1
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
2
means of measuring adjustment to college (Baker & Siryk, 1984b), an instrument subsequently
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
3
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
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
4
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
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.
5
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.
6
Factor analysis, and examination of the intercorrelations among the SACQ subscales,
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
7
of the SACQ
Over and above the definition of adjustment to college inherent in the composition and
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
8
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,
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,
9
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
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
10
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, & 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
11
& 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,
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
12
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
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
13
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,
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
14
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
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
15
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
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.
16
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
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
17
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
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
18
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
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
19
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 selfdisillusionment 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.
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
20
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
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
21
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 PersonalEmotional 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
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
22
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.
23
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
24
these two kinds of factors, but the use of the categories will facilitate the ordering of a
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
25
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.
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
26
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,
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
27
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.
28
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
29
Mental Health Inventory (MHI; Veit & Ware, 1983) and all SACQ variables, including an
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
30
the Academic Adjustment subscale were not reported), highest with personal-emotional
adjustment. Those investigators also found significant correlations between all but one of the
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 Inventory5 (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
31
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
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
32
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 personalemotional 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
33
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
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
34
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
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 PersonalEmotional 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
35
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
Oliver et al. (1998; see also Reed, 1994) between the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the PersonalEmotional 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,
36
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
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.
37
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,
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 PersonalEmotional 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, &
38
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
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
39
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;
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,
40
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
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
41
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
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
42
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.
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
43
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 selfreported visits to a health center and SACQ variables, there were moderately strong negative
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
44
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 nonlearning 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)
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.
45
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 selfappraisal 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 selfappraisal variables are such constructs as self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-confidence, and selfconcept 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
46
reported (Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997; Hertel, 1996; M. D. Smith, 1994; Hunsberger et al., 1996 and
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 selfesteem 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
47
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,
& 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 SelfWorth 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 selfefficacy. 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
48
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
instrument, the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis, 1984). And for Montgomery and
Zoellner (1994) there were negative correlations with all SACQ subscales for the SelfHandicapping 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 fullscale; 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.
49
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 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
50
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 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
51
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 (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 SelfPerception 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 SelfConcept 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
52
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.
(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 PersonalEmotional 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
53
positive correlations with all SACQ subscales, highest with social adjustment.
Other investigators (Cooler, 1995; Lapsley, 1989) used a subscale of the SeparationIndividuation 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 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
54
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 fullscale 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 PersonalEmotional and Academic Adjustment subscales, especially the latter, and the full scale of the
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
55
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 SelfPerception 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
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 selfefficacy variable correlated moderately to strongly with academic, social, and personal-emotional
adjustment (the only SACQ variables employed), unsurprisingly strongest with personalemotional adjustment.
A variable measuring self-worth regarding “finding humor in one’s life” from the Self-
56
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 selfefficacy attitudes of student-athletes, Davis (1988) adapted items from the Generalized SelfEfficacy 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
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-
57
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.
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
58
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
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
59
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,
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
60
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
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 selfefficaciousness?) with less good adjustment.
Another variant on self-regard or self-appraisal studied in relation to the SACQ is the
61
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.
62
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
63
such constructs would be the concept of locus of control, i. e., whether an individual sees primary
responsibility for one's behavior as inhering in oneself (internality, indicating a sense of selfefficaciousness) or outside of oneself (externality, indicating a lack of sense of selfefficaciousness).
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.
64
Several SACQ-using investigators have employed another measure of locus of control,
the Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale for Adults (Nowicki & Duke, 1974).
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/selfappraisal variables described earlier, so, too, locus of control is sometimes defined not only in a
65
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,
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
66
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
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
67
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
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
68
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,
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,
69
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
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.
70
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
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
71
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.
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,
72
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 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 personalemotional 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
73
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 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
74
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 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 emotionfocused. 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.
75
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
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
76
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 essentially replicated, with
slightly lesser correlations in most comparisons, using a shortened version of the BAPC (BAPCC; 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
77
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 (ACOPE; 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
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
78
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.
79
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
80
(Hogan & Hogan, 1995), which was found by Montgomery, Haemmerlie, and Watkins (2000;
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/Normdoubting (“Vector 2”; defined in terms of self-discipline, conventionality, dependability) that was
81
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 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
82
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
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
83
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
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
84
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
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
85
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
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
86
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
(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 personalemotional 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 SelfConcept 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
87
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
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,
88
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.
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
89
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
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.
90
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.
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
91
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
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
92
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’
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
93
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 selfdesigned eight-item instrument for assessing her independent variable, Ridinger found no
significant correlations with any SACQ variable.
94
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/familyrelated 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;
95
Morray & Shilkret, 2001; Reeker, 1994; Rice, 1990/1991, 1992; Rice et al., 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.,
96
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
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
97
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
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 (PAFSQC; 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
98
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.
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
99
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
Separation Inventory (Hoffman, 1984) and the Separation Anxiety subscale from the SeparationIndividuation 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
100
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
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, & ReeseWeber, 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-
101
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
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
102
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
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
103
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 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
104
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,
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.
105
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,
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
106
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), 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
107
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).
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
108
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 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
109
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
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
110
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
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 personalemotional 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
111
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, 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.
112
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
113
semester, when the SACQ was also administered. Of 40 correlations between the four Social
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
114
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 &
Haemmerlie, 2001) to correlate with all SACQ indices, highest with social and personalemotional 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
115
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 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
116
(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 &
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),
117
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.
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
118
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
cultural orientation was a weak negative value between Vertical Individualism and personalemotional 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
119
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
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 personalemotional adjustment, and peer attachment the more important predictor of social adjustment
and institutional attachment.
120
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
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
121
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
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 separationindividuation 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
122
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
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,
123
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 personalemotional 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
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-
124
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
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 (SelfReliance, 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.
125
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)
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
126
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
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 noninterpersonal activity; compulsive independence; and marked emotional inhibition, especially
127
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 nonsocial 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
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
128
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
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,
129
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.
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
130
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
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
131
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
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
132
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 careseeking (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 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
133
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
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.
134
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
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
135
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 SelfHate 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 PersonalEmotional 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
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
136
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
scored higher than students with dual identity; and on institutional attachment and overall
137
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 personalemotional 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
138
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
139
attachment; Flexibility/Rigidity with social and personal-emotional adjustment and 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
140
personal-emotional and overall adjustment, greater such consequence associated with poorer
adjustment. Montgomery and Howdeshell (1993) state that students with low personal-emotional
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.
141
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, socioeconomic 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, &
142
Franco, 1990; Kalsner-Silver, 2000; Kline, 1992; Lamothe, Currie, Alisat, Sullivan, Pratt,
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
143
higher social adjustment mean scores for males (Posselt, 1992).
On the Academic Adjustment subscale, several investigators found higher scores for
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
144
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 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,
145
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
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.
146
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,
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).
147
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
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 personalemotional 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,
148
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 personalemotional and overall adjustment to predominantly white colleges for black women students,
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
149
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”
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;
150
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 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 MajorityMinority 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
151
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 ArabAmerican 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 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, AsianAmerican, 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
152
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, AfroAmerican, 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)
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 postmatriculationadministered 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/AsianAmerican students had lower social adjustment scores than White students.
153
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, HispanicAmerican, 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 AfricanAmerican students. Comparing white students with a similarly composed minority sample that
was also identified as financially and educationally disadvantaged and enrolled in a special
support program, Kenny & Stryker (1996) found the former group to have higher personalemotional 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 nonWhite” 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-
154
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, 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
155
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, 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
156
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
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
157
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
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
158
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 oneitem 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 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.
159
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 &
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
160
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
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
161
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 personalemotional 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 secondgeneration 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
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)
162
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
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.
163
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
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
164
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
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
165
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
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,
166
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
small sample of foreign student-athletes had higher scores on academic, social, and overall
167
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.
168
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.
169
Using the Life Events Checklist (Johnson, 1982) with three student samples, Adan and
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.
170
Brooks and DuBois (1995), administering the Adolescent Perceived Events Scale (APES;
Compas, Davis, Forsythe, & Wagner, 1987), obtained no correlations between SACQ 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
171
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 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)
172
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 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
173
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 MexicanAmerican students, that perceived discrimination/racism as measured by the Racism and Life
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
174
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
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
175
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.
176
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
177
the McMaster Family Assessment Device (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983), designed to
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
178
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 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.
179
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 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 FACESIII 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
180
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
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,
181
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
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 personalemotional 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 parentchild 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
182
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,
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 lastmentioned 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
183
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 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
184
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
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, KalsnerSilver (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
185
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
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.
186
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
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.
187
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
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
188
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 PersonalEmotional 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.
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.
189
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, 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
190
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 personalemotional adjustment in both instances (data for the SACQ full scale were not reported). Lopez
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 personalemotional adjustment.
191
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
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
192
Wintre & Yaffe, 2000) all obtained no SACQ differences between students of divorced and nondivorced 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
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
193
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 singleparent, 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.
194
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 problemsolving 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 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
195
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
(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
196
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
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
197
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
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
198
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 reaffirmation 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
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
199
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
according to different forms of intra-familial coalitions constructed from student perceptions of
intra-familial behaviors.
200
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
(1997) found significant positive correlations with all SACQ subscales for the Hero role, still
201
strongest with academic adjustment. And there were negative correlations with personalemotional 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 scale score, the only
202
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, conscienceridden 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
203
considered their parents to have a drinking problem had significantly lower scores on the SACQ
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.
204
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); (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
205
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 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
206
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
ethnicity in one’s family and any SACQ variable. Amin (2000) found no relation between ArabAmerican 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 InventoryGrandparent 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
207
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.
208
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
209
Questionnaire (SNQ; Hays & Oxley, 1986), Serafica et al. (1990) found that the more that a
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
210
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
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
211
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
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 fellowstudents 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
212
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
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,
213
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 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
214
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
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
215
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
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
216
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 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
217
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 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
218
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-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
219
Motivatie Test, a measure of achievement motivation (PMT; Hermans, 1970); the College SelfEfficacy 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
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
220
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
any SACQ variable. Obtaining emotional support from one’s network correlated positively for
Harris with social adjustment and institutional attachment and negatively with personalemotional 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
221
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
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.
222
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
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 personalemotional, 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
223
(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
scale; (b) positive correlations between Perceived Adequacy of Attachment and SACQ personalemotional 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.
224
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 AfricanAmerican 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 --
225
that at the end of their first semester the students who had attended predominantly 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
226
three groups.
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
227
relationships and SACQ variables.
228
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
229
that differences in SACQ scores between freshmen varying in decidedness of major 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.
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 personalemotional 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
230
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
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.
231
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 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,
232
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.
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
233
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
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)
234
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 personalemotional 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
235
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
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
236
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 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.
237
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,
238
integrated presentation of the available studies that does not destroy the character of 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.
239
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
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 fourweek 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
240
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
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 hallbased 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
241
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
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
242
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
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.
243
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 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
244
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 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 selfselection), 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
245
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 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
246
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
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
247
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
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,
248
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
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
249
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
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
250
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 tenday, 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
251
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
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
252
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 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
253
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
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.
254
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
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
255
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 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.
256
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
between the treatment and control groups in pre- to post-intervention scores on any SACQ
variable.
257
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
258
of college students. There is also ample justification for conceptualizing the construct as having
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., selfreported state of mental health, including occurrence of depression, anxiety, dissociation
symptoms, eating disorders); and in various aspects of physical health (measures of general
259
physical health; number of physical symptoms reported; number of appointments with college
physicians; number of class absences due to illness).
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
260
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
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.
261
***************
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,
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 preexisting 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.
262
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
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
263
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
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
264
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
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 selfregard 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
265
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 selfregard/self-appraisal variables measured them postmatriculation, raising the same question
whether what is being assessed is a determinant of adjustment or an adjustment outcome.
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
266
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
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 wellstandardized 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
267
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
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
268
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
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
269
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.
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
270
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 personalemotional 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 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
271
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.
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 personalemotional 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
272
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.
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
273
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,
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
274
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 lastmentioned 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
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
275
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 personalemotional 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
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
276
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 personalemotional 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
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
277
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 expecteddirection 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
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,
278
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
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
279
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 selfor-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
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
280
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
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
281
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
by oneself (i.e., perfectionism as traditionally conceived) showed no relation with SACQ
282
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.
283
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
284
be attributable at least in part to the nature of the institution. As yet unaddressed is the question
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 Spanishorigin students and other students, including white students, or among different kinds of Spanishorigin 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
285
favorableness of attitude toward, cultural- or subcultural-induced personal characteristics,
research that focuses on such characteristics rather than simply on racial/ethnic categories might
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 personalemotional 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
286
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
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
287
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 socioeconomic 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-
288
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 crosssectional 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
289
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.
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
290
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
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
291
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
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
292
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
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.
293
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
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
294
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 personalemotional 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.
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
295
positively related with academic adjustment and institutional attachment.
One investigator was interested in families’ means of coping with discord, i. e., problemsolving 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
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
296
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.
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
297
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
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
298
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
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’ immigrantgenerational 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.
299
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
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
300
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 EuropeanAmerican 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
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.
301
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
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.
302
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 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
303
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 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
304
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
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
305
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.
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
306
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.
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
307
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 precollege 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 AfricanAmerican 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
SACQ-measured overall adjustment to college than students of predominantly white or
integrated high schools.
308
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.
In one study with Latino students, no relation was found between interracial/interethnic
309
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
310
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 –
311
especially person characteristics – that play determining roles in the wide individual differences
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, highrise 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
312
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
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
313
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
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
314
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
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
315
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.
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 “semistructured 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
316
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
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.
317
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
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’ selfconfidence 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.
318
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.
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 selfselection 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
319
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
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 dormitorybased 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
320
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 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
321
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.
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
322
intervention.
323
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
324
Appendix A
Correlations between SACQ Scores and Grade Point Averagea,b
Academic
Adjustment
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmot’l
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
132n
.40**
.10
.35**
.09
.35**
First semester final exams gpa
358
.14**
.01
.10
.00
.09
Second semester final exams gpa
340
.10
-.05
.08
-.03
.05
Ensuing Sept. “repeat” exams gpa
255
.02
-.11
-.01
-.14*
-.05
(Beyers, 2001)
969
--
--
--
--
.24**
Clark University
Semester 1
Semester 2
(Baker, 1993b)
187
158
.25**
.41**
-.03
-.09
-.08
.13
-.01
.04
.11
.21**
Sept. SACQ admin.
171n
.32**
-.14
.07
-.15
.06
Nov. SACQ admin.
81n
.35**
-.15
.11
-.17
.07
.05
-.11
.05
-.18
-.05
Sample Source
Arizona State University
(Coatsworth, 2001)
n
Catholic University of Leuven
(Beyers & Goosens, 2002a)
Colgate University
Feb. SACQ admin.
37
n
(Conti, 2000a,c)
DePaul University
(Humfleet & Ribordy, 1990)
73
.48**
--
--
--
.33**
213c
.40**
--
--
.13*
--
Men
229
.25**
.11
.25**
.19**
--
Women
213
.23**
-.08
.18*
-.04
--
Total sample
442
.25**
.02
.20**
.14**
--
--
--
--
.35**
George Washington University
(Harris, 1991)
Historically Black private college,
otherwise unidentified
(Washington, 1996)
Hollins College
(Gilkey, 1988; Gilkey et al., 1989)
105d,,j
--
(Gold et al., 1990)
29i
.48**
.18
.09
.21
.46**
Lebanon Valley College
(Grella, 1989)
45d
.47**
.06
.16
.14
.26
Institution unidentified
325
PersonalEmot’l
Adjustment
Academic
Adjustment
Social
Adjustment
.21**
--
--
--
--
.27**
--
--
--
--
108
.44**
.21*
.09
.34**
--
65
.25*
.03
-.04
.22
108
.55**
.21*
.13
.35**
--
65
.41**
.12
.04
.27*
.31*
229j
.40**
.07
.27**
.10
--
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**
80
.48**
.21
.28*
.24*
.39**
493
.33**
NS
.16**
NS
.19**
1011
.37**
.29**
.23**
.33**
--
144
.34**
.12
.20*
--
--
(Williams, 1996)
180
.33**
--
--
--
--
Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore
(Maton, 1989b)
75
.31**
.01
.07
.04
.18
Sample Source
n
Attachment
Full
Scale
Michigan State University
Math/science courses
205d
All courses
(Lent, 1997)
Purdue University
Semester 1
Student athletes
Non-athletes
.18
Semester 2
Student athletes
Non-athletes
(Foster, 1997)
Queen’s University (Ontario)
(Marcotte, 1995)
Rutgers University
(Young, 1994)
(Evans-Hughes, 1992)
(Pfeil, 2000)
San Diego State Univ. &
Grossmont College
(Wang & Smith, 1993)
State Univ. of NY, New Paltz
(Loveland, 1994)
Suffolk Community College
(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)
University of Arizona
(Natera, 1998)
U. of Calif. at Los Angeles
326
Sample Source
n
Academic
Adjustment
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmot’l
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
Univ. of Missouri-Columbia
(Dewein, 1994)
272d
.42**
-.05
-.17**
.13*
--
Semester I
142
.14
-.17*
--
--
--
.41**
.07
--
--
--
433n
.28**
.16**
.13*
.18**
.21**
85g
30h
.20*
.54**
-.01
.20
.05
.13
.07
.36*
.10
.37*
.46**
-.23**
.04
.01
--
49
95
35k
.28*
.34**i
.37*
---.07
---.03
--.05
----
446-451
.51**
ns
.23**
ns
--
96
.29**
-.14
.20*
--
--
.31**
-.01
.20**
-.02
--
.53**
.24*
.18
.28**
--
.38**
.07
.14**
.07
Semester II
(Bettencourt et al., 1999)
University of Missouri-Rolla
(Montgomery, Haemmerlie, &
Watkins, 2000; Montgomery &
Haemmerlie, 2001)
University of Pennsylvania
(Keenan, 1992)
Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison
(Brower, 1990b)
623
Virginia Commonwealth Univ.
(Chartrand et al., 1990b)
(Davis, 1988)
Wilfrid Laurier University
(Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997)
Yale University
(Terrell, 1989)
York Univ. (Canada)
212j
(Sugar, 1999)
(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &
92
361
m
Yaffe, 2000)
a
See also Tables 16 and 17, pp. 45 and 46, of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).
All freshman students unless otherwise indicated.
c
All seniors.
d
From mixed college year levels.
e
Minority students.
f
White students.
g
All academically at-risk because of relatively low aptitude and performance measures.
h
Those in the above n of 85 who participated in a several week special pre-freshman program.
i
In psychology courses only.
j
All females.
k
All student-athletes.
b
.24**
327
l
African-American students.
All males.
n
Self-reported grade point average.
m
*p<.05; **p<.01.
328
Appendix B
Correlations Between SACQ Scores and Attrition
(after 1 year unless otherwise indicated)a
Sample Source
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)
Clark University
1990-91
Semester 1
Semester 2
(Baker, 1993)
n
368
Academic
Adjustment
-.07
-.11*
-.14**
Social
Adjustment
-.12*
-.20**
-.12**
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
-.09
-.16**
Attachment
Full
Scale
-.14**
-.18**
-.14**
-.13*
-.20**
-.18**
-.16**
190
161
-.13*
-.04
-.12*
-.12
-.16*
-.11
-.20**
-.26**
-.18**
-.14*
311
-.02
-.13*
-.03
-.29**
-.14*
1011b
-.36**
-.34**
-.24**
-.33**
--
Florida State University
(Brunelle-Joiner, 1999)
Suffolk Community College
(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)
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**
a
See also Table 21 on page 49 of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).
After one semester.
c
After two years.
b
*p<.05; **p<.01.
329
Appendix C
Correlations between the SACQ and Measures of Person Characteristicsa
Test/Test Variable
n
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
Academic Locus of Control Scale
(Mooney, 1989)
(Mooney et al., 1991)
(Weinstock, 1995)
(Bartels, 1995)
118r
.64**q
.44**q
.45**q
.47**q
.62**q
88b
.63**q
.51**q
.51**q
.55**q
.67**q
69
.50**q
.12q
.52**q
.29*q
506
.63**q
.18**q
.39**q
.31**q
.52**q
114
.53**
.11
.38**
.10
.45**
358
.65**
.40**
.42**
.48**
--
205w
.77**
--
--
--
--
13621
.05
.16*
.15
.04
--
93b
.23*
.22*
.06
.12
56
.17
.30*
.44**
.14
.39**
205w
.09
--
--
--
--
.09
--
--
--
--
--
Academic Motivation Scale
(McGowan, 1988)
(Fuller, 2000)
Academic Self-Concept Scale
(Lent et al., 1997)
Acculturation Rating Scale for
Mexican-Americans-II
(Shibazaki, 1999)
Achieving Tendency Scale
(Wang & Smith, 1993)
.20
ACT
(Brooks & DuBois, 1995)
Mathematics
Composite score
(Lent et al., 1997)
(Dewein, 1994)
272w
.21**
-.06
.19**
.07
--
87
--
--
--
--
.25**
202
.22**
.27**
.07
.25**
.25**
244w
--
--
--
--
.25**
--
--
--
--
.37**
Adolescent Coping Orientation for
Problem Experiences
Problem-focused coping
(Smith, 1994)
(Just, 1998)
Adult Attachment Scale
Close
Depend
330
Test/Test Variable
n
Anxiety
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
--
--
--
--
-.31**
.17**
.21**
.27**
.11*
.23**
-.17**
-.25**
-.23**
-.17**
-.25**
-.20**
-.18**
-.35**
-.12*
-.26**
Full
Scale
(Bartels, 1990)
Adult Attachment Types
Questionnaire (modified)
Secure
292
Avoidant
Anxious/Ambivalent
(Shilkret, 2000)
African American Acculturation
Scale
Cultural traditionality
Black women students
Black male students
(Dewitt-Parker, 1999)
81
.10
--
-.30**
--
-.20*
54
-.13
--
-.16
--
-.04
Alienation Scale
(Liter, 1987)
(McGowan, 1988)
100
-.50**
-.37**
-.32**
-.24*
-.50**
114
-.37**
-.50**
-.49**
-.45**
-.56**
76
.30**
.46**
.22*
.34**
.42**
-.25*
-.37**
-.22*
-.29**
-.37**
-.30**
-.40**
-.42**
-.29**
-.46**
.45**
.56**
.65**
.46**
.63**
-.29*
-.36**
-.42**
-.30**
-.41**
-.42**
-.47**
-.57**
-.35**
-.54**
.36**
-.26**
.44**
.43**
.34**
.47**
-.32**
-.32**
-.25**
-.35**
-.34**
-.58**
-.23**
-.50**
Attachment Style Questionnaire
September testing
Secure
Avoidant
Anxious/Ambivalent
November testing
Secure
Avoidant
73
Anxious/Ambivalent
(Klynn, 1997)
Secure
Avoidant
292
Anxious/Ambivalent
(Shilkret, 2000)
-.43**
331
n
82
.13
.43**
.40**
.35**
.41**
36y
.42**
.45**
.58**
.54**
.58**
256
.03
.07
-.16**
.02
-.02
140
.14*
.06
.05
.04
.12
.09
-.03
-.02
-.04
.02
.17*
.18*
.15*
.16*
.22**
life events in general
.04
-.04
-.06
-.07
-.02
bad life events
-.11
-.24**
-.12
-.24**
-.21**
good life events
.13
.11
.01
.08
.12
.09
.05
-.10
.02
.03
.00
-.06
-.20**
-.07
-.09
.18*
.20**
.11
.14
.20**
145
.27**
.14*
.36**
.10
.31**
144
.01
-.06
-.18*
.04
-.07
145
.07
.42**
.23**
.24**
.30**
105s,w
.50**
.39**
.45**
.38**
.51**
Test/Test Variable
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Academic
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
Attitudes and Beliefs Scale-II
(Friedland, 1990)
Attitudes Towards Disabled
Persons Scale-Form O
(Friedland, 1990)
Attributional Complexity Scale
(M. D. Smith, 1994)
Attributional Style Questionnaire
Internal attributions
life events in general
bad life events
good life events
Stable attributions
Global attributions
life events in general
bad life events
good life events
(Rines, 1998)
Autonomy Scale
Self-Awareness
Sensitivity to Others
Capacity to Manage New
Situations
(Vivona, 2000b)
Behavioral Attributes of
Psychosocial Competence Scale
Active coping
332
Test/Test Variable
(Zea et al, 1995; Zea, 1997)
(Zea et al., 1996)
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
56t,w
.44**
.25*
.37**
.33**
.43**
66u,w
.59**
.39**
.51**
.38**
.55**
71v,w
.46**
.47**
.46**
.35**
.55**
298w,2
.50**
.37**
.45**
.37**
.51**
346
.51**
.38**
.46**
.39**
.52**
105s
.56**
.40**
.45**
.43**
.55**
56t
.45**
.21
.27*
.27*
.37**
66u
.52**
.32**
.42**
.31*
.46**
71v
.46**
.38**
.35**
.22
.44**
298
.51**
.33**
.39**
.32**
.47**
346
.52**
.33**
.40**
.35**
.48**
.47**
.28*
.60**
.30*
.51**
.22**
.38**
.34**
.29**
.29**
.21**
.26**
.31**
.30**
.30**
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.36**
.41**
.51**
.33**
.30**
.11*
.25**
.24**
.28**
.34**
90
-.54**
--
--
--
319
-.36**
-.35**
-.31**
-.27**
-.31**
156w
--
.33**
.26**
--
--
--
-.42**
-.29**
--
--
n
Full
Scale
Attachment
Behavioral Attributes of
Psychosocial Competence ScaleCondensed
Active coping
(Zea, 1997)
(Zea et al., 1996)
Belief Systems Analysis Scale
(Hatter & Ottens, 1998)
64t,w
“Big Five” Inventory
Extraversion
372
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Openness
(Montgomery & Haemmerlie,
2001)
Career Decision Scale
(Chartrand et al., 1990b)
--
Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale
(Montgomery et al., 2000; data
updated by Montgomery &
Haemmerlie, 2001)
Close Relationships Questionnaire
Secure attachment style
Fearful style
333
Test/Test Variable
n
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Full
Scale
Attachment
Preoccupied style
--
-.23**
-.26**
--
--
Dismissing style
--
.09
-.09
--
--
--
.31**
--
--
--
Fearful
--
-.21””
--
--
--
Preoccupied
--
-.09
--
--
--
Dismissing
--
-.07
--
--
--
(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999a)
Secure
304
(Lapsley et al., 2001)
Secure
97-100
.20*
.31**
.12
.23*
.25*
Fearful
-.27**
-.14
-.21*
-.13
-.24*
Preoccupied
-.32**
-.23*
-.32**
-.26*
-.32**
Dusmissing
.10
.03
.04
-.05
.04
Positivity of self-image
.43**
.34**
.33**
.25*
.40**
Positivity of image of others
.01
.07
-.01
.07
.04
.09
.39**
--
--
--
.18*
.32**
--
--
--
(Pfeil, 2000)
Collective Self-Esteem Scale
Semester I, 1st half
142
Semester II, 2nd half
(Bettencourt et al., 1999)
College Self-Efficacy Instrument
Overall score
(Bartels, 1995)
506
.47**
.52**
.35**
.39**
.56**
(Fuller, 2000)
325
.57**
.56**
.32**
.51**
--
Course (academic) self-efficacy
144w
.77**
.39**
.54**
--
--
.36**
.62**
.43**
--
--
.58**
.39**
.36**
.23**
--
.43**
.59**
.49**
.40**
--
.60**
.46**
.46**
--
.31**
.53**
.50**
--
.53**
.55**
.50**
.64**
.32**
.50**
.49**
--
.60**
.63**
.60**
Social self-efficacy
(Natera, 1998)
Course (academic) self-efficacy
13621
Social self-efficacy
(Shibazaki, 1999)
Coopersmith Self-Esteem
Inventory
(Crouse, 1990)
(Mooney, 1989)
(Mooney et al., 1991)
(Frazier & Cook, 1993)
70
118r
88b
85
-
-
334
Test/Test Variable
(Clauss, 1995)
(Rodriguez-Perez, 1991)
n
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
110
66w,14
57w,15
123w,2
-.42**
.40**
.40**
.46**
.31**
.49**
.42**
.66**
.45**
.54**
.49**
-.27*
.50**
.38**
-.46**
.69**
.56**
229b
Coping Inventory for Stressful
Situations
Task-oriented
.53**
.39**
.45**
.40**
--
Emotion-oriented
-.41**
-.36**
-.54**
-.37**
--
Avoidance-oriented
-.17*
.05
-.09
.03
--
--
--
.24**7
--
--
--
8
--
--
7
--
--
8
(Marcotte, 1995)
Task-oriented
109w
-Emotion-oriented
--
--
.23**
-.48**
--
--
-.28**
--
--
Avoidance-oriented
--
--
-.107
--
--
(Gallant, 1994)
--
--
.068
--
--
.17
.21*
.22*
.22*
--
.34**
.32**
.32**
.32**
--
--
--
--
--
.38**
241
.41**
.44**
.54**
.41**
.55**
252
-.34**
-.18**
-.34**
-.45**
-.31**
--
-.23**
-.21**
-.19**
--
.36**
.07
.26**
.26**
.01
-.08
-.05
-.06
-.23**
-.16*
-.15*
-.22**
-.33**
-.09
-.29**
-.28**
Coping With Barriers Scale
Coping with career-related barrier
Coping with education-related
barriers
Full scale score
127
(Hutz, 2002a)
Edwards Social Desirability Scale
(Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989)
Experiences in Close Relationships
Questionnaire
Anxiety scale
Avoidance scale
(Kalsner-Silver, 2000)
Extended Objective Measure of
Ego-Identity Status-2
Achieved
Foreclosed
Moratorium
Diffusion
(Just, 1998)
Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale
202
.15*
-.06
-.16*
-.21**
335
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
Test/Test Variable
n
(Wang & Smith, 1993)
93b
-.18
-.09
-.21*
-.05
-.21*
30c
66b
.38*
.44**
.53**
.45**
.42*
.33**
.51**
.47**
.55**
.52**
Generalized Expectancy for
Success Scale
(Silverthorn, 1993)
Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale
(modified)
31x
.65**
.24
.40*
.23
32
x
.09
.37*
.52**
.28*
.40*
34
x
.45**
.33*
.36*
.40**
.42**
88
198
272w
.30**
.56**
.54**6
.13
-.32**6
.28**
.45**
.49**6
.21*
-.36**6
----
133w
.11
.25**
.35**
.23**
.28**
Commitment
.38**
.34**
.44**
.33**
.49**
Control
.34**
.23**
.28**
.24**
.37**
Composite score
.34**
.33**
.43**
.32**
.46**
.25**
.15*
.01
.15*
.17*
Active-cognitive coping
.11
.15*
-.04
.17*
.13
Avoidance coping
-.42**
-.30**
-.37**
-.38**
-.44**
139
.45**
.32**
.34**
--
.46**
435
.46**
.37**
.53**
.29**
.44**
Ambition
.41**
.49**
.44**
.36**
.44**
Sociability
.11*
.22**
.20**
.17**
.17**
Likeability
.25**
.23**
.23**
.22**
.22**
Prudence
.22**
.14**
.15**
.17**
.19**
Intellectance
.13**
.10*
.10*
.05
.08
School Success
.22**
.15**
.21**
.12*
.18**
As a student
As an athlete
.38*
As a person
(Davis, 1988)
Goal Instability Scale (goal
directedness)
(Robbins & Schwitzer, 1988)
(Robbins et al., 1993)
(Dewein, 1994)
Hardiness Test
Challenge
(Posselt, 1992)
Health and Daily Living Form
Active-behavioral coping
140
(Rines, 1998)
Composite score
(Feenstra et al., 2001)
Hogan Personality Inventory
Adjustment
336
Test/Test Variable
Academic
Adj
n
Stress Tolerance
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
.51**
.46**
.59**
.35**
.51**
.10
-.27*
-.32*
.05
-.13
Interpersonal Distance
.00
-.41**
-.33*
-.21
-.35**
Grief
.29*
-.34*
-.20
.00
-.02
Total score
.11
-.40**
-.35**
-.06
-.21
.14
.12
.07
-.02
.14
Vertical individualism
-.13
-.05
-.15*
-.10
-.11
Horizontal collectivism
.28**
.45**
.23**
.37**
.42**
Vertical collectivism
.12
.17*
.09
.13
.17*
Individualism
--
--
--
--
.01
Collectivism
--
--
--
--
.34**
.30**
.03
.06
.01
.16
Normative orientation subscale
.19
.17
.14
.22*
.22*
Diffuse orientation subscale
-.40**
-.11
-.12
-.17
-.28**
106z
.15
.32**
.18
.22*
.22*
1
.19
.41
.10
.48*
.35
57
-.28**
-.25*
-.22*
-.15
-.29**
105s,w
56t,w
-.31**
-.08
-.27**
-.26*
-.26**
-.15
-.29**
-.24*
-.34**
-.23*
(Montgomery, Haemmerlie, &
Watkins, 2000; data updated by
Montgomery & Haemmerlie,
2001)
Homecomer Culture Shock
Scale
Cultural Distance
45w
(Huff, 1998)
Horizontal & Vertical Individualism & Collectivism Scale
Horizontal individualism
170w,20
(Choi, 1999, 2000)
Identity Style Inventory-2
Information orientation subscale
105
(Hollmann, 1995; Hollmann &
Metzler, 1994)
Individualism-Collectivism Scale
General collectivism index
(Kusaka, 1995)
18
Internal-External Locus of
Control Scale
(Shilkret & Taylor, 1992)
337
Test/Test Variable
(Zea et al., 1995; Zea, 1997)
(Evans-Hughes, 1992)
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
n
Academic
Adj
66u,w
71v,w
298w,2
72t,w
-.52**
-.06
-.27**
-.19
-.25*
-.08
-.20**
-.19
-.42**
-.16
-.27**
-.27*
-.27*
.00
-.21**
-.14
-.43**
-.10
-.29**
-.26*
96b
-.22*
-.29**
-.42**
-.19*
-.34**
-.07
-.21*
-.29**
-.09
-.24*
Attachment
Full
Scale
Interpersonal Dependency Inv.
Emot’l reliance on other persons
65
c
161
Lack of social self-confidence
96
2
-.14*
-.27**
-.35**
-.14*
-.29**
b
-.18*
-.22*
-.25**
-.22*
-.28**
c
-.26*
-.18
-.34**
-.15
-.31**
65
161
2
-.17*
-.23**
-.27**
-.18*
-.28**
b
-.11
-.16
-.13
-.13
-.19*
c
-.05
.07
-.05
.04
-.01
-.05
-.09
-.08
-.04
-.10
96b
-.23*
-.31**
-.37**
-.24**
-.37**
65c
-.19
-.19
-.36**
-.11
-.30**
-.16*
-.28**
-.33**
-.17*
-.32**
-.66*
-.45
-.55*
-.46
-.64*
.27
-.21
-.17
-.04
.04
Self-hate guilt
-.52*
-.50
-.88**
-.36
-.76**
Omnipotent responsibility guilt
-.43
-.80**
-.74**
-.68*
-.72**
Interpersonal guilt
-.53*
-.61*
-.65*
-.55*
-.67*
-.24**
-.17*
-.42**
-.11
-.29**
Separation guilt
-.09
-.25**
-,22**
-.19*
-.23**
Self-hate guilt
-.44**
-.49**
-.64**
-.38**
-.58**
Omnipotent responsibility guilt
-.16
-.16
-.43**
-.10
-.25**
Interpersonal guilt
-.33**
-.38**
-.59**
-.28**
-.48**
-.20**
-.07
-.34**
.02
-.22**
Separation guilt
-.10
-.19**
-.18*
-.19**
-.21**
Self-hate guilt
-.41**
-.33**
-.56**
-.21**
-.52**
Omnipotent responsibility guilt
-.24**
-.18*
-.49**
-.10
-.35**
Assertion of autonomy
96
65
161
Total score
(Polewchak, 1999)
161
2
2
Interpersonal Guilt Quest.-45
Survivor guilt
11b
Separation guilt
(Shilkret & Nigrosh, 1995)
Survivor guilt
140b
(Shilkret & Vecchiotti, 1995)
Survivor guilt
156b
338
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
-.22**
-.17*
-.41**
-.10
-.31**
-.35**
-.20*
-.36**
-.16
-.33**
Separation guilt
.10
-.02
-.02
.10
.05
Self-hate guilt
-.47**
-.24*
-.56**
-.24*
-.47**
Omnipotent responsibility guilt
-.20*
-.14
-.35**
-.08
-.23*
Total score
-.22*
-.16
-.32**
.07
-.24*
-.27**
-.19**
-.40**
-.13*
-.32**
Separation guilt
-.02
-.15**
-.10*
-.06
-.10*
Self-hate guilt
-.41**
-.27**
-.58**
-.19**
-.47**
Omnipotent responsibility guilt
-.17**
-.08
-.35**
-.05
-.21**
Interpersonal guilt
-.21**
-.19**
-.36**
-.11*
-.27**
-.30**
-.23*
-.25**
-.01
-.32**
Separation guilt
-.11
-.20*
-.33**
-.12
-.21*
Self-hate guilt
-.45**
-.31**
-.36**
-.25**
-.50**
Omnipoptent responsibility guilt
-.33**
-.21*
-.11
-.14
-.31**
Interpersonal guilt
-.30**
-.28**
-.29**
-.12
-.35**
73b
66c
73b
66c
.15
.43**
.09
.16
.34**
.31**
.28*
.17
.24*
.42**
.11*
.29*
-----
-----
159b
--
--
.13*
--
--
150
-.17*
.20*
.24**
.21*
-.16*
.17*
.24**
.20*
-.42**
.26**
.31**
.35**
NS
.18*
.18*
.17*
-.26**
.22**
.29**
.27**
Test/Test Variable
n
Total score
Attachment
Full
Scale
(Shilkret & Edwards, 1997)
Survivor guilt
90b,w
(Bailey & Shilkret, 2000b)
Survivor guilt
292
(Shilkret, 2000)
Survivor guilt
109
(Morray & Shilkret, 2001)
Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment
Parents
Attachment to mother
Attachment to father
(Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994)
Attachment to mother
(Levin, 1996)
Alienation
Communication
Trust
Overall
339
Test/Test Variable
Peers
Alienation
Communication
Trust
Overall
Combined Parent/Peer Overall
Attachment
(Harste, 1996)
Parents
Alienation
Communication
Trust
n
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
-.21*
.16*
.24**
.22**
-.43**
.30**
.40**
.44**
-.47**
NS
.18*
.24**
-.36**
.30**
.38**
.39**
-.46**
.22**
.34**
.38**
150
.25**
.35**
.36**
.36**
.37**
8111
-.22*
.20*
.29**
-.23*
.16
.09
-.19*
-.01
.12
----
----
8112
-.22*
.27**
.25*
-.36**
.28**
.32**
-.52**
.24*
.37**
----
----
8113
-.17
.28**
.21*
-.11
.19*
.07
-.21*
.11
.18
----
----
118
.27**
.33**
.06
.29**
.25**
.16*
.08
.30**
.26**
.36**
81
54
.62**
.54**
---
.11
.12
---
.16
.31*
81
54
.67**
.72**
---
.11
.08
---
.07
.32**
Alienation
Communication
Trust
(Rice, 1990/1991
Parents
Attachment to mother
Black female students
Black male students
Attachment to father
Black female students
Black male students
(Dewitt-Parker, 1999)
Social
Adj
150
Alienation
Communication
Trust
Parents
Attachment to mother
Attachment to father
(Silver, 1995)
Academic
Adj
340
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Test/Test Variable
n
Academic
Adj
Parents (combined)
Overall score
Peers
Overall score
(Just, 1998)
202
.39**
.32**
.38**
.33**
.46**
.21**
.43**
.28**
.35**
.39**
Parents (combined)
Overall score
(Pappas, 2000)
66
.23*
.37**
.18
.32**
.34**
151
.13
.25**
.20**
.24**
.25**
Isolation
-.30**
-.42**
-.40**
-.48**
-.48**
Intimacy minus Isolation
.27**
.42**
.38**
.45**
.46**
229b
.63**
.51**
.51**
.56**
--
407
.12*
.12*
.12*
.09*
.14**
224
.24**
.13
.24**
.16*
.25**
(Hunsberger, 2000)
226
.29**
.39**
.42**
.34**
.43**
(Montgomery, Haemmerlie, &
299
.36**
.36**
.33**
.35**
.34**
(Pratt, 2001)
96
.28**
.45**
.39**
.40**
--
Life Orientation Test-Revised
(Johnson, 2001)
90
.28**
.32**
.34**
.35**
.40**
506
.20**
.29**
.05
.26**
.25**
Materialistic orientation
.07
.18**
.00
.18**
.12**
Intellectual and cultural interests
.17**
.25**
.04
.19**
.21**
Valuing of achievement
.30**
.28**
.09
.28**
.31**
Attachment
Full
Scale
Inventory of Psychosocial
Development
Intimacy
(Vivona, 2000b)
Jackson Social Desirability Scale
(Marcotte, 1995)
Late Adolescents’ Relationships
with Parents Scale
Enabling independence
(Yaffe, 1997)
Abbreviated total score
(Hunsberger et al., 1996)
Life Orientation Test
Ray, 2001)
Life Values Inventory
Conventionally defined success
(Bartels, 1995)
341
n
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
8122
.35**
.25*
.16
.19
--
.27*
.08
.04
.07
--
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
142w
--
--
--
--
.22**
205w
.25**
--
--
--
--
.11
--
--
--
--
-.47**
-.38**
-.32**
-.39**
-.53**
-.42**
-.25*
-.32**
-.46**
-.46**
.13*
.19**
.10
.18**
--
Helplessness
-.42**
-.25**
-.31**
-.31**
--
Luck
-.20**
-.08
-.24**
-.07
--
343
-.36**
-.22**
-.31**
-.25**
--
103
.12
.05
-.16
-.14
-.21*
-.30**
.02
-.10
-.22*
-.06
-.20*
-.21*
Test/Test Variable
Full
Scale
Majority-Minority Relations
Survey
Ethnic social customs adherence
Ethnic language use adherence
(Amin, 2000)
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)
.28**
.49**
.26*
-.31**
-.32**
.38**
.23
Mastery Learning Scale
(Lopez, 1997)
Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale
Mathematics course
Mathematics problem
(Lent et al., 1997)
Mother & Father Questionnaire
Regarding Mother
Regarding Father
(Shilkret & Taylor, 1992)
57b
59b
Multidimensional AcademicSpecific Locus of Control Scale
Internality
Total score
349
(Fuller, 2000)
Multidimensional Perfectionism
Scale
Self-oriented
Other-oriented
.05
-.04
-.27**
342
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
.00
-.29*
-.13
-.20*
-.13
-.19**
-.16*
-.25**
-.16*
--
.10
.09
.16*
.13*
--
-.02
-.02
.06
.06
--
.35**
.34**
.33**
.24*
--
.10
.11
.06
.14*
--
Ethnic identity achievement
.08
.09
.03
.12
--
Ethnic behaviors/practices
.08
.06
.01
.09
--
Test/Test Variable
n
Socially-prescribed
Full scale
(Merryman & Zelezny, 1993)
Multigenerational
Interconnectedness Scale
Psychological connectedness
Functional connectedness
Financial connectedness
(Kalsner-Silver, 2000)
252
Full
Scale
Multigroup Ethnic Identity
Measure
Ethnic identity achievement
8122
(Amin, 2000)
Positive ethnic attitudes
252
(Kalsner-Silver, 2000)
My Vocational Situation
Vocational Identity Scale
(Lopez, 1989)
(Maton & Weisman, 1989; Maton,
1989b)
114c
185b
.52**
.61**
---
---
---
---
75d
75e
.42**
--
.31**
--
.20*
--
.30**
--
.38**
.27*
(Fuller, 2000)
352
.46**
.22**
.31**
.24**
--
Narcissistic Injury Scale
(Zamostny et al., 1993)
228
-.47**
-.46**
-.58**
-.41**
--
255b
-.61**
-.44**
-.68**
-.42**
--
102
c
-.30**
-.47**
-.67**
-.30**
--
255
b
.17**
.46**
.25**
.34**
--
102c
.16
.58**
.35**
.38**
--
255b
-.01
.04
-.10
-.02
--
102c
.26**
.23**
.09
.26**
--
255
b
.20**
.26**
.29**
.24**
--
102
c
.24**
.43**
.41**
.34**
--
255
b
.58**
.28**
.31**
.32**
--
102
c
.59**
.25**
.31**
.33**
--
NEO Five-Factor Inventory
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness to experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
(Wintre & Sugar, 2000; see also
Sugar, 1997)
343
Test/Test Variable
Agreeableness
n
1011
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
.20**
.23**
.16**
.25**
--
.34**
.29**
.26**
.29**
--
--
.30**
.30**
--
--
--
.40**
.28**
--
--
NAd
103e
219e
229b
206
-.64**
-.49**
--.40**
-.35**
----.27**
-.30**
----.35**
-.30**
----.30**
-.29**
---.41**
--.29**
201b
.17*
.24**
.18*
.01
.15*
.07
.24**
.22**
.17*
.14*
.24**
.16*
.12
.22**
.14
116f
.25**
.08
.22*
.25**
-.06
.21*
.26**
.23*
.22*
.18
-.02
.24*
----
----
.23*
.30**
.23*
.25**
.19*
.15
----
----
45w
.27*
.29*
.09
.16
.26*
.17
.36**
.36**
.37**
.31*
.33*
.17
.37**
.42**
.29*
320w
.33**
.27**
.28**
.26**
.39**
.34**
.33**
.31**
.42**
.36**
Conscientiousness
(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)
New Personal Fable Scale
Invulnerability
156w
Omnipotence
(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999b)
Nowicki-Strickland InternalExternal Control Scale for
Adults
(Cooley & Carden, 1992)
(Jampol, 1988/1989)
(Marcotte, 1995)
(Montgomery & Haemmerlie,
2001)
Parental Attachment Questionnaire
Affective Quality of Attachment
Parental support of autonomy
Parents provide emot’l support
(Kenny, 1992)
Affective quality of attachment
Parental support of autonomy
Parents 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
110
344
Test/Test Variable
n
(Hutto, 1998)
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
.26**
.33**
.26**
.32**
.31**
152
.33**
.28**
.17*
.19**
.20**
.17*
.33**
.27**
.22**
.20**
.16*
.13
.34**
.30**
.22**
252
.27**
.24**
.21**
.17**
.12*
.22**
.30**
.33**
.28**
.16**
.10
.21**
----
93-100
.22*
.14
.08
.18*
.24*
.16
.24*
.23*
.27**
.24*
.08
.22*
.24*
.09
.22*
.19*
.29**
.19*
.16
.24*
(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999a)
156w
--
-.53**
-.48**
--
--
(Lapsley et al., 2001)
304
--
-.27**
--
--
--
272w
-.28**
-.29**
-.31**
-.25**
--
152
-.15*
-.20**
-.53**
-.12
-.32**
127
-.09
-.22*
-.24**
-.08
--
-.35**
-.32**
-.40**
-.29**
--
--
--
--
--
-.42**
255b,16
.19**
.25**
.23**
.13*
--
102
c,16
.40**
.44**
.35**
.44**
--
255
b,16
.23**
.22**
.19**
.13*
--
102
c,16
.18
.20*
.26**
.26**
--
255
b,16
.25**
.22**
.23**
.15*
--
102
c,16
.15
.32**
.24*
.32**
--
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
(Pfeil, 2000)
Pathological SeparationIndividuation Inventory
Peer Group Dependence Scale
(Dewein, 1994)
Penn State Worry Quest.
(Vivona, 2000b)
Perception of Barriers Scale
Career-related barriers
Education-related barriers
Full scale score
(Hutz, 2002a,b)
Perception of Parental Reciprocity
Scale
Parents unspecified
Mother
Father
(Sugar, 1999)
345
n
255b,17
.28**
.23**
.23**
.17**
--
102
c,17
.32**
.50**
.42**
.45**
--
255
b,17
.23**
.17**
.18**
.13*
--
102
c,17
.26**
.34**
.42**
.28**
--
(Wintre & Sugar, 2000; see also
255
b,17
.30**
.27**
.27**
.21**
--
Sugar, 1997)
102c,17
.12
.36**
.25**
.33**
--
384
.28**
.32**
.31**
.24**
.37**
41
.29
.44**
.44**
.30
.46**
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**
-.23*
-.43**
-.18
-.32**
-.29**
-.53**
-.05
-.20
-.23*
-.44**
.37**
.53**
.41**
.48**
.49**
Positive: Yourself
.44**
.43**
.40**
.38**
.48**
Focused
.59**
.40**
.44**
.39**
.55**
Flexible: Thoughts
.15**
.16**
.14*
.12*
.16**
Flexible: Social
.22**
.45**
.25**
.32**
.34**
Organized
.42**
.14*
.17**
.17**
.31**
Proactive
.14*
.19**
.09
.14*
.14*
Test/Test Variable
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Academic
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
Parents unspecified
Mother
Father
Total score
(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &
Yaffe, 2000)
Personal Attributes Questionnaire
Androgyny
(Bobier, 1989)
Personal Authority in the Family
System Questionnaire-Version C
Intimacy
Individuation
Personal authority
Intimidation subscale
Triangulation subscale
Full scale
(Gilkey, 1988; Gilkey et al., 1989)
Personal Feelings Questionnaire
Guilt
Shame
(Shilkret & Taylor, 1992)
59b
Personal Resilience Quest’aire
Positive: World
(Brunelle-Joiner, 1999)
Personal Values Scales-Revised
311
346
Test/Test Variable
Intellectualism
n
1059
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
.01
.12
-.07
-.04
.06
10
.60**
.45*
.36
.49*
.61**
2
.14
.21*
.02
.10
.19*
.11
.39**
.25*
.30**
.30**
Commitment
.54**
.42**
.32**
.37**
.53**
Control
.44**
.55**
.21*
.40**
.49**
Composite score
.42**
.55**
.32**
.43**
.53**
30c
66b
.39*
.59**
.47**
.44**
.47**
.46**
.43**
.42**
.53**
.61**
63
.51**
.67**
.35**
.52**
.63**
-.34**
-.63**
-.26*
25
(Hertel, 1996)
130
Personal Views Survey
Challenge
63
(Mathis & Lecci, 1999)
Personality Research Form
Desirability subscale
(Silverthorn, 1993; Silverthorn &
Gekoski, 1995)
Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule
Positive affect
Negative affect
-.22*
-.46**
(Mathis & Lecci, 1999)
Prestatie Motivatie Test
(Bartels, 1995)
506
.59**
.27**
.23**
.34**
.49**
218
-----
-----
-----
-----
.61**
-.51**
-.57**
.60**
229b
-.53**
-.42**
-.45**
-.42**
--
(Dewein, 1994)
272w
-.28**
-.08
-.29**
-.18**
--
Psychological Separation Invent.
Conflictual independence
In relation to father
In relation to mother
(Bobier, 1989)
41
.29
.22
.41**
.41**
.12
.30
.39*
.36*
.35*
.36*
-----
-----
-----
-----
Primary Appraisal Emotions Scale
Challenge
Threat
Harm
Benefit
(Jampol, 1988/1989)
Problem Solving Inventory
(Marcotte, 1995)
Pseudoautonomy Scale
In relation to father
In relation to mother
In relation to father
In relation to mother
114c
185b
.39**
.31**
.27**
.22**
347
Test/Test Variable
(Lopez, 1989)
n
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
.15
.14
.31**
.26**
-.07
-.02
.09
.09
.25**
.17*
.29**
.24**
-----
-----
Attachment
Full
Scale
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
241
44
.24**
--
.16*
--
.33**
--
.10
--
.28**
.33*
In relation to father
105
.27**
.16
.40**
.19*
.34**
.27**
.15
.36**
.12
.31**
123g
In relation to mother
(Hollmann, 1995)
In relation to father
In relation to mother
(Kenny, 1992)
201b
.24**
.12
.06
.08
.34**
.16*
.20**
.09
.25**
.11
In relation to father
In relation to mother
In relation to father
In relation to mother
(Sherman, 1992)
179h
.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
-.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
109
126
.01
.35**
.13
.54**
---
.06
.00
.17
.31**
---
.13
.49**
.25*
.52**
.27**
.26**
-----.23**
----.35**
.25**
(Marcotte, 1995)
229b
.35**
.26**
.41**
.28**
--
110
--
.16
.34**
--
--
--
.24*
.42**
--
--
.28**
.15*
.32**
.16*
.31**
.34**
.22**
.45**
.14*
.40**
In relation to father
168i,j
66b
In relation to mother
(Clauss, 1995)
In relation to father
In relation to mother
(Shilkret & Edwards, 1997)
155b
348
Test/Test Variable
(Beyers & Goossens, 1998; see
n
Academic
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Social
Adj
Attachment
Full
Scale
1,014
.33**
.11**
.36**
.16**
.32**
159b
--
--
.18*
--
--
--
--
--
--
.29**
--
--
--
--
.20*
also Beyers & Goossens, 2002b,
and Beyers, 2001)
(Levin, 1996)
In relation to father
In relation to mother
u,w
(Rodriguez, 1994)
137
(Weinstock, 1995)
69
.42**
.20
.47**
.25*
--
8111
.23*
-.07
.20*
--
--
8112
.19*
.41**
.44**
--
--
8113
.11
.05
.23*
--
--
.13**
.13**
.32**
.13**
.23**
.18**
.13**
.26**
.16**
.24**
.09
.16**
.22**
.13*
--
.09
.14*
.15*
.11
--
99b
.40**
.34**
.42**
.41**
.48**
92
c
.30**
.24**
.43**
.23*
.38**
191
2
.34**
.29**
.43**
.31**
.43**
99
b
.34**
.33**
.27**
.40**
.41**
92c
.19*
.08
.38**
.04
.21*
1912
.26**
.21**
.32**
.22**
.32**
99
b
.41**
.37**
.38**
.44**
.49**
92
c
.28**
.18*
.45**
.15
.33**
191
2
.33**
.28**
.42**
.30**
.41**
.20**
.12
.31**
.15*
--
(Rice, 1990/1991)
In relation to father
506
In relation to mother
(Bartels, 1995)
In relation to father
272w
In relation to mother
(Dewein, 1994)
In relation to father
In relation to mother
Both parents combined
(Kline, 1992)
In relation to father
w
In relation to mother
(Ropar,1997)
In relation to father
156
w
In relation to mother
w
W
W
(n=176 )
(n=149 )
(n=188 )
(n=174 )
.33**
.28**
.36**
.32**
w
w
w
--
w
(n=176 )
(n=149 )
(n=188 )
(n=174 )
--
.32**
.42**
--
--
--
.32**
.25**
--
--
.31**
.17*
.18*
.15
.29**
.33**
.03
.22**
.03
.24**
(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999a)
In relation to father
In relation to mother
(Silver, 1995)
118
349
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
.16*
.12
.17*
.16*
.21**
.33**
.27**
.26**
.27**
.39**
NA
NA
.18*
NA
.18*
NA
NA
.21*
NA
.19*
.23**
.25**
.27**
.35**
.35**
109
.34**
.11
.27**
.03
.31**
41
.30
.19
-.20
-.15
.12
-.12
In relation to father
In relation to mother
In relation to father
In relation to mother
Lopez, 1989)
114c
.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
Test/Test Variable
In relation to father
n
170w,20
In relation to mother
Full
Scale
(Choi, 1999, 2000)
In relation to father
114
In relation to mother
Both parents combined
(Haemmerlie, Montgomery, &
Consolvo, 1993)
In relation to mother
(Morray & Shilkret, 2001)
Emotional independence
In relation to father
In relation to mother
(Bobier, 1989)
185b
-.11
-.14
.10
-.01
-.14
-.04
-.08
.22**
-.01
.00
-.06
.12
.17*
.31**
.11
.39**
-----
-----
241
44
.06
--
.03
--
.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
.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
-.09
-.28
.31*
.20
-.35
-.17
.28*
.28*
-.18
-.11
.26*
.23
-.38*
-.27
.26*
.07
-.27
-.27
.33*
.24
.12
-.18
.09
-.19*
-.02
.05
-.07
.18
-.06
.05
In relation to father
In relation to mother
123g
168i,j
66b
105
-----
350
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
-.01
.06
.11
.04
--
.16*
.17*
.22**
.15*
.23**
.16*
.17*
.10
.20**
.20**
.24**
.21**
.17**
.17**
--
--
--
--
-.08
--
--
--
--
.13
.01
-.14
.22**
-.17*
-.06
-.07
.01
.01
-.03
-.04
8111
-.12
-.10
.15
--
--
81
12
-.16
.05
.10
--
--
81
13
-.18
-.09
.04
--
--
272
w
-.14*
-.09
.01
-.09
--
.05
.04
.15*
.10
--
--
.12
.06
--
--
--
.13
.18*
--
--
ns
ns
ns
ns
--
.19*
ns
ns
ns
--
109
.02
.25**
.12
.19*
.15
404
.31**
.33**
.26**
.30**
.38**
Identity
.34**
.43**
.42**
.36**
.49**
Work orientation
.37**
.25**
.22**
.25**
.35**
Autonomy (composite score)
.41**
.41**
.37**
.36**
.49**
Test/Test Variable
Academic
Adj
n
Attachment
Full
Scale
(Hollmann, 1995)
(Marcotte, 1995)
In relation to father
229b
155
b
In relation to mother
(Shilkret & Edwards, 1997)
(Beyers & Goossens, 1998; see
1,014
-.02
also Beyers & Goossens, 2002b,
and Beyers, 2001)
In relation to father
137u,w
In relation to mother
(Rodriguez, 1994)
In relation to father
118
In relation to mother
(Silver, 1995)
(Rice, 1990/1991)
In relation to father
In relation to mother
(Dewein, 1994)
In relation to father
156w
In relation to mother
(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999a)
In relation to father
114
In relation to mother
(Haemmerlie, Montgomery, &
Consolvo, 1993)
In relation to mother
(Morray & Shilkret, 2001)
Psychosocial Maturity Scale
Self-reliance
(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &
Yaffe, 2000)
351
PersonalEmotional
Adj
n
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
100
.04
.15
.28**
.23*
.21*
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**
-------------
-------------
209
-.26**
-.06
-.22**
-.24**
-.24**
261
-.25**
ns
-.14**
ns
--
Activity-sleep
-.15**
ns
-.24**
ns
--
Approach-Withdrawal
.12*
.45**
ns
.34**
--
Flexibility-Rigidity
.19**
.36**
.35**
.35**
--
ns
.44**
.20**
.41**
--
Rhythmicity-sleep
.16**
ns
ns
ns
--
Rhythmicity-eating
.20**
.21**
.28**
.17**
--
Rhythmicity-daily habits
.16**
ns
.11*
ns
--
Distractibility
.38**
.14**
.22**
.11*
--
Persistence
.28**
.19**
.12*
.16**
--
213o
83p
137
286
-.25**
--.26**18
-.42**
-.71**
-.40**
--.40**
-.45**
-.26**
--.39**
-.58**
-.29**
--.32**
----.44**
96
368
-.24**
-.27**
-.77**
-.66**
-.44**
-.42**
-.74**
-.56**
--.55**
Test/Test Variable
Attachment
Full
Scale
Purpose-in-Life Test
(Liter, 1987)
Relationship Questionnaire
Parental attachment
To mother
33c
98b
To father
33c
98b
(Rice & Whaley, 1994)
Religious Doubts Scale
(Hunsberger et al., 1996)
Revised Dimensions of
Temperament Survey
Activity-general
Mood
(McAndrew-Miller, 1989)
Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale
(Harris, 1991)
(Sutton, 1996)
(Montgomery & Haemmerlie,
2001)
(Pratt, 2001)
(Beyers & Goossens, 2002a)
Revised Ways of Coping Checklist
352
PersonalEmotional
Adj
n
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
118
.30**
.17*
.28**
.20*
.30**
Seeks support
.20*
-.01
.08
-.03
.16*
Blames self
-.28**
.05
-.20*
-.02
-.22**
Wishful thinking
-.11
-.14
-.02
-.10
-.11
Avoidance
-.18*
-.13
-.25**
-.18*
-.24**
Blames others
-.21*
-.13
-.18*
-.22**
-.30**
Counts blessings
.26**
.12
.32**
.19*
.34**
Religiosity
.06
.01
.05
.03
.04
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**
273e
273d
137
142
31**
.42**
.41**18
.28**
.48**
.35**
.43**
-.27**
.42**
.49**
.62**
----
.30**
.37**
----
.46**
.60**
----
101
224e
224d
1011
432
.33**
.32**
.46**
.48**
.43**
.50**
.33**
.43**
.46**
.44**
.55**
.51**
.66**
.38**
.48**
.33**
.28**
.38**
.42**
.41**
.54**
.46**
.62**
-.53**
66
446-451
.29**
.52**
.29**
.54**
.38**
.56**
.29**
.52**
.40**
--
90
.40**
--
--
--
--
75
95
100
96
.23*
.25*
.06
.36**
-.21*
.02
--.13
.26**
-.23**
.11
-.24**
.08
.06
.20*
-.00
---
.17
--.07
---
Test/Test Variable
Problem-focused
Attachment
Full
Scale
(Silver, 1995)
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Gilkey, 1988; Gilkey et al., 1989)
(Weinstock, 1995)
(Hertel, 1996)
(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &
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)
Salience Inventory
(Chartrand et al., 1990b, 1992)
Scholastic Aptitude Test
Verbal & Quantitative
(Maton, 1989b)
(Chartrand et al., 1990b, 1992)
(Liter, 1987)
Verbal
Quantitative
353
Test/Test Variable
(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)
n
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
180
--
--
--
--
.15*
174
82
38
.06
.13
-.37*
-.15
-.11
-.20
.11
.26*
-.06
-.16*
-.11
-.23
-.03
.05
-.28
174
82
38
.00
.11
-.12
-.17*
-.10
-.29
.05
.22*
-.12
-.18*
-.09
-.27
-.09
.04
-.24
174
82
.03
.12
-.17*
-.11
.08
.25*
---
---
202
.16*
.03
.26**
.04
.16*
137
-.26**18
--
--
--
--
205w
.37**
--
--
--
--
334s,w
--
.55**
.32**
--
--
166
t,w
--
.53**
.31**
--
--
189
c,w
--
.53**
.27**
--
--
310
b,w
--
.55**
.34**
--
--
-.17*
-.24**
-.43**
-.27**
--
Full
Scale
Self-Consciousness Scales19
(Sutton, 1996)
Self-Efficacy for Broad Academic
Milestones Scale
(Lent et al., 1997)
Self-Efficacy Scale
Social self-efficacy
(Rice et al., 1997)
Self-Handicapping Scale
(Montgomery & Zoellner,
100
1994)
Self-Other Differentiation Scale
(Morray & Shilkret, 2001)
109
.28**
.31**
.25**
.24**
.38**
320
.45**
.49**
.52**
.47**
.60**
Creativity
.25**
.18**
.30**
.12*
.28**
Intellectual Ability
.48**
.21**
.51**
.26**
.48**
Scholastic Competence
.68**
.25**
.50**
.33**
.59**
Self-Perception Profile for
College Students
Global Self-Worth
354
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Attachment
Athletic Competence
.10
.13*
.08
.11
.14*
Job Competence
.43**
.37**
.35**
.39**
.48**
Appearance
.21**
.25**
.33**
.22**
.32**
Romantic Relationships
.26**
.35**
.23**
.24**
.35**
Social Acceptance
.25**
.59**
.33**
.48**
.48**
Close Friendships
.23**
.55**
.26**
.45**
.44**
Parent Relationships
.28**
.24**
.33**
.27**
.35**
Morality
.25**
.22**
.36**
.17**
.32**
Finding Humor in One’s Life
.22**
.35**
.28**
.31**
.35**
Test/Test Variable
n
Full
Scale
(Hutto, 2001)
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**
240
-.25**
-.14*
.12*
.12*
-.21**
-.25**
-.06
.17**
.06
-.21**
-.34**
-.10
.11*
-.07
-.15*
-.25**
-.09
.13*
.10
-.24**
-.34**
-.13*
.16**
.06
-.24**
93b
-.25*
-.03
-.17
.26*
-.43**
.01
-.22*
.08
-.37**
.07
200b
-.27**
-.16*
.23**
NS
-.39**
-.35**
.22**
NS
.18**
-.40**
NS
.36**
-.18**
-.44**
-.42**
.37**
.22**
.32**
-.58**
-.34**
NS
-.17*
-.49**
-.35**
.16*
-.19**
.24**
-.36**
NS
.26**
NS
-.40**
-.36**
.26**
.17*
.23**
----------
Separation-Individuation Test of
Adolescence
Separation anxiety subscale
Engulfment anxiety subscale
Self-centeredness subscale
Nurturance seeking subscale
Rejection expectancy subscale
(Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989)
Separation anxiety subscale
Healthy 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)
Social Avoidance and Distress
Scale
355
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Test/Test Variable
n
Academic
Adj
(Kim et al., 1992)
NA
-.33**
-.61**
-.40**
--
-.54**
Attachment
Full
Scale
Social Competence Scale
Interpersonal assertiveness
prematriculation
451-453
.22**
.33**
.17**
.26**
.32**
postmatriculation
451-453
.23**
.41**
.23**
.31**
.38**
prematriculation
441-443
.10*
.22**
.07
.12**
.17**
postmatricukation
435-437
.11*
.32**
.09*
.22**
.24**
prematriculation
449-451
.15**
.25**
.13**
.19**
.23**
postmatriculation
448-450
.19**
.44**
.22**
.36**
.38**
prematriculation
440-442
.20**
.33**
.14**
.23**
.29**
postmatriculation
433-435
.20**
.48**
.21**
.36**
.40**
--
.22*
--
--
--
Dating skills
Social skills with same-sex others
Full scale score
(Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997)
Social Propensity Scale
(Sullivan, 1991)
NA
Student Developmental Task &
Lifestyle Inventory
Establishing and clarifying
purpose task
73b
66c
-.11
.26*
.08
.22
-.16
.04
---
---
Developing mature interpersonal
relationships task
73b
66c
.26*
.28*
.30*
.15
.36**
.39**
---
---
Academic autonomy
(Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994)
73b
66c
.71**
.59**
.26*
.16
.48**
.42**
---
---
Superiority Scale
Realistic self-appraisal
(Robbins & Schwitzer, 1988)
(Dewein, 1994)
88
272w
.18*
-.016
-.23*
-.12*6
.16
-.046
-.16
-.14*6
---
1625
--
--
--
--
.45**
108
.35**
.25**
NA
.26**
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale
Total self-concept score
(Caplan, 1996/1997)
Self-satisfaction
student-athletes
NA
356
Academic
Adj
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
65
.37**
.23
.26*
.21
.32*
108
.21*
.11
NA
.21*
NA
65
.34**
.34**
.53**
.37**
.47**
108
.36**
.35**
NA
.32**
NA
65
.57**
.25*
.33**
.33**
.49**
108
.49**
.39**
NA
.44**
NA
65
.48**
.31*
.45**
.38**
.51**
108
.30**
.23*
NA
.30**
NA
.18
.07
.17
.14
.14
.32**
.44**
NA
.40**
NA
65
.23
.48**
.27*
.41**
.39**
108
.13
.21*
NA
.22*
NA
65
.45**
.41**
.45**
.42**
.55**
108
.30**
.33**
NA
.34**
NA
65
.41**
.34**
.51**
.48**
.51**
108
.47**
.33**
NA
.38**
NA
65
.43**
.39**
.36**
.43**
.48**
11b
-.50
-.63*
-.30
-.65*
-.53*
Guilt
.08
-.53*
-.04
-.61*
-.14
Detachment
-.23
-.11
-.04
.19
-.20
Externalization
-.23
-.39
-.54*
-.09
-.45
Alpha pride
.56*
-.12
.42
-.34
.49
Beta pride
.18
-.06
.38
-.22
.33
Test/Test Variable
non-athletes
n
Attachment
Full
Scale
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
65
Social self
student-athletes
non-athletes
108
Behavior
student-athletes
non-athletes
Identity
student-athletes
non-athletes
Total P Score
student-athletes
non-athletes
(Foster, 1997)
Test of Self-Conscious Affect
(TOSCA)
Shame
(Shilkret & Nigrosh, 1995)
Texas Social Behavior Inventory
357
Social
Adj
PersonalEmotional
Adj
Test/Test Variable
n
Academic
Adj
(Kenny, 1995)
199
.26**
.41**
.28**
.35**
--
late September
159
.31**
.12
.18**
--
--
late November
86
.16
-.08
.01
--
--
late September
159
.02
-.09
-.19**
--
--
late November
86
.01
-.06
-.17
--
--
-.38**
-.30**
-.53**
-.31**
-.49**
-.28**
-.34**
-.51**
-.30**
-.46**
Attachment
Full
Scale
Work Preference Inventory College Student Version
Intrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation
(Conti, 2000a)
Worry Domains Questionnaire
Relationships
Self-Confidence
152
(Vivona, 2000b)
a
See also Table 22, pp. 50-51, of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).
All females.
c
All males.
d
Personality measure administered postmatriculation.
e
Personality measure administered prematricualtion.
f
African-Americans, Asians and Latinos.
g
Juniors and Seniors.
h
6th week of semester 1.
i
10th week of semester 1.
j
Same subjects as in 6th week testing.
k
Revision of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment.
l
Betas for 3rd week of spring semester.
m
Betas for 9th week of spring semester.
n
Betas for 15th week of spring semester.
o
For data collected in senior year.
p
For Loneliness Scale administered freshman year vs. SACQ administered senior year.
q
Reverse of customary locus of control scoring, high scores indicate greater internality.
r
Includes the n of 88 cited next.
S
White students.
t
African-American students.
u
Latino students.
v
Asian-American students.
w
Mixed college year levels.
x
All student-athletes.
y
All physically disabled.
z
East Asian international students.
1
West European international students.
2
Total sample.
b
358
3
Sample includes traditional and nontraditional age undergraduates and graduate students.
Mixed foreign first-year graduate students.
5
Early entrant freshmen, who skipped the junior and/or senior years of high school, age 14-17.
6
Correlation valences changed because of reversal of customary rating scale.
7
SACQ administered 3rd week of October.
8
SACQ administered 3rd week of November.
9
Second-generation college attenders.
10
First-generation college attenders.
11
Independent variable and SACQ both administered in freshman year.
12
Independent variable and SACQ both administered in junior year.
13
Independent variable administered in freshman year and SACQ in junior year.
14
Puerto Rican students born and raised in Puerto Rico attending a Puerto Rican college.
15
Puerto Rican students born and raised in mainland U.S.A. attending two New Jersey colleges.
16
Independent variable administered early in first semester, SACQ around middle of second semester.
17
Independent variable and SACQ both administered middle of second semester.
18
Used truncated, 10-item version of the Academic Adjustment subscale.
19
Shortened form.
20
Korean-American students.
21
Mexican-American students.
22
Arab-American students.
4
*p<.05; **p<.01.
359
Appendix D
Correlations between SACQ Scores and Measures of Mental and Physical Health and Adjustmenta
Test/Test Variable
n
Academic
Adjustment
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
Adjustment Questionnaire
(Beyers & Goossens, 2002a)
368
.51**
.83**
(Oliver et al., 1998; Reed, 1994)
248h
--
--
(Vivona, 2000b)
152
-.30**
NAb
103c
220
103
NA
93d
248h
202d
109e
311g
407n
407o
.67**
.85**
.86**
-.67**
--
--
-.17*
-.52**
-.17*
-.39**
-.64**
-.48**
--.30**
-.38**
-.51**
--.53**
-.44**
-.49**
-.35**
-.53**
----.37**
-.53**
-.37**
--.55**
-.38**
-.48**
-.39**
-.46**
----.63**
-.68**
-.60**
-.64**
-.70**
-.33**
-.56**
-.51**
-.73**
----.26**
--.32**
--.50**
-.38**
-.44**
-.38**
-.45**
---.72**
-.51**
-.63**
-.62**
--.70**
-.46**
-.60**
-.52**
-.71**
152
130
-.43**
-.41**
-.39**
-.33**
-.63**
-.57**
-.40**
-.31**
-.59**
-.51**
228
-.39**
-.29**
-.58**
-.32**
--
75b
75c
-.44**
-.16
-.50**
-.31**
-.60**
-.28**
-.50**
-.24*
-.61**
-.29*
11d
-.48
.07
-.59*
-.41
-.36
-.42
-.37
-.39
-.20
-.08
-.64*
-.46
-.51
-.31
-.49
-.12
-.28
-.69**
-.59*
-.65*
-.71**
-.26
-,19
.01
-.52*
-.44
-.46
.08
-.53*
-.21
-.43
-.67*
-.47
-.58*
-.48
Beck Anxiety Inventory
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)
Bell Global Psychopathology Scale
Global psychopathology severity
(Zamostny et al., 1993)
Brief Symptom Inventory
Depression subscale
(Maton & Weisman, 1989; Maton,
1989b)
Depression subscale
Somatization subscale
Obsessive-compulsive subscale
Interpersonal sensitivity subscale
Anxiety subscale
Hostility subscale
Phobic anxiety subscale
360
Test/Test Variable
Academic
Adjustment
n
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)
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
-.21
-.62*
-.34
-.55*
-.50
-.48
-.28
-.35
-.49
-.45
-.58*
-.55*
-.72**
-.80**
-.82**
-.34
-.18
-.06
-.32
-.22
-.53*
-.59*
-.58*
-.75**
-.72**
161
-.38**
-.22**
-.34**
-.37**
-.37**
-.47**
-.43**
-.38**
-.55**
-.20**
-.19**
-.25**
-.42**
-.35**
-.47**
273c
-.23**
-.33**
-.54**
-.27**
-.43**
b
-.42**
-.53**
-.78**
-.48**
-.70**
-.48**
--
--
--
--
Center for Epidemiological Studies
Depression Scale
(M. D. Smith, 1994)
273
l
(Sutton, 1996)
137
(Hunsberger et al., 1996;
222c
-.28**
-.35**
-.60**
-.30**
-.48**
Hunsberger, 2000)
222
b
-.44**
-.55**
-.81**
-.52**
-.73**
(Shibazaki, 1999)
136p
-.40**
-.54**
-.75**
-.46**
--
96
-.35**
-.48**
-.76**
-.42**
--
368
-.34**
-.59**
-.73**
-.55**
-.68**
241
.72**
.58**
.41**
.32**
.57**
.33**
.42**
.39**
.69**
.53**
.56**
.48**
.60**
.50**
.43**
.38**
.15*
.33**
.32**
.29**
.38**
.31**
.48**
.54**
.37**
.40**
.18**
.27**
.34**
.31**
.55**
.39**
.57**
.54**
.44**
.26**
.42**
.36**
.34**
.41**
-.09**
-.22**
-.03
-.20**
-.15**
(Pratt, 2001)
(Beyers & Goossens, 2002a)
College Inventory of Academic
Adjustment
Global score
Curricular adjustment
Maturity of goals and level of
aspiration
Personal efficiency
Study skills
Mental health
Personal relations
(Lapsley, 1989; Rice et al., 1990)
College Life Task Assessment
Instrument
Forming an identity (sense of
integrity of the self, self-esteem)
Developing autonomy (closeness
of continued involvement with
home, family, and high school
friends)
623
361
Test/Test Variable
Academic
Adjustment
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
.07
.31**
.18**
.10**
-.11**
.29**
.05
.06
-.02
-.01
-.02
.11**
.25**
-.10**
-.15**
.25**
.08*
.08*
.00
-.03
.16**
.19**
.18**
.01
-.09**
157
--
--
--
--
-.46**
248h
--
--
-.26**
--
--
136
-.13
-.26**
-.49**
-.20*
--
100
-.06
.07
-.17*
.02
-.03
229d
-.14*
-.09
-.14*
-.15*
--
228
-.36**
-.34**
-.45**
-.33**
-.48**
201d
-.09
-.27**
-.18*
-.50**
-.28**
-.12
-.27**
-.20**
-.57**
-.32**
-.28**
-.36**
-.28**
-.61**
-.32**
-.11
-.29**
-.15*
-.60**
-.38**
-.18*
-.36**
-.25**
-.71**
-.40**
248h
---
---
-.42**
-.58**
---
---
105
--
--
--
--
-.29**
116f
-.30**
-.34**
-.44**
-.19
--
124d
-.08
-.08
-.37**
-.07
--
n
Establishing friendships
Academic achievement
Maintaining one's physical self
Determining future goals
Managing time
(Brower, 1990b)
Full
Scale
College Maladjustment Scale (Mt)
(Schriver, 1996)
Core Alcohol and Drug Survey
Negative consequences of alcohol
use
(Oliver et al., 1998)
Costello-Comrey Anxiety Scale
(Shibazaki, 1999)
Death Anxiety Scale
(Liter, 1987)
Dissociative Experiences Scale
(Marcotte, 1995)
Dysfunctional Attitudes ScaleForm A
(Walker, 1996)
Eating Disorder Inventory
Drive for thinness
Bulimia
Body dissatisfaction
Ineffectiveness
Maturity fears
(Kenny, 1992)
Eating problems (composite score)
Eating problems-related traits
(composite score)
(Oliver et al., 1998; Reed, 1994)
Health Checklist
(Gilkey et al., 1989)
Hopkins Symptom Checklist
Total score
(Kenny, 1994)
Somatic subscale
362
Test/Test Variable
Academic
Adjustment
n
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
Obsessive-compulsive subscale
-.27**
-.07
-.41**
-.11
--
Depression subscale
-.32**
-.35**
-.65**
-.41**
--
Interpersonal sensitivity subscale
-.24**
-.40**
-.48**
-.40**
--
Anxiety subscale
-.19*
-.12
-.53**
-.10
--
Total score
-.29**
-.26**
-.59**
-.28**
--
334i,h
--
-.37**
-.75**
--
--
166j,h
--
-.27**
-.72**
--
--
189e,h
--
-.36**
-.69**
--
--
310d,h
--
-.31**
-.75**
--
--
136p
-.36**
-.39**
-.75**
-.33**
--
84
----------
---------.46**
---------.59**
---------.39**
-.31**
-.55**
-.28**
-.34**
-.40**
-.48**
-.51**
-.16
--
198
-.64**
-.47**
-.68**
-.45**
--
273c
-.22**
-.27**
-.51**
-.23**
-.39**
273
b
-.53**
-.49**
-.80**
-.47**
-.73**
406
n
-.38**
-.39**
-.55**
-.33**
-.54**
407
o
-.57**
-.42**
-.75**
-.35**
-.70**
(Hunsberger et al., 1996;
224c
-.26**
-.28**
-.55**
-.25**
-.42**
Hunsberger, 2000)
224b
-.55**
-.50**
-.81**
-.50**
-.75**
96
-.50**
-.40**
-.56**
-.38**
--
220
--
--
--
--
-.69**
(Kenny, 1995)
Kandel Depression Scale
(Rice et al., 1997)
Mental Health Inventory-5
(Shibazaki, 1999)
Mini-Mult
Hypochondriasis
Depression
Hysteria
Psychopathic deviate
Paranoia
Psychasthenia
Schizophrenia
Hypomania
Total pathology score
(Humfleet & Ribordy, 1990)
Patient’s (ADHD) Behavior
Checklist
Panori (1997)
Perceived Stress Scale
(M. D. Smith, 1994)
(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &
Yaffe, 2000)
(Pratt, 2001)
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
State anxiety
(Jampol, 1988/1989)
363
Test/Test Variable
(Wang & Smith, 1993)
(Kline, 1992)
n
Academic
Adjustment
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
93d
99d
92e
191g
-.40**
-.32**
-.31**
-.32**
-.28**
-.38**
-.40**
-.39**
-.66**
-.63**
-.55**
-.59**
-.28**
-.36**
-.25**
-.30**
-.55**
-.51**
-.48**
-.50**
114e
185d
93d
-.57**
-.47**
-.40**
---.30**
---.64**
---.29**
---.56**
137l
-.43**
--
--
--
--
248h
--
--
-.54**
--
--
--
--
-.47**
--
--
NA
-.33**
-.50**
-.67**
--
-.55**
320
-.29**
-.43**
-.34**
-.44**
-.32**
-.27**
-.13*
-.31**
-.32**
-.27**
-.36**
-.42**
-.44**
-.37**
-.25**
-.33**
-.45**
-.32**
-.54**
-.61**
-.54**
-.67**
-.59**
-.50**
-.33**
-.51**
-.55**
-.25**
-.39**
-.37**
-.43**
-.36**
-.25**
-.32**
-.44**
-.35**
-.43**
-.56**
-.51**
-.61**
-.51**
-.39**
-.33**
-.52**
-.47**
Full
Scale
Trait anxiety
(Lopez, 1989)
(Wang & Smith, 1993)
Strain Questionnairem
Physical symptoms
(Sutton, 1996)
Stress Audit
Emotional stress
Physical symptoms
(Oliver et al., 1998; Reed, 1994)
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)
a
See also Table 23 on p. 53 of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).
Independent variable measure administered postmatriculation.
c
Independent variable measure administered prematriculation.
d
All females.
e
All males.
f
African-Americans, Asians, and Latinos (Independent variable measure administered first semester, SACQ second
semester).
g
Male and female samples combined.
h
Mixed college year levels.
i
White students.
j
African-American students.
k
Mixed foreign first year graduate students.
b
364
l
Used truncated, 10-item version of the Academic Adjustment subscale.
Shortened form.
N
Independent variable administered in first week of first semester.
o
Independent variable administered middle of second semester.
p
Mexican-American students.
M
*p<.05; **p<.01.
365
Appendix E
Correlations between SACQ Scores and Measures of Environment-Related Experiencea
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
-.08
-.07
-.16
-.02
-.13
-.22
-.29*
-.37**
-.06
-.35**
-.05
.01
.04
.05
.01
Unconflicted network size
-.01
.06
.05
.11
.05
Conflicted network size
-.10
-.14
-.04
-.16
-.13
Support satisfaction
-.08
.23*
.07
.03
.08
Support need
-.23*
-.22*
-.35**
-.07
-.33**
105e,i
.21*
.32**
.30**
.30**
.34**
56
f,i
.26*
.14
.40**
.11
.29*
66
g,i
.28*
.23*
.19
.29**
.29**
71
h,i
.18
.16
.20*
.13
.21*
298
i,k
.20**
.26**
.22**
.28**
Test/Test Variable
n
Adolescent Perceived Events Scale
Negative major life events
56
Daily hassles
(Brooks & DuBois, 1995)
Arizona Social Support Interview
Schedule
Network size
56
(Brooks & DuBois, 1995)
Support satisfaction
(Zea et al., 1995; Zea, 1997)
.24**
Emotional support satisfaction
77g,i
NS
NS
NS
.25*
Instrumental support satisfaction
.24*
NS
NS
NS
.18
Family/kin support satisfaction
NS
--
--
--
.22*
Friend/other support satisfaction
--
--
--
--
.22*
Overall social support satisfaction
--
--
--
--
.28**
(Jarama Alvan et al., 1996)
--
-.23**
-.60**
-.28**
-.50**
--
--
--
-.52**
Brief Coll. Student Hassles Scale
(M. D. Smith, 1994)
273
(Hunsberger et al., 1996)
222
.44**
--
Brief Michigan Alcoholism
Screening Test (adapted to identify
366
Test/Test Variable
n
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
alcohol abuse in student’s family)
(Buelow, 1990)
275
--
--
--
--
-.20**
229c
-.07
-.01
-.14*
-.05
--
As a child with an adult
-.04
.08
.01
.05
--
As a nonconsenting adolescent
-.12
-.13*
-.08
-.14*
--
(n=172i)
(n=140i)
(n=182i)
(n=166i)
Hero role
.37**
.14*
.21**
.16*
--
Scapegoat role
-.28**
-.07
-.23**
-.20**
--
Lost Child role
-.04
-.11
-.19**
-.19**
--
Mascot role
.00
.13
-.03
.04
--
--
--
-.51**q
--
--
--
r
--
--
q
--
--
r
--
Childhood Sex’l Experiences Ques.
As a child with a child
(Marcotte, 1995)
Children’s Roles Inventory
(Ropar, 1997)
Coll. Studt. Life Events Sched.
3rd week of October
109i
-rd
3 week of November
--
(Gallant, 1994)
Early Resources Checklist
Interpersonal relationships
Achievement
Play
(Zamostny et al., 1993)
Early Trauma Checklist
Loss (interpersonal)
Chaos (familial/personal/
economic disruptions)
Parental dysfunction
Abuse
(Zamostny et al., 1993)
--
-.27**
-.35**
--
--
-.42**
--
.09
.13*
.13*
.25**
.17**
.11
.07
.05
.12
.13*
.11
.08
-.06
-.02
-.14**
-.05
-.18**
-.14**
-.12
.01
---
-.12
.19**
-.13*
-.29**
-.29**
-.24**
-.09
-.20**
---
.32**
.37**
.27**
.41**
.31**
.34**
.21**
.38**
.22**
.19**
.22**
.26**
-228
228
---
FACES-II
Family cohesion
228
.30**
Family adaptability
(Walker, 1996)
FACES-III
Family cohesion
.29**
241
367
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
.22**
.11*
.11*
.02
.05
.09
.16*
.06
.15
.05
---
---
.07
.21*
.08
.24**
.18*
Reframing
.24**
.32**
.32**
.34**
.37**
Seeking Spiritual Support
.03
.12
.08
.13
.09
Acquiring Help from Community
.01
.19*
.01
.19*
.13
Passive Appraisal
.30**
.05
.17*
.11
.21*
Total score
.17*
.28**
.17*
.31**
.29**
241
.24**
.17**
-.16**
.12*
.23**
.05
.09
22**
.28**
.26**
-.11*
.10
.21**
.26**
.15*
.26**
.26**
.15*
-.30**
.16**
.14*
.10
.11
.20**
.23**
.20**
-.12*
.10
.18**
.24**
.13*
.23**
.32**
.23**
-.22**
.14*
.24**
.17**
.14*
.31**
162p
----
----
----
----
.21**
-.35**
.09
140
.30**
.26**
-28**
.15
-.10
.15
.28**
.02
.22**
.22**
-.17*
.06
-.04
.06
.29**
.05
.27**
.22**
-.34**
.09
-.16
-.02
.25**
.23**
-.22**
.10
-.05
.03
.32**
.28**
-.31**
.13
-.10
.09
Test/Test Variable
Family adaptability
(Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989)
Family cohesion
Family adaptability
(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999b)
n
156i
---
Family Crisis Oriented Personal
Evaluation Scale (F-COPES)
Acquiring Social Support
140
Resources
(Hopkins, 1998; see also Feenstra
et al, 2001)
Family Environment Scale
Family cohesion
Expressiveness
Conflict
Independence
Intellectual-cultural
Activity-recreation
Moral-religious
Organization
(Rice et al., 1990; Lapsley, 1989)
Family cohesion
Conflict
Expressiveness
(Caplan, 1996/1997)
Family cohesion
Expressiveness
Conflict
Independence
Achievement
Intellectual-cultural
Activity-recreation
368
Test/Test Variable
n
Moral-religious
Organization
Control
(Hopkins, 1998; see also Feenstra
et al., 2001)
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
.25**
-.13
.15
-.16
.24**
-.09
.13
-.23**
.26**
.09
.15
-.12
.33**
.01
.21*
-.20*
--
--
--
--
.29**
.41**
.33**
.40**
.47**
.30**
.28**
.31**
.34**
.36**
.38**
.35**
.30**
.30**
.25**
.29**
.28**
.33**
.32**
.27**
.38**
.38**
.37**
.37**
.32**
.35**
.29**
.33**
.37**
.33**
.27**
.36**
.36**
.37**
.34**
.35**
.30**
.32**
.35**
.34**
.37**
.37**
.39**
.43**
.40**
.25**
.17
.29**
.30**
.11
-.01
.14
.10
.19**
.06
.22**
.21**
Family Functioning Scales
Total score
275
(Buelow, 1990)
Family of Origin Scale (fostering
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
.34**
320i
.29**
.32**
.27**
.25**
.19**
.26**
.27**
.28**
.30**
.29**
Family Ritual Questionnaire
Family ritualization
(Kline, 1992)
99c
92
b
191
k
.26**
.07
369
Test/Test Variable
n
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
.19**
Family Structure Survey
Parent-child role reversal
Marital conflict
Fear of separation
Parent-child overinvolvement
(Grella, 1989)
45
-.07
-.29
-.23
.18
-.08
-.31*
-.19
-.06
-.19
-.26
-.32*
-.15
-.12
-.36*
-.28
-.15
-.13
-.37*
-.30*
-.04
Marital conflict
(Lopez, 1989)
114b
185c
-.14
-.08
---
---
---
---
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
-----
93c
.34**
.17
.23*
.29**
.27**
.21*
.21*
.28**
.36**
.28**
198
.28**
.26**
.25**
.08
.28**
------
.37**
.28**
.28**
.17**
.36**
------
------
Total
(Kim et al., 1992)
NA
.24**
.40**
.26**
--
.39**
Self-esteem support
Appraisal support
Belonging support
Tangible support
Total
(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**
77g,i
--
--
--
--
-.40**
Father-Daughter Relationship
Inventory
Affectional interaction subscale
Time spent actively involved
(Wang & Smith, 1993)
Interpersonal Support Evaluation
List
Self-esteem support
Appraisal support
Belonging support
Tangible support
Total
(Robbins et al., 1993)
Life Experiences Survey
Overall stress
(Jarama Alvan et al., 1996)
370
Test/Test Variable
n
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
-.09**
-.21**
-.08*
--
-.32**
-.31**
-.30**
--
Negative impact rating
life events in general
1011v
life events in college
(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)
Life Stress
(Maton & Weisman, 1989)
.11**
.34**
-.27*
75
--
--
--
--
.24*
.23*
.26*
.36**
.03
.06
-.03
.07
.02
.25*
.22*
.31**
.10
.29**
.18*
.09
.14*
.09
.15*
.13
.08
.15
.12
.16
.38**
.45**
.33**
.46**
.20**
.28**
.21**
.29**
.33**
.14
.29**
.30**
.47**
.35**
.30**
.34**
.36**
.25**
.29**
.32**
.15
.22*
.20*
.26**
.34**
.36**
.28*
.32**
.24**
.28**
.24**
.28**
.20*
.07
.18*
.12
.39**
.09
.48**
.38**
.29**
.08
.33**
.25**
.19*
.23*
.14
.18*
.23*
.14
.36**
.25*
.21**
.19**
.25**
.21**
.31**
.10
.28**
.23*
McMaster Family Assessment Device
General Functioning score
66
.34**
(Pappas, 2000)
Multidimensional Support Scale
From family & close friends
frequency
96c
65
b
161
satisfaction with frequency
k
96
c
65
b
161
k
From peers
frequency
96c
65b
161k
satisfaction with frequency
96
c
65
b
161
k
96c
65
k
96
c
65
b
161
Total frequency score
.16
.04
.13*
.17*
.12
b
161
satisfaction with frequency
.21**
.10
From authority figures
frequency
.33**
k
96c
.11
.26*
.16*
.18*
.14
371
Test/Test Variable
n
65b
161
Total satisfaction with freq. score
(Polewchak, 1999)
k
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
.15*
.49**
.27*
.42**
.40**
.16
.36**
.20**
.36**
.32**
96
c
.13
.21*
.29**
.22*
.28**
65
b
.17*
.41**
.41**
.45**
.45**
161
k
.23*
.31**
.34**
.33**
.36**
.25*
.22**
Parental Authority Questionnaire
Mother authoritativeness
Father authoritativeness
Mother authoritarianism
Father authoritarianism
Mother permissiveness
Father permissiveness
(Wintre & Sugar, 2000; see also
255c
.16*
.19**
.19**
.06
--
102
b
.16
.24**
.21*
.21*
--
255
c
.12*
.19**
.13*
.08
--
102
b
.11
.38**
.27**
.28**
--
255
c
-.14*
-.09
-.23**
.01
--
102
b
-.04
-.17*
-.10
-.06
--
255
c
-.12*
-.08
-.15**
.04
--
102
b
-.10
-.21*
-.24**
-.10
--
255c
.02
.08
.03
-.06
--
102b
.00
-.11
-.04
-.05
--
255
c
.02
.09
.05
-.06
--
102
b
.02
.03
.03
.05
--
.21**
.18**
.09*
.20**
Sugar, 1997)
Mother authoritativeness
Father authoritativeness
Mother authoritarianism
Father authoritarianism
398
379
.14**
.23**
.17**
.14**
.20**
398
.12*
-.12*
-.15**
.00
-.14**
378
-.11*
-.13**
-.18**
-.02
-.16**
.04
.01
-.03
.03
.08
.06
-.01
.06
.26*
.21*
.29**
.35**
.07
-.05
-.02
-.03
Mother permissiveness
398
Father permissiveness
377
(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &
.13**
.04
.06
Yaffe, 2000)
Most influential parent
Authoritativeness
Authoritarianism
66
372
Test/Test Variable
n
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
.35**
Permissiveness
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
-.11
-.03
-.08
-.12
-.10
(Pappas, 2000)
-.14
Parental Authority Questionnaire
(modified)
Mother authoritativeness
141c
.31**
Father authoritativeness
.19*
Mother permissive-neglectfulness
.27**
Father permissive-neglectfulness
Mother authoritarianism
.24**
Father authoritarianism
.27**
.35**
.23**
.35**
.20*
.26**
.16
.24*
-.29**
-.25**
-.26**
-.32**
-.17*
-.22**
-.15
-.23**
-.16
-.32**
-.11
-.22**
-.17*
-.29**
-.14
-.21**
Mother permissive-indulgence
-.18*
.01
.15
-.03
.03
Father permissive-indulgence
-.12
.01
.10
.00
.01
(Shilkret & Vecchiotti, 1995)
.00
.15*
.17*
.09
.18*
.03
.08
.00
.06
-.04
Mother authoritativeness
156c
Father authoritativeness
Mother permissive-neglectfulness
.12
-.10
-.21**
-.05
-.16*
Father permissive-neglectfulness
.05
-.11
-.14*
-.04
-.14*
Mother authoritarianism
-.11
-.09
-.15*
-.04
-.13*
Father authoritarianism
-.11
-.01
-.11
.01
-.04
Mother permissive-indulgence
-.12
.11
.04
.08
.07
Father permissive-indulgence
-.02
-.04
.00
.00
-.06
(Shilkret & Edwards, 1997)
.01
.18**
.26**
.16**
.28**
Father authoritativeness
.10*
.30**
.08
.26**
Mother permissive-neglectfulness
-.17**
-.26**
-.19**
-.29**
-.12*
-.25**
-.12*
-.25**
-.08
-.17**
.08
-.16**
-.03
-.23**
-.03
-.17**
.03
.03
.00
.05
-.02
.09
-.06
.06
-.10
Mother authoritativeness
Father permissive-neglectfulness
292
.27**
Mother authoritarianism
Father authoritarianism
Mother permissive-indulgence
Father permissive-indulgence
(Shilkret, 2000)
.29**
.32**
.29**
373
Test/Test Variable
n
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
.15**
.20**
.07
.11*
Parental Bonding Instrument
Mother caringness
142i
--
--
--
.29**
--
Father caringness
--
--
--
.09
--
Mother protectiveness
--
--
--
-.11
--
Father protectiveness
--
--
--
-.03
--
--
.28**
.17**
--
--
--
.22**
.14**
--
--
--
.30**
.21**
--
--
--
.40**
.29**
--
--
--
.28**
.13*
--
--
--
.33**
.26**
--
--
--
.29**
.20**
--
--
--
.27**
.18**
--
--
--
-.16**
-.19**
--
--
--
-.14**
-.25**
--
--
--
-.25**
-.14*
--
--
--
-.18*
-.29**
--
--
--
-.12*
-.18**
--
--
--
-.10
-.26**
--
--
--
-.22**
-.15**
--
--
--
-.17**
-.22**
--
--
--
.07
-.03
--
--
Father caringness
--
.12
.19*
--
--
Mother protectiveness
--
-.08
.10
--
--
Father protectiveness
--
-.18*
-.30**
--
--
(Lopez, 1997)
Mother caringness
334e
Father caringness
Mother caringness
166
f
189
b
Father caringness
Mother caringness
Father caringness
Mother caringness
310c
Father caringness
Mother protectiveness
334
e
166
f
189
b
310
c
Father protectiveness
Mother protectiveness
Father protectiveness
Mother protectiveness
Father protectiveness
Mother protectiveness
Father protectiveness
(Rice et al., 1997)
Mother caringness
156i
374
Test/Test Variable
n
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
(Lapsley & Edgerton, 1999b)
Mother caringness
90
.29**
Father caringness
.27**
.29**
.26**
.33**
.00
.13
-.03
.06
Mother protectiveness
.06
-.10
-.19*
.02
-.13
Father protectiveness
-.12
.13
-.10
.13
.01
(Bailey & Shilkret, 2000b)
-.06
.32**
.38**
.30**
--
-.24**
-.35**
-.25**
--
Parents combined caringness
261
Parents combined protectiveness
.30**
(McAndrew-Miller, 1989)
.22**
Parental Physical Maltreatment
Scale
(Marcotte, 1995)
229c
.17**
-.17**
-.16**
-.26**
--
229c
.21**
-.12*
-.25**
-.15*
--
---
.26**
.23**
---
---
Parental Psychological
Maltreatment Scale
(Marcotte, 1995)
Parent-Child Relations
Questionnaire II
The love-reject factor score
(Mendelson, 1987/1988)
Perceived Parental Attitude Scale
Encouragement of independence
by father
(Wang & Smith, 1993)
114b
118c
---
93c
.20
.28**
.24**
.28**
.30**
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
Family
(Maton, 1989a)
(Bartels, 1995)
(Just, 1998)
prematriculation
postmatriculation
(Birnie-Lefcovitch, 1997)
375
Test/Test Variable
n
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
Perceived Social Support from
Friends
(Maton & Weisman, 1989; Maton,
1989b)
(Frazier & Cook, 1993)
(Bartels, 1995)
Friends in college
Friends not in college
(Hertel, 1996)
(Just, 1998)
(McAndrew-Miller, 1989)
(Shibazaki, 1999)
75
85
506
105s
25t
130k
105s
25t
130k
202
261
136w
.37**
-.24**
.38**
.08
.33**
.18*
.02
.14
.55**
-.41**
.31**
.19*
.21**
.39**
-.31**
.48**
-.35**
.68**
.56**
.66**
.15
-.25
.04
.36**
.51**
.26**
.31**
.22
.30**
.07
-.16
.02
.19**
.15**
.27**
.56**
.51**
.56**
.00
-.26
-.07
.20**
.40**
.09
.56**
.29
.51**
.19*
-.22
.09
.28**
NA
--
.15**
ns
.20*
Physical Maltreatment by Others
Scale
(Marcotte, 1995)
229c
-.14*
-.09
-.09
-.14*
--
244i
--
--
--
--
-.32**
136w
-.01
-.10
-.24**
-.08
--
.57**
.54**
.61**
.67**
Psychological Distress Inventory
Stress level
(Bartels, 1990)
Racism and Life Experiences
Scale-Brief Version
(Shibazaki, 1999)
Residence Hall Climate Inventory
Personal support subscale
Conflict subscale
Group cohesiveness subscale
Order subscale
44b
.41**
77
c
.40**
.20*
.45**
.30**
44
b
.07
-.33*
-.10
-.24
-.13
77
c
-.03
-.45**
-.35**
-.53**
-.48**
44
b
.35*
.07
.35*
.27*
77
c
.26*
.19*
.32**
.30**
44
b
-.18
.08
.19
.25
.31**
.16
376
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
-.13
-.02
-.07
-.04
.16
-.25
-.22
-.22
--
Scapegoat role
-.09
-.24
-.17
-.13
--
Sick or Lost Child role
.19
-.20
-.04
-.13
--
Mascot role
-.24
.17
-.10
-.04
--
-.10
-.09
-.38**
-.22*
--
Scapegoat role
-.21
-.29**
-.29**
-.14
--
Sick or Lost Child role
.17
-.31**
-.29**
-.20
--
Mascot role
-.02
.13
.00
.03
--
-.22*
.03
-.32**
.01
--
.29**
-.17*
-.35**
-.10
--
-.21*
-.40**
-.05
--
.34**
.17*
-.13
.01
--
--
--
-.32**
Test/Test Variable
(Barthelemy & Fine, 1995)
n
77c
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
.23*
.36**
.03
Role Relationship Inventory
Alcohol/drug-abusing families
Hero role
57
Disrupted, non-drug-abusing
families
Hero role
81
Normal families
Hero role
137
Scapegoat role
Sick or Lost Child role
Mascot role
Overall score, total sample
275
-.16
(Buelow, 1990)
--
--
Self-Report Family InventoryVersion II
Health/competence subscale
110
--
-.19*
-.21*
--
--
--
-.08
-.21*
--
--
.31**
-.33**
-.38**
-.31**
-.41**
-.19**
-.31**
-.20**
-.30**
.24**
-.30**
-.37**
-.30**
-.40**
-.19**
-.18**
-.18**
-.19**
Cohesion subscale
(Clauss, 1995)
Health/Competence subscale
Cohesion subscale
Conflict subscale
Leadership subscale
320i
-
377
Test/Test Variable
n
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
-.32**
-.31**
-.28**
-.34**
.09
.35**
-.22*
.27**
-.02
.08
-.04
.31**
.11
-.05
.08
.11
.11
.04
-.04
-.24*
.16
-.10
-.02
-.06
.25*
-.01
.01
-.09
-.04
.09
.17
.28**
-.22*
.26**
-.04
.07
.00
.39**
.11
-.15
.14
.17
.11
.14
.20
-.27**
.26**
-.06
.07
-.04
.38**
.08
-.07
.07
.10
.16
-.13*
-.05
-.14*
-.12
-.05
-.16*
-.06
-.04
-.09
-.03
-.05
-.08
-.08
-.04
.00
-.02
.07
.08
.14*
.17*
.16*
.27**
-.03
.43**
.29**
.28**
.14*
.29**
.27**
.32**
-.08
.26**
.37**
.66**
-.02
.05
.09
.11
.24**
-.22**
-.04
.01
.06
-.18**
-.04
-.16*
-.12
-.29**
.06
.05
.22**
.09
.11
.13
.11
.30**
-.04
.29**
.23**
.15*
.03
.14*
.17*
.16*
-.04
.20**
.27**
.62**
-.03
.04
.04
.06
.20**
-.17*
.18*
.13
.12
-.03
.10
.04
.07
-.14*
.17*
.19**
.45**
.13*
.25**
.07
.19**
.23**
NS
--
--
--
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
.30**
Emotional Expressiveness subscale
Attachment
Full
Scale
-.09
(Hutto, 1998)
.22**
Social Network Questionnaire
Network size
Percent students
Percent relatives
Percent friends
Percent roommates
Value and attitude similarity
Intimacy of relationship
Fun/relaxation
Task assistance
Anger/conflict
Emotional support
Information/advice
Location of interaction
(Serafica et al., 1990)
Soc’l Network Quest. (adapted)
Network size
Density
Number of friends
Percent friends
Percent students
Percent family
Intimacy of relationship
Attitude similarity
Fun/relaxation
Task assistance
Information/advice
Emotional support
Total support
Anger/conflict
Frequency of contact
Current satisfaction with network
Expected satisfaction with
network
Satisfaction with family
relationship
(Harris, 1988)
88
.08
.02
-.10
.07
.13
.16
.10
.38**
.17
-.07
.16
.17
.12
166
Social Provisions Scale
Guidance subscale
152c,j
.29**
378
Test/Test Variable
n
Reliable alliance subscale
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
NS
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
--
.28**
--
--
--
.37**
--
--
--
NS
--
--
--
.27**
--
--
--
.20*
--
--
--
.35**
--
--
224v
.32**
.24**
.25**
.32**
96
.68**
.39**
.63**
--
.25**
.22**
.16**
.26**
-.43**
-.37**
-.48**
-.40**
.43**
.33**
.44**
.42**
Reassurance of worth subscale
.22**
Opportunity for nurturance
NS
subscale
Attachment subscale
NS
Social integration subscale
Total score
.22**
(Ortiz, 1995)
.18*
Total score
(Hunsberger et al., 1996)
(Pratt, 2001)
.23**
.22*
Social Provisions Scale-Parent
Version
Total score
(Yaffe, 1997; see also Wintre &
405
.18**
Yaffe, 2000)
Social Support Inventory
Perceived fit score
121
-.22*
Subjective satisfaction score
.29**
(Corbett, 1991)
Perceived fit score
244i
--
--
--
-.53**
Subjective satisfaction score
--
--
--
--
.49**
Need strength score
--
--
--
--
-.36**
Perceived supply score
--
--
--
--
.13*
(Bartels, 1990)
--
-.32**
-.45**
-.33**
--
.33**
.44**
.35**
--
Perceived Fit score
Subjective Satisfaction score
358
348
.33**
(Fuller, 2000)
.37**
379
Test/Test Variable
n
Academi
c
Adjustm
ent
Social
Adjustment
PersonalEmotional
Adjustment
Attachment
Full
Scale
Social Support Questionnaire
444l
Number of support persons
Satisfaction with support
246
m
444
l
246
m
Total score
444l
(Savino, 1987)
246m
.05
.25**
.06
.14**
.14**
.11*
.37**
.19**
.25**
.27**
.30**
.21**
.18**
.26**
.31**
.24**
.22**
.31**
.30**
.12**
.17**
.20**
.40**
.23**
.28**
.32**
--
.16*q
--
--
--
r
--
--
q
--
--
--
--
.17**
.22**
.10**
Number of support persons
u
109
i
.16**
Satisfaction with support
u
---
(Gallant, 1994)
.20*
.21*
r
--
.13
--
.32*
.13
.33*
.32*
--
-.03
.15
.08
.22
.29**
.11**
.32**
--
-Satisfaction with support
45
i
Perceived availability
(Huff, 1998)
.21
.22
Student Opinion Survey
Overall satisfaction with one’s
1101
.30**
college
(Napoli & Wortman, 1998)
Student-Oriented Life Events
Survey
229c
.42**
-.35**
-.48**
-.34**
--
144
.29**
-.14
-.37**
--
--
-.28**
-.49**
--
--
.34**
.24**
.34**
--
(Marcotte, 1995)
Student Stress Scale
Stress score
Degree of stressfulness
.40**
(Natera, 1998)
Young Adult Social Support
Inventory
(Marcotte, 1995)
229c
.30**
380
a
See also Table 24, pp. 54-55, of the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).
All males.
c
All females.
d
Independent variable administered in fall semester, SACQ in spring semester.
e
White students.
f
African-American students.
g
Latino students.
h
Asian-American students.
i
Mixed college year levels.
j
Age 25-45.
k
Total sample.
l
First semester testing.
m
Second semester testing.
n
Sample includes traditional- and nontraditional-age undergraduate and graduate students.
o
Mixed foreign first year graduate students.
p
Early entrant freshmen, who skipped the junior and/or senior years of high school, age 14-17.
q
SACQ administered 3rd week of October.
r
SACQ administered 3rd week of November.
s
Second generation college attenders.
t
First generation college attenders.
u
SSQ administered 3rd week of October.
v
Independent variable administered prematriculation.
W
Mexican-American students.
b
*p<.05; **p<.01.
381
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
382
relates to adjustment to college. Paper presented at the meeting of the American College
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.
383
Amin, A. H. (2000). Cultural adaptation and psychosocial adjustment among Arab-American
college students. (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 2000). Dissertation
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 atrisk 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
384
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
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 selfdisillusionment 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.
385
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.
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.
386
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.
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 firstyear 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
387
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, 169176.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60, 771788.
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, 329345.
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, __,
388
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:
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:
389
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.
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
390
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 freshmanoriented 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
391
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
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,
392
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
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.
393
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.
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 separationindividuation 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.
394
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
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?
395
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 separationindividuation, and adjustment in first-year college students. (Doctoral dissertation,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56,
4049B.
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,
396
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
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-
397
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
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 MissouriColumbia, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 1487B.
398
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, 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
.
399
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
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
400
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.
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
401
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 nonathletes. (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
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.
402
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, 261266.
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
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.
403
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.
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).
404
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
Research and Practice (Chapter 18, pp. 272-279). Madison: University of WisconsinMadison.
Grotevant, H. D., & Adams, G. R. (1984). Development of an objective measure to assess ego
405
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
relationship. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 644-650.
Halloran, N. H. (2000). Freshman learning communities and their effectiveness on college
406
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.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hazzard-Patterson, T. (1999). Parental loss and first year college adjustment. Unpublished
407
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), 473475.
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.
Hickman, G. P., Bartholomae, S., & McKenry, P. C. (2000). Influence of parenting styles on the
408
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
409
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 familyof-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 separationindividuation. 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.
410
Hurlbut, S. C., & Sher, K. J. (1992). Assessing alcohol problems in college students. Journal of
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, 163176.
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
411
Abstracts International, 56, 1142A.
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 extraversionintroversion. 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
412
master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Johnson, J. H. (1982). Life events as stressors in childhood and adolescence. In B. B. Lahey &
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
413
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.
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.
414
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
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 MiniMult. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 319-325.
415
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
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
416
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?
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
417
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.
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
418
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,
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.
419
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.
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.
420
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
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.
421
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
on adjustment to college: A follow-up study. Social Behavior and Personality, 22, 201208.
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
422
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
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
423
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.
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.
424
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 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
425
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, selfesteem, 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
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
426
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.
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.
427
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, 311321.
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.
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
428
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: Parentchild 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
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.
429
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 selfadministered 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.
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 selfreport measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 855-868.
Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M. E.
430
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 AfricanAmerican 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
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
431
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
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
432
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
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
433
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
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,
434
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
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
435
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 selfesteem and self-efficacy beliefs. Unpublished master's thesis, York University, North
York, Ontario, Canada.
436
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, l27l39.
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 UWMadison 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
dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts
437
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.
438
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, 2125.
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.
439
Sherer, M., Maddox, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W.
(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),
440
Washington, D. C., April.
Siegelman, M., & Roe, A. (1979). Manual: The Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire II.
Unpublished manuscript.
Silver, A. R. (1995). College adjustment: Relationships to attachment security, separationindividuation, 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
441
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
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
442
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.
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 crossgenerational 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.
443
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.
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
444
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.
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
445
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
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 AfricanAmerican 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.
446
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.
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
447
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.
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).
448
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
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.
449
aaa
Abe, J., 88, 89, 150, 213
Abrahamson, L. Y., 47
Abramson, L. Y., 23, 249
Acunzo, M. E., 104, 213
Adams, G. R., 49, 231
Adan, A. M., 8, 20, 23, 30, 80, 82, 83, 101, 134, 135, 213
Addison, N. E., 22, 81, 95, 213
Ainsworth, M. D., 71, 213
Albert, M. M., 6, 8, 10, 51, 55, 81, 84, 92, 94, 95, 109, 119, 140, 213
Alisat, S., 44, 80, 102, 149, 239, 247
Allen, D., 80, 126, 127, 134, 140, 209, 210, 256
Allen, J. L., 5, 51, 55, 119, 122, 213
Allen, S. F., 9, 81, 119, 120, 214, 253
American College Testing Program, Research and Development Division, 214
Amerikaner, M., 34, 221
Ames, M. H., 94, 236
Anderson, W. T., 107, 234
Antonovsky, A., 34, 214
Appenzeller, E. A., 147, 214
Aries, E., 109, 214
Armsden, G. C., 61, 68, 214
Armstead, C. D., 22, 26, 103, 128, 184, 186, 191, 211, 215
Aydin, F., 19, 72, 73, 89, 90, 96, 105, 109, 111, 129, 177, 194, 199, 201, 204, 206, 207, 215
Bachman, J. G., 37, 215
Baik, J., 60, 61, 215
Bailey, J. S., 77, 119, 181, 182, 215
Baker, 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, 258
Bank, L., 48, 244
Barkley, R. A., 29, 217
Barrera, M., Jr., 127, 217
Barrett, J., 39, 75, 233
Bartels, K. M., 41, 48, 55, 72, 80, 90, 95, 102, 110, 123, 130, 177, 179, 183, 186, 188, 208, 210, 211, 217
Barthelemy, K. J., 81, 139, 208, 209, 217
Bartholomew, K., 72, 217
Basham, R. B., 128, 255
Batgos, J., 109, 214
Baum, A., 259
Beavers, W. R., 106, 108, 217
Beck, A. T., 20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 217, 218, 263
Behrman, J. A., 128, 247
Belgrave, F. Z., 102, 128, 201, 204, 236
Bell, R. A., 19, 256
Bem, S. L., 81, 218
Benedicto, J. A., 55, 188, 232
Benson, R. T., 149, 218
Berman, W. H., 142, 259
Bernstein, E. M., 27, 218
Berry, J., 77, 246
Berzonsky, M. D., 49, 218
Betz, N. E., 40, 218
450
Beyers, W., 5, 55, 57, 92, 188, 190, 218
Bianchi, F. T., 33, 45, 80, 82, 84, 85, 128, 178, 183, 201, 265
Billings, A. G., 26, 32, 34, 67, 218, 246
Bilynsky, J., 7, 80, 264
Blankstein, K. R., 101, 218
Blatt, S. J., 59, 219
Blehar, M. C., 71, 213
Block, J. R., 41, 264
Bloom, B. L., 107, 121, 219
Blustein, D. L., 50, 54, 55, 63, 69, 182, 188, 193, 237, 255
Bobier, D. M., 55, 81, 186, 187, 189, 219
Bonz, M. H., 31, 80, 240
Borow, H., 10, 219
Brady, T., 129, 220
Bragg, T. A., 10, 219
Braithwaite, V. A., 54, 219
Bray, J. H., 58, 219
Briere, J., 103, 219
Briggs, S. R., 260
Brooks, J. H., II, 19, 40, 66, 80, 90, 91, 94, 101, 127, 144, 177, 201, 220
Brower, A. M., 5, 9, 10, 35, 174, 176, 197, 220
Brown, D. A., 153, 220
Brown, G., 24, 217
Brown, L. B., 109, 111, 248
Brown, S., 80, 126, 127, 134, 140, 209, 210, 256
Brown, S. D., 40, 54, 80, 92, 129, 177, 184, 192, 220, 240
Brunig, C. A., 112, 220
Buchanan, S. R., 146, 220, 221
Buelow, G., 107, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 201, 202, 203, 209, 221
Burger, J. M., 66, 235
Buri, J. R., 112, 114, 221
Burks, N., 110, 124, 127, 243
Burr, M., 7, 9, 81, 82, 85, 94, 122, 221
Burrell, S., 6, 173, 230
Bush, M., 77, 246
Buss, A. H., 26, 33, 67, 74, 221, 227
Butler, W. M., 106, 221
Byrne, D. G., 133, 233
Camp, C. C., 5, 6, 40, 50, 51, 53, 91, 174, 179, 191, 192, 221, 222
Campbell, J. M., 34, 221
Campbell, V. L., 22, 55, 80, 81, 108, 116, 119, 242
Campbell, W. J., 41, 264
Caplan, S. M., 37, 106, 193, 203, 222
Carden, A. I., 8, 21, 46, 76, 183, 196, 223
Carlson, D. L., 5, 6, 8, 23, 49, 222
Carmen, R. C., 30, 232
Carney, C. G., 50, 247
Caro, J. E., 39, 55, 59, 75, 76, 109, 110, 111, 123, 133, 222
Carter, D. F., 7, 80, 84, 90, 91, 110, 125, 136, 140, 141, 144, 235
Carver, C. S., 31, 222
Chartrand, J. M., 5, 6, 40, 50, 51, 53, 91, 174, 179, 191, 192, 221, 222
Cheek, J. M., 260
Chevron, E., 59, 219
Chodoff, P., 39, 75, 233
451
Chosy, J., 28, 223
Christenson, R. M., 59, 222
Christie, R., 33, 67, 248
Clark, L. A., 22, 26, 262
Clarke, D., 7, 261
Clauss, K., 37, 55, 60, 106, 108, 179, 185, 188, 209, 223
Cline, D., 28, 223
Clingempeel, W. G., 80, 120, 228
Cochran, S. W., 107, 234
Cohen, S., 26, 44, 102, 131, 132, 223
Cole, D. A., 10, 25, 55, 56, 58, 69, 70, 105, 106, 179, 180, 183, 192, 197, 202, 203, 251
Collins, N. L., 70, 72, 223
Compas, B. E., 101, 223
Cook, S. W., 37, 81, 104, 123, 179, 208, 228
Cooler, J. R., 10, 25, 39, 57, 69, 70, 116, 117, 118, 119, 192, 193, 223
Cooley, E. L., 8, 21, 46, 76, 183, 196, 223
Cooper, C., 24, 25, 246
Cooper, S. A., 87, 224
Cooper, S. E., 137, 224
Coopersmith, S., 36, 37, 224
Corbett, C. A., 14, 83, 84, 96, 97, 129, 210, 211, 224
Costa, P. T., Jr., 27, 48, 66, 67, 99, 224
Costar, D., 36, 51, 74, 80, 128, 138, 139, 143, 148, 255
Crastnopol, M. G., 59, 224
Cronkite, R. C., 32, 246
Crouse, D. W., 36, 82, 93, 179, 224
Crowley, J., 64, 264
Crumbaugh, J., 50, 225
Cuellar, I., 85, 225
Cunningham, T. J., 8, 21, 39, 81, 83, 109, 111, 192, 198, 206, 207, 251
Currie, F., 80, 149, 239
Cutrona, C. E., 76, 110, 130, 225, 253, 254
Dahlen, N. W., 129, 265
Danielson, H., 80, 139, 225
Danilovics, P., 99, 228
Davies, M., 21, 237
Davis, B., 38, 41, 47, 258
Davis, E. R., 5, 37, 40, 41, 49, 150, 174, 180, 225
Davis, G. E., 101, 223
Derogatis, L. R., 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 37, 225
Dewein, K. M., 5, 45, 49, 55, 68, 75, 91, 94, 119, 120, 174, 177, 180, 185, 187, 188, 190, 193, 225
Diener, E., 22, 78, 226
DiGiuseppe, R., 45, 226
Dixon, P. N., 46, 148, 243
Dodgen-Magee, D. J., 20, 196, 226
Donaldson, G. A., 55, 237
DuBois, D. L., 25, 40, 66, 80, 90, 91, 94, 101, 127, 144, 177, 201, 220
Duke, M. P., 46, 246
Duncan-Jones, P., 133, 233
Edgerton, J., 38, 55, 59, 72, 73, 106, 109, 111, 179, 185, 189, 190, 202, 203, 206, 207, 226, 240
Edwards, H. L., 55, 77, 112, 113, 114, 115, 181, 188, 190, 206, 257
Elacqua, T. C., 7, 82, 140, 142, 147, 226
Ellison, C. W., 22, 226
Emery, G., 29, 217
452
Emmons, R. A., 22, 226
Endler, N. S., 31, 227
Epstein, N., 24, 217
Erbaugh, J., 20, 21, 22, 218
Erickson, C. J., 65, 115, 227
Evans-Hughes, G., 5, 7, 46, 80, 84, 174, 183, 227
Exner, T., 45, 226
Eysenck, H. J., 66, 227
Eysenck, S. B. G., 66, 227
Fackelman, P., 74, 75, 227
Fagen, G., 142, 259
Farber, S. S., 101, 227
Farley, G. K., 129, 265
Felner, R. D., 8, 20, 23, 30, 80, 82, 83, 101, 134, 135, 213, 227
Fenigstein, A., 74, 227
Fernandez, G., 99, 228
Fible, B., 36, 227
Fiese, B. H., 107, 227
Fine, M., 107, 234
Fine, M. A., 81, 139, 208, 209, 217, 239
Finney, J. W., 32, 246
Fitts, W. H., 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 228, 253
FitzGerald, D. P., 62, 63, 68, 92, 240, 251
Flanagan, C., 60, 228
Flescher, M., 8, 18, 20, 24, 80, 101, 120, 133, 228
Fletcher, G. J. O., 99, 228
Flett, G. L., 78, 101, 218, 233
Florian, V., 73, 245
Folkman, S., 44, 228
Forsythe, C. J., 101, 223
Foster, T. R., 5, 30, 36, 38, 39, 141, 173, 193, 194, 228
Franco, J. N., 80, 84, 236
Frazier, P. A., 37, 81, 104, 123, 179, 208, 228
Freeman, S. K., 8, 55, 229
Friedland, C. D., 30, 41, 45, 80, 140, 177, 178, 229
Friend, R., 76, 262
Fuligni, A., 60, 228
Fuller, B. E., 37, 47, 129, 229
Gallant, L. M., 14, 31, 80, 102, 129, 179, 202, 211, 229
Garbarino, C., 81, 121, 229
Garner, D. M., 27, 36, 229
Garner, H. D., 55, 105, 116, 229, 259
Garrett, S. E., 36, 229
Geelhoed, R. J., 88, 89, 150, 213
Gekoski, W. L., 80, 183, 186, 258
Gerdes, H., 5, 9, 10, 12, 80, 137, 176, 230
Gibbs, C. L., 63, 92, 251
Gilkey, J. K., 5, 9, 28, 37, 57, 93, 94, 112, 173, 186, 191, 198, 230, 250
Gilleylen, C. E., 93, 230
Ginsburg, G., 106, 221
Gold, J., 6, 173, 230
Goldberg, L. R., 25, 40, 67, 230
Goodrich, S., 74, 263
Goossens, L., 5, 55, 57, 92, 188, 190, 218
453
Gore, P. A., 40, 54, 80, 92, 177, 184, 192, 240
Gottfredson, D. C., 50, 234
Gottlieb, B. H., 217
Gough, H. G., 30, 39, 75, 231, 233
Graham, C., 13, 134, 135, 231
Gramzow, R., 78, 260
Grasley, C., 101, 231
Green, C. J., 25, 39, 57, 59, 69, 241
Greenberg, M. T., 61, 68, 214
Greenberger, E., 58, 231
Grella, R. S., 6, 81, 108, 173, 203, 204, 231
Griffen, S., 22, 226
Groccia, J. E., 6, 50, 51, 52, 134, 137, 249
Grochowski, J. R., 129, 231
Grotevant, H. D., 49, 231
Hackett, G., 40, 218
Haemmerlie, F. M., 7, 8, 30, 55, 79, 93, 94, 141, 188, 231, 232, 245
Hale, W. D., 36, 227
Hall, S., 129, 220
Hampson, R. B., 106, 108, 217
Handal, P. J., 81, 95, 140, 242
Hansburg, H. G., 58, 232
Harder, D. H., 77, 78, 232
Harris, B. C., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 76, 80, 92, 126, 127, 173, 191, 210, 232
Harris, L. C., 85, 225
Harste, J. M., 61, 68, 69, 182, 232
Harter, S., 25, 40, 67, 246
Haynes, C., 6, 173, 230
Hays, R. B., 110, 124, 126, 127, 232
Hazan, C., 70, 72, 73, 232
Heller, K., 67, 110, 123, 250
Helmreich, R., 39, 81, 233, 259
Helms, J. E., 84, 248
Henderson, S., 133, 233
Hendrick, S. S., 104, 259
Heppner, M. J., 37, 47, 129, 229
Heppner, P. P., 25, 40, 67, 233
Hermans, H. J. M., 38, 47, 48, 233
Herrick, S. M., 49, 80, 82, 131, 180, 204, 252
Hertel, J. B., 35, 54, 90, 96, 123, 186, 208, 233
Hewitt, P. L., 78, 233
Hicks, M. W., 116, 262
Hirschfeld, R. M. A., 39, 75, 233
Hoberman, H. M., 131, 132, 223
Hoffman, J. A., 55, 59, 233
Hogan, M. P., 6, 8, 21, 81, 101, 104, 110, 123, 144, 234
Holahan, C. J., 32, 234
Holland, J. L., 50, 234
Hollmann, N. C., 49, 50, 55, 107, 180, 187, 190, 203, 234
Holmes, T. H., 102, 234
Hopkins, K. R., 106, 203, 234
Horowitz, L. M., 72, 217
Hovestadt, A. J., 107, 234
Hui, C. H., 74, 234
454
Humfleet, G. L., 6, 7, 8, 19, 22, 55, 112, 173, 187, 189, 198, 234, 235
Hunsberger, B. E., 42, 43, 44, 80, 92, 102, 149, 235, 239, 247
Hurlbut, S. C., 79, 235
Hurtado, S., 7, 80, 84, 90, 91, 110, 125, 136, 140, 141, 144, 235
Ibrahim, F. A., 100, 235
Injejikian, A. M., 105, 235
Jackson, L. M., 42, 43, 92, 235
Jacobs, B., 37, 39, 257
Jagels, C. T., 66, 235
Jampol, R. C., 8, 22, 24, 44, 46, 48, 80, 183, 186, 187, 196, 199, 235
Jarama Alvan, S. L., 102, 128, 201, 204, 236
Jarama, S. L., 33, 45, 80, 82, 84, 85, 127, 178, 183, 201, 265
Jasso, R., 85, 225
Jenkins, C. D., 30, 236
Johansson, C. B., 51, 236
Johnson, J. H., 101, 103, 236, 254
Jones, C. R., 47, 236
Josselson, R., 58, 231
Kaase, K. J., 9, 236
Kaczmarek, P. G., 80, 84, 94, 236
Kahn, H., 100, 235
Kahn, S., 34, 35, 238
Kamarck, T., 26, 44, 102, 131, 132, 223
Kambach, M., 131, 204, 236
Kandel, D. B., 21, 237
Kane, M. A., 93, 237
Kaplan, H. B., 121, 249
Kazdin, A. E., 236
Keenan, J. T., 6, 7, 10, 11, 146, 174, 237
Kell, K., 55, 105, 116, 259
Kennel, R., 38, 41, 47, 258
Kenny, 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, 238
Kim, D. D., 81, 82, 238
Kim, E. J., 19, 21, 76, 131, 193, 196, 199, 204, 238
Kincannon, J. C., 19, 22, 238
Kintner, D. E., 46, 137, 149, 238
Kleinmuntz, B., 11, 238
Klerman, G. L., 39, 75, 233
Kline, C. A., 7, 23, 55, 80, 90, 95, 107, 122, 123, 144, 188, 189, 199, 203, 227, 238
Knerr, B., 58, 231
Knerr, C., 58, 231
Kobasa, S. C., 34, 35, 238
Koledin, S., 101, 218
Korchin, S. J., 39, 75, 233
Koschier, M., 50, 247
Koutralakos, J., 112, 239
Krotseng, M. V., 9, 239
Kulley, J. C., 70, 71, 72, 81, 239
Kurdek, L. A., 139, 239
Kusaka, T., 74, 88, 93, 180, 239
Lahey, B. B., 236
Lakey, B., 102, 254
Lamothe, D., 80, 149, 239
455
Lapan, R., 68, 76, 239
Lapsley, 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, 251
Larsen, R. J., 22, 78, 226
Lavee, Y., 105, 247
Lazarus, R. S., 44, 45, 228
Leaf, R., 45, 226
Lease, C. A., 24, 25, 246
Lee, J. Y., 19, 21, 76, 131, 193, 196, 199, 204, 238
Lefebvre, R. C., 9, 28, 240
Lennon, K., 93, 237
Lent, R. W., 6, 40, 51, 54, 80, 92, 129, 173, 177, 184, 192, 220, 240
Leonard, J. B., 6, 51, 52, 134, 240
Leong, F. T. L., 31, 32, 80, 240
Lese, K. P., 49, 80, 82, 131, 180, 204, 252
Levenson, H., 46, 240
Levin, M. A., 55, 63, 116, 119, 120, 182, 188, 241
Levine, H. M., 128, 255
Levine, J. B., 25, 39, 57, 59, 69, 241
Lichtman, M., 5, 9, 28, 37, 57, 93, 94, 173, 186, 191, 198, 230
Lipsmeyer, M. E., 95, 241
Liter, S. D., 25, 50, 68, 80, 91, 177, 190, 191, 192, 197, 241
Lohr, N., 74, 263
Lopez, 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, 242
LoPresto, C. T., 36, 48, 144, 177, 179, 245
Loveland, D., 6, 79, 92, 94, 140, 174, 242
Low, C. A., 81, 95, 140, 242
Lustman, P. J., 21, 101, 102, 242
Lyerla, R., 79, 250
Lynn, S. J., 8, 27, 254
Maddi, S. R., 34, 35, 238
Maddox, J. E., 37, 39, 257
Mahalick, L., 50, 225
Malone, P. E., 58, 219
Marcotte, G. M. R., 6, 27, 31, 41, 46, 55, 101, 104, 129, 174, 179, 183, 187, 188, 190, 197, 202, 207, 208, 211,
243
Marcy, T. P., 6, 42, 51, 52, 80, 92, 137, 243
Martin, B., 110, 124, 127, 243
Martin, N. K., 10, 46, 51, 148, 243
Matlock, C. G., 80, 84, 94, 236
Maton, K. I., 6, 8, 21, 50, 80, 82, 83, 90, 91, 95, 102, 110, 123, 133, 174, 184, 191, 196, 204, 208, 243, 244
Matthews, C. A., 119, 244
McCartney, M. S., 144, 244
McCrae, R. R., 27, 48, 66, 67, 99, 224
McCubbin, H. I., 32, 129, 231, 248
McFadden, K. L., 5, 6, 40, 50, 51, 53, 91, 174, 179, 191, 192, 222
McGillin, V. A., 6, 244
McGovern, T. V., 49, 132, 148, 256
McGowan, W. R., 6, 51, 53, 66, 68, 81, 82, 177, 244
McNeil, O. V., 9, 11, 12, 42, 136, 137, 138, 216
Mehler, B. L., 9, 26, 28, 245
Mehrabian, A., 48, 244
Meilman, P. W., 79, 250
456
Melisaratos, N., 18, 21, 24, 25, 225
Mendelowitz, D. E., 81, 137, 145, 244
Mendelson, C. N., 111, 128, 208, 245
Mendelson, M., 20, 21, 22, 218
Mercandante, B., 37, 39, 257
Mermelstein, R., 26, 44, 102, 131, 132, 223
Merryman, C. J., 20, 78, 79, 184, 196, 245
Merz, C. J., 30, 231
Mesta, R., 94, 236
Metalsky, G. I., 23, 47, 249
Metzler, A. E., 49, 107, 180, 203, 234
Mikulincer, M., 73, 245
Miller, B. A., 121, 249
Miller, L. H., 9, 26, 28, 245
Miller, T. K., 50, 54, 69, 264
Millon, T., 25, 39, 57, 59, 69, 241
Minden, H., 28, 37, 254
Mitchell, J. V., Jr., 48, 95, 245
Mock, J., 20, 21, 22, 218
Molin, J., 33, 67, 248
Montgomery, R. L., 7, 8, 79, 93, 94, 141, 232, 245
Mooney, S. P., 36, 48, 80, 144, 177, 179, 245
Moos, B. S., 106, 246
Moos, R. H., 26, 32, 34, 67, 106, 132, 218, 234, 246, 261
Mosley, D. L., 135, 246
Mt. Zion Psychotherapy Research Group, 77, 263
Nardecchia, D., 6, 173, 230
Neale, J. M., 103, 259
Neeman, J., 25, 40, 67, 246
Nevill, D. D., 53, 260
Nigrosh, E. E., 8, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25, 77, 78, 181, 194, 196, 246, 257
Nowicki, S., 46, 246
O'Brien, K., 38, 41, 47, 258
O'Connor, L., 77, 246
Ogden, E. P., 6, 48, 246
Oh, K. J., 19, 21, 76, 131, 193, 196, 199, 204, 238
O'Hara, D. J., 21, 101, 102, 242
Oliver, J. M., 8, 9, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 79, 196, 197, 198, 199, 246
Ollendick, T. H., 24, 25, 246
Olson, D. H., 105, 247
Olver, R. R., 109, 214
O'Malley, P. M., 37, 215
Oritt, E. J., 128, 247
Ortiz, J., 95, 96, 130, 210, 247
Osipow, S. H., 38, 47, 50, 247
Ousley, L. B., 27, 247
Oxley, D., 110, 124, 126, 127, 232
Pace, C. R., 11, 247
Palenzuela, D. L., 38, 47, 247
Pancer, S. M., 42, 43, 44, 80, 92, 102, 149, 235, 239, 247
Panori, S. A., 29, 90, 93, 94, 198, 199, 248
Parham, T. A., 84, 248
Parker, G., 109, 111, 248
Parker, J. D. A., 31, 227
457
Patterson, J. M., 32, 248
Patton, M. J., 45, 49, 68, 76, 132, 239, 252
Paul, S. C., 128, 247
Paulhus, D., 33, 67, 248
Paulshock, S. B., 80, 155, 248
Pearlin, L. I., 36, 249
Peplau, L. A., 76, 254
Perosa, L. M., 106, 108, 110, 116, 249
Perosa, S. L., 106, 108, 110, 116, 249
Petersen, C. H., 25, 40, 67, 233
Peterson, C., 23, 47, 249
Peterson, D., 99, 228
Peterson, G. W., 116, 262
Petrosky, G., 93, 237
Phinney, J. S., 85, 249
Piercy, F. P., 107, 234
Plake, B. S., 90, 105, 258
Plaud, J. J., 6, 50, 51, 52, 134, 137, 249
Plomin, R., 26, 33, 67, 221
Pokorny, A. D., 121, 249
Polewchak, J. L., 39, 75, 81, 124, 125, 130, 181, 205, 249
Portner, J., 105, 247
Posselt, E. P., 34, 35, 81, 94, 102, 180, 192, 250
Potter, A. E., 117, 250
Power, P. G., 50, 234
Pratt, M. W., 42, 43, 44, 80, 92, 102, 149, 235, 239, 247
Prentice-Dunn, S., 37, 39, 257
Presley, C. A., 79, 250
Prince, J. S., 50, 54, 69, 264
Procidano, M. E., 67, 110, 123, 250
Protinsky, H. O., 5, 9, 28, 37, 57, 93, 94, 112, 173, 186, 191, 198, 230, 250
Putnam, F. W., 27, 218
Quinlan, D. M., 59, 219
Radloff, L. S., 20, 250
Rahe, R. H., 102, 234
Ratta, M. D., 141, 250
Read, S. J., 70, 72, 223
Reed, C. K. S., 8, 9, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80, 196, 197, 198, 199, 246, 250
Reeder, G. D., 99, 228
Reeker, J. A., 7, 55, 80, 82, 85, 93, 94, 110, 119, 143, 188, 250
Reisen, C. A., 33, 178, 179, 265
Reuter-Krohn, K., 36, 51, 74, 80, 128, 138, 139, 143, 148, 255
Reynolds, W. M., 54, 251
Ribordy, S. C., 6, 8, 19, 22, 173, 198, 235
Rice, 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, 251
Ridinger, L. L., 7, 40, 41, 81, 82, 89, 92, 93, 98, 99, 131, 140, 142, 143, 144, 251
Rines, E. N., 23, 32, 47, 178, 180, 252
Rios, P., 19, 37, 103, 132, 184, 196, 202, 264
Robbins, S. B., 45, 49, 55, 80, 82, 119, 131, 132, 148, 180, 193, 204, 252, 256
Robin, M. W., 45, 226
Robinson, D. A. G., 30, 137, 224, 232
Robinson, J. P., 219
Rocha-Singh, I. A., 252
458
Rodriguez, E. R., 55, 80, 84, 85, 90, 94, 100, 122, 123, 183, 184, 188, 190, 252
Rodriguez-Perez, L., 36, 88, 179, 252
Roe, A., 111, 257
Rogers, R. W., 37, 39, 257
Roid, G. H., 36, 37, 38, 39, 253
Ropar, J. M., 55, 79, 80, 106, 108, 110, 116, 117, 118, 119, 189, 202, 253
Rosenberg, M., 26, 35, 36, 37, 67, 253
Rosenman, R. H., 30, 236
Rosko, C. K., 9, 27, 119, 214, 253
Ross, J. M., 81, 122, 253
Ross, M., 94, 236
Rotter, J. B., 45, 46, 253
Rubin, J. Z., 74, 260
Runtz, M., 103, 219
Rush, A. J., 29, 217
Russell, C. S., 105, 247
Russell, D. W., 76, 130, 225, 253, 254
Saintonge, S., 57, 241
Saling, C., 79, 232
Salone, L., 80, 83, 93, 141, 254
Sampson, H., 77, 246, 263
Sandberg, D. A., 8, 27, 254
Sandford, S. L., 9, 28, 240
Sandler, I. N., 102, 254
Sandvik, E., 78, 226
Santonicola, A., 6, 7, 9, 176, 254
Saracoglu, B. N., 28, 37, 38, 80, 254
Sarason, B. R., 128, 223, 255
Sarason, I. G., 101, 103, 128, 223, 254, 255
Savino, F., 7, 36, 51, 74, 80, 128, 138, 139, 143, 148, 211, 255
Schatzman, B. I., 155, 255
Scheier, M. F., 31, 74, 222, 227
Schmiedeck, R., 75, 255
Schooler, C., 36, 249
Schriver, K. J., 7, 11, 80, 92, 144, 149, 255
Schuchts, R., 33, 67, 248
Schulenberg, J., 60, 228
Schultheiss, D. E. P., 50, 54, 55, 63, 69, 182, 188, 193, 255
Schultz, K. L., 11, 12, 42, 137, 154, 155, 216
Schwab, J. J., 19, 256
Schwab, R. S., 19, 256
Schwartz, S. H., 256
Schwitzer, A. M., 45, 49, 55, 119, 132, 148, 180, 193, 252, 256
Scott, L. C., 11, 80, 93, 136, 141, 256
Scott, R., 133, 233
Scott, W. A., 54, 219
Seligman, M. E. P., 23, 47, 249
Semmel, A., 23, 47, 249
Serafica, F. C., 80, 126, 127, 134, 140, 209, 210, 256
Shadid, G. E., 55, 80, 92, 187, 189, 240
Shaver, P., 70, 72, 73, 232
Shaver, P. R., 219
Shaw, B. F., 29, 217
Sher, K. J., 79, 235
459
Sherer, M., 37, 39, 257
Sherman, M. F., 14, 36, 48, 55, 144, 177, 179, 187, 189, 245, 257
Shilkret, 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, 263
Siegel, J. M., 101, 103, 254
Siegelman, M., 111, 257
Silk, K., 74, 263
Silver, A. R., 32, 55, 63, 182, 183, 189, 190, 191, 257
Silverthorn, N. A., 36, 55, 80, 180, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 258
Singer, J. E., 259
Siryk, 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,
216
Slyter, S. L., 19, 37, 103, 132, 184, 196, 202, 258, 264
Smith, A. D., 9, 26, 28, 245
Smith, A. W., 32, 56, 59, 177, 258
Smith, B. W., 8, 9, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 79, 196, 197, 198, 199, 246
Smith, M. A., 6, 51, 134, 142, 143, 216, 258
Smith, M. D., 8, 20, 21, 26, 35, 99, 101, 178, 191, 196, 197, 199, 201, 258
Smith, T. L., 6, 8, 20, 23, 25, 48, 55, 59, 69, 70, 90, 95, 112, 174, 177, 180, 188, 192, 196, 199, 204, 208, 262
Sodowsky, G. R., 90, 105, 258
Solberg, V. S., 8, 38, 41, 47, 85, 130, 258, 259
Sowa, C. J., 21, 101, 102, 242
Spence, J. T., 81, 259
Sperling, M. B., 142, 259
Spielberger, C. D., 23, 24, 259
Sprenkle, D. H., 105, 247
Spuler, A., 7, 80, 84, 90, 91, 110, 125, 136, 140, 141, 144, 235
Stapp, J., 39, 81, 233, 259
Steen, S. C., 55, 188, 232
Steer, R. A., 24, 217
Stein, P. N., 80, 120, 228
Sterritt, M., 96, 263
Stewart, D., 80, 126, 127, 134, 140, 209, 210, 256
Stinson, M. H., 104, 259
Stoltenberg, C. D., 9, 55, 105, 116, 119, 214, 253, 259
Stone, A. A., 103, 259
Strange, C., 81, 121, 229
Straus, M., 110, 259
Strickland, B. R., 46
Strom, R. D., 65, 115, 260
Strom, S. K., 65, 115, 260
Stryker, S., 81, 82, 85, 86, 110, 123, 124, 237, 238
Sugar, L. A., 6, 8, 9, 27, 48, 49, 64, 65, 66, 67, 81, 99, 112, 113, 114, 174, 184, 185, 186, 205, 206, 260
Sullivan, C. F., 42, 66, 124, 151, 152, 193, 260
Sullivan, T., 80, 149, 239
Super, D. E., 53, 260
Sutton, L., 9, 22, 28, 37, 74, 76, 78, 191, 192, 196, 197, 199, 260
Swank, P., 34, 221
Swap, W. C., 74, 260
Talbot, D. M., 88, 89, 150, 213
Tangney, J. P., 78, 260
Taylor, E. L., 46, 65, 77, 183, 184, 186, 257
Tellegen, A., 22, 26, 27, 260, 262
Templer, D. I., 25, 261
460
Terrell, M. D., 6, 8, 26, 33, 34, 67, 80, 91, 174, 183, 184, 191, 192, 261
Thompson, A. I., 231, 248
Tiggermann, M., 124, 126, 130, 264
Tipton, R. M., 37, 40, 41, 261
Tolmacz, R., 73, 245
Tolsdorf, C. C., 133, 261
Tomlinson-Clarke, S., 6, 7, 82, 92, 261
Trice, A. D., 6, 48, 246, 261
Trickett, E. J., 132, 261
Tupling, H., 109, 111, 248
Tyler, F. B., 33, 178, 179, 261, 265
Valdez, J., 8, 85, 130, 259
Vecchiotti, S., 77, 112, 113, 114, 181, 206, 257
Veit, C. T., 18, 20, 24, 262
Verdiano, D. L., 116, 262
Villareal, P., 8, 38, 41, 47, 85, 130, 258, 259
Vincent, K., 34, 221
Vitaliano, P. P., 32, 262
von Baeyer, C., 23, 47, 249
Wagner, B. M., 101, 223
Wagner, P. E., 78, 260
Walker, W. F., Jr., 29, 105, 197, 202, 262
Wall, S., 71, 213
Waller, N. G., 22, 27, 260
Wang, E. Y., 6, 8, 20, 23, 25, 48, 55, 59, 69, 70, 90, 95, 112, 174, 177, 180, 188, 192, 196, 199, 204, 208, 262
Wapner, S., 13, 134, 135, 231
Ward, C. H., 20, 21, 22, 218
Ware, J. E., Jr., 18, 20, 24, 262
Warheit, G. J., 19, 256
Washington, C. M., 6, 81, 131, 173, 262
Waters, E., 71, 213
Watkins, C. E., Jr., 22, 55, 80, 81, 108, 116, 119, 242
Watson, D., 22, 26, 76, 262
Wegscheider-Cruse, S., 116, 117, 263
Wein, S. J., 59, 219
Weinberg, N., 96, 263
Weinstock, M. C., 35, 48, 55, 177, 188, 191, 263
Weintraub, J. K., 31, 222
Weisman, A. G., 6, 8, 21, 50, 80, 83, 102, 123, 184, 196, 204, 208, 244
Weiss, J., 77, 246, 263
Weissman, A. N., 29, 263
Westen, D., 74, 263
Whaley, T. J., 63, 64, 92, 190, 191, 251
Wick, S., 6, 7, 59, 109, 110, 111, 263
Wilchesky, M., 28, 37, 254
Williams, D. E., 117, 250
Williams, E. M., 6, 12, 42, 82, 85, 90, 91, 97, 98, 137, 174, 191, 192, 263
Williamson, D. S., 58, 219
Wilson, W. P., 59, 222
Winefield, A. H., 124, 126, 130, 264
Winefield, H. R., 124, 126, 130, 264
Winer, J. L., 50, 247
Winston, R. B., Jr., 50, 54, 69, 264
Wintre, M. G., 8, 27, 49, 64, 65, 66, 67, 99, 112, 113, 114, 184, 185, 186, 205, 206, 260, 264
461
Wolfert, J., 129, 220
Woo, T. O., 7, 80, 264
Worthington, E. L., Jr., 37, 40, 41, 261
Wrightsman, L. S., 219
Yaffe, 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, 264
Yanico, B., 50, 247
Young, J. W., 6, 86, 174, 264
Young, M. B., 8, 21, 39, 81, 83, 109, 111, 192, 198, 206, 207, 251
Yuker, H. E., 41, 264
Zachar, P., 31, 80, 240
Zalma, A., 77, 78, 232
Zamostny, K. P., 19, 37, 103, 132, 184, 196, 202, 264
Zea, M. C., 33, 45, 80, 82, 84, 85, 102, 127, 128, 178, 179, 183, 201, 204, 236, 264, 265
Zelezny, L. C., 20, 78, 79, 184, 196, 245
Zimet, G. D., 129, 265
Zimet, S. G., 129, 265
Zion, C. L., 149, 265
Zyzanski, S. J., 30, 236
Abuse
physical, 103, 122
psychological, 103
sexual, 103, 104, 122, 166, 168
Abuse subscale (from the Early Trauma Checklist), 202
Academic accomplishment. (see Academic performance)
Academic achievement subscale (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 197
Academic 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, 1 17,
122, 125, 126, 128, 130, 132, 137, 139, 140, 141, 149, 152, 156, 241
anticipated vs actual, 42
aspects of, 4, 17, 156
behavioral correlates of, 5, 6, 7
Academic Adjustment subscale, 37
shortened 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, 210
item-clusters within, 4, 28, 29
Academic Advising Center, 142, 143
Academic advisors/counselors, 140
quality of relationship with, 140
Academic aptitude, 175
Academic autonomy, 54, 162
Academic autonomy subscale (from the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory), 54, 193
Academic commitment. (see Academic motivation)
Academic credits, number of. (see Course credits earned)
Academic honor society membership, 6, 156
Academic honors
annual, 12, 156
at graduation, 12, 156
departmental, 12
462
general, 12
Academic institution, type of. (see College, type of)
Academic Locus of Control Scale, 47, 177
Academic major
availability of, 52, 134, 162, 167
change of, 52, 134
decidedness, 6, 17, 51, 52, 133, 134, 143, 156, 162, 163, 167, 168
engineering, 137
non-science, 93
relative salience of, 134
required declaration of/pressure to declare, 52, 134, 162, 163, 167
satisfaction with, 6, 53, 156, 162
science, 93, 137
social science, 93
stability of decidedness, 52, 162
status, 52, 53, 142, 143, 162
traditionally female, 82, 93
traditionally male, 82, 93
Academic motivation, 10, 53, 54, 162
measure of, 53
motivation for being in college and doing college work, 4, 29
Academic performance, 5, 11, 29, 86, 152, 155, 156, 175
Academic planning, 10, 17, 48, 53, 161, 162
Academic purpose, seriousness of, 6, 156
Academic Self-Concept Scale (ASCS), 54
Academic self-efficacy, 40
Academic work, 7, 72
Academic year, time of, 12, 48, 66, 134, 135, 137, 145, 146, 147, 148, 154, 162, 167, 169
Academically advantaged students, 147
Academically at-risk students. (see At-risk students)
Academically disadvantaged students. (see At-risk students)
Acculturation subscale (from the American International Relations Scale), 90, 177
Achievement experiences (in school, sports, or creative pursuits), 132
Achievement need, 38, 48, 161
Achievement striving, 48
Achievement subscale (from the Early Resources Checklist), 202
Achievement subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Achieving Tendency Scale, 48, 177
ACT. (see American College Testing Program)
Active coping (from the Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence Scale), 33, 178
Active coping (from the Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence Scale-Condensed), 178
Active-behavioral coping (from the Health and Daily Living Form), 180
Active-cognitive coping (from the Health and Daily Living Form), 180
Activity (in meeting challenges), 33
Activity-recreation subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Adaptability, family, 105, 106, 166
Adjusting students, types of, 158
Adjustive capacity
disillusionment regarding, 12, 86, 98, 136, 138, 145, 157, 171
expectations concerning, 11, 12
prematriculation, 11, 12, 85, 136, 138
self-confidence regarding, 11, 42, 161, 170
Adjustment to college
anticipated, 11, 42, 137
463
as a construct, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 15, 156, 157, 158, 160
as measured by the relation between the ASACQ and SACQ, 11, 145
as multifaceted, 5, 156
aspects of, 3, 4, 5, 10, 64, 134, 158, 161, 162
intraindividual variation in, 4, 15, 156
behavioral correlates of, 5, 13, 15, 138, 156, 158
capacity for. (see Adjustive capacity)
changeability in, 13, 156
confidence level concerning, 11, 42, 161
definition of, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 17, 18, 156, 157, 158
from composition/structure of SACQ, 3, 5, 13
from research-identified correlates of SACQ, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 156, 157
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, 170
experience of, 3
experiential correlates of, 13, 15, 156, 158
extent of domain, 157
facilitation of, 1, 2, 18, 145, 153, 155, 168, 170
fulfillment of prematriculation expectations concerning, 11, 12
future investigations in, 2, 156, 163, 165
interindividual variation, 15, 156
intraindividual variation, 4, 15, 156
measurement of, 1, 2, 3, 13, 142
other measures than the SACQ, 10, 11, 159
operational meaning of, 5, 156
prediction of, 6, 64, 67, 86, 160, 161
prematriculation expectations, 11, 12, 42, 136, 138, 161
recall of, 12
received help from others in, 125
retrospective assessment of, 9
studies of, not using the SACQ, 1
types of, 158
understanding of, 1, 2, 4, 156, 159, 160, 161
Administrators, 141
Admission status
regular, 147
special, 146
Admissions status
regular, 147
Adolescence, 101, 104, 168
Adolescent Hassles Scale, 101
Adolescent Perceived Events Scale (APES), 101, 201
Adolescent Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences (A-COPE), 32, 177
Adult Attachment Scale, 70, 72, 177
Adult attachment styles, 70, 72, 73
Adult Attachment Types Questionnaire, 70, 72, 73
Adult EAS Temperament Survey, 26, 33, 67
Affect Intensity Measure, 78
Affectional interaction subscale (from the Father-Daughter Relationship Inventory), 204
Affective and behavioral commitment to the student role (from the Salience Inventory), 53
Affective quality score (from the Parental Attachment Questionnaire), 60, 185
Affective regulation subscale (from the Coping Response Indices Inventory), 34
Affects, 22, 75, 164
464
negative, 26, 27
Affiliation subscale (from the Classroom Environment Scale), 132
African-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, 211
interracial experience in, 134, 135, 167
social support in, 83, 124, 165
Age, 79, 94, 95, 96, 119, 120, 132, 164, 165
traditional/nontraditional age students, 93, 94
Agreeableness (from the NEO Five Factor Inventory), 184, 185
Agreeableness (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 67
Alcohol
abuse, 121, 122, 201
age of first use, 79
consumption of, 79
drinking problem of parents, 117, 121, 122, 166, 201, 209
kind used, 79
negative consequences of use, 79
present use of, 79
Alienation, 67, 164
Alienation Scale, 67, 68, 177
Alienation subscale (from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), 61, 62, 68, 182
Alpha pride subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194
Ambiguous students (from the Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire), 60, 61
American College Testing Program (ACT), 91, 92, 177
composite score, 91
mathematics score, 92
American Indian students, 85
American International Relations Scale, 90, 177, 201
American-International Relations Scale, 105
Androgyny, 81, 82, 186
Anger/conflict score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209, 210
Anger/conflict score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, 145
Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (ASACQ), 11, 12, 42, 85, 98, 136, 137, 145, 148
Anxiety, 23, 24, 152, 159
death, 25
engulfment, 57
phobic, 25
separation, 24, 25, 159, 160
social, 72, 76, 164
state, 8, 23, 24, 199
trait, 8, 23, 24, 199
Anxiety subscale (from the Adult Attachment Scale), 72, 177
Anxiety subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 24, 196
Anxiety subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 24, 198
Anxiety subscale (from the Mental Health Inventory), 24
Appraisal of control, situation-specific, 48
Appraisal support subscale (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 204
Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule, 127, 128, 201
As a child with a child subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire), 202
As a child with an adult subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire), 202
As a nonconsenting adolescent subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire), 202
ASACQ. (see Anticipated Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire)
ASACQ/SACQ score comparison, 11, 12, 13, 42, 85, 98, 137, 145
465
Asian students, 85, 89, 94, 110, 124, 195, 199
Asian-American students, 33, 46, 85, 86, 98, 128, 147, 195, 212
Assertion of Autonomy subscale (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 75, 181
Assessing Daily Experiences Inventory, 103
Assets for adjustment, 30
Athletes, 141, 144, 168
Athletic aptitude, 41
Athletic performance
self-assessment of, 99
Athletic self-efficacy, 41
Athletic teams, intercollegiate, 141, 168
At-risk students, 155, 169, 170
academically, 6, 147, 175
economically, 147
Attachment
anxious-ambivalent, 71, 72, 73, 194
avoidant, 71, 72, 73, 194
dismissing, 72, 73, 179
fearful, 72, 73, 179
infant-parent, 71
insecure, 71
needs, preoccupation with gratification of, 72
preoccupied, 72, 73, 179
secure, 71, 72, 73, 179, 194
style, 73
styles, 70, 72, 179, 194
to father, 63, 64
to mother, 63, 64
to 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, 157
to parents, 55, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 163
to peers, 68, 69, 164
to significant others, 70
to the college experience, 3, 4
types of, 70
Attachment figure
fusing of identity with, 71
preoccupation with, 71
Attachment preoccupied, 73
Attachment Style Inventory (ASI), 142
Attachment 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), 210
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 29
behavioral characteristics or symptoms associated with, 29
Attitude similarity score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Attitudes and Beliefs Scale-II, 45, 177
Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons Scale-Form O (ATDP), 41
Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons-Form O (ATDP-O), 178
Attitudinal independence subscale (from the Psychological Separation Inventory), 56
466
Attribution of causality
global, 23
Attribution of causation, 47, 99
global, 23
stable, 23
Attributional Complexity Scale, 99, 178
Attributional Style Questionnaire, 23, 47, 178
Attrition. (see Withdrawal from college)
Authoritarian parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 113, 114, 115
Authoritative parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 113, 114, 115
Autonomy, 58
Autonomy (from the Psychosocial Maturity Scale), 190
Autonomy from family and high school friends (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 11
Availability of social integration subscale (from the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction), 133
Avoidance coping (from the Health and Daily Living Form), 180
Avoidance coping (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191
Avoidance-oriented subscale (from the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations), 179
Beck Anxiety Inventory, 24, 196
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), 20, 21, 22, 196
Beer
drinking of, 79
getting drunk on, 79
Behavior (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194
Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence Scale (BAPC), 33, 178
Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence Scale-Condensed (BAPC-C), 33, 178
Belgian university, 57
Bell Global Psychopathology Scale, 19, 196
Belonging support subscale (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 204
Bem Sex-Role Inventory-Short Form, 81
Beta pride subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194
Binge eaters, 28
Birth order, 122, 166
Black students. (see African-American students)
Blames others (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191
Blames self (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191
Blatt Parental Representation Scale, 59
Body dissatisfaction subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198
Brief College Student Hassles Scale, 201
Brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Brief MAST), 121, 201
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), 18, 21, 24, 25, 196
Bulimia subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198
Bulimics
clinical, 28
subthreshold, 28
California Psychological Inventory-Revised (CPI), 30
Campus activities. (see Extracurricular activities in college)
Care (caringness) subscale (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 111
Career counselors, 140
Career Decision Scale, 38, 47, 50, 179
Career issues, 146
Career plans, certainty of, 6, 17, 50, 156, 162
Catholic students, 95
467
Causal explanation
complexity of, 99
Causality, 16, 17, 47
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), 20, 22, 196
Challenge (from the Hardiness Test), 34, 35, 180
Chaos subscale (from the Early Trauma Checklist), 202
Chicano students, 84, 85, 122, 123
Childhood, 77, 104, 168
Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), 104, 202
Children's Role Inventory, 117
Children's Roles Inventory, 202
Church attendance, 95, 164
Clark University, 13, 173, 176
Class attendance, 7, 156
Class levels. (see College year level)
Classroom Environment Scale, 132
Close Relationships Questionnaire, 72, 179
Close subscale (from the Adult Attachment Scale), 72, 177
Coaches
relationship with, 142
Cognitive variable, 99
structural rather than contentual, 99
Cognitive-intellective, 22, 67
Cognitive-perceptual factors, 23
Cohesion subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 106
Cohesion subscale (from the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II), 106, 209
Cohesiveness, family, 105, 106, 166
Collectivistic orientation, 74
College Attributional Complexity Scale, 99
College experience, 77, 165
commitment to, 3, 4, 9, 157
expenditure of effort in various aspects of, 11
satisfaction with, 10, 12, 157
College experiences
hassles, 99
College Inventory of Academic Adjustment (CIAA), 10, 197
aspects of adjustment measured, 10
College Life Task Assessment Instrument (CLT), 10, 35, 197
College Maladjustment Scale (Mt), 11, 197
College of, 97
arts and sciences, 141
business administration, 141
engineering, 51, 52, 134, 141, 167
health professions, 141
liberal arts, 51, 97, 133, 163, 167
music, 141
technology/trade, 97
College Self-Efficacy Instrument, 179
College Self-Efficacy Instrument (CSEI), 41
College Self-Efficacy Instrument (CSEL), 38, 47
College staff persons, 138, 140, 153, 158, 168
College Student Experiences Questionnaire, 11
College Student Hassles Scale, 101
College Student Life Events Schedule, 102, 202
468
College year level, 92, 164, 165
all years, 14, 63, 92, 93, 94, 148, 174
mixed, 195, 200, 212
unspecified, 150
upper classes, 28, 63, 92, 104, 125, 138, 165, 168
Colleges, characteristics of, 97
commuter/residential, 140, 141
evening college/day college, 141
for deaf students, 96
knowledgeability concerning, 97, 98
predominantly Black, 167, 173
predominantly White, 83, 84, 134, 136, 165, 167
private/public, 97, 141
selectivity, 142
timing of required major declaration, 52, 134, 162, 167
two year/four year, 97
Combined Parent/Peer Overall Attachment Score (from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), 69, 182
Commitment
academic. (see Academic motivation)
to occupational and ideological goals, 49, 162
to other persons and activities, 34
to the college experience, 3, 4, 9, 157
to the student role, 53, 162
Commitment (from the Hardiness Test), 180
Communication subscale (from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), 61, 62, 68, 182, 183
Community college students, 85, 94, 95, 96, 130
Commuter college, 140
Commuter students, 140, 141
Compatibility in the self-world relation (alienation), 67, 164
Competitiveness (from the Jenkins Activity Survey, Form C), 30
Complexity, 44, 99
Complexity of representations of people (from the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale), 75
Confidence (a variable derived by factor analysis), 38
Confidence regarding academic capabilities, 40
Confidence regarding capacity for adjusting to college. (see Adjustive capacity)
Confidence regarding meeting challenges, 34
Conflict subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Conflict subscale (from the Residence Hall Climate Inventory), 208
Conflict Tactics Scale, 110
Conflict with attachment figures subscale (from the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction), 133
Conflictual independence subscale (from the Psychological Separation Inventory), 55, 56, 59, 187
Connection to Puerto Rico, 88
Conscientiousness (from the NEO Five Factor Inventory), 184, 185
Conscientiousness (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 48
Consensuality (from the California Psychological Inventory-Revised), 30
Control
over events in one's life, 34
Control (from the California Psychological Inventory- Revised), 30
Control (from the Hardiness Test), 180
Control subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Control-Mastery Theory, 77
Conventionally Defined Success (from the Life Values Inventory), 95, 183
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, 36, 37, 179
COPE Scales, 31, 32
469
Coping, 34
active, 31, 32, 178
active-behavioral, 32
active-cognitive, 32
avoidance-oriented, 31, 32
behavioral disengagement, 32
Blames Others, 33
Blames Self, 33
Count Blessings, 33
Emotion-focused, 32
emotion-oriented, 31
expectations regarding, 42
mental disengagement, 32
planning, 32
positive reinterpretation and growth, 32
problem-focused, 32
problem-solving, 31
Religiosity, 33
seeking social support for emotional reasons, 32
Seeks Support, 33
skills, 43, 150
task-oriented, 31
venting of emotiona, 31
Wishful Thinking, 33
Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations, 31, 179
Coping Response Indices Inventory, 26, 34, 67
Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, 79, 197
Counseling
consequences of, 145
feedback interviews, 169
institutional agency, 143
small-group, 145, 169, 170
Counts blessings (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191
Course credits earned, 12, 155, 156
Criterion groups, 160
Cross-generational coalitions, 116
Cultural characteristics, 88, 89, 165
Cultural distance/differences, 143
Culture-induced student characteristics, 86, 87
Current satisfaction with network score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Curricular adjustment subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197
Daily hassles, 101
Daily hassles (from the Adolescent Perceived Events Scale), 201
Daughters
father's encouragement of independence in, 112
father's expression of affection toward, 112
father's role in relation to, 112
perception of time and attention from father, 112
Day college students, 141
Deaf identity, 96, 97
Deaf Identity Scale, 96
Deaf students, 83, 84, 130
attitude towards sign language, 97
470
attitude towards their deafness, 96, 97
Death Anxiety Scale, 25, 197
Decision-making, style of, 49, 161
Demographic variables, 80, 164
Density score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
DePaul University, 173
Depend subscale (from the Adult Attachment Scale), 72, 177
Dependency denial subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 70, 192
Dependency on other persons
excessive, 75
Dependent/enmeshed students (from the Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire), 60
Depression, 8, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 99, 159, 198
Depression Scale (from the Psychological Distress Inventory), 21
Depression subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 21, 196
Depression subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 20, 198
Detachment subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194
Determining future goals subscale (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 197
Developing autonomy subscale (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 197
Developing mature interpersonal relationships task subscale (from the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle
Inventory), 69, 193
Developmentally-related variables, 77, 163
Differentiation, 44
Diffuse orientation (from the Identity Style Inventory-2), 49, 180
Disadvantaged students
educationally, 86
financially, 86
Disillusionment regarding adjustive capacity. (see Adjustive capacity)
Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES), 27, 197
Dissociative experiences/symptoms, 8, 27, 159, 160
Divorce, 116, 119, 120, 166
Dormitories, 140, 149
amount of conflict in, 139
assistants or advisors, 140
availability of personal or social support in, 139
characteristics of, 100, 140
physical, 139
climate, 139
differences in student adjustment among, 139
group cohesiveness in, 139
high rise or low rise, 138
Intervention efforts in, 148, 149, 169
orderedness or regulation of, 139, 140
peer support program in, 148
roommate, 138, 168
sections designated for freshmen, 139
sections designated for mixed classes, 139
size, 139
staff/student ratio, 138, 168
student perception of or reaction to, 139, 140
sylvan setting or downtown, 138
unisex or coed, 138, 139
versus off-campus living, 168
Dormitory assistantships, likelihood of being hired for, 8, 157
Drive for thinness subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198
471
Dropping out. (see Withdrawal from college)
Dual identity, in deaf students, 96, 97
Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale-Form A, 29, 197
Early Resources Checklist, 132, 202
Early Trauma Checklist, 103, 202
Earthquake, 105
East Asian international students, 195
Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI), 27, 36, 198
Eating disorders, 9, 27, 159, 160
psychological characteristics associated with, 9
Eating problems score (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 27, 198
Eating problems-related traits (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198
Economic disruptions, 202
Educational goals, 10, 50, 51, 161
capacity to attain without direction from others, 54
obstacles to realization of, 77
Educational planning. (see Academic planning)
Educational-working circumstances, 93
Edwards Social Desirability Scale, 179
Efficacy or success of academic effort, 4
Efficient time use, 10
Effort expenditure in college, 11
Ego identity status (from the Extended Version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status), 49
Emotional distress, 71, 84, 104
difficulty in regulating, 71
Emotional independence subscale (from the Psychological Separation Inventory), 56, 189
Emotional inhibition, 71
Emotional reliance on other persons subscale (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 75, 181
Emotional reliance on others (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 164
Emotional stability, 25, 26
Emotional stress (from the Stress Audit), 26, 199
Emotional support satisfaction (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201
Emotional support score (from the Social network Questionnaire), 209, 210
Emotional support score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Emotion-oriented subscale (from the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations), 179
Employment, amount of time in, 7, 96, 157
Enabling Independence subscale (from the Late Adolescents' Relationships with Parents Scale), 60, 183
Encouragement of independence by father subscale (from the Perceived Parental Attitude Scale), 208
Engineering college. (see College of)
Engulfment anxiety subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 57, 192
Enrollment, 141
discontinuance of. (see Withdrawal from college)
full-time, 7, 157
having thoughts of discontinuing, 10, 157
part-time, 7, 157
persistence in, 9, 93, 157
Environment
academic, 4, 29
as determinant of adjustment to college, 48, 65, 134, 136, 145, 163, 165, 167
as focus of one's attention, 74
as source of social support, 132
characteristics of, 16, 87, 88, 100, 159
classroom, 132
472
college, 7, 132, 136, 143, 146, 168
compatibility with, 67, 68, 164
experience related to, 201
family-related characteristics as, 55, 106
in interaction with person characteristics, 52, 88, 101, 133, 135, 161, 168
independent of student characteristics, 100, 166
institutional characteristics, 88, 134
manipulation of, 145
mastery of, 36, 71
person-environment factors, 138
physical-environment factors, 138
pressure from, 71, 134
social, 4, 123, 133, 142, 167
student's, 13
student'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), 197
Ethnic status
of the college, 167, 168
of the student, 45, 82, 83, 86, 147, 164, 165, 168
Ethnicity
importance of in one's family, 123
European-American students. (see White students)
Evening classes students, 141
Examinations, 64, 152
Existential well-being, 22
Existential well-being subscale (from the Spiritual Well-Being Scale), 22
Expectancies. (see Expectations)
Expectancy styles, 43
complacent, 43, 44
fearful, 43
optimistic, 43
prepared, 43
Expectations
about college life, 98
about the self, 160
complexity of, 44
disillusionment regarding, 86
fulfillment of, 11, 85
integratve complexity of, 44
negative academic, 42, 43
negative social, 42, 43
of positive outcomes, 75
perfectionistic, 78, 79, 164
positive academic, 42, 43
positive social, 42, 43
prematriculation, 12, 42, 44, 136, 138, 161
realistic, 43
regarding adaptation/coping efforts, 42, 43
regarding adaptive/coping efforts, 43
regarding impending transition into college, 11, 42, 43, 44, 136, 161
Expected satisfaction with network score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Experiential world of the student, 13
473
Expressiveness subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Extended Version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status, 49
External Control, 47
Externality, 47
Externality/externals (from the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale), 45, 46, 161
Externalization subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194
Extracurricular activities in college
Black-sponsored, 136
number of organizations joined, 7
participation in, 7, 136, 157
racial composition of, 136, 167
White-sponsored, 136
Extracurricular activities in high school
leadership positions in, 157
Extraversion (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 184
Extraversion/extroverts, 66, 67, 164
Eysenck Personality Inventory, 66
FACES-II Scale, 105, 202
FACES-III Scale, 105, 106, 202
Facilitation of adjustment. (see Adjustment to college, facilitation of; Intervention)
Factor analysis, 3, 26, 33, 34, 35, 38, 47, 54, 67, 107, 129
Faculty. (see Professors)
relationship with, 142
Faculty advisors, 140
False positives, 161
Family, 59, 77
adaptability, 105, 106, 107, 166
adaptive interactions in, 110
alcohol-abusing, 117, 118, 121, 122, 201, 209
amount of student contact with, 7, 112
as a functioning organizational unit, 116, 166
as environmental factors, 55, 106, 167
autonomy from, 11
balanced, 106
birth order of children in, 122, 166
characteristics of, 105, 107, 166
climate, 139
closeness of continued involvement with, 197
coalitions within, 56, 116
cohesiveness of, 105, 106, 107, 166
conflict, 106, 109, 110, 166
degree of organization of activities in, 106
difficulties, 110
disengaged, 106
disruption, 117, 121, 202, 209
drug-abusing, 117, 118, 121, 209
dysfunctional, 117, 118, 119
enmeshed, 106
enmeshment/disengagement, 107
experience within, 166
expressiveness, 106
fear of separation, 108, 166
fostering autonomy, 60, 107, 166
474
fostering intimacy, 107, 166
functioning, effectiveness of, 107
functioning, negative aspects of, 107
functioning, positive aspects of, 107
functioning, student's perception of, 107
generation level within, 123
habitual behaviors of, 107
health or functioning, 107, 121
importance of ethnicity in, 123
importance of religion in, 95
income, 90
intactness, 116, 119, 166
language spoken in, 100, 122, 166
mail contact with, 7
maladaptive, 108, 166
marital conflict in, 108
maternal intrusiveness, 109, 166
mother-custody, 121
normal, 117, 118, 121, 209
only child in, 122, 166
parental conflict in, 56, 100, 109, 110, 166
parent-child bond, 111
parent-child cohesion, 107
parent-child overinvolvement in, 108, 109, 166
parent-child role reversal in, 108, 166
parenting styles, 100, 112, 113, 114, 115
parent-student relationship, 56
participation in social and recreational activities, 106
pathology, 119
postdivorce structure, 120
primary relationship in, 116
related variables, 55
relationship patterns within, 116, 120
relationships, 110
ritualization, 107
roles, 116, 117, 118
separation from, 11, 157
single-parent, 121
social climate, 106
social support from, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 128, 130, 166, 167, 205
stepfather, 133
structure, 108
student-perceived difficulties in, 110
telephone contacts with, 7
visits with, 7
Family adaptability subscale (from FACES-II), 202
Family adaptability subscale (from FACES-III), 105, 106, 202
Family cohesion subscale (from FACES-II), 202
Family cohesion subscale (from FACES-III), 105, 106, 202
Family cohesion subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Family Conflict subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 106
Family Environment Scale, 106, 203
Family Expressiveness subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 106
Family Functioning Scales, 107, 121, 203
475
Family health/competence subscale (from the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II), 108
Family Hero role (from the Family Role Behavior Inventory), 116, 117, 119
Family Hero role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118, 119
Family intactness, 116
Family of Origin Scale (FOS), 107, 203
Family Ritual Questionnaire, 107, 203
Family ritualization (from the Family Ritual Questionnaire), 203
Family Role Behavior Inventory (FRBI), 116, 117
Family roles, typology of, 116, 117, 119
Family self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194
Family Structure Survey (FSS), 108, 109, 203
Family/kin support satisfaction (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201
Father, 56, 63, 65, 113, 114, 115, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
attachment to, 61, 63, 64
caringness, 111
encouragement of daughter independence, 112
expression of affection toward daughter, 112
intrusiveness, 109
protectiveness, 109
relationship with, 64, 65
role in relation to daughter, 112
time and attention devoted to daughter, 112
Father authoritarianism (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206
Father authoritarianism (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206
Father authoritativeness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206
Father authoritativeness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206
Father caringness (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 111, 206, 207
Father permissive-indulgence (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206
Father permissive-neglectfulness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206
Father permissiveness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206
Father protectiveness (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 109, 206, 207
Father-Daughter Relationship Inventory (FDRI), 112, 204
Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, 76, 180
Fear of rejection, 73
Fear of separation subscale (from the Family Structure Survey), 108, 203, 204
Feeling states. (see Affects)
Feelings about past relationships related to development of self, 37
Feminine sex-role orientation, 81
Financial aid counselors, 140
First generation college attenders, 35, 54, 90, 123, 195, 212
Flexibility (from the California Psychological Inventory-Revised), 30
Focus of interest
inward, 164
on others, 74, 164
on self, 74, 164
outward, 164
Foreign students, 19, 73, 87, 94, 96, 100, 105, 109, 111, 129, 143, 150, 195, 200, 212
African, 89
Asian, 89, 100
athletes, 89
Australian, 89
Canadian, 89, 100
Central American, 89
Chinese, 87
476
European, 89
from east Asian countries, 74, 88
from Southeast Asia, 89
from the Far East, 89
from western European countries, 74, 88, 89, 100
graduate, 89, 90
Latin American, 89
Middle-Eastern, 89
Pacific Islander, 87
South American, 89
who lived in U. S. prior to matriculation, 88
Forming an identity subscale (from the College Life Task Assessmenr Instrument), 197
Fostering autonomy, 203
Fostering autonomy score (from the Parental Attachment Questionnaire), 60
Fostering intimacy, 203
Fraternity membership, 141, 168
Frequency of contact score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Freshman 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, 212
early entrant, 195
engineering, 52
traditional-age, 93
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), 201
Friends, 103
at home, 7
close, 7, 130, 157
college, 124
high school, 134
high school, autonomy from, 11
high school, closeness of continued involvement with, 197
in college (any college), 123, 208
not in college, 123, 208
number of, 7, 157
percentage of, in social networks, 126
pre-college, away from campus, 124
separation from, 11, 157
social support from, 83, 100, 123, 128, 130, 167, 208
socializing with, 7
Friendships
establishment of, 11, 158
length of, 157
maintenance of over time, 7
Full scale score (ASACQ), 11, 42
Full scale score (ASACQ/SACQ), 86
Full 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), 209
477
Fun/relaxation score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Functional 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), 180
Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale, 36, 180
Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale, 37, 40, 41
Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (modified), 180
Geographic variables, 143
George Washington University, 173
Global attributions (from the Attributional Style Questionnaire), 178
Global Self-Worth score (from the Self-Perception Profile for College Students), 25, 40, 67
Global Severity Index (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 18, 196
Global Severity Index (from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised), 19, 199
Goal directedness, 34, 49, 132, 161, 180
Goal Instability Scale, 49, 132, 180
Goal orientation, 48, 53, 161
educational, 48, 51
vocational, 48, 51
Goal setting skills, 49
Goals, 197
ability to set, 150
career. (see Career plans, certainty of)
educational. (see Educational goals)
ideological, 49, 162
life. (see Life goals)
motivation to achieve, 10
occupational, 49, 51, 162
persistence in attaining, 33
realistic, 33
success in attaining, 49
God, relationship with, 133
Goldberg Big-Five Factor Markers, 25, 40, 67
Grades
in college, 5, 6, 12, 86, 122, 156, 173, 174
in high school, 6, 86, 146, 147, 152
minority students', 86
overprediction of, 86
Graduate students, 19, 22, 26, 28, 47, 73, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96, 103, 105, 109, 111, 129, 150, 195, 200, 212
Graduation
from high school, 146
honors at, 12, 156
on time, 12, 157
rate, 12
Grandparent Strengths and Needs Inventory-Grandchild Form, 65
Grandparent Strengths and Needs Inventory-Grandparent Form, 115
Grandparents, 65, 115
relationship with, 65
relationship with student, 115, 116
Grossmont College, 174
Group cohesiveness subscale (from the Residence Hall Climate Inventory), 208, 209
Guidance subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 210
478
Guilt, 77, 78, 119, 164, 186
experienced in relation to fathers, 78
Guilt subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194
Hard liquor, getting drunk on, 79
Hardiness, 34
Hardiness Test, 34, 35, 180
Health
general, 28
self-assessed, 28
Health and Daily Living Form, 32, 180
Health Checklist, 28, 198
Health/competence subscale (from the Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II), 209
Healthy personality, the, 34
Healthy separation subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 70, 192, 193
Hearing identity, 96, 97
Help resources on campus, 8
Hero role (from the Children's Role Inventory), 117
Hero role (from the Children's Roles Inventory), 202
Hero role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 209
High school, 146
friends, 11, 134
grades, 6, 86, 146, 147, 152
graduation from, 146
high academic achievers in, 91
integrated, 135
interracial experience in, 134
intervention efforts during, 145, 146, 169
involvement in life of, 157
Junior year, 195, 212
leadership positions, 157
predominantly Black. (see Predominantly Black high school)
predominantly White. (see Predominantly White high school)
Puerto Rican, 88
senior year, 195
seniors, 97, 98, 137, 145, 146, 169, 170
transition from, 8
Hispanic students, 84, 85, 86, 130, 141
Hollins College, 173
Holy Cross College, 13
Home
closeness of continued involvement with, 197
commute from, 140
distance from, 143, 144
language spoken in, 122, 166
perceived distance from, 144
relocation away from, 4
separation from, 157
visits to, 7, 157
Hometown, 143
in-state, 144
out-of-state, 144
rural, 143
urban/suburban, 143
479
Hopkins Symptom Checklist, 18, 20, 24, 198
Hostility subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196
Hypochondriasis subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198
Hypomania subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198
Hysteria subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198
Identification with one's minority culture, 85
Identity
confusion, 119
separate, 71
Identity (from the Psychosocial Maturity Scale), 190
Identity (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194
Identity scale (from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory), 58
Identity status
Black, 84
Identity Style Inventory-2, 49, 180
Identity Vis-a-vis Mother Questionnaire (IVM-20), 59
Immersion-emersion score (from the Racial Identity Attitude Scale), 84
Impairment to feelings about self and past relationships (from the Narcissistic Injury Scale), 37
Inadequacy, feelings of, 119
Income, parental, 90
Indecision, educational/vocational, 50
Independence, 71
compulsive, 71
pathological, 68
Independence subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Individual adequacy scales (from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory), 58
Individual differences, 15, 17, 138, 156
Individualism-Collectivism Scale, 74, 180
Individualistic orientation, 74
Individuated students (from the Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire), 60, 61
Individuation score (from the Separation Anxiety Test), 58, 192
Individuation subscale (from the Identity Vis-a-vis Mother Questionnaire), 59
Individuation subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186
Ineffectiveness subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198
Information orientation (from the Identity Style Inventory-2), 49, 180
Information/advice score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209, 210
Information/advice score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Initiative, 33
Inner-directed students, 161
Institutional attachment. (see Attachment, to one's college)
Institutional characteristics, 52, 82, 83, 87, 88, 134, 140, 141, 162, 167, 168
Instrumental support satisfaction (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201
Integration, 44
Intellectual and Cultural Interests (from the Life Values Inventory), 95, 183
Intellectual-cultural subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Intellectualism subscale (from the Personal Values Scale-Revised), 53
Intellectualism subscale (from the Personal Values Scales-Revised), 186
Interactive effects, 52, 83, 88, 101, 133, 134, 135, 138, 161, 167, 168
Interest congruence, 51
Internal attributions (from the Attributional Style Questionnaire), 178
Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, 45, 46
Internality, 34, 45, 47, 195
Internality/internals (from the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale), 45, 46, 161
480
Interpersonal competence, 8, 157
Interpersonal Dependency Inventory, 39, 75, 181
Interpersonal experiences, 7, 100
Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45 (IGQ-45), 77, 181
Interpersonal guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 77, 181
Interpersonal orientation, 74, 164
Interpersonal relationships, 4, 71, 132
associated with positive affects and outcomes, 75
capacity for emotional investment in, 75
capacity for establishing, 68, 69, 164
capacity to be comfortable apart from, 70
capacity to engage in and enjoy, 70
detachment from and rejection of, 70
establishment of, 69
formation of, 7, 68, 74, 157
in general, individuation-separation issues in, 57
loss of, success in dealing with, 104
maintenance of, 7, 74, 157
understanding of causal factors in, 75
Interpersonal relationships subscale (from the Early Resources Checklist), 202
Interpersonal sensitivity subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196
Interpersonal sensitivity subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 36, 198
Interpersonal situations, 74, 164
Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL), 131, 204
variation of, 131
Interracial experience, 100, 136
beneficial effect of, 135
during college, 167
in Black students, 83, 134, 135, 167
in high school, 134
in Latino students, 136
pre-college, 134, 167
variation in amount of, 83, 135
Intervention, 145, 146, 150, 151, 152, 169
academic, 146, 147, 169
theme groups, 151
as manipulation of environmental characteristics, 145
by interview, 154, 155, 169, 170
by small group meetings, 145, 149, 150, 151, 169, 170
consequences of, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 154, 155, 169, 170
duration of, 169, 170
effect of election to participate in, 152
facilitative, 145, 170
first quarter, 151
first semester, 150, 155
in dormitories, 147, 148, 149, 169
measure of effects of, 145, 146, 148, 149, 154, 155, 169, 170
peer support program, 148, 149, 150, 151
postmatriculation, 148, 153, 169
practical significance of, 145
prematriculation, 145, 146, 147, 148, 169
problems in design, 153, 169
remedial, 145, 153, 168, 170, 171
seminar, 150
481
social, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 169, 170
tailored to particular problems, 170
therapeutic, 155
timing of, 145, 154
timing of, 170
to preclude disillusionment with one's adjustive capacity, 171
voluntary, 148, 149, 150
with arranged faculty-student interaction, 151
with at-risk students, 86, 146, 147, 154, 155, 168, 169, 170
with college-bound high school seniors, 145, 169, 170
with transfer students, 169
Interview
as a means of intervention, 154, 155
consequences of, 154, 155, 170
counseling, 169
data, 12, 77
discussion of adjustment problems in, 154, 170
feedback of test information in, 154, 170
individual, 170
SACQ findings as primary content of, 154, 169
schedule for social interaction, 133
structured, 77
Interview Schedule for Social Interaction, 133
Intimacy of relationship score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209
Intimacy of relationship score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Intimacy subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186
Intimidation subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186
Intoxicants, 79, 164
Introversion/introverts, 66, 164
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA), 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 182, 195
Involvement 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), 185
Invulnerability, sense of, 38
Item-clusters, 4, 28, 29, 158
Jackson Social Desirability Scale, 183
Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS, Form C), 30
Job involvement (from the Jenkins Activity Survey, Form C), 31
Journal-writing program, as therapy, 155
Junior year, 12, 14, 43, 62, 63, 195
in high school, 212
Juniors, 57, 63, 92, 147, 148, 195
Kandel Depression Scale, 21, 198
Korean-American students, 81
Lack of social self-confidence subscale (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 181
Language
of community at large, 166
of family, 88, 100, 122, 148, 166
Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire, 60
482
Late Adolescents' Relationships with Parents Scale, 183
Latin-American students, 85
Latino students, 33, 46, 84, 85, 86, 91, 98, 102, 110, 122, 123, 124, 128, 136, 141, 147, 195, 199, 212
Leadership, 157
Learning disability, 28, 29, 38, 159, 160
Lebanon Valley College, 173
Liberal arts students, 134, 163
Life decisions, 161
avoiding, 49
conforming to expectations of others in, 49
unstable, 49
Life events, 13, 101
academic, 103
as perceived by the student, 23, 165
aspects of, 101
bad/negative, 23, 47, 102, 178
desirable, 103
good/positive, 23, 47, 178
in general, 47, 101, 166, 178
major, 101, 201
measure of, 103
negative impact of, 101, 166
number of, 101, 166
positive impact of, 101, 166
social, 103
specific to the college experience, 102
undesirable, 103
Life Events Checklist, 101
Life Experiences Survey, 101, 102, 103, 204
Life goals, 10, 50
Life stress/stressors
general, 101, 102, 104, 166
high levels of, 133
in the past, 101
low levels of, 133
measure of, 102, 204
negative impact of, 166
number of, 166
positive impact of, 166
specific forms of, 104, 166
Life styles, 95
Life value preferences, 95
Life Values Inventory, 48, 95, 183
Living arrangements, 93, 100, 138, 140
on or off-campus, 140, 141, 168
Location of interaction score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209, 210
Locus of control, 34, 45, 46, 47, 48, 160, 161, 183, 195
academic, 48
regarding specific areas of function, 47
Logical analysis subscale (from the Coping Response Indices Inventory), 34
Loneliness, 76, 164
Loss subscale (from the Early Trauma Checklist), 202
Loss, interpersonal, 104, 202
Lost Child Role (from the Children's Role Inventory), 117
483
Lost Child role (from the Children's Roles Inventory), 202
Lost Child role (from the Family Role Behavior Inventory), 117
Lost Child role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118
Love-reject factor score (from the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire II), 111, 208
Main effects of conditions, 138
Maintaining one's physical self subscale (from the College Life Task Assessment Instrument), 197
Major. (see Academic major)
Maladaptive attitudes and ways of thinking, 29
Managing time subscale (from the College Life Task Assessmenr Instrument), 197
Marital conflict. (see Parents, conflict between)
Marital conflict subscale (from the Family Structure Survey), 108, 203, 204
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, 183
Married students, 94, 96
Mascot role (from the Children's Role Inventory), 117
Mascot role (from the Children's Roles Inventory), 202
Mascot role (from the Family Role Behavior Inventory), 117, 118
Mascot role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118, 209
Masculine sex-role orientation, 81
Mastery Learning Scale, 53, 184
Materialistic Orientation (from the Life Values Inventory), 95, 183
Maternal intrusiveness, 109, 166
Mathematics course score (from the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale), 184
Mathematics Course Self-Efficacy subscale (from the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale), 40
Mathematics courses, 173
Mathematics problem score (from the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale), 184
Mathematics Problem Self-Efficacy subscale (from the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale), 40
Mathematics score (from the American College Testing Program), 177
Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale, 40, 184
Matriculating students, 136
Maturation, 59, 61
Maturity of goals and level of aspiration subscale(from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197
Maturity subscale (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 198
Men. (see Gender findings)
Mental health, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 157, 159, 160, 196, 199
general, 8, 18, 159
good, 33
specific aspects of, 8, 18
variables associated with or contributing to, 30, 31
Mental Health Inventory, 18
Anxiety subscale, 24
Depression subscale, 20
Mental health subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197
Method variance, 131
Michigan State University, 173
Mini-Mult, 198
clinical scales, 19
Depression scale, 22, 198
Total Pathology Score, 19
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), 19
Minority culture of origin, identification with, 85
Minority students, 60, 86, 124, 175
Money, management of, 7
Mood state, 22
484
Moral-ethical self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193
Moral-religious subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Mother, 56, 63, 65, 109, 113, 114, 115, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
attachment to, 61, 63, 64
caringness, 111
has custody of children, 119, 121
intrusiveness, 109
protectiveness, 109
relationship with, 64, 65
relationship with daughter, 116
relationship with son, 120
single/remarried, 120
Mother and Father Questionnaire, 65, 184
Mother authoritarianism (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206
Mother authoritarianism (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206
Mother authoritativeness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206
Mother authoritativeness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206
Mother caringness (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 111, 206, 207
Mother permissive-indulgence (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206
Mother permissive-neglectfulness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 206
Mother permissiveness (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire), 205, 206
Mother protectiveness (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 109, 206, 207
Motivation for being in college and doing college work. (see Academic motivation)
Mt. Zion Psychotherapy Research Group, 77
Multidimensional Academic-Specific Locus of Control Scale (MASLOC), 38, 47
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS), 78, 184
Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire, 22, 27, 184
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, 129, 204
Multi-Dimensional Support Scale, 124, 125, 130
Multidimensional Support Scale, 205
Multigroup Measure of Ethnic Identity (MEIM), 85
Multivariate approach, 161, 165
Narcissistic injury, 37, 160
Narcissistic Injury Scale, 37, 184
Need for social approval (from the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale), 76, 164
Need Strength (from the Social Support Inventory), 130
Need strength score (from the Social Support Inventory), 210, 211
Negative affect (from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), 186
Negative consequences of alcohol use (from the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey), 197
Negative emotionality (from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire), 26, 184
Neighbors, 103
NEO Five-Factor Inventory, 27, 48, 66, 67, 99
NEO-Five Factor Inventory, 184
Network size score (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201
conflicted, 201
unconflicted, 201
Network size score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209
Network size score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Neuroticism, 8
Neuroticism (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, 184
Neuroticism (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 27
New Personal Fable Scale, 38, 185
Non-Catholic students, 95
485
Non-interpersonal activity
preoccupation with, 71, 72
Non-traditional age students, 22, 26, 93, 95, 96, 128, 130, 155, 195, 212
Nontraditional-age students, 103, 212
Normative considerations, 165
Normative orientation (from the Identity Style Inventory-2), 50, 180
Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale for Adults, 46, 47
Number of friends score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Number of support persons score (from the Social Support Questionnaire), 211
Number of years enrolled in college, 93
Nurturance seeking subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 57, 192
Object relations, 74, 75, 164
Obsessive-compulsive subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196
Obsessive-compulsive subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 198
Occupational competence, 157
Occupational field, 51
Occupational goals, 49, 162
mathematics/science-related, 51
Occupational preparation, 10, 157
Omnipotence (from the New Personal Fable Scale), 185
Omnipotence Guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 78
Omnipotence, sense of, 38
Omnipotent responsibility guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 181, 182
Only child status, 122, 166
Openness to Experience (from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory), 99, 184
Opportunity for nurturance subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 130, 210
Optimism, 23
Order subscale (from the Residence Hall Climate Inventory), 208, 209
Organization subscale (from the Family Environment Scale), 203
Orientation program, 153
consequences of in SACQ scores, 147, 148, 149, 150
freshman, 132, 148, 149, 150, 153
peer advising, 149
prematriculation, 48, 52, 147, 148, 153, 175
satisfaction with, 147
summer, 52, 137
University 101 course, 146
voluntary, 148, 149
Orientation to Life Questionnaire, 34
Overall 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), 198
Paranoid ideation subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196
Parental attachment, 55, 61, 63, 64, 68, 182, 183
aspects of, 59
perceived, 55, 163
relation to college adjustment, 60, 69
security of, 61, 63
to father, 63, 64, 182, 190, 191
to mother, 63, 64, 182, 183, 190
transformations in, 59
underemphasis on role of, 59
486
Parental Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ), 59, 60, 185
Parental Authority Questionnaire, 205
Parental Authority Questionnaire (modified version of), 114
Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of, 112, 206
Parental Bonding Instrument, 109, 111, 206
Parental Conflict Resolution (from the Structural Family Interaction Scale-Revised), 108
Parental contribution to the parent-child bond as assessed by the child (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 111
Parental control, resentment of, 57
Parental difficulties, 110
Parental dysfunction subscale (from the Early Trauma Checklist), 202
Parental intrusiveness, 109
Parental Physical Maltreatment Scale, 103, 207
modification of, to assess abuse by significant nonparental figures, 103
Parental Psychological Maltreatment Scale, 103, 208
Parental responsibility, student's, 96
Parent-child cohesion, 107
Parent-child overinvolvement, 108, 109, 166
Parent-child overinvolvement subscale (from the Family Structure Survey), 108, 109, 203, 204
Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire II, 111, 208
Parent-child role reversal, 108, 166
Parent-child role reversal subscale (from the Family Structure Survey), 108, 203, 204
Parent-infant experience, 70
Parenting styles. (see Family, parenting styles)
Parents, 59, 62, 185, 188, 189
alive/deceased, 119, 122
amount of student contact with, 112, 120
appropriate boundaries with, 58
attachment. (see Parental attachment)
authoritarian, 113
authoritative, 113
cold and distant, 112
conflict between, 56, 100, 108, 109, 166
conflict resolution, 108
conflict with, 55, 56, 57
continued connectedness with, 60
continued connection with, 60, 61
contribution to parent-child bond, 111
custodial (postdivorce), 120
differentiation from, 59
divorced, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 166
drinking problems in, 121, 122, 166
drug problems in, 121
dysfunctional, 121, 122
educational level, 90
father. (see Father)
function autonomously from, 58
income, 90
joint custody, 119
mother. (see Mother)
noncustodial (postdivorce), 120
of high SACQ scorers, 112
of low SACQ scorers, 112
overprotectiveness, 109
perceived as rejecting, callous, indifferent, hostile, 57
487
physically abusive, 122
postdivorce student relationship with, 120
psychological separation from. (see Psychological separation from)
Puerto Rican, 88
quality of time spent with, 120
reciprocity in current relationships with, 64, 65
remarriage, 120
separated, 119
sexually abusive, 122
social support from, 111, 210
student recollections of as loving, 111
student relationship with, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 112, 116, 120, 121, 163
supportive of student's college career, 112
triangulated relationship with, 58
unconflicted feelings of closeness with and dependency on, 57
unduly influenced by, 58
viewed as fostering autonomy, 60, 107, 166, 185
viewed as providing emotional support, 60, 185
voluntary closeness with, 58
Participant solicitation, method of, 142, 143
for intervention, 143
for research, 143
Part-time students, 7, 157
Pathological Separation-Individuation Inventory, 59, 185
Patient's (ADHD) Behavior Checklist, 29, 198
Peer advising program, 149
Peer advisors/counselors, 125, 153
Peer attachments, 61, 64, 68, 69, 164, 182
Peer enmeshment subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 70, 192, 193
Peer Group Dependence Scale, 75, 185
Peer support program, 148
Perceived adequacy of attachment (from the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction), 133
Perceived attachment to parents. (see Parental attachment)
Perceived availability of social resources (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 131
Perceived distance from home, 144
Perceived fit score (from the Social Support Inventory), 129, 210, 211
Perceived mastery of the environment, 36
Perceived maternal intrusiveness. (see Maternal intrusiveness)
Perceived Parental Attitude Scale, 112, 208
Perceived prejudice subscale (from the American International Relations Scale), 201
Perceived Prejudice subscale (from the American-International Relations Scale), 105
Perceived relationship with parents. (see Parents, student relationship with)
Perceived self-effectiveness/ineffectiveness, 36, 160
Perceived 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, 208
Perceived social support from friends. (see Social support, from friends)
Perceived Social Support from Friends Scale, 67, 208
Perceived Stress Scale, 26, 44, 102, 199
Perceived Supply (from the Social Support Inventory), 130
Perceived supply score (from the Social Support Inventory), 210, 211
Perceived support, 129
Perceived Support Network Inventory, 128
488
Percent family score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Percent friends score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209
Percent friends score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Percent relatives score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209
Percent roommates score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209
Percent students score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209
Percent students score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Perception of Parental Reciprocity Scale, 64, 65, 185
Perfectionism, expectations of
a measure of, 78
imposed on oneself by oneself, 78
imposed on oneself by others, 79, 164
imposed on others, 78, 164
non-social, 78
other-oriented, 79, 184
self-oriented, 78, 184
socially-prescribed, 79, 184
Permissive parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 114
Permissive-indulgent parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 114, 115
Permissive-neglectful parenting style (from the Parental Authority Questionnaire, modified version of), 114, 115
Persistence 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, 168
as changeable, 13
as determinants of adjustment, 16, 17, 75, 100, 152, 159, 164, 170
as stable states, 13, 156
culture-induced, 87
defined in terms of social relations in general, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 163
having a social component, 78, 164
in interaction with environmental characteristics, 52, 88, 100, 133, 134, 135, 138, 161, 162, 167, 168
individual differences in, 17, 153, 156
means of measuring or codifying, 17, 38, 47, 129, 177
of developmental importance, 163
personality variables, 17, 34, 177, 195
as determinants of adjustment, 10, 17
psychoanalytically conceived, 74
psychopathology-related, 160
socially desirable, 119
Personal Attributes Questionnaire, 81, 186
Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C, 57
Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C (PAFSQ-C), 186
Personal authority subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186
Personal counselors, 140
Personal disruptions, 202
Personal efficiency subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197
Personal Feelings Questionnaire, 77, 78, 186
Personal relations subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197
Personal Religiosity Inventory, 95
Personal self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193
Personal Sphere Model, 75
Personal support subscale (from the Residence Hall Climate Inventory), 208
Personal values, 95
Personal Values Scale-Revised, 54
Personal Values Scales-Revised, 186
489
Personal Views Survey, 34
Personal-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, 186
Personality traits associated with eating problems score (from the Eating Disorder Inventory), 27
Personality variables. (see Person characteristics, personality variables
Person-environment factors, 138
Persosnal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (from the SACQ), 14, 22
Pessimism, 23
Phobic anxiety subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 25, 196
Physical health, 4, 8, 9, 17, 18, 28, 30, 157, 196, 199
maintenance of, 11
variables associated with or contributing to, 30
Physical Maltreatment by Others Scale, 208
Physical self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193
Physical symptoms (from the Strain Questionnaire), 9, 28, 199
Physical symptoms (from the Stress Audit), 199
Physical well-being, sense of, 4, 8
Physical-environment factors, 138
Physically disabled students, 30, 41, 195
types of, 30
Planning, 31, 32, 48, 53, 161
academic/educational, 10, 17, 48, 50, 53, 162
indecision, 50
of academic efforts, efficiency in, 10
use of time, 10
vocational, 6, 17, 48, 50, 156, 162
Play subscale (from the Early Resources Checklist), 202
Positive Affect scale (from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), 22
Positive afftect (from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), 186
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, 22, 26, 186
Positive emotionality (from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire), 184
Positive Emotionality Scale (from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire), 22
Positive illusions, 38
Positive self-fulfillment (from the California Psychological Inventory-Revised), 30
Positive symptom distress subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196
Positive symptom distress subscale (from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised), 199
Positive Symptom Total Score (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196
Positive Symptom Total Score (from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised), 199
Postdivorce family structure, 120
Postmatriculation test administration, 11, 20, 21, 22, 26, 36, 43, 46, 50, 68, 85, 98, 137, 138, 159, 160, 162, 195,
199
Practicing-mirroring subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 39
Predominantly Black college/university, 83, 135, 165, 167
Predominantly Black high school, 135
Predominantly Black sponsored activities, 136
Predominantly White college/university, 82, 83, 84, 134, 135, 136, 165, 167
490
Predominantly White high school, 135
Predominantly White sponsored activities, 136
Predominantly White student samples, 135
Preference for one's college over others, 10, 157
Prematriculation, 44
expectations, 11, 12, 42, 43, 44, 85, 136, 138, 161
interventions, 145, 146, 147, 148, 153, 169
measures typically employed prematriculation, 6, 11, 42, 86, 161
test 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, 186
Primary Appraisal Emotions Scale, 45, 186
Primary appraisals in the coping process, 44, 160
benefit, 45, 186, 187
challenge, 45, 186
harm, 45, 186, 187
threat, 45, 186, 187
Principal components analysis, 25, 40, 66
Prior knowledge about college life, 98
Problem focused strategies, 31
Problem solving effectiveness, 40, 41
Problem Solving Inventory, 25, 40, 41, 67, 187
Problem-focused coping (from the Adolescent Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences), 32, 177
Problem-focused coping (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191
Problem-solving subscale (from the Coping Response Indices Inventory), 34
Professors, 153
amount of contact with, 142, 168
attitude toward, 157
interacting with, 7, 151
perception of, 7, 141
relationship with, 142, 158
Protective subscale (from the Parental Bonding Instrument), 109
Providing emotional support score (from the Parental Attachment Questionnaire), 60
Pseudoautonomous students (from the Late Adolescent Individuation Questionnaire), 60, 61
Pseudoautonomy (from the Pseudoautonomy Scale), 68
Pseudoautonomy Scale, 68, 187
Psychasthenia subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198
Psychoanalytically conceived variables, 74, 164
Psychological abuse. (see Abuse, psychological)
Psychological attachment to parents. (see Parental attachment)
Psychological Coping Resources Scale, 36
Psychological Distress Inventory, 21, 101, 102, 208
Psychological health. (see Mental health)
Psychological separation from parents, 55, 58, 60, 61, 163
as a mark of maturation, 59
excessive focus on, 59
measures of, 55, 56, 57, 58
negative forms of, 58
positive forms of, 58, 59
self-assessed, 55
welcome lack of, 57
Psychological Separation Inventory (PSI), 55, 56, 57, 59, 187
psychometric problems with, 56
Psychological services, 8, 12, 157
Psychological stability, 10
491
Psychological well-being, sense of, 4, 8
Psychology courses, 175
Psychometric instruments, 17, 160, 163
Psychopathic deviate subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198
Psychopathology, 19, 30, 160
underlying predispositions to, 29
Psychosocial competence, 33
Psychosocial Maturity Inventory, 58
Psychosocial Maturity Scale, 190
Psychoticism subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 196
Puerto Rican Index, 88
Puerto Rican students, 86
attending a Puerto Rican college, 88, 195
born and raised in mainland U.S. attending U.S. colleges, 195
born and raised in mainland U. S., attending U. S. colleges, 88
Purdue University, 173
Purpose, sense of/purposefulness, 6, 50, 156, 161
Purpose-in-Life Test, 50, 190
Quantitative score (from the Scholastic Aptitude Test), 191, 192
Queen's University (Ontario), 174
Racial composition of campus activities. (see Extracurricular activities in college, racial composition of)
Racial discrimination, 142
Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS), 84
Racial identity, attitude towards, 84, 85, 165
Racial status, 84, 86
Racial/ethnic tension, 141
Rational thinking about oneself (from the Attitudes and Beliefs Scale-II), 45
Realistic self-appraisal. (see Self-appraisal)
Reassurance of worth subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 130, 210
Recollections of the parents as loving in early interactions (from the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire II), 111
Recreational/play activities, 132
Redundant variables, 161, 164
Regularly admitted students, 147
Rejection expectancy subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 57, 192
Relationship density, 133
Relationship patterns within family, 56, 116
primary relationship between student and a parent, 116
primary relationship between the parents, 116
Relationship Questionnaire, 64, 190
Relationships
close, 72
disruption of, 71, 104, 166
formation and maintenance of, 7, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 149, 157
with age-mates, 70
with teachers, 70
inordinate need to establish, 71
interracial/interethnic, 136
number of close friends, 7, 157
of quality, 7
past, 37, 104, 149
reciprocally close and interdependent, 71
romantic, 7, 100, 104, 157
492
break-up of, 104
with college staff persons, 158
with parents. (see Parents, student relationship with)
with professors, 142, 158, 168
Relatives, 103
Relatives, percentage of in social networks, 121, 126
Relaxation training, 150
Reliability, 1
Reliable alliance subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 210
Religion
importance of in family, 95
Religiosity (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191
Religious affiliation, 95, 164
Religious organization, member of, 95
Religiousness, 95
Relocation away from home and significant persons there, 4
Reminiscence therapy, 155
Representations of people, complexity of (from the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale), 75
Residence Hall Climate Inventory (RHCI), 139, 140, 208
Residence halls. (see Dormitories)
Residential college, 140
Resources, management of, 7
Retrospective assessment of adjustment, 9
Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, 76, 191, 195
Revised Ways of Coping Checklist, 32, 33, 191
Ritualization (from the Family Ritual Questionnaire), 107
Role Relationship Inventory (RRI), 117, 118, 209
Romantic relationships. (see Relationships, romantic)
Roommates
freshman, 138, 168
percentage of in social networks, 126
upper class, 138, 168
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, 26, 35, 36, 37, 67
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), 191
Rutgers University, 174
SACQ. (see Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire)
Salience Inventory, 53, 191
San Diego State University, 174
SAT. (see Scholastic Aptitude Test)
Satisfaction
with academic environment, 4, 29
with academic major, 6, 53, 156, 162
with being in college in general, 4
with college experience, 10, 12, 157
with college in which enrolled, 4, 10, 157
with college work routine, 10
with courses, 10
with occupational preparation by college, 10, 157
with orientation program upon completion, 147
with social environment, 4
with social networks, 127
with social support, 128, 129, 211
Satisfaction with family relationship score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
493
Satisfaction with Life Scale, 22, 191
Scale to Assess World Views, 100
Scapegoat role (from the Children's Role Inventory), 117
Scapegoat role (from the Children's Roles Inventory), 202
Scapegoat role (from the Family Role Behavior Inventory), 117, 118
Scapegoat role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118, 209
Schizophrenia subscale (from the Mini-Mult), 198
Scholarly effort, 54
Scholastic achievement in high school, measures of, 146
Scholastic aptitude, 91, 92, 146, 152, 164
quantitative, 91
verbal, 91
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 6, 86, 91, 92, 142, 146, 191
composite score, 91
quantitative score, 91
verbal score, 91
Schwartz Value Survey-Form A, 87
Science courses, 173
Score distribution extremes, 154
Second generation college attenders, 35, 54, 90, 123, 195, 212
Seeks support (from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191
Self, 161
as focus of one's attention, 74
as focus of one's interest, 74, 164
as primary determinant of adjustment to college, 48
development of, 37
expectancies about, 160
facets of, 161
feelings about, 37
in relation to one's world, 67, 164
in relation to others, 164
integrity of, 10, 35, 160
physical, 197
seeking information about, to change, 49
unitary, 161
Self-appraisal, 160, 161
as aspects or determinants of adjustment, 35
realistic, 45, 160
variables related to, 35, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 160
Self-centeredness subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 39, 192
Self-concept, 30, 37, 38, 39
academic, 54
familial, 38
improvement, 150
moral-ethical, 38
physical, 38
social, 38
Self-confidence, 33, 35, 38, 160
regarding capacity for adjusting to college, 11, 42, 161, 170
social, 39
Self-consciousness, 74
Self-Consciousness Scales, 74, 192
Self-disillusionment. (see Adjustive capacity, disillusionment regarding)
Self-effectiveness. (see Perceived self-effectiveness/ineffectiveness)
494
Self-efficaciousness, sense of, 45
Self-efficacy, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 44, 47, 160
"as a person", 37
academic, 40, 41
as student-athletes, 41
athletic, 41
in physically disabled students, 41
regarding capacity for adjusting to college, 42
regarding cognitive activity, 40, 41
regarding completion of psychology courses, 40
regarding impending transition, 42
regarding mathematics, 40
regarding particular areas of function or activities, 38, 40
social, 39, 41
variants of, 38
Self-Efficacy for Broad Academic Milestones Scale, 40, 192
Self-Efficacy Scale, 37, 39, 192
Self-esteem, 10, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 73, 160, 170, 197
general measures of, 35
Self-esteem support subscale (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 204
Self-hate guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 77, 181, 182
Self-integrity, sense of, 10, 35, 160, 197
Self-other relations, particular aspects of, 164
Self-Perception Profile for College Students, 25, 40, 67
Self-regard, variables related to, 35, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 160, 161
Self-reliance (from the Psychosocial Maturity Scale), 190
Self-Reliance scale (from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory), 58
Self-Report Family Inventory-Version II, 106, 108, 209
Self-responsibility, 58
Self-satisfaction (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193
Self-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, 148
Senior year, 14, 42, 43, 44, 63, 92
in college, 6, 12, 76, 127, 195
in high school, 97, 138, 145, 146, 169, 212
Seniors, 57, 77, 92
in college, 6, 63, 76, 92, 93, 127, 147, 148, 174, 195
in high school, college bound, 137, 145, 169, 170
Sense of coherence, 34, 35
Sense of Coherence Questionnaire (SOCQ), 34, 192
Separation
from family, 11, 108, 157, 166
from friends at home, 157
from high school friends, 11
from parents. (see Psychological separation from parents)
Separation anxiety disorder, 24, 25, 160
a more benign form of, 25
Separation anxiety subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 25, 59, 192
Separation Anxiety Test, 58, 192
495
Separation guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 77, 78, 181, 182
Separation-individuation process, 38, 60
adult behavioral characteristics resulting from disturbances in, 59
resolution of, 70
Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA), 25, 39, 57, 58, 59, 69, 192
Sex-role orientation, 81, 82, 164
Sexual abuse. (see Abuse, sexual)
Sexual experiences as a child with an adult subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire), 104
Sexual experiences as a child with another child subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire),
104
Sexual experiences as a nonconsenting adolescent subscale (from the Childhood Sexual Experiences Questionnaire),
104
Shame, 77, 78, 164, 186
experienced in relation to fathers, 78
experienced in relation to mothers, 78
Shame subscale (from the Test of Self-Conscious Affect), 194
Siblings, 103
number of, 122
Sick or Lost Child role (from the Role Relationship Inventory), 118, 209
Sign language, 97
Social activities and functioning in general, extent and success of, 4
Social 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, 170
aspects 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, 164
Social approval, need for, 76, 164
Social Avoidance and Distress Scale, 76, 193
Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale (SCORS), 74
Social competence, 164
Social confidence, 39
Social confidence, lack of (from the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory), 39
Social desirability, 119
Social environment
general characteristics of, 123, 125, 126, 128, 131, 132, 133, 167
particular aspects of, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 167
satisfaction with, 4
Social integration subscale (from the Social Provisions Scale), 130, 210
Social interests, 66
Social involvement, 38
detachment and isolation from, 71
Social Network Questionnaire, 126, 209
adaptation of, 126, 127
Social Network Questionnaire (adapted), 210
Social networks, 126, 127, 128, 133
aspects of, 127
composition of, 126, 167
conflicted/unconflicted, 127
496
establishing, 150
fun function of, 126
function of, 126, 167
gender findings, 127
percentage of friends in, 126
percentage of relatives in, 121, 126
percentage of students in, 126
roommate percentage in, 126
satisfaction with, 127
size of, 126, 127
Social propensity, 66, 67, 68, 164
Social Propensity Scale, 193
Social Provisions Scale, 130, 210
Social Provisions Scale-Parent Version, 110, 210
Social Readjustment Rating Scale, 102
Social relations, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 99, 163
capacity for forming, 68, 69
with instructors, 10
with peers, 10
Social resources, 67
Social resources, availability of, 131
Social self (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194
Social self-efficacy, 39, 41, 192
Social skills, 66
training program, 170
Social subscale (of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 39
Social support, 71, 127, 129, 133, 139, 149
amount of need for, 130
amount received, 130
and ethnicity, 168
as buffer, 132
emotional, 124, 128
felt need for, 127, 129
frequency of, 125, 126, 130, 205
from a strong person, 131
from authority figures, 124, 125, 130, 205
from campus environment in general, 132
from college friends, 124, 128
from coursemates, 124
from faculty, 124
from family, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 128, 130, 166, 167
from family and close friends combined, 125, 126, 205
from family, friends, and significant others combined, 129
from family/kin, 128
from friends, 83, 100, 123, 128, 167, 208
from parents, 111, 210
from peers, 124, 130, 148, 149, 205
from pre-college friends, 124
in Asians, 110, 124
in Blacks, 83, 110, 124, 165
in earlier years of life, 167
in general, 128, 129, 167
in Hispanic students, 130
in Latinos, 110, 124
497
in White students, 83, 110, 124, 165
informational, 124
instrumental, 124, 128
level of, 83, 132, 165, 168
motivational, 124
networks, 127, 128
number of persons obtained from, 129
perceived, 131, 132, 166
satisfaction with, 127, 128, 129, 131, 201, 211
satisfaction with frequency of, 125, 126, 130, 205
social companionship, 124
sources of, 128, 131, 132
Social Support Inventory, 129, 130, 210
Social Support Questionnaire, 128, 129, 211
Social-living circumstances, 93
Socially desirable responses, 143
Socially-defined feeling states, 77, 164
Socio-economic status, 90, 164
Somatic subscale (from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist), 198
Somatization subscale (from the Brief Symptom Inventory), 18, 196
Sophomore year, 7, 12, 14, 42, 43, 53, 63, 84, 91, 92, 125, 134, 141, 154, 163, 167
Sophomores, 77, 92, 93, 94, 147, 148
Sorority membership, 141, 168
Special admission status. (see Admission status)
Spheres of Control Battery, 33, 67
Spiritual support, 133
Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS), 22
Stable attributions (from the Attributional Style Questionnaire), 178
State University of New York, New Paltz, 174
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), 23, 24, 199
Status variables, 80, 164
Stepfather families, 133
Strain Questionnaire, 9, 28, 199
Stress, 8, 31, 32, 34, 44, 64, 95, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 133, 157, 166, 204
experience of, 26
failure to confront source of, 31
management of one's perception of or emotional response to, 31
means of coping with, 31
Stress Audit, 9, 26, 28, 199
Stress Level Scale (from the Psychological Distress Inventory), 102, 208
Structural Family Interaction Scale-Revised, 106, 108, 110, 116
Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ)
adaptation of, as measure of situation-specific appraisal of control, 48
adaptation of, to assess adjustment retrospectively, 9
as a means of constructing treatment and control groups, 154, 169
as a means of identifying at-risk students, 153, 154, 155, 168, 169, 170
as a means of identifying students varying in adjustment, 153
as a means of measuring effects of intervention, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 169, 170
as a source of dependent variables, 16
as a source of interview topics, 154, 169, 170
composition and structure of, 3, 4, 13
conditions of administration, 142, 143, 163
consistency of, 13
developers of, 1, 80
498
earlier version of, 53, 66, 67
facets of adjustment area addressed by a subscale, 4
first semester/second semester correlations, 13, 14
item-clusters, 4, 28, 29, 158
items, 3, 4, 85, 130, 158
limitations or flaws of, 1
manual, 1, 2, 174, 176, 194, 199, 211
unpublished addenda to tables, 2
patterns of subscale scores, 158
practical usefulness of, 153
primary subscales, 3, 4
reliability of, 1
research-derived correlates of, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 156, 157, 158
score distribution extremes, 154
second semester findings. (see Semester)
shorter version of, 53, 85, 130
sophomore year/senior year correlations, 14
subscales, 3
behavioral and experiential indices associated differentially with, 5, 158
intercorrelations among, 3, 4
intraindividual variation in scores, 4, 15, 156
item-clusters within. (see Item-clusters)
primary. (see Primary subscales)
validity of, 1
Student athletes
foreign, 89
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory, 50, 54, 69, 193
Student, 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, 195
domestic, 89
in-state, 144
out-of-state, 144
Student-Oriented Life Events Survey, 101, 211
Student-parent relationship. (see Parents, student relationship with)
Students of color, 110, 124
Students, percentage of in social networks, 126
Study habits, 6, 17, 157
Study skills, 10, 17
Study skills subscale (from the College Inventory of Academic Adjustment), 197
Subjective satisfaction score (from the Social Support Inventory), 210, 211
Success/failure (capacity to enjoy/endure), 33
Superiority Scale, 45, 193
Support need (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201
Support satisfaction (from the Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule), 201
Surgency-intellect, 66, 67
Survivor guilt subscale (from the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-45), 77, 181
Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, 19, 199
Tangible support subscale (from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List), 204
Task assistance score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209
Task assistance score (from the Social Network Questionnaire, adapted), 210
Task-oriented subscale (from the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations), 179
Teacher enmeshment subscale (from the Separation-Individuation Test of Adolescence), 70, 192, 193
499
Teacher support subscale (from the Classroom Environment Scale), 132
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 193
Test 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, 194
Texas Social Behavior Inventory, 39, 194
Time spent actively involved subscale (from the Father-Daughter Relationship Inventory), 204
Time, management of, 7
Total P Score (from the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale), 193, 194
Total Pathology Score (from the Mini-Mult), 19, 198
Total Severity of Psychopathology Score (from the Bell Global Psychopathology Scale), 19
Traditional-age students. (see Age, traditional/nontraditional age students)
Trait, 8, 23
general, 160
specific, 160
Type A, 30
Transfer students, 148, 150, 169
Transition from high school to college, 8
facilitation of, 170
Translation of motivation to academic effort, 4, 29
Trauma, in the first 15 years of life, 103, 132
Triangulation subscale (from the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire-Version C), 58, 186
Trust subscale (from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), 61, 62, 68, 182, 183
Type A traits, 30
Understanding of causal factors in interpersonal relationships (from the Social Cognition and Object Relations
Scale), 75
Undifferentiated sex-role orientation, 81
Universities, SACQ differences among, 95
east or west coast, 82
private or public, 82
University 101 course, 146
University of California at Los Angeles, 174
University of Hartford, 176
University of Maryland, Baltimore, 174
University of Missouri-Columbia, 174
University of Oregon, 176
University of Pennsylvania, 174
University of Wisconsin, Madison, 174, 176
Upper class years. (see College year level)
Validity, 1, 54
Value and attitude similarity score (from the Social Network Questionnaire), 209
Value characteristics of students, 87
culture-induced, 87
Values
American, accepting of, 90
personal, 95
Valuing of Achievement (from the Life Values Inventory), 48, 95, 183
Verbal score (from the Scholastic Aptitude Test), 191, 192
Virginia Commonwealth University, 174
Visits home, frequency of, 7, 157
Vocational Identity Scale of My Vocational Situation, 50, 184
Vocational plans. (see Planning, vocational)
500
Weekend classes students, 141
Weight Management, Eating, and Exercise Habits Questionnaire, 27
Well-being, sense of, 22, 23, 34
existential, 22
personal, 22
West European international students, 195
White students, 21, 33, 39, 45, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, 109, 111, 124, 128, 130, 135, 136, 147, 165, 175, 195,
200, 211
in high school, 134
social support in, 83, 110, 124, 165
Wishful thinking (fromthe Revised Ways of Coping Checklist), 191
Withdrawal from college, 9, 12, 154, 155, 157, 170, 176
Women. (see Gender findings)
Work orientation (from the Psychosocial Maturity Scale), 190
Work Orientation scale (from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory), 58
World view, 100
Yale University, 174
York University (Canada), 174
Young Adult Alcohol Problems Screening Test, 79
Young Adult Social Support Inventory (YA-SSI), 129, 211
501