Exploring the interplay between achievement motivation, students’ satisfaction with their major, and successful intelligence in supporting the sustainability of university education in SAUDI ARABIA

Abstract

In the pursuit of sustainable higher education, understanding the interplay between motivational, affective, and cognitive factors is essential for fostering student success. This study examined the influence among achievement motivation, satisfaction with academic major, and successful intelligence, and their collective role in sustaining higher education outcomes in Saudi Arabia. Using a cross-sectional design, a survey was administered to 529 undergraduate students from multiple faculties using validated scales. Structural Equation Modelling indicated that achievement motivation significantly predicted major satisfaction and sustainable education outcomes both directly and indirectly through partial mediation by major satisfaction. Major satisfaction had a direct positive effect on sustainable education, while successful intelligence independently contributed to sustainability. Findings of the study underscore that sustainable university education is optimised when institutions integrate motivation-enhancing strategies, strengthen person–major alignment, and embed adaptive cognitive skills into curricula. Policy recommendations include autonomy-supportive pedagogy, developmental advising, and real-world problem-centred learning to produce adaptable, innovative graduates aligned with Saudi Vision 2030 goals.

Introduction

In the rapidly changing context of higher education, maintaining institutional excellence and sustaining student success require a holistic perspective on the motivational, cognitive, and affective forces affecting their academic engagement and performance. Recent literature has identified an important linkage between three constructs such as achievement motivation, satisfaction with students’ major, and successful intelligence because they are an integrative mechanism for persistence [51], accomplishment [64], and the adoption of lifelong learning [43].

Collectively, these reinforcing dynamics strengthen “sustainable higher education,” represented within robust and durable student success, durable graduate employability, and institutional quality sustained over time [17, 32]. This framework has direct implications for curriculum and pedagogy (triarchic, problem-centred), advising structures that maximally fit person-major, and assessment structures that evaluate not simply knowledge, but capable adaptive knowledge as key capabilities for sustainable educational outcomes [36].

Achievement motivation is an enduring disposition and intrinsic willingness to excel on difficult tasks. Achievement motivation has long been a primary engine of student engagement and academic success in higher education (McClelland, 1985; She et al., 2024). Achievement motivation reflects desires based on How autonomy, competence, and relatedness support experiences of self-determined learning environments [52, 63] and relates to sustained, enduring learning behaviours, effective coping behaviours, and adherence and commitment to long-term goals - all developmental capabilities seen as increasingly important in the competitive, global knowledge economy [18]. Expectancy-value models similarly view achievement behaviour as a function of an individual’s desire to achieve, the individual’s perceived likelihood of success, and the individual’s perceived incentive value. It is the latter models that help clarify when and why students persist and remain engaged when the task is meaningful and students feel capable of succeeding. Research, particularly from constructivism, demonstrates the combination of both intrinsic motives such as interest and curiosity and culturally framed extrinsic motives such as familial and societal expectations together served to shape persistence and performance in formal and informal educational contexts [41, 64].

Motivation effectively forms a bridge between students’ satisfaction with their major specifically and successfully intelligence overall. Satisfaction leads to better quality motivation; motivation leads to student engagement; and successful intelligence as a combination of analytical smartness, creative smartness and practical smartness, represents an expression of that engagement, through mobilization of adaptive performance for lifelong learning experiences [22, 53]. In practice, autonomy-supportive, mastery-oriented pedagogy; clear task value and relevance signals; and competence-building feedback and advising that facilitates person–major fit can raise achievement motivation and, thus, major satisfaction and the adaptive competence [18, 63, 64]. This conceptualization suggests achievement motivation is not just a property of the individual, but a system-responsive lever for the sustainability of university education: enabling persistence, improving achievement, and preparing graduates to solve real-world problems (McClelland, 1985; Shen [52, 54],.

A student’s major satisfaction is a multi-dimensional judgement that combines cognitive evaluations (e.g., relevance, rigour), affective responses (e.g., interest, enjoyment), and behavioural intentions (e.g., persistence, loyalty) towards their chosen field of study [2, 31, 38]. The empirical construct of satisfaction arises due to student perceptions of course relevance, quality of teaching, availability of resources for learning, and authentic opportunities to apply the effectiveness of skills. The dimensions of satisfaction can be understood using Herzberg’s motivation–hygiene theory. Regardless if motivating or hygiene factors are essential for maintaining student satisfaction with their major, both sets of factors contribute to student’s continuation of study, and retention [9, 17, 44]. Stronger major satisfaction is a consistent predictor of a higher level of academic commitment, less intention to drop out, and greater loyalty and advocacy after graduation, producing positive reputational effects and enrolment management benefits, which includes university sustainability [2, 19, 42]. This balanced profile supports students making the connections needed in academic settings to achieve the objectives of SDG 4, quality education and capacity building, as well as the mandate under Vision 2030 established by many entities within and outside Saudi Arabia to prepare students to contribute to economic diversification and global competitiveness [66].

Embedding successful intelligence into a curriculum requires a few instructional structures based on the triarchic theory: problem and project-based learning, design thinking, collaborative consultancy/casework, and assessment plans that provide performance and transfer aligned assessments (e.g., scenario tasks, portfolios, community embedded capstones, and curricular to support partnerships with industry and entrepreneurship) [11, 48, 60]. These programmes acknowledge limiting factors faced by students, augment their adaptive competence while also creating support for the larger system: achievement motivation is the source of energy focused on engagement, satisfaction with one’s major directs ongoing commitment, and successful intelligence provides both into durable indicators of real-world performance; in which all of these influence the sustainability of a university education [6, 56, 66].

Higher education institutions (HEIs) serve as crucial intermediaries between multiple stakeholder groups, bearing a distinct responsibility to cultivate future professionals while generating and applying innovative knowledge. The integration of sustainability into university missions has been acknowledged since the 1970s. This milestone was subsequently reinforced by other international initiatives such as the Halifax Declaration in Canada, the Copernicus Declaration of the Association of European Rectors, and the Kyoto Declaration of the International Association of Universities [15]. Despite these global commitments, the extent of implementation has varied considerably across regions [12].

Across contexts, many HEIs have demonstrated strong engagement in sustainability by preparing graduates to critically address global challenges and act as agents of sustainable practice. This often involves reducing the institution’s environmental footprint, strengthening community partnerships, and ensuring effective governance [61]. Over the last decade, scholarship on higher education sustainability has expanded, covering areas such as curriculum development, campus practices, and outreach initiatives [39, 65]. At the same time, researchers have explored challenges and opportunities in pedagogy, such as barriers to sustainability teaching [13], innovative teaching methods [50], the broader institutional impact on sustainability [24], and sustainable management approaches in education [21].

These developments align with broader sustainability targets at the national, regional, and international levels, including frameworks such as the European Green Deal and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Embedding sustainability principles has also become essential for improving institutional reputation, academic quality, and competitiveness. Indeed, universities ranked most highly on a global scale are typically those that have embraced sustainability as a strategic vision and have embedded it into both student development and institutional culture [47].

Extant literature indicate that three principles influence student success in the sustainability discussions about higher education: achievement motivation; satisfaction with one’s major; and successful intelligence provides the adaptive, real-world problem-solving capabilities of students as they navigate complexities of real-world learning [1, 7, 8, 35], These are interdisciplinary constructs that culminate synergistically towards the sustainability of student success in higher education. This is not merely conceptualized as institutional sustainability, but the ability to graduate learners, who continue to learn, innovate, and socially contribute over time. This is informed by the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), provides a coherent lens from which these principles are conceptualised. When learning environments foster autonomy, competence, and positive relationships, sustainable intrinsic motivation develops, satisfaction deepens, and opportunities for students to develop adaptive intelligences are made conducive [36, 46]. Grounded in SDT, Herzberg’s two-factor theory, and Sternberg’s triarchic theory, this study examines the interrelationships among achievement motivation, students’ satisfaction with their major, and successful intelligence, and their collective role in supporting the sustainability of university education in Saudi Arabia. Specifically, it aims to test the following hypotheses:

1. H1: Achievement motivation will have a significant positive direct effect on major satisfaction among university students.

2. H2: Achievement motivation will have a significant positive direct effect on sustainable university education outcomes.

3. H3: Major satisfaction will have a significant positive direct effect on sustainable university education outcomes.

4. H4: Achievement motivation will have a significant indirect effect on sustainable university education outcomes through major satisfaction (partial mediation).

5. H5: Successful intelligence will have a significant positive direct effect on sustainable university education outcomes.

Conceptual model

Theoretical framework

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a solid basis for understanding achievement motivation focused on autonomy, competence, and relatedness [28]. It is strong at interpreting the persistence, deeper learning, and long-term success of motivated students when they are motivated internally [10]. However, it lacks sufficient treatment from external structural factors associated with motivation. The study recognizes this and also emphasizes how SDT informs the study’s predictions around internally driven motivation and how that relates to student satisfaction in a Saudi Arabian university context Fig 1.

Fig. 1.

This framework treats achievement motivation as the energy, major satisfaction as the stabilizer, and successful intelligence as the conversion mechanism that channels effort and engagement into durable, real-world performance (e.g., these are core to the resilience and relevance of Saudi higher education in the 21st century

Secondly, the study included Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory to capture students’ satisfaction with their major while making the distinction between intrinsic motivators (i.e. interest in one’s field), and extrinsic hygiene factors (i.e. quality of institution, facilities, and academic support) [26]. It is advantageous for its explanations of expectations around satisfaction, but limitations are apparent. Primarily, it is not able to make an objective distinction between motivators and hygiene factors, which may not apply to multidimensional expectations for students in today’s universities. In the revision, the study has clarified how Herzberg’s theory complements SDT as it informs satisfaction as a mediator between motivations, and satisfactory outcomes leading to enduring academic performance.

Finally, the study extended the description of Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence and it complements our conceptualization of successful intelligence as comprising analytical, creative, and practical [58]. This theory is particularly valuable because it contextualizes students’ adaptive intellectual functioning as important to sustainability in academic life. Its limitation is that the theory may under-serve affective processes and motivational processes, which we combine with SDT and Herzberg’s theory.

Model’s contribution to the study’s theories

SDT describes how autonomous and controlled motivation affect persistence, engagement, and well-being. Nevertheless, SDT largely centres on motivation as a psychological state and does not directly indicate how students’ satisfaction with their academic major or higher order cognitive capacities has any effect on long-term educational sustainability. The current model expands SDT by applying a construct, Major Satisfaction, to articulate a change or evaluative outcome that is connected to motivation to build sustainable educational behaviours, such as trend of retention, academic resilience, or longitudinal goal commitment over time.

Herzberg suggests a divided view of intrinsic motivators and extrinsic hygiene factors, that is helpful in recognizing levels of student satisfaction but does not provide a sufficient basis for how satisfaction variables interact with motivation and cognitive capacities over time. The current model expands upon the impact of major satisfaction variables by inserting them as a more dynamic process - as a mechanism rather than an evaluative outcome - along with motivation to show how students’ satisfaction variable can not only reinforce motivational states, but also lend directly to sustainable educational engagement.

Sternberg’s framework of successful intelligence identifies analytic, creative, and practical capacities as essential for students’ academic success. However, the theory is mainly cognitive and does not account for motivational and affective contributors in any significant manner. The current model responds to this shortcoming of the Sternberg theory by considering successful intelligence as a predictor of sustainable education.

Empirical literature

Empirical evidence consistently underscores the interconnected nature of achievement motivation, successful intelligence, and satisfaction with one’s academic major. Kavousipour et al. [30], in a study among university students, reported that achievement motivation levels were generally average and stable, shaped predominantly by family attitudes, future career expectations, self-respect, learning capability, belief in personal agency, and optimism. Similarly, Ghorbani Nia [23] found that negative cognitive and emotional reflections influenced achievement motivation, emotional intelligence, and quality of life among students at Bam University of Medical Sciences, noting that while these constructs are related, they do not directly predict one another. Extending this line of inquiry, Karari et al. [29] demonstrated positive associations between achievement motivation and the personality traits of conscientiousness and openness, suggesting that enduring personal dispositions may serve as fertile ground for cultivating motivation. These findings suggest that motivation is more strongly shaped by personal agency, family support, and educational context than by situational or purely economic factors. Consequently, interventions that integrate motivational enhancement with emotional intelligence training, particularly within career-oriented programs may foster not only academic performance but also broader measures of successful intelligence. Moreover, certain academic environments appear to be designed in ways that sustain motivation across students’ educational journeys. Despite this, research directly linking achievement motivation and successful intelligence, especially within non-Western educational contexts remains sparse and often limited.

Recent research has deepened understanding of how satisfaction with one’s academic major interacts with successful intelligence. Alismail et al. [4], studying students found that successful intelligence was positively and significantly correlated with students’ academic quality of life (r =.379–0.535, p <.01), explaining 28.6% of its variance. In this study, students in scientific majors scored significantly higher on both successful intelligence and academic quality of life than those in the humanities, with notable gender-by-major interaction effects. These findings align with earlier research by Farsides and Woodfield [20], which indicated that students satisfied with their major tend to exhibit greater engagement, persistence, and adaptability. Satisfaction also appears to function as a mediator between individual competencies and psychosocial well-being. Again, studies linking academic motivation and emotional intelligence suggests that satisfaction is associated with heightened self-efficacy, improved problem-solving, open-mindedness, and adaptive coping.

Within the broader context of sustaining university education, achievement motivation operates as an internal drive toward excellence and goal attainment, directly influencing persistence, performance, and long-term engagement in learning [16, 49]. Sustainability in higher education encompasses the capacity to maintain quality, equitable, and relevant learning over time [5]. Both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation play vital roles in enabling students to overcome obstacles and maintain educational engagement [33, 45]. Motivated students are more likely to complete their programs on time, innovate, engage in knowledge creation, and contribute meaningfully to societal progress [5]. These motivational pathways are also shaped by structural and sociocultural factors, including socioeconomic conditions and institutional policies. In contexts where education is viewed as a route to upward mobility, programs that provide scholarships, mentoring, and career guidance can amplify motivation [14]. Aligning academic programs with real-world employability further strengthens both motivation and sustainability [62]. However, sustaining motivation remains challenging, as students often face academic burnout, financial constraints, and insufficient institutional support [5, 33]. This underscores the need for further research on how motivational pathways fluctuate throughout students’ academic life cycles and across contexts.

Taken together, achievement motivation is not only a driver of academic performance but also a key pillar of sustainable higher education. Universities aiming to foster sustainability must embed motivation-enhancing strategies into policy, curriculum design, and student support services. Doing so can help cultivate graduates who are resilient, adaptive, and equipped to enact transformative change in both their communities and professional spheres.

Materials and methods

Research design

This study adopted a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design, which is appropriate for examining the relationships among achievement motivation, successful intelligence, students’ satisfaction with their academic majors, and sustainable educational development. This design allowed for the simultaneous collection of data on the study variables from a single, large sample and facilitated the use of statistical modelling techniques to examine hypothesized relationships.

Selection of participants

The study sample comprised 529 undergraduate students drawn from multiple faculties across selected universities in Saudi Arabia. A stratified random sampling technique was applied to ensure proportional representation across gender, academic year, and major fields of study. The sample included both male and female students, aged between 18 and 30 years, with a range of academic backgrounds in the humanities, sciences, education, and business-related programs. The gender distribution reflected current enrolment patterns, with 53.4% female and 45.6% male. A multi-random sampling approach was employed to ensure broad representation of undergraduate students across diverse academic disciplines and university types within Saudi Arabia. Key faculties within each university were randomly selected to capture students enrolled in different academic majors. Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were enrolled full-time, had completed at least one academic year, and voluntarily consented to participate in the study.

Instrumentation

Achievement motivation

Achievement motivation was measured using the Revised Achievement Motives Scale (AMS-R) developed by Lang and Fries [34]. The AMS-R comprises 10-items distributed evenly across two subscales: hope of success (HS) and fear of failure (FF). Responses were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The AMS-R has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α >0.70) and construct validity in multiple contexts. In this study, the AMS-R was used to capture the motivational tendencies that drive students toward achieving standards of excellence in academic tasks. This instrument was originally in English and was translated into Arabic to accommodate the linguistic needs of participants.

Successful intelligence

Successful intelligence was assessed using the Successful Intelligence Scale [55, 59], which operationalizes Sternberg’s triarchic model through three dimensions: analytical abilities (8 items), creative abilities (8 items), and practical abilities (8 items). Items were adapted and rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater perceived ability to analyse, generate creative solutions, and apply practical knowledge to real-life situations. This scale has demonstrated robust psychometric properties and was adapted to the university student context for this study. This instrument was originally in English and was translated into Arabic to accommodate the linguistic needs of participants.

Sustainable educational development

The Sustainable Educational Development Scale [3] was used to measure students’ awareness, attitudes, and practices across five dimensions: environmental (5 items), social (5 items), ethical (5 items), technological (5 items), and economic (5 items). Each item was rated on a 4-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The instrument captures the extent to which students integrate sustainability principles into their educational engagement, and has demonstrated acceptable reliability (α >0.80 for subscales) in educational research contexts. This scale was developed in Arabic language and was adapted without much changes.

Students’ satisfaction with academic major

Satisfaction with academic major was measured using the Academic Major Satisfaction Scale developed by Nauta [40]. The scale contains 6 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. This scale has been validated in diverse higher education contexts and has demonstrated high internal consistency for the current study (α = 0.90). This instrument was originally in English and was translated into Arabic to accommodate the linguistic needs of participants.

Procedures

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the King Faisal University in Saudi Arabia. Before the main data collection, a pilot was study conducted with a subgroup of 61 students to evaluate the face validity, seek clarity, and to meet the context for the study. This pilot ensured that item wording, cultural relevance, and linguistic accessibility were appropriate for the Saudi university population. Feedback from the pilot resulted in minor refinements to item phrasing to enhance interpretability. The main data collection was conducted online using google forms. Participants were informed of the study’s objectives, assured of anonymity and confidentiality, and provided informed consent before completing the self-administered questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, and no incentives were provided. The questionnaire comprised demographic questions followed by the four standardized scales described above. On average, completion took 30-45 minutes.

Data analysis

Data were screened for missing values, normality, and outliers before analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed for demographic variables and study constructs. The reliability of each scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. Construct validity was evaluated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), applying thresholds of CFI and TLI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, and SRMR ≤ 0.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was employed to test hypothesized relationships among variables, allowing simultaneous estimation of direct and indirect effects. All analyses were conducted using AMOS (v.26) and SPSS (v.27), with a significance level set at p <.05.

Results

The model fit statistics in Table 1 shows a very clear story. This model fits the data appropriately. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI = 0.958) and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI = 0.951) both meet the gold-standard threshold of > 0.95 proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999), signaling an excellent correspondence between our hypothesized model and the observed covariance structure. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = 0.045) falls comfortably below Browne and Cudeck’s (1993) upper limit of 0.06, suggesting only minor approximation error. Likewise, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = 0.041) is well below the 0.08 cut-off, again reflecting excellent fit. In plain language: there is no evidence here to doubt the model’s adequacy.

Table 1.

Model fit indices

Fit Index	Value	Threshold	Interpretation	Reference
CFI	0.958	> 0.95	Excellent fit	Hu & Bentler, 1999
TLI	0.951	> 0.95	Excellent fit	Hu & Bentler, 1999
RMSEA	0.045	< 0.06	Good fit	Browne & Cudeck, 1993
SRMR	0.041	< 0.08	Good fit	Hu & Bentler, 1999

Taken together, the model suggests a dual-pathway process. Achievement motivation influences sustainable education both directly and indirectly via major satisfaction, while successful intelligence adds a parallel stream of influence. This interplay highlights the importance of fostering not just cognitive skills but also motivational and affective alignment with academic majors if universities are to achieve sustainability goals.

In terms of the paths in Table 2, the standardized coefficients indicate a set of strong and theoretically coherent relationships. Achievement motivation exerts a substantial and statistically significant effect on major satisfaction (β = 0.42, p <.001). This means that as students’ drive to achieve increases, their satisfaction with their chosen major rises. Achievement motivation also predicts sustainable university education outcomes directly (β = 0.28, p <.001), but this effect is partially mediated by major satisfaction (β = 0.15, 95% CI [0.09, 0.22]). Put differently, achievement motivation sets in motion a chain reaction by boosting major satisfaction, which in turn strengthens students’ engagement in sustainable educational practices. Again, students’ satisfaction with their major has a direct, positive effect on sustainable education (β = 0.36, p <.001). This implies that, students who feel more content and aligned with their major are more likely to persist, commit, and adopt behaviours consistent with the long-term viability of their education. Lastly, successful intelligence predicted sustainable education (β = 0.31, p <.001). This underscores that beyond motivation and satisfaction, cognitive–practical skill sets have their own role in ensuring students thrive in a sustainable academic environment.

Table 2.

Standardized path coefficients

Path	Β	p-value	Interpretation
Achievement Motivation → Major Satisfaction	0.42	< 0.001	Significant positive effect
Achievement Motivation → Sustainable Education	0.28	< 0.001	Partial mediation by Major Satisfaction
Major Satisfaction → Sustainable Education	0.36	< 0.001	Significant positive effect
Successful Intelligence → Sustainable Education	0.31	< 0.001	Direct positive effect

The mediation test in Table 3 reveals that part of the influence of achievement motivation on sustainable education is mediated by students’ satisfaction with their major (β = 0.15, 95% CI [0.09, 0.22], p <.001). In simple terms, motivation fuels students’ satisfaction with their major, which in turn promotes sustainable educational engagement. This outcome is visualised in Fig 2.

Table 3.

Indirect effects via major satisfaction

Indirect Path	β	Bootstrapped 95% CI	p
Achievement Motivation → Major Satisfaction → Sustainable Education	0.15	[0.09, 0.22]	0.000

Fig. 2.

Parsimonious Model

In Table 4, the regression analysis confirmed that achievement motivation (β = 0.287, p <.001), students’ satisfaction with their major (β = 0.260, p <.001), and successful intelligence (β = 0.392, p <.001) each had significant positive effects on sustainable education. However, none of the tested interaction effects reached statistical significance. For example, the interaction between achievement motivation and successful intelligence (β = –0.03, p =.436), major satisfaction and successful intelligence (β = 0.04, p =.336), and achievement motivation and major satisfaction (β = –0.01, p =.877) were all non-significant. This indicates that the contribution of each variable to sustainability does not depend on the levels of the others.

Table 4.

Direct effects of successful intelligence and achievement Motivation, and major satisfaction

Predictor	β	SE	t	P
Achievement Motivation (AM)	0.287	0.036	8.089	0.000
Successful Intelligence (SI)	0.260	0.031	8.411	0.000
Major Satisfaction (MS)	0.392	0.043	9.04	0.000
AM × SI	−0.026	0.034	−0.779	0.436
MS × SI	0.042	0.044	0.962	0.336
AM × MS	−0.006	0.037	−0.155	0.877

*Model R² = .415 (41.5% of variance explained)

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that achievement motivation, satisfaction with one’s major, and successful intelligence each make distinct and meaningful contributions to students’ sustainable educational engagement. Their positive effects operate independently, as none of the interaction terms were significant. This indicates that the impact of any one factor on sustainability does not depend on the level of the others; rather, each variable contributes its own unique influence to the development of sustainable education outcomes. This is reflective in the following model labelled Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Parsimonious Model: Direct Effects on Sustainable Education (SE) R² = .415

Discussions

The findings of this study offer empirical support for the expected associations among achievement motivation, satisfaction with one’s major, successful intelligence, and sustainable post-secondary education within the Saudi Arabian higher education context. While these results align with established theoretical perspectives, they should be interpreted with appropriate caution, particularly given the sociocultural and economic shifts currently shaping Saudi higher education. The broader national agenda provides an important backdrop for understanding how students’ motivational and cognitive characteristics relate to their educational sustainability.

Drawing on Self-Determination Theory [46], achievement motivation emerged as a significant predictor of both major satisfaction and sustainable engagement. The positive association between motivation and satisfaction suggests that when students experience their academic tasks as meaningful, optimally challenging, and attainable, they are more likely to internalize and identify strongly with their chosen field of study [37]. This pattern is consistent with longstanding evidence from McClelland (1985) and more recent work by Wang et al. [64], which conceptualize motivation not only as a facilitator of academic performance but also as a precursor to favourable affective experiences in learning environments.

Although sustainability was the primary outcome of interest in this study, the observed relationships mirror prior research linking motivation and major satisfaction to positive learning experiences, academic persistence, and achievement-related outcomes. In this sense, while the model here addresses sustainability indirectly, motivationally informed satisfaction has been widely linked to deeper cognitive engagement, adaptive learning behaviours, and improved academic outcomes such as higher GPAs. The present findings contribute to this body of literature by highlighting how these motivational pathways also relate to students’ self-reported sustainable educational engagement [27].

The mediation results also align with Herzberg’s motivation–hygiene theory, which emphasizes the importance of intrinsic motivators in sustaining productive and goal-directed behaviour. The results indicate that satisfaction plays a meaningful role in connecting students’ internal motivational tendencies to their sustained engagement in university education. For institutions seeking to enhance educational sustainability, these findings underscore the value of addressing motivation and satisfaction in an integrated manner rather than as isolated constructs. This is especially relevant for Saudi Arabia, where higher education policy increasingly emphasizes student engagement, knowledge production, and the development of globally competitive human capital [25].

Furthermore, successful intelligence demonstrated a significant main effect on sustainable education outcomes. This aligns with Sternberg’s [56] triarchic theory, which stresses the interplay of analytical, creative, and practical skills in navigating complex and evolving environments. Within a sustainability framework, successful intelligence may equip students with the flexibly adaptive capacities needed to meet academic demands, innovate within their fields, and engage in lifelong learning [17]. These abilities resonate with labour-market expectations in a rapidly transforming socio-economic landscape.

Conclusions

This study contributes to a growing body of work examining how achievement motivation, major satisfaction, and successful intelligence relate to students’ sustainable engagement in higher education within the Saudi Arabian context. The findings indicate that these three factors are meaningfully associated with how students perceive and sustain their academic involvement. Achievement motivation showed both direct and indirect links to sustainable educational engagement, with major satisfaction partially mediating this relationship. This suggests that when students experience their academic programs as relevant and aligned with their interests, they may be more inclined to sustain their engagement over time.

In addition, successful intelligence demonstrated an independent association with sustainability-related outcomes, highlighting the potential value of analytical, creative, and practical competencies in supporting students’ adaptability and preparedness for complex learning demands. While these results provide useful insights, they should be interpreted within the limits of a self-report, cross-sectional design and the cultural context in which the study was conducted.

From a practical standpoint, the findings point to possible avenues for enhancing student engagement by creating learning environments that support motivation, foster satisfaction, and strengthen adaptive cognitive skills. Approaches such as designing intellectually engaging curricula, providing supportive advising systems, and incorporating assessments that encourage the application of knowledge to real-world contexts may contribute to these goals. Within the broader ambitions of Saudi Vision 2030, these insights may offer relevant considerations for institutions seeking to cultivate a motivated, adaptable, and well-prepared student population. Nevertheless, further research using longitudinal, behavioural, and multi-method approaches is needed to deepen understanding of how these factors interact to support sustainable higher education in Saudi Arabia.

Implications for policy and practice

1. Higher education institutions should embed autonomy-supportive, mastery-oriented teaching approaches that heighten intrinsic motivation and strengthen person–major fit. Project-based learning, problem-centred pedagogy, and real-world simulations can concurrently enhance motivation, satisfaction, and successful intelligence.

2. Academic advising should adopt a developmental model that not only provides course guidance but also cultivates students’ self-belief, resilience, and adaptive competencies. Satisfaction monitoring tools could help detect misalignments early, allowing timely interventions.

3. Institutional policies aimed at sustainability should explicitly integrate motivational and cognitive-development strategies. Therefore, initiatives such as mentorship programs, interdisciplinary projects, and industry partnerships can enhance the relevance of majors and translate academic learning into sustainable outcomes.

4. By demonstrating the mediating role of major satisfaction, this study extends SDT, Herzberg’s theory, and Sternberg’s triarchic model into a sustainability framework, highlighting the importance of affective and adaptive pathways in sustaining higher education quality.

Limitations

1. In this study, several methodological considerations require careful acknowledgment. The exclusive reliance on self-report measures raises the possibility of response biases, including social desirability effects and overestimation of sustainability-related behaviours. Although prior studies suggest that self-reported sustainability attitudes and behaviours moderately predict actual behavioural outcomes, the absence of objective indicators remain a limitation of the present design. This constraint reinforces the need for future studies to incorporate multi-method assessments.

2. Additionally, the sustainability construct was operationalized using five dimensions aligned with global frameworks. While these dimensions offer conceptual coherence, they may not fully capture culturally specific understandings of sustainability within Saudi Arabia. Religious values, societal expectations, and national development priorities are likely to shape students’ interpretations of sustainability, potentially influencing how they respond to survey instruments. Thus, cultural context should be considered when interpreting the results and designing future research.

Abbreviations

AMS

R–Achievement Motives Scale–Revised

CFA

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFI

Comparative Fit Index

FF

Fear of Failure

HS

Hope of Success

HEIs

Higher Education Institutions

IRB

Institutional Review Board

KFU

King Faisal University

MAP

Measures of Academic Progress

RMSEA

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

SDT

Self–Determination Theory

SEM

Structural Equation Modelling

SI

Successful Intelligence

SRMR

Standardized Root Mean Square Residual

TLI

Tucker–Lewis Index

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Authors’ contributions

A.M.A.: Designed the study, collected data, performed statistical analyses, wrote the initial draft, and secured funding for the project.M.O.A.: Contributed to the theoretical framework, prepared figures and tables, and reviewed the final manuscript with the first author.

Funding

This project was funded through the Annual Funding track by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [KFU253407].

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. To protect participant confidentiality, raw data will be shared in anonymized form and in accordance with institutional data-sharing policies.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in strict accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013), which provides internationally recognized standards for research involving human participants. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (KFU-2025-ETHICS3642). Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement. Anonymity and confidentiality were strictly maintained, and no financial or other incentives were provided. Participants were clearly informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without penalty. All data were securely stored, accessible only to the research team, and used solely for academic and research purposes.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.