Resisting the merger? Cross-cohort shifts in stress, emotional intelligence, and motivation among medical students (2014–2024)

Introduction Most studies of medical students’ professional identity formation, motivation, and well-being rely on cross-sectional or short-term longitudinal designs, leaving open whether the psychological profile of medical students has shifted across successive cohorts. Empirical, repeated-measures comparisons across multiple cohorts in a single educational context remain rare. Without them, educators cannot tell whether evidence from earlier cohorts still describes the students they teach today.Methods A repeated cross-cohort comparison was conducted at a single Polish medical school across six cohorts of second-year students surveyed in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2024 (N = 1595). Academic stress, emotional intelligence (EI; SSEIT), motivation for choosing medical studies, coping strategies, and social support were assessed with the same instruments at each measurement. Cohort differences were examined using Kendall’s tau, Kruskal–Wallis tests with Dunn’s post hoc comparisons, chi-squared tests, and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA).Results Self-reported academic stress was lower in the 2018 and 2024 cohorts than in 2014–2017 (Kendall’s tau = −0.11, p < 0.0001). Total and interpersonal EI were higher in the 2024 cohort than in the 2015–2018 cohorts (all post hoc p < 0.001); intrapersonal EI remained stable. Financial motivation as a secondary choice rose from 8% to 21%, and ‘opportunity to work abroad’ disappeared (0% vs. 4.5–8.7%). MCA positioned the 2024 cohort apart from the closely grouped 2014–2018 cohorts. Coping strategies and social support remained largely stable.Discussion Across 11 years, students at this institution more often selected financial motives when choosing medicine, reported higher interpersonal EI and lower academic stress, with the most recent (post-pandemic) cohort standing apart from earlier cohorts. The design cannot disentangle cohort from period effects, and findings are context-specific. These analyses are exploratory, and any interpretive hypothesis they generate is offered for future testing rather than as an established finding.