J Adult Dev (2012) 19:40–49 DOI 10.1007/s10804-011-9133-z
Development of Self-regulation Abilities as Predictors of Psychological Adjustment Across the First Year of College Crystal L. Park • Donald Edmondson Joshua Lee
•
Published online: 29 November 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract The first year of college can be a difficult developmental transition for many students, although it is also a time of personal growth and maturation. Little is known about how self-regulation abilities mature across this transition, nor whether maturation predicts better adjustment across the first year. We investigated the development of three self-regulation abilities (constructive thinking, emotional regulation, and mastery) and relations of this development to adjustment (depression, anxiety, and stress) in a sample of 162 first-year students. Data were gathered at two time points: just prior to their attendance at a large public northeastern university and then again at the end of the first year. Results indicated that, on average, students did not increase in their constructive thinking or emotion regulation abilities and actually decreased in their sense of mastery. In bivariate analyses, increases in all three self-regulation abilities were related to better adjustment across the year, effects that remained when examined simultaneously in multiple regression analyses. Further, analyses showed that change in self-regulation abilities, rather than mean levels per se, predicted changes in adjustment over the first year. Implications for interventions to assist students in the development of these selfregulation skills in regard to adjustment are discussed.
C. L. Park (&) J. Lee Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-1020, USA e-mail:
[email protected] D. Edmondson Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, 622 W. 168th St., New York, NY 10032, USA
123
Keywords Self-regulation Adjustment Constructive thinking Emotion regulation Mastery Depression
Introduction The transition to college can be difficult for first-year students, who often experience the transition with ‘‘a mix of excitement and dread’’ (p. 883, Srivastava et al. 2009). This transition involves many changes in lifestyle and relationships. Academically, college tends to be more rigorous and challenging than high school, and course work consumes a greater amount of time than most new students are used to (Aspinwall and Taylor 1992; Martijn et al. 2002). During the transition, most first-year students must make new friends and develop new social networks, efforts that are often stressful. Many new college students also struggle with homesickness and loneliness (Wei et al. 2005). As might be expected in the face of these myriad sources of stress, students often experience adjustment difficulties during this first-year transition. Studies have documented high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression in first-year students (e.g., Dyson and Renk 2006; Sasaki and Yamasaki 2007; Sher et al. 1996). Further, these levels of distress predict higher levels of subsequent physical illness (Adams et al. 2008; Rawson et al. 1994) and lower academic success (Andrews and Wilding 2004). Yet the transition to college is also thought to be a gateway to adulthood, often marking substantial growth and maturation (Srivastava et al. 2009); this view is consistent with psychodynamic models of young adult development and individuation (e.g., Lapsley and Edgerton 2002). However, little research has explicitly examined changes in maturity across the first year. One important area of maturation is self-regulation abilities. Self-regulation comprises the ability to modulate
Development of Self-regulation Abilities as Predictors of Psychological Adjustment
emotions, thoughts, and behaviors that, over time, helps to maximize adaptive adjustment (Williams et al. 2008). It has been proposed that students who develop greater maturity in terms of self-regulatory abilities through this transition will be those most likely to thrive (e.g., Guiffrida 2009). Alternately, those students who do not develop their abilities to regulate their emotions and behaviors in this new and relatively independent lifestyle may be those most likely to experience difficulties in this transition (Spector et al. 2000). As we review below, self-regulation abilities have been shown to be related to better adjustment to the first year of college life. However, to date, researchers have not examined whether development (or deterioration) of selfregulatory skills during the transition across the first year relates to college students’ adjustment. Instead, studies have invariably simply examined relations of characteristics assessed at baseline with subsequent adjustment (e.g., Aspinwall and Taylor 1992; Brissette et al. 2002). The present study aimed to examine the development of self-regulation across the first year and to determine how changes in these skills relate to adjustment to college in a sample of first-year students. Specifically, we examined a set of three personal characteristics that, collectively, comprise self-regulation: the abilities to effectively problem-solve and appropriately regulate emotional reactions, along with a sense of mastery that keeps people engaged in coping efforts in the face of challenges (Lang and Heckhausen 2006). All three of these personal characteristics have been related to higher levels of well-being in various community samples as well as in studies specifically focusing on college student adjustment. However, studies have not focused on the development of these characteristics in the first year of college nor on how this development relates to adjustment in this important developmental context. The three self-regulation resources examined in this study are constructive thinking, emotional regulation, and mastery, which, collectively, encompass the skills and motivation necessary to adaptively integrate and act on feelings and behave appropriately across potentially stressful situations (Baumeister et al. 2007). Self-regulation Resources: Constructive Thinking, Emotional Regulation, and Mastery Constructive thinking refers to an individual’s ability to solve problems in everyday life at a minimal cost in stress (Epstein 1992) and consists of problem-solving skills such as thinking about alternatives and staying focused on tasks rather than getting distracted. Better constructive thinking is related to higher psychological functioning and selfesteem along with fewer emotional and physical symptoms and health problems (Scheuer and Epstein 1997). Good
41
constructive thinkers react less defensively and appraise events more positively, leading to less cognitive distortion (Scheuer and Epstein 1997; Epstein and Meier 1989). Constructive thinking has been associated with success in a variety of life domains, including the workplace, social relations, romantic relationships, mental and physical well-being and healthy lifestyles (Ammerman et al. 2001; Epstein 1992; Park and Grant 2005). Most studies of constructive thinking have been conducted with samples of college students, and results suggest that constructive thinking is an important resource for them. Specific to the college transition, a series of studies by Scheuer and Epstein (1997) demonstrated that constructive thinking was inversely correlated with neuroticism and depression throughout the first year of college. Emotional regulation abilities are another key aspect of self-regulation. Emotional regulation involves the ‘‘modulation of one’s emotional experiences in order to attain desired affective states and adaptive outcomes’’ (p. 113, Lopes et al. 2005). Emotional regulation has been described as a ‘‘fundamental prerequisite of general mental health’’ (p. 155, Gross and Munoz 1995). A great deal of literature has accumulated regarding strong associations between emotion regulation abilities and many aspects of mental health and well-being (e.g., Garnefski et al. 2001; see Cisler et al. 2010, for a review). Not surprisingly, given its prominent role in psychological well-being, emotional regulation has been found to be important in dealing with college life (e.g., Fischer et al. 2007). For example, one study found a strong link between poor emotional regulation abilities and generalized anxiety disorder among undergraduates (Mennin et al. 2005). In regard to the transition to college life, emotional regulation abilities predict incoming first-year students’ social adjustment, including social support, closeness to others, and social satisfaction at the end of the first semester (Lopes et al. 2005; Tamir et al. 2007) and their social satisfaction and psychological well-being at the end of the first year (Tamir et al. 2007). Mastery refers to the general sense of controllability over one’s social and academic lives and environment (Steunenberg et al. 2007). Much research has found mastery to be favorably related to aspects of mental well-being such as depression (e.g., Rubio and Lubin 1986), anxiety (Holder and Levi 1988), and psychiatric symptomatology (Liu et al. 2009; Dag 1999) as well as to physical health outcomes (Lachman 2006). These associations have been documented in many populations, including college students. For example, among students, mastery has been related to higher levels of subjective well-being (Zhou et al. 2007) and positive mental health (Bovier et al. 2004). In first-year college students, mastery has been negatively related to measures of stress, depressive symptoms, and
123
42
psychological distress (e.g., Lu 1994; Richman and Flaherty 1985; Verger et al. 2009). Thus, there is ample evidence that each of these selfregulation resources—constructive thinking, emotional regulation, and mastery—is related to many aspects of well-being. Further, all three have been shown to relate to well-being in college students, although very little of this research has been conducted in the context of adjustment to the first-year transition. Further, we were unable to locate any research that examined changes in or development of these resources as a determinant of adjustment. However, based on theories of student development (e.g., Evans 2003; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005), we anticipated that students would mature psychologically across the first year, which would be reflected in increases in these self-regulation resources. Thus, we asked the following questions— to what extent do students develop these resources across the first year of university life, and how is the development of these resources related to better adjustment to that transition? We examined these questions in a prospective longitudinal study of incoming first-year students.
Method Participants Participants at Time 1 were 175 first-year students at the University of Connecticut (65% women, mean age of 17.9). The sample was .4% Native American, 10.9% Asian, 4.9% African-American, 3.5% Latino or Hispanic, 77.6% Non-Hispanic White, and 2.8 some other race or ‘‘biracial.’’ At Time 2, 162 of those who completed baseline assessments also completed the assessment at the end of the year. Measures Baseline Demographic Information Participants completed a measure in which they reported their gender, race, and age.
C. L. Park et al.
Cronbach’s alphas in the present sample were .89 and .91 at baseline and follow-up. Emotion regulation was measured using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz and Roemer 2004), a 36-item measure that assesses individuals’ typical levels of emotion ‘‘dysregulation’’ across six domains: nonacceptance of emotional responses (e.g., ‘‘When I’m upset, I become angry with myself for feeling that way’’), difficulties in engaging in goal-directed behavior (e.g., ‘‘When I’m upset, I have difficulty thinking about anything else.’’), impulse control difficulties (e.g., ‘‘When I’m upset, I have difficulty controlling my behaviors.’’), limited access to emotion regulation strategies (e.g., ‘‘When I’m upset, I believe that I will remain that way for a long time.’’), lack of emotional awareness (e.g., ‘‘When I’m upset, I acknowledge my emotions.’’—reverse scored), and lack of emotional clarity (e.g., ‘‘I have difficulty making sense out of my feelings.’’). Respondents answered on a 5-point scale (1 = almost never (0–10%), 5 = almost always (91–100%)); thus, lower scores indicate higher emotion regulation abilities. The DERS has demonstrated high internal consistency, good test–retest reliability, and adequate construct and predictive validity (Gratz and Roemer 2004). Cronbach’s alphas in the present sample at baseline and follow-up were .93 and .89, respectively. Mastery was assessed with the Personal Mastery Scale (Pearlin and Schooler 1978), a 7-item scale that assesses the extent to which an individual regards his or her life as being largely self-determined by him or herself as opposed to being fatalistically ruled. Sample items include, ‘‘I can do just about everything I set my mind to do’’ and ‘‘What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me.’’ Respondents answered on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), with scores ranging from 7 (low mastery) to 35 (high mastery). This scale is a widely used control measure in health research and has demonstrated good psychometric properties (e.g., Younger et al. 2008). The Mastery Scale had good internal consistency in the present sample at both baseline and follow-up (Cronbach’s alphas at baseline and follow-up were .88 and .84, respectively). Adjustment Outcomes
Self-regulation Constructive thinking was measured by the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI; Epstein and Meier 1989), a 29-item measure of the extent to which people employ adaptive cognitive and behavioral coping in response to stressors (e.g., ‘‘When I realize I have made a mistake, I usually take immediate action to correct it’’). Each item is rated on a scale from definitely false (1) to definitely true (5), so that higher scores indicate better coping skills.
123
Depression, anxiety, and stress were assessed with the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21; Lovibond and Lovibond 1995), a 21-item scale composed of three 7-item subscales (depression, anxiety, and stress). Participants responded to items with regard to the degree that each applied to them in the past 2 weeks from 0 (does not apply) to 3 (very much). The DASS-21 has shown good convergent validity and factor structure (Antony et al. 1998) and displayed good internal consistency in the
Development of Self-regulation Abilities as Predictors of Psychological Adjustment
present sample at both baseline and follow-up (Depression: Cronbach’s alphas of .88 and .92; Anxiety: Cronbach’s alphas of .83 and .91; and Stress: Cronbach’s alphas of .86 and .90, respectively). Procedure Near the end of the summer prior to their first year of attendance at the university, all potential participants (i.e., all incoming first-year students) were sent an email by the study team inviting them to participate in a 10-month longitudinal study. Potential participants received a link to the study website and were invited to log in to enroll. Participants completed informed consent and then were presented with a set of questionnaires. For students who were not yet 18, permission from a parent or guardian was obtained. All study measures were completed online on a secure, encrypted server. Participants were assessed in late summer prior to their first academic year at the university and again at the end of the academic year, 10 months later. The second assessment occurred approximately two weeks prior to final examinations. The study was approved by the University of Connecticut Institutional Review Board. At baseline, participants were asked to complete, among other measures, measures of general demographic information, constructive thinking, emotion regulation, mastery, and adjustment, including depression, anxiety, and stress. At follow-up, participants again completed measures of constructive thinking, emotion regulation, mastery, depression, anxiety, and stress. Study packets also included additional measures that are not the focus of the current paper. Participants did not receive incentives or compensation for their participation. We obtained SAT scores and first-year cumulative grade point averages on the entire class from the university registrar.
Results Descriptive Information Given the relatively small number of racial/ethnic minority participants, we classified the sample as White versus racial/ethnic minority for subsequent analyses including race/ethnicity. We were able to compare our initial sample with the entire incoming first year class of 3309 participants on basic demographic characteristics. Results of t tests and V2 analyses indicated that our sample had a slightly lower proportion of men and minority participants (ps \ .05). We also examined whether respondents and nonrespondents differed in their academic abilities and
43
performance in the first year. Results indicated that respondents were slightly but statistically significantly higher on Math SAT scores (means = 618.58 vs. 607.47) and first-year cumulative grade point average (3.111 vs. 2.975 on a 0–4 scale) (ps \ .001). Respondents and nonrespondents were not statistically significantly different on Verbal SAT scores (means = 587.93 vs. 584.03, p [ .20). Attrition Analyses No scores on any of the variables of interest (demographic variables, self-regulation variables, adjustment variables) differed between those who completed and who did not complete the study on t tests or V2 analyses (all ps [ .10). Differences in Self-regulation and Adjustment Variables by Sociodemographic Variables We examined whether any of the 3 self-regulation or adjustment variables at Time 1 or 2 differed by gender, race/ethnicity, or age. Age was uncorrelated with any selfregulation or adjustment index. Results indicated that men reported higher levels of depression than did women at Time 1 (respective means = 3.64 and 2.78, p \ .05). No other gender differences were statistically significant. Results of t tests indicated differences in mastery by race/ ethnicity: White students reported higher levels of mastery than minority students at both Time 1 and Time 2 (means, respectively, for Time 1 = 27.71 vs. 26.16 and for Time 2, 26.20 vs. 24.57, ps \ .05). Changes in Each of the Self-regulation Variables over Time To examine whether any of the self-regulation variables changed for the group as a whole over time, we conducted paired t tests on each variable. Results indicated that mastery decreased significantly from Time 1 to Time 2; changes in constructive thinking and emotion regulation were not significantly different (see Table 1). To further characterize changes in self-regulation, we examined the percentage of students who increased and who decreased on each of the three self-regulation variables over time. Exactly 50.0% of students declined in their emotion regulation abilities, 2.0% remained the same, and 48.0% increased. Similarly, 50.3% of students declined in their constructive thinking, while 2.3% remained the same and 47.4% increased. For mastery, 54.6% of students declined, 7.0% remained the same, and 38.4% increased. Changes on each of the three self-regulation measures were typically small (e.g., approximately 40% of scores were within 5 points of 0 change on all 3 measures).
123
44
C. L. Park et al.
Table 1 Means and standard deviations of predictor and adjustment variables Time 1
Time 2
Potential range
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
T1 Constructive Thinking
97.73
16.55
97.07
15.70
T1 Difficulty in Emotion Regulation
80.93
20.85
82.01
22.08
T1 Mastery*
27.36
4.55
25.78
4.08
7–35
T1 Stress
4.26
4.13
4.88
4.83
0–21
T1 Anxiety
2.73
3.41
2.91
4.50
0–21
T1 Depression
3.48
3.91
3.97
4.93
0–21
29–145 36–180
p \ .10, * p \ .05
Changes in Adjustment Over Time To examine whether adjustment changed for the group as a whole over time, we conducted paired t tests on depression, anxiety, and stress. Results indicated that anxiety and stress levels did not change from the beginning to the end of the academic year; however, the increase in depression was marginally statistically significant (see Table 1). Relations Among Self-regulation and Adjustment Variables To examine the extent to which study variables related to one another, we conducted a series of bivariate correlations, shown in Table 2. Results indicated that the three self-regulation variables were fairly highly intercorrelated (rs between .5 and .8), and the three adjustment measures were also fairly highly intercorrelated (rs between .6 and .8). In addition, self-regulation variables were consistently related to the adjustment variables at both time points. Changes in the self-regulation variables were also correlated with Time 2 adjustment, except that changes in mastery were unrelated to Time 2 depression and Time 2 anxiety. Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Change in Adjustment Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the extent to which changes in each of the three self-regulation strategies were related to changes in psychological adjustment across the first year. Residualized change scores were calculated for the three adjustment outcomes and the three self-regulation variables (emotion regulation, constructive thinking, and mastery) (Griffin et al. 1999) by regressing the Time 2 value for each variable on its respective Time 1 value. Each individual’s standardized residual score represents the degree to which his or her score on the construct changed from Time 1 to Time 2. Change in each of the three adjustment outcomes was then
123
regressed separately on the block of three self-regulation change variables. Results indicated that changes in all three self-regulation variables uniquely predicted changes in all three adjustment outcomes. All relationships were in the expected direction, in which increased maturity in selfregulation led to enhanced adjustment (see Table 3). To test whether the relationships between change in the three self-regulation variables and change in adjustment were truly due to initial levels of self-regulation (i.e., whether it truly mattered only where students began on self-regulation abilities, rather than how much they changed), we tested an additional model in which initial levels of self-regulation variables were entered in the first block of the above regression analyses (Table 4). In that models, the raw self-regulation scores became non-significant after the inclusion of the change variables in the second block, suggesting that change in self-regulation abilities, rather than mean levels, was associated with change in adjustment.
Discussion Overall, these results support the notion that all three of the self-regulation resources studied here are important determinants of adjustment for students as they navigate the transition to the first year of college life. Further, these results suggest that, rather than simple baseline standing on these resources, the development of these skills over time is the most important determinant of how they fare in this challenging transition. Our sample of entering first-year students exhibited a great deal of individual variation in their adjustment during this period. Overall, depression, anxiety, and stress scores in these participants at Time 2 corresponded to the 75th, 79th, and 60th percentile reported for the general adult population on the DASS (Henry and Crawford 2005). Although their mean levels of distress, as measured by the DASS, were not particularly high and they did not increase appreciably across the first year, the standard deviations on all three aspects of adjustment
.78**
.77** .79*
.27**
-.25
.08 .14 .17*
.27**
-.26** -.26**
.25** .21**
-.27** -.58**
.62**
-.54** -.47**
.61** .62**
-.51** .46**
-.04 .38**
.18* .09
-.18* -.56**
-.60**
.58** .45**
-.51** -.56**
.40** -.24**
.08 -.22**
-.09 .11
.30** .50**
-.38** .49** -.46**
-.75**
.41**
.43** .36**
.42** .32**
.44** .15*
.17* -.15*
-.10 .18*
.22** -.32**
-.37** .47**
.40** -.33**
-.39** .72**
.67**
.74**
.39**
-.41**
.38** -.27** -.26** .68** -.07 .21** .34** -.50** .48 -.54** -.45** -.48**
.39**
-.34** -.39**
.41** -.21**
.19* .22**
-.42** .26**
-.41** .44**
-.40** .68**
-.60** .75**
-.57** .53**
-.45 -.35**
.49** .55**
-.49** .55**
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
15. T2 Depression
14. T2 Anxiety
13. T2 Stress
12. Change mastery
11. Change DERS
10. Change CT
8. T2 Difficulty in emotion regulation
9. T2 Mastery
6. T1 Depression
7. T2 Constructive thinking
4. T1 Stress
5. T1 Anxiety
3. T1 Mastery
1. T1 Constructive thinking (CT)
-.69**
-.60**
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
Table 2 Correlations among self-regulation and psychological adjustment variables at Time 1 and Time 2
2. T1 Difficulties in emotion regulation (DERS)
10
11
12
13
14
15
Development of Self-regulation Abilities as Predictors of Psychological Adjustment
45
suggest that a substantial minority of students were experiencing high levels of distress at both time points. Depression, in particular, was fairly elevated, and its increase was marginally significant across the first year. Also, important in understanding student adjustment, the three aspects of stress, anxiety, and depression were substantially intercorrelated, as has been reported in the previous research (e.g., Lovibond and Lovibond 1995), but each variable also represents a conceptually distinct construct (Henry and Crawford 2005). Although we anticipated that students would, on average, demonstrate increases in constructive thinking, emotional regulation, and mastery over time, on the basis of developmentally normative psychological maturation (e.g., Evans 2003; Tanner 2006), the data revealed that, in our sample, mean levels of constructive thinking and emotion regulation were unchanged across the year. Even more surprising, levels of mastery actually declined from the beginning to the end of the first year. Rather than finding evidence for overall maturation in any of the three selfregulation skills across the first year, we observed instead a range of changes reflecting maturation for some students but regression toward less ability to self-regulate for others. While some of this shift toward lesser regulatory abilities might be expected for students initially entering the university, it is noteworthy that our follow-up assessment occurred near the end of the first academic year, presumably after students have settled into their oncampus lives. This lack of any notable growth in self-regulation skills may be due to the increased demands placed on college students during the transition, which may challenge their habitual ways of competent self-regulatory behaviors and lead to an eventual equilibrium by the end of the first year. It is possible that this new base of self-regulation would allow maturation across the remaining years of their college education. Alternately, some students who initially perceived themselves as possessing mastery (and skill in emotion regulation and constructive thinking) may have altered their comparison point after a year of new challenges and increased independence that may have tested their abilities across these domains. Unfortunately, we do not have measures throughout the first year to examine whether there were initial decrements that were eventually overcome by the end of the year, nor do we have data on the subsequent years. However, as with the adjustment measures, the individual variation in changes in all three facets of self-regulation is notable, that is, while some students matured toward increased constructive thinking, emotional regulation, and mastery, others regressed toward poorer skills in self-management. Some incoming students, then, did develop self-regulation skills as would be expected based
123
46
C. L. Park et al.
Table 3 Multiple regression analyses of changes in self-regulation as predictors of change in anxiety, stress, and depression Maturation variables
Change in constructive thinking Change in difficulties with emotion regulation Change in mastery a
Model fit: F(3, 142) = 24.53; adj. R2 = .33
b
Model fit: F(3, 148) = 27.43; adj. R2 = .34
c
Model fit: F(3, 146) = 28.78; adj. R2 = .36
Anxiety changea
Stress changeb
B (SE)
b
-.26 (.09) .34 (.10) -.18 (.08)
Depression changec
B (SE)
b
-.26**
-.27 (.08)
.31**
.22 (.09)
-.16*
-.28 (.07)
B (SE)
b
-.26*
-.23 (.08)
-.22**
.21*
.29 (.09)
.27**
-.27 (.07)
-.28**
-.29**
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
Table 4 Multiple regression analyses of changes in self-regulation as predictors of change in anxiety, stress, and depression controlling for initial levels of self-regulation Maturation variables
Anxiety changea B (SE)
Stress changeb b
B (SE)
b
Baseline constructive thinking
.001 (.01)
.02
-.002 (.01)
Baseline difficulties in emotion regulation
.01 (.01)
.16
.01 (.01)
Baseline mastery Change in constructive thinking Change in difficulties with emotion regulation Change in mastery a
Model fit: F(6, 139) = 12.73; adj. R2 = .33
b
Model fit: F(6, 145) = 14.08; adj. R2 = .34
c
Model fit: F(6, 143) = 14.36; adj. R2 = .35
-.03 (.02) -.25 (.09) .38 (.10) -.13 (.09)
-.12 -.24** .34** -.12
Depression changec
-.03 (.02) -.26 (.09)
B (SE)
b
-.04
-.003 (.01)
-.06
.10
-.003 (.01)
-.05
-.13 -.25**
-.01 (.02) -.24 (.09)
-.06 -.23**
.26 (.09)
.24**
.29 (.10)
.27**
.24 (.08)
-.25**
-.27 (.08)
-.27**
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
on theories of college student development (e.g., Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). However, a substantial number of others did not change or actually declined in their selfregulatory abilities. These findings were unexpected and suggest that much more attention is needed to understand what sorts of characteristics and experiences are associated with those students who grow and develop toward a more mature self-regulatory style and those who do not. This greater understanding of maturation processes in self-regulation abilities may be an important key for improving the ultimate personal as well as academic success of entering first-year students (Chickering and Reisser 1993; Evans 2003). The importance of these individual changes in selfregulation is demonstrated in their substantial prediction of increased levels of depression, anxiety, and stress over the course of the first year. Importantly, although the three aspects of self-regulation were substantially interrelated, they are conceptually distinct and tap very different facets of self-regulation: problem-solving, emotional management, and a sense of control and engagement. Further, the fact that change in each of the self-regulation change scores independently accounted for variance in adjustment change
123
scores strengthens the notion that the development of each of these facets of self-regulation matters. While these findings provide important insights into the development of college students in their first year, limitations of the study preclude drawing firm conclusions and suggest necessary directions for future research. Perhaps most problematic is that our sample represented only a small proportion of the population of first-year students from which it was drawn, limiting the generalizability of our results. We do not know, for example, how those incoming students who elected not to participate in the study differed from our participants in terms of their selfregulation abilities and their adjustment. Our sample may be biased toward those students who are better functioning and responsible; alternately, students who are experiencing more difficulties may be more willing to participate in an online survey. Our analyses comparing participants and non-participants are consistent with this notion, in that participants both had higher Math SAT scores and performed better academically in their first year. Future research should capture a larger proportion of the incoming student class, perhaps by offering monetary incentives (something not employed in the present study).
Development of Self-regulation Abilities as Predictors of Psychological Adjustment
Further, our sample represents only one class at one large state university in the northeast. In addition, although our sample fairly closely mirrored the university’s incoming undergraduate class (University of Connecticut 2010), the majority of participants were White, non-Hispanic students. Future research on larger and more diverse groups would be ideal, particularly research that prospectively tracks individuals across not only the first year but the entire undergraduate career (Evans 2003). We captured participants at only two time points, separated by ten months, and we assessed students prior to their arrival on campus in order to have a baseline assessment prior to the influences of campus life, but we did not examine students early in their first semester. Future research should include an assessment in the first days of the new academic year to allow examination of change in resources and adjustment from pre-college to immediate college arrival. Further, a study design that employed more frequent assessments would provide a more nuanced portrait of the fluctuations in both self-regulation abilities and adjustment and would provide the opportunity to examine personal and contextual factors that may influence both (e.g., Cooper et al. 1994). For example, studies could examine how students’ backgrounds and personalities (e.g., socioeconomic status, pre-college exposure, optimism, religious traditions) as well as their on-campus life (e.g., social integration, stressful encounters, classroom and extracurricular experiences) impact maturation in self-regulation abilities as well as levels of stress, anxiety, and depression over time (Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). Attention to other aspects of adjustment, such as drug and alcohol use, would add to the picture of the first-year transition. In spite of these limitations, the present study is important in demonstrating that the development of self-management skills appears to help students in their adjustment to campus life and therefore has implications for the development of interventions to assist students in their transition to college. For example, programming for incoming students should emphasize emotional and social well-being as well as academic success (Pritchard et al. 2007) and provide structured opportunities to develop better self-regulation and coping skills (e.g., Fontana et al. 1999). Such programs have been shown to enhance students’ sense of mastery as well as their abilities to successfully handle the stresses of the first-year transition (Deckro et al. 2002; Steinhardt and Dolbier 2008). In addition, these results emphasize the need to take a developmental perspective not only on the transitional nature of the first year of college but also on the students undergoing that transition, in terms of their increases or decrements in maturity (Evans 2003; Guiffrida 2009). This perspective builds on and extends previous theories of young adult development (e.g., Lopez et al. 1992; Arnett 2000).
47
References Adams, T. B., Wharton, C. M., Quilter, L., & Hirsch, T. (2008). The association between mental health and acute infectious illness among a national sample of 18- to 24-year-old college students. Journal of American College Health, 56, 657–664. Ammerman, R., Lynch, K., Donovan, J., Martin, C., & Maisto, S. (2001). Constructive thinking in adolescents with substance use disorders. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 89–96. Andrews, B., & Wilding, J. (2004). The relation of depression and anxiety to life-stress and achievement in students. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 509–521. Antony, M., Bieling, P., Cox, B., Enns, M., & Swinson, R. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176–181. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 63, 989–1003. Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Selfregulation and the executive function: The self as controlling agent. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 516–539). New York: Guilford. Bovier, P. A., Chamot, E., & Perneger, T. V. (2004). Perceived stress, internal resources, and social support as determinants of mental health among young adults. Quality of Life Research, 13, 161–170. Brissette, I., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2002). The role of optimism in social network development, coping, and psychological adjustment during a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 102–111. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cisler, J. M., Olatunji, B. O., Feldner, M. T., & Forsyth, J. P. (2010). Emotion regulation and the anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38, 68–82. Cooper, D. L., Healy, M. A., & Simpson, J. (1994). Student development through involvement: Specific changes over time. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 98–102. Dag, I. (1999). The relationships among paranormal beliefs, locus of control and psychopathology in a Turkish college sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 723–737. Deckro, G., Ballinger, K., Hoyt, M., Wilcher, M., Dusek, J., Myers, P., et al. (2002). The evaluation of a mind/body intervention to reduce psychological distress and perceived stress in college students. Journal of American College Health, 50, 281–287. Dyson, R., & Renk, K. (2006). Freshmen adaptation to university life: Depressive symptoms, stress, and coping. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1231–1244. Epstein, S. (1992). Coping ability, negative self-evaluation, and overgeneralization: Experiment and theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 826–836. Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking: A broad coping variable with specific components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 332–350. Evans, N. J. (2003). Psychosocial, cognitive, and typological perspectives on student development. In S. R. Komives & D. R. Woodard Jr (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 179–202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
123
48 Fischer, J. L., Forthun, L. F., Pidcock, B. W., & Dowd, D. A. (2007). Parent relationships, emotion regulation, psychosocial maturity and college student alcohol use problems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 912–926. Fontana, A. M., Hyra, D., Godfrey, L., & Cermak, L. (1999). Impact of a peer-led stress inoculation training intervention on state anxiety and heart rate in college students. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 4, 45–63. Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 1311–1327. Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41–54. Griffin, D., Murray, S., & Gonzales, R. (1999). Difference score correlations in relationship research: A conceptual primer. Personal Relationships, 6, 505–518. Gross, J. J., & Munoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 2, 151–164. Guiffrida, D. (2009). Theories of human development that enhance an understanding of the college transition process. Teacher College Record, 111, 2419–2443. Henry, J., & Crawford, J. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 227–239. Holder, E. E., & Levi, D. J. (1988). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 753–755. Lachman, M. E. (2006). Control: Perceived control over aging-related declines: Adaptive beliefs and behaviors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 282–286. Lang, F., & Heckhausen, J. (2006). Motivation and interpersonal regulation across adulthood: Managing the challenges and constraints of social contexts. In C. H. Hoare (Ed.), Handbook of adult development and learning (pp. 149–166). New York: Oxford University Press. Lapsley, D. K., & Edgerton, J. (2002). Separation-individuation, adult attachment style, and college adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 484–492. Liu, Q., Shono, M., & Kitamura, T. (2009). Psychological well-being, depression, and anxiety in Japanese university students. Depression and Anxiety, 26, 99–105. Lopes, P. N., Salovery, P., Coˆte´, S., Beers, M., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113–118. Lopez, F. G., Watkins, C. E., Manus, M., & Hunton-Shoup, J. (1992). Conflictual independence, mood regulation, and generalized selfefficacy: Test of a model of late-adolescent identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 375–381. Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335–343. Lu, L. (1994). University transition: Major and minor life stressors, personality characteristics and mental health. Psychological Medicine, 24, 81–87. Martijn, C., Tenbult, P., Merckelbach, H., Dreezens, E., & De Vries, N. K. (2002). Getting a grip on ourselves: Challenging expectancies about loss of energy after self-control. Social Cognition, 20, 441–460. Mennin, D. S., Heimberg, R. G., Turk, C. L., & Fresco, D. M. (2005). Preliminary evidence for an emotion dysregulation model of
123
C. L. Park et al. generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1281–1310. Park, C., & Grant, C. (2005). Determinants of positive and negative consequences of alcohol consumption in college students: Alcohol use, gender, and psychological characteristics. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 755–765. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21. Pritchard, M. E., Wilson, G. S., & Yamnitz, B. (2007). What predicts adjustment among college students? A longitudinal panel study. Journal of American College Health, 56, 15–22. Rawson, H., Bloomer, K., & Kendall, A. (1994). Stress, anxiety, depression, and physical illness in college students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 321–330. Richman, J., & Flaherty, J. (1985). Coping and depression: The relative contribution of internal and external resources during a life cycle transition. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 173, 590–595. Rubio, C. T., & Lubin, B. (1986). College student mental health: A person-environment interactional analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 205–212. Sasaki, M., & Yamasaki, K. (2007). Stress coping and the adjustment process among university freshman. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 20, 51–67. Scheuer, E., & Epstein, S. (1997). Constructive thinking, reactions to a laboratory stressor, and symptoms in everyday life. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 10, 269–303. Sher, K. J., Wood, P. K., & Gotham, H. J. (1996). The course of psychological distress in college: A prospective high-risk study. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 42–51. Spector, P., Chen, P., & O’Connell, B. (2000). A longitudinal study of relations between job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior negative affectivity and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 211–218. Srivastava, S., Tamir, M., McGonigal, K. M., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2009). The social costs of emotional suppression: A prospective study of the transition to college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 883–897. Steinhardt, M., & Dolbier, C. (2008). Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance coping strategies and protective factors and decrease symptomatology. Journal of American College Health, 56, 445–453. Steunenberg, B., Beekman, A., Deeg, D., Bremmer, M., & Kerkhof, A. (2007). Mastery and neuroticism predict recovery of depression in later life. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15, 234–242. Tamir, M., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Implicit theories of emotion: Affective and social outcomes across a major life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 731–744. Tanner, J. L. (2006). Recentering during emerging adulthood: A critical turning point in life span human development. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging Adults in America. Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 21–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. University of Connecticut (2011). http://www.oir.uconn.edu/Fact Book08_09.html. Accessed July 2, 2011. Verger, P., Combes, J. B., Kovess-Masfety, V., Choquet, M., Guagliardo, V., Rouillon, F., et al. (2009). Psychological distress in first year university students: Socioeconomic and academic stressors, mastery and social support in young men and women. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44, 643–650.
Development of Self-regulation Abilities as Predictors of Psychological Adjustment Wei, M., Russell, D., & Zakalik, R. (2005). Adult attachment, social self-efficacy, self- disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for freshman college students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 602–614. Williams, L., Gatt, J., Hatch, A., Palmer, D., Nagy, M., Rennie, C., et al. (2008). The INTEGRATE model of emotion, thinking and self regulation: An application to the ‘‘paradox of aging’’. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 7, 367–404.
49
Younger, J., Finan, P., & Zautra, A. (2008). Personal mastery predicts pain, stress, fatigue, and blood pressure in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Psychology & Health, 23, 515–535. Zhou, M., Yang, X.-H., & Xie, F.-F. (2007). Survey on the influential factors of subjective well-being in 1348 students in 8 universities of Jiangxi province. Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research, 11, 3288–3290.
123
