RESEARCH WITH THE STUDENT ADAPTATION TO COLLEGE QUESTIONNAIRE

(SACQ)

Robert W. Baker

Clark University

Posted by: Robert Shilkret

Mount Holyoke College

(A Note to the Reader: This is a manuscript Robert Baker was working on at the time of his

death. It is current to 2002. The manuscript is quite lengthy, approximately 400 pages. The index

will not work on most computers, so do not rely on the pagination suggested by the index. If

there are any questions about this or the SACQ, please contact Robert Shilkret at

Shilkret@mtholyoke.edu.)

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The underlying thesis of this monograph is that student adjustment to college is a

definable and measurable phenomenon, and that it has determinants that can in turn be defined

and measured, including means of altering its course. There will be no attempt here to argue this

position on philosophical/theoretical grounds, rather the burden of proof will be the weight of

empirical evidence that has been collected by a large number of investigators employing a

particular means of measuring adjustment to college.

In 1984 an article appeared in a professional journal describing research with a new

means of measuring adjustment to college (Baker & Siryk, 1984b), an instrument subsequently

1

expanded and named the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, or SACQ (Baker &

Siryk, 1989). In ensuing years additional reports of research with the instrument by its

developers became available, but, more significantly, the SACQ also came to be used by many

other researchers in a wide variety of studies.

The earlier of these investigations produced a body of information that permitted detailed

evaluation of the SACQ, in particular its reliability and validity, and this information was

summarized in a test manual intended for SACQ users (Baker & Siryk, 1989). But the large

mass of data that has accumulated from later as well as the earlier investigations also may be

viewed as providing a means of gaining improved understanding of the phenomenon of

adjustment to college -- its definition, its determinants, and means of facilitating it. The purpose

of this monograph is to review all available data from SACQ-using research for the light they

might cast on these important issues.

There are of course many studies concerning adjustment to college that have not

employed the SACQ, but they will not be considered here. This exclusion has the disadvantage

of disregarding for the time being information that could be useful in understanding adjustment

to college. Another disadvantage is that the findings of all studies included in the review will be

affected by whatever limitations or flaws the SACQ may have.

But there are also advantages. Findings from studies employing a variety of variables, all

with the SACQ as the measure of adjustment, will be easier to interpret and compare, as will of

course findings from studies that employ the same or similar variables or methodology,

contributing possibly to the development of a more cohesive and coherent understanding of

available data. This approach may also facilitate the identification of issues that merit further

exploration or clarification, and the identification of new areas for investigation. In such future

2

research the time and thought that ordinarily would be devoted to means of measuring the

construct "adjustment to college" could instead be spent on other variables or aspects of research

design.

While the understanding of adjustment to college that we seek to develop here will be

based largely in research data, it is not our intent generally to provide detailed findings, analyses

of methodology, or critique or evaluation of the studies from which data are drawn. Readers

interested in the details of the studies are referred to the SACQ test manual (Baker & Siryk,

1989), to the Appendixes to this monograph which include addenda, to tables of correlations

from the test manual, or to the original research reports.

Neither do we intend to use the accumulated data as a basis for constructing a theory or

model of adjustment to college. Rather, our interest is simply to present in one place what is

known from research with the SACQ, in the hope of stimulating interest in and thought about

the topic and promoting further research. Looking beyond the particular focus of this volume,

and making the assumption that adjusting to college may be seen as a naturally-occurring life

stressor, it is hoped that research findings to be considered here will have implications for

adjustment in other stressful life situations.

As for the structure of this monograph, Chapter 2 is concerned with the development of

an empitrically-based definition of adjustment to college, followed in Chapter 3 by preliminary

considerations regarding analysis of determinants of that adjustment. Chapters 4 through 10 deal

with various kinds of characteristics of persons as determinants, and Chapters 11 through 14

with environmental determinants. Facilitation of college adjustment is the topic of Chapter 16,

and Chapter 17 contains an overall summary, plus implications for future investigations.

The summary in Chapter 16 excludes citations for findings -- which of course are fully

3

included in all preceding chapters -- in the interest of ease of presentation and reading. Readers

wishing an overall view of the issue at hand before encounteriing detailed findings might

consider proceeding to that chapter next.

4

CHAPTER 2

THE DEFINITION OF ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE

There are two ways of using the SACQ to present a definition of adjustment to college.

The first is to examine the composition and structure of the scale -- including by statistical

analysis -- in order to ascertain the assumptions and conceptions that underlie it. A second

approach is to review research that identifies correlates exemplifying the meaning of the

construct.

The Meaning of Adjustment to College as Inferred from the Composition and Structure of the

SACQ

The 67 verbal statement-items that comprise the SACQ each address a facet of the

experience of adjusting to college and the demands that characterize it. It would be too

cumbersome to try to contemplate here the contribution that each item makes to the definition of

the construct being measured, and instead the reader is encouraged for that purpose to peruse the

individual items.

The sum of scores for the 67 items (the full scale score) provides an index of overall

adjustment, but more important to the definition of the construct is the fact that 65 of the items

subdivide into four subscales addressing different aspects of the adjustment. Three of the

subscales may be considered as primary in the sense that they contain no overlapping items, and

are intended to measure, separately, academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustment. A

fourth subscale contains some items exclusive to itself and other items shared with two of the

primary subscales, and assesses the student's commitment to the college experience, especially

attachment to the particular institution attended.

Factor analysis, and examination of the intercorrelations among the SACQ subscales,

5

provide support for this view of adjustment to college as having different facets (Baker, 1993a;

Baker & Siryk, 1989). Significant positive correlations of moderate magnitude among the three

primary subscales -- and, to a more limited degree, the higher positive correlations between

subscales that share items -- indicate that the subscales tap a common construct. On the other

hand, the correlations for the most part are sufficiently low as to indicate that adjustment to

college does indeed have different aspects and that there is ample room for intraindividual

variation by areas -- e.g., for a given individual to have a high score in one area and low in

another.

The conception of adjustment to college underlying the SACQ is specified further by the

identification of clusters of items within each subscale that represent different facets of the

adjustment area addressed by the subscale. Four aspects of academic adjustment are thus

identified: motivation for being in college and doing college work; translation of the motivation

into actual academic effort; the efficacy or success of the effort expended; and satisfaction with

the academic environment. Social adjustment is also seen as having four aspects: extent and

success of social activities and functioning in general; involvement with other persons on

campus; relocation away from home and significant persons there; and satisfaction with the

social environment. Personal-emotional adjustment is conceptualized as having two aspects:

sense of psychological well-being; and sense of physical well-being. Commitment to the college

experience is also seen as having two facets: satisfaction with being in college in general; and

satisfaction with being at the institution in which enrolled.

The Meaning of Adjustment to College as Indicated by Research-Derived Behavioral Correlates

of the SACQ

Over and above the definition of adjustment to college inherent in the composition and

6

structure of the SACQ, research employing the instrument can provide information as to the

meaning of the constructs the scale is intended to address. It can show what adjustment to

college is operationally, i. e., what the behavioral correlates of the SACQ are that add body to

the foregoing conceptual structure. In a real sense, all SACQ-using research – including that

which will be considered in the several subsequent chapters concerning determinants of

adjustment to college – clarifies the meaning of the construct(s) measured by the instrument, but

the focus in this chapter will be on behavioral characteristics most directly appropriate to the

particular content area measured.

In attempting to fill out our definition in this manner, and because of our conception of

adjustment to college as multifaceted, our primary focus will be on identifying behavioral

indices of adjustment that have been found to be associated differentially in degree and

sometimes selectively with the several subscales of the SACQ. Frequently we will be interested

principally in the relation of behavioral indices with one of the subscales in particular, as, in the

paragraph that follows, between college grade point average and the subscale that measures

academic adjustment. However, this does not mean that relation between the behavioral index

and the measures of other adjustment areas, or overall adjustment (i. e., the SACQ full scale

score), may not be relevant to the task of defining adjustment to college.

Academic adjustment to college. Unsurprisingly, many findings from SACQ-using

research indicate that college adjustment is to be defined in some degree in terms of quality of

academic performance. Numerous investigators have found that students indicated by the SACQ

as having better adjustment to college, especially better academic adjustment, have higher

college grade point average or some other index of better academic performance, e.g., number of

academic credits earned (Allen, 1985; Bettencourt, Charlton, Eubanks, Kernahan, & Fuller,

7

1999; Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997; Baker, 1993; Baker & Siryk, 1984b, 1989; Beyers, 2001; Beyers

& Goossens, 1998; 2002a, 2002b; Brower, 1990b; Carlson, 1986; Chartrand, Camp, &

McFadden, 1990b; Chizhik, 1999; Coatsworth, 2001; Conti, 2000a,c; Davis, 1988; Dewein,

1994; Evans-Hughes, 1992; Foster, 1997; Gerdes, 1987; Gilkey, 1988; Gilkey, Protinsky, &

Lichtman, 1989; Gold, Burrell, Haynes, & Nardecchia, 1990; Grella, 1989; Harris, 1991; Hogan,

1987/1988; Humfleet & Ribordy, 1990; Keenan, 1992; Lent, 1997; Loveland, 1992; Marcotte,

1995; Maton, 1989b; McGillin, 1986; McGowan, 1987; Montgomery, Haemmerlie, & Watkins,

2000, data updated by Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001; Napoli & Wortman, 1998; Natera,

1998; Ogden & Trice, 1986; Pfeil. 2000; Santonicola, 1989; Sennett, 2000; Sugar, 1999; Terrell,

1989; Tomlinson-Clarke, 1998; Wang & Smith, 1993; Washington, 1996; Wick & Shilkret,

1986b; Wildman, 1998; Williams, 1996; Yaffe, 1997, see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000; Young,

1994) (see Appendix A for correlations between SACQ variables and college grade point

average; bolded years in foregoing references, and in subsequent references throughout this

monograph, indicate studies for which correlational gpa data are included in the appendices;

underlined years indicate studies for which such data are included in the SACQ test manual).

Such students also have higher incidence of election to an academic honor society (Baker &

Siryk, 1984b, 1989).

Students indicated by the SACQ as having better adjustment to college, especially better

academic adjustment, have higher predicted grade point averages at time of entrance to college,

with the predictions based on high school grade point average, ACT or SAT scores, and quality

of high school attended (Helman, 1999). Interestingly, Young (1994) determined that the

prediction of college seniors' cumulative grade point average from prematriculation measures

(SAT's, high school grade point average) was considerably improved (from R=.47 to .58) by

8

adding as a predictor the SACQ Academic Adjustment subscale administered in the senior year.

Only weak to no relation was found between grade point average and SACQ variables in

freshmen at a Belgian university (Beyers & Goosens, 2002a). Students in that study were

administered the SACQ in November, while average grades were computed from final

examinations at the end of the first semester, the end of the second semester, and “repeat” exams

the following September that could be taken by students who had failed at least one of the June

examinations. The only statistically significant correlations found for the five first-semester

SACQ indices with grade point average at the three time periods were a modest positive one for

academic adjustment in the January examinations and a modest negative one for institutional

attachment in the September “repeat” examinations. The authors explained, in trying to account

for the lack of greater association between academic performance and adjustment, that students

at that particular university “never” took intermediate tests, exams, or quizzes during a semester,

and thus lesser than usual opportunity to form a sense of their academic peformance.

One investigator (Lopez, 1997) reported no relation between the SACQ Attachment

subscale, the only SACQ variable used, and college grade point average; and in one other study

(Mathis & Lecci, 1999) there was no relation between any SACQ variable – with the SACQ

administered in the fourth week -- and first semester gpa for a freshman sample.

Also unsurprising is that adjustment to college, especially academic adjustment, is

manifested behaviorally and attitudinally in terms of seriousness of academic purpose. Thus,

students identified as better adjusted on the SACQ are more decided about a major field (Albert,

1988; Leonard, 1990; Marcy, 1996; McGowan, 1988; Pfeil. 2000,2002; Plaud, Baker, &

Groccia, 1986, 1990; Smith & Baker, 1987); more satisfied with their major (Chartrand et al.,

1990b); and more certain about their career plans (Carlson, 1986; Chartrand, Camp, &

9

McFadden, 1990a; Lopez, 1989; Maton, 1989b; Maton & Weisman, 1989; Plaud et al., 1986).

Other indications of seriousness of academic purpose were seen in a study with

academically at-risk students. Such students with SACQ-indicated better adjustment were more

likely to study alone than with others, more likely to perceive faculty as helpful and

encouraging, and less likely to skip classes (Keenan, 1992). Better academic adjustment was

found by Pratt (2001) to be associated with lesser self-reported skipping of classes, and,

similarly, by Helman (1999) to be associated with students reporting themselves to spend more

hours per week in class, and also more hours per week studying. Hurtado et al. (1996) report that

academically better adjusted sophomore students were more likely to report having perceived

their academic work in the first year of college as manageable, having managed their resources

well (e. g., time, money), and having interacted with faculty.

Social adjustment to college. Unsurprising, too, is the finding that students with higher

SACQ scores, especially in social adjustment, are more involved in the life of their college.

Thus, they participate more in extracurricular activities (Baker & Siryk, 1984b; Bettencourt et

al., 1999; Beyers & Goossens, 2002a; Elacqua, 1992a&b; Evans-Hughes, 1992; Jackson, 1998;

Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001; Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 1993; Montgomery &

Howdeshell, 1993; Santonicola, 1989; Schriver, 1996; Tomlinson-Clarke & Clarke, 1994; Wick

& Shilkret, 1986b; Woo & Bilynsky, 1994), though Kline (1992) found no relation between any

SACQ variable and number of college organizations joined.

As other indications of greater involvement in the life of their college, such students

describe themselves as feeling at ease in coming to know their college environment (Hurtado et

al., 1996); visit home less often while college is in session (Savino, 1987); have fewer contacts

with family and friends at home, as through telephone calls and letters as well as visits (Schriver,

10

1996), though, again, Kline (1992) found no relation between any SACQ variable and number of

contacts with family per month. And, further, they are more likely to be full-time than part-time

students (Burr, 1992), and to spend less time in gainful employment (Burr; Reeker, 1994). Using

a variable called “non-instructional activities” that included involvement in student groups,

gainful employment, and community service (a combining of activities that would seem to have

both positive and negative implications for college adjustment), Helman (1999) found no

relation between it and either social or overall adjustment, the only SACQ variables reported.

Regarding interpersonal activities more particularly, or the formation and maintenance of

relationships, SACQ-indicated better adjusted (again, especially better socially adjusted) students

have more close friends (Humfleet, 1987); spend more time socializing with friends (Beyers &

Goossens, 2002a; Hurtado et al.); are more likely to maintain friendships over time (Elacqua,

1992a & b); are more satisfied with their social relationships, platonic, romantic, and combined

(Coatsworth, 2001); and are more likely to have romantic partners (Harris, 1988). These

students see themselves as having higher quality relationships with other students (Bettencourt et

al., 1999) and being more satisfied with their social life (Martin, Swartz-Kulstad, Hutz, &

Fabian, 2000). And those who are also student-athletes are more likely to report having quality

relationships with teammates and others on campus (Ridinger, 1998).

Possibly in part because of their involvement with their campus social system, and their

interpersonal competence as indicated in the foregoing findings, these kinds of SACQ-indicated

better adjusting students have greater likelihood of being hired if they apply for positions as

dormitory assistants (Baker & Siryk, 1989).

Personal-emotional adjustment to college. Higher scoring students on the SACQ,

especially on the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, which addresses sense of

11

psychological well-being and sense of physical well-being, are less likely: to be known to a

campus psychological services center (Baker, 1993a; Baker & Siryk, 1984b, 1989; Beyers &

Goossens, 2002a); Freeman, 1987b); to describe themselves as in, or having been in,

psychotherapy or counseling (Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001); to seek help from various

campus resources for “emotional concerns or academic problems” (Terrell, 1989; Beyers &

Goossens); to seek help from campus and local community helping resources in general

(Johnson, 2001); to describe their transition from high school to college as difficult (Albert,

1988); and to report experiencing stress (Harris, 1991; Mathis & Lecci, 1999; Montgomery &

Haemmerlie, 2001; Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 1993; Montgomery & Howdeshell, 1993) or

personal difficulties (Martin, Swartz-Kulstad, & Madson, 1999; Martin et al., 2000). They are

also more likely to self-report good mental health status (Mathis & Lecci. 1999).

Such students are also more likely to have higher scores on test measures of general good

mental health and lower scores on test measures of both general and specific aspects of mental

ill-health, including depression; anxiety, both state and trait; emotional stress; dissociative

experiences and symptomatology; neuroticism; and eating disorders and psychological

characteristics associated with them (see Chapter 4, “Person Characteristics as Determinants of

Adjustment to College: Mental and Physical Health Variables” for more detailed consideration

of studies reporting the foregoing findings, including citation of sources).

Students scoring higher on SACQ variables, especially personal-emotional adjustment,

score higher on measures of general physical health, report lesser incidence of physical

symptoms, have fewer health center visits for doctor appointments, and fewer class absences due

to illness (also see Chapter 4 for references to studies reporting these findings).

Goal commitment and institutional attachment. Students who score higher on the SACQ,

12

especially its measure of commitment to the college experience, including attachment to the

college they are attending, are less likely to discontinue enrollment (Baker, 1993; Baker,

McNeil, & Siryk, 1985; Baker & Siryk, 1984b, 1986, 1989; Beyers & Goossens, (2002a);

Brower, 1990a; Brunelle-Joiner, 1999; Burr, 1992; Gerdes, 1987; Harris, 1991; Kaase, 1994;

Krotseng, 1991, 1992; Napoli & Wortman, 1998; Santonicola, 1989) (see Appendix B for

correlations between SACQ variables and attrition; readers are reminded that bolding of years

indicates that correlational data from the relevant study are included in the appendices of this

monograph; underlining of a year indicates that such data are included in the SACQ test

manual). Bragg (1994a&b) devised an adaptation of the SACQ for administration in the second

semester of the freshman year to assess first-semester adjustment retrospectively, and found

significant differences in the expected direction on all SACQ variables between students who

persisted in enrollment into the third semester and those who did not.

Higher scoring students on the SACQ, again especially on the Goal

Commitmen/Institutional Attachment subscale, are also less likely to describe themselves as

having had thoughts of leaving their college early in the college years (Harris, 1991; Sennett,

2000); less likely to indicate in pre-registration for the sophomore year that they will not be

enrolled (Just, 1998); more likely to identify their college as their first choice when applying to

colleges (Albert, 1988); more likely to indicate in the first week of the freshman year that they

expect to graduate from the college they are attending (Wildman, 1998); more likely to report

overall satisfaction with, or a positive attitude toward, the college experience (Cooler, 1995;

Gerdes, 1986; Keenan, 1992; Martin, 1988; Martin et al., 1999; Martin et al, 2000; Napoli &

Wortman, 1998; Ridinger, 1998) and to be satisfied with their college, with its degree of interest

in and treatment of them, and with the occupational preparation it has given them (Harris). The

13

measure of overall satisfaction used by Napoli and Wortman, cited above, was from the Student

Opinion Survey (American College Testing Program, 1994), which taps attitudes towards a

college’s administrative and student services, the academic and instructional environments, and

the social and physical environments.

The Meaning of Adjustment to College as Indicated by the SACQ’s Correlation with Other

Measures of Adjustment to College

Another source of research data concerning SACQ correlates that may help to define

adjustment to college is studies that examine the Questionnaire's relation to other measures of

adjustment to college. Perhaps more informative in this respect than the correlations themselves

between the SACQ and the other measures are the particular aspects of adjustment to college

that the other measures were attempting to tap. Thus, if the correlations are sufficiently high,

then possibly it can be assumed that the SACQ is also tapping those aspects to some degree.

Significant correlations in the expected direction, many of them quite robust, have been

reported between all indices of the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment (CIAA; Borow,

1949) and all SACQ indices, especially the Academic Adjustment subscale (Lapsley, 1989;

Rice, Cole, & Lapsley, 1990). The aspects of adjustment that the CIAA subscales are intended

to measure are: satisfaction with the college work routine and with the respondent’s particular

program of courses; educational and life goals, and motivation to achieve them; efficiency in

planning academic efforts and use of time; study skills; psychological stability; and social

relations with instructors and peers.

Beyers and Goosens (2002a) administered the Adjustment Questionnaire (Crombag,

1968) to freshmen at a Belgian university. That instrument, originally developed in Dutch, is

intended to measure “adjustment to the university environment in general,” more particularly

14

how well students feel at home at the university, enjoy being a student, and how pleased they are

with their academic program and social contacts at the university. Strong correlations –

especially strong with social adjustment, institutional attachment, and overall adjustment – were

found with all SACQ indices.

Significant correlations in the expected direction, though less robust than in the case of

the CIAA and the Adjustment Questionnaire, have been found between the SACQ and most

subscales of the College Life Task Assessment Instrument (CLT; Brower, 1990b). Strongest

correlations were with the CLT subscale designed to measure sense of integrity of the self, or

self-esteem, which may be less an aspect of adjustment than a personality determinant of

adjustment. Other CLT subscales with which SACQ indices correlate in expected direction are

intended to measure establishment of autonomy from family and high school friends, academic

accomplishment, establishment of friendships, and maintenance of physical health.

Studies by Keenan (1992) and Scott (1991) using the College Student Experiences

Questionnaire (Pace, 1987) have determined that students with high SACQ scores expend more

effort in and become more involved in various academic, social, and recreational resources,

facilities and opportunities available in the college experience.

A moderately strong correlation in the expected negative direction was obtained by

Schriver (1996) between the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable employed, and the

College Maladjustment Scale (Kleinmuntz, 1961). The College Maladjustment Scale consists of

items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (get ref for MMPI publisher, &

add to reflist as well as here) that were found by Kleinmuntz to discriminate between students

receiving and not receiving psychological services. As described by Kleinmuntz, the items dealt

with problems in self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-confidence; various other indications of

15

depressive thinking and feeling (pessimism regarding the future, lack of interest in life, anergy);

and various indications of anxiety (worrying, assorted psychosomatic symptoms, and difficulty

concentrating).

Napoli and Wortman (1998) investigated the relation between Pascarella and Terenzini’s

Student Involvement Questionnaire (SIQ; 1980) and the SACQ. The two instruments appear at

first glance to be measuring similar if not the same constructs, and even share very similar

names for those constructs, but Napoli and Wortman’s results indicate that the instruments

apparently are not as psychometrically alike as first glance suggests. Regarding apparent

similarities, the SIQ has a two-item measure of Goal Commitment, or motivation to earn a

college degree, and a three-item measure of Institutional Commitment, or intention to continue

in enrollment at one’s college of present enrollment, while the SACQ’s Institutional

Attachment/Goal Commitment subscale combines those two aspects of college adjustment in one

15-item scale. And where the SIQ has subscales called Academic Integration and Social

Integration, the SACQ has subscales named Academic Adjustment and Social Adjustment.

Napoli and Wortman (1998) administered the SIQ Goal Commitment and Institutional

Commitment subscales to community college students in the first and second weeks of a fall

semester, and again at the end of that semester, and the SIQ Academic and Social Integration

subscales at the end of the semester. The SACQ was administered at the end of the semester.

The earlier administered SIQ Goal and Institututional Commitment subscales correlated

positively, but only weakly to modestly, with the later administered SACQ’s subscales (except

for no correlation between the former SIQ variable and personal-emotional adjustment), the

highest correlation being .20 between SIQ’s Institutional Commitment and the SACQ’s

Institutional Attachment/Goal Commitment subscale. The later (end of the semester, at the same

16

time as the SACQ) administration of the SIQ Goal Commitment measure correlated modestly

(with personal-emotional adjustment) to moderately (.36 to .41, with academic and social

adjustment, and institutional attachment/goal commitment), but the only correlation for the SIQ

Institutional Commitment variable was a weak negative one with social adjustment. The SIQ

Academic Integration subscale correlated positively and weakly (with personal-emotional

adjustment) to moderately (.31 to .41, with academic and social adjustment, and institutional

attachment/goal commitment), strongest with academic adjustment. But, finally, the SIQ Social

Integration subscale correlated only weakly with the SACQ subscales, except for no correlation

with personal-emotional adjustment.

The Meaning of Adjustment to College as Indicated by Behavioral Correlates of the Relation

between Measures of Anticipated and Actual Adjustment to College

There is yet another source of information concerning the definition of adjustment to

college as inferred from empirically-determined correlates of the SACQ. An adaptation of the

SACQ -- the Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (ASACQ; Baker et al.,

1985; Baker & Schultz, 1992a&b, 1993) -- was developed for use prematriculation to measure

expectations or level of confidence concerning adaptive capacity for the impending transition

into college. When the ASACQ is employed in conjunction with postmatriculation

administration of the SACQ, a measure of the degree to which expectations are fulfilled can be

generated. This new measure can be viewed as yet another index of adjustment to college

additional to the SACQ used by itself.

In a study (Baker et al., 1985) that focused on comparison of ASACQ and SACQ full

scale scores for defining degree of fulfillment of expectations concerning adaptive capacity,

students whose expectations were substantially met (i. e., where a student’s SACQ scores were

17

approximately at the same level as ASACQ scores, or higher) were compared with students

apparently disillusioned regarding their adaptive capacity (i. e., where SACQ scores were

significantly lower than ASACQ scores). The former students were found: to have higher grade

point averages (also see Williams, 1996 and Chizhik, 1999 for similar finding) and to earn more

course credits in the freshman year; to be more likely to win annual academic honors in the

sophomore, junior, and senior years, and to be awarded general or departmental honors at

graduation; to be less likely to be known to a psychological services center during the freshman

year; to be less likely to withdraw from college before the beginning of the sophomore year; and

to be more likely to graduate on time. Graduation rates for the two kinds of students six years

after matriculation were, respectively, 86% and 55% (Baker, 1993).

Gerdes (1986) focused on comparison of ASACQ and SACQ subscale scores in defining

degree of fulfillment of expectations and found that disillusionment in the academic, social, and

personal-emotional areas was related to lesser overall satisfaction with the college experience

(no data relevant to this comparison were reported for the Attachment subscale). Disillusionment

in all adjustment areas except personal-emotional was significantly correlated with increased

attrition, to the highest degree in the case of the Attachment subscale. Disillusionment in

academic adjustment was also related to lower grade point average in the fall term of the

freshman year.

It was determined in yet another study (Baker & Schultz, 1992b) that the self-

disillusionment implied by comparison of ASACQ/SACQ scores was discernible in interview

data collected at the beginning of the second semester of the freshman year, several months

following administration of the two tests. That is, students could recall their prematriculation

expectation levels and first semester adjustment levels, and differences between these levels.

18

The findings were interpreted as showing that the ASACQ/SACQ score relationship is

associated not only with everyday behavioral correlates, as cited above, but also in expected

ways with thoughts and feelings in the experiential world of the student.

A Formal Property of the Adjustment-to-College Construct as Indicated by Research Data

In addition to the specific content of the definition of adjustment to college as indicated

by the SACQ's composition and by its research-generated correlates, a formal or structural

characteristic of the construct is illuminated by research data. Our expectation from the

beginning has been that adjustment-to-college variables as measured by the SACQ are not

necessarily stable and enduring properties of individuals, but should be regarded as states that

can vary with changes in a student's environment, life events, and personal characteristics.

Data from Clark University and Holy Cross College for seven freshman samples that

were administered the SACQ around the middle of both the first and second semesters

(approximately 20 weeks apart) support this conception. All correlations between the two

testings for each of the five SACQ variables were statistically significant, with median values

ranging from .52 to .67 (Baker, 1993). Similar values were reported in another study

(Bettencourt, Charlton, Eubanks, Kernahan, & Brett, 1999) employing approximately the same

temporal separation of SACQ administrations (within the first and last forty-five days of an

academic year) but using only the Academic and Social Adjustment subscales (correlations

of .58 and .56, respectively). Thus, while there is some degree of consistency in these variables

over the time span indicated, it is not enough to suggest that necessarily stable and enduring

characteristics are being measured.

One of the seven above-mentioned Clark and Holy Cross samples (Graham, Baker, &

Wapner, 1984) was tested additionally at an intermediate time (i.e., in late fall as well as mid-fall

19

of the first semester; students in this study were individually tested, and the average time lapse

between testings was approximately seven weeks). As would be expected in the case of

variables subject to change over time, the correlations for the closer testings (mid-fall to late fall,

and late fall to mid-winter) were higher than those for the two most separated in time (middle of

first semester to mid-winter; Baker, 1993).

Several other studies have produced findings of higher correlation over shorter periods of

time. Sherman (1992) had a freshman sample complete the SACQ in the 6th and again the 10th

weeks of the first semester and obtained correlations for the four subscales (ranging from .70

to .80; full scale score data were not reported) that were higher in each instance than the median

values cited above for the seven Clark and Holy Cross samples tested in the middle of the first

and second semesters. Corbett (1991) gave the SACQ twice, six weeks apart, to a sample of

students from all four college year levels and obtained similarly high correlations for all five

SACQ variables ranging between .63 and .86. With the SACQ Academic, Social, and Personal-

Emotional Adjustment subscales administered approximately eight weeks apart in the first

semester, Conti (2000a) obtained correlations ranging from .67 to .81. In Belvedere’s study

(2000) the SACQ was given three months apart (approximately 12-13 weeks), yielding a

correlation of .72 for the full scale score, the only SACQ variable reported.

Possibly somewhat inconsistent with the foregoing findings for testings relatively closer

in time, Gallant (1994) administered the SACQ twice in the first semester four weeks apart and

obtained a correlation of only .56 for the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (the only

SACQ variable reported).

Two studies reported data for SACQ administrations approximately two years apart, the

longest time span known to date. Rice (1990/1991) had a sample complete the SACQ early in

20

the freshman year and again in the junior year. Correlations for the Academic, Social, and

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales (the Institutional Attachment subscale was not

reported) ranged from .36 to .57, representing a slightly lower range of values than that cited

above for an interim of several months. Shilkret and Nigrosh (1995) administered the SACQ to

a small sample in the sophomore year and again in the senior year. For the Academic and

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales they found significant correlations roughly in the

range cited above for the Clark/Holy Cross samples tested approximately 20 weeks apart, but no

significant correlation for the SACQ full scale score and close to zero values for the Social

Adjustment and Attachment subscales.

*******

In brief summary concerning the definition of adjustment to college as inferred from

research employing the SACQ, it seems feasible to regard that adjustment as a measurable

characteristic of a student. The adjustment, furthermore, has different facets or aspects in which

intra- as well as interindividual variation occurs; it may vary over time; and has a wide variety of

discernible behavioral and experiential correlates that delineate the meaning of the construct.

21

CHAPTER 3

DETERMINANTS OF ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE:

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

A very large amount of data from research using the SACQ provides a basis for

identifying factors that influence the effectiveness of adjustment to college. These data result

from the efforts of numerous investigators who have employed a wide variety of variables in

conjunction with the SACQ. The primary interest for many of these investigators was in the

variable(s) whose relation to the SACQ they were studying, and not in adjustment to college as

such. That is, they used the SACQ as a handy source of dependent variables against which to

examine the play of their independent variables of interest. But that does not prevent use of the

data for a somewhat different purpose here, i.e., to analyze findings for information concerning

variables that may be regarded at least provisionally as determinants of adjustment to college.

In much or maybe even all of the research to be reviewed it is not possible to infer with

certainty causality or direction of effect in the relation between independent variables and the

SACQ. Nevertheless, we will proceed on the assumption of causality in the interest of

developing a framework for conceptualizing factors that may have a determining role in

adjustment to college. This framework may in turn, it is hoped, contribute to the planning of

studies that are more definitive with respect to causality. Thus, the reader's forbearance is

requested for references here to one variable affecting, or influencing, or determining another.

Two main classes of determinants of adjustment to college, as reflected in the research to

be considered here, may be identified, i.e., characteristics of the student and characteristics of the

environment. We will see that it is not always possible to maintain a clear distinction between

these two kinds of factors, but the use of the categories will facilitate the ordering of a

22

considerable mass of information. Further distinctions within the two main categories will be

made, and will be reflected in the titles of ensuing chapters.

The variables to be considered as characteristics of students will be referred to here as

person characteristics, including but not restricted to personality variables. As a group, these are

characteristics in terms of which individuals will differ and which students "bring with them" to

the task of adjusting to college. Individual differences in these variables, it is presumed, will be

associated with differences in quality or effectiveness of adjustment among students. Most of

the relevant data concerning these variables were gathered by means of psychometric

instruments -- tests, questionnaires, inventories, and the like -- but other means of measuring or

codifying person characteristics have also been employed.

Some of the variables cited in the previous chapter concerning the definition of

adjustment to college might just as easily be regarded as person characteristics that may be

"determinants" of adjustment, depending on interpretive preference. For example, the various

mental and physical health characteristics that were earlier offered as correlates or manifestations

of personal-emotional adjustment, helping to flesh out the definition of that aspect of adjustment

to college, could also be viewed as "causes" of quality of adjustment. That is, good mental or

physical health as a person characteristic that a student brings with him or her to college may

contribute to good adjustment, while impaired mental or physical health could be deleterious

factors. As other examples, while degree of decidedness regarding academic major or career

goal, or nature of study skills, can be seen as aspects of academic adjustment, it may be that

having academic/vocational plans and good study habits and skills could be viewed instead as

facilitators of adjustment. This ambiguity between determinant of adjustment and aspect of

adjustment will also be seen in some of the other variables to be considered.

23

Reservations, Qualifications, and Rules of Data Presentation

The findings discussed throughout this monograph come not only from a large number of

investigators employing a wide variety of methodologies and variables, but also from multiple

kinds of sources. These sources include published articles (from journals undoubtedly

representing variation in the degree to which submissions are refereed); doctoral dissertations

and master’s theses (obviously reflecting varying degrees of quantity and quality of tutorial

supervision); undergraduate senior and/or honors theses and research project reports (some of

uncommonly high quality); unpublished papers and research reports; and unpublished raw data

from our own research and from other investigators willing to share such information. Thus, a

wide net has been cast, but some of the catch will not be included in the material to be

considered, and research-oriented readers are free to exercise the right of replication wherever

findings seem doubtful or incomplete.

As the reader has already seen in the previous chapter, a considerable amount of

correlational data is discussed in the text and included in tables in the Appendixes. Correlations

between potential determinants of adjustment to college and SACQ variables will be found in

Appendix C (“Correlations between the SACQ and Measures of Person Characteristics”),

Appendix D (“Correlations between SACQ Scores and Measures of Mental and Physical Health

and Adjustment”), and Appendix E (“Correlations between SACQ Scores and Measures of

Environment-Related Experience”). Most of these data are from psychometric instruments in

general use, or from others that may sometime attain such use. The author has chosen to pay

this degree of attention to correlational data because they represent a succinct and facile

expression of relation between variables.

In presentation of correlational data and other forms of statistical analysis where possible,

24

the author has taken the liberty, in his own research data as well as that of others, of employing

one-tailed tests of statistical significance wherever justified by presumption of relation between

variables on either theoretical or empirical grounds. Ordinarily only statistically significant

findings (p<.05) are used as a basis for discussion in text, though nonsignificant correlations

where available are included in Appendix tables. The reader is reminded yet again that bolding

of years in references indicates presence of correlational data in the Appendixes, and underlining

of years indicates that such data are included in the SACQ test manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).

Also regarding correlational data, the reader should keep in mind always the possibility

or even likelihood of redundacy among the myriad independent variables to be considered.

Some SACQ researchers have taken this factor into account in their statistical treatment of data,

as through factor analysis and multiple regression, but because of cumbersomeness of such

findings – dependent as they are on the particular mix of variables employed – no attempt will

be made to present those findings.

Finally, a particularly important point is made now concerning the presentation of

findings in ensuing chapters. Discussion of relation between an independent variable and the

SACQ will be couched in terms of all SACQ variables used and/or reported, i. e., scores for the

four subscales and the full scale (the full scale often referred to as “overall adjustment”). Where

an investigator has not used or reported a finding regarding one or more of the five SACQ

indices, it will be so stated. Wherever such a statement of omission is not made and particular

SACQ variables are not mentioned, those not mentioned are to be presumed to not have a

statistically significant relation with the independent variable in question. The purpose of this is

avoid having to explicitly mention all nonsignificant findings.

25

CHAPTER 4

PERSON CHARACTERISTICS AS DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH VARIABLES

As noted earlier, mental health characteristics may be viewed either as an aspect of the

definition of adjustment in college or as a determinant of the adjustment. In this chapter relevant

research findings will be examined from the latter point of view.

The reader is reminded that for many studies cited in this monograph correlational data

are available and reproduced either in the SACQ test manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989) or in this

monograph’s appendixes. Underlining of the date in a particular reference indicates that

correlational data may be found in the test manual; bolding indicates inclusion in this

monograph’s appendixes. Almost all of the correlational data concerning mental and physical

health characteristics will be found in Appendix D, with the remainder in Appendix C.

Studies Employing Instruments Measuring, and Reporting, both General and Specific Aspects of

Mental Health (or Ill- Health)

There are several instruments used in conjunction with the SACQ that yield total or

composite scores representing general aspects of mental health, and that also have subscales

measuring particular – and sometimes numerous -- aspects such as depression, anxiety, or

paranoid ideation. This section will focus primarily on the total or composite scores from such

instruments and also provide a brief summary of subscale findings, but specific findings

regarding particular aspects of mental health will be cited in later sections under appropriate

headings.

Significant relations were found by Flescher (1986b) between the full scale score of the

Mental Health Inventory (MHI; Veit & Ware, 1983) and all SACQ variables, including an

26

especially robust correlation with personal-emotional adjustment. Furthermore, six of the seven

MHI subscales (the Emotional Ties subscale being the exception) show fairly consistent patterns

of significant correlation in expected direction with SACQ indices, and all seven relate

significantly and most strongly with personal-emotional adjustment.

Significant correlations occurred for Kenny (1994, 1995) between the total score of the

Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL; Derogatis, 1984) and all SACQ subscales, highest with the

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale. The HSCL subscales showed numerous significant

correlations always in the expected direction with SACQ variables, highest in each instance with

the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (Kenny, 1995). Shilkret and Nigrosh (1995)

obtained significant correlations between three composite scores from the Brief Symptom

Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) – the Global Severity Index, the Positive

Symptom Distress Index, and the Positive Symptom Total – and the SACQ Personal-Emotional

Adjustment subscale and full scale. Small sample size (n=11) in the Shilkret and Nigrosh study

very likely worked against occurrence of relation between those composite scores and the other

SACQ variables. All BSI subscales except Somatization for Shilkret and Nigrosh correlated

significantly with at least one of the SACQ variables, most frequently and usually strongest with

the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale.

Significant correlations were gotten by Humfleet & Ribordy (1990) between the Total

Pathology Score from the Mini-Mult (Kincannon, 1968), an abbreviated form of the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory (get reference for publisher of the MMPI), and the Social

Adjustment, Personal-Emotional Adjustment and Attachment subscales of the SACQ (data for

the Academic Adjustment subscale were not reported), highest with personal-emotional

adjustment. Those investigators also found significant correlations between all but one of the

27

Mini-Mult's clinical scales and the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable employed in

that part of the analysis.

Studies Reporting Data for Total or Composite Scores of General Mental Health Only

Leong (1999) obtained significant correlations between the three composite scores from

the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983), cited above, and all SACQ

variables, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment. Significant correlations were found

between the Global Severity Index of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis, 1984) and

all SACQ variables except the Attachment subscale (for which data were not reported), highest

with personal-emotional adjustment (Kim, Lee, & Oh, 1992). Zamostny, Slyter and Rios (1993)

reported significant correlations between a total severity of psychopathology score from the Bell

Global Psychopathology Scale (Schwab, Bell, Warheit, & Schwab, 1979) and all SACQ

subscales, strongest in the case of personal-emotional adjustment. The Mental Health Inventory-

5 (Berwick, Murphy, Goldman, Ware, Barsky, & Weinstein, 1991), on which high scores

indicate poorer mental health, correlated negatively for Shibazaki (1999) with all SACQ

subscales, robustly with personal-emotional adjustment.

Studies Reporting Data for Specific Aspects of Mental Health

Depression. A number of investigators have examined the relation between depression

as a particular aspect of psychopathology and the SACQ. Several have reported data for all

SACQ subscales, sometimes including the full scale score, and almost always found significant

correlations in the expected direction for all the variables, the highest values occurring almost

exclusively for personal-emotional adjustment.

Thus, Merryman and Zelezny (1993), Wang and Smith (1993), Dodgen-Magee (1992),

Vivona (2000b), Yaffe (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000), and Montgomery and

28

Haemmerlie (2001) using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock,

& Erbaugh, 1961); Adan and Felner (1987), M. D. Smith (1994), Shibazaki (1999), Hunsberger

et al. (1996; and Hunsberger, 2000), Pratt (2001), and Beyers and Goossens (2002a) using the

Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) (note – there is

overlap in the Smith & Hunsberger samples); Flescher (1986b) employing the Depression

subscale of the Mental Health Inventory (Veit & Ware, 1983); Hutto (2001) with the Depression

subscale of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis, 1984); and Kenny (1995) employing

the Depression subscale of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (Derogatis, 1984) all obtained

significant effects for all SACQ subscales (typically strongest with personal-emotional

adjustment), and the full scale when reported. One of those investigators, Dodgen-Magee,

reports stronger depression/SACQ relation for women than men.

Worth noting are M. D. Smith’s (1994) and Hunsberger et al.’s (1996; and Hunsberger,

2000) findings with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977),

which was administered initially a month prematriculation and again shortly after the middle of

the following second semester, analyzed in relation to the SACQ administered at the latter time.

While the CES-D administered prematriculation showed significant negative correlations with

all SACQ variables, robustly so for personal-emotional adjustment, the values for the

postmatriculation administration were considerably more substantial, as would be expected when

related measures are taken more closely in time. Somewhat similarly, Yaffe (1997; see also

Wintre & Yaffe, 2000) administered the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck et al., 1961) to his

sample in the first week of the fall term and again around the middle of the second semester, and

the SACQ at the latter testing time. He also found for the first BDI administration significant

negative correlations with all SACQ variables, the strongest subscale value with personal-

29

emotional adjustment, and uniformly stronger correlations in the same patterning for the second

BDI administration.

Minor "misses" in occasional comparisons occurred in some studies where all SACQ

variables were employed. Maton and Weisman (1989; see also Maton, 1989b) got significant

correlations between depression as measured by the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis &

Melisaratos, 1983) -- administered both pre- and postmatriculation -- and all SACQ indices

except between the prematriculation BSI score and academic adjustment. Consistent with

findings described in the previous paragraph, the postmatriculation measure of depression

correlated more strongly in general with the SACQ than did the prematriculation measure.

Also using the BSI depression subscale, but with a very small sample (N=11), Shilkret

and Nigrosh (1995) obtained significant relation only with the SACQ full scale score, though the

nonsignificant correlational values with the several subscales were fairly substantial. Hogan

(1987/1988), using the Depression Scale of the Psychological Distress Inventory (Lustman,

Sowa, & O'Hara, 1984), had significant values in three of the five SACQ variables (i.e., not the

Social Adjustment or Attachment subscales), strongest with personal-emotional adjustment.

Other researchers interested in the relation between depression and adjustment to college

have been selective in the use of SACQ variables. Kim et al. (1992) report data for only three of

the four SACQ subscales (omitting Attachment) and found significant correlations in the

expected direction between the BDI (Beck et al., 1961) and all three subscales and the full scale,

the strongest value again gotten with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale. Rice et al.

(1997) found the Kandel Depression Scale (Kandel & Davies, 1982) to be strongly correlated

with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale and less so with the Social Adjustment

subscale, the only two SACQ variables employed, for both Black and White students and men

30

and women. Cooley and Carden (1992), administering the BDI (Beck et al.) both

prematriculation and at the end of the first semester and the Academic Adjustment subscale at

the end of the first semester, obtained significant correlations in the expected direction for both

testings (again stronger in the case of postmatriculation BDI administration).

Using only the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, Oliver et al. (1998; see also

Reed, 1994) obtained strong correlation with the BDI (Beck et al.). Using only the SACQ full

scale score, Humfleet and Ribordy (1990) found significant relation with the Depression scale

from the Mini-Mult (Kincannon, 1968); as did Jampol (1988/1989) with the BDI (Beck et al.),

but not Lopez, Campbell, & Watkins (1986) also using the BDI (Beck et al.). Sutton (1996)

found significant correlation between the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale

and a truncated, 10-item version of the Academic Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable

employed.

In a study of reverse culture shock in American missionaries’ children returning from

residence in foreign countries to attend college in the United States, Huff (1998) used the

Homecomer Culture Shock Scale (HCSS; Fray, 1988), which has a subscale measuring grief – a

form of depression -- experienced in leaving the foreign country where a considerable portion of

the students’ lives had been spent. That investigator found an understandably negative

correlation between the Grief subscale and social adjustment to college, but, maybe oddly, a

positive correlation with academic adjustment.

Anxiety. A number of investigators have examined the relation between anxiety as a

particular aspect of psychopathology and the SACQ. Considered first are those studies that

report data for all SACQ variables, or at least all subscales.

Adan and Felner (1987) and Wang and Smith (1993) found significant and substantial

31

correlations in the expected direction between measures of both state and trait anxiety from the

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983) and all SACQ indices, the highest

values tending to occur for personal-emotional adjustment, as did Kline (1992) using only state

anxiety and Carlson (1986) trait anxiety . In Kline’s study the magnitude of relationship was

very similar for both men and women.

Flescher (1986b) got results consistent with those from the STAI, for all SACQ indices,

using the Anxiety subscale of the Mental Health Inventory (Veit & Ware, 1983), as did Vivona

(2000b) using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988) and

Hutto (2001) with the Anxiety subscale from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis,

1984). Shibazaki (1999) obtained negative correlations between the Costello-Comrey Anxiety

Scale (Costello & Comrey, 1967) and all SACQ subscales except academic adjustment, strongest

with personal-emotional adjustment.

Kenny (1995) found significant negative correlations with the Academic and Personal-

Emotional Adjustment subscales only, highest for the latter, using the Anxiety subscale of the

Hopkins Symptom Checklist (Derogatis, 1984). With a related instrument, the Brief Symptom

Inventory (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983), Shilkret and Nigrosh (1995) obtained significant

correlation between its Anxiety subscale and personal-emotional adjustment only; the

correlational values for all other SACQ variables were substantial but nonsignificant due very

likely to very small sample size.

Other investigators report findings for selected SACQ variables only. Using the STAI

(Spielberger, 1983), Jampol (1988/1989) obtained a substantial correlation between state anxiety

and the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable reported; as did Lopez (1989) between trait

anxiety and the Academic Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ subscale employed; and as did

32

Oliver et al. (1998; see also Reed, 1994) between the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the Personal-

Emotional Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable employed.

In a study focusing on a particular manifestation of anxiety, Ollendick, Lease and Cooper

(1993) identified a group of students who reported current symptoms of separation anxiety

disorder (as well as experience of such symptoms earlier in life), a second group who had no

such symptoms currently but had had them earlier, and a group of normal controls who reported

no such symptoms currently or in the past. The current symptom group had significantly lower

scores on the SACQ Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales than either of the other two

groups, which did not differ from each other. On the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale

there were significant differences among all three groups; the current symptom group had the

lowest scores and the normal controls the highest, with the other group intermediate. There were

no differences among the three groups on the Academic Adjustment subscale.

While the Ollendick et al. (1993) study focused on the consequences for adjustment of

separation anxiety as a diagnosable disorder, other investigators used the Separation Anxiety

subscale of the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA; Levine, Green, & Millon,

1986) to examine the effects of possibly a more benign form of that kind of anxiety that may be

expected to occur more commonly in the general college population. For the SITA, separation

anxiety is defined as distress resulting from threatened or actual loss of contact with an

important other person, and fears of abandonment. Consistent and fairly strong negative

correlations have been found between that variable and all SACQ indices, strongest for personal-

emotional adjustment (Cooler, 1995; Lapsley, 1989; Rice, Cole, & Lapsley, 1990; Wang &

Smith, 1993).

Three studies focused on yet other particular manifestations of anxiety. Using the Phobic

33

Anxiety subscale from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis, 1984), Hutto (2001)

obtained significant negative correlations with all SACQ variables. Shilkret and Nigrosh (1995)

found significant correlation between the Brief Symptom Inventory’s Phobic Anxiety subscale

(Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) and personal-emotional adjustment. Liter (1987) reported a

weak but statistically significant correlation between the Death Anxiety Scale (Templer, 1970)

and the SACQ Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale.

The phenomenon of worry may very well be regarded as related to anxiety. The Penn

State Worry Questionnaire (Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990), designed to measure

worry as a trait, was found by Vivona (2000b) to correlate in the expected negative direction

with all SACQ variables except Institutional Attachment, strongly with personal-emotional

adjustment. Vivona (2000b) also employed the Worry Domains Questionnaire (WDQ; Tallis,

Eysenck, & Matthews, 1992), which measures extent of worry in five content areas, two of

which – Relationships and Self-Confidence – were used by Vivona. WDQ subscales for both

areas correlated moderately to strongly in the expected negative direction with all SACQ

variables, again strongest with personal-emotional adjustment.

Other disturbances of affect. While the studies considered thus far in this section have

dealt specifically with depression or anxiety, several investigators have employed variables

seeming to represent varieties of less precisely identified, or possibly more generic, affective or

“emotional” states.

Terrell (1989), with a variable called emotional lability derived by factor analysis of

instruments including the Coping Response Indices Inventory (Billings & Moos, 1984), the

Adult EAS Temperament Survey (Buss & Plomin, 1984), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

(Rosenberg, 1965), obtained significant negative correlations with academic, social, and,

34

especially, personal-emotional adjustment, the only SACQ variables reported. Brooks and

DuBois (1995) used principal components analysis to derive a variable they called emotional

stability (the opposite of emotional lability) from three instruments -- the Problem Solving

Inventory (Heppner & Petersen, 1982), the Goldberg Big-Five Factor Markers (Goldberg, 1992),

and the Global Self-Worth score of the Self-Perception Profile for College Students (Neemann

& Harter, 1986) – and found a significant positive correlation between it and the Personal-

Emotional Adjustment subscale.

For Mathis and Lecci (1999), there were negative correlations between the Negative

Affect Scale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)

and all SACQ variables, robustly with personal-emotional adjustment. Wintre and Sugar (2000;

see also Sugar, 1997) found, for both male and female students, strong correlations between the

Neuroticism variable from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992),

principally a measure of negative affect, and all SACQ subscales, especially personal-emotional

adjustment. The Emotional Stability subscale of the “Big Five” Inventory (John, Donahue, &

Kentle, 1991) is somewhat equivalent to the NEO-FFI’s Neuroticism variable, though reverse

keyed, and for Montgomery and Haemmerlie (2001) it correlated in the expected positive

direction with all SACQ indices, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment. The Adjustment

Scale of the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1995), on which low scores are

considered to be indicative of neuroticism or negative affect, was found by Montgomery,

Haemmerlie, and Watkins (2000; data updated by Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001) to

correlate in expected positive direction with all SACQ indices, strongest with personal-

emotional adjustment.

Oliver et al. (1998; see also Reed, 1994), using a measure of emotional stress derived

35

from the Stress Audit (Miller, Smith, & Mehler, 1987), obtained a significant expected direction

correlation with personal-emotional adjustment, the only SACQ variable employed. M. D.

Smith (1994), Hunsberger et al. (1996; see also Pancer, Hunsberger, Pratt, & Alisat, 2000, and

Hunsberger, 2000; and note that there is overlap between the M. D. Smith and Hunsberger et al.

samples), Pratt (2001), and Yaffe (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000), using the Perceived

Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) as a measure of the degree to which a

respondent is feeling generally stressed, all found strong negative correlations with all SACQ

variables, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment. A self-designed four-item measure of

felt stress associated with adjusting to college for freshmen in their first week of the academic

year was found by Wildman (1998) not to be related to any variable of the SACQ administered

in the tenth week of the first semester.

Interestingly, M. D. Smith (1994), Hunsberger et al. (1996; and Hunsberger, 2000) and

Yaffe (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000), cited above, administered the Perceived Stress

Scale twice to their samples, the first testing for Smith and Hunsbrger et al. (with overlapping

samples) occurring about a month prior to the start of the first semester and for Yaffe in the first

week of that semester. The second PSS administration for all investigators was around or soon

after the middle of the second semester, at which time the SACQ was also administered. As

might be expected, Yaffe’s immediately postmatriculation-administered PSS predicted the

SACQ somewhat better than Smith’s and Hunsberger et al.’s prematriculation testing, but in all

instances the PSS variables from the second semester were the strongest SACQ predictors, to

approximately the same degree for these different investigators.

The concept of culture shock presumably can be seen as a form of general stress state, as

might “reverse culture shock” as measured by the Homecomer Culture Shock Scale (HCSS;

36

Fray, 1988). Huff (1998) used that scale in a study of American missionaries’ children returning

from residence in foreign countries to attend college in the United States, and found negative

correlations between its total score and the SACQ’s Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscales.

Dissociation. Students with high scores on a measure of dissociative experiences and

symptomatology (the Dissociative Experiences Scale, or DES; Bernstein & Putnam, 1986) had

significantly lower scores on all SACQ indices than students with low-to-mid range DES scores

(Sandberg & Lynn, 1992). Similarly, Marcotte (1995) found modest negative correlations

between the DES and all SACQ subscales except social adjustment.

Eating disorders. Significant correlations in the expected direction, several moderately

strong and a few even robust, were found by Kenny (1992) in all but three of 25 comparisons

between the SACQ indices and 5 subscales of the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI; Garner,

1991). The strongest correlations tended to be with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscale. Oliver et al. (1998; see also Reed, 1994) combined EDI subscales into two composite

scores, eating problems and personality traits associated with eating problems, and found strong

negative correlations for both with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (the only SACQ

variable reported).

A somewhat different means of identifying students with eating disorders was employed

by Rosko (1990). On the basis of answers to Ousley’s (1986) Weight Management, Eating, and

Exercise Habits Questionnaire, analyzed in relation to formal psychiatric diagnostic criteria,

students were assigned to a series of four groups presumably representing increasing presence of

eating disorder: normal eaters, binge eaters, subthreshold bulimics, and clinical bulimics. The

clinical bulimic category, however, is not relevant to this discussion because approximately a

37

third of its members were graduate students.

There were no significant differences among the three groups consisting of

undergraduate students on the Social Adjustment subscale, and data for the Attachment subscale

were not reported. But on the Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and full

scale the subthreshold bulimic group had lower scores than normal eaters, and on the Personal-

Emotional Adjustment subscale and full scale the binge eater group was also lower than the

normal eaters. There were no significant SACQ differences between the binger and

subthreshold bulimic groups.

Aspects of good mental health. Most of the mental health variables considered thus far

in this chapter actually represent aspects of mental ill-health, albeit possibly varying

considerably in severity. But some investigators have employed as independent variables person

characteristics that may be regarded as aspects of good mental health.

One investigator (Addison, 1996) found strong positive relation with all SACQ subscales

for a variable called existential well-being, which, when the test-items measuring it are

examined, seems to tap a sense of personal well-being that is the obverse of depression or even

in itself a positive mental state. That is, it is conceivable that a non-depressed person may either

have or not have a sense of well-being, and the person with a sense of well-being is likely to be

regarded as having good mental health. The measure employed by Addison was the Existential

Well-Being subscale of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS; Ellison, 1983).

Flescher (1986b) similarly obtained significant positive correlations between the

Psychological Well-Being subscale of the Mental Health Inventory (Veit & Ware, 1983) and all

SACQ variables except the Attachment subscale, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment.

Mathis and Lecci (1999) employed the Positive Affect Scale of the Positive and Negative Affect

38

Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), which would seem to be closely related

to sense of personal/psychological well-being, and found it to be moderately strongly to robustly

correlated with all SACQ variables. Higher scores on the Well-being scale of the California

Psychological Inventory-Revised (CPI; Gough, 1987) were found by Haemmerlie and Merz

(1991) to be associated with higher full-scale scores on the SACQ, the only SACQ variable

reported.

Also apparently related to positive affect and personal/psychological well-being is the

variable optimism – viewing desired outcomes as attainable -- as measured by the Life

Orientation Test (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985). For Montgomery, Haemmerlie, & Ray (2001)

the LOT correlated positively and approximately equally with all SACQ indices. With that same

instrument administered to entering freshmen prematriculation, and the SACQ the following

March, optimism was positively correlated with all SACQ variables (Hunsberger, 2000; Pratt,

2001). Similarly, in a subsequent study at the same university, Hunsberger et al. (2000) found

that entering freshmen who have higher optimism scores on the LOT in a prematriculation

testing have a higher SACQ full scale score – the only SACQ variable reported – the following

March. Using a revised version of the LOT (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994), Johnson (2001)

obtained correlations of approximately the same magnitude as those described above with all

SACQ variables.

A self-designed five-item scale for assessing positiveness of attitude toward starting

college (defined in terms of optimism, enthusiasm, happiness, calmness, and confidence),

administered in the first week of the freshman year, was found by Wildman (1998) to predict in

expected direction institutional attachment and social and overall adjustment in the tenth week of

the first semester.

39

It seems reasonable to regard self-discipline in dealing with one’s emotions and temper

as an aspect of good mental health. Higher scores on the Self-control subscale from the

California Psychological Inventory-Revised (CPI; Gough, 1987), which measures that variable,

was found by Haemmerlie and Merz (1991) to be associated with higher scores on the SACQ

full-scale, the only SACQ variable reported. Those investigators also used another variable

reflecting good mental health -- Positive Self-fulfillment (“Vector 3”; defined in terms of

relative absence of neurotic trends and conflicts, maturity, stability) -- that was factor-

analytically derived from the items of the CPI. Higher scores on that variable were, as in the

case of the CPI Self-control subscale cited above, associated with higher scores on the SACQ

full scale, the only SACQ variable reported.

Physical Health Characteristics.

Gilkey et al. (1989; see also Gilkey, 1988) obtained significant correlations in expected

direction for measures of general health symptoms from the Health Checklist (Cline & Chosy,

1972), and self-assessed health, with the SACQ full scale score (the only SACQ variable

reported). Oliver et al. (1998; see also Reed, 1994) found a moderately strong negative

correlation between an index of physical symptoms derived from the Stress Audit (Miller et al.,

1987) and the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (the only SACQ variable used), as did

Sutton (1996) between an index of physical symptoms from a shortened version of the Strain

Questionnaire (Lefebvre & Sandford, 1985) and a truncated, 10-item, version of the Academic

Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable employed.

Mathis and Lecci (1999) examined the relation between a number of physical health

indicators and the SACQ. Interestingly, while no relation was found between number of self-

reported visits to a health center and SACQ variables, there were moderately strong negative

40

correlations between number of “official” health center visits for doctor appointments with all

SACQ variables. Also, there was negative correlation for number of class absences for illness

with personal-emotional and overall adjustment, and positive correlation for self-reported good

physical health with academic, personal-emotional, and overall adjustment.

Friedland (1990) found no differences on any SACQ variable between physically

disabled and non-disabled students. Neither were there any differences within the disabled

sample on the SACQ full scale score (the only SACQ variable reported in these particular

analyses) between congenitally and adventitiously, progressive and non-progressive, or aid-using

and non-aid-using disabled.

Learning disabled students in Saracoglu's study (1987; see also Saracoglu, Minden, &

Wilchesky, 1989) had lower Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale scores than

non-learning disabled students, and the effects were more apparent in the upper class years than

the freshman year. Analysis of the item-cluster scores for the Academic Adjustment subscale

yielded findings that make good sense given the nature of learning disability and the plight of

persons with such disability who are willing to place themselves in an environment that by

definition is difficult for them. That is, the differences between the learning disabled and non-

learning disabled students on the Academic Adjustment subscale were due to the cluster of items

related to academic performance, where difference favoring non-learning disabled students

would be expected, and not to the three other clusters in the subscale where such differences

would be less likely, i.e., motivation for being in college and doing academic work, translation

of that motivation into effort, and satisfaction with the academic environment.

Not focusing on a diagnosable condition as such, but instead on behavioral characteristics

or symptoms associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Panori (1997)

41

administered to a general, unselected sample of college students a combination checklist/rating

scale designed for use with clinical populations, but with instructions adapted for use with a

nonpatient population. Thus, strong negative correlations were obtained between scores from

the Patient’s (ADHD) Behavior Checklist (Barkley, 1990, p. 627) and all SACQ subscales,

highest with personal-emotional and academic adjustment.

42

CHAPTER 5

PERSON CHARACTERISTICS AS DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

SELF-REGARD OR SELF-APPRAISAL VARIABLES

Research findings indicate that variables construable as measuring self-regard or self-

appraisal may play an important role in determining effectiveness of adjustment to college,

though here, too, there may be confusion as to whether such variables are determinants of

adjustment or merely aspects of adjustment. Included in this category of self-regard or self-

appraisal variables are such constructs as self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-confidence, and self-

concept as well as other related constructs.

Pertinent to this category of variables are references made earlier in this monograph to

(on p. ??) a measure of sense of integrity of the self from the College Life Task Assessment

Instrument (Brower, 1990b), and (on p. ??) a measure of sense of coherence, defined in terms of

confidence in meeting life challenges, from Antonovsky’s (1987) Sense of Coherence

Questionnaire (Posselt, 1992). But a large number of more directly relevamt findings will be

presented now.

Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy and Related Variables: Regarding Oneself in General

For ease of presentation, considered first will be studies that employed either all SACQ

variables or at least all SACQ subscales, followed by those that used or reported selected SACQ

variables.

Moderate to moderately strong correlations, sometimes even robust, have been found by

a number of investigators between the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), which

yields a measure of general or overall self-esteem, and all SACQ subscales and fullscale where

reported (Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997; Hertel, 1996; M. D. Smith, 1994; Hunsberger et al., 1996 and

43

Hunsberger, 2000, samples overlapping with Smith’s; Yaffe, 1997, see also Wintre & Yaffe,

2000; Hickman, Bartholomae, & McKenry, 2000; Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001; and

Pappas, 2000), and by Weinstock (1995) and Napoli and Wortman (1998) with all SACQ

subscales. And for Hertel there was no difference in the prediction of SACQ variables by self-

esteem for first- and second-generation college attenders.

In the Smith (1994) and Hunsberger et al. (1996; and Hunsberger, 2000) studies cited

above, the Rosenberg scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was administered one month prematriculation and

again shortly after the mid-point of the following second semester, with the SACQ administered

on the latter testing occasion. Correlations between the postmatriculation self-esteem measure

and the SACQ variables were somewhat larger than those for the prematriculation one. Very

similarly, Yaffe (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000) administered the Rosenberg to his

sample in the first week of the fall term and again around the middle of the second semester,

with the SACQ administered at the latter time. While correlations for the initial Rosenberg

testing with the later administered SACQ were moderately strong, those for the second semester

Rosenberg administration were more robust.

In one study (Savino, 1987; Savino, Reuter-Krohn, & Costar, 1986b) significant and

substantial positive correlations were found on two testing occasions between the Psychological

Coping Resources Scale (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978), which includes all items from the

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) plus other items that pertain to perceived

mastery of the environment, and all SACQ indices, highest with the full scale.

Another standard instrument measuring self-esteem, the Coopersmith Self-Esteem

Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981), has been employed by several investigators and has yielded

results similar to the foregoing (Crouse, 1990; Garrett, 1994; Mooney, 1989; Mooney, Sherman,

44

& LoPresto, 1991; and Rodriguez-Perez, 1991). Like findings have also been reported by Foster

(1997) using the total self-concept score, a measure of overall level of self-esteem from the

Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Roid & Fitts, 1988), and by Hutto (2001) using the Global Self-

Worth score from the Self-Perception Profile for College Students (Neemann & Harter, 1986).

Two studies reporting data for all SACQ subscales and sometimes the full scale have

employed measures of self-efficacy, a self-regard or self-appraisal construct probably not very

different from self-esteem, and obtained findings in relation to SACQ variables that are

consisitent with those already described in this section. Those studies were by Silverthorn

(1993), with the Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale (Fible & Hale, 1978); and Davis

(1988), who adapted three items from the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Tipton &

Worthington, 1984) to assess self-efficacy “as a person” in student-athletes, very likely

tantamount to an index of general self-esteem.

The Positive:Yourself subscale from the Personal Resilience Scale (Organizational

Development Resources, 1996) is described as measuring belief in oneself as valuable and

capable, which would seem to be a combination of self-esteem and self-efficacy, and was found

by Brunelle-Joiner (1999) to correlate moderately strongly with all SACQ variables.

Several investigators employed variables that are the obverse of self-esteem or self-

efficacy. Thus, Kenny (1992) found robust but negative across-the-board relations with all

SACQ variables for a measure of perceived self-ineffectiveness (the opposite of self-efficacy)

from the Eating Disorder Inventory (Garner, 1991). Kenny (1995) also obtained strong

significant negative correlations with all SACQ subscales for the Interpersonal Sensitivity

(sensitivity defined in terms that indicate the opposite of self-esteem) subscale of the Hopkins

Symptom Checklist (Derogatis, 1984), as did Hutto (2001) with the same subscale from a related

45

instrument, the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis, 1984). And for Montgomery and

Zoellner (1994) there were negative correlations with all SACQ subscales for the Self-

Handicapping Scale (Jones & Rhodewalt, 1982; Berglas & Jones, 1978), which taps adoption by

an individual of a preemptive face-saving attitude involving forecast of less than adequate

performance, again the antithesis of the attitude of self-efficacy. In Berglas and Jones’ words,

self-handicapping reflects “a basic uncertainty concerning how competent one is.”

Several investigators employed standard measures of self-esteem but only selected

SACQ variables, in all instances obtaining findings in similar magnitude as those described

above. Thus, for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), correlations were gotten

by Gilkey et al. (1989; see also Gilkey, 1988 and Protinsky & Gilkey, 1996) with the SACQ

full-scale; by Bettencourt et al. (1999) with the Academic and Social Adjustment subscales, both

the Rosenberg and the SACQ having been administered in the first half of the first semester and

again in the second half of the second semester, stronger relation on the latter occasion; and by

Sutton (1996) with a truncated, 10-item, version of the Academic Adjustment subscale. For the

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981), correlations were obtained by Frazier

and Cook (1993) with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale; and by Clauss (1995) with

the Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales. And Caplan (1996) found relation

between the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, Form C’s total self-concept score (Roid & Fitts,

1988), a measure of overall level of self-esteem, and the SACQ full-scale score.

Saracoglu (1987; see also Saracoglu et al., 1989), employing a measure of self-esteem

based largely but not entirely on Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (described in Bachman &

O'Malley, 1977), and using also the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982), obtained

substantial correlations for each measure with three SACQ subscales (the Attachment subscale

46

was not used).

Changes in scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) from the

beginning to the end of the academic year were found by Bettencourt et al. (1999) to be

associated in the expected positive direction with changes over the same time span in the two

SACQ variables employed, i. e., academic and social adjustment.

Bettencourt et al. (1999), in addition to using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

(Rosenberg, 1965), which they identify as a measure of personal self-esteem, also employed a

measure of collective self-esteem, the Collectice Self-Esteem Scale (CSES; Luhtanen &

Crocker, 1992). Regarded as a part of personal self-esteem, collective self-esteem is described

as an individual’s positive/negative evaluation of his or her social group membership, in this

instance defined in terms of membership in a college residence hall. In the first half of the first

semester, positive correlation was found between the CSES total score and the SACQ Social

Adjustment but not the Academic Adjustment subscale; in the last half of the second semester,

there was significant correlation with both SACQ measures.

Changes in scores on the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) from

the beginning of the academic year to its end were found by Bettencourt et al. (1999) to be

associated in the expected positive direction with changes over the same time span in SACQ

Academic Adjustment subscale scores, while no relation was found with changes in Social

Adjustment subscale scores.

Some studies have employed self-regard/self-appraisal constructs that may be seen as

only a step removed from general or overall self-esteem or self-efficacy.

Significant and substantial correlations were obtained by Zamostny, Slyter, & Rios

(1993) between the Narcissistic Injury Scale (Slyter, 1991) -- which measures impairment to

47

feelings about the self and about past relationships related to the development of the self -- and

all SACQ subscales, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment.

Fuller and Heppner (1995) derived a variable they identified as “Confidence” from factor

analysis of data from a number of measures of person characteristics: the Prestatie Motivatie

Test, a measure of achievement motivation (PMT; Hermans, 1970); the College Self-Efficacy

Instrument (CSEI; Solberg, O’Brien, Villareal, Kennel, & Davis, 1993); the Multidimensional

Academic-Specific Locus of Control Scale (MASLOC; Palenzuela, 1988); and the Career

Decision Scale (Osipow, 1987). That variable, Confidence, correlated moderately strongly with

all SACQ subscales.

Finally, Lapsley and Edgerton (1999b) used measures of two variables from the New

Personal Fable Scale (NPFS; copies of the instruments available from the Scale’s author, D. K.

Lapsley), sense of personal invulnerability and sense of personal omnipotence, both of which on

their face would seem to be variants of feelings of general self-efficacy. And in terms of theory

they are thought of as “positive illusions” about the self, which may be adaptive parts of the

normal separation-individuation process in the developmental course; omnipotence itself is

described as a kind of “super self-confidence.” Both variables were found by Lapsley and

Edgerton to be positively correlated with the Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscales, the only two SACQ indices employed.

Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy and Related Variables: Regarding Specific Aspects of Oneself

Several investigators have examined the implications for SACQ-measured adjustment to

college of self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-confidence, or self-concept regarding particular areas

of function, kinds of activities, or aspects of the self. Possibly the most comprehensive

approaches of this sort have been made by Foster (1997) using the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale

48

(Roid & Fitts, 1988), which has subscales measuring an individual’s evaluation of eight different

aspects of one’s self (e. g., physical, moral-ethical, social, familial), and by Hutto (2001) using

the Self-Perception Profile for College Students (Neemann & Harter, 1986), which has subscales

assessing self-worth in twelve different aspects of oneself (e. g., intellectual ability; scholastic

and athletic competence; romantic and parental relationships). Both Foster and Hutto with

considerable consistency found correlations with all SACQ variables, the former investigator

with samples of student-athletes and non-athletes.

Self-regard/self-appraisal concerning social functioning. Several investigators, including

Foster (1997) and Hutto (2001), examined self-attitude concerning social involvement in

particular as it relates to adjustment to college. With the Social subscale of the Tennessee Self-

Concept Scale (Roid & Fitts, 1988), which measures positive feelings about the self in

generalized social situations, Foster found correlations with all SACQ variables – strongest with

social adjustment – in her samples of student-athletes and non-athletes. The Self-Perception

Profile for College Students (Neemann & Harter, 1986) has measures of different kinds and

aspects of social involvement – romantic relationships, close friendships, relationship with

parents, social acceptance, morality, appearance – and in all instances Hutto found correlation

with all SACQ variables.

Saracoglu (1987), with samples of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students,

found significant and substantial correlations between a measure of social self-efficacy from the

Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982) and the Social Adjustment subscale of the SACQ; lesser

but still significant correlation with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale for the learning

disabled students only; and no correlation with the Academic Adjustment subscale (data for the

Attachment subscale were not given). With the same measure of social self-efficacy, Rice et al.

49

(1997) got moderate to strong correlations with the Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscales (the only SACQ indices employed), strongest with the former subscale, for both White

and Black students and men and women. Natera (1998), with a sample of Latino students, found

the Social Self-Efficacy subscale from the College Self-Efficacy Instrument (CSEI; Solberg et

al., 1993) to be correlated with the SACQ measures of academic, social, and personal-emotional

adjustment (the only SACQ variables used), strongest with social adjustment. Using the same

CSEI variable with Mexican-American students, Shibazaki (1999) obtained correlations with all

SACQ subscales, again strongest with social adjustment.

Employing a measure of lack of social confidence from the Interpersonal Dependency

Inventory (IDI; Hirschfeld et al., 1977), Caro (1985/1986) and Polewchak (1998, 1999) obtained

significant negative correlations with all SACQ indices, highest with the Social and Personal-

Emotional Adjustment subscales. However, when Polewchak divided her sample by gender, the

correlations for males in the case of social adjustment and institutional attachment failed to reach

significance. With a measure of social self-confidence (the Texas Social Behavior Inventory;

Helmreich & Stapp, 1974), rather than lack of social confidence, Kenny (1995) found significant

positive correlations with all SACQ subscales, highest with social adjustment.

Other investigators (Cooler, 1995; Lapsley, 1989) used a subscale of the Separation-

Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA; Levine, Green, & Millon, 1986) that is intended to

measure self-centeredness but may also be seen as tapping a sense of social confidence (possibly

even an arrogant self-confidence). It – the Self-Centeredness or Practicing-Mirroring subscale –

correlated positively with all SACQ indices, most strongly with social adjustment.

Self-regard/self-appraisal concerning cognitive functioning. Several studies have

focused on self-worth, self-efficacy or self-confidence concerning various kinds of cognitive

50

activity. Using the Self-Perception Profile for College Students (Neemann & Harter, 1986) –

which has separate subscales assessing self-worth regarding intellectual ability, scholastic

competence, and creativity – Hutto (2001) found correlation between all three variables and all

SACQ indices, typically strongest with academic and personal-emotional adjustment.

A number of investigators have focused more particularly on measures of self-assessed

scholastic competence, or, in other words, academic self-efficacy. With a sample of Latino

students, Natera (1998) used the Course Self-Efficacy subscale from the College Self-Efficacy

Instrument (CSEI; Solberg et al., 1993) as a measure of academic self-efficacy and found strong

correlations with academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustment (the only SACQ variables

employed), robustly with academic adjustment. With Mexican-American students, Shibazaki

(1999) used that same CSEI index to find correlations with all SACQ subscales, again robustly

with academic adjustment. Lent et al. (1997) found a positive correlation with academic

adjustment – the only SACQ variable employed -- for an instrument designed by themselves, the

Self-Efficacy for Broad Academic Milestones Scale, which measures confidence regarding one’s

general academic capabilities. Martin et al. (1999) and Martin et al. (2000) obtained positive

correlation between their own single-item rating of academic self-confidence and the SACQ full-

scale score, the only SACQ variable reported.

Ridinger (1998), with a sample of student-athletes and a three-item measure of academic

self-efficacy designed by herself, obtained correlations with all SACQ variables except social

adjustment, particularly robust with academic adjustment. Davis (1988) adapted items from the

Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Tipton & Worthington, 1984) to assess academic self-efficacy

attitudes of student-athletes and found significant and substantial correlations with the Personal-

Emotional and Academic Adjustment subscales, especially the latter, and the full scale of the

51

SACQ.

Other investigators have studied self-efficacy regarding specific academic courses or

academic tasks. Using the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale (Betz & Hackett, 1983), Lent et al.

(1997) obtained a positive correlation with the Academic Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ

variable reported, for the Mathematics Course Self-Efficacy subscale, which measures

confidence in one’s ability to complete a variety of math-intensive college courses with a grade

of B or better, but did not find relation for the Mathematics Problem Self-Efficacy subscale,

which measures confidence in one’s ability to solve particular mathematics problems. Chartrand

et al. (1990a, 1992) obtained a significant correlation between their own measure of self-efficacy

regarding successful completion of psychology courses and the Academic Adjustment subscale,

the only SACQ variable employed.

Interested in another aspect of cognive activity, Brooks and DuBois (1995) used

principal components analysis to derive a measure of self-assessed problem solving effectiveness

from three instruments -- the Problem Solving Inventory (Heppner & Petersen, 1982); the

Goldberg Big-Five Factor Markers (Goldberg, 1992); and the Global Self-Worth score of the

Self-Perception Profile for College Students (Neemann & Harter, 1986) – and obtained a strong

correlation in the expected direction between that variable and the SACQ Academic Adjustment

subscale. Marcotte (1995) employed the Problem Solving Inventory itself and found strong

negative (expected direction; low scores indicate high problem solving effectiveness)

correlations with all SACQ subscales, highest for academic adjustment.

Using the College Self-Efficacy Instrument’s (CSEI; Solberg et al., 1993) overall score,

which assesses self-efficacy regarding both social and cognitive tasks related to “experiences in

college,” Bartels (1995) obtained strong correlations with all SACQ variables, especially

52

academic and social adjustment and the full scale, as did Fuller (2000) with all SACQ subscales.

Self-regard/self-appraisal concerning emotions/affect. Natera (1998), already cited as

using measures of academic and social self-efficacy from the College Self-Efficacy Instrument

(CSEI; Solberg et al., 1993), devised a third CSEI-like subscale to assess what she termed

“personal self-efficacy.” It followed the format of the CSEI and had content paralleling that of

the SACQ’s Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, thus being intended presumably to

measure degree of self-confidence regarding the control or management of the aspects of

psychological and physical adjustment represented in that SACQ subscale. That new self-

efficacy variable correlated moderately to strongly with academic, social, and personal-

emotional adjustment (the only SACQ variables employed), unsurprisingly strongest with

personal-emotional adjustment.

A variable measuring self-worth regarding “finding humor in one’s life” from the Self-

Perception Profile for College Students (Neemann & Harter, 1986) was found by Hutto (2001)

to correlate positively with all SACQ indices.

Self-regard/self-appraisal concerning athletic ability. Interested in assessing athletic self-

efficacy attitudes of student-athletes, Davis (1988) adapted items from the Generalized Self-

Efficacy Scale (Tipton & Worthington, 1984) and Ridinger (1998) devised her own measure.

Davis found significant relation with all SACQ variables except the Academic Adjustment

subscale, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment, and Ridinger obtained significant

correlations with all SACQ variables.

With a self-designed measure of self-assessed athletic aptitude, very likely also tapping

athletic self-efficacy, Ridinger (1998) found correlations with all SACQ variables except

institutional attachment. Also possibly related, Ridinger, using a self-designed measure of

53

student-athlete’s self-assessment of their athletic performance, found significant correlation with

institutional attachment.

With a general sample of undergraduate students (i. e., not selected as student-athletes),

and using a measure of self-worth regarding athletic competence from the Self-Perception

Profile for College Students (Neemann & Harter, 1986), Hutto (2001) found weak positive

correlation with social and overall adjustment only.

Self-regard/self-appraisal concerning dealing with disability. Friedland (1990) examined

the relation between a particular kind of self-efficacy attitude in physically disabled students and

their adjustment to college. That investigator employed the Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons

Scale-Form O (ATDP; Yuker, Block & Campbell, 1960), which, when administered to disabled

persons, may be seen as a measure of felt ability to cope with life’s demands (i. e., self-

efficaciousness) despite having a physical disability. Strong correlations were found between

that measure and all SACQ variables.

Self-regard/self-appraisal concerning capacity for adjusting to college. As cited earlier

(pp.??-??), the Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (ASACQ; Baker et al.,

1985; Baker & Schultz, 1992a & b, 1993) has been used to provide a prematriculation measure

of a student's expectations regarding the impending transition into college, in effect a measure of

self-efficacy or self-confidence regarding one's capacity for adjusting to college. Correlations

between the corresponding ASACQ and SACQ subscales (e.g., anticipated academic adjustment

v. actual academic adjustment in the freshman year) and full scale have been found to be all

positive, statistically significant, and moderately strong (Baker & Schultz, 1992a; Marcy, 1996;

Williams, 1996), indicating that adjustment to college is in part a function of a student's level of

confidence or sense of self-efficacy regarding the impending transition.

54

While the ASACQ was intended primarily for use prematriculation, and was indeed

employed in that manner in the studies described in the foregoing paragraph, in one study (Sears,

Brewer, & Szarlan, 2002) it was administered to entering freshmen seven to ten days into the

first semester. Though instructions were still phrased to elicit expectations regarding subsequent

adjustment to college, the likelihood is that students’ “expectations” were to some degree

influenced by very early postmatriculation experiences, thus reflecting self-assessed actual

adjustment as well. Be that as it may, Sears et al. had three groups of freshmen varying in terms

of prematriculation preference for dormitory assignment and subsequent actual assignment, all

three of which, in addition to the ASACQ, were administered the SACQ between the ninth and

eleventh weeks of the first semester. Correlations between the corresponding ASACQ and

SACQ subscales for all three groups were all positive, statistically significant, and moderately

strong, in all instances somewhat higher – as would be expected – than the average values for

those studies where the ASACQ had been administered prematriculation.

Two other studies used means other than the ASACQ for assessing prematriculation

expectations regarding subsequent adjustment to college. In one (Sullivan, 1991), matriculating

students’ pre-enrollment ratings of how well they expected to adjust to the social life of the

university correlated positively with the SACQ full scale at the end of the first quarter (no data

were reported for the other SACQ variables). In the other study (Jackson, Pancer, Pratt, &

Hunsberger, 2000), incoming freshmen were asked prematriculation to answer three open-ended

questions regarding their expectations concerning the upcoming college experience, and, by

implication at least, how effectively they would be dealing with it. Responses were analyzed

into five categories: positive academic expectancies, negative academic expectancies, positive

social expectancies, negative social expectancies, and positively-toned expectancies regarding

55

adaptation/coping efforts. The SACQ was administered three times during the students’ ensuing

four college years (late first, second, and fourth years), but only the full scale score was

employed in analyses.

Positive academic expectancies were found by Jackson et al. (2000) to be positively

correlated with the adjustment measure at all three testings, and negative academic expectancies

were correlated (negatively) in the late second year SACQ administration. Both positive and

negative social expectancies correlated in the expected direction with the freshman year SACQ

testing, but not for either variable in the two subsequent testings. Positively-toned expectations

regarding adaptive efforts correlated (positively) with the SACQ full scale in the freshman year

but not in the two later testings. Thus, while all prematriculation expectancy measures except

negative academic expectancies predicted adjustment in the freshman year, those regarding

academic experience predicted the effectiveness of subsequent adjustment beyond the freshman

year and even until late in the fourth year in the case of positive academic expectancies..

Jackson et al. (2000) went a step further in their analysis and identified four expectancy

styles based on patterns of the above-described five expectancy components. The four styles

were: (a) optimistic (a clear preponderance of positive academic and social expectancies,

especially the latter, and low negative expectancies); (b) prepared (high scores on positive

academic and adaptation/coping efforts but tempered by a realistic expectation of potential

adjustment demands and need for coping skills); (c) fearful (high scores on negative academic

and social expectancies and low scores on positive expectancies regarding academic, social and

adaptation/coping efforts); and (d) complacent (low to moderate scores on all expectancy

components, indicating lack of formation of clear expectancies).

Reporting results for this part of their study in terms of the SACQ full scale score only,

56

Jackson et al. (2000) found that in the first two postmatriculation testings -- late in the first and

second years -- students in the fearful category had poorer adjustment than those in the other

three styles. And the same pattern among the four styles – fearful students lowest, prepared or

optimistic highest, and complacent intermediate – was still seen at the final, end of the fourth

year, SACQ administration.

Expanding the scope of interest somewhat beyond simply expectations regarding college

adjustment to expectations regarding capacity to deal with obstacles or impediments in the future

pursuit of educational and career goals in general, Hutz (2002a,b) employed the Coping With

Barriers Scale (CWB; Luzzo and McWhirter, 2001). CWB subscales concerning felt capacity to

cope with each kind of barrier showed moderate positive correlations with all SACQ subscakes

(except for career-related barriers in relation to academic adjustment, where there was no

significant relation), somewhat stronger in the case of education-related barriers for all SACQ

subscales. These differential findings seem reasonable in light of the probably more proximal

relationship between college asjustment and educational barriers than more removed career

barriers.

Variants on Self-Regard or Self-Appraisal Variables

Seemingly related to self-efficacy is the concept of primary appraisals in the coping

process as described by Folkman and Lazarus (1985). Primary appraisals refer to the cognitive

means by which an individual assesses or comprehends stressors, presumably in relation to one’s

capacities to deal with them, and which may lead to evocation of coping strategies. So, such

appraisals would seem to involve self-efficacy judgments in the process of adaptation to stressful

circumstances.

Jampol (1988/1989) used Folkman and Lazarus' (1985) means of measuring primary

57

appraisals (the Primary Appraisal Emotions Scale) and found significant correlations in the

expected direction between the four kinds of appraisal (of challenge, threat, harm, and benefit)

and the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable reported. Appraisals of challenge and benefit

(judgments of self-efficacy regarding capacity for dealing with a stressor?) are associated with

better adjustment to college, and appraisals of threat and harm (questionable self-

efficaciousness?) with less good adjustment.

Another variant on self-regard or self-appraisal studied in relation to the SACQ is the

concept of realistic self-appraisal (as measured by the Superiority Scale; Robbins & Patton,

1985). That variable was seen by Robbins and Schwitzer (1988) and Schwitzer & Robbins

(1986) to correlate in the expected direction with the Academic Adjustment (positively), Social

Adjustment (negatively), and Personal-Emotional Adjustment (positively) subscales of the

SACQ, but Dewein (1994) found only negative correlations with the Social Adjustment and

Attachment subscales. Engaging in rational thinking about oneself, on the other hand, as

measured by the Attitudes and Beliefs Scale-II (DiGiuseppe, Leaf, Exner, & Robin, 1988), was

found by Friedland (1990) to be correlated positively and moderately strongly with all SACQ

variables except the Academic Adjustment subscale.

58

CHAPTER 6

PERSON CHARACTERISTICS AS DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

COGNITIVE CHARACTERISTICS

To be considered in this chapter are person characteristics that have been studied in

relation to college adjustment as measured by the SACQ and that may be identified as cognitive

in nature. Some of the mental/physical health variables already considered can be seen as at

least partially involving cognition (e. g., depression, dissociative states) or even more fully so

(learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), but in those instances the health

issue was regarded as pre-eminent for our purposes. The self-regard/self-appraisal variables also

already discussed all involve cognition in the form of judgments made by individuals concerning

their worth, competence, or capabilities, but were deemed deserving of a chapter of their own

because of the extent of their shared qualities and their extensive use in relation to the SACQ.

Subsequent chapters dealing with person determinants will also be seen to include occasional

variables that could be categorized as cognitive but placed in those other chapters because of

other transcending features.

A possible characterization, then, of the variables to be reviewed here is that they are

more purely in and of themselves cognitive in nature, without the kind of transcending qualities

that would lead to their being placed in other categories.

Cognition of Causality

Possibly only a short step removed from self-regard or self-appraisal variables are

constructs involving cognition of causality in the explanation of one’s behavior, in particular for

purposes of this monograph that behavior being adjustment to college. A principal example of

such constructs would be the concept of locus of control, i. e., whether an individual sees

59

primary responsibility for one's behavior as inhering in oneself (internality, indicating a sense of

self-efficaciousness) or outside of oneself (externality, indicating a lack of sense of self-

efficaciousness).

Locus of control as a general characteristic. Zea et al. (1995) and Zea (1997) used

Rotter’s (1966) Internal-External Locus of Control Scale with four ethnic groups of students.

There were significant correlations in the expected negative direction between that measure (on

which lower scores signify greater internality) and all SACQ variables for Caucasian and Latino

students, some fairly robust for the latter group; with three of the five SACQ variables (not

academic or personal-emotional adjustment) for African-American students; and with none of

the SACQ variables for Asian-American students. For their sample as a whole there were

significant correlations with all SACQ variables. With the same instrument and also using all

SACQ variables, and with a sample of African-American students, Evans-Hughes (1992) found

expected direction correlations with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale and full scale.

Martin (1988; see also Martin & Dixon, 1989), Martin and Dixon (1994), and Kintner

(1998) report that students identified as "internals" on Rotter's scale scored higher on the SACQ

full scale (the only SACQ index employed) than students identified as "externals." In Kintner’s

study locus of control was assessed prematriculation, and the SACQ was administered in the last

week of October.

Using Rotter's instrument as modified by Levenson (1973), Shilkret and Taylor (1992)

found significant correlations in the expected direction with all SACQ variables except the

Attachment subscale.

Several SACQ-using investigators have employed another measure of locus of control,

the Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale for Adults (Nowicki & Duke, 1974).

60

Marcotte (1995) found significant correlations in the expected direction with all SACQ

subscales, strongest with academic and personal-emotional adjustment, as did Montgomery and

Haemmerlie (2001), strongest with academic adjustment.

Cooley and Carden (1992) administered the Nowicki-Strickland both prematriculation

and at the end of the first semester, and the SACQ at the latter time. They obtained significant

correlations in the expected direction for both testings with academic adjustment, the only

SACQ variable reported. As in earlier-cited instances of pre- and postmatriculation

measurement of a person variable, the latter has the higher correlation with SACQ indices.

Jampol (1988/1989) used the same measure of locus of control prematriculation and found a

significant correlation in the expected direction with the full scale of the SACQ (the only SACQ

variable reported) administered at the middle of the first semester.

Fuller and Heppner (1995) derived a variable they called External Control (i. e., external

locus of control) by factor analysis of data from several measures of person characteristics: the

Prestatie Motivatie Test (PMT; Hermans, 1970); the College Self-Efficacy Instrument (CSEL;

Solberg, O’Brien, Villareal, Kennel, & Davis, 1993); the Multidimensional Academic-Specific

Locus of Control Scale (MASLOC; Palenzuela, 1988); and the Career Decision Scale (Osipow,

1987). That new variable correlated negatively with all SACQ indices, strongest with academic

and personal-emotional adjustment.

Situation- or function-specific locus of control. As in the case of the self-regard/self-

appraisal variables described earlier, so, too, locus of control is sometimes defined not only in a

general sense but also in terms of specific kinds of situations or areas of function.

In five studies, frequent and often robust correlations in the expected direction were

obtained between a measure of academic locus of control (Trice, 1985) and SACQ indices,

61

usually highest for academic adjustment and the full scale, and considerably stronger in the

prediction of academic adjustment than was the general measure of locus of control (Bartels,

1995; Mooney, 1989; Mooney et al., 1991; Ogden & Trice, 1986; Weinstock, 1995). Fuller

(2000) employed the Multidimensional Academic-Specific Locus of Control Scale (MASLOC;

Palenzuela, 1988), which, in addition to a total score, has subscales measuring three aspects of

locus of control. The total score and the Helplessness subscale correlated in the expected

direction and to about the same moderately strong degree with all SACQ subscales, as did the

Luck subscale to a somewhat lesser degree with academic and personal-emotional adjustment,

and as did the Internality subscale – relatively weakly -- with all SACQ subscales except

Personal-Emotional Adjustment.

One investigator (Rines, 1998) employed a measure of internality from the Attributional

Style Questionnaire (Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982),

which can be assessed in relation to causation of life events in general or good and bad events

separately. For internality in relation to life events in general, there was a weak positive

correlation with the Academic Adjustment subscale. However, for internality in relation to

positive life events there were slightly stronger positive correlations with all SACQ variables,

and, regarding negative events, no significant relation.

Jampol (1988/1989) adapted the SACQ itself to construct a measure of "situation-specific

appraisal of control," i. e., whether the self or the environment was seen as the primary

determinant of the student's impending adjustment to college (the measure was administered

during an orientation period before the start of the academic year). She found a significant

correlation in the expected direction with the SACQ full scale score (the only SACQ variable

reported). In this and all other of these instances concerning locus of control variables, the

62

greater the sense of personal control over behavioral outcomes, the better the adjustment to

college.

Complexity of causal explanation of behavior. Another variable involving cognition of

causality in the explanation of behavior was studied by M. D. Smith (1994), who expected that

complexity in the causal explanation for one’s own and others’ behavior would have positive

consequences for adjustment to college. Using the Attributional Complexity Scale (Fletcher,

Danilovics, Fernandez, Peterson, & Reeder, 1986) to measure that variable, Smith found a weak

negative correlation with personal-emotional adjustment.

Then, constructing the College Attributional Complexity Scale (CACS) in order to

provide for college students a more situationally specific measure of the variable, half of the

items referring to social events and half to academic, Smith (1994) still found modest negative

relation to personal-emotional adjustment. Interesting to note in clarification of the negative

nature of the latter correlation, the CACS correlated positively for Smith -- rather than

negatively as expected – with measures of depression, perceived stress, and college hassles.

Other aspects of cognition of causality. Rines (1998), using the Attributional Style

Questionnaire (Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982), found

that an habitual tendency to perceive life events in general, or good life events in particular, as

caused by factors that will persist unchanged over time (i. e., stable attribution of causation) has

no significant relation with any SACQ variable, but perceiving bad life events in such a manner

correlates negatively with the Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales and overall

adjustment. That is, perceiving negative life events as caused by relentlessly recurring factors is

related to poorer adjustment to college.

Rines (1998) also found that an habitual tendency to perceive life events in general as

63

caused by factors likely to be operative in a wide variety of situations (i. e., global attribution of

causation) rather than to causes specific to particular situations, is unrelated to any of the SACQ

variables. However, perceiving bad life events as caused by globally operative factors is

negatively correlated with personal-emotional adjustment, and perceiving good life events as

caused by globally operative factors is positively correlated with academic, social, and overall

adjustment to college.

Ideational/Intellectual Characteristics

Ideational flexibility. The Flexible:Thoughts subscale from the Personal Resilience

Questionnaire (Organizational Development Resources, 1996} is described as measuring ability

to view situations from multiple perspectives, to suspend judgment while considering alternative

perspectives, to tolerate paradoxes and contradictions, and to think creatively and effectively.

Brunelle-Joiner (1999) found that subscale to be weakly correlated with all SACQ variables to

approximately the same degree.

The Openness to Experience variable (i. e., receptivity to new ideas, values, and actions;

creativity) from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) would seem

to be related to ideational flexibility. That variable was found by Wintre and Sugar (2000; see

also Sugar, 1997) to be correlated for men with academic and social adjustment and institutional

attachment, but not for women with any SACQ subscale (SACQ full scale scores were not

reported). The Openness to Experience variable from the “Big Five” Inventory (John, Donahue,

& Kentle, 1991), employed by Montgomery and Haemmerlie (2001), correlated with all SACQ

indices, weakest with academic adjustment. The Intellectance scale of the Hogan Personality

Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1995), considered to measure a variable similar to the NEO-FFI’s

Openness to Experience (i. e., imaginative, quick-witted, analytical), was found by Montgomery,

64

Haemmerlie, and Watkins (2000; data updated by Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001) to

correlate weakly with academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustment.

Walker (1996) employed the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale-Form A (Weissman & Beck,

1978) – which is regarded as tapping inflexible, absolutistic and perfectionistic ways of thinking,

especially in relation to oneself – and found moderately strong negative correlations between it

and all SACQ indices, strongest with personal-emotional and overall adjustment.

Organized thinking. The Organized subscale from the Personal Resilience Questionnaire

(Organizational Development Resources, 1996} is described as measuring the ability to find

order in chaos and structure in ambiguity. Brunelle-Joiner (1999) found that subscale to be

correlated with all SACQ variables, strongest with academic adjustment.

Another possible measure of organized thinking is the Intellectual Efficiency scale from

the California Psychological Inventory-Revised (CPI; Gough, 1987), higher scores on which

were found by Haemmerlie and Merz (1991) to be associated with higher scores on the full-scale

of the SACQ, the only SACQ variable reported.

Judgment. The Prudence scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan & Hogan,

1995) would seem to be a measure of decision-making that is characterized by circumspection,

self-discipline, organization, dependability, and conscientiousness, or goodness of judgment.

That scale was found by Montgomery, Haemmerlie, & Watkins (2000; data updated by

Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001) to correlate with all SACQ variables, strongest with

academic adjustment..

Ideational complexity. In a study of prematriculation expectations regarding subsequent

transition to college, Pancer, Pratt, Hunsberger, and Alisat (1995; see also Pancer, Hunsberger,

Pratt, & Alisat, 2000) employed a variable that can be identified as cognitive or ideational

65

complexity. Students’ expectations were elicited by means of six openended questions and

analyzed in terms of the number of different aspects of the transition considered (i. e.,

differentiation) and the extent to which the different aspects were interrelated (i. e., integration),

the combination of which yielded a measure of the degree of complexity of a student’s

expectations. Degree of complexity of expectations was found to make a difference in

adjustment to college for students who prematriculation had reported experiencing high stress in

their life situations as measured by the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein,

1983), those showing high complexity having better scores on all SACQ indices than those

showing low complexity. But there were no differences in adjustment between high and low

complexity students who did not see their prematriculation life situations as particularly

stressful.

Yaffe (1997) apparently used the same technique as Pancer et al. (1995) described above

– i. e., responses to six openended questions analyzed in terms of differentiation and integration

of expectations regarding impending adjustment to college. He reported no significant

correlation with any SACQ index for a variable he identified as integrative complexity, in this

study not examined in interaction with perceived stress.

Scholastic aptitude. Several investigators have examined the relation between scholastic

aptitude as measured by the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or the American College Testing

Program (ACT), and the SACQ, with fragmentary and inconsistent results. Typically the

findings are incidental to larger research purposes; the particular aptitude variables (e. g.,

whether verbal, quantitative, or a composite score) are not always specified; and more often than

not only selected SACQ variables are used.

Thus, in those studies that did, or probably did, use the SAT combined verbal and

66

quantitative scores, Just (1998) found positive correlations with academic, personal-emotional

and overall adjustment; Maton (1989b) with academic adjustment and institutional attachment;

Liter (1987) and Conti (2000a) with personal-emotional adjustment; Chartrand et al. (1990a,

1992) with academic adjustment, the only SACQ variable used; and Williams (1996) with the

full scale score, the only SACQ variable reported. But Hurtado et al. (1996) obtained no

correlation between that SAT composite score and the Academic Adjustment subscale (the only

SACQ variable employed) administered in the sophomore year to Latino students who had been

high academic achievers in high school. Conti (2000a), reporting findings for the SAT

composite score only with academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustment, obtained a

negative correlation with social adjustment in addition to the positive association with personal-

emotional adjustment cited above, but no significant relation with academic adjustment.

In a study that used the SAT verbal and quantitative scores separately, Terrell (1989)

obtained positive correlations for the former and negative for the latter with the SACQ

Academic and Social Adjustment subscales, and no correlation for either with personal-

emotional adjustment, the only other SACQ variable employed. In addition to the findings cited

above for Conti, she also used the SAT verbal and quantitative scores separately, and three

SACQ administrations: late September, late November, and February (Conti, 2000c). The

Verbal score correlated weakly and negatively with institutional attachment only in the

September testing; modestly and positively with personal-emotional adjustment only in

November; and, surprisingly, negatively and moderately with academic adjustment only in

February. The Quantitative score correlated weakly and negatively with social adjustment and

institutional attachment in the September administration; modestly and positively with personal-

emotional adjustment in November; and not with any SACQ variable in February.

67

In the studies that used, or probably used, the ACT composite score, Dewein (1994)

found positive relation with the Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales;

Brooks and DuBois (1995), with the Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and

full scale; Marcy (1996), with academic adjustment, the only SACQ variable employed; and

Schriver (1996), with the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable used. But Lent et al. (1997)

found no correlation between that ACT composite score and academic adjustment, the only

SACQ variable employed.

Lent et al. (1997) also found no correlation between the ACT Mathematics score and

academic adjustment, the only SACQ variable reported.

In a study that employed an index of scholastic aptitude based on either the SAT or ACT,

depending on which was available for a sample of student-athletes, Ridinger (1998) found no

significant relation with any SACQ variable.

Means of Reacting to and Coping with Stressors

Several investigators have focused on means of reacting to and coping with stress,

customarily regarded as cognitive variables, as person characteristics influencing effectiveness of

adjustment to college. The Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1995) has a variable

called Stress Tolerance, from its occupational scales, that measures a general ability to deal with

pressure and adversity, and which was found by Montgomery, Haemmerlie, and Watkins (2000;

data updated by Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001) to correlate moderately to strongly with all

SACQ variables, highest with personal-emotional adjustment.

Posselt (1992) investigated two variables thought to be important in resistance to

negative effects of stressful life events, sense of coherence and hardiness. She used

Antonovsky’s (1987) Sense of Coherence Questionnaire (SOCQ; also apparently called the

68

Orientation to Life Questionnaire), which measures confidence that the challenges one meets in

the course of living are comprehensible, manageable, and even enjoyable. In more commonly

used terminology, sense of coherence seems related to self-efficacy and locus of control’s

internality. That variable was found to be strongly and positively related to all SACQ indices,

highest with personal-emotional adjustment.

The second variable employed by Posselt (1992) was personality hardiness, as measured

by the Hardiness Test (Campbell, Amerikaner, Swank, & Vincent, 1989), a modification of the

Personal Views Survey (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982). Personality hardiness is defined in

terms of ability to establish commitments to other persons and activities (“commitment”); a

sense that events in one’s life are in some important degree a consequence of one’s own input

(“control”); and the capacity to respond readily, even with pleasure, to unexpected events in

one’s life (“challenge”).

While the Hardiness Test yields subscale scores for the three above-mentioned

components, there is factor analytic evidence in Kobasa et al. (1982) and Posselt (1992) that

only the composite score may be psychometrically justified. In any event, of the 20 correlations

reported by Posselt between the four Hardiness Test variables and the five SACQ variables, all

are significant except for the challenge/academic adjustment comparison, and several are

moderately strong; again, the correlations tended to be higher with personal-emotional

adjustment

Rather than the modification employed by Posselt (1992), Mathis and Lecci (1999) used

the Personal Views Survey (PVS; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982; Kobasa, 1985) itself to

measure hardiness – slightly modified to make it appropriate for use with college students. The

PVS also yields measures of commitment, control, and challenge, plus a composite score. Of

69

the twenty correlations between the four PVS variables and five SACQ indices, all were

significant except – as in Posselt’s findings – for the challenge/academic adjustment comparison.

Also, as in the case of Posselt’s study, several of the values are moderately strong, but this time

consistently stronger for social than for personal-emotional adjustment.

Possibly related to the sense of coherence and hardiness variables discussed above, more

so the former, is the Positive:World subscale of the Personal Resilience Scale (Organizational

Development Resources, 1996), which is intended to measure degree of optimism in one’s

attitude toward dealing with challenges and opportunities in one’s world. Brunelle-Joiner (1999)

found moderately strong correlations between that subscale and all SACQ variables.

Other investigators have focused more specifically on particular means of dealing with

pressure and stressors. Marcotte (1995), employing the Coping Inventory for Stressful

Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker, 1990), found that task-oriented coping (i. e., problem-

focused strategies intended to deal directly with stressful situations) was strongly and positively

correlated with all SACQ subscales, strongest with academic adjustment. Emotion-oriented

coping (attempting to manage one’s emotional response to stressful situations at the expense of

dealing more directly with the source of stress) was strongly and negatively correlated with all

SACQ subscales, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment. Avoidance-oriented coping

(failure to confront the source of stress) was correlated in Marcotte’s study only with academic

adjustment, negatively and modestly.

Gallant (1994) also used the CISS but only the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale

of the SACQ, the latter of which was administered twice in the first semester, a month apart.

For her, task-oriented coping correlated positively, though less robustly than for Marcotte

(1995), with personal-emotional adjustment in both testings. Emotion-oriented coping

70

correlated negatively with the SACQ variable on both testings, but avoidance-oriented coping

not at all.

Silver (1995) found positive correlations with all SACQ variables for a measure of

problem-focused coping from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist (RWCCL; Vitaliano,

1993), and negative correlations for an index of avoidance coping with all SACQ variables

except social adjustment. The RWCCL does not have a measure labelled emotion-focused

coping as such, but it does have six other subscales, some of which are described as emotion-

focused. Two that would seem to fall in that category, Blames Self and Blames Others,

correlated negatively with several of the SACQ variables. Two of the remaining four RWCCL

subscales showed positive correlations with the SACQ: Count Blessings with all SACQ

variables except social adjustment, and Seeks Support with academic and overall adjustment.

Two RWCCL subscales, Wishful Thinking and Religiosity, had no correlations with the SACQ.

Leong, Bonz, and Zachar (1997) used the COPE Scales (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub,

1989), which assess twelve different styles of dealing with stress. One style, active coping, is a

task-oriented and problem-solving approach that involves formulating plans of action and

implementing them. It was found to be positively but weakly related to both academic and

personal-emotional adjustment. An emotion-focussed coping strategy considered to be of

questionably adaptive value (see Carver et al.) – i. e., venting of emotions – was negatively

related to personal-emotional adjustment.

None of the COPE-measured styles were found by Leong et al. (1997) to be related to

social adjustment or institutional attachment, and only two additional to active coping (i. e.,

positive reinterpretation and growth, and planning, both of which seem to be forms of active

coping) were correlated (positively) with academic adjustment. Three other styles (mental

71

disengagement, behavioral disengagement, and seeking social support for emotional reasons, the

first two of which would seem to be forms of avoidance coping) were negatively correlated with

personal-emotional adjustment (Leong, 1999). Of 60 correlations between the twelve COPE

Scales and the five SACQ variables, only the eight cited above were statistically significant and

those were of modest strength (Leong, 1999).

Rines (1998) used an instrument for measuring two kinds of active coping (cognitive and

behavioral) and avoidance-coping (Holahan & Moos, 1987) that was derived from the Health

and Daily Living Form (HDL; Moos, Cronkite, Billings, & Finney, 1983). Active-behavioral

coping had modest positive correlations with all SACQ variables except personal-emotional

adjustment, highest with academic adjustment, and active-cognitive coping correlated modestly

with social adjustment and institutional attachment. Avoidance coping correlated negatively and

more robustly with all SACQ variables. Feenstra, Banyard, Rines, and Hopkins (2001), using

essentially the same student sample as Rines (1998) but a composite or total score from the HDL

(active-cognitive plus active-behavioral divided by the full set of coping strategies), found

moderate to moderately strong correlations with all SACQ variables except Institutional

Attachment, which was not reported.

An index of active coping from the Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence

Scale (BAPC; Tyler, 1978) correlated positively and sometimes robustly with all SACQ

variables for White, African-American, Latino, and Asian-American samples separately and

combined (Zea, Jarama, & Bianchi, 1995; Zea, 1997) and also for a still larger sample

combining such ethnically identified students (Zea, Reisen, & Tyler, 1996). Active coping is

defined by the test’s author as high initiative, ability to plan realistic goals, persistence in

attaining those goals, and capacity to enjoy success and endure failure. These findings were

72

essentially replicated, with slightly lesser correlations in most comparisons, using a shortened

version of the BAPC (BAPC-C; Zea et al., 1996; Zea, 1997). The BAPC items retained in the

shortened version seem to tap a kind of cheery self-confidence about one’s ability to face and

deal with everday life situations.

Terrell (1989) identified a variable she called “activity,” or a tendency towards taking an

active approach in meeting challenges, by factor analysis of data from two instruments – the

Spheres of Control Battery (Paulhus, Molin, & Schuchts, 1979; Paulhus & Christie, 1981) and

the Adult EAS Temperament Survey (Buss & Plomin, 1984). She found that variable to

correlate fairly strongly with academic adjustment, though not social or personal-emotional

adjustment. But a variable that Terrell identified simply as “coping” – derived apparently by

factor analysis of data from the Coping Response Indices Inventory (Billings & Moos, 1984) and

consisting of items from the Logical Analysis, Problem-Solving, and Affective Regulation

subscales – showed no correlation with the Academic, Social or Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscales, the only SACQ variables used.

Smith (1994), using the Adolescent Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences (A-

COPE; Patterson & McCubbin, 1987a,b), obtained a positive correlation between a measure of

problem-focused coping (defined as an active, direct approach to dealing with stressors) and the

SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable reported. Also using the A-COPE, Just (1998)

concluded that use of more positive coping strategies was associated with higher scores on all

SACQ variables except the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale.

Possibly viewable as a measure of coping is the Proactive subscale from the Personal

Resilience Scale (Organizational Development Resources, 1996), which is described as tapping

the ability to act decisively, to take risks and seek challenge. Brunelle-Joiner (1999) found that

73

subscale to be weakly correlated with all SACQ variables except personal-emotional adjustment

Ropar (1997) was interested in “avoiding/expressing” as a means of coping with family

conflict, as measured by the Structural Family Interaction Scale-Revised (Perosa & Perosa,

1990a&b), but found no relation between it and any SACQ variable.

In summary, the coping style (or styles?) that has been most frequently studied in relation

to the SACQ, and that has been most successful in showing relation (and positively so), is the

one customarily identified as task-oriented, problem-focused, or active. Emotion-oriented and

avoidant coping styles have been less investigated, but when employed characteristically show

negative relation with SACQ variables. The magnitude of relation between the three basic

categories of coping style (i. e., task-oriented, emotion-oriented, avoidant) and SACQ indices is

quite variable, due very likely to the fact that a number of different tests have been used to

measure coping styles, and probable lack of commonality of construct definition.

74

CHAPTER 7

PERSON CHARACTERISTICS AS DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

GOAL ORIENTATION VARIABLES

A number of studies have investigated the relation between the SACQ and goal

orientation characteristics defined in terms of achievement need, goal directedness, academic

motivation, and vocational and educational planning. Some of these variables seem to be

cognitive in nature and some motivational, but common to all is a focus on the future and, in a

sense, on what one hopes or expects to be doing in that future.

Achievement Need

Need for achievement as measured by the Prestatie Motivatie Test (PMT; Hermans,

1970) was found by Bartels (1995) to correlate with all SACQ indices, highest and strongly with

the Academic Adjustment subscale. The same variable measured by the Achieving Tendency

Scale (Mehrabian & Bank, 1978) correlates modestly with the Academic and Social Adjustment

subscales (Wang & Smith, 1993). Higher scores on two scales intended to measure achievement

need from the California Psychological Inventory-Revised (CPI; Gough, 1987), Achievement

(via Conformance) and Achievement (via Independence), were found by Haemmerlie and Merz

(1991) to be associated with higher scores on the SACQ full-scale, the only SACQ variable

reported. Bartels, cited above, also used a variable called Valuing of Achievement from the Life

Values Inventory (Mitchell, 1984) and found it to correlate with all SACQ indices except

personal-emotional adjustment, to approximately the same degree.

Possibly measuring need for achievement more in the social area, as in competitiveness

and drive for upward mobility, is the Ambition scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory

(Hogan & Hogan, 1995), which was found by Montgomery, Haemmerlie, and Watkins (2000;

75

data updated by Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001) to be positively and strongly correlated with

all SACQ indices, highest with social adjustment. Still possibly measuring achievement

need/ambition, but now more in the occupational area, Haemmerlie, Robinson, and Carmen

(1991) employed Type A traits Competitiveness and Job Involvement from Form C of the

Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS; Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1979) and found that higher

scores on the former variable were associated with higher SACQ full scale and Academic

Adjustment subscale scores, while higher scores on the latter variable were associated with

higher Social Adjustment subscale scores.

The Conscientiousness variable, defined as involving achievement-striving, from the

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) was found by Wintre and Sugar

(2000; see also Sugar, 1997) to correlate for both men and women with all SACQ subscales,

strongest with academic adjustment, as was also true for Napoli and Wortman (1998) using a

mixed gender sample of community college students. In the former study the correlation with

academic adjustment was quite robust.

Seemingly related to the construct of conscientiousness, and through it to the

achievement need, is the Responsibility scale from the California Psychological Inventory-

Revised (CPI; Gough, 1987), which is defined in terms of taking one’s duties seriously,

presumably in the interests of achieving. Haemmerlie and Merz (1991) found higher scores on

that variable to be associated with higher scores on the SACQ full-scale, the only SACQ variable

reported. Those investigators also used another conscientiousness-type variable called Norm-

following/Norm-doubting (“Vector 2”; defined in terms of self-discipline, conventionality,

dependability) that was factor-analytically derived from the items of the CPI. Higher scores on

that variable were, as in the case of the CPI Responsibility subscale, associated with higher

76

scores on the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable reported.

Goal Directedness

Using a measure of goal directedness (i.e., the Goal Instability Scale; Robbins & Patton,

1985), Dewein (1994) found rather strong correlations in the expected direction with all SACQ

subscales, especially academic and personal-emotional adjustment. With that same measure,

Schwitzer and Robbins (1986), Robbins and Schwitzer (1988), and Schwitzer, Robbins and

McGovern (1993) found significant relation with all SACQ indices except social adjustment, as

did Robbins, Lese, and Herrick (1993) with the Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscales, the only subscales for which data were given.

The Focused subscale from the Personal Resilience Scale (Organizational Development

Resources, 1996) -- which is designed to measure sense of purpose, priorities, and goals -- was

found by Brunelle-Joiner (1999) to correlate rather strongly with all SACQ subscales, especially

academic and personal-emotional adjustment.

With a specially designed measure of goal setting skills, Davis (1988) obtained in

student-athletes a moderately strong correlation with the Academic Adjustment subscale, the

only SACQ variable for which data were reported. With a specially designed measure of

success in attaining goals, Davis found a stronger correlation with the SACQ full scale, the only

SACQ variable cited.

Just (1998) focused on exploration of and commitment to occupational and ideological

life goals as essential components of one’s identity (after Marcia, 1966, 1980), using the Revised

Version of the Extended Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (EOMEIS-2; Bennion &

Adams, 1986). The EOMEIS-2 describes four identity statuses that may characterize an

individual. In Achieved status, various options have been explored by the individual and

77

selective decisions or commitments made, representing a desirable developmental outcome that

was found by Just to be positively correlated with all SACQ variables except personal-emotional

adjustment. In Moratorium status, the student is currently with some difficulty exploring among

life goals and not yet committed, and this variable was negatively correlated with all SACQ

variables. Negatively correlated with all SACQ variables except personal-emotional adjustment

was Diffusion, wherein the student has neither explored nor committed, preferring to put off

decision-making. In the fourth status, Foreclosed, the student has made commitment, but often

prematurely and without adequate exploration, and this variable showed no relation to SACQ

variables.

Carlson (1986) employed the Extended Version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity

Status (EOM-EIS; Grotevant & Adams, 1984), the predecessor of the EOMEIS-2 (Bennion &

Adams, 1986), to form groups of students defined in terms of the goal exploration/commitment

variables described in the preceding paragraph. On the SACQ Academic Adjustment subscale

the Achieved status group had the highest score, with no difference among the other three groups

(i.e., Diffusion, Moratorium, Foreclosed). For the Social Adjustment subscale, the Institutional

Attachment/Goal Commitment subscale, and full-scale, the Diffusion status group had the lowest

score, no difference among the other three groups. Regarding personal-emotional adjustment,

Moratorium status scored lowest, no difference among the other groups.

Significant correlation in the expected direction for men but not women was obtained by

Schultheiss and Blustein (1994) between the Establishing & Clarifying Purpose Task subscale --

which purports to measure general sense of purpose in life -- from the Student Developmental

Task and Lifestyle Inventory (Winston, Miller, & Prince, 1987) and the SACQ Academic

Adjustment subscale, but not for either men or women on the Personal-Emotional or Social

78

Adjustment subscales (data for the Attachment subscale and full scale were not reported). Using

another measure of sense of purpose in life, the Purpose-in-Life-Test (Crumbaugh & Mahalick,

1964), Liter (1987) obtained significant correlations with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment

and Attachment subscales of the SACQ and the full scale.

Academic Motivation

Also relevant to the role of goal orientation in adjustment to college are studies that focus

on academic motivation and commitment. The Academic Motivation Scale (Baker & Siryk,

1984a) administered prematriculation correlated positively in both semesters of the freshman

year with the Academic Adjustment subscale – the only adjustment variable reported -- from an

earlier, shorter version of the SACQ (Baker & Siryk, 1984b). Similar findings were obtained

with a later freshman class using the current version of the SACQ (Baker & Siryk, 1989, p. 50).

McGowan (1988) reported a somewhat stronger correlation between the same Academic

Motivation Scale administered in the fourth week of the first semester and the Academic

Adjustment subscale of the SACQ administered in the eleventh week, plus lesser though still

significant correlations with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale and the full scale.

Also administering the Academic Motivation Scale postmatriculation, Brett (2000) obtained

correlations with all SACQ subscales.

In a study with freshmen at a Belgian university Beyers and Goossens (2002a) employed

a measure of academic motivation taken from a larger Dutch instrument designed to assess

capacity for organizing and managing course work (Depreeuw, E., & Lens, W. Study

management skills: A questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Research in Motivation

and Time Perspective, Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium).They found a robust correlation

between that measure and the SACQ Academic Adjustment subscale as well as lesser but still

79

significant relation with the other SACQ variables, weakest with personal-emotional and social

adjustment.

With his own measure of academic motivation, the Mastery Learning Scale, Lopez

(1997) obtained a significant correlation with the Attachment subscale, the only SACQ variable

used. Chartrand et al. (1990a, 1992) used a measure of affective and behavioral commitment to

the student role (the Salience Inventory; Super & Nevill, 1985), which seems rather similar in

purpose to the academic motivation scale employed in the above-mentioned studies, and found a

significant correlation with the Academic Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable

reported.

The college student version of the Work Preference Inventory (WPI; Amabile, Hill,

Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994) measures intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the college context,

the former kind of motivation referring to engagement in academic effort primarily for its own

sake and the latter to engagement in such effort primarily in response to inducement apart from

the work itself. Conti (2000a) found intrinsic motivation as measured by the WPI to be

positively correlated with academic and personal-emotional adjustment but not social

adjustment, the only three SACQ variables reported, in a late September administration of the

SACQ, but not to any of those three variables in a late November administration. The only

significant correlation for extrinsic motivation was a negative one with personal-emotional

adjustment in the September testing.

Conti (2000a) also devised the College Goals Questionnaire (CGQ) as another means of

assessing motivation and the degree to which it is intrinsic/extrinsic. The CGQ includes some

items representing the extent to which one’s goals in attending college are chosen by oneself

(Autonomy), and other items the extent to which such goals reflect expectations imposed by

80

others (Control). A combinatory measure of motivational autonomy was achieved by

subtracting the average of a student’s ratings for the latter items from the average for the former

items. With the CGQ administered in the summer prematriculation, motivational autonomy

correlated positively with personal-emotional adjustment in a late September SACQ

administration, and with social as well as personal-emotional adjustment in a late November

testing.

Conti (2000b,c) also analyzed her data separately for the two component parts of the

above-cited measure of motivational autonomy from the College Goals Questionnaire, i. e.,

goals chosen by oneself (Autonomy) and goals associated with expectations of, or imposed by,

others (Control). The only Autonomy finding from the three SACQ administrations (September,

November, and February) was a moderate positive correlation with the Academic Adjustment

subscale in February. Conti (2000b) mentioned that there was restricted range in this variable,

and that the results concerning it should be interpreted with caution. Control was a somewhat

more productive variable, correlating negatively with personal-emotional and overall adjustment

in September; negatively with social, personal-emotional and overall adjustment in November;

and negatively with personal-emotional adjustment in February.

Another variable apparently tapping intrinsic motivation is the Academic Autonomy

subscale from the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (Winston et al., 1987),

intended to measure capacity to attain educational goals without direction from others. Using

that variable, Schultheiss and Blustein (1994) obtained rather robust correlations in the expected

direction for both men and women with the SACQ Academic Adjustment subscale. There were

also substantial correlations for both sexes between academic autonomy and personal-emotional

adjustment, and for women a smaller but still significant correlation with social adjustment

81

(Schultheiss & Blustein did not report data for the Attachment subscale).

Using the Intellectualism subscale – which measures the valuing of intellectual activities

and pursuits, including scholarly effort – from the Personal Values Scale-Revised (Braithwaite

& Scott, 1991), Hertel (1996) found robust correlations with all SACQ variables except

personal-emotional adjustment in first-generation college attenders, but no significant

correlations in second-generation attenders. The highest subscale correlation for the former

group was with academic adjustment.

Lent et al. (1997) found a very strong relation (r=.77) between the Academic Self-

Concept Scale (ASCS; Reynolds, 1988) and the Academic Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ

variable reported. In their study, interestingly enough, Lent et al. regarded the latter variable as

a measure of academic self-concept as much as of academic adjustment, which could be justified

by the high correlation obtained. However, it also seems reasonable – judging from the factor

structure of the ASCS, the nature of the variables employed in its validation, or its author’s

description of it as a noncognitive affective variable (see Reynolds) – instead to see that

instrument as a measure of academic motivation. Or, looking only at the factor structure and

validity criteria, the ASCS might even be seen as a measure less of academic self-concept than

of academic adjustment.

Possibly having something to do with academic aspiration/motivation would be the

School Success scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1995), which was

found by Montgomery, Haemmerlie, and Watkins (2000; data updated by Montgomery &

Haemmerlie, 2001) to be weakly to modestly correlated with all SACQ variables, strongest with

academic and personal-emotional adjustment. The highest degree desired by students could be

regarded as an indicator of academic aspiration/motivation, but Just (1998) found no relation

82

between it and any SACQ variable.

Planning Characteristics

Planning behavior in general. Avoidance of making important life decisions (i. e., not

planning) or making unstable ones (not planning well), as identified by the Diffuse Orientation

subscale of the Identity Style Inventory-2 (ISI-2; Berzonsky, 1992), is negatively related to

academic and overall adjustment to college (Hollmann, 1995; Hollmann & Metzler, 1994). On

the other hand, seeking information about oneself and using it to test out understandings about

the self and changing them where appropriate in the making of life decisions (i. e., planning

well), as measured by the Information Orientation subscale from the ISI-2, is positively related

to academic adjustment. Trying to conform in important life decision-making to the desires and

expectations of significant other persons in one’s life (Normative Orientation subscale) is

positively correlated with the SACQ Attachment subscale and full scale (Hollmann).

Planning in relation to vocational issues. Focusing more closely on planning in relation to

vocational issues, several investigators employed a measure of clarity and stability of vocational

plans (the Vocational Identity Scale of My Vocational Situation; Holland, Gottfredson, &

Power, 1980). Fuller (2000) found expected direction correlations between that measure and all

SACQ subscales, strongest with academic adjustment. Maton and Weisman (1989) and Maton

(1989b) reported significant correlations in the expected direction between a postmatriculation

administration of that same measure and all SACQ indices, and -- to a somewhat lesser degree as

usual -- between that measure administered prematriculation and the SACQ full scale, the only

SACQ variable reported for that administration. For Lopez (1989) there were strong correlations

for both men and women between the Vocational Identity Scale and the SACQ Academic

Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable employed.

83

Using a self-designed measure of degree of certainty of career plans, Plaud et al. (1986)

found significant positive correlation between it and the Academic Adjustment subscale.

Chartrand et al. (1990a, 1992) and Camp and Chartrand (1992) found no relation

between several indices of interest congruence (Johansson, 1986; i. e., congruence between an

individual student's interests and the interests of members of the occupational field to which the

student aspires) and the Academic Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable employed.

A significant relation in the expected negative direction was obtained by Chartrand et al.

(1990a&b) between level of vocational/educational indecision as measured by the Career

Decision Scale (Osipow, Carney, Winer, Yanico, & Koschier, 1976) and the Academic

Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ subscale employed. Also merging vocational and

educational issues, and, too, focusing on a negative aspect of planning cognition, Hutz (2002a,b)

employed the Perception of Barriers Scale (POB; Luzzo and McWhirter, 2001), which contains

subscales assessing expectations of encountering obstacles or impediments – both outside and

within oneself – in the future pursuit of educational and occupational goals. Hutz found

moderately strong negative correlations between expectation of obstacles regarding educational

goals and all SACQ subscales, and lesser or no correlation regarding obstacles related to career

goals.

Planning in relation to educational issues. Looking now more specifically at educational

rather than vocational planning, a number of investigators have found a positive relation between

decidedness regarding academic major and freshman adjustment to college as measured by the

SACQ (Albert, 1988; Allen, 1985; Leonard, 1990; Marcy, 1996; McGowan, 1988; Plaud et al.,

1986, 1990; Savino, 1987; Savino, Reuter-Krohn, & Costar, 1986b; Smith & Baker, 1987).

Only Martin (1988), reporting data for the SACQ full scale only, found no such relation. The

84

Academic Adjustment subscale is the SACQ variable most consistently and most strongly

correlated with decidedness about major, while the Attachment and Personal-Emotional

Adjustment subscales with some frequency show lesser but still significant relations.

In an engineering college the effect was found in the first semester for the Social

Adjustment subscale as well as for the other SACQ indices (Plaud et al., 1986, 1990), and at one

liberal arts college in a second semester testing the effect occurred in social adjustment as well as

academic adjustment, institutional attachment and the SACQ full scale (Marcy, 1996). There is

some evidence that the relation between major decidedness and adjustment to college is seen

more clearly in the second semester of the freshman year than the first (Savino, 1987; Savino et

al., 1986b; Smith & Baker, 1987).

Using a variable that implies decidedness about academic major, i. e., having

mathematics/science-related occupational aspirations, Lent (1997) found it correlated positively

with the Academic Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable employed.

Plaud et al. (1990), in their above-mentioned study of engineering college freshmen,

used a somewhat different index of major decidedness, i.e., stability over time of decision status

regarding academic major. They obtained information about major status during an orientation

period in the summer before matriculation and again during the first half of the freshman year.

The lowest means on all four SACQ subscales and the full scale were for students who

either had no major at both testing occasions or who changed from one major in the summer to

another in the fall that was not available at the college attended. (It should be noted that in the

second category of student, stability of major decision is confounded with congruence between

major status and the nature of the college attended, an issue to be considered later.) In all but

one subscale, the next lowest mean was obtained by the other of these two categories of students.

85

The highest means were found in students who had the same major at both testing occasions and

in those who changed from one major to another that was available at the college attended. The

means for students who had no major in the summer but had decided upon one by the fall were

generally intermediate between the two extreme pairs of groups.

Leonard (1990) investigated the relation between decidedness regarding major and

adjustment in two colleges that varied in amount of pressure exerted on students to declare a

major. (Here again, as above, the question of relation between student and institutional

characteristics is raised, and will be revisited later.) She interpreted her findings as indicating

that differences in adjustment scores among freshmen varying in decidedness are more apparent

in a college that requires declaration of major in the freshman year than in a college that requires

declaration in the sophomore year.

Finally, with respect to academic major status as an instance of goal orientation and

planning, Chartrand et al. (1990b) obtained a positive correlation between degree of satisfaction

with one's major and scores on the Academic Adjustment subscale (the only SACQ index used).

In Conti’s (2000a,b,c) investigation of student motivation for college described earlier,

the College Goals Questionnaire (CGQ) devised by her included a measure of reflectivity or

reflection, defined in terms of amount of thinking (i. e., planning) devoted by the student

prematriculation to his/her academic goals in college. With the CGQ administered in the summer

prematriculation, that variable correlated positively with academic and overall adjustment in

September and November administrations of the SACQ, but not with any SACQ variable in a

February testing.

But, using a prematriculation-administered measure of how often students thought about

what university life would be like, Hunsberger et al. (1996) found no correlation with the SACQ

86

full scale, the only SACQ variable reported. For those same investigators, however, a

prematriculation measure of how much students talked about impending university life with their

parents was positively but weakly correlated with the SACQ full scale, as was a prematriculation

measure of how much students similarly talked with other persons than parents.

Very likely also related to motivation and planning for college, Hunsberger et al. (1996)

asked students prematriculation how much information they had about the various aspects of the

impending university experience, and found it to be positively but weakly related to the SACQ

full scale, as was their degree of satisfaction with the information.

In a study that would seem to be relevant to students’ planning-for-college

characteristics, Williams (1996; see also Chizhik, 1999) was interested in the consequences for

adjustment to college of college-bound high school seniors’ knowledge concerning the

characteristics of different kinds of colleges and universities, i. e., public and private; two year

and four year; liberal arts, trade, and technical institutions. The characteristics of institutions

focused on were primarily academic, social, and structural, and included educational mission,

programs and degrees offered, student body size and character, campus environment, teaching or

research focus, etc.

Two means of measuring students’ knowledgeability in this regard were employed by

Williams (1996), one an open-ended “brainstorming” technique and the other involving accuracy

of matching of institutional characteristics to institutional types (see also Chizhik, 1999, for the

latter method). With the former technique no relation was found between “college knowledge,”

measured late in the high school senior year, and subsequent adjustment to college, but there

were findings – though unexpected ones – using the latter, matching, technique. Paradoxically,

for example, Williams (see also Chizhik) found that the greater the high school students’

87

knowledge about the general characteristics of colleges and universities, the less good was their

subsequent adjustment to the college they attended, as reflected in all SACQ indices.

Because Williams (1996; see also Chizhik, 1999) had administered the Anticipated

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire as well as the measure of “college knowledge”

while students were still in high school, she was able to use a second index of adjustment to

college, i. e., the degree of disillusionment, if any, with one’s transition into college as reflected

in the difference between anticipated and actual adjustment scores (see pp. for description

of this index). Here, Williams (see also Chizhik) found that the greater the students’ knowledge

about the characteristics of different kinds of colleges and universities, as measured by the

matching technique, the greater the disillusionment as seen in all SACQ indices. This was an

overall finding with a sample that included African-American, Latino, Asian-American and

White students, and an exception to the full-sample finding occurred for the African-American

students, who, on academic adjustment, had a negative rather than positive relation between

knowledgeability about institutional characteristics and degree of disillusionment experienced in

the adjustment. That is, the more knowledgeable they were, the less disillusionment they

experienced.

Ridinger (1998) was interested in the prediction of adjustment to college by

postmatriculation measurement of the amount and accuracy of prior knowledge about and

expectations concerning what life in college would be like (i. e., not expectations concerning

their adjustment to college), especially for student-athletes. With such students, and using a self-

designed eight-item instrument for assessing her independent variable, Ridinger found no

significant correlations with any SACQ variable.

88

CHAPTER 8

PERSON CHARACTERISTICS AS DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP WITH PARENTS AND FAMILY

A number of studies have explored the consequences for adjustment to college of various

aspects of perceived relationship with parents and family, especially psychological separation

from and attachment to parents. These variables are treated in this chapter as person

characteristics and distinguished (possibly sometimes with difficulty) from other parent/family-

related variables in a later chapter that are conceived there as environmental factors.

Psychological Separation from Parents

The first measure of psychological separation from parents to be considered here is an

instrument, the Psychological Separation Inventory (PSI; Hoffman, 1984), that has been studied

in relation to the SACQ probably more than any other, but consistently such efforts have

resulted in findings very largely disconfirming expectations. That is, with an assumption that

separation from parents is a hallmark of maturation, and that the four subscales of the PSI

measure different aspects of separation, investigators expected in vain that all four subscales

would be positively correlated with adjustment to college (Albert, 1988; Bartels, 1995; Allen,

1985, 1986; Beyers, 2001; Beyers & Goossens, 1998, 2002b; Bobier, 1989; Caro, 1985/1986;

Choi, 1999, 2000; Clauss, 1995; Dewein, 1994; Edgerton, 1997; Freeman, 1987a; Garner, 1986;

Haemmerlie, Montgomery, & Consolvo, 1993; Haemmerlie, Steen, & Benedicto, 1994;

Hollmann, 1995; Humfleet, 1987; Kenny, 1992; Kenny & Donaldson, 1992; Kline, 1992;

Lapsley, 1989; Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999a; Lapsley, Rice, & Shadid, 1989; Levin, 1996; Lopez,

1989, 1991; Lopez, Campbell, & Watkins, 1986, 1988a, 1989; Marcotte, 1995; Montgomery &

Howdeshell, 1993; Morray & Shilkret, 2001; Reeker, 1994; Rice, 1990/1991, 1992; Rice et al.,

89

1990; Rodriguez, 1994; Ropar, 1997; Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994; Schwitzer & Robbins, 1986;

Sherman, 1992; Shilkret & Edwards, 1997; Silver, 1995; Silverthorn, 1993; Stoltenberg, Garner

& Kell, 1986; Wang, 1993; Wang & Smith, 1993; Weinstock, 1995).

However, of the four PSI subscales, only Conflictual Independence (i. e., relative

absence of conflict in the relationship with the parents, implying successful separation) shows

fairly consistent correlations in the expected positive direction with the SACQ, with all indices,

usually highest with personal-emotional adjustment (Baker, 1990). A second subscale,

Emotional Independence, has weakly consistent positive correlation with personal-emotional

adjustment only, and not as large as in the case of Conflictual Independence.

A third PSI subscale, Attitudinal Independence, shows either negative or no correlation

with SACQ variables (and also with the Conflictual Independence subscale). The fourth

subscale, Functional Independence, has no consistent statistically significant relation with the

SACQ indices (and not with Conflictual Independence either).

Using a composite score of the PSI Attitudinal, Functional, and Emotional Independence

subscales, Rice et al. (1990) and Smith (1994) not surprisingly (given the above-described

findings for those three subscales) report no significant relation between it and the SACQ full

scale score (the only SACQ variable reported), while Choi (2000) found weak negative

correlations between that same composite score and the SACQ full scale score (again the only

SACQ variable reported) in relation to mother and father separately.

Lopez (1991) focussed on the Conflictual Independence subscale of the PSI, and

particularly the CI scores regarding the mother and the father in all possible combinations (i. e.,

one parent high and the other low, both high, both low), in relation to the SACQ subscales. He

found that students having relatively unconflicted relationship with both parents had: higher

90

Academic Adjustment subscale scores than students who had relatively greater conflicted

relationship with both parents; and higher Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale scores than

students who had relatively greater conflicted relationship with one or the other or both parents.

He regarded the various combinations of CI scores as reflecting family coalition patterns. Lopez

concluded, furthermore, that conflicted parent-student relationship has a stronger effect on

adjustment to college than does degree of conflict between the parents.

Fairly consistent findings regarding relation between PSI and SACQ variables were

obtained by Beyers and Goossens (1998) across samples of freshmen, juniors, and seniors at a

Belgian university.

It has been argued elsewhere (Baker, 1990) that the lack of consistent correlation in the

expected direction between SACQ variables and three of the PSI subscales, especially

Functional and Attitudinal Independence, is very likely due to problems in definition of

psychological separation and to psychometric characteristics of the PSI. Additionally, the

absence of felt conflict in relation to parents – i.e., the variable measured by the Conflictual

Independence subscale -- would seem at best to be only an indirect reflection of successful

separation from parents rather than a central aspect of separation itself; actually it may better be

regarded either as indicating degree of amicability with or attachment to parents, a topic to be

considered in the following section, or a separate variable in and of itself that may have

significant consequences for college adjustment.

While the three PSI subscales other than Conflictual Independence do seem to represent

attempts to measure different aspects of separation – i.e., attitudinal, functional, and emotional –

the SACQ findings in relation to those three subscales offer very little or no support for

hypothesized connection between psychological separation from parents and adjustment to

91

college. Fortunately there is some support for that relation in other studies using other

instruments.

One investigator (Gilkey, 1988; see also Gilkey et al., 1989 and Protinsky & Gilkey,

1996) employed the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C

(PAFSQ-C; Bray, Williamson & Malone, 1984) to assess psychological separation from parents

somewhat more broadly and at the same time more focused on the core features of separation,

and, interestingly, without reference to relationship conflictedness. That instrument has five

subscales that address different aspects of the student/parent relationship, some being indications

of successful separation and some unsuccessful separation. Those subscales are: voluntary

closeness with one’s parents while at the same time maintaining appropriate boundaries

(Intimacy); ability to function autonomously from the parents (Individuation); ability to take

responsibility for oneself (Personal Authority); being governed or unduly influenced by parental

wishes (Intimidation); and forming close relationship and alliance with one parent in opposition

to the other (Triangulation).

The first three of these PAFSQ-C categories may be seen as positive forms of separation,

and the latter two as negative forms. Indeed, the first variable, Intimacy, presages another

important characteristic of perceived student/parent relationship to be considered shortly, viz.,

parental attachment. None of the five variables correlated with the SACQ Academic Adjustment

subscale, but all except Triangulation did correlate in the expected direction with the other

SACQ variables except for social adjustment in the case of Intimacy and Intimidation, and

personal-emotional adjustment in the case of Intimacy. While differences among the various

correlations were not tested for significance, the higher values tended to occur in relation to the

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale.

92

Other studies of psychological separation from parents deal more narrowly with variables

such as autonomy, ability to take responsibility for oneself, individuation, or positive separation

feelings. Yaffe (1997), for example, used a variable, the Enabling Independence subscale from

the Late Adolescents’ Relationships with Parents Scale (LARP; Flanagan, Schulenberg, &

Fuligni, 1993), that contains items apparently intended to tap sense of autonomy from parents or

ability to take responsibility for oneself. However, it also contains items that assess the student’s

perception of his/her parents’ characteristics, in this instance their fostering of autonomy, which

confounds person and environment variables. Furthermore, Enabling Independence is seen as

part of a larger construct in which individuation is conceived within the context of continued

connection to the parent. In any event, modest positive correlations were found by Yaffe

between Enabling Independence and all SACQ variables. Hunsberger et al. (1996 and

Hunsberger, 2000) used what they described as a “slightly abbreviated” 20-item version of the

LARP – i.e., not just the Enabling Independence subscale -- and found modest correlations

between its total score and all SACQ variables except social adjustment.

The Individuation score from the Separation Anxiety Test (Hansburg, 1980) has

statistically significant but modest positive correlations with all SACQ variables (Lapsley, 1989;

Rice et al., 1990), but Wang and Smith (1993) found no relation between the Individuation

subscale of the Identity Vis-a-vis Mother Questionnaire (IVM-20; Crastnopol, 1980) and any of

the SACQ indices. By factor analyzing the Emotional Autonomy Scale (Steinberg & Silverberg,

1986), Beyers (2001) and Beyers and Goossens (2002b, 2002c) derived a measure of emotional

separation from parents, which they regarded as a normative or healthy developmental process,

but found only a weak negative correlation with academic adjustment.

Smith (1994) combined the Conflictual Independence subscale from the Psychological

93

Separation Inventory (Hoffman, 1984) and the Separation Anxiety subscale from the Separation-

Individuation Test of Adolescence (Levine et al., 1986) to achieve a measure of positive feelings

regarding separation from parents, and obtained a moderately strong correlation between it and

the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable employed. (It should be mentioned that while the

PSI Conflictual Independence subscale items contain specific reference to parents, the SITA

Separation Anxiety subscale items refer to various kinds of other persons but not parents

explicitly, thus mitigating somewhat the appropriateness of the new variable as a measure of

separation from parents in particular.)

Lapsley and Edgerton (1999a; see also Edgerton, 1997) employed the Pathological

Separation-Individuation Inventory (PSII; Christenson & Wilson, 1985), which assesses adult

behavioral characteristics presumed to result from disturbances in the separation-individuation

process, and found strong negative correlations with the Social and Personal-Emotional

Adjustment subscales, the only two SACQ subscales used. Important to note, however, only five

of the 39 PSII items contain direct allusions to parents or family. In a later study employing a

shorter version of the PSII, Lapsley, Aalsma, and Varshney (2001) obtained a smaller negative

correlation between that measure and a shortened, 8-item version of the Social Adjustment

subscale, the only SACQ variable reported. Also addressing the issue of disturbances in the

separation-individuation process, Beyers (2001) and Beyers and Goossens (2002b, 2002c) used

factor analysis of the Emotional Autonomy Scale (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986) to identify a

variable they called Detachment, which they defined as a negative pattern of disengagement

from parents characterized by alienation and mistrust. That variable had modest negative

correlations with all SACQ indices.

Differentiation (a kind of separation?) from parents as related to adjustment to college

94

was studied by Wick and Shilkret (1986a) using the Blatt Parental Representation Scale (Blatt,

Wein, Chevron, & Quinlan, 1979), but the results are ambiguous and difficult to interpret. Caro

(1985/1986) found no significant relations between indices from Blatt's instrument and the

SACQ.

The aforementioned studies in this section, while occasionally alluding to separation or

independence from “family,” focus primarily on that aspect of relationship with parents in

particular. Kalsner-Silver (2000), on the other hand, was interested in the relation to college

adjustment of students’ separation or independence from family and family members in general.

She used the Multigenerational Interconnectedness Scale (MIS; Gavazzim, Sabatelli, & Reese-

Weber, 1999), which in its test items makes no reference to parents in particular, only to

“family” and “family members.” The MIS is intended to measure three kinds of connectedness

(or dependence upon or lack of separation from family): financial (monetary reliance);

functional (regarding daily, everyday living), and psychological or emotional (for acceptance

and approval of oneself and one’s behavior). The greater the connectedness, the lesser the

individuation.

Relatively low negative correlations were found by Kalsner-Silver (2000) between

psychological/emotional connectedness and all SACQ subscales, strongest with personal-

emotional adjustment. No correlations were found for financial connectedness, and there were

two weak positive correlations for functional connectedness with personal-emotional adjustment

and institutional attachment These findings are somewhat similar to those obtained with the

Psychological Separation Inventory (Hoffman, 1984) as described earlier, especially with respect

to emotional independence/dependence.

Parental Attachment

95

Kenny (1990, 1993, 1994), concerned about excessive focus on separation from parents

as a mark of maturation and a consequent underemphasis on the role of continued association

with parents – i. e., parental attachment -- and transformations thereof, constructed the Parental

Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ). The PAQ has subscales intended to measure three aspects of

attachment, the first of which – Affective Quality of the Relationship -- is reminiscent of the

relationship conflictedness/unconflictedness dimension tapped by the Conflictual Independence

subscale of the Psychological Separation Inventory (PSI; Hoffman, 1984) and discussed in the

previous section. Indeed, when the correlations for those two subscales with the five SACQ

variables are averaged and compared, the resulting values are almost identical both in magnitude

and pattern, the highest values occurring for personal-emotional adjustment.

Thus, the PAQ’s Affective Quality of the Relationship variable quite regularly shows

correlations in the expected positve direction with the several SACQ variables (Hutto, 1998;

Vivona, 2000b), including for minority students (Kenny, 1993; Pfeil, 2000) and missionary

children homecomers (Huff, 1998). Amin (2000) reports that high scoring students on that PAQ

subscale have better academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustment than low scoring

students. Clauss (1995) obtained similar findings between that PAQ variable and the Social and

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales of the SACQ, the only SACQ variables employed.

Using the Affective Quality of Relationship variable from the PAQ as modified by Kenny and

Perez (1996) for use with different cultural groups by substituting for parents in the instructions

any family member to whom the student is most likely to turn for support, Kalsner-Silver (2000)

obtained values very similar to those described above.

The other two PAQ scales -- Parent Viewed as Fostering Autonomy; and Parent Viewed

as Providing Emotional Support – seem less related to parental attachment as a characteristic of

96

the individual and more related to the student’s perception of characteristics of his/her family,

and therefore are considered later as environmental variables. This obviously is one of those

instances where a distinction between person and environmental variable is very difficult to

maintain. In any event, Kenny (1993) concluded from her findings (which included all three of

the PAQ’s subscales) that "…. secure parental attachment and college adjustment go hand in

hand."

A number of studies have employed the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA;

Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) in examining the relation between parental attachment and the

SACQ. The IPPA-Parents has subscales addressing three aspects of the student/parent

relationship – Communication, Trust, and Alienation – which can be scored separately or

combined into an overall score (Communication plus Trust minus Alienation), for mother and

father separately or combined.

Harste (1996), administering the IPPA-Parents at the beginning of the freshman year and

the SACQ at the end of the first semester, found correlations in the expected direction (negative

for Alienation and positive for Communication, Trust, and the overall score), using combined

parents scoring, between all IPPA scores and all SACQ variables except for

Alienation/Institutional Attachment, where the correlation was not significant. That is, in

general, the greater the quality of communication and trust and the lesser the alienation between

student and parents, the better the adjustment to college across all areas. Correlations were

strongest for all three IPPA subscales with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale

(magnitudes ranging from .26 to .42), and consistently more modest with the other three SACQ

subscales (magnitudes ranging from .16 to .24). For the IPPA overall score its correlations were,

of course, consistent with the foregoing data, accounting for about twice as much variance in

97

personal-emotional adjustment as in the other adjustment areas.

Pappas (2000) used a timing of test administration somewhat similar to Harste’s (1996),

i.e., for the IPPA-Parents either shortly prior to or soon after the start of the freshman year, and

the SACQ toward the end of the first semester. Also using ratings for parents combined, but only

the overall IPPA score, Pappas obtained moderate correlations with all SACQ variables except

personal-emotional adjustment.

Rice (1990/1991) administered the IPPA-Parents and the SACQ toward the beginning of

the freshman year, and again to the same students two years later as juniors. In his data analysis

Rice used the IPPA subscales and not the overall score, for both parents combined, and just the

Academic, Social, and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales of the SACQ. He found in the

freshman year testing significant correlations in the expected direction for all three IPPA

subscales with academic adjustment, and for the IPPA Alienation subscale only with social and

personal-emotional adjustment.

For the junior year testing with the same sample in Rice’s study (1990/1991), there were

still significant correlations between the three IPPA subscales and academic adjustment to about

the same degree as in the freshman year, but now there were also significant correlations

between the IPPA Trust and Communication subscales and social and personal-emotional

adjustment, with some of the values being quite strong. Interestingly, Rice found some weaker

but still significant correlations in the expected direction between IPPA subscales administered

in the freshman year and the SACQ variables as assessed in the junior year.

Lapsley, Rice, & FitzGerald (1990) found, in freshmen, significant positive relation for

the IPPA-measured overall parental attachment score -- for both parents combined -- on the

Academic Adjustment subscale only, and, in a separate sample comprised of juniors and seniors,

98

on all four SACQ subscales. But also with freshman students, Just (1998), using the overall

IPPA score for both parents combined, obtained moderate correlations with all SACQ variables.

Rice, FitzGerald, Whaley and Gibbs (1995), also using the IPPA overall parental

attachment score for both parents combined, report that, for both freshman and upper class

samples, students with secure attachment to parents have higher scores on academic and

personal-emotional adjustment than students with insecure attachment, and, for the upper class

sample, a corresponding effect was found for social adjustment as well (data for the SACQ

Attachment subscale and full scale were not reported). Those same investigators also report that

students identified as securely and insecurely attached in their freshman year, when juniors, two

years later, still show differences in the expected direction in academic and personal-emotional

adjustment (again no Attachment subscale or full scale data reported). Thus, again, this person

characteristic measured in students’ first year of college still has consequences for adjustment

after two years have elapsed.

Schultheiss and Blustein (1994), using a sample comprised of all four college year levels,

and looking at IPPA-measured overall attachment to the mother and father separately for male

and female students, got significant positive correlations of roughly comparable magnitude fairly

consistently with personal-emotional and social adjustment, and less consistently with academic

adjustment (data for the SACQ Attachment subscale and full scale were not reported). Also

using the overall parental attachment score for the parents separately, Silver (1995) found in a

freshman sample that attachment to the father was correlated with all SACQ variables, and

attachment to the mother with academic, personal-emotional, and overall adjustment. Levin

(1996), with a sample of freshman women, found a weak but significant correlation between the

IPPA overall score for attachment to mother and the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale,

99

the only SACQ variable reported (attachment to father was not examined).

Dewitt-Parker (2000) employed the overall IPPA score for attachment to the mother and

father separately in black male and female students separately, reporting data only for the SACQ

Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and full scale. She found strong

positive correlations with academic adjustment for both kinds of students in relation to both the

father and mother; more moderate positive correlations with the full scale score for male

students in relation to the mother; and no association with personal-emotional adjustment.

Using the Relationship Questionnaire, a revised version of the Inventory of Parent and

Peer Attachment, Rice and Whaley (1994) tested their subjects at three different times varying in

presumed stress during the second semester (the 3rd, 9th and 15th weeks), the third time of

testing assumed to be the most stressful because it immediately preceded final examinations.

They found that, for women, attachment to mother was consistently and about equally related to

academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustment (not reporting data for the SACQ

Attachment subscale or full scale) across all three testings; and women’s attachment to both

parents was about equally predictive of academic and personal-emotional adjustment; but, while

attachment to the mother predicted social adjustment, attachment to the father did not. For men,

attachment to mother did not predict any of the three SACQ subscales employed on any of the

three testings; and attachment to father was correlated only (though strongly so) with academic

and personal-emotional adjustment, on the third and presumably most stressful testing time only,

strongest for personal-emotional adjustment.

Vivona (2000a) employed patterns of scores among the three IPPA-Parent subscales

(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) to identify three student/parent attachment styles corresponding

to the infant/parent attachment styles described by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978),

100

i.e., Secure, Ambivalent, and Avoidant (see the following chapter for definition of, and

discussion of further findings concerning, these attachment styles). Students with Secure style

were found to have better academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustment (the only SACQ

variables reported) than students with Insecure style (i. e., Ambivalent or Avoidant).

However, Vivona’s (2000a) further analysis of her data by gender revealed two

interesting findings. First, the Secure/Insecure differences described above were determined

almost entirely by women students, the men showing no statistically significant difference

among the styles. For the women members of the sample, there were statistically significant

Secure/Insecure differences in all three adjustment areas measured. Second, while in the initial

analysis with the sample as a whole there were no differences between the two insecure styles on

any of the three SACQ variables employed, in the subsequent analysis the pattern across all three

adjustment areas was for Secure women students to have the highest SACQ scores, Avoidant to

have the lowest scores, with Ambivalent intermediate, but only on personal-emotional

adjustment was there a significant difference between Ambivalent and Avoidant women

students, the former having the higher scores.

Also concerned about understanding the maturational process in terms of continued

association with parents (“connectedness,” in his terminology, rather than “attachment”), as well

as separation from them, Baik (1997) constructed an instrument to measure both components,

i.e., the Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire (LAIQ). Baik then identified four

categories of students based on variations in separateness and connectedness as measured by the

LAIQ: individuated (high on both components); pseudoautonomous (high separateness, low

connectedness); dependent, or enmeshed (low separateness, high connectedness); and ambiguous

(low on both components).

101

Individuated students were found to have significantly higher scores than dependent

students on all SACQ subscales except social adjustment; higher than pseudoautonomous

students on all except personal-emotional adjustment; and higher than ambiguous students on all

subscales. Dependent and pseudoautonomous students were rather alike in adjustment except

that the former were higher in social adjustment; and the dependent students had higher scores

than the ambiguous students on all SACQ subscales. Finally, pseudoautonomous students had

higher scores than ambiguous students on all SACQ subscales except social adjustment.

Thus, Baik’s (1997) expectations regarding adjustment differences among the four

categories of students, arrayed from greater to lesser maturity, were largely corroborated,

dramatically so in terms of magnitude of SACQ score differences between the two extreme

groups (i.e., individuated versus ambiguous). Worth noting, however, is that while all ten items

in the measure of connectedness make explicit reference to relationship with parents, only three

of the nine separateness items do so, raising a question as to whether the latter can be regarded as

providing a maximally suitable index of separateness from parents.

Other Aspects of Relationship with Parents

Reciprocity in relationship with parents. Wintre and Sugar (2000; see also Sugar, 1997,

and Sugar, 1999) used a measure of students’ perceived reciprocity in current relations with

parents, the Perception of Parental Reciprocity Scale (POPRS; Wintre, Yaffe, & Crowley,

1995), which yields scores regarding relationship with the mother, the father, and “parents”

unspecified. Reciprocity in the parent-child relationship is seen as a more mature state of affairs

than the asymmetry that characterizes earlier such relationships, and is itself characterized by the

parent and child treating each other as relative equals, with open and honest communication and

mutual respect. Thus, this definition of reciprocity sounds very much as though it could

102

encompass the constructs of communication and trust that are measured by the Inventory of

Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).

The POPRS was administered in the first week of the freshman year and again in

February/March of the second semester, with the SACQ administered at the latter time. Of the

24 correlations for the three fall POPRS scores (for the mother, father, and “parents”) with the

four SACQ subscales, for men and women separately, all but two were significant and positive.

Corresponding findings for the POPRS administered in the second semester showed all but one

of the 24 correlations to be significant. The magnitude of POPRS/SACQ correlations was

roughly the same for both POPRS administrations, suggesting stability over time for perceived

parental reciprocity.

Yaffe (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000) also used the POPRS and SACQ similarly

administered, the former in the beginning of the academic year and again in the middle of the

second semester, and the latter at the second testing occasion. The Wintre and Sugar (2000)

sample (n = 357), findings for which were discussed above, was contained in the Yaffe sample

(close to 400 students), with the following differences for Yaffe in data analysis. Instead of

three separate scores from the POPRS (i. e., for mother, father, and “parents”) Yaffe used a total

score only; instead of POPRS data from two separate testings, he used an average of the two

testings because of absence of significant differences between scores from the two testings; and

he combined male and female students into one sample. He obtained significant positive

correlations with all SACQ variables, in approximately the same magnitude as those reported by

Wintre and Sugar (2000) and Sugar (1999).

Shilkret and Taylor (1992) developed the Mother and Father Questionnaire to assess

compatibility of the student-parent relationship, which would seem to be closely related to the

103

parental reciprocity and attachment variables discussed here, and obtained significant and

sometimes substantial correlations in the expected direction with all SACQ variables.

Affective tone of the student/parent relationship. The reader will already have seen that

some measures of both psychological separation from, and attachment to, parents include

subscales that assess conflictedness/amicability of the student/parent relationship. The reader

may also recall the point made earlier that, in addition to regarding affective tone as possibly a

central component of the definition of parental attachment, it could also be seen as a variable

standing by itself as a determinant of college adjustment. It may be worthwhile, therefore, to

consider briefly what empirical foundation there is in SACQ-using research for such a variable.

The similarity in predicting SACQ variables between the Conflictual Independence

subscale of the Psychological Separation Inventory (Hoffman, 1984) and the Affective Quality

of the Relationship subscale from the Parental Attachment Questionnaire (Kenny, 1990) has

already been discussed. The reader very likely noted in the presentation of data from the

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment-Parents that that instrument contains a subscale

assessing alienation from parents, certainly also reflecting affective tone. While there is not as

much correlational data available concerning the IPPA-Alientation/SACQ relation as for those

other two measures, averaging what is available reveals essential similarity, higher correlation

again seen with personal-emotional adjustment.

Yet another instrument used to examine student/parent relationship as a determinant of

college adjustment is the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA; Levine, Green,

& Millon, 1986; Levine & Saintonge, 1993). And the SITA includes two subscales that bear on

the issue of affective tone of the relationship.

The Engulfment Anxiety subscale, comprised of items pertaining to resentment of

104

parental control, had low negative correlations with academic adjustment for Cooler (1995) and

Lapsley (1989)/Rice et al. (1990), a somewhat stronger negative correlation with personal-

emotional adjustment for Cooler, and a low negative correlation with the SACQ full scale for

Lapsley/Rice et al. The Nurturance Seeking subscale contains items reflecting positive feelings

of closeness with and dependency on the parents, a kind of welcome lack of separation, and that

variable correlated positively but weakly with academic adjustment for Lapsley/Rice et al. and

negatively with social and personal-emotional adjustment for Cooler. Inclusion of the quality of

dependency in the nurturance seeking variable may make it different from the other affective

tone variables considered here, and may account for the negative correlations with SACQ

variables.

There are other SITA subscales that are intended to deal with separation-individuation

issues, but for interpersonal relationships in general and not directly for student/parent

relationship. Findings for those subscales will be considered later where appropriate.

With a sample of Arab-American students, Amin (2000) devised a measure of

similarity/discrepancy between students’ self-reported acculturation orientation and that of their

parents as perceived by the students, which she interpreted as an indication of conflictedness in

the parent-student relationship. She found that students reporting a different accultural

orientation than their parents had poorer academic and social adjustment than students having a

similar orientation.

Perceived Relationship with Grandparents.

One investigator (Erickson, 1996) was interested in the relation between students’

perception of the satisfactoriness of their relationship with their grandparents, as measured by

the Grandparent Strengths and Needs Inventory-Grandchild Form (GSNI; Strom & Strom,

105

1989), and their adjustment in the first year of college. Of 30 correlations between the six GSNI

subscales and five SACQ variables, only one was statistically significant, fewer than would be

expected by chance. As will be seen in a subsequent chapter concerning environmental

determinants of adjustment to college, Erickson did find more evidence of relation between the

grandparents’ assessment of their grandparental role and their grandchild’s adjustment in

college.

106

CHAPTER 9

PERSON CHARACTERISTICS AS DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

SOCIAL RELATIONS IN GENERAL

We move now from consideration of a particular kind of social relations, i. e., with

parents, to social relations in general.

Social Propensity, Extraversion, and Related Variables.

The Social Propensity Scale, a measure of social interests and skills developed by Baker

and Siryk (1983), administered prematriculation, predicted social adjustment – the only SACQ

variable reported -- in both semesters of the freshman year as measured by an earlier version of

the SACQ (Baker & Siryk). Similar findings were obtained with a later freshman class using the

same measure of social propensity administered prematriculation but the current version of the

SACQ (Baker & Siryk, 1989). Sullivan (1991), also administering the same scale

prematriculation, found comparable correlation with social adjustment – still the only SACQ

variable reported --from a first semester SACQ administration. McGowan (1988) reported a

much stronger correlation between the Social Propensity Scale administered in the fourth week

of the first semester and the Social Adjustment subscale of the SACQ administered in the

eleventh week, and also lesser but still significant correlations with the other SACQ indices.

The Social Competence Scale, developed originally by Levenson and Gottman (1978)

and later modified and expanded by Cohen, Sherrod, and Clark (1986), yields measures for three

aspects of social competence (interpersonal assertiveness, dating skills, and social skills with

same-sex others), plus a full scale score. Birnie-Lefcovitch (1997) administered that instrument

to entering freshmen in July before the start of the academic year and again at the end of the first

semester, when the SACQ was also administered. Of 40 correlations between the four Social

107

Competence Scale variables and five SACQ indices, all were in the positive direction and all but

one were statistically significant. Though not tested for significance of differences, the

correlations between the social competence variables and the SACQ subscales always indicated

higher association for the former with the social aspects of college adjustment, as would be

expected; and the correlations for the postmatriculation administration of the Social Competence

Scale with SACQ variables were always the same (in one instance) or higher than those for the

prematriculation administration of the Social Competence Scale, as also would be expected.

Jagels and Burger (1993) used a person variable probably closely related to social

propensity, i.e., extraversion/introversion as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968). They found that students identified in the second week of the

freshman year as extraverts, in comparison with students identified as introverts, scored higher

on the Social Adjustment subscale of the SACQ administered also in the second week and again

in the fifth and eighth weeks. There were no differences between the groups on the Academic or

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales, the only other SACQ indices reported.

The Extraversion variable from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa &

McCrae, 1992) was found by Wintre and Sugar (2000; see also Sugar, 1997) to correlate, for

both men and women, with all SACQ subscales except academic adjustment for males, strongest

with social adjustment and weakest with academic adjustment. Extraversion as measured by the

“Big Five” Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) was found by Montgomery and

Haemmerlie (2001) to correlate with all SACQ variables, again strongest with social adjustment

and weakest with academic adjustment. The Sociability scale from the Hogan Personality

Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1995) is said to be comparable to the NEO-FFI Extraversion

variable, and was found by Montgomery, Haemmerlie, and Watkins (2000; Montgomery &

108

Haemmerlie, 2001) to correlate with all SACQ indices, highest with social and personal-

emotional adjustment.

A measure of extraversion/introversion (“Vector 1”) factor-analytically derived from the

items of the California Psychological Inventory-Revised (CPI; Gough, 1987) was found by

Haemmerlie and Merz (1991) not to be related to the full-scale SACQ, the only SACQ variable

reported.

Apparently defined in terms similar to social propensity and extraversion is the

Flexible:Social subscale from the Personal Resilience Questionnaire (Organizational

Development Resources, 1996), which Brunelle-Joiner (1999) found to be positively correlated

with all SACQ variables, strongest with social adjustment.

Brooks and DuBois (1995) derived a variable they called surgency (or extraversion)-

intellect by means of principal components analysis of data from three instruments -- the

Problem Solving Inventory (Heppner & Petersen, 1982), the Goldberg Big-Five Factor Markers

(Goldberg, 1992), and the global self-worth score of the Self-Perception Profile for College

Students (Neemann & Harter, 1986) – and found it to correlate significantly with the Social

Adjustment and Attachment subscales and full scale of the SACQ. The fairly strong relation

with social adjustment and absence of significant relation with academic adjustment suggests

that the surgency-intellect variable is more heavily weighted toward its extraversion component

than its cognitive-intellective one.

A variable named social resources (or social abilities?) identified by Terrell (1989) from

factor analysis of a number of instruments – the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,

1965); the Adult EAS Temperament Survey (Buss & Plomin, 1984); the Spheres of Control

Battery (Paulhus, Molin, & Schuchts, 1979; Paulhus & Christie, 1981); Perceived Social

109

Support from Friends Scale (Procidano & Heller, 1983); and the Coping Response Indices

Inventory (Billings & Moos, 1984) – correlated strongly with the SACQ Social Adjustment

subscale, less strongly but still significantly with personal-emotional adjustment, and not at all

with academic adjustment, the only SACQ variables examined.

Seemingly the obverse of extraversion is shyness. Montgomery, Haemmerlie, Pyatt, and

Laycock (2000; data updated by Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001) used the Cheek and Buss

Shyness Scale (Cheek, 1983; Cheek & Melchior, 1990) to measure that variable and found it to

be negatively correlated with all SACQ variables.

Variables Concerning Focus on Self or Outside the Self

Some investigators have studied, as determinants of adjustment to college, individual

differences in focus of one’s attention on the self or beyond the self, which would seem to be

related in some important ways to introversion/extraversion and social propensity.

Focusing attention on the other person rather than on the self in interpersonal situations,

as measured by the Interpersonal Orientation Scale (Swap & Rubin, 1983), is associated with

higher scores on the SACQ Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales, while focusing on the

self is associated with higher scores on the Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscales (Savino et al., 1986b). But a seemingly related variable called self-consciousness --

defined in terms of directing one’s attention inward, on the self, rather than outward towards

one’s environment -- as measured by a shortened form of the Self-Consciousness Scales

(Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975), was found by Sutton (1996) to be associated with lower

scores on a truncated, 10-item, version of the Academic Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ

variable used.

The variable Agreeableness from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa &

110

McCrae, 1992), which would seem from its definition to include qualities related to focus on

others (friendliness, altruism, capacity for empathy), was found by Wintre and Sugar (2000; see

also Sugar, 1997) to correlate positively for both men and women with all SACQ subscales, as

was true also for Napoli and Wortman (1998) with a mixed gender sample of community college

students. The Agreeableness variable from the “Big Five” Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle,

1991), as used by Montgomery and Haemmerlie (2001), also correlated with all SACQ

variables. The Likeability scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1995)

is thought to be comparable with the NEO-FFI Agreeableness variable (friendly, warm, tactful),

and was found by Montgomery, Haemmerlie, and Watkins (2000; data updated by Montgomery

& Haemmerlie, 2001) to correlate with all SACQ indices.

Two subscales from the California Psychological Inventory-Revised (CPI; Gough, 1987)

– Psychological Mindedness (attentive to and good judge of others’ thoughts and feelings) and

Tolerance (sensitive to and tolerant of others’ beliefs and values) – would seem related to the

concept of agreeableness, and Haemmerlie and Merz (1991) found that higher scores on both of

those variables were associated with higher scores on the SACQ full-scale, the only SACQ

variable reported.

In a sense the opposite of agreeableness is the concept of psychological reactance, as

measured by the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (Dowd, Yesenosky, Wallbrown, & Sanders,

1993), which is characterized by an individual behaving in a way that is the opposite of what is

wished by significant others, being less likely to follow social rules, and more likely to be

careless about meeting obligations or to care about impressions one makes on others.

Haemmerlie and Montgomery (1994) found no relation between that variable and any SACQ

subscale.

111

Possibly related to focus on self or others, but with a more sociological flavor, is the

notion of individualistic (i. e., focus on self, self-reliance, independence) versus collectivistic

(i.e., focus beyond the self, interdependence, subordination of self to family or other groups)

orientations, where the former orientation is thought to be more characteristic of western

European societies and the latter of eastern Asian societies. Kusaka (1995) used the

Individualism-Collectivism Scale (Hui, 1988) with international students at four American west

coast universities, some from five east Asian countries and others from ten west European

countries. In both kinds of students, positive correlations were found between collectivistic

orientation and the SACQ Attachment subscale, and for the east Asian students with the Social

Adjustment subscale and full scale as well. There were no significant differences between the

two kinds of students in degree of relation between collectivistic orientation and adjustment to

college.

Choi (1999, 2000) in her study of Korean-American students employed the Horizontal

and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Scale (HVICS; Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, &

Gelfand, 1995), which expands the definition of individualism and collectivism to each include

two additional dimensions. The Horizontal Individualism (HI) and Vertical Individualism (VI)

cultural orientations both involve independence and self-reliance, but HI stresses equality of

status among individuals, a kind of benign coexistence, while VI evidences competitiveness and

desire to excel in relation to others. Horizontal Collectivism (HC) and Vertical Collectivism

(VC) both entail interdependence and identification of one’s interests with those of one’s

group(s), but HC emphasizes equality among group members while VC allows for hierarchical,

unequal status of members (e. g., parent and child).

The only significant correlation found by Choi (1999, 2000) for the individualistic

112

cultural orientation was a weak negative value between Vertical Individualism and personal-

emotional adjustment. For the collectivistic orientation there were weak positive correlations

between the vertical dimension and social and overall adjustment, but moderate to stronger

values between Horizontal Collectivism and all SACQ variables, especially for social adjustment

and institutional attachment as well as overall adjustment. Looking at individualism and

collectivism irrespective of the horizontal/vertical dimensions, Choi (2000) found no correlation

between the former cultural orientation and the SACQ full scale score (the only SACQ variable

employed in this particular analysis), but moderately sized positive relation for the latter

orientation.

Interpersonal attachment. Several studies have examined as an aspect of “social relations

in general” the establishment of interpersonal relationships, and capacity for doing same, in

relation to adjustment to college.

Harste (1996) employed the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment-Peers (IPPA;

Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) to assess students’ attachment to college peers, reporting data for

its three subscales – Alienation, Communication, and Trust – and the overall score. She found

significant correlations in the expected direction (negative for Alienation and positive for the

other indices) for all four IPPA variables with all SACQ variables except for the non-significant

Communication/Personal-Emotional Adjustment comparison. That is, the greater the

communication and trust and the lesser the alienation between the student and college peers, the

better the adjustment to college. The IPPA subscale correlations with the SACQ Social

Adjustment and Institutional Attachment subscales were consistently strong (magnitude ranging

from .30 to .43), but with the Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales more

variable (from non-significant to .47) and more generally lower (mdn. r = .20). These findings

113

are, of course, reflected in the correlations between the IPPA-Peers overall score and the SACQ

variables, that score accounting for four or more times the variance in the Social Adjustment and

Attachment subscales as in the other two SACQ subscales.

Other investigators have employed the IPPA to examine the relation between attachment

to peers in general – i. e., not just to those at college – and adjustment to college. Just (1998)

found correlations for the overall measure of attachment to peers with all SACQ indices,

strongest with social adjustment, as did Lapsley et al. (1990) with the SACQ Social Adjustment

and Attachment subscales.

The Harste (1996) and Just (1998) studies cited above both report correlational data for

both parent and peer attachment (see previous chapter for discussion of findings regarding

parental attachment), and thus permit some parenthetical conjecturing here concerning the

relative importance of the two kinds of attachment for the different areas of adjustment to

college. For simplicity’s sake using only the IPPA overall score in this comparison, it appears

that parental attachment may be the more important predictor of academic and personal-

emotional adjustment, and peer attachment the more important predictor of social adjustment

and institutional attachment.

As would be expected given the data already cited, the IPPA Combined Parent/Peer

Overall Attachment Score for Harste (1996) significantly predicts all college adjustment areas,

academic adjustment lesser than the other areas.

Capacity for forming social relations, as measured by the Developing Mature

Interpersonal Relationships Task subscale of the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle

Inventory (Winston et al., 1987), is correlated in the expected direction for both men and women

with academic and personal-emotional adjustment, and for women but oddly not for men with

114

social adjustment (data for the SACQ Attachment subscale were not reported; Schultheiss &

Blustein, 1994). The Intimacy subscale from the Inventory of Psychosocial Development (IPD;

Constantinople, 1969), which is intended to measure degree of openness and comfort in the

formation of interpersonal relationships, was found by Vivona (2000b) to be positively

correlated with all SACQ indices except academic adjustment. The Isolation subscale from the

IPD, which taps lack of involvement in relationships with others, and presumably difficulty in

forming such relationships, was negatively correlated with all SACQ variables, and more

strongly than in the case of the Intimacy subscale (Vivona).

Fackelman and Shilkret (1994) used the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale

(SCORS; Westen, Lohr, Silk, & Goodrich, 1990) in their study of psychoanalytically conceived

personality variables involved in forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships as

determinants of adjustment in college. Students who see interpersonal relationships as

associated with positive affects and with expectations of positive outcomes (as measured by the

Affect Tone subscale), and who have capacity for emotional investment in such relationships (as

measured by the Capacity for Emotional Investment subscale), have better social adjustment as

measured by the SACQ. Students capable of emotional investment in relationships also showed

greater institutional attachment. No relation was found between SACQ variables and either

complexity of representations of people or understanding of causal factors in interpersonal

relationships, two other variables measured by the SCORS. Also, no relation was found by

Fackelman and Shilkret between the SACQ and the Personal Sphere Model (Schmiedeck, 1974),

another instrument intended to measure object relations.

The Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA; Levine, Green, & Millon,

1986) has several subscales relevant to establishment of interpersonal relationships, for which

115

several investigators (Cooler, 1995; Lapsley, 1989; Rice, Cole, & Lapsley, 1990; Wang &

Smith, 1993) have reported findings. The Peer Enmeshment subscale concerns especially the

formation of close relationships with age-mates, and for Cooler it correlated positively with all

SACQ subscales, strongest with social adjustment, but Lapsley found no significant correlations

for that variable. For the Teacher Enmeshment subscale, pertaining to close relationships

formed with teachers, Cooler obtained positive correlations with the Social Adjustment and

Attachment subscales but a negative correlation with personal-emotional adjustment, while again

Lapsley found no relation between that SITA variable and SACQ indices. The SITA Healthy

Separation subscale is intended to reflect a favorable resolution of the developmental separation-

individuation process resulting in a capacity to engage in and enjoy interpersonal relationships

but at the same time be comfortable apart from such relationships when appropriate. Cooler

found positive correlations between that variable and all SACQ subscales, strongest with social

adjustment, and Wang and Smith obtained such relation only for the Social Adjustment subscale,

while Rice et al. and Lapsley again got no significant correlations. The SITA Dependency

Denial subscale taps a kind of hostility-tinged detachment from and rejection of interpersonal

relationships, for which Cooler reports moderately strong negative correlations with all SACQ

subscales while Lapsley again had no significant relations.

Alienation

The concept of alienation (from parents or peers) has already been mentioned above as a

component of the overall attachment score from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment

(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987), and would seem to be close in meaning to the dependency denial

variable from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence (Levine, Green, & Millon,

1986). Thus, alienation would seem to represent a failure of attachment, or disordered

116

attachment, and merits separate consideration.

The Alienation Scale (Baker & Siryk, 1980) – in which alienation was defined in terms

of compatibility or fit (or lack of it) with one's environment, including social environment --

administered prematriculation predicted the full scale score (the only variable reported) from an

earlier version of the SACQ in both semesters of the freshman year (Baker & Siryk). Two other

studies (Liter, 1987; McGowan, 1988) employed the same Alienation Scale, but administered

postmatriculation, and obtained moderate to strong negative correlations with all indices of the

later, published version of the SACQ.

In a study of reverse culture shock in American missionaries’ children returning from

residence in foreign countries to attend college in the United States, Huff (1998) used the

Homecomer Culture Shock Scale (HCSS; Fray, 1988), which has two subscales that may be

viewed as measuring variations of alienation. One, Interpersonal Distance, assesses felt distance

from other persons in the now new and “strange” American environment; and the other subscale,

Cultural Distance, taps felt distance from American cultural beliefs, values, and customs in

general. Both subscales correlated in the expected negative direction with social and personal-

emotional adjustment to college, and the former subscale with the SACQ full scale score as well.

A variable somewhat akin to alienation, pseudoautonomy (from the Pseudoautonomy

Scale; Lapan & Patton, 1986), is defined in terms of pathological independence from others and

rebellious non-conformity. It was found by Dewein (1994) to correlate negatively with all

SACQ subscales except, oddly, social adjustment.

Three subscales from the California Psychological Inventory-Revised (CPI; Gough,

1987) that have been found by Haemmerlie and Merz (1991) to be related to the SACQ may be

regarded as measuring variables that are the obverse of alienation: Communality (fitting in easily

117

with one’s environment); Socialization (conforming readily to ordinary rules and regulations);

and Good Impression (wanting to do what will please others). Higher scores on all three

variables were associated with higher scores on the SACQ full-scale, the only SACQ variable

reported.

Dependence/Independence

Excessive dependence. In some sense the opposite of variables like alienation,

pseudoautonomy, or detachment from others, but still expected to be negatively related to

adjustment to college because it represents another disturbance in relationship formation, is

inordinate dependency on other persons.

Both Caro (1985/1986) and Polewchak (1998, 1999) found significant negative

correlations with all SACQ variables for the Emotional Reliance on Other Persons subscale from

the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory (IDI; Hirschfeld et al., 1977), highest with personal-

emotional adjustment. However, when Polewchak divided her sample by gender, there was no

significant relation for males between that IDI variable and either academic adjustment or

institutional attachment.

For another IDI subscale, Assertion of Autonomy, ostensibly the obverse of dependency,

Caro (1985/1986) found no significant correlation with any SACQ variable, and Polewchak

(1998, 1999) obtained a modest negative correlation with the SACQ full scale only for her

female sample. Using the IDI total score, Polewchak found significant negative correlations with

all SACQ variables for her total sample and female students separately, but the correlations for

males reached significance only in the case of personal-emotional and overall adjustment.

Dewein (1994), using another measure of excessive dependency on others, the Peer

Group Dependence Scale (Lapan & Patton, 1986), obtained negative correlations with all SACQ

118

subscales in roughly equal magnitude.

Independence as self-sufficiency or self-reliance. Presumably somewhere between

excessive dependency on others, on the one hand, and pseudoautonomy or alienation or

detachment from others, on the other hand, would be a personally and socially advantageous

autonomy in the form of self-sufficiency or self-reliance that would not preclude capacity for

interdependence with others when necessary, desired, or otherwise appropriate.

Yaffe (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000) used the “individual adequacy” scales (Self-

Reliance, Identity, and Work Orientation) from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory

(Greenberger, Josselson, Knerr, & Knerr, 1975) individually and in a composite score as indices

of autonomy (defined as the capacity to function effectively on one’s own). He found positive

correlations, some moderately strong, between all those indices and all SACQ variables.

Vivona (2000b) employed the Autonomy Scale (AS; Bekker, 1993), which was designed

to disconfound more adaptive independence and less adaptive detachment in interpersonal

relationships, principally by inclusion of a subscale measuring capacity for initiation and

maintenance of close relationships. That instrument has three subscales intended to address three

aspects of healthy independence: Self-Awareness (of one’s personal desires, beliefs, and

preferences); Sensitivity to Others (and to their needs and wishes); and Capacity for Managing

New Situations (with openness and flexibility).

Self-Awareness and Capacity to Manage New Situations correlated in the expected

positive direction with all SACQ indices except institutional attachment for the former AS

variable and academic adjustment for the latter, where there was no significant correlation.

Sensitivity to Others showed only a weak negative correlation with personal-emotional

adjustment. Examination of the Sensitivity to Others subscale’s items (see Bekker, 1993)

119

suggests that what is being measured there is less a capacity for initiation and maintenance of

close relationships than an anxious overattentiveness to and concern regarding others’ feelings,

attitudes, and thoughts, especially regarding the self (implying excessive dependency on

others?).

The Self-Other Differentiation Scale was designed by Olver, Aries, and Batgos (1989) to

measure one’s experience of a separate sense of self, which may be seen as another aspect of the

concept of autonomy. Using that scale, Morray and Shilkret (2001) found moderate positive

correlations with all SACQ variables.

Adult Attachment Styles

Closely connected with the foregoing relationship-establishment findings, especially

where the nature of such relationships is thought to be determined in some degree by the quality

of early parent-infant experience, are studies concerning the relation between adult attachment

styles and adjustment to college. It will be seen that those styles pull together in an organized

way many of the concepts already considered more or less separately in the several prior sections

of this chapter.

Kulley (1994) used the Adult Attachment Types Questionnaire (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)

and the Adult Attachment Scale (Collins & Read, 1990), especially the latter, to identify three

types of attachment to significant others that had theoretical and empirical links to infant-parent

attachment styles described by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978).

The secure attachment style in the adult is characterized by an ability: to establish

reciprocally close and interdependent relationships, while at the same time maintaining separate

identity and capacity for independent action; to seek and make use of social support when

needed; to deal with threats of relationship disruption without undue emotional distress; and to

120

be effective in dealing with environmental demands. The anxious-ambivalent adult attachment

style is characterized by: inordinate need to establish and maintain close relationships, and by

preoccupation with the attachment figure, with the consequence of less than adequate capacity to

attend to and deal with environmental demands; by need to fuse one’s identity with the

attachment figure; and, most importantly, by difficulty in regulating negative emotions

associated with threats of relationship disruption. The avoidant adult attachment style is

characterized by relative lack of capacity for or interest in forming close relationships, with

consequent detachment and isolation from social involvement and preoccupation instead with

non-interpersonal activity; compulsive independence; and marked emotional inhibition,

especially regarding interpersonal matters. The latter two categories are regarded as “insecure”

attachment styles.

Kulley (1994) found that students identified as having secure attachment style had higher

scores on all SACQ variables than students categorized as either anxious-ambivalent or avoidant.

Kulley also made predictions as to differences between the two insecure attachment styles for

particular SACQ subscales, some of which were confirmed and some not. Anxious-ambivalent

students, for example, did show poorer academic adjustment than avoidant students, presumably

because of the former’s preoccupation with gratification of attachment needs that could interfere

with academic effort, and the latter’s inhibition of such needs in favor of involvement with non-

social activities, like academic work. An expected difference not found was better social

adjustment for anxious-ambivalent than for avoidant students.

Klynn (1997) employed the Attachment Style Questionnaire (Feeney, Noller, &

Hanrahan, 1994) to measure the same three attachment variables described above (secure,

anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant), but as dimensions rather than types. That instrument and the

121

SACQ were each administered twice, in September (third week) and November. On both testing

occasions positive correlations were found between secure attachment and all SACQ variables,

and negative correlations for anxious-ambivalent and avoidant attachment with all SACQ

variables. Correlations ranged from modest to robust and tended to be stronger at the second

testing.

Shilkret (2000) reports data from a sizeable sample to which both the Adult Attachment

Types Questionnaire (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) and Attachment Style Questionnaire (Feeney,

Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994) were administered. The former instrument was modified by having

students rate on a seven point scale the degree to which a description of each type applied to

them. Both means of identifying secure attachment correlated positively with all SACQ

variables, but approximately two to three times stronger in magnitude for the Attachment Style

Questionnaire. Both avoidant and anxious-ambivalent attachment as measured by the two

instruments correlated negatively with all SACQ variables, the Attachment Style Questionnaire

again yielding substantially stronger values.

Bartels (1990), like Kulley (1994) cited above, also employed Hazan and Shaver’s

(1987) Adult Attachment Types Questionnaire and Collins and Read’s (1990) Adult Attachment

Scale, again especially the latter. However, instead of assigning students to one of three

attachment style categories, as did Kulley (1994), she used “dimension scores” developed by

Collins and Read to represent psychological characteristics underlying adult attachment styles.

The characteristics “Close” (degree of comfort with closeness and intimacy) and “Depend”

(capacity to trust others and depend on them to be available when needed) were found by Bartels

to correlate positively with the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable employed, while the

122

characteristic “Anxiety” (amount of anxiety in relationships, such as fear of abandonment and

not being loved) correlated negatively with that SACQ variable.

Lapsley and Edgerton (1999a; see also Edgerton, 1997) and Pfeil (2000) used a means of

conceptualizing adult attachment styles somewhat similar to that employed by Kulley (1994), as

presented above, but with four instead of three categories identified by the Close Relationships

Questionnaire, also referred to as the Relationships Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz,

1991; Griffen & Bartholomew, 1994). Additional to a secure style was: a preoccupied style

(characterized by need for and preoccupation with excessive closeness in personal relationships,

and distress when such need is not met), roughly equivalent to the anxious-ambivalent style

described above; a dismissing style (characterized by a lack of interest in and avoidance of close

relationships, and stressing the importance of independence from others), similar to the avoidant

style seen above; and, as a new category, a fearful style (also characterized by avoidance of close

relationships but here not because of lack of interest in such relationships but because of fear of

rejection by others).

In one mode of analysis (Edgerton, 1997; Pfeil, 2000), students were asked to identify

themselves with one or another of four descriptions of attachment style. Edgerton found that

those self-identified as secure and those as dismissing had better personal-emotional adjustment

than those self-identified as fearful or preoccupied, but there were no differences among the four

groups in social adjustment, the only other SACQ variable employed. For Pfeil, using all SACQ

variables, secure students had higher scores on all SACQ variables than preoccupied students.

Dismissing students had higher personal-emotional and overall adjustment scores than

preoccupied; and fearful were higher than preoccupied on all SACQ variables except academic

adjustment.

123

Also using the Close Relationships Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991),

Howard, Morey, and Briancesco (2001) found that students categorized as Fearful had lower

personal-emotional adjustment scores than students falling in any of the other adult attachment

styles, and lower scores on academic adjustment than students categorized as Dismissing.

In another mode of analysis (Lapsley and Edgerton, 1999a; see also Edgerton, 1997;

Pfeil, 2000), students were asked to assign ratings of the degree to which each of the four

category descriptions applied to them. Higher ratings on secure attachment were found by

Lapsley and Edgerton to correlate positively with both the Social and Personal-Emotional

Adjustment subscales, again the only two SACQ variables employed, and by Pfeil, who used all

SACQ variables, with academic and social adjustment and institutional attachment as well as

overall adjustment. For Lapsley and Edgerton, ratings regarding the fearful and preoccupied

styles correlated negatively with both of the SACQ subscales employed; for Pfeil, preoccupied

ratings correlated negatively with all SACQ variables, and fearful so correlated with academic,

personal-emotional, and overall adjustment. For both Lapsley and Edgerton and for Pfeil ratings

for the dismissing style did not correlate with any SACQ subscale. In a later study that employed

a shortened, 8-item version of the SACQ’s Social Adjustment subscale, Lapsley et al. (2001)

obtained a positive correlation of approximately the same magnitude as earlier with secure

attachment, a smaller negative value than earlier with fearful attachment, and no correlation with

either preoccupied or dismissing attachment.

In an apparently productive attempt to identify and measure the essential variables or

dimensions underlying differences in adult attachment, one that would focus more closely on

characteristics in which individuals would differ instead of on types of persons, Brennan, Clark,

and Shaver (1998) performed factor analyses using a very large pool of items taken from a

124

number of instruments that had been developed by other investigators for measuring adult

attachment. The resulting Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire consists of two

scales: Anxiety (which correlates highly with other scales measuring anxiety regarding and

preoccupation with attachment, jealousy, and fear of rejection), and Avoidance (which correlates

highly with other scales measuring avoidance of close relationships and discomfort with

closeness). Using that new instrument, Kalsner-Silver (2000) found negative correlations with

all SACQ subscales, stronger for the Anxiety scale than the Avoidance scale. Secure attachment

in Brennan et al.’s way of thinking is indicated by low scores on both the Anxiety and

Avoidance Scales.

Simpson (1990) and Simpson, Rholes, and Nelligan (1992) also employed factor analysis

to identify, and develop measures for, continuous variables underlying differences in adult

attachment. They took the thirteen sentences from the three paragraphs in Hazan and Shaver’s

(1987) Adult Attachment Types Questionnaire that described three different attachment styles,

and used them as separate items in a rating scale. Factor analysis of those thirteen items resulted

in two scales, named by Simpson et al. as the “avoidant/secure attachment index” and the

“anxious-nonanxious attachment index.” On the former, double-edged, variable, high scores

indicate avoidance attachment and lower scores indicate secure attachment. Lapsley et al. (2001)

used the two Simpson indexes with a shortened, 8-item version of the SACQ Social Adjustment

subscale and found a moderately strong negative correlation with the avoidant/secure index

(-.41, p<.01; students showing greater avoidance attachment having poorer social adjustment)

and a somewhat weaker negative value (-.30, p<.01) for the anxious attachment index.

Yet a third attempt to identify continuous dimensions underlying attachment styles

defined as categories was made by Griffen and Bartholomew (1994), who employed the

125

Relationships Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Griffen & Bartholomew) to

develop means of measuring two variables: “self model,” or positivity of self-image, and “other

model,” or positivity of image of others. The former variable, which correlates well with

measures of self-esteem (see Griffen & Bartholomew), was found by Pfeil (2000) to correlate

moderately to moderately strongly with all SACQ indices. The latter variable, which is regarded

as similar to sociability, oddly shows no correlation with any SACQ variable. Interestingly,

Griffen and Bartholomew recommend that researchers not abandon use of the categorical

attachment patterns in favor of these new dimensional measures; indeed, they call for the

development of improved means of assessing attachment patterns.

Lapsley et al. (2000) used still another means of studying adult attachment

characteristics, this one developed by West and Sheldon (1988) and ostensibly focusing on

pathological aspects of attachment. Like the ways of conceptualizing and assessing attachment

characteristics already discussed in this section, which themselves seem to consider pathology of

attachment to no lesser extent, West and Sheldon’s was based essentially on the work of Bowlby

(1969, 1973, 1977) and Ainsworth and Bell (1970). Four aspects of attachment were identified:

compulsive self-reliance (cf. avoidant behavior as defined earlier); compulsive care-giving (a

variable not seemingly represented in the other Bowlby/Ainsworth concepts already considered);

compulsive care-seeking (cf. the dependency aspect of the anxious/ambivalent kind of

attachment discussed above); and angry withdrawal (possibly a mixture of the anxious-

ambivalence and avoidance characteristics discussed above). Employing a shortened, 8-item

version, of the SACQ’s Social Adjustment subscale, Lapsley et al. (2001) found weak to modest

negative correlations for that variable with compulsive self-reliance, compulsive care-seeking,

and angry withdrawal (the three West and Sheldon variables that seem related to the more

126

commonly encountered attachment characteristics seen earlier in this section), but no relation

with compulsive care-giving..

(add brief summary for adult attachment styles, like: “Thus, several different

investigators, using several different means of measuring adult attachment, including

attachment differences conceptualized both as types of persons and characteristics of

persons, and identifying different number of types or traits assessed, all rather consistently

find etc.”)

Socially-defined Feeling States

Several investigators have studied, as determinants of adjustment to college, affective or

feeling states that are defined in terms of social relations.

Social anxiety, as measured by the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (Watson &

Friend, 1969), in one study showed significant negative correlations with all SACQ variables,

highest with social adjustment (Caro, 1986), and in another study showed the same pattern of

significant correlational values with all SACQ variables except the Attachment subscale, for

which data were not reported (Kim et al., 1992). Need for social approval as measured by the

Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (Watson & Friend), very likely an aspect of social anxiety,

correlates modestly in the expected direction with the SACQ Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscale and full-scale (Wang & Smith, 1993).

Harris (1988), Caro (1986), Pratt (2001), and Beyers and Goossens (2002a) report for

freshmen quite similar pattern and magnitude of correlations, some quite robust, between

loneliness as measured by the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona,

1980) and the SACQ, the strongest correlations occurring with social adjustment and weakest

usually with academic adjustment. Harris (1991) subsequently obtained a similar pattern and

127

magnitude of relations between the two instruments for college seniors. Harris (1991) also

found that the loneliness measure administered in the second semester of the freshman year

correlated significantly and in the expected direction with the SACQ administered three years

later in the senior year, the strongest correlations still occurring with the Social Adjustment

subscale. Montgomery and Haemmerlie (2001), with the same instrument administered to a

sample of unspecified college year level, obtained expected direction negative correlations with

all SACQ variables. Finally, with regard to the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, Sutton (1996)

found significant negative relation between it and a truncated, 10-item, version of the Academic

Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable employed.

Cooley and Carden (1992) found no relation between their own measure of loneliness

administered one month into the first semester and the SACQ Academic Adjustment subscale

(the only subscale reported) administered at the end of the semester.

Shilkret and Taylor (1992) studied the relation to adjustment to college of two other

socially-defined feeling states, shame and guilt. Using the Personal Feelings Questionnaire

(Harder & Zalma, 1990), those investigators obtained significant and reasonably strong

correlations in the expected direction between feelings of shame and all SACQ variables except

the Attachment subscale, and somewhat lesser but still significant correlations between feelings

of guilt and the SACQ Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and the full

scale.

Significant, moderately strong, and expected-direction correlations with SACQ indices

were reported by Nigrosh (1993) and Shilkret and Nigrosh (1997) using measures of guilt

defined in terms of Control-Mastery Theory (Weiss, Sampson, & the Mt. Zion Psychotherapy

Research Group, 1986) and applied to analysis of data from structured interviews focusing on

128

students’college experiences, family, and childhood for the purpose of identifying vestiges of

developmental experiences that may impede the realization of educational goals.

Nigrosh’s (1993) subjects, sophomores at the time of her first study, two years later as

seniors were administered the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45 (IGQ-45; O’Connor, Berry,

Weiss, Bush, & Sampson, 1997) as well as the SACQ. Significant and substantial correlations

were found between several subscales of that instrument (except for Separation guilt; i.e.,

feelings of guilt for separating and becoming different from family members, especially parents)

and all SACQ indices (Shilkret & Nigrosh, 1995).

In other uses of the IGQ-45, Shilkret and Vecchiotti (1995), Shilkret and Edwards

(1997), Shilkret (2000), and Morray and Shilkret (2001) obtained significant correlations

between all variables from that Questionnaire and all SACQ variables, most consistently and

strongest for the Self-Hate Guilt (akin to low self-esteem, occurring as an effect of certain kinds

of parenting) and Interpersonal Guilt scales from the IGQ-45 and for the Personal-Emotional

Adjustment subscale from the SACQ. Bailey and Shilkret (2000b) report significant correlations

for the IGQ-45 Self-Hate Guilt subscale with all SACQ variables; for the Survivor Guilt

subscale (feelings of advancing one’s own interests at the expense of, and surpassing by

comparison, family members, especially parents), with all SACQ variables except the

Attachment subscale; for the Omnipotence Guilt subscale (an exaggerated sense of responsibility

and concern for the happiness and well-being of others) and total IGQ score with the Academic

and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and full scale; but no significant correlations for

the Separation Guilt subscale with any of the SACQ indices; .

Measures of shame and guilt from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA; Tangney,

Wagner, & Gramzow, 1989) were found to correlate significantly with the SACQ Social

129

Adjustment and Attachment subscales, and shame with the full scale as well (Shilkret &

Nigrosh, 1995). Sutton (1996) devised measures of shame and guilt by merging items from the

Personal Feelings Questionnaire (Harder & Zalma, 1990), the Affect Intensity Measure (Diener,

Sandvik, & Larsen, 1985), and an interview questionnaire designed for her study, and correlated

them with a truncated, 10-item, version of the Academic Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ

variable employed. She reported significant negative values for shame experienced in relation to

mothers for male students and her full sample that also included female students; for shame

experienced in relation to fathers for both male and female samples separately and combined;

and for guilt experienced in relation to fathers for female students. A positive correlation was

reported for guilt experienced in relation to fathers for her male sample.

Other Person Characteristics Defined in Terms of Social Relations in General

Deaf student identification with deaf- or hearing-communities. Corbett (1991) was

interested in the attitude of deaf college students towards their deafness as a determinant of their

adjustment at a college for deaf students, with that attitude defined in terms of a particular aspect

of a student’s larger social environment with which he/she identified. She used the Deaf Identity

Scale (Weinberg & Sterritt, 1986) to ascertain whether deaf students identify primarily with the

hearing culture/community (hearing identity), the deaf culture/community (deaf identity), or

both (dual identity). Positive correlation was found between deaf identity and the SACQ Social

Adjustment and Attachment subscales and the full scale; negative correlation between hearing

identity and the Attachment subscale; and negative correlation between dual identity and the

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale.

In analysis of differences among SACQ means for deaf students falling into the three

identity categories, Corbett (1991) found that on social adjustment students with deaf identity

130

scored higher than students with dual identity; and on institutional attachment and overall

adjustment deaf identity students were higher than either hearing or dual identity students.

There was no relation in this mode of analysis between identity status and either academic or

personal-emotional adjustment.

Corbett’s (1991) sample included fairly large numbers of both white and black deaf

students, and in analysis for only the latter group she found no relation between identity status

and any of the SACQ variables. Also, there was no relation for either the sample as a whole or

the Black subsample between attitude toward sign language, as measured by a scale developed

by Corbett for her study, and SACQ variables.

Perfectionism in social contexts. Merryman and Zelezny (1993) employed a measure of

perfectionism (the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, or MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) that

interestingly introduces a social aspect into the definition of a person variable that may not

ordinarily be regarded as having a social component. That is, one of three dimensions addressed

by the MPS is perfectionistic expectations imposed on oneself by oneself (self-oriented

perfectionism, perfectionism as traditionally conceived), and that kind of non-social

perfectionism was found not to be related to any of the SACQ variables. A second dimension is

the imposition of high standards on the behavior of others (other-oriented perfectionism), and

Merryman and Zelezny obtained significant though relatively low negative (expected direction)

correlations between that kind of perfectionism and the SACQ Social Adjustment and

Attachment subscales. A third dimension of perfectionism involves the felt obligation to live up

to standards and expectations imposed on oneself by others (socially prescribed perfectionism),

and that dimension was seen to correlate significantly in the expected negative direction with all

SACQ variables except the Academic Adjustment subscale, with somewhat stronger values than

131

in the other-oriented perfectionism and most strongly with the Social Adjustment subscale.

Variables less directly defined in terms of social relations. Several variables, or sets of

variables, may be cited here that are less directly connected with social relations than those

already considered, but hopefully can be included with some stretch of definition.

Montgomery, Haemmerlie, and Amsden (2001; data updated by Montgomery &

Haemmerlie, 2001) report weak positive correlations between self-rated physical attractiveness

(which presumably has implications for social relationships) and all SACQ variables except

institutional attachment. Also, Montgomery and Haemmerlie report modest negative correlations

between height and social adjustment and institutional attachment.

Temperament is another variable that seemingly has implications for social relations,

and, indeed, aspects of its definition include reference to social relations. McAndrew-Miller

(1989) investigated the relation to college adjustment of differences in temperament, defined as

an individual’s characteristic style of approach and response to people, situations and tasks, as

reflected, e. g., in emotionality (mood), movement/activity (amount, tempo, rhythmicity or

regularity of same), readiness of engagement (approach/withdrawal), focus of attention

(distractibility) and effort (persistence), and adaptability to change (flexibility/rigidity). The

means of measuring temperament employed by McAndrew-Miller was the Revised Dimensions

of Temperament Survey (DOTS-R; Windle & Lerner, 1986), which identifies ten such

dimensions. Of forty correlations between the ten temperament dimensions and four SACQ

subscales, 29 were significant and in the expected direction, occurring with all SACQ subscales

but most frequently with academic and personal-emotional adjustment. The stronger

correlations (.30’s and .40’s) were for: Approach/Withdrawal with social adjustment and

institutional attachment; Flexibility/Rigidity with social and personal-emotional adjustment and

132

institutional attachment; Mood with social adjustment and institutional attachment; and

Distractibility with academic adjustment.

A set of variables at least indirectly related to social relations is use of intoxicants and

recreational drugs, which probably most often occurs in social contexts. Loveland (1994) found

that amount of alcohol consumed by students had small positive correlations with social

adjustment in college and institutional attachment, but Montgomery and Howdeshell (1993)

report modest negative correlations between frequency of drinking and the SACQ full scale

score, and between frequency of getting drunk and academic, personal-emotional, and overall

adjustment. For Ropar (1997), however, there was no relation between a measure of “present

alcohol use” from the Young Adult Alcohol Problems Screening Test (YAAPST; Hurlbut &

Sher, 1992) and any SACQ variable; for Oliver et al. (1998; see also Reed, 1994) there was no

relation between a measure of alcohol use from the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey (Presley,

Meilman, & Lyerla, 1993 & 1995) and the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, the only

SACQ variable reported; and for Pratt (2001) there was no relation between number of alcoholic

drinks consumed per week and any SACQ subcale.

Oliver et al. (1998; see also Reed, 1994) also derived from the Core (Presley, Meilman,

& Lyerla, 1993 & 1995) a measure of negative consequences of alcohol use, and obtained a

negative correlation between that index and personal-emotional adjustment. Seemingly tapping a

similar variable, Coatsworth (2001) adapted questions from an Alcoholics Anonymous website

on which students could rate the extent to which substance use or abuse interfered with their

academic, personal, and familial life. She found significant correlation between that variable and

personal-emotional and overall adjustment, greater such consequence associated with poorer

adjustment. Montgomery and Howdeshell (1993) state that students with low personal-emotional

133

adjustment scores are more likely to describe themselves as drinking to relieve boredom, to

relieve emotional and academic pressure, and to feel better about oneself.

For Haemmerlie, Montgomery, and Saling (1994), the later the age of first use of alcohol

the higher the scores on the Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and the full

scale. Montgomery and Haemmerlie (1993) looked more specifically at the type of alcohol

used. They found no relation between beer drinking or getting drunk on beer and any of the

SACQ variables, but did find that getting drunk on hard liquor was negatively related to both

academic and personal-emotional adjustment and the full scale.

Pratt (2001) found no relation between smoking of tobacco and any SACQ subscale, but

there were modest positive correlations between marijuana use and social and personal-

emotional adjustment.

134

CHAPTER 10

PERSON CHARACTERISTICS AS DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

GROUP IDENTITY/DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

To be considered in this chapter are person characteristics associated with an individual’s

membership, however active or passive, in a body or category of persons that may be assumed to

have implications for the individual’s behavior, including adjustment to college. These include

categories such as gender, sex-role orientation, race/ethnicity, foreign student status, socio-

economic status, college year level, etc. Some are more demographic or status-related than

psychological in nature, and, with one or two exceptions, do not seem to be nearly as fruitful in

helping to understand adjustment to college as many person variables already considered.

Gender

For samples tested by the SACQ's developers over 20 semesters, no statistically

significant mean differences between sexes were found for either the Academic Adjustment

subscale or the full scale (Baker, 1993b; Baker & Siryk, 1989). There were two significant mean

differences each for the Social Adjustment and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales,

women higher in the former and men higher in the latter. On the Attachment subscale, one of the

20 comparisons of means was significant, women having the higher average.

At other institutions, the large majority of investigators found no SACQ differences

associated with sex (Adan & Felner, 1995; Amin, 2000; Bartels, 1945; Bettencourt et al., 1999;

Beyers, 2001); Brooks & DuBois, 1995; Choi, 2000; Danielson, 1995; Evans-Hughes, 1992;

Flescher, Clingempeel & Stein, 1986; Fox, 2000; Friedland, 1990; Gallant, 1994; Gerdes, 1986;

Harris, 1988; Hurtado et al., 1996; Jampol, 1988/1989; Just, 1998; Kaczmarek, Matlock, &

Franco, 1990; Kalsner-Silver, 2000; Kline, 1992; Lamothe, Currie, Alisat, Sullivan, Pratt,

135

Pancer, & Hunsberger, 1995; Lapsley et al., 1989; Lent et al., 1997; Leong, Bonz, & Zachar,

1997; Liter, 1987; Lopez, 1997; Lopez et al., 1986; Marcy, 1996; Maton, 1989b; Maton &

Weisman, 1989; Mooney, 1989; Natera, 1998; Paulshock, 1994; Pfeil, 2000; Pratt, Hunsberger,

Pancer, Alisat, Bowers, Mackey, Ostaniewicz, Rog, Terzian, & Thomas, 2000; Reed, 1994;

Reeker, 1994; Robbins et al., 1993; Rodriguez, 1994; Ropar, 1997; Salone, 1995; Saracoglu,

1987; Savino et al., 1986a; Schriver, 1996; Scott, 1991; Serafica, Allen, Brown, & Stewart,

1990; Silverthorn, 1993; Silverthorn & Gekoski, 1995; Terrell, 1989; Woo & Bilynsky, 1994;

and Zea et al., 1995).

Several investigators at other institutions obtained higher mean scores for males than for

females on the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (Addison, 1996; Birnie-Lefcovitch,

1997; Burr, 1992; Frazier & Cook, 1993; Garbarino & Strange, 1993; Hogan, 1986; Jackson,

1998; Kenny & Stryker, 1996; Lopez, 1991; Lopez et al., 1988a, 1989; McAndrew-Miller, 1989;

Mendelowitz, 1990/1991; Napoli & Wortman, 1998; Rice, Cunningham, & Young, 1997;

Sennett, 2000; Sugar, 1997, see also Wintre & Sugar, 2000; Vivona, 2000a; and Yaffe, 1997).

There have been no reports from other institutions of women having higher means than males on

that subscale.

On the Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales Albert (1988), Napoli and Wortman

(1998), McGowan (1988), Montgomery and Haemmerlie (2001), and Melendez (2001) found

women to have higher mean scores than men, as did Allen (1989), Barthelemy and Fine (1995),

Burr (1992), Low (1994; see also Low & Handal, 1995), McAndrew-Miller (1989), Ridinger

(1998), Ross (1995), and Washington (1996) on the latter subscale. One investigator reported

higher social adjustment mean scores for males (Posselt, 1992).

On the Academic Adjustment subscale, several investigators found higher scores for

136

women than for men (Barthelelmy & Fine, 1995; Grella, 1989; Helman, 1999; Hutz, 2002a;

Kulley, 1994; Lopez, 1989; Polewchak, 1998; Ridinger, 1998; Sennett, 2000; Napoli &

Wortman, 1998; Washington, 1996; and Melendez, 2001), as did Dewitt-Parker (1999) on the

SACQ full scale score. Wintre and Yaffe (2000) obtained higher SACQ full-scale scores for men

than for women.

Thus, overall, the most common finding is no gender differences as main effects on the

SACQ. When such differences are seen, they are slight, and males have higher scores on the

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale while females have higher scores on the other three

subscales. Not covered in this review of gender effects, the reader should be aware, are

interactive effects of that variable with other determinants.

Sex-role Orientation

Related to gender as a group identity variable, but much less studied in relation to the

SACQ than gender itself, is sex-role orientation. Students high in psychological androgyny as

measured by the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975) had

higher scores on the SACQ Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and the full

scale than students low in that characteristic (Bobier, 1989). Kim (1996) used the Bem Sex-Role

Inventory-Short Form (Bem, 1974) to assess sex-role orientation in Korean-American students

enrolled in American universities. Students identified as psychologically androgynous had

higher adjustment scores than those identified as masculine (on all SACQ variables except

personal-emotional adjustment), or than those identified as feminine or undifferentiated (on all

SACQ variables). Kim did not examine SACQ differences among the three categories other

than androgyny, but none were found between androgynous females or males. The better

adjustment of psychologically androgynous students was predicted, on the assumption that they

137

have a wider range of behaviors to bring to bear in meeting situational demands, providing

greater flexibility across diverse circumstances.

Probably less directly related to sex-role orientation but still in the same general sphere,

men in traditionally female and male academic majors did not differ on any SACQ variable

(Crouse, 1990).

Race/Ethnicity

Racial or ethnic origins might be expected to be popular group identity variables given

contemporary interest in “diversity,” and they are reasonably so. However, it is difficult to see

what kinds of effects should be anticipated from such variables by themselves irrespective of

other variables. Indeed, many or most of the SACQ-using studies carried out so far concerning

race/ethnicity are essentially concerned with minority students moving into and adapting to an

envurinment that to some important degree is assumed to be “foreign” to them, their adjustment

being compared with that of other groups for which the environment is either more or less

“foreign.”

African-origin students. A number of studies involving African-Anerican students

simply compare them with white students at predominantly white American colleges and

universities, environments that presumably are more foreign to the former students than the

latter. The most common finding in such studies is no differences in SACQ scores. Seven studies

found no differences between black and white students on any of the SACQ indices (Burr, 1992;

Elacqua, 1992a,b; Kenny & Stryker, 1994; Maton, 1989b; McGowan, 1988; Reeker, 1994;

Ridinger, 1998), as did Zea et al. (1995), and Williams (1996) using only the SACQ full scale

score.

Two studies (Robbins et al., 1993; Tomlinson-Clarke, 1998) report black students as

138

having higher scores than whites on the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, but Robbins et

al. found no difference in academic adjustment, the only other SACQ variable employed in their

study; and Tomlinson-Clarke found no difference on the three SACQ subscales other than

personal-emotional adjustment.

Four studies found higher scores for white students. For Adan and Felner (1995), the

social adjustment and institutional attachment of white freshmen at a predominantly white

university were better than that of black freshmen at the same institution. In Corbett’s (1991)

study, deaf white students had higher scores than deaf black students on the Social Adjustment

and Attachment subscales and the full scale, and white female deaf students had higher scores

than black female deaf students on the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale. Jackson (1998)

and Rice et al. (1997) found white students to have higher Social Adjustment subscale scores

than blacks, and the latter investigators found no difference on the only other SACQ variable

used, the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale.

In a study done at a South African university that historically was white but became

multiracial, Sennett (2000) found that black mixed-gender freshman students had lower social

adjustment scores than their white counterparts, and black female students had less good

academic adjustment than white female students. But, important to note in comparing this

finding with those in American colleges, so-called “coloureds” (mixed black and white sudents)

were not included.

Additional findings regarding black student adjustment to predominantly white colleges

simply as a function of racial status are reported later in this section from studies using assorted

racial/ethnic samples that may include black and white groups. (may want to consider pulling

black/wht cf’s from those later studies up to the foregoing paragraphs – e.g., Fox, Burr,

139

Williams, Kenny & Stryker, Reeker) But, overall, these studies focusing simply on racial

status have not produced uniformly definitive results.

Adan and Felner (1995) provide yet another way of comparing black and white student

adjustment that represents a considerable advance over simple comparison of such adjustment at

predominantly white institutions. They found that black freshmen at a predominantly black

university reported better adjustment than either black or white freshmen at a predominantly

white university in both the social and academic areas as well as overall adjustment, and better

institutional attachment than black freshmen at a predominantly white university. No differences

were found among the three student groups in personal-emotional adjustment. Thus, very

important to note, possible explanation for any findings of greater adaptive difficulty for black

than for white students may to some extent lie in the nature of the students’ environment,

including institutional characteristics.

In an examination of black/white differences as a consequnce of another environmental

variable, black and white students with high level of social support from friends showed little or

no difference on the SACQ full scale score (the only SACQ variable reported), both having

relatively high scores, while black students with low levels of social support had significantly

lower SACQ full scale scores than white students with low levels of social support (Maton &

Weisman, 1989).

Additional findings concerning the role of environment, in the form of interracial

experience, in black student adjustment to college are presented in pages ???????.

Another important move toward understanding black student adjustment to college is

represented in studies that take into account differences in personal characteristics of the

students. Thus, Salone (1995) made the interesting assumption that black student social

140

adjustment (the only SACQ variable employed) to a predominantly white college would be less

a function of the student's racial status than of the student's attitude concerning that status, or

racial identity. She found, using the Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS; Parham & Helms,

1981), that students who denigrate their racial identity, or who have had recent experiences that

cause them to challenge that attitude, adjust less well socially to a predominantly white college.

Also using the RIAS, in a study with deaf black students, with one kind of statistical

analysis (analysis of variance) Corbett (1991) found no relation between black identity status and

any of the SACQ variables, while another means of analysis (multiple regression) of the same

data showed a weak negative relation between the RIAS immersion-emersion score and

personal-emotional adjustment. The immersion-emersion stage in the development of black

identity is described as associated with increased emotional turmoil, increased hostility towards

white people, and idolization of black culture. Evans-Hughes (1992) found no correlations

between any of the four indices of racial identity attitudes from the RIAS and any of the SACQ

variables.

Quite likely related to racial identity in understanding black student adjustment to college

would be the concept of cultural traditionality as measured by the African American

Acculturation Scale (AAAS; Landrine & Klonoff, 1994). Cultural traditionality as defined in the

AAAS is the degree to which a black person is immersed in black culture, attitudes, practices,

beliefs, or, conversely, acculturated to the prevailing white society. With higher AAAS scores

indicating greater traditional cultural orientation in the individual, and reporting data only for the

SACQ Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and full scale, Dewitt-Parker

(2000) found that lesser traditional cultural orientation was associated with better personal-

emotional and overall adjustment to predominantly white colleges for black women students,

141

while there were no significant findings for male students.

Spanish-origin students. Albert (1988) obtained lower scores for Hispanic students than

non-Hispanic (presumably predominantly white) students on the SACQ Social Adjustment

subscale, but for Kaczmarek et al. (1990) there were no SACQ differences between Hispanic and

White students, as was true for Zea et al. (1995) using only the SACQ full scale score).

Looking only at Latino students, Hurtado et al. (1996) found that, on a testing in the

sophomore year, Chicano students had less good social adjustment than other kinds of Latino

students. Rodriguez (1994), however, found no difference on the SACQ full scale score, the only

SACQ variable used, among kinds of Chicano/Latino students.

Just as some investigators in studies with black students were more concerned with

attitude toward one’s racial identity than with racial status itself as it affects adjustment to

college, there are some who evidenced similar interest in their studies with Hispanic students.

Thus, no relation was seen by Solberg et al. (1994) in Hispanic students between a measure of

degree of identification with one's minority culture of origin (Cuellar, Harris & Jasso, 1980) and

a truncated SACQ consisting of 26 items from the Academic and Social Adjustment subscales.

Rodriguez (1994), using the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992), found

no relation between ethnic identity (ethnic pride, feeling good about one’s background, being

happy with one’s group membership) for Chicano-Latino men or women and the SACQ full

scale score, the only SACQ variable reported, and for Shibazaki (1999) there was no relation

between that same index of ethnic identity and any SACQ subscale in Mexican-American

students. But, using the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican-Americans-II (Cuellar, Arnold,

& Maldonado, 1995), Shibazaki (1999) did find a weak positive correlation between degree of

acculturation of Mexican-American students and social adjustment in a predominantly “Anglo”

142

university.

Additional findings regarding Spanish-origin student adjustment to college are reported

below from studies using assorted racial/ethnic samples that included Spanish-origin and white

students. (may want to consider pulling hisp/wht cf’s from those later studies up to the

foregoing paragraphs)

Arab-origin students. Arab-American students were found by Amin (2000) to have lower

personal-emotional adjustment than non-Arab, White, American students.

As in studies described above employing African-origin and Spanish-origin American

college students, Amin (2000) was interested in the role of acculturation in the adjustment to an

American college of her Arab-American students, and used three different means of assessing

acculturation. One technique employed Arab-American students’ratings on two items: (1) degree

of importance of adopting in their own lives American values and traditions, and (2) degree of

importance of preserving Arab values and traditions in their lives. Patterns of ratings for these

two items (not necessarily mutually exclusive) provided the basis for constructing five categories

of accultural orientation. Bicultural orientation was indicated by high endorsement of both items;

assimilationist orientation by predominant preference for adopting American values;

traditionalist orientation by predominant preference for preservation of Arab values; marginal

orientation by low endorsement of both options (“reject both options”); and neutral orientation

by “neither agreeing nor disagreeing” regarding the importance of both options.

Somewhat unexpectedly Amin (2000) obtained no correlations with any of the SACQ

subscales for either the assimilationist or marginal orientations; a negative correlation for the

bicultural orientation with personal-emotional adjustment; moderately sized negative

correlations for the neutral orientation with all SACQ subscales except personal-emotional

143

adjustment; and moderately sized positive correlations with all SACQ subscales for the

traditionalist orientation.. (on 4/1/02 I e-mailed the au req’g means for the various orient’s

on the SACQ var’s, with tests of sig of diff’s, & if these are forthcoming I will prob’ly

substitute those new data for the r’l analyses, / I don’t find easy to interpret.)

A second means of tapping acculturation employed by Amin (2000) was the Ethnic

Identity Achievement subscale from the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney,

1992), which assesses an individual’s level of exploration of and commitment to an ethnic

identity (in some sense the obverse of acculturation, and akin to the traditionalist orientation

discussed above). Here, too, there were positive, moderately sized correlations with all SACQ

variables.

The third means of assessing acculturation employed by Amin (2000) was the Majority-

Minority Relations Survey (MMRS; Sodowsky, Lai, & Plake, 1991), which measures degree of

affiliation with the majority group or with one’s minority group, the latter indicating rejection of

American culture and a low level of assimilation/acculturation. One MMRS subscale that gauges

degree of adherence to ethnic behaviors and customs (cf. traditionalism and ethnic identity as

presented above) correlated positively with the SACQ Academic and Social Adjustment

subscales; another MMRS subscale measuring degree of use, proficiency in, and preference for

one’s ethnic language correlated positively with academic adjustment.

Thus, the findings for Amin (2000) across three methi\ods of measuring acculturation

consistently indicate that the lesser the degree of acculturation/assimilation of her Arab-

American students the better their adjustment to college. Importantly, however, Amin points out

that the university attended by the students in her sample has a sizeable and cohesive

representation of Arab-Americans, as does the community in which it is located. She reasons

144

that these circumstances may permit and even encourage the maintenance of ethnic identity, and

contribute to more effective adjustment to college under the prevailing circumstances. She

conjectures further that an Arab-American student’s willingness to assimilate into the host

society may even expose him/her to greater discrimination and hostility than might otherwise be

experienced, contributing to less good college adjustment. This line of thinking highlights the

importance of possible interaction in this particular study between characteristics of students and

characteristics of the environment both on and off-campus.

Differences among assorted racial/ethnic origin groups. Burr (1992) examined

differences among Hispanic, American Indian, black, white, and Asian students in a community

college. Hispanic and white students scored higher than American Indian students on the

Academic Adjustment and Attachment subscales, and white students were higher than American

Indian students on the Social Adjustment subscale. Williams (1996) had African-American,

Asian-American, Latino and white students in her research sample, and the only differences

among the groups that she reports were on academic adjustment, where both the African-

American and Latin-American students scored higher than the Asian-American students. Kenny

and Stryker (1994) and Reeker (1994) found no differences on any SACQ variables among

white, Afro-American, Asian, and Latino students, as did Zea et al. (1995) reporting only the

SACQ full scale score; as did Kalsner-Silver (2000, 2002) on SACQ subscales among Asian,

Asian-Indian, African-American, Hispanic, and white students. Also using only the SACQ full

scale score, Fox (2000) obtained no differences among white, African-American, Asian-

American, and Hispanic students.(reorganize this last sentence; all have neg results, but

differ in ethnic categories of Ss used and SACQ var’s reported; maybe make separate

paragraph)

145

In the Williams (1996) study cited in the preceding paragraph, the investigator used, in

addition to the SACQ itself, an SACQ-related index of adjustment. That index, described in

Chapter 2, is the difference between scores from the prematriculation-administered Anticipated

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (ASACQ) and scores from the postmatriculation-

administered SACQ, which is interpreted as reflecting the degree to which prematriculation

expectations regarding adjustment to college are fulfilled, or, conversely, degree of

disillusionment with one’s expectations. One means of statistical analysis found no differences

on this index among African-American, Latino, Asian-American and white students but a second

mode of analysis did. With regard to social adjustment, African-American students showed

greater disillusionment than either Latino or white students, and Asian-American students more

disillusionment than white students. Asian-American students also showed greater

disillusionment than white students on the overall adjustment measure (i. e., the ASACQ/SACQ

full scale scores). Morray and Shilkret (2001) found in an all-women’s college that Asian/Asian-

American students had lower social adjustment scores than White students.

Comparison of non-minority students with mixed minority samples. Young (1994) found

that white students had higher scores on the SACQ Academic and Personal-Emotional

Adjustment subscales than did a sample comprised of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Puerto

Ricans. Hutz (2002b) reported that “majority” (presumably white) students had better social

adjustment and institutional attachment than did a mixed group of African-American, Hispanic-

American, and Native-American students. For Just (1998), white students had higher social

adjustment scores than a sample made up of Asian-American, Latino/Hispanic, and African-

American students. Comparing white students with a similarly composed minority sample that

was also identified as financially and educationally disadvantaged and enrolled in a special

146

support program, Kenny & Stryker (1996) found the former group to have higher personal-

emotional adjustment scores. But Melendez (2001) reported that minority women students had

better academic adjustment than non-minority women students.

But in several studies no differences were obtained between non-minority and mixed

minority samples on any SACQ subscales, or the full scale score where employed. These include

Hutz, Fabian, and Martin (2000), between “Euro-American” (presumably white) students and a

group of African-American, Hispanic-American, and Native American students; Melendex

(2001), between Whites and a sample including AfricanAmerican, Asian, Latino, and “other

non-White” students; Halloran (2000), between Caucasian and “racially diverse” (not further

specified) students; Napoli and Wortman (1998), between a “non-minority” and a “minority”

(not further delineated) sample in a community college; and Birnie-Lefcovitch (1997), among

unspecified racial groups at a Canadian university. For Helman (1999) there were no differences

on academic, social, and overall adjustment – the only SACQ variables reported – between non-

minority students and a sample including African-American, Asian-American, Hispamic, and

Native American students, and for Fox (2000) there was no difference on the SACQ full scale

score, the only SACQ variable reported, between white students and a group that included

African-American, Asian-American, and Hispanic students.

Racial/ethnic identity as a general characteristic of students. Kalsner-Silver (2000), using

a racially-ethnically combined sample (Asian-origin, Asian-Indian-origin, African-American,

Hispanic, and White students), found almost no relation between the three aspects of racial

identity measured by the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992) and

SACQ subscales. Of twelve correlations generated, only one weak value reached significance,

and that barely. Also using a racially-ethnically combined sample (African-American, Hispanic,

147

Native American, and White), and a revised version of the MEIM (Roberts, Phinney, Masse,

Chen, Roberts, & Romero, 1999), Hutz (2002a,b) found no relation with any of the SACQ

variables.

Foreign Student Status

Presumably any differences found among racial/ethnic groups in adjustment to college

would be attributable in some degree to culture- or subculture-induced characteristics of students

in interaction with the characteristics of the host institutional environment, with congruence

between the two sets of characteristics enhancing adjustment. This same reasoning, i.e., a

cultural-congruence hypothesis, should be applicable in the investigation of the adjustment to

college of students from foreign countries/cultures.

Cooper (1991) used this kind of reasoning to study ethnic Chinese and Pacific Islander

students’ adjustment at an Australian university. In particular, that investigator was interested in

culture-induced value characteristics of students from a foreign country as they may differ from

the culture-induced value characteristics of students at the university (and country) into which

the foreign students moved. Cooper used the Schwartz Value Survey-Form A (Schwartz, 1992)

to assess personal values or guiding principles, and a rather complicated means of computing

degree of congruence between the values of each of the two foreign groups and a sample of

Australian students at the same university. She expected that the greater the value dissimilarity

between each of the foreign student groups and the group of Australian students, the poorer the

adjustment would be.

For the Pacific Islanders, there were no significant correlations between dissimilarity

with Australian student values and any SACQ variable; for the ethnic Chinese, the greater the

value similarity the better the personal-emotional adjustment. In a finding difficult to interpret,

148

the more that individual Australian students’ values differed from the average of those same

students, the better was the personal-emotional adjustment. Though Cooper’s (1991) findings

were probably less than what she desired, she did address an interesting issue in an interesting

way.

Findings from investigations of adjustment of foreign students at American universities

are, of course, also relevant to understanding the role of culture-induced characteristics of

students in interaction with characteristics of the host institutional environment. Kusaka (1995)

reported that students from western European countries, the primary source of American cultural

values, had higher scores than students from the culturally more different east Asian countries on

the SACQ Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and the full scale. Abe, Talbot

and Geelhoed (1998) found that Asian students had lower scores on all SACQ variables except

personal-emotional adjustment than a culturally heterogeneous group composed of students from

European, Latin-American, African and Middle-Eastern countries.

Possibly pertinent to the culture-congruence hypothesis if one can assume differences in

academic values between American and foreign student-athletes, is Ridinger’s (1998) finding

that foreign student-athletes (from Canada and western Europe) at an American university had

higher scores on the Academic Adjustment subscale than domestic student-athletes. In a finding

suggesting that culture-induced characteristics or their effects may be mitigated, Abe et al.

(1998) report that Social Adjustment and Attachment subscale scores of international students at

an American university who lived in the United States prior to matriculation were higher than

those of international students who had not.

Rodriguez-Perez (1991) in her study of two kinds of Puerto Rican students in culturally

disparate college settings – those born and raised in mainland United States attending two New

149

Jersey colleges, and those born and raised in Puerto Rico attending a Puerto Rican college – used

a self-devised measure of “connection” to the island of Puerto Rico. That measure, termed the

“Puerto Rican Index,” was based on whether the student was born in Puerto Rico, graduated

from a Puerto Rican high school, spoke Spanish as a main language, and had parents who were

native Puerto Ricans.

No significant correlations were found for either sample between connection to Puerto

Rico and adjustment to college, even though a negative relation might have been expected for

the students attending mainland colleges (because of cultural incongruence) and a positive one

for students attending a Puerto Rican college (because of cultural congruence), or at least a lower

one for the former sample than the latter. However, somewhat difficult to understand, for both

samples combined there were significant negative correlations between the Index and social

adjustment and institutional attachment. Other findings reported by Rodriguez-Perez (1991) that

do not, however, seem relevant to the issue under discussion here, involved the mainland sample

having higher scores than the “Island” sample on social and overall adjustment and attachment to

their respective institutions.

Extending the findings cited above regarding greater adjustment difficulties of Asian

international students than other foreign students is the study by Ridinger (1998). While that

study had student-athletes and non-athletes as its primary focus, it employed international as

well as American students in each of the two primary categories. The international non-athlete

sample was comprised very largely of Asian students, and it had lower scores than all three other

groups (i. e., domestic student-athletes, domestic non-athletes, and international student-athletes)

on social and overall adjustment; lower than both domestic samples on institutional attachment;

and lower than foreign student-athletes on academic adjustment. Important to note, it was not

150

only the domestic samples that were racially different from the primarily Asian group, because

the foreign student-athletes were mainly from Canada and western Europe.

Religion and Related Variables

No relation was found by Maton (1989a) between church attendance and either the Social

or Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales, the only SACQ indices employed, including for

either high- or low-stress subsamples. However, students in another study reporting that they

were members of a formal religious organization (a church, synagogue, temple, etc.) had higher

academic adjustment scores than students who reported no such affiliation (Addison, 1996). No

SACQ differences were found between Catholic and non-Catholic students by Albert (1988).

Kline (1992) and Hunsberger et al., 1996) obtained no relation between one-item

measures of the importance of religion in one’s family and the SACQ, the former study using all

SACQ variables and the latter just the full scale score. Possibly on a more personal level, the

latter investigators obtained a weak positive correlation between the SACQ full scale and a one-

item measure of the extent to which students described themselves as still holding the religious

beliefs taught to them while growing up, though there was no relation between that same SACQ

variable and single-item measures regarding how interested students were in religion currently or

how religious they considered themselves to be. Yet religiousness as measured by the Personal

Religiosity Inventory (Lipsmeyer, 1984) was positively associated for Low (1994; Low &

Handal, 1995) with all SACQ variables, but related differently to the various SACQ indices for

men and women and for different universities.

Hunsberger et al. (1996) found no relation between the Religious Fundamentalism Scale

(Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992) and any of the SACQ variables, but did obtain modest

negative correlations between the Religious Doubts Scale (Altemeyer, 1988) and all SACQ

151

variables except social adjustment. The greater the religious doubt, the poorer the adjustment.

Two SACQ-using studies were less concerned with aspects of religion as traditionally

conceived and more with fundamental personal values, which presumably are essential contents

of religious thinking and religiousness. The Belief Systems Analysis Scale (BSAS;

Montgomery, Fine, & James-Myers, 1990) was purportedly developed as a measure of

Afrocentric world view, but examination of its item content suggests that it can more likely be

seen as tapping fundamental personal values of a quasi-religious, quasi-“social-philosophical”

nature, e. g., spirituality; non-materialism; harmony and inclusiveness in social relations,

emphasizing generosity of spirit, tolerance, and forgivingness; sense of well-being and

optimism. Hatter and Ottens (1998) administered the BSAS to black students at a predominantly

white university and found its total score to be positively correlated with all SACQ variables,

strongest with personal-emotional adjustment.

Maybe also related to religiousness, though a little more removed than what is assessed

by the Belief Systems Analysis Scale (BSAS; Montgomery, Fine, & James-Myers, 1990), is the

variable life value preferences as measured by the Life Values Inventory (Mitchell, 1984). That

instrument assesses basic personal values as reflected in preferred life styles, of which Bartels

(1995) employed four: Conventionally Defined Success, Materialistic Orientation, Intellectual

and Cultural Interests, and Valuing of Achievement. Significant positive correlations were

obtained for all four lifestyles with all SACQ indices except personal-emotional adjustment, and

except for the Materialistic Orientation/academic adjustment comparison.

A person characteristic that this writer finds difficult to understand, but which may be

related to religiousness/basic personal values, is existentially-defined world view (relationship

with the world and its contents) as measured by the Scale to Assess World Views (Ibrahim &

152

Kahn, 1987). Rodriguez (1994) found no relation between that measure and the SACQ full

scale, the only SACQ variable employed.

Political Orientation

Hunsberger et al. (1996) found no relation between scores on the Right-Wing

Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992) and the SACQ full-scale score, the

only SACQ variable reported.

Socio-economic Status and Related Variables

Findings concerning the relation between socio-economic status and adjustment to

college are typically incidental to larger research purposes, sparse, and inconsistent. For Maton

(1989b) there was a negative correlation with personal-emotional adjustment; for Dewitt-Parker

(1999) a negative correlation with the SACQ full scale score; for Panori (1997) a positive one

with academic adjustment; and for Kline (1992) positive correlations with social adjustment and

the SACQ full scale. But Yaffe (1997), Hurtado et al. (1996), Hutto, (1998), Napoli and

Wortman (1998), Rodriguez (1994; using the SACQ full scale only), and Natera (1998; using

academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustment only) found no effects.

For a variable related to socio-economic status, parental/family/household income,

Birnie-Lefcovitch (1997) found that students with lesser income parents had lower scores on all

SACQ indices than students with more affluent parents; Just (1998) obtained positive correlation

with social, personal-emotional and overall adjustment; Brooks and DuBois (1995) and Natera

(1998; using the Academic, Social, and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales only) with

personal-emotional adjustment; and Wang and Smith (1993) and Hertel (1996) with social

adjustment. Yaffe (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000) and Pfeil (2000) found no correlation

with any SACQ variable, and Williams (1996) with the full scale, the only SACQ variable

153

reported. Probably also related to socio-economic level through parental or family income is

students’ level of satisfaction with his/her finances, which was found by Just (1998) to be

positively correlated with academic, personal-emotional and overall adjustment.

Another variable related to socio-economic status is parents’ educational level. At a

Canadian university, students with mothers and/or fathers having at least a college education

showed better academic, social, and overall adjustment than students with parents of no college

education; and mothers’ similarly measured educational level measured in that manner was also

similarly reflected in students’ institutional attachment (Bernie-Lefcovitch, 1997). In Halloran’s

(2000) study, students whose parents had either an associate’s or bachelor’s degree had better

academic and personal-emotional adjustment than students whose parents had neither degree.

Just (1998) found weak positive correlation between mothers’ educational level and personal-

emotional and overall adjustment, and between fathers’ level and social adjustment, while

Williams (1996) obtained a positive correlation between the educational level for the parents

combined and the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable reported. For Yaffe (1997; see also

Wintre & Yaffe, 2000), Amin (2000), and Pfeil (2000) there was no effect with SACQ variables,

as was also true for Rodriguez (1994) and Wildman (1998) using the fullscale score only.

Looking at another facet of parents’ educational level, Hertel’s (1996) freshman second-

generation college attenders had higher scores than first-generation attenders on the SACQ

Social Adjustment subscale and full scale, but Bartels (1995; personal communication, May 21,

1999) and Jackson (1998) found no differences on any SACQ variable between those two kinds

of students.

Work status

Work status may be less a group identity than a demographic variable. Defined in terms

154

of number of hours per week in paid employment, this aspect of work status was found by Hertel

(1996) to be unrelated in freshman students to any SACQ variable, and for Wildman (1998) that

same variable was in freshmen unrelated to the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable

reported. But for Ortiz (1995), it was negatively correlated with the Academic Adjustment

subscale for older (age 25-45) female community college students, and not correlated with the

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, the only other SACQ variable used. Jackson (1998)

found that students who had no on- or off-campus employment had higher scores on social

adjustment and institutional attachment than students who did have such employment.

Marital/Parental Status of Student

In Ortiz’ (1995) study involving older female community college students, married

students had better personal-emotional adjustment to college than non-married students, but

there was no difference between these two kinds of students in academic adjustment, the only

other SACQ variable employed. Ortiz also found no correlation between a measure of a

student’s parental responsibility – defined in terms of age of the student’s youngest child – and

either of the SACQ variables employed.

Napoli and Wortman (1998) devised a three-item measure of “external commitments”

that combined community college students’ marital/parental and occupational obligations, plus a

two-item measure of “external involvements” concerning amount of time spent socializing with

relatives and friends outside of the college community, both measures presumably tapping

distractions from the college experience. The only correlation obtained for either measure with

SACQ subscales was a very weak positive one for external commitments with institutional

attachment.

College Year Level and Related Variables

155

SACQ-measured adjustment associated with college year level has been studied by

several investigators, some cross-sectionally and some longitudinally. It is very likely that most

or all studies focusing on college year level will have that variable confounded with students’

age, and studies explicitly concerning the latter variable will be considered in the following

section, where, of course, the two variables are still likely to be confounded.

Cross-sectional studies have compared freshmen with upper class students separately and

combined. Sophomores had higher Social Adjustment subscale scores than freshmen (Albert,

1988), as did juniors and final undergraduate year students (Beyers & Goossens, 1998; Lapsley

et al., 1989). Juniors and final undergraduate year students had higher academic adjustment

scores than freshmen (Tomlinson-Clarke, 1998), and in another study higher overall adjustment

scores, the only SACQ variable reported in that study (Beyers, 2001). Seniors had higher

Attachment subscale scores than freshmen (Loveland, 1994). And a sample of mixed upper class

students had higher academic and personal-emotional adjustment scores than freshmen (no data

reported for the Attachment subscale; Rice et al, 1995).

Looking at students across all year levels and employing correlational analysis, Loveland

found small positive correlations with class status (i. e., the more advanced classes having higher

scores) for all SACQ variables except the Social Adjustment subscale, as did Montgomery and

Haemmerlie (2001) with the same SACQ variables for a sizeable sample of undergraduates of

unspecified year level.

But, still cross-sectionally, Reeker (1994) found no differences between freshmen and

sophomores on any SACQ variables. Gilkey et al. (1989; see also Gilkey, 1988 and Protinsky &

Gilkey, 1996) obtained no differences across the four college year levels on the SACQ full scale,

the only SACQ variable employed, as did Salone (1995) using only the Social Adjustment

156

subscale.

Belvedere (2000) reported that juniors and seniors who were transfer students had lower

social adjustment scores than freshman students; and, indeed, they had lower social adjustment

scores than did “native” sophomores and juniors, i. e., students who had entered the institution as

freshmen.

Rice (1992; see also Rice, 1990/1991) reported that students studied longitudinally, i. e.,

tested both as freshmen and as juniors, had higher scores on the later occasion on the Social and

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales (data concerning the Attachment subscale were not

reported). Jackson et al. (2000) found that a sample of students that was tested successively in

the freshman, sophomore and senior years had higher SACQ full scale scores (the only SACQ

variable reported) as seniors, with no difference between the freshman and sophomore testings.

However, Harris (1991) tested students both as freshmen and later as seniors, and there were no

significant differences on any SACQ variable over the two occasions.

Montgomery and Haemmerlie (1993) and Montgomery and Howdeshell (1993) report a

small positive correlation between number of years enrolled (rather than using the customary

college class designations) and the SACQ full scale, as did Panori (1997) with the Attachment

subscale. Pfeil (2000) obtained positive correlation between number of semesters completed

(which of course would be highly related to number of years enrolled and college year level) and

social and overall adjustment. But Ridinger (1998) found no association between number of

years enrolled and any of the SACQ subscales, as did Scott (1991) for the Social Adjustment

subscale (the only subscale reported),

Age of Students

Several studies that have focused explicitly on the relation between age and college

157

adjustment as measured by the SACQ have used samples including students from various

undergraduate year levels, still confounding college year level and age. Of such studies that

reported findings for all SACQ subscales (and sometimes the full scale), three found positive

correlations with academic adjustment (Dewein, 1994; Panori, 1997; Posselt, 1992); three,

positive correlations with personal-emotional adjustment (Dewein; Loveland, 1994, in women

but not men; Panori); one, modest positive relation with social adjustment (Pfeil); one, positive

correlation with institutional attachment (Panori); one, no significant correlations (Amin, 2000);

and two (the only ones reporting findings for the SACQ full-scale), positive correlations with

that variable (Loveland; Posselt).

Some studies focusing on age and including students from various college year levels

reported findings only for selected SACQ variables. Natera (1998) used only the Academic,

Social, and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales, finding positive correlation with

academic adjustment. Three studies (Gilkey, 1988 or Gilkey et al., 1989; Montgomery &

Haemmerlie, 1993; Beyers, 2001) obtained positive correlations with the SACQ full scale, the

only SACQ variable reported, but one (Lopez, 1997) found no relation with the Attachment

subscale, again the only SACQ variable employed.

In two studies using freshman and sophomore students only (Albert, 1988; Reeker,

1994), there were no differences associated with age on any SACQ subscale, and also in a third

(Rodriguez, 1994) that used only the SACQ full scale..

Mixed findings regarding age occur in studies using only freshman students. Napoli and

Wortman (1998) reported weak positive correlations between age and all SACQ subscales for

freshman community college students; Burr (1992), positive correlations with the Academic

Adjustment, Personal-Emotional Adjustment, and Attachment subscales in the same kind of

158

student population. In Sennett’s (2000) study freshman students over age 19 had a higher mean

academic adjustment score than those less than 19, and Pratt, Hunsberger, Pancer, Alisat,

Bowers, Mackey, Ostaniewicz, Rog, Terzian, and Thomas (2000) found a positive correlation

with age on the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable used), but Brooks and DuBois

(1995) paradoxically got negative correlations for the Social Adjustment and Attachment

subscales and full scale. Wang and Smith (1993) and Birnie-Lefcovitch (1997) found no

differences associated with age among freshmen.

In a study involving older (age 25-45) female community college students, positive

correlations were found between age and the Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscales, the only SACQ variables employed (Ortiz, 1995).

Finally, in a study that involved large age differences between two student samples, but

also various other kinds of important and uncontrolled differences, Kane, Lennon and Petrosky

(1989) compared traditional-age freshmen with a group of non-traditional age (i. e., over 25)

undergraduates from all college classes combined. The freshmen scored significantly lower on

academic, personal-emotional, and overall adjustment but higher on social adjustment.

Academic Major

Three studies found no SACQ differences between students varying in kinds of academic

major: Gilleylen (1994) for science versus non-science majors in African-American students; as

cited earlier, Crouse (1990) for men in traditionally female and male majors; and Kusaka (1995)

for social science versus natural science majors.

Student-athlete Status

Comparing student-athletes with student non-athletes, Ridinger (1998) found no

differences for domestic (i. e., American) students on any SACQ variable, but did find that a

159

small sample of foreign student-athletes had higher scores on academic, social, and overall

adjustment than foreign non-athlete students. However, the foreign athlete group was comprised

largely of Canadian and western European students while the non-athlete group was made up

largely of Asian students, so there were other variables than athletic status that could account for

the observed adjustment differences.

Comparing varsity student-athletes with student non-athletes at NCAA Division I and

IAA universities, Melendez (2001) found a weak relation favoring the athletes on academic

adjustment and institutional attachment. And, similarly, that investigator also obtained weak

positive correlation between participation in “recreational,” non-varsity, sports (e.g., intramural

and club sports) and social adjustment and institutional attachment.

Looking only at student-athletes, and using the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale

(AIMS; Brewer, Van Radte, & Linder, 1993) to measure the degree to which such students

identify with the athletic role, Melendez (2001) found a modest negative correlation between

that identity and personal-emotional adjustment. For non-minority student-athletes there was a

moderate (-.41) correlation between identification with the athletic role and academic adjustment

(the weaker the athletic identity the better the academic adjustment), but no relation between

those two variables for minority student-athletes.

160

CHAPTER 11

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

SIGNIFICANT AND/OR STRESSFUL LIFE EVENTS

Some of the variables to be considered in this and several following chapters are

environmental factors defined in terms more or less independent of the student and his or her

particular characteristics, e.g., language spoken in the family, characteristics of dormitories, or

types of living arrangements. Other variables to be considered, however, are defined in terms of

student-reported perceptions and interpretations of their environment and environmental events,

or interpersonal experiences, e.g., amount of conflict between parents, parenting styles, social

support from friends, amount of prior interracial experience, romantic relationships. The focus

in these latter variables is still on the environment, but the environment as perceived by the

student. Thus, some of the variables may seem to shade into characteristics of persons, or at least

to be influenced by characteristics of the student who is making the interpretation of, or

interacting with, his/her environment.

Significant and/or Stressful Life Events in General

A number of different means of measuring significant and/or stressful life events in

general that may be experienced by an individual have been employed in studies investigating

determinants of adjustment to college. Such life events typically include a variety of changes in

one’s life circumstances, as in place of residence; health of self or significant others; family

composition and functioning; integrity of relationships; and educational/occupational/financial

status. Studies reporting data for all SACQ variables, or all except the full scale, will be

considered first, followed by those employing selected SACQ variables.

Using the Life Events Checklist (Johnson, 1982) with three student samples, Adan and

161

Felner (1987) examined the association between three aspects of significant life events in general

(negative impact rating, positive impact rating, and total number of significant life events in the

previous two years) and all SACQ variables. Of 45 correlations generated, 12 were significant,

some moderately strong, and in the expected direction (negative correlations for negative impact,

positive correlations for positive impact, and negative correlations for total number), and were

rather evenly distributed across the five SACQ variables and three life events indices. Also

using all SACQ variables, Flescher (1986b) had somewhat stronger findings with variables

defined much like Adan and Felner’s, but from the Life Experiences Survey (LES; Sarason,

Johnson, & Siegel, 1978), 10 of 15 correlations reaching significance. Napoli and Wortman

(1998) employed the negative impact rating from the LES, separately for life events in general

and for life events in college, finding for the former measure weak to modest negative

correlations with all SACQ subscales, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment, and for the

latter measure much stronger correlations of similar magnitude across all SACQ subscales.

Hogan (1986) employing the full scale score from the Psychological Distress Inventory

(Lustman et al., 1984; a life stressor measure despite a somewhat misleading instrument name),

and Adan & Felner (1987) using the Adolescent Hassles Scale (Farber & Felner, 1980), obtained

findings very similar to those of Flescher (1986b; cited in previous paragraph) in terms of the

frequency and magnitude of significant correlations with the several SACQ variables. Marcotte

(1995) obtained fairly strong correlations between the Student-Oriented Life Events Survey

(Grasley, 1992) and all SACQ subscales, as did M. D. Smith (1994) between the Brief College

Student Hassles Scale (Blankstein, Flett, & Koledin, 1991) and all five SACQ variables.

Brooks and DuBois (1995), administering the Adolescent Perceived Events Scale

(APES; Compas, Davis, Forsythe, & Wagner, 1987), obtained no correlations between SACQ

162

variables and number of negative major life events experienced in the previous three months.

However, they did get significant correlations in the expected negative direction between the

occurrence of daily hassles as measured by the same instrument and the Social and Personal-

Emotional Adjustment subscales and full scale.

Posselt (1992) adapted the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967) for

use with college students, and found that the number of stressful events encountered in the

previous year correlated negatively with personal-emotional adjustment.

Moving now to studies employing selected SACQ indices, Natera (1998) used the

Student Stress Scale (SSS; Insel & Roth, 1985), which was modeled after Holmes and Rahe’s

(1967) Social Readjustment Rating Scale but did not include the component of the SSS that

deals with anticipated stressors in the ensuing six months. Basically a checklist, the SSS has one

score (Stress) involving the number of stressful events experienced in the past six months, and

another (Perceived Stress) that involves rating of degree of stressfulness for each event

experienced. Reporting data for only academic, social, and personal-emotional adjustment,

Natera found for the Stress score negative correlations with academic and personal-emotional

adjustment, and for the Perceived Stress score stronger relation with all three SACQ variables,

strongest with personal-emotional adjustment.

Administering both the College Student Life Events Schedule (CSLES; Sandler &

Lakey, 1982) – which contains negative stressful events specific to the college experience – and

the SACQ Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale in the third week of October (Time 1) and

again in the third week of November (Time 2), Gallant (1994) found negative correlations

between the CSLES at both administrations and personal-emotional adjustment at both

administrations. That is, CSLES-Time 1 predicted both the contemporaneously and

163

subsequently administered SACQ variable, and CSLES-Time 2 predicted both the earlier and

contemporaneously administered SACQ variable. Also employing a measure of negative

stressful events specific to the college experience, the Brief College Student Hassles Scale

(Blankstein, Flett, & Koledin, 1991), Hunsberger et al. (1996) found significant relation with the

SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable reported.

Several studies employing only the SACQ full scale score and a stressor measure

administered postmatriculation obtained significant expected direction findings. These include

Maton and Weisman (1989) using their own life stress measure; Jarama Alvan, Belgrave and

Zea (1996) with the overall stress score from the Life Experiences Survey (Sarason, Johnson, &

Siegel, 1978), obtaining a moderately strong negative correlation for Latino students; and

Bartels (1990) with the stress level scale from the Psychological Distress Inventory (Lustman et

al., 1984).

Overall, there seems to be ample evidence of relation in the expected direction between

the reported experiencing of significant life events/stressors in general and adjustment to college,

possibly seen most clearly or frequently in personal-emotional and overall adjustment. Studies

to be considered next have narrowed the focus from life events/stressors in general to more

specific life stressors.

Relatively More Specific Life Stressors

In their study of determinants of adjustment to college, Zamostny, Slyter and Rios (1993)

constructed the Early Trauma Checklist to identify four categories of trauma experienced in the

first fifteen years of life (i. e., interpersonal loss; familial/personal/economic disruptions;

parental dysfunction; and abuse), each of the four kinds of trauma represented by a subscale.

Overall, significant negative correlations were found between incidence of such traumas and the

164

SACQ subscales, most consistently and usually strongest for personal-emotional adjustment,

and, among the four trauma categories, most frequently and usually strongest for abuse. Specific

Early Trauma Checklist subscale findings are considered below where appropriate.

Abuse. Zamostny et al.’s (1993) just-mentioned Early Trauma Checklist subscale

measuring abuse experienced in the first fifteen years of life included three kinds of abuse --

physical, psychological, and sexual – and it correlated negatively with all SACQ subscales.

Marcotte (1995), employing the Parental Psychological Maltreatment and Parental

Physical Maltreatment Scales (Briere & Runtz, 1988), found significant negative correlations

with all SACQ subscales for both emotional and physical abuse experienced prior to age 16. A

modification of the Parental Physical Maltreatment Scale to assess abuse inflicted by other

significant figures (siblings, relatives, friends, neighbors) was found by Marcotte to yield weak

but significant negative correlations with the Academic Adjustment and Attachment subscales.

In Acunzo’s study (1989) freshman women who had experienced sexual abuse in

childhood or adolescence scored lower than freshman women who had not experienced such

abuse on all SACQ indices except the Academic Adjustment subscale, but no such differences

were found at any of the upper class levels. Using the Childhood Sexual Experiences

Questionnaire (Stinson & Hendrick, 1992) with an all-female sample, Marcotte (1995) obtained

only three weak correlations out of twelve comparisons between the three SEQ subscales (sexual

experiences as a child with another child, as a child with an adult, and as a nonconsenting

adolescent) and the four SACQ subscales, two of them for “as a nonconsenting adolescent” with

social adjustment and institutional attachment.

Perceived racial/ethnic discroinmination. Shibazaki (1999) found, with Mexican-

American students, that perceived discrimination/racism as measured by the Racism and Life

165

Experiences Scale-Brief Version (Harrell, 1997) was negatively related to personal-emotional

adjustment. In another study, the greater the discrimination experienced in the college

environment by sophomore Latino students, the lesser the institutional attachment (Hurtado et

al., 1996).

Relationship disruption. Zamostney et al.’s (1993) subscale cited above measuring

interpersonal loss in the first fifteen years of life, from their Early Trauma Checklist, correlated

negatively with the SACQ Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales. Hogan

(1987/1988) used the Loss History Questionnaire – devised for her study – to measure success in

having dealt with past interpersonal loss and found significant relation in the expected direction

between that variable and academic, personal-emotional, and overall adjustment.

The Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale of the SACQ was employed by Frazier and

Cook (1993) to assess residual emotional distress in students who in the previous six months had

experienced the break-up of a romantic relationship. The longer the relationship had lasted, the

less was the residual distress, which seems somewhat paradoxical. Less paradoxical was the

finding that the more the student still wanted to be back in the relationship, the greater was the

residual distress.

Cultural/geographic displacement. Huff (1998) was interested in studying the reverse

culture shock experienced by American missionaries’ children returning to their home country to

attend college after having lived a considerable portion of their lives abroad. Compared with a

control group of students similarly enrolled at two Christian colleges but who had not been

living abroad, the “missionary kids” showed no difference on any of the SACQ variables. But

the “missionary kids” with eleven or more transitions overseas (moves to a different dwelling

place, a different country, or a boarding school) had better social adjustment to college than their

166

counterparts with ten or fewer such transitions.

Reeker (1994) obtained significant positive correlations between distance from home and

social adjustment and institutional attachment, but Brooks and DuBois (1995) got a significant

negative correlation between social adjustment and distance from home as estimated in miles by

students. In five studies (Hogan, 1987/1988; Hurtado et al., 1996; Kline, 1992; Mooney, 1989/

Mooney et al., 1991; Schriver, 1996), however, there was no relation between distance from

home and SACQ variables. Similarly, McCartney (1992) and Ridinger (1998) found no

differences between in-state and out-of-state student athletes on any SACQ variable, as did

Ridinger between in-state and out-of-state non-athlete students. However, Mooney (see also

Mooney et al.) interestingly reports significant positive correlations, the highest with the Social

Adjustment subscale, between all SACQ indices and perceived distance from home, with

perceived distance rated in ascending scores from "too far" to "just right."

Natural disaster. Injejikian (1995) was interested in assessing the consequences of a

major earthquake for adjustment to college. Samples of students at two California State

universities were administered the SACQ four months after students at one of the institutions

had experienced a severe, devastating earthquake, while students at the other institution had not.

The only SACQ variable showing a significant difference between the two institutions was

social adjustment, with earthquake-experiencing students having the lower scores. Injejikian felt

that this difference might simply have been due to the physical destruction of the affected

campus precluding normal, previously enjoyed, social activities.

167

CHAPTER 12

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS

A number of investigators have examined the relation between family characteristics, as

distinct from certain family events discussed in the previous chapter, and adjustment to college

as measured by the SACQ. One such characteristic is family functioning in general, while

others refer to specific aspects of family functioning.

Family Functioning in General

Hollmann and Metzler (1994)/ Hollmann (1995) report that the more positive a student's

perception of his or her family’s health or functioning, defined generally in terms of fostering

autonomy and intimacy as measured by the total score of the Family of Origin Scale (FOS;

Hovestadt, Anderson, Piercy, Cochran, & Fine, 1985), the better the adjustment in all areas

tapped by the SACQ. Roberts (1995) found similar relation between that same measure and

social and personal-emotional adjustment. Using another total score reflecting perceived general

effectiveness of one’s family’s functioning, based on 15 subscales measuring both positive and

negative aspects of family functioning (the Family Functioning Scales; Bloom, 1985), Buelow

(1990) found a positive correlation with the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable

reported.

The Family Health/Competence subscale of the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II

(Beavers & Hampson, 1990) was found by Hutto (1998) to correlate in the expected direction

with all SACQ variables, and by Clauss (1995) with the Social and Personal-Emotional

Adjustment subscales, the only SACQ variables employed. The General Functioning score from

the McMaster Family Assessment Device (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983), designed to

168

measure the ability of a family to function effectively as a unit, was found by Pappas (2000) to

correlate positively with all SACQ variables, strongest among the subscales with academic

adjustment.

Specific Aspects of Family Functioning

Instead of employing only the total score from the Family of Origin Scale (FOS;

Hovestadt, Anderson, Piercy, Cochran, & Fine, 1985), as did Hollmann and Metzler (1994) and

Roberts (1995) cited above, Hutto (1998) reported findings for that instrument’s ten subscales

that address the effectiveness of different aspects of familiy functioning. Five of those subscales

concern a family’s characteristics thought to encourage development of autonomy in its

members: clarity of expression, personal responsibility, respect for other family members,

openness to other family members, and dealing openly with separation and loss. The other five

FOS subscales focus on characteristics thought to encourage development of intimacy:

expression of feelings, warm home atmosphere, handling conflict without undue stress,

promoting sensitivity in family members, and trusting in the goodness of human nature. Positive

correlations were found between all ten FOS subscales and all five SACQ variables.

Familial fostering of development of autonomy. As noted in the foregoing paragraph,

the five subscales from the Family of Origin Scale (FOS; Hovestadt, Anderson, Piercy, Cochran,

& Fine, 1985) intended to assess a family’s encouragement of development of autonomy in its

members were all found by Hutto (1998) to be positively correlated with all SACQ variables.

Also interested in measuring families’ encouragement of the development of

independence in its children, Kenny (1990, 1993, 1994) included in her Parental Attachment

Questionnaire (PAQ) a subscale called Parent Viewed as Fostering Autonomy. That variable has

been found to fairly regularly show correlations in the expected positve direction with the

169

several SACQ variables (Hutto, 1998; Vivona, 2000b), including for minority students (Kenny,

1993; Pfeil, 2000) and missionary children homecomers (Huff, 1998). Amin (2000) reports that

high scoring students on that PAQ variable have better academic, social, and personal-emotional

adjustment than low scoring students. Clauss (1995) obtained similar findings between that same

PAQ variable and the Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales of the SACQ, the

only SACQ variables employed. Using the Parents Viewed as Fostering Autonomy variable

from the PAQ as modified by Kenny and Perez (1996) for use with different cultural groups by

substituting for parents in the instructions any family member to whom the student is most likely

to turn for support, Kalsner-Silver (2000) obtained values very similar to those described above.

Fathers’ encouragement of their daughters’ independence as measured by the Perceived

Parental Attitude Scale (Koutralakos, 1971) was found by Wang & Smith (1993) to be positively

related to all SACQ indices except the Academic Adjustment subscale.

Family cohesion and related variables. Another specific characteristic of family

functioning that has been studied by several investigators using several different means of

measurement is family cohesion.

Considerable evidence has been produced indicating that the more cohesive the student's

family, as perceived by the student, the better the student’s adjustment to college. Two studies

(Garner, 1986/Stoltenberg et al., 1986; and Walker, 1996) using the Family Cohesion subscale

from the FACES-II Scale (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979) have found positive correlation

with all SACQ indices.

Three studies have employed the Family Cohesion subscale from the FACES-III Scale

(Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985). Lapsley (1989)/Rice et al. (1990) found significant

correlations with all SACQ indices. Reporting data for only the Social and Personal-Emotional

170

Adjustment subscales of the SACQ, Lapsley and Edgerton (1999b) obtained a modest

correlation with the former variable. In Butler and Ginsburg’s study (1989) a group of students

with higher FACES-III family cohesion scores had better SACQ-measured academic, personal-

emotional and overall adjustment than a group with middle-range cohesion scores, while a group

with low cohesion scores was not significantly different from the other two categories of

students on those same SACQ variables.

Three studies have used the Family Cohesion subscale from the Family Environment

Scale (FES; Moos & Moos, 1981). Positive correlations were gotten by Lapsley (1989)/ Rice et

al. (1990) and Hopkins (1998) with all SACQ indices, while Caplan (1996/1997) reported

positive correlation with the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable employed.

Hutto (1998) obtained correlations in the expected direction between the Cohesion

subscale of the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II (Beavers & Hampson, 1990) and all

SACQ variables, strongest for personal-emotional adjustment among the subscales, while for

Clauss (1995) there was correlation with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale but not

the Social Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variables employed.

The reader will recall that Hutto (1998) also used the Family of Origin Scale (FOS;

Hovestadt, Anderson, Piercy, Cochran, & Fine, 1985) which has five subscales intended to

assess characteristics of families thought to promote development of intimacy in the family

members. The FOS definition of the concept of intimacy and its measurement seem to be rather

synonymous with the concept of cohesion, and was found to be positively correlated with all

SACQ variables.

Kline (1992) focused upon a particular familial characteristic – i. e., engagement in

ritualized, routinized, or habitual family behaviors involving considerable interaction among

171

members -- that very likely could be related to, or contribute to, family cohesion. That

characteristic, identified as family ritualization, refers to the degree to which a family

participates in regularized “group” behaviors associated with dining, relaxation/vacationing,

celebration of special occasions (birthdays and other anniversaries, family reunions, holidays),

and religious and cultural activities, etc. These kinds of activities are thought to provide order,

stability, security, and comfort to family life and to the family’s members, establishing a basis in

its members for capacity to adapt to new and potentially difficult circumstances, as might be

encountered for example in the college experience.

The Family Ritual Questionnaire (FRQ; Fiese & Kline, 1992) was devised to assess

various aspects of family ritualization which, when factor analyzed, yielded one factor, called

Ritualization. The variable Ritualization was found by Kline (1992) to correlate in the expected

positive direction with all SACQ indices except personal-emotional adjustment for female

students but not with any SACQ variable for male students.

Also possibly closely related to, or contributing to, family cohesion are two additional

family social climate variables from the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos & Moos, 1981):

Activity-Recreation (participation as a family in social and recreational activities) and

Organization (degree of organization of family activities). Regarding Activity-Recreation,

Lapsley (1989)/ Rice et al. (1990) obtained positive correlations with social adjustment,

institutional attachment, and overall college adjustment, Hopkins (1998) with all SACQ

variables. Regarding Organization, Lapsley/Rice at al. found positive correlations with all

SACQ variables, Hopkins with academic and overall adjustment.

Possibly viewable as a pathological form of family cohesion, as in excessive

cohesiveness, would be family fear of separation/individuation in its members as measured by

172

the Family Structure Survey (FSS; Lopez et al., 1988b). The FSS’ authors found that variable

to be negatively correlated in separate samples of male and female students with all SACQ

subscales. For Grella (1989) that same variable was negatively correlated with personal-

emotional and overall adjustment to college, and for Kenny (1995) with academic adjustment.

Finally, concerning variables possibly related to family cohesion, Ropar (1997) found no

relation with any of the SACQ indices for measures of enmeshment/disengagement and parent-

child cohesion from the Structural Family Interaction Scale-Revised (Perosa & Perosa,

1990a&b).

Family adaptability. Two studies (Garner, 1986/Stoltenberg et al., 1986; and Walker,

1996) used the Family Adaptability subscale from the FACES-II Scale (Olson, Sprenkle, &

Russell, 1979), which measures the student-perceived capacity of his/her family to be flexible in

the face of changing circumstances as in appropriately altering its structure, roles, and rules.

Both studies found positive correlations with all SACQ indices in very similar magnitude as

those cited above for the FACES-II Family Cohesion subscale.

Three studies employed the Family Adaptability subscale from the FACES-III Scale

(Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985), but with considerably less success than the same named

subscale from FACES-II. Lapsley (1989)/Rice et al. (1990) obtained modest correlations only

with the Academic and Social Adjustment subscales. Reporting data just for the Social and

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales of the SACQ, Lapsley and Edgerton (1999b) found

no relation with either SACQ variable. In Butler and Ginsburg’s study (1989) there were no

differences on any SACQ variable among groups of students scoring high, middle-range, and

low in perceived adaptability of their families.

Ropar (1997), using the Structural Family Interaction Scale-Revised (Perosa & Perosa,

173

1990a&b), found no relation with any SACQ variable for that instrument’s subscale measuring

family adaptability.

Hopkins (1998) obtained negative correlations between the Family Environment Scale’s

(Moos & Moos, 1981) Control subscale – measuring the extent to which fixed rules and

procedures govern family life, semingly the opposite of adaptability – and personal-emotional

and overall adjustment, but there were no significant correlations with any SACQ variable for

Lapsley (1989)/Rice et al. (1990).

Family/parental support. Using the Perceived Social Support from Family Scale

(Procidano & Heller, 1983), Bartels (1995), Just (1998), and Birnie-Lefcovitch (1997) – the last-

mentioned investigator administering the instrument both pre- and postmatriculation -- all

obtained positive correlations with all SACQ indices, as did Maton (1989a) with the Social

Adjustment subscale but not the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, the only two SACQ

variables reported. In Birnie-Lefcovitch’s study the correlations with all SACQ indices were

stronger for the postmatriculation than the prematriculation administrations, as would be

expected. There seemed to be some slight indication in the foregoing studies of stronger

association for this kind of social support with academic adjustment rather than the other aspects

of adjustment to college. But two investigators (Caro, 1985/1986; Hogan, 1986) found no

relation between that scale and the SACQ.

Kenny and Stryker (1994), with a measure of social support from family derived from

Hays and Oxley (1986) and Martin and Burks (1985), obtained significant relation between it

and the SACQ Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales for a sample of students of

color (Afro-Americans, Asians, and Latinos) but not for White students. Jarama Alvan et al.

(1996) found positive correlation for Latino students between a measure of satisfaction with

174

support from family/kin, from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule (Barrera, 1981),

and the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable employed.

Hurtado et al. (1996) report that students who describe themselves as maintaining family

relationships and obtaining support therefrom have better personal-emotional adjustment. But

Humfleet (1987) found no relation between self-reported amount of contact with family and the

full scale score of the SACQ, the only SACQ variable used; and Gilkey (1988; see also

Protinsky & Gilkey, 1996) reported the same finding for amount of contact with family/parents.

Using a measure of satisfaction with one’s relationship with family from the Social

Network Questionnaire (SNQ; Hays & Oxley, 1986), an instrument intended to assess the

structure and function of sources of social support, Harris (1988) found positive correlation with

all SACQ variables except personal-emotional adjustment. Interestingly enough, however,

Harris and also Serafica et al. (1990), using a measure from the SNQ of the extent to which

students’ social networks are composed of family/relatives, obtained negative correlations with

SACQ variables; that is, the more that a student’s social network consists of family/relatives, the

poorer the adjustment to college. For Serafica et al. there were significant correlations with all

SACQ indices except academic adjustment, and for Harris with academic, personal-emotional

and overall adjustment.

Moving now from perceived social support from family in general to parents in

particular, Yaffe (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000) used the Social Provisions Scale-Parent

Version (SPS-P; Cutrona, 1989) – administered in the first week of the fall term -- and found

significant positive correlations between its total score and all variables from the SACQ

administered the following February and March.

The Parent Viewed as Providing Emotional Support subscale from the Parental

175

Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ; Kenny (1990, 1993, 1994) correlates fairly regularly in the

expected positve direction with the several SACQ variables (Hutto, 1998; Vivona, 2000b),

including for minority students (Kenny, 1993; Pfeil, 2000) and missionary children homecomers

(Huff, 1998). Clauss (1995) found significant correlation for that variable with the Social but not

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales of the SACQ, the only SACQ variables employed.

Using the Parent Viewed as Providing Emotional Support variable from the PAQ as modified by

Kenny and Perez (1996) for use with different cultural groups by substituting for parents in the

instructions any family member to whom the student is most likely to turn for support, Kalsner-

Silver (2000) obtained values similar to those described above.

The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979), designed to

yield a retrospective assessment of parental contribution to the establishment of the parent-child

bond, as perceived by the child, has a subscale to measure caringness (expression of warmth,

affection, and empathy, as opposed to indifference/rejection) that may be seen as a particular sort

of social support from parents. The measure can be taken for both parents combined or

separately.

For parents combined, McAndrew-Miller (1989) found correlations of approximately

equal magnitude between PBI-assessed caringness and all SACQ subscales. In Bailey &

Shilkret’s (2000b) study, correlations of similar magnitude were obtained between mother

caringness and all SACQ variables, but no significant values for father caringness. Rice,

Cunningham, and Young (1997) found significant correlations for both mother and father

caringness with the Social and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales – the only SACQ

variables reported – for both White and Black students and men and women. Using only the

same two SACQ subscales, Lapsley and Edgerton (1999b) reported significant correlation for

176

father caringness with personal-emotional adjustment and for neither father nor mother

caringness with social adjustment. Lopez (1997) obtained a modest correlation between the

mother caringness index, but not father caringness, and the Attachment subscale, the only SACQ

variable employed. Caro (1985/1986), however, found no relation between the PBI Care

subscale, both parents combined, and any SACQ variable.

Coatsworth (2001) employed self-designed measures of three kinds of student-perceived

social support from parents – emotional (encouragement and sympathy), instrumental (advice),

and financial – with students whose parents were divorced. Perceived instrumental and

emotional support from fathers showed no relation with any of the SACQ indices of college

adjustment, but financial support from the father was positively and modestly to moderately

associated with all SACQ variables. For the three kinds of support provided by the mother, the

only significant correlation was a positive one between receipt of instrumental support and

personal-emotional adjustment.

Other fairly direct evidence concerning the role of parental caringness as a form of social

support from within the family comes from Wang & Smith’s (1993) study that focused on the

fathers' role in relation to daughters. Daughters' perceptions of their fathers' expression of

affection as measured by the Father-Daughter Relationship Inventory (FDRI: Brunig, 1983) was

correlated in expected direction with all SACQ indices, as was the daughters' perception of

amount of time and attention devoted to her by the father, except in the case of the Academic

Adjustment subscale.

Using a variable possibly closely akin to the parental caringness construct, Mendelson

(1987/1988) found that recollections of the parents as loving in early interactions with the

student, as measured by the Love-Reject Factor score from the Parent-Child Relations

177

Questionnaire II (Siegelman & Roe, 1979), predicted the SACQ Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscale, the only SACQ variable employed.

The Leadership subscale from the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II (Beavers &

Hampson, 1990) is intended to measure the strength and consistency of adult (presumably

primarily parental) leadership within the family, which may be regarded as a form of parrental

support. It was found by Hutto (1998) to be correlated modestly in the expected direction with

all SACQ variables except academic adjustment.

Several studies provide somewhat practical, non-test measured, evidences of social

support from parents as playing a role in adjustment in college. In Wick and Shilkret's study

(1986a), students who regarded their parents as more involved in their college careers in

supportive and caring ways had higher SACQ full scale scores – the only SACQ variable

employed in this analysis -- than students who described their parents as cold and distant.

Consistent with Wick and Shilkret’s finding, in Yaffe’s (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000)

study the more prematriculation discussion that students reported having had with their parents

concerning various aspects of the impending college experience, the higher were the scores on

all SACQ variables. Similarly, Hunsberger et al. (1996) obtained a weak positive correlation

between that variable and the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable reported. Martin et al.

(2000) report a positive correlation between a self-designed one-item rating of parental support

and the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable employed.

On the assumption that there is such a thing as excessive social support, including within

the family, some research is cited here that may qualify for that category. Lopez et al. (1988b)

were interested in maladaptive family interaction, for which they developed the Family Structure

Survey (FSS) to measure different aspects of that kind of interaction. One FSS subscale was

178

designed to tap parent-child overinvolvement, suggested here as a form of excessive social

support. Lopez et al. found significant correlations in the expected negative direction between

that subscale and all four SACQ subscales for male students and all subscales except academic

adjustment for female students.

Another measure of excessive social support within the family, and a variable seemingly

closely related to parent-child overinvolvement, is the Protective (or overprotective, versus

encouragement of autonomy and independence) subscale of the Parental Bonding Instrument

(PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979), which has been used by several investigators in relation

to the SACQ. The subscale assesses excessive control and intrusiveness, and may be taken for

the parents combined or separately.

For parents combined, McAndrew-Miller (1989) found negative correlations with all

SACQ subscales. Bailey and Shilkret (2000b) obtained only one significant correlation for

mother protectiveness -- with personal-emotional adjustment, negative in valence – and none for

father protectiveness. For Rice, Cunningham, and Young (1997), both mother and father

overprotection correlated in the expected negative direction with the Social and Personal-

Emotional Adjustment subscales – the only SACQ variables employed – for white and black

students and also men and women except in the case of father protectiveness with male students

for social adjustment. Lapsley and Edgerton (1999b) obtained negative correlations with

paternal but not maternal overprotection for both social and personal-emotional adjustment, the

only SACQ variables employed. But Lopez (1997) found no relation between mother or father

protectiveness as measured by the PBI and the SACQ Attachment subscale, the only SACQ

variable used, and Caro (1985/1986) found no relation between the PBI combined parental

protectiveness index and any SACQ variable.

179

Using yet another variable possibly similar to parent-child overinvolvement and parental

overprotectiveness, and to excessive social support as well, Wick and Shilkret (1986a) obtained

a significant relation in the expected direction between perceived maternal intrusiveness (Aries,

Olver, & Batgos, 1985) and scores on the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale. Morray and

Shilkret (2001, 2002) employed the same basic measure of maternal intrusiveness as Wick and

Shilkret, now slightly revised and called the Permeability of Boundaries Scale (Olver et al.,

1989), and added seven college-related items of their own to augment the original instrument

which had focused on the student’s experience in the family home. That new measure yielded

modest negative correlations with all SACQ variables except social adjustment; the more

intrusive the mother, the poorer the student’s adjustment to college.

Another possible manifestation of pathology regarding social support within a family

could be parent-child role reversal. Lopez et al. (1988b) included in their instrument for

measuring maladaptive family interaction, the Family Structure Survey, a subscale intended to

assess that variable. For male students Lopez et al. found negative correlations between their

Parent-Child Role-Reversal subscale and all SACQ subscales except social adjustment, strongest

with personal-emotional adjustment, and for female students there was significant (negative)

correlation with personal-emotional adjustment only.

The Rejection Expectancy subscale from the Separation-Individuation Test of

Adolescence (SITA; Levine, Green, & Millon, 1986) includes items reflecting perception of

one’s parents as rejecting, callous, indifferent, or even hostile, which could be viewed as

representing the opposite of social support within the family. It has been found by Cooler

(1995) and Lapsley (1989)/Rice et al. (1990) to yield consistently negative correlations of

similar magnitude with all SACQ subscales (and the full scale score for Rice et al./Lapsley,

180

which was not employed by Cooler), moderately strong for Cooler.

Familial/parental discord. Degree of conflict within a student’s family has been studied

by several investigators for its relation to adjustment to college. The Conflict subscale from the

Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1981) was found by Rice et al. (1990)/Lapsley

(1989) and Hopkins (1998; see also Feenstra, Banyard, Rines, & Hopkins, 2001) to correlate

negatively with all SACQ indices, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment, while for

Caplan (1996/1997) it did so with the full scale, the only SACQ variable employed. The

Conflict subscale from the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II (Beavers & Hampson,

1990), employed by Hutto (1998), correlated in the expected direction with all SACQ variables.

Using the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979), Reeker (1994) found the expected negative

relation between amount of family conflict and only the Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscale.

In Albert's (1988) study, students reporting that there had been little conflict in their

families had significantly higher scores on all four SACQ subscales than did students indicating

great family conflict. Wick and Shilkret (1986a) report that student-perceived parental and

familial difficulties were less evident among students who were high on the SACQ full scale

score – the only SACQ variable cited --than students who were low.

Several investigators report findings from studies that focused less on the family in

general than on the parents in particular. Using the Marital Conflict subscale from their Family

Structure Survey (FSS), Lopez et al. (1988b) found that it correlated negatively with the SACQ

Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales for male students, and with the Social

and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales for female students, strongest with personal-

emotional adjustment in both instances (data for the SACQ full scale were not reported). Lopez

181

et al. (1989) subsequently reported significant relations in the expected direction between that

same FSS subscale and all four SACQ subscales, but Lopez (1991) obtained significant relation

only with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale. In yet another article, Lopez (1989)

reported no significant correlation between the FSS marital conflict score and the Academic

Adjustment subscale from the SACQ, the only SACQ variable reported in that study.

Grella (1989) found the FSS Marital Conflict subscale to correlate negatively with the

SACQ Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales and full scale. Kenny (1995), administering

the FSS in the fall and the SACQ the following spring, found correlation only with personal-

emotional adjustment.

Using the total score from the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale

(CPIC; Grych, Seid, & Finchman, 1992), Bailey and Shilkret (2000b) found no significant

correlation with any SACQ variable. Ropar (1997) obtained no relation between a measure of

parental conflict resolution from the Structural Family Interaction Scale-Revised (Perosa &

Perosa, 1990a&b) and any SACQ variable.

Relevant to the issue of familial/parental discord are studies that examine the relation

between parental divorce and student adjustment to college. Of studies that simply compare

students of divorced and non-divorced parents, only a minority have found differences.

Allen (1989)/Allen and Stoltenberg (1990) report that students from intact families had

higher scores than students of divorced parents on the Academic and Personal-Emotional

Adjustment subscales and the full scale. Matthews (1992), giving information only for the

SACQ full scale, found higher scores for students from intact families than for students whose

parents were divorced for three years or more. Interestingly, while Pfeil (2000) found no SACQ

differences between students of still married parents and divorced parents, students’ whose

182

parents were separated had poorer personal-emotional and overall college adjustment than those

in the other two categories. Expanding somewhat the category of family disruption but still with

primary – though not exclusive -- emphasis on discord, students in Albert's (1988) study whose

parents were still alive and married had higher Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale scores

than students whose parents were deceased, divorced or separated.

However, Allen (1985, 1986), Allen, Stoltenberg, and Rosko (1990), Bailey and Shilkret

(2000a), Dewein (1994), Levin (1996), Lopez et al. (1988a), Montgomery and Haemmerlie

(2001), Reeker (1994), Roberts (1995), Schwitzer and Robbins (1986) and Yaffe (1997; see also

Wintre & Yaffe, 2000) all obtained no SACQ differences between students of divorced and non-

divorced parents. Hazzard-Patterson (1999) found no differences on any SACQ subscales

between students from maritally intact families and those whose parents were divorced or

separated. Feenstra et al. (2001) reported no differences on any SACQ variables (excluding

Institutional Attachment, which was not employed) between students whose parents were

married (and not separated) and those whose parents were divorced. Bailey and Shilkret’s study

included the finding of no SACQ differences between female students from non-divorce families

and those from post-divorce families in either maternal or joint parental custody.

Among students of divorced parents, Allen (1989) found that the older the student at the

time of the divorce, the better the social adjustment in college. But Dewein (1994) found no

relation between students’ age at the time of parental divorce and any of the SACQ subscales, as

did Levin (1996) for the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable

reported.

As another kind of difference among students of divorced parents, two studies have

focused on post-divorce family structure. Flescher et al. (1986) found no differential effects in

183

SACQ scores between students whose mother remained single and those whose mother

remarried, as did Bailey and Shilkret (2000a) between students in maternal or joint parental

custody.

The quantity and quality of postdivorce parent-student relationships have been examined.

Allen (1989) found no significant relation between SACQ variables and amount of time spent

with either the custodial or noncustodial parent for female students, or with the custodial parent

for male students, but for male students the more the contact with the noncustodial parent the

better the social adjustment and institutional attachment in college. Then, looking at quality

rather than amount of time spent with parents postdivorce, Allen found, for female students, no

significant correlations between that variable and any SACQ indices in the case of the

noncustodial parent, but in the case of the custodial parent the more highly rated the quality of

time spent the better the institutional attachment and social and overall adjustment. For male

students, the more highly rated the quality of time spent with both the custodial and the

noncustodial parent, the better the social adjustment and institutional attachment in college.

Flescher et al. (1986) describe somewhat complicated findings concerning quality of

postdivorce parent-child relationship as a function of both post-divorce family structure and sex

of the student. Specifically, for male students from mother-remarried families, the quality of the

mother-son relationship was positively correlated with the Attachment and Academic

Adjustment subscales.

Flescher (1986b) also investigated the interplay of social network characteristics,

postdivorce family structure, and sex of student in relation to adjustment to college. As a

principal finding, he identifies a different pattern of correlations between proportion of kin in

social networks and the SACQ Attachment subscale for male and female students from single-

184

parent, mother-custody families. A positive association is reported for females, a negative one

for males.

Family’s means of coping with familial discord/distress. The Family Crisis Oriented

Personal Evaluation Scales (F-Copes; McCubbin, Larsen, & Olson, 1985) aim at measuring a

student’s assessment of his/her family’s problem-solving attitudes and skills in dealing with

discord/distress that it experiences. It has five subscales, each identifying a means of coping.

Hopkins (1998) found that Reframing, or redefining stressful events to make them more

manageable, correlated positively with all SACQ variables; and Passive Appraisal, defined as

accepting problematic issues and thus minimizing reactivity, correlated positively with

academic, personal-emotional, and overall adjustment. Acquiring Social Support (as from

relatives, friends, neighbors) had modest correlations in the expected positive direction with the

SACQ Social Adjustment and Institutional Attachment subscales and full scale, and Acquiring

Help from Community Resources also correlated with social adjustment and institutional

attachment, but Seeking Spiritual Support showed no relation with any SACQ variable. The total

score from the F-COPES correlated with all SACQ variables, strongest with the Social

Adjustment and Institutional Attachment subscales and the full scale (see also Feenstra et al.,

2001, for findings with the F-Copes total score). Hopkins concluded that families with more

effective problem-solving skills produce students who are better equipped to adjust well to

college.

Parenting styles. Parenting styles as measured by the Parental Authority Questionnaire

(PAQ; Buri, 1991), through students’ retrospective reports of their growing-up years, were

examined in relation to adjustment to college by Shilkret and Vecchiotti (1995, 1997), Shilkret

and Edwards (1997), and Shilkret (2000) using female samples in all three studies (reporting

185

data for all SACQ variables); by Wintre and Sugar (2000; see also Sugar, 1997) using separate

samples of women and men (reporting data for the SACQ subscales only); and by Yaffe (1997;

see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000) and Pappas (2000) with combined male and female samples

(reporting data for all SACQ variables). The Wintre and Sugar sample (n = 357) was contained

in the Yaffe sample (close to 400 students), so the principal difference between those two studies

in relation to parenting style is their treatment of men and women subjects separately or

combined.

Mothers’ authoritative style (providing clear and firm direction with warmth,

reasonableness, and flexibility) correlated positively with all SACQ variables for Shilkret and

Vecchiotti (1995), Shilkret (2000), and Yaffe (1997; see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000); with all

SACQ subscales except institutional attachment in women and academic adjustment in men for

Wintre and Sugar (2000; see also Sugar, 1997); and with social, personal-emotional and overall

adjustment for Shilkret and Edwards (1997).

Fathers’ authoritative style correlated positively with all SACQ variables for Yaffe

(1997); with all SACQ variables except institutional attachment for Shilkret and Vecchiotti

(1995) and Shilkret (2000); for Wintre and Sugar (2000; see also Sugar, 1997), with all SACQ

subscales except institutional attachment in women, and all except academic adjustment in men;

but Shilkret and Edwards (1997) found no relation between that style variable and adjustment to

college.

The results of these studies suggest that mother authoritativeness may be a little more

strongly associated with students’ adjustment to college than father authoritativeness, and that

parental authoritativeness may be less related to students’ institutional attachment than to other

aspects of college adjustment. Furthermore, there is evidence from Wintre and Sugar’s study

186

(2000; see also Sugar, 1997) that both mother and father authoritativeness predicts institutional

attacment better for male than for female students, and that father authoritativeness also predicts

other aspects of college adjustment better for males than females.

Instead of asking students to rate parents separately for authoritativeness, Pappas (2000)

had them assess the parent whom they regarded as having been the more influential in their

upbringing; or, if parents were viewed as having been equally influential, they should be rated as

a unit. Significant positive correlations were obtained between such ratings and all SACQ

variables, strongest among the subscales with academic adjustment.

Mothers’ authoritarian style (highly directive with expectation of unquestioning

obedience; lacking in warmth; punitive) was negatively related: to all SACQ variables except

institutional attachment for Yaffe (1997); to academic, personal-emotional and overall

adjustment in Shilkret and Vecchiotti’s (1995) and Shilkret’s (2000) studies; to academic and

personal-emotional adjustment in women and social adjustment only in men for Wintre and

Sugar (2000; also see Sugar, 1997); and to personal-emotional and overall adjustment for

Shilkret and Edwards (1997).

Fathers’ authoritarian style was negatively related: to all SACQ variables except

institutional attachment for Yaffe (1997); to academic, personal-emotional and overall

adjustment for Shilkret (2000); to social, personal-emotional and overall adjustment for Shilkret

and Vecchiotti (1995); and to academic and personal-emotional adjustment for women and

social and personal-emotional adjustment for men in Wintre and Sugar’s (2000; see also Sugar,

1997) study. Shilkret and Edwards (1997) found no correlations between that style variable and

any of the SACQ variables.

Pappas (2000), using her method decribed above for rating parents but now for

187

authoritarianism, found no correlation between that variable and any of the SACQ indices.

All studies concerning parental authoritarianism taken together indicate that its strongest

relation among the SACQ subscales is with personal-emotional adjustment, but that it predicts

institutional attachment not at all. Furthermore, there seems to be no appreciable difference in

correlation with SACQ variables between mother and father authoritarianism, and the degree of

association for authoritarianism with college adjustment may be somewhat weaker than it was

for authoritativeness.

Regarding a third parenting style identified by the PAQ, permissiveness on the part of the

mother and father, Wintre and Sugar (2000; see also Sugar, 1997) and Yaffe (1997) found no

significant correlations with any SACQ variable. But Shilkret and Vecchiotti (1995), Shilkret

and Edwards (1997), and Shilkret (2000) divided Buri’s (1991) permissive category into

permissive-indulgent and permissive-neglectful. Permissive-indulgence (relative absence of

discipline, predicated on principles of free expression and independence, with warmth and

caring), on the part of either mother or father, was found in all three studies to be unrelated to

any of the SACQ variables except for a weak positive correlation in relation to the father on

academic adjustment in the most recent of the three studies. However, permissive-neglectfulness

(relative absence of discipline due to parental uninvolvement, uncaringness and detachment) in

Shilkret and Vecchiotti’s (1995) and Shilkret’s (2000) studies yielded the same pattern and

approximate magnitude of correlations as in their findings regarding the authoritative style, but

negative in valence. Shilkret and Edwards found significant negative correlations between

mother and father permissive-neglectfulness and personal-emotional and overall adjustment

only.

Pappas (2000), using her method decribed above for rating parents but now for

188

permissiveness (as traditionally defined, not divided as to type), found no correlation between

that variable and any of the SACQ indices.

Shilkret and Vecchiotti (1997), in a re-examination of their data, assigned students to

groups on the basis of parenting style experienced, and employed analysis of variance to test for

differences between them. Those who had had authoritative parenting had higher scores on all

SACQ variables than students who had had either authoritarian or permissive-neglectful

parenting, and higher Academic Adjustment subscale scores than students experiencing

permissive-indulgent parenting. Students who had had permissive-indulgent parenting reported

better personal-emotional adjustment than those with authoritarian parents, and better social and

overall adjustment than students with permissive-neglectful parents.

Shilkret and Edwards (1997) also used analysis of variance to examine adjustment

differences among students grouped according to parenting style experienced, asserting re-

affirmation of the more favorable consequences of authoritative parenting style and the

importance of analyzing effects in the different areas of adjustment separately for mothers and

fathers. They report that students with authoritative fathers showed better academic adjustment

than those with permissive-indulgent fathers, and that students with authoritative mothers had

better personal-emotional adjustment than those with authoritarian, permissive-indulgent, or

permissive-neglectful mothers.

Beyers (2001) used a different means of identifying parenting styles for comparison with

SACQ variables. Factor analyzing the Children’s Report on Parent Behavior for Older Children

and Adolescents (CRPBI-30; Schludermann & Schludermann, 1988), a shorter version of a scale

originally developed by Schaefer (1965), Beyers established three factor/subscales focusing on

student evaluation of their parents’ parenting behaviors: Acceptance (parents responsive and

189

involved); Firm Control (parents use direct means of control of their child’s behavior); and

Psychological Control (parents employ covert psychological methods of control, like guilt

induction and excessive pressure for change). Firm Control was expected to have positive

consequences for a child’s development and Psychological Control negative consequences.

Beyers (2001) then used patterns of those subsccales’ scores (low, moderate, high) to

construct four parenting style groups: authoritative, permissive (much like permissive-indulgent

as described above), uninvolved (much like permissive-neglectful described above), and

authoritarian. Reporting findings for the SACQ full scale only, Beyers found that students with

authoritarian parents scored lower that those in the other three categories, and those with

permissive (i.e., permissive-indulgent) parents scored highr than those with uninvolved (i.e.,

permissive-neglectful) parents.

Relationship patterns within the family. Several investigators have sought connection

between relationship patterns within the family and adjustment to college, singularly without

success.

Garner (1986)/Stoltenberg et al. (1986) found no SACQ differences between students

who describe the primary relationship in the family as between themselves and a parent and

those who describe the primary relationship as between the parents. No correlation was obtained

by Ropar (1997) between formation of cross-generational coalitions from the Structural Family

Interaction Scale-Revised (Perosa & Perosa, 1990) and any SACQ subscale. Using only the

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale of the SACQ, Levin (1996) found no difference

between freshman women from divorced families reporting a primary mother-daughter

relationship and freshman women from intact families with a similar primary relationship. For

Lopez et al. (1989) similarly there were no differences among groups of students categorized

190

according to different forms of intra-familial coalitions constructed from student perceptions of

intra-familial behaviors.

Family roles. Relevant to the notion of relationship patterns within the family, but with a

mode of analysis that focuses as much on the behavioral characteristics of individual family

members – especially the children – as on the characteristics of the family as a functioning unit,

is the concept of roles engendered within the family.

Cooler (1995) investigated the relation between roles played by students as members of

their family and adjustment to college, employing the Family Role Behavior Inventory (FRBI;

Verdiano, Peterson, & Hicks, 1990), an instrument devised to measure behaviors associated with

a typology of family roles created by Wegscheider-Cruse (1989). The Family Hero role

(organized, dependable, conscientious, achieving, conforming, mature, helpful, “together”) was

positively correlated with academic and social adjustment and institutional attachment, strongest

with academic adjustment. The Lost Child role (emotionally vulnerable, quiet, introverted,

withdrawn, passive, socially isolated, low self-esteem, average to poor adjustment in general)

was negatively related to all aspects of college adjustment measured by the SACQ, strongest for

personal-emotional and social adjustment. There were no significant correlations for the

Scapegoat role (characterized by acting-out, anti-social, defiant, nonconforming, “problemed”

behaviors), for which the sample size was very small, or Mascot role (energetic, entertaining,

comical, outgoing, sociable). An alternate instrument developed by Cooler to measure these

family roles produced significant correlations only in the case of the Hero role for the same

SACQ variables as in the case of the FRBI, but of lesser magnitude.

With very similar definitions of the Wegscheider-Cruse (1989) roles as employed by

Cooler (1995), but measured by the Children’s Role Inventory (Potter & Williams, 1991), Ropar

191

(1997) found significant positive correlations with all SACQ subscales for the Hero role, still

strongest with academic adjustment. And there were negative correlations with personal-

emotional adjustment and institutional attachment for the Lost Child role; negative correlations

with all SACQ subscales except social adjustment for the Scapegoat role; and no significant

correlations for the Mascot role.

Buelow (1990) also used the Wegscheider-Cruse (1989) typology of family roles played

by students, but with an instrument – the Role Relationship Inventory (RRI) – devised by

himself to assess the roles. And he had three subject samples: students from alcohol- or drug-

abusing families; students from dysfunctional or disrupted, but not alcohol- or drug-abusing

families; and students from normal, non-drug-abusing, non-dysfunctional or disrupted families.

Of 48 possible correlations (three samples, four roles, and the four SACQ subscales),

Buelow (1990) found 15 to be significant, all negative except for one weak positive one (the

Mascot role on social adjustment in normal families). The negative correlations occurred with

approximately equal frequency and magnitude across the Hero, Scapegoat and Sick (or Lost)

Child roles, and with least frequency (the one positive correlation) and magnitude for the Mascot

role.

Particularly interesting, and somewhat puzzling given the origins of these presumably

dysfunctional roles in analyses of alcoholic families, is the fact that Buelow (1990) found no

significant correlations between role and SACQ variables for students from alcohol/drug-

abusing families; and the negative correlations were found in roughly equal frequency and

magnitude in the students from the otherwise dysfunctional families, and even the normal

families. For his three samples combined, Buelow obtained a moderately-sized negative

correlation between an overall score from the Role Relationship Inventory and the SACQ full

192

scale score, the only SACQ variable for which such correlation was reported.

Comparing Buelow’s (1990) normal family students with Cooler’s (1995) and Ropar’s

(1997) samples of students from families unselected as to pathology and therefore presumably

normal, several points may be made.

In none of the three studies was there indication of relation between the Mascot role and

adjustment to college except for Buelow’s weak positive correlation regarding social adjustment.

Conversely, in all three studies there were negative (expected direction) correlations with SACQ

subscales for the Lost or Sick Child role. Both Ropar (1997) and Buelow (1990) found relation

between the Scapegoat role and SACQ variables, while Cooler obtained no significant

correlations, very possibly due to the very small number of students in her sample who fell into

the Scapegoat category.

A principal difference among the three studies is the positive relation found by both

Cooler (1995) and Ropar (1997), and a negative one by Buelow (1990), between the Hero role

and adjustment to college, but inspection of the item-content of the three different measures

employed makes the obtained difference understandable. For Cooler and Ropar, the Hero role is

a consistently positive one defined in terms of socially desirable personality characteristics. For

Buelow, the Hero is seen clearly as a dysfunctional role, defined in terms of a driven,

conscience-ridden need to deal with family pathology at the expense of suppressing and not

managing one’s own problems, with consequent feelings of guilt, inadequacy and identity-

confusion. In any event, clarification of the definition and measurement of the Hero role would

seem to be indicated.

Familial/parental physical health and mental health characteristics. Freshmen who

considered their parents to have a drinking problem had significantly lower scores on the SACQ

193

Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales and on the full scale than freshmen

who did not consider their parents to have a drinking problem (Garbarino & Strange, 1993).

Similarly, Buelow (1990) reports a negative correlation between a measure of alcohol abuse in

the family, adapted by him from the Brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Brief MAST;

Pokorny, Miller, & Kaplan, 1972), and the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable

mentioned. That is, the more the alcohol abuse in the family as reported by the student, the

poorer the student’s overall adjustment to college.

Buelow (1990, 1995) also had students identify their families: (a) as including parents

who were chemically dependent or abusive of alcohol or other drugs (CDs); (b) as being

dysfunctional (divorced and disrupted) but with no parental alcohol or other drug problem

(DFs); or (c) as non-drug abusive and non-dysfunctional (Ns). He in effect corroborated these

student self-designations through administration of instruments measuring the students’

assessments of the quality or effectiveness of their families’ functioning (the Family Functioning

Scales; Bloom, 1985) and parents’ alcohol dependence (the adaptation of the Brief MAST) and

found differences in expected direction among the families. That is, Ns had scores indicating the

highest level of family “health” or functioning and CDs the lowest, with DFs intermediate.

The same statistically significant pattern was found by Buelow (1990) among students

from the three kinds of families in personal-emotional, social, and overall adjustment to college

as measured by the SACQ, though with rather small differences between group means.

Interestingly, there were no differences among the three student groups in college grade point

average.

Somewhat similarly to Buelow’s (1990, 1995) study, Ross (1995) had students identify

their families: (a) as including parents with an alcohol abuse problem (alcohol dysfunctional);

194

(b) as including parents who had died or were divorced, or had been physically or sexually

abusive of the student (other dysfunctional); or (c) as without dysfunctional characteristics

(normal). Students from alcohol dysfunctional families had lower scores than students from

normal families on all SACQ variables, and lower than students from “other dysfunctional”

families on academic, social, and overall adjustment. Interestingly, though the scores on all

SACQ variables for the “other dysfunctional” group were intermediate between those for the

alcohol dysfunctional and normal groups, there were no significant differences between the

“other dysfunctional” and normal groups. This may have been due to the possibility that

families including parental divorce or death may not be dysfunctional in the same sense or

degree as families characterized by physical or sexual abuse of the children.

Bailey and Shilkret (2000b) devised an instrument to assess students’ perception of their

parents’ psychological health. Perceiving one’s mother as having psychological problems was

found to be associated with poorer academic, personal-emotional, and overall adjustment in the

student, but no relation was seen between perception of the father as having psychological

problems and the students’ adjustment to college.

Families’ social climate characteristics. The Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos &

Moos, 1981) has been cited earlier as a source of variables describing family characteristics

thought to be related to student adjustment in college, and includes several variables not yet

mentioned that are concerned with the social climate of the family. Family expressiveness,

defined as the extent to which family members are encouraged to act openly and express feelings

directly, was found by Lapsley (1989)/ Rice et al. (1990) and Hopkins (1998) to be significantly

correlated with all SACQ variables, but not by Caplan (1996/1997) using only the SACQ full

scale. The Emotional Expressiveness subscale from the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version

195

II (Beavers & Hampson, 1990) was found by Hutto (1998) to be correlated in the expected

direction with all SACQ variables.

The extent of familial interest in political, social, intellectual, and cultural activities, as

measured by the Family Environment Scale’s Intellectual-Cultural subscale (Moos & Moos,

1981), correlated positively with all SACQ indices in the Lapsley (1989)/Rice et al. (1990)

study, but not with any in Hopkins’ (1998). The FES variable family independence -- i. e., the

extent to which family members are assertive and self-sufficient, and make their own decisions –

correlated weakly with academic, personal-emotional, and overall adjustment for Lapsley/Rice

et al. but not with any SACQ variables for Hopkins.

The Moral-Religious subscale of the FES (Moos & Moos, 1981), measuring degree of

familial emphasis on ethical and religious values, for Lapsley (1989)/Rice et al. (1990) was

found to correlate positively but weakly with social adjustment, institutional attachment, and

overall adjustment, but was not related to any SACQ variable in Hopkins’ (1998) study. In

neither study was relation found between family achievement orientation/competitiveness and

the SACQ.

Family demographic variables. In a study by Burr (1992), students from families where

English was the primary language had higher scores on the Social Adjustment subscale than

students from families where English was not the primary language. But with a Chicano/Latino

student sample, Rodriguez (1994) found no relation between language spoken at home and the

SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable used. In a South African University where

English is the medium of instruction, students for whom English was a first language had better

social adjustment than students for whom English was not the first language (Sennett, 2000).

For Kline (1992) there was no relation between a one-item measure of the importance of

196

ethnicity in one’s family and any SACQ variable. Amin (2000) found no relation between

Arab-American students’ generation level within the family (e. g., first, second, third) and

SACQ variables, as did Rodriguez (1994) between that variable for her Chicano/Latino students

and the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable employed. Wintre and Yaffe (2000) obtained

no relation between immigrant generational status among students at a Canadian university and

the SACQ full-scale score, the only SACQ variable reported.

Higher SACQ full scale scores (the only SACQ variable cited) are reported by Allen

(1985) for earlier-born than later-born children, highest for only children. Kline (1992) found

no relation between students’ number of siblings and any SACQ variable.

Savino (1987; Savino et al., 1986b), on a first- but not second-semester testing, found

that students from families residing in urban-suburban settings had higher scores on all SACQ

indices than students from families residing in rural hometowns.

Grandparents. Erickson (1996) used the Grandparent Strengths and Needs Inventory-

Grandparent Form (GSNI; Strom & Strom, 1989), administered to students’ grandparents to

assess their sense of how successfully and with what degree of satisfaction they have carried out

their grandparental role in relation to their student-grandchild. The grandparents’ scores on the

six GSNI subscales were then correlated with the student-grandchildrens’ five SACQ variables.

In four of the 30 comparisons, slightly more than would be expected by chance, statistically

significant relation was found between the grandparent-generated variables and all of the

grandchild-students’ SACQ variables except the Social Adjustment subscale, especially the

grandparents’ assessment of how successfully they have performed their role. The better the

grandparental role was carried out, the better the student’s adjustment was in the first year of

college.

197

CHAPTER 13

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

NON-FAMILY SOCIAL SUPPORT

As a reader of the previous chapter is now aware, social support as provided by the

family has already been considered as one of the many characteristics of families that have been

investigated as possible environmental determinants of student adjustment to college. But there

is also a sizeable number of studies that have examined the role of social support from other

environmental sources, and those will be discussed in this current chapter.

Social Support from Friends

It would be readily assumed, of course, that friends would be a significant source of

social support. Just (1998), Bartels (1995), Caro (1985/1986), Hogan (1986), Maton and

Weisman (1989)/Maton (1989b), Shibazaki (1999) and McAndrew-Miller (1989) all

consistently obtained correlations – sometimes fairly strong -- in the expected direction between

the Perceived Social Support from Friends Scale (Procidano & Heller, 1983) and all SACQ

subscales (except Attachment for Hogan and Shibazaki, and academic adjustment for

McAndrew-Miller), highest for social adjustment. Frazier and Cook (1993) report significant

relation between that same social support variable and the Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscale, the only SACQ variable employed. Thus, the greater the sense that a student has of

receiving support from friends the better the adjustmen to college in all areas tapped by the

SACQ.

Also indicative of the supportive role of friends in a student’s college adjustment are

studies that focus on the prevalence and quality of friendship sources. Using the Social Network

Questionnaire (SNQ; Hays & Oxley, 1986), Serafica et al. (1990) found that the more that a

198

student’s social network is comprised of friends the better the social adjustment, institutional

attachment, and overall adjustment. Harris (1988) obtained correlation between that same

support variable derived from an adaptation of the SNQ, and also between network density (the

degree to which a network is comprised of mutual friends), and social adjustment only. Harris

also reported that the more friends a student has, as measured by the SNQ adaptation, the poorer

the academic adjustment but the better the social adjustment, which seems intuitively reasonable.

Hertel (1996) adapted Procidano and Heller’s (1983) Perceived Social Support from

Friends Scale to assess support separately from friends in college (any college, not just the one

attended by the respondent) and friends not in college. He found strong correlations for the

former source of support (friends in college) with all SACQ indices in second-generation college

freshmen (students with college-educated parents), but for the Social Adjustment and

Attachment subscales only in first-generation freshmen (students whose parents were not

college-educated). Regarding social support from friends not in college, there were modest but

still significant positive correlations for the second-generation freshmen with the Academic

Adjustment subscale and full scale only, but none for first-generation freshmen.

Kenny and Stryker (1994) found that social support from one's college friends, as

measured by an instrument adapted from scales employed by Hays and Oxley (1986) and Martin

and Burks (1985), was positively associated with SACQ variables (the Social Adjustment and

Attachment subscales) for white students but not for students of color (Afro-Americans, Asians

or Latinos). In a subsequent article, Kenny and Stryker (1996) interpret their data as indicating

that social support from college peers for a mixed minority sample is relatively less important

than support from family, while the reverse is true for European-American students. Those

same investigators found that obtaining support from pre-college friends away from campus was

199

negatively associated with institutional attachment for students of color (Kenny & Stryker, 1994)

and also negatively associated with social adjustment as well as institutional attachment for

European-American students (Kenny & Stryker, 1996).

Jarama Alvan et al. (1996) found positive correlation for Latino students between a

measure of satisfaction with support from “friend/other,” from the Arizona Social Support

Interview Schedule (Barrera, 1981), and the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable

employed. Using a self-designed single-item rating of perceived amount of support received

from friends, Martin et al. (1999) and Martin et al. (2000) report a positive correlation with the

SACQ full-scale score, the only SACQ variable employed.

Social Support from Fellow Students, Roommates, and Coursemates

Using the Social Network Questionnaire (SNQ; Hays & Oxley, 1986), Harris (1988)

found that the more that a student’s social network is comprised of students (i. e., not necessarily

friends), the better the adjustment to college as reflected in all SACQ indices except academic

adjustment. Serafica et al. (1990) obtained positive correlation between that same support

variable and social adjustment and institutional attachment.

Polewchak (1998, 1999) employed the Multi-Dimensional Support Scale (Winefield,

Winefield, & Tiggermann, 1992) to assess social support from “peers” (specifically including

fellow students). She found that frequency of support from peers for her sample as a whole (i. e.,

both men and women) was significantly related to all SACQ variables (though weakly for

academic adjustment); for men, with all SACQ variables except academic adjustment; and for

women it failed to correlate only with personal-emotional and academic adjustment. Satisfaction

with frequency of support from peers correlated significantly in the full sample with all SACQ

variables except academic adjustment, to about the same degree as did simple perceived

200

frequency; for men it also correlated with all SACQ variables except academic adjustment; and,

for women, with all SACQ variables except, oddly enough, social adjustment.

Hurtado et al. (1996) found that reporting in the sophomore year having received help in

adjusting as freshmen from “other freshman students” correlated negatively with academic

adjustment, while having received help from peer advisors correlated negatively with social

adjustment, but having received help from upper class students correlated positively with social

adjustment and institutional attachment.

The consequences for adjustment to college of social support from fellow students in

courses (“coursemates”) were examined by Sullivan (1991) using a specially devised instrument

tapping five aspects of social support, i. e., emotional, informational, social companionship,

instrumental, and motivational. There were significant correlations for all five kinds of social

support from coursemates with the SACQ Social Adjustment subscale, and for three of them

with the full scale (data were reported for only those two SACQ variables). Social support from

coursemates in freshman advisory/intervention seminars, as measured by the Affiliation subscale

of the Classroom Environment Scale (Trickett & Moos, 1973), was found by Wildman (1998) to

not correlate with any SACQ variable. Similarly, amount of time spent studying with fellow-

students who were enrolled in the same residential living-learning program as the respondent

was not related to social or overall adjustment, the only SACQ variables reported (Helman,

1999).

For Serafica et al. (1990) there was no correlation with any SACQ variable for the extent

to which a student’s social network is comprised of roommates, as measured by the Social

Network Questionnaire (SNQ; Hays & Oxley, 1986). Reporting results for social and overall

adjustment only, Helman (1999) found that having a roommate who was enrolled in the same

201

residential living-learning program as the respondent was unrelated to either SACQ variable, but

having known one’s roommate prior to coming to college was associated with better social and

overall adjustment, and students who were more satisfied with their relationship with their

roommate had better social adjustment than students who were less satisfied.

Social Support from Faculty and Other Authority Figures

The consequences for adjustment to college of social support from faculty were

examined by Sullivan (1991) using the specially devised instrument described above that tapped

five aspects of social support. Weak correlations were found only for the informational kind of

support with the two SACQ indices employed (the Social Adjustment subscale and full scale).

Helman (1999) found that students who rated themselves to be better known by their instructor

in an orientation seminar had better academic and overall adjustment, the only SACQ variables

reported, than students who felt less well know; but Wildman (1998), who employed the

Teacher Support subscale from the Classroom Environment Scale (Trickett & Moos, 1973) to

measure social support experienced from instructors of freshman advisory/intervention seminars,

obtained no correlation between that variable and any SACQ variable. The amount of support

that students perceived themselves as receiving from faculty, as measured by a rating on a self-

designed single item, was positively correlated with the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ

variable reported (Martin et al., 1999; Martin et al, 2000).

Polewchak (1998, 1999) used the Multi-Dimensional Support Scale (Winefield,

Winefield, & Tiggermann (1992) to assess social support from authority figures (specifically

including professors). Frequency of support from such figures correlated significantly in the

total sample and the male subsample with all SACQ variables except personal-emotional

adjustment, and in the female subsample with the Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales

202

only (and considerably weaker on those two subscales than for the males). Satisfaction with

frequency of support from those same authority figures correlated with all SACQ variables in

the total sample; with all except institutional attachment in the female sample; and with all but

academic and personal-emotional adjustment for men.

Maton (1989a) examined the relation between a measure of spiritual support (from one's

relationship with God, an ultimate authority figure) devised by himself and the SACQ Social and

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales. He found no significant correlation with either

subscale for his full sample, but did find a significant relation with personal-emotional in a

subsample that had recently experienced high levels of life stress. None of the other three

comparisons (for either subscale in the low life-stress subsample, or the Social Adjustment

subscale in the high-stress subsample) were significant.

Several studies report findings concerning frequency or quality of student relationships

with faculty which, though not couched in terms of social support as such, may be viewed as

reflecting a kind of such support. Students who report themselves as having frequent contact

with professors have higher Social Adjustment subscale and full scale scores than students who

do not report frequent contact (Elacqua, 1992a&b). Students identified by an adaptation of the

Attachment Style Inventory (ASI; Sperling, Berman, & Fagen, 1991) as having secure

relationship with faculty scored higher on the SACQ Attachment subscale, the only SACQ

variable employed, than students having insecure relationships with faculty (Lopez, 1997).

Student ratings of quality of relationship with faculty correlated significantly with all SACQ

variables except personal-emotional adjustment for student-athletes, and quality of relationship

with coaches (a kind of faculty?) correlated with all SACQ variables (Ridinger, 1998).

To this point, regarding social support, we have mainly considered its consequences for

203

college adjustment when originating separately from family, friends, fellow students, and

professors. Taking a step away from social support obtained from separate sources and toward

social support from the environment in general are two studies that combined separately

identified sources.

Social Support from Separately Identified Sources Combined

Polewchak (1998, 1999) used measures of frequency, and satisfaction with frequency, of

social support from family and close friends combined, from the Multi-Dimensional Support

Scale (Winefield, Winefield, & Tiggermann, 1992). For the former measure (frequency), male

students had significant correlations with all SACQ variables except institutional attachment but

female students had none, while the full sample showed significant, modest correlation only with

academic, personal-emotional and overall adjustment. For the latter measure (satisfaction with

frequency), male students had fairly strong correlations with all SACQ variables but again

female students had none, while the combined sample had significant, less strong, correlations

with all SACQ variables.

Thus, without benefit of statistical tests by gender, it appears that the relation with

college adjustment for social support from family and close friends combined is stronger for

male than for female students; indeed, that kind of social support predicted college adjustment

quite well for men and not at all for women. Also without benefit of statistical tests, it appears

that for males satisfaction with frequency of social support from family and close friends

combined is a better predictor of college adjustment than is simple perceived frequency of such

support.

Using total scores for frequency of social support, and satisfaction with such frequency,

from all sources (family and close friends combined, peers, and authority figures), from the

204

Multi-Dimensional Support Scale (Winefield, Winefield, & Tiggermann, 1992), Polewchak

(1998,1999) found for the latter variable significant correlations with all SACQ indices for her

total sample and men and women separately. For the former variable, simple perceived

frequency, in the total sample there were significant correlations with all SACQ variables,

though somewhat weaker for academic and personal-emotional adjustment. For males there

were significant correlations for all SACQ variables except academic adjustment, and for women

excepting academic and personal-emotional adjustment. Except in the case of academic

adjustment, where correlations were of similar magnitude for both men and women, the latter

had lower SACQ correlations with both social support variables.

Napoli and Wortman (1998) employed an unnamed measure of perceived social support

from members of the campus community and family members combined that was devised by

Mallinckrodt (1988) for use in the latter investigator’s study. They obtained significant

correlations with all SACQ subscales.

Administering to student-athletes a self-designed measure of satisfaction with support

from academic and athletic staff and friends combined, Ridinger (1998) found significant

correlations with all SACQ variables.

Support from the Social Environment in General, Unspecified as to Source

Moving now to support from the social environment in general -- i. e., not specified as to

type(s) of support source – several different psychometric instruments have been used for

measuring social support, some of these instruments used in several different studies.

Savino (1987; see also Savino et al., 1986b) found moderately strong correlations

between number of support persons, satisfaction with social support in general, and total score

from the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ; Sarason, Levine, Basham, & Sarason, 1983) and

205

all SACQ variables, strongest for the Social Adjustment subscale. Gallant (1994) administered

the SSQ and the SACQ in the third week of October and the latter again in the third week of

November. She found that the number of support persons index from the SSQ correlated

positively with the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (the only SACQ variable reported)

in both SACQ administrations, while the SSQ satisfaction index correlated with the first

(contemporaneous) SACQ administration only. Huff (1998) obtained significant correlations for

the SSQ satisfaction index with the SACQ Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales and the

full scale, but not with any SACQ variable for the Perceived Availability of Social Support

subscale.

Two measures of satisfaction with social support from the Social Support Inventory (SSI;

Brown, Brady, Lent, Wolfert, & Hall, 1987) – one interestingly defined in terms of discrepancy

between the amount of support the student felt had been needed and what had actually been

received (the perceived fit score), and the other a subjective satisfaction score – were found by

Fuller (2000) to be correlated with all SACQ subscales, especially personal-emotional

adjustment; and by Corbett (1991) with all SACQ variables, especially the Social Adjustment

and Attachment subscales, in black and white deaf students. Bartels (1990) obtained strong

correlations for those same two indices from the SSI with the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ

variable employed, and lesser but still significant values for measures of amount of need for

support felt by the student (Need Strength) and amount of support received (Perceived Supply).

Hunsberger et al. (1996; and Hunsberger, 2000) report correlation between the total

score, measuring perceived availability of social support, from the Social Provisions Scale

(Russell & Cutrona, 1984) administered prematriculation (in August) and all variables for the

SACQ administered the subsequent March, strongest with social adjustment. For another sample

206

of students from the same institution in a later year, that was administered the Social Provisions

Scale in March concurrently with the SACQ, there were significant correlations with all of the

SACQ subscales, now much stronger for social and personal-emotional adjustment and

institutional attachment than the values found with the earlier sample for which the testings were

temporally removed (Pratt, 2001).

Solberg et al. (1994) found a moderately strong correlation for Hispanic students

between the total score from the Social Provisions Scale (SPS; Russell & Cutrona, 1984) and an

abbreviated SACQ comprised of 26 items from the Academic and Social Adjustment subscales.

Also using the Social Provisions Scale, but with older (age 45-55) female community college

students, Ortiz (1995) analyzed the relation between six SPS subscales measuring different kinds

of social support (e.g., guidance, reassurance of worth, reliable alliance) as well as the total score

from that instrument and two SACQ subscales, Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment.

He found significant correlations between all social support variables except one (Opportunity

for Nurturance, or feeling needed by others) and personal-emotional adjustment. Correlated

with academic adjustment were two of the SPS’ subscales (Reassurance of Worth and Social

Integration, or sharing of similar interests and activities with others) as well as the total score.

Using the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL; Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck,

& Hoberman, 1985) to measure perceived availability of four kinds of social support, Kambach

(1994) correlated the four subscale and total scores from the ISEL with all SACQ variables.

Statistically significant values in the expected positive direction were obtained in all but three of

the 25 comparisons, some values strong to robust, the strongest values occurring in relation to

the Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales and the full scale. Robbins et al. (1993)

examined the relation between the same ISEL variables and the SACQ Academic and Personal-

207

Emotional Adjustment subscales and found significance in the expected direction on nine of the

ten comparisons. Kim et al. (1992), employing only the full scale score from the ISEL, got

significant correlations with the four SACQ indices for which data were reported (i.e., the

Attachment subscale was excluded).

Using the total score from the Young Adult Social Support Inventory (Grochowski &

McCubbin, 1987), designed to measure social support in the first year of college, Marcotte

(1995) obtained significant correlations with all SACQ subscales.

In addition to using the traditional ISEL (Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, & Hoberman,

1985) as cited above, Kambach (1994) also devised a variation that relied more on graphical

than verbal means of response in order to reduce common method variance. She still found

correlations in the expected direction with the same three SACQ variables that had highest

correlation with the traditional ISEL (see above), now strongest with the Social Adjustment

subscale.

Factor analyzing data from several measures of person characteristics -- the Prestatie

Motivatie Test, a measure of achievement motivation (PMT; Hermans, 1970); the College Self-

Efficacy Instrument (CSEI; Solberg, O’Brien, Villareal, Kennel, & Davis, 1993); the

Multidimensional Academic-Specific Locus of Control Scale (MASLOC; Palenzuela, 1988);

and the Career Decision Scale (Osipow, 1987) -- Fuller and Heppner (1995) extracted a variable

they named Perceived Support, which correlated strongly with all SACQ subscales in

approximately equal magnitude. Washington (1996) obtained positive correlations with all

SACQ subscales for reponses to a single item, “availability of a strong support person.”

Several studies investigating the consequences of social support for adjustment to college

have employed instruments focusing on the measurement of social networks. Some of these

208

instruments include subscales or scores pertaining to support from separate sources – i. e.,

family, friends, students, etc. – and in those instances the findings have already been described

in the sections of the text concerning those sources.

The Social Network Questionnaire (SNQ; Hays & Oxley, 1986) has been used by

Serafica et al. (1990), and an adaptation of the SNQ used by Harris (1988), to examine the

relation to college adjustment of various aspects of the composition and function of general

social networks. Network size for Harris had a small negative correlation with academic

adjustment, while for Serafica et al. there was no correlation with any SACQ variable.

Several of the SNQ (Hays & Oxley, 1986) variables, not all employed by both Serafica

et al. (1990) and Harris (1988), concern amount and quality of interpersonal activity in the

general social network. Frequency of contact was positively correlated with social adjustment,

institutional attachment, and overall adjustment (Harris). Similarity of network member’s

attitudes and values was positively related to social adjustment and institutional attachment for

Harris, but not to any SACQ variable for Serafica et al. Degree of intimacy of relationship was

related for Harris to social adjustment (quite strongly), institutional attachment, and overall

adjustment, but again not to any SACQ variable for Serafica et al. The occurrence of

anger/conflict in one’s network was negatively related to personal-emotional and overall

adjustment for Harris, but not to any SACQ variable for Serafica et al.

Other SNQ (Hays & Oxley, 1986) variables are concerned with kinds of social support

provided by one’s network. Task assistance correlated weakly and positively with social

adjustment and negatively with personal-emotional adjustment for Harris (1988) but not with

any SACQ variable for Serafica et al. (1990). Provision of information/advice for Harris was

positively related to social adjustment and institutional attachment, but for Serafica et al. not to

209

any SACQ variable. Obtaining emotional support from one’s network correlated positively for

Harris with social adjustment and institutional attachment and negatively with personal-

emotional adjustment, but yet again not with any SACQ variable for Serafica et al.

Experiencing fun and relaxation in the network had positive correlations with all SACQ

variables for Serafica et al, and with social adjustment and institutional attachment for Harris.

Harris (1991) subsequently administered her adaptation of the Social Network

Questionnaire (Hays & Oxley, 1986) and the SACQ to seniors, and found the same approximate

pattern of relations between the two kinds of variables that she had obtained from freshmen,

though generally somewhat lesser in magnitude. Significant correlations in the expected

direction were also reported by Harris between some social network variables from the freshman

year and some indices of the SACQ administered three years later in the last year of college.

Kenny (1995), used a measure of social networks derived from Hays and Oxley’s Social

Network Questionnaire (1986) and from an instrument designed by Martin and Burks (1985)

that contained nineteen variables. For those variables correlated with each of the four SACQ

subscales for five samples of students, the number of significant values obtained for each

subscale only slightly exceeded the number expected by chance.

Using the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule (ASSIS; Barrera, 1981), Brooks

and DuBois (1995) found no correlation for SACQ variables with network size in general or

unconflicted or conflicted network sizes, and only one with satisfaction with support (for social

adjustment), but did obtain significant correlations in the expected negative direction between

felt need for support and all SACQ variables except the Attachment subscale. Also using the

ASSIS, but only the overall satisfaction with social support variable, Zea et al. (1995) and Zea

(1997) found significant correlations with all SACQ variables for white students, with all but

210

personal-emotional adjustment for Latino students, with all but social adjustment and

institutional attachment for African-American students, and with only personal-emotional

adjustment for Asian-American students. For their sample as a whole there were significant

correlations with all SACQ variables.

Jarama Alvan et al. (1996) found for Latino students significant correlation between the

overall satisfaction with social support index from the ASSIS (Barrera, 1981) and the SACQ full

scale, the only SACQ variable used in that analysis. Those same investigators also looked at

satisfaction with various kinds and sources of social support. Examining all SACQ variables in

relation to emotional support and instrumental support, they found no significant correlations for

the latter kind of support but, for the former, significant correlation with academic and overall

adjustment.

For Mendelson (1987/1988) there was only one significant value out of six correlations

between the SACQ's Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, the only SACQ variable

employed, and three measures of social support networks (satisfaction with;

multidimensionality; complexity) from the Perceived Support Network Inventory (Oritt, Paul, &

Behrman, 1985), for men and women separately.

While the foregoing findings presented in this section all concern direct relation between

support from the social environment in general and college adjustment, there are others that

represent somewhat less direct relation, sometimes with consideration of other kinds of

variables.

Zamostny et al. (1993) were interested in the relation to adjustment to college of sources

of support considered to buffer the effects of early trauma (i. e., in the first fifteen years of life),

using their own Early Resources Checklist to measure support sources. One Checklist subscale

211

pertains to interpersonal relationships, similar to other measures of social support discussed here;

a second concerns early success/achievement experiences in school, sports, or creative pursuits;

and a third refers to involvement with recreational/play activities -- all occurring prior to age

sixteen. Modest, sporadic correlations in the expected direction were found between one or the

other of the three sources of support and all areas of adjustment to college except personal-

emotional, perhaps most closely with social adjustment.

Schwitzer et al. (1993) investigated for its influence on college adjustment the relation

between perceived social support and goal directedness as measured by the Goal Instability Scale

(Robbins & Patton, 1985). They used the Affiliation and Teacher Support subscales from the

Classroom Environment Scale (Trickett & Moos, 1973) to assess level of perceived social

support within a freshman orientation class, and the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List

(Cohen et al., 1985) to assess perceived social support from the campus environment in general.

For the two kinds of social support separately, Schwitzer et al. assigned students to four groups

according to high and moderate goal-directedness and high and low social support. In both

analyses they found that the high goal-directedness/high social support group had higher SACQ

scores (on the Academic and Personal-Emotional Adjustment and Attachment subscales but not

the Social Adjustment subscale, with the full-scale score not reported) than any of the other three

groups, with no differences among the latter three groups.

Finally, studies employing variables possibly related to the concepts of social support and

social networks may be cited. Caro (1985/1986) found little if any significance in comparisons

of any subscales from the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction (Henderson, Duncan-Jones,

Byrne, & Scott, 1980) and SACQ indices except: (a) positive correlations between Availability

of Social Integration and the SACQ Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales and the full

212

scale; (b) positive correlations between Perceived Adequacy of Attachment and SACQ personal-

emotional adjustment; and (c) negative correlations between Conflict with Attachment Figures

and the SACQ Academic Adjustment and Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales. Flescher

(1986a) reported that the variable "relationship density" (Tolsdorf, 1976) is positively

correlatedwith the Attachment subscale for females in stepfather families.

213

CHAPTER 14

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS OF CCLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

INTERRACIAL EXPERIENCE

The racial integration of American colleges and universities is a relatively recent

phenomenon that has given rise to considerable interest in the adjustment of minority students to

predominantly white institutions. One possible determinant of that adjustment that has received

some attention in SACQ-using research is an environmental/social variable, i.e., amount and

kind of interracial exposure or experience.

Graham et al. (1984), Serafica et al. (1990), and Adan and Felner (1995) all found that

Black freshmen with greater amount of pre-college exposure to or experience with White

persons in the high school context – especially in relation to high school friends -- adjusted

better to predominantly White colleges, as indicated by higher scores on the SACQ, than did

Black freshmen with lesser such exposure or experience. For Graham et al. and Adan and Felner,

effects were found in all SACQ variables, while Serafica et al. report data only for the

Attachment subscale. Pfeil (2000), however, found no SACQ differences among African-

American students at a predominantly White university who had attended predominantly White,

predominantly Black/minority, or racially/ethnically mixed high schools. But the students in

Pfeil’s study, unlike those in the studies cited earlier in this paragraph, were not all freshmen,

instead coming from mixed college year levels. To make her findings more comparable with

those of Graham et al., Pfeil (2000) reduced her sample to only those students who had

completed just one semester, and found – contrary to the findings of the previous investigators --

that at the end of their first semester the students who had attended predominantly

214

Black/minority high schools had higher scores on social, personal-emotional and overall

adjustment than those who had attended predominantly White or racially/ethnically mixed high

schools.

Graham et al. (1984) also report that, where predominantly white samples in other

studies had consistently shown decreases in SACQ scores from the first to the second semester,

their black students showed increases, and this was interpreted as possibly an additional

indication of beneficial effect of interracial experience, but now occurring postmatriculation in

the current lives of students. Their findings showed, furthermore, a differential rate of

improvement over the course of the academic year among black students varying in amount of

prior interracial experience, the gain being greatest for those with the least such experience.

Adan and Felner (1995) and Mosley (1990) very interestingly and importantly showed

that prior interracial experience for black students attending primarily black universities was

negatively related to adjustment. The inference drawn by Adan and Felner from their

investigation, involving as it did not only black students at predominantly white and

predominantly black universities, but also white students at a predominantly white university,

with significant effects on all SACQ variables, was the importance of the relation or interaction

between person and environmental variables in the determination of adjustment. Mosley’s study

was a little more restricted in scope than Adan and Felner’s, using just a sample of black

students at a predominantly black university, finding that such students who were graduates of

predominantly black high schools had higher SACQ full scale scores than graduates of

predominantly white or integrated high schools. The Academic Adjustment subscale, the only

other SACQ variable for which data are reported by Mosley, showed no differences among the

three groups.

215

The consequences of prior interracial experience in pre-college educational settings were

studied by Sennett (2000) at a historically white South African university that became racially

heterogeneous. That investigator looked for differences in adjustment to college among both

black and white students who had had, or did not have, multi-racial schooling background, i.e.,

previous exposure to ethnocultural diversity. No SACQ differences were found, but it should be

noted that the sample of black students did not include so-called “coloureds,” or mixed black and

white students.

Also studying the adjustment of black students to a predominantly white university, Scott

(1991) focused on the relation between social adjustment and the racial composition of campus

activities in which students were currently involved. The highest scores on the Social

Adjustment subscale of the SACQ were obtained by black students involved with both black and

white sponsored activities, next highest by those involved with predominantly white sponsored

activities, next highest by those involved with predominantly black sponsored activities, and

lowest by those with "little or no" involvement in campus activities. The difference between the

top two categories was slight, and between the second and third categories and third and fourth

categories the differences were larger and of about the same magnitude. While the interpretation

of Scott's data implied here involves environmental influences, another interpretation could

implicate a person variable. For example, the same person characteristic that disposes a student

to participate in interracial activities (e. g., interracial ease) may also contribute to better

adjustment.

Hurtado et al. (1996) found no relation in Latino students between interracial/interethnic

relationships and SACQ variables.

216

CHAPTER 15

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS OF COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT:

INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Institutional Characteristics in Interaction with Decidedness Regarding Academic Major

Studies already cited as pertinent to the relation between decidedness regarding major, as

a person characteristic, and adjustment to college also included findings that were interpreted as

possibly reflecting effects of environmental/institutional factors in interaction with decidedness.

The reader may recall that the relation between major decidedness and adjustment to a liberal

arts college was more clearly seen in the second semester than the first, and this led the

investigators (Smith & Baker, 1987) to conjecture that a contributing factor might be increasing

institutional pressure as the academic year progressed to make a decision regarding major.

Engineering college students, in contrast with Smith and Baker's (1987) liberal arts

students, manifested clear relation between major decidedness and SACQ scores in their first

semester, and the effect involved more aspects of adjustment than was true for second semester

liberal arts students (Plaud et al., 1990). This was interpreted by the investigators as possibly a

consequence of difference between the two types of institutions in relative salience of major

decidedness. That is, in some respects a decision regarding major is made by engineering

students prior to matriculation, is closely determinative of their program of studies in the

freshman year, and any lessening of decidedness regarding that important decision may be

expected to have consequences for college adjustment.

Additional indication of possible interactive relation between major decidedness and

institutional pressure for decision regarding major field is Leonard's (1990) earlier-cited finding

that differences in SACQ scores between freshmen varying in decidedness of major are more

217

apparent in a college that requires declaration of major in the freshman year than in a college

that requires declaration in the sophomore year.

As a final indication of relation between major decidedness and

environmental/institutional characteristics, whether a major field was available or not at the

institution of enrollment for students changing majors was seen to have important consequences

for SACQ scores (Plaud et al., 1990). Students changing to a major available at their institution

had higher scores than those changing to a major not available at their institution.

Initial Institutional Impact on New Students

Several investigators have studied effects of initial exposure to the college environment

on the adjustment of matriculating students using a methodology that evaluated the adjustment

outcome (as measured by the SACQ) in relation to prematriculation expectations regarding

adaptive capacity for the transition into college (as measured by the ASACQ; see pp. 9-11 of this

monograph). Baker et al. (1985), collecting data at two institutions, found substantial decline in

scores from prematriculation to the first-semester testing (interpreted as disillusionment

regarding adaptive capacity) at both institutions on the Academic and Social Adjustment

subscales and full scale but at neither institution on the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale.

There was also a decline at one of the institutions on the Attachment subscale. Kintner (1998)

similarly found significant ASACQ-to-SACQ declines on all variables except personal-

emotional adjustment.

At one of the institutions used in the Baker et al. (1985) study, testing was done in the

second semester as well as the first and the lowered scores persisted, declining still further on the

Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales. Replication of this study several years later at one

of the institutions with another freshman class produced essentially the same results, except that

218

continued decline from the first to the second semester occurred only for academic adjustment

(Baker & Schultz, 1992b).

Gerdes (1986) and Plaud et al. (1986) obtained results very similar to the foregoing at

two other institutions -- i.e., decline on the Academic and Social Adjustment subscales and full

scale but not the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale, and decline on the Attachment

subscale at one of the institutions. Interestingly, rather than simply no effect on the Personal-

Emotional Adjustment subscale, these investigators found a reversal, i. e., an actual adjustment

average significantly higher than the anticipated adjustment average. The reasons for this

difference are not readily apparent and may have something to do with the fact that at both

institutions students completed the anticipated adjustment questionnaire following attendance at

a summer on-campus orientation program.

Cooper and Robinson (1988a&b) -- using engineering and science majors, as did Plaud et

al. (1986) – and Marcy (1996) found significant pre- to postmatriculation declines on all

ASACQ/SACQ indices, including the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale. Williams

(1996) obtained significant decline for the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable reported.

Without making a statistical test of the effect, Mendelowitz (1990/1991) noted that there

were declines in scores from ASACQs administered to high school seniors at the end of the

school year to SACQ scores obtained in November after matriculation at college. The smallest

decline was, consistent with above-cited findings, on the Personal-Emotional Adjustment

subscale.

The foregoing results concerning relation between prematriculation expectations and

postmatriculation outcome are largely main effects of conditions associated with initial exposure

to the college environment. Baker et al. (1985), however, made a special point that not only

219

were there wide individual differences in degree of post-matriculation disillusionment, but some

students did not show it at all and others showed the opposite, implying an important interactive

role for person characteristics. The reader will recall the earlier description of clear behavioral

correlates of those individual differences regarding disillusionment (see pp. 10-11 of this

monograph), correlates of sufficient importance as to underscore the desirability of research

concerning the determinants of variation in relation between prematriculation expectations and

postmatriculation outcome.

Institutional Living Arrangements

Savino et al. (1986b) found that, for a first-semester testing but not second-semester,

small but statistically significant correlations were found between dormitory staff/student ratio

and four of the five SACQ indices. The smaller the number of students per staff member, the

better the adjustment to college. Savino et al. also found that, on second-semester testing but not

first-semester, freshmen with freshman roommates obtained higher Social Adjustment and

Attachment subscale scores than freshmen with upper class roommates. But Danielson (1995)

found no differences on any SACQ variables between freshmen living in dormitory sections set

aside for freshmen versus freshmen living in mixed-class sections.

No notable effects were found by Savino et al. (1986b) for unisex versus coed dorms,

high-rise versus low-rise dorms, or sylvan setting versus downtown dorms. And for Danielson

(1995) there were no differences on the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ variable

reported, between freshmen in unisex versus coed dormitories, or in large versus small

dormitories. Interestingly, Savino et al. list a wide range of SACQ full scale score means for

freshmen in 16 dormitories, but do not report tests of significance nor any conjecture regarding

possible reasons for differences (assuming significance) among the campus residences.

220

The foregoing findings concern characteristics of dormitory living defined independently

of student perception of or reaction to those characteristics. Barthelemy and Fine (1995), by

contrast, were interested in dormitory characteristics as perceived or evaluated by students.

They used the Residence Hall Climate Inventory (RHCI), which they adapted for their study

from a measure of family climate (Kurdek & Fine, 1994), to assess four aspects of dormitory

characteristics: availability of personal or social support, group cohesiveness, amount of conflict

or contentiousness, and orderedness or regulation.

Moderately strong positive correlations were found by Barthelemy and Fine (1995)

between personal support perceived to be available in the dormitory and all SACQ indices for

males, and, for females, somewhat more moderate correlations with all indices except academic

adjustment. Regarding amount of conflict seen as characterizing life in the dormitory, for

women there were moderately strong negative correlations with all SACQ indices, while for

men this variable was thusly correlated only with the Social Adjustment subscale. There were

relatively modest positive correlations for women between perceived group cohesiveness in the

dormitory and all SACQ variables, and for men with the Social Adjustment and Attachment

subscales and the full scale. For dormitory orderedness or regulation, there was only one

significant finding, a positive correlation for men with the Academic Adjustment subscale.

Because the Residence Hall Climate Inventory assesses dormitory characteristics as they

are perceived or reacted to by the student, the likelihood must be considered that it may be a

measure of students’ adjustment to college, or to their dormitory in particular, as much as a

measure of the dormitory. Indeed, the RHCI might be seen as an amplification of the only two

SACQ items that directly implicate dormitory living arrangement.

Several investigators found that students who live on-campus have higher Social

221

Adjustment subscale scores than students who live off-campus or commute from home (Albert,

1988; Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997; Elacqua, 1992a & b; Jackson, 1998; Loveland, 1994; Serafica et

al., 1990; Yaffe, 1997, see also Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). Jackson, Serafica et al., Loveland, and

Yaffe also obtained higher scores from on-campus residents on the Attachment subscale, as did

Elacqua and Friedland (1990) on the full scale. Low (1994; Low & Handal, 1945) compared

students at three different colleges, two primarily residential and one a commuter college, and

scores on the Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales were lower at the commuter college

than at the other two institutions. But Hurtado et al. (1996) found no effects associated with

living on or off-campus, as did Dewitt-Parker (1999) using only the SACQ full scale score. In

Halloran’s (2000) study, done at university that had been a primarily commuter institution but

recently added a residence hall located “a short distance” from campus, there were no SACQ

differences between students living in the residence hall and commuters.

Possibly somewhat related to commuter/residential status, day college students had

higher Social Adjustment subscale scores (the only variable employed) than students who

attended evening or weekend classes (Salone, 1995).

Freshman students at a Belgian university were described by Beyers and Goossens

(2002a) as having two kinds of living arrangements, neither of which were on-campus: (a)

renting rooms in the area where the university is located and usually visiting their parental

homes on weekends and holidays; and (b) commuting from home. No SACQ differences were

found between students in those two kinds of living arrangements.

Campus Social/Sports Organization Membership

Fraternity/sorority membership was reported by Montgomery and Haemmerlie (1993; see

also Montgomery and Howdeshell, 1993) to be negatively related to academic and personal-

222

emotional adjustment but positively related to social adjustment, and unrelated to institutional

attachment. Montgomery and Haemmerlie (2001) found modest positive relation between

fraternity membership and social and personal-emotional adjustment. In Jackson’s (1998) study,

fraternity members had higher scores that non-fraternity members on the SACQ Social

Adjustment and Attachment subscales and the full-scale.

In one study (Ratta, 1994), members of intercollegiate athletic teams had better

adjustment than non-team members in all the areas tapped by the SACQ, while in another

(Foster, 1997) freshman intercollegiate student-athletes had higher scores on the Academic

Adjustment subscale only.

Institutional Service Providers

Hurtado et al. (1996) examined the adjustment consequences of service provision by

various college staff persons. No such effects were obtained for faculty advisors, career

counselors, personal counselors, or financial aid counselors, but positive correlations were

obtained for reporting having received assistance from resident advisors (with social adjustment

and institutional attachment), and from academic counselors (with academic adjustment and

institutional attachment). Similarly, Helman (1999) found that students who were more satisfied

with their contacts with their resident assistant had better social and overall adjustment – the

only SACQ variables reported – than students who were less satisfied. Ridinger (1998), with a

sample of student-athletes, found significant correlation between a measure of quality of

relationship with academic advisors and academic, social, and overall adjustment. But for

Helman there was no relation between degree of satisfaction with one’s academic advisor and

academic or overall adjustment, the only SACQ variables reported for that finding.

Type of College

223

Scott (1991) found no differences on the Social Adjustment subscale (the only SACQ

variable reported) among students enrolled in five different colleges within a university (arts and

sciences, engineering, business administration, health professions, and music). In a study

focusing on engineering and science students, there were no differences between engineering

and non-engineering students on academic, social, or overall adjustment, the only SACQ

variables employed (Helman, 1999). Melendez (2001) obtained differences in students’

academic adjustment at several different, but unidentified, universities.

Miscellaneous Institutional Characteristics

Using a self-designed measure of perceived “cultural distance,” or cultural differences,

between a student’s college environment and their hometown (i. e., ethnic composition,

behavioral characteristics, values, entertainment/recreational activities), Ridinger (1998) found

with a sample of foreign and domestic student-athletes that the greater the cultural difference the

poorer the social and overall adjustment and institutional attachment.

The relation between a variety of institutional characteristics and the adjustment of

Latino students in the sophomore year was examined by Hurtado et al. (1996). Students at

private colleges had higher Social Adjustment and Attachment subscale scores than students at

public colleges; the higher the Hispanic enrollment the better the academic adjustment; the

larger the total undergraduate enrollment, the better the social adjustment and institutional

attachment; the more that faculty and administrators are perceived as student-centered, the better

the academic adjustment; the greater the perception of racial/ethnic tension in the college

environment, the less good the adjustment in all areas tapped by the SACQ; the more

discrimination experienced by the student in the college environment, the lesser the institutional

attachment. No relation was found between the selectivity of the college, as measured by the

224

average SAT scores of entering freshmen, and any of the SACQ variables.

No SACQ differences were found by Kim (1996) between Korean-American students

from private or public universities, or from east or west coast universities.

225

CHAPTER 16

THE FACILITATION OF ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE

(in effect, as of Oct ’01, we have 2 “facilitation” chapters -- this one and the

“integrated summary” of facilitation studies that’s given at the end of the next chapter.

Maybe will want to leave the latter in Chapter 17 if decide to retain a summary chapter, or

maybe incorporate that material at the end of this Chapter 16, or even – especially if

decide not to use a summary chapter – make that material a new chapter that takes an

integrative analysis approach to the facilitation studies rather than the serial approach

taken in the current chapter. In any event, the solution can’t be one or the other -- both I

think are needed.)

Considered in this chapter are studies that have used the SACQ (and sometimes the

Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, or ASACQ, as well) to evaluate the

consequences of attempts to facilitate or remediate student adjustment to college. Because these

attempts typically involve environmental manipulations, they actually belong in the prior

chapters that reviewed environmental factors as determinants of adjustment to college, but

because of their practical significance as deliberate efforts to enhance adjustment they will be

treated separately.

To date, approximately twenty-six SACQ (and sometimes ASACQ)-using intervention

studies have been reported. These studies differ in a number of ways – i.e., the timing of the

intervention; the nature of the target population; the nature of the intervention; the means of

assessment of consequences; and the findings -- and within some of those ways there are very

wide variations. These differences make very difficult if not impossible a conceptually

organized, integrated presentation of the available studies that does not destroy the character of

226

each individual study. Therefore, before attempting such an approach each study will first be

considered as a unit, ordered somewhat arbitrarily in terms of the time of occurrence of the

intervention.

Interventions Conducted with College-Bound High School Seniors.

Two investigators describe interventions with college-bound high school students in the

second half of their senior year for the purpose of facilitating the transition from high school to

whatever college they would be attending in the fall, each using a different means of

intervention. Mendelowitz (1990/1991) conducted weekly small group counseling sessions

during the last two months of the school year, the purpose of which was to identify and discuss

challenges to be met in the impending transition and ways of dealing with them. Consequences

of the experience were assessed by means of the ASACQ (to provide a base measure of the

student’s prematriculation degree of confidence for dealing with the impending transition) and

SACQ (to measure the student’s actual subsequent adjustment).

Participant and control groups both showed score declines from the ASACQ,

administered at the termination of the former groups’ series of counseling sessions, to the SACQ

administered the following November after matriculation at college, but the control group had

the steeper declines, implying that the participants experienced lesser disillusionment regarding

their adaptive capacity. This particular effect, however, was not tested for statistical

significance. But the participants did have significantly higher Academic and Social Adjustment

subscale scores on the November testing than the controls, suggesting that the counseling

sessions did have beneficial consequences for the adjustment to college.

Buchanan (1991, 1993), the second investigator working with college-bound high school

seniors, had three groups of students matched on SAT scores, one serving as a treatment group

227

and the other two as different kinds of control groups, each of which had somewhat different

experiences throughout the second half of the school year. The treatment group in addition to

the regular high school program took a “modified University 101 course” – i. e., an orientation

course ordinarily used with college freshmen but in this study adapted for high school students –

designed to increase students’ knowledge about the college environment, career issues, and

themselves. One control group took an introductory college lecture course in government in

addition to their high school program, and the other had just the regular high school program.

The SACQ was administered to all study participants while at their various colleges the

following fall, and mean differences among the groups were compared (but not by inferential

statistics) and interpreted as favoring the University 101 group on all SACQ variables except

personal-emotional adjustment. The principal reason given by the investigator for not running

statistical tests was the small sample sizes (fewer than twenty students in each group), but there

were other design problems that would have complicated any statistical interpretation, including

some that could have reduced the possibility of hypothesis-confirming results.

Interventions Conducted in the Summer or Immediately Prior to Matriculation

Other prematriculation interventions occurred in the summer after graduation from high

school or just prior to the start of the college's academic year. Keenan (1992) described a four-

week pre-freshman academic/social experience for students on special admittance status because

of low standing (relative to other students in the class) on high school grades and on tests

measuring scholastic aptitude and achievement. Evaluation of the program's consequences

included administration of the SACQ to program participants and a control group in March of

the freshman year. Though there were no SACQ differences between participants and controls,

participants' ratings of satisfaction with the program upon its completion (in August) correlated

228

significantly and positively with all SACQ variables obtained the subsequent March, highest

with the Attachment subscale.

In a study reported by Elacqua (1992a&b), freshman students who were seriously

disadvantaged academically and who had attended a six-week orientation program

prematriculation had higher second semester SACQ Attachment subscale scores than less

disadvantaged, regularly admitted, or especially advantaged students who did not attend such a

program.

Appenzeller (1998) presents the results of a six week, prematriculation, residence hall-

based program focusing on enhancement of academic and social skills in economically and

educationally disadvantaged entering freshmen. The students came from four successive

entering classes in four successive years, but were all tested in the same second semester of one

academic year, so they ranged from freshman through senior status at the time of testing. The

participants were from different ethnic backgrounds (primarily Latino, some Asian-American,

and smaller numbers of African-American and white students).

No significant SACQ differences were found by Appenzeller (1998) between all

matriculants attending the summer program and a control group that did not, but differences

between attenders and non-attenders were also examined for students identified on the basis of

various characteristics. Thus, there were no differences on any SACQ variables between

program attenders and non-attenders for male or female students; for freshman, junior, or senior

students (sophomore attenders had higher scores than non-attenders on the SACQ Attachment

subscale and full scale); for students who met regular admissions criteria in terms of test scores

and high school grades and those who did not; for the Latino, Asian-American or white students

(for black students, with small numbers in both the attender and non-attender groups, the former

229

group had higher social adjustment scores); or students for whom English was a first or second

language.

Also using prematriculation intervention, but not with disadvantaged students, Martin

(1988; see also Martin & Dixon, 1989) found no differences on any of the SACQ indices,

obtained in the middle of the first semester, between students who had attended a two-day

voluntary summer orientation program and those who had not. Subsequently the same

investigators (Martin & Dixon, 1994), with a sample comprised of attenders at their voluntary

freshman orientation programs in four different summers (two days long in one summer and

three days in the other summers), who were administered the SACQ at various points over the

four years of college but none earlier than the third semester, found no differences between them

and non-attenders on any of the SACQ subscales. Jackson (1998) found no difference on any

SACQ variable between students who had attended a freshman orientation program (of

unmentioned length, presumably immediately prior to matriculation) and those who had not.

One study (Brown, 1996, 1997) that involved prematriculation intervention, but also

postmatriculation intervention, will be considered in the following section.

Interventions Conducted Post-Matriculation

Most studies employing the SACQ (and sometimes the ASACQ as well) in assessing

consequences of interventions have made the interventions after the beginning of the academic

year. Several studies employed interventions that began immediately following matriculation of

freshman students.

Schwitzer, McGovern, and Robbins (1991) reported that students attending a ten-week

freshman orientation seminar starting at the beginning of the first semester showed a significant

score increase on the Social Adjustment subscale (the only SACQ variable employed) from the

230

beginning to the end of the seminar. Significant positive correlations were found by Benson

(1999) between number of sessions attended in a 15-session orientation program at the start of

the freshman year and all SACQ indices except personal-emotional adjustment taken in the tenth

week of the first semester, the strongest values occurring on the Social Adjustment and

Attachment subscales.

Lamothe et al. (1995) conducted a six-week, small-group, social support-based

intervention program starting in the first week of the freshman year, with one and a half hour

weekly sessions focusing on presentations and discussions of particular themes (campus

geography, formation and maintenance of social ties on campus, pre-university social ties,

residential issues, academic issues). With the SACQ administered approximately two weeks after

the final group meetings, the students experiencing the group intervention had higher scores on

the Academic Adjustment subscale and full scale than a control group of students not

experiencing the intervention. Though members of the control group had not been invited to join

a treatment group, they had volunteered for participation in the program and had been assigned

to a questionnaire-only sample rather than to a questionnaire plus discussion group (i. e., a

treatment group), in this way possibly reducing the effects of self-selection for a voluntary

project.

Subsequent to the Lamothe et al. (1995) study just described, Pratt, Hunsberger, Pancer,

Alisat, Bowers, Mackey, Ostaniewicz, Rog, Terzian, and Thomas (2000) carried out a somewhat

similar social support-based, small-group discussion, intervention program at the same

university. From a pool of matriculating first-year students who had volunteered to participate in

a “study focused on facilitating the transition into college,” some were assigned to treatment

(membership in one of several small discussion groups) and some to control samples matched

231

for several variables such as age, gender, parental education level, financial aid status, and

university living arrangements. The discussion groups consisted of approximately ten freshmen

each, each group having two specially-trained senior undergraduate or graduate student

facilitators.

The initial step in the intervention process of the Pratt et al. (2000) program was an

individual interview for each freshman with one of their group’s two facilitators, followed by a

first meeting of the groups in the first week of the academic year. Each group met a total of nine

times, for one and a quarter to one and a half hours each session, weekly for the first four

meetings, then bi-weekly until November, once in late January, and once in early March. Thus,

important differences between this and the prior Lamothe et al. (1995) study were a larger

number of meetings for each group (half again as many) extending over a longer period of time

(even into the second semester), with more concentrated occurrence at the outset. Also, the

sample sizes were almost double those of the earlier study, and there were two post-

matriculation SACQ administrations (in November and March) instead of one. The group

sessions followed a format described as “somewhat standardized” and consisted of “semi-

structured exercises” as well as discussion focused on the same kinds of themes as employed in

Lamothe et al. with addition of issues like balancing academic work and social life, and peer

pressures and personal values (regarding drugs, alcohol, sex).

Reporting only the SACQ full scale score, Pratt et al. (2000) found no difference

between the treatment and control samples in the November testing, but significantly higher

scores for the former sample in the March administration. By personal communication, Pratt

(2001) stated that there were no significant differences between the treatment and control groups

on any of the SACQ subscales, though all differences were in the predicted direction and

232

approached significance for academic adjustment.

Savino (1987; see also Savino et al., 1986a) used the SACQ to examine the effects of a

dormitory-based voluntary peer support intervention program conducted toward the beginning of

the freshman year. Students in dormitories providing the program had higher full scale and

Social Adjustment and Attachment subscale scores on a first-semester testing than did students

in dormitories not providing such a program. But no such effects were found in a testing the

following spring.

Brunelle-Joiner (1999) describes findings from an extended orientation program, the

First Year Experience, a two-hour credit course that involved two-hour meetings once a week

for the entire first semester for students who voluntarily enrolled in the course. Compared with a

control group comprised of students who were matched with the treatment group on high school

grade point average, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, and a measure of personal resiliency, but

who elected not to enroll in the extended orientation program (thus raising the issue of effects of

self-selection), the program participants had higher SACQ full scale scores, the only SACQ

variable for which a test of significance was reported.

Fox (2000) also reports use of a First Year Experience Program that apparently ran

through the first semester and involved voluntarily enrolled freshmen assigned to relatively

small groups. But more detailed description of the effort is not provided, e.g., whether academic

credit was awarded, the number and frequency of meetings, or the precise nature of the

meetings’ content or methods beyond saying that the focus was on academic and personal

enrichment, with an attempt to develop a sense of community, academic skills, decision-making

skills, and an expanded sense of self. There was a control group consisting of randomly selected

freshmen who apparently had chosen not to participate in the First Year Experience Program and

233

were not enrolled in any other “learning community” on campus, but that group apparently was

not matched with the treatment group on any specified criteria. Administration of the SACQ

near the end of the first semester showed no difference between the treatment and control groups

on the full scale score, the only SACQ variable reported.

Halloran (2000) describes an extensive formation of a number of freshman learning

communities (FLC’s) that were defined and organized in terms of themes associated with

academic disciplines (e.g., natural sciences, social sciences, language studies) and career

objectives (e.g., pre-medical, pre-law). Students could choose to become a member of one of

these communities, in which all members would take the same five courses related to the

particular community’s theme and attended only by members of that community. Additionally,

such students all had an “FLC Orientation Course” that involved weekly contacts with the

group’s faculty advisor in a mandatory seminar concerned with introduction to university life,

carerr exploration, various group activities, participation in community service projects, etc. A

control group of students who had elected not to participate in a learning community was

established, and all students (i.e., both learning community participants and controls) were

administered the SACQ in the third (pre-test) and thirteenth (post-test) weeks of the first

semester. Despite this apparently carefully and elegantly planned and implemented intervention

program, no differential SACQ changes from pre-test to post-test were found between students

who participated in a learning community and those who did not. Also, there were no such

differences between subsamples of the treatment and control groups that might have been

expected to profit from early facilitative interventions, viz., minority students and students

whose parents did not have a college degree.

Helman (1999) used the SACQ with science and engineering freshmen who had

234

participated in a voluntary (“first-come first-served”) residential living-learning program lasting

the entire fall semester and involving academic and social experiences intended to provide a

stronger sense of community and academic support. All participants lived in the same residence

hall; most had roommates who also were program participants; and most had at least one regular

academic course that included fellow program members. There was a special one-credit seminar

for program participants that met weekly, led by faculty and staff members, plus “co-curricular

activities” including evening programs in the residence hall, all of which was intended to

familarize participants with campus resources and faculty; develop academic skills and time and

stress management abilities; provide opportunities for making social connections; and explore

major fields and careers. Additionally there were tutoring services and periodic sessions with an

academic advisor.

However, the absence of a control group in Helman’s (1999) study severely reduced the

possibility of employing SACQ scores to evaluate effects of participation in the program. The

findings most closely akin to such use of SACQ variables involved ratings of students’ feelings

that the program had been helpful to them academically and socially. With findings given only

for academic, social, and overall adjustment, students more inclined to assess the program as

having been helpful academically reported better academic and overall adjustment than those

less inclined; and those asserting beneficial social effects of the program reported better social

adjustment. Helman also described other findings concerning relations between various aspects

of program experience (e.g., study habits; relationships with peers, faculty, and academic

support staff) and SACQ scores which are considered elsewhere in this monograph where

appropriate.

Schriver (1996) obtained no difference on the SACQ full scale score, the only SACQ

235

variable used, between freshmen who had attended a voluntary orientation class in the first half

of the first semester and those who did not. No differences on any SACQ variable were

obtained by Zion (1990) between freshman students from two dormitories, one of which

employed a special year-long, peer-advising orientation program. Kintner (1998) found no

difference on the SACQ full scale, the only SACQ variable used, between participants in a first

semester, ten week, freshman orientation seminar and a control group of freshmen at another,

but similar, college who did not experience such a program.

Davis (1988) describes a study that involved transfer as well as freshman student-

athletes, where the intention was to evaluate the effectiveness of an early first semester ten-week

seminar and small group discussion experience aimed at development of assorted coping skills

(e. g., goal-setting ability, self-concept improvement, relaxation training, social networking).

The SACQ was administered as a pre-test in the first week of the intervention, which was begun

in the second week of the semester; as a post-test in the program’s next-to-last, ninth week; and

again as a follow-up in the middle of the spring semester. There was no control group,

precluding true assessment of intervention effects, but there were some interesting if

inexplicable findings.

While Davis (1988) expected increase in SACQ scores from the pre- to the posttesting as

a consequence of the intervention, actually the reverse was found on the Social Adjustment and

Attachment subscales and the full scale. Where the pre to post decreases, though statistically

significant, were moderate in magnitude, and possibly attributable to an “end of the honeymoon”

effect that might occur toward the end of a first semester in a new college, there were precipitous

score drops from the posttest to the second semester follow-up in all SACQ variables ranging as

high as 32%, for an average of almost 23% over the four subscales. Unfortunately, no evidence

236

was provided that would account for such dramatic changes in measured adjustment. It might

have been helpful if there had been not only a control group of student-athletes who did not

experience the intervention, but also comparable treatment and control groups of students at the

same university not athletically involved.

Sullivan (1991) also got some contrary-to-expectation findings, but this time with use of

a control group in a study attempting to evaluate the consequences of a full first-quarter

comprehensive and intensive intervention. Freshman students who chose to participate in this

special program were assigned to groups of 20 to 25 members each, each group organized

around a particular academic theme. The members of each group took three courses together, at

least one of which was a small class comprised only of program participants. Each group also

met weekly in a discussion group led by an upperclass peer advisor, and there were opportunities

arranged for faculty-student interaction outside of classrooms. Both the program participants

and a control group of freshmen who had chosen not to participate in the special program were

administered a pre-program questionnaire, which revealed the two groups to be well matched on

a number of important variables (except one important variable that came to light subsequently,

to be mentioned momentarily).

On the SACQ administered toward or soon after the end of the first quarter, program

participants were found to score lower than nonparticipants in academic and personal-emotional

adjustment, with no difference on the other SACQ indices. Sullivan (1991) appropriately

pointed out that the unexpected findings could be due to some unknown person characteristics

differentiating between students who did and did not elect to participate in the special program,

but she also conjectured that some of the findings – especially the reversal of expected direction

on two subscales – might paradoxically be attributable to the same program characteristics that

237

were intended to facilitate adjustment to college. That is, she reasoned that the tight group

involvement and cohesiveness promoted by the program could have generated competition

among group members in academic performance (contributing to lowered scores on the

Academic Adjustment subscale) and higher levels of anxiety (as seen in lowered scores on the

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale).

Other possible contributing factors were pointed out by Sullivan (1991). Program

participants had scored lower than nonparticipants on an “admissions index” based on high

school grade point average and scholastic aptitude, though there was no difference on high

school grade point average by itself. And consistent with that indication of pre-existing

disadvantage for academic adjustment in the program participants, fewer of them than

nonparticipants were found subsequently in a “high academic status category” at the end of the

first college quarter. Finally, and very likely an important factor, the program participants had

been administered the SACQ in class just prior to final examinations at the end of the first

quarter (presumably a relatively stressful time for students), whereas the SACQ administration

to nonparticipants was less controlled, with an unspecified number not completing the

Questionnaire until after the examinations (and therefore in presumably less stressful

circumstances) or even after the start of the second quarter.

This somewhat lengthy and detailed consideration of Sullivan’s (1991) study might be

justified on the basis that it highlights important problems and pitfalls in the design and

evaluation of interventions attempting to facilitate adjustment to college.

Brown (1996; 1997; 1998) examined differences in SACQ variables among freshmen

who had participated in three broad classes of orientation programs, some of the experiences

occurring prematriculation and some postmatriculation. One class of orientation involved ten-

238

day, prematriculation, away-from-campus, “total immersion,” outdoor experiences (canoeing,

cycling, sailing). A second class of program, held prematriculation and/or through the first

semester, offered students an “alternative” opportunity to pursue particular interests or activities

of a service or curricular nature through special projects, field trips, etc., operating from campus.

The third class of orientation was a classroom-type experience held twice a week during the first

five weeks of the semester with faculty/staff and peer counselors presenting and leading

discussion of topics related to the transition into college.

On the Social Adjustment and Attachment subscales, both the “outdoor” and “classroom”

groups (which did not differ from each other) had higher scores than the “alternative” group, as

did the “outdoor” group on the full scale score as well. It is not clear from this study, however,

whether these effects are consequences of the different orientation experiences or of pre-existing

differences among students attracted to the different programs.

In a pilot study done the previous year, Brown (1996) reports that freshmen who had had

the “outdoor” experience had higher social adjustment, institutional attachment and full scale

scores than did a group that combined the other two kinds of orientation programs.

Baker and Siryk (1986) explored the practical usefulness of the SACQ in

postmatriculation remedial intervention with freshman students. They employed the

Questionnaire: (a) to identify students showing clear differences in effectiveness of first semester

adjustment to college for assignment to matched treatment and control groups; (b) as a source of

topics, especially concerning difficulties in adjustment to college, for discussion in interview

with members of the treatment groups; and (c) to measure effects of intervention.

On the basis of SACQ data collected in the middle of the first semester, freshmen in the

extremes of score distributions (i.e., both low end, or poorer adjustment, and high end, or better

239

adjustment) on the subscales were identified and, within each extreme, assigned to matched

treatment and control groups. Members of both the low and high end treatment groups were

invited for a feedback interview lasting from one to two hours, held over a period of several

months from late November to mid-March. Though the primary content of the interviews was

SACQ findings, also discussed where appropriate were ways of dealing with problems that the

student may have been experiencing in adjustment to college. The SACQ was then

readministered in the 11th week of the second semester to all members of the treatment and

control groups.

Baker and Siryk (1986) reported that the low-scoring students on the first SACQ

administration who were interviewed showed greater improvement on the second semester

administration than their noninterviewed counterparts on all SACQ indices except the Academic

Adjustment subscale, and their withdrawal from college by the start of the sophomore year was

significantly less. No such differences were found between interviewed and noninterviewed

students who had been high-scoring on the first semester SACQ adninistration, though the

pattern of SACQ score changes from the first to the second semester was in the expected

direction for all test indices. There was also evidence regarding institutional attachment that, for

the less well-adjusted students, the earlier the intervention the greater the improvement of scores

on re-test, while for well-adjusted students the later the intervention the greater the improvement

of scores on re-test.

Baker and Schultz (1993) described a three-part study, one part of which was a partial

replication of Baker and Siryk (1986). All three parts investigated the consequences of

individual interview for college adjustment in at-risk students. Each part employed the ASACQ

and/or the SACQ either separately or jointly to identify a different kind of risk, and all three

240

parts employed the SACQ by itself or jointly with the ASACQ as means of assessing the

consequences of intervention.

In the first part of Baker and Schultz’ (1993) study, matriculating freshmen with low

scores on the prematriculated-administered Anticipated Student Adaptation to College

Questionnaire (presumed to indicate low expectations or self-confidence regarding one’s

capacity for adjusting to the impending transition into college and thus at-risk) were assigned to

matched treatment and control groups. Members of the treatment group each had an individual

interview soon after the start of the first semester with the first author, a clinical psychologist

and professor. The student was first provided feedback regarding his/her ASACQ results,

followed by discussion of relation between those findings and the student’s actual self-described

adjustment to college, followed in turn by opportunity to discuss adjustment problems and ways

of dealing with them.

With the SACQ administered in the eighth week of the first semester, no significant

differences were found between the treatment and control groups regarding pre- to

postmatriculation changes on the ASACQ/SACQ subscales and full scale. That is, the

expectation of more favorable (or less unfavorable) score change in the treatment group was not

borne out. However, a conclusion of lack of effect of interview is tempered somewhat by the

fact of small numbers of students in the treatment and control groups, and by the tantalizing

(though not statistically significant) finding that the proportion of control group members

withdrawing from college by the start of the sophomore year was almost twice that of the

treatment group.

The second part of the Baker and Schultz (1993) study focused on students who had

shown substantial declines from the level of prematriculation expectations or confidence

241

regarding capacity for dealing with the impending adjustment to college, as measured by the

ASACQ, to the actual level of adjustment as indicated by the SACQ administered in the eighth

week of the first semester. These students, viewed as having experienced disillusioment

concerning their capacity for adjusting to college and thus at-risk, were assigned to matched

treatment and control groups. The members of the treatment group had an individual interview

with the study’s second author, an undergraduate senior psychology major doing honors

research, held from soon after the start of the second semester through late February, followed

by readministration of the SACQ in the tenth week of the second semester.

The content of the interview, consistent with the educational and training level of the

interviewer, was not a clinical or counseling focus on the diagnosis and remediation of

adjustment difficulties, which characterized the interviews in the first part of the study. Rather,

it focused on oral administration of abbreviated versions of the ASACQ and SACQ used to

induce recall of thoughts and feelings at the times of the original administrations of the

instruments, with discussion of the relation between the ratings made by students in the

interview and those made originally on the earlier ASACQ and SACQ administrations.

No significant differences were found between treatment and control students in score

changes from the first to the second administrations of the SACQ on any of that instrument’s

subscales or full scale. But the pattern of score changes was in the expected direction. That is,

for the treatment group there were score increases on all SACQ variables from the first to the

second semester, while for the control group there was either a smaller increase or a decrease.

The samples in this second part of the study were slightly larger than in the first part, but still

relatively small.

The third part of the Baker and Schultz (1993) study was a partial replication of Baker

242

and Siryk (1986). Students with particularly low scores on the first semester administration of

the SACQ were identified and assigned to matched treatment and control groups, and members

of the former group invited for interview with the first author, a clinical psychologist/professor.

This interview was similar to that employed in Baker and Siryk, lasted from one to two hours,

was held between late January and mid-March, and consisted of feedback of information

concerning the student’s first semester SCAQ scores, discussion of the degree of correspondence

between the SACQ data and the student’s actual experienced adjustment, and, where desired by

the student, exploration of ways of dealing with any adjustment problems reported by the

student. Of the 30 students in the treatment group, five had also had a prior interview with the

first author in the first part of the study and ten had also had a prior interview with the second

author in the second part of the study. The SACQ was readministered to members of the

treatment and control groups in the tenth week of the second semester.

Analysis of SACQ score changes from the first to the second semester showed greater net

improvement in academic and overall adjustment for the treatment than the control group, and a

similar finding narrowly missing significance for personal-emotional adjustment. Withdrawal

from college by the start of the sophomore year was two and half times greater in the control

group, a finding also narrowly missing statistical significance.

As a final step in the Baker and Schultz (1993) study, students from the treatment and

control groups in all three parts of the study were combined in order to provide more sizeable

treatment and control samples for testing the consequences of intervention by interview.

Withdrawal from college by the start of the sophomore year was still two and a half times

greater in the now larger control group (i.e., all students identified as at-risk on the basis of

ASACQ and/or SACQ scores, but without any attempt at intervention) than the now larger

243

treatment group (i.e., all similarly identified at-risk students who were interviewed), but the

finding was now statistically significant. An additional statistically significant effect favoring

the treatment group was that it earned more course credits during the freshman year than did the

control group.

Two observations may be offered regarding the findings of the Baker and Siryk (1986)

and Baker and Schultz (1993) studies. First, intervention by individual interview apparently can

have beneficial consequences for students identified as at-risk on the basis of SACQ scores.

Second, replication of the first two parts of the Baker and Schultz study with larger samples

would be desirable.

Paulshock (1994), like Baker and Siryk (1986) and Baker and Schultz (1993), used the

SACQ to identify less well adjusted freshmen for a first semester intervention. Two treatment

groups and a control group were constructed. The former two groups undertook a five week

therapeutic journal-writing program covering themes hopefully associated with facilitation of

adjustment to college, but one group being given highly structured and the other less structured

instructions. The control group received no special treatment. After five weeks, when the

writing program was completed, the SACQ was re-administered to all participants. Using only

the full scale score from the SACQ, Paulshock found no significant difference among the three

groups in score change from pre- to posttest, indicating no consequences of the interventions.

However, there was a positive correlation between student-reported number of journal pages

written and amount of increase in SACQ full scale score from pre- to posttest.

Using another kind of therapeutic intervention – i. e., reminiscence therapy focusing on

learning/educational issues in four one-hour weekly group sessions with older, non-traditional

age students of mixed college year levels -- Schatzman (1994) found no significant differences

244

between the treatment and control groups in pre- to post-intervention scores on any SACQ

variable.

245

CHAPTER 17

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS

(I’m writing this note as I come to the end of the writing of this chapter, (i.e., #17)

the summary, which I think is terrible, doesn’t do what I intended to do for a summary,

and I think that maybe the only use of the material in this chapter may be some occasional

stuff that could be added to earlier chapters where appropriate.)

The basic purpose of this monograph was to present in one place what is known about

adjustment to college from research with the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, in the

hope of promoting further research that will advance understanding of that adjustment.

Accordingly, the monograph will close with a summary of findings and with some thoughts

concerning future research. Of particular importance will be the identification of issues that

merit clarification or further exploration as well as new areas for investigation.

As indicated earlier in Chapter 2, sources for particular findings are not cited in the

present chapter, so that presentation of an overall view of the fruits of SACQ-using research is

facilitated. All findings mentioned in this chapter will have been described and properly cited

where considered in earlier chapters, and readers may want to use the Reference section to locate

sources for particular findings of interest.

The Definition of Adjustment to College

Numerous studies by many investigators employing the SACQ have yielded considerable

information concerning the operational meaning of adjustment to college. There is ample

evidence that it is a measurable construct that has a wide variety of behavioral and experiential

correlates which are readily recognizable as significant adaptational events in the everyday lives

of college students. There is also ample justification for conceptualizing the construct as having

246

different facets which are differentially manifested in the wide variety of demonstrated

correlates. It is clear, too, that this adjustment may vary over time, that it is not to be thought of

as a necessarily stable and enduring characteristic of individuals, and that intra- as well as

interindividual variation occurs in the adjustment and its several aspects.

One facet of the construct, academic adjustment, is manifested in quality of academic

performance (grade point average; academic honor society membership) and seriousness of

academic purpose (decidedness about and satisfaction with academic major; career plan

certainty; class attendance; study habits; attitude towards faculty).

Another facet, social adjustment, is reflected in extent of involvement in the life of the

college (participation in extracurricular activities; frequency of leaving campus to visit home,

and number of other kinds of contacts with family and friends at home; full- or part-time

enrollment; amount of time spent in gainful employment); in the formation and maintenance of

relationships (number of close friends; length of friendships; amount of time socializing with

friends; felt quality of relationships with other students; involvement in romantic relationships),

and in interpersonal/occupational competence (qualifying for position as dormitory assistant).

Personal-emotional adjustment is evinced in whether the student is known to campus

psychological services agencies or other campus sources of support, or reports of being or

having been in psychotherapy or counseling; in self-reports of feelings of strain and stress or

experiencing difficulty adjusting to college; in various aspects of mental health (e.g., self-

reported state of mental health, including occurrence of depression, anxiety, dissociation

symptoms, eating disorders); and in various aspects of physical health (measures of general

physical health; number of physical symptoms reported; number of appointments with college

physicians; number of class absences due to illness).

247

The fourth aspect of adjustment identified, commitment to the college experience,

including attachment to the college attended, is manifested by enrollment status (continuing or

dropping-out) and by expressions of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the overall college

experience and the college attended (level of preference for the college attended in relation to

other colleges; opinion concerning how a college has dealt with its students and provided

occupational preparation; entertaining thoughts of leaving the college).

While the meaning, or extent of the domain, of the construct "adjustment-to-college" has

thus been fairly well spelled out by SACQ research conducted to date, it undoubtedly has not

been exhausted and further research can provide additional clarification. Two areas, for

example, that have not yet been sufficiently explored in definition of the construct are those

aspects of the student's life and behavior that would reflect (1) the process of separation from

family and friends in the home locale and how it is dealt with, and (2) the kind and quality of

relationships that are established with professors and other college staff persons, attitudes

towards those persons, and ways of dealing with them, whether academically or socially. With

respect to the latter issue, the question is not so much whether close or friendly relationships are

formed, but how relationships with or attitudes towards those persons are part of the adjustment

experience. The reader may well have ideas regarding other facets of the construct that might be

elaborated.

Much of the construct content laid out thus far has been gathered from analysis of the

differential behavioral and experiential correlates of the four SACQ subscales. The reader will

recall that within each subscale item-clusters were identified that are thought to tap different

aspects of the adjustment area addressed by the subscale. A promising way to delineate further

the definition of adjustment to college would be to focus attention on the differential behavioral

248

and experiential correlates of those various item-clusters.

Some of the item-clusters, it should be pointed out, contain relatively few items, and if

the kind of research suggested above were to be attempted, it may be necessary to develop new

means of measuring particular aspects of adjustment areas, possibly by building on the items that

presently constitute the item-clusters.

One area that has been explored very little is whether it is possible to identify "types" of

adjustment, or types of adjusting students, in terms of patterns of behavior or experience

associated with patterns of SACQ subscale (or even item-cluster) scores.

Determinants of Adjustment to College

As the reader must now be aware, a great deal of information is available from research

with the SACQ regarding possible determinants of adjustment to college. A considerable

amount is known about some of these determinants because they have been studied by multiple

investigators using either different measures of a particular variable or sometimes the same

measure, typically with consistent outcomes in terms of occurrence and strength of association.

About many of the lesser studied variables there is promising evidence of association with

adjustment to college that hopefully may be replicated and extended in new studies. The variety

of variables that have been used is broad, necessitating -- as recalled from the earlier

consideration of these variables -- their being sorted into a number of categories. Two major

categories were (1) person characteristics and (2) environment characteristics.

***************

Some of the closest and most consistently obtained relations between the SACQ and

person characteristics as possible determinant variables involve psychological health. Thus, total

and/or composite scores of general mental health from a number of tests, in a number of studies,

249

by a number of investigators, have regularly yielded significant correlation with all aspects of

college adjustment measured by the SACQ, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment.

The same is true in the case of depression as a particular aspect of mental health, with

even more test measures of depression being employed, two of the tests in a number of different

studies. In the majority of these studies the measures of depression were administered

postmatriculation, when it would be just as easy to construe such measures as assessing

adjustment-to-college outcomes rather than determinants of that adjustment. However, in

several instances the measures of depression were administered pre- as well as postmatriculation

– or, in one instance, in the first week following matriculation -- with lesser but still significant

association found for the earlier administration. An implication of this finding is that pre-

existing depression may profitably be regarded as a potential determinant of adjustment to be

addressed remedially prematriculation or durimg the adjustment to college..

Anxiety is another particular aspect of mental health that has been investigated at some

length in relation to college adjustment, with results in most studies quite similar to those found

for depression. That is, a number of studies by a number of different investigators using a

number of different psychometric instruments have rather consistently and similarly obtained

correlation with the several SACQ variables, typically strongest with personal-emotional

adjustment.

Unlike the studies of depression, which treated that variable as a homogeneous

phenomenon, different kinds of anxiety have been examined – state, trait, separation, phobic,

and death anxiety – and even worry as an aspect of anxiety. One study, instead of using a

psychometric device to assess anxiety, examined adjustment differences among students varying

in manifestation of symptoms of diagnosable separation anxiety disorder. But no studies

250

reported to date used prematriculation administration of test measures of anxiety, which could be

useful in clarifying the relation between anxiety and college adjustment, and would have

implications for both pre- and postmatriculation remedial interventions.

A number of investigators have studied the relation to college adjustment of other less

precisely defined, or possibly more generic, affective or “emotional” states, variously identified

as emotional lability, negative affect, neuroticism, emotional stress, perceived stress, and

“reverse culture shock” (experienced by American missionaries’ children returning from

residence in foreign countries to attend college in the United States). The findings in most of

these instances are much like those for depression and anxiety, i. e., correlating usually with all

SACQ variables, strongest with personal-emotional adjustment.

As in the case of depression cited above, some investigators administered a measure of

perceived stress either before or in the first week after matrriculation and again in the second

semester of the freshman year, when the SACQ was also administered. Perceived stress at all

three testing times predicted all SACQ variables, the closer in time the measure of stress to that

of adjustment the stronger the relation.

Two other kinds of problems in psychological health – dissociative experiences and

symptoms, and eating disorders – have been found to have expected direction relation with

SACQ variables.

A number of studies have dealt with person characteristics that may be viewed as aspects

of good mental health, in contrast to those discussed in the several foregoing paragraphs. These

include measures of psychological well-being, positive affect, optimism, positiveness of attitude,

sense of self-fulfillment, and self-discipline in dealing with one’s emotions and temper.

Investigators employing such variables typically report positive and sometimes strong relation

251

with SACQ variables.

A few researchers have looked at the role of general physical health (self-assessed state

of health, occurrence of physical symptoms, number of visits to a campus physician, number of

class absences for illness) in college adjustment. Expected direction relation with selected

SACQ variables (usually personal-emotional or overall adjustment) has been reported for such

variables, except that visits to a campus physician was related moderately strongly (and

negatively) to all SACQ variables.

Regarding more specific aspects of physical health, only one study has looked for

adjustment differences between students with and without various physical disabilities, as well as

among disabled students, and found none. But in another study learning disabled students had

lower scores on academic and personal-emotional adjustment than non-learning disabled

students. Finally, in a sample drawn from a general college population, strong negative

correlations with all SACQ variables – highest with personal-emotional and academic

adjustment – were found for behavioral characteristics and symptoms associated with attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Several possible avenues of research concerning psycholgical health as a determinant of

college adjustment may be suggested. One, already mentioned earlier, would be more frequent

use of prematriculation identification and measurement of relevant variables (e. g., depression,

anxiety) because in the more common postmatriculation use such measures may be reflecting the

adjustment itself. Additional studies concerning some of the less often used mental and physical

health determinant variables (e.g., dissociative experiences and symptoms, separation anxiety

disorder, eating disorders, learning disability, ADHD) would be desirable, as would use of forms

of psychopathology not yet employed, and, especially, more extensive study of psychological

252

characteristics indicating good mental health. Methodologically, the heavy use of tests in

identification of mental health variables might be supplemented by greater use of criterion

groups established on the basis of traditional clinical diagnostic procedures. That is, other means

than psychometric devices could be employed for codifying these constructs in investigation of

their relation to adjustment in college.

***************

A second category of person variables that has shown consistent and close association

with adjustment to college – typically with all areas measured by the SACQ in roughly equal

magnitude, often strongly and sometimes robustly -- includes several constructs related to self-

regard or self-appraisal (e. g., self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-confidence, and self-concept, plus

assorted others like primary appraisals in the coping process, perceived self-effectiveness,

realistic self-appraisal, rational thinking about oneself, narcissistic injury). Sometimes these

variables as used in SACQ research are conceptualized in trait-like fashion as broadly applicable

across different areas of function (i.e., pertaining to oneself in general), and other times they are

conceived as specific to particular areas of function (i. e., pertaining to specific aspects of

oneself: social, cognitive, or emotional functioing; athletic performance, capacity to cope with

life demands despite disability, adjusting to college). As in the case of depression, these

variables have been employed by a large number of investigators in a large number of studies

with a lot of different self-regard/self-appraisal measures, several of them well-established

“standards” that were used in a number of the studies.

As was true of the psychological health variables, most of the studies employing self-

regard/self-appraisal variables measured them postmatriculation, raising the same question

whether what is being assessed is a determinant of adjustment or an adjustment outcome.

253

Fortunately two (chk #) studies assessed the determinant variable prematriculation, or very soon

after the start of the students’ first semester, and obtained significant -- even reasonably

substantial -- association with SACQ indices, suggesting that this may be a very fruitful source

of constructs for understanding and predicting adjustment to college. Interestingly, there is some

evidence that prematriculation self-efficacy-like judgments regarding one’s capacity to deal with

the impending college experience predict adjustment beyond the freshman year and possibly

even late into the fourth year.

It has become increasingly the case in recent years that self variables are conceptualized

less in terms of a unitary self than one consisting of different facets (e. g., physical, moral-

ethical, intellectual, social, familial). Two studies using two different means of assessing such

facets of the self reported considerably consistent relation with all SACQ variables, suggesting

that additional studies of this sort may help to further our understanding of adjustment to

college.

In a number of studies, measures of self-efficacy or self-esteem with regard to social

activity were found to correlate with all SACQ variables, typically strongest with social

adjustment, as one would expect. In several studies concerning such self-evaluation of cognitive

functioning (regarding, for example, intellectual ability, scholastic competence, creativity;

ability to deal with particular kinds of academic courses; problem-solving ability), while not

infrequently correlating with other SACQ subscales in those instances where they were used, had

its strongest values with academic adjustment.

Undoubtedly a number of the variables in the self-regard/self-appraisal category are

overlapping or redundant in meaning, and research directed toward clarification of that state of

affairs could be useful. Even apart from the particular topic of this monograph, as well as in

254

future studies of determinants of college adjustment, it would seem desirable for the plethora of

self-regard/self-appraisal variables to be reduced to a more manageable few that have well-

standardized means of measurement.

Research exploring relations between self-regard/self-appraisal and other variables as

determinants of adjustment to college might be particularly worthwhile. For example, it has

been shown that prematriculation level of confidence regarding one's capacity for adjusting to

college is a predictor of the subsequent adjustment, but by no means a perfect one. Maybe it

would help, in understanding those high in prematriculation self-confidence who subsequently

experience serious adjustment problems, to couple the self-confidence measure with, for

example, a prematriculation measure of locus of control. Is it possible that highly self-confident

but subsequently poorly adjusting students are more likely to be "externals" than "internals,"

more subject to disturbing environmental factors than other more inner-directed students might

be? Other combinations of the two predictor variables would similarly have implications for

quality of adjustment. And the same kind of multivariate approach could be useful with any

number of other combinations of variables.

***************

While acknowledging the cognitive nature of certain variables considered under the

various rubrics (i.e., chapter headings) used to organize findings regarding person determinants,

a separate chapter was devoted to a group of variables that might be regarded as more “purely”

cognitive in nature. This third grouping included three subcategories: cognition of causality in

the explanation of one’s own behavior; ideational/intellectual characteristics; and means of

reacting to and coping with stressors.

The concept of locus of control refers to the degree to which an individual sees the

255

primary responsibility (causation) for his/her behavior as inhering in oneself (internality) or

outside of oneself (externality). Three different means of measuring locus of control as a

general trait, two of them in common usage, have been found in close to a dozen studies to

correlate with all SACQ variables in expected direction (internality associated with better

adjustment), strongest with academic and personal-emotional adjustment. One study that

involved pre- and postmatriculation administration of the independent variable obtained

significant relation for both testing times, strongest for the latter.

Like the self-regard/self-appraisal variables considered earlier, locus of control can be

defined not only as a general trait but also in relation to specific kinds of situations or areas of

function. Thus, several studies of academic locus of control (i. e., regarding academic demands

and functioning), by different investigators using two different means of measuring that variable,

showed correlation frequently and sometimes robustly in the expected direction with SACQ

variables, strongest among the subscales with academic adjustment and considerably stronger

than the correlation for the general measure of locus of control with academic adjustment.

One investigator was interested in the consequences for college adjustment of locus of

control for positive and negative life events separately as well as life events in general, finding

some expected-direction but weak correlations with SACQ variables. Another researcher

adapted the SACQ itself for use as a prematriculation measure of locus of control for adjusting

to college.

Moving away now from locus of control but still in the general area of cognition of

causality, complexity of causality in the explanation of one’s own and others’ behavior –

including with a measure situationally-specific for college students -- has been examined without

notable outcome except for findings of weak to modest correlations in the direction contrary to

256

prediction with one of the SACQ subscales. Also, the habitual tendency to perceive negative life

events as caused by factors that will persist over time (i.e., stable attribution of causatio), and by

factors likely to be operative in a wide variety of situations (global attribution of causality), are

negatively associated with some SACQ indices. And perceiving positive life events as caused by

factors operative in a wide variety of situations is positively correlated with SACQ variables.

Several ideational/intellectual characteristics – very likely considerably redundant -- have

been examined in relation to SACQ variables. They include: ideational flexibility (the ability to

view situations from multiple perspectives), predicting all SACQ variables, but weakly;

receptivity to new ideas (the “Big Five’s” Openness to Experience factor), more widely used and

maybe a little more successful in showing association with the SACQ; absolutistic thinking,

related moderately strongly (and negatively) with all SACQ indices; organized

thinking/intellectual efficiency; predicting all SACQ variables, strongest with academic

adjustment; judgment, also associated with all SACQ variables, strongest with academic

adjustment; and ideational complexity, by itself not predicting college adjustment, but among

students reporting high stress prematriculation those characterized by high ideational complexity

had higher scores on all SACQ variables than low complexity students.

Also belonging among ideational/intellectual variables would be measures of academic

aptitude, for which findings are fragmentary and inconsistent. For composite measures (verbal

and quantitative scores combined), positive correlations are occasionaly found with the various

SACQ indices, maybe more so with academic and personal-emotional adjustment, but not

always. Use of the verbal and quantitative scores separately has been less frequent, and findings

are even more inconsistent, with negative correlations sometimes occurring, especially for the

quantitative score.

257

Yet another set of cognitive characteristics is means of reacting to and coping with

stressors. Some investigators have looked at stress tolerance and cognate variables (e.g.,

personality hardiness, personal resilience) as general traits, in terms of ability to deal with

pressure and adversity irrespective of particular circumstances. In several studies those

investigators have found such variables to correlate consistently and moderately to strongly with

all SACQ variables, usually strongest with personal-emotional adjustment.

A number of investigators have examined particular means of coping with pressure and

stressors, using several different means of measuring -- and defining -- such variables. Effective

means of coping have been variously identified as task-oriented, problem-focused, active

(cognitive and behavioral), or proactive, all characterized as involving strategies intended to deal

directly and decisively with sources of stress through timely formulation and persistent

implementation of appropriate plans. Findings from use of this kind of effective coping in

relation to the SACQ cover a very broad range from, rarely, no relation, through occasional

weak positive relation with one or another SACQ index, to, more commonly, stronger

(sometimes even robust) positive correlations with various or even all SACQ indices, maybe

strongest with academic adjustment.

A less effective means of dealing with stress is identified as emotion-oriented coping,

defined as attempting to manage one’s emotional response to stressful situations at the expense

of dealing more directly with the source of stress, or venting of emotions. This variable

correlates negatively and sometimes strongly with SACQ indices, most commonly with

personal-emotional adjustment. A third, and also less effective, means of dealing with stress is

avoidance coping, involving failure to confront the source of stress, which has been seen to

range from no correlation with SACQ indices to modest through more strongly negative relation

258

with all those indices.

***************

A fourth category of person variables that are closely relevant to the educational

enterprise and shown to be associated with adjustment to college is characteristics related to goal

orientation. This category includes some variables that are cognitive in nature and some that are

motivational, but common to all is a focus on the future, and on what one hopes or expects to be

doing in that future. These variables may be ordered in subcategories of achievement need, goal

directedness, academic motivation, and vocational and educational planning.

Several means of measuring need for achievemnt quite directly have been found to relate

with the several SACQ variables, particularly academic adjustment. Other means of measuring

that need less directly – especially the conscientiousness variable from the “big five” factors –

have been seen to relate to all SACQ indices, including robustly with academic adjustment.

One study was concerned with need for achievement in the social area (competitiveness

and drive for upward mobility), which correlated strongly with all SACQ indices, especially

social adjustment. And measures of need for achievement occupationally correlated with certain

SACQ variables.

A number of measures of goal directedness, or sense of purpose, including goal-setting

skills and success in attaining goals, have been found to relate, sometimes rather strongly, to all

SACQ variables, especially academic and personal-emotional adjustment. Students who have

adequately explored possible life goals and made goal commitments show good adjustment to

college. Students who are experiencing difficulty in exploring possible goals and haven’t made

commtiment, and those who have neither explored nor made commitment, adjust less well to

college.

259

Several measures of academic motivation have been shown to be associated positively

with the various SACQ indices, particularly academic adjustment. Intrinsic or inherent

academic motivation (goals in attending college chosen by oneself) similarly correlates

positively with certain SACQ variables, while extrinsic academic motivation (reflecting

expectations imposed by others) correlates negatively. A measure of capacity to attain academic

goals without direction from others was robustly associated with academic adjustment,

substantially so with personal-emotional adjustment, and to a lesser degree with social

adjustment. Valuing intellectual activities and pursuits, including scholarly effort, related

robustly with SACQ indices, most so with academic adjustment; having a strong academic self-

concept correlated strongly with academic adjustment.

Regarding planning behavior in general, avoidance of making important life decisions

(i.e., not planning), or making unstable decisions (not planning well), were found to correlate

negatively with academic and overall adjustment. Good planning behavior, defined in terms of

seeking information about oneself and using it to examine and change self-understandings when

appropriate in making life decisions, correlated positively with academic adjustment. Maybe

paradoxically, in terms of the findings regarding extrinsic academic motivation cited above,

trying to conform in important life decision-making to desires and expectations of others

correlated positively with institutional attachment/goal commitment and overal college

adjustment.

Regarding vocational planning in particular, in several studies clarity/stability/certainty

of such plans correlates with all SACQ indices, particularly academic adjustment, more strongly

in a post- than prematriculation administration of the independent variable with overall college

adjustment.

260

Regarding educational planning, in a number of studies by a number of investigators

degree of decidedness regarding academic major -- in freshman students particularly – was

found to correlate with SACQ variables, academic adjustment especially. Some particularly

interesting findings in this regard concern the interaction between academic major decidedness

and time of the academic year (or point in the educational experience) in determining adjustment

to college, as well as the interaction between major-decidedness and institutional variables. In

one study adjustment differences among freshmen varying in decidedness were more apparent in

a college requiring declaration of major in the freshman year than in a college requiring

declaration in the sophomore year. The association between major status and adjustment seems

to be more apparent when there is pressure to make a decision regarding major, whether imposed

by the self or by the institution, for example, and there is evidence that it is particularly

catastrophic for adjustment for major-changing students to be in an institution not offering the

major they want.

The latter observation may be so obvious as to be trite, but the basic issue concerning

relation between person and institutional characteristics as determinants of adjustment would

seem to be a very promising area for future investigation. For example, most studies in this area

to date have been done with freshmen in liberal arts colleges, where it has been found that the

relation between major decidedness and adjustment is more evident in the second semester --

when, presumably, the pressure to decide on a major grows -- than the first. Would the relation

become even more evident in the sophomore year, when pressures for decision undoubtedly

intensify?

Amount of thinking or planning by a student prematriculation regarding academic goals

in college, or talking with parents or other persons about the impending college experience,

261

predicted academic and/or overall adjustment in college, as did the amount of information a

student had about various aspects of the impending experience. Paradoxically, in one study the

greater the high school students’ knowledge concerning the general characteristics of colleges

and universities, the less good their subsequent adjustment to the college they attended.

***************

A fifth class of variables, perceived relationship with parents, would seem to include

person characteristics of considerable developmental importance that should have implications

for a student's adjustment to college. But the instrument that has probably been most used with

the SACQ, and among the least fruitful in showing relation, is one that is intended to measure

psychological separation from parents (i.e., independence or autonomy, a mark of maturity).

That instrument purports to assess four maturationally-desirable aspects of independence

from parents, i.e., attitudinal, functional, emotional, and conflictual. Yet it is only the last-

mentioned aspect – absence of conflict in the relationship with parents -- that with considerable

consistency yields significant expected-direction correlation with SACQ variables, mostly so

with personal-emotional adjustment.

It has been argued that the failure of the other three aspects of separation to show

expected relation with college adjustment may be due to problems in the definition and

measurement of the construct of separation represented in that particular instrument. To make

matters even more problematical regarding interpretation of these findings, the absence of

conflict in relation with parents doesn’t seem to be necessarily of central inportance in the

definition of separation. That is, it appears possible that students who are psychologically

independent of their parents could have conflicted relations with them.

Thus, while we must look elsewhere for information concerning relation between

262

psychological separation from parents and college adjustment, and may not wish to regard

absence of conflict in the student/parent relation as a necessary indication of that separation, the

presence/absence of conflict can still of course be an important feature of the student/parent

relation and an important determinant of adjustment to college. Indeed, other studies using other

means of measurement have provided additional evidence to that effect which will be considered

shortly.

A broader, more direct, more nuanced, and apparently more successful means of

assessing psychological separation from parents used by one investigator has five subscales

addressing different aspects of the student/parent relationship, some indicating successful

separation (voluntary closeness with parents while maintaining appropriate boundaries; ability to

function autonomously from the parents and to take responsibility for oneself) and others

indicationg unsuccessful separation (governed or unduly influenced by parental wishes; close

relationship and alliance with one parent against the other, or triangulation). While none of the

five subscales predicted academic adjustment, all except the triangulation variable correlated in

expected direction with the other SACQ variables, higher values tending to occur with personal-

emotional adjustment.

And several other means of measuring students’ autonomy from parents – that variable

variously characterized as ability to take responsibility for oneself, or individuation, or positive

separation feelings – used by other investigators showed positive though usually modest

association with the several SACQ indices. One instrument that assesses adult behavioral

characteristics presumed to result from disturbances in separation-individuation had strong

negative association with SACQ variables.

Thus, while there has been some considerable disappointment in the search for relation

263

between psychological separation from parents and adjustment to college, especially in the

results from widespread use of one particular test, there are also some encouraging findings. In

any event, perceived separation from parents as a potential determinant of adjustment to college

seems too important to be left in the present state of findings and further research is indicated,

including with improved means of measuring the determinant variable.

(this next paragraph is a reasonably succinct summary, & I may want to consider

using ir or something like it if I decide to move the above several paragraphs to the

relevant chapter)Several different means of measuring perceived separation from parents have

been employed, some more successfully than others in demonstrating relation with adjustment to

college. With the most frequently employed instrument, results were disappointingly mixed and

have led to some reinterpretation of the psychometric character of that instrument. Only one of

four subscales intended to measure four different aspects of psychological separation from

parents – i.e., conflictual independence, or absence of conflict in the relationship – was found to

be consistently related in predicted direction to SACQ variables, most so with personal-

emotional adjustment.

A number of investigators have focused on what at first blush appears to be the obverse

of psychological separation from parents, i.e., perceived attachment to parents, and, employing

several different means of measuring that variable, have been more consistently successful in

finding expected positive association with adjustment to college. In part at least this research

emerges from disapproval of what some consider excessive focus on separation from parents as a

mark of maturation, and consequent underemphasis on the role of continued association with

parents characterized by appropriate transformations therein.

The means of assessing attachment to parents that has been most used in relation to the

264

SACQ provides, in addition to an index of overall attachment, subscale measures of trust,

communication, and alienation in the relationship. A half dozen or more studies reporting the

overall measure found fairly consistent expected-direction (positive) correlations with the

several SACQ indices, ranging from modest to robust. Studies reporting findings for the

subscales also fairly consistently obtained expected-direction (negative for alienation, positive

for trust and communication) correlations with SACQ indices, ranging from modest to

moderately strong.

Interesting findings came from studies employing that same instrument to identify

students varying in parental attachment style. In one study, freshman students identified as

securely or insecurely attached to their parents, two years later as juniors still showed expected-

direction difference on SACQ variables. In another study where students were categorized as

having secure, ambivalent, or avoidant attachment to parents (the latter two being instances of

insecure attachment style), the secure students again showed better college adjustment, with the

differences being attributable almost entirely to female members of the sample.

One researcher developed an instrument designed to measure both separation from

parents and connectedness (preferring that term to “attachment”), viewing both as desirable

developmental features, and used it to construct four categories of students in terms of

combinations of high and low scores on each variable. Expectations regarding adjustment

differences among the four categories arrayed from greater to lesser maturity were largely

corroborated.

Possibly not far removed from the concept of student/parent attachment is a variable

called perceived reciprocity in current relations with parents, considered to be a more mature

state of affairs than the asymmetry of earlier such relationships. Here parent and student treat

265

each other as relative equals, with open and honest communication and mutual respect,

reminiscent of the above-decribed variables of communication and trust. In two studies this

variable correlated with all SACQ variables, sometimes substantially.

Returning now to the role of conflictedness of the student/parent relationship as a

determinant of college adjustment, discussed briefly above in terms of conflictual independence,

there are three additional sources of relevant findings, all of them subscales from instruments

measuring psychological separation from or attachment to parents. In a half dozen studies there

was consistent positive correlation, sometimes moderately strong, between a measure of the

affective quality of the relationahip – positively keyed -- and all SACQ variables; in several

other studies there were regularly occurring and sometimes strong negative correlations between

student-felt alienation from parents and SACQ variables; and in two studies a measure of

resentment of parental control was negatively associated with SACQ variables.

***************

We move now from a particular kind of social relations, i.e., with parents, to social

relations in general as a sixth class of person characteristics as determinant variables studied for

their role in the adjustment to college. Social propensity, or social interests and skills, measured

both pre- and postmatriculation, predicts SACQ variables, stronger for the postmatriculation

testing and especially with social adjustment. Similarly, several means of extraversion have

been found to be positively related to all SACQ variables, strongest with social adjustment and

weakest with academic adjustment. Shyness, conceivably the obverse of extraversion, correlated

negatively with all SACQ variables.

In one study, the tendency in interpersonal situations to focus one’s attention on other

persons rather than on oneself, very likely related to extraversion, was associated with better

266

social adjustment and institutional attachment, while focusing on the self was associated with

better academic and personal-emotional adjustment. The definition of the “Big 5” factor of

aggreeableness – including references to friendliness, altruism, capacity for empathy – would

seem related to focus on others rather than the self, and in three studies correlated positively with

all SACQ variables, as did the cognate variable of likeability in yet another study. From a more

sociological point of view, individualistic versus collectivistic orientations would seem to reflect,

respectively, focus on oneself and focus on others, the latter orientation predicting all SACQ

variables, especially social adjustment and institutional attachment.

It seems likely that the foregoing characteristics of individuals, referring basically to self-

or-other orientation and possibly to essental social skills, would culminate in outcomes in the

form of interpersonal attachment, i.e., the establishment of interpersonal relationships and

capacity for doing so. A measure of attachment to college peers correlated with all SACQ

variables, the values regarding social adjustment and institutional attachment consistently strong,

leading to the conclusion that the greater the student’s ability to communicate with and place

trust in, and to avoid alienation with, fellow students (all conceived as components of

attachment), the better the adjustment to college. The same instrument used to assess attachment

to peers in general, not just those at college, also predicts all SACQ variables, strongest with

social adjustment and institutional attachment.

A combined measure of parental attachment and peer attachment correlates with all

SACQ variables, least with academic adjustment. Compariog parental and peer attachment for

predicting adjustment to college, the former appears to be a better predictor of academic and

personal-emotional adjustment, the latter a better predictor of social adjustment and institutional

attachment. Several measures more directly assessing capacity for forming social relationships

267

show positive association with SACQ variables, especially social adjustment.

The concept of alienation, cited above as a component of interpersonal attachment, as

applied to interpersonal relationships in particular, represents a failure of attachment or

disordered attachment to others. Several measures of alienation and related variables (e.g., felt

distance from other persons, pathological independence from others) have been found to

correlate in expected direction and sometimes moderately strongly with SACQ variables.

Excessive or inordinate dependence on other persons is in a sense the opposite of

alienation and detachment from others but nevertheless represents still another kind of

disturbance in relationship formation. Studies employing that variable have found negative

correlations with all SACQ variables, especially personal-emotional adjustment. On the other

hand, measures of healthy or adaptive forms of self-sufficiency/independence – i.e., that do not

preclude ability to establish interdependent relationships with others when appropriate – are

associated positively with all SACQ variables, some moderately strongly.

Pulling together in an organized way several of the aspects of relationship formation

already considered separately is the concept of adult attachment styles, referring to individuals’

characteristic manner of relating to significant other persons, typically presumed to be a

consequnce of early infant/parent experience. Three basic styles are ordinarily identified. The

“secure” and more adaptive style is characterized by ability to establish reciprocally close and

interdependent relationships, while at the same time maintaining separate identity and capacity

for independent action. In the “anxious-ambivalent” style there is inordinate need to establish

and maintain close and dependent relationships, with difficulty in regulating negative emotions

associated with threats of relationship disruption. The “avoidant” style is marked by lack of

capacity for, or interest in, forming close relationships. These behavioral characteristics are

268

sometimes used to identify types of persons, and sometimes traits or dimensions underlying the

styles. Several investigators, whether using analysis by type or trait, regularly find higher SACQ

scores in all adjustment areas for the secure style.

The social relations variables considered thus far in this section implicate interpersonal

relationship directly, but some investigators have employed variables that do so only indirectly.

Several studies, for example, involve feeling states that are defined in terms of social relations.

Social anxiety correlated negatively with all SACQ variables, strongest with social adjustment.

Fear of negative evaluation, or need for social approval, very likely an aspect of social anxiety,

also correlated negatively but more nodestly with certain SACQ variables. Loneliness has been

used in several studies and found to correlate with all SACQ variables, sometimes quite robustly,

strongest with social adjustment and weakest with academic adjustment. In one study, loneliness

measured in the second semester of the freshman year predicted SACQ variables in the senior

year, again strongest with social adjustment. Shame was found to be associated negatively and

rather strongly with all SACQ variables except institutional attachment. And guilt, as measured

by several different instruments and in several different studies, relates negatively and frequently

substantially with all SACQ variables.

A social relations variable in a more general or even sociological sense as it relates to

college adjustment has been studied in deaf students at a college for deaf students, in terms of

whether they identify with the deaf community, the hearing community, or both. Students

identifying with the deaf community had higher scores on SACQ variables, and those identifying

with the hearing community, or both communities, had lower scores.

One study introduced a social aspect into a variable that probably wouldn’t ordinarily be

thought to have one, i.e., perfectionism. While perfectionistic expectations imposed on oneself

269

by oneself (i.e., perfectionism as traditionally conceived) showed no relation with SACQ

variables, high standards imposed on others by the student had low negative correlations with

social adjustment and institutional attachment, and felt obligation to conform to standards and

expectations imposed on oneself by others (socially prescribed perfectionism) correlated

negatively with all SACQ variables except academic adjustment, strongest with social

adjustment.

A variable possibly fairly typically, though not necessarily, associated with social

relations, and not yet much focused upon in research using the SACQ, is the use of intoxicants

and recreational drugs. This is surprising, given the apparently rather widespread use of such

substances in the college population and expectations concerning the relation between such use

and quality of adjustment. Findings thus far concerning such variables are fragmentary.

***************

A seventh and final set of person characteristics that may be thought of as possible

determinants of adjustment to college consists of group identity variables defined in terms of

membership – however active or passive – in a category of persons assumed to have implications

for an individual’s behavior. These categories tend to be more demographic or status-related

than the person-characteristics considered earlier, and with few exceptions seem to be less

fruitful in understanding adjustment to college.

Gender is the group identity variable for which most information is available. The most

common finding is no group differences between men and women on SACQ variables. When

such differences are seen, they are consistent but of minor magnitude, with men having higher

scores on the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale and women higher scores on the other

subscales.

270

Related to gender as a group identity variable, but much less investigated though

apparently more promising for understanding adjustment to college, is sex-role orientation. In

two studies, psychologically androgynous studemts had higher SACQ scores than low

androgynous, masculine, or feminine students, or students undifferentisted as to sexual role.

And there were no SACQ differences between androgynous male and female students.

Racial/ethnic characteristics are group identity variables that have received a fair amount

of attention in SACQ-using research, especially concerning the adaptation of minority students

to an environment that in some ways may be “foreign” to them. But the most common finding

(nine studies) in comparison of adjustment of African-American and white students at

predominantly white American colleges is no difference in SACQ scores. In two studies, black

students had better personal-emotional adjustment than white students. In four studies, white

students had higher scores on SACQ variables except for academic adjustment. At a recently

integrated South African university white students also had higher scores on some SACQ

variables than black students, the latter sample excluding mixed-race students. The poorer

adjustment of black students at predominantly white institutions, when it occurs, seems to be

seen more in social adjustment and institutional attachment. Thus, findings from these studies in

which students are identified simply by race have not been particularly productive or uniform.

Important to note, black freshmen at a predominantly black university had better

academic, social, and overall adjustment than either black or white freshmen at a predominantly

white university, and stronger institutional attachment than black students at the predominantly

white institution. This finding expands the inquiry considerably and suggests that any greater

adjustment difficulty of black students than white students at predominantly white colleges could

be attributable at least in part to the nature of the institution. As yet unaddressed is the question

271

of adjustment of white students to predominantly black colleges.

In another potentially very important line of inquiry, some researchers have hypothesized

that black student adjustment in college might be less a function of racial status than of

particular characteristics in terms of which students may differ from each other, such as attitude

toward their racial status, or adherence to black culture versus acculturation, or amount of prior

interracial experience. Except for interracial experience, about which a fair amount of

information is already available, findings from use of other individual difference variables

among black students are relatively meager and beg inquiry. It may be worthwhile for

investigators to assume that minority students will vary in the degree to which the college

environment is actually “foreign” to them or otherwise presenting challenge.

Very little in the way of difference in adjustment to college is found between Spanish-

origin students and other students, including white students, or among different kinds of

Spanish-origin students, or among Spanish-origin students varying in identification with their

minority culture.

Taken all together, racial/ethnic characteristics per se do not seem to have been as helpful

in understanding student adjustment to college as might have been hoped. Presumably where

differences among racial/ethnic groups in adjustment to college are found, they would be

attributable in some degree to cultural- or subcultural-induced characteristics of students in

interaction with the characteristics of the host institutional environment, with congruence

between the two sets of characteristics ordinarily enhancing the adjustment. Because there very

likely are sizeable differences within racial/ethnic groups regarding acquisition of, or

favorableness of attitude toward, cultural- or subcultural-induced personal characteristics,

research that focuses on such characteristics rather than simply on racial/ethnic categories might

272

be more fruitful, as might research that focuses more analytically on the nature of host

institutional environments.

The same reasoning as expressed above regarding race/ethnicity should apply as well to

anothre group identity variable, i.e., foreign students. That is, the culture-congruence hypothesis

would hold that the greater the similarity between the cultural characteristics of a foreign

student’s country of origin and those of the host institution/country, the better will be the

adjustment to college.

In a study of the adjustment of foreign students to an Australian university, the more

dissimilar were the culture-induced value characteristics of migrating ethnic Chinese students

from those of the host institution and its indigenous students, the poorer was their personal-

emotional adjustment.

A few studies have been done on foreign student adjustment at American colleges. In

one, students from western European countries, that have cultural characteristics somewhat

similar to those of the United States, show better social, personal-emotional, and overall

adjustment than students from east Asian countries where cultural characteristics can be

condiderably different. And there is other evidence from SACQ-using research that students

from Asian nations experience more difficulty adjusting to American colleges than do American

students or students from other parts of the world.

Possibly demonstrating that the effects of cultural dissimilarity may be mitigated, foreign

students at an American university who had lived in the United States prior to matriculation had

better social adjustment and institutional attachment than foreign students who had not lived in

the U. S.

Religion and religion-related person characteristics may also be seen, sometimes with

273

some stretch of definition, as group identity variables. Several religion variables show no

relation to tbe SACQ: church attendance; whether Catholic or non-Catholic; rated importance of

religion in one’s family; degree of student’s current interest in religion; religious

fundamentalism. A one-item rating of self-religiousness in one study was unrelated to overall

college adjustment, but, in another study where a test was employed to measure religiousness,

positive correlation with all SACQ variables was obtained..

Students who were members of formal religious organizations (churches, temples)

reported better academic adjustment than non-affiliated students. Weak positive relation was

obtained with overall adjustment for a one-item measure of the extent to which students describe

themselves as still holding religious beliefs taught to them while growing up. And modest

negative relation was found between entertaining doubts about religion and all SACQ variables

except social adjustment; the more the doubt, the poorer the adjustment.

Two studies focusing on fundamental personal values, which can possibly be regarded as

religion-related variables, produced correlations with SACQ variables somewhat more regularly

than most of the more narrowly defined religion variables..

Only one study has examined political orientation – yet another group identity variable --

as a factor affecting college adjustment. Hunsberger et al. (1996) found no relation between

right-wing authoritarianism and overall adjustment, the only SACQ variable reported.

Socio-economic status and related variables fall in the group identity category and have

been looked at in several studies, always incidentally to larger research purposes and with

somewhat inconsistent results. For socio-economic status itself, more studies found no relation

with SACQ variables than did; two reported positive correlations and two negative.

Similarly mixed findings were obtained for parental educational level, an aspect of socio-

274

economic status. Some studies found positive relation with SACQ variables but an

approximately equal number report no relation, and much the same kind of mixed findings were

obtained in comparisons of students whose parents had not attended college with students whose

parents had attended.

Findings for parental/family income or students’ personal financial circumstances, still

other variables related to socio-economic status, were somewhat more consistent. In six studies

there were positive correlations with SACQ indices, and in two no relation.

There is not much information available concerning connection between student work

status and adjustment to college as measured by the SACQ. For two investigators number of

hours per week spent in paid employment was unrelated to SACQ variables and for a third it was

negatively correlated with academic adjustment in non-traditional age female community college

students. Yet another investigator found that students with no on- or off-campus employment

had better social adjustment and insitutional attachment than students who did.have such

employment.

A number of investigators have reported findings for college year level (or number of

years enrolled) in relation to SACQ variables, some using cross-sectional and some longitudinal

methodology. In all longitudinal studies, college year level (or number of years enrolled) and

age are confounded, and there is probably a large tendency toward that confounding in cross-

sectional studies as well.

The more usual finding in the cross-sectional studies is for sophomores, juniors, and

seniors to have higher scores on SACQ variables than freshmen, and one investigator reported a

small positive correlation between college year level and all SACQ variables except social

adjustment (i.e., the more advanced classes having the higher scores). But in three cross-

275

sectional studies there were no SACQ differences among college year levels.

In the longitudinal studies, the slightly more common finding is for SACQ scores to

increase as the student advances through the college years, but in some studies that effect is not

seen.

In one cross-sectional study, transfer juniors and seniors showed poorer social adjustment

than a sample of freshman students, as well as poorer than sophomores and juniors who had

entered the same institutution as freshmen.

When age is examined in relation to adjustment in samples including students from all

college year levels, positive correlations have occurred with all SACQ variables except, oddly,

social adjustment. Studies using samples including only freshmen and sophomores found no

relation for age. Studies using only freshmen report very mixed results, some positive

association, some negative, and one none. In community college students, even in samples

including only freshmen, probably more heterogeneous in age than four-year college students,

positive relation between age and SACQ variables seems to be more regularly seen.

Three studies found no SACQ differences between students varying in kinds of academic

major.

In one study comparing adjustment of American student-athletes and non-athlete

students, there were no differences on any SACQ variable.

***************

The second major variety of determinant variables studied for their association with

adjustment to college is environmental characteristics. A number of these, the reader will recall,

are environmental or life events as perceived and reported by the student. Only a few are

defined in terms independent of student report, perception, or experience.

276

At perhaps the broadest level of definition of environmental variables are indices from a

number of different instruments designed to evaluate the occurrence and consequences of

significant events and stressors in general in the life of the student, which have been found in a

number of studies by a number of investigators to be correlated in expected ways with

adjustment to college, sometimes fairly strongly and occasionally even robustly. These variables

have included the number of such events experienced within a given period as reported by the

student, usually for the student’s life in general but in a some instances for life in college in

particular, and also the events’ degree of positive and negative impact or degree of stressfulness

as rated by the student. Perceived degree of stressfulness seems to be more closely related to

adjustment in college than simple number of events experienced, life events/stressors

experienced in college more so than those experienced in life in general, and those having

negative impact more than those interpreted as positive, with personal-emotional adjustment

often being the area most affected. And events to be consequential don’t have to be of major

proportions, but can also be so-called “daily hassles.”

Effects of more specific life stressors on adjustment to college have also been studied.

Incidence of reported abuse (physical, psychological, sexual, combined) in the first fifteen years

of life, as measured by one instrument, was found to correlate negatively and moderately with

the several SACQ subscales. Measures of psychological and physical maltreatment separately,

by parents in particular, during the same time period each correlated negatively and modestly to

moderately with all SACQ subscales, and physical abuse by other significant figures (siblings,

relatives, friends, neighbors) showed weak effects on academic adjustment and institutional

attachment. In one study, freshman women who reported experiencing sexual abuse during

childhood and/or adolescence had lower scores on all SACQ indices except academic adjustment

277

than freshman women reporting no such experiences; but no SACQ differences were found at

the other college year levels between women reporting experience of abuse and those not. In

another study using female students, there was a modest negative correlation between reporting

nonconsenting experience in adolescence and social adjustment and institutional attachment.

Perceived racial/ethnic discrimination as another form of life stressor was found in two

studies, one with Mexican-American and the other with Latino students, to be associated with

lower SACQ scores.

Disruption of important relationships is yet another kind of life stressor that has been

examined for consequences in adjustment to college. In one study, reported interpersonal loss in

the first fifteen years of life correlated negatively with social and personal-emotional adjustment,

and, in another, self-assessed success in having dealt with past interpersonal loss was positively

associated with SACQ variables. In a study of students who had experienced the break-up of a

romantic relationship within the previous six months, paradoxically (?) the longer the

relationship had lasted the better the personal-emotional adjustment, and, less paradoxically, the

more the student wanted resumption of the relationship the worse the personal-emotional

adjustment.

Distance of one’s college from home as measured in miles shows no regular relation in a

number of studies to adjustment to college. However, when students were asked to rate on a five

point scale the distance as being “too far” to “just right,” with the latter description having the

higher value, significant positive association occurs with all SACQ variables.

***************

The nature of a student's family, and of experience within the family, as determinants of

the student’s adjustment to college as measured by the SACQ, have been studied in many

278

different aspects and by a large number of investigators. Variables employed represent

properties, attributes, or characteristics of the family as a functioning organizational unit in both

adaptive and maladaptive aspects, including measures of both general and specific aspects of a

family’s “health” or functioning effectiveness.

In addition to families’ functioning effectiveness in general, particular characteristics that

have been studied are: the family’s cohesiveness, adaptability, and encouragement of

development of autonomy/independence and intimacy in its members; its provision of social

support; and, in a more general sense that encompasses the foregoing characteristics, the

parenting styles involved. Some studies have focused more particularly on the maladaptive

aspects of family functioning, including parent-child role-reversal, parental overinvolvement or

overprotectiveness, fear or discouragement of separation of members, parental rejection, conflict

between the parents, familial conflictfulness in general including the family’s means of coping

with discord, and parental abuse of alcohol. Also investigated were relationship patterns within

the family; roles played by students within the family; various aspects of the family’s social

climate, and effects of grandparenting.

Regarding family health or functioning effectiveness in general as perceived by the

student, six different studies employing four different tests show positive correlations with

SACQ variables, usually with all five adjustment indices. The several particular aspects of

perceived family effectiveness are also quite fruitful in producing association with SACQ

variables.

Six studies using three different measures of a family’s fostering of the development of

autonomy/independence in its members, including one focusing on fathers’ encouragement of

daughters’ independence, all regularly report positive correlations with the several SACQ

279

variables, again usually with all of those variables. The particular family characteristic possibly

most frequestly and thoroughly investigated in relation to the SACQ is familial cohesion and

cognate variables. Many investigators using several different means of measuring family

cohesiveness have produced considerable evidence that the more cohesive the student’s family,

as perceived by the student, the better the adjustment to college. A dozen studies using eight

different measures of family cohesion and related variables regularly find positive association

with SACQ variables, most usually all of those adjustment variables. In three other studies

employing a measure of a pathological form of family cohesion, fear of separation-

individuation, there were negative correlations with SACQ variables. Family adaptability -- or

capacity to be flexible in structure, roles, and rules in the face of changing circumstances – was

used a little less frequently (eight studies, four different measures) with much less consistent

results. With one measure of family adaptability in two studies there were positive correlations

with all SACQ variavbles, but in the other studies expected direction correlations were

infrequent or modest.

Social support provided by family, as assessed by the student and measured by several

instruments, was found in a number of studies to be positively but only intermittently related

with SACQ variables. As an example of the inconsistency of such findings, one standard

measure of social support from familiy that was used in several studies correlated positively with

all SACQ variables in two and with no SACQ variables in two others. But, interestingly, in two

studies the more that students’ social networks consisted of family and other relatives, the poorer

was the adjustment to college.

Social support as received from parents in particular, not family in general as discussed

above, including related variables such as provision of emotional support and “caringness,” was

280

found in a dozen or more studies using several different instruments to relate positively and

fairly regularly with SACQ variables, in some studies all SACQ variables. A number of

investigators have examined variables that might be regarded as excessive, pathological forms of

parental social support, e.g., parent-child overinvolvement, intrusiveness, and

overprotectiveness. Such studies fairly regularly produce negative correlations with SACQ

variables, some with all SACQ variables. Two variables that may be regarded as yet other forms

of perversion of, or the obverse of, parental social support -- i.e., parent-child role reversal and

parental rejection -- have been found to be negatively associated with SACQ variables,. In two

studies the latter variable was negatively correlated with all SACQ variables, in some instances

to a moderately strong degree.

Amount of conflict within a student’s family as assessed by the student has been

examined in a half dozen or so studies employing five different means of measurement and is

regularly associated in expected direction with SACQ variables, in half of the studies with all

SACQ variables. Still concerning family conflict, but focusing less on the family in general and

more on the parents in particular, several studies find much less consistent relation with SACQ

indices, though in expected negative direction when it occurs and most frequently with personal-

emotional adjustment

Parental divorce or separation would of course be an indicator of parental discord, and of

many studies simply comparing college adjustment of students of divorced and non-divorced

parents, only a minority (three out of fourteen) have found differences, students from intact

families showing better adjust where differences do occur. One study indicates that the older the

student at the time of the parental divorce the better the social adjustment, but two other studies

finds no relation between that variable and SACQ indices.

281

Student/parent postdivorce relations as they affect student adjustment have been

examined, also relatively unfruitfully. In single studies, there were no differential effects

between students whose mothers remained single postdivorce and those remarrying, or between

students in maternal or joint parental custody. Another study found no relation between amount

of time spent with either the custodial or noncustodial parent and college adjustment for women

students, or with the custodial parent for men, but for men the more the contact with the

noncustodial parent the better the social adjustment and institutional attachment. In terms of

quality rather than quantity of time spent with custodial and noncustodial parents, for women

there was no relation with any SACQ variable for time with the latter parent but as regards the

custodial parent the better the quality the better the social and overall adjustment and

institutional attachment. For men, the better the quality of time spent with both custodial and

noncustodial parents, the better the social adjustment and institutional attachment. In another

study, for male students from mother-remarried families, the quality of the mother-son

relationship was positively related with academic adjustment and institutional attachment.

One investigator was interested in families’ means of coping with discord, i. e., problem-

solving attitudes and skills, as determinants of student adjustment in college. “Reframing,” or

redefining stressful events to make them more manageable, was the better predictor and related

positively to all SACQ variables. “Passive appraisal,” or accepting problematic issues and thus

minimizing reactivity; “acquiring social support” (from relatives, friends, and neighbors); and

“acquiring help from community resources” also correlated positively with selected SACQ

variables, but “seeking spiritual support” did not. A total score correlated with all SACQ

variables, strongest with social and overall adjustment and institutional attachment.

Parenting styles characteristic of students’ families have been shown in several studies to

282

produce consistent findings regarding the students’ adjustment to college. Parental

authoritativeness (providing clear and firm direction with warmth, reasonableness, and

flexibility) on the part of father and mother separately as well as combined is associated quite

regularly and positively with SACQ variables, possibly a little more strongly for mother than

father authoritativeness and weakest among the SACQ subscales with institutional attachment.

In the one study that analyzed data for male and female students separately, there is evidence

that both mother and father authoritativeness predicts institutional attachment better for male

than for female students, and that father authoritativeness also predicts other aspects of college

adjustment better for males than females.

Parental authoritarianism (highly directive, expecting unquestioning obedience, lacking

in warmth, punitive) is associated fairly regularly but negatively with SACQ variables -- except

for institutional attachment, where there is no correlation – and strongest with personal-

emotional adjustment. There seems to be no difference in correlation with SACQ variables

between mother and father authoritarianism, and the degree of association for authoritarianism

with college adjustment seems to be somewhat weaker than it was for authoritativeness,

described in the foregoing paragraph.

The parental style of permissiveness as originally defined and measured was unrelated to

SACQ variables, but very interesting findings appear when two different kinds of permissiveness

are identified and separately measured. Permissive-indulgence (relative absence of discipline,

but in a context of parental warmth and caringness) remains essentially unrelated to college

adjustment, but permissive-neglectfulness (relative absence of discipline in a context of parental

uncaringness and detachment) correlated negatively with SACQ variables, in strength more like

the findings for the authoritative than the authoritarian parenting style.

283

With students assigned to groups on the basis of parenting styles experienced, those

having authoritative parenting had higher scores on all SACQ variables than those having

authoritarian or permissive-neglectful parenting, and also better academic adjustment than those

with permissive-indulgent parenting. And those having permissive-indulgent parenting showed

better personal-emotional adjustment than those with authoritarian parenting, and better social

and overall adjustment than students who had permissive-neglectful parenting.

Several studies have been unsuccessful in finding influence of relationship patterns

within the family on students’ adjustment to college, focusing particularly on the formation of

cross-generational alliances.

Somehat more successful have been studies concerning roles played by students within

the family, where the focus is on the behavioral characteristics of the student rather than on

characteristics of the family as a functioning unit. In two studies where the student in the Family

Hero role is measured by two different tests but in both identified in socially desirable

behavioral terms (organized, dependable, conscientious, mature) that role is associated with

better college adjustment in all areas, especially academic. But in another study, employing yet a

third means of measurement where the Family Hero role is defined in dysfunctional terms

(neurotically driven, conscience-ridden, compensating for feelings of inadequacy) the

association with SACQ variables is negative, suggesting need for refinement in the definition

and measurement of the role.

The Lost Child or Sick Child role is defined similarly in all three studies (emotionally

vulnerable, withdrawn, socially isolated, low self-esteem), though still assessed by different

tests, and has been found to be negatively related with all SACQ variables. The Scapegoat role

(antisocial, acting-out, defiant) also correlates negatively with SACQ variables, but the Mascot

284

role (comical, energetic, outgoing) shows no relation except for one modest positive correlation

with social adjustment.

Some investigators have examined familial/parental physical and mental health

characteristics as determinants of adjustment to college. In three studies, students who regarded

their parents or families as having problems with alcohol or other drugs had lower SACQ scores

than students who did not so evaluate their parents/families. Students who perceived their

mother as having psychological problems in general had lower SACQ scores than students who

did not so assess their mothers, but this difference was not found in the case of fathers.

Several aspects of family social climate have been examined. Family expressiveness (the

extent to which family members are encouraged to act openly and/or to express feelings) was

positively associated with all SACQ variables in three studies. Degree of family interest in

socio-political-cultural activities correlated (positively) with all SACQ variables in one study,

but not with any in a second study. Two variables – extent to which family members are

assertive and self-sufficient, and degree of familial emphasis on ethical and religious values –

correlated positively but weakly in one study but not another with several SACQ indices. And

in two studies family achievement orientation/competitiveness did not relate to any SACQ

variable.

There are some fairly sparse results of studies employing family demographic variables.

One investigator found that students from families where English was the primary language

spoken had better social adjustment than students from families where English was not the

primary language, but another investigator obtained no such difference in overall adjustment for

a sample of Chicano/Latino students. In a South African university where English was the

medium of instruction, students for whom English was their first language had better social

285

adjustment than students for whom English was not their first language.

Students’ rated importance of ethnicity in their families was not related to any SACQ

indices in one study, and in two other studies there was no relation between students’ immigrant-

generational level (first, second, third) and overall college adjustment.

In one study earlier-born children had better overall adjustment to college than later-

born, highest for only children, and in another study there was no relation between students’

number of siblings and any SACQ variable.

Finally, regarding family demographic variables, students from urban/suburban homes

had higher scores on all SACQ variables than students from rural homes, in a first semester

testing but not second semester.

The role of grandparenting in students’ adjustment to college was investigated in one

study. The more successfully that role was carried out, as evaluated by the grandparent, the

better was the students’ adjustment.

***************

Another category of environmental variables studied in relation to adjustment to college

as measured by the SACQ is social support from other sources than the family. Friends as such

a source have received considerable attention. One instrument measuring perceived social

support from friends in a number of studies has consistently yielded positive correlations,

sometimes fairly strong, with all SACQ subscales, especially social adjustment. Thus, the greater

the sense that a student has of receiving support from friends, the better the adjustmen to college

in all areas tapped by the SACQ.

Other studies have focused on the prevalence and quality of friendship sources. Thus, it

has been found that the more that a student’s social network is comprised of friends, and the

286

more that a network is made up of mutual friends, the better the adjustment to college,

particularly in the social area. One study, however, reported that the more friends a student had,

the poorer was the academic adjustment.

In another study, support from friends in college (any college, not just the one attended

by the student) correlated strongly with all SACQ variables in second generation college

freshmen (i.e., students with college-educated parents) but only with social adjustment and

institutional attachment in first generation freshmen (students with parents who were not

college-educated). Regarding support from friends not in college, there were modest positive

correlations with academic and overall adjustment for second generation freshmen but none with

any SACQ variables for first generation freshmen.

Social support from college friends was found by another investigator to be positively

related to social adjustment and institutional attachment for white students but not to any SACQ

variables for students of color. In that same study, obtaining support from pre-college friends

away from campus was negatively associated withinstitutional attachment for stuents of color,

and negativly associated with social adjustment and institutional attachment for European-

American students.

Other particular sources of social support among peers that have been less studied in

relation to the SACQ are fellow students (who are not necessarily friends), roommates,

coursemates, and peers otherwise unspecified. In two studies, the more that a student’s social

network was composed of other students (not necessarily friends), the higher the scores on the

several SACQ variables except for academuic adjustment. In another study, where the term

“peers” was defined as including fellow students, both frequency of support from that source and

satisfaction with frequency of support correlated with all SACQ variables, though weakly with

287

academic adjustment, to about the same degree.

Employing variables that connote receipt of social support from fellow students, one

study found in a sample of sophomores that reporting having received help in adjusting as

freshmen from other freshmen was correlated with poorer academic adjustment; having received

help as freshmen from peer advisors was associated with poorer social adjustment; but having

received help from upper class students correlated positively with social adjustment and

institutional attachment. If such “help” can indeed be construed as a kind of social support, in

some instances at least its consequences for college adjustment may not be favorable.

One investigator who was interested in social support from coursemates – i.e., fellow

students taking same academic courses – examined the relation between five different kinds of

such support and two of the SACQ variables only. All five kinds of social support correlated

positively with social adjustment and three of them with overall adjustment. But in another

study social support from fellow students in freshman/advisory seminars (i. e., not academic

courses) did not relate to any SACQ variable.

Finally, with regard to fellow students, in one study the extent to which social networks

were comprised of roommates was unrelated to SACQ variables.

The last particular source of social support for which SACQ findings have been reported

is faculty and other authority figures. The investigator referred to above as identifying five

aspects of social support found weak correlations with the two SACQ variables employed (social

and overall adjustment) only for informational support from faculty. The investigator referred to

above as interested in social support resulting from participation in freshman

advisory/intervention seminars found no relation between such support received from instructors

of those seminars and any of the SACQ indices. In a study using a single-item measure of

288

amount of social support received from faculty, students reporting greater amounts of such

support had higher scores on overall college adjustment. In yet another study, both frequency of

social support from “authority figures” (including professors), and satisfaction with such

frequency, correlated with the several SACQ variables. Spiritual support (from God,

presumably the ultimate authority figure?) did not seem to be helpful in social or personal-

emotional adjustment for a student sample as a whole, but it was associated with better personal-

emotional adjustment in a subsample of students who recently had experienced high levels of

stress.

Several studies have focused on the frequency or quality of students’ relationships with

faculty which, though not necessarily couched in terms of social support, may be assumed to

reflect its occurrence. In one study, the more frequent the students’ contact with faculty the

better the social and overall adjustment. In another, students identified as having a secure

relationship with faculty show greater institutional attachment than those having insecure

relationship. Student-athletes’ ratings of the quality of their relationship with faculty, and their

ratings of relationship with coaches (a kind of faculty?), correlate positively with SACQ

variables.

A few studies concerning social support combine certain of the support sources that are

considered separately in the foregoing paragraphs. Both frequency of support, and satisfaction

with frequency of support, from family and close friends merged correlated with SACQ

variables – sometimes fairly strongly – for male students but not at all for female students. And

it appears that for males satisfaction with frequency may be a better predictor of college

adjustment than simple frequency itself. The same investigator also combined all separately

identified sources – family, close friends, peers, authority figures (including professors) – and

289

found that now satisfaction with frequency of social support correlated with all SACQ variables

for the sample as a whole and for the male and female students separately. Perceived frequency

of support also correlated, though not to the same extent or with the same regularity as the

satisfaction variable. Except for academic adjustment, where correlations were of similar

magnitude for both men and women, the latter had lower correlations with SACQ variables for

both the perceived frequency of support and satisfaction with frequency variables.

Two additional studies used merged sources variables: one, members of the campus

community and family combined, correlating with all SACQ subscales; the other, with a sample

of student-athletes, satisfaction with support from the academic and athletic staffs and friends

combined was associated positively with all SACQ variables.

A number of studies employing a number of different measures have focused on support

from the social environment in general, unspecified as to type of source. With one instrument

used in three studies (Social Support Quest.) measures of number of persons providing support,

satisfaction with the support provided, plus a total score (though not a measure of perceived

availability of support) showed correlation with SACQ variables, in one of the studies

moderately strongly with all SACQ indices, strongest for social adjustment.

With another instrument (Social Support Inventory) employed in three studies,

measures of satisfaction with social support received (one, interestingly, the discrepancy

between amount reported to be needed and the amount actually received), correlated with the

several SACQ indices, sometimes strongly, in one study strongest with personal-emotional

adjustment and in another strongest with social adjustment and institutional attachment. Other

variables from that same instrument used successfully in one of the studies were, separately

(described above as used in combination as a discrepancy score), the amount of need for support

290

felt by the student and amount actually received.

A third scale (Social Provisions Scale), this one used in four studies, measures perceived

availability of social support. Three of the studies employed just a total score that was found to

correlate with all SACQ variables, some moderately strongly, especially social adjustment. The

social support instrument administered prematriculation in one of the studies successfully

predicted the SACQ administered the following March; and, in another study in a later year at

the same institution with a different sample, but the social support and adjustment instruments

administered at the same time in March, there were correlations with all SACQ subscales, now

much stronger for social and personal-emotional adjustment and institutional attachment than for

the temporally removed administrations in the earlier study. A study done with older female

community college students employed in addition to a total score from the social support

instrument six subscales assessing different kinds of social support, but only two SACQ

subscales. The total score predicted both SACQ variables as did some of the subscales..

A fourth measure (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List) that has been used with the

SACQ in three studies assesses perceived availability of four kinds of social support plus a total

score, thus yielding five scores. In one study 22 of the 25 correlations between the five social

support scores and the five SACQ indices were significant, positive, and strong to robust,

strongest with social and overall adjustment and institutional attachment. A second study also

employed all five social support variables but only the Academic and Personal-Emotional

Adjustment subscales from the SACQ, yielding nine out of 10 significant correlations. The third

study used the total social support score only and all but one (institutional attachment) of the

SACQ indices, all correlations being significant.

A fifth measure (Young Adult SS Inv), designed to assess social support received in the

291

first year of college, correlated positively with all SACQ variables.

One of the studies cited above as using a standard measure of social support, which was

typically verbal in character as is the SACQ, reported construction of an instrument that relied

more on graphical/motor than verbal means of response in order to reduce common method

variance. The new instrument yielded correlations in the expected direction with the same three

SACQ variables that had correlated most highly with the traditional means of measuring social

support, strongest with the Social Adjustment subscale.

Another nonstandard means of measuring support from the social environment in

general was developed in one study by means of factor analysis of data from several instruments,

and was found to correlate with all SACQ variables.

Some half dozen or more studies concerned with the consequences for college adjustment

of support from the social environment in general used several different instruments that focused

more particularly on the measurement of social networks. Thus, where research already

discussed in this section concentrated on amount and degree of satisfaction with social support

received, the kinds of support provided, and the variety of support sources, the studies to be

considered now are concerned more with the characteristics of the person networks providing

support. (make sure that the gist of the previous sentence is included in the chapter

covering soc’l supp from the env in gen’l – it may be new to this summary)Concerned

generally with the composition and function of social networks, these variables include: size of

networks; amount of interpersonal activity in the networks; similarity of network members’

attitudes and values; degree of intimacy in network relationships; amount of anger or conflict in

the network relationships; the kinds of social support provided by the networks; and degree of

satisfaction with the network and the support provided.

292

Network size has not been a fruitful variable, yielding only a small negative correlation

with academic adjustment in one study and none with any SACQ variable in two other studies,

including for two subnetworks identified respectively as conflicted and unconflicted in one of

the latter two studies. Frequency of interpersonal activity in the general social network

correlated positively with SACQ variables (social and overall adjustment adjustment and

institutional attachment) in one study. Degree of intimacy in network relationships and

similarity of network members’ attitudes and values also correlated positively with the same

SACQ variables in one study but not in another study, while occurrence of anger/conflist in the

network was associated negatively with some SACQ variables in one study but not another.

Measures of satisfaction with support from social networks correlated positively with SACQ

variables – sometimes all SACQ variables – in several studies, though failed to do so in one.

Felt need for social support, the obverse of satisfaction, was associated negatively with SACQ

variables. In one study, however, employing 19 variables representing various aspects of social

networks, with five different samples of students, the number of significant correlations obtained

barely exceeded chance.

Results in two studies regarding kinds of support provided by social networks were rather

mixed, except for provision of fun/relaxation, which correlated positively with all SACQ

variables in one study and with social adjustment and institutional attachment in the other.

Provision of information/advice, emotional support, and task assistance (three separate variables)

showed no association with any SACQ variables in one of the two studies. In the other study

there was positive association with social adjustment and institutional attachment for

information/advice, but a mixture of positive and negative correlations with SACQ variables

(negative with personal-emotional adjustment) for the other two support variables.

293

Interesting to note, one investigator administered a measure of social networks and the

SACQ in the freshman year and again in the same students’ senior year, finding on the latter

occasion the same approximate pattern of relation between the support and adjustment variables

as earlier, though generally lesser in magnitude. Additionally, social network variables assessed

in the freshman year were significantly related in expected direction to some variables from the

SACQ administered three years later in the senior year.

***************

Interracial exposure or experience is yet another category of environmental variables that

have been studied in relation to college adjustment.

Three studies have found that African-American freshmen with greater amount of pre-

college exposure to or experience with white persons in the high school context, especially in

relation to high school friends, adjusted better to predominantly white colleges than did African-

American freshmen with lesser such pre-college exposure or experience. In two of those studies

the better adjustment was seen in all areas tapped by the SACQ. There was also evidence of

benefit from postmatriculation interracial experience. Thus, while SACQ scores of white

students tend to decrease from the first semester of the freshman year to the second semester,

scores of African-American students at predominantly white colleges show increases. Also,

there was differential rate of improvement in adjustment over the course of the academic year

among African-American students varying in amount of prior interracial experience, the gain

being greatest for those with the least such earlier experience.

Importantly, two studies showed that prior interracial experience in African-American

students attending primarily black universities was negatively related to adjustment. In one of

those studies African-American graduates of predominantly black high schools had better

294

SACQ-measured overall adjustment to college than students of predominantly white or

integrated high schools.

These findings from studies of African-American students at predominantly white and

predominantly black universities, as well as findings from studies of white students at

predomantly white institutions, were interpreted as pointing to the importance of the relation

between person and environmental variables in the determination of adjustment. That is,

whether prior interracial experience in African-American students is a help or a hindrance in

adjusting to college depends on whether the college is predominantly white or predominantly

black. Absent thus far in this line of investigation is research concerning the adjustment of white

students at primarily black American colleges.

At a primarily white, recently integrated university in the Republic of South Africa there

were no SACQ differences among either white or black students varying in prior exposure to

ethnocultural diversity. These data would not be directly comparable to data from American

institutions because the black sample excluded so-called “coloureds,” or mixed-race students,

who may be more the norm in the African-American college student population.

Also relevant to the relation between African-American students’ interracial experience

and adjustment to predominantly white colleges, though possibly more relevant to post- than

prematriculation experience, is a study that was concerned with the racial composition of

campus activities in which the students were involved. Social adjustment, the only SACQ

variable employed, was highest in students involved in activities where sponsorship/participation

was mixed black and white, followed in decreasing order by predominantly white and then

predominantly black sponsorship/participation, and lowest in students with “little or no”

involvement in any campus activities.

295

In one study with Latino students, no relation was found between interracial/interethnic

experience and any of the SACQ variables.

***************

A final category of environmental variables studied in relation to the SACQ consists of

institutional characteristics of colleges and universities.

In an earlier chapter there was mention of the role that institutional characteristics may

play in interaction with students’ degree of decidedness concerning academic major in

determining college adjustment. More particularly, certain findings concerning the relation

between major decidedness and adjustment were interpreted as possibly reflecting institutional

pressures to declare an academic major. Thus, in a liberal arts college, the relation between

major decidedness and adjustment was less clearly seen in the first semester of the freshman year

than the second, when institutional pressures to declare a major increased. In an engineering

college, where decidedness regarding major may be expected to be a more salient factor for

freshmen than it is in a liberal arts college, there was already clear relation between decidedness

and adjustment in the first semester, and the effect involved more aspects of adjustment than was

true for second semester liberal arts students. In another study, SACQ scores between freshmen

varying in decidedness concerning major were more apparent in a college requiring declaration

in the freshman year than one requiring it in the sophomore year.

As another aspect of the relation between an institutional characteristic and

students’decidedness regarding academic major, students in process of changing their major

show less adjustment difficulty if the institution in which they are enrolled offers the new major

than if it does not.

Because the foregoing findings derive from a few single studies, and involve a fair

296

amount of speculation, further investigation of interactive relation between institutional factors

and students’ decidedness regarding academic major in determing adjustment to college would

be desirable.

Another area of research concerning institutional characteristics has focused on the

consequences of initial exposure to the college or university environment for the adjustment of

matriculating students. In this research an adaptation of the SACQ has been employed to assess

students’ prematriculation expectations regarding their capacity for dealing with the impending

transition into college, against which subsequent actual adjustment as measured by the SACQ

itself may be compared. Comparison of pre- and postmatriculation scores has been used to

assess the extent to which prematriculation expectations are fulfilled, or, contrarily, the degree of

disillusionment with one’s adaptive capacities.

Studies employing this methodology at several institutions have shown rather consistent

and sometimes substantial decline from prematriculation to first semester testing in all areas

tapped by the SACQ except for personal-emotional adjustment, and in one study continued

decline in the second semester on some SACQ variables. But wide individual differences among

students in this effect have been observed, some showing varying amounts of disillusionment,

some none at all, and others the opposite, implying another important interactive relation

between person and environment characteristics.

Two very interesting sets of research questions arise from these findings. First is

whether there are differences among institutions in the occurrence of the generally found

“disillusionment” of entering students, what are the institutional characteristics factors

responsible, and what might be done to alleviate the effect. Second, what are the factors –

especially person characteristics – that play determining roles in the wide individual differences

297

among students at a given institution in the occurrence of the disillusionment.

College social or sports organizations are aspects of the institutional environment that

might be expected to have consequences for student adjustment. Fraternity/sorority membership

was found in one study to be negatively related to academic and personal-emotional adjustment,

but positively to social adjustment. In another study fraternity members had higher scores than

nonfraternity members on social and overall adjustment and institutional attachment. Members

of intercollegiate athletic teams in one study had higher scores on all SACQ variables than

nonmembers, while in another study team members had higher scores on academic adjustment

only.

Campus living facilities are aspects of institutional environment that have received some

attention in SACQ-using research. In a first semester testing but not second semester, the

smaller the number of students per dormitory staff member, the higher the scores on four of the

five SACQ indices. In a second semester testing but not first, freshmen with freshman

roommates had better social adjustment and institutional attachment than freshmen with upper

class roommates. But in another study no adjustment differences were found between freshmen

living in dormitory sections designated for freshmen versus freshmen in mixed-class sections.

Two studies found no differential adjustment consequences between coeducational and unisex

dormitories, and in one of the studies there were no differences between large versus small,

high-rise versus low-rise, or sylvan setting versus urban dormtories.

In addition to characteristics of living arrangements defined “physically,” students’

perception or evaluation of, or reaction to, living arrangements have been examined. In one

study that asked students to evaluate four aspects of their dormitories that may readily been seen

as social support relevant: availability of personal or social support; group cohesiveness; amount

298

of conflict or contentiousness; and orderedness/regulation. Perceived availability of support

correlated positively and moderately strongly with all SACQ variables for male students and

somewhat more moderately with all SACQ indices except academic adjustment for female

students. Amount of conflict seen as characteristic of dormitory living was negatively and

moderately stringly correlated with all SACQ variables for females, but only with social

adjustment for males. Perceived group cohesiveness in the dormitory was associated positively

and relatively modestly with all SACQ variables for women students and with selected SACQ

variables for men, but orderedness/regulation showed only one correlation, a positive one with

academic adjustment for male students.

Several studies have compared on-campus residence versus off-campus living for effects

on student adjustment, most showing better social adjustment and institutional attachment for the

former, only two indicating no differences.

Adjustment consequences of service provision by various college staff persons have been

investigated using the SACQ. No effects were found in one study for contacts with faculty

advisors, career counselors, or financial counselors, but there were positive correlations between

contacts with resident advisors and social adjustment and institutional attachment, and contacts

with academic counselors and academic adjustment and institutional attachment. In another

study with student athletes, positive association was obtained between student-rated quality of

relationship with academic advisors and academic, social, and overall adjustment.

No adjustment differences were found among students enrolled in five different types of

college within a university (arts and sciences, engineering, etc.). In another study Latino students

in a private college had better social adjustment and institutional attachment than those at a

public college, but there was no relation between institutional selectivity as measured by

299

scholastic aptitude scores of entering freshmen and any SACQ variable. Other institution-related

findings reported in that study using Latino students were: the larger the total undergraduate

enrollment the better the social adjustment and institutional attachment; but, the more the faculty

and administrators were perceived as student-centered, the better the academic adjustment..

In one study, the greater the cultural differences between a student’s college environment

and hometown (ethnic composition, values, etc.), the poorer was the social and overall

adjustment and institutional attachment. Related to cultural factors in defining institutional

characteristics are additional findings from the study mentioned above using Latinoo students:

the larger the Hispanic enrollment the better the academic adjustment; the greater the perception

of racial/ethnic tension in the college environment, the poorer the adjustment in all areas tapped

by the SACQ; and the more discrimination experienced by the student in the college

environment, the poorer the institutional attachment.

***************

The reader may recall that the chapter concerning use of the SACQ in facilitation of

college adjustment presented and discussed relevant studies in series, one by one as units,

because a presentation attempting some sort of integrated analysis seemed precluded by the

variety of ways in which the studies differed and the extent of variation within each of those

different ways. Rather than making a brief summary of those separate studies here, which would

be needlessly repetitive, what will be offered now is a description of the kinds of differences that

are seen among SACQ-using intervention studies. For a sense of each study as a unit the reader

is referred to Chapter 16. The essential ways in which SACQ-using intervention studies differ,

and the order in which they will be considered, are: the tiiming of the intervention; the nature of

the target population; the nature of the intervention; the means of assessment of consequences of

300

the intervention; and the findings.

The variation in timing of intervention has been quite broad. In two studies it occurred

as early as the second half of the senior year of high school, with the intention of proactively

influencing the subsequent transition from high school to college. A larger number of studies

conducted interventions in the summer, varying from several weeks prior to matriculation to

immediately prior. The majority of studies made their interventions postmatriculation, some

immediaterly or very soon after matriculation and some at various times – even continuously --

throughout the first semester or even the entire academic year.

The population targeted in the two studies described above as involving interventions in

the last year of high school obviously was college-bound high school seniors. Otherwise the

students focused upon typically were matriculating freshmen, except one study also included

transfer students and another used older, non-traditional age students from mixed college year

levels. Most studies had samples presumably representative of the general student population,

but two focused on ASACQ- or SACQ-indicated poorly adjusting students, another on student

athletes, and others on educationally, aptitudinally, economically, or socially disadvantaged

students. It is somewhat surprising that more attention has not been focused upon transfer

students who, like freshmen, are experiencing an important life transition.

The nature of the interventions employed varies in two ways, i.e., the timespan involved

and the kind of manipulation. The timespan of the interventions had huge variation, ranging

from one to two hours (for an individual interview, or for each of two or three such interviews),

to a few days, several weeks, a few months, several months, or an entire academic year. One

study staggered its occasions for intervention, having one per week in the first four weeks of the

program, then bi-weekly until November, followed by once in January and another in March.

301

The kinds of manipulations employed were multifarious. The one to two hour individual

interviews mentioned above provided feedback of information concerning students’ previously

collected ASACQ or SACQ data, with discussion of the relation between those data and the

adjustment as experienced by the student, plus, where appropriate, focus on problems that the

student was experiencing and what might be done about them.

Several studies had small group counseling sessions, usually weekly, varying in number

from four to ten weeks. One such instance was one of the studies cited above as involving high

school seniors, which used group counseling sessions for identification and discussion of

challenges inherent in the high school-to-college transition and ways of dealing with them. In

two studies the group sessions were described as “social support based,” involving “semi-

structured exercises”; staff presentations; and discussion of particular themes, like formation and

maintenance of campus social ties, relations with folks at home, residential and academic issues,

balancing academic work and social life, and peer pressures and personal values as implicated in

drug, alcohol, and sex issues. Another small group intervention focused on the development of

coping skills, like goal-setting, relaxation training, and social networking. Two studies

employing small groups identified their interventions as kinds of therapy rather than simply

counseling, i.e., therapeutic journal-writing covering adjustment-related themes, and

reminiscence therapy.focusing on learning/educational issues.

More prevalent in these SACQ-using investigations were interventions identified as

orientation programs for new students. Some of these were fairly traditional in nature, one or a

few days long, with the primary intention of introducing the student to the new physical, social,

and academic environment, including living arrangements, academic offerings, campus

organizations, etc. Others were more extensive and ambitious, lasting numerous weeks or even a

302

full semester or academic year, sometimes based on standardized or “packaged” programs, and

sometimes carrying course credit. .

Some programs were based in residence halls, providing experiences focused on

academic and social skill development, or development of peer support, or provision of peer

advising.

A few programs were quite elaborate in the sense of involving considerable portions of

time characterized by living and acting together or engaging in some unusual or personally

significant activity. Thus, one intervention was a four week period in the summer consisting of

on-campus intensive academic and social experiences; another was a ten-day “total immersion”

during the summer in off-campus outdoor activities (canoeing, cycling, sailing); or a

concentrated pursuit of an academic topic or public service project of special interest to the

student. In one particularly comprehensive experience, groups of 25 to 30 students were each

organized around a particular academic theme; took three of their courses together, one of which

was a small class made up solely of fellow program participants; had weekly meeetings for

discussion of their experiences; and had opportunities for outside-of-class interaction with

faculty members.

The various studies considered in this section employed a variety of means for assessing

consequences of interventions. However, the only such methods of direct relevance to this

monograph, and the main ones to be discussed here, are those employing the SACQ and, in two

instances, its related instrument, the Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, or

ASACQ.

In the two instances of ASACQ use, that instrument provided pre-test or base measures

against which subsequent SACQ scores could be compared for relative net changes in the

303

treatment and control groups, which is information concerning the consequences of

interventions. That is, beneficial consequences of interventions could be inferred from either

greater increase or lesser decrease of scores in the treatment group than in the control group.

With the prematriculation-administered ASACQ presumed to measure students’ self-

confidence regarding their ability to deal with the impending transition into college, and the

postmatriculation-administered SACQ yielding a measure of actual adjustment, the relation

between scores from the two instruments are interpreted as indicating the degree to which

expectations are fulfilled, or, conversely, dashed (i.e., desgree of disillusionment). This

comparison itself might then be regarded as an index of adjustment, in which one could expect

consequences of interventions to be reflected, e.g., lesser disillusionment in a treatment group

than in a control group.

A few studies employ the SACQ itself as a pre-test or base measure, and then again

subsequently as a post-test measure. In these instances, as in the case described above of joint

ASACQ and SACQ use, the expectation is that consequences of interventions would be reflected

in differential pre- to post-test changes for the treatment and control groups.

The reader may be aware that the SACQ test manual urges users not to employ only the

instrument’s full scale score, because to do so can wash out and thus obscure important

differences among the different areas of college adjustment tapped by the SACQ’s subscales.

Also, by implication, optimum employment of the instrument would require use of all four

subscales. But, despite these considerations, some of the intervention studies have reported

findings only for the full scale score, and others only for selected subscales. In those instances it

must be considered possible that the SACQ’s opportunity for revealing consequences of

interventions has been impaired.

304

There are other less than fortunate design aspects of the studies that have used the SACQ

for assessing consequences of intervention. A few did not use control or comparison groups, or

control groups that were matched on relevant criteria with the treatment groups, or comparison

groups that were not really comparable. Most did not use random assignment of students in the

creation of matched treatment and control groups. Most did not take into consideration the

serious problems associated with self-selection of students who volunteered to participate in the

treatment conditions, sometimes populationg control groups with students who had opted not to

participate in intervention programs. And, finally, some studies make assertions of effect

without use of inferential statistics.

Though difficult to accomplish, it is of critical importance for reducing effects of self-

selection that control groups consist of students who had volunteered for participation in the

study and were assigned to an innocuous condition or, where possible, an intervention deferred

to a later time. Second, highly desirable would be matching of control and treatment groups on

as many variables relevant to college adjustment as possible, including the measure of

adjustment itself used pre-test, or, possibly, in SACQ-using studies, the ASACQ employed as a

pre-test measure.

Findings from SACQ-using intervention studies to be summarized now will only include

those supported by inferential statistics, excluding some observations and conclusions made

without such statistics that were, nevertheless, included in Chapter 16. Findings from studies not

employing appropriate control or comparison groups will also be excluded, because there is no

way of knowing whether any such outcomes might not have happened in comparable students

not exposed to the intervention. Thus, several of the following paragraphs are concerned

exclusively with investigations that tested significance of differences between treatment and

305

control groups.

Approximately one third of the SACQ-using intervention studies obtained no significant

differences on SACQ variables between treatment and control groups, i.e., no effects of

interventions. These findings came from studies employing a variety of interventions, including

a month-long prematriculation academic/social experience; more or less traditional two to four

day freshman orientation programs; a half semester orientation class; a year-long dormitory-

based peer-support program; and two group therapeutic experiences each covering

approximately a month’s time.

Almost half of the investigations did report significant differences between treatment and

control groups, though in one instance dramatically contrary to expectation. The reader may

recall from earlier portions of this monograph that particular person and environment variables

not infrequently are related to several or all SACQ indices at a time, indicating rather strong and

pervasive effects, sometimes even on repeated SACQ testing occasions for given samples. This

was not so true with intervention studies. Only one study reported treatment/control group

differences in as many as four of the five SACQ variables, and only one other study found

significant effects for three of those variables; and in some studies effect(s) would be found in an

SACQ testing at one time of the academic year but not another. In the rest of the studies the

effects occurred in one or two of the SACQ variables, spread across those variables in roughly

equal incidence, though maybe slightly more frequent for institutional attachment and overall

adjustment.

The kinds of interventions associated with beneficial effects run the gamut from pre- and

postmatriculation orientation programs lasting several weeks to a full semester (with SACQ

consequences that seem fairly skimpy for the amount of time and effort expended), through

306

series of group counseling/discussion/orientation sessions and dormitory-based peer support

programs (that seem as though they may be more fruitful), to intervention by individual

interview with focus on SACQ-based identification or diagnosis of adjustment difficulties and

opportunity for considering ways of dealing with them (the apparently most fruitful). The

individual interview technique seems to hold promise not only for improvement of adjustment as

indicated by increase in SACQ scores but also by reduction of withdrawal from college.

In addition to the foregoing findings regarding differences between treatment and control

groups as reflected in SACQ scores, there are also some findings concerning relation between

students’ evaluations of, or degree of participation in, intervention programs and SACQ scores.

Thus, students’ ratings of satisfaction with a several week summer program upon its completion

in August positively predicted all indices from the SACQ adminsitered the subsequent March;

the number of meetings that students attended in a fifteen session orientation program correlated

positively with all SACQ variables except personal-emotional adjustment, strongest with social

adjustment and institutional attachment; and the number of pages that students reported

producing in a therapeutic journal-writing program was positively associated with improvement

in overall college adjustment.

Now, this summary of SACQ-using intervention studies completed, a few words

regarding possible future directions of such investigations may be offered. The individual

interview technique discussed above, though promising, is relatively restricted in its scope of

possible remedial activities. One wonders whether outcomes might not be improved by

interventions that are tailored to particular kinds of problems experienced by students – possibly

as indicated by test data – and that are less circumscribed in time and purpose than an individual

interview, e.g., a social skills program for students experiencing problems in social adjustment.

307

In any event, the more promising results to date seem to indicate the possibility of more

pronounced effects from interventions that involve direct, personal interaction with the student,

as through individual interview or small group events. One wonders, too, whether such effects

might be enhanced if the intervention were directed at students identified as at-risk on the basis

of person characteristics known to be related to effectiveness of adjustment to college -- e.g.,

self-esteem, self-confidence regarding adaptive capacity -- and capable of being influenced for

the better by appropriate efforts. Particularly desirable would be interventions that could

preclude the occurrence of the disillusionment with one's adaptive capacity that has been found

to have serious consequences for many students.

Finally, it is to be hoped that progress in research concerning determinants of adjustment

to college will continue and will contribute to the development of new and better forms of

intervention.

308

APPENDIXES

A. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between SACQ Scores and Grade Point Average

B. Point-Biserial Correlations Between SACQ Scores and Attrition

C. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between SACQ Scores and Measures of Person

Characteristics

D. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between SACQ Scores and Measures of Mental and

Physical Health and Adjustment

E. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between SACQ Scores and Measures of

Environment-Related Experience

309

Appendix A

Correlations between SACQ Scores and Grade Point Averagea,b

Sample Source n

AcademicAdjust- ment

SocialAdjust- ment

Personal-Emot’lAdjust-ment

Attach-ment

Full Scale

Arizona State University(Coatsworth, 2001) 132n .40** .10 .35*

* .09 .35**

Catholic University of Leuven

First semester final exams gpa

Second semester final exams gpa

Ensuing Sept. “repeat” exams gpa

(Beyers & Goosens, 2002a)

(Beyers, 2001)

358

340

255

969

.14**

.10

.02

--

.01

-.05

-.11

--

.10

.08

-.01

--

.00

-.03

-.14*

--

.09

.05

-.05

.24**

Clark UniversitySemester 1Semester 2(Baker, 1993b)

187 158

.25** .41**

-.03 -.09

-.08 .13

-.01 .04

.11 .21**

Colgate University

Sept. SACQ admin.

Nov. SACQ admin.

Feb. SACQ admin.

(Conti, 2000a,c)

171n

81n

37n

.32**

.35**

.05

-.14

-.15

-.11

.07

.11

.05

-.15

-.17

-.18

.06

.07

-.05

DePaul University(Humfleet & Ribordy, 1990) 73 .48** -- -- -- .33**

George Washington University(Harris, 1991) 213c .40** -- -- .13* --

Historically Black private college, otherwise unidentified

Men

Women .25**

.11

-.08

.25**

.18*

.19**

--

--

310

Sample Source n

AcademicAdjust- ment

SocialAdjust- ment

Personal-Emot’lAdjust-ment

Attach-ment

Full Scale

Total sample

(Washington, 1996)

229

213

442

.23**

.25**

.02 .20** -.04

.14**

--

Hollins College(Gilkey, 1988; Gilkey et al., 1989) 105d,,j -- -- -- -- .35**

Institution unidentified

(Gold et al., 1990)

29i

.48**

.18 .09 .21 .46**

Lebanon Valley College(Grella, 1989) 45d .47** .06 .16 .14 .26

Michigan State University

Math/science courses

All courses

(Lent, 1997)

205d

.21**

.27**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Purdue University

Semester 1

Student athletes

Non-athletes

Semester 2

Student athletes

Non-athletes

(Foster, 1997)

108

65

108

65

.44**

.25*

.55**

.41**

.21*

.03

.21*

.12

.09

-.04

.13

.04

.34**

.22

.35**

.27*

--

.18

--

.31*

Queen’s University (Ontario)

(Marcotte, 1995)

229j

.40**

.07

.27**

311

Sample Source n

AcademicAdjust- ment

SocialAdjust- ment

Personal-Emot’lAdjust-ment

Attach-ment

Full Scale

.10

--

Rutgers University

(Young, 1994)

(Evans-Hughes, 1992)

(Pfeil, 2000)

98e

116f

all

72d,I

95-98

.13 .40** .32**

.39**

.39**

-.09 .13 .05

.19

.08

-.08 .20* .13

.18

.20*

-.11 .14 .05

.31*

.19*

-- -- --

.35**

.29**

San Diego State Univ. & Grossmont College

(Wang & Smith, 1993)

80

.48**

.21 .28* .24*

.39**

State Univ. of NY, New Paltz(Loveland, 1994) 493 .33** NS .16*

* NS .19**

Suffolk Community College

(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)

1011

.37**

.29** .23** .33**

--

University of Arizona

(Natera, 1998)

144

.34**

.12 .20* -- --

U. of Calif. at Los Angeles

(Williams, 1996)

180

.33**

-- -- -- --

Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore(Maton, 1989b) 75 .31** .01 .07 .04 .18

Univ. of Missouri-Columbia

(Dewein, 1994)

Semester I

Semester II

(Bettencourt et al., 1999)

272d

142

.42**

.14

.41**

-.05

-.17*

.07

-.17**

--

--

.13*

--

--

--

--

--

University of Missouri-Rolla

(Montgomery, Haemmerlie, &

Watkins, 2000; Montgomery &

.28**

.16** .13* .18**

.21**

312

Sample Source n

AcademicAdjust- ment

SocialAdjust- ment

Personal-Emot’lAdjust-ment

Attach-ment

Full Scale

Haemmerlie, 2001)

433n

University of Pennsylvania

(Keenan, 1992) 85g

30h .20* .54**

-.01 .20

.05 .13

.07 .36*

.10 .37*

Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison(Brower, 1990b) 623

.46** -.23** .04 .01 --

Virginia Commonwealth Univ.

(Chartrand et al., 1990b)

(Davis, 1988)

49 95

35k

.28* .34**i

.37*

-- --

-.07

-- --

-.03

-- --

.05

-- --

--

Wilfrid Laurier University

(Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997)

446-451

.51**

ns .23** ns --

Yale University

(Terrell, 1989)

96

.29**

-.14 .20* -- --

York Univ. (Canada)

(Sugar, 1999)

(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &

Yaffe, 2000)

212j

92m

361

.31**

.53**

.38**

-.01

.24*

.07

.20**

.18

.14**

-.02

.28**

.07

--

--

.24**

aSee also Tables 16 and 17, pp. 45 and 46, of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).bAll freshman students unless otherwise indicated.cAll seniors.dFrom mixed college year levels.eMinority students.fWhite students.gAll academically at-risk because of relatively low aptitude and performance measures.hThose in the above n of 85 who participated in a several week special pre-freshman program.iIn psychology courses only.jAll females.kAll student-athletes.lAfrican-American students. mAll males.nSelf-reported grade point average.

313

*p<.05; **p<.01.

314

Appendix B

Correlations Between SACQ Scores and Attrition (after 1 year unless otherwise indicated)a

Sample Source nAcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

Catholic Univ. Of Leuven

As of January of freshman year As of June of freshman year As of Sept. of sophomore year(Beyers & Goossens, 2002a)

368

-.07

-.11*

-.14**

-.12*

-.20**

-.12**

-.09

-.16**

-.16**

-.14**

-.18**

-.14**

-.13*

-.20**

-.18**

Clark University

1990-91

Semester 1

Semester 2

(Baker, 1993)

190

161

-.13*

-.04

-.12*

-.12

-.16*

-.11-.20**

-.26**

-.18**

-.14*

Florida State University

(Brunelle-Joiner, 1999)

311

-.02

-.13* -.03 -.29** -.14*

Suffolk Community College

(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)

1011b

-.36**

-.34** -.24** -.33** --

University of Hartford(Santonicola, 1989) 85 -.12 -.34** -.22* -.43** -.32**

University of Oregon(Gerdes, 1987) 112b -.15 -.16 -.03 -.36** -.22**

University of Wisconsin, Madison(Brower, 1990a)c 512 -.15** -.18** -.10 -.28** -.21**

aSee also Table 21 on page 49 of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).bAfter one semester.cAfter two years.

*p<.05; **p<.01.

315

Appendix C

Correlations between the SACQ and Measures of Person Characteristicsa

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Academic Locus of Control Scale

(Mooney, 1989)

(Mooney et al., 1991)

(Weinstock, 1995)

(Bartels, 1995)

118r

88b

69

506

.64**q

.63**q

.50**q

.63**q

.44**q

.51**q

.12q

.18**q

.45**q

.51**q

.52**q

.39**q

.47**q

.55**q

.29*q

.31**q

.62**q

.67**q

--

.52**q

Academic Motivation Scale

(McGowan, 1988)

(Fuller, 2000) 114

358

.53**

.65**

.11

.40**

.38**

.42**

.10

.48**

.45**

--

Academic Self-Concept Scale

(Lent et al., 1997)

205w

.77**

-- -- -- --

Acculturation Rating Scale for

Mexican-Americans-II

(Shibazaki, 1999)

13621

.05 .16* .15 .04 --

Achieving Tendency Scale(Wang & Smith, 1993)

93b

.23*

.22*

.06

.12

.20

ACT

(Brooks & DuBois, 1995)

Mathematics

Composite score

(Lent et al., 1997)

(Dewein, 1994)

56

205w

272w

.17

.09

.09

.21**

.30*

--

--

-.06

.44**

--

--

.19**

.14

--

--

.07

.39**

--

--

--

Adolescent Coping Orientation

316

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

for

Problem Experiences

Problem-focused coping

(Smith, 1994)

(Just, 1998)

87

202

--

.22**

--

.27**

--

.07

--

.25**

.25**

.25**

Adult Attachment Scale

Close

Depend

Anxiety

(Bartels, 1990)

244w

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.25**

.37**

-.31**

Adult Attachment Types

Questionnaire (modified)

Secure

Avoidant

Anxious/Ambivalent

(Shilkret, 2000)

292 .17**

-.17**

-.20**

.21**

-.25**

-.18**

.27**

-.23**

-.35**

.11*

-.17**

-.12*

.23**

-.25**

-.26**

African American Acculturation

Scale

Cultural traditionality

Black women students

Black male students

(Dewitt-Parker, 1999)

81

54

.10

-.13

--

--

-.30**

-.16

--

--

-.20*

-.04

Alienation Scale

(Liter, 1987)

(McGowan, 1988) -.50**

-.37** -.32** -.24* -.50**

317

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

100

114

-.37**

-.50** -.49** -.45** -.56**

Attachment Style Questionnaire

September testing

Secure

Avoidant

Anxious/Ambivalent

November testing

Secure

Avoidant

Anxious/Ambivalent

(Klynn, 1997)

Secure

Avoidant

Anxious/Ambivalent

(Shilkret, 2000)

76

73

292

.30**

-.25*

-.30**

.45**

-.29*

-.42**

.36** -.26**

-.43**

.46**

-.37**

-.40**

.56**

-.36**

-.47**

.44**

-.32**

-.34**

.22*

-.22*

-.42**

.65**

-.42**

-.57**

.43**

-.32**

-.58**

.34**

-.29**

-.29**

.46**

-.30**

-.35**

.34**

-.25**

-.23**

.42**

-.37**

-.46**

.63**

-.41**

-.54**

.47**

-.35**

-.50**

Attitudes and Beliefs Scale-II

(Friedland, 1990) .13 .43** .40** .35** .41**

318

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

82

Attitudes Towards Disabled

Persons Scale-Form O

(Friedland, 1990)

36y

.42**

.45** .58** .54** .58**

Attributional Complexity Scale

(M. D. Smith, 1994)

256 .03 .07 -.16** .02 -.02

Attributional Style Questionnaire

Internal attributions

life events in general

bad life events

good life events

Stable attributions

life events in general

bad life events

good life events

Global attributions

life events in general

bad life events

good life events

(Rines, 1998)

140

.14*

.09

.17*

.04

-.11

.13

.09

.00

.18*

.06

-.03

.18*

-.04

-.24**

.11

.05

-.06

.20**

.05

-.02

.15*

-.06

-.12

.01

-.10

-.20**

.11

.04

-.04

.16*

-.07

-.24**

.08

.02

-.07

.14

.12

.02

.22**

-.02

-.21**

.12

.03

-.09

.20**

319

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Autonomy Scale

Self-Awareness

Sensitivity to Others

Capacity to Manage New

Situations

(Vivona, 2000b)

145

144

145

.27**

.01

.07

.14*

-.06

.42**

.36**

-.18*

.23**

.10

.04

.24**

.31**

-.07

.30**

Behavioral Attributes of

Psychosocial Competence Scale

Active coping

(Zea et al, 1995; Zea, 1997)

(Zea et al., 1996)

105s,w

56t,w

66u,w

71v,w

298w,2

346

.50**

.44**

.59**

.46**

.50**

.51**

.39**

.25*

.39**

.47**

.37**

.38**

.45**

.37**

.51**

.46**

.45**

.46**

.38**

.33**

.38**

.35**

.37**

.39**

.51**

.43**

.55**

.55**

.51**

.52**

Behavioral Attributes of

Psychosocial Competence Scale-

Condensed

Active coping .56*

320

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

(Zea, 1997)

(Zea et al., 1996)

105s

56t

66u

71v

298

346

*

.45**

.52**

.46**

.51**

.52**

.40**

.21

.32**

.38**

.33**

.33**

.45**

.27*

.42**

.35**

.39**

.40**

.43**

.27*

.31*

.22

.32**

.35**

.55**

.37**

.46**

.44**

.47**

.48**

Belief Systems Analysis Scale

(Hatter & Ottens, 1998)

64t,w

.47**

.28* .60** .30* .51**

“Big Five” Inventory

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Emotional Stability

Openness

(Montgomery & Haemmerlie,

2001)

372

.22**

.21**

NA

.36**

.11*

.38**

.26**

NA

.41**

.25**

.34**

.31**

NA

.51**

.24**

.29**

.30**

NA

.33**

.28**

.29**

.30**

NA

.30**

.34**

Career Decision Scale(Chartrand et al., 1990b)

90

-.54**

--

--

--

--

Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale

321

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

(Montgomery et al., 2000; data

updated by Montgomery &

Haemmerlie, 2001)

319

-.36**

-.35** -.31** -.27** -.31**

Close Relationships Questionnaire

Secure attachment style

Fearful style

Preoccupied style

Dismissing style

(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999a)

Secure

Fearful

Preoccupied

Dismissing

(Lapsley et al., 2001)

Secure

Fearful

Preoccupied

Dusmissing

Positivity of self-image

Positivity of image of others

(Pfeil, 2000)

156w

304

97-100

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.20*

-.27**

-.32**

.10

.43**

.01

.33**

-.42**

-.23**

.09

.31**

-.21””

-.09

-.07

.31**

-.14

-.23*

.03

.34**

.07

.26**

-.29**

-.26**

-.09

--

--

--

--

.12

-.21*

-.32**

.04

.33**

-.01

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.23*

-.13

-.26*

-.05

.25*

.07

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.25*

-.24*

-.32**

.04

.40**

.04

Collective Self-Esteem Scale

322

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Semester I, 1st half

Semester II, 2nd half

(Bettencourt et al., 1999)

142

.09

.18*

.39**

.32**

--

--

--

--

--

--

College Self-Efficacy Instrument

Overall score

(Bartels, 1995)

(Fuller, 2000)

Course (academic) self-efficacy

Social self-efficacy

(Natera, 1998)

Course (academic) self-efficacy

Social self-efficacy

(Shibazaki, 1999)

506

325

144w

13621

.47**

.57**

.77**

.36**

.58**

.43**

.52**

.56**

.39**

.62**

.39**

.59**

.35**

.32**

.54**

.43**

.36**

.49**

.39**

.51**

--

--

.23**

.40**

.56**

--

--

--

--

--

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory(Crouse, 1990)(Mooney, 1989)(Mooney et al., 1991)(Frazier & Cook, 1993)

(Clauss, 1995)

(Rodriguez-Perez, 1991)

70 118r

88b

85

110

66w,14

57w,15

123w,2

.60** .46** .46** --

--

.42**

.40**

.40**

.31** .53** .50**

--

.46**

.31**

.49**

.42**

.53** .55** .50**

.64**

.66**

.45**

.54**

.49**

.32** .50** .49**

--

--

.27*

.50**

.38**

.60** .63** .60** --

--

.46**

.69**

.56**

Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations

323

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Task-oriented

Emotion-oriented

Avoidance-oriented

(Marcotte, 1995)

Task-oriented

Emotion-oriented

Avoidance-oriented

(Gallant, 1994)

229b

109w

.53**

-.41**

-.17*

--

--

--

--

--

--

.39**

-.36**

.05

--

--

--

--

--

--

.45**

-.54**

-.09

.24**7

.23**8

-.48**7

-.28**8

-.107

.068

.40**

-.37**

.03

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Coping With Barriers ScaleCoping with career-related barrierCoping with education-related barriersFull scale score

(Hutz, 2002a)

127

.17

.34**

--

.21*

.32**

--

.22*

.32**

--

.22*

.32**

--

--

--

.38**

Edwards Social Desirability Scale(Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989) 241 .41** .44** .54** .41** .55**

Experiences in Close Relationships

Questionnaire

Anxiety scale

Avoidance scale

(Kalsner-Silver, 2000)

252 -.34**

-.18** -.34**

-.23**

-.45**

-.21**

-.31**

-.19**

--

--

Extended Objective Measure of

Ego-Identity Status-2

Achieved

Foreclosed

Moratorium

Diffusion

.15*

-.06

-.16*

-.21**

.36**

.01

-.23**

-.33**

.07

-.08

-.16*

-.09

.26**

-.05

-.15*

-.29**

.26**

-.06

-.22**

-.28**

324

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

(Just, 1998)

202

Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale(Wang & Smith, 1993) 93b -.18 -.09 -.21* -.05 -.21*

Generalized Expectancy for

Success Scale(Silverthorn, 1993)

30c

66b .38* .44**

.53** .45**

.42* .33**

.51** .47**

.55** .52**

Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale

(modified)

As a student

As an athlete

As a person

(Davis, 1988) 31x

32x

34x

.65**

.09

.45**

.24

.37*

.33* .40*

.52**

.36* .23

.28*

.40** .38*

.40*

.42**

Goal Instability Scale (goal

directedness)(Robbins & Schwitzer, 1988)(Robbins et al., 1993)

(Dewein, 1994)

88 198

272w

.30** .56**

.54**6

.13 --

.32**6

.28** .45**

.49**6

.21* --

.36**6

-- --

--

Hardiness Test

Challenge

Commitment

Control

Composite score

.11

.38**

.34**

.25**

.34**

.23**

.33**

.35**

.44**

.28**

.43**

.23**

.33**

.24**

.32**

.28**

.49**

.37**

.46**

325

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

(Posselt, 1992)

133w

.34**

Health and Daily Living Form

Active-behavioral coping

Active-cognitive coping

Avoidance coping

(Rines, 1998)

Composite score

(Feenstra et al., 2001)

140

139

.25**

.11

-.42**

.45**

.15*

.15*

-.30**

.32**

.01

-.04

-.37**

.34**

.15*

.17*

-.38**

--

.17*

.13

-.44**

.46**

Hogan Personality Inventory

Adjustment

Ambition

Sociability

Likeability

Prudence

Intellectance

School Success

Stress Tolerance

(Montgomery, Haemmerlie, &

Watkins, 2000; data updated by

Montgomery & Haemmerlie,

2001)

435 .46**

.41**

.11*

.25**

.22**

.13**

.22**

.51**

.37**

.49**

.22**

.23**

.14**

.10*

.15**

.46**

.53**

.44**

.20**

.23**

.15**

.10*

.21**

.59**

.29**

.36**

.17**

.22**

.17**

.05

.12*

.35**

.44**

.44**

.17**

.22**

.19**

.08

.18**

.51**

Homecomer Culture Shock

Scale

Cultural Distance

Interpersonal Distance

Grief

Total score

(Huff, 1998)

45w .10

.00

.29*

.11

-.27*

-.41**

-.34*

-.40**

-.32*

-.33*

-.20

-.35**

.05

-.21

.00

-.06

-.13

-.35**

-.02

-.21

Horizontal & Vertical Individ-

ualism & Collectivism Scale

326

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Horizontal individualism

Vertical individualism

Horizontal collectivism

Vertical collectivism

Individualism

Collectivism

(Choi, 1999, 2000)

170w,20

.14

-.13

.28**

.12

--

--

.12

-.05

.45**

.17*

--

--

.07

-.15*

.23**

.09

--

--

-.02

-.10

.37**

.13

--

--

.14

-.11

.42**

.17*

.01

.34**

Identity Style Inventory-2

Information orientation subscale

Normative orientation subscale

Diffuse orientation subscale

(Hollmann, 1995; Hollmann & Metzler, 1994)

105 .30**

.19

-.40**

.03

.17

-.11

.06

.14

-.12

.01

.22*

-.17

.16

.22*

-.28**

Individualism-Collectivism Scale

General collectivism index

(Kusaka, 1995)

106z

181

.15

.19

.32**

.41

.18

.10

.22*

.48*

.22*

.35

Internal-External Locus of

Control Scale

(Shilkret & Taylor, 1992)

(Zea et al., 1995; Zea, 1997)

(Evans-Hughes, 1992)

57

105s,w

56t,w

66u,w

71v,w

298w,2

72t,w

-.28**

-.31**

-.08

-.52**

-.06

-.27**

-.19

-.25*

-.27**

-.26*

-.25*

-.08

-.20**

-.19

-.22*

-.26**

-.15

-.42**

-.16

-.27**

-.27*

-.15

-.29**

-.24*

-.27*

.00

-.21**

-.14

-.29**

-.34**

-.23*

-.43**

-.10

-.29**

-.26*

Interpersonal Dependency Inv.

Emot’l reliance on other persons

Lack of social self-confidence

-.22*

-.07

-.14*

-.18*

-.26*

-.29**

-.21*

-.27**

-.22*

-.18

-.42**

-.29**

-.35**

-.25**

-.34**

-.19*

-.09

-.14*

-.22*

-.15

-.34**

-.24*

-.29**

-.28**

-.31**

327

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Assertion of autonomy

Total score

(Polewchak, 1999)

96b

65c

1612

96b

65c

1612

96b

65c

1612

96b

65c

1612

-.17*

-.11

-.05

-.05

-.23*

-.19

-.16*

-.23**

-.16

.07

-.09

-.31**

-.19

-.28**

-.27**

-.13

-.05

-.08

-.37**

-.36**

-.33**

-.18*

-.13

.04

-.04

-.24**

-.11

-.17*

-.28**

-.19*

-.01

-.10

-.37**

-.30**

-.32**

Interpersonal Guilt Quest.-45

Survivor guilt

Separation guilt

Self-hate guilt

Omnipotent responsibility guilt

Interpersonal guilt

(Shilkret & Nigrosh, 1995)

Survivor guilt

Separation guilt

Self-hate guilt

Omnipotent responsibility guilt

Interpersonal guilt

(Shilkret & Vecchiotti, 1995)

Survivor guilt

Separation guilt

-.66*

.27

-.52*

-.43

-.53*

-.24**

-.09

-.44**

-.16

-.33**

-.45

-.21

-.50

-.80**

-.61*

-.17*

-.25**

-.49**

-.16

-.38**

-.07

-.19**

-.55*

-.17

-.88**

-.74**

-.65*

-.42**

-,22**

-.64**

-.43**

-.59**

-.34**

-.18*

-.46

-.04

-.36

-.68*

-.55*

-.11

-.19*

-.38**

-.10

-.28**

.02

-.19**

-.64*

.04

-.76**

-.72**

-.67*

-.29**

-.23**

-.58**

-.25**

-.48**

-.22**

-.21**

328

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Self-hate guilt

Omnipotent responsibility guilt

Total score

(Shilkret & Edwards, 1997)

Survivor guilt

Separation guilt

Self-hate guilt

Omnipotent responsibility guilt

Total score

(Bailey & Shilkret, 2000b)

Survivor guilt

Separation guilt

Self-hate guilt

Omnipotent responsibility guilt

Interpersonal guilt

(Shilkret, 2000)

Survivor guilt

Separation guilt

Self-hate guilt

Omnipoptent responsibility guilt

Interpersonal guilt

(Morray & Shilkret, 2001)

11b

140b

156b

-.20**

-.10

-.41**

-.24**

-.22**

-.35**

.10

-.47**

-.20*

-.22*

-.27**

-.02

-.41**

-.17**

-.21**

-.30**

-.11

-.45**

-.33**

-.30**

-.33**

-.18*

-.17*

-.20*

-.02

-.24*

-.14

-.16

-.19**

-.15**

-.27**

-.08

-.19**

-.23*

-.20*

-.31**

-.21*

-.28**

-.56**

-.49**

-.41**

-.36**

-.02

-.56**

-.35**

-.32**

-.40**

-.10*

-.58**

-.35**

-.36**

-.25**

-.33**

-.36**

-.11

-.29**

-.21**

-.10

-.10

-.16

.10

-.24*

-.08

.07

-.13*

-.06

-.19**

-.05

-.11*

-.01

-.12

-.25**

-.14

-.12

-.52**

-.35**

-.31**

-.33**

.05

-.47**

-.23*

-.24*

-.32**

-.10*

-.47**

-.21**

-.27**

-.32**

-.21*

-.50**

-.31**

-.35**

329

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

90b,w

292

109

Inventory of Parent and Peer AttachmentParents Attachment to mother Attachment to father(Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994)

Attachment to mother

(Levin, 1996)

Alienation

Communication

Trust

Overall

Peers

73b

66c

73b

66c

159b

150

.15 .43** .09 .16

--

-.17*

.20*

.24**

.21*

.34** .31** .28* .17

--

-.16*

.17*

.24**

.20*

.24* .42** .11* .29*

.13*

-.42**

.26**

.31**

.35**

-- -- -- --

--

NS

.18*

.18*

.17*

-- -- -- --

--

-.26**

.22**

.29**

.27**

330

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Alienation

Communication

Trust

Overall

Combined Parent/Peer Overall Attachment

(Harste, 1996)

Parents

Alienation

Communication

Trust

Alienation

Communication

Trust

Alienation

Communication

Trust

(Rice, 1990/1991

Parents

Attachment to mother

Attachment to father

(Silver, 1995)

Parents

Attachment to mother

Black female students

Black male students

Attachment to father

Black female students

Black male students

(Dewitt-Parker, 1999)

Parents (combined)

Overall score

150

150

8111

8112

8113

118

81

54

81

54

202

-.21*

.16*

.24**

.22**

.25**

-.22*

.20*

.29**

-.22*

.27**

.25*

-.17

.28**

.21*

.27**

.33**

.62**

.54**

.67**

.72**

.39**

-.43**

.30**

.40**

.44**

.35**

-.23*

.16

.09

-.36**

.28**

.32**

-.11

.19*

.07

.06

.29**

--

--

--

--

.32**

-.47**

NS

.18*

.24**

.36**

-.19*

-.01

.12

-.52**

.24*

.37**

-.21*

.11

.18

.25**

.16*

.11

.12

.11

.08

.38**

-.36**

.30**

.38**

.39**

.36**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.08

.30**

--

--

--

--

.33**

-.46**

.22**

.34**

.38**

.37**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.26**

.36**

.16

.31*

.07

.32**

.46**

331

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Peers

Overall score

(Just, 1998)

Parents (combined)

Overall score

(Pappas, 2000)

66

.21**

.23*

.43**

.37**

.28**

.18

.35**

.32**

.39**

.34**

Inventory of Psychosocial

Development

Intimacy

Isolation

Intimacy minus Isolation

(Vivona, 2000b)

151

.13

-.30**

.27**

.25**

-.42**

.42**

.20**

-.40**

.38**

.24**

-.48**

.45**

.25**

-.48**

.46**

Jackson Social Desirability Scale

(Marcotte, 1995)

229b

.63**

.51** .51** .56** --

Late Adolescents’ Relationships

with Parents Scale

Enabling independence

(Yaffe, 1997)

Abbreviated total score

(Hunsberger et al., 1996)

407

224

.12*

.24**

.12*

.13

.12*

.24**

.09*

.16*

.14**

.25**

Life Orientation Test

(Hunsberger, 2000)

(Montgomery, Haemmerlie, &

Ray, 2001)

(Pratt, 2001)

226

299

.29**

.36**

.28**

.39**

.36**

.45**

.42**

.33**

.39**

.34**

.35**

.40**

.43**

.34**

--

332

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

96

Life Orientation Test-Revised(Johnson, 2001)

90 .28**

.32** .34** .35** .40**

Life Values Inventory

Conventionally defined success

Materialistic orientation

Intellectual and cultural interests

Valuing of achievement

(Bartels, 1995)

506

.20**

.07

.17**

.30**

.29**

.18**

.25**

.28**

.05

.00

.04

.09

.26**

.18**

.19**

.28**

.25**

.12**

.21**

.31**

Majority-Minority Relations

Survey

Ethnic social customs adherence

Ethnic language use adherence

(Amin, 2000)

8122

.35**

.27*

.25*

.08

.16

.04

.19

.07

--

--

Marlowe-Crowne Social

Desirability Scale(Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989)(Silverthorn, 1993; Silverthorn & Gekoski, 1995)

(Marcotte, 1995)

(Rodriguez, 1994)

(Terrell, 1989)

Sept. (both tests admin’d)

Nov. (SACQ admin’d)

Feb. (SACQ admin’d)

(Conti, 2000a,c)

241 30c

66b

229b

137u,w

96

185

72

37

.24** .41* NS

.28**

--

-.04

.26**

.31**

.23

.24** .29 .26*

.23**

--

-.03

.27**

.33**

.12

.22* .43* .38**

.26**

--

.20

.26**

.26*

.28

.23** .44* NS

.24**

--

--

.25**

.32**

.13

.28** .49** .26*

--

.31**

--

.32**

.38**

.23

Mastery Learning Scale

(Lopez, 1997)

142w

-- -- -- -- .22**

Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale

Mathematics course

Mathematics problem

(Lent et al., 1997)

.25**

.11

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

333

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

205w

Mother & Father Questionnaire Regarding Mother Regarding Father(Shilkret & Taylor, 1992)

57b

59b -.47** -.38**

-.32** -.39**

-.53** -.42**

-.25* -.32**

-.46** -.46**

Multidimensional Academic-

Specific Locus of Control Scale

Internality

Helplessness

Luck

Total score

(Fuller, 2000)

349

343

.13*

-.42**

-.20**

-.36**

.19**

-.25**

-.08

-.22**

.10

-.31**

-.24**

-.31**

.18**

-.31**

-.07

-.25**

--

334

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

--

--

--

Multidimensional Perfectionism

ScaleSelf-orientedOther-orientedSocially-prescribedFull scale(Merryman & Zelezny, 1993)

103 .12 .05 -.16 .00

-.14 -.21* -.30** -.29*

.02 -.10 -.22* -.13

-.06 -.20* -.21* -.20*

.05 -.04 -.27** -.13

MultigenerationalInterconnectedness ScalePsychological connectednessFunctional connectednessFinancial connectedness(Kalsner-Silver, 2000)

252 -.19**

.10

-.02

-.16*

.09

-.02

-.25**

.16*

.06

-.16*

.13*

.06

--

--

--

Multigroup Ethnic Identity

Measure

Ethnic identity achievement

(Amin, 2000)

Positive ethnic attitudes

Ethnic identity achievement

Ethnic behaviors/practices

(Kalsner-Silver, 2000)

8122

252

.35**

.10

.08

.08

.34**

.11

.09

.06

.33**

.06

.03

.01

.24*

.14*

.12

.09

--

--

--

--

My Vocational Situation Vocational Identity Scale(Lopez, 1989)

(Maton & Weisman, 1989; Maton, 1989b)

(Fuller, 2000)

114c

185b

75d

75e

352

.52** .61**

.42** --

.46**

-- --

.31** --

.22**

-- --

.20* --

.31**

-- --

.30** --

.24**

-- --

.38** .27*

--

Narcissistic Injury Scale(Zamostny et al., 1993) 228 -.47** -.46** -.58** -.41** --

NEO Five-Factor Inventory

Neuroticism

Extraversion

-.61**

-.30**

.17*

-.44**

-.47**

.46**

.58**

-.68**

-.67**

.25**

.35**

-.42**

-.30**

.34**

.38**

--

--

--

--

335

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Openness to experience

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

(Wintre & Sugar, 2000; see also

Sugar, 1997)

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)

255b

102c

255b

102c

255b

102c

255b

102c

255b

102c

1011

*

.16

-.01

.26**

.20**

.24**

.58**

.59**

.20**

.34**

.04

.23**

.26**

.43**

.28**

.25**

.23**

.29**

-.10

.09

.29**

.41**

.31**

.31**

.16**

.26**

-.02

.26**

.24**

.34**

.32**

.33**

.25**

.29**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

New Personal Fable Scale

Invulnerability

Omnipotence

(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999b)

156w

--

--

.30**

.40**

.30**

.28**

--

--

--

--

Nowicki-Strickland Internal-

External Control Scale for

Adults

(Cooley & Carden, 1992)(Jampol, 1988/1989)(Marcotte, 1995)

(Montgomery & Haemmerlie,

NAd

103e

219e

229b 206

-.64** -.49** --

-.40**

-.35**

-- -- --

-.27**

-.30**

-- -- --

-.35**

-.30**

-- -- --

-.30**

-.29**

-- -- -.41**

--

-.29**

336

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

2001)

Parental Attachment QuestionnaireAffective Quality of AttachmentParental support of autonomyParents provide emot’l support(Kenny, 1992)

Affective quality of attachmentParental support of autonomyParents provide emot’l support(Kenny, 1994)

Affective quality of attachment

Parental support of autonomy

Parents provide emot’l support

(Clauss, 1995)

Affective quality of attachment

Parental support of autonomy

Parents provide emot’l support

(Huff, 1998)

Affective Quality of Attachment

Parental Support of Autonomy

Parents Provide Emot’l Support

(Hutto, 1998)

Affective Quality of Attachment

Parental Support of Autonomy

Parents Provide Emot’l Support

(Vivona, 2000b)

Affective Quality of Attachment

Parental Support of Autonomy

Parents Provide Emot’l Support

(Kalsner-Silver, 2000)

Affective Quality of Attachment

Parental Support of Autonomy

Parents Provide Emot’l Support

Full scale

201b

116f

110

45w

320w

152

252

93-100

.17* .24** .18*

.25** .08 .22*

--

--

--

.27*

.29*

.09

.33**

.27**

.26**

.33**

.28**

.17*

.27**

.24**

.21**

.22*

.14

.08

.18*

.01 .15* .07

.25** -.06 .21*

.23*

.30**

.23*

.16

.26*

.17

.28**

.26**

.33**

.19**

.20**

.17*

.17**

.12*

.22**

.24*

.16

.24*

.23*

.24** .22** .17*

.26** .23* .22*

.25**

.19*

.15

.36**

.36**

.37**

.39**

.34**

.26**

.33**

.27**

.22**

.30**

.33**

.28**

.27**

.24*

.08

.22*

.14* .24** .16*

.18 -.02 .24*

--

--

--

.31*

.33*

.17

.33**

.31**

.32**

.20**

.16*

.13

.16**

.10

.21**

.24*

.09

.22*

.19*

.12 .22** .14

-- -- --

--

--

--

.37**

.42**

.29*

.42**

.36**

.31**

.34**

.30**

.22**

--

--

--

.29**

.19*

.16

.24*

337

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

(Pfeil, 2000)

Pathological Separation-

Individuation Inventory

(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999a)

(Lapsley et al., 2001)

156w

304

--

--

-.53**

-.27**

-.48**

--

--

--

--

--

Peer Group Dependence Scale

(Dewein, 1994)

272w

-.28**

-.29** -.31** -.25** --

Penn State Worry Quest.

(Vivona, 2000b)

152

-.15* -.20** -.53** -.12 -.32**

Perception of Barriers ScaleCareer-related barriersEducation-related barriersFull scale score(Hutz, 2002a,b)

127

-.09

-.35**

--

-.22*

-.32**

--

-.24**

-.40**

--

-.08

-.29**

--

--

--

-.42**

Perception of Parental Reciprocity Scale

Parents unspecified

Mother

Father

(Sugar, 1999)

Parents unspecified

Mother

Father

(Wintre & Sugar, 2000; see also

Sugar, 1997)

.19**

.40**

.23**

.18

.25**

.15

.28**

.32**

.25**

.44**

.22**

.20*

.22**

.32**

.23**

.50**

.17**

.34**

.27**

.36**

.23**

.35**

.19**

.26**

.23**

.24*

.23**

.42**

.18**

.42**

.27**

.25**

.13*

.44**

.13*

.26**

.15*

.32**

.17**

.45**

.13*

.28**

.21**

.33**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

338

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Total score

(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &

Yaffe, 2000)

255b,16

102c,16

255b,16

102c,16

255b,16

102c,16

255b,17

102c,17

255b,17

102c,17

255b,17

102c,17

384

.23**

.26**

.30**

.12

.28**

.32**

.31**

.24**

.37**

Personal Attributes QuestionnaireAndrogyny(Bobier, 1989)

41 .29 .44** .44** .30 .46**

Personal Authority in the Family

System Questionnaire-Version CIntimacyIndividuationPersonal authorityIntimidation subscaleTriangulation subscaleFull scale(Gilkey, 1988; Gilkey et al., 1989)

105b,w .19 -.09 -.03

.03

.00

--

.19 .30**

.30**

.19

-.09

--

.18 .43**

.34**

.34**

.05

--

.21* .29**

.24*

.20*

-.04

--

.28** .36**

.32**

.30**

-.02

.34**

Personal Feelings QuestionnaireGuiltShame

59b -.23* -.18 -.29** -.05 -.23*

339

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

(Shilkret & Taylor, 1992) -.43** -.32** -.53** -.20 -.44**

Personal Resilience Quest’aire

Positive: World

Positive: Yourself

Focused

Flexible: Thoughts

Flexible: Social

Organized

Proactive

(Brunelle-Joiner, 1999)

311

.37**

.44**

.59**

.15**

.22**

.42**

.14*

.53**

.43**

.40**

.16**

.45**

.14*

.19**

.41**

.40**

.44**

.14*

.25**

.17**

.09

.48**

.38**

.39**

.12*

.32**

.17**

.14*

.49**

.48**

.55**

.16**

.34**

.31**

.14*

Personal Values Scales-Revised

Intellectualism

(Hertel, 1996)

1059

2510

1302

.01

.60**

.14

.12

.45*

.21*

-.07

.36

.02

-.04

.49*

.10

.06

.61**

.19*

Personal Views Survey

Challenge

Commitment

Control

Composite score

(Mathis & Lecci, 1999)

63

.11

.54**

.44**

.42**

.39**

.42**

.55**

.55**

.25*

.32**

.21*

.32**

.30**

.37**

.40**

.43**

.30**

.53**

.49**

.53**

Personality Research FormDesirability subscale(Silverthorn, 1993; Silverthorn & Gekoski, 1995)

30c

66b .39* .59**

.47** .44**

.47** .46**

.43** .42**

.53** .61**

Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule

Positive affect

Negative affect

.51**

.67**

-.34**

.35**

-.63**

.52**

-.26*

.63**

-.46**

340

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

(Mathis & Lecci, 1999)

63

-.22*

Prestatie Motivatie Test

(Bartels, 1995)

506

.59**

.27** .23** .34** .49**

Primary Appraisal Emotions ScaleChallengeThreatHarmBenefit(Jampol, 1988/1989)

218 -- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

.61** -.51** -.57** .60**

Problem Solving Inventory

(Marcotte, 1995)

229b

-.53**

-.42** -.45** -.42** --

Pseudoautonomy Scale

(Dewein, 1994)

272w

-.28**

-.08 -.29** -.18** --

Psychological Separation Invent.Conflictual independence In relation to father In relation to mother(Bobier, 1989)

In relation to father In relation to mother In relation to father In relation to mother(Lopez, 1989)

41

114c

185b

.29 .22

.39** .31** .27** .22**

.41** .41**

-- -- -- --

.12 .30

-- -- -- --

.39* .36*

-- -- -- --

.35* .36*

-- -- -- --

In relation to father In relation to mother In relation to father In relation to mother(Lapsley et al., 1989)(Lapsley, 1989)(Humfleet, 1987)

130

123g

241 44

.15 .14 .31** .26**

.24** --

-.07 -.02 .09 .09

.16* --

.25** .17* .29** .24**

.33** --

-- -- -- --

.10 --

-- -- -- --

.28** .33*

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Hollmann, 1995)

105 .27**

.27**

.16

.15

.40**

.36**

.19*

.12

.34**

.31**

In relation to father 201b .24** .06 .34** .20** .25**

341

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

In relation to mother(Kenny, 1992)

.12 .08 .16* .09 .11

In relation to father In relation to mother In relation to father In relation to mother(Sherman, 1992)

179h

168i,j

.15* .18** .14* .16*

.11 .17* .12 .18*

.24** .23** .26** .24**

.06 .13* .07 .15*

-- -- -- --

In relation to father In relation to mother In relation to father In relation to mother(Silverthorn, 1993)

30c

66b

-.08 .19 .13 .22

.25 -.01 .14 .13

.37* .11 .30* .30*

.17 .01 .22 .18

.17 .12 .26* .28*

In relation to father In relation to mother(Wang & Smith, 1993)

93b .22* .25*

.38** .22*

.41** .39**

.41** .19

.44** .34**

In relation to father

In relation to mother(Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994)(Haemmerlie et al., 1994)(Reeker, 1994)

73b

66c

73b

66c

109126

.01 .35** .13 .54** -- --

.06 .00 .17 .31** -- --

.13 .49** .25* .52** .27** .26**

-- -- -- -- -- .23**

-- -- -- -- .35** .25**

(Marcotte, 1995)

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Clauss, 1995)

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Shilkret & Edwards, 1997)

(Beyers & Goossens, 1998; see

also Beyers & Goossens, 2002b,

and Beyers, 2001)

(Levin, 1996)

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Rodriguez, 1994)

(Weinstock, 1995)229b

110

155b

.35**

--

--

.28**

.34**

.33**

--

--

--

.42**

.26**

.16

.24*

.15*

.22**

.11**

--

--

--

.20

.41**

.34**

.42**

.32**

.45**

.36**

.18*

--

--

.47**

.28**

--

--

.16*

.14*

.16**

--

--

--

.25*

--

--

--

.31**

.40**

.32**

--

.29**

.20*

--

342

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

1,014

159b

137u,w

69

(Rice, 1990/1991) 8111

8112

8113

.23*

.19*

.11

-.07

.41**

.05

.20*

.44**

.23*

--

--

--

--

--

--

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Bartels, 1995) 506

.13**

.18**

.13**

.13**

.32**

.26**

.13**

.16**

.23**

.24**

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Dewein, 1994) 272w

.09

.09

.16**

.14*

.22**

.15*

.13*

.11

--

--

In relation to father

In relation to mother

Both parents combined

(Kline, 1992) 99b

92c

1912

99b

92c

1912

.40**

.30**

.34**

.34**

.19*

.26**

.41**

.28**

.33**

.34**

.24**

.29**

.33**

.08

.21**

.37**

.18*

.28**

.42**

.43**

.43**

.27**

.38**

.32**

.38**

.45**

.42**

.41**

.23*

.31**

.40**

.04

.22**

.44**

.15

.30**

.48**

.38**

.43**

.41**

.21*

.32**

.49**

.33**

.41**

343

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

99b

92c

1912

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Ropar,1997)

.20**

(n=176w

)

.33**

(n=176w

)

.12

(n=149w)

.28**

(n=149w)

.31**

(n=188W)

.36**

(n=188w)

.15*

(n=174W)

.32**

(n=174w)

--

--

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999a) 156w

--

--

.32**

.32**

.42**

.25**

--

--

--

--

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Silver, 1995)

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Choi, 1999, 2000)

In relation to father

In relation to mother

Both parents combined

(Haemmerlie, Montgomery, &

Consolvo, 1993)

In relation to mother

(Morray & Shilkret, 2001) 118

170w,20

114

.31**

.33**

.16*

.33**

NA

NA

.23**

.34**

.17*

.03

.12

.27**

NA

NA

.25**

.11

.18*

.22**

.17*

.26**

.18*

.21*

.27**

.27**

.15

.03

.16*

.27**

NA

NA

.35**

.03

.29**

.24**

.21**

.39**

.18*

.19*

.35**

.31**

344

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

109

Emotional independence In relation to father In relation to mother(Bobier, 1989)

41 .30 .19

-.20 -.15

.12 -.12

-.11 -.14

.10 -.01

In relation to father In relation to mother In relation to father In relation to motherLopez, 1989)

114c

185b

.00 .10 .01 .11

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

In relation to father In relation to mother In relation to father In relation to mother(Lapsley et al., 1989)(Lapsley, 1989)(Humfleet, 1987)

130

123g

241 44

-.14 -.04 -.08 .22**

.06 --

-.01 .00 -.06 .12

.03 --

.17* .31** .11 .39**

.19** --

-- -- -- --

.03 --

-- -- -- --

.11 -.04

In relation to father In relation to mother(Kenny, 1992)

201b .04 .03

.03 .18**

.06 .22**

.01 .14*

.00 .17*

In relation to father In relation to mother In relation to father In relation to mother(Sherman, 1992)

179h

168i,j

.07 .03 -.01 .05

.01 -.01 -.08 -.03

.17* .07 .04 .07

.02 .01 -.04 -.04

-- -- -- --

In relation to father In relation to mother In relation to father In relation to mother(Silverthorn, 1993)

30c

66b

-.09 -.28 .31* .20

-.35 -.17 .28* .28*

-.18 -.11 .26* .23

-.38* -.27 .26* .07

-.27 -.27 .33* .24

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Hollmann, 1995) 105

.12

.05

-.18

-.07

.09

.18

-.19*

-.06

-.02

.05

(Marcotte, 1995)

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Shilkret & Edwards, 1997)

(Beyers & Goossens, 1998; see

also Beyers & Goossens, 2002b,

-.01

.16*

.16*

-.02

.06

.17*

.17*

.24**

.11

.22**

.10

.21**

.04

.15*

.20**

.17**

--

.23**

.20**

.17**

345

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

and Beyers, 2001)

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Rodriguez, 1994) 229b

155b

1,014

137u,w

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-.08

.13

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Silver, 1995) 118

.01

-.07

-.14

.01

.22**

.01

-.17*

-.03

-.06

-.04

(Rice, 1990/1991) 8111

8112

8113

-.12

-.16

-.18

-.10

.05

-.09

.15

.10

.04

--

--

--

--

--

--

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Dewein, 1994) 272w

-.14*

.05

-.09

.04

.01

.15*

-.09

.10

--

--

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999a)

In relation to father

In relation to mother

(Haemmerlie, Montgomery, &

Consolvo, 1993)

In relation to mother

(Morray & Shilkret, 2001) 156w

114

--

--

ns

.19*

.02

.12

.13

ns

ns

.25**

.06

.18*

ns

ns

.12

--

--

ns

ns

.19*

--

--

--

--

.15

346

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

109

Psychosocial Maturity Scale

Self-reliance

Identity

Work orientation

Autonomy (composite score)

(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &

Yaffe, 2000)

404

.31**

.34**

.37**

.41**

.33**

.43**

.25**

.41**

.26**

.42**

.22**

.37**

.30**

.36**

.25**

.36**

.38**

.49**

.35**

.49**

Purpose-in-Life Test

(Liter, 1987)

100

.04 .15 .28** .23* .21*

Relationship QuestionnaireParental attachment To mother

To father

(Rice & Whaley, 1994)

33c

98b

33c

98b

NSl

NSm

NSn

.22* NS .23* NS NS .46* .28* .32** .28*

NS NS NS .37** .35** .27* NS NS NS NS NS NS

NS NS NS .30** .36** .25* NS NS .67** .21* .28** .31**

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Religious Doubts Scale

(Hunsberger et al., 1996)

209

-.26**

-.06 -.22** -.24** -.24**

Revised Dimensions of

Temperament Survey

Activity-general

Activity-sleep

Approach-Withdrawal

Flexibility-Rigidity

Mood

-.25**

-.15**

.12*

.19*

ns

ns

.45**

.36**

.44**

-.14**

-.24**

ns

.35**

.20**

ns

ns

.34**

.35**

.41**

--

--

--

--

--

347

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Rhythmicity-sleep

Rhythmicity-eating

Rhythmicity-daily habits

Distractibility

Persistence

(McAndrew-Miller, 1989)

261

*

ns

.16**

.20**

.16**

.38**

.28**

ns

.21**

ns

.14**

.19**

ns

.28**

.11*

.22**

.12*

ns

.17**

ns

.11*

.16**

--

--

--

--

--

Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale

(Harris, 1991)

(Sutton, 1996)

(Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 2001)

(Pratt, 2001)

(Beyers & Goossens, 2002a)

213o

83p

137

286

96

368

-.25** --

-.26**18

-.42**

-.24**

-.27**

-.71** -.40**

--

-.40**

-.77**

-.66**

-.45** -.26**

--

-.39**

-.44**

-.42**

-.58** -.29**

--

-.32**

-.74**

-.56**

-- --

--

-.44**

--

-.55**

Revised Ways of Coping Checklist

Problem-focused

Seeks support

Blames self

Wishful thinking

Avoidance

Blames others

Counts blessings

Religiosity

(Silver, 1995)

118

.30**

.20*

-.28**

-.11

-.18*

-.21*

.26**

.06

.17*

-.01

.05

-.14

-.13

-.13

.12

.01

.28**

.08

-.20*

-.02

-.25**

-.18*

.32**

.05

.20*

-.03

-.02

-.10

-.18*

-.22**

.19*

.03

.30**

.16*

-.22**

-.11

-.24**

-.30**

.34**

.04

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale(Gilkey, 1988; Gilkey et al., 1989)

(Weinstock, 1995)

(Hertel, 1996)

(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &

105b,w

69

130

40716

404d

--

.35**

.46**

.32**

.46**

--

.45**

.48**

.32**

.44**

--

.48**

.55**

.38**

.52**

--

.43**

.39**

.28**

.40**

.55**

--

.64**

.42**

.59**

348

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Yaffe, 2000)

(M. D. Smith, 1994)

(Sutton, 1996)

Semester I, 1st half

Semester II, 2nd half

(Bettencourt et al., 1999)

(Hickman et al., 2000)

(Hunsberger et al., 1996;

Hunsberger, 2000)

(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)

(Montgomery & Haemmerlie,

2001)

(Pappas, 2000)

(Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997)

273e

273d

137

142

101

224e

224d

1011

432

66

446-451

31**

.42**

.41**18

.28**

.48**

.33**

.32**

.46**

.48**

.43**

.29**

.52**

.35**

.43**

--

.27**

.42**

.50**

.33**

.43**

.46**

.44**

.29**

.54**

.49**

.62**

--

--

--

.55** .51**

.66**

.38**

.48**

.38**

.56**

.30**

.37**

--

--

--

.33** .28**

.38**

.42**

.41**

.29**

.52**

.46**

.60**

--

--

--

.54**

.46**

.62**

--

.53**

.40**

--

Salience Inventory(Chartrand et al., 1990b, 1992) 90 .40** -- -- -- --

Scholastic Aptitude Test

Verbal & Quantitative(Maton, 1989b)(Chartrand et al., 1990b, 1992)

(Liter, 1987)

Verbal

Quantitative

(Terrell, 1989)

(Williams, 1996)

Verbal

Sept. SACQ admin.

Nov. SACQ admin.

Feb. SACQ admin.

Quantitative

Sept. SACQ admin.

Nov. SACQ admin.

Feb. SACQ admin.

Verbal & Quantitative

Sept. SACQ admin.

Nov. SACQ admin.

(Conti, 2000a,c)

Verbal & Quantitative

(Just, 1998)

75 95

100

96

180

174

82

38

174

82

38

174

82

202

.23* .25*

.06

.36**

-.21*

--

.06

.13

-.37*

.00

.11

-.12

.03

.12

.16*

.02 --

-.13

.26**

-.23**

--

-.15

-.11

-.20

-.17*

-.10

-.29

-.17*

-.11

.03

.11 --

.24**

.08

.06

--

.11

.26*

-.06

.05

.22*

-.12

.08

.25*

.26**

.20* --

.00

--

--

--

-.16*

-.11

-.23

-.18*

-.09

-.27

--

--

.04

.17 --

-.07

--

--

.15*

-.03

.05

-.28

-.09

.04

-.24

--

--

.16*

349

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Self-Consciousness Scales19

(Sutton, 1996)

137

-.26**18

-- -- -- --

Self-Efficacy for Broad Academic Milestones Scale

(Lent et al., 1997)

205w

.37**

-- -- -- --

Self-Efficacy Scale

Social self-efficacy

(Rice et al., 1997)

334s,w

166t,w

189c,w

310b,w

--

--

--

--

.55**

.53**

.53**

.55**

.32**

.31**

.27**

.34**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Self-Handicapping Scale

(Montgomery & Zoellner,

1994)

100

-.17* -.24** -.43** -.27** --

Self-Other Differentiation Scale

(Morray & Shilkret, 2001) 109 .28** .31** .25** .24** .38**

Self-Perception Profile for

College Students

Global Self-Worth

Creativity

Intellectual Ability

Scholastic Competence

Athletic Competence

Job Competence

Appearance

Romantic Relationships

Social Acceptance

Close Friendships

Parent Relationships

.45**

.25**

.48**

.68**

.10

.43**

.21*

.49**

.18**

.21**

.25**

.13*

.37**

.25**

.35**

.59**

.55**

.24**

.52**

.30**

.51**

.50**

.08

.35**

.33**

.23**

.33**

.26**

.33**

.47**

.12*

.26**

.33**

.11

.39**

.22**

.24**

.48**

.45**

.27**

.60**

.28**

.48**

.59**

.14*

.48**

.32**

.35**

.48**

.44**

.35**

350

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Morality

Finding Humor in One’s Life

(Hutto, 2001)

320

*

.26**

.25**

.23**

.28**

.25**

.22**

.22**

.35**

.36**

.28**

.17**

.31**

.32**

.35**

Sense of Coherence Questionnaire

(Posselt, 1992)

133w

.45**

.38** .57** .44** .60**

Separation Anxiety Test Individuation score(Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989) 240 .19** .14* .23** .12* .22**

Separation-Individuation Test of

AdolescenceSeparation anxiety subscaleEngulfment anxiety subscaleSelf-centeredness subscaleNurturance seeking subscaleRejection expectancy subscale(Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989)

Separation anxiety subscaleHealthy separation subscale(Wang & Smith, 1993)

Separation anxiety subscale

Engulfment anxiety subscale

Self-centeredness subscale

Nurturance seeking subscale

Rejection expectancy subscale

Dependency denial subscale

Peer enmeshment subscale

Teacher enmeshment subscale

Healthy separation subscale

(Cooler, 1995)

240

93b

200b

-.25** -.14* .12* .12* -.21**

-.25* -.03

-.27**

-.16*

.23**

NS

-.39**

-.35**

.22**

NS

.18**

-.25** -.06 .17** .06 -.21**

-.17 .26*

-.40**

NS

.36**

-.18**

-.44**

-.42**

.37**

.22**

.32**

-.34** -.10 .11* -.07 -.15*

-.43** .01

-.58** -.34** NS -.17* -.49** -.35** .16* -.19** .24**

-.25** -.09 .13* .10 -.24**

-.22* .08

-.36**

NS

.26**

NS

-.40**

-.36**

.26**

.17*

.23**

-.34** -.13* .16** .06 -.24**

-.37** .07

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

351

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Social Avoidance and Distress

Scale(Kim et al., 1992) NA -.33** -.61** -.40** -- -.54**

Social Competence Scale

Interpersonal assertiveness

prematriculation

postmatriculation

Dating skills

prematriculation

postmatricukation

Social skills with same-sex others

prematriculation

postmatriculation

Full scale score

prematriculation

postmatriculation

(Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997)

451-453

451-453

441-443

435-437

449-451

448-450

440-442

433-435

.22**

.23**

.10*

.11*

.15**

.19**

.20**

.20**

.33**

.41**

.22**

.32**

.25**

.44**

.33**

.48**

.17**

.23**

.07

.09*

.13**

.22**

.14**

.21**

.26**

.31**

.12**

.22**

.19**

.36**

.23**

.36**

.32**

.38**

.17**

.24**

.23**

.38**

.29**

.40**

Social Propensity Scale

(Sullivan, 1991)

NA

-- .22* -- -- --

Student Developmental Task &

Lifestyle InventoryEstablishing and clarifyingpurpose task

73b

66c -.11 .26*

.08 .22

-.16 .04

-- --

-- --

352

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Developing mature interpersonalrelationships task

Academic autonomy(Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994)

73b

66c

73b

66c

.26* .28*

.71** .59**

.30* .15

.26* .16

.36** .39**

.48** .42**

-- --

-- --

-- --

-- --

Superiority ScaleRealistic self-appraisal

(Robbins & Schwitzer, 1988)

(Dewein, 1994)

88

272w

.18*

-.016

-.23*

-.12*6

.16

-.046

-.16

-.14*6

--

--

Tennessee Self-Concept Scale

Total self-concept score

(Caplan, 1996/1997)

Self-satisfaction

student-athletes

non-athletes

Physical self

student-athletes

non-athletes

Moral-ethical self

student-athletes

non-athletes

Personal self

student-athletes

non-athletes

Family self

student-athletes

non-athletes

Social self

student-athletes

non-athletes

Behavior

student-athletes

non-athletes

Identity

student-athletes

non-athletes

--

.35**

.37**

.21*

.34**

.36**

.57**

.49**

.48**

.30**

.18

.32**

.23

--

.25**

.23

.11

.34**

.35**

.25*

.39**

.31*

.23*

.07

.44**

.48**

.21*

.41**

.33**

.34**

--

NA

.26*

NA

.53**

NA

.33**

NA

.45**

NA

.17

NA

.27*

NA

.45**

NA

.51**

--

.26**

.21

.21*

.37**

.32**

.33**

.44**

.38**

.30**

.14

.40**

.41**

.22*

.42**

.34**

.48**

.45**

NA

.32*

NA

.47**

NA

.49**

NA

.51**

NA

.14

NA

.39**

NA

.55**

NA

.51**

353

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

Total P Score

student-athletes

non-athletes

(Foster, 1997)

1625

108

65

108

65

108

65

108

65

108

65

108

65

108

65

108

65

108

65

.13

.45**

.30**

.41**

.47**

.43**

.33**

.39**

NA

.36**

.38**

.43**

NA

.48**

Test of Self-Conscious Affect

354

Test/Test Variable nAcademic

AdjSocial

Adj

Personal-Emotional

Adj Attachment

FullScale

(TOSCA)

Shame

Guilt

Detachment

Externalization

Alpha pride

Beta pride

(Shilkret & Nigrosh, 1995)

11b

-.50

.08

-.23

-.23

.56*

.18

-.63*

-.53*

-.11

-.39

-.12

-.06

-.30

-.04

-.04

-.54*

.42

.38

-.65*

-.61*

.19

-.09

-.34

-.22

-.53*

-.14

-.20

-.45

.49

.33

Texas Social Behavior Inventory

(Kenny, 1995)

199

.26**

.41** .28** .35** --

Work Preference Inventory -

College Student Version

Intrinsic motivation

late September

late November

Extrinsic motivation

late September

late November

(Conti, 2000a)

159

86

159

86

.31**

.16

.02

.01

.12

-.08

-.09

-.06

.18**

.01

-.19**

-.17

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Worry Domains Questionnaire

Relationships

Self-Confidence

(Vivona, 2000b)

152 -.38**

-.28**

-.30**

-.34**

-.53**

-.51**

-.31**

-.30**

-.49**

-.46**

aSee also Table 22, pp. 50-51, of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).bAll females.cAll males.dPersonality measure administered postmatriculation.ePersonality measure administered prematricualtion.fAfrican-Americans, Asians and Latinos.gJuniors and Seniors.h6th week of semester 1.i10th week of semester 1.jSame subjects as in 6th week testing.

355

kRevision of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment.lBetas for 3rd week of spring semester.mBetas for 9th week of spring semester.nBetas for 15th week of spring semester.oFor data collected in senior year.pFor Loneliness Scale administered freshman year vs. SACQ administered senior year.qReverse of customary locus of control scoring, high scores indicate greater internality.rIncludes the n of 88 cited next.SWhite students.tAfrican-American students.uLatino students.vAsian-American students.wMixed college year levels.xAll student-athletes.yAll physically disabled.zEast Asian international students.1West European international students.2Total sample.3Sample includes traditional and nontraditional age undergraduates and graduate students.4Mixed foreign first-year graduate students.5Early entrant freshmen, who skipped the junior and/or senior years of high school, age 14-17.6Correlation valences changed because of reversal of customary rating scale.7SACQ administered 3rd week of October.8SACQ administered 3rd week of November.9Second-generation college attenders.10First-generation college attenders.11Independent variable and SACQ both administered in freshman year.12Independent variable and SACQ both administered in junior year.13Independent variable administered in freshman year and SACQ in junior year.14Puerto Rican students born and raised in Puerto Rico attending a Puerto Rican college.15Puerto Rican students born and raised in mainland U.S.A. attending two New Jersey colleges.16Independent variable administered early in first semester, SACQ around middle of second semester.17Independent variable and SACQ both administered middle of second semester.18Used truncated, 10-item version of the Academic Adjustment subscale.19Shortened form.20Korean-American students.21Mexican-American students.22Arab-American students.

*p<.05; **p<.01.

356

Appendix D

Correlations between SACQ Scores and Measures of Mental and Physical Health and Adjustmenta

Test/Test Variable n

AcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

Adjustment Questionnaire(Beyers & Goossens, 2002a)

368 .51**

.83** .67** .85** .86**

Beck Anxiety Inventory

(Oliver et al., 1998; Reed, 1994)

(Vivona, 2000b)

248h

152

--

-.30**

--

-.17*

-.67**

-.52**

--

-.17*

--

-.39**

Beck Depression Inventory

(Cooley & Carden, 1992)(Jampol, 1988/1989)(Merryman & Zelezny, 1993)(Kim et al., 1992)(Wang & Smith, 1993)

(Oliver et al., 1998; Reed, 1994)

(Dodgen-Magee, 1992)

(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &

Yaffe, 2000)

(Vivona, 2000b)

(Montgomery & Haemmerlie,

2001)

NAb

103c

220103 NA 93d

248h

202d

109e

311g

407n

407o

152

130

-.64** -.48** -- -.30** -.38** -.51**

--

-.53**

-.44**

-.49**

-.35**

-.53**

-.43**

-.41**

-- -- --

-.37** -.53** -.37**

--

-.55**

-.38**

-.48**

-.39**

-.46**

-.39**

-.33**

-- -- --

-.63** -.68** -.60**

-.64**

-.70**

-.33**

-.56**

-.51**

-.73**

-.63**

-.57**

-- -- --

-.26** -- -.32**

--

-.50**

-.38**

-.44**

-.38**

-.45**

-.40**

-.31**

-- ---.72**

-.51** -.63** -.62**

--

-.70**

-.46**

-.60**

-.52**

-.71**

-.59**

-.51**

Bell Global Psychopathology ScaleGlobal psychopathology severity(Zamostny et al., 1993)

228 -.39** -.29** -.58** -.32** --

Brief Symptom InventoryDepression subscale(Maton & Weisman, 1989; Maton, 1989b)

Depression subscale

Somatization subscale

Obsessive-compulsive subscale

Interpersonal sensitivity subscale

75b

75c

11d

-.44** -.16

-.48

.07

-.59*

-.41

-.50** -.31**

-.39

-.20

-.08

-.64*

-.60** -.28**

-.49

-.12

-.28

-.69**

-.50** -.24*

-.26

-,19

.01

-.52*

-.61** -.29*

-.53*

-.21

-.43

-.67*

357

Test/Test Variable n

AcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

Anxiety subscale

Hostility subscale

Phobic anxiety subscale

Paranoid ideation subscale

Psychoticism subscale

Positive symptom distress subscale

Positive symptom total

Global Severity Index

(Shilkret & Nigrosh, 1995)

Positive symptom distress subscale

Positive symptom tatal

Global Severity Index

(Leong, 1999)

161

-.36

-.42

-.37

-.21

-.62*

-.34

-.55*

-.50

-.38**

-.22**

-.34**

-.46

-.51

-.31

-.48

-.28

-.35

-.49

-.45

-.37**

-.37**

-.47**

-.59*

-.65*

-.71**

-.58*

-.55*

-.72**

-.80**

-.82**

-.43**

-.38**

-.55**

-.44

-.46

.08

-.34

-.18

-.06

-.32

-.22

-.20**

-.19**

-.25**

-.47

-.58*

-.48

-.53*

-.59*

-.58*

-.75**

-.72**

-.42**

-.35**

-.47**

Center for Epidemiological Studies

Depression Scale

(M. D. Smith, 1994)

(Sutton, 1996)

(Hunsberger et al., 1996;

Hunsberger, 2000)

(Shibazaki, 1999)

(Pratt, 2001)

(Beyers & Goossens, 2002a)

273c

273b

137

222c

222b

136p

96

368

-.23**

-.42**

-.48**l

-.28**

-.44**

-.40**

-.35**

-.34**

-.33**

-.53**

--

-.35**

-.55**

-.54**

-.48**

-.59**

-.54**

-.78**

--

-.60**

-.81**

-.75**

-.76**

-.73**

-.27**

-.48**

--

-.30**

-.52**

-.46**

-.42**

-.55**

-.43**

-.70**

--

-.48**

-.73**

--

--

-.68**

358

Test/Test Variable n

AcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

College Inventory of Academic

AdjustmentGlobal scoreCurricular adjustmentMaturity of goals and level of aspirationPersonal efficiencyStudy skillsMental healthPersonal relations(Lapsley, 1989; Rice et al., 1990)

241 .72** .58** .56** .48** .60** .50** .43**

.41** .32** .38** .15* .33** .32** .29**

.57** .33** .38** .31** .48** .54** .37**

.42** .39** .40** .18** .27** .34** .31**

.69** .53** .55** .39** .57** .54** .44**

College Life Task Assessment

InstrumentForming an identity (sense of integrity of the self, self-esteem)Developing autonomy (closeness of continued involvement with home, family, and high school friends)Establishing friendshipsAcademic achievementMaintaining one's physical selfDetermining future goalsManaging time(Brower, 1990b)

623 .26**

-.09**

.07 .31** .18** .10** -.11**

.42**

-.22**

.29** .05 .06 -.02 -.01

.36**

-.03

-.02 .11** .25** -.10** -.15**

.34**

-.20**

.25** .08* .08* .00 -.03

.41**

-.15**

.16** .19** .18** .01 -.09**

College Maladjustment Scale (Mt)

(Schriver, 1996)

157

--

-- -- -- -.46**

Core Alcohol and Drug Survey

Negative consequences of alcohol use

(Oliver et al., 1998)

248h

--

-- -.26** -- --

Costello-Comrey Anxiety Scale

(Shibazaki, 1999)

136

-.13

-.26** -.49** -.20* --

Death Anxiety Scale

(Liter, 1987)

100

-.06

.07 -.17* .02 -.03

Dissociative Experiences Scale

(Marcotte, 1995)

229d

-.14*

-.09 -.14* -.15* --

359

Test/Test Variable n

AcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale-

Form A

(Walker, 1996)

228

-.36**

-.34** -.45** -.33** -.48**

Eating Disorder InventoryDrive for thinnessBulimiaBody dissatisfaction IneffectivenessMaturity fears(Kenny, 1992)

Eating problems (composite score)

Eating problems-related traits

(composite score)

(Oliver et al., 1998; Reed, 1994)

201d

248h

-.09 -.27** -.18* -.50** -.28**

--

--

-.12 -.27** -.20** -.57** -.32**

--

--

-.28** -.36** -.28** -.61** -.32**

-.42**

-.58**

-.11 -.29** -.15* -.60** -.38**

--

--

-.18* -.36** -.25** -.71** -.40**

--

--

Health Checklist(Gilkey et al., 1989) 105 -- -- -- -- -.29**

Hopkins Symptom Checklist

Total score

(Kenny, 1994)

Somatic subscale

Obsessive-compulsive subscale

Depression subscale

Interpersonal sensitivity subscale

Anxiety subscale

Total score

(Kenny, 1995)

116f

124d

-.30**

-.08

-.27**

-.32**

-.24**

-.19*

-.29**

-.34**

-.08

-.07

-.35**

-.40**

-.12

-.26**

-.44**

-.37**

-.41**

-.65**

-.48**

-.53**

-.59**

-.19

-.07

-.11

-.41**

-.40**

-.10

-.28**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Kandel Depression Scale --

-.37** -.75** -- --

360

Test/Test Variable n

AcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

(Rice et al., 1997)334i,h

166j,h

189e,h

310d,h

--

--

--

-.27**

-.36**

-.31**

-.72**

-.69**

-.75**

--

--

--

--

--

--

Mental Health Inventory-5

(Shibazaki, 1999)

136p

-.36**

-.39** -.75** -.33** --

Mini-MultHypochondriasisDepressionHysteriaPsychopathic deviateParanoiaPsychastheniaSchizophreniaHypomaniaTotal pathology score(Humfleet & Ribordy, 1990)

84 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.46**

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.59**

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.39**

-.31** -.55** -.28** -.34** -.40** -.48** -.51** -.16 --

Patient’s (ADHD) Behavior

Checklist

Panori (1997)

198

-.64**

-.47**

-.68**

-.45**

--

Perceived Stress Scale

361

Test/Test Variable n

AcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

(M. D. Smith, 1994)

(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &

Yaffe, 2000)

(Hunsberger et al., 1996;

Hunsberger, 2000)

(Pratt, 2001)

273c

273b

406n

407o

224c

224b

96

-.22**

-.53**

-.38**

-.57**

-.26**

-.55**

-.50**

-.27**

-.49**

-.39**

-.42**

-.28**

-.50**

362

Test/Test Variable n

AcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

-.40**

-.51**

-.80**

-.55**

-.75**

-.55**

-.81**

-.56**

-.23**

-.47**

-.33**

-.35**

-.25**

-.50*

363

Test/Test Variable n

AcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

*

-.38**

-.39**

-.73**

-.54**

-.70**

-.42**

-.75**

--

State-Trait Anxiety InventoryState anxiety(Jampol, 1988/1989)(Wang & Smith, 1993)

(Kline, 1992)

Trait anxiety

(Lopez, 1989)(Wang & Smith, 1993)

220 93d

99d

92e

191g

114e

185d

93d

-- -.40** -.32** -.31** -.32**

-.57** -.47** -.40**

-- -.28** -.38** -.40** -.39**

-- -- -.30**

-- -.66** -.63** -.55** -.59**

-- -- -.64**

-- -.28** -.36** -.25** -.30**

-- -- -.29**

-.69** -.55** -.51** -.48** -.50**

-- -- -.56**

Strain Questionnairem

Physical symptoms

(Sutton, 1996)

137l

-.43**

-- -- -- --

Stress Audit

Emotional stress -- -.54** -- --

364

Test/Test Variable n

AcademicAdjustment

SocialAdjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

FullScale

Physical symptoms

(Oliver et al., 1998; Reed, 1994)

248h

--

--

-- -.47** -- --

Symptom Checklist-90-Revised(SCL-90-R)Global severity index(Kim et al., 1992)

Somatization

Obsessive-Compulsive

Interpersonal Sensitivity

Depression

Anxiety

Hostility

Phobic Anxiety

Paranoid Ideation

Psychoticism

(Hutto, 2001)

NA

320

-.33**

-.29** -.43** -.34** -.44** -.32** -.27** -.13* -.31** -.32**

-.50**

-.27** -.36** -.42** -.44** -.37** -.25** -.33** -.45** -.32**

-.67**

-.54**

-.61**

-.54**

-.67**

-.59**

-.50**

-.33**

-.51**

-.55**

--

-.25** -.39** -.37** -.43** -.36** -.25** -.32** -.44** -.35**

-.55**

-.43** -.56** -.51** -.61** -.51** -.39** -.33** -.52** -.47**

aSee also Table 23 on p. 53 of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).bIndependent variable measure administered postmatriculation.cIndependent variable measure administered prematriculation.dAll females.eAll males.fAfrican-Americans, Asians, and Latinos (Independent variable measure administered first semester, SACQ second semester).gMale and female samples combined.hMixed college year levels.iWhite students.jAfrican-American students.kMixed foreign first year graduate students.lUsed truncated, 10-item version of the Academic Adjustment subscale.MShortened form.NIndependent variable administered in first week of first semester.oIndependent variable administered middle of second semester.pMexican-American students.

*p<.05; **p<.01.

365

Appendix E

Correlations between SACQ Scores and Measures of Environment-Related Experiencea

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

Adolescent Perceived Events Scale

Negative major life events

Daily hassles

(Brooks & DuBois, 1995)

56

-.08

-.22

-.07

-.29*

-.16

-.37**

-.02

-.06

-.13

-.35**

Arizona Social Support Interview

Schedule

Network size

Unconflicted network size

Conflicted network size

Support satisfaction

Support need

(Brooks & DuBois, 1995)

Support satisfaction

(Zea et al., 1995; Zea, 1997)

Emotional support satisfaction

Instrumental support satisfaction

Family/kin support satisfaction

Friend/other support satisfaction

Overall social support satisfaction

(Jarama Alvan et al., 1996)

56

-.05

-.01

-.10

-.08

-.23*

.21*

.26*

.28*

.18

.24**

.24*

NS

--

--

--

.01

.06

-.14

.23*

-.22*

.32**

.14

.23*

.16

.20**

NS

NS

--

--

--

.04

.05

-.04

.07

-.35**

.30**

.40**

.19

.20*

.26**

NS

NS

--

--

--

.05

.11

-.16

.03

-.07

.30**

.11

.29**

.13

.22**

NS

NS

--

--

--

.01

.05

-.13

.08

-.33**

.34**

.29*

.29**

.21*

.28**

.25*

.18

.22*

.22*

.28**

366

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

105e,i

56f,i

66g,i

71h,i

298i,k

77g,i

Brief Coll. Student Hassles Scale

(M. D. Smith, 1994)

(Hunsberger et al., 1996)

273

222

-.44**

--

-.23**

--

-.60**

--

-.28**

--

-.50**

-.52**

Brief Michigan Alcoholism

Screening Test (adapted to identify

alcohol abuse in student’s family)

(Buelow, 1990)

275

-- -- -- -- -.20**

Childhood Sex’l Experiences Ques.

As a child with a child

As a child with an adult

As a nonconsenting adolescent

(Marcotte, 1995)

229c

-.07

-.04

-.12

-.01

.08

-.13*

-.14*

.01

-.08

-.05

.05

-.14*

--

--

--

Children’s Roles Inventory

Hero role

Scapegoat role

Lost Child role

Mascot role

(n=172i)

.37**

-.28**

-.04

.00

(n=140i)

.14*

-.07

-.11

.13

(n=182i)

.21**

-.23**

-.19**

-.03

(n=166i)

.16*

-.20**

-.19**

.04

--

--

--

--

367

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

(Ropar, 1997)

Coll. Studt. Life Events Sched.

3rd week of October

3rd week of November

(Gallant, 1994)

109i

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-.51**q

-.27**r

-.35**q

-.42**r

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Early Resources ChecklistInterpersonal relationshipsAchievementPlay(Zamostny et al., 1993)

228 .09 .13* .13*

.25** .17** .11

.07 .05 .12

.13*.11.08

--

--

--

Early Trauma ChecklistLoss (interpersonal)Chaos (familial/personal/ economic disruptions)Parental dysfunctionAbuse(Zamostny et al., 1993)

228 -.06 -.02

-.12 -.19**

-.14** -.05

-.13* -.29**

-.18** -.14**

-.29** -.24**

-.12 .01

-.09 -.20**

-- --

-- --

FACES-II

Family cohesion

Family adaptability

(Walker, 1996)

228

.30**

.29**

.32**

.31**

.37**

.34**

.27**

.21**

.41**

.38**

FACES-IIIFamily cohesionFamily adaptability (Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989)

Family cohesion

Family adaptability

(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999b)

241

156i

.22** .11*

--

--

.22** .11*

.16*

.06

.19** .02

.15

.05

.22** .05

--

--

.26** .09

--

--

Family Crisis Oriented Personal

Evaluation Scale (F-COPES)

Acquiring Social Support

Reframing

Seeking Spiritual Support

Acquiring Help from Community

Resources

.07

.24**

.03

.01

.21*

.32**

.12

.19*

.08

.32**

.08

.01

.24**

.34**

.13

.19*

.18*

.37**

.09

.13

368

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

Passive Appraisal

Total score

(Hopkins, 1998; see also Feenstra

et al, 2001)

140

.30**

.17* .05

.28**

.17*

.17*

.11

.31**

.21*

.29**

Family Environment ScaleFamily cohesionExpressivenessConflictIndependenceIntellectual-culturalActivity-recreationMoral-religiousOrganization(Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989)

Family cohesion

Conflict

Expressiveness

(Caplan, 1996/1997)

Family cohesion

Expressiveness

Conflict

Independence

Achievement

Intellectual-cultural

Activity-recreation

Moral-religious

Organization

Control

(Hopkins, 1998; see also Feenstra

et al., 2001)

241

162p

140

.24** .17** -.16** .12* .23** .05 .09 22**

-- -- --

.30** .26** -28** .15 -.10 .15 .28** .02 .25** -.13

.28** .26** -.11* .10 .21** .26** .15* .26**

-- -- --

.22** .22** -.17* .06 -.04 .06 .29** .05 .15 -.16

.26** .15* -.30** .16** .14* .10 .11 .20**

--

--

--

.27**

.22**

-.34**

.09

-.16

-.02

.24**

-.09

.13

-.23**

.23** .20** -.12* .10 .18** .24** .13* .23**

--

--

--

.25**

.23**

-.22**

.10

-.05

.03

.26**

.09

.15

-.12

.32** .23** -.22** .14* .24** .17** .14* .31**

.21**

-.35**

.09

.32**

.28**

-.31**

.13

-.10

.09

.33**

.01

.21*

-.20*

Family Functioning Scales

Total score

(Buelow, 1990)

275

-- -- -- -- .29**

Family of Origin Scale (fostering

369

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

autonomy and intimacy)(Hollmann & Metzler, 1994)

Autonomy

Clarity of Expression

Personal Responsibility

Respect Other Family Members

Openness to Other Members

Accept Separation and Loss

Intimacy

Expressive of Feelings

Warm Home Atmosphere

Handle Conflicts

Promote Sensitivity

Trust in Human Nature

(Hutto, 1998)

105

320i

.34**

.29**

.32**

.27**

.25**

.19**

.26**

.27**

.28**

.30**

.29**

.41**

.30**

.28**

.31**

.34**

.36**

.35**

.29**

.33**

.37**

.33**

.33**

.38**

.35**

.30**

.30**

.25**

.27**

.36**

.36**

.37**

.34**

.40**

.29**

.28**

.33**

.32**

.27**

.35**

.30**

.32**

.35**

.34**

.47**

.38**

.38**

.37**

.37**

.32**

.37**

.37**

.39**

.43**

.40**

Family Ritual Questionnaire

Family ritualization

(Kline, 1992)

99c

92b

191k

.26**

.07

.19**

.25**

.11

.19**

.17

-.01

.06

.29**

.14

.22**

.30**

.10

.21**

Family Structure SurveyParent-child role reversalMarital conflictFear of separationParent-child overinvolvement(Grella, 1989)

Marital conflict(Lopez, 1989)

45

114b

185c

-.07 -.29 -.23 .18

-.14 -.08

-.08 -.31* -.19 -.06

-- --

-.19 -.26 -.32* -.15

-- --

-.12 -.36* -.28 -.15

-- --

-.13 -.37* -.30* -.04

-- --

370

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

Parent-child role reversald

Marital conflict

Fear of separation

Parent-child overinvolvement

(Kenny, 1995)

124 -.03

-.08

-.17*

-.06

-.03

-.07

-.10

-.03

-.05

-.14*

-.12

-.04

-.02

-.05

-.07

-.04

--

--

--

--

Father-Daughter Relationship

InventoryAffectional interaction subscaleTime spent actively involved(Wang & Smith, 1993)

93c .34** .17

.23* .29**

.27** .21*

.21* .28**

.36** .28**

Interpersonal Support Evaluation

ListSelf-esteem supportAppraisal supportBelonging supportTangible supportTotal(Robbins et al., 1993)

198 .28** .26** .25** .08 .28**

-- -- -- -- --

.37** .28** .28** .17** .36**

-- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- --

Total(Kim et al., 1992)

NA .24** .40** .26** -- .39**

Self-esteem supportAppraisal supportBelonging supportTangible supportTotal(Kambach, 1994)

53 .28* .30* .13 .22 .30*

.41** .45** .64** .51** .67**

.38** .18 .29* .29* .35**

.44** .38** .42** .48** .56**

.46** .41** .44** .46** .58**

Life Experiences Survey

Overall stress

(Jarama Alvan et al., 1996)

Negative impact rating

life events in general

life events in college

(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)

77g,i

--

-.11**

-.34**

--

-.09**

-.32**

--

-.21**

-.31**

--

-.08*

-.30**

-.40**

--

--

371

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

1011v

Life Stress(Maton & Weisman, 1989)

75 -- -- -- --

-.27*

McMaster Family Assessment De-

vice

General Functioning score

(Pappas, 2000)

66

.34**

.24* .23* .26* .36**

Multidimensional Support Scale

From family & close friends

frequency

satisfaction with frequency

From peers

frequency

satisfaction with frequency

From authority figures

frequency

satisfaction with frequency

Total frequency score

.03

.25*

.18*

.13

.33**

.21**

.16

.04

.13*

.17*

.10

.12

.11

.26*

.16*

.18*

.14

.15*

.16

.13

.06

.22*

.09

.08

.38**

.20**

.33**

.47**

.36**

.15

.34**

.24**

.20*

.39**

.29**

-.03

.31**

.14*

.15

.45**

.28**

.14

.35**

.25**

.22*

.36**

.28**

.07

.09

.08

.23*

.14

.19**

.10

.27*

.20**

.07

.10

.09

.12

.33**

.21**

.29**

.30**

.29**

.20*

.28*

.24**

.18*

.48**

.33**

.14

.36**

.25**

.28**

.42**

.36**

.02

.29**

.15*

.16

.46**

.29**

.30**

.34**

.32**

.26**

.32**

.28**

.12

.38**

.25**

.18*

.25*

.21**

.23*

.40**

.32**

372

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

Total satisfaction with freq. score

(Polewchak, 1999)

96c

65b

161k

96c

65b

161k

96c

65b

161k

96c

65b

161k

96c

65b

161k

96c

65b

161k

96c

65b

161k

96c

65b

161k

.17*

.23*

.25*

.22**

.19*

.23*

.21**

.31**

.49**

.36**

.21*

.41**

.31**

.29**

.41**

.34**

.22*

.45**

.33**

.28**

.45**

.36**

Parental Authority Questionnaire

Mother authoritativeness

Father authoritativeness

.16*

.16

.12*

.11

.19**

.24**

.19**

.21*

.13*

.27**

.06

.21*

.08

.28**

--

--

--

--

373

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

Mother authoritarianism

Father authoritarianism

Mother permissiveness

Father permissiveness

(Wintre & Sugar, 2000; see also

Sugar, 1997)

Mother authoritativeness

Father authoritativeness

Mother authoritarianism

Father authoritarianism

Mother permissiveness

Father permissiveness

(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &

Yaffe, 2000)

Most influential parent

Authoritativeness

Authoritarianism

Permissiveness

(Pappas, 2000)

255c

102b

255c

102b

255c

102b

255c

102b

255c

102b

255c

102b

-.14*

-.04

-.12*

-.10

.02

.00

.02

.02

.14**

.12*

-.11*

-.13**

.04

.06

.35**

-.10

-.14

.19**

.38**

-.09

-.17*

-.08

-.21*

.08

-.11

.09

.03

.21**

.23**

-.12*

-.13**

.04

.08

.26*

.07

-.11

-.23**

-.10

-.15**

-.24**

.03

-.04

.05

.03

.18**

.17**

-.15**

-.18**

.01

.06

.21*

-.05

-.03

.01

-.06

.04

-.10

-.06

-.05

-.06

.05

.09*

.14**

.00

-.02

-.03

-.01

.29**

-.02

-.08

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.20**

.20**

-.14**

-.16**

.03

.06

.35**

-.03

-.12

374

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

398

379

398

378

398

377

66

Parental Authority Questionnaire

(modified)

Mother authoritativeness

Father authoritativeness

Mother permissive-neglectfulness

Father permissive-neglectfulness

Mother authoritarianism

Father authoritarianism

Mother permissive-indulgence

Father permissive-indulgence

(Shilkret & Vecchiotti, 1995)

Mother authoritativeness

Father authoritativeness

Mother permissive-neglectfulness

Father permissive-neglectfulness

Mother authoritarianism

Father authoritarianism

Mother permissive-indulgence

Father permissive-indulgence

(Shilkret & Edwards, 1997)

Mother authoritativeness

.31**

.19*

-.27**

-.24**

-.18*

-.12

.00

-.04

.12

.05

-.11

-.11

-.12

-.02

.01

-.10

.27**

.20*

-.29**

-.17*

-.16

-.17*

.01

.01

.15*

.03

-.10

-.11

-.09

-.01

.11

-.04

.35**

.26**

-.25**

-.22**

-.32**

-.29**

.15

.10

.17*

.08

-.21**

-.14*

-.15*

-.11

.04

.00

.26**

.23**

.16

-.26**

-.15

-.11

-.14

-.03

.00

.09

.00

-.05

-.04

-.04

.01

.08

.00

.16**

.35**

.24*

-.32**

-.23**

-.22**

-.21**

.03

.01

.18*

.06

-.16*

-.14*

-.13*

-.04

.07

-.06

.28**

375

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

Father authoritativeness

Mother permissive-neglectfulness

Father permissive-neglectfulness

Mother authoritarianism

Father authoritarianism

Mother permissive-indulgence

Father permissive-indulgence

(Shilkret, 2000)

141c

156c

292

.27**

.29**

-.32**

-.29**

-.15**

-.20**

.07

.11*

.18**

.10*

-.17**

-.12*

-.08

-.03

.03

-.02

.30**

-.26**

-.25**

-.17**

-.23**

.03

.09

.08

-.19**

-.12*

.08

-.03

.00

-.06

.26**

-.29**

-.25**

-.16**

-.17**

.05

.06

Parental Bonding Instrument

Mother caringness

Father caringness

Mother protectiveness

Father protectiveness

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.29**

.09

-.11

-.03

--

--

--

--

376

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

(Lopez, 1997)

Mother caringness

Father caringness

Mother caringness

Father caringness

Mother caringness

Father caringness

Mother caringness

Father caringness

Mother protectiveness

Father protectiveness

Mother protectiveness

Father protectiveness

Mother protectiveness

Father protectiveness

Mother protectiveness

Father protectiveness

(Rice et al., 1997)

Mother caringness

Father caringness

Mother protectiveness

Father protectiveness

(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999b)

Mother caringness

Father caringness

Mother protectiveness

Father protectiveness

(Bailey & Shilkret, 2000b)

Parents combined caringness

Parents combined protectiveness

(McAndrew-Miller, 1989)

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.29**

.06

-.12

-.06

.30**

.28**

.22**

.30**

.40**

.28**

.33**

.29**

.27**

-.16**

-.14**

-.25**

-.18*

-.12*

-.10

-.22**

-.17**

.07

.12

-.08

-.18*

.17**

.14**

.21**

.29**

.13*

.26**

.20**

.18**

-.19**

-.25**

-.14*

-.29**

-.18**

-.26**

-.15**

-.22**

-.03

.19*

.10

-.30**

.29**

.13

-.19*

-.10

.38**

-.35**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.26**

-.03

.02

.13

.30**

-.25**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.33**

.06

-.13

.01

--

--

377

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

142i

334e

166f

189b

310c

334e

166f

189b

310c

156i

90

-.22**

.27**

.00

-.10

.13

.32**

-.24**

378

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

261

Parental Physical Maltreatment

Scale

(Marcotte, 1995)

229c

-.17**

-.17**

-.16** -.26** --

Parental Psychological

Maltreatment Scale

(Marcotte, 1995)

229c

-.21**

-.12* -.25** -.15* --

Parent-Child Relations

Questionnaire IIThe love-reject factor score(Mendelson, 1987/1988)

114b

118c -- --

-- --

.26** .23**

-- --

-- --

Perceived Parental Attitude ScaleEncouragement of independence by father(Wang & Smith, 1993)

93c .20 .28** .24** .28** .30**

Perceived Social Support from

Family(Maton, 1989a)

(Bartels, 1995)

(Just, 1998)

prematriculation

postmatriculation

(Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997)

68

506

202

451-453

449-451

--

.18**

.35**

.18**

.31**

.24*

.19**

.28**

.14**

.21**

.16

.16**

.24**

.16**

.23**

--

.18**

.27**

.09*

.18**

--

.23**

.37**

.18**

.30**

Perceived Social Support from

Friends(Maton & Weisman, 1989; Maton, 1989b)(Frazier & Cook, 1993)

(Bartels, 1995)

Friends in college

75 85

506

105s

25t

130k

.37** --

.24**

.38*

.55** --

.41**

.68**

.56**

.66**

.31** .19*

.21**

.31**

.22

.30**

.39** --

.31**

.56**

.51**

.56**

.48** --

.35**

.56**

.29

.51**

379

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

Friends not in college

(Hertel, 1996)

(Just, 1998)

(McAndrew-Miller, 1989)

(Shibazaki, 1999)

105s

25t

130k

202

261

136w

*

.08

.33**

.18*

.02

.14

.15**

ns

.20*

.15

-.25

.04

.36**

.51**

.26**

.07

-.16

.02

.19**

.15**

.27**

.00

-.26

-.07

.20**

.40**

.09

.19*

-.22

.09

.28**

NA

--

Physical Maltreatment by Others

Scale

(Marcotte, 1995)

229c

-.14*

-.09

-.09

-.14*

--

Psychological Distress Inventory

Stress level

(Bartels, 1990)

244i

-- -- -- -- -.32**

Racism and Life Experiences

Scale-Brief Version

(Shibazaki, 1999)

136w

-.01

-.10

-.24**

-.08

--

Residence Hall Climate Inventory

Personal support subscale

Conflict subscale

Group cohesiveness subscale

Order subscale

(Barthelemy & Fine, 1995)

44b

77c

.41**

.07

-.03

-.31**

.16

.23*

.36**

.03

.57**

.40**

-.33*

-.45**

.35*

.26*

-.18

-.13

.54**

.20*

-.10

-.35**

.07

.19*

.08

-.02

.61**

.45**

-.24

-.53**

.35*

.32**

.19

-.07

.67**

.30**

-.13

-.48**

.27*

.30**

.25

-.04

380

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

44b

77c

44b

77c

44b

77c

Role Relationship Inventory

Alcohol/drug-abusing families

Hero role

Scapegoat role

Sick or Lost Child role

Mascot role

Disrupted, non-drug-abusing

families

Hero role

Scapegoat role

Sick or Lost Child role

Mascot role

Normal families

Hero role

Scapegoat role

Sick or Lost Child role

Mascot role

Overall score, total sample

(Buelow, 1990)

57

81

.16

-.09

.19

-.24

-.10

-.21

.17

-.02

-.22*

-.29**

-.34**

-.16

--

-.25

-.24

-.20

.17

-.09

-.29**

-.31**

.13

.03

-.17*

-.21*

.17*

--

-.22

-.17

-.04

-.10

-.38**

-.29**

-.29**

.00

-.32**

-.35**

-.40**

-.13

--

-.22

-.13

-.13

-.04

-.22*

-.14

-.20

.03

.01

-.10

-.05

.01

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-.32**

381

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

137

275

Self-Report Family Inventory-

Version II

Health/competence subscale

Cohesion subscale

(Clauss, 1995)

Health/Competence subscale

Cohesion subscale

Conflict subscale

Leadership subscale

Emotional Expressiveness subscale

(Hutto, 1998)

110

320i

--

--

-.31**

-.24**

-.30**

-.09

-.22**

-.19*

-.08

-.33**

-.19**

-.30**

-.19**

-.32**

-.21*

-.21*

-.38**

-.31**

-.37**

-.18**

-.31**

--

--

-.31**

-.20**

-.30**

-.18**

-.28**

--

--

-.41**

-.30**

-.40**

-.19**

-.34**

Social Network QuestionnaireNetwork sizePercent studentsPercent relativesPercent friendsPercent roommatesValue and attitude similarityIntimacy of relationshipFun/relaxationTask assistanceAnger/conflictEmotional support

88 .08 .02 -.10 .07 .13 .16 .10 .38** .17 -.07

.09 .35** -.22* .27** -.02 .08 -.04 .31** .11 -.05 .08

.04 -.04 -.24* .16 -.10 -.02 -.06 .25* -.01 .01 -.09

.17 .28** -.22* .26** -.04 .07 .00 .39** .11 -.15 .14

.14 .20 -.27** .26** -.06 .07 -.04 .38** .08 -.07 .07

382

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

Information/adviceLocation of interaction(Serafica et al., 1990)

.16 .17 .12

.11 .11

-.04 .09

.17 .11

.10 .16

Soc’l Network Quest. (adapted)Network sizeDensityNumber of friendsPercent friendsPercent studentsPercent familyIntimacy of relationshipAttitude similarityFun/relaxationTask assistanceInformation/adviceEmotional supportTotal supportAnger/conflictFrequency of contactCurrent satisfaction with networkExpected satisfaction with networkSatisfaction with family relationship(Harris, 1988)

166 -.13* -.05 -.14* -.12 -.05 -.16* -.06 -.04 -.09 -.03 -.05 -.08 -.08 -.04 .00 -.02 .07

.13*

.08 .14* .17* .16* .27** -.03 .43** .29** .28** .14* .29** .27** .32** -.08 .26** .37** .66**

.25**

-.02 .05 .09 .11 .24** -.22** -.04 .01 .06 -.18** -.04 -.16* -.12 -.29** .06 .05 .22**

.07

.09 .11 .13 .11 .30** -.04 .29** .23** .15* .03 .14* .17* .16* -.04 .20** .27** .62**

.19**

-.03 .04 .04 .06 .20** -.17* .18* .13 .12 -.03 .10 .04 .07 -.14* .17* .19** .45**

.23**

Social Provisions Scale

Guidance subscale

Reliable alliance subscale

Reassurance of worth subscale

Opportunity for nurturance

subscale

Attachment subscale

Social integration subscale

Total score

(Ortiz, 1995)

Total score

(Hunsberger et al., 1996)

(Pratt, 2001)

152c,j

NS

NS

.22**

NS

NS

.22**

.18*

.23**

.22*

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.32**

.68**

.29**

.28**

.37**

NS

.27**

.20*

.35**

.24**

.39**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.25**

.63**

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.32**

--

383

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

224v

96

Social Provisions Scale-Parent

Version

Total score

(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &

Yaffe, 2000)

405

.18**

.25**

.22** .16** .26**

Social Support Inventory

Perceived fit score

Subjective satisfaction score

(Corbett, 1991)

Perceived fit score

Subjective satisfaction score

Need strength score

Perceived supply score

(Bartels, 1990)

Perceived Fit score

Subjective Satisfaction score

(Fuller, 2000)

121

-.22*

.29**

--

--

--

--

-.33**

.37**

-.43**

.43**

--

--

--

--

-.32**

.33**

-.37**

.33**

--

--

--

--

-.45**

.44**

-.48**

.44**

--

--

--

--

-.33**

.35**

-.40**

.42**

-.53**

.49**

-.36**

.13*

--

--

384

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

244i

358

348

Social Support Questionnaire

Number of support persons

Satisfaction with support

Total score

(Savino, 1987)

Number of support personsu

Satisfaction with supportu

(Gallant, 1994)

Satisfaction with support

Perceived availability

(Huff, 1998)

444l

246m

444l

246m

444l

246m

109i

.05

.11*

.17**

.22**

.10**

.16**

--

--

--

--

.21

.22

.25**

.37**

.30**

.31**

.30**

.40**

--

--

--

--

.32*

-.03

.06

.19**

.21**

.24**

.12**

.23**

.16*q

.20*r

.21*q

.13r

.13

.15

.14**

.25**

.18**

.22**

.17**

.28**

--

--

--

--

.33*

.08

.14**

.27**

.26**

.31**

.20**

.32**

--

--

--

--

.32*

.22

385

Test/Test Variable nAcademicAdjustment

Social Adjustment

Personal-EmotionalAdjustment Attachment

Full

Scale

45i

Student Opinion Survey

Overall satisfaction with one’s

college

(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)

1101

.30**

.29**

.11** .32** --

Student-Oriented Life Events Survey

(Marcotte, 1995)

229c

-.42**

-.35**

-.48**

-.34**

--

Student Stress Scale

Stress score

Degree of stressfulness

(Natera, 1998)

144

-.29**

-.40**

-.14

-.28**

-.37**

-.49**

--

--

--

--

Young Adult Social Support

Inventory

(Marcotte, 1995) 229c .30**

.34**

.24**

.34**

--

aSee also Table 24, pp. 54-55, of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).bAll males.cAll females.

386

dIndependent variable administered in fall semester, SACQ in spring semester.eWhite students.fAfrican-American students.gLatino students.hAsian-American students.iMixed college year levels.jAge 25-45.kTotal sample.lFirst semester testing.mSecond semester testing.nSample includes traditional- and nontraditional-age undergraduate and graduate students.oMixed foreign first year graduate students.pEarly entrant freshmen, who skipped the junior and/or senior years of high school, age 14-17.qSACQ administered 3rd week of October.rSACQ administered 3rd week of November.sSecond generation college attenders.tFirst generation college attenders.uSSQ administered 3rd week of October.vIndependent variable administered prematriculation.WMexican-American students.

*p<.05; **p<.01.

387

REFERENCES

Abe, J., Talbot, D. M.. & Geelhoed, R. J. (1998). Effects of a peer program on international

student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 539-547.

Acunzo, M. E. (1989). The relation between childhood/adolescent sexual abuse and women's

college adjustment. Unpublished master's thesis, Clark University, Worcester, MA.

Adan, A. M., & Felner, R. D. (1987). Unpublished raw data.

Adan, A. M., & Felner, R. D. (1995). Ecological congruence and adaptation of minority youth

during the transition to college. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 256-269.

Addison, N. E. (1996). Spirituality and religious affiliation among college students: Effects on

psychological well-being and college adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of

California at Los Angeles, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 3807A.

Ainsworth, M. D. & Bell, S. (1970). Attachment, separation and exploration: Illustrated by the

behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49-67.

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A

psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Albert, M. M. (1988). Physical and psychological separation of late adolescents from their

parents as it relates to adjustment to college. (Doctoral dissertation, Barry University,

1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 2808A.

Allen, J. L. (1985). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents as it relates

to adjustment to college. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1985).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2964A.

Allen, J. L. (1986, April). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents as it

relates to adjustment to college. Paper presented at the meeting of the American College

388

Personnel Association, New Orleans, LA.

Allen, S. F. (1989). Psychological separation of older adolescents and young adults from their

parents: An investigation of gender differences in divorced and intact families. (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51,

0109A.

Allen, S. F., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1990). Psychological separation of older adolescents from

their parents: An investigation of gender differences in divorced and intact families.

Unpublished manuscript, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Allen, S. F., Stoltenberg, C. D., & Rosko, C. K. (1990). Perceived psychological separation of

older adolescents and young adults from their parents: A comparison of divorced versus

intact families. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 57-61.

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. E. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest,

and prejudice. The International Journal for the Study of Religion, 2, 113-133.

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference

Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950-967.

American College Testing Program, Research and Development Division. (1973). Assessing

students on the way to college: Technical report for the ACT assessment program. Iowa

City, IA: ACT Publications.

American College Testing Program (1994). The ACT Evaluation/Service for Educational

Institutions and Agencies: User’s Guide, 6th ed., Iowa City:ACT.

Amin, A. H. (2000). Cultural adaptation and psychosocial adjustment among Arab-American

college students. (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 2000). Dissertation

389

Abstracts International, 61, 6183B.

Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay

well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Appenzeller, E. A. (1998). Transition to college: An assessment of the adjustment process for

at-risk college students. (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University and San

Diego State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 0099A.

Aries, E., Olver, R. R., & Batgos, J. (1985). Self-other differentiation and the mother-child

relationship: The effects of sex and birth order. Unpublished manuscript, Amherst

College, Amherst, MA.

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment:

Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-453.

Bachman, J. G., & O'Malley, P. M. (1977). Self-esteem in young men: A longitudinal analysis

of the impact of educational and occupational attainment. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 35, 365-380.

Baik, J. (1997). Individuation, college adjustment and ego identity: Construction of a measure

of individuation and psychometric analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Wisconsin-Madison, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 5157B.

Bailey, J. S., & Shilkret, R. B. (2000a). Effects of divorce, custody arrangements, and guilt on

college adjustment. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological

Association, Baltimore, MD.

Bailey, J. S., & Shilkret, R. B. (2000b). Unpublished raw data.

Baker, R. W. (1990). An analysis of the relation between a measure of psychological separation

390

from parents and a measure of student adjustment to college. Unpublished manuscript,

Clark University, Worcester, MA.

Baker, R. W. (1993). Unpublished raw data.

Baker, R. W., McNeil, O. V., & Siryk, B. (1985). Expectation and reality in freshman

adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 94-103.

Baker, R. W., & Schultz, K. L. (1992a). Measuring expectations about college adjustment.

NACADA Journal, 12, 23-32.

Baker, R. W., & Schultz, K. L. (1992b). Experiential counterparts of test-indicated self-

disillusionment during freshman adjustment to college. NACADA Journal, 12, 13-22.

Baker, R. W., & Schultz, K. L. (1993). Interventions using scales measuring expected and

actual adjustment to college. NACADA Journal, 13, 9-17.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1980). Alienation and freshman transition into college. Journal of

College Student Personnel, 21, 437-442.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1983). Social propensity and college adjustment. Journal of College

Student Personnel, 24, 331- 336.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1984a). Measuring academic motivation of matriculating college

freshmen. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 459-464.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1984b). Measuring adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 31, 179-189.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1986). Exploratory intervention with a scale measuring adjustment

to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 31-38.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1989). Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire manual. Los

Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

391

Baker, R. W., & Smith, M. A. (1991). A research-based precaution for academic advisors

concerning use of psychological tests. Unpublished manuscript, Clark University,

Worcester, MA.

Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and

treatment. New York: The Guilford Press.

Barrera, M., Jr. (1981). Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents: Assessessment

issues. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support, (pp. 69-96). Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Bartels, K. M. (1990). Attachment style, social support, and stress: Relations to adjustment to

college. Master’s thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Bartels, K. M. (1995). Psychosocial predictors of adjustment to the first year of college: A

comparison of first-generation and second-generation students. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Missouri-Columbia, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57,

5974B.

Barthelemy, K. J., & Fine, M. A. (1995). The relations between residence hall climate and

adjustment in college students. College Student Journal, 29, 465-475.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of

a four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

Beavers, W. R., & Hampson, R. B. (1990). Successful families: Assessment and intervention.

New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical

anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,

893-897.

392

Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression.

New York: Guilford Press.

Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for

measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.

Bekker, M. H. J. (1993). The development of an autonomy scale based on recent insights into

gender identity. European Journal of Personality, 7, 177-194.

Belvedere, M. C. (2000). Social aspects of coping: Social support and adjustment among first-

year and transfer students. (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University - Chicago, 2000).

Dissertation Abstracts International, , .

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bennion, L. D., & Adams, G. R. (1986). A revision of the Extended Version of the Objective

Measure of Ego-Identity Status: An identity instrument for use with late adolescents.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 183-198.

Benson, R. T. (1999). Untitled research progress report. Unpublished manuscript, Edgewood

College, Madison, Wisconsin.

Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to

noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-417.

Bernstein, E. M., & Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability, and validity of a

dissociation scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 727-735.

Berwick, D. M., Murphy, J. M., Goldman, P. A., Ware, J. E., Barsky, A. J., & Weinstein, M. C.

(1991). Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Medical Care, 29, 169-

176.

393

Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60, 771-

788.

Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., Eubanks, J., Kernahan, C., & Fuller, B. (1999). Development

of collective self-esteem among students: Predicting adjustment to college. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 21, 213-222.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to

the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-

345.

Beyers, W. (2001). The detachment debate: The separation-adjustment link in adolescence.

Doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (1998). Students’ adaptation to university and psychological

separation from parents: A study on Belgian university students. Research report,

Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2002a). Concurrent and predictive validity of the Student

Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ) in a sample of European freshmen

students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, __,

Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2002b). Psychological separation and adjustment to university:

Moderating effects of gender, age, and perceived parenting style. Journal of Adolescent

Research, __,

Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2002c). Unpublished raw data.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1984). Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with

unipolar depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 877-891.

Birnie-Lefcovitch, S. J. (1997). Adaptation during the transition from high school to university:

394

An examination of selected person, environment and transition perception variables.

(Doctoral dissertation, Wilfrid Laurier University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 58, 3435A.

Birnie-Lefcovitch, S. J. (2001). Unpublished raw data.

Blankstein, K. R., Flett, G. L., & Koledin, S. (1991). The Brief College Student Hassles Scale:

Development, validation, and relation with pessimism. Journal of College Student

Development, 32, 258-264.

Blatt, S. J., Wein, S. J., Chevron, E., & Quinlan, D. M. (1979). Parental representations and

depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 388-397.

Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family

Process, 24, 225-239.

Bobier, D. M. (1989). Adjustment to university, psychological separation and sex role

orientation. Unpublished B.A. honours thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario,

Canada.

Borow, H. (1949). Manual for the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment. Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. British Journal of Psychiatry,

130, 201-210.

Bragg, T. A. (1994a). A study of the relationship between adjustment to college and freshman

retention. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 56, 0104A.

395

Bragg, T. A. (1994b). A study of the relationship between adjustment to college and freshman

retention. Paper presented at the 1994 MIDAIR Conference, St. Louis, MO.

Braithwaite, V. A., & Scott, W. A. (1991). Values. (Chap.12). In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver,

& L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Vol. 1. Measures of personality and social psychological

attitudes. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Bray, J. H., Williamson, D. S., & Malone, P. E. (1984). Personal authority in the family system:

Development of a questionnaire to measure personal authority in intergenerational family

processes. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10, 167-178.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult

attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.).

Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.

Brewer, B. W., Van Radte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules’ muscle or

Achille’s heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 235-254.

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1988). Multivariate correlates of childhood psychological and physical

maltreatment among university women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 331-341.

Brooks, J. H., II, & DuBois, D. L. (1995). Individual and environmental predictors of

adjustment during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 36,

347-360.

Brower, A. M. (1990a). Unpublished raw data.

Brower, A. M. (1990b). Measuring student performances and performance appraisals with the

College Life Task Assessment Instrument. Unpublished manuscript, University of

Wisconsin, Madison.

Brown, D. A. (1996). Assessment of anticipated and actual college adjustment in freshman-

396

oriented students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park, 1996).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 0102A.

Brown, D. A. (1997). The effects of three orientation programs on college freshmen. Paper in

preparation.

Brown, D. A. (1998). Does an outdoor orientation program really work? College and University,

73(4), 17-23.

Brown, S. D., Brady, T., Lent, R. W., Wolfert, J., & Hall, S. (1987). Perceived social support

among college students: Three studies of the psychometric characteristics and counseling

uses of the social support inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 337-354.

Brunelle-Joiner, K. M. (1999). Effects of an extended orientation program on personal

resiliency and adjustment to college as it relates to academic performance and retention.

(Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 60, 354A.

Brunig, C. A. (1983). Father-daughter relationship correlates of the separation-individuation

process. (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, San

Diego, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 3352B.

Buchanan, S. R. (1991). A longitudinal study of the effects of concurrently taking a modified

university 101 course during the high school senior year on students’ anticipated

adjustment to college and actual adjustment to college as compared to the adjustment to

college of students who concurrently took a traditional lecture course or who took no

course during the high school senior year. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South

Carolina, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 2386A.

Buchanan, S. R. (1993). University 101 for high school students. Journal of the Freshman Year

397

Experience, 5, 49-68.

Buelow, G. (1990). An analysis of the influence of family role, family functioning and chemical

dependence on the college adjustment of students from chemically dependent and

disrupted homes. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1990). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 52, 1709B.

Buelow, G. (1995). Comparing students from substance abusing and dysfunctional families:

Implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 327-330

Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57,

110-119.

Burr, M. (1992). A study of the determinants of student integration and retention at Doña Ana

Branch Community College. (Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University,

1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1772A.

Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Butler, W. M., & Ginsburg, G. (1989, November). Family functioning and college student

adjustment. Poster presented at the Annual Vermont Psychological Association

Conference, Burlington, VT.

Camp, C. C., & Chartrand, J. M. (1992). A comparison and evaluation of interest congruence

indices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 162-182.

Campbell, J. M., Amerikaner, M., Swank, P., & Vincent, K. (1989). The relationship between

the Hardiness Test and the Personal Orientation Inventory. Journal of Research in

Personality, 23, 373-380.

Caplan, S. M. (1997). Family and self-concept factors contributing to the adjustment and

398

achievement of early entrants. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, 1996).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 2527A.

Carlson, D. L. (1986). Identity status: Its relationship to psychological adjustment and academic

achievement. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, River Falls.

Caro, J. E. (1986). An empirical investigation of attachment in adulthood and its relationship to

adjustment in college. (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1985). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 47, 2670B.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A

theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-

283.

Chartrand, J. M., Camp, C. C., & McFadden, K. L. (1990a). Predicting academic adjustment

and career indecision: A comparison of self-efficacy, interest congruence, and

commitment. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychological

Association, Boston, MA.

Chartrand, J. M., Camp, C. C., & McFadden, K. L. (1990b). Unpublished raw data.

Chartrand, J. M., Camp, C. C., & McFadden, K. L. (1992). Predicting academic adjustment and

career indicision: A comparison of self-efficacy, interest congruence, and commitment.

Journal of College Student Development, 33, 293-300.

Cheek, J. M. (1983). The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale. Unpublished manuscript,

Wellesley College.

Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1990). Shyness, self-esteem, and self-consciousness. In H.

Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 47-82). New York:

Plenum.

399

Chizhik, E. W. (1999). The relationship between prematriculation college knowledge and

disillusionment: Was college what students expected? NACADA Journal, 19, 12-21.

Choi, K-H. (1999). Unpublished raw data.

Choi, K-H. (2000). Psychological separation-individuation and college adjustment among

Korean-American students: The role of collectivism-individualism. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago.

Christenson, R. M., & Wilson, W. P. (1985). Assessing pathology in the separation-

individuation process by an inventory: A preliminary report. Journal of Nervous and

Mental Disease, 173, 561-565.

Clauss, K. (1995). The relationships of family style, family competence, parental attachment,

self-esteem, and separation-individuation with social and emotional adjustment to college

of first-year students. (Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, 1995). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 56, 3885A.

Cline, D., & Chosy, J. (1972). A prospective study of life changes and subsequent health

changes. Archives of General Psychiatry, 27, 51-53.

Coatsworth, D. J. (2001). Emotional, instrumental and financial support by divorced parents of

their college aged children. Undergraduate honors thesis, Arizona State University,

Tempe.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.

Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. M. (1985). Measuring the functional

components of social support. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support:

Theory, research and application (pp. 73-94). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martraus

400

Nighriff.

Cohen, S., Sherrod, D. R., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Social skills and the stress-protective role of

social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 963-973.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality

in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.

Compas, B. E., Davis, G. E., Forsythe, C. J., & Wagner, B. M. (1987). Assessment of major

and daily stressful events during adolescence: The Adolescent Perceived Events Scale.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 534-541.

Constantinople, A. (1969). An Eriksonian measure of personality development in college

students. Developmental Psychology, 1, 357-372.

Conti, R. (2000a). College goals: Do self-determined and carefully considered goals predict

intrinsic motivation, academic performance, and adjustment during the first semester?

Social Psychology of Education, 4, 189-211.

Conti, R. (2000b). Why pursue a college education? The influence of early reflection and goal

orientation on adjustment during the first semester. In C. Chiu, F. Salili, & Y. Hong

(Eds.), Multiple competencies and self-regulated learning: The psychological foundation

of life-long learning. Plenum Press, pp. (need date & p. #’s; NA as of 11/16/00 – au

says will notify)

Conti, R. (2000c). Unpublished raw data.

Cooler, J. R. (1995). The relationship among family roles, psychological separation-

individuation, and adjustment in first-year college students. (Doctoral dissertation,

Teachers College, Columbia University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56,

4049B.

401

Cooley, E. L., & Carden, A. I. (1992, March). Depression, locus of control, and homesickness:

Predictors of college adjustment? Poster presented at the meeting of the Southeastern

Psychological Association, Knoxville, TN.

Cooper, S. A. (1991). Overseas students, their values and adjustment to studying in Australia.

Honours thesis for bachelor’s degree, University College of Southern Queensland,

Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia.

Cooper, S. E., & Robinson, D. A. G. (1988a). Psychometric properties of the Student

Adaptation to College Questionnaire with engineering and science students.

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 21, 124-129.

Cooper, S. E., & Robinson, D. A. G. (1988b, August). Assessing successful adaptation to

college. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Atlanta, GA.

Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self-Esteem Inventories manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Corbett, C. A. (1991). Dual minority status and college adjustment: An examination of social

and academic adjustment in Black deaf college students. (Doctoral dissertation,

Pennsylvania State University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2055B.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO-PI-R/NEO-FFI Professional Manual.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costello, C. G., & Comrey, A. L. (1967). Scales for measuring depression and anxiety. Journal

of Psychology, 66, 303-313.

Crastnopol, M. G. (1980). Separation-individuation in a woman's identity vis-a-vis mother.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts

402

International, 41, 345B.

Crombag, H. F. M. (1968). Study motivation and study attitude: Membership of various

organizations and its effect on study motivation and study attitude in freshmen students.

Groningen, The Netherlands: Walters.

Crouse, D. W. (1990). A comparison of men in nontraditional and traditional majors.

Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Crumbaugh, J., & Mahalick, L. (1964). An experimental study in existentialism: The

psychometric approach to Frankl’s concept of noogenic neurosis. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 20, 200-207.

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican-

Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences, 17, 275-304.

Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican-American

normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2, 199-217.

Cutrona, C. E. (1989). Ratings of social support by adolescents and adult informants: Degree of

correspondence and prediction of depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 57, 723-732.

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation

to stress. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol.

1. JAI Press, Inc., 37-67.

Danielson, H. (1995). First year student adaptation to college and the impact of residence hall

structure. Unpublished master’s research project, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.

Davis, E. R. (1988). The effects of the life development intervention model on freshman and

403

transfer student-athletes. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University,

1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 3149B.

Derogatis, L. R. (1984). SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedure manual-II.

Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.

Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory

report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595-605.

Dewein, K. M. (1994). The relationships among divorce, narcissistic vulnerability,

psychological separation, and adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-

Columbia, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 1487B.

Dewitt-Parker, J. (2000). Predicting the successful adjustment of black freshmen to a

predominately white university: The contribution of parental attachment and cultural

traditionality. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Albany, the State University of New

York, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 2812A.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffen, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1985). Age and sex effects for emotional intensity.

Developmental Psychology, 21, 542-546.

DiGiuseppe, R., Leaf, R., Exner, T., & Robin, M. W. (1988). The development of a measure of

rational/irrational thinking. Paper presented at the World Congress of Behavior Therapy,

Edinborough, Scotland.

Dodgen-Magee, D. J. (1992). The relationship between social, interpersonal, academic, and

emotional adjustment and levels of depression in college freshmen. (Doctoral

dissertation, Biola University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53,

404

2043B. .

Dowd, E. T., Yesenosky, J. M., Wallbrown, F., & Sanders, D. (1993). Psychological reactance

and its relationship to normal personality variables. Paper read at meetings of the

American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

Edgerton, J. (1997). Separation-individuation in young adulthood: Attachment patterns, family

cohesion, and mental health considerations. (Master’s thesis, University of Alberta,

1997). Master’s Abstracts International, 36, 0024. (But see Lapsley & Edgerton,

1999a&b for amended findings)

Elacqua, T. C. (1992a). Factors affecting the adjustment among first year students at a women's

college. Unpublished senior honors project, Russell Sage College, Troy, NY.

Elacqua, T. C. (1992b). Factors affecting the adjustment among first year students at a women's

college. Paper presented at the Sixth National Conference for Undergraduate Research,

Minneapolis, MN.

Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of

Psychology and Theology, 11, 330-340.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS):

Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment

Device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 171-180.

Erickson, C. J. (1996). Impact of grandparent-student relationship on student adaptation to

college environment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1996).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 3402.

.Evans-Hughes, G. (1992). The influence of racial identity and locus of control on the

405

adjustment and academic achievement of African-American college students. (Doctoral

dissertation, Rutgers University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 1239A

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory.

San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Fackelman, P., & Shilkret, R. B. (1994). Putting object relations to the test: An examination of

the object relational world of college women using five scales. Unpublished manuscript,

Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA.

Farber, S. S., & Felner, R. D. (1980). Stress and coping in college students. Unpublished

manuscript.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In M. B.

Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.). Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental

perspectives. New York: The Guilford Press, Chapter 5, 128-152.

Feenstra, J. S., Banyard, V. L., Rines, E. N., & Hopkins, K. R. (2001). First-year students’

adaptation to college: The role of family variables and individual coping. Journal of

College Student Development, 42, 106-113.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:

Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.

Fible, B., & Hale, W. D. (1978). The Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale -- A new

measure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 924-931.

Fiese, B. H., & Kline, C. A. (1992). The psychometric properties of the Family Ritual

Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University.

Fitts, W. H. (1965). The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western

Psychological Services.

406

Flanagan, C., Schulenberg, J., & Fuligni, A. (1993). Residential setting and parent-adolescent

relationships during the college years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 171-189.

Flescher, M. (1986a, August). Social networks and student adjustment following parental

divorce and remarriage. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological

Association, Washington, DC.

Flescher, M. (l986b). Unpublished raw data.

Flescher, M., Clingempeel, W. G., & Stein, P. N. (1986). The adjustment to college of students

from divorce-engendered mother-headed and stepfather families: A multimethod study.

Unpublished manuscript, Temple University, Philadelphia.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D., & Reeder, G. D. (1986).

Attributional complexity: An individual differences measure. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 51, 875-884.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and

coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 48, 150-170.

Foster, T. R. (1997). A comparative study of the study skills, self-concept, academic

achievement and adjustment to college of freshman intercollegiate athletes and non-

athletes. (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 58, 4565A.

Fox, D. P. (2000). Interactive effects of gender, ethnicity, and first year experience program

participation on college student adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Northern Colorado, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 3007A.

Fray, J. S. (????). An exploratory study of the culture shock experience of missionary children

407

homecomers. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1988).

Dissertation Abstracts International, , .

Frazier, P. A., & Cook, S. W. (1993). Correlates of distress following heterosexual relationship

dissolution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 55-67.

Freeman, S. K. (1987a). Psychological separation and adjustment to college. Unpublished

manuscript, State University of New York, Stony Brook.

Freeman, S. K. (1987b). Unpublished raw data.

Friedland, C. D. (1990). Relationship between adjustment to physical disability and belief

systems in persons with physical disability. (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University,

1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 6150B.

Fuller, B. E., & Heppner, M. J. (1995). The college transition inventory: Measuring

psychosocial factors in the transition process. Paper presented at the meeting of the

American Psychological Association, New York, NY.

Fuller, B. E. (2000). Unpublished raw data.

Gallant, L. M. (1994). The relationship of gender, stressful life events, social support, and

coping style to adaptation to university. (Master’s thesis, Acadia University, 1994).

Master’s Abstracts International, 33, 0647.

Garbarino, C., & Strange, C. (1993). College adjustment and family environments of students

reporting parental alcohol problems. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 261-

266.

Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorder Inventory - 2. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Garner, H. D. (1986). Effects of marital and cross generational alliances on the adjustment and

408

separation of late adolescents. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1986).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2162B.

Garrett, S. E. (1994). The relationship between self-esteem and adjustment, persistence, and

involvement among first-year female college students. Unpublished master’s thesis,

Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.

Gavazzi, S. M., Sabatelli, R. M., & Reese-Weber, M. (1999). Measurement of financial,

functional, and psychological connections in families: Conceptual development and

empirical use of the Multigenerational Interconnectedness Scale. Psychological Reports,

84, 1361-1371.

Gerdes, H. (l986). Freshman adjustment to college: Expectations, satisfaction, and persistence.

Unpublished master's thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Gerdes, H. (1987). Unpublished raw data.

Gilkey, J. K. (1988). From their daughter’s eyes: Parent/daughter relationships and college

adjustment in young women. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 0267A.

Gilkey, J. K., Protinsky, H. O., & Lichtman, M. (1989). Parent/daughter relationships and

college adjustment in young women. Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

Gilleylen, C. E. (1993). A comparative study of the science-related attitudes and the factors

associated with persisting in science of African-American college students in science

majors and African-American college students in non-science majors. (Doctoral

dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 54, 4390A.

409

Gold, J., Burrell, S., Haynes, C., & Nardecchia, D. (1990). Black undergraduate adaptation to

college as a predictor of academic success. Paper presented at annual meeting of the

American Association for Counseling and Development, Reno, NV. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 338 730).

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.

Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Administrator's guide. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Graham, C., Baker, R. W., & Wapner, S. (1984). Prior interracial experience and Black student

transition into predominantly white colleges. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 47, 1146-1154.

Grasley, C. (1992). Measuring the impact of stressful life events on undergraduate students: The

Student-Oriented Life Events Survey. Unpublished master’s thesis, Queen’s University,

Kingston, Ontario.

Greenberger, E., Josselson, R., Knerr, C., & Knerr, B. (1975). The measurement and structure

of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 127-143.

Grella, R. S. (1989). Family structure and student adaptation to college: A correlational study.

Unpublished undergraduate research report, Lebanon Valley College, Annville, PA.

Griffen, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental

dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67, 430-445.

Grochowski, J. R., & McCubbin, H. I. (1987). YA-SSI: Young adult social support inventory.

In H. I. McCubbin, & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family Assessment Inventories for

410

Research and Practice (Chapter 18, pp. 272-279). Madison: University of Wisconsin-

Madison.

Grotevant, H. D., & Adams, G. R. (1984). Development of an objective measure to assess ego

identity in adolescence: Validation and replication. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

13, 419-438.

Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Finchman, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s

perspective: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child

Development, 63, 558-572.

Haemmerlie, F. M., & Merz, C. J. (1991). Concurrent validity between the California

Psychological Inventory-Revised and the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 664-668.

Haemmerlie, F. M., & Montgomery, R. L. (1994). Psychological reactance and its relationship

to college adjustment. Paper presented at meetings of the Southwestern Psychological

Association, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Haemmerlie, F. M., Montgomery, R. L., & Consolvo, C. A. (1993). Psychological separation,

adjustment, and alcohol use by college students. Paper presented at the INPR

Conference on Personal Relationships, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Haemmerlie, F. M., Montgomery, R. L., & Saling, C. (1994). Age of first use and present use

of alcohol by undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 75, 1268-1270.

Haemmerlie, F. M., Robinson, D. A. G., & Carmen, R. C. (1991). "Type A" personality traits

and adjustment to college. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 81-82.

Haemmerlie, F. M., Steen, S. C., & Benedicto, J. A. (1994). Undergraduates' conflictual

independence, adjustment, and alcohol use: The importance of the mother-student

411

relationship. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 644-650.

Halloran, N. H. (2000). Freshman learning communities and their effectiveness on college

student adjustment and adaptation. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University,

2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 2195A.

Hansburg, H. G. (1980). Adolescent separation anxiety. Vol. 2. New York: Krieger.

Harder, D. H., & Zalma, A. (1990). Two promising shame and guilt scales: A construct

validity comparison. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 729-745.

Harrell, S. P. (1997). The Racism and Life Experiences Scale-Revised. Unpublished

instrument.

Harris, B. C. (1988). How the structure and function of social networks relate to loneliness and

college adaptation. Unpublished master's thesis, The George Washington University,

Washington, DC.

Harris, B. C. (1991). The college student experience: How social support relates to adaptation

and attrition. (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, 1991).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 4520B.

Harste, J. M. (1996). Adolescent attachment and adjustment to college. Unpublished

undergraduate honors project, Hamline University, St. Paul, MN.

Hatter, D. Y., & Ottens, A. J. (1998). Afrocentric world view and black students’ adjustment to

a predominantly white university: Does world view matter? College Student Journal, 32.

472-480.

Hays, R. B., & Oxley, D. (1986). Social network development and functioning during a life

transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 305-313.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.

412

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Hazzard-Patterson, T. (1999). Parental loss and first year college adjustment. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Radford University, Radford, Virginia.

Helman, C. K. (1999). Adjustment to college: The contribution of a living-learning program for

science and engineering students. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,

1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 3615A.

Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1974). Short forms of the Texas Social Behavior Inventory (TSBI),

an objective measure of self-esteem. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4(5A), 473-

475.

Henderson, S., Duncan-Jones, P., Byrne, D. G., & Scott, R. (1980). Measuring social

relationships: The Interview Schedule for Social Interaction. Psychological Medicine,

10, 723-734.

Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal

problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 66-75.

Hermans, H. J. M. (1970). A questionnaire measure of achievement motivation. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 34, 353-363.

Hertel, J. B. (1996). First-generation and second-generation college students: Similarities,

differences, and differential factors in their adjustment to college. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Missouri-Columbia, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58,

2070A.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:

Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.

413

Hickman, G. P., Bartholomae, S., & McKenry, P. C. (2000). Influence of parenting styles on

the adjustment and academic achievement of traditional college freshmen. Journal of

College Student Development, 41, 41-54.

Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Klerman, G. L., Gough, H. G., Barrett, J., Korchin, S. J., & Chodoff, P.

(1977). A measure of interpersonal dependency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41,

610-618.

Hoffman, J. A. (1984). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 31, 170-178.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual (2nd ed.), Tulsa, OK:

Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, M. P. (l986). Unpublished raw data.

Hogan, M. P. (1988). The relationship of past interpersonal loss to college adjustment.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 48, 3112B.

Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1987). Personal and contextual determinants of coping

strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 946-955.

Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). Some diagnostic scales for research

in decision making and personality: Identity, information, and barriers. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1191-1200.

Hollmann, N. C. (1995). Unpublished raw data.

Hollmann, N. C., & Metzler, A. E. (1994). Adjustment to college: The self in the system.

Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of

414

Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.

Hopkins, K. R. (1998). Leaving home: Family functioning in relation to adjustment to college.

Undergraduate honors research report, University of New Hampshire, Durham.

Hovestadt, A. J., Anderson, W. T., Piercy, F. P., Cochran, S. W., & Fine, M. (1985). A family-

of-origin scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 287-297.

Howard, J. A., Morey, K. M., & Briancesco, L. A. (April, 2001). Roots and wings: The role of

attachment theory in adjustment to college. Paper presented at meetings of the Society

for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis.

Huff, J. L. (1998). Parental attachment, perceived social support, reverse culture shock and

college adjustment of missionary children. Master’s thesis, California State University at

Fullerton.

Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in

Personality, 22, 17-36.

Humfleet, G. L. (1987). Leaving home: Adjustment to college as related to separation-

individuation. Doctoral dissertation, DePaul University, Chicago.

Humfleet, G. L., & Ribordy, S. C. (1990). The reliability andvalidity of the Student Adaptation

to College Questionnaire as a measure of adjustment to college. Poster presented at the

meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Hunsberger, B. (2000). Unpublished raw data.

Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M., & Alisat, S. (1996). The transition to university: Is

religion related to adjustment? Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 7,

181-199.

Hurlbut, S. C., & Sher, K. J. (1992). Assessing alcohol problems in college students. Journal of

415

American College Health, 41, 49-58.

Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college: Assessing

difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in Higher Education,

37, 135-157.

Hutto, C. A. (1998). The relationship of selected family variables to college student adjustment.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 59, 2455B.

Hutto, C. A. (2001). Unpublished raw data.

Hutz, A. (2002a). Relationships among perceptions and coping with barriers, ethnic identity and

ethnocultural person-environment fit to college student adjustment. (Docroral

dissertation, Northern Arizona University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International,

__,

(get DAI info)

Hutz, A. (2002b). Unpublished raw data.

Hutz, A., Fabian, T., & Martin, W. E., Jr. (2000). College adjustment of first-year

undergraduate students from various ethnocultural backgrounds. Poster session at the

annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Tucson, Arizona.

Ibrahim, F. A., & Kahn, H. (1987). Assessment of world views. Psychological Reports, 60,

163-176.

Insel, P. M., & Roth, W. T. (1985). Core Concepts in Health. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Injejikian, A. M. (1995). Psychosocial adjustment of the Northridge earthquake survivors.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1995). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 56, 1142A.

416

Jackson, A. L. (1998). Factors related to freshman adjustment to college. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Southern Mississippi, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59,

2882A.

Jackson, L. M., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., & Hunsberger, B. E. (2000). Great expectations:

The relation between expectancies and adjustment during the transition to university.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2100-2125.

Jagels, C. T., & Burger, J. M. (1993). Adjustment to college as a function of extraversion-

introversion. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association,

Phoenix.

Jampol, R. C. (1989). Coping with stress: The role of locus of control, appraisals, and coping

responses in adjusting to college. (Doctoral dissertation, Emory University, 1988).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 4545B.

Jarama Alvan, S. L., Belgrave, F. Z., & Zea, M. C. (1996). Stress, social support, and college

adjustment among Latino students. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 2, 193-203.

Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J., & Rosenman, R. H. (1979). Jenkins Activity Survey manual

(Form C). New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Johansson, C. B. (1986). Career Assessment Inventory. Minneapolis: National Computer

Systems, Inc.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The “Big Five” Inventory-Versions 4a

and 54 (Tech. Report). Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality Assessment and Research.

Johnson, A. R. (2001). Optimism, college adjustment, and campus resources. Unpublished

master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Johnson, J. H. (1982). Life events as stressors in childhood and adolescence. In B. B. Lahey &

417

A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, pp. 219-253. New York:

Plenum Press.

Jones, C. R. (1996). Client expectations, locus of control, and counseling effectiveness.

(Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 57, 1031A.

Jones, E. E., & Rhodewalt, F. (1982). Self-Handicapping Scale. Available from the authors at

the Department of Psychology, Princeton University, or the Department of Psychology,

University of Utah.

Just, H. D. (1998). Freshman adjustment and retention: Combining traditional risk factors with

psychosocial variables. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas-Austin, 1998).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 5138B.

Kaase, K. J. (1994). Testing the limits of the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire.

Paper presented at the 34th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research,

New Orleans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 619).

Kaczmarek, P. G., Matlock, C. G., & Franco, J. N. (1990). Assessment of college adjustment in

three freshman groups. Psychological Reports, 66, 1195-1202.

Kaczmarek, P. G., Matlock, C. G., Mesta, R., Ames, M. H., & Ross, M. (1994). An assessment

of international college student adjustment. International Journal for the Advancement of

Counseling, 17, 241-247.

Kalsner-Silver, L. (2000). Adjustment in a multicultural undergraduate population: Attachment

quality, ethnic identity, and separation-individuation. (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers

University and University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, 2000). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 61, 1290A.

418

Kalsner-Silver, L. (2002). Unpublished raw data.

Kambach, M. (1994). A study of social support and college adjustment including with a

variation of a traditional measure of social support. Unpublished master's thesis, Clark

University, Worcester, MA.

Kandel, D. B., & Davies, M. (1982). Epidemiology of depressive mood in adolescents.

Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 1205-1212.

Kane, M. A., Lennon, K., & Petrosky, G. (1989). Transitions into academia: A comparison of

traditional freshmen, non-traditional undergraduates and graduate students. Unpublished

manuscript, Boston University, Boston, MA and Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.

Keenan, J. T. (1992). Unpublished raw data.

Kenny, M. E. (1990). College seniors' perceptions of parental attachments: The value and

stability of family ties. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 39-46.

Kenny, M. E. (1992). Unpublished raw data.

Kenny, M. E. (1993). The high school-to-college transition. In F. G. Lopez & D. L. Blustein

(Chairs), Contemporary extensions of attachment theory: Implications for theory and

practice. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological

Association, Toronto, Canada.

Kenny, M. E. (1994). Unpublished raw data.

Kenny, M. E. (1995). Unpublished raw data.

Kenny, M. E., & Donaldson, G. A. (1992). The relationship of parental attachment and

psychological separation to the adjustment of first-year college women. Journal of

College Student Development, 33, 431-438.

Kenny, M. E., & Perez, V. (1996). Attachment and psychological well-being among racially and

419

ethnically diverse first year college students. Journal of College Student Development,

37, 527-535.

Kenny, M. E., & Stryker, S. (1994). Social network characteristics of White, Afro-American,

Asian and Latino/a college students and college adjustment: A longitudinal study.

Poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles,

CA.

Kenny, M. E., & Stryker, S. (1995). Unpublished raw data.

Kenny, M. E., & Stryker, S. (1996). Social network characteristics and college adjustment

among racially and ethnically diverse first-year students. Journal of College Student

Development, 37, 649-658.

Kim, D. D. (1996). A study of the relationship between psychological androgyny and college

adjustment among Korean-American college students. (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews

University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 2857A.

Kim, E. J., Lee, J. Y., & Oh, K. J. (1992). The effects of self-perception, perceived social

support and coping behavior on adjustment of university students: Six-month follow up

study. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Korean Psychological Association,

525-534.

Kincannon, J. C. (1968). Prediction of the standard MMPI scale scores from 71 items: The

Mini-Mult. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 319-325.

Kintner, D. E. (1998). Locus of control and college adjustment related to the freshman

orientation seminar at Trevecca Nazarene University. (Doctoral dissertation, Tennessee

State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 3349A.

Kleinmuntz, B. (1960). Identification of maladjusted college students. Journal of Counseling

420

Psychology, 7, 209-211.

Kleinmuntz, B. (1961). The college maladjustment scale (Mt): Norms and predictive ability.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 21, 1029-1033.

Kline, C. A. (1992). Family rituals, psychological separation and college adjustment. (Doctoral

dissertation, Syracuse University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54,

1101B.

Klynn, B. (1997). Influences of attachment style on adjustment of first-year students.

Unpublished undergraduate honors thesis, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York.

Kobasa, S. C. (1985). Personal Views Survey. Chicago: Hardiness Institute.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 168-177.

Koutralakos, J. (1971). Perceived paternal attitudes and demographic variables as related to

maladjustment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 371-382.

Krotseng, M. V. (1991, May). Predicting persistence from the Student Adaptation to College

Questionnaire: Early warning or siren song? Paper delivered at the Association for

Institutional Research Annual Forum, San Francisco, CA.

Krotseng, M. V. (1992). Predicting persistence from the Student Adaptation to College

Questionnaire: Early warning or siren song? Research in Higher Education, 33, 99-111.

Kulley, J. C. (1994). Attachment style categorization and the relationships among attachment

styles and psychosocial adjustment during college. (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Texas at Austin, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 4623B.

Kurdek, L. A., & Fine, M. A. (1994). Family acceptance and family control as predictors of

adjustment problems in young adolescents: Linear, curvilinear, or interactive effects?

421

Child Development, 65, 1137-1146.

Kusaka, T. (1995). The influence of individualism-collectivism orientations on east Asian

international students’ college adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of the

Pacific, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 0115A.

Lamothe, D., Currie, F., Alisat, S., Sullivan, T., Pratt, M. W., Pancer, S. M., & Hunsberger, B.

E. (1995). Impact of a social support intervention on the transition to university. Canadian

Journal of Community Mental Health, 14, 167-180.

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1994). The African American Acculturation Scale:

Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 104-127.

Lapan, R., & Patton, M. J. (1986). Self-psychology and the adolescent process: Measures of

pseudoautonomy and peer-group dependence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33,

136-142.

Lapsley, D. K. (1989). Unpublished raw data.

Lapsley, D. K., Aalsma, M. C., & Varshney, N. M. (2001). A factor analytic and psychometric

examination of pathology of separation-individuation. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

57, 915-932.

Lapsley, D. K., & Edgerton, J. (1999a). Normal and pathological separation-individuation in

early adulthood: Implications for attachment style and college adjustment. Manuscript in

preparation, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.

Lapsley, D. K., & Edgerton, J. (1999b). Unpublished raw data.

Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & FitzGerald, D. P. (1990). Adolescent attachment, identity, and

adjustment to college: Implications for the continuity of adaptation hypothesis. Journal

of Counseling and Development, 68, 561-565.

422

Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & Shadid, G. E. (1989). Psychological separation and adjustment to

college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 286-294.

Leatherman-Sommers, S. (1999). Attachment and adjustment to college among students with

physical disabilities. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1999).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 3570B.(delete if x cite fndgs)

Lefebvre, R. C., & Sandford, S. L. (1985). A multi-modal questionnaire for stress. Journal of

Human Stress, 11, 69-75.

Lent, R. W. (1997). Unpublished raw data.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity of

academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 307-315.

Leonard, J. B. (1990). Adjusting to college: An ecological perspective of undecided first-year

students. Unpublished orals paper, the University of Vermont, Burlington.

Leong, F. T. L. (1999). Unpublished raw data.

Leong, F. T. L., Bonz, M. H., & Zachar, P. (1997). Coping styles as predictors of college

adjustment among freshmen. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 10 (No. 2), 211-220.

Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 397-404.

Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1978). Toward the assessment of social competence.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 453-462.

Levin, M. A. (1996). Mother-daughter relationships in divorced versus intact families:

Conflictual independence, attachment and college adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation,

State University of New York at Albany, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57,

423

2691A.

Levine, J. B., Green, C. J., & Millon, T. (1986). The Separation-Individuation Test of

Adolescence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 123-137.

Levine, J. B., & Saintonge, S. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Separation-Individuation

Test of Adolescence within a clinical population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49,

492-507.

Lipsmeyer, M. E. (1984). The measurement of religiosity and its relationship to mental

health/impairment. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Louis University). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 45, 1918B.

Liter, S. D. (1987). The existential factors of death anxiety, purpose in life, and alienation and

their relationship to adjustment during the freshman year of college. (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Denver, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48,

1153A.

Lopez, F. G. (1989). Current family dynamics, trait anxiety, and academic adjustment: Test of a

family-based model of vocational identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 76-87.

Lopez, F. G. (1991). Patterns of family conflict and their relation to college student adjustment.

Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 257-260.

Lopez, F. G. (1997). Student-professor relationship styles, childhood attachment bonds and

current academic orientations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 271-

282.

Lopez, F. G., Campbell, V. L., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1986). Depression, psychological

separation, and college adjustment: An investigation of sex differences. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 33, 52-56.

424

Lopez, F. G., Campbell, V. L., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1988a). The relation of parental divorce to

college student development. Journal of Divorce, 12, 83-98.

Lopez, F. G., Campbell, V. L., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1988b). Family structure, psychological

separation, and college adjustment: A canonical analysis and cross-validation. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 35, 402-409.

Lopez, F. G., Campbell, V. L., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1989). Effects of marital conflict and

family coalition patterns on college student adjustment. Journal of College Student

Development, 30, 46-52.

Loveland, D. (1992). Analysis of the relationship between students' perceptions of the

environment, drinking behavior, and their adjustment to college. Unpublished master's

thesis, State University of New York, New Paltz.

Loveland, D. (1994). Unpublished raw data.

Low, C. A. (1994). An examination of the relationship between religion and adjustment to

college. Unpublished master's thesis, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO.

Low, C. A., & Handal, P. J. (1995). The relationship between religion and adjustment to

college. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 406-412.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s

social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.

Lustman, P. J., Sowa, C. J., & O'Hara, D. J. (1984). Factors influencing college student health:

Development of the Psychological Distress Inventory. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 31, 28-35.

Luzzo, D. A., & McWhirter, E. H. (2001). Sex and ethnic differences in the perception of

educational and career-related barriers and levels of coping efficacy. Journal of

425

Counseling and Development, 79, 61-67.

Mallinckrodt, B. (1988). Student retention, social support, and drop-out intentions: Comparison

of black and white students. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 60-64.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent

psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley,

Marcotte, G. M. R. (1995). A model investigating adjustment to university in first year students.

(Doctoral dissertation, Queen’s University at Kingston, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 57, 2858A. .

Marcotte, G. M. R. (1996). Unpublished raw data.

Marcy, T. P. (1996, October). The nature of the relationship between adaptation to college,

student characteristics, and freshman retention at a small church-affiliated college. Paper

presented at the Mid-America Association for Institutional Research Conference,

Excelsior Springs, MO.

Martin, B., & Burks, N. (1985). Family and nonfamily components of social support as buffers

of stress for college women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 448-465.

Martin, N. K. (1988). The effects of freshman orientation and locus of control on adjustment to

college. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 49, 3271A.

Martin, N. K., & Dixon, P. N. (1989). The effects of freshman orientation and locus of control

on adjustment to college. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 362-367.

Martin, N. K., & Dixon, P. N. (1994). The effects of freshman orientation and locus of control

426

on adjustment to college: A follow-up study. Social Behavior and Personality, 22, 201-

208.

Martin, W. E., Jr., Swartz-Kulstad, J. L., Hutz, A., & Fabian, T. (2000). Psychosocial correlates

to college adjustment of first-year undergraduate students. Poster session, annual

meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Tucson, Arizona.

Martin, W. E., Jr., Swartz-Kulstad, J. L., & Madson, M. (1999). Psychosocial factors that

predict the college adjustment of first-year undergraduate students: Implications for

college counselors. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 121-133.

Mathis, M., & Lecci, L. (1999). Hardiness and college adjustment: Identifying students in need

of services. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 305-309.

Maton, K. I. (1989a). The stress-buffering role of spiritual support: Cross sectional and

prospective investigations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 310-323.

Maton, K. I. (1989b). Unpublished raw data.

Maton, K. I., & Weisman, A. G. (1989). College adjustment: Psychosocial predictors, and race

and gender moderators. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, Baltimore

County.

Matthews, C. A. (1992). The impact of parental divorce on undergraduates: Its effects on

adjustment to college. (Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University, 1992). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 54, 464A.

McAndrew-Miller, C. A. (1989). The relationships among temperament, attachment and initial

adjustment to college. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland-College Park,

1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 3160B.

McCartney, M. S. (1992). A survey comparing adjustment to college for in-state athletes and

427

out-of-state athletes. Unpublished master's thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel

Hill.

McCubbin, H. I., Larsen, A., & Olson, D. (1985). F-Copes: Family Crisis Oriented Personal

Evaluation Scales. In D. Olson, H. I. McCubbin, H. Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Muxen, & M.

Wilson (Eds.), Family inventories (revised edition). St. Paul, MN: Family Social

Science, University of Minnesota.

McGillin, V. A. (1986, April). Identification and intervention with high risk students. Paper

presented at the meeting of the American College Personnel Association, New Orleans,

LA.

McGowan, W. R. (1987). Unpublished raw data.

McGowan, W. R. (1988). Freshman adjustment at the University of Mississippi: A comparison

of the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire and the Student Developmental Task

Inventory-Revised. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1988). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 49, 1375A.

Mehrabian, A., & Bank, L. (1978). A questionnaire measure of individual differences in

achieving tendency. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 475-478.

Melendez, M. C. (2001). Contributions of gender, ethnic status, athletic participation, and

athletic identity to college adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,

2001). (get DAI info; DAI date may be 2002?)

Mendelowitz, D. E. (1991). The effect of a group counseling and problem-solving model for

college-bound high school seniors on perceived adjustment to college. (Doctoral

dissertation, St. John's University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52,

2028A.

428

Mendelson, C. N. (1988). Adjustment to college: The role of perceptions of childhood

interactions with parents, autonomy, and social support. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Maryland, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 3406B.

Merryman, C. J., & Zelezny, L. C. (1993, April). College adjustment and its multidimensional

association with depression and perfectionism. Poster presented at the meeting of the

Western and Rocky Mountain Psychological Associations, Phoenix, AZ.

Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and

validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28,

487-495.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and fear of personal

death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

58, 273-280.

Miller, L. H., Smith, A. D., & Mehler, B. L. (1987). The Stress Audit manual. Brookline, MA:

Biobehavioral Associates, 1415 Beacon Street, 02146.

Mitchell, J. V., Jr. (1984). Personality correlates of life values. Journal of Research in

Personality, 18, 1-14.

Montgomery, D. E., Fine, M. A., & James-Myers, L. (1990). The development and validation

of an instrument to assess an optimal Afrocentric world view. Journal of Black

Psychology, 17, 37-54.

Montgomery, R. L., & Haemmerlie, F. M. (1993). Undergraduate adjustment to college,

drinking behavior, and fraternity membership. Psychological Reports, 73, 801-802.

Montgomery, R. L., & Haemmerlie, F. M. (2001). Unpublished raw data.

Montgomery, R. L., Haemmerlie, F. M., & Amsden, C. (2001). Self-rated physical

429

attractiveness and accompanying personal benefits. Paper presented at meetings of the

Southwestern Psychological Association, Houston.

Montgomery, R. L., Haemmerlie, F. M., Pyatt, W., & Laycock, M. (2000). Shyness and

personal deficits. Paper presented at meetings of the Southwestern Psychological

Association, Dallas, Texas.

Montgomery, R. L., Haemmerlie, F. M., & Ray, D. (2001). The many benefits of optimism.

Paper presented at meetings of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Houston.

Montgomery, R. L., Haemmerlie, F. M., & Watkins, D. (2000). Personality and success in

college. Paper presented at meetings of the Southwestern Psychological Association,

Dallas, Texas.

Montgomery, R. L., & Howdeshell, K. E. (1993). Concurrent validity of the Student Adaptation

to College Questionnaire. Paper presented at meetings of the Southwestern

Psychological Association, Corpus Christi, Texas.

Montgomery, R. L., & Zoellner, S. (1994). Self-handicapping and its relationship to college

adjustment. Paper presented at meetings of the Southwestern Psychological Association,

Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Mooney, S. P. (1989). Locus of control, self-esteem, gender and geographical distance as

predictors of college adjustment. Unpublished master's thesis, Loyola College,

Baltimore, MD.

Mooney, S. P., Sherman, M. F., & LoPresto, C. T. (1991). Academic locus of control, self-

esteem, and perceived distance from home as predictors of college adjustment. Journal

of Counseling and Development, 69, 445-448.

Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C., Billings, A. G., & Finney, J. W. (1983). Health and Daily Living

430

Form manual. (Available from Social Ecology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry

and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305).

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Environment Scale manual. Palo Alto: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Morray, M. G., & Shilkret, R. B. (2001). The effects of intrusiveness, separation, and guilt on

college adjustment. Unpublished manuscript, Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA.

Morray, M. G., & Shilkret, R. B. (2002). “Mother, please! I’d rather do it myself!” Maternal

intrusiveness, daughters’ guilt, and separation as related to college adjustment. Poster

presented at meetings of the Society for Research on Adolescence, New Orleans.

Mosley, D. L. (1990). The academic, social and emotional adjustment of Black students at

Howard University. Unpublished master's thesis, Howard University, Washington, D.C.

Napoli, A. R., & Wortman, P. M. (1998). Psychosocial factors related to retention and early

departure of two-year community college students. Research in Higher Education, 39,

419-455.

Natera, L. (1998). Self-efficacy, stress, and adjustment in Latino college students. (Master’s

thesis, University of Arizona, 1998). Master’s Abstracts International, 37, 0368.

Neemann, J., & Harter, S. (1986). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for College Students.

Denver: University of Denver.

Nigrosh, E. E. (1994). The role of conscious and unconscious guilt in adaptation to college.

(Doctoral dissertation, Smith College School for Social Work, 1993). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 55, 2144A.

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1974). A locus of control scale for adults. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 38, 136-137.

431

O’Connor, L., Berry, J., Weiss, J., Bush, M., & Sampson, H. (1997). Interpersonal guilt: The

development of a new measure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 73-89. .

Ogden, E. P., & Trice, A. D. (l986). Unpublished raw data.

Oliver, J. M., Reed, C. K. S., & Smith, B. W. (1998). Patterns of psychological problems in

university undergraduates: Factor structure of symptoms of anxiety and depression,

physical symptoms, alcohol use, and eating problems. Social Behavior and Personality,

26, 211-232.

Ollendick, T. H., Lease, C. A., & Cooper, C. (1993). Separation anxiety in young adults: A

preliminary examination. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 7, 293-305.

Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES-III. St. Paul: University of Minnesota.

Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family

systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications.

Family Process, 18, 3-28.

Olver, R. R., Aries, E., & Batgos, J. (1989). Self-other differentiation and the mother-child

relationship: The effects of sex and birth order. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150, 311-

321.

Organizational Development Resources. (1996). The personal resilience profile handbook.

Atlanta:ODR, Inc.

Oritt, E. J., Paul, S. C., & Behrman, J. A. (1985). The Perceived Support Network Inventory.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 565-582.

Ortiz, J. (1995). Parental responsibility, work, and social support: The academic adjustment and

well-being of nontraditional women students. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State

University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 4721A.

432

Osipow, S. H. (1987). Career Decision Scale. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Osipow, S. H., Carney, C. G., Winer, J. L., Yanico, B., & Koschier, M. (1976). The Career

Decision Scale (3rd rev. ed.). Columbus, OH: Marathon Consulting Press.

Ousley, L. B. (1986). Differences among bulimic subgroups, binge eaters, and normal eaters in

a female college population. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa

Barbara, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2178B.

Pace, C. R. (1987). College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ): Test manual and

norms. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Palenzuela, D. L. (1988). Refining the theory and measurement of expectancy of internal versus

external control of reinforcement. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 607-629.

Pancer, S. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Alisat, S. (2000). Cognitive complexity of

expectations and adjustment to university in the first year. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 15, 38-57.

Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B. E., & Alisat, S. (1995). Great expectations: Parent-

child discussion and the impact of pre-university expectations on adolescent transition to

university. Paper presented at meetings of the Society for Research in Child

Development, Indianapolis.

Panori, S. A. (1997). The effect of attention-deficit hyperactivity symptoms on well-being in

college students: Implications for academic achievement and retention. Master’s thesis,

California State University, San Bernardino.

Pappas, E. (2000). The impact of family relationships on self-esteem and adjustment to college.

Unpublished undergraduate thesis (honors? senior?), Connecticut College, New

433

London, CT.

Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1981). The influences of Black students' racial identity attitudes

on preference for counselor's race. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 250-257.

Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal

of Medical Psychology, 52, 1- 10.

Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (!980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary

drop-out decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60-75.

Patterson, J. M., & McCubbin, H. I. (1987a). A-COPE: Adolescent coping orientation for

problem experiences. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment

inventories for research and practice (pp. 225-243). Madison, WI: The University of

Wisconsin Press.

Patterson, J. M., & McCubbin, H. I. (1987b). Adolescent coping style and behaviors:

Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescence, 10, 163-186.

Paulhus, D., & Christie, R. (1981). Spheres of control: An interactionist approach to assessment

of perceived control. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control

construct: Assessment methods, Vol. 1, pp. 161-188. New York: Academic press.

Paulhus, D., Molin, J., & Schuchts, R. (1979). Control profiles of football players, tennis

players, and nonathletes. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 199-205.

Paulshock, S. B. (1994). An investigation of the predictors and effectiveness of self-

administered writing workbooks as a therapeutic treatment. (Doctoral dissertation,

Boston College, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 1706B.

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (l978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, l9, 2-2l.

434

Perosa, L. M., & Perosa, S. L. (1990a). The revision and validation of the Structural Family

Interaction Scale. Paper presented at the 98th Annual Convention of the American

Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Perosa, L. M., & Perosa, S. L. (1990b). Convergent and discriminant validity for family self-

report measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 855-868.

Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M. E.

P. (1982). The Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6,

287-300.

Pfeil, L. R. (2000). Parental attachment, attachment style and college adjustment in African-

American students. (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 2000). Dissertation

Abstracts International, __, .

Pfeil, L. R. (2002). Unpublished raw data.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse

groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176.

Plaud, J. J., Baker, R. W., & Groccia, J. E. (l986). Unpublished raw data.

Plaud, J. J., Baker, R. W., & Groccia, J. E. (1990). Freshman decidedness regarding academic

major and anticipated and actual adjustment to an engineering college. NACADA

Journal, 10, 20-26.

Pokorny, A. D., Miller, B. A., & Kaplan, H. B. (1972). The Brief MAST: A shortened version

of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test. American Journal of Psychiatry, 129, 342-

345.

Polewchak, J. L. (1998). Interpersonal dependency and social support: Implications for

435

emotional adjustment among entering college students. Master’s thesis, University of

Dayton.

Polewchak, J. L. (1999). Unpublished raw data.

Posselt, E. P. (1992). Sense of coherence and hardiness: Effects on adjustment to college.

(Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International,

53, 0760A.

Potter, A. E., & Williams, D. E. (1991). Development of a measure examining children’s roles

in alcoholic families. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 70-77.

Pratt, M. W. (2001). Unpublished raw data.

Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., Alisat, S., Bowers, C., Mackey, K., Ostaniewicz,

A., Rog, E., Terzian, B., & Thomas, N. (2000). Facilitating the transition to university:

Evaluation of a social support discussion intervention program. Journal of College

Student Development, 41, 427-441.

Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., & Lyerla, R. (1993, 1995). Alcohol and drugs on American

college campuses: Use, consequences, and perceptions of the campus environment. Vols.

I & II: 1988-1990 and 1990-1992. Carbondale, IL: The Core Institute.

Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and

from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11,

1-24.

Protinsky, H. O., & Gilkey, J. K. (1996). An empirical investigation of the construct of

personality authority in late adolescent women and their level of college adjustment.

Adolescence, 31, 291-295.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the

436

general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Ratta, M. D. (1994). Participation in college athletics and its effects on adjustment to college.

B.A. thesis, Department of Psychology, Washington College, Chestertown, MD.

Reed, C. K. S. (1994). Disordered behaviors among college students. (Doctoral dissertation, St.

Louis University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 2886B.

Reeker, J. A. (1994). The relationship of family structure and physical and psychological

separation from parents on college student adjustment. Unpublished master's thesis,

University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.

Reynolds, W. M. (1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 52, 223-240.

Rice, K. G. (1991). Late adolescent attachment, separation-individuation, and adjustment to

college: A time-sequential study. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Notre Dame,

1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 2474A.

Rice, K. G. (1992). Separation-individuation and adjustment to college: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 203-213.

Rice, K. G., Cole, D. A., & Lapsley, D. K. (1990). Separation-individuation, family cohesion,

and adjustment to college: Measurement validation and test of a theoretical model.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 195-202.

Rice, K. G., Cunningham, T. J., & Young, M. B. (1997). Attachment to parents, social

competence, and emotional well-being: A comparison of Black and White late

adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 89-101.

Rice, K. G., FitzGerald, D. P., Whaley, T. J., & Gibbs, C. L. (1995). Cross-sectional and

longitudinal examination of attachment, separation-individuation, and college student

437

adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 463-474.

Rice, K. G., & Whaley, T. J. (1994). A short-term longitudinal study of within-semester

stability and change in attachment and college student adjustment. Journal of College

Student Development, 35, 324-330.

Ridinger, L. L. (1998). Acculturation antecedents and outcomes associated with international

and domestic student-athlete adjustment to college. (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio

State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 1488A.

Rines, E. N. (1998). Moving from high school to college: The role of individual coping

mechanisms and locus of control in students’ adjustment. Undergraduate honors research

report, University of New Hampshire, Durham.

Robbins, S. B., Lese, K. P., & Herrick, S. M. (1993). Interactions between goal instability and

social support on college freshman adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development,

71, 343-348.

Robbins, S. B., & Patton, M. J. (1985). Self-psychology and career development: Construction

of the Superiority and Goal Instability Scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32,

221-231.

Robbins, S. B., & Schwitzer, A. M. (1988). Validity of the Superiority and Goal Instability

Scales as predictors of women's adjustment to college life. Measurement and Evaluation

in Counseling and Development, 21, 117-123.

Roberts, R. E., Phinney, J. S., Masse, L. C., Chen, Y. R., Roberts, C. R., & Romero, A. (1999).

The structure of ethnic identity in young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups.

Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 301-322.

Roberts, Thomas W. (1995). Differentiation from the family of origin and adjustment to college

438

in young adults. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 7, 53-66.

Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Doctoral students' perceptions of stress and social support:

Implications for the retention of targeted students of color. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of California, Santa Barbara, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52,

3200A.

Rodriguez, E. R. (1994). The role of psychological separation, ethnic identity, and worldview in

college adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1994). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 55, 4105B.

Rodriguez-Perez, L. (1991). Acculturation, self-esteem, and adjustment to college: Island and

mainland Puerto Ricans. (Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, 1991).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 0087A.

Roid, G. H., & Fitts, W. H. (1988). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, Revised Manual. Los

Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Ropar, J. M. (1997). The relationship between family interaction, separation, childhood roles,

and college student adjustment and drinking. (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Akron, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3025A.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Rosko, C. K. (1990). Separation-individuation and adjustment to college among bulimic and

nonbulimic college women. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1990).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 5039B.

Rosko, C. K., Stoltenberg, C. D., & Allen, S. F. (1990). Perceptions of psychological separation

and family environment in college bulimics. Unpublished manuscript, University of

439

Oklahoma, Norman.

Ross, J. M. (1995). College adjustment, familial characteristics, and beliefs about alcohol in

adult children of alcoholics, other adults from dysfunctional families, and adults from

nondysfunctional families. (Master’s thesis, Lamar University-Beaumont, 1995).

Master’s Abstracts International, 34, 1699.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Russell, D. W., & Cutrona, C. E. (1984). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation

to stress. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Toronto, Canada.

Russell, D. W., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale:

Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 39, 472-480.

Salone, L. (1995). Relationships of Black racial identity attitudes and institutional fit with social

adjustment to a small liberal arts college. (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Minnesota, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 0873A.

Sandberg, D. A., & Lynn, S. J. (1992). Dissociative experiences, psychopathology and

adjustment, and child and adolescent maltreatment in female college students. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 101, 717-723.

Sandler, I. N., & Lakey, B. (1982). Locus of control as a stress moderator: The role of control

perceptions and social support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 65-80.

Santonicola, A. (1989). Unpublished raw data.

Saracoglu, B. N. (1987). Adjustment of learning disabled students to university as related to

440

self-esteem and self-efficacy beliefs. Unpublished master's thesis, York University,

North York, Ontario, Canada.

Saracoglu, B. N., Minden, H., & Wilchesky, M. (1989). The adjustment of students with

learning disabilities to university and its relationship to self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 590-592.

Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes:

Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 46, 932-946.

Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (l983). Assessing social support:

The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,

l27-l39.

Savino, F. (1987). Social support, psychological coping resources, interpersonal orientation, and

living environment as predictors of adjustment in first-year college undergraduates.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 48, 1802B.

Savino, F., Reuter-Krohn, K., & Costar, D. (1986a, April). Freshman adjustment at UW-

Madison residence halls: A preliminary analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the

American College Personnel Association, New Orleans, LA.

Savino, F., Reuter-Krohn, K., & Costar, D. (l986b). Unpublished raw data.

Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child

Development, 36, 413-424.

Schatzman, B. I. (1994). Effect of reminiscence therapy on nontraditional, undergraduate,

college students’ self-esteem, self-confidence, and college adjustment. (Doctoral

441

dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 56, 0476A.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and

implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from

neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life

Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.

Schludermann, E. H., & Schludermann, S. M. (1988). Children’s Report on Parent Behavior for

Older Children and Adolescents (CRPBI-108, CRPBI-30) (Tech. Rep.). Winnipeg, MB,

Canada: University of Manitoba, Department of Psychology.

Schmiedeck, R. (1974). The personal sphere model: A new projective tool. Bulletin of the

Menninger Clinic, 38, 113-128.

Schriver, K. J. (1996). Predicting first-year college adjustment from behavioral indicators and

the MMPI-2 College Maladjustment Scale. (Doctoral dissertation, Forest Institute of

Professional Psychology, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, , .

Schultheiss, D. E. P., & Blustein, D. L. (1994). Role of adolescent-parent relationships in

college student development and adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41,

248-255.

Schwab, J. J., Bell, R. A., Warheit, G. J., & Schwab, R. S. (1979). Social order and mental

health. New York: Brunner/Magel.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances

and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press.

442

Schwitzer, A. M., McGovern, T. V., & Robbins, S. B. (1991). Adjustment outcomes of a

freshman seminar: A utilization-focused approach. Journal of College Student

Development, 32, 484-489.

Schwitzer, A. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1986, April). Personality constructs as predictors of

adjustment to college. Paper presented at the meeting of the American College Personnel

Association, New Orleans, LA.

Schwitzer, A. M., Robbins, S. B., & McGovern, T. V. (1993). Influences of goal instability and

social support on college adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 21-

25.

Scott, L. C. (1991). An investigation of social involvement, social adjustment, and academic

achievement of Black undergraduates attending a four year predominantly White public

institution of higher education in northeastern Massachusetts. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Massachusetts, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 441A.

Sears, J., Brewer, T., & Szarlan, J. (2002). Unpublished raw data.

Sennett, J. (2000). A preliminary investigation into the adjustment to university of first-year

students at the University of Cape Town, with particular emphasis on the relative

adjustment of black students. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Cape Town,

Cape Town, South Africa.

Serafica, F. C., Allen, D., Brown, S., & Stewart, D. (1990, May). Prior interracial experience,

social networks, and adaptation of Black students at predominantly White institutions.

Poster presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago,

IL.

Sherer, M., Maddox, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W.

443

(1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports,

51, 663-671.

Sherman, M. F. (1992). Unpublished raw data.

Shibazaki, K. (1999). Ethnic identity, acculturation, perceived discrimination, and college

adjustment in Mexican-American students. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech

University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1872B.

Shilkret, R. B. (2000). Relations between attachment style, parenting style, guilt, and college

adjustment. Unpublished raw data.

Shilkret, R. B., & Edwards, H. L. (1997). Effects of parenting style on separation and college

adjustment. Unpublished manuscript, Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA.

Shilkret, R. B., & Nigrosh, E. E. (1995). The assessment of students’ “Plans for College.”

Unpublished raw data.

Shilkret, R. B., & Nigrosh, E. E. (1997). Assessing students’ “Plans for College.” Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 44, 222-231.

Shilkret, R. B., & Taylor, E. L. (1992). College adjustment from a control mastery perspective:

The development of a new questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Mt. Holyoke

College, South Hadley, MA.

Shilkret, R. B., & Vecchiotti, S. (1995). Parenting styles and college adjustment. Unpublished

paper, Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA.

Shilkret, R. B., & Vecchiotti, S. (1997). Parenting styles, guilt, and college adjustment. Poster

presented at meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD),

Washington, D. C., April.

Siegelman, M., & Roe, A. (1979). Manual: The Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire II.

444

Unpublished manuscript.

Silver, A. R. (1995). College adjustment: Relationships to attachment security, separation-

individuation, and style of coping. (Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, 1995).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 2177A.

Silverthorn, N. A. (1993). Predicting adjustment to university: Stress from parental pressure,

independence from parents, and self-efficacy. Unpublished B.A. honours thesis, Queen's

University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Silverthorn, N. A., & Gekoski, W. L. (1995). Social desirability effects on measures of

adjustment to university, independence from parents, and self-efficacy. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 51, 244-251.

Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving

within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434-446.

Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and

vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement

refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.

Slyter, S. L. (1991). Narcissistic Injury Scale (Rev. version). Unpublished instrument.

Smith, A. W. (1994). Separation-individuation and coping: Contributions to freshman college

adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1994).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 0831A.

Smith, M. A., & Baker, R. W. (1987). Freshman decidedness regarding academic major and

445

adjustment to college. Psychological Reports, 61, 847-853.

Smith, M. D. (1994). The College Attributional Complexity Scale: Development, validation,

and relationship to university adjustment. (Master’s thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University,

1994). Master’s Abstracts International, 33, 1596.

Sodowsky, G. R., Lai, E. W. M., & Plake, B. S. (1991). Moderating effects of sociocultural

variables on acculturation attitudes of Hispanics and Asian Americans. Journal of

Counseling and Development, 70, 194-204.

Sodowsky, G. R., & Plake, B. S. (1991). Psychometric properties of the American International

Relations Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 207-216.

Solberg, V. S., O’Brien, K., Villareal, P., Kennel, R., & Davis, B. (1993). Self-efficacy and

Hispanic college students: Validation of the college self-efficacy instrument. Hispanic

Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15, 80-95.

Solberg, V. S., Valdez, J., & Villareal, P. (1994). Social support, stress, and Hispanic college

adjustment: Test of a diathesis-stress model. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,

16, 230-239.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes

and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29-39.

Sperling, M. B., Berman, W. H., & Fagen, G. (1991). Assessment of adult attachment: An

integrative taxonomy from attachment and psychoanalytic theories. Paper presented at

midwinter meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment (March), New Orleans, LA.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Form Y). Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

446

Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence.

Child Development, 57, 841-851.

Stinson, M. H., & Hendrick, S. S. (1992). Reported childhood sexual abuse in university

counseling center clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 370-374.

Stoltenberg, C. D., Garner, H. D., & Kell, K. (1986, April). Effects of marital and cross-

generational alliances on the adjustment and separation of late adolescents. Paper

presented at the meeting of the American College Personnel Association, New Orleans,

LA.

Stone, A. A., & Neale, J. M. (1982). Development of a methodology for assessing daily

experiences. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology:

Volume 4. Environment and Health (pp. 49-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Straus, M. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT)

scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-87.

Strom, R. D., & Strom, S. K. (1989). Grandparent development. Washington, DC: American

Association of Retired Persons Andrus Foundation.

Sugar, L. A. (1997). An examination of parent-adolescent/young adult relationships,

personality, and the university transition. Master’s thesis, York University, Canada.

Sugar, L. A. (1999). Unpublished raw data.

Sullivan, C. F. (1991). Supportive communication: An investigation of the effects of the

Freshman Interest Group Program on perceptions of support and college adjustment.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 52, 1944A.

447

Super, D. E., & Nevill, D. D. (1985). The Salience Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Sutton, L. (1996). Gender differences in sibling/parent relationships and adjustment. (Doctoral

dissertation, Boston University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 2183B.

Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (l983). Measurement of interpersonal orientation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 208-2l9.

Tallis, F., Eysenck, M., & Mathews, A. (1992). A questionnaire for the measurement of

nonpathological worry. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 161-168.

Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (1989). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect.

Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (in press). Exploring personality through test construction:

Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J.

M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality measures: Development and evaluation (Vol. 1).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Templer, D. I. (1970). The construction and validation of a death anxiety scale. Journal of

General Psychology, 82, 165-177.

Terrell, M. D. (1989). The relationship of personal attributes, coping efforts, and social support

to adaptation to college. (Doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1989). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 51, 0462A.

Tipton, R. M., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1984). The measurement of generalized self-efficacy:

A study of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 545-548.

Tolsdorf, C. C. (l976). Social networks, support, and coping: An exploratory study. Family

Process, l5, 407-4l7.

448

Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (1998). Dimensions of adjustment among college women. Journal of

College Student Development, 39, 364-372.

Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Clarke, D. (1994). Predicting social adjustment and academic

achievement for college women with and without precollege leadership. Journal of

College Student Development, 35, 120-124.

Trice, A. D. (l985). An academic locus of control scale for college students. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 6l, l043-l046.

Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environment of junior high and high school

classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 93-102.

Tyler, F. B. (1978). Individual psychosocial competence: A personality configuration.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 309-323.

Veit, C. T., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and well-being in

general populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 730-742.

Verdiano, D. L., Peterson, G. W., & Hicks, M. W. (1990). Toward an empirical confirmation of

the Wegscheider role theory. Psychological Reports, 66, 723-730.

Vitaliano, P. P. (1993). Revised Ways of Coping Checklist (RWCCL) and a dimensions of

stress scale (DSS) manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington at

Seattle.

Vivona, J. M. (2000a). Parental attachment styles of late adolescents: Qualities of attachment

relationships and consequences for adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,

316-329.

Vivona, J. M. (2000b). Unpublished raw data.

Walker, W. F., Jr. (1996). Family functioning and dysfunctional attitudes as predictors of

449

adjustment to college in a first semester college population. (Doctoral dissertation, East

Texas State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 2883A.

Wang, E. Y. (1993). Women's adjustment to college and their perception of father's role.

(Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, 1993).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 4903B.

Wang, E. Y., & Smith, T. L. (1993). Unpublished raw data.

Washington, C. M. (1996). A study of early academic performance, attrition, and retention as

related to selected cognitive, noncognitive, and adjustment variables for African-

American college students attending a private, open admission, historically Black

institution. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4671A.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social- evaluative anxiety. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.

Wegscheider-Cruse, S. (1989). Another chance: Hope and health for the alcoholic family. Palo

Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, Inc.

Weinberg, N., & Sterritt, M. (1986). Disability and identity: A study of identity patterns in

adolescents with hearing impairments. Rehabilitation Psychology, 31, 95-102.

Weinstock, M. C. (1995). Adjustment to college: The influences of personality and family

variables. Unpublished master’s level research project, State University of New York at

Buffalo.

450

Weiss, J., Sampson, H., & the Mt. Zion Psychotherapy Research Group (1986). The

psychoanlaytic process. New York: Guilford Press.

Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978). Development and validation of the dysfunctional

attitudes scale: A preliminary investigation. Paper presented at the meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.

West, M., & Sheldon, A. E. R. (1988). Classification of pathological attachment patterns in

adults. Journal of Personality Disorders, 2, 153-159.

Westen, D., Lohr, N., Silk, K., & Goodrich, S. (1990). Social cognition and object relations

scale (SCORS): Manual for coding TAT data. University of Michigan, Department of

Psychology, Ann Arbor.

Wick, S., & Shilkret, R. B. (1986a). College adjustment and parental influence. Unpublished

manuscript, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA.

Wick, S., & Shilkret, R. B. (l986b). Unpublished raw data.

Wildman, E. R. (1998). Helping first year students adjust to college: An evaluation of the

Livingston College Advisor Seminar. (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers the State

University of New Jersey, G. S. A. P. P., 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International,

59, 2857A.

Williams, E. M. (1996). The effect of prior post-secondary institutional knowledge on college

student disillusionment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles,

1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 0554A.

Windle, M., & Lerner, R. M. (1986). Reassessing the dimensions of temperamental

individuality across the life span: The Revised Dimensions of Temperament Survey

(DOTS-R). Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 213-230.

451

Winefield, H. R., Winefield, A. H., & Tiggermann, M. (1992). Social support and

psychological well-being in young adults: The Multi-Dimensional Support Scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 198-210.

Winston, R. B., Jr., Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1987). Student Developmental Task and

Lifestyle Inventory. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.

Wintre, M. G., & Sugar, L. A. (2000). Relationships with parents, personality, and the

university transition. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 202-214.

Wintre, M. G., & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-year students’ adjustment to university life as a

function of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 9-37.

Wintre, M. G., Yaffe, M., & Crowley, J. (1995). Perception of Parental Reciprocity Scale

(POPRS): Development and validation with adolescents and young adults. Social

Development, 4, 129-148.

Woo, T. O., & Bilynsky, J. (1994). Involvement in extracurricular activities and adjustment to

college. Research/Technical Reports. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED

378 474).

Yaffe, M. (1997). First-year university students’ adjustment to university life as a function of

relationships with parents. (Doctoral dissertation, York University, Canada, 1997).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 5675B.

Young, J. W. (1994). Predictors of minority students' academic achievement. Paper presented

at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, W. J. (1960). A scale to measure attitudes toward

disabled persons. Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center.

Zamostny, K. P., Slyter, S. L., & Rios, P. (1993). Narcissistic injury and its relationship to

452

trauma, early resources, and adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

40, 501-510.

Zea, M. C. (1997). Unpublished raw data.

Zea, M. C., Jarama, S. L., & Bianchi, F. T. (1995). Social support and psychosocial

competence: Explaining the adaptation to college of ethnically diverse students.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 509-531.

Zea, M. C., Reisen, C. A., & Tyler, F. B. (1996). Reliability, ethnic comparability, and validity

evidence for a condensed measure of proactive coping: The BAPC-C. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 56, 330-343.

Zimet, G. D., Dahlen, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale

of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30-41.

Zion, C. L. (1990). Facilitating adjustment to college: An evaluation of a peer-advising program

in university housing. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

453

aaaAbe, J., 88, 89, 150, 213Abrahamson, L. Y., 47Abramson, L. Y., 23, 249Acunzo, M. E., 104, 213Adams, G. R., 49, 231Adan, A. M., 8, 20, 23, 30, 80, 82, 83, 101, 134, 135, 213Addison, N. E., 22, 81, 95, 213Ainsworth, M. D., 71, 213Albert, M. M., 6, 8, 10, 51, 55, 81, 84, 92, 94, 95, 109, 119, 140, 213Alisat, S., 44, 80, 102, 149, 239, 247Allen, D., 80, 126, 127, 134, 140, 209, 210, 256Allen, J. L., 5, 51, 55, 119, 122, 213Allen, S. F., 9, 81, 119, 120, 214, 253American College Testing Program, Research and Development Division, 214Amerikaner, M., 34, 221Ames, M. H., 94, 236Anderson, W. T., 107, 234Antonovsky, A., 34, 214Appenzeller, E. A., 147, 214Aries, E., 109, 214Armsden, G. C., 61, 68, 214Armstead, C. D., 22, 26, 103, 128, 184, 186, 191, 211, 215Aydin, F., 19, 72, 73, 89, 90, 96, 105, 109, 111, 129, 177, 194, 199, 201, 204, 206, 207, 215Bachman, J. G., 37, 215Baik, J., 60, 61, 215Bailey, J. S., 77, 119, 181, 182, 215Baker, R. W., 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 42, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 66, 68, 80, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138,

142, 143, 153, 154, 155, 173, 174, 176, 194, 199, 211, 215, 216, 231, 249, 258Bank, L., 48, 244Barkley, R. A., 29, 217Barrera, M., Jr., 127, 217Barrett, J., 39, 75, 233Bartels, K. M., 41, 48, 55, 72, 80, 90, 95, 102, 110, 123, 130, 177, 179, 183, 186, 188, 208, 210, 211, 217Barthelemy, K. J., 81, 139, 208, 209, 217Bartholomew, K., 72, 217Basham, R. B., 128, 255Batgos, J., 109, 214Baum, A., 259Beavers, W. R., 106, 108, 217Beck, A. T., 20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 217, 218, 263Behrman, J. A., 128, 247Belgrave, F. Z., 102, 128, 201, 204, 236Bell, R. A., 19, 256Bem, S. L., 81, 218Benedicto, J. A., 55, 188, 232Benson, R. T., 149, 218Berman, W. H., 142, 259Bernstein, E. M., 27, 218Berry, J., 77, 246Berzonsky, M. D., 49, 218Betz, N. E., 40, 218

454

Beyers, W., 5, 55, 57, 92, 188, 190, 218Bianchi, F. T., 33, 45, 80, 82, 84, 85, 128, 178, 183, 201, 265Billings, A. G., 26, 32, 34, 67, 218, 246Bilynsky, J., 7, 80, 264Blankstein, K. R., 101, 218Blatt, S. J., 59, 219Blehar, M. C., 71, 213Block, J. R., 41, 264Bloom, B. L., 107, 121, 219Blustein, D. L., 50, 54, 55, 63, 69, 182, 188, 193, 237, 255Bobier, D. M., 55, 81, 186, 187, 189, 219Bonz, M. H., 31, 80, 240Borow, H., 10, 219Brady, T., 129, 220Bragg, T. A., 10, 219Braithwaite, V. A., 54, 219Bray, J. H., 58, 219Briere, J., 103, 219Briggs, S. R., 260Brooks, J. H., II, 19, 40, 66, 80, 90, 91, 94, 101, 127, 144, 177, 201, 220Brower, A. M., 5, 9, 10, 35, 174, 176, 197, 220Brown, D. A., 153, 220Brown, G., 24, 217Brown, L. B., 109, 111, 248Brown, S., 80, 126, 127, 134, 140, 209, 210, 256Brown, S. D., 40, 54, 80, 92, 129, 177, 184, 192, 220, 240Brunig, C. A., 112, 220Buchanan, S. R., 146, 220, 221Buelow, G., 107, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 201, 202, 203, 209, 221Burger, J. M., 66, 235Buri, J. R., 112, 114, 221Burks, N., 110, 124, 127, 243Burr, M., 7, 9, 81, 82, 85, 94, 122, 221Burrell, S., 6, 173, 230Bush, M., 77, 246Buss, A. H., 26, 33, 67, 74, 221, 227Butler, W. M., 106, 221Byrne, D. G., 133, 233Camp, C. C., 5, 6, 40, 50, 51, 53, 91, 174, 179, 191, 192, 221, 222Campbell, J. M., 34, 221Campbell, V. L., 22, 55, 80, 81, 108, 116, 119, 242Campbell, W. J., 41, 264Caplan, S. M., 37, 106, 193, 203, 222Carden, A. I., 8, 21, 46, 76, 183, 196, 223Carlson, D. L., 5, 6, 8, 23, 49, 222Carmen, R. C., 30, 232Carney, C. G., 50, 247Caro, J. E., 39, 55, 59, 75, 76, 109, 110, 111, 123, 133, 222Carter, D. F., 7, 80, 84, 90, 91, 110, 125, 136, 140, 141, 144, 235Carver, C. S., 31, 222Chartrand, J. M., 5, 6, 40, 50, 51, 53, 91, 174, 179, 191, 192, 221, 222Cheek, J. M., 260Chevron, E., 59, 219Chodoff, P., 39, 75, 233Chosy, J., 28, 223

455

Christenson, R. M., 59, 222Christie, R., 33, 67, 248Clark, L. A., 22, 26, 262Clarke, D., 7, 261Clauss, K., 37, 55, 60, 106, 108, 179, 185, 188, 209, 223Cline, D., 28, 223Clingempeel, W. G., 80, 120, 228Cochran, S. W., 107, 234Cohen, S., 26, 44, 102, 131, 132, 223Cole, D. A., 10, 25, 55, 56, 58, 69, 70, 105, 106, 179, 180, 183, 192, 197, 202, 203, 251Collins, N. L., 70, 72, 223Compas, B. E., 101, 223Cook, S. W., 37, 81, 104, 123, 179, 208, 228Cooler, J. R., 10, 25, 39, 57, 69, 70, 116, 117, 118, 119, 192, 193, 223Cooley, E. L., 8, 21, 46, 76, 183, 196, 223Cooper, C., 24, 25, 246Cooper, S. A., 87, 224Cooper, S. E., 137, 224Coopersmith, S., 36, 37, 224Corbett, C. A., 14, 83, 84, 96, 97, 129, 210, 211, 224Costa, P. T., Jr., 27, 48, 66, 67, 99, 224Costar, D., 36, 51, 74, 80, 128, 138, 139, 143, 148, 255Crastnopol, M. G., 59, 224Cronkite, R. C., 32, 246Crouse, D. W., 36, 82, 93, 179, 224Crowley, J., 64, 264Crumbaugh, J., 50, 225Cuellar, I., 85, 225Cunningham, T. J., 8, 21, 39, 81, 83, 109, 111, 192, 198, 206, 207, 251Currie, F., 80, 149, 239Cutrona, C. E., 76, 110, 130, 225, 253, 254Dahlen, N. W., 129, 265Danielson, H., 80, 139, 225Danilovics, P., 99, 228Davies, M., 21, 237Davis, B., 38, 41, 47, 258Davis, E. R., 5, 37, 40, 41, 49, 150, 174, 180, 225Davis, G. E., 101, 223Derogatis, L. R., 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 37, 225Dewein, K. M., 5, 45, 49, 55, 68, 75, 91, 94, 119, 120, 174, 177, 180, 185, 187, 188, 190, 193, 225Diener, E., 22, 78, 226DiGiuseppe, R., 45, 226Dixon, P. N., 46, 148, 243Dodgen-Magee, D. J., 20, 196, 226Donaldson, G. A., 55, 237DuBois, D. L., 25, 40, 66, 80, 90, 91, 94, 101, 127, 144, 177, 201, 220Duke, M. P., 46, 246Duncan-Jones, P., 133, 233Edgerton, J., 38, 55, 59, 72, 73, 106, 109, 111, 179, 185, 189, 190, 202, 203, 206, 207, 226, 240Edwards, H. L., 55, 77, 112, 113, 114, 115, 181, 188, 190, 206, 257Elacqua, T. C., 7, 82, 140, 142, 147, 226Ellison, C. W., 22, 226Emery, G., 29, 217Emmons, R. A., 22, 226Endler, N. S., 31, 227

456

Epstein, N., 24, 217Erbaugh, J., 20, 21, 22, 218Erickson, C. J., 65, 115, 227Evans-Hughes, G., 5, 7, 46, 80, 84, 174, 183, 227Exner, T., 45, 226Eysenck, H. J., 66, 227Eysenck, S. B. G., 66, 227Fackelman, P., 74, 75, 227Fagen, G., 142, 259Farber, S. S., 101, 227Farley, G. K., 129, 265Felner, R. D., 8, 20, 23, 30, 80, 82, 83, 101, 134, 135, 213, 227Fenigstein, A., 74, 227Fernandez, G., 99, 228Fible, B., 36, 227Fiese, B. H., 107, 227Fine, M., 107, 234Fine, M. A., 81, 139, 208, 209, 217, 239Finney, J. W., 32, 246Fitts, W. H., 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 228, 253FitzGerald, D. P., 62, 63, 68, 92, 240, 251Flanagan, C., 60, 228Flescher, M., 8, 18, 20, 24, 80, 101, 120, 133, 228Fletcher, G. J. O., 99, 228Flett, G. L., 78, 101, 218, 233Florian, V., 73, 245Folkman, S., 44, 228Forsythe, C. J., 101, 223Foster, T. R., 5, 30, 36, 38, 39, 141, 173, 193, 194, 228Franco, J. N., 80, 84, 236Frazier, P. A., 37, 81, 104, 123, 179, 208, 228Freeman, S. K., 8, 55, 229Friedland, C. D., 30, 41, 45, 80, 140, 177, 178, 229Friend, R., 76, 262Fuligni, A., 60, 228Fuller, B. E., 37, 47, 129, 229Gallant, L. M., 14, 31, 80, 102, 129, 179, 202, 211, 229Garbarino, C., 81, 121, 229Garner, D. M., 27, 36, 229Garner, H. D., 55, 105, 116, 229, 259Garrett, S. E., 36, 229Geelhoed, R. J., 88, 89, 150, 213Gekoski, W. L., 80, 183, 186, 258Gerdes, H., 5, 9, 10, 12, 80, 137, 176, 230Gibbs, C. L., 63, 92, 251Gilkey, J. K., 5, 9, 28, 37, 57, 93, 94, 112, 173, 186, 191, 198, 230, 250Gilleylen, C. E., 93, 230Ginsburg, G., 106, 221Gold, J., 6, 173, 230Goldberg, L. R., 25, 40, 67, 230Goodrich, S., 74, 263Goossens, L., 5, 55, 57, 92, 188, 190, 218Gore, P. A., 40, 54, 80, 92, 177, 184, 192, 240Gottfredson, D. C., 50, 234Gottlieb, B. H., 217

457

Gough, H. G., 30, 39, 75, 231, 233Graham, C., 13, 134, 135, 231Gramzow, R., 78, 260Grasley, C., 101, 231Green, C. J., 25, 39, 57, 59, 69, 241Greenberg, M. T., 61, 68, 214Greenberger, E., 58, 231Grella, R. S., 6, 81, 108, 173, 203, 204, 231Griffen, S., 22, 226Groccia, J. E., 6, 50, 51, 52, 134, 137, 249Grochowski, J. R., 129, 231Grotevant, H. D., 49, 231Hackett, G., 40, 218Haemmerlie, F. M., 7, 8, 30, 55, 79, 93, 94, 141, 188, 231, 232, 245Hale, W. D., 36, 227Hall, S., 129, 220Hampson, R. B., 106, 108, 217Handal, P. J., 81, 95, 140, 242Hansburg, H. G., 58, 232Harder, D. H., 77, 78, 232Harris, B. C., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 76, 80, 92, 126, 127, 173, 191, 210, 232Harris, L. C., 85, 225Harste, J. M., 61, 68, 69, 182, 232Harter, S., 25, 40, 67, 246Haynes, C., 6, 173, 230Hays, R. B., 110, 124, 126, 127, 232Hazan, C., 70, 72, 73, 232Heller, K., 67, 110, 123, 250Helmreich, R., 39, 81, 233, 259Helms, J. E., 84, 248Henderson, S., 133, 233Hendrick, S. S., 104, 259Heppner, M. J., 37, 47, 129, 229Heppner, P. P., 25, 40, 67, 233Hermans, H. J. M., 38, 47, 48, 233Herrick, S. M., 49, 80, 82, 131, 180, 204, 252Hertel, J. B., 35, 54, 90, 96, 123, 186, 208, 233Hewitt, P. L., 78, 233Hicks, M. W., 116, 262Hirschfeld, R. M. A., 39, 75, 233Hoberman, H. M., 131, 132, 223Hoffman, J. A., 55, 59, 233Hogan, M. P., 6, 8, 21, 81, 101, 104, 110, 123, 144, 234Holahan, C. J., 32, 234Holland, J. L., 50, 234Hollmann, N. C., 49, 50, 55, 107, 180, 187, 190, 203, 234Holmes, T. H., 102, 234Hopkins, K. R., 106, 203, 234Horowitz, L. M., 72, 217Hovestadt, A. J., 107, 234Hui, C. H., 74, 234Humfleet, G. L., 6, 7, 8, 19, 22, 55, 112, 173, 187, 189, 198, 234, 235Hunsberger, B. E., 42, 43, 44, 80, 92, 102, 149, 235, 239, 247Hurlbut, S. C., 79, 235Hurtado, S., 7, 80, 84, 90, 91, 110, 125, 136, 140, 141, 144, 235

458

Ibrahim, F. A., 100, 235Injejikian, A. M., 105, 235Jackson, L. M., 42, 43, 92, 235Jacobs, B., 37, 39, 257Jagels, C. T., 66, 235Jampol, R. C., 8, 22, 24, 44, 46, 48, 80, 183, 186, 187, 196, 199, 235Jarama Alvan, S. L., 102, 128, 201, 204, 236Jarama, S. L., 33, 45, 80, 82, 84, 85, 127, 178, 183, 201, 265Jasso, R., 85, 225Jenkins, C. D., 30, 236Johansson, C. B., 51, 236Johnson, J. H., 101, 103, 236, 254Jones, C. R., 47, 236Josselson, R., 58, 231Kaase, K. J., 9, 236Kaczmarek, P. G., 80, 84, 94, 236Kahn, H., 100, 235Kahn, S., 34, 35, 238Kamarck, T., 26, 44, 102, 131, 132, 223Kambach, M., 131, 204, 236Kandel, D. B., 21, 237Kane, M. A., 93, 237Kaplan, H. B., 121, 249Kazdin, A. E., 236Keenan, J. T., 6, 7, 10, 11, 146, 174, 237Kell, K., 55, 105, 116, 259Kennel, R., 38, 41, 47, 258Kenny, M. E., 8, 9, 18, 20, 24, 27, 36, 39, 55, 59, 60, 81, 82, 85, 86, 108, 110, 123, 124, 127, 185, 187, 189,

194, 198, 203, 204, 237, 238Kim, D. D., 81, 82, 238Kim, E. J., 19, 21, 76, 131, 193, 196, 199, 204, 238Kincannon, J. C., 19, 22, 238Kintner, D. E., 46, 137, 149, 238Kleinmuntz, B., 11, 238Klerman, G. L., 39, 75, 233Kline, C. A., 7, 23, 55, 80, 90, 95, 107, 122, 123, 144, 188, 189, 199, 203, 227, 238Knerr, B., 58, 231Knerr, C., 58, 231Kobasa, S. C., 34, 35, 238Koledin, S., 101, 218Korchin, S. J., 39, 75, 233Koschier, M., 50, 247Koutralakos, J., 112, 239Krotseng, M. V., 9, 239Kulley, J. C., 70, 71, 72, 81, 239Kurdek, L. A., 139, 239Kusaka, T., 74, 88, 93, 180, 239Lahey, B. B., 236Lakey, B., 102, 254Lamothe, D., 80, 149, 239Lapan, R., 68, 76, 239Lapsley, D. K., 10, 25, 38, 39, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 80, 92, 105, 106, 109, 111, 179, 180,

183, 185, 187, 189, 190, 192, 197, 202, 203, 206, 207, 226, 240, 251Larsen, R. J., 22, 78, 226Lavee, Y., 105, 247

459

Lazarus, R. S., 44, 45, 228Leaf, R., 45, 226Lease, C. A., 24, 25, 246Lee, J. Y., 19, 21, 76, 131, 193, 196, 199, 204, 238Lefebvre, R. C., 9, 28, 240Lennon, K., 93, 237Lent, R. W., 6, 40, 51, 54, 80, 92, 129, 173, 177, 184, 192, 220, 240Leonard, J. B., 6, 51, 52, 134, 240Leong, F. T. L., 31, 32, 80, 240Lese, K. P., 49, 80, 82, 131, 180, 204, 252Levenson, H., 46, 240Levin, M. A., 55, 63, 116, 119, 120, 182, 188, 241Levine, H. M., 128, 255Levine, J. B., 25, 39, 57, 59, 69, 241Lichtman, M., 5, 9, 28, 37, 57, 93, 94, 173, 186, 191, 198, 230Lipsmeyer, M. E., 95, 241Liter, S. D., 25, 50, 68, 80, 91, 177, 190, 191, 192, 197, 241Lohr, N., 74, 263Lopez, F. G., 6, 8, 22, 24, 50, 53, 55, 56, 80, 81, 94, 108, 109, 111, 116, 119, 142, 184, 187, 189, 199, 203, 204,

206, 207, 237, 241, 242LoPresto, C. T., 36, 48, 144, 177, 179, 245Loveland, D., 6, 79, 92, 94, 140, 174, 242Low, C. A., 81, 95, 140, 242Lustman, P. J., 21, 101, 102, 242Lyerla, R., 79, 250Lynn, S. J., 8, 27, 254Maddi, S. R., 34, 35, 238Maddox, J. E., 37, 39, 257Mahalick, L., 50, 225Malone, P. E., 58, 219Marcotte, G. M. R., 6, 27, 31, 41, 46, 55, 101, 104, 129, 174, 179, 183, 187, 188, 190, 197, 202, 207, 208, 211,

243Marcy, T. P., 6, 42, 51, 52, 80, 92, 137, 243Martin, B., 110, 124, 127, 243Martin, N. K., 10, 46, 51, 148, 243Matlock, C. G., 80, 84, 94, 236Maton, K. I., 6, 8, 21, 50, 80, 82, 83, 90, 91, 95, 102, 110, 123, 133, 174, 184, 191, 196, 204, 208, 243, 244Matthews, C. A., 119, 244McCartney, M. S., 144, 244McCrae, R. R., 27, 48, 66, 67, 99, 224McCubbin, H. I., 32, 129, 231, 248McFadden, K. L., 5, 6, 40, 50, 51, 53, 91, 174, 179, 191, 192, 222McGillin, V. A., 6, 244McGovern, T. V., 49, 132, 148, 256McGowan, W. R., 6, 51, 53, 66, 68, 81, 82, 177, 244McNeil, O. V., 9, 11, 12, 42, 136, 137, 138, 216Mehler, B. L., 9, 26, 28, 245Mehrabian, A., 48, 244Meilman, P. W., 79, 250Melisaratos, N., 18, 21, 24, 25, 225Mendelowitz, D. E., 81, 137, 145, 244Mendelson, C. N., 111, 128, 208, 245Mendelson, M., 20, 21, 22, 218Mercandante, B., 37, 39, 257Mermelstein, R., 26, 44, 102, 131, 132, 223

460

Merryman, C. J., 20, 78, 79, 184, 196, 245Merz, C. J., 30, 231Mesta, R., 94, 236Metalsky, G. I., 23, 47, 249Metzler, A. E., 49, 107, 180, 203, 234Mikulincer, M., 73, 245Miller, B. A., 121, 249Miller, L. H., 9, 26, 28, 245Miller, T. K., 50, 54, 69, 264Millon, T., 25, 39, 57, 59, 69, 241Minden, H., 28, 37, 254Mitchell, J. V., Jr., 48, 95, 245Mock, J., 20, 21, 22, 218Molin, J., 33, 67, 248Montgomery, R. L., 7, 8, 79, 93, 94, 141, 232, 245Mooney, S. P., 36, 48, 80, 144, 177, 179, 245Moos, B. S., 106, 246Moos, R. H., 26, 32, 34, 67, 106, 132, 218, 234, 246, 261Mosley, D. L., 135, 246Mt. Zion Psychotherapy Research Group, 77, 263Nardecchia, D., 6, 173, 230Neale, J. M., 103, 259Neeman, J., 25, 40, 67, 246Nevill, D. D., 53, 260Nigrosh, E. E., 8, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25, 77, 78, 181, 194, 196, 246, 257Nowicki, S., 46, 246O'Brien, K., 38, 41, 47, 258O'Connor, L., 77, 246Ogden, E. P., 6, 48, 246Oh, K. J., 19, 21, 76, 131, 193, 196, 199, 204, 238O'Hara, D. J., 21, 101, 102, 242Oliver, J. M., 8, 9, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 79, 196, 197, 198, 199, 246Ollendick, T. H., 24, 25, 246Olson, D. H., 105, 247Olver, R. R., 109, 214O'Malley, P. M., 37, 215Oritt, E. J., 128, 247Ortiz, J., 95, 96, 130, 210, 247Osipow, S. H., 38, 47, 50, 247Ousley, L. B., 27, 247Oxley, D., 110, 124, 126, 127, 232Pace, C. R., 11, 247Palenzuela, D. L., 38, 47, 247Pancer, S. M., 42, 43, 44, 80, 92, 102, 149, 235, 239, 247Panori, S. A., 29, 90, 93, 94, 198, 199, 248Parham, T. A., 84, 248Parker, G., 109, 111, 248Parker, J. D. A., 31, 227Patterson, J. M., 32, 248Patton, M. J., 45, 49, 68, 76, 132, 239, 252Paul, S. C., 128, 247Paulhus, D., 33, 67, 248Paulshock, S. B., 80, 155, 248Pearlin, L. I., 36, 249Peplau, L. A., 76, 254

461

Perosa, L. M., 106, 108, 110, 116, 249Perosa, S. L., 106, 108, 110, 116, 249Petersen, C. H., 25, 40, 67, 233Peterson, C., 23, 47, 249Peterson, D., 99, 228Peterson, G. W., 116, 262Petrosky, G., 93, 237Phinney, J. S., 85, 249Piercy, F. P., 107, 234Plake, B. S., 90, 105, 258Plaud, J. J., 6, 50, 51, 52, 134, 137, 249Plomin, R., 26, 33, 67, 221Pokorny, A. D., 121, 249Polewchak, J. L., 39, 75, 81, 124, 125, 130, 181, 205, 249Portner, J., 105, 247Posselt, E. P., 34, 35, 81, 94, 102, 180, 192, 250Potter, A. E., 117, 250Power, P. G., 50, 234Pratt, M. W., 42, 43, 44, 80, 92, 102, 149, 235, 239, 247Prentice-Dunn, S., 37, 39, 257Presley, C. A., 79, 250Prince, J. S., 50, 54, 69, 264Procidano, M. E., 67, 110, 123, 250Protinsky, H. O., 5, 9, 28, 37, 57, 93, 94, 112, 173, 186, 191, 198, 230, 250Putnam, F. W., 27, 218Quinlan, D. M., 59, 219Radloff, L. S., 20, 250Rahe, R. H., 102, 234Ratta, M. D., 141, 250Read, S. J., 70, 72, 223Reed, C. K. S., 8, 9, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80, 196, 197, 198, 199, 246, 250Reeder, G. D., 99, 228Reeker, J. A., 7, 55, 80, 82, 85, 93, 94, 110, 119, 143, 188, 250Reisen, C. A., 33, 178, 179, 265Reuter-Krohn, K., 36, 51, 74, 80, 128, 138, 139, 143, 148, 255Reynolds, W. M., 54, 251Ribordy, S. C., 6, 8, 19, 22, 173, 198, 235Rice, K. G., 8, 10, 14, 21, 25, 39, 55, 56, 58, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 70, 80, 81, 83, 92, 105, 106, 109, 111, 179,

180, 182, 183, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 197, 198, 202, 203, 206, 207, 240, 251Ridinger, L. L., 7, 40, 41, 81, 82, 89, 92, 93, 98, 99, 131, 140, 142, 143, 144, 251Rines, E. N., 23, 32, 47, 178, 180, 252Rios, P., 19, 37, 103, 132, 184, 196, 202, 264Robbins, S. B., 45, 49, 55, 80, 82, 119, 131, 132, 148, 180, 193, 204, 252, 256Robin, M. W., 45, 226Robinson, D. A. G., 30, 137, 224, 232Robinson, J. P., 219Rocha-Singh, I. A., 252Rodriguez, E. R., 55, 80, 84, 85, 90, 94, 100, 122, 123, 183, 184, 188, 190, 252Rodriguez-Perez, L., 36, 88, 179, 252Roe, A., 111, 257Rogers, R. W., 37, 39, 257Roid, G. H., 36, 37, 38, 39, 253Ropar, J. M., 55, 79, 80, 106, 108, 110, 116, 117, 118, 119, 189, 202, 253Rosenberg, M., 26, 35, 36, 37, 67, 253Rosenman, R. H., 30, 236

462

Rosko, C. K., 9, 27, 119, 214, 253Ross, J. M., 81, 122, 253Ross, M., 94, 236Rotter, J. B., 45, 46, 253Rubin, J. Z., 74, 260Runtz, M., 103, 219Rush, A. J., 29, 217Russell, C. S., 105, 247Russell, D. W., 76, 130, 225, 253, 254Saintonge, S., 57, 241Saling, C., 79, 232Salone, L., 80, 83, 93, 141, 254Sampson, H., 77, 246, 263Sandberg, D. A., 8, 27, 254Sandford, S. L., 9, 28, 240Sandler, I. N., 102, 254Sandvik, E., 78, 226Santonicola, A., 6, 7, 9, 176, 254Saracoglu, B. N., 28, 37, 38, 80, 254Sarason, B. R., 128, 223, 255Sarason, I. G., 101, 103, 128, 223, 254, 255Savino, F., 7, 36, 51, 74, 80, 128, 138, 139, 143, 148, 211, 255Schatzman, B. I., 155, 255Scheier, M. F., 31, 74, 222, 227Schmiedeck, R., 75, 255Schooler, C., 36, 249Schriver, K. J., 7, 11, 80, 92, 144, 149, 255Schuchts, R., 33, 67, 248Schulenberg, J., 60, 228Schultheiss, D. E. P., 50, 54, 55, 63, 69, 182, 188, 193, 255Schultz, K. L., 11, 12, 42, 137, 154, 155, 216Schwab, J. J., 19, 256Schwab, R. S., 19, 256Schwartz, S. H., 256Schwitzer, A. M., 45, 49, 55, 119, 132, 148, 180, 193, 252, 256Scott, L. C., 11, 80, 93, 136, 141, 256Scott, R., 133, 233Scott, W. A., 54, 219Seligman, M. E. P., 23, 47, 249Semmel, A., 23, 47, 249Serafica, F. C., 80, 126, 127, 134, 140, 209, 210, 256Shadid, G. E., 55, 80, 92, 187, 189, 240Shaver, P., 70, 72, 73, 232Shaver, P. R., 219Shaw, B. F., 29, 217Sher, K. J., 79, 235Sherer, M., 37, 39, 257Sherman, M. F., 14, 36, 48, 55, 144, 177, 179, 187, 189, 245, 257Shilkret, R. B., 6, 7, 8, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25, 46, 55, 59, 65, 74, 75, 77, 78, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 119, 181,

182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 190, 194, 196, 206, 215, 227, 257, 263Siegel, J. M., 101, 103, 254Siegelman, M., 111, 257Silk, K., 74, 263Silver, A. R., 32, 55, 63, 182, 183, 189, 190, 191, 257Silverthorn, N. A., 36, 55, 80, 180, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 258

463

Singer, J. E., 259Siryk, B., 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 42, 53, 66, 68, 80, 136, 137, 138, 153, 154, 155, 174, 176, 194, 199, 211,

216Slyter, S. L., 19, 37, 103, 132, 184, 196, 202, 258, 264Smith, A. D., 9, 26, 28, 245Smith, A. W., 32, 56, 59, 177, 258Smith, B. W., 8, 9, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 79, 196, 197, 198, 199, 246Smith, M. A., 6, 51, 134, 142, 143, 216, 258Smith, M. D., 8, 20, 21, 26, 35, 99, 101, 178, 191, 196, 197, 199, 201, 258Smith, T. L., 6, 8, 20, 23, 25, 48, 55, 59, 69, 70, 90, 95, 112, 174, 177, 180, 188, 192, 196, 199, 204, 208, 262Sodowsky, G. R., 90, 105, 258Solberg, V. S., 8, 38, 41, 47, 85, 130, 258, 259Sowa, C. J., 21, 101, 102, 242Spence, J. T., 81, 259Sperling, M. B., 142, 259Spielberger, C. D., 23, 24, 259Sprenkle, D. H., 105, 247Spuler, A., 7, 80, 84, 90, 91, 110, 125, 136, 140, 141, 144, 235Stapp, J., 39, 81, 233, 259Steen, S. C., 55, 188, 232Steer, R. A., 24, 217Stein, P. N., 80, 120, 228Sterritt, M., 96, 263Stewart, D., 80, 126, 127, 134, 140, 209, 210, 256Stinson, M. H., 104, 259Stoltenberg, C. D., 9, 55, 105, 116, 119, 214, 253, 259Stone, A. A., 103, 259Strange, C., 81, 121, 229Straus, M., 110, 259Strickland, B. R., 46Strom, R. D., 65, 115, 260Strom, S. K., 65, 115, 260Stryker, S., 81, 82, 85, 86, 110, 123, 124, 237, 238Sugar, L. A., 6, 8, 9, 27, 48, 49, 64, 65, 66, 67, 81, 99, 112, 113, 114, 174, 184, 185, 186, 205, 206, 260Sullivan, C. F., 42, 66, 124, 151, 152, 193, 260Sullivan, T., 80, 149, 239Super, D. E., 53, 260Sutton, L., 9, 22, 28, 37, 74, 76, 78, 191, 192, 196, 197, 199, 260Swank, P., 34, 221Swap, W. C., 74, 260Talbot, D. M., 88, 89, 150, 213Tangney, J. P., 78, 260Taylor, E. L., 46, 65, 77, 183, 184, 186, 257Tellegen, A., 22, 26, 27, 260, 262Templer, D. I., 25, 261Terrell, M. D., 6, 8, 26, 33, 34, 67, 80, 91, 174, 183, 184, 191, 192, 261Thompson, A. I., 231, 248Tiggermann, M., 124, 126, 130, 264Tipton, R. M., 37, 40, 41, 261Tolmacz, R., 73, 245Tolsdorf, C. C., 133, 261Tomlinson-Clarke, S., 6, 7, 82, 92, 261Trice, A. D., 6, 48, 246, 261Trickett, E. J., 132, 261Tupling, H., 109, 111, 248

464

Tyler, F. B., 33, 178, 179, 261, 265Valdez, J., 8, 85, 130, 259Vecchiotti, S., 77, 112, 113, 114, 181, 206, 257Veit, C. T., 18, 20, 24, 262Verdiano, D. L., 116, 262Villareal, P., 8, 38, 41, 47, 85, 130, 258, 259Vincent, K., 34, 221Vitaliano, P. P., 32, 262von Baeyer, C., 23, 47, 249Wagner, B. M., 101, 223Wagner, P. E., 78, 260Walker, W. F., Jr., 29, 105, 197, 202, 262Wall, S., 71, 213Waller, N. G., 22, 27, 260Wang, E. Y., 6, 8, 20, 23, 25, 48, 55, 59, 69, 70, 90, 95, 112, 174, 177, 180, 188, 192, 196, 199, 204, 208, 262Wapner, S., 13, 134, 135, 231Ward, C. H., 20, 21, 22, 218Ware, J. E., Jr., 18, 20, 24, 262Warheit, G. J., 19, 256Washington, C. M., 6, 81, 131, 173, 262Waters, E., 71, 213Watkins, C. E., Jr., 22, 55, 80, 81, 108, 116, 119, 242Watson, D., 22, 26, 76, 262Wegscheider-Cruse, S., 116, 117, 263Wein, S. J., 59, 219Weinberg, N., 96, 263Weinstock, M. C., 35, 48, 55, 177, 188, 191, 263Weintraub, J. K., 31, 222Weisman, A. G., 6, 8, 21, 50, 80, 83, 102, 123, 184, 196, 204, 208, 244Weiss, J., 77, 246, 263Weissman, A. N., 29, 263Westen, D., 74, 263Whaley, T. J., 63, 64, 92, 190, 191, 251Wick, S., 6, 7, 59, 109, 110, 111, 263Wilchesky, M., 28, 37, 254Williams, D. E., 117, 250Williams, E. M., 6, 12, 42, 82, 85, 90, 91, 97, 98, 137, 174, 191, 192, 263Williamson, D. S., 58, 219Wilson, W. P., 59, 222Winefield, A. H., 124, 126, 130, 264Winefield, H. R., 124, 126, 130, 264Winer, J. L., 50, 247Winston, R. B., Jr., 50, 54, 69, 264Wintre, M. G., 8, 27, 49, 64, 65, 66, 67, 99, 112, 113, 114, 184, 185, 186, 205, 206, 260, 264Wolfert, J., 129, 220Woo, T. O., 7, 80, 264Worthington, E. L., Jr., 37, 40, 41, 261Wrightsman, L. S., 219Yaffe, M., 6, 8, 20, 26, 35, 36, 44, 58, 60, 64, 65, 81, 90, 110, 112, 113, 114, 119, 140, 174, 183, 185, 186, 190,

191, 196, 199, 205, 206, 210, 264Yanico, B., 50, 247Young, J. W., 6, 86, 174, 264Young, M. B., 8, 21, 39, 81, 83, 109, 111, 192, 198, 206, 207, 251Yuker, H. E., 41, 264Zachar, P., 31, 80, 240

465

Zalma, A., 77, 78, 232Zamostny, K. P., 19, 37, 103, 132, 184, 196, 202, 264Zea, M. C., 33, 45, 80, 82, 84, 85, 102, 127, 128, 178, 179, 183, 201, 204, 236, 264, 265Zelezny, L. C., 20, 78, 79, 184, 196, 245Zimet, G. D., 129, 265Zimet, S. G., 129, 265Zion, C. L., 149, 265Zyzanski, S. J., 30, 236

Abusephysical, 103, 122psychological, 103sexual, 103, 104, 122, 166, 168

Abuse subscale (from the Early Trauma Checklist), 202Academic accomplishment. (see Academic performance)Academic achievement subscale (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 197Academic adjustment, 5, 6, 12, 17, 21, 23, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 40, 41, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 62, 63, 64,

66, 67, 69, 71, 75, 79, 83, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 107, 109, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 122, 125, 126, 128, 130, 132, 137, 139, 140, 141, 149, 152, 156, 241anticipated vs actual, 42aspects of, 4, 17, 156behavioral correlates of, 5, 6, 7

Academic Adjustment subscale, 37shortened version of, 195, 200

Academic Adjustment subscale (from the SACQ), 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 158, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 191, 196, 199, 201, 204, 210item-clusters within, 4, 28, 29

Academic Advising Center, 142, 143Academic advisors/counselors, 140

quality of relationship with, 140Academic aptitude, 175Academic autonomy, 54, 162Academic autonomy subscale (from the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory), 54, 193Academic commitment. (see Academic motivation)Academic credits, number of. (see Course credits earned)Academic honor society membership, 6, 156Academic honors

annual, 12, 156at graduation, 12, 156departmental, 12general, 12

Academic institution, type of. (see College, type of)Academic Locus of Control Scale, 47, 177Academic major

availability of, 52, 134, 162, 167change of, 52, 134decidedness, 6, 17, 51, 52, 133, 134, 143, 156, 162, 163, 167, 168engineering, 137non-science, 93relative salience of, 134required declaration of/pressure to declare, 52, 134, 162, 163, 167satisfaction with, 6, 53, 156, 162

466

science, 93, 137social science, 93stability of decidedness, 52, 162status, 52, 53, 142, 143, 162traditionally female, 82, 93traditionally male, 82, 93

Academic motivation, 10, 53, 54, 162measure of, 53motivation for being in college and doing college work, 4, 29

Academic performance, 5, 11, 29, 86, 152, 155, 156, 175Academic planning, 10, 17, 48, 53, 161, 162Academic purpose, seriousness of, 6, 156Academic Self-Concept Scale (ASCS), 54Academic self-efficacy, 40Academic work, 7, 72Academic year, time of, 12, 48, 66, 134, 135, 137, 145, 146, 147, 148, 154, 162, 167, 169Academically advantaged students, 147Academically at-risk students. (see At-risk students)Academically disadvantaged students. (see At-risk students)Acculturation subscale (from the American International Relations Scale), 90, 177Achievement experiences (in school, sports, or creative pursuits), 132Achievement need, 38, 48, 161Achievement striving, 48Achievement subscale (from the Early Resources Checklist), 202Achievement subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203Achieving Tendency Scale, 48, 177ACT. (see American College Testing Program)Active coping (from the Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence Scale), 33, 178Active coping (from the Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence Scale-Condensed), 178Active-behavioral coping (from the Health and Daily Living Form), 180Active-cognitive coping (from the Health and Daily Living Form), 180Activity (in meeting challenges), 33Activity-recreation subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203Adaptability, family, 105, 106, 166Adjusting students, types of, 158Adjustive capacity

disillusionment regarding, 12, 86, 98, 136, 138, 145, 157, 171expectations concerning, 11, 12

prematriculation, 11, 12, 85, 136, 138self-confidence regarding, 11, 42, 161, 170

Adjustment to collegeanticipated, 11, 42, 137as a construct, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 15, 156, 157, 158, 160as measured by the relation between the ASACQ and SACQ, 11, 145as multifaceted, 5, 156aspects of, 3, 4, 5, 10, 64, 134, 158, 161, 162

intraindividual variation in, 4, 15, 156behavioral correlates of, 5, 13, 15, 138, 156, 158capacity for. (see Adjustive capacity)changeability in, 13, 156confidence level concerning, 11, 42, 161definition of, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 17, 18, 156, 157, 158

from composition/structure of SACQ, 3, 5, 13from research-identified correlates of SACQ, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 156, 157

467

determinants of, 1, 2, 10, 16, 17, 18, 35, 48, 75, 138, 145, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171

difficulties in, 8, 154, 161, 168, 170experience of, 3experiential correlates of, 13, 15, 156, 158extent of domain, 157facilitation of, 1, 2, 18, 145, 153, 155, 168, 170fulfillment of prematriculation expectations concerning, 11, 12future investigations in, 2, 156, 163, 165interindividual variation, 15, 156intraindividual variation, 4, 15, 156measurement of, 1, 2, 3, 13, 142

other measures than the SACQ, 10, 11, 159operational meaning of, 5, 156prediction of, 6, 64, 67, 86, 160, 161prematriculation expectations, 11, 12, 42, 136, 138, 161recall of, 12received help from others in, 125retrospective assessment of, 9studies of, not using the SACQ, 1types of, 158understanding of, 1, 2, 4, 156, 159, 160, 161

Administrators, 141Admission status

regular, 147special, 146

Admissions statusregular, 147

Adolescence, 101, 104, 168Adolescent Hassles Scale, 101Adolescent Perceived Events Scale (APES), 101, 201Adolescent Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences (A-COPE), 32, 177Adult Attachment Scale, 70, 72, 177Adult attachment styles, 70, 72, 73Adult Attachment Types Questionnaire, 70, 72, 73Adult EAS Temperament Survey, 26, 33, 67Affect Intensity Measure, 78Affectional interaction subscale (from the Father-Daughter Relationship Inventory), 204Affective and behavioral commitment to the student role (from the Salience Inventory), 53Affective quality score (from the Parental Attachment Questionnaire), 60, 185Affective regulation subscale (from the Coping Response Indices Inventory), 34Affects, 22, 75, 164

negative, 26, 27Affiliation subscale (from the Classroom Environment Scale), 132African-American students, 21, 33, 39, 46, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 93, 97, 98, 109, 110, 111, 128, 129, 135, 136, 147,

165, 167, 175, 195, 199, 211interracial experience in, 134, 135, 167social support in, 83, 124, 165

Age, 79, 94, 95, 96, 119, 120, 132, 164, 165traditional/nontraditional age students, 93, 94

Agreeableness (from the NEO Five Factor Inventory), 184, 185Agreeableness (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 67Alcohol

abuse, 121, 122, 201age of first use, 79

468

consumption of, 79drinking problem of parents, 117, 121, 122, 166, 201, 209kind used, 79negative consequences of use, 79present use of, 79

Alienation, 67, 164Alienation Scale, 67, 68, 177Alienation subscale (from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), 61, 62, 68, 182Alpha pride subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194Ambiguous students (from the Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire), 60, 61American College Testing Program (ACT), 91, 92, 177

composite score, 91mathematics score, 92

American Indian students, 85American International Relations Scale, 90, 177, 201American-International Relations Scale, 105Androgyny, 81, 82, 186Anger/conflict score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209, 210Anger/conflict score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, 145Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (ASACQ), 11, 12, 42, 85, 98, 136, 137, 145, 148Anxiety, 23, 24, 152, 159

death, 25engulfment, 57phobic, 25separation, 24, 25, 159, 160social, 72, 76, 164state, 8, 23, 24, 199trait, 8, 23, 24, 199

Anxiety subscale (from the Adult Attachment Scale), 72, 177Anxiety subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 24, 196Anxiety subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 24, 198Anxiety subscale (from the Mental Health Inventory), 24Appraisal of control, situation-specific, 48Appraisal support subscale (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 204Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule, 127, 128, 201As a child with a child subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire), 202As a child with an adult subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire), 202As a nonconsenting adolescent subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire), 202ASACQ. (see Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire)ASACQ/SACQ score comparison, 11, 12, 13, 42, 85, 98, 137, 145Asian students, 85, 89, 94, 110, 124, 195, 199Asian-American students, 33, 46, 85, 86, 98, 128, 147, 195, 212Assertion of Autonomy subscale (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 75, 181Assessing Daily Experiences Inventory, 103Assets for adjustment, 30Athletes, 141, 144, 168Athletic aptitude, 41Athletic performance

self-assessment of, 99Athletic self-efficacy, 41Athletic teams, intercollegiate, 141, 168At-risk students, 155, 169, 170

academically, 6, 147, 175economically, 147

469

Attachmentanxious-ambivalent, 71, 72, 73, 194avoidant, 71, 72, 73, 194dismissing, 72, 73, 179fearful, 72, 73, 179infant-parent, 71insecure, 71needs, preoccupation with gratification of, 72preoccupied, 72, 73, 179secure, 71, 72, 73, 179, 194style, 73styles, 70, 72, 179, 194to father, 63, 64to mother, 63, 64to one's college, 9, 32, 39, 52, 69, 75, 79, 80, 82, 83, 88, 89, 94, 99, 107, 113, 114, 117, 118, 124, 125, 132,

140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 153, 157to parents, 55, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 163to peers, 68, 69, 164to significant others, 70to the college experience, 3, 4types of, 70

Attachment figurefusing of identity with, 71preoccupation with, 71

Attachment preoccupied, 73Attachment Style Inventory (ASI), 142Attachment subscale (from the SACQ), 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33,

34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 191, 196, 199, 201, 204, 210

Attachment subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 210Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 29

behavioral characteristics or symptoms associated with, 29Attitude similarity score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Attitudes and Beliefs Scale-II, 45, 177Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons Scale-Form O (ATDP), 41Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons-Form O (ATDP-O), 178Attitudinal independence subscale (from the Psychological Separation Inventory), 56Attribution of causality

global, 23Attribution of causation, 47, 99

global, 23stable, 23

Attributional Complexity Scale, 99, 178Attributional Style Questionnaire, 23, 47, 178Attrition. (see Withdrawal from college)Authoritarian parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 113, 114, 115Authoritative parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 113, 114, 115Autonomy, 58Autonomy (from the Psychosocial Maturity Scale), 190Autonomy from family and high school friends (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 11Availability of social integration subscale (from the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction), 133Avoidance coping (from the Health and Daily Living Form), 180

470

Avoidance coping (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191Avoidance-oriented subscale (from the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations), 179

Beck Anxiety Inventory, 24, 196Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), 20, 21, 22, 196Beer

drinking of, 79getting drunk on, 79

Behavior (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence Scale (BAPC), 33, 178Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence Scale-Condensed (BAPC-C), 33, 178Belgian university, 57Bell Global Psychopathology Scale, 19, 196Belonging support subscale (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 204Bem Sex-Role Inventory-Short Form, 81Beta pride subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194Binge eaters, 28Birth order, 122, 166Black students. (see African-American students)Blames others (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191Blames self (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191Blatt Parental Representation Scale, 59Body dissatisfaction subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198Brief College Student Hassles Scale, 201Brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Brief MAST), 121, 201Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), 18, 21, 24, 25, 196Bulimia subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198Bulimics

clinical, 28subthreshold, 28

California Psychological Inventory-Revised (CPI), 30Campus activities. (see Extracurricular activities in college)Care (caringness) subscale (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 111Career counselors, 140Career Decision Scale, 38, 47, 50, 179Career issues, 146Career plans, certainty of, 6, 17, 50, 156, 162Catholic students, 95Causal explanation

complexity of, 99Causality, 16, 17, 47Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), 20, 22, 196Challenge (from the Hardiness Test), 34, 35, 180Chaos subscale (from the Early Trauma Checklist), 202Chicano students, 84, 85, 122, 123Childhood, 77, 104, 168Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), 104, 202Children's Role Inventory, 117Children's Roles Inventory, 202Church attendance, 95, 164Clark University, 13, 173, 176Class attendance, 7, 156Class levels. (see College year level)Classroom Environment Scale, 132

471

Close Relationships Questionnaire, 72, 179Close subscale (from the Adult Attachment Scale), 72, 177Coaches

relationship with, 142Cognitive variable, 99

structural rather than contentual, 99Cognitive-intellective, 22, 67Cognitive-perceptual factors, 23Cohesion subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 106Cohesion subscale (from the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II), 106, 209Cohesiveness, family, 105, 106, 166Collectivistic orientation, 74College Attributional Complexity Scale, 99College experience, 77, 165

commitment to, 3, 4, 9, 157expenditure of effort in various aspects of, 11satisfaction with, 10, 12, 157

College experienceshassles, 99

College Inventory of Academic Adjustment (CIAA), 10, 197aspects of adjustment measured, 10

College Life Task Assessment Instrument (CLT), 10, 35, 197College Maladjustment Scale (Mt), 11, 197College of, 97

arts and sciences, 141business administration, 141engineering, 51, 52, 134, 141, 167health professions, 141liberal arts, 51, 97, 133, 163, 167music, 141technology/trade, 97

College Self-Efficacy Instrument, 179College Self-Efficacy Instrument (CSEI), 41College Self-Efficacy Instrument (CSEL), 38, 47College staff persons, 138, 140, 153, 158, 168College Student Experiences Questionnaire, 11College Student Hassles Scale, 101College Student Life Events Schedule, 102, 202College year level, 92, 164, 165

all years, 14, 63, 92, 93, 94, 148, 174mixed, 195, 200, 212unspecified, 150upper classes, 28, 63, 92, 104, 125, 138, 165, 168

Colleges, characteristics of, 97commuter/residential, 140, 141evening college/day college, 141for deaf students, 96knowledgeability concerning, 97, 98predominantly Black, 167, 173predominantly White, 83, 84, 134, 136, 165, 167private/public, 97, 141selectivity, 142timing of required major declaration, 52, 134, 162, 167two year/four year, 97

Combined Parent/Peer Overall Attachment Score (from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), 69, 182

472

Commitmentacademic. (see Academic motivation)to occupational and ideological goals, 49, 162to other persons and activities, 34to the college experience, 3, 4, 9, 157to the student role, 53, 162

Commitment (from the Hardiness Test), 180Communication subscale (from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), 61, 62, 68, 182, 183Community college students, 85, 94, 95, 96, 130Commuter college, 140Commuter students, 140, 141Compatibility in the self-world relation (alienation), 67, 164Competitiveness (from the Jenkins Activity Survey, Form C), 30Complexity, 44, 99Complexity of representations of people (from the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale), 75Confidence (a variable derived by factor analysis), 38Confidence regarding academic capabilities, 40Confidence regarding capacity for adjusting to college. (see Adjustive capacity)Confidence regarding meeting challenges, 34Conflict subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203Conflict subscale (from the Residence Hall Climate Inventory), 208Conflict Tactics Scale, 110Conflict with attachment figures subscale (from the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction), 133Conflictual independence subscale (from the Psychological Separation Inventory), 55, 56, 59, 187Connection to Puerto Rico, 88Conscientiousness (from the NEO Five Factor Inventory), 184, 185Conscientiousness (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 48Consensuality (from the California Psychological Inventory-Revised), 30Control

over events in one's life, 34Control (from the California Psychological Inventory- Revised), 30Control (from the Hardiness Test), 180Control subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203Control-Mastery Theory, 77Conventionally Defined Success (from the Life Values Inventory), 95, 183Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, 36, 37, 179COPE Scales, 31, 32Coping, 34

active, 31, 32, 178active-behavioral, 32active-cognitive, 32avoidance-oriented, 31, 32behavioral disengagement, 32Blames Others, 33Blames Self, 33Count Blessings, 33Emotion-focused, 32emotion-oriented, 31expectations regarding, 42mental disengagement, 32planning, 32positive reinterpretation and growth, 32problem-focused, 32problem-solving, 31Religiosity, 33

473

seeking social support for emotional reasons, 32Seeks Support, 33skills, 43, 150task-oriented, 31venting of emotiona, 31Wishful Thinking, 33

Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations, 31, 179Coping Response Indices Inventory, 26, 34, 67Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, 79, 197Counseling

consequences of, 145feedback interviews, 169institutional agency, 143small-group, 145, 169, 170

Counts blessings (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191Course credits earned, 12, 155, 156Criterion groups, 160Cross-generational coalitions, 116Cultural characteristics, 88, 89, 165Cultural distance/differences, 143Culture-induced student characteristics, 86, 87Current satisfaction with network score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Curricular adjustment subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197

Daily hassles, 101Daily hassles (from the Adolescent Perceived Events Scale), 201Daughters

father's encouragement of independence in, 112father's expression of affection toward, 112father's role in relation to, 112perception of time and attention from father, 112

Day college students, 141Deaf identity, 96, 97Deaf Identity Scale, 96Deaf students, 83, 84, 130

attitude towards sign language, 97attitude towards their deafness, 96, 97

Death Anxiety Scale, 25, 197Decision-making, style of, 49, 161Demographic variables, 80, 164Density score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210DePaul University, 173Depend subscale (from the Adult Attachment Scale), 72, 177Dependency denial subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 70, 192Dependency on other persons

excessive, 75Dependent/enmeshed students (from the Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire), 60Depression, 8, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 99, 159, 198Depression Scale (from the Psychological Distress Inventory), 21Depression subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 21, 196Depression subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 20, 198Detachment subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194Determining future goals subscale (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 197Developing autonomy subscale (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 197

474

Developing mature interpersonal relationships task subscale (from the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory), 69, 193

Developmentally-related variables, 77, 163Differentiation, 44Diffuse orientation (from the Identity Style Inventory-2), 49, 180Disadvantaged students

educationally, 86financially, 86

Disillusionment regarding adjustive capacity. (see Adjustive capacity)Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES), 27, 197Dissociative experiences/symptoms, 8, 27, 159, 160Divorce, 116, 119, 120, 166Dormitories, 140, 149

amount of conflict in, 139assistants or advisors, 140availability of personal or social support in, 139characteristics of, 100, 140

physical, 139climate, 139differences in student adjustment among, 139group cohesiveness in, 139high rise or low rise, 138Intervention efforts in, 148, 149, 169orderedness or regulation of, 139, 140peer support program in, 148roommate, 138, 168sections designated for freshmen, 139sections designated for mixed classes, 139size, 139staff/student ratio, 138, 168student perception of or reaction to, 139, 140sylvan setting or downtown, 138unisex or coed, 138, 139versus off-campus living, 168

Dormitory assistantships, likelihood of being hired for, 8, 157Drive for thinness subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198Dropping out. (see Withdrawal from college)Dual identity, in deaf students, 96, 97Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale-Form A, 29, 197

Early Resources Checklist, 132, 202Early Trauma Checklist, 103, 202Earthquake, 105East Asian international students, 195Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI), 27, 36, 198Eating disorders, 9, 27, 159, 160

psychological characteristics associated with, 9Eating problems score (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 27, 198Eating problems-related traits (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198Economic disruptions, 202Educational goals, 10, 50, 51, 161

capacity to attain without direction from others, 54obstacles to realization of, 77

Educational planning. (see Academic planning)Educational-working circumstances, 93

475

Edwards Social Desirability Scale, 179Efficacy or success of academic effort, 4Efficient time use, 10Effort expenditure in college, 11Ego identity status (from the Extended Version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status), 49Emotional distress, 71, 84, 104

difficulty in regulating, 71Emotional independence subscale (from the Psychological Separation Inventory), 56, 189Emotional inhibition, 71Emotional reliance on other persons subscale (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 75, 181Emotional reliance on others (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 164Emotional stability, 25, 26Emotional stress (from the Stress Audit), 26, 199Emotional support satisfaction (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201Emotional support score (from the Social network Questionnaire), 209, 210Emotional support score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Emotion-oriented subscale (from the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations), 179Employment, amount of time in, 7, 96, 157Enabling Independence subscale (from the Late Adolescents' Relationships with Parents Scale), 60, 183Encouragement of independence by father subscale (from the Perceived Parental Attitude Scale), 208Engineering college. (see College of)Engulfment anxiety subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 57, 192Enrollment, 141

discontinuance of. (see Withdrawal from college)full-time, 7, 157having thoughts of discontinuing, 10, 157part-time, 7, 157persistence in, 9, 93, 157

Environmentacademic, 4, 29as determinant of adjustment to college, 48, 65, 134, 136, 145, 163, 165, 167as focus of one's attention, 74as source of social support, 132characteristics of, 16, 87, 88, 100, 159classroom, 132college, 7, 132, 136, 143, 146, 168compatibility with, 67, 68, 164experience related to, 201family-related characteristics as, 55, 106in interaction with person characteristics, 52, 88, 101, 133, 135, 161, 168independent of student characteristics, 100, 166institutional characteristics, 88, 134manipulation of, 145mastery of, 36, 71person-environment factors, 138physical-environment factors, 138pressure from, 71, 134social, 4, 123, 133, 142, 167student's, 13student's perception or interpretation of, 100, 165

Establishing and clarifying purpose task subscale (from the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory), 50, 193

Establishing friendships subscale (from the College Life Task Assessmenr Instrument), 197Ethnic status

of the college, 167, 168

476

of the student, 45, 82, 83, 86, 147, 164, 165, 168Ethnicity

importance of in one's family, 123European-American students. (see White students)Evening classes students, 141Examinations, 64, 152Existential well-being, 22Existential well-being subscale (from the Spiritual Well-Being Scale), 22Expectancies. (see Expectations)Expectancy styles, 43

complacent, 43, 44fearful, 43optimistic, 43prepared, 43

Expectationsabout college life, 98about the self, 160complexity of, 44disillusionment regarding, 86fulfillment of, 11, 85integratve complexity of, 44negative academic, 42, 43negative social, 42, 43of positive outcomes, 75perfectionistic, 78, 79, 164positive academic, 42, 43positive social, 42, 43prematriculation, 12, 42, 44, 136, 138, 161realistic, 43regarding adaptation/coping efforts, 42, 43regarding adaptive/coping efforts, 43regarding impending transition into college, 11, 42, 43, 44, 136, 161

Expected satisfaction with network score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Experiential world of the student, 13Expressiveness subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203Extended Version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status, 49External Control, 47Externality, 47Externality/externals (from the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale), 45, 46, 161Externalization subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194Extracurricular activities in college

Black-sponsored, 136number of organizations joined, 7participation in, 7, 136, 157racial composition of, 136, 167White-sponsored, 136

Extracurricular activities in high schoolleadership positions in, 157

Extraversion (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 184Extraversion/extroverts, 66, 67, 164Eysenck Personality Inventory, 66

FACES-II Scale, 105, 202FACES-III Scale, 105, 106, 202Facilitation of adjustment. (see Adjustment to college, facilitation of; Intervention)

477

Factor analysis, 3, 26, 33, 34, 35, 38, 47, 54, 67, 107, 129Faculty. (see Professors)

relationship with, 142Faculty advisors, 140False positives, 161Family, 59, 77

adaptability, 105, 106, 107, 166adaptive interactions in, 110alcohol-abusing, 117, 118, 121, 122, 201, 209amount of student contact with, 7, 112as a functioning organizational unit, 116, 166as environmental factors, 55, 106, 167autonomy from, 11balanced, 106birth order of children in, 122, 166characteristics of, 105, 107, 166climate, 139closeness of continued involvement with, 197coalitions within, 56, 116cohesiveness of, 105, 106, 107, 166conflict, 106, 109, 110, 166degree of organization of activities in, 106difficulties, 110disengaged, 106disruption, 117, 121, 202, 209drug-abusing, 117, 118, 121, 209dysfunctional, 117, 118, 119enmeshed, 106enmeshment/disengagement, 107experience within, 166expressiveness, 106fear of separation, 108, 166fostering autonomy, 60, 107, 166fostering intimacy, 107, 166functioning, effectiveness of, 107functioning, negative aspects of, 107functioning, positive aspects of, 107functioning, student's perception of, 107generation level within, 123habitual behaviors of, 107health or functioning, 107, 121importance of ethnicity in, 123importance of religion in, 95income, 90intactness, 116, 119, 166language spoken in, 100, 122, 166mail contact with, 7maladaptive, 108, 166marital conflict in, 108maternal intrusiveness, 109, 166mother-custody, 121normal, 117, 118, 121, 209only child in, 122, 166parental conflict in, 56, 100, 109, 110, 166parent-child bond, 111

478

parent-child cohesion, 107parent-child overinvolvement in, 108, 109, 166parent-child role reversal in, 108, 166parenting styles, 100, 112, 113, 114, 115parent-student relationship, 56participation in social and recreational activities, 106pathology, 119postdivorce structure, 120primary relationship in, 116related variables, 55relationship patterns within, 116, 120relationships, 110ritualization, 107roles, 116, 117, 118separation from, 11, 157single-parent, 121social climate, 106social support from, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 128, 130, 166, 167, 205stepfather, 133structure, 108student-perceived difficulties in, 110telephone contacts with, 7visits with, 7

Family adaptability subscale (from FACES-II), 202Family adaptability subscale (from FACES-III), 105, 106, 202Family cohesion subscale (from FACES-II), 202Family cohesion subscale (from FACES-III), 105, 106, 202Family cohesion subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203Family Conflict subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 106Family Environment Scale, 106, 203Family Expressiveness subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 106Family Functioning Scales, 107, 121, 203Family health/competence subscale (from the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II), 108Family Hero role (from the Family Role Behavior Inventory), 116, 117, 119Family Hero role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118, 119Family intactness, 116Family of Origin Scale (FOS), 107, 203Family Ritual Questionnaire, 107, 203Family ritualization (from the Family Ritual Questionnaire), 203Family Role Behavior Inventory (FRBI), 116, 117Family roles, typology of, 116, 117, 119Family self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194Family Structure Survey (FSS), 108, 109, 203Family/kin support satisfaction (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201Father, 56, 63, 65, 113, 114, 115, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190

attachment to, 61, 63, 64caringness, 111encouragement of daughter independence, 112expression of affection toward daughter, 112intrusiveness, 109protectiveness, 109relationship with, 64, 65role in relation to daughter, 112time and attention devoted to daughter, 112

Father authoritarianism (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206

479

Father authoritarianism (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206Father authoritativeness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206Father authoritativeness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206Father caringness (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 111, 206, 207Father permissive-indulgence (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206Father permissive-neglectfulness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206Father permissiveness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206Father protectiveness (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 109, 206, 207Father-Daughter Relationship Inventory (FDRI), 112, 204Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, 76, 180Fear of rejection, 73Fear of separation subscale (from the Family Structure Survey), 108, 203, 204Feeling states. (see Affects)Feelings about past relationships related to development of self, 37Feminine sex-role orientation, 81Financial aid counselors, 140First generation college attenders, 35, 54, 90, 123, 195, 212Flexibility (from the California Psychological Inventory-Revised), 30Focus of interest

inward, 164on others, 74, 164on self, 74, 164outward, 164

Foreign students, 19, 73, 87, 94, 96, 100, 105, 109, 111, 129, 143, 150, 195, 200, 212African, 89Asian, 89, 100athletes, 89Australian, 89Canadian, 89, 100Central American, 89Chinese, 87European, 89from east Asian countries, 74, 88from Southeast Asia, 89from the Far East, 89from western European countries, 74, 88, 89, 100graduate, 89, 90Latin American, 89Middle-Eastern, 89Pacific Islander, 87South American, 89who lived in U. S. prior to matriculation, 88

Forming an identity subscale (from the College Life Task Assessmenr Instrument), 197Fostering autonomy, 203Fostering autonomy score (from the Parental Attachment Questionnaire), 60Fostering intimacy, 203Fraternity membership, 141, 168Frequency of contact score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Freshman orientation. (see Orientation program)Freshman students, 13, 14, 42, 52, 53, 57, 62, 63, 66, 76, 82, 83, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 104, 116, 121, 125, 127,

134, 138, 139, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 163, 168, 169, 174, 212early entrant, 195engineering, 52traditional-age, 93

480

Freshman year, 7, 12, 14, 28, 42, 43, 52, 53, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 76, 92, 127, 129, 132, 134, 137, 147, 148, 149, 155, 167, 169, 195

Friend/other support satisfaction (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201Friends, 103

at home, 7close, 7, 130, 157college, 124high school, 134high school, autonomy from, 11high school, closeness of continued involvement with, 197in college (any college), 123, 208not in college, 123, 208number of, 7, 157percentage of, in social networks, 126pre-college, away from campus, 124separation from, 11, 157social support from, 83, 100, 123, 128, 130, 167, 208socializing with, 7

Friendshipsestablishment of, 11, 158length of, 157maintenance of over time, 7

Full scale score (ASACQ), 11, 42Full scale score (ASACQ/SACQ), 86Full scale score (SACQ), 3, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,

39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 191, 196, 199, 201, 204, 210

Fun/relaxation score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209Fun/relaxation score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Functional independence subscale (from the Psychological Separation Inventory), 56

Gender findings, 20, 21, 24, 27, 39, 49, 50, 54, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 75, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 94, 95, 96, 99, 104, 107, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 119, 120, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 133, 139, 140, 147, 163, 164, 165, 173, 175, 194, 199, 211

General collectivism index (from the Individualism-Collectivism Scale), 180Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale, 36, 180Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale, 37, 40, 41Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (modified), 180Geographic variables, 143George Washington University, 173Global attributions (from the Attributional Style Questionnaire), 178Global Self-Worth score (from the Self-Perception Profile for College Students), 25, 40, 67Global Severity Index (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 18, 196Global Severity Index (from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised), 19, 199Goal directedness, 34, 49, 132, 161, 180Goal Instability Scale, 49, 132, 180Goal orientation, 48, 53, 161

educational, 48, 51vocational, 48, 51

Goal setting skills, 49Goals, 197

ability to set, 150

481

career. (see Career plans, certainty of)educational. (see Educational goals)ideological, 49, 162life. (see Life goals)motivation to achieve, 10occupational, 49, 51, 162persistence in attaining, 33realistic, 33success in attaining, 49

God, relationship with, 133Goldberg Big-Five Factor Markers, 25, 40, 67Grades

in college, 5, 6, 12, 86, 122, 156, 173, 174in high school, 6, 86, 146, 147, 152minority students', 86overprediction of, 86

Graduate students, 19, 22, 26, 28, 47, 73, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96, 103, 105, 109, 111, 129, 150, 195, 200, 212Graduation

from high school, 146honors at, 12, 156on time, 12, 157rate, 12

Grandparent Strengths and Needs Inventory-Grandchild Form, 65Grandparent Strengths and Needs Inventory-Grandparent Form, 115Grandparents, 65, 115

relationship with, 65relationship with student, 115, 116

Grossmont College, 174Group cohesiveness subscale (from the Residence Hall Climate Inventory), 208, 209Guidance subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 210Guilt, 77, 78, 119, 164, 186

experienced in relation to fathers, 78Guilt subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194

Hard liquor, getting drunk on, 79Hardiness, 34Hardiness Test, 34, 35, 180Health

general, 28self-assessed, 28

Health and Daily Living Form, 32, 180Health Checklist, 28, 198Health/competence subscale (from the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II), 209Healthy personality, the, 34Healthy separation subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 70, 192, 193Hearing identity, 96, 97Help resources on campus, 8Hero role (from the Children's Role Inventory), 117Hero role (from the Children's Roles Inventory), 202Hero role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 209High school, 146

friends, 11, 134grades, 6, 86, 146, 147, 152graduation from, 146high academic achievers in, 91

482

integrated, 135interracial experience in, 134intervention efforts during, 145, 146, 169involvement in life of, 157Junior year, 195, 212leadership positions, 157predominantly Black. (see Predominantly Black high school)predominantly White. (see Predominantly White high school)Puerto Rican, 88senior year, 195seniors, 97, 98, 137, 145, 146, 169, 170transition from, 8

Hispanic students, 84, 85, 86, 130, 141Hollins College, 173Holy Cross College, 13Home

closeness of continued involvement with, 197commute from, 140distance from, 143, 144language spoken in, 122, 166perceived distance from, 144relocation away from, 4separation from, 157visits to, 7, 157

Hometown, 143in-state, 144out-of-state, 144rural, 143urban/suburban, 143

Hopkins Symptom Checklist, 18, 20, 24, 198Hostility subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196Hypochondriasis subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198Hypomania subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198Hysteria subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198

Identification with one's minority culture, 85Identity

confusion, 119separate, 71

Identity (from the Psychosocial Maturity Scale), 190Identity (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194Identity scale (from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory), 58Identity status

Black, 84Identity Style Inventory-2, 49, 180Identity Vis-a-vis Mother Questionnaire (IVM-20), 59Immersion-emersion score (from the Racial Identity Attitude Scale), 84Impairment to feelings about self and past relationships (from the Narcissistic Injury Scale), 37Inadequacy, feelings of, 119Income, parental, 90Indecision, educational/vocational, 50Independence, 71

compulsive, 71pathological, 68

Independence subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203

483

Individual adequacy scales (from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory), 58Individual differences, 15, 17, 138, 156Individualism-Collectivism Scale, 74, 180Individualistic orientation, 74Individuated students (from the Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire), 60, 61Individuation score (from the Separation Anxiety Test), 58, 192Individuation subscale (from the Identity Vis-a-vis Mother Questionnaire), 59Individuation subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186Ineffectiveness subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198Information orientation (from the Identity Style Inventory-2), 49, 180Information/advice score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209, 210Information/advice score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Initiative, 33Inner-directed students, 161Institutional attachment. (see Attachment, to one's college)Institutional characteristics, 52, 82, 83, 87, 88, 134, 140, 141, 162, 167, 168Instrumental support satisfaction (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201Integration, 44Intellectual and Cultural Interests (from the Life Values Inventory), 95, 183Intellectual-cultural subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203Intellectualism subscale (from the Personal Values Scale-Revised), 53Intellectualism subscale (from the Personal Values Scales-Revised), 186Interactive effects, 52, 83, 88, 101, 133, 134, 135, 138, 161, 167, 168Interest congruence, 51Internal attributions (from the Attributional Style Questionnaire), 178Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, 45, 46Internality, 34, 45, 47, 195Internality/internals (from the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale), 45, 46, 161Interpersonal competence, 8, 157Interpersonal Dependency Inventory, 39, 75, 181Interpersonal experiences, 7, 100Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45 (IGQ-45), 77, 181Interpersonal guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 77, 181Interpersonal orientation, 74, 164Interpersonal relationships, 4, 71, 132

associated with positive affects and outcomes, 75capacity for emotional investment in, 75capacity for establishing, 68, 69, 164capacity to be comfortable apart from, 70capacity to engage in and enjoy, 70detachment from and rejection of, 70establishment of, 69formation of, 7, 68, 74, 157in general, individuation-separation issues in, 57loss of, success in dealing with, 104maintenance of, 7, 74, 157understanding of causal factors in, 75

Interpersonal relationships subscale (from the Early Resources Checklist), 202Interpersonal sensitivity subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196Interpersonal sensitivity subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 36, 198Interpersonal situations, 74, 164Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL), 131, 204

variation of, 131Interracial experience, 100, 136

beneficial effect of, 135

484

during college, 167in Black students, 83, 134, 135, 167in high school, 134in Latino students, 136pre-college, 134, 167variation in amount of, 83, 135

Intervention, 145, 146, 150, 151, 152, 169academic, 146, 147, 169

theme groups, 151as manipulation of environmental characteristics, 145by interview, 154, 155, 169, 170by small group meetings, 145, 149, 150, 151, 169, 170consequences of, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 154, 155, 169, 170duration of, 169, 170effect of election to participate in, 152facilitative, 145, 170first quarter, 151first semester, 150, 155in dormitories, 147, 148, 149, 169measure of effects of, 145, 146, 148, 149, 154, 155, 169, 170peer support program, 148, 149, 150, 151postmatriculation, 148, 153, 169practical significance of, 145prematriculation, 145, 146, 147, 148, 169problems in design, 153, 169remedial, 145, 153, 168, 170, 171seminar, 150social, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 169, 170tailored to particular problems, 170therapeutic, 155timing of, 145, 154timing of, 170to preclude disillusionment with one's adjustive capacity, 171voluntary, 148, 149, 150with arranged faculty-student interaction, 151with at-risk students, 86, 146, 147, 154, 155, 168, 169, 170with college-bound high school seniors, 145, 169, 170with transfer students, 169

Interviewas a means of intervention, 154, 155consequences of, 154, 155, 170counseling, 169data, 12, 77discussion of adjustment problems in, 154, 170feedback of test information in, 154, 170individual, 170SACQ findings as primary content of, 154, 169schedule for social interaction, 133structured, 77

Interview Schedule for Social Interaction, 133Intimacy of relationship score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209Intimacy of relationship score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Intimacy subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186Intimidation subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186Intoxicants, 79, 164

485

Introversion/introverts, 66, 164Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA), 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 182, 195Involvement in life of college. (see Extracurricular activities in college)Involvement in life of high school. (see Extracurricular activities in high school)Involvement with campus social system. (see Extracurricular activities in college)Involvement with other persons on campus. (see Interpersonal relationships)Invulnerability (from the New Personal Fable Scale), 185Invulnerability, sense of, 38Item-clusters, 4, 28, 29, 158

Jackson Social Desirability Scale, 183Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS, Form C), 30Job involvement (from the Jenkins Activity Survey, Form C), 31Journal-writing program, as therapy, 155Junior year, 12, 14, 43, 62, 63, 195

in high school, 212Juniors, 57, 63, 92, 147, 148, 195

Kandel Depression Scale, 21, 198Korean-American students, 81

Lack of social self-confidence subscale (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 181Language

of community at large, 166of family, 88, 100, 122, 148, 166

Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire, 60Late Adolescents' Relationships with Parents Scale, 183Latin-American students, 85Latino students, 33, 46, 84, 85, 86, 91, 98, 102, 110, 122, 123, 124, 128, 136, 141, 147, 195, 199, 212Leadership, 157Learning disability, 28, 29, 38, 159, 160Lebanon Valley College, 173Liberal arts students, 134, 163Life decisions, 161

avoiding, 49conforming to expectations of others in, 49unstable, 49

Life events, 13, 101academic, 103as perceived by the student, 23, 165aspects of, 101bad/negative, 23, 47, 102, 178desirable, 103good/positive, 23, 47, 178in general, 47, 101, 166, 178major, 101, 201measure of, 103negative impact of, 101, 166number of, 101, 166positive impact of, 101, 166social, 103specific to the college experience, 102undesirable, 103

Life Events Checklist, 101Life Experiences Survey, 101, 102, 103, 204

486

Life goals, 10, 50Life stress/stressors

general, 101, 102, 104, 166high levels of, 133in the past, 101low levels of, 133measure of, 102, 204negative impact of, 166number of, 166positive impact of, 166specific forms of, 104, 166

Life styles, 95Life value preferences, 95Life Values Inventory, 48, 95, 183Living arrangements, 93, 100, 138, 140

on or off-campus, 140, 141, 168Location of interaction score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209, 210Locus of control, 34, 45, 46, 47, 48, 160, 161, 183, 195

academic, 48regarding specific areas of function, 47

Logical analysis subscale (from the Coping Response Indices Inventory), 34Loneliness, 76, 164Loss subscale (from the Early Trauma Checklist), 202Loss, interpersonal, 104, 202Lost Child Role (from the Children's Role Inventory), 117Lost Child role (from the Children's Roles Inventory), 202Lost Child role (from the Family Role Behavior Inventory), 117Lost Child role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118Love-reject factor score (from the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire II), 111, 208

Main effects of conditions, 138Maintaining one's physical self subscale (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 197Major. (see Academic major)Maladaptive attitudes and ways of thinking, 29Managing time subscale (from the College Life Task Assessmenr Instrument), 197Marital conflict. (see Parents, conflict between)Marital conflict subscale (from the Family Structure Survey), 108, 203, 204Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, 183Married students, 94, 96Mascot role (from the Children's Role Inventory), 117Mascot role (from the Children's Roles Inventory), 202Mascot role (from the Family Role Behavior Inventory), 117, 118Mascot role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118, 209Masculine sex-role orientation, 81Mastery Learning Scale, 53, 184Materialistic Orientation (from the Life Values Inventory), 95, 183Maternal intrusiveness, 109, 166Mathematics course score (from the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale), 184Mathematics Course Self-Efficacy subscale (from the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale), 40Mathematics courses, 173Mathematics problem score (from the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale), 184Mathematics Problem Self-Efficacy subscale (from the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale), 40Mathematics score (from the American College Testing Program), 177Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale, 40, 184Matriculating students, 136

487

Maturation, 59, 61Maturity of goals and level of aspiration subscale(from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197Maturity subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198Men. (see Gender findings)Mental health, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 157, 159, 160, 196, 199

general, 8, 18, 159good, 33specific aspects of, 8, 18variables associated with or contributing to, 30, 31

Mental Health Inventory, 18Anxiety subscale, 24Depression subscale, 20

Mental health subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197Method variance, 131Michigan State University, 173Mini-Mult, 198

clinical scales, 19Depression scale, 22, 198Total Pathology Score, 19

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), 19Minority culture of origin, identification with, 85Minority students, 60, 86, 124, 175Money, management of, 7Mood state, 22Moral-ethical self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193Moral-religious subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203Mother, 56, 63, 65, 109, 113, 114, 115, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190

attachment to, 61, 63, 64caringness, 111has custody of children, 119, 121intrusiveness, 109protectiveness, 109relationship with, 64, 65relationship with daughter, 116relationship with son, 120single/remarried, 120

Mother and Father Questionnaire, 65, 184Mother authoritarianism (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206Mother authoritarianism (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206Mother authoritativeness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206Mother authoritativeness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206Mother caringness (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 111, 206, 207Mother permissive-indulgence (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206Mother permissive-neglectfulness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206Mother permissiveness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206Mother protectiveness (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 109, 206, 207Motivation for being in college and doing college work. (see Academic motivation)Mt. Zion Psychotherapy Research Group, 77Multidimensional Academic-Specific Locus of Control Scale (MASLOC), 38, 47Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS), 78, 184Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire, 22, 27, 184Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, 129, 204Multi-Dimensional Support Scale, 124, 125, 130Multidimensional Support Scale, 205Multigroup Measure of Ethnic Identity (MEIM), 85

488

Multivariate approach, 161, 165

Narcissistic injury, 37, 160Narcissistic Injury Scale, 37, 184Need for social approval (from the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale), 76, 164Need Strength (from the Social Support Inventory), 130Need strength score (from the Social Support Inventory), 210, 211Negative affect (from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), 186Negative consequences of alcohol use (from the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey), 197Negative emotionality (from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire), 26, 184Neighbors, 103NEO Five-Factor Inventory, 27, 48, 66, 67, 99NEO-Five Factor Inventory, 184Network size score (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201

conflicted, 201unconflicted, 201

Network size score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209Network size score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Neuroticism, 8Neuroticism (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, 184Neuroticism (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 27New Personal Fable Scale, 38, 185Non-Catholic students, 95Non-interpersonal activity

preoccupation with, 71, 72Non-traditional age students, 22, 26, 93, 95, 96, 128, 130, 155, 195, 212Nontraditional-age students, 103, 212Normative considerations, 165Normative orientation (from the Identity Style Inventory-2), 50, 180Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale for Adults, 46, 47Number of friends score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Number of support persons score (from the Social Support Questionnaire), 211Number of years enrolled in college, 93Nurturance seeking subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 57, 192

Object relations, 74, 75, 164Obsessive-compulsive subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196Obsessive-compulsive subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 198Occupational competence, 157Occupational field, 51Occupational goals, 49, 162

mathematics/science-related, 51Occupational preparation, 10, 157Omnipotence (from the New Personal Fable Scale), 185Omnipotence Guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 78Omnipotence, sense of, 38Omnipotent responsibility guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 181, 182Only child status, 122, 166Openness to Experience (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 99, 184Opportunity for nurturance subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 130, 210Optimism, 23Order subscale (from the Residence Hall Climate Inventory), 208, 209Organization subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203Orientation program, 153

consequences of in SACQ scores, 147, 148, 149, 150

489

freshman, 132, 148, 149, 150, 153peer advising, 149prematriculation, 48, 52, 147, 148, 153, 175satisfaction with, 147summer, 52, 137University 101 course, 146voluntary, 148, 149

Orientation to Life Questionnaire, 34Overall adjustment, 114. (see Full scale score, SACQ)Overall satisfaction with social support score (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 127, 201

Paranoia subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198Paranoid ideation subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196Parental attachment, 55, 61, 63, 64, 68, 182, 183

aspects of, 59perceived, 55, 163relation to college adjustment, 60, 69security of, 61, 63to father, 63, 64, 182, 190, 191to mother, 63, 64, 182, 183, 190transformations in, 59underemphasis on role of, 59

Parental Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ), 59, 60, 185Parental Authority Questionnaire, 205Parental Authority Questionnaire (modified version of), 114Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of, 112, 206Parental Bonding Instrument, 109, 111, 206Parental Conflict Resolution (from the Structural Family Interaction Scale-Revised), 108Parental contribution to the parent-child bond as assessed by the child (from the Parental Bonding Instrument),

111Parental control, resentment of, 57Parental difficulties, 110Parental dysfunction subscale (from the Early Trauma Checklist), 202Parental intrusiveness, 109Parental Physical Maltreatment Scale, 103, 207

modification of, to assess abuse by significant nonparental figures, 103Parental Psychological Maltreatment Scale, 103, 208Parental responsibility, student's, 96Parent-child cohesion, 107Parent-child overinvolvement, 108, 109, 166Parent-child overinvolvement subscale (from the Family Structure Survey), 108, 109, 203, 204Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire II, 111, 208Parent-child role reversal, 108, 166Parent-child role reversal subscale (from the Family Structure Survey), 108, 203, 204Parent-infant experience, 70Parenting styles. (see Family, parenting styles)Parents, 59, 62, 185, 188, 189

alive/deceased, 119, 122amount of student contact with, 112, 120appropriate boundaries with, 58attachment. (see Parental attachment)authoritarian, 113authoritative, 113cold and distant, 112conflict between, 56, 100, 108, 109, 166

490

conflict resolution, 108conflict with, 55, 56, 57continued connectedness with, 60continued connection with, 60, 61contribution to parent-child bond, 111custodial (postdivorce), 120differentiation from, 59divorced, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 166drinking problems in, 121, 122, 166drug problems in, 121dysfunctional, 121, 122educational level, 90father. (see Father)function autonomously from, 58income, 90joint custody, 119mother. (see Mother)noncustodial (postdivorce), 120of high SACQ scorers, 112of low SACQ scorers, 112overprotectiveness, 109perceived as rejecting, callous, indifferent, hostile, 57physically abusive, 122postdivorce student relationship with, 120psychological separation from. (see Psychological separation from)Puerto Rican, 88quality of time spent with, 120reciprocity in current relationships with, 64, 65remarriage, 120separated, 119sexually abusive, 122social support from, 111, 210student recollections of as loving, 111student relationship with, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 112, 116, 120, 121, 163supportive of student's college career, 112triangulated relationship with, 58unconflicted feelings of closeness with and dependency on, 57unduly influenced by, 58viewed as fostering autonomy, 60, 107, 166, 185viewed as providing emotional support, 60, 185voluntary closeness with, 58

Participant solicitation, method of, 142, 143for intervention, 143for research, 143

Part-time students, 7, 157Pathological Separation-Individuation Inventory, 59, 185Patient's (ADHD) Behavior Checklist, 29, 198Peer advising program, 149Peer advisors/counselors, 125, 153Peer attachments, 61, 64, 68, 69, 164, 182Peer enmeshment subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 70, 192, 193Peer Group Dependence Scale, 75, 185Peer support program, 148Perceived adequacy of attachment (from the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction), 133Perceived attachment to parents. (see Parental attachment)

491

Perceived availability of social resources (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 131Perceived distance from home, 144Perceived fit score (from the Social Support Inventory), 129, 210, 211Perceived mastery of the environment, 36Perceived maternal intrusiveness. (see Maternal intrusiveness)Perceived Parental Attitude Scale, 112, 208Perceived prejudice subscale (from the American International Relations Scale), 201Perceived Prejudice subscale (from the American-International Relations Scale), 105Perceived relationship with parents. (see Parents, student relationship with)Perceived self-effectiveness/ineffectiveness, 36, 160Perceived separation from parents. (see Psychological separation from parents)Perceived social support. (see Social support)Perceived social support from family. (see Social support, from family)Perceived Social Support from Family Scale, 208Perceived social support from friends. (see Social support, from friends)Perceived Social Support from Friends Scale, 67, 208Perceived Stress Scale, 26, 44, 102, 199Perceived Supply (from the Social Support Inventory), 130Perceived supply score (from the Social Support Inventory), 210, 211Perceived support, 129Perceived Support Network Inventory, 128Percent family score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Percent friends score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209Percent friends score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Percent relatives score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209Percent roommates score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209Percent students score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209Percent students score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Perception of Parental Reciprocity Scale, 64, 65, 185Perfectionism, expectations of

a measure of, 78imposed on oneself by oneself, 78imposed on oneself by others, 79, 164imposed on others, 78, 164non-social, 78other-oriented, 79, 184self-oriented, 78, 184socially-prescribed, 79, 184

Permissive parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 114Permissive-indulgent parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 114, 115Permissive-neglectful parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 114, 115Persistence toward a degree. (see Enrollment, persistence in)Person characteristics, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 38, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,

57, 59, 63, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 93, 94, 100, 136, 159, 160, 161, 168as changeable, 13as determinants of adjustment, 16, 17, 75, 100, 152, 159, 164, 170as stable states, 13, 156culture-induced, 87defined in terms of social relations in general, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 163having a social component, 78, 164in interaction with environmental characteristics, 52, 88, 100, 133, 134, 135, 138, 161, 162, 167, 168individual differences in, 17, 153, 156means of measuring or codifying, 17, 38, 47, 129, 177of developmental importance, 163personality variables, 17, 34, 177, 195

492

as determinants of adjustment, 10, 17psychoanalytically conceived, 74psychopathology-related, 160socially desirable, 119

Personal Attributes Questionnaire, 81, 186Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C, 57Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C (PAFSQ-C), 186Personal authority subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186Personal counselors, 140Personal disruptions, 202Personal efficiency subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197Personal Feelings Questionnaire, 77, 78, 186Personal relations subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197Personal Religiosity Inventory, 95Personal self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193Personal Sphere Model, 75Personal support subscale (from the Residence Hall Climate Inventory), 208Personal values, 95Personal Values Scale-Revised, 54Personal Values Scales-Revised, 186Personal Views Survey, 34Personal-emotional adjustment, 4, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 46, 47, 54, 56,

57, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 75, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 121, 126, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 141, 152, 157

Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (from the SACQ), 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 144, 147, 151, 152, 154, 155, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 191, 196, 199, 201, 204, 210

Personality Research Form, 186Personality traits associated with eating problems score (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 27Personality variables. (see Person characteristics, personality variablesPerson-environment factors, 138Persosnal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (from the SACQ), 14, 22Pessimism, 23Phobic anxiety subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 25, 196Physical health, 4, 8, 9, 17, 18, 28, 30, 157, 196, 199

maintenance of, 11variables associated with or contributing to, 30

Physical Maltreatment by Others Scale, 208Physical self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193Physical symptoms (from the Strain Questionnaire), 9, 28, 199Physical symptoms (from the Stress Audit), 199Physical well-being, sense of, 4, 8Physical-environment factors, 138Physically disabled students, 30, 41, 195

types of, 30Planning, 31, 32, 48, 53, 161

academic/educational, 10, 17, 48, 50, 53, 162indecision, 50of academic efforts, efficiency in, 10use of time, 10vocational, 6, 17, 48, 50, 156, 162

Play subscale (from the Early Resources Checklist), 202

493

Positive Affect scale (from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), 22Positive afftect (from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), 186Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, 22, 26, 186Positive emotionality (from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire), 184Positive Emotionality Scale (from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire), 22Positive illusions, 38Positive self-fulfillment (from the California Psychological Inventory-Revised), 30Positive symptom distress subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196Positive symptom distress subscale (from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised), 199Positive Symptom Total Score (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196Positive Symptom Total Score (from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised), 199Postdivorce family structure, 120Postmatriculation test administration, 11, 20, 21, 22, 26, 36, 43, 46, 50, 68, 85, 98, 137, 138, 159, 160, 162, 195,

199Practicing-mirroring subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 39Predominantly Black college/university, 83, 135, 165, 167Predominantly Black high school, 135Predominantly Black sponsored activities, 136Predominantly White college/university, 82, 83, 84, 134, 135, 136, 165, 167Predominantly White high school, 135Predominantly White sponsored activities, 136Predominantly White student samples, 135Preference for one's college over others, 10, 157Prematriculation, 44

expectations, 11, 12, 42, 43, 44, 85, 136, 138, 161interventions, 145, 146, 147, 148, 153, 169measures typically employed prematriculation, 6, 11, 42, 86, 161test administration, 20, 21, 26, 35, 36, 42, 46, 48, 50, 53, 66, 67, 85, 102, 136, 145, 159, 160, 162, 195, 199

Prestatie Motivatie Test (PMT), 38, 47, 48, 186Primary Appraisal Emotions Scale, 45, 186Primary appraisals in the coping process, 44, 160

benefit, 45, 186, 187challenge, 45, 186harm, 45, 186, 187threat, 45, 186, 187

Principal components analysis, 25, 40, 66Prior knowledge about college life, 98Problem focused strategies, 31Problem solving effectiveness, 40, 41Problem Solving Inventory, 25, 40, 41, 67, 187Problem-focused coping (from the Adolescent Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences), 32, 177Problem-focused coping (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191Problem-solving subscale (from the Coping Response Indices Inventory), 34Professors, 153

amount of contact with, 142, 168attitude toward, 157interacting with, 7, 151perception of, 7, 141relationship with, 142, 158

Protective subscale (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 109Providing emotional support score (from the Parental Attachment Questionnaire), 60Pseudoautonomous students (from the Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire), 60, 61Pseudoautonomy (from the Pseudoautonomy Scale), 68Pseudoautonomy Scale, 68, 187Psychasthenia subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198

494

Psychoanalytically conceived variables, 74, 164Psychological abuse. (see Abuse, psychological)Psychological attachment to parents. (see Parental attachment)Psychological Coping Resources Scale, 36Psychological Distress Inventory, 21, 101, 102, 208Psychological health. (see Mental health)Psychological separation from parents, 55, 58, 60, 61, 163

as a mark of maturation, 59excessive focus on, 59measures of, 55, 56, 57, 58negative forms of, 58positive forms of, 58, 59self-assessed, 55welcome lack of, 57

Psychological Separation Inventory (PSI), 55, 56, 57, 59, 187psychometric problems with, 56

Psychological services, 8, 12, 157Psychological stability, 10Psychological well-being, sense of, 4, 8Psychology courses, 175Psychometric instruments, 17, 160, 163Psychopathic deviate subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198Psychopathology, 19, 30, 160

underlying predispositions to, 29Psychosocial competence, 33Psychosocial Maturity Inventory, 58Psychosocial Maturity Scale, 190Psychoticism subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196Puerto Rican Index, 88Puerto Rican students, 86

attending a Puerto Rican college, 88, 195born and raised in mainland U.S. attending U.S. colleges, 195born and raised in mainland U. S., attending U. S. colleges, 88

Purdue University, 173Purpose, sense of/purposefulness, 6, 50, 156, 161Purpose-in-Life Test, 50, 190

Quantitative score (from the Scholastic Aptitude Test), 191, 192Queen's University (Ontario), 174

Racial composition of campus activities. (see Extracurricular activities in college, racial composition of)Racial discrimination, 142Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS), 84Racial identity, attitude towards, 84, 85, 165Racial status, 84, 86Racial/ethnic tension, 141Rational thinking about oneself (from the Attitudes and Beliefs Scale-II), 45Realistic self-appraisal. (see Self-appraisal)Reassurance of worth subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 130, 210Recollections of the parents as loving in early interactions (from the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire II), 111Recreational/play activities, 132Redundant variables, 161, 164Regularly admitted students, 147Rejection expectancy subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 57, 192Relationship density, 133

495

Relationship patterns within family, 56, 116primary relationship between student and a parent, 116primary relationship between the parents, 116

Relationship Questionnaire, 64, 190Relationships

close, 72disruption of, 71, 104, 166formation and maintenance of, 7, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 149, 157

with age-mates, 70with teachers, 70

inordinate need to establish, 71interracial/interethnic, 136number of close friends, 7, 157of quality, 7past, 37, 104, 149reciprocally close and interdependent, 71romantic, 7, 100, 104, 157

break-up of, 104with college staff persons, 158with parents. (see Parents, student relationship with)with professors, 142, 158, 168

Relatives, 103Relatives, percentage of in social networks, 121, 126Relaxation training, 150Reliability, 1Reliable alliance subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 210Religion

importance of in family, 95Religiosity (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191Religious affiliation, 95, 164Religious organization, member of, 95Religiousness, 95Relocation away from home and significant persons there, 4Reminiscence therapy, 155Representations of people, complexity of (from the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale), 75Residence Hall Climate Inventory (RHCI), 139, 140, 208Residence halls. (see Dormitories)Residential college, 140Resources, management of, 7Retrospective assessment of adjustment, 9Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, 76, 191, 195Revised Ways of Coping Checklist, 32, 33, 191Ritualization (from the Family Ritual Questionnaire), 107Role Relationship Inventory (RRI), 117, 118, 209Romantic relationships. (see Relationships, romantic)Roommates

freshman, 138, 168percentage of in social networks, 126upper class, 138, 168

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, 26, 35, 36, 37, 67Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), 191Rutgers University, 174

SACQ. (see Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire)Salience Inventory, 53, 191

496

San Diego State University, 174SAT. (see Scholastic Aptitude Test)Satisfaction

with academic environment, 4, 29with academic major, 6, 53, 156, 162with being in college in general, 4with college experience, 10, 12, 157with college in which enrolled, 4, 10, 157with college work routine, 10with courses, 10with occupational preparation by college, 10, 157with orientation program upon completion, 147with social environment, 4with social networks, 127with social support, 128, 129, 211

Satisfaction with family relationship score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Satisfaction with Life Scale, 22, 191Scale to Assess World Views, 100Scapegoat role (from the Children's Role Inventory), 117Scapegoat role (from the Children's Roles Inventory), 202Scapegoat role (from the Family Role Behavior Inventory), 117, 118Scapegoat role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118, 209Schizophrenia subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198Scholarly effort, 54Scholastic achievement in high school, measures of, 146Scholastic aptitude, 91, 92, 146, 152, 164

quantitative, 91verbal, 91

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 6, 86, 91, 92, 142, 146, 191composite score, 91quantitative score, 91verbal score, 91

Schwartz Value Survey-Form A, 87Science courses, 173Score distribution extremes, 154Second generation college attenders, 35, 54, 90, 123, 195, 212Seeks support (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191Self, 161

as focus of one's attention, 74as focus of one's interest, 74, 164as primary determinant of adjustment to college, 48development of, 37expectancies about, 160facets of, 161feelings about, 37in relation to one's world, 67, 164in relation to others, 164integrity of, 10, 35, 160physical, 197seeking information about, to change, 49unitary, 161

Self-appraisal, 160, 161as aspects or determinants of adjustment, 35realistic, 45, 160variables related to, 35, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 160

497

Self-centeredness subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 39, 192Self-concept, 30, 37, 38, 39

academic, 54familial, 38improvement, 150moral-ethical, 38physical, 38social, 38

Self-confidence, 33, 35, 38, 160regarding capacity for adjusting to college, 11, 42, 161, 170social, 39

Self-consciousness, 74Self-Consciousness Scales, 74, 192Self-disillusionment. (see Adjustive capacity, disillusionment regarding)Self-effectiveness. (see Perceived self-effectiveness/ineffectiveness)Self-efficaciousness, sense of, 45Self-efficacy, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 44, 47, 160

"as a person", 37academic, 40, 41as student-athletes, 41athletic, 41in physically disabled students, 41regarding capacity for adjusting to college, 42regarding cognitive activity, 40, 41regarding completion of psychology courses, 40regarding impending transition, 42regarding mathematics, 40regarding particular areas of function or activities, 38, 40social, 39, 41variants of, 38

Self-Efficacy for Broad Academic Milestones Scale, 40, 192Self-Efficacy Scale, 37, 39, 192Self-esteem, 10, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 73, 160, 170, 197

general measures of, 35Self-esteem support subscale (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 204Self-hate guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 77, 181, 182Self-integrity, sense of, 10, 35, 160, 197Self-other relations, particular aspects of, 164Self-Perception Profile for College Students, 25, 40, 67Self-regard, variables related to, 35, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 160, 161Self-reliance (from the Psychosocial Maturity Scale), 190Self-Reliance scale (from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory), 58Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II, 106, 108, 209Self-responsibility, 58Self-satisfaction (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193Self-world compatibility. (see Alienation)Semester

first, 9, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 26, 31, 36, 46, 51, 53, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 76, 94, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 143, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 169, 173, 176, 195, 199, 200, 212

second, 9, 12, 13, 14, 20, 26, 35, 36, 51, 53, 64, 65, 66, 67, 76, 134, 135, 137, 138, 143, 147, 150, 151, 152, 154, 163, 169, 173, 176, 195, 199, 200, 212

third, 9, 148Senior year, 14, 42, 43, 44, 63, 92

in college, 6, 12, 76, 127, 195in high school, 97, 138, 145, 146, 169, 212

498

Seniors, 57, 77, 92in college, 6, 63, 76, 92, 93, 127, 147, 148, 174, 195in high school, college bound, 137, 145, 169, 170

Sense of coherence, 34, 35Sense of Coherence Questionnaire (SOCQ), 34, 192Separation

from family, 11, 108, 157, 166from friends at home, 157from high school friends, 11from parents. (see Psychological separation from parents)

Separation anxiety disorder, 24, 25, 160a more benign form of, 25

Separation anxiety subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 25, 59, 192Separation Anxiety Test, 58, 192Separation guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 77, 78, 181, 182Separation-individuation process, 38, 60

adult behavioral characteristics resulting from disturbances in, 59resolution of, 70

Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA), 25, 39, 57, 58, 59, 69, 192Sex-role orientation, 81, 82, 164Sexual abuse. (see Abuse, sexual)Sexual experiences as a child with an adult subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire), 104Sexual experiences as a child with another child subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire),

104Sexual experiences as a nonconsenting adolescent subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences

Questionnaire), 104Shame, 77, 78, 164, 186

experienced in relation to fathers, 78experienced in relation to mothers, 78

Shame subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194Siblings, 103

number of, 122Sick or Lost Child role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118, 209Sign language, 97Social activities and functioning in general, extent and success of, 4Social adjustment, 7, 12, 23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 49, 51, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70,

72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 132, 136, 140, 141, 143, 144, 148, 150, 153, 157, 170aspects of, 4

Social Adjustment subscale (from the SACQ), 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 191, 196, 199, 201, 204, 210

Social anxiety (from the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale), 76, 164Social approval, need for, 76, 164Social Avoidance and Distress Scale, 76, 193Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale (SCORS), 74Social competence, 164Social confidence, 39Social confidence, lack of (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 39Social desirability, 119Social environment

general characteristics of, 123, 125, 126, 128, 131, 132, 133, 167

499

particular aspects of, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 167satisfaction with, 4

Social integration subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 130, 210Social interests, 66Social involvement, 38

detachment and isolation from, 71Social Network Questionnaire, 126, 209

adaptation of, 126, 127Social Network Questionnaire (adapted), 210Social networks, 126, 127, 128, 133

aspects of, 127composition of, 126, 167conflicted/unconflicted, 127establishing, 150fun function of, 126function of, 126, 167gender findings, 127percentage of friends in, 126percentage of relatives in, 121, 126percentage of students in, 126roommate percentage in, 126satisfaction with, 127size of, 126, 127

Social propensity, 66, 67, 68, 164Social Propensity Scale, 193Social Provisions Scale, 130, 210Social Provisions Scale-Parent Version, 110, 210Social Readjustment Rating Scale, 102Social relations, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 99, 163

capacity for forming, 68, 69with instructors, 10with peers, 10

Social resources, 67Social resources, availability of, 131Social self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194Social self-efficacy, 39, 41, 192Social skills, 66

training program, 170Social subscale (of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 39Social support, 71, 127, 129, 133, 139, 149

amount of need for, 130amount received, 130and ethnicity, 168as buffer, 132emotional, 124, 128felt need for, 127, 129frequency of, 125, 126, 130, 205from a strong person, 131from authority figures, 124, 125, 130, 205from campus environment in general, 132from college friends, 124, 128from coursemates, 124from faculty, 124from family, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 128, 130, 166, 167from family and close friends combined, 125, 126, 205

500

from family, friends, and significant others combined, 129from family/kin, 128from friends, 83, 100, 123, 128, 167, 208from parents, 111, 210from peers, 124, 130, 148, 149, 205from pre-college friends, 124in Asians, 110, 124in Blacks, 83, 110, 124, 165in earlier years of life, 167in general, 128, 129, 167in Hispanic students, 130in Latinos, 110, 124in White students, 83, 110, 124, 165informational, 124instrumental, 124, 128level of, 83, 132, 165, 168motivational, 124networks, 127, 128number of persons obtained from, 129perceived, 131, 132, 166satisfaction with, 127, 128, 129, 131, 201, 211satisfaction with frequency of, 125, 126, 130, 205social companionship, 124sources of, 128, 131, 132

Social Support Inventory, 129, 130, 210Social Support Questionnaire, 128, 129, 211Social-living circumstances, 93Socially desirable responses, 143Socially-defined feeling states, 77, 164Socio-economic status, 90, 164Somatic subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 198Somatization subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 18, 196Sophomore year, 7, 12, 14, 42, 43, 53, 63, 84, 91, 92, 125, 134, 141, 154, 163, 167Sophomores, 77, 92, 93, 94, 147, 148Sorority membership, 141, 168Special admission status. (see Admission status)Spheres of Control Battery, 33, 67Spiritual support, 133Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS), 22Stable attributions (from the Attributional Style Questionnaire), 178State University of New York, New Paltz, 174State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), 23, 24, 199Status variables, 80, 164Stepfather families, 133Strain Questionnaire, 9, 28, 199Stress, 8, 31, 32, 34, 44, 64, 95, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 133, 157, 166, 204

experience of, 26failure to confront source of, 31management of one's perception of or emotional response to, 31means of coping with, 31

Stress Audit, 9, 26, 28, 199Stress Level Scale (from the Psychological Distress Inventory), 102, 208Structural Family Interaction Scale-Revised, 106, 108, 110, 116Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ)

adaptation of, as measure of situation-specific appraisal of control, 48

501

adaptation of, to assess adjustment retrospectively, 9as a means of constructing treatment and control groups, 154, 169as a means of identifying at-risk students, 153, 154, 155, 168, 169, 170as a means of identifying students varying in adjustment, 153as a means of measuring effects of intervention, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 169, 170as a source of dependent variables, 16as a source of interview topics, 154, 169, 170composition and structure of, 3, 4, 13conditions of administration, 142, 143, 163consistency of, 13developers of, 1, 80earlier version of, 53, 66, 67facets of adjustment area addressed by a subscale, 4first semester/second semester correlations, 13, 14item-clusters, 4, 28, 29, 158items, 3, 4, 85, 130, 158limitations or flaws of, 1manual, 1, 2, 174, 176, 194, 199, 211

unpublished addenda to tables, 2patterns of subscale scores, 158practical usefulness of, 153primary subscales, 3, 4reliability of, 1research-derived correlates of, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 156, 157, 158score distribution extremes, 154second semester findings. (see Semester)shorter version of, 53, 85, 130sophomore year/senior year correlations, 14subscales, 3

behavioral and experiential indices associated differentially with, 5, 158intercorrelations among, 3, 4intraindividual variation in scores, 4, 15, 156item-clusters within. (see Item-clusters)primary. (see Primary subscales)

validity of, 1Student athletes

foreign, 89Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory, 50, 54, 69, 193Student, characteristics of. (see Person characteristics)Student-athletes, 7, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 49, 89, 92, 98, 99, 100, 131, 140, 142, 143, 150, 151, 173, 175, 180, 193,

194, 195domestic, 89in-state, 144out-of-state, 144

Student-Oriented Life Events Survey, 101, 211Student-parent relationship. (see Parents, student relationship with)Students of color, 110, 124Students, percentage of in social networks, 126Study habits, 6, 17, 157Study skills, 10, 17Study skills subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197Subjective satisfaction score (from the Social Support Inventory), 210, 211Success/failure (capacity to enjoy/endure), 33Superiority Scale, 45, 193Support need (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201

502

Support satisfaction (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201Surgency-intellect, 66, 67Survivor guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 77, 181Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, 19, 199

Tangible support subscale (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 204Task assistance score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209Task assistance score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210Task-oriented subscale (from the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations), 179Teacher enmeshment subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 70, 192, 193Teacher support subscale (from the Classroom Environment Scale), 132Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 193Test conditions, effects of. (see Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, conditions of administration)Test manual (for the SACQ). (see Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, manual)Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA), 78, 194Texas Social Behavior Inventory, 39, 194Time spent actively involved subscale (from the Father-Daughter Relationship Inventory), 204Time, management of, 7Total P Score (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194Total Pathology Score (from the Mini-Mult), 19, 198Total Severity of Psychopathology Score (from the Bell Global Psychopathology Scale), 19Traditional-age students. (see Age, traditional/nontraditional age students)Trait, 8, 23

general, 160specific, 160Type A, 30

Transfer students, 148, 150, 169Transition from high school to college, 8

facilitation of, 170Translation of motivation to academic effort, 4, 29Trauma, in the first 15 years of life, 103, 132Triangulation subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186Trust subscale (from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), 61, 62, 68, 182, 183Type A traits, 30

Understanding of causal factors in interpersonal relationships (from the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale), 75

Undifferentiated sex-role orientation, 81Universities, SACQ differences among, 95

east or west coast, 82private or public, 82

University 101 course, 146University of California at Los Angeles, 174University of Hartford, 176University of Maryland, Baltimore, 174University of Missouri-Columbia, 174University of Oregon, 176University of Pennsylvania, 174University of Wisconsin, Madison, 174, 176Upper class years. (see College year level)

Validity, 1, 54Value and attitude similarity score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209Value characteristics of students, 87

culture-induced, 87

503

ValuesAmerican, accepting of, 90personal, 95

Valuing of Achievement (from the Life Values Inventory), 48, 95, 183Verbal score (from the Scholastic Aptitude Test), 191, 192Virginia Commonwealth University, 174Visits home, frequency of, 7, 157Vocational Identity Scale of My Vocational Situation, 50, 184Vocational plans. (see Planning, vocational)

Weekend classes students, 141Weight Management, Eating, and Exercise Habits Questionnaire, 27Well-being, sense of, 22, 23, 34

existential, 22personal, 22

West European international students, 195White students, 21, 33, 39, 45, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, 109, 111, 124, 128, 130, 135, 136, 147, 165, 175, 195,

200, 211in high school, 134social support in, 83, 110, 124, 165

Wishful thinking (fromthe Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191Withdrawal from college, 9, 12, 154, 155, 157, 170, 176Women. (see Gender findings) Work orientation (from the Psychosocial Maturity Scale), 190Work Orientation scale (from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory), 58World view, 100

Yale University, 174York University (Canada), 174Young Adult Alcohol Problems Screening Test, 79Young Adult Social Support Inventory (YA-SSI), 129, 211

504