tuition resentment
high-tuition psychodynamics and attribution of blame
Live Metrics
Time
0/15
Expectation
100.0
Quality
94.3
Dissonance
5.8
λ (Attribution)
0.976
Self-Resentment
5.6
Inst-Resentment
0.1
Complaints %
0.7
Expectation vs Quality
Dissonance = max(0, Expectation - Observed Quality). True quality is hidden from students.
Expectation
Observed Quality
True Quality
Resentment Dynamics
λ determines the split: high λ → self-blame, low λ → institutional blame
Self-Resentment
Institutional Resentment
Student Complaints
Function of external resentment, suppressed by power asymmetry
Complaints %
Institutional Reputation
Evolves based on quality, complaints, and grade penalties
Reputation
Attribution Visualization
Attribution Split (λ = 0.976)
Self 98%
When dissonance occurs, λ determines whether students blame themselves (red) or the institution (blue)
Understanding the Results
The Attribution Mechanism
The attribution parameter λ (lambda) is crucial:
λ = σ(θ₀ + θ₁·Power + θ₂·Identity + θ₃·SocialComp)
- • When λ is high (→1): Students blame themselves for disappointment
- • When λ is low (→0): Students blame the institution
- • Power asymmetry increases self-blame (grades as leverage)
- • Identity internalization increases self-blame (ego protection)
- • Social comparison increases self-blame (peer pressure)
Resentment Dynamics
R_internal = λ × Dissonance
R_external = (1-λ) × Dissonance
R_external = (1-λ) × Dissonance
Dissonance gets channeled into either self-resentment (harmful to mental health) or institutional resentment (leads to complaints). High tuition paradoxically can reduce complaints by increasing λ through sunk-cost and prestige effects.
Institutional Manipulation
- Grade Inflation: Artificially raises observed quality, reducing dissonance but risking reputation when detected
- Prestige Messaging: Increases expectations AND attribution to self (double effect)
- Marketing Intensity: Raises expectations without improving quality
- Quality Investment: The only genuine way to reduce dissonance long-term
Key Scenarios to Explore
- 1. High Cost, Low Quality: Set tuition to max, quality to min - watch self-blame dominate
- 2. Grade Inflation Trap: High grade leniency temporarily helps but damages reputation
- 3. Aid Shock Impact: Enable aid shock - see how reduced cost changes attribution
- 4. Quality Investment: Enable quality program - the sustainable path to satisfaction
Model Insights
This model reveals how high tuition can create a self-reinforcing cycle: high costs raise expectations, unmet expectations create dissonance, but psychological mechanisms (sunk cost, identity protection) channel this into self-blame rather than institutional critique. This protects institutions from accountability while harming student wellbeing. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for both policy intervention and individual awareness.