ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95

(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

Dress Code Policy Adherence and Self-Discipline of

University Students

1Lyndonn Stephen D. Santos & 2Portia R. Marasigan

Abstract
The new normal of online learning eventually changed how students dress for online classes.
It also highlighted the concepts of self-management through the exercise of self-discipline.
This study determined the dress code policy adherence and self-discipline of selected
university students through a descriptive-correlational research design involving 100
purposively chosen students. The respondents are mostly young adults, female, third year
level taking-up business administration. The researcher-made instrument measured the levels
of dress code policy adherence and the self-discipline of the respondents. Results showed that
students have high levels of dress code policy adherence and self-discipline. However, only
age, sex, and course are significantly related to dress code policy adherence whereas only age
and sex are significantly related to self-discipline. The study further reflected that past
behavior is significantly related to the self-discipline. The results of the study may serve as
inputs to the review of the institutional dress code policy in the new normal.

Keywords:
Dress Code, Dress Code Policy, Policy Adherence, Self-Discipline, University Students

Suggested Citation: Santos, L.D. & Marasigan, P.R. (2021). Dress Code Policy
Adherence and Self-Discipline of University Students. International Review of Social
Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 3, pp. 47- 71.

About the authors:

1
Student, Laguna State Polytechnic University, Philippines
2Associate Professor 5, Laguna State Polytechnic University, Philippines

│ 47
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

1. Introduction
Dress code policies are regulatory policies, or mandates composed and adopted by a
university administration, that limit the discretion of students, or otherwise compel them to
follow certain types of behavior. The university primarily has the prerogative to regulate the
appropriate or inappropriate actions through a policy, guideline, memorandum, etc. Adhering
to these policies is seen as good behavior. Dress code policy adherence plays a major role in
identification and application of an educational institution’s core values that will guide and
encourage its students. However, there are institutions that do not implement a dress code
policy. Their students are responsible for their own clothing and self-expression (Renales,
2016; Ramirez, 2017). Indeed, every university are distinct and cultural factors could be
involved as it regulates student behavior inside the campus (Kaveh et al., 2015).

Students are expected to adhere to this imposed policy. However, given the
challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and the predicaments that students are
facing, the university moved meetings to an online platform. Dress codes become a second
thought and there is currently no dress code policy being implemented for online classes.
There are only online classroom rules like, “Dress appropriately. No sleeveless, no topless,
and no wearing of shorts when attending the virtual class.” These virtual setting will
inevitably change the way people dress for classes. The way people dress and present
themselves during online meetings gives them a sense of normalcy in unusual times
(Shepherd, 2020). Before this change occurs, it is equally important to have a comparable
study about what the situation was like when students used to engage in face-to-face
interaction. It could be beneficial for future research with similar variables whether for the
new normal of online classes or adjusting to face-to-face meetings.
According to Sequeira et al. (2014), researchers conducting studies on dress codes are
mostly focused on primary, middle school, and high school students, and very few studies
have been done on dress code for college students and especially one that includes all
departments. Brookshire (2016) also stated that researchers have not conducted follow-up
studies, reviews, or evaluations on the impact of uniforms and concluded that future
correlational research is vital in acquiring statistical data about whether school uniforms
impact behavior. One aspect across the broad spectrum of behavior is self-discipline.

48 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

The pandemic forced students to change and this highlighted the importance of
principles like good self-management that can be achieved by exercising self-discipline. In
this context, studies demonstrate the positive impact of self-discipline on a wide range of life
outcomes, emphasizing the importance of students having and being taught self-discipline
early in life (Garcia & Subia, 2019; Gelles et al., 2020; Şimşir & Dilmaç, 2021). Self-
discipline can be defined as a practice, habit, or skill and is established as an important factor
for success. It is the ability to both begin tasks and carry them through to completion. Self-
discipline is the effort an individual exerts to regulate their own moods, that results in
reducing their internal conflicts (Mihm & Ozbek, 2016). Students require sustained self-
discipline to continue with their goal commitment and to successfully attain them.
The university administrators could consider strengthening student’s self-discipline
through reviewing and implementing a dress code policy that is adapted to the new normal
(Momeni & Asghari, 2018). They could encourage the students to participate in policy-
making. The students’ past experiences could guide them to make suggestions (Villanueva,
2017). Most importantly, the university could extend their efforts by supporting and
encouraging educators to employ self-regulation exercises and training programs. For
instance, workshops for developing effective habits and routines in school and home is one
strategy that could be followed to enhance self-discipline among students (APA, 2012).
Studies also suggested providing appropriate feedback, better time management skills,
creating and adhering to a schedule, removing distractions and setting boundaries can help
(Momeni & Asghari, 2018; Garcia & Subia, 2019; Gelles et al., 2020). Furthermore,
preparations could start to create guidelines for an updated dress code for when the students
return to the university.
This study aimed to determine the dress code policy adherence and self-discipline of
the selected college students of Laguna State Polytechnic University and to relate them.
Specifically, it sought to identify the profile of the respondents as to age, sex, year level, and
course, the levels of the dress code policy adherence of the respondents in terms of attitude,
subjective norms, past behavior, and behavioral intention, and the levels of self-discipline of
the respondents in accordance to standards, motivation, monitoring, and willpower.
Moreover, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between the profile of the
respondents and the variables: dress code policy adherence and self-discipline, and lastly, the

│ 49
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

relationship between the dress code policy adherence and self-discipline in terms of attitude,
subjective norms, past behavior, and behavioral intention. Results of this study may provide
valuable insight to the local site to create more informed decisions regarding the
implementation of dress code policies.

2. Literature review
2.1. Dress Code Policy Adherence
Dress code policies are implemented by schools to protect the health and safety of the
students, meet standards of community decorum, and promote discipline (Lunenburg, 2011).
Students are generally identified about their level of education and affiliation from their
school uniform. It adds to the reputation of the institution and adopting dress codes and
uniforms creates social uniformity among students and induces them to behave in a
disciplined manner (Sequeira et al., 2014).
The students of Laguna State Polytechnic University should observe the expected
norm of behavior in accordance with the Student Handbook 2014 Edition. The dress code
policy is included in Article 3 Miscellaneous Rules and Regulations. Section 1 School
Uniforms. It states the permitted and strictly prohibited acts, and attires or apparels, as well
as disciplinary action if students commit deviations from the dress code policy. (LSPU
Student Handbook, 2014).
On the other hand, the University of the Philippines is known for its liberal education,
which translates into freedom of expression (Ramirez, 2017). UP is a platform for self-
expression and does not have any dress code. Students can make their own choices in
deciding what to wear (Renales, 2016). In the university, both students and professors could
dress themselves in the way they want every single day without judgments.
Villanueva (2017) investigated the perceived gaps in transmission of these policies
and rules from the perspective of the policy actors, which are the students, parents, and
authority (teacher/administration). When participants were asked regarding the origin or
history of the dress code policy, Villanueva summarized that they simply were “following or
continuing what had already been established or what is being practiced.” Villanueva
concluded that students get lost in translation on the phenomenon of uniform policies
because “policies in transmission may seemingly be misunderstood or get filtered.”

50 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

Sarwari (2020) believed that the virtual setting will inevitably change the way people
dress for work and even in class. In a remote work setting, Smith (2020) found that about
half of employees do not adhere to a modified dress code. If there is an existing dress code
for the virtual setting, it should be consistently enforced and should provide guidelines that
maintain professionalism. Resistance will be present when people get back into
uncomfortable clothes from work. But on the other hand, there are people that may want to
reinvent themselves again after the pandemic.
According to Momeni and Asghari (2020), students who had a lack of interest in their
chosen field of study did not care about the goals of adherence to professional dress. Through
appropriate educational methods and being constantly scrutinized in their implementation
and compliance with engagement to policy actors, belief in dress codes can be internalized.
Thus, the barriers against the student’s adherence to professional dress can be overcome
(Villanueva, 2017; Momeni & Asghari, 2020; Smith, 2020).
2.2. Self-Discipline
Self-discipline is the effort an individual exerts to regulate their own moods, that
results in reducing their internal conflicts between normative preferences and temptations
(Mihm & Ozbek, 2016). It is of pivotal importance for students to exercise this skill as
sustained self-discipline is required to continue with their goal commitment and to
successfully attain them. A lack of self-discipline may cause student’s intellectual potential
to shorten. However, there are relatively simple self-regulatory strategies students could learn
to use that may substantially improve their ability to attain their academic goals. This further
imply that educational institutions could consider if their missions and objectives should
extend to directly optimizing self-regulatory strategies to their students, as well as
opportunities to maintain and practice them (Duckworth et al., 2011). Furthermore, when
students abide and conduct themselves accordingly, they can maintain self-discipline and
uphold the LSPU system's policies, rules and regulations (LSPU Handbook, 2014).
A student’s level of self-discipline is positively related to their level of emotional
intelligence (Moneva & Gatan, 2020). They can identify several factors in coping with stress
by employing their emotional intelligence and self-discipline. In addition, students could
improve their intellectual capacities and associate themselves with positive affirmations and
encouragements in facing problems they may encounter in school and in life.

│ 51
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

Wu (2016) claimed that at the university level, students who want to understand and
master a large number of operating rules and mainstream social values, put these rules and
values into their own inner thoughts and motives, so that their actions are consistent with the
requirements of society. Students’ self-discipline is formed and developed under the
influence of constraints. These constraints come from school, family, and society that forms a
restraining force. So, the development of self-discipline encouraged students to better
consciously accept the influence of external constraints that may lead to its improvement.
Improving college students’ self-discipline can achieve college students’ self-management.
According to Han (2019), college students are in the critical period of personal
growth and success. Students’ personal growth and development totally depends on their
own sense of self-discipline. Hence, the sense of self-discipline plays a particularly important
role in their development. Students with strong self-discipline will make full use of
resources, better plan their own time, study hard, and enrich their college life.
Surprisingly, studies have shown that women might have troubles with self-
discipline. According to Meyers (2016), if a woman falls short of the expectations they have
to meet, they often view their unsuccessful attempts as personal failures. This may be
attributed to how women are presented with unreasonable standards that they have to
achieve. These expectations may cause them overwhelming feelings of shame, stress,
inadequacy, etc. Also, women tend to report stress more than men as stressful events have a
different impact on women (Núñez-Rocha et al., 2020).
Various research revealed the positive impact of self-discipline on a wide range of
life outcomes. According to Garcia and Subia (2019), self-discipline helps student athletes
develop better time management skills. It also prepared them thoroughly for competitions
and improved focus on their plans. Meanwhile, Gelles et al. (2020) found that most students
identify time management, creating and adhering to a schedule, removing distractions and
setting boundaries as actions rooted in being self-disciplined. Lastly, Şimşir and Dilmaç
(2021) discovered that self-discipline makes a significant contribution to a peaceful life. It
promotes numerous human behaviors with positive psychological outcomes.
2.3. Theoretical Framework
The study was anchored on Martin Fishbein and Icek Azjen’s Theory of Reasoned
Action (1975). According to this theory, a person’s behavior is determined by their

52 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

behavioral intention. It is described as the intention to perform a certain behavior in a specific

way in certain situations. This theory also focused on a person’s attitude towards a behavior
and the subjective norms that potentially affects their behavior, attitude, views, and
perception. These subjective norms are influenced by the beliefs of the people around them
like parents, friends, partners, colleagues, etc. In addition, Ryu and Han (2010) found that
attitude and past behavior were significant predictors of tourists’ behavioral intention. They
found that based from past studies, the inclusion of the past behavior as a predictor
significantly enhanced the predictive ability of the TRA model in intentions and/or actual
behaviors. Findings showed a positive causal relationship from past behavior to behavioral
intentions.
According to Kaveh et al. (2015), the theory of reasoned action can be efficiently
used in determining and studying students’ behavior regarding university dress code. Based
from the survey on 472 students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, 26 percent of the
students had negative attitude towards the dress code. For the student’s subjective norms, the
results were considerably far from the expected level as only 8 percent were informed about
the dress code through professors and other students but 67 percent reported that it was
important for them because of the support of parents, instructors, and peers. Meanwhile, the
behavioral intention of the participants towards dress code-based dressing was relatively
good, with 62.3 percent of the students adhering to the dress code, while 26.4 percent did not
have the same intention. Most importantly, Kaveh et al. (2015) stated that subjective norms
played a more critical role in explaining the dress code behavior among the students.
The Self-Regulation Theory by Roy Baumeister was also used to support the study.
This theory outlines the system and process of conscious personal management where the
mind exerts controls over its drives, functions, and states. It helps individuals to become in
line with a preferred state on a regular basis, in both short- and long-term situations. There
are four (4) components of SRT: (1) standards of desirable behavior, (2) motivation to meet
standards, (3) monitoring of situations and thoughts that precede breaking standards and (4)
willpower or internal strength to control urges. The SRT relates to self-discipline as it is a
system and process where it can outline the effort an individual exerts to regulate their own
moods, that results in reducing their internal conflicts (Mihm & Ozbek, 2016).

│ 53
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

Self-regulation theory fits the investigation of self-discipline and how it is related to

dress code policy adherence as an individual’s goals can be attained by their standards,
motivation, monitoring, and willpower. Further, Cepe (2014) used the delay of gratification
theory to measure the self-discipline of college students but still required a multi-informant
approach, while Mbaluka (2017) used the self-determination theory which also needed an
additional questionnaire to gather reports from parents and teachers. Furthermore, the self-
regulation theory, paired with the theory of reasoned action, seems to be the most appropriate
theoretical approach in assessing student's perspectives and self-report on their self-
discipline. Lastly, Walukouw and Simbolon (2019) stated there is a significant relationship
between self-regulation and discipline. Thus, discipline requires self-regulation.

3. Methodology
The study used descriptive-correlational design since it described the behavior of the
respondents and determined the relationship between the independent variable and dependent
variable. The respondents of the study are 100 college students of Laguna State Polytechnic
University – San Pablo City Campus. Using purposive sampling technique, the criteria set in
the selection of respondents are as follows: (1) respondents must be a college student of
LSPU-SPCC who has studied with face-to-face class for at least a semester in the university,
and; (2) they must be willing to participate. Demographics of the participants showed that:
91% were 18 to 23 years old; 58% were female; 77% were in the third year level; and 30%
were Bachelor of Science in Business Administration.
Researcher-made questionnaires were used to measure the level of dress code policy
adherence and level of self-discipline of the respondents. The instruments were validated by
experts in the field of psychology. Suggestions and recommendations were considered for
refinement before going to the actual phase of the study, where the researchers selected
college students qualified in the criteria set in choosing the respondents. The researchers
explained the purpose of the study and were ensured that all answers gathered will be kept
confidential. They were administered questionnaires through an online survey. After
answering the provided test, the researcher gathered, tabulated, analyzed the results.
Lastly, the study used the following statistical tools: frequency and percentage
distribution were used to describe the respondents' profile data. Mean was used to measure

54 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

the average of the scores of the tests taken. Lastly, Pearson Product Moment Correlation was
used to measure the relationship between dress code policy adherence and self-discipline.

4. Findings and Discussion

Table 1
Level of Attitude of the Respondents

Table 1 shows the level of attitude of the respondents. Indicator 1 “I feel confident
when I’m wearing the prescribed uniform.” had the highest Mean = 3.45 and Standard
Deviation = 0.72 interpreted as “High”. This implied that the respondents follow the dress
code because the feelings of confidence surfaces when they do so. When they wear their
uniforms, they view themselves with pride and honor.
On the other hand, Indicator 2 “Dress code policy restricts student’s way of self-
expression.” had the lowest Mean = 2.00 and Standard Deviation = 0.83 interpreted as
“Low”, which would likely mean that respondents may have a low level of dress code policy
adherence because they believed that it interfered with their freedom of expression. Dress
and grooming are generally viewed as a form of self-expression. Restrictions on these
behaviors could make students feel that they have no freedom in expressing themselves.
With an Overall Weighted Mean = 2.94 and a Standard Deviation = 0.92, it is implied
that the respondents have high level of dress code policy adherence in terms of attitude. The
respondents could have mixed feelings about the dress code. Most notably, the positive

│ 55
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

feeling is confidence and honor while the negative feeling can be restriction on self-
expression. Nevertheless, the positive outweighs the negative when it comes to college
student’s attitudes, resulting in a high level of dress code policy adherence.

Table 2
Level of Subjective Norms of the Respondents

Table 2 shows the level of subjective norms of the respondents. Indicator 7 “I am

aware that the dress code policy should be followed as I am seeing my fellow students doing
it.” has the highest Mean = 3.44 and Standard Deviation = 0.66 interpreted as “High”. This
indicates that college students become aware of following the dress code when they see
people like them doing the same thing. If their peers adhere to the dress code policy, then
they will likely perform the same behavior.
In contrast, Indicator 4 “I feel compelled to follow the dress code policy due to social
pressure.” has the lowest Mean = 2.55 and Standard Deviation = 0.77 interpreted as “High”.
This means that as college students, they feel that their actions partly comply to social norms
but is not entirely reliant on them when it comes to deciding what actions to take in regards
to their adherence to the dress code policy. It is also possible that they may choose to do so as
well on their own volition.

56 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

With an Overall Weighted Mean = 3.02 and Standard Deviation = 0.86, it can be
understood that the respondents has high level of dress code policy adherence in terms of
subjective norms. This implied that college students may perceive their fellow students as
individuals that have important and effective expectations regarding the performance or
avoidance of a behavior, particularly their dress code policy adherence. As they see them
performing the stated behavior, they would be aware that they should follow the dress code.
However, it is possible that college students understand and are aware of their own interests
which could also influence their adherence. Nonetheless, the college student’s subjective
norms result in a high level of dress code policy adherence.

Table 3
Level of Past Behavior of the Respondents

Table 3 shows the level of past behavior of the respondents. Indicator 6 “I wear my
Identification Card in school at all times.” had the Highest Mean = 3.67 and Standard
Deviation = 0.57 interpreted as “Very High”. This implied that the respondents wear their
Identification Card regularly as it allows them to enter the university and access the provided
services. It could easily be placed on their body using lanyards or clips. Most importantly, it
is part of the school uniform stated in the dress code policy that provides easy identification.
On the contrary, Indicator 8 “I don’t wear unnecessary accessories in school so I
look neat.” had the lowest Mean = 3.06 and Standard Deviation = 0.96 interpreted as
“High”. This implied that the respondents avoid wearing unnecessary accessories in school
because it would give them an unpleasant appearance. They could prefer to keep things

│ 57
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

simple and decide that it is better to stay in line with what is prescribed to wear. Furthermore,
they do not wear unnecessary accessories as it could possibly be a hindrance in their bodies
as well as give them an unlikeable impression from other people.
With an Overall Weighted Mean = 3.35 and Standard Deviation = 0.84, it implied
that the respondents have high level of dress code policy adherence in terms of past behavior.
Students may follow or continue to follow the dress code as it is what had already been
established and what is being practiced. This indicated that past experience of following the
dress code could strengthen college students’ dress code policy adherence.

Table 4
Level of Behavioral Intention of the Respondents

Table 4 shows the level of behavioral intention of the respondents. Indicator 1 “I like
to follow the dress code policy of the school.” had the Highest Mean = 3.43 and Standard
Deviation = 0.74, interpreted as “High”. This implied that most of the respondents follow the
dress code policy of the school because they like doing it. College students prefer to wear
their uniforms because they enjoy them.
On the other hand, Indicator 6 “I follow the dress code because I am required to.”
had the lowest Mean = 1.49 and Standard Deviation = 0.63 which is interpreted as “Very
Low”. This means that the respondents may have a very low level of dress code policy
adherence because they are required by the university. Being a requirement means that
following the dress code is mandatory for college students. The respondents may feel that

58 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

they are forced to conduct adherence since the student’s control over the behavior is
incomplete. Therefore, they may not engage with the desired behavior.
With an Overall Weighted Mean = 2.90 and Standard Deviation = 1.00, it means that
the respondents have high level of dress code policy adherence in terms of behavioral
intention. This implied that college students may decide to follow the dress code on their own
due to them personally liking the uniforms and that they desire to have a pleasant appearance.
However, they may also see that adhering to the dress code is not motivated by their own
decisions as they are expected to do so as students of the university. Nonetheless, the college
students’ intention has a high level in following the dress code.

Table 5
Summary Results of Level of Dress Code Policy Adherence of the Respondents

Table 5 shows the summary results of level of dress code policy adherence. It shows
that majority of the respondents have a high level of adherence with an overall Mean = 3.05,
with past behavior having the highest Mean = 3.35. This indicates that the respondents stay
in line with the dress code as they follow what is prescribed to wear. This implied that most
college students highly adhere to the dress code based from their previous behaviors,
specifically in always wearing their Identification Card inside the campus as part of the
school uniform.
Table 6 shows the level of standards of the respondents. Indicator 5 “I admit my
mistakes as part of learning.” had the highest Mean = 3.62 and Standard Deviation = 0.51
which is interpreted as “Very High”. This implied that the respondents own up to their
mistakes in order to grow and become a better person. They have the potential to
acknowledge the usefulness of mistakes. They recognized their setbacks and failure as lesson
that make them continue with additional knowledge.

│ 59
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

Table 6
Level of Standards of the Respondents

On the other hand, Indicator 2 “I find it difficult to set my plans on time.” had the
lowest Mean = 2.37 and Standard Deviation = 0.80 which is interpreted as “Low”. This
means that the respondents may have a low level of self-discipline because they could have
difficulties making plans and scheduling when to carry them out. Uncertain plans or
conflicting schedules could cause them to struggle.
With an Overall Weighted Mean = 3.17 and Standard Deviation = 0.82, it means that
the respondents have high level of self-discipline in terms of standards. This implied that
college students have personal standards for mistakes and plans. They could acknowledge
mistakes as “lessons” that may help them grow deeper. Also, there could be failures in
setting plans and processing schedules. Nonetheless, college students have personal
standards, and set their goals and efforts towards them, making them disciplined.
Table 7 shows the level of motivation of the respondents. Indicator 8 “I am motivated
in fulfilling my goals.” had the highest Mean = 3.53 and Standard Deviation = 0.56 which is
interpreted as “Very High”. This implied that the respondents are motivated to fulfill their
own goals. They could deal with tasks and challenges but they are motivated to overcome
them for their goals and ambitions. Students that recognize the value of their goals will be
motivated to invest effort.
On the other hand, Indicator 6 “I feel overwhelmed in facing problems or challenge.”
had the lowest Mean = 2.17 and Standard Deviation = 0.79 which is interpreted as “Low”.
This means that the respondents may have a low level of self-discipline because those who
are faced with problems or challenges, feel overwhelmed by them. Students may be burdened

60 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

with weighing and choosing among alternatives and solutions to problems and challenges.
Thus, they may fail to achieve their goals.

Table 7
Level of Motivation of the Respondents

With an Overall Weighted Mean = 3.03 and Standard Deviation = 0.89, it means that
the respondents have high level of self-discipline in terms of motivation. This implied that
college students that has goals can become motivated. These goals can give them a clear
view of what they want in the future. After they set a goal, the next step is to pursue it.
However, they could face overwhelming challenges and problems along the way.
Nonetheless, college students have a high level of motivation to overcome them.

Table 8
Level of Monitoring of the Respondents

│ 61
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

Table 8 shows the level of monitoring of the respondents. Indicator 1 “I am confident

on keeping my progress on track.” had the highest Mean = 3.37 and Standard Deviation =
0.58, which is interpreted as “High”. This implied that the respondents that can track their
progress, can often foster the feeling of confidence. They feel happy, proud, and energized in
monitoring their actions towards their goals in life.
Meanwhile, Indicator 8 “It bothers me when things are not the way I expect for
myself.” had the lowest Mean = 1.92 and Standard Deviation = 0.68, interpreted as “Low”.
This means that the respondents may have a low level of self-discipline because they feel
bothered when their expectations about themselves are not what they see from their progress
and the results they show. If the self falls short, they may cause feelings of frustration,
inadequacy, and shame.
With an Overall Weighted Mean = 2.69 and Standard Deviation = 0.92, this means
the respondents have high level of self-discipline in terms of monitoring. This implied that
college students are responsible for their individual progress. They monitor their behavior
working towards the achievement of the goal. Keeping track of how much they improved
towards specific goals could make them closer to reaching it, exercising their self-discipline.
This implies that the respondents are confident in keeping track of their individual progress
as they work towards the achievement of their goals.

Table 9
Level of Willpower of the Respondents

Table 9 shows the level of willpower of the respondents. Indicator 1 “I am open to

different opportunities in life.” had the highest mean=3.60 and Standard Deviation = 0.53,

62 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

which is interpreted as “Very High”. This implied that as college students, the respondents
are open to life opportunities because they know that they should have the capacity to walk
on different paths to reach their goals. They may seize opportunities in order to succeed.
In contrast, Indicator 8 “I struggle working towards my goals.” had the lowest
mean=2.08 and Standard Deviation = 0.75, which is interpreted as “Low”. This means that
the respondents may have low levels of self-discipline because they experience struggles in
achieving their goals. College students may struggle to strive towards their goals because
they may be pushed by their parents, and not their own selves.
With an Overall Weighted Mean=2.74 and Standard Deviation=0.93, it means that
the respondents have high level of self-discipline in terms of willpower. This implied that
college students have the willpower to seize opportunities and make healthy choices in
various areas of life, and accomplish their dreams and goals. Thus, student who possess
willpower would successfully work towards their dreams and goals.

Table 10
Summary Results of Level of Self-Discipline of the Respondents

Table 10 shows the summary results of level of self-discipline. It shows that majority
of the respondents have a high level of self-discipline with an Overall Mean=2.91, with
standards having the highest Mean=3.17. This may indicate that respondents are highly
disciplined to set goals, driven to reach them, monitor their progress, and be energized to
successfully attain them. Most college students can practice self-discipline by following and
evaluating their own standards of success and making sense of their personal strengths and
resources.

│ 63
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

Table 11
Test of Correlation between Profile and Dress Code Policy Adherence of the Respondents

Table 11 presents the test of correlation between profile of the respondents and their
dress code policy adherence. Among the variables, it is found out that the variable “Course”
have a positive significant relationship (r = 0.23, p = 0.026). In this study, those studying
business administration are more likely to have a positive attitude towards following the
dress code policy than other courses. According to Sequeira et al. (2014), college students in
business administration believes that having uniforms, incorporates discipline among them
and develop their image to suit the corporate world as professionals.
On the other hand, “Age” (r = 0.236, p = 0.024) and “Sex” (r = 0.226, p = 0.021) has
positive significant relationship. As the age of the female students’ increases, the level of
their subjective norms increases. In this study, female college students who are ages 18 to 23
are more likely to be influenced by their peers than male students who are ages 17 or
younger, and 24 or older in their dressing behavior. According to Kaveh et al. (2015), a
student's type of dressing is influenced by their parents in lower ages. However, as the child
ages and enters social networks, such as school and friends, the role of parents would
diminish and replaced by that of peers. Kaveh et al. referred to the effect of peers on the dress
code behavior in girl adolescents where female students were more affected by peers when
compared to male students. The girls’ higher scores of subjective norms in their study could
also demonstrate the higher importance of social preferences in selection of type of dressing
for girls.
For past behavior, it shows that only the variable “Course” is significant (r = 0.259, p
= 0.030) and has a positive significant relationship. In this study, those studying business
administration are more likely to have regularly wear their uniforms and adhered to the dress
code policy than students in other courses. According to Sequeira et al. (2014) and Kaveh
et al. (2015), for business administration students wearing the uniform reflects on their

64 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

personality and adds to the reputation of the institution. Their past behavior could be a
significant factor for determining their adherence as they explained that a college student’s
field of study may have different subcultures and may display different behaviors.

Table 12
Test of Relationship between Profile and Self-Discipline

Table 12 presents the test of correlation between profile of the respondents and their
self-discipline. It shows that all factors, aside from willpower, have a correlation with some
profile factors. For standards, only age is significant (r = 0.236, p = 0.038) with a positive
significant relationship. As the age of the respondent increases, the level of their standards
increases. In this study, those who are ages 18 to 23 were more likely to be disciplined by
having a clear and well-defined standard than the ages 17 or younger, or 24 or older.
According to Bhana (2010), during the period of middle childhood and pre-adolescence, a
student would have the ability to monitor their own behavior, and eventually adopt
acceptable standards of good and bad behavior. In adolescence, they are finishing a
bachelor’s degree and are setting goals that require sustained self-discipline. (Duckworth et
al. 2011).
For motivation, only age is significant (r = 0.222, p = 0.031) with a positive
significant relationship. As the age of the respondents’ increases, the level of their motivation
increases. In this study, those who are ages 18 to 23 were more likely to be disciplined by
being motivated to fulfill their goals than the ages 17 or younger, and 24 or older. According
to Vicaria & Isaacowitz (2016), the aging process is naturally and inevitably associated with
change, both physical and psychological. As life situations and mental capabilities transform,
it is logical that older adults’ motivations towards social goals may shift as well.

│ 65
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

For monitoring, only sex is significant (r = -0.200, p = 0.036) with a negative

significant relationship. This implies that female college students may have troubles on how
they monitor themselves to achieve their goals in life than male students. According to
Meyers (2016), women are presented with unreasonable standards that they have to achieve
more than men. These expectations may cause overwhelming feelings of shame, stress, etc.

Table 13
Test of Correlation between Dress Code Policy Adherence and Self-Discipline of the Respondents

Table 13 presents the test of correlation between dress code policy adherence and
self-discipline of the respondents. From the variables which include standards (p=0.032),
motivation (p=0.028), monitoring (p=0.063), and willpower (p=0.071), only standards and
motivation have a significant relationship with dress code policy adherence as to attitude.
This implies that as the respondents highly adhere to the dress code because of positive
attitudes, they may likely have high standards and motivation. According to Coleman et al.
(2011) and Kaveh et al. (2015), factors such as attitude and feelings could influence beliefs
and that a university student would have a positive evaluation in following the dressing
pattern, if they believed that it’s beneficial. In addition, Wyer et al. (2012) found that
operations for a goal-directed behavior could influence the plan that individuals select for
attaining the goal they happen to be pursuing.
From the variables which include standards (p=0.019), motivation (p=0.023),
monitoring (p=0.068), and willpower (p=0.019), only standards, motivation, and willpower
have a significant relationship with dress code policy adherence to subjective norms. This
implies that as the respondents highly adhere to the dress code because of high perceived
social support, they may likely have high standards, motivation, and willpower. According to
Heidarzadeh et al. (2019), the professional attire and student adherence to these clothes
respects social standards and develops a positive professional image. Furthermore, Coleman

66 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

et al. (2011) reported that subjective norms could motivate a person to take socially desirable
action, and wide-ranging social implications are brought by willpower (APS, 2012).
The variables which include standards (p =0.011), motivation (p=0.024), monitoring
(p=0.025), and willpower (p=0.021), all have a positive significant relationship with dress
code policy adherence as to past behavior. This implies that previous adherence to the dress
code, like regularly wearing their Identification Card, may likely increase their self-
discipline. As part of the prescribed uniform, Identification Cards could be used by college
students to highly set clear standards, be motivated, monitor their thoughts, situations, and
past mistakes, and possess the strength to meet their goals, to assess and gather feedback and
use this information to improve their self-discipline. According to Shepherd (2020),
individuals could subconsciously remind themselves about their past behavior by practicing
it in these virtual settings where it takes even more discipline to stay productive, now that
there is less direct face-to-face interaction and supervision. In addition, goal-directed
behavior in a past, albeit unrelated situation may influence an individual’s plan for goal
attainment (Wyer et al., 2012).
Lastly, from the variables which include standards (p=0.027), motivation (p=0.021),
monitoring (p=0.020), and willpower (p=0.077), only standards, motivation, and monitoring
have a significant relationship with dress code policy adherence as to behavioral intention.
This implies that as the respondents highly intend to adhere to the dress code, they may have
high standards and motivation, and highly monitor their situations, decisions, and progress to
attain their life-goals. According to Norman & Conner (2017), an important aspect of
intentions is awareness of standards which is often necessary to maintain an initiated
behavior. Furthermore, a complete lack of intention to behave is at the lowest level of
motivation along a continuum. College students could move their level of motivation along
the continuum, and hopefully led to more self-determined forms of motivation (Yarborough
& Fedesco, 2020). Also, if people have a high self-monitoring skill, they could be more
sensitive to their external environment, and their behavioral intentions would have a greater
degree of consistency with their behavior (Nantel & Strahle, 2021).

│ 67
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

5. Conclusion

Based on the findings, respondents have both a high level of dress code policy
adherence and a high level of self-discipline. Age, sex, and course are significantly related to
factors of dress code policy adherence whereas only age and sex are significantly related to
factors of self-discipline. Attitude is only significantly related to standards and motivation;
subjective norms to standards, motivation, and willpower; and behavioral intention to
standards, motivation, and monitoring. Finally, only past behavior is significantly related to
the self-discipline of college students.

In view of the findings and conclusions drawn from this study, the following are
hereby recommended: Consider a follow-up study using the same variables in other settings
and with an increase in the number of participants. Other related factors which may influence
students across all levels may be included in future studies. Also, educators may consider
requesting students to wear their Identification Cards during online classes to improve their
self-discipline in the current virtual setting. At the same time, college students may consider
wearing their Identification Cards as it is easy to put, using a lanyard or clip, to help them
remain disciplined. Lastly, the community or the university administrators may develop new
and updated policies for the new normal or for the return of face-to-face classes to guide and
encourage their students.

Acknowledgement

The present study was approved and financially supported by the Laguna State
Polytechnic University and the Department of Science and Technology-Science Education
Institute (DOST-SEI).

References

American Psychological Association. (2012, December 1). What you need to know about
willpower: The psychological science of self-control. APA.
http://www.apa.org/topics/personality/willpower

68 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

Association for Psychological Science - APS. (2012). Where Does Self-Discipline Come
From. Psychological Science. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/full-
frontal-psychology/where-does-self-discipline-come-from.html
Bhana, A. (2010). Middle childhood and pre-adolescence. Promoting mental health in scare-
resource contexts, 124-142.
Brookshire, A. N. (2016). The Impact of School Uniforms on School Climate.
Cepe, M. (2014). The effect of Facebook use, self-discipline and parenting styles on the
academic achievement of high school and university students.
Coleman, L. J., Bahnan, N., Kelkar, M., & Curry, N. (2011). Walking the walk: How the
theory of reasoned action explains adult and student intentions to go green. Journal of
Applied Business Research (JABR), 27(3), 107-116.
Duckworth, A. L., Grant, H., Loew, B., Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Self‐
regulation strategies improve self‐discipline in adolescents: Benefits of mental
contrasting and implementation intentions. Educational Psychology, 31(1), 17-26.
Garcia, M. G. G., & Subia, G. (2019). High school athletes: Their motivation, study habits,
self-discipline and academic performance. International Journal of Physical
Education, Sports and Health, 6(1), 86-90.
Gelles, L. A., Lord, S. M., Hoople, G. D., Chen, D. A., & Mejia, J. A. (2020). Compassionate
flexibility and self-discipline: Student adaptation to emergency remote teaching in an
integrated engineering energy course during COVID-19. Education Sciences, 10(11),
304.
Han, Y. (2019). Cultivating college students’ self-discipline consciousness under the new
media environment. American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 4, 50-
50.
Heidarzadeh, A., Mobasher, M., Nakhaei, N., Faseiherandi, M., & Haghdost, A. A. (2019).
Investigation of Students' Attitudes toward Professional Dress Code and the Level of
Adherence to This Code at Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Health, Spirituality and Medical Ethics, 6(4), 10-15.
Kaveh, M. H., Moradi, L., Hesampour, M., & Zadeh, J. H. (2015). A survey of the effective
factors in students' adherence to university dress code policy, using the theory of
reasoned action. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 3(3),
133.
Laguna State Polytechnic University-Student Handbook (2014). San Pablo City, Laguna.
Lino, C. (2016, October 2). The Psychology of Willpower: Training the Brain for Better
Decisions. PositivePsychology.com. https://positivepsychology.com/psychology-of-
willpower/
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Can schools regulate student dress and grooming in school. Focus
On Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 5(1), 1-5.
Mbaluka, S. N. (2017). The Impact Of Student Self-Discipline And Parental Involvement in
Students' Academic Activities on Student Academic Performance.

│ 69
International Review of Social Sciences Research, Volume 1 Issue 4

Meyers, L. (2016, March 28). Falling short of perfect - Counseling Today. Counseling
Today. https://ct.counseling.org/2016/03/falling-short-of-perfect/
Mihm, M., & Ozbek, K. (2016). A model of self-discipline.
Momeni, N., & Asghari, F. (2020). Barriers of students’ adherence to dress code policy in
clinical settings: dental students’ viewpoint. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of
Medicine, 13.
Moneva, J. C., & Gatan, B. P. (2020). Emotional Intelligence and Self-Discipline in Senior
HIgh School. International Journal of Research-GRANTHAALAYAH, 8(1), 69-77.
Nantel, J. A., & Strahle, W. (2021). The Self-Monitoring Concept: a Consumer Behavior
Perspective. ACR North American Advances, NA-13.
https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6470
Norman, P., & Conner, M. (2017). Health Behavior ☆. Reference Module in Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Psychology. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.05143-9
Núñez-Rocha, G. M., López-Botello, C. K., Salinas-Martínez, A. M., Arroyo-Acevedo, H.
V., Martínez-Villarreal, R. T., & Ávila-Ortiz, M. N. (2020). Lifestyle, Quality of Life,
and Health Promotion Needs in Mexican University Students: Important Differences
by Sex and Academic Discipline. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(21), 8024.
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Predicting tourists' intention to try local cuisine using a modified
theory of reasoned action: The case of New Orleans. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 27(5), 491-506.
Sarwari, K. (2020). Will the COVID-19 pandemic change how people dress for work in the
future? https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/12/14/will-the-covid-19-pandemic-
change-how-people-dress-for-work-in-the-future/
Sequeira, A. H., Mendonca, C., Prabhu, K., & Narayan Tiwari, L. (2014). A Study on Dress
Code for College Students. Mandeep and Prabhu K., Mahendra and Narayan Tiwari,
Lakshmi, A Study on Dress Code for College Students (September 29, 2014).
Shepherd, M. (2020, April 16). Dressing for Online Meetings In The Coronavirus Era.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2020/04/16/dressing-for-
online-meetings-in-the-coronavirus-era/?sh=492ef3723855
Sieber, V., Flückiger, L., Mata, J., Bernecker, K., & Job, V. (2019). Autonomous goal
striving promotes a nonlimited theory about willpower. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 45(8), 1295-1307.
Şimşir, Z., & Dilmaç, B. (2021). The mediating roles of grit and life satisfaction in the
relationship between self-discipline and peace: Development of the self-discipline
scale. Current Psychology, 1-11.
Smith, A. (2020, September 29). Dress-Code Policies Reconsidered in the Pandemic.
SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-
law/pages/coronavirus-dress-code-policies.aspx

70 │
 ISSN 2782-9227 (PRINT) 2782-9235 (ONLINE) 95
(PRINT) 2719-0609 (ONLINE)

Vicaria, I. M., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2016). Age-related changes in motivation: Do they

influence emotional experience across adulthood and old age? In T. S. Braver (Ed.),
Motivation and cognitive control (pp. 361–380). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Villanueva, M. P. S. B. G. (2017). Dress Code Policy: Gaps in Transmission… Lost in
Translation.
Walukouw, Y. R., & Simbolon, M. (2019, December). Self-Regulation and Discipline of
Unai Girls Dormitory on 2018/2019 Proposed for A Program. In Abstract
Proceedings International Scholars Conference (Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 860-867).
Wu, H. (2016). The Research on the Ideological Education and Self-Discipline of College
Students.
Wyer, R. S., Xu, A. J., & Shen, H. (2012). The Effects of Past Behavior on Future Goal-
Directed Activity. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 237–283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-394281-4.00014-3
Yarborough, C. B., & Fedesco, H. N. (2020). Motivating students. Vanderbilt University
Center for Teaching. Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu//cft/guides-sub-
pages/motivating-students/.

│ 71