CHAPTER 3

Research on College Student

Adjustment
The focus of Chapter 2 was on major theoretical models for understanding
how students grow and develop during the college years. These theoretical
perspectives are very important in conceptualizing the college adjustment
process but they do not in and of themselves provide evidence for what
actually happens when students go to college. In fact, most of the theories
discussed in Chapter 2 grew out of the personal experiences of each theo-
rist working closely with college students in counseling or advising roles.
Personal experience is invaluable for developing a theoretical perspective
but it does not in itself constitute scientific evidence. The current chapter
moves from theory to research on the college adjustment process.
The focus of this chapter is on understanding what scientists know
about college student adjustment. I will look at a number of issues in
this chapter, including (1) how to define and conceptualize the process
of adjustment; (2) the major domains of adjustment in college and what
is known about factors that affect adjustment in each domain; (3) mea-
surement strategies that have been used to assess college adjustment; and
(4) individual characteristics that affect how some students adjust dif-
ferently than others. But, first, I need to define what is meant by college
adjustment.

What Is College Adjustment?

If you look up the word adjust in the dictionary, you will find the follow-
ing meanings for the term: “1. to adapt or conform oneself (as to new
conditions); 2. to achieve mental and behavioral balance between one’s
own needs and the demands of others” (www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary). These definitions imply that adjustment has to do with
32 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

bringing something to a satisfactory state of being or with adapting one-

self to a new situation. This captures quite well what I think is meant by
college adjustment. For a student to adjust well to college they have to
fit themselves to the college environment, meaning they have to actively
seek to make their experience at college a suitable one that brings pleasure
and feels healthy—mentally, physically, and psychosocially. Obviously, no
student is going to adjust to college perfectly, all the time, but a signif-
icant degree of overall adjustment is needed for the experience to be a
good one for most students.
When one considers the process of going to college, one can imag-
ine a host of challenges that the young student faces. For many stu-
dents, college is their first experience living away from home without
their parents. They need to learn to take on responsibilities for man-
aging their own finances, doing some basic household chores, such as
laundry, dishes, and shopping for groceries. At the same time they have
to adjust to an academic environment in which they are expected to
function much more autonomously than in high school and navigate a
largely new set of peer relationships, in which multiple temptations exist
for distraction and engagement in risky behaviors (Mattanah, Hancock,
and Brand 2004). To manage these challenges relatively well and experi-
ence an overall sense of success is another way to define positive college
adjustment.

Five Domains of Functioning in College

In order to study the process of adjusting to college, researchers have
focused on different aspects of students’ functioning in college. This
research has ranged very widely from examining academic performance
to measuring loneliness and social adjustment to college to examining
self-esteem and a sense of self-efficacy. In a recent meta-analysis on paren-
tal attachment and college student functional outcomes, my colleagues
and I suggested a comprehensive model by which to organize the many
functional outcomes that have been examined in the study of college
adjustment (Mattanah, Lopez, and Govern 2011). The five domains
we identified in this model were labeled: (1) academic achievement and
academic competence; (2) interpersonal competencies and relational
­
 Research on College Student Adjustment 33

satisfaction; (3) stressful affects and high-risk behaviors; (4) self-worth

and self-efficacy; and (5) developmental advances in autonomy, ego iden-
tity, separation–individuation, and career identity (Mattanah, Lopez, and
Govern 2011, 584). Each of these domains is meant to be an over­arching
category within which are contained subcategories of functioning that
are usually focused on within particular studies of college student func-
tioning. So, for example, the domain of stressful affects and high-risk
behaviors includes the construct of depression that is often studied when
researchers are interested in examining how students are functioning in
college in terms of their individual psychological functioning. In the sec-
tions that follow, I use the domain structure to review a number of studies
that have been conducted on college student functioning in each domain
and to examine predictors of functioning across these domains. I also
spend some time discussing different kinds of measurements strategies
that have been developed by researchers to examine these constructs. My
intention is not to provide a comprehensive review of all research con-
ducted in each area but rather to provide an introduction to research in
these areas and give some idea of the scope of research being conducted
on college student adjustment.

Domain 1: Academic Achievement and

Academic Competence
Academic Performance as a Measure of Academic Competence

When considering academic competence, it seems obvious that one

should focus on students’ objective performance. In order to assess per-
formance, researchers generally focus on college GPAs, which can be
obtained from the students’ academic record or can be self-reported
by the student him or herself. Objective records are considered more
valid although they can be hard to obtain, as most institutional review
boards (IRBs) will require researchers to get specific permission from
the student in order to access their academic record. Self-reported GPA
is considered relatively valid as meta-analytic research has shown that
self-reported GPA by college students correlates about 0.90 (range =
0.82−0.98) with GPAs obtained from school records (Kuncel, Credé,
and Thomas 2005).
34 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

Although GPA is clearly an important indicator of academic success,

it is by no means the only measure of academic adjustment and it is often
poorly correlated with other measures of academic competence. Addi-
tionally, many variables that college student researchers are interested in
looking at to predict student success, such as parent–student relation-
ships, peer relationships, faculty–student interactions, and other indi-
vidual and environmental variables, do not robustly predict college GPA
(Halamandaris and Power 1999; Lopez 1997).
Given these challenges, researchers have sought to examine other indi-
cators of academic competence that may help explain the link between
relationship/interaction variables and academic performance. One early
and influential study, conducted by Aspinwall and Taylor (1992), exam-
ined a large cohort of over 600 freshmen at the University of California,
Los Angeles (UCLA) over a two-year period, in which data on self-esteem,
optimism, and academic coping mechanisms were used to predict objec-
tive academic performance. These researchers found that more optimistic
students, with greater self-esteem, were more likely to actively cope with
academic problems and thereby enhance their performance in college
over time. This kind of research is very important because it suggests that
students with low self-esteem or high pessimism benefit from learning
active coping strategies to deal with their academic difficulties in college.

Coping with Academic Challenges in College

A number of studies have followed the lead of Aspinwall and Taylor by

examining the role of coping in students’ academic functioning. Using
the COPE Inventory (Carver, Schreier, and Weintraub 1989), which
assesses engagement in active forms of problem-focused coping, research-
ers have found that while men and women do not differ in their use
of coping, men are more influenced by a secure relationship with their
fathers in terms of their willingness to turn to others for support, whereas
women with good peer relationships are more likely to use active coping
mechanisms (Greenberger and McLaughlin 1998).
In a related line of research, Simon Larose and his colleagues have
developed an academic coping measure called the Test of Reactions and
Adaptation in College (TRACS) (Larose and Bernier 2001; Larose and
 Research on College Student Adjustment 35

Roy 1995). Across nine subscales, this measure assesses student’s ability to
prepare for exams, pay attention to their studies, and seek help from their
teachers and peers when needed. Larose has found that the help-seeking
scales are particularly important predictors of academic achievement in
college and that in turn students who are less secure in their relationships
with their parents and peers are less likely to seek help when needed. This
makes intuitive sense and provides additional evidence that environmen-
tal factors (such as parent–student relationships) affect students’ academic
achievement through academic coping mechanisms.

The Importance of Study Skills

Finally, researchers have also examined study skills as one specific aca-
demic behavior that predicts academic achievement. One study used the
Study Skills Questionnaire to ask students about a range of positive and
negative studying behaviors (such as “reading the textbooks assigned for
class” [positive behavior] and “watching TV or listening to music while
studying” [negative behavior]; Norvilitis and Reid 2012). These authors
found that the quality of one’s study skills was the best predictor of higher
GPAs, after controlling for students’ inattention and hyperactive symp-
toms, personal motivation to succeed, and parental encouragement of
intellectual activities.

Domain 2: Interpersonal Competencies and

Relational Satisfaction
The second domain assesses the quality of students’ social functioning
in college. In particular, researchers are interested in the students’ rela-
tionships with their peers, romantic partners, professors and other higher
education personnel, and parents. Even though many students no longer
live with their parents, parent–student relationships can have a significant
impact on the social functioning of students while at college. There are
three major ways in which researchers have assessed social functioning.
First, they have looked at students’ level of social support, referred to
as the sense in which students feel adequately supported by their social
networks. Second, research has examined the quality of students’ intimate
36 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

relationships and their reports of satisfaction in those intimate relation-

ships. Finally, research has considered the experience of loneliness as an
important indicator of a lack of adequate social functioning in college.
I review research findings for each of these constructs in the sections that
follow.

Social Support Processes in College

Social support has been studied extensively by psychologists as well as

by many other behavioral scientists and has been shown to be extremely
important to one’s health and well-being. A sense of adequate social
­support predicts longevity and reduces health problems among older
adults (Uchino 2004). Importantly, researchers have emphasized that
social support is defined by the adequacy of one’s support network in
providing the support one needs rather than by its size. Hence, subjective
­self-report measures of social support are best used to capture this felt
sense of adequacy.
One widely used measure of social support with college students,
called the Social Provisions Scale (SPS; Cutrona 1989), targets students’
relationships with peers, parents, and romantic partners. Cutrona and
her colleagues found that social support predicted institutionally reported
college GPAs, after controlling for the students’ level of academic perfor-
mance (ACT scores) in high school. She found that social support from
parents was more important than support from peers or romantic part-
ners in predicting academic performance. Students who felt adequately
supported by their parents, particularly felt reassured of their worth, were
less interpersonally anxious, had greater academic self-efficacy (meaning
they felt more confident that they could do well in their classes), and these
factors, in turn, predicted greater academic performance (Cutrona et al.
1994). This study adds to the studies I reviewed earlier in showing that
environmental factors can predict academic performance particularly by
enhancing students’ sense of social well-being, which then enhances their
academic coping and self-efficacy beliefs.
In studying social support processes, researchers have drawn a dis-
tinction between instrumental and emotional support (Larose, Guay, and
Boivin 2002). Instrumental support refers to the provision of tangible
 Research on College Student Adjustment 37

forms of assistance and perhaps encouragements to help the student

become more socially involved, whereas emotional support refers to lis-
tening and supporting the student when he or she is distressed. Larose,
Guay, and Boivin (2002) found that emotional support in particular
­predicted less loneliness among students.
Finally, social support processes have also been studied in the con-
text of students of color adjusting to campuses that contain primarily
Caucasian students. Hinderlie and Kenny (2002) studied 186 Black
students who were at six different predominantly White campuses.
They measured social support from: (1) close friends, (2) student orga-
nizations, (3) instructors, and (4) parents. Hinderlie and Kenny (2002)
found that all three categories of on-campus social support (i.e., friends,
student organizations, and instructors) significantly predicted greater aca-
demic, social, and personal–emotional adjustment, and greater institu-
tional attachment. Beyond the significant effects of on-campus support,
social support from parents also predicted greater academic and personal
adjustment but not social adjustment or attachment to the institution.
These results make sense when considering that on-campus social support
is probably more important to the students’ sense of being integrated
socially to the campus, whereas parents continue to support African
American students’ academic and personal adjustment.

Quality of Intimate Relationships

A second important dimension of social functioning in college focuses

on the quality of students’ intimate relationships. We know that students’
capacity to form satisfying intimate relationships with romantic partners
is an important predictor of students’ mental and physical well-being in
college (Braithwaite, Delevi, and Fincham 2010). Given this finding,
researchers have spent some time examining what makes it difficult for
students to form intimate relationships. One measure particularly well
suited to examine intimacy difficulties is called the Inventory of Interper-
sonal Problems (IIP; Horowitz et al. 1988), which contains a “Hard to Be
Intimate” Scale and a “Too Controlling” Scale. Mothersead, Kivlighan,
and Wynkoop (1998) found that students who came from families with
a history of alcoholism had greater intimacy difficulties, especially if there
38 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

were high levels of family dysfunction present while the student was at
college. In a similar study, Ensign, Scherman, and Clark (1998) found
that a history of divorce and marital conflict were associated with less
intimacy among students’ romantic relationships. Clearly, family dynam-
ics can play an important role in how students navigate their romantic
relationships at college.

Loneliness: Measurement and Key Findings with College Students

Loneliness refers to the subjective experience of having “too few” social

relations. Feelings of loneliness have been linked with alcoholism, delin-
quent behavior, suicide, physical illness, and overutilization of the health
care system across the lifespan (Ponzetti 1990; Russell, Peplau, and
Cutrona 1980). Students may experience high levels of loneliness as they
transition away from their social networks in high school and attempt to
integrate into new social environments in college.
The study of loneliness has been aided by the development of a psy-
chometrically sound instrument that has been used widely in college
student research. The UCLA Loneliness Scale contains 20 items that indi-
rectly ask about the experience of loneliness (the word “lonely” is not used
in any of the items). Ten of the items ask about negative experiences such
as “There is no one I can turn to” or “I am unhappy being so withdrawn,”
whereas the other 10 items ask about positive experiences, suggesting a
lack of loneliness, such as “I feel part of a group of friends” or “There are
people who really understand me” (Russell, Peplau, and Cutrona 1980).
The scale has been shown to be internally consistent and reliable across
time. In terms of validity, Russell and colleagues have shown that scores
on the UCLA Loneliness Scale are correlated with feeling “abandoned,
depressed, empty, hopeless, isolated, and self-enclosed and with not feel-
ing sociable or satisfied” (Russell et al. 475).
A number of studies have shown that loneliness has important impli-
cations for college adjustment. First, men tend to experience higher
levels of loneliness than women overall and men who are lonely have
lower college GPAs (Booth 1983; Ponzetti and Cate 1981). On the other
hand, women who experience loneliness demonstrate greater physiolog-
ical reactivity to stress, as measured by greater pulse pressure reactivity
 Research on College Student Adjustment 39

(divergence between systolic and diastolic blood pressure). In young col-

lege students, pulse pressure reactivity is a better predictor of long-term
cardiovascular disease than systolic blood pressure alone, suggesting that
lonely college women may be at greater risk for cardiovascular disease
over time (O’Donovan and Hughes 2007). Interestingly, the women who
reported greater social support, while also reporting medium-to-high
­levels of loneliness, showed significantly less pulse pressure reactivity.
These results imply that social support can buffer the negative effects of
loneliness on college adjustment. Given the importance of loneliness in
college adjustment, researchers have begun to investigate whether peer-
led social support interventions can ameliorate loneliness levels for young
college students (Mattanah et al. 2010).

Domain 3: Stressful Affects and High-Risk Behaviors

A third domain of functioning that has been studied among college stu-
dents examines psychological symptoms of distress and engagement in
risky behaviors that can jeopardize one’s physical or mental well-being
(such as problematic drinking or promiscuous sexual behavior). As I
wrote in Chapter 1, a surprisingly large number of college students strug-
gle with depression, anxiety, eating problems, substance abuse, and other
mental health difficulties while at college. For this reason, researchers have
been focused on trying to develop instruments that accurately assess these
kinds of problems with college-aged populations so as to better under-
stand the nature and causes of such mental health difficulties and develop
appropriate treatments for them. I begin this section by reviewing a very
important new instrument that has been developed specifically to assess
a range of mental health difficulties within college students. After that,
I review research that has been conducted on students’ struggles with a
number of specific mental health problems and high-risk behaviors.

The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms

(CCAPS-62)

In the past 10 years, a large group of counseling centers across the

country have organized into a consortium in an attempt to study more
40 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

systematically the mental health of college students. I referred to this

group in Chapter 1 as the Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH;
based at Penn State University). This group of researchers and college
counselors has argued that no specific instrument exists that measures
a range of mental health difficulties specific to college students. Most
instruments that do exist examine just one domain of functioning and
they may not be geared specifically to college students. Hence, one of the
first major goals of this group has been to develop a multidimensional
instrument focused specifically on the mental health difficulties of college
students.
This instrument is called the Counseling Center Assessment of Psycho-
logical Symptoms (CCAPS). It currently exists in 62- and 34-item versions
that can be used to reliably and validly assess mental health difficulties
across eight dimensions (Locke et al. 2011; McAleavey et al. 2012). Locke
and his colleagues structured the instrument to target areas of challenge
specific to college students (see Figure 3.1 for a list of the eight areas of
concern targeted by this instrument). As they have access to over 90 coun-
seling centers across the country, the CCMH group has been able to gather

Depression

Generalized
anxiety

Social anxiety

Hostility
In treatment
Eating concerns No treatment

Substance use

Academic distress

Family distress

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Figure 3.1  Symptomatic distress (on the CCAPS-62) for college

students in counseling versus those not seeking treatment
Source: Data from McAleavey et al. (2012).
 Research on College Student Adjustment 41

excellent validity data for their instrument, showing that it is substantially

correlated with other measures of mental health and that scores on the
CCAPS change significantly from before to after treatment. Importantly,
however, the CCAPS is designed to assess mental health distress for both
counseling center clients and for the more general population of college
students. Locke and his colleagues have shown that the instrument is valid
in both populations although students in counseling treatment demon-
strate greater symptomatic distress than students not seeking treatment
(see Figure 3.1, which demonstrates that counseling center students score
higher on all subscales except substance use, suggesting that this problem
is quite widespread across a range of college students).
The CCAPS is clearly an important development for the field of men-
tal health counseling with college students and the instrument is being
used increasingly by counseling centers across the United States to gather
an initial assessment of students’ mental health difficulties. However, as
acknowledged by the CCMH group itself, the instrument is limited in
its use for other purposes, partially because it is quite lengthy and also
because it does not measure strength or resiliency in students (only
symptomatic distress). In many studies of college student functioning,
researchers have used shorter, more specific measures that examine one
specific area of distress. I turn now to research that has focused on a num-
ber of those specific areas of distress.

Depression

One of the most common mental health symptoms reported by ­college

students is depression. In the most recent survey of college student
health, conducted by the American College Health Association (ACHA),
35 ­percent of female students and 28 percent of male students said that
they “felt so depressed it was difficult to function” at some time within
the past year and 14 percent of female students and 8 percent of male
­students said they had been treated for an episode of depression within
the past year (results of the ACHA survey as cited in Whisman and
­Richardson 2015). As a group, Asian American college students show the
highest depression levels, followed by Latino/a, African American, and
then ­Caucasian students (Whisman and Richardson 2015).
42 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

Given the importance of this problem, there are a number of survey

instruments to reliably measure depression in college students. The most
widely used of these is the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), currently
in its second version. The BDI-II is a 21-item inventory asking about
sadness, loss of pleasure, thoughts of worthlessness, guilt, self-criticism
and suicidality, and somatic symptoms of depression, such as sleeping and
eating habit changes, all occurring within the past two weeks. Each item
is scored on a 4-point scale (from 0 to 3) yielding a total score from 0 to
63. Beck and others suggest that individuals scoring between 0 and 13
show minimal depressive feelings; 14 to 19 show mild depression; 20 to
28 show moderate depression; and scores 29 and above indicate signifi-
cant or severe depression. The BDI-II is internally consistent and shows
good test–retest reliability (Beck, Steer, and Brown 1996).
Research on depression among college students has shown that a
number of factors increase the likelihood that a student will experience
depression during the transition to college and some factors help pro-
tect against such feelings. First off, the experience of bullying and cyber-
bullying increases depressive feelings among college students (Tennant
et al. 2015). In addition, students exposed to stressful life experiences,
most particularly those experiencing sexual assault, reported significantly
increased depressive symptoms during the transition to college (Chang
et  al. 2015). On the other hand, social support from peers as well as
parents, has been shown to be an important protective factor, leading
students to report fewer depressive symptoms in the face of stressful life
events (Brandy et al. 2015; Tennant et al. 2015).

Anxiety

Anxiety is another major symptom that can accompany the transition

to college. In studying anxiety among college students, researchers have
tended to focus social anxiety and generalized anxiety. Social anxiety
refers to the experience of feeling uncomfortable in social situations,
being concerned that others are judging you negatively, and feeling afraid
that one may embarrass oneself in a social situation. Many students expe-
rience social anxiety in college, sometimes heightened during the initial
transition. Generalized anxiety refers to excessive worry and heightened
 Research on College Student Adjustment 43

physiological arousal that accompanies an overconcern with day-to-day

stress and fear of failure.
Research on social anxiety among college students has used the Inter-
action Anxiousness Scale (IAS; Leary 1983; Leary and Kowalski 1993),
which measures the subjective sense of feeling socially anxious rather
than the behavioral symptoms of avoidance of social situations (a sample
item is: “I often feel nervous when talking to an attractive member of the
opposite sex” [Leary 1983]). Social anxiety is higher among students who
leave for college versus those who commute to college while still living
with their parents (Larose and Boivin 1998).
Research on generalized anxiety, using the Penn State Worry Ques-
tionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer et al. 1990), has found that worry symptoms
are higher among women than men and that feeling secure in one’s rela-
tionship with one’s parents predicts less worry among college students
(Vivona 2000). If one is more interested in assessing the physiologi-
cal symptoms that accompany worry and anxiety, the Wahler Physical
Symptoms Inventory (WPSI; Wahler 1968) assesses four areas of physical
symptoms among college students: (1) gastrointestinal; (2) pain; (3) gen-
eral systemic; and (4) sensory-motor-type symptoms. Physical complaints
on the WPSI have been shown to be associated with greater depression,
anxiety, hostility (especially for men), and interpersonal sensitivity
(Holmbeck and Wandrei 1993). Additionally, more physical symptoms
are associated with greater enmeshment with parents and with less adapt-
ability to change, among women transitioning to college (Holmbeck and
Wandrei 1993).

Anger, Aggression, and High-Risk Behaviors

In addition to distressing symptoms such as anxiety and depression,

researchers are concerned with examining college students’ tendencies to
act out in inappropriate ways that may be harmful to themselves or others.
The Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (WAI; Weinberger and Schwartz
1990) assesses students’ ability to restrain themselves versus acting aggres-
sively toward others. Research has shown that college men with better
peer relationships and more empathy shower greater self-restraint on the
WAI (Liable, Carlo, and Roesch 2004). These researchers suggest that a
44 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

more positive peer climate may help these students to restrain themselves
from acting aggressively and also that college student males who show
greater self-restraint probably are able to form better peer relationships
in the first place.
In addition to aggressive tendencies, a major focus of research on
“acting out” behavior among college students has focused on alcohol use
and abuse. As noted in Chapter 1, emerging adulthood represents a peak
period for engagement in alcohol use, partially as a type of experimen-
tation and separation from parents but also as a result of the stress and
uncertainty associated with this time of life (Arnett 2015). The assessment
of college student alcohol use focuses on two issues, first the frequency
and intensity of students’ use of alcohol and second the problematic con-
sequences associated with alcohol use. To assess frequency, students are
asked to report on how often they drink and how often they are intox-
icated across a specific period of time, usually in the past year (Molnar
et al. 2010).
In assessing problematic consequences of alcohol use, researchers can
use well-validated and thoughtful questionnaires that assess a range of
possible consequences of alcohol use specific to college students, such as
the Rutgers Alcohol Problems Inventory (White and Labouvie 1989).
Research has shown the consequences of alcohol use that are most prob-
lematic for students are physical symptoms such as withdrawal and “feel-
ing like they are going crazy” and interpersonal consequences, such as
having fights with a friend or family member or having family mem-
bers avoid them because of their alcohol use (Neal, Corbin, and Fromme
2006). Clearly, alcohol use is particularly problematic for students to the
extent that it disrupts their ability to succeed in school and maintain their
most important interpersonal relationships.
Finally, it is also important to consider the motivation for students to
drink. One frequently used questionnaire for this purpose assesses four
possible motivations for drinking: (1) Social (“to enjoy myself at a party”);
(2) Enhancement (“it’s exciting”); (3) Conformity (“so that others won’t
kid me about not drinking”); and (4) Coping (“to forget about prob-
lems”) (Cooper 1994). Research has shown that students who drink to
cope are at the highest risk for developing problematic patterns of drink-
ing. Secure attachment to parents makes it less likely that students will
 Research on College Student Adjustment 45

drink to cope with their problems and less likely that they will develop
problematic drinking patterns (McNally et al. 2003).
The final area of high-risk behavior examined by college student
researchers is engagement in risky sexual behaviors, including unpro-
tected sexual intercourse, having sex while under the influence of drugs
or alcohol, and having multiple sexual partners. Research on risky sexual
behaviors has shown that having multiple sexual partners is associated
with greater drug use among college students and that both drug use
and sexual promiscuity were predicted by poor attachment relations with
parents (Walsh 1995).
In more recent years, the phenomenon of “hooking up” has received
much attention among those researchers interested in college students.
This pattern of sexual activity focuses on brief physically intimate
encounters with others who are not identified as romantic partners and
with whom one has no plans of developing a longer term romantic rela-
tionship. Hooking up is quite common among college students, where as
many as 60 to 80 percent of students in confidential surveys report having
had at least one hook up experience (Garcia et al. 2012). Although hook
ups are common and may be indicative of changes in normative patterns
of dating and romantic involvement among emerging adults in the 21st
century, there is research to suggest that some students are quite distressed
after hooking up and long for more serious relationships with their hook
up partners (Owen, Fincham, and Moore 2011).

Domain 4: Self-Worth and Self-Efficacy

Domain 4 focuses on two interrelated issues that are of great impor-
tance to students’ ability to succeed in college and feel good about
themselves. The first issue is self-esteem or self-worth and has to do
with the student’s overall assessment of him or herself as worthy and
valued. The second issue carries multiple names, including self-efficacy,
internal locus of control, or attribution style, but in each case the issue
being considered is whether the student feels confident that he or she
can complete tasks as a result of his or her own abilities or efforts versus
attributing successes to external, uncontrollable forces, such as good
fortune or luck.
46 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

Self-esteem is measured in college students using a variety of self-­

report questionnaires. Perhaps the most common and straightforward
measure used in hundreds of studies is called the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (Rosenberg 1965), which includes 10 statements capturing an over-
all sense of self-worth or what is called “dispositional self-esteem.” Some
sample items of this measure are: “I feel like I have a number of good
qualities” or “All in all, I am inclined to feel like I am a failure” (reverse-
scored). If one wishes a bit more subtle assessment of self-esteem, the
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (CSEI; Coopersmith 1967) includes
25 items that assess attitudes toward the self in four areas relevant to
college students: (1) social, (2) academic, (3) family, and (4) personal
experiences. Research has shown that students from divorced back-
grounds tend to have lower self-esteem but that parental acceptance and
encouragement of independence promotes self-esteem for students from
both divorced and nondivorced backgrounds (McCormick and Kennedy
1994, 2000).
In addition to feeling generally good about themselves, students
need to feel a sense of self-efficacy in order to succeed at the aca-
demic and interpersonal challenges of college life. One assessment of
self-­efficacy has focused on the construct of internal locus of control,
defined as the attribution of one’s accomplishments to one’s own efforts
rather than to forces outside oneself. In an important study predicting
students’ objectively assessed academic performance in college, Fass and
Tubman (2002) showed that internal locus of control independently
predicted higher grades, after controlling for the students’ intellectual
ability, self-perceived scholastic competence, and high school GPA.
Interestingly, an internal locus of control was, in turn, predicted by
more secure relationships with parents and peers. In a second study,
students with greater self-efficacy reported greater social support from
their peers and experienced a more caring relationship with their moth-
ers while growing up (Mallinckrodt 1992). Taken together, these results
suggest that self-efficacy and self-esteem develop in an atmosphere of
supportive and autonomy encouraging relationships with parents early
on, which then helps students feel greater confidence about succeeding
at their course work in college and developing supportive relationships
with peers.
 Research on College Student Adjustment 47

Domain 5: Developmental Advances in Autonomy,

Separation–Individuation, and Career Exploration
and Commitment
The final domain of functioning that has been focused on by college
student researchers examines how well students are able to navigate a
number of key developmental challenges associated with the emergence
into adulthood. Some of these challenges were identified in C ­ hapter  2
and are associated closely with specific developmental theories of
emerging adulthood. Others are specific to the purposes and goals of a
­college education. I will review research on three interwoven challenges:
(1) autonomy and identity development, (2) separation and individua-
tion from parents, and (3) career exploration and commitment.

Autonomy and Identity Development

Research on autonomy and identity development has been strongly influ-

enced by Erik Erikson’s ideas about the centrality of the identity crisis in
adolescence (Erikson 1968). Based on Erikson’s model, researchers have
argued that teenagers and emerging adult college students need to develop
autonomy in order to explore their identity. Autonomy is defined in this
context as the ability to make one’s own decisions, become self-reliant,
and not need others as much for emotional or instrumental support (Taub
1995, 1997). Along with the growth of autonomy comes a willingness to
explore one’s identity and ultimately to make a commitment to a chosen
identity (Marcia 1966). Based on the two processes of exploration and
commitment, Marcia identified four identity statuses for young adults.
Those who have explored their identity and made tentative commitments
to personally chosen goals and values are called identity achieved. Those
who are fully engaged in the process of exploration but have not yet made
commitments are in moratorium, while those who have made premature
commitments to goals while foreclosing the process of exploration are
labeled foreclosed. Finally, those who have not actively explore their iden-
tity nor have made any commitments are labeled identity diffused.
Research on autonomy development among college students has
relied frequently on the Iowa Developing Autonomy Inventory (­Jackson
and Hood 1985), which measures autonomy development in three key
48 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

areas: (1) emotional independence from parents and peers (lack of reli-
ance on others to feel good about oneself ); (2) instrumental indepen-
dence (being able to take care of daily tasks oneself such as money and
time management); and (3) interdependence (developing mutually sup-
portive relationships with peers that replace dependency on parents).
Research using the Iowa scales has shown that senior college women
are higher in autonomy than freshmen women, especially in terms of
time and money management, and emotional independence from peers
(Taub 1997). Taub notes that these changes did not take place for these
women until senior year, presumably when students are looking toward
future life plans, which may suggest that the development of these forms
of autonomy are not as highly prized for women as for men and hence
develop later in the college years. Importantly, Taub showed that women
did not report changes in their level of closeness to parents across this
time period, which challenges the idea that college women need to give
up their dependency on and support of their parents in order to advance
their own autonomy. In another study, Schultheiss and Blustein (1994)
showed that it was the combination of secure attachment to parents along
with a lack of guilt about separating from them that predicted greater
academic autonomy and developing a sense of purpose for both college
women and men, suggesting that the development of autonomy may not
require the relinquishing of emotional ties to parents for either gender.
In a seminal set of studies, Jane Kroger (1985; Kroger and Haslett
1988) examined the development of identity across three years of college,
using Marcia’s (1966) Ego Identity Status Interview, which allows for a
classification of students into the four identity statuses described previ-
ously (i.e., identity achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion).
Her results suggest that identity status is quite stable from first to third year
for those students who are either identity achieved and have a secure rela-
tionship with their parents or who are in foreclosure and have an insecure
relationship with their parents. Contrarily, those in moratorium tended
to move toward identity achievement across this time period, especially
if they had more secure relationships with parents. These results provide
strong support for the argument that the process of identity exploration
(moving out of foreclosure or moving from moratorium to achievement)
is aided by having a relationship with one’s parents in which exploration is
 Research on College Student Adjustment 49

encouraged in the context of ongoing support. Students who feel insecure

in their relationship with their parents tend to remain foreclosed in their
identity exploration process, which ironically often involves a premature
identification with one’s parents’ goals and values with little willingness
to explore alternatives. Given the importance of parents to the identity
development process of college students, researchers have devoted some
attention specifically to the process of separating and individuating from
parents, to which I turn next.

Separation and Individuation from Parents

Research on the process of separating and individuating from parents has

been based largely on the work of Margaret Mahler, who studied how
infants and toddlers develop a sense of themselves as separate from their
caregivers (Mahler, Pine, and Bergman 1975). Mahler suggested that
for infants to feel separate from their caregivers they must first engage
in independent behavioral activity, which helps them learn about the
physical separation between self and others and then need to develop a
view of themselves as cognitively and psychologically a different person
from their parents (i.e., individuated). This process is challenging and
fraught with emotional danger, as the infant fears losing the parent’s love
if they separate from them or alternatively being engulfed by the parent,
if they resist separation. Ultimately, the healthy child develops a balance
between individuation and maintaining a connected relationship with the
caregiver.
Based on the early work of Mahler, later theorists suggested that a
second separation–individuation occurs during adolescence, where the
adolescent once again has to go through a process of separating and indi-
viduating from the views and beliefs of his or her parents, hopefully while
still maintaining a connected relationship (Blos 1979; see also Lopez and
Gover 1993). Based on these ideas, Hoffman (1984) developed a measur-
ing of separation and individuation from parents called the Psychological
Separation Inventory (PSI), which has been used extensively in studies
of college students. Hoffman argued that separation–individuation can
be different from mothers versus fathers and hence developed separate
scales for mothers and fathers. The instrument contains four subscales
50 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

that assess different aspects of the separation–individuation process. First,

the Functional Independence subscale assesses the adolescent’s ability to
make independent decisions without consulting with parents first. The
Attitudinal Independence subscale assesses the adolescent’s willingness to
have beliefs that differ from his or her parents. The Emotional Indepen-
dence subscale assesses the adolescent’s lack of excessive emotional depen-
dency on parents. Finally, the Conflictual Independence subscale assesses
the adolescent’s freedom from guilt, excessive anxiety, or anger regarding
the process of separating from his or her parents.
The PSI has been used extensively in college student studies. Men tend
to score higher than women on functional, emotional, and attitudinal
independence and these forms of independence increase from freshmen
to junior year of college (Lopez and Gover 1993). Although advances in
all four dimensions of separation were originally thought to predict better
adjustment for college students, results suggest that only the Conflictual
Independence subscale is consistently associated with better adjustment
for students. In some cases, functional, attitudinal, and emotional inde-
pendence are actually associated with worse adjustment outcomes, espe-
cially if they are not accompanied by secure relationships with parents.
Once again, these results suggest that separation–­individuation from
­parents occurs best in the context of a supportive relationship, which
can actually facilitate the process of separation and thereby predict better
adjustment outcomes (Mattanah, Hancock, and Brand 2004).

Career Exploration and Commitment

One of the most important developmental tasks associated with college

is students’ ability and willingness to explore their career identity. Much
like the identity formation process described previously, in order to pick
an appropriate career for themselves, students need to be willing and able
to explore a variety of career options and ultimately show commitment to
a chosen career identity. Researchers have developed measures of each of
these processes and have explored factors that predict students’ success in
accomplishing these developmental goals. In terms of career exploration,
the Career Search Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES; Solberg, Good, and Nord
1993) assesses students’ confidence in exploring their career options in
 Research on College Student Adjustment 51

four dimensions: (1) job exploration; (2) interviewing; (3) networking;

and (4) personal exploration. Ryan, Solberg, and Brown (1996) found
that family dysfunction was associated with less career search self-­efficacy
for women, whereas a secure relationship with mothers and fathers was
associated with greater search self-efficacy for both men and women.
Similarly, Lease and Dahlbeck (2009) found that secure attachment rela-
tionships with parents were predictors of greater career decision-making
self-efficacy for men and women but that interestingly a style of author-
itarian parenting was also predictive of greater career-decision-making
self-efficacy, specifically for women.
These results highlight the importance of parental relationships in
supporting the career search process for college students but suggest that
parents may play quite an active role here, almost needing to push their
students to engage in this process, especially in the case of women. These
results are particularly important when considering that women have
been shown to decrease their career aspirations over the years of college
and indicate that they are willing to settle for more traditional, less presti-
gious careers in order to balance family and work considerations (O’Brien
et al. 2000). Finally, research on career commitment has found that a bal-
ance of conflictual independence from and secure attachment to parents
predicts greater commitment to career choices (Scott and Church 2001).

Methodological Paradigms for Studying College

Student Adjustment
In the previous sections, I detailed the five domains of functioning that
have been focused on within college student adjustment research. I turn
now to a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the primary
methodological paradigms used in college adjustment research. By far,
the most common research design used in this area is the cross-sectional
study, in which data on predictor (such as parent–student relationships,
personality variables, or college environmental variables) and outcome
variables (such as loneliness, depression, self-esteem, or career identity
development) are collected at one point in time. The obvious advantages
of cross-sectional research designs are ease of data collection and no loss of
participants in the study. Since all participants are participating just one
52 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

time, there is little chance that they will discontinue their participation
in the study over time. The major disadvantage of cross-sectional research
is that because data are collected all at once it is very hard to disentangle
causal relationships. By providing a time separation between predictor
and outcome variables, as is done in longitudinal research designs, the
researcher can make causal interpretations with a somewhat higher degree
of certainty, especially if they are able to control for initial levels of the
outcome variable at Time 1 and look for change in those variables over
time. Hence, longitudinal studies provide a more compelling design for
making causal conclusions but risk loss of participants over time, due to a
variety of circumstances. Longitudinal studies are less common in college
student adjustment research, but they have been completed and often
provide useful information not available through cross-sectional research.
In the next section, I review four major longitudinal studies that have
provided rich data on the adjustment process over time in college.

Longitudinal Studies of College Adjustment

The first two studies I review are examples of short-term longitudinal

studies because they gathered data on college student adjustment over
the first semester of college life. This kind of study is not uncommon
since ­students are easier to track down over one semester and also the
first semester of college is considered a time of great upheaval where
students’ functioning may be quite variable and important to study.
Pritchard, ­Wilson, and Yamnitz (2007) collected data on 242 students
who completed assessments of optimism, perfectionism, coping tactics,
and self-­esteem levels (their predictor variables) during the first week
of orientation to college (Time 1) and completed assessments of their
physical health (21 health symptoms including cold, flu, shortness of
breath, etc.), alcohol use, and negative mood symptoms (depression and
anxiety) both at Time 1 and Time 2, one week before the end of the
semester. The first question these authors were interested in was whether
students’ health got worse during the transition to college, a result that
has been demonstrated previously in students transitioning to medical
and law school. Since they had gathered data on their outcome variables
at both Time 1 and Time 2 they were able to address this question. They
 Research on College Student Adjustment 53

found that students did indeed report increased health symptoms over
the first semester of ­college. Additionally, they reported an increase in
alcohol consumption on the weekends and increasing negative mood
symptoms over this time period. These results certainly support the con-
tention that the first semester of college is stressful for college students
and can lead to increased mental and physical health difficulties, at least
in the short-term. In terms of predictor–­outcome relations, Pritchard,
Wilson, and ­Yamnitz (2007) showed that low self-esteem, perfectionism,
pessimism, and coping through denial and self-criticism all predicted
worsening health symptoms and more negative mood symptoms over the
first semester of college. Using alcohol to cope with stress was the only
significant predictor of greater intoxication over time.
Using a similar paradigm, Holt (2014) studied 204 college students
at the beginning and end of the first semester of college. She gathered
data on students’ sense of having a secure attachment relationship with
their parents at the beginning of the semester (the predictor variable) and
then gathered data on their academic adjustment to college at the end of
the semester. Holt reasoned that a more secure attachment relationship
with parents would make students more willing to seek help when they
needed it in their classes (having a history of secure attachment to parents
allows students to feel that others are available and responsive to their
needs) and that greater help-seeking would ultimately lead to better aca-
demic adjustment. Hence, she also gathered data on students’ attitudes
and intentions to seek help (the mediator variable) at the beginning of the
semester. Figure 3.2 provides a graphical representation of Holt’s model,
demonstrating the pathways she hypothesized from secure attachment

Predictor variable Mediator variable Outcome variable

Attitudes
Secure + toward + Academic
attachment help- adjustment
to parents seeking

Figure 3.2  An example of a longitudinal study: Examining the

relationship between secure attachment to parents, attitudes toward
help-seeking, and academic adjustment
Source: Holt (2014).
54 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

through helping-seeking attitudes to greater academic adjustment. Holt

found evidence to support her model, showing that secure attachment
was related to greater help-seeking, which, in turn, predicted better aca-
demic adjustment. These results are bolstered by the longitudinal design
of the study, providing confidence that attachment predicts help-seeking
and adjustment outcomes, rather than the other way around.
Some researchers have been more ambitious and have sought to
study students over multiple years of college life. In one exemplar series
of publications, Ken Rice and colleagues studied 130 students attend-
ing a small, private college from their first to their third year of college
(Rice 1992; Rice et al. 1995). Rice was able to successfully track down
81 of the original 130 students in their junior year, a retention rate of
62 percent. It is not uncommon when conducting a longer term longi-
tudinal study that a fair amount of the participants fail to participate in
the later follow-up assessments, a phenomenon referred to as attrition in
methodological nomenclature. It is important that the researcher is able
to demonstrate no differential attrition problems in this case, meaning
that students who fail to continue in the study are somehow different
from those who continue to participate in the study. In his study, Rice
found no differential attrition effects. Rice studied secure attachment to
and separation–­individuation from parents as predictors of academic,
social, and personal adjustment. He found first that separation and indi-
viduation from parents increased over time, equally for men and women,
while secure attachment levels remained stable from first to third year.
These results are very consistent with some of the studies I reviewed ear-
lier regarding developmental change in college students, which showed
that autonomy and individuation does grow across the years of college,
but not at the expense of maintaining a secure relationship with par-
ents (Taub 1995, 1997). Additionally, Rice found that secure attachment
to parents in freshmen year predicted greater academic and emotional
adjustment two years later (Rice et al. 1995).
A final longitudinal study is remarkable for the extended period
of time over which students outcomes were assessed. Gerdes and
­Mallinckrodt (2001) assessed 208 students regarding their experiences
in college during their freshmen year, including contact with faculty, sat-
isfaction with course selection and extracurricular activities on campus,
 Research on College Student Adjustment 55

feelings of confidence about being able to handle academic challenges,

anxiety levels, and sleep difficulties (college experiences and personal
adjustment to college in freshmen year served as predictor variables in
this study). Six years later, Gerdes and Mallinckrodt examined the aca-
demic records of these students, to determine students’ persistence at the
university (whether they had completed their degrees [or were still work-
ing on them] or had dropped out of the university) as well as the stu-
dents’ academic standing (defined as good-standing versus poor-standing
based on whether the student had received a number of failing grades or
had been put on academic probation for at least one semester). Gerdes
and M­ allinckrodt (2001) found that good-standing students persisted
at the university for different reasons than poor-standing students. For
good-standing students, contact with faculty, satisfaction with course
availability, and feeling confident about handling academic challenges
predicted greater persistence at the university. For poor-standing stu-
dents, not sleeping well, feeling anxious, and being dissatisfied with
extracurricular activities predicted a lack of persistence at the university.
These results suggest that the decision to remain at a particular university
has more do with the qualities of the university for students who are
doing well academically, whereas it has more to do with the qualities of
the student (most particularly their personal adjustment levels) for stu-
dents who are not doing well academically.

Individual Student Characteristics that Affect

the College Adjustment Process
In addition to examining predictor–outcome relationships that occur in
cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, college student researchers have
examined characteristics of the student that may change the nature of
those relationships. In technical scientific language, these individual char-
acteristics are called moderator variables, in the sense that these character-
istics moderate the relationship between two other sets of variables. As
an example, in studying the relationship between secure attachment to
parents and depression among college students, a researcher may wonder
whether that relationship differs for Caucasians versus students of color or
for students who live at home versus residential students. In those cases,
56 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

ethnicity and residential status serve as moderators of the attachment–

depression relationship being observed in that particular study. The exam-
ination of moderator variables is extremely important in college student
research because it helps qualify the main effects of a predictor variable
and provides a more nuanced picture of how adjustment works for par-
ticular subgroups of students. In the following subsections, I review some
of the most important moderator variables that have been examined in
college student adjustment research.

Gender

Gender of student is clearly a variable that can moderate the relation-

ship between many predictor and outcome variables of interest to college
­student researchers. I have already highlighted many findings in this area,
where researchers have shown that women and men navigate the process
of separation and individuation from parents and formation of autonomy
differently and those differences have implications for male and female
students’ college adjustment.

Commuter Versus Residential Students

When students first attend college, they generally have a choice about
where to live. Although many universities strongly encourage first year
students to live on-campus (researchers call these students “residential”)
a significant number of students choose to live at home with their par-
ents during their first year of school and perhaps thereafter (researchers
call these students “commuters”). Researchers have suggested that because
commuters are not “leaving home,” they may experience the college
adjustment process differently, perhaps being less lonely and socially anx-
ious during their freshmen year (as shown earlier in Larose and Boivin
1998) and perhaps showing a different process of separation and individ-
uation from parents. The research on parent–student relationships with
commuter versus residential students is quite mixed, actually, with some
studies showing greater conflict in the parent–student relationships of
commuter students, whereas others showing higher levels of attachment
for commuter versus residential students. In our meta-analysis, we found
 Research on College Student Adjustment 57

that attachment to parents more strongly predicted adjustment for resi-

dential students than for commuter students, suggesting that the ongoing
support of parents is more important to students who move away from
their parents to attend college (Mattanah, Lopez, and Govern 2011).

Caucasians Versus Students of Color

Ethnicity of the student is another issue that has been studied extensively
by college adjustment researchers. Many studies in this area focus on the
unique challenges faced by ethnic minority students (African American,
Latino/a, Native American, and Asian American) adjusting to predom-
inantly White colleges and universities, where subtle forms of discrim-
ination and prejudice continues to be an issue. In more recent years,
researchers have devoted attention to the adjustment process of particular
ethnic groups, not assuming that adjustment will look the same for all
ethnic “minorities.” Chapter 4 of this book will be devoted entirely to an
exploration of these issues.

First-Generation Versus Second-Generation Students

College students whose parents or guardians never earned a baccalau-

reate degree are referred to as first-generation students in the sense that
they are the first generation in their immediate family to attend college.
A second-generation student is defined as a student where at least one
of his or her parents earned an undergraduate degree (Clauss-Ehlers
and Wibrowski 2007). A number of researchers have contended that
first-generation students are at a disadvantage when they enter the college
environment because they are less familiar with the “culture of college”
(Cabrera and Padilla 2004). These students have not had the opportu-
nity of talking over the college experience with a caregiver who has gone
through it themselves. Moreover, first-generation students are more often
from ethnic minority groups or immigrant families, and demonstrate less
academic readiness for college (Clauss-Ehlers and Wibrowski 2007). For
these reasons, considerable research has focused on differences in adjust-
ment patterns for first-generation versus second-generation students as
well as examining interventions to help prepare first-generation students
58 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

for college. In one interesting study, Clauss-Ehlers and Wibrowski (2007)

examined the effects of a state-funded, summer academic transition pro-
gram in helping first-generation, largely ethnic minority, high school
students prepare for entrance into Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey. These researchers found that the transition program helped stu-
dents feel a greater sense of support from academic counselors and peers
in preparing for the upcoming transition to college and that the program
successfully allowed students to attend Rutgers.

Veteran Versus Civilian College Students

According to recent statistics, more veterans are transitioning from mil-

itary to student life at this time than at any time since World War II,
with over half a million military veterans, active-duty personnel, reserv-
ists, and National Guardsmen attending college as of 2008 (Whiteman
et al. 2013). This large increase in military personnel attending college
is due in part to the post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of
2008, which provides significant financial assistance to military veterans
wishing to attend college who served in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Active duty military-personnel and veteran students face unique chal-
lenges while attending college, a concern that has caught the attention of
higher education counselors and administrators who are trying to make
college a more welcoming environment for these students. On account
of their unique experiences, as well as the fact that veteran students are
often older, these students can feel alienated in the college environment,
different from their younger, civilian peers, and sometimes at odds with
viewpoints of their fellow students and faculty at the university. Research-
ers are beginning to focus attention on the adjustment process of military
students. One recent study examined the levels of emotional support that
military versus civilian students report receiving from their peers and the
influence of peer support on psychological distress and academic func-
tioning (Whiteman et al. 2013). This study followed 199 military service/
veteran students and 181 civilian students over a three-semester period
at a number of public universities in one Midwestern state of the United
States. Results indicated that military/veteran students were more likely
to be older (average age of 29.41 vs. 23.67 for civilian students), married
 Research on College Student Adjustment 59

(34 percent vs. 8 percent), and, as predicted, military students reported

receiving lower levels of emotional support from peers at the initial assess-
ment point when compared with civilian students, although levels of
emotional support increased at the same rate for both groups of students.
Importantly, although peer emotional support predicted less psycholog-
ical distress for civilian students, it was unrelated to psychological symp-
toms for the military students. Whiteman and colleagues conclude that
peer support is not enough to address the psychological challenges that
military students face and that counseling centers needed to become bet-
ter equipped to address the unique needs of these students.

Summary
Chapter 3 has examined the landscape of scientific research on students’
adjustment to college. I have defined the concept of adjustment as focus-
ing on how students manage the transition to college and experience aca-
demic, social, and personal success in ways that promote their attachment
to the university and likelihood of persisting at that university. I  have
also examined college student adjustment across a wide range of func-
tional domains that are relevant to the well-being of college students,
whether they are making the initial transition to college or have been
there for a number of years. These domains include academic motivation
and achievement, social integration and social support, absence of symp-
tomatic distress and high-risk behaviors, and the ability to advance devel-
opmental goals of emerging adulthood, including forming one’s personal
identity, separating from parents in a healthy way, and exploring career
options. Finally, I have focused some attention on how scientists conduct
research in this area, identifying widely used measurement instruments,
evaluating the major paradigms for conducting research in this field, and
discussing important characteristics that affect the adjustment process
and forecast different patterns of adjustment for specific subgroups of
students.
One important characteristic that has been mentioned a few times is
student ethnicity. We know that students of color do not experience col-
lege the same way as Caucasian students do and may experience height-
ened adjustment challenges associated with prejudice and discrimination
60 COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

inherent at many predominantly White institutions they are attending.

On the other hand, as noted in Chapter 1, ethnic minority students are
attending college at higher rates than ever before in U.S. history and most
navigate the college experience with a great deal of success. Hence, we
need to understand the resources they tap into, to be able to o­ vercome
whatever additional challenges they face in adjusting to predominantly
White colleges and universities. The next and final chapter of this book
explores the unique adjustment experiences of students of color at
­American universities.