Freshmen’s intention to engage in faculty mentoring: applying the theory of planned behavior

Figures & data

Table 1. Results of the EFAs computed for the direct and indirect determinants of freshmen’s intention to engage in FFM.

Direct determinants	Factors		Indirect determinants (weighted beliefs)	Factors
	1	2		1	2	3	4	5
Attitude			Study choice certainty			.55
Instrumental_1	.70		Curriculum information			.81
Instrumental_2	.91		Support figure		.62
Experiential_1		.64	Reassurance		.91
Experiential_2		.84	Self-esteem	.43	.50
			Adaptation	.40
			Less dropout	.89
			Motivation	.71
			Career information			.67
			Study time				.82
			Journeys				.72
Social subjective norm			Descriptive referents
			Diligent students		.47
Descriptive_1		.40	Bright students		.99
Descriptive _2	.44	.31	Students in doubt	.70
Injunctive_1	.75		Students in difficulties	.93
Injunctive _2	.73		Students lacking self-esteem	.85
			Injunctive referents
			Parents	.61
			Friends	.82
			Sophomores		.62
			Students considering mentoring as shameful			.42
Perceived behavioral control			Shyness			.79
			Impressed by faculty			.76
Ability_1	.99		Free time				.46
Ability_2	.62		Public transportation				.52
Autonomy_1		.41	Anticipated poor grades				.37	−.32
Autonomy_2		1.0	Self-confidence					.64
			Videoconference	.35
			Mentors’ availability	.97
			Mentors’ concern	.68
			1-on-1 meetings	.37
			Information clarity		.93
			Ease of sign-up		.74

Note: Factor loadings > .3. Bartlett sphericity tests were significant (ps < .001). All TLIs were > .95.

Table 2. Steps 1 to 4 of the analytic strategy proposed by von Haeften et al. (2001).

1. Correlational analysis	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Intention	.52	.66	.31	.34	.63	.18	.36	.24	.26	.30
2. Instrumental attitude		.73	ns	.27	.58	.25	.57	.28	.33	.53
3. Experiential attitude			.18	.29	.34	.23	.51	.31	.34	.48
4. Descriptive norm				.23	.14	ns	ns	.12	.11	ns
5. Injunctive norm					.29	ns	.13	.17	.45	.18
6. Perceived ability						.29	.48	.25	.31	.43
7. Perceived autonomy							.29	ns	ns	.28
8. Mwb attitude								.39	.29	.60
9. Mwb descriptive norm									.35	.38
10. Mwb injunctive norm										.32
11. Mwb perceived control
2. Direct determinants analysis		b		SE		IC		t		p
Experiential attitude		0.55		0.07		0.42; 0.69		8.06		<.001
Descriptive norm		0.26		0.05		0.17; 0.36		5.47		<.001
Injunctive norm		0.11		0.04		0.03; 0.19		2.63		.009
Perceived ability		0.45		0.06		0.34; 0.56		8.05		<.001
3. Individual indicator analysis		b		SE		IC		t		p
Experiential attitude
Self-esteem		0.02		0.01		0.01; 0.04		2.05		.041
Motivation		0.05		0.01		0.02; 0.07		4.27		<.001
Career information		−0.02		0.01		−0.04; −0.01		−2.03		.042
(b) Descriptive norm
Diligent students		0.02		0.01		0.01; 0.03		2.32		.021
Bright students		0.03		0.01		0.01; 0.05		3.60		<.001
Students lacking self-esteem		0.04		0.01		0.02; 0.07		3.16		.002
(c) Injunctive norm
Parents		0.02		0.01		0.01; 0.04		3.48		<.001
Sophomores		0.02		0.01		0.01; 0.03		2.30		.022
(d) Perceived ability
Shyness		0.03		0.01		0.01; 0.05		3.66		<.001
Mentors’ concern		0.02		0.01		0.01; 0.05		2.03		.043
Ease of sign-up		0.02		0.01		0.01; 0.04		2.36		.019
4. Identifying the critical targets		b		SE		IC		t		p
Self-esteem		0.02		0.01		0.01; 0.04		2.45		0.015
Motivation		0.04		0.01		0.02; 0.05		3.96		<.001
Career information		−0.02		0.01		−0.04; −0.01		−2.57		.010
Bright students		0.02		0.01		0.01; 0.04		2.47		0.014
Shyness		0.02		0.01		0.01; 0.03		2.16		0.031

Note: Table 2 displays significant results, see Appendix B for complete results.

von Haeften, I., Fishbein, M., Kasprzyk, D., & Montano, D. (2001). Analyzing data to obtain information to design targeted interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 6(2), 151–164. doi:10.1080/13548500125076

 Google Scholar