Intervention Methods to Reframe the Experience of Failing University Entrance Examinations Using Biased Retelling

Abstract

[Purpose]

  This study aimed to examine the effect of positively biased retelling on interventions that promote reframing of failed university entrance examinations. Additionally, the effect of focusing on the past versus the future during positively biased retelling was explored. Posttraumatic growth (PTG) and trauma response were used as dependent variables.

[Methods]

  In a preliminary survey, 560 undergraduate students from a regional national university were asked to evaluate their university entrance examination experience as either a success or failure, respond to the Japanese version of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R-J), and list words they associated with the phrase “university entrance examination failure.” Among those who evaluated their experience as a failure, 19 participated in a three-session intervention study conducted over a one-week period. In Session 1, participants in both the success and failure conditions narrated their experiences without manipulation. In Session 2, participants were divided into two conditions, a past-focused condition and a future-focused condition, in which they were instructed to narrate their experiences in a positive and transformative manner. In Session 3, participants in both conditions narrated their experiences without any manipulation.

[Results]

  The preliminary survey demonstrated that more than half the students evaluated their university entrance examination experience as a success, while those who evaluated it as a failure had an average of the Japanese version of the impact of event scale revised (IES-R-J) total score of 21.06. In the main experiment, a two-factor mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the Japanese version of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI-J) and IES-R-J scores across sessions. A main effect of session was found for the PTGI-J factor “Personal Strength,” with multiple comparisons revealing that scores in Session 3 were higher than those in Session 1. Furthermore, a main effect of session was observed for the IES-R-J factors “Intrusion” and “Avoidance,” with scores in Session 3 lower than those in Session 1.

[Discussion/Conclusion]

  This study suggests that positively biased retelling of the experience of failing university entrance examinations may lead to a positive reinterpretation of the event. In future, it will be necessary to confirm these findings using more rigorous procedures, including the inclusion of control conditions. Additionally, case studies involving reluctantly enrolled students may provide practical insights into the effectiveness of such interventions.