2013). However, according to Lewin (1963), the objective nature of the environment is not important. It is only relevant how a person perceives their environment (Ditton, 2013). It is therefore plausible to assume that the student’s subjective perception of their partner’s aspirations is potentially relevant to their behavior.
Future research could consider whether selective pair formation processes have occurred. Empirical findings indicate that individuals choose their partner according to the principle of homophily and that, especially university can be regarded as a marriage market for future academics (Blossfeld & Timm, 1997). In this respect, it would be conceivable that persons for whom studying has a high priority are in a relationship with someone who also holds this view. Future research could make an important contribution to this point. Accordingly, factors such as available resources and individual risk aversion also play a role and should also be examined more closely with regard to partnership (Breen & Goldthorpe, 1997; Breen & Yaish, 2006). Which role other aspects of the partnership, such as the commitment process or also separations, play in promoting or counteracting graduation could also be the subject of future analysis. The life course approach postulates the influence of different areas of life which could also include these potential influences. In addition to socioeconomic background, softer factors such as support and relationship quality could also be considered.
The two different forms of analysis were able to include a large number of relevant factors and show that the partner’s realistic aspirations have a significant influence on both the cross-sectional and the longitudinal level. In the analysis of educational aspirations, looking only at the students themselves carries the risk of ignoring important influencing factors. Even if it is assumed that the focus is solely on the individual with increasing age, the influence of central reference persons remains. An analysis of the partner’s aspirations is therefore essential.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the framework of the funding program “Study Success and Study Breakdown” (grant no. 01PX16017).
