Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU

All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies

5-2000

Transitions During University Life: Academic Persistence for

Married and Single Students
Sandra A. Krambule
Utah State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd

Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons

Recommended Citation
Krambule, Sandra A., "Transitions During University Life: Academic Persistence for Married and Single
Students" (2000). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 2714.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/2714

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by

the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has
been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
contact digitalcommons@usu.edu.
 TRANSITIONS DURING lJNlVERSITY LIFE: ACADE!vliC PERSISTENCE FOR
M!\RRIED AND SINGLE STlJDE~S

by

Sandra A. Krambule

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

of
l\1ASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Family and Human De,·elopment

Approved:

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Logan. Utah

2000
Copyright © Sandra A. Krambule 2000
All Rights Reserved
 iii
ABSTRACT

Transitions During University Life: Academic Persistence

for Married and Single Students

by

Sandra A. Krambule, Master of Science

Utah State University, 2000

Co-Major Professors: Dr. Ann M. Berghout Austin and

Dr. Scot M. Allgood
Department: Family and Human Development

This study was designed to look at the many factors that influence the transition to
college life and academic persistence within the family life cycle framework using the
ABCD-XYZ model of resource management. The sample included 348 students with
declared mi\iors within the College of Family Life. The dependent measure was student
persistence in college. Independent variables included academic and institutional factors,
gender and marital factors, family academic traditions, student motivation and commitment,
self-esteem, stress factors, and social support. The results of this study indicate that the
persistence variables chosen were better able to predict those who remain in school rather
than those who drop out. The strongest predictor for students remaining in school in this
study was students' USU grade point average. Students with higher GPAs were more
likely to remain in school. The other predictor was the students' satisfaction with USU
studies and professors, indicating that students leaving school in this sample did so for
reasons other than for academic dissatisfaction. Correlations among predictor variables lend
support to the theoretical base used in this research, indicating a systemic approach to
understanding persi stence in college and the many transitions encountered would be useful.

(75 pages)
 iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Ann M. Berghout Austin for her cheery and energetic
guidance, patience, and encouragement that have come in the form of kind and confident
words despite obstacles or roadbl ocks. I would also like to thank her for the use of the
Family Life Survey data to use for this research.
I would like to thank Dr. Scot M. Allgood for his participation in this project, but
even more especially for hi s support and kindness through the years of my undergraduate
and graduate work. The MFT program has been an investment into my life and future that I
shall never regret. The quality and caliber of the training available at USU was top notch.
Thank you.
I would like to thank Roxanne Pfister for her endless hours of support and expertise
in working with the Family Life Survey database. Her know lege and patience made this all
posssible.
I would like to thank Dr. Randall M. Jones for his many hours of guidance,
mentoring, and tormentoring (is that a word?). His office has a pathway to it worn deep
through the years with my footsteps and those of so many others. His generosity with hi s
time, support, and perspectives will not be forgotten and are deeply appreciated.
I would like to thank my seven beautiful children for giving up 3 years (plus) of their
mother's time to having a student mom working on this thesis for many holidays, evenings,
weekends, and vacations, all while using the extra money that could be gathered for paying
tuition instead of fun things. Their sacrifice is deeply appreciated.
I would like to thank my mother, Chelsea Athel Mounteer, for her unwavering belief
in my abilities and worth throughout this project and everything else in my life. She is like
an anchor in a storm, always there with a kind word and a strong, gentle shoulder to lean on.
I love you. I would also like to thank Mike Krambule and my stepfather, Loren Mounteer,
for their technological support and guidance in the area of computer wizardry.

Sandra A. Krambule
 v
CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................ .................................. .. ....... .iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. .iv
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................................................... l
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ ....... 3
Summary ................................. .................. ........................... .... ....... ........... 4
Research Questions ...................... .............................................................. 4

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................... 6

Persistence.................................................................................................. 6
Transitions ................................................................................................ 10
Conceptual Framework ...... ....................................................................... 24
General Summary ..................................................................................... 28
Research Questions ....... ..... .......... ..................... ... .................................... 28

Ill. METHODS ................................................................................. .............. 30

Design ........................ .............................. ........ ....... .................. ............. .. 30

Sample .............................. ........ ............. .......... ............. ................... ... ...... . 30
Procedures ................................................................................................ 33
Measures ... ..................... ................................. .......................................... 33

IV. RESULTS ......................................... ........................................................ 36

Data Analysis ........................................................................................ .... 36

Summary of Results ................................................................................. 46

V. DISCUSSION.......................................................................................... 48

Question! ..................................... ............................................................ 48

Question 2 ................................................................................................. 49
Question 3... ................. ................. .... ............ ...................... ................... ... 50
Question 4 ........................................................ ........................................ 50
Question 5 ....... ................................. ..... ... .................................... ...... ..... . 51
Limitations ... ......... ....... ............................ ...... ......... ........... ................. ...... 53
Future Research ........................................................................................ 53
Implications for Practice ........................................................... ................ 54

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 60
 vi
APPENDIXES ......................... ......................................................................................... 65

Appendix A. Human Subjects Letter. ....................................................... 66

Appendix B. College of Family Life Student Survey ................................ 68
 vii
LIST OFTABLES

Table Page
Demographics and Persistence Status Combined CFL Cohorts .............. ............... 31
2 Parents' Education and Student Persistence Status............ ..................................... 32
3 Annual Family of Origin Income and Student Persistence Status ........................... 32
4 Enrollment Status.................................................................................................... 36
5 Persistence Status ................................................................................................... 37
6 Means, Standard Deviations, and ! Tests Between Manied
and Single Students ................................................................................................ 38

7 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Depicting Relationship Between

Persistence Status and Predictor Variables for Single Students .............................. 40

8 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Depicting Relationship Between

Persistence Status and Predictor Variables for Married Students ..........••.............. ..41

9 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Depicting Relationship Between

Persistence Status and Predictor Variables for Overall Sample ......................... ....... 43

I0 Discriminant Analysis, Means, and Standard Deviations Contrasting

Student Factors with Persistence Status ................................................................... 45

11 Discriminant Analysis Classification Results for Persistence Status................. ....... 46

 CHAPTER 1
STATEMENT OF T HE PROBLEM

Entering college is general ly considered a positive experience, but usually requires

students to face many new challenges and adjustments (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994).
The transition to university life involves complex changes in emotional , social, and academic
areas of functioning . Young adults entering college are navigating basic tasks of the life
cycle which include developing autonomy and independence from their families and
establishing other relationships. These demands, along with academic pressures, can place
students at risk for elevated levels of stress and disharmony with previous roles, self-
concepts, and expectations (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989). While some students are able to
make the transition to college life productively, others choose alternate routes and drop out.
The purpose of this study is to explore factors that impact the transition to college and the
decision to remain in school or to drop out for both married and single students.
Student persistence in higher education is an ongoing concern for policy makers,
administrators, faculty , and mental health professionals (Astin, 1986; Gerdes &
Mallinckrodt, 1994). National studies indicate that 45% or more of all entering students
will leave college before they get their degree, with 75% of these students dropping out
within the first two years (Porter, 1990).
The transition to college is impacted by many factors other than academic
performance or ability. Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) suggested that emotional and
social adjustment are other dimensions that may be equally important to managing the
transitions of college life. They reported that emotional adjustment difficulties may be
manifest in ways such as anxiety, low self-esteem, or depression . Depression and anxiety
both predisposed students to dropping out of college. Social adjustment included areas
such as managing greater social freedoms, forming new social support networks, and
becoming integrated into the fabric of college social life (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994).
McCubbin and McCubbin (1988) found that strong social support during times of
stress or transition was linked to more positive coping responses and adaptation. They
indicated that individuals with inadequate or conflicted support systems may tire or give up
 2
more readily. Bean (1 990) di scussed the importance of students having the support of
fri ends, family , or significant others who believe in the importance of academic work and
encourage them to stay in school. Shared beliefs, traditions, and interactions with others
help organize roles, shape expectations, and create a form of identity which becomes a way
of defining daily activities (Wolin & Bennett, 1984). Family academic traditions may
provide some of the needed support to confront challenges or changes required of students
in their transition to university life. Parents' income levels and parents' education levels
have been found to be associated with school persistence. According to Lenning (1982),
lower income students drop out more often when their parents' education levels are low.
This is not the case when income is low but parental education levels are high.
While there are many reasons for leaving college, the decision to marry while still in
college is an important factor, especially for women. Astin (1986) indicated that 59% of
women and 26% of men give this reason for leaving college. The transition to marriage
brings many new changes and demands that require additional adjustments on the part of
the student. While marriage could bring increased support from the partner, it also adds
greater responsibility in many areas such as multiple roles, finances, and independence.
Being married at college entrance increases women 's chances of dropping out by
II%, but it has the reverse effect on men. When men are married at college entrance, their
chances of dropping out decrease by 8% (Astin, 1986). Gender differences and the
decision to remain in school through the marital transition need to be further explored to
better understand and meet the needs of students who are married or are contemplating
marriage.
Although theory and research indicate that social support is a buffer from
experiencing higher levels of stress, it has not been clarified in what ways social support
systems are perceived to change for the student while in school, especially for students also
going through the transition of marriage. Given the stressful nature of transitions and the
many adjustments that students face when navigating the complex demands of academic life,
it is important to understand more fully the nature of transitional stressors and the decision
to remain in school.
 3
Conceptual Framework

Successful management of the risks and the presence of protective factors during
transitions can be conceptually understood using the ABCD-XYZ Resource Management
Model (Dollahite, 1991). This model evolved beginning with the ABCX model by Hill
(1958) when studying family crises in military situations, which includes: (A) stressor
event, (B) resources, (C) family definition of the event, and (X) the crisis. This was enlarged
by McCubbin and Patterson (1983) who added other adjustment and adaptation elements
including: consideration of coping strategies, endeavors to develop new resources, changes
in family definitions of the event, accumulation of stressors, and the results of coping
attempts. Boss ( 1987) further developed the model by adding contextual factors in the
environment with emphasis on the family values, beliefs, and perceptions.
Dollahite (1991) described the total model in four phases. These include the
following: Phase !--the stimulus stage, which includes factor "A," the stressor event or
situation; f.l)ru;e 11--the perceiving stage, which includes the factors "B," the coping
resources; "C," the definition of the situation; "D," the demands of the situation; and
"X ," the perceived crisis or stress; Phase lll--the deciding stage includes factor "Y ,"the
cognitive coping and management of the situation; and Phase IV -the acting stage, which
includes factor "Z," the adaptive behavior with regards to demand responses and resource
changes.
Feedback from adaptive behavior helps modify perceptions of the situation, demands,
and coping resources. These, in tum, influence the manner in which future stressors or
transitions are perceived. The ABCD-XYZ framework can be used to explore the
complexity involved in student adjustment to college and the decision to remain in school.
It acknowledges the many systemic contexts that influence student perceptions, resources,
and coping responses including personal, family, and cultural definitions of the transitions.
The importance of having access to needed resources during adjustment to stress and
change is clearly manifest

For the purpose of this study, A is the stressor of entering college, while A 1 is the

stressor of marriage combined with college entry. Factors B,C, D, and X include the
 4
independent variables of famil y of origin and nuclear family descriptors, self-esteem, social
adjustment and social support, and perceptions of academic and nonacademic aspects of
college life. Factor Y, cognitive coping and management of the situation, was not
specifically studied , but factor Z is assessed in this study by students ' persistence or non-
persistence in schooL

Summary

There are many diverse variables affecting student outcomes while in college. While
these variables have been associated with academic persistence, most persistence data is of a
descriptive nature and not guided by theory. This study will look at academic persistence
and transition to college within the family life-cycle framework using the ABCD-XYZ
model of resource management (Dollahite , 1991).
It is expected that students with well-developed social support systems, less reported
stress, and more positive past academic experiences (factors B, C, D, and X) will be less
likely to drop out of school than students with less well-developed social support and fewer
positive past academic experience. It is expected that students adjusting to marital
transitions while attending college will report greater stress and role strain when reported
family support is either minor or of an ambivalent nature. It is also expected that married
female students will be more prone to dropping out than single students regardless of
reported stress, role strain, and past academic experience. Students who have parents with
stronger academic traditions and backgrounds are expected to persist more than students
whose parents have not had much college experience.

Research Questions

Given the previous multifaceted considerations and difficulties that are often
experienced when individuals go through transitions juxtaposed with the importance of
getting an education in today 's world, the focus of this study is expressed by five questions
about factors predicting college persistence.
1. Are the family of origin factors of parental income, family academic traditions,
 5
number of siblings, satisfaction with contact with parents related to student academic
persistence?
2. Are the nuclear family factors of being marri ed while in school , number of
children, or gender of spouse enrolled in college related to student academic persistence?
3. Is satisfaction with social support related to student academic persistence?
4. Is perceived stress level related to student academic persistence?
5. Which of these variables along with academic factors best predict persistence in
college overall?
 6
CHAPTER II
REV lEW OF LITERATURE

The purpose of this study is to better understand the many factors that influence the
transition to university life and students' academic persistence or nonpersistence. This
review will first look at persistence literature beginning with definitions of persistence, and
then to previously reported factors in persistence and nonpersistence. These factors will
include academic and institutional factors , cultural trends and family academic traditions,
student motivation and commitment, self-esteem, and stress factors. The next section will
review transition literature with sections focu sing on multiple stressors, social support,
marital and gender factors, and family academic traditions. The review will then proceed to
the conceptual framework of the ABCD-XYZ model (Dollahite, 1991) with sections on
Phases I, II, III, and IV of the model. These will include summaries at the end of each
section with the final summary followed by the research questions.

Persistence

In efforts to minimize college dropout rates, it is important to know more about the
reasons students leave school. There are many factors related to a student' s level of college
persistence or conversely, dropping out. Some of these are students ' achievements and
academic accomplishments in high school ; ethnicity; gender; marital status; cost; location;
students' curricular and extracurricular activities; involvement with peers, faculty, and other
organizations; on- or off-campus housing; family demographic characteristics; academic
majors; size of university or college; and employment status (Bank, Biddle, & Slavings,
1992). These are only some of the many influences that can impact a college student ' s
enrollment and are often studied as correlates of college student persistence.
National studies have indicated that dropout rates are highest during the first year and
before the beginning of the second year of college (Astin, 1986; Porter, 1990; Tinto, 1987).
Porter's (1990) study through the National Institute of Independent Colleges and
Universities looked at degree completion over a 6-year period and found that it was
important to consider time frames for completion when looking at persistence data. When
 7
just looking at traditional path students who enrolled full-time directly after high school , the
completion rate was 46%. When all students in the sample were included, the completion
rate dropped to 41%. If the definition of persistence was "not dropping out," the
persistence rate increased to 55%, indicating if the time period were extended, more students
would complete their degrees (Porter, 1990).

Definitions of Persistence
Problems are found in the literature from not having clear definitions of what
constitutes a persister and a dropout. Some studies define dropouts by academic dismissal
while others define it by voluntary withdrawal (Tinto, 1982). Persistence is defined either
by degree completion versus no degree completion or by dropping out versus not dropping
out. Porter (1990) identified four categories of persistence as being: (l) completers--
students who finished their bachelor's degree; (2) persisters--students who remained
continuously enrolled; (3) stop outs--students who left school but later returned; and (4)
dropouts--students who left and did not return. Astin (1986) maintains from his research
that "dropouts" need to be distinguished from "stop outs." He found that dropouts
tended to leave school because of dissatisfaction and lack of integration into the academic
environment. They either never returned or returned after an extended absence of years or
decades. Stop outs' reasons for leaving school were seen as temporary due to illness,
accident, travel, or disciplinary suspension. Some students choose to leave school
temporarily to serve religious missions. Stop outs usually returned to school within a few
months or a year or two at most. For the purpose of this study, "persistence" is defined
according to Porter's (1990) second category; namely, a persister is a student who remains
continuously enrolled in school.
In summary, definitions of persistence vary from study to study, but are most useful
when they consider basic elements of time, purposes for remaining in school or for leaving
school, and intentions to return. Longitudinal reviews of student enrollment and status
provide more useful information regarding academic persistence or nonpersistence than
studies examining a single point in time. This study included a longitudinal design, and in a
limited way, examined students' reasons for leaving school and intentions of returning .
 8
Academic Factors
Students' high school academic factors related to remaining in college include higher
aptitude scores, GPAs, class rank, more college prep courses, including English, math,
foreign language and physical science classes (Porter, 1990). Early preparation while in
high school seems to indicate a higher interest and motivation to get a college education
(Astin, 1986; Lenning, 1982; Porter, 1990).

Institutional Factors
Institutional variables that are related to higher persistence include universities that
were higher in prestige, more selective, privately funded , 4-year versus 2-year, on-campus
housing, high quality and quantity of student services, and a strong religious affiliation
(Porter, 1990). Academic factors are generally considered powerful predictors of academic
interest and persistence; however, Tinto (1982) found that college students who drop out
usually have satisfactory grades, but lower than those of persisters. Based on the above
information, it appears that students who are more academically successful are more likely
to persist throughout their college experiences until graduation.

Cultural Trends and Family Academic

Traditions
Asian and Jewish students drop out less than Anglo Americans, while Hispanic
American students drop out more than Anglo Americans (Lenning, 1982). Lenning (1982)
reported that although students from lower socioeconomic status (SES) levels leave school
more often than higher SES students, persistence is correlated more with the educational
level of the parents than with their SES. While these same trends have been identified in
other research (Astin, 1986; Porter, 1990), little is reported on what factors may influence
these types of results. Astin (1986) indicated that college students who drop out have lower
personal and familial aspirations for completing school and acquiring doctoral or
professional degrees, and less commitment to the college itself.
Lower personal and familial aspirations for completing school could be an indication
of academic traditions that families may pass on to their children. It would be important to
understand how academic traditions might influence a student's decision to attend and
 9
remain in school. It appears logical that the importance of parents ' education and their
perceptions towards the education of their children would influence academic messages
given throughout their children 's academic experiences. This study examines the impact of
family members' academic traditions, especially parents', as this could be a source of
support while adjusting to the pressure to remain, or perform well , in school.

Motivation and Commitment

It is important in the study of persistence to take into account students' motivations
for attending college. Researchers often fail to interview enrolling students on their
academic goals or to gather exit information when they leave (Bean, 1990). Student
aspiration data can be a powerful component in the persistence equation because many
nonpersisters do not have college graduation as a goal to begin with. Bean (1990) reported
that students who leave voluntarily may see their departure as positive and successful
because certain personal goals were met.
In the literature, student academic aspirations powerfully separate planned non-
persistence from Jess purposive nonpersistence (Bean, 1983; Spady, 1971; Terenzini &
Pascarella, 1978; Tinto, 1982). Student perceptions and the meaning they apply to their
education need to be understood more fully in order to develop strategies for remaining in
school. Astin (1986) pointed out that despite the argument that leaving may have been
beneficial for some students for personal development, faculty and administrators can be
left feeling that their time, ·efforts, and institutional resources were wasted. Student talent
and opportunities may go undeveloped creating setbacks or impediments for future career
development. Enhancing motivation could be an important area to help students deepen
their commitment to school and to their education. Students could possibly be motivated to
choose opportunities for growth and development more wisely. Institutional supports could
be established to help students overcome obstacles and increase motivation.

Self-Esteem and Stress Factors

Lenning (1982) reported that student personality and value variables often present
inconsistent findings due to their complex nature. Positive self-concept and self-confidence
were generally related to greater persistence. Moderate anxiety about success can help
 10
students persist, but when anxiety becomes too great, it has a negative impact on persistence.
Emotional or personal problems associated with psychological distress are usually manifest
in low self-esteem, somatic distress, depression, and anxiety with depression ranked as the
primary psychiatric di sorder observed among college students (Cowan, 1991 ; Gerdes &
Mallinckrodt, 1994).
The transition to college is often filled with situations where many students question
life directions, self-worth, and relationships (Cowan, 1991). Conflicted self-concepts and
relationships with others have a negative impact on coping skills and adjustment (Hobfoll,
1986). Personal perceptions of abilities and the availability of needed support may alter the
student's ability to adjust (Gerdes & Mallincrodt, 1994). If perceived demands become too
great, dropping out may be the result. This study examined how academic factors , student
motivation and commitment, gender and marital trends, family academic traditions, and self-
esteem and emotional factors along with multiple stressors contribute to the decision to
remain in school or to leave.

Transitions

Change occurs across the life span for both families and individuals. These
transitions often mark developmental stages where there are major shifts in life tasks,
expectations, roles, and responsibilities which create demands for self-growth and
development (Cowan, 1991 ; Fi sher & Hood, 1987; Zirkel, 1992). This process of change
typically involves a sense of disequilibrium, conflict, and crisis for the individuals or
families involved (Mattessich & Hill , 1987). Stress is often greatest at these transitional
points between stages, which can lead to symptomatic behavior or dysfunction (Carter &
McGoldrick, 1989; Minuchin, 1974).
This study looks at the normative transitions of young adults whi le going to college,
which include developing independence and building intimate relationships with others.
Normative transitions are changes that are expected and experienced by most individuals or
families during certain life-cycle stages within their social contexts such as going to college
or getting married (Cowan, 1991). Nonnormative transitions are unexpected , unusual , or
unpredictable. Erikson (1959) maintained that transitions create a period of crisis and
 II
conflict necessary for growth and development. When transitions are successfully
navigated, new levels of organization in the person or in the relationship are created. When
they are not resolved, dysfunction or regression can occur (Erikson, 1959).
The family life-cycle stage encompassing young adulthood is considered to be a
cornerstone where major life decisions and directions are chosen (Carter & McGoldrick,
1989; Haley, 1997). Adjustments at this time are not only required of the young person, but
of all generations within the family system. Renegotiation of family roles and structure may
be needed, often creating added stress and conflicting demands on parents, grandparents,
and siblings as well as the student (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989; Fulmer, Medalie, & Lord,
1982; Preto, 1989). Successful adaptation and transition at this crucial time period of
development can have a major impact on future opportunities. Students in transition are
often restructuring, questioning, redefining, and reorganizing their sense of self. Old roles
and basic assumptions about how things work may be questioned. This process is usually
associated with heightened anxiety, tension, or perhaps depression (Cowan, 1991).
A longitudinal study done by Fisher and Hood (1987) examined the stress level
experienced by students during the transition to university life. Their study indicates that all
students, regardless of whether they are living at home or not, experience a rise in
psychological disturbances such as depression, absent-mindedness, and obsessional
symptoms. They suggest that adverse effects are often a result of students experiencing
major life transitions in a new environment with new expectations. This may create a sense
of helplessness and being out of control. The increased demands of university life can
overload the students' resource systems and create a sense of temporary inadequacy until
adjustments are made. Included among these demands are the stresses of losing old friends
and established support systems juxtaposed with the stress of creating new friends in a new
environment. In this study, adaptation scores were negatively correlated with the degree of
stress symptoms reported. Better adjusted students were more able to make new social
contacts, while homesick students reported more personal strain in the university
environment and spent more time dwelling on past experiences.
Fisher and Hood (1987) indicated that students weigh the benefits and threats of their
new environment against their home environment. When benefits and positive events at
 12
college are perceived to be manageable and not overly demanding, student stress levels are
more manageable as well. Fisher and Hood (1987) indicated that there were premorbid
factors present before students enter college that may predispose students to higher level s of
stress (e. g. , poor relationships with parents). Although alluded to, these were not explored
in Fisher and Hood's (1987) study. Active support systems and family patterns of
managing new situations may help students see transitions as an exciting challenge with
difficult demands rather than a threat These possibilities need to be explored along with
students ' successful management styles of life transitions.
Zirkel ' s (1992) research involved two studies looking at anxiety levels towards the
life task of developing independence. This was explored in the areas of: (1) independence
in academic performance and (2) independence in family and sorority relationships.
Samples were selected from specialized collegiate groups (i.e., honor students and sorority
students) who may handle anxiety differently than students without outstanding academic
experience or structured social groups. Independence was defined as the ability for the
student to manage everyday activities and goals in a competent and capable manner
established by their social situation and experience. Zirkel (1992) reported similar anxiety
levels for subjects in both the honors group and the sorority group, but that anxiety was
directed differently. Sorority students were more invested in creating independence and
security within their social framework with anxiety levels directed at accomplishing these
goal s. The academic performance group directed more anxiety at accomplishing
independence and support through academic goals. Anxiety towards important goals for
each student impacted how they organized and experienced college life. Zirkel's (1992)
work supported the concept that life tasks during transition are social constructions. Life
tasks are given meaning and definition through the cultural and social subgroups that
support them. Values and goals are reinforced through the activities and goals they
endorse.
These studies reinforce the importance of students' goals and perceptions while
going through the transitions of college. The studies indicate that students seek out other
students with similar interests and values to help provide the needed social support to
 13
accompli sh their goals. Whil e these studies looked at anxiety levels during transitions while
in school, they did not examine student persistence in the academic setting.
A study done by Cantor, Norem, Niedenthal, Langston and Brower (1987) explored
self-concept ideals and cognitive strategies for dealing with life tasks during the transitions
at college. This study addressed the idea that students have high expectations and lofty
goals for their experience at college, but often meet with disappointment and frustration
when trying to adjust to the demands and challenges of university life. Cantor eta!. (1987)
indicated that two effective coping strategies for handling discrepancies between real and
ideal performance on life tasks were evident. Some students used a defensive pessimistic
approach expecting poor outcomes despite positive past experiences. This was used to
manage anxiety, to motivate, and to guide them into action to address current demands.
Other students used a protective optimistic approach expecting good outcomes despite
previous outcomes. While optimistic students experienced more debilitating effects when
confronted with negative aspects of their performance, both approaches kept students
motivated and engaged. This study focused on the process students go through in
translating rewarding life task goals into action. While it provides some interesting results,
the sample was taken from honor students who have more successful academic experiences
and may handle things differently than nonhonor students. The study did not correlate
findings with persistence in college.
In summary, these studies support the many normative developmental changes that
students face as they make the transition to college life. The importance of successfully
navigating these changes may be an important component of college persistence. Feelings
of being capable and competent in handling these changes may enhance a student's ability
to handle the extra stress that comes with change and the added responsibilities of academic
demands.

Multiple Stressors
Collegiate populations are exposed to many simultaneous stressors that place
demands on personal performance and resources. Given the many transitions that college
students face, they are especially vulnerable to the occurrence and the effects of stressful
processes (Towbes & Cohen, 1996). Stress is defined as any factor which taxes, strains, or
 14
undermines the optimal functi oning of an individual. While some degree of stress is
considered a normal part of life. effective management of stress is required to avoid
detrimental effects such as lowered self-esteem, depression, or illness (Ainslie, Shafer, &
Reynolds, 1996). This is important for students in the education process to maintain
healthy and productive functioning.
Strong social support, especially from family members, during times of stress or
change has been linked to more positive coping responses and adaptation while negative or
conflicted aspects of family relationships have an adverse effect (Dollahite, 1991 ;
McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988; Staats, 1983; Valentiner, Holahan, & Moos, 1994).
Resilient family systems develop both instrumental and expressive resources when
challenged by normative transitions and stressors (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988). These
families are characterized by greater strengths in areas of family traditions, bonding,
flexibility , overall satisfaction, and well-being, which aid in the adjustment and adaptation
process (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988).
Trust, respect, and the ability to maintain emotionally calm and stable relationships
characterize strong families as they accept difficulties and work together to solve problems.
They have a clear sense of purpose, are able to look ahead, feel valued for their efforts, and
have a sense of purpose and control over how they manage the challenges in their lives.
They are more tolerant of hardships, and actively address problems and concerns while
trying new things or facing difficulties (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988). These qualities
provide individuals with needed personal and social resources that make adaptation and
adjustment to new situations more positive and productive.
Pearlin (1989) referred to the daily chronic strains of various social roles. The
difficulties experienced within academic pursuits, employment, and marriage are important
because of the importance of the roles themselves. Roles define and structure daily
activities, experiences, relationships, and general well-being. Role strain or stress can come
in the form of role overload. This occurs when the demands of the role exceed the stamina
and energy of the individual's capacities. Students may experience this when confronted
with writing difficult papers, completing projects, or taking major exams.
 15
Interpersonal conflicts between complementary roles is the most common role strain
(Pearl in, 1989) and includes difficulties or problems experienced between students and
professors, husbands and wives , parents and children, and so forth. A student may
experience conflict with parents, spouse, or professors as they meet school expectations and
the expectations of others. Another form of role strain is interrole conflict that occurs when
the demands of one role are incompatible with the demands of another (Pearlin, 1989).
Lastly, role restructuring is a major strain for most college students. This refers to
inevitable changes that roles go through as people develop and mature. There may be
accompanying feelings of loss, betrayal, or disappointment as relationship rules and
expectations change. Thi s process is often not easy, especially when roles are well -
established and entrenched into daily behaviors (Pearlin, 1989).
VIi sides, Eddy, and Mozie (1994) di scussed the variety of emotional, physical,
behavioral, and cognitive stress symptoms that collegiate populations experience. Emotional
stress symptoms include agitation, depression, anxiety, irritability, guilt, and grief. Physical
symptoms include headaches, fatigue, nausea, twitches, or muscle tremors. Behavioral
symptoms include withdrawal , changes in communication skills, suspiciousness, insomnia,
changes in activity, increased alcohol or other substance use, pacing, loss or increase in
appetite, and emotional outbursts. Cognitive stress symptoms include memory problems,
confusion, poor attention, increased or decreased alertness, poor concentration, blaming
others for errors, poor abstract thinking or problem solving, and ni ghtmares. It is important
to recognize these symptoms so that counterbalancing efforts can be taken by the student,
faculty, or others within the student's resource network.
Greenberg (1981) di scussed the relationship found between stress level s and illness
in college students. He pointed out the importance of interventions that help the student to
adjust to new life situations so as to experience fewer stressors. Perceptions can be altered
so situations are not viewed in a threatening manner. Relaxation techniques and physical
exercise are important resources that can be implemented to reduce the impact of stress and
change (Greenberg, 1981 ).
Ainslie' s and others' (1996) research indicated that student stress levels were
affected by both external and internal factors. Students who perceived high levels of
 16
support and indicated a high degree of control over their own lives reported the lowest levels
of stress. High level s of achievement motivation were also correlated with higher levels of
stress. Towbes and Cohen (1996) reported that first-year undergraduate students
experienced greater levels of chronic stress when compared to more advanced
undergraduates. This was indicated by greater difficulties with such things as
homesickness, learning to maintain relationships with family and friends from a distance,
and trying to choose a major. Their work indicates that chronic stress is a significant
predictor of college student distress. Chronic stress in this study was defined as stressors
or issues that persisted longer than a period of one month across several life domains. Life
domains included academics, peer and family relations, romantic relationships, lifestyle, and
physical appearance and health.
Zitzow (1992) suggested that stress is an everyday condition that offers the potential
for growth or for damage due to effective or ineffective coping resources, respectively.
Ways to adjust and cope with stress are learned from the family and other social networks.
Effective coping can affect three major functions for students: (1) to modify the stressful
situation, (2) to modify the meaning of the situation to reduce perceived threats to well -
being, or (3) to manage symptoms of stress. Adaptive behaviors vary by the nature of the
problem, and by the nature of the social role in which the problem arises. Both effective
coping and positive social support serve to regulate the effects of stressful conditions and
are used to help reduce, avoid, or eliminate stress (Pearlin, Leiberman, Menaghan, & Mullin,
1981).
The research of Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) explored emotional, social, and
academic adjustment in a 6-year longitudinal study of academic persistence. They pointed
out the importance of social integration into the social system of college, development of a
social network, and the ability to handle unfamiliar social freedoms. Their work indicates
that students who persist in school report more informal contact with faculty, more
satisfaction with their social life and extracurricular activities, and better management of
homesickness.
Multiple stressors and coping strategies could serve as major determinants of
academic success. Understanding the many stresses that students face and their
 17
management strategies for coping with these stresses could help professionals better meet
the needs of growing student populations whether on an academic or therapeutic level. It
would be expected that extreme levels of stress and/or inadequate coping strategies would
negatively impact a student's ability to persist in college unless mediated by some type of
relief.
In conclusion, results reported in previous literature support the idea that student
persistence is impacted at least as much by personal abilities to effectively cope with the
transitions and social integration into campus life as with the more researched area of
academic qualities. In this study , student stressors, coping strategies, and social support
networks were correlated with academic persistence. It was our expectation that students
who expressed greater satisfaction with social support networks would express lower levels
of frustration and stress and would be more likely to remain in school.

Social Suooort
The complex changes involved in the transition to college life are difficult for many
students and necessitate major changes in students' lives. These, along with greater
demands for academic self-direction and interpersonal resources, often leave students in a
state of disequilibrium. Some of the changes during transitions include reorganization of
social networks outside of the family and adjustments in relationships between family
members (Cowan, 1991 ; Falicov, 1988). McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson, Han, and Allen
(1997) listed social support as one of the 10 resiliency factors in family functioning both as
a protective and recovery factor. Students draw from existing support systems and search
out other forms of support that can offer additional meaning, direction, and strategies for
coping. Positive social support is exchanged in interpersonal relationships and can be
defined in six basic forms : money, status, love, information, goods, and services. When
any of these resources fall below a certain level, overall functioning may be impaired
(Dollahite, 1991; Foa, 1993).
Antrobus, Dobbelaer, and Salzinger (1988) studied college social networks and how
these affect academic success. They found that students spend a major portion of first
semester social behavior directed towards finding students similar to themselves in areas of
academic performance, gender, ethnicity, and racial group. The size of the social network
 18
was not significantly related to academic success. The search for an appropriate peer group
was more of a concern than actually receiving support from the new group. Students who
were unable to find an adequate peer group were at higher risk for leaving school. Students
early in their academic experience were more impacted by previous and ongoing
relationships with their family system and old friends than by the new ones they were
developing at the beginning of school. Academic traditions of important others may provide
a bridge of support, especially during the transition to college while students are forming
other supportive networks.
Weir and Okun (1989) explored the relationships between social support, positive
events, and college satisfaction. Their results indicated that greater college satisfaction was
associated with more frequent contact with faculty, family , friends, and school
organizations/clubs. This in tum was associated with a greater perception of positive
college events, and a higher level of student identification with their college. Students
perceived professors to be the best providers of social support, especially with regard to
integration into college life.
Goplerud (1980) found similar results when he reported that students who were new
to the area and had no established social supports indicated greater stress levels than
students with already established social networks. He indicated that relationships with
faculty were especially important to help students gauge their performance and aptitudes,
and to set priorities. Insufficient feedback was reported to create intense distress during
transitional periods for students. Cutrona and Russell (1987) indicated from their research
that social support in the form of positive feedback reassuring personal worth was the most
important prevention against depression following a stressful event Such feedback
enhances self-efficacy beliefs and has been linked to more effective coping behavior and
decreased negative affect during stressful transitions. Combined research provides evidence
that positive social support from important others may alter students' perceptions of
themselves and their situations in a positive manner adding strength of purpose and more
positive self-evaluations.
Social support helps in the process of personal adjustment in various ways such as
moderating negative health and illness during stress. Cutrona and Russell (1987) reported
 19
different types of support that help individuals adjust better to different situations.
Guidance and a reliable alliance were most helpful during transitions that required the
acquisition of new roles and skills. Reassurance of worth was most helpful when
individuals were expending high levels of effort to accomplish a valued goal that did not
provide adequate reward or recognition.
Cutrona ( 1986) explored specific interpersonal behaviors that conveyed and were
perceived as being supportive. She found that individuals who received more helping
behaviors following a stressful event were less depressed. Most frequently used helping
behaviors were listening and expressing concern or caring (emotional support) and offers of
advice and personal perspectives on the problems (informational support). Tangible
support (doing something about the problem) was least offered. Support was most effective
when provided immediately after stressful events. People who experienced positive
feedback about themselves were less likely to experience reduced self-esteem and they also
experienced fewer incidences of depression following a negative or difficult event
Results of Astin's (1986) national longitudinal study indicated that to promote
persistence, students needed to be involved enough with campus life to identify with their
university. Tinto (1987) maintains from his research that when all things are held equal,
integration into the fabric of college life is the main determinant for remaining in school.
Integration involves a variety of social and academic connections that make the student feel
like a part of the collegiate community.
In summary, social support is considered to be a major part of helping students to
persist in their educational endeavors. If students are satisfied with the amount and quality
of the support they receive, it can enhance their abilities to positively cope and feel
competent with changes and responsibilities they are facing in the academic world. This
study will examine some of the forms of social support experienced by the student and their
satisfaction with support as it relates to retention. It is expected that the greater the
satisfaction with their social support, the more likely students are to remain in school,
despite multiple stressors and changes.

Gender and Marital Factors

Lenning (1982) provided an in-depth list of different variables generally considered
 20
helpful for identifying subgroups that may be at greater risk for dropping out. He reported
that men are more li kely to drop out from large nonselective universities, to give academic
reasons for leaving, and to leave during the freshman year. Women drop out more when
male-to-female ratios are high and are more likely to gi ve nonacademic reasons for leaving.
Ostrow , Paul, Dark, and Behrman (1986) reported that the life stress most predictive of
maladjustment for women in college was conflicted interpersonal relationships. While their
study indicated that satisfaction with social support was the most important predictor for
adjustment for both men and women , the social support of marriage while in college was not
explored.
Personal adjustment and social integration are described more often for single
students than for married students, although research indicates that marriage is an important
variable in persistence and nonpersistence (Astin, 1986; Lenning 1982). Astin (1986)
indicated that marriage, before or while in college, tends to decrease women's chances of
persisting, but will increase men' s chances of persisting until graduation. He al so stated
that marriage was the most common reason given by women for leaving school. Astin
(1986) reported that marital effects on career development for women can be substantially
reduced if women can remain in school. He reported that financial support from spouses
su bstantially increases the student's chances of remaining in school, but spousal support
was not explored by gender or by any other types of support. Differences in effects of
marriage for men and women need to be further examined.
The added transition of marriage represents not only the adjustment of becoming a
couple, but represents the bringing together of two family systems with different patterns of
interaction, expectations, and ways of supporting each other. Support systems are altered
and need realignment with both families and friends (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989).
Researchers suggest that women may be more vulnerable to stress from relational conflict
and responsibilities, multiple role strain, and incongruent sex-role expectations than men
and that these differences may account for the effect marriage has on women's persistence
in school (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989; Hobfoll , 1986; Pugliesi , 1989). Nonetheless,
although marriage brings additional life changes for both partners in roles, status, and time
 21
pressures, it may also provide additional resources for support (Staats, 1983). The question
is why this support seems to have different effects on persistence by gender.
Support has been well documented as a moderator between stressful events or
transitions and the level of stress perceived (Dollahite, 1991). When a spouse provides
major financial support for the student partner to attend school, dropout rates are
dramatically reduced and conversely, when a spouse provides only minor or sporadic
support, drop out rates increase (Astin, 1986). Valentiner eta!. (1994) proposed that
"personal and social resources relate to subsequent mental health both directly and
indirectly through adaptive coping responses" (p. 1094). Cowan (1991) suggested an
investigation of an individual's consistency in adaptation across time would be useful to
help us understand gender differences in adjustment to different life events.
Many studies have indicated that college women report significantly higher levels of
academic and life stress than college men (Abouserie, 1994; Gadzella, 1994; Ostrow eta!.,
1986; Wohlgemuth & Betz, 1991). Ma!linckrodt and Leong (1992) investigated gender
differences in stress and support while in school. Their research supports previous findings
that women report more life change stress, more anxiety, and more depression than men .
Women report lower quality leisure time, inadequate financial resources, less
communication and less cohesive support (sharing of responsibilities by each family
member, acceptance of individual interests outside the home, and day-to-day functioning of
the household). According to Mallinckrodt and Leong (1992), married women report
significantly less family support than married men. This is attributed to the emphasis
placed on women's roles to provide for the needs of others. Women in this situation may
find themselves giving more than they receive, especially in the area of emotional support
While it was noted that there is a greater awareness of the need for equal division of
household labor and childcare among couples, the major charge for those responsibilities
sti ll remains with women (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992).
Mallinckrodt and Leong (1992) suggested that women experience greater role strain
and less support for the multiple roles and responsibilities they carry while trying to juggle
the demands of university and family life. Social support in the form of quality of living
conditions, child care, and financial resources were the three most significant buffering
 22
factors for women in schooL When these areas were positive, despite the presence of other
stressors, adjustment was positive. When these factors were negative, the impact of other
stressors was compounded. While many studies indicate that women report greater levels
of stress and life change than men, these results need to be studied further in the context of
overall college adjustment and persistence.
Affleck, Morgan, and Hayes (1989) investigated the influence of college student
gender role attitudes on life expectations. Their research indicates that after graduation, both
men and women expect to be employed and also involved in family responsibilities.
However, despite these expectations, both male and female students indicated that traditional
household tasks and child~are were the major responsibility of the female. Students who
had employed mothers demonstrated more awareness of the need for shared responsibility,
but generally most students demonstrated a lack of awareness for the difficulty and
complexity in combining both work and family responsibilities. Affleck et al . (1989)
suggested that role strain and stress will continue to place women at a disadvantage in areas
outside the home whether it is in education or employment as long as women carry the
major responsibility for household labor and childcare.
Novack and Novack (1996) reported that many women who have nontraditional goals
for a professional career sti ll have very traditional attitudes in regards to maternal
obligations and need for deference to their husbands' job opportunities. Men in the study
indicated that, if possible, they preferred women to stay home with infants. They had a
tendency to place their wife's career and education in a secondary position to their own and
to be less comfortable with the idea of having a lower salary than their wife's.
Marital and gender factors described previously indicate that traditional roles or
incongruent role demands have the potential to create internal and external conflict for both
partners while trying to manage work and family goals. This may help explain the higher
dropout rate for women, and greater persistence for men. In this study, we expected that
married women would have a greater dropout rate than married men or single students.
Nonetheless, we suspected that women's role strains might be mediated by nuclear and
family of origin academic traditions and values.
 23
In summary, roles and social expectations change when students marry and they
change differentially for men and women. Students usually find that even within their own
family, support systems and resources change with marriage (Pugliesi, I 989). This study
explored factors related to the decision to remain or drop out of school for both married and
single students.

Family Academic Traditions

Academic traditions and values of the student's family are important factors to
consider in academic persistence. Patterned family interactions that convey support and
expectations for continued enrollment in school can help define the student's roles and
responsibilities while organizing daily life activities (Wolin & Bennett, 1984). Family
academic traditions provide students with personal expectations and a certain identity while
going through the educational experience. Research indicates that students have a greater
chance of persisting when their families or spouses support their decision to attend school
(Bean, 1990; Cooke, Sims, & Peyrefitte, 1995).
Holmbeck and Wandrei (1993) found that students were better adjusted during the
transition to college when they were able to maintain close ties with their parents. Families
that had prepared themselves emotionally for the separation process during college helped
students to adjust better away from home. Positive family relations and high levels of
adaptability to change and greater coping resources were correlated with healthier
adjustment across all outcomes for both men and women students. Valentiner eta!. (1994)
found that parental support was correlated with psychological adjustment and adaptive
coping strategies in students. Strong academic traditions may provide all family members
with perceptions that provide purpose and coping skills while going through the transition
of a family member leaving home and going to school. Parents who have experienced and
successfully navigated academic transitions have established academic pathways and
expectations that may be expected of their children. This could be perceived as either a
source of support and/or pressure.
Family traditions become a way of educating and regulating the behavior of its
members. Traditions enhance individual and family identity providing stability and anchors
when going through developmental changes and facing different challenges (McCubbin &
 24
McCubbin, 1988; Wolin & Bennett, 1984). When students feel that they have the support
of important others in their lives and have the resources necessary to confront chal lenges or
changes required of them (Dollahite, 1991), they are better able to
feel in control , approach a situation, seek information, and to rely on logical analysis or
active problem solving (Valentiner eta!., 1994).
The research of Bank eta!. (1992) indicates that there are two types of expectancies
most predictive of college persistence. The first was social expectancies, including
relationships with new friends, family , spouse, and old friends. The second was positional
expectancies including expected access to a particular course of study, achievement of career
goals, personal help from faculty, and good achievement. Results indicated that persistence
was most likely when students felt that these two areas could be best met in the academic
environment rather than another setting. These expectations were found to be shaped by
normative assumptions of the student and supportive others. The study emphasizes the
importance of norms in students' decisions to persist in college and that student perceptions
of what they feel they should do are generally higher motivation than what they want to do.
Family academic traditions and student perceptions of those traditions and values can
be a powerful component of the decision to persist in college or even to attend college.
Student perceptions about the importance of getting an education and support from others
for those perceptions can help the student make important decisions regarding their
academic pursuits. It is expected that students with parents and/or spouses who have family
academic traditions valuing education will persist more than students who do not have this
type of support.

Conceptual Framework

Dollahite's (1991) ABCD-XYZ model is particularly useful when examining the

factors leading to adjusting to academic transitions and persistence. This model was
developed with three basic assumptions: (I) resource management during transitions or
high stress situations needs to be viewed within a systemic framework incorporating the
many contexts that establish meaning, purpose, and direction to given circumstances; (2)
nondisruptive adaptation to stress can be facilitated by effective management of cognitive,
 25
affective, and behavioral resources; and (3) balance needs to be maintained between change
and stability. Contexts in the first assumption include culture, economics, politics, religion,
health, values or beliefs, and developmental stages of the life cycle. While there are many
others, what is important is that contexts influence all elements of the coping and adaptation
process. This includes family or individual perceptions of events and levels of vulnerability
to those events or stressors (Dollahite, 1991 ).
This framework provides a way of conceptualizing the complex systemic nature of
the many factors influencing college attendance and persistence. The transition to college
creates many changes for students as well as additional stressors from new responsibilities.
The model acknowledges different contexts that influence student goals and perceptions
about college life and adjustment, including family and cultural definitions of the situation.
It also addresses the importance of having actual and perceived access to needed resources
to make adjustment to stress and change nondisruptive. Dollahite (1991) divides the model
into four phases, which include: Phase !--stimulus, Phase II--perceiving, Phase III--
deciding, and Phase IV - acting.

Phase !--Stimulus
Phase I includes the "A" factor, which is the stressor situation or event that forces
some response. A stressor influences and is influenced by the available resources and the
demands of the situation. College adjustment provides many challenges that create stress
for the student. Some general challenges include academic performance, managing new
independence, and creating and maintaining social networks (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt,
1994). Marriage while in school is another event which creates additional transitions and
adaptations including managing new roles, and creating a nuclear family system with its
own rules and expectations.

Phase li--The "B C D "and "X" Factors

Phase II is the perceiving stage and includes the "B, C, D," and "X" factors. The
"B" factor is the coping resources available to meet the stressful situation ' s demands.
This includes all resources whether of a material, financial, interpersonal, emotional, or
social nature. These resources need to be available in the right place, form, and time for the
 26
individual who needs them. Social support is considered a major coping resource that can
buffer the perception and level of stress experienced (Dollahite, 1991 ; McCubbin &
McCubbin, 1988; H. I. McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). Student social support networks
often go through major changes with the transition to school. Students' perceptions of their
financial, emotional, social, and peer group support networks were explored in this study.
The "C" factor is how the situation is defined by the individual or the family system.
This definition is shaped by the demands of the situation and the perceived resources
available. It is shaped by individual , familial , and cultural values, beliefs, and traditions.
Accurate perception of resources is important to access and utilize what is available. It is
important to have a sense of structure, predictability, and logic that resources will be
available when needed and that the rigors and difficulties the student is facing are worth the
time and effort (Dollahite, 1991 ). The decision to go to college has different meaning to
different students and their families. Goals and values about academic performance and
persistence would seem to be strongly impacted by parental academic traditions that offer
meaning and support. This may be especially so for students who marry while in college.
The "D" factor is the perceived or actual demands of the situation which can be
internal (goals, needs, wants, etc.) or external (class assignments, finances, rules, etc.).
Individual and family expectations for college attendance and performance could create
many demands for students to manage. These could become a source of motivation as well
as stress for the student. Various academic assignments or expectations put added strain on
the student's ability to manage time, energy, and other resources productively. This study
looks at these in the form of academic study skills, frustrations, and stress motivation .
The "X" factor is the stress or crisis. Crises are acute and severe changes that
disrupt or immobilize functioning, while stress is more a sense of pressure or
disequilibrium when facing the demands of the situation. Physiological symptoms related
to stress include such things as increased muscle tension, elevated heart rate, and greater
emotional sensations of fear, anger, or aruiiety. There is an interactive relationship between
stressors, available resources, and demands of the situation (Dollahite, 1991 ). These are all
impacted by the perceptions of the student involved. When students feel able to manage the
demands placed on them from the many changes in their lives, they are better able to deal
 27
with the stress. When demands conflict or become too great, a crisis in personal
management could occur. Thi s is measured in this study by the accumulation of stressors
and major changes that the student reports experiencing while in school.

Phase Ill--The "Y" Factor

Phase III is the "Y" factor where cognitive coping and management take place. This
is when decisions are made on how to handle the situation. This would be when a student
makes decisions whether to maintain emotional distance, seek additional social support, or
evaluate the circumstances in context. This important time may include such cognitive
processes as goal and value clarification, searching out additional information, and looking
at alternatives (Dollahite, 1991). The coping process helps the student decide how to
manage the situation. Resource management skills can be enhanced when students have a
clear sense of purpose, know their values, and set goals including organized activities that
help avoid crises or unnecessary stresses or problems. These are skills that originate in the
family and culture through patterns developed over time when managing stress or change.

Phase IV --the "Z" Factor

Phase IV is the last stage of the model and includes factor "Z." This is where
decisions made previously are acted upon. Adaptive responses manipulate resources and/or
demands to create the perceived needed change or growth to better meet the needs of the
situation. At this stage, students will either take action to facilitate additional resources
(persist) or perhaps decide that such resources are not available to support their decisions
about school (dropout). Feedback occurs from the action taken by the student which will
influence future perceptions of demands and resources (Dollahite, 1991).
In summary, the model provides a way of looking at factors in resource management
when an individual or family moves through the transitions and changes of life (Dollahite,
1991). College creates many stressful situations for students. How these situations are
perceived and managed by students' relates to resource management. Previous experience
in successful or unsuccessful management of transitions or stress may impact the student's
perceptions of being able to succeed. Support from family , spouse, friends, and faculty may
 28
provide the additional resources needed to make the transition to college life and to persist
in meeting academic goals.

General Summary

This review of the literature indicates that there are many factors that can influence
persistence in higher education systems. Academic factors are the most easily monitored
and measured. Past educational experience seem to create a strong framework for
continued success in school. Additional impetus for academic motivation comes from
family traditions and attitudes towards education. Additionally, male and female students
experience different stresses and role strains when making the transitions to independent
living in the school setting, and especially when they are married. Perceived support to
manage stressors appears to be an important mediator for staying in school.
The present study examined student persistence data for both married and single
students in the context of academic, family , social support, self-esteem, and stress factors.
Thi s research furthers our understanding of the needs of students making the transition to
academic life. It also provides insight into possible ways to assist students to make these
transitions.

Research Questions

Given the previous multifaceted considerations and difficulties that are often
experienced when individuals go through transitions juxtaposed with the importance of
getting an education in today's world , the focus of this study is expressed by five questions
about factors predicting college persistence.
I. Are the family of origin factors of parental income, family academic traditions,
number of siblings, satisfaction with contact with parents related to student academic
persistence?
2. Are the nuclear family factors of being married while in school, number of
children, or gender of spouse enrolled in college related to student academic persistence?
3. Is satisfaction with social support related to student academic persistence?
4. Is perceived stress level related to student academic persistence?
 29
5. Which of these variables along with academic factors best predict persistence in
college overall?
 30
CHAPTER III
METHODS

Design

This study is a longitudinal , group design drawn from a convenience sample in the
College of Family Life at Utah State University. Survey data had previously been gathered
as a part of an ongoing survey of student academic experience, perceptions, and
demographics. Previously gathered student data was matched with current enrollment
information from university records.

Sample

The sample ili = 348) for this study was taken from two cohorts (Cohort 19%, n =
106, and Cohort 1997, n =242) of students who had filled out the Family Life Survey
(Austin, Pfister, Newland, Kruse, & Wyse, 1994) while enrolled in the Orientation to the
College of Family Life class (FL 110) offered each winter quarter (before the University
changed to a semester system) at Utah State University. FL 110 is a required class for all
majors within the College of Family Life (CFL), although other students may enroll in this
class. Only students with a declared major within the College of Family Life class were
included in this study. Both cohorts included students who were new freshmen, continuing
students from previous quarters, off-campus transfers, on-campus transfers, or students
reentering the CFL after being absent for one or more quarters (not including summer
quarters).
Of the 348 students, there were 53 freshmen (15%), 62 sophomores (18%), 124
juniors (36%), and 109 seniors (31 %). Marital status of the students included 264 (76%)
single students and 84 (24%) married students. There were 318 (91%) females and 30
(9%) males. Complete student demographics and persistence status for CFL are presented
in Tables 1-3. These include ethnic composition, gender, marital status, rank, and
department Tables 2 and 3 present parental education, income, and persistence information.
 31
Table l
Demoora!lhics and Persistence Status Combined CFL Cohorts (N - 348}

Persistence status n(%) Persisted Dropped

Ethnic Composition

Anglo American 334 (%.0) 284 (85%) 50 (15.0%)

Native American (.6) ( 100.0%) 0

Hispanic American (.3) (100.0%) 0

International II (3.1) II (100.0%) 0

Gerxler

Female 318 (9 1.0) 272 (86.0%) 46(14.0%)

Male 30 (9.0) 26 (87.0%) 4 (13.0%)

Marital status

Manied 84 (24.0) 73 (87.0%) II (13.0%)

Single 264 (76.0) 225 (85.0%) 39 (15.0%)

Rank

Freshman 53 (15.0) 43 (81.0%) 10 (19.0%)

Sophomore 62 (18.0) 46 (74.0%) 16 (26.0%)

Junior 124 (36.0) 104 (84.0%) 20 ( 16.0%)

Senior 109 (31.0) 104 (95.0%) 4 (5.0%)

Department

Family and Human Development (FHD) 187 (54.0) 168 (90.0%) 19 (10.0%)

Early Childhood Education (ECE) 22 (6.0) 16 (73. 0%) 6 (27.0%)

Family Consumer Science (FCS) (1.0) (100.0%) 0

Consumer Science Education (CSE) 7 (2.0) 5 (71.0%) 2 (29.0%)

Interior Design (ID) 49 (14.0) 42 (86.0%) 7 (14.0%)

Apparel Merchandising (AM) 25 (7.0) 23 (92.0%) 2 (8.0%)

Nutrition and Food Sciences (NFS) 55 (16.0) 41 (75.0%) 14(25.0%)

 32
Table2

Parents' Education and Student Persistence Status

Highest grade completed Mother Father

Dropped Dropped

0 No answer 0 0

1-7th grade 0 0 0

8-9th grade 0 6 (2%)

10-11 th grade 2 0 2 (2%)

4 High school graduate 77 15 (30%) 43 6 (12%)

Vocational or some college 107 18 (36%) 82 17 (34%)

College graduate 142 16 (32%) 113 15 (30%)

7 Graduate/professional school 16 (2%) 98 10 (20%)

!'lm£, Mother's education level (M = 5.23, S.l2 = .97); Father's education level(_M= 5.65, Sl2 = 1.27)

Table 3

Annual Family of Oriain Income and Student Persistence Status

Income level Total Persisted Dropped

No answer 15 (4%) 12 (80%) (20%)

l) Less than $5,000 12 (3%) 10 (83%) (17%)

2) $5,000 to $10,000 22 (6%) 22 (100%) 0

3) $10,000 to $15,000 31 (9%) 27 (87%) 4 (13%)

4) $15,000 to $30,000 55 (16%) 43 (78%) 12 (22%)

5) $30,000 to $45,000 79 (23%) 69 (87%) 10 (13%)

6) $45,000 to $60,000 73 (21%) 63 (85%) 10 (15%)

7) Above $60,000 61 (18%) 52 (85%) 9 (15%)

 33
Average maternal education for this sample was levelS (vocational or some college,
M = S.23 , SD = .'l7) and average paternal education was levelS (vocational or some college,
M = S.6S, SD = 1.27). However, the most frequent education level reported in this sample
was level 6 (college graduate) for both mothers and fathers (ll = I42 and!!.= Il3 ,
respectively). The average family of origin income was level4 ($1S,OOO to $30,000, M =
4.89, SD = 1.63) with the most frequent income levels were in levelS ($30,000 to $4S,OOO,
!! = 79). Income and education levels were derived from Hollingshead's (1'l7S) "Four

Factor Index of Social Status."

Procedures

Students enrolled as majors in the College of Family Life at Utah State University are
required to take the orientation class FL 110 that was offered each winter quarter. Students
were requested to complete the FLS as part of the course work during the class period.
Total number of valid surveys completed was S12, with 348 from students enrolled in CFL.
Only students who had declared a major in CFL were included in this study. The survey
included basic demographical information and questions regarding personal goals and
experience while attending Utah State University. Information from the survey for both
winter classes from the years 1996 and 19'l7 was entered into a database. Enrollment status
was gathered from Winter 1998 academic records to determine whether students were still
persisting in school, had graduated, or had dropped out CFL information was matched
with student academic data from the quarter they completed the FLS. These data included
GPA, rank, total credits earned, department, and major. This research was approved by the
Institutional Review Board and exempted from further review as can be noted in the Human
Subjects Letter in Appendix A.

Measures

Family Life Survey

The Family Life Survey (FLS; Austin eta!., 1994) is a 186-item survey designed to
study student demographics, academic study skills, satisfaction with academic experiences,
stress management, and satisfaction with social networks while attending Utah State
 34
University. This instrument was developed to measure those elements considered key in the
retention literature for student persistence. It included the following domains: academic
study skills, satisfaction with academic experiences, and stress motivation (Utah State
University Student Services, 1995), satisfaction with social networks (Cmic & Greenberg,
1981), and self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). A complete copy of the FLS can be found in
Appendix B. Pilot study data were collected from a sample (N = 363) of 1995 students
who were enrolled in the College of Family Life.
Pilot FLS data were analyzed for internal consistency using factor analysis with
varimax rotation. Two factors from the pilot data were used in the present study from
academic study skills including: (I) study attentiveness, which had 12 items, alpha= .63;
and (2) academic attitude, which had two items, alpha= .62. The subscale satisfaction with
academic experiences had five items. These all loaded onto one factor, alpha= .74.
Two factors from stress motivation were used including: (1) drive to accomplish,
which had four items, alpha= .75; and (2) time constraints, which had four items, alpha=
.70. Satisfaction with social networks yielded one factor, alpha= .74, which included seven
items.

Rosenbero Self-Esteem Scale

All 10 items of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) were
incorporated into the FLS. The RSE is a widely used and accepted measure of global self-
esteem. It provides an overall picture of both positive and negative perceptions of the self.
Previous research has indicated Cronbach coefficient alphas ranging from a low of .72 to a
high of .88 (Gray-Little, Williams, & Hancock, 1997).
Factor analysis from the pilot study data for the self-esteem subscale yielded two
factors with five items each. The first factor, self-acceptance, had an alpha of .81, and the
second factor, self-worth, had an alpha of .81.

Social Readjustment Rating Scale

The Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS; Holmes & Rahe, 1967) consists of 43
life-event items that require some sort of change in individual adjustment. According to
scoring protocol, each life event is given a particular numerical weight (life change units),
 35
which are then added together to measure the amount of change a person has experienced
during a particular time frame. Life crisis is defined by this model as any clustering of life-
change units adding up to 350 points or more. This model is particularly useful when
examining the accumulation of life stresses within a ce.rtain unit of time and has yielded
strong correlations with the onset of psychological, physical, and behavioral disturbances in
functioning (Holmes & Masuda, 1974).
High consensus between discrete groups has been reported concerning the relative
order and magnitude of the means of the SRRS life-event items. Coefficients of correlation
were above .90 with the original study done by Holmes and Rahe (1%7). Recalculation of
data using Spearman ' s rank order correlation coefficient yielded almost identical results.
Kendall's coefficient of concordance for the replication study was .48 (!! < .005) (Holmes
& Masuda, 1974). College performance in the area of grade point average has been found
to be inversely proportional to the quantity of life change experienced. This was indicated
to be the case regardless of the level of college readiness expressed by the student (Holmes
& Masuda, 1974). Fifteen items from this scale were used in the FLS. These items were
selected on the basis of what was felt to address student concerns during the transition to
college.

Persistence Status
Persistence status, the dependent measure, was divided into two categories. These
were persisters and nonpersisters. Persisters included those who had graduated, were still
enrolled, or had dropped for a quarter or more, but had returned by Winter Quarter of 1998.
Students were classified as nonpersisters if they had neither graduated nor been enrolled by
Winter Quarter of 1998.
 36
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and frequencies were run on all of the variables used in the
study. Information was reviewed for distributions and aberrant data. Questions were then
organized according to whether they addressed family of origin or nuclear family variables
of social support, stressors, and academic traditions. Then ! tests were performed to
determine sample differences between married and single students. Two-tailed Pearson
correlations between marital status and FLS variables were run. Correlations between
independent variables, persistence, and nonpersistence were run to determine the items to be
included in the discriminant analysis.
By winter term 1998, 50 ( 14%) students had dropped out of school. Seven of the 50
indicated that they were intending to go on a religious mission for The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS church). Eight (2%) had stopped out, but returned after a
quarter or more absence; 79 (23%) had graduated; and 211 (61%) were still persisting in
school without any stop outs. Table 4 presents information on the enrollment status of all
student surveys including those from other majors who filled out the survey while in the
class. Student surveys that did not have declared majors within the College of Family Life
were dropped from further analyses in this study.

Table4
Enrollment Status

FLS cohort Graduated Enrolled Stopped Dropped

Cohortl9% (!!= 121 ) 38 (31 %) 54 (45%) 0 29 (24%)

Cohort 1997 (n = 391) 50 (13%) 273 (70%) 12 (3%) 56 (14%)

Total ili = 512) 88 (17%) 327 (64%) 12 (2%) 85 (17%)

CFL Students (N = 348) 79 (23%) 211 (61 %) (2%) 50 (14%)

 37
Enrollment statuses were then combined to meet this study's definition of
persistence. Persisters included those students who had graduated , remained enrolled by
Winter Quarter of 1998, or who had stopped out for a quarter or more during this time, but
had returned by Winter Quarter of 1998. Nonpersi sters were those who had not graduated
and had not been enrolled by Winter Quarter of 1998. This is presented in Table 5.
Student data indicating that they had had thoughts of leaving school for an LDS
mission were reviewed separately at one point in the analysis to allow for the 18-month to 2-
year absence normally required for a mission. This is an important consideration since
many USU students stop-out for a year or two for voluntary church service (Austin et.al.,
1994). Of the 31 students who responded that they were considering LDS mi ssions, data
indicated that 2 were male and 29 were female, 4 had married by Winter Quarter 1998, and
27 were single. Twenty-four of these students were still persisting in their education as of
Winter Quarter 1998. Seven were no longer enrolled nor had graduated, all 7 of whom
were single females. This information was updated later giving time for mission
completion. Five of the seven are currently enrolled pursuing their educations at USU. No
information was available on the remaining two students. Data were analyzed with and
without the missionaries. There were no significant differences, so the original data were
retained.

Table 5
Persistence Status

FLS cohort Persisters Non persisters

Cohort 1996 <n= 121) 92 (76%) 29 (24%)

Cohort 1997 (n =391) 335 (86%) 56 (14%)

Total lli=512) 427 (83%) 85 (17%)

CFL students

Total lli =348) 298 (86%) 50 (14%)

 38
Grouo Differences by Marital Status
Marital status was determined and! tests were run between single (n =264) and
married (n = 84) student sample groups. Statistically significant group differences were
found in stress total , ! (346) =2.84, R < .01; satisfaction with group support,! (346) = 2.55,
.1! < .OJ; frustrations, ! (346) =-2.40, .1! < .02; and number of children, ! (346) =6.58, R <
.00. Married students had higher stress total scores and scores for satisfaction with
support Single students had higher frustration scores (Table 6).

Table6
Means Standard Deviations and t Test Between Married and Sin ole Students

Marital status

Married <n = 84) Single (n = 264}

Student factor M SD M SJ2

Study skills 4.29 4.30 4.69 2.87 1.10

Stress motivation 43.33 8.23 42.01 7.06 1.44

Sibling total 3.75 2.26 3.81 1.79 -.24

Stress total 100.86 78.18 78.56 57.09 2.83**

Salis. w/emo s. 14.05 2.39 13.95 2.64 .31

Satis. w/grp s 10.3 1 2.48 9.61 2.10 2.55 *

Frustrations 2.35 1.63 2.81 1.52 -2.40*

Number of children .69 1.10 .09 .55 6.58***

Satis. w/USU 15.82 2.75 16.21 2.68 -1.16

Rosenberg·s SES 25.92 2.43 26.14 3.06 -.60

*11 < .02; **I!< .01; ***12 < .00

 39
Research Question I
Are the family of origin fa ctors ofparental income, family academic traditions,
number of siblings, satisfaction with contact with parents related to student academic
persistence?
Two-tailed Pearson's correlations between independent variables were run for
married and single students by persistence status. None of the family of origin variables
were statistically significantly correlated with persistence for the overall sample or for the
single students (fable 7). For the married sample (fable 8), students' mothers ' education
was the only family of origin factor that statistically significantly correlated with persistence
in school, I (83) = .28, l1 < .01. For this study, the family of origin factors of parental
income, family academic traditions, number of siblings, satisfaction with contact with
parents were not related directly to student academic persistence except for students'
mothers ' education for married students.
Supporting family academic traditions, in the ABCD-XYZ model , mother's education
was statistically significantly correlated with father's education for single students, I (263) =
.59, l1 < .00, for married students, I (83) = .40, l1 < .00, and the overall sample, I (347) =.54,
l1 < .00. For single students, parental education levels were correlated with family of origin
income including mother's education, I (263) = .21, l1 < .00), and father's education, I
(263) = .24, l1 < .00. Family of origin income levels were also negatively correlated with
stress total , I (263) = -.17, l1 < .01. Satisfaction with USU programs/professors was
correlated with mother's education, I (263) = -. 12, l1 < .05).

Research Question 2
Are the nuclear family factors of being married while in school, number of children,
or gender of spouse enrolled in college related to student academic persistence?
Nuclear family factors of being married while in school, number of children, and
gender of spouse enrolled in college were not related to student academic persistence in this
study (fable 8).
Table?

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Depicting Relationships Between Persistence Status and Predictor Variables for Single Students

Mother 's Father's usu Rose nberg Salis. Stress Salis. w/cmo. Satis. Stress Family

educ. educ. GPA Self-Esteem w/USU total support w/grp s. Frustrations motiv. income

Persistence status .02 .04 .21** .04 -. 14* .02 -.06 .04 .00 -.04 -.04

Mother's education .59*** -.06 .01 -. 12* -.02 . 10 .09 .09 .03 .21 **

Father's education .03 -.00 -.09 -.06 .07 . 12 -.00 -.04 .24**

USU GPA .03 .09 -. 14* -.00 . 14 -.09 .05 .02

Rosenberg Self-Esteem -.01 .01 -.01 -.02 . 10 . 10 .07

Salis. w/ USU -.10 .07 .04 ~.25*** -.I I .07

Stress total -.07 -.05 -.04 . 14* · .1 7**

Satis. w/emotional support .45** * -. 16* -.00 . 12

Salis. w/group support -.17* .06 . II

Frustrations .15* .10

Stress motivation -.04

• Jl < .05; •• Jl < .01; ••• Jl < .00

-I:>
<::>
Table 8

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Depicting Relationships Between Persistence Status and Predictor Variables for Married Students

Mother's Father's usu Rosen berg Satis. Stress Satis. w/emo Sat is. Stress Family

educ. educ. GPA Self-Esteem wiUSU total suppon w/grp s. Frustrations motiv. income

Persistence status .28** . 12 .15 -.01 -.06 -.II .01 .01 -.08 .10 -.02

Mother's education .40*** .01 -.08 .17 -.07 -.05 -.00 .11 -.04 .06

Father's education .00 -.02 .13 -.03 -.02 . 17 .04 -.05 -.04

USU GPA -.01 -.03 -.24* -.05 .01 -.15 .08 .09

Rosenberg Self-Esteem .0 1 .20 -.09 -.02 .18 .20 -.21

Satis. w/USU -.02 .15 .03 -.07 .03 .03

Stress total -.24* -.14 .30* .15 -.30*

Satis. w/emotional support .43*** -.10 -.03 -.09

Satis. w/group support -.22* -. 12 .14

Frustrations .29* -.03

Stress motivation -.19

* 12 < .05; ** J2 < .01 ~ *** u < .00

;~
 42
Research Question 3
Is satisfaction with social support related to student academic persistence?
Social support had two factors: 1) satisfaction with emotional support, and 2)
sati sfaction with group support These were summed separately for each student and
analyzed with two-tailed Pearson correlations for single and for married students. In this
study, social support was not directly related to student academic persistence for single or
married students. Statistically significant correlations for social support and other factors
supporting the ABCD-XYZ model were found.
Single student information (Table 7) indicated that satisfaction with group support
was correlated with USU GPA , I (263) =.14, 11 < .03. Frustrations were negatively
correlated with satisfaction with emotional support, I (263) =-. 16,11 < .01, and satisfaction
with group support, I (263) = -.17,11 < .01.
For manied students (Table 8), satisfaction with emotional support negatively
correlated with stress total, r (83) =-.24, 11 < .03. Satisfaction with emotional support
correlated with satisfaction with group support, r (83) = .43, 11 < .00); and frustrations
correlated negatively with group support satisfaction, r (83) = -.22, 11 < .05.
Total sample results (Table 9) indicated satisfaction with emotional support correlated
negatively with stress total, I (347) =-. 11 , 11 < .03. Frustrations correlated negatively with
satisfaction with emotional support, r (347) =-.15, 11 < .01 , and with satisfaction with group
support, r (347) = -.20, 11 < .00. Satisfaction with group support correlated with father's
education, r (347) =.12, 11 < .02, with USU GPA, !(347) =.11 , 11 < .04, and with
satisfaction with emotional support, r (347) = .44, 11 < .00.

Research Question 4
Is perceived stress level related to student academic persistence?
Stress total scores were weighted and summed separately for each student and
analyzed with two-tailed Pearson correlations for impact on persistence for both single and
married students. Perceived stress level was not directly related to student academic
persistence in this study.
Table 9

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Depicting Relationships Between Persistence Status and Predictor Variables for Overall Sample

Mother's Father's usu Rosenberg Salis. Stress Salis. w/emo. Satis. Stress Family

educ. educ. GPA Self-Esteem w/USU total support w/grp s. Frustrations motiv. income

Persistence status .08 .06 .20*** .03 -. 13* -.01 -.05 .04 -.02 .00 -.04

Mother's education .54*** -.05 -.01 -.04 -.05 .07 .05 .II * .00 .20***

Father's education .02 -.00 -.02 -.06 .05 . 12* .02 .01 .18* *

USU GPA .02 .06 -.16** -.01 .II * -. 11 * .06 .01

Rosenberg Self-Esteem .00 .05 -.02 .03 . 12* . 12* .02

Salis. w/USU -.08 .08 .03 ~ . 20*** -.08 .08

Stress total -.11* -.06 .05 .15** ~.25** *

Satis. w/emotional support .44*** -.15* -.01 .06

Satis. w/group support -.20*** .02 .06

Frustrations . 18** .II*

Stress motivation -. 10

• ll < .05; ** ll < .01; ••• u < .00

,,-~
 44
Other statistically significant correlations between stress level and other factors for
single, married, and total sample groups were found that support the ABCD-XYZ model.
Results for single students (Table 7) indicate that stress total was negatively correlated with
USU GPA , I (263) = -. 14, Q < .02. Frustrations were negatively correlated with satisfaction
with USU programs/professors, I (263)= -.25, I!< .00, and stress motivation was correlated
with frustrations, I (263) = .15, Q < .02.
For married students (Table 8), stress total was negatively correlated with USU GPA,
I (83) = -.24, Q < .03. Frustrations were also correlated with stress totals, I (83) = .30, Q <
.01 and with stress motivation, I (83) = .29, Q < .01). Family of origin income was
negatively correlated with stress total , I (83) = -.30, Q < .01.
Total sample results (Table 9) indicated stress total correlated negatively with USU
GPA, I (347) = -.16, Q < .00; with satisfaction with emotional support, I (347) = -. 11 , ll <
.03; and with family of origin income, I (347) = -.29, Q < .00. Stress total correlated
positively with stress motivation, I (347) = .15, Q < .01. Frustrations correlated with
mother's education, I (347) = .11, p < .05, with stress motivation, I (347) = .18, ll < .00, and
self-esteem, I (347) = .12, p < .03. Frustrations correlated negatively with USU GPA, I
(347) = -.11, ll < .04, with satisfaction with USU programs/professors, I (347) = -20, ll <
.00, with satisfaction with emotional support, I (347) = -. 15, ll < .01, and with satisfaction
with group support, I (347) = -.20, ll < .00. These were also used in the discriminant
analysis.

Research Ouestion 5
Which of these variables along with academic factors best predict student
persistence in college overall?
Two-tailed Pearson correlations were run between persistence status and all
independent variables. For single students, the statistically significant variables correlating
with persistence were USU GPA, I (263) = .16, ll < .00; and satisfaction with USU
programs/professors, I (263) = -.16, ll < .02. These same variables correlated with
persistence for the overall sample: USU GPA, I (347) = .20, I!< .00; and satisfaction with
USU programs/professors, I (347) = -.13, ll < .02. For married students', mothers '
 45
education was the only statistically significant factor correlated with persistence in school ,
I (83) =.28, 12 < .01.
Stepwise discriminant analysis was then completed using these items. Table 10 gives
the standardized discriminant function coefficient (SOC), which is analogous to factor
coefficients in factor analysis and to beta weights in regressions (Jones, 1984). The table
also gives the canonical correlation, which is an estimate of the strength of the predictors to
discriminate between persisters and nonpersisters. The group centroids given are an
estimate of spatial distance between persisters and nonpersisters (Jones, 1984).

Table 10
Discriminant Analysis Means and Standard Deviations Contrastina Student Factors with
Persistence Status

Persisters (n = 298) Dropped (!! =50)

Student factors soc Mean S12 Mean S12 Wi lks ' Lambda Sig

USU GPA .790 3. 17 .49 2.89 .68 .98 .001

Satis. w!USU -.682 15.97 2.71 16.88 2.49 .98

Group centroids .084 -.498

Canonical correlation = .20; Chi square= 21.16

Two variables were identified by discriminant analysis as statistically significant

predictors of college persistence for the overall sample. These included USU GPA and
satisfaction with USU programs/professors, .E (2, 345) = 7.23, 12 < .001. The canonical
correlation was .20 indicating that 4% of the variance was explained by the two independent
variables in the equation. Classification results (Table 11) for predicted group membership
indicated that the model is more successful at predicting those who remain in school (99.7%
successful predictions) than those who dropped out of school (0% ).
The factors that predict student persistence in college overall in this study are the
academic factors of USU GPA and satisfaction with USU programs/professors. No other
factors were predictors of persistence in the analysis.
 46
Table II
Discriminant Analysis Oassification Results for Persistence Status

Predicted group membership

Persistence status
Analysi s of student Dropped Persisted Total

O riginal Count Dropped 0.0 50.0 50.0

Persisted l.O 297.0 298.0

% Dropped .0 100.0 100.0

Persisted .3 99.7 100.0

Cross- validated Count Dropped 0.0 50.0 50.0

Persisted l.O 297.0 298.0

% Dropped .0 100.0 100.0

Persisted .3 99.7 100.0

Note. 85.3% of original grouped cases correctly classified. 85.3% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classilie

Summary of Results

Predictor variables identified by discriminant analysis for the overall sample were
USU GPA and satisfaction with USU programs/professors, .E (2, 345) =7.23, 11 < .001.
These two variables were also statistically significant correlates with persistence for single
students, USU GPA, r (345) =.21, 11 < .00; and satisfaction with USU programs/
professors, r (345) = -.14, n < .02, but not for married students. No family of origin items
helped to predict persistence in the discriminant analysis; however, persistence and married
students' mother's education levels were statistically significantly correlated,
r (83) = .28, n < .01. For the family of origin correlations, one item's relationship was
statistically significant with a predictor item. This was single students' mother' s education
levels with satisfaction with USU programs/professors, r (263) = -.12, n < .05.
 47
No social support or stress-related variables were significantly related to persistence.
However, stress total was significantly correlated with USU GPA for both married students,
single students, and overall sample, r (83) = -.24, I!< .03; r (263) =-14, I!< .02; and r (347)
= -. 16, I!< .00, respectively. Satisfaction with group support was correlated with USU GPA
for single students, r (263) =.14, I!< .03.
Group differences between married and single students were found in stress total,
group support satisfaction, frustrations, and number of children, 1 (346) = 2.84, I! < .01; 1
(346) = 2.55, J! < .01 ; 1 (346) = -2.40, J! < .02; and 1 (346) = 6.58J! < .00, respectively.
Married students scored higher in stress total, satisfaction with group support, and had more
children. Single students reported higher scores in frustrations .
 48
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

Question I

Are the family of origin fa ctors ofparental income, family academic traditions,
number of siblings, satisfaction with contact with parents related to student academic
persistence?
The family of origin factors of parental income, family academic traditions, number
of siblings, satisfaction with contact with parents were not directly related to student
academic persistence for single students or the overall sample. Family academic traditions
(part of the "C'' factor) as in parental education levels were not statistically significantly
corrrelated with persistence except for married students where mother's education level was
related to persistence.
However, it is interesting to notice that when looking at national and state
demographic statistics, parent education levels for these USU students is higher than both
national and state averages. National averages from the 1990 Census indicated that 20.3%
of the adult population are 4-year college graduates. State averages taken from "Economic
and Demographic Profiles" by the Utah Office of Planning and Budget (1993) indicated
that 22.3% of the adults have 4-year college educations. In the CFL sample, 45% of the
mothers were 4-year college graduates or more and 61% of the fathers were college
graduates or beyond. An additional 31% of the mothers had had vocational training or
some college education as had an additional24% of fathers. Combined percentages
indicated that 76% of mothers had some higher education experience as had 85% of fathers.
Thus, students enrolled in the College of Family Life generally come from families with
strong academic traditions.
Results indicate that family of origin factors may be associated with students' initial
decision to attend college. Persistence, once enrolled, was impacted by academic traditions
of the mother of the married student, indicating the importance of maternal examples,
especially after the transition of marriage. Academic traditions may become more important
as the transition of marriage is being made, especially for women. This may help alleviate
 49
1989; Pugliesi, 1989). It is interesting that the mother's education would be the only
variable that was statistically significantly correlated with persistence for married students.
However, this is consonant with extant literature in early childhood and child development
This literature indicated that maternal education level is one of the most powerful correlation
factors in cognitive development for children. Mothers' and fathers' education levels were
highly correlated with each other indicating that both parents were similar in educational
traditions.
Higher education levels were also correlated with higher income levels which may
provide an added incentive for students of these families to expect higher paying jobs if they
continue to persist with their education. Higher family of origin income levels (part of the
" B" factor) were correlated with lower total stress scores for all samples, which were
correlated with higher GPAs. This indicates that students may have more of the needed
financial resources to help make the transition to school less demanding in some areas of
academic functioning. Although none of these were statistically significant factors related to
persistence in college, except married students' mothers' education, indirect correlations
among factors may support the ABC-XYZ Model.

Question 2

Are the nuclear family factors of being married while in school, number of children,
or gender of spouse enrolled in college related to student academic persistence?

Marital status ("A 1" factor), number of children, and gender were not statistically

significant factors in relation to peristence in this study. This may have been due to the high
percentage of females in this sample (91%). Lenning (1982) indicated that women are more
Iikely to drop out when male-female ratios are large. Having high proportions of female
students may provide additional support for females seeking an education. Females may
also experience less role strain or disparity ("C" and "D" factors) due to the nature of
many of the core classes required by the CFL. These classes support and explore basic and
advanced life skills in the fields more often associated with traditional female interests. The
College strongly encourages persistence in school. This is reinforced by the many
outstanding female role models from which students gather support and to whom students
 50
may look for examples of professional achievement Marital relationships and parental
responsibilities are acknowledged and supported on many levels both by professors
themselves and by the nature of classes taught

Question 3

Is satisfaction with social support related to academic persistence?

Satisfaction with social support was not statistically significantly related to
persistence for this sample in this study; however, higher satisfaction with emotional
support was significantly correlated with lower total stress scores for married students and
the overall sample. Lower stress scores were statistically significantly correlated with higher
GPAs which were correlated with greater persistence. These results support the concept
that supportive resources may help alleviate negative responses to stressors as discussed in
the "B" factor in the ABCD-XYZ model. Married students indicated higher stress totals
than did single students, however, married students also indicated higher satisfaction with
group support and lower frustrations than single students. Marriage may help provide
additional support networks that help reduce frustrations compared to single students'
experience.

Question4

Is perceived stress level related to student academic persistence?

No stress level factors were significantly correlated with persistence, however, stress
level correlation results between variables lends support to the concepts found in the
literature and the ABCD-XYZ model used to conceptualize this project The overall stress
score ("X" factor) was significantly correlated with lower USU GPA, which supports
results reported by Holmes and Masuda (1974). This was true of married students, single
students, and overall sample groups. Lower total stress scores were correlated with higher
family of origin income levels for all samples as well. Higher satisfaction with emotional
support was also correlated with lower total stress scores for married students and the
overall sample. These results support the concept that supportive resources may help
alleviate negative responses to stressors.
 51
Total stress scores were computed from students responses to various stressful life
events taken from the SRRS (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). Specific items were chosen that were
felt to best address student concerns during the transitions to college; however, the 15 items
used from the complete measure of 43 items may not have sufficiently assessed student
stress levels. Married students in thi s study indicated higher stress total s than did single
students ; however, married students also indicated higher satisfaction with group support
and lower frustrations than single students.

Question 5

Which of these variables along with academic factors best predict persistence in
college overall?
The results of this study indicate that the persistence variables chosen were better able
to predict those who remain in school rather than those who drop out (Y and Z factors).
The strongest predictors for students remaining in school in this study were the academic
factors of students' USU grade point average and students' satisfaction with USU studies
and professors. Students with higher GPAs were more likely to remain in school. Lenning
( 1982) indicated that most students who do drop out usually have satisfactory grades, but
they do tend to have slightly lower grades than persisters. This was supported in the
findings of this study. Lenning (1982) suggested that when student grades begin to slip or
if students are strnggling by self-report or as noticed by school personnel, special notice
should be taken to assess the needs of the student.
The other main predictor was the students' satisfaction with USU studies and
professors. This factor included four items, which are (I) quality of the program in
student's major; (2) accessibility of professors in the major; (3) helpfulness of professors
in the major; and (4) professional/vocational advising in the major. These were rated by the
student on a 5-poi nt Likert scale (5 =very satisfied, 4 =satisfied, 3 = dissatisfied, 2 =very
di ssatisfied, I =no response). Students who dropped out indicated more satisfaction with
these items than those who persi sted CM = 16.88, SD 2.49; and M = 15.97, SD = 2.17,
respectively). This interesting result indicates that students leaving school in this sample did
so for other reasons than for academic dissatisfaction.
 52
It is a positive note to members of the College of Family Life faculty that students do
not leave this program at thi s university because of dissatisfaction with the quality of their
USU experience. However, it raises more unanswered questions of why CFL students do
leave schooL As this is explored in greater detail by future studies, perhaps it will be noted
in which areas students need greater resources, more motivation, broader perspectives on
their educational goals, or better ways to manage and cope with the resources that they do
have available.
There are many other reasons why significant dropout predictors may not have been
discovered. Some may be due to the sampling limitations, the measures used, or just
because the reasons students leave school are often complex and multifaceted. The sample
was taken from CFL students only, who may be different in persistence than students in
other programs at this university as well as students from other universities. If sampling
could have taken place in the first year of students' university experience and transition to
college life, results may have been different. The measures used may not have adequately
addressed student concerns and perspectives. Dropout rates for the College of Family Life
are neither considered high nor considered a cause of concern at this time. The study was
begun more as a preventative and informational undertaking than to identify major problems
(Austin eta!., 1994). Low dropout rates may make it more difficult to identify predictor
variables.
In summary, USU grade point average was the most powerful predictor for student
persistence in college. Grade point variations, however slight, may be resources that indicate
student resilience after ungoing transitions while in college. Students who dropped out did
not leave because of dissatisfaction with their college studies or professors. The strongest
predictor of married student persistence was maternal education levels. Other factors were
correlated with each other, but were not powerful predictors for persistence. The relatedness
of these factors to stronger predictors and each other could be interpreted as support for the
ABCD-XYZ model with these factors and others not yet identified to help support the
students' decision to remain in schooL The complex nature of students' transitions to
college life and the decisions to remain or drop out of school needs more in-depth study to
understand fully.
 53
Limitations

Results of this study are specific to the CFL and may not be generalized to other
college populations. This specificity was used to generate a convenient, nonrandom
sampling procedure. Much of the cohort 1996 group was unusable as many of the 354
students (n =233) did not use names or social security numbers on their surveys, and thus
information could not be matched with university data in regards to major, department, GPA,
or persistence status, and so forth. It was impossible to determine differences between
those who completed the surveys with identification and those who did not without matched
information from university data. So, attrition may be a threat to internal validity in this
study. However, cohort 1996 and cohort 1m were run separately with similar results.
The predominant religion of the region from which this sample was drawn was
predominantly Latter-day Saint (LDS) or otherwise known as Mormons. This religion is
known for its strong family values and emphasis on education. This may have confounded
the results, making it different from other university samples with other predominant or
more diverse religious orientations. The CFL objectives and educational programs are in
close agreement with stated LDS emphasis on marriage and the family. This may make it
easier for students, especially women, to remain in school without so much added role strain
or stress as it would support cultural beliefs and expectations.
The basic purpose of thi s study was to explore general factors that influence
persistence for the College of Family Life. The study needs to be replicated using more
specific measures with established reliability and validity that directly address the factors
used in this study. For example, it is not known how many students were actually living at
home rather than living away from home while attending college. This would impact the
nature of the transitions the student faced in many areas of functioning.

Future Research

Future research in thi s area specific to the College of Family Life would be to
continue to track academic performance for students still persisting or having dropped out
in order to monitor and evaluate any patterns that may be discovered in their academic
 54
process. It would be useful to follow the progress of these students to see if they continue
their educational path; what time frames they observed in completing degrees ; or if students
who had dropped during this study returned later to complete their degrees. The
longitudinal nature of this study would allow for this type of tracking to give additional
information. It would be interesting and provide valuable information to investigate
students' reasons for dropping out in a more qualitative manner as in personal interviews.
This could provide more insight into the many reasons that students decide to leave school
that may not have been measured by this survey.
It would be helpful if students were required to take the course in their freshman year
or the same year that they choose a major in the CLF, since attrition rates are often highest
in the first and second years of college (Porter, 1990). This was the original intention of the
CFL when student data were being gathered in 1994; however, schedule conflicts for
students prevented many from taking the course until later on in their academic careers.
It would be helpful to explore specifically the areas of social support, multiple
transitions, and stress levels in a more direct and precise way. Different measures could be
used that were specific to these areas of interest which could provide more in-depth results.

Implications for Practice

Having an informed perspective can create greater awareness and proficiency when
dealing with any specific population. Awareness of the many reasons that may impact
student functioning, whether dropping out or not, can be useful to professionals trying to
help in academic or in therapeutic roles. Professors can become more astute at recognizing
students struggling with performance or others that do not seem particularly motivated to
remain in school or to graduate (Astin, 1986). Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) indicated
that separate interventions may be needed for students who are considering leaving school
for academic versus nonacademic reasons. Given the systemic and correlated nature of the
many reasons students persist or drop out, whether academic or not, systemic interventions
may prove most useful. By assessing such things as student resources, goals, stress levels,
family academic traditions, and perceived social support, professionals may help intervene
on the most meaningful level to the student who is navigating the transitions of college life.
 55
This could be used to improve the quality of the student's academic career in different areas
of functioning, which could include learning to manage the requirements of academia more
effectively, balancing the demands and expectations from family , spouse, or social groups,
along with the pressure of financial obligations.
Students in this study who left school generally indicated that they were either
satisfied or very satisfied with university programs and professors. These students also had
slightly lower GPAs,.but not low enough to be in academic danger. Higher stress levels
were associated with lower G PAs for both married and single students. Whether they are
single or married, students with a deeper awareness of the impact of their education on their
futures may help them get past temporary setbacks or distractions that might have enticed
them to leave schooL It may help them look ahead with more clarity and purpose. This
could help improve the student's coping and adaptability skills when faced with the
ambivalences about the subsequent changes and added responsibilities the transition to
college life brings (Fulmer et al ., 1982).
Therapeutically speaking, students could be encouraged to examine the adequacy of
their natural helping resources within and outside family boundaries (Neidhardt & Allen,
1993). Circumstances or events take on meaning and personal definition as a problem
when they overstress resources or complicate the life experience of those affected by it
Students may be unaware of personal, family , or cultural resources that have been
overlooked or forgotten with the stressful demands on their time and energies. Often, just
being reminded of previous successes in solving problems or working through other
transitions can help students feel stronger and more competent in dealing with current
problems. Knowing what has worked for them in the past can help them reapply those
same attributes or attitudes to current stressors until they are resolved or no longer a
problem (Neidhardt & Allen, 1993).
Helping the student to remain in school could often be supported by simply
redefining and reframing current stressors in a workable way that fits into the student's
experience (Neidhardt & Allen, 1993). What may seem problematic for one student may
seem to be a normal challenge for another student based on personal and family meanings
applied to the circumstances involved in pursuing an education. Old premises for viewing
 56
their life circumstances may need to be updated to be helpful in their current life stage and
circumstances. Normalizing stressors as a natural part of life transitions could help
students explore ways that could change their behaviors, seek out more helpful resources, or
alter perceptions to help them decide to remain in school and maintain a stable GPA.
Awareness that greater stress is associated with fewer resources could help students stay
more dedicated to their studies now while patiently working towards creating a less stressful
future for themselves by completing their training now . This could help them to perservere
with more confidence and personal responsibility in their education.
Professionals could help reinforce the importance of graduating from college and
completing a degree in context of creating or continuing strong family traditions that
support education. Family parental education history for students could be made note of
especially for students who do not have parents with strong academic traditions. Since
mother's education was the only statistically significant correlation for persistence for
married students found in this study, it would be seem important for professionals to
understand what this means to the student. If these students do not have mothers who have
completed school, extra attention could be given to help them see and understand their
potential role in creating strong academic traditions for themselves and their own children.
The meaning that individual students place on their education could be explored in
context of their previous experience and perceptions about higher education in their family
system. This could be done with the use of a genogram that exposes family patterns and
rules about school to help them have greater understanding in trying to creating a secure
future for themselves and their families. Understanding intergenerational patterns in
education could help students become more aware of what influences their decisions and
values when it comes to completing their education (Fulmer, 1982). When they realize how
their parents' and perhaps even their grandparents' decisions have impacted them
personally and how their decisions might in tum impact them and the futures of their own
children, it opens the doors to personal empowerment with greater understanding and
opportunities to make decisions based on a bigger picture than just current stressors or
previous assumptions (Neidhardt & Allen, 1993).
 57
Students who want to be able to earn higher incomes may be better able to persist if
they are aware of the statistically significant correlations between education and income.
The strong correlations between family income and education could also be advocated by
professors or therapists by helping students identify role models that they admire who have
gone forward with their education and made successful careers for themselves. Students
could be reminded of personal dreams and goals they have had that motivate them to choose
college in the first place or to continue even when things are challenging. Student resources
and strengths can come in many forms, which the student may need help in recognizing.
Stressors may have clouded their abilities to see their capabilities clearly. Focusing on
what students want to achieve, and what they need to accomplish, may help people direct
attention to solutions for making their education happen rather than focusing on the
problems that they face (Nichols & Schwartz, 1995). Keeping their sights on a greater goal
of being able to provide a secure and rewarding existence for themselves and their families
can provide an added resource that is within the student, but will also affect future
generations in the family. Tice and Perkins (1996) suggested that directing attention to
strengths and resources a person may have or acquire, rather than on a person's stressors or
problems, may help bring up the important question of "not what kind of life one has, but
rather what kind of life one wants" (p. 34). Dropping out of school to solve a problem or
because of circumstances that a student is currently dealing with may be a short- term
solution that creates long-term patterns of stress and more difficulties.
Students facing the added transition of marriage while in college face the
psychosocial task of forming a new couple based on two different family systems coming
together (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989). This forms an entirely new system with many new
roles and responsibilities to learn for each. Both partners will have differing expectations
and traditions for themselves and their partners to fulfill. Professionals within the academic
environment can help students understand their families' generational patterns within the
marital roles and how current decisions may fit into these patterns. An example of a pattern
or expectation may be that the wife will stop educational pursuits to put her husband
through school rather than completing school herself (Astin, 1986). This has been a
cultural and family tradition for many families where husbands are expected to be the
 58
primary financial provider in the family . Current economic trends and high demands on
family systems make providing for families increasingly difficult especially without
education or training (Pugliesi, 1989). Although marriage was not a significant factor in
persistence in this study, it may be more important for students coming from university
programs less outwardly supportive of family and marital concerns as suggested by
previous research (Astin, 1986).
Students with mothers who have provided an example that places a high priority on
education may have helped the student see the importance and security of maternal
education. This may be one reason why maternal education level was the strongest
predictor for married student persistence especially since most of the students in this sample
were female. lf students from less educated familes are able to look at their own family
traditions and values about education and their partner' s family 's as well , they may be able
to then form their own traditions based on what is best for them, rather than what is
expected of them by others. Families and individuals who function successfully require the
ability to be flexible in their structure, responses, and roles to meet environmental and
developmental needs and purposes (Walsh, 1993). Having both partners fully educated
would seem likely to enhance their potential as equal partners, wage earners, and parents,
especially in today's demanding society whether previous family traditions support both
partners completing a degree or not (Astin, 1986). Married students' parental education
levels were statistically significantly corrrelated with each other in this study. This provides
another interesting aspect for students to consider especially in light of couples just
beginning the adventure of creating their own traditions and resources.
Interventions in therapy or discussions with professors could help students
understand their potential in the academic setting and help them to clarify, discover, and
express their needs and desires for themselves and changes that they would like to make or
goals that they would like to work towards as individuals or as a couple (Tice & Perkins,
1996). Interventions could help students evaluate and access resources they have within
themselves and within their social and cultural networks to bring their goals to fruition .
Noticing times when they were able to achieve a goal or make a healthy choice for
themselves could remind them of how to stay in school now. Personal traditions of success
 59
and achievement could help them create or continue the academic traditions important to
their current success. Having a strong academic base with completed degrees would
increase a couples' financial and intellectual resources both on a personal level and on a
relational level, providing a strong tradition for the generations that follow them.
In summary, students who are contemplating the decision to drop out of school or
remain enrolled in college until completion could be encouraged to stay by looking at the
meaning of their family academic traditions that they want to continue or create for
themselves and their families, especially for women. Professionals can help them
understand and make better decisions for themselves by understanding the role their family
and cultural perspectives and experience play in defining for themselves whether they are
capable or desirous of staying in school. Students can be encouraged to understand the
relationship that education has with their potential to generate a good income They can be
encouraged to maximize their resources and to build on past successes in going through
challenges or transitions to help overcome stressors and see beyond current limitations that
might impair their ability to remain in school.
 60
REFERENCES

Abouserie, R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self-
esteem in university students. Educational Psycholooy 11(3), 323-330.

Affleck, M., Morgan, C. S. , & Hayes, M.P. (1989). The influence of gender role
attitudes on life expectations of college students. Youth & Society 20(3), 307-3 19.

Ainslie, R. C., Shafer, A., & Reynolds, J. (1996). Mediators of adolescents ' stress in a
college preparatory environment. Adolescence 31(124), 913-924.

Antrobus, J. S., Dobbelaer, R., & Sal zinger, S. (1988). Social networks and college
success, or grade point average and the friendly connection. InS. Salzinger, J.
Antrobus, & M. Hanuner (Eds.), Social networks of children adolescents and
colleoe students (pp. 227-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Astin, A. W. (1986). Preventino students from droppino out. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

A ustin, A. B., Pfister, R., Newland, L., Kruse, M., & Wyse, B. (1994). The College of
Family Life student survey. Unpublished survey, Utah State University at Logan.

Bank, B. J., Biddle, B. J., & Slavings, R. L. (1992). What do students want?
Expectations and undergraduate persistance. The Sociological Quarterly 33(3),
321-335.

Bean, J. P. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the

student attrition process. Review ofHioher Education 6, 129-148.

Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossier (Ed.),
The strategic management of college enrollments (pp. 147-169). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Boss, P. (1987). Family stress: Perception and context. In M. Sussman & S. Steinmetz
(Eds.), Handbook on marriage and the family (pp. 695-723). New York: Plenum.

Cantor, N., Norem, J. K., Niedenthal, P. M., Langston, C. A., & Brower, A. M.
(1987). Life tasks, self-concept ideals, and cognitive strategies in a life transition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psycholooy 53(6), 1178- 1191.

Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (Eds.). ( 1989). The chan gino family life cycle: A
framework for family therapy (2nd ed .). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Cooke, D. K., Sims, R. L., & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). The relationship between graduate
student attitudes and attrition. Journal of Psycholooy 129(6), 677-688.

Cowan, P. A. (1991). Individual and family life transitions: A proposal for a new
definition. In P. A. Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 3-
30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 61
Crnic, K. A., & Greenberg, M. T . (1981). Inventory of Parent Exoeriences manual.
Seattle: University of Washington.

Cutrona, C. E. (1986). Behavioral manifestations of social support: A microanalytic

investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholooy 51(1), 201-208.

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and
adaptation to stress. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in oersonal
relationships (Vol. I, pp. 37-68). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Dollahite, D. C. (1991). Family resource management and family stress theories: Toward
a conceptual integration. Lifestyles: Family and economic issues 12(4), 361 -377.

Erikson, E. ( 1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues I, 1-171.

Falicov, C. J. (Ed.). (1988). Family transitions: Continuity and chanoe over the
life cycle. New York: Guilford.

Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to university: A longitudinal
study of psychological disturbance, absent-mindedness and vulnerability to
homesickness. British Journal of Psychology 78, 425-441.

Foa, U. G. (1993). Interpersonal and economic resources. In U. G. Foa, J. Converse,

Jr., K. Y. Tomblom, & E. B. Foa (Eds.), Resource theory: Explorations and
applications (pp. 13-30). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Fulmer, R. H., Medalie, J., & Lord, D. A. (l982). Life cycles in transition: A family
systems perspective on counseling the college student. Journal of Adolescence 5,
195-217.

Gadzella, B. M. (1994). Student-life stress inventory: Identification of and reactions to

stressors. Psycholooical Reoorts 74, 395-402.

Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional , social , and academic adjustment of
college students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling and
Development 72, 281 -288.

Goplerud, E. N. (1980). Social support and stress during the first year of graduate
school. Professional Psycholooy 11, 283-290.

Gray-Little, B., Williams, V. S. L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An item response theory
analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 23(5), 443-451.

Greenberg, J. S. (1981). A study of stressors in the college student population. Health

Education 12(4), 8-12.

Haley, J. (1997). Leavino home: The therapy of disturbed voung oeople (2nd ed.). New
York: Brunner!Mazel.

Hi II , R. ( 1958). Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework 39, 139-
158.
 62
Hobfoll, S. E. (Ed.). (1986). Stress social supoort. and women. New York:
Hemisphere.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript,

Yale University, New Haven, cr.

Holm beck, G. N., & Wandrei, M. L. (1993). Individual and relational predictors of
adjustment in first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology 40
(1), 73-78.

Holmes, T. H., & Masuda, M. (1974). Life change and illness susceptibility. In B.S.
Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds. ), Stressful life events: Their nature and
effects (pp. 45-72). New York: Wiley.

Holmes, T. H. , & Rahe, R. H. (1%7). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal
of Psychosomatic Research II (2), 213-218.

Jones, R. M. (1984, March). Risk factor analysis: Staff observations as predictors of

risk. Unpublished manuscript prepared for A.T.P.T., Tuscon, Arizona.

Lenning, 0 . T. (1982). Variable-selection and measurement concerns. In E. T. Pascarella

(Ed.), Studyina student attrition: New directions for institutional research (Vol. 36.,
pp. 35-53). San Franci sco: Jossey-Bass.

Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). Social support in academic programs and
family environments: Sex differences and role conflicts for graduate students.
Journal ofCounselina and Development 70, 716-723.

Mattessich, P. , & Hill , R. (1987). Life cycle and family development. In M. B. Sussman
& S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriaae and family development (pp.
695-724). New York: Plenum.

McCubbin, H. I., & Me Cubbin, M.A. (1988). Typologies of resilient families:

Emerging roles of social class and ethnicity. Family Relations, 37, 247-254.

McCubbin, H. I., McCubbin, M.A., Thompson, A. I., Han, S. Y., & Allen, C. T.
(1997). Families under stress: What makes them resilient? Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences 89 (3), 2-11.

McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX
model of adjustment and adaptation. Marriage and Family Review 6, 7-37.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Neidhardt, E. R., & Allen , J. A. (1993). Family therapy with the elderly. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Nichols, M. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (1995). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (3rd
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
 63
Novack, L. L., & Novack, D. R. (1996). Being female in the eighties and nineties:
Conflicts between new opportunities and traditional expectations among White,
middle class, heterosexual college women. Sex Roles 35(1 /2), 57-77.

Ostrow, E., Paul, S.C., Dark, V. J., & Behrman, J. A. (1986). Adjustment of women
on campus: Effects of stressful life events, social support, and personal
competencies. In S. E. Hobfoll (Ed.), Stress social support, and women (pp. 29-
45). New York: Hemisphere.

Pearlin, L. I. (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 30,241 -256.

Pearlin, L. I., Lei berman, M., Menaghan, E., & Mullin, J. (1981). The stress process.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 22, 337-356.

Porter, 0. F. (1990). Undenrraduate completion and oersistence at four-year colleges and

universities: Detailed findings. Washington, DC: National Institute of Independent
Colleges and Universities.

Preto, N. G. (1989). Transformation of the family system in adolescence. In B. Carter

& M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The changing family life cycle: A framework for family
therapy (2nd ed., pp. 274-286). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Pugliesi, K. (1989). Social support and self-esteem as intervening variables in the

relationship between social roles and women ' s well-being. Community Mental
Health Journal 25(2), 87- I 00.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Spady, W. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward an empirical model.

lnterchanoe 2(3), 38-62.

Staats, S. (1983). Perceived sources of stress and happiness in married and single college
students. Psycholooical Reoorts 52, 179-184.

Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1978). The relation of students' pre-college

characteristics and freshman year experience to voluntary attrition. In E. T.
Pascarella (Ed.), Studyino student attrition: New directions for institutional
research (Vol. 36, pp. 55-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tice, C. J., & Perkins, K. (1996). Mental health issues and aging: Building on the
stren!!ths of older oersons. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tinto, V. (1982). Defining dropout: A matter of perspective. In E. T. Pascarella

(Ed.), Studying student attrition: New directions for institutional research (Vol. 36,
pp. 3-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

 64
Towbes, L. C. , & Cohen, L. H. (1996). Chronic stress in the lives of college students:
Scale development and prospective prediction of distress. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 25(2), 199-21 7.

Utah Office of Planning and Budget (1993). Economic and demoaraohic profiles (DEA
Publication). Salt Lake City: Author.

Utah State University Student Services. (1995). Division of Student Services research
reoorts. Unpublished manuscript, Utah State University at Logan.

Valentiner, D.P., Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1994). Social support, appraisals of
event controllability, and coping: An integrative model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 66(6), 1094- I 102.

Vlisides, C. E. , Eddy, J.P., & Mozie, D. (1994). Stress and stressors: Definition,
identification and strategy for higher education constituents. College Student
Journal 28(1), 122-124.

Walsh, F. (1993). Normal family orocesses (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Weir, R. M. , & Okun, M.A. (1989). Social support, positive college events, and college
satisfaction: Evidence for boosting effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
.12(9), 758-771.

Wohlgemuth, E. , & Betz, N. E. (1991). Gender as a moderator of the relationships of

stress and social support to physical health in college students. Journal of
Counselina Psycholoay 38(3), 367-374.

Wolin, S. J., & Bennett, L.A. (1984). Family rituals. Family Process 23 , 401-420.

Zirkel, S. (1992). Developing independence in a life transition: Investing the self in the
concerns of the day. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(3), 506-
521.

Zitzow, D. (1992). Assessing student stress: School adjustment rating by self-report.

The School Counselor 40, 20-23.
 65

APPENDIXES
 66

Appendix A.

Human Subjects Letter

 67

Utah State
UNIVERSITY
VICE f.'RESJOENT FOR RESEARCH OFFICE
Logan UT 84322· 1-'SO
Telephone: (4)5179 7- 1180
FAX: 1.4351797·13&7
INTERNET: lpgerity@ck•mp.usu.edul

June 22, 1998

MEMORANDUM

TO : Ann Austin
SandraKrambu le

FROM: CiK
True Rubal, Secretary to the lRB

SUBJECT: "Adjustment, Stress, and Social Support as Factors in Student Retention"

The above-referenced proposal has been reviewed by this office and is exempt from further
review by the Institutional Review Board. The IRB appreciates researchers who recognize the
imponance of ethical research conduct. While your research project does not require a signed
informed consent, you should consider (a) offering a general introduction to your research goals,
and (b) informing, in writing or through oral presentation, each participant as to the rights of the
subject to confidentiality, privacy or withdrawal at any time from the research activities.

The research activities listed below are exempt from IRB review based on the Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations for the protection of human research
subjects, 45 CFR Part 46, as amended to include provisions of the Federal Policy for the
Protection of Human Subjects, June 18, 1991.

4. Research , involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, reco rds,
pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or
if the infonnation is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be
identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.

Your research is exempt from further review based on exemption number 4. Please keep
the committee advised of any changes, adverse reactions or termination of the study. A yearly
review is required of all proposals submitted to the IRB. We request that you advise us when
this project is completed, otherwise we w ill contact you in one year from the date of this letter.
 68

Appendix B.

College of Family Life Student Survey

 69
Name ____________
55#___---'-----

College of Family Ufe Student Survey

We are interested in your experiences since you started school at Utah State University. Please take a few
minutes to answer the following questions. Your responses will help us create an even better climate for
students at USU. Your answers are confidential.

1. PI ease 1st your parents and their current occupation if they claimed you on last year s taxes .
Current Occupation Employed pan
time of fuU t ime

Mother/Step(Panner

Father/Step/Partner

2. Please list yourself and your spouse (if applicable) and your current occupations, if your parents
did not cla im you on last year 's taxes
Current Occupation Empfoved part
time of fuU time

Self

Spouse/Partner

3. Please list your siblinQs. Please list your children.

Child # Gender Age Child# Gender Age

1 1

2 2
3 3
4 4

5 5
Contrnue Ust on Back of Page tf Necessary

4. Please check your marital status :

0 Never married 0 First marriage 0 Divorced
0 Remarriage 0 Widowed 0 Separated

5 . How many years have you been in the present marriage/long term commitment? _ __

6. Please check yearly income of your family or origin:

0 less than $5,000 0$10,00Q-15,000 0$30,000-45,000 0$60,000+
0$5,000-10,000 0$15,000-30,000 0$45,000-60,000
 70

7. Please check the highest level in school or college that your mother has completed.
D 1-7th grade 0 high school graduate 0 college graduate
0 8 -9th grade 0 vocational or some college 0 graduate or professional school
0 10-11th grade

8. Please check the highest level in school or college that your father has completed.
0 1-7th grade 0 high school graduate 0 college graduate
0 8-9th grade 0 voc~tional or some college p graduate or professionitl school
0 10-1 1th grade

9 . Since coming to Utah State have you actually changed your major? Yes No. If yes, what
major(s) have you changed from . ttYou haV"en't changed your rnajor,
have you thought about changing? Yes No. If yes. what major(s) have you thought about
changing to - - ? Undecided

10. Right now, what career or occupation are you planning?

1 1. Please check the major reasons you attended USU. Check as many as apply.
Good program in major
b. Scholarship/financial aid
c. Visit to campus impressed me
d. Close to home (parents, spouse. children, etc.}
e. Former student's recommendation
f. Counselor or teacher's advice
g. _ Lower costs
h. Parents or alumni

12. Did you consider other colleges or universities? _No. _Yes. If yes. please list these:

13. Did you attend other colleges or universities? _No. _Yes. If yes, please list these:

14. Did you graduate with an associate degree or a bachelor' s degree from any of the other colleges and
universities you listed on #13? No. Yes. Wh ich college or university was this and what was the
degree? - -

15 . Please check those who most influenced your choice to attend USU. Check as many as apply.
a. Faculty
b. Representative of the college
c. Relatives
d. High school personnel
e. Friends
f. Brochures or other advertising materials
g. _ Quality of education overall at USU
h. Quality of education in your major
 71

16. How do you like it here at USU? (check 11

a. Love it
b. Like it
Okay--so so
d. Not too well
Not at all

17. What were the major frustrations in your first few months on campus? Chec~ as many as apply.
None '
b. Homework/coursework
c. Red tape/bureaucracy
d. Dropped programs/budget cuts .
Lack of specific services.
f. Getting classes
g. _ Getting along with roommates
h. Deciding on a major field of study
Finances
j. _ Difficulty in making friends
k. Housing
Home sickness
Finding my way ~ r ound
n. Parking
o. Finding a job
p. _ Changing majors

18 . Have you thought of leaving? No Yes

If yes, check the reasons why ~hec~s many as apply.
Lost interest in school
b. Program cuts
c. Finances
d. Poor grades
e. Military service
f. Couldn 't get the needed classes
o. Just wanted a break
h. Family problems
Homesick/depression
j. LOS mission
k. Wasn't what I thought it would be
Marriage
m Roommates
Unable to get into the program t· wanted
Pregnancy or new child
p. _ Tired of red tape

19. To what extent are you satisfied with each of the following at USU. Ran k your satisfaction (5 = Very
Satisfied, 4 = Satisfied, -3 = Dissatisfied, 2 = Very Dissatisfied, 1 = no response)
Overall quality of education
Quality of the program in your major
c. Accessibility of professors in your major
d. Helpfulness of professors in your major
e Professional/vocational advising in your major
f. Availability of classes
g. Class size
 72
20. Please rank the followi ng objectives from 1 to 7 , with 1 being the most important objective you expect
to receive from your untversity experience .
a. Become a leader in my potential profession or discipline
b. Increase my research skills
c. Improve my ability to teach or practice my profession/field
d. Prepare me to work with other professions or disciplines
e. Prepare me to address important human or social problems
f. Sharpen my interest in public policy issues
g. _ Prepare me to be a leader with a broad knowledge of critical issues

21. What career or occupation are you planning?

We would like to know about your network with friends and family as it is here at USU.
22. How involved are you in your dorm or neighborhood?
a. Not at all

=
b. Somewhat
c. - Very involved
d. Other (please e x p l a i n ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

23. How satisfied are you with the above situation?

Very dissatisfied (I wish things were very different)
b. Somewhat dissatisfied (I would like some changes)
Somewhat satisfied (OK for now; pretty good)
d. Very satisfied Cl'm really pleased)
e. Other (please e x p l a i n ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24 . How involved are you in campus life?

a. Not at all
b. Somewhat
c. Very involved
d. Other (please e x p l a i n ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

25. How satisfied are you with the above situation?

Very dissatisfied II wish things were very different)
b. Somewhat dissatisfied (I would like some changes)
Somewhat satisfied (OK for now; pretty good)
d. Very satisfied (I'm really pleased)
Other {please explai_
nl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

26 . Are there any organized groups {for example: church , social , educational or sports! that are a source of
support for you?
a. None

=
b. Some
c . - Many
d. Other {please e x p l a i n ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

'!.7 . How satisfied are you with the above situation?

a. Very dissatisfied {I wish things were very different)
b. Somewhat dissatisfied (I would like some changes)
Somewhat satisfied {OK for now; pretty good)
d. Very satisfied (I'm really pleased)
e. Other {please explain)--------------~---------
 73
28. Think of a typical week. About how many times did you talk on the phone or visit in person with your
friends?
a. None
b. Once
2 or 3 times
d. 4-7 times
e. More than 7 times
d. Other (please explain)----------------~-------

29. How satisfied are you with this amount of visiting?

Very dissatisfied (I wish things were very different)
b. Somewhat dissatisfied ll would like some changes)
Somewhat satisfied (OK for now; pretty good)
d. Very satisfied (I'm really pleased)
Other (please e x p l a i n } - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

30. If you were to become upset or angry, would you have someone to talk to? How many people?
No one
b. 1 person
c. 2 people
d. 3 - 4 people
More than 4 people
d. Other (please e x p l a i n ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

31. How satisfied are you with the above situation?

a. Very dissatisfied (I wish things were very different)
b. Somewhat dissatisfied (I would like some changes)
Somewhat satisfied (OK for now; pretty good)
d. Ver1 satisfied (I'm real!y pleased)
e. Other (please e x p l a i n ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

32. When you are happy, is there someone you can share it with--someone who will be happy just because
you are?
a. No
b. Yes
c. Other (please e x p l a i n ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

33. How satisfied are you with the above situation?

a. Very dissatisfied (I wish things were very different)
b. Somewhat dissatisfied (I would like some changes)
Somewhat satisfied {OK for now; pretty good)
d. Very satisfied (I'm really pleased)
Other (please e x p l a i n ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

34. Since coming to USU, how often do you visit with your parents either in person or on the phone?
a. Neverlonce or twice a year
b. less than once a month
1 · 2 times per month
d. Once a week.
e. Several times a week
 74
35. How satisfied are you with this amount of visiti ng?
Very dissatisfied (I wish things were very d ifferent)
b. Somewhat dissatisfied (I would like some changes)
c. Somewhat sat isf ied (OK for now; pretty good)
d. Very satisfied ll 'm really pleased)
Other (please e x p l a i n ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

36. How often do you visit with your spouse/partner' s parents (in·laws) in person or on the phone?
Never/once or twice a year
b. Less than once a month
c. 1 - 2 times per month
d. Once a week
e. Several t imes a week
f. Not applicable

37. How satisfied are you with this amount of visiting?

a. Very dissat isfied (I wish things were very different)
b. Somewhat dissatisfied (I would like some changes)
c. Somewhat satisfied (OK for now; pretty good)
d. Very satisfied (I'm really pleased)
Other (please e x p l a i n ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. Not applicable

38. Rate yourself as to how you typically feel abou t the following, there are no right or wrong answers.
4 = Strongly agree 3 = Agree 2 = Disagree 1 = Strongly disagree
a. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
b. All in all , I am inclined to feel that I am a failure .
I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
d. I feel that 1 am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others .
e. At times, I think I am no good at all.
f. I feel that I have a number of good qu alities .
g. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
h. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
I certainly feel useless at times .
I wish I would have more respect for myself.

39. During the last 12 months, have you personally been affected by any of the following? (Please check
any that have happened)
Death of a spouse Divorce
Marital separation Change in schools
Death of close family member Personal injury or illness
Marriag e Change in financial status
Marital reconciliation Pregnan cy
Serious change in health of family member Spouse begins or stops work
Death of close friend Change in re si dence
Son or daughter leaving home
 75

40. Rate yourself as to how you typically react in each of the situations listed below. There are no right or
wrong answers.
4 = Always 3 = Frequently 2 = Sometimes 1 = Never
Do you try to do as much as possible in the least amount of time?
b. Do you become impatient with delays or interruptions?
Do you -always have to win at games to enjoy yourself?
d. Do you find yourself speeding up the car to beat the red light?
e. Are you unlikely to ask for or indicate you need help with a problem? .
f. Do you constantly seek the respect and admiration of others?
g. _ A re you overly critical of the way others do their work?
h. Do you have the habit of looking at your watch or clock often?
Do you constantly strive to better your position and achievements ?
j. Do you spread yourself "too thin" in terms of your time?
k. Do you frequently get angry or irritable?
Do you have little time for hobbies or time for yourself ?
Do you consider yourself hard·driving?
Do your friends or relatives consider you hard-driving ?
o. Do you have a tendency to get involved in multiple projects?
p. Do you have a lot of deadlines in your work?
q. Do you feel vaguely guilty if you relax and do nothing during leisure?
Do you take too many responsibilities?

41 . Please check all that apply to you.

I don't care if I finish school.
I would rather not be in school.
I dislike most of the work in my classes .
I often go to class unprepared.
I find it hard to · stick to a study schedule.
I only study when there is the pressure of a test.
I end up •cramming~ for almost every test rather than studying regularly throughout the term .
I tnake good use of daytime hours between classes .
I set aside a specific length of time to study and stick to it.
I put off studying more than I should.
I tend to spend so much time with friends that my course work suffers.
I find that during lectures I think of other things and don 't really listen to what is being said.
Problems outside of school, being in love, financial difficulties, conflict with parents, etc.,cause
me to neglect my school work .
I am distracted from my studies very easily.
I don't understand some course material because I don ' t listen carefully .
My mind wanders a lot when I study .
I stop periodically while reading and mentally go over or review what was said.