In the rapidly evolving landscape of STEM education, particularly within engineering programs, a silent epidemic is gaining attention—stress. Amid high academic expectations, relentless workloads, and a culture that often glorifies overexertion, undergraduate engineering students face unique psychological challenges that have long been underexplored. A groundbreaking new study conducted by Mirabelli, Johnson, Vohra, and colleagues has taken decisive steps to measure and understand these stressors through the development of two novel tools: the Engineering Stress Culture Scale and the Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire. Their findings, published in the International Journal of STEM Education, expose an intricate web of normalized stress and cultural pressures embedded within engineering education, with profound implications for future pedagogical strategies.
Engineering as a field demands more than intellectual rigor; it requires resilience in the face of constant problem-solving under tight deadlines. The study underscores how such demands, when chronically sustained, create a culture where elevated stress becomes an accepted, even expected, norm. This phenomenon, described as “normalized stress,” diminishes students’ ability to recognize unhealthy distress, potentially fostering burnout before they even enter the workforce. Mirabelli et al. have sought to quantify this culture accurately, overcoming the limitations of existing generic stress measurement tools previously applied to STEM students that failed to differentiate the unique stress landscape of engineering.
The Engineering Stress Culture Scale introduced by the researchers is unlike any precursor tool in its domain-specific focus. It meticulously captures not only individual stress symptoms but also the collective attitudes and unspoken expectations that shape the student experience. The scale reveals a pervasive culture where competitive success is often prioritized over mental well-being, with students internalizing pressures to perform at peak capacity regardless of personal cost. This cultural environment venerates grit and endurance to such a degree that admitting stress or seeking help may be stigmatized. Through comprehensive psychometric validation, the scale offers educators and administrators an unprecedented lens into the psychological climate they cultivate.
Parallel to this, the Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire systematically catalogs key stress-inducing factors unique to engineering curricula. From unpredictable project scopes to relentless problem sets and the social dynamics embedded in collaborative work, this questionnaire dissects the multidimensional stress sources young engineers face. Notably, the instrument probes how curriculum design and institutional culture contribute to this ecosystem, identifying actionable points for intervention. By centering the student’s lived experience, this tool exposes stressors that generic academic stress scales often overlook, such as culture-driven guilt over downtime or the implicit messaging that vulnerability equates to weakness.
The implications of normalizing stress go beyond individual health, extending to retention rates and workforce readiness. Engineering programs notoriously struggle with attrition, where students depart not for lack of aptitude but due to overwhelming stress and disillusionment. As the new scales reveal, normalized stress creates an environment where struggling students may hide their difficulties, eroding opportunities for timely support. This cycle perpetuates the notion that perseverance is solely an internal struggle rather than a collective responsibility, potentially compromising diversity and inclusivity within engineering cohorts.
A particularly striking revelation from the study is the intricate role that institutional messaging and peer culture play in reinforcing stress norms. Faculty endorsements of “toughening up” or venerating all-nighters can unwittingly contribute to unhealthy cultural expectations. Likewise, peer competition, often framed positively as motivation, sometimes escalates to detrimental comparisons and social isolation. The culture of normalized stress thus emerges not simply from workload but from a complex social ecosystem where feedback loops between students and educators either challenge or sustain harmful norms.
From a technical standpoint, the development of the Engineering Stress Culture Scale involved rigorous qualitative and quantitative methods. Initial focus groups and interviews allowed the researchers to identify nuanced themes, which were then distilled into measurable items. Subsequent pilot testing and factor analysis refined the instrument to ensure both reliability and validity. Similarly, the Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire underwent iterative development cycles informed by student input and expert review, ensuring it captures the breadth and depth of stressors particular to engineering study across diverse institutional contexts.
The study also situates its findings within the broader psychological framework of stress adaptation theories. It argues that normalized stress functions as a maladaptive coping mechanism, where acceptance of chronic stress becomes a survival strategy rather than a signal for change. This insight challenges educators to rethink not only curriculum pacing but also the cultural narratives that shape student identity and academic self-concept. By reframing stress as a modifiable factor embedded in culture rather than an immutable hardship, the research opens pathways for systemic reforms.
Moreover, the authors emphasize the necessity of integrating mental health resources directly into engineering education rather than treating them as peripheral services. Embedding wellness education, stress management techniques, and peer support systems within the fabric of engineering programs could address normalized stress more effectively. This holistic approach recognizes that reducing workload alone is insufficient if cultural barometers remain unchallenged. Institutional commitment to mental health must be visible and consistent, signaling to students that stress management is compatible with engineering excellence.
The potential for these tools to influence educational policy is significant. By providing validated instruments, the study equips universities with data-driven evidence to advocate for curricular redesign and support services tailored to the engineering environment. Furthermore, the ability to benchmark stress culture across institutions enables comparative analyses that can identify best practices and flag at-risk populations. Such data-driven approaches are vital for creating sustainable changes that balance academic rigor with psychological resilience.
Another dimension the research touches upon is the intersectionality of stress experiences within engineering education. Preliminary data suggest that underrepresented groups, including women and minority students, may experience normalized stress differently, often compounded by additional challenges related to inclusion and representation. Detailed follow-up studies using the developed scales could illuminate these disparities, informing targeted interventions that foster equitable learning environments.
Technological integration also presents novel opportunities to apply these findings. Digital platforms that monitor stress indicators in real time or facilitate anonymous feedback could complement the static survey tools, enabling dynamic responses to student needs. The study’s authors advocate for the incorporation of such innovations while cautioning against privacy concerns and the risk of surveillance culture, emphasizing ethical implementation.
The cultural shift that this research advocates is ambitious yet imperative. Normalized stress in engineering education, if unchallenged, risks perpetuating cycles of mental health crises and workforce attrition. By illuminating the mechanisms of this culture and furnishing precise instruments to measure it, Mirabelli and colleagues provide the foundation for transformative change. Their work calls upon educational leaders, policymakers, and the engineering community to collaborate in cultivating environments where academic excellence and mental well-being coexist harmoniously.
In conclusion, this pioneering study marks a critical juncture in STEM education research. It transcends simplistic accounts of student stress by situating it within a complex cultural matrix and equipping stakeholders with robust tools for analysis and intervention. The Engineering Stress Culture Scale and Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire stand as vital innovations for the future, promising to reshape how we understand and address stress in the high-stakes realm of engineering education. As the demand for engineering talent continues to grow globally, prioritizing the psychological health of trainees is not merely compassionate—it is essential for sustainable innovation and progress.
Subject of Research:
Stress and normalized stress within undergraduate engineering education culture, focusing on the development and validation of measurement tools to assess unique stressors and cultural attitudes in engineering programs.
Article Title:
Stressors and normalized stress in undergraduate engineering education culture: development of the Engineering Stress Culture Scale and Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire.
Article References:
Mirabelli, J.F., Johnson, E.M., Vohra, S.R. et al. Stressors and normalized stress in undergraduate engineering education culture: development of the Engineering Stress Culture Scale and Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire. IJ STEM Ed 12, 19 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00540-8
Image Credits: AI Generated
