Relaxed or High-Pressure? Psychological Differences in University Faculty Members’ Research Activities under Different Evaluation Systems

Abstract

Against the backdrop of the ongoing reform aimed at breaking the “Five-Only” orientation in Chinese higher education, research evaluation systems have increasingly exhibited a dual pattern in which high-pressure quantitative assessment coexists with more flexible forms of evaluation. Rigorous short-term quantitative assessment can intensify the occupational burden on university faculty members, trigger a range of psychological problems, and distort research behavior, thereby substantially constraining the development of original research in universities. Drawing on self-determination theory, cognitive dissonance theory, conservation of resources theory, and achievement motivation theory, this study systematically compares the psychological differences experienced by university faculty members under these two types of research evaluation systems from three micro-level dimensions: motivation, emotion, and cognitive behavior. The findings indicate that high-pressure quantitative assessment, characterized by rigid performance indicators and accountability mechanisms, may rapidly increase the quantity of research outputs, but it can also undermine intrinsic research motivation, intensify negative emotions, encourage the avoidance of innovation-related risks, and exacerbate excessive academic competition, thereby weakening universities’ long-term capacity for research innovation. In contrast, flexible evaluation systems that emphasize long-term development, tolerance for failure, empowerment, and quality over quantity are more consistent with the creative nature of academic research. Such systems can better satisfy faculty members’ fundamental psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, stimulate sustained motivation for research innovation, and promote high-quality research output. The study argues that high-pressure and utilitarian evaluation models run counter to the inherent characteristics of academic development and psychological well-being. Universities should therefore move away from short-term quantitative control and establish more flexible, inclusive, and people-centered research evaluation systems to reduce research-related psychological strain, foster a healthier academic environment, and continuously stimulate original research and innovation.