The Relationship Between Social Support

Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2008
The Relationship Between Social Support

and College Adjustment in Intercollegiate
Athletes
Desaree Valerie Dreher
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL SUPPORT AND COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT IN

INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETES
BY
DSARE VALERIE FESTA DREHER
A Thesis submitted to the
Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Maters of Science
Degree Awarded
Fall Semester, 2008
The members of the committee approved the thesis of Desaree Dreher, defended on July 31,
2008.
______________________________
Robert Eklund
Professor Directing thesis
___________________________________
Gershon Tenenbaum
Committee Member
___________________________________
Jeannie Turner
Committee Member
Approved:
_________________________________________________________________________
Aki Kamata, Chair, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ..1
SOCIAL SUPPORT THEORY ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Main effect hypothesis .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Buffering effect hypothesis ................................................................................................................................... 2
SOCIAL SUPPORT NETWORK ................................................................................................................................ 2
Structure............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Composition ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Relational status................................................................................................................................................... 3
GENDER DIFFERENCE IN SOCIAL SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 3
STUDENT-ATHLETE EXPERIENCE ..................................................................................................................... 4
FIRST-YEAR STUDENT-ATHLETE EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................. 6
Team support ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
TRANSITION TO COLLEGE .................................................................................................................................. 8
Social support ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Peer support ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
METHOD .....................................................................................................................................13
PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
INSTRUMENTATION ................................................................................................................................................ 14
PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................17
DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................22
APPENDIX A:HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL..................................................................29
APPENDIX B:INFORMED CONSENT ...................................................................................30
APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE...........................................................31
APPENDIX C: SOCIAL SUPPORT QUESTIONNAIRE.......................................................32
APPENDIX D: ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................38
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................40
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ......................................................................................................44
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Participants Demographics 13
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for participants . 17
Table 3. MANOVA for social network by status (athlete vs. nonathlete), year
(1st vs. 2nd), and gender with their interactions . 18
Table 4. Univariate F-statistic for support network variables by student identification

(athlete vs. nonathlete)....................... 19
Table 5. Univariate F-statistic for support network variables by

gender 20
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Means for network member types by student-identification (athlete vs.

nonathlete) . 19
Figure 2. Means for network member types by gender 20
Figure 3. Mean values for college adjustment by student identification (athletes vs.
nonathlete) 21
v
ABSTRACT
Over the last 30 40 years, transitions (e.g. college, marriage, retirement), in general, and
their outcomes have gained growing attention (Halamandarus & Power, 1999). Transitions break
down habitual patterns of action and force the individual to form new behaviors to fit his or her
novel experience (Dornbusch, 2000). Late adolescence is a period marked by numerous
developmental changes and novel experiences that the individual needs to conquer in order to
prepare for adulthood (Pratt, Bowers, Terzian, Hunsberger, Mackey, Thomas, et al., 2000; Tao,
Dong, Pratt, Hunsberger, & Pancer, 2000). One significant juncture for many late adolescents is
the entrance into college. Even though some students find the transition into college as a
challenge to personal growth, many students are overwhelmed and experience stress (Wintre &
Yaffe, 2000).
In 1999, approximately 60% of adolescents attended college where as only 15% attended
in the 1930s (Steinberg, 1999). Despite this increase in the pursuit of higher education, many
college freshmen end up transferring from their original institution or dropping out of college
entirely. The current university attrition rate among American and Canadian freshmen is 25%
(Wintre, Bowers, Gordner, & Lange, 2006), although, this rate does not include students who
transferred to another university or re-entered college at a later point.
Several studies have reported the beneficial effects of social support during the transition
to college (Pratt et al., 2000; Tao et al., 2000; Hinderlie & Kenny, 2002; Schwitzer, Robbins, &
McGovern, 1993; Halamandaris & Power, 1999). In particular, studies have found that peer
support significantly affects ones adjustment to college (Hinderlie & Kenny, 2002; Pratt et al.,
2000; Giacobbi, Lynn, Wetherington, Jenkins, Bodendorf, & Langley, 2004; Hays & Oxley,
1986; Wiseman 1997). It may be that first-year student-athletes are more fortunate than other
students because they enter college with a pre-existing support network of teammates who can
aid in their transition. For example, first-year student-athletes have reported in interviews that
fellow teammates positively affected their adjustment to college (Giacobbi et al., 2004).
Currently, there is limited research on the transition into college for student-athletes. The
aim of the present study was to advance the understanding of the impact of social support on
student-athletes during their transition into college, and compare this to nonathlete-students.
Specifically, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of team support on adjustment in
first-year student-athletes. The results have indicated that student-athletes', both first-year and
vi
second-year, were similarly adjusted to college than first-year and second-year nonathlete-
students. There was a significant difference in network composition between student-athletes and
nonathlete-students, indicating that student-athletes rely on the appropriate support providers (i.e.
athletes). However, when compared to nonathlete-students, student-athletes did not display
higher college adjustment scores. In fact, both groups exhibited normatively typical adjustment
scores. Furthermore, results indicated that there was no difference in adjustment scores between
first-year and second-year student-athletes.
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Experts believe that studying students transition into college provides valuable
insight on late adolescent development (Pratt et al., 2000). Evidence has been presented
indicating that social support has an impact on student's adjustment during this period (Tao
et al., 2000). Accordingly, a review of social support theory and social support network
research is provided in this chapter. Furthermore, literature is reviewed on student-athletes'
experiences during the transition into college and intercollegiate athletics, as well as
evidence on the effect of team support during this period. Finally, literature on the
freshmen experience and the impact of social support, namely peer support, during the
transition into college is also reviewed.
Social Support Theory
Prior to discussing the college transition for student-athletes and nonathlete-
students, it is important to review the literature on social support. According to Bianco and
Eklund (2000), social support is conceptualized in two ways based on the relationship
between social support and health outcomes. Social support can be defined as a supportive
situational or environmental condition that reduces the chance that an individual will
appraise an event as stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This conceptualization is
associated with the main effects hypothesis. On the other hand, social support is also
defined as a coping resource that is used during times of stress (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). This conceptualization is associated with the buffering effect hypothesis (Bianco
& Eklund, 2000).
Main effect hypothesis. The main effect hypothesis states that social relationships
contribute to an individual's overall health, thus preventing the individual from
experiencing stress (Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1990). Hence, one's social relationships
have an overall or environmental effect on his or her well-being that creates a general
feeling of support, known as perceived support (Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1990). A
persons perception of stable perceived support provides positive affects, a sense of
predictability and stability, and a recognition of worth (Bianco & Eklund, 2000). If
perceived support is high, then the individual may feel more confident in his or her ability
1
to overcome a stressful situation, thus reducing his or her appraisals of potential distress
(Sarason. et al., 1990). Ideally, if an individual perceives that he or she has a strong support
network, less stress may be experienced regardless of the task/situation. Researchers began
to realize, however, that a strong support network does not necessarily provide immunity
to a distressed person (Bianco & Eklund, 2000).
Buffering effect hypothesis. The buffering hypothesis states that social support can
alleviate distress by providing solutions (Cohen & Willis, 1985). Social support in this
instance is viewed as a coping resource rather than an environmental condition because the
individual is using others' support as a tool to overcome the distress. Social support is
termed as received support because it focuses on the support that the individual is actually
receiving versus their perception of his or her overall social support (Bianco & Eklund,
2000).
Support Network
Given that the focus of the present study is on the particular resources of support
(i.e., team support), it is important to discuss social support and the structure of freshmen
athletes' support network (i.e., team support). According to Vaux (1988), a social support
network is a collection of individuals whom the support recipient goes to for assistance.
The support network is a subdivision of a larger social context known as social integration,
which contains all social interactions (Schwarzer & Leppin, 1991). A support network
contains only a select group of individuals who are deemed as support providers.
Furthermore, a support network meets a recipient's needs during a time of distress, by
providing reassurance, resources, and companionship as well as aiding in mental or
physical recovery (Albercht & Adelman, 1984). According to Vaux (1988), support
networks are composed of three main features: structure, composition, and relational
status.
Structure. The structure of a network is determined by its size (the number of
individuals within a network) and density (the interconnectedness of the network
members). Research has shown that the size of a network is not strongly correlated with
health outcomes (Vaux, 1988). Thus, the mere presence of numerous support providers
does not ensure that support, particularly the correct form of support, will be provided. In
addition, a less dense network may promote psychological health because a highly
interconnected network may not provide all the necessary resources (Hays & Oxley, 1986).
2
Composition. Both the composition and relational status of a social support
network describe who is in the network. The composition describes how network members
compare to the recipient on a variety of features, such as age, gender, ethnicity, type of
athlete, etc. (Vaux, 1988). Furthermore, network members who have similar features to the
recipient may provide support that is more effective (Vaux, 1988). For example, an athlete
may receive more effective support from a fellow athlete than a nonathlete. Thus, a
network composed of individuals who are similar to the recipient should better meet the
recipient's needs.
Relational status. Finally, the type of relationship the recipient has with the
provider can be termed relational status. Assessment of relational status is based on four
dimensions: the number of interactions, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocity (Lin,
1986). According to Lin, a close relationship will be high on all four dimensions where as
a distant relationship will be low on all dimensions. However, it is not entirely clear that
close relationships are necessary for support to be effective (Bianco & Eklund, 2000; Tao
et al., 2000). For example, helpful acts or friendly greetings from strangers or
acquaintances can be considered as a form of nurturance and support (Shumaker &
Brownell, 1984).
Gender Difference in Social Support
Empirical findings on the effect of gender differences on social support have been
equivocal (Vaux, 1988). Conceptually, however, there are reasons to suggest that gender
has an effect on social support (Matud, Ibanez, Bethencourt, Marrero, & Carballeira,
2003). For instance, males and females exhibit different interpersonal behaviors and social
relationships throughout the lifespan(Belle, 1987). According to Matud et al. (2003), the
socialization processes of males and females are different. Females have been socialized to
confide in others, to have close relationships, and express emotions. Males have been
socialized to be independent and refrain from expressing emotions (Day & Livingstone,
2003; Olsen & Shultz, 1994). These differences may result in differential utilization of
social support during stressful transitions.
According to Vaux (1988), even though many findings suggest that gender is an
irrelevant factor in the relationship between social support and well-being, gender
differences may become salient when comparing sources of social support. There is limited
and confounding research on gender differences in regards to social support networks.
3
Colarossi (2001) found that adolescent females had a greater number of supportive friends
when compared to adolescent males. In addition, Hays and Oxley (1986) found, in their
study on network development in first-year college students, that females relied more on
peers for support than males. This study also showed no difference between males and
females in regards to the utilization of family support (Hays & Oxley, 1986). However,
Colarossi (2001) found that adolescent males relied more on family support than females.
On the contrary, there is also evidence that females rely more on family support when
compared to males (Narayanan et al., 1999).
Even though there is some evidence for the impact of gender on the utilization of
different support network members, some research indicates gender does not have an effect
(Fusilier, Ganster, & Mayes, 1986). Although there is confounding evidence, the impact of
gender on network composition needs to be clarified. Therefore, further investigations on
gender differences in sources of social support are warranted.
Student-Athlete Experience
The transition from high school to college may be a stressful period for the typical
college student because of the academic, emotional, and social challenges (Wintre &
Yaffe, 2000). When compared to the average college student, however, student-athletes
have additional responsibilities (Wilson & Pritchard, 2005). Thus, first-year student
athletes may experience unique challenges compared to the typical first-year student.
Unfortunately, college development researchers have not given much attention to the
athletic population during their first-year transition as compared to other groups. Besides a
limited number of studies, the transition research within the sport psychology literature has
ignored transitions into intercollegiate athletics and has focused mainly on sport
termination. Even though there is limited research, literature suggests that freshmen
athletes may experience even greater levels of stress because of their dual roles (i e.,
student and athlete) (Wilson & Pritchard, 2005).
Numerous studies indicate sport participation acts as a buffer against college stress
(Wilson & Pritchard, 2005). There is opposing evidence that sport participation is actually
a hindrance to psychological health during the college experience because it can be an
additional stressor (Wilson & Pritchard, 2005). Research findings indicate that student-
athletes experience atypical pressure when compared to nonathlete-students and require
special assistance (Papanikolaou, Nikolaidis, Patsiaouras, & Alexopoulos, 2003; Harrison,
4
1981; NCAA, 2006). Student-athletes have the unique challenge of balancing the dual
roles of student and athlete (O'Bryant, 1993). Even though academic study should be the
athlete's primary concern, student-athletes report stress from the extensive amount of time
required by their secondary role (i.e., athlete) (Humphrey, Yow, & Bowden, 2000). At
least 40% of male and 50% of female student-athletes in a study conducted by Humphrey
et al. (2000) reported lack of time as being their main source of stress. Many of these
athletes expressed that they did not feel they were given sufficient time to perform both of
their roles optimally.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) developed resources and
bylaws to help athletes cope with their dual roles. For example, the NCCA created
CHAMPS, which is an organization that educates athletes on life skills, and the Student-
Athlete Well-Being Subcommittee, which was developed to enhance student-athletes' well-
being and reduce stress (NCAA, 2006). In addition to these resources, the NCAA has
restricted the amount of practice time for student-athletes to 20-hours per week. The
NCAA Division 1 Bylaw 2.14 states that the time required of student-athletes for
participation in intercollegiate athletics should be regulated to minimize interference with
academics and student-athletes should attain the same quality of education as the general
student population (NCAA, 2006). Even though this bylaw implies that academic study is
precedent to the sport commitment, it may be suspected that some institutions disregard
this ruling.
In addition to having to meet their institutional academic requirements, athletes
also must meet a certain academic standard in order to stay eligible for their sport.
According to the NCAA, the athlete has to remain in good academic standing and
graduation rates of athletes should be significantly higher than the institution average
(NCAA Manual, 2005-2006). In addition to meeting acceptable academic requirements for
eligibility, many student-athletes must meet athletic requirements in order to keep their
athletic scholarship. This presents a priority conflict because the secondary role of athlete
may financially support their primary role of being a student. Moreover, in addition to the
typical college stress, student-athletes also have to cope with sport-related stresses, such as
performance demands, injury, team conflict, etc.
5
First-Year Student-Athlete Experience
The previous discussion suggests that student-athletes may encounter greater
challenges and demands than nonathlete-students. Student-athletes experience pressure that
is two-fold: to be successful academically, and to perform to their greatest potential in a
competitive sport environment (Papanikolaou et al., 2003). Therefore, it is not surprising
that research has shown that athletes' transition to college is also a stressful experience.
This transition may be more stressful for student-athletes than their nonathlete
counterparts. The literature on this account, however, is limited and has been exploratory
in nature (Downey, 2005).
In addition to the typical first-year demands, first-year student-athletes have the
challenge of an athletic transition (Papanikolaou et al., 2003). According to Papanikolaou
et al., this athletic transition is a significant stressor involving change and conflict, as well
as feelings of frustration and threat. In particular, many first-year student-athletes
experience threats to their previous athletic status. Many of the first-year student-athletes
were superstars during their high school career and developed a high status because of
their athletic success. During the recruiting process, many student-athletes are given
special treatment and are told high expectations of their athletic success. Unfortunately, the
reality of their athletic career may not be the same as what they expected (Papanikolaou et
al., 2003). In addition, athletes have reported that the higher training demands and distant
relationships with coaches present a challenge (Giacobbi et al., 2004; Papanikolaou et al.,
2003). As a result, many first-year athletes have difficultly coping with the stress of their
first year of intercollegiate athletics and the higher level of competition (Papanikolaou et
al., 2003; Giacobbi et al., 2004).
Giacobbi et al. (2004) conducted one of the few studies on the first-year student-
athlete population. This study was a longitudinal study that investigated the dynamic
properties of the coping process throughout the transition. The researchers conducted
interviews periodically throughout the year with Division 1 female swimmers. The results
of this study displayed four first-order coping themes: social support, active cognitive
efforts, emotional release, and religion. Overall, Giacobbi et al. (2004) discovered that, as
the year progressed, the quality of the network improved (e.g., team support) and the
athletes began to appraise their transition in a more positive light.
6
Petrie and Stoever (1997) also illustrated the utilization of social support by first-
year student-athletes. When comparing freshmen athletes to upperclassmen athletes, social
support was a significant predictor of academic success with freshmen athletes. Thus,
social support for student-athletes appears to be an important predictor of academic
success, particularly during the first year. Petrie and Stoever (1997), however, did not
specify who provided the support (i. e., the social support network). On the other hand, the
results of the Giacobbi et al. (2004) study revealed that first-year student-athletes relied on
support from their families and/or teammates. These results are similar to results presented
by Tao et al. (2000) on first-year nonathlete-students indicating that nonathlete-students
relied more on peer and parental support.
Team support. The team (similar to peer support) appears to be a pivotal social
network for first-year student-athletes and a possible predictor of adjustment to the
university as well as athletic life (Giacobbi et al., 2004; Tracey & Corlett, 1995). Similar to
the results of the Giacobbi et al. (2004) study, Tracey and Corlett (1995) found that first-
year track and field athletes relied on social support from teammates in order to cope with
the stressful transition. This study displayed that first-year athletes felt isolated from other
college students (Tracey & Corlett, 1995). Even though first-year athletes may have a
small social network, they may possess a better quality support network because it may be
composed of more effective members (i. e., teammates).
Both the swimmers and the track and field athletes felt comfort in the allied
companionship of their teammates who were also facing a similar adjustment challenge
knowing that they were not the only ones facing this adjustment period (Giacobbi et al.,
2004; Tracey & Corlett, 1995).First-year student-athletes also relied on advice and
guidance from older teammates (Giacobbi et al. 2004). This is similar to the finding of
Pratt et al. (2000) that an older student is another source of effective support during the
college transition.
It is important to note the effect that social support has on subsequent coping
strategies, such as cognitive appraisal, and its effect on adjustment. Based on their results,
Giacobbi et al. (2004) concluded that a healthy adjustment appears to involve positive
interpretations of the environment and that these interpretations appear to be influenced by
social encounters from teammates. Thus, social support from other teammates facilitates
the development of other beneficial coping strategies such as active cognitive appraisals
7
and emotional release. Furthermore, social support from teammates provides opportunities
for additional socially based forms of coping, such as venting and humor (Giacobbi et al.
2004).
Transition to College
Life involves various transitions in order for a person to develop. During a
transition, there is novel interaction between the individual and the environment, which
requires a period of adjustment (Tao et al., 2000). This adjustment can result in anxiety and
distress that, in extreme cases, can produce mental and/or physical disorders (Fisher,
Frazer & Murray, 1986). In fact, there is a high prevalence of adjustment disorders (e.g.,
depression) among first-year college students (Tao et al., 2000; Wintre & Yaffe; 2000).
Late adolescence encompasses a broad range of transitions that prepare the
individual for adulthood (Pratt et al., 2000; Tao et. al, 2000). In particular, graduating from
high school and entering college is a major transition for many late adolescents. According
to Steinberg (1999), approximately 60% of adolescents attended college, compared to 15%
in the 1930s. Despite this significant increase in the pursuit of higher education, many
college freshmen end up transferring from their original institution or terminate their
college careers without completion. Wintre et al. (2006) conducted a longitudinal study on
attrition rates of freshmen college students. The raw data in the Wintre et al. study found
an attrition rate of 42%. A qualitative analysis of the interview data, however, indicated
that the true attrition rate could have been as low as 25% given that a significant number of
students completed their degrees at another university. These statistics emphasize the
importance of proper adjustment during the first year of college.
College is typically deemed as a positive event with numerous opportunities and
benefits (Tao, et al., 2000). Many entering students appear to be joyful and excited with
high expectations (Jackson, Pancer, Pratt, & Hunsburger, 2000). Stern (1966) termed a
student's nave expectations and boundless optimisms as the freshman myth. Since
distress accompanies many life events and transitions, the freshmen myth may be
quickly dispelled during the first few weeks of the freshmen experience. The reality of the
college experience can be more stressful than the student had expected (Pratt et al., 2000).
Some students are overwhelmed and experience emotional maladjustment, which may be a
cause for attrition. Other students, however, embrace this change and find it to be a period
of personal growth (Wintre & Yaffe, 2000).
8
There are many novel demands associated with the college experience. These
responsibilities may include doing laundry, managing finances, and deciding upon a career
path (Pancer, Hunsberger, Pratt, & Alisat, 2000). More importantly, many students have
difficulty managing the higher educational demands (Koplik & Devito, 1987). For
example, college students must adjust to the decrease in an instructor's involvement and
one-on-one attention, as well as with increased accountability for their own education.
Finally, entry into college marks the first time that many students have lived away
from home. In some instances, the only support system students have experienced prior to
entering university was in the home environment (Rice, 1992). These first-year students
have to face the college experience on their own without the security of a familiar and safe
support system (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000). Consequently, many first-year students report
feelings of loneliness and homesickness as a result of their lack of adjustment to college
(Curtona, 1982; Prancer et al., 2000). Medora and Woodward (1986) found an inverse
relationship between loneliness and ease of making friends. Curtona (1982) cautioned,
however, that even though first-year students may develop a number of social
relationships, this does not necessarily prevent loneliness and homesickness. It is the
quality of the relationship that impacts upon loneliness. Nevertheless, in order to have a
healthy adjustment, students have to embark on a period of gradual separation or
detachment from home (Tinto, 1988).
Many studies have been conducted in search of potential predictors of successful
adjustment to college including personality (Halamandaris & Power, 1999), identity status
and processing styles (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000), self-concept (Boulter, 2002), expectations
(Wintre & Yaffe, 2000), age (Hull, 1978, cited in Halamandaris & Power, 1999), parental
attachment (Kenny & Rice, 1995; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000), and personal motivation
(Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005). Even though researchers have focused on predictors
that occur prior to the transition, it is also important to investigate resources in the new
environment that influence adjustment during the transition.
Social Support. With regards to the transition into college, Tao et al. (2000) state
that social support is the most important factor in reducing negative affects, such as
depression, loneliness, and anxiety. For example, Pratt et al. (2000) conducted an
intervention program with freshmen college students that involved social-support-focused
discussion groups. These groups were composed of fellow first-year students as well as a
9
senior or graduate student leader. The discussion groups were an application of the stress
buffering approach aimed towards facilitating support during the actual period of distress.
The results of this study indicated that students who took part in the discussion group
displayed a significantly higher adjustment to university life and less misbehavior (Pratt et
al., 2000).
Interestingly, Pratt et al. (2000) only found a significant difference in adjustment
levels between the experimental and control groups during the middle of the second
semester. These results were similar to those reported by Oppenheimer (1984), where the
impact of a group intervention did not become salient until late in the first academic
semester. According to Tao et al. (2000) perceptions of social support change during the
course of the year, thus potentially delaying the impact of social support on adjustment.
For instance, students begin to rely more on peer and parental support throughout the
transition and less on other sources of support (e.g. sibling support), because students
eventually find these forms of support to be more effective (Tao et al., 2000).
Peer support. Similar to team support, Hinderlie and Kenny (2002) report that on-
campus social support appears to buffer much of the stress related to college. As shown in
Pratt et al. (2000), the support of other freshmen students helped the students adjust to
college life. As stated previously, Giacobbi et al. (2004) reported similar findings in
studying collegiate athletes. They observed that fellow teammates had an impact on first-
year student athletes' adjustment to both college life and intercollegiate athletics by
alleviating stress. Interestingly, both Pratt et al. (2000) and Giacobbi et al. (2004) found
that an older peer/teammate was yet another useful form of peer support.
Based on network development, Hays and Oxley (1986) found that the more peers
freshmen have in their social network, the better the adjustment. Peers may be a more
effective resource because they are experiencing the same stressor and have similar
features to the recipient. For instance, students who study overseas have to adjust not only
to college, but also to a new culture. Even though overseas students are experiencing a
more extreme stressor, overseas students have been found to experience the same amount
of loneliness as students back in the United States (Wiseman, 1997). When compared to
United State students, Wiseman reported that overseas students had a more dense support
network of fellow abroad students.
10
Hays and Oxley (1986) also found that peer networks consisting of freshmen living
in the dormitories were less intimate at the start of the transition as compared to the end of
the first semester. This finding is similar to previous findings that social support does not
influence adjustment until the latter portion of the first year (Pratt et al., 2000). As stated
by Levinger and Snoek (1972), the building of an interpersonal relationship is a gradual
and systematic process in which the depth of the relationship increases in time (cited in
Hays & Oxley, 1986). Therefore, if the development of relationships is a gradual process,
then it will take freshman time to make friendships and acquire peer support. This may
explain the delay of the influence of social support on adjustment in Pratt et al.'s study.
Summary
There is evidence that the transition to college may be a stressful experience for
many first-year students. In fact, there is a high prevalence of adjustment disorders among
first-year students, which may be a possible cause of attrition from college. In addition to
the typical challenges associated with the first year experience, intercollegiate athletics
presents an additional challenge for student-athletes. Fortunately, research shows that
social support has a positive influence on a student's adjustment to college. In most studies,
peers were the most important resource of support; however, there was a delay in the
impact of college social support on adjustment. This may be the result of the gradual
progression of relationship development. However, first-year student-athletes have the
unique experience of entering a potential pre-existing network comprised of similar
featured members (i.e. teammates) at that commencement of the college transition.
Therefore, it is pertinent to examine the influence of social support, namely team support,
on first-year athletes' adjustment to college and compare this to their counterparts.
Purpose Statement and Hypotheses

Further research concerning student-athletes' transition into college is warranted.
Based on the current attrition rates and reported stressors, it appears that the first-year of
college is a crucial period of adjustment. Current literature has shown social support is a
significant predictor of college adjustment. Thus, the primary purpose of the present study
was to advance the understanding of the impact of social support on student-athletes during
their transition into college. The limited number of qualitative studies show that student-
athletes rely on support from teammates during their first-year. Therefore, an additional
11
aim of this study was to investigate first-year student-athletes support network composition
and to contrast it with first-year nonathlete students. There is some evidence that peer
support does not become a salient factor until the latter portion of the first year (Hays &
Oxley, 1986; Hinderlie & Kenny, 2002). Therefore, the next aim of this study was to
investigate the support network composition of second-year student-athletes. Given that
student-athletes enter college into a potentially effective support network (i.e., the team),
this study also compares first-year and second-year student-athletes to nonathlete-students
on their level of college adjustment. Finally, findings on the effect of gender differences on
sources of social support have been equivocal. Therefore, this study compares all male and
female, athlete and nonathlete, participants on sources of social support. The quantitative
nature of this study expands the current literature on first-year student-athletes beyond the
current qualitative research. Finally, the results of this study can aid in future research on
interventions (e.g., support groups) for first-year student-athletes, as well as nonathlete-
students, during their transition into college. The following was hypothesized:
1. Social Support would significantly predict college adjustment among first-year
student-athletes and nonathlete-students.
2. Significant differences would be obtained between first-year student athletes and
first-year nonathlete-students in the number of support members within each of the
network categories.
3. Significant differences would be obtained between first-year student athletes and
second-year student-athletes in the number of support member within each of the
network categories.
4. Significant differences would be obtained between second-year student athletes and
second-year nonathlete-students in the number of support members within each of
the network categories.
5. First-year student-athletes would exhibit better adjustment to college than first-year
nonathlete-students.
6. Second-year student-athletes would exhibit better adjustment to college than
second-year nonathlete-students.
7. Second-year student-athletes would exhibit better adjustment to college than first-
year athlete-students.
8. Females would report a higher number of peers in their support network than males
12
CHAPTER II
METHODS
Participants
National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I first- and second- year student-athletes
and nonathlete-students were recruited for this study. Complete data were obtained from
263 participants including 104 athletes and 159 nonathlete-students (see Table 1). Among
the student-athletes, 36 were male and 44 were female. Among the nonathlete-students, 68
were male and 114 were female. Ethnicity breakdown was a follows: Caucasian (n = 170),
African American (n = 48), Hispanic (n = 12), Asian (n = 10), Native American (n = 4),
and other (n = 19). All participants were recruited from two large universities located in
the southeastern region of the United States. All participants were above 18 years of age.
Table 1
Participants (N = 263) Demographics
Factor %
Student Identification
Athletes 104 39.5
First year 67 25.5
Second year 37 14.0
Non-Athletes 159 60.5
First year 92 35.0
Second year 67 25.5
Ethnicity
Caucasian 170 64.5
African American 48 18.3
Asian 10 3.80
Hispanic 12 4.60
Native American 04 1.50
Other 19 7.30
Gender
Male 80 30.4
Athlete 36 13.7
Non-Athlete 44 16.7
Female 182 69.2
Athlete 68 25.9
Non-Athlete 114 43.3
13
Instrumentation
First-year and second-year students completed a packet of inventories including
informed consent, a demographic questionnaire, the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ),
and the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (CASQ).
Demographic questionnaire (Appendix B). The demographic questionnaire includes
questions to identify the participants gender, age, race, and athlete/nonathlete status.
Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ; Sarason, Levine, Bashman, & Sarason, 1983;
Appendix C). The SSQ contains two scales: (a) SSQ-N, number of social support network
members and type of member (b) SSQ-S, satisfaction with social support. On the SSQ-N
subscale, participants were instructed to list all the individuals whom they can count on for
help or support. For the purpose of this study, however, the original instructions and scoring
of the SSQ-N were modified. Participants were then required to mark one of the seven
following relationships they have with each listed support provider: teammate, athlete (non-
teammate), athletic staff (coaches, trainers, etc.), family, peer (at university), friend (not at
university), instructor, and other. Participants received a frequency score for each type of
relationship on the SSQ-N subscale instead of score related to the size of their whole
network. The SSQ-S subscale measures satisfaction with social support, which was based
on a six point Likert scale ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. The SSQ-S
contains 27-items about how satisfied the participant is the support from the network in the
SSQ-N. Each participant received a mean satisfaction score for the 27 items of the SSQ-S.
Research has shown that the SSQ has favorable psychometric properties and has been
shown to have a strong internal reliability with reported coefficients of .97, .90, and. 83.
Sarason et al. (1983) reported evidence suggesting that one strong factor underlies each of
the two SSQ scales and that the correlation between SSQ-N and SSQ-S scores is modest in
magnitude (i.e., r = .34). In order to test the validity of the SSQ, Sarason et al. (1983)
assessed the relationship of the SSQ to related personality measures. The SSQ had modest
positive correlation with extroversion (r = .34) and modest negative correlations with
depression (r = -.43), hostility (r = -.36), and anxiety (r = -.39).
Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1986;
Appendix D). The SACQ was used to assess college adjustment and contains four
subscales: Academic Adjustment, Social Adjustment, Personal-Emotional Adjustment,
Institutional Adjustment. The Academic Adjustment subscale (23 items; = .84) measures
14
how well the adolescent manages the educational demands of the university experience.
The Social Adjustment subscale (18 items; = .84) measures how well the adolescent
deals with interpersonal experiences at the university. The Personal-Emotional Adjustment
subscale (15 items; = .81) indicates whether the student experiences general or somatic
symptoms of psychological distress. The Institutional Attachment subscale (14 items; =
.80) assesses the degree of commitment the adolescent feels toward the university. All four
subscale have a strong internal consistency ( > .80) and validity has been demonstrated
through statistically significant correlations between the SACQ and various relevant
measures (i.e. academic motivation, depression, loneliness, parental attachment, attrition)
(Beyers & Goossens, 2002). All 70 items yield a full-scale score as an index of overall
adjustment to university. For the purpose of this study, only the full-scale score was used.
Procedure
First, permission was obtained from the Florida State University Human Subjects
Committee and the athletic departments. Participants were recruited during the beginning
of the fall semester. Specifically, the data collection period started the third week of the
semester and ended the first week of November. First-year student-athletes were recruited
from a orientation for new student-athlete. Second-year student-athletes were recruited
from their individual teams. Nonathlete-students, both first- and second-year, were
recruited from introductory sociology classes. These sociology classes are generally taken
as an elective for most students, thus contain a variety of majors. All surveys and informed
consent were administered to participants by the researcher and completed at the
recruitmenqt site. In addition, participants were informed that their participation was
voluntary and anonymous.
Data Analysis
Preliminary analysis was conducted to evaluate measurement internal consistency
(i.e., Cronbachs ). Descriptive statistics were computed for all study variables.
Subsequently, the following analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses of this thesis:
Hypothesis 1. To test the first hypothesis that social support would significantly predict
college adjustment among first-year student-athletes and nonathlete-students, a simple
15
linear regression analysis was conducted. The dependent variable was college adjustment
and the independent variable was satisfaction with social support.
Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, & 8. These hypotheses assume differences between athletes and
non-athletes, first-year and second-year students and male ve female. The aforementioned
hypotheses were tested using a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA). The dependent
variables in these analyses were the numbers of support members in the network categories
(teammates, other athletes, athletic staff, family, peers, instructor, and other).
Hypothesis 5, 6, & 7. Diffrences between athletes and non-athletes, 1st and 2nd year
students on the college adjustment variables were tested using an analysis of variance
(ANOVA).
Finally, effect sizes (squared (2) were obtained to estimate the magnitude of the
effects in the ANOVA and MANOVA procedures. 2 is a measure of the proportion of
variance explained (2;Olejnik & Algina, 2003). Furthermore, small, medium, and large
effects were operationalized as .01, .06, and .14, respectively (Cohen, 1988).
16
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Preliminary Analysis
Prior to testing the hypotheses of this study, internal consistency coefficients and
descriptive statistics were obtained for the scales used in the study. The reliability
coefficients observed for the Social Support Questionnaire ( = .96) and the Student
Adjustment to College Questionnaire ( = .84) indicated adequate internal consistency to
allow hypothesis testing. Internal consistency of measurement cannot be estimated for the
participants social networks in the Social Support Questionnaire.
Descriptive statistics of the SACQ, and SSQ subscales, social network and support
satisfaction are presented in Table 2. Overall, participants averaged a college adjustment t-
score within the average range (M = 48.22, SD = 10.66). Participants in the study were
fairly satisfied to very satisfied with their social support network, which was rated on a
scale ranging from 1 to 6 (M= 5.428, SD= 0.61.) The average number for members in
ones support network was seven (M= 7.06, SD= 3.45) given nine possibilities.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Participants
Support
Factor Year College Adjustment Satisfaction Support Network
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Athletes
(n = 67) 1 45.06 9.80 5.454 0.67 7.03 5.16
(n = 37) 2 46.84 10.91 5.249 0.68 6.19 2.93
Non-Athletes
(n = 92) 1 49.83 10.98 5.41 0.55 7.10 2.15
(n = 67) 2 49.96 10.28 5.382 0.60 7.51 2.98
Total 48.22 10.66 5.428 0.61 7.06 3.45
* College Adjustment scores are based on t-scores
** Support Satisfaction is based on a range of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied)
*** Support network represents the mean number of members in a total support network.
17
Inferential Analysis
The first hypothesis was that social support satisfaction would significantly predict
college adjustment. To test this hypothesis a simple regression was conducted. Results
indicate social support satisfaction and college adjustment to have a moderate statistically
significant relationship, = .29, F(1, 262) = 24.42, R2 = .08, p < .001.
The second, third, fourth, and eighth hypotheses were tested using multiple analysis
of variance (MANOVA).These hypotheses assumed differences between student-athletes
and nonathletes-students; first-year and second-year students; and males and females in the
number of support members across and within all categories. The analysis indicates that
student identification and gender were the only significant indicators of network
composition. No main effect for year was obtained, and the 2-way and 3-way interactions
were non-significan (p > .05).
Table 3
MANOVA for social network by status (athlete vs. nonathlete), year (1st vs. 2nd), and
gender with their interactions
Effect Wilk's F p 2
A. Student Identification 0.61 19.7 <.01 0.38
B. Year 0.95 1.34 .22 0.04
C. Gender 0.92 2.37 <.01 0.07
D. A by B 0.98 0.52 .84 0.17
E. A by C 0.97 0.82 .58 0.02
F. B by C 0.99 0.23 .98 0.01
G. A by B by C 0.95 1.65 .11 0.05
* df = (8, 252)
To further explore specific differences in network members attributed to student

identification, univariate ANOVAs were performed for each network category separately.
ANOVAs results (see Table 3) indicated significant (p < .05) differences among athletes
and non-athletes in the following categories: family, peer, friend, teammate, other athlete,
18
and athletic staff network.. The mean differences between athletes and non-athlets on these
categories are shown in Figure 1.
Table 4
Univariate F-statistic for support network variables by student identification (athlete vs.
nonathlete)
Variable F p 2
Family 6.48 <.01 0.02
Peer 12.68 <.01 0.04
Friend 28.81 .00 0.10
Instructor 0.85 .35 0.01
Teammate 50.32 <.01 0.16
Other Athlete 6.92 <.01 0.02
Athletic Staff 52.53 <.01 0.17
Other 2.05 .15 0.01
* df = (1, 259)
3.50
3.00
2.50
Mean
2.00 Student-athlete
1.50 Nonathlete-student
1.00
0.50
0.00
f
te
or
er
nd
ily
er
af
e
e
at
th
ct
St
Pe
m
ie
hl
m
ru
O
Fa
Fr
At
ic
m
st
et
a
er
In
hl
Te
th
At
O
Network member type
Figure 1: Mean values for network member types by student identification (athletes vs.
nonathlete)
As shown in Figure 1, non-athletes reported a larger number of members than

athletes in the following categories: family (M = 2.464 vs M = 3.203), peer (M = .603 vs.
19
M = 1.242), and friends (M = 1.266 vs. M = 2.401). However athletes reported a richer
network in teammates (M = .810 vs. M = .069), other athletes (M = .259 vs. M =.024) and
athletic staff (M = .066 vs. M = .024). It should be noted that in these categories the
differences were very minor.
ANOVAs results (see Table 4) indicated also significant (p < .05) differences
among males and females in the friends category.
Table 5
Univariate F-statistic for support network variables by gender
Variable F p 2
Family 1.91 .27 <0.01
Peers 0.19 .65 <0.01
Friend 9.03 <.01 0.03
Instructor 3.52 .06 0.01
Teammate 0.18 .67 <0.01
Other Athlete 0.37 .54 <0.01
Athletic Staff 0.02 .86 <0.01
Other 2.42 .12 <0.01
* df = (1, 259)
3.5
3
2.5
2 Male
Mean
1.5 Female
1
0.5
0
nd
e
er
or
ff
er
te
il y
at
ta
Pe
ct
th
le
ie
m
_S
ru
th
O
Fr
Fa
am
_A
st
ic
In
et
Te
er
hl
th
At
O
Network member types
Figure 2: Mean values for network member types by gender
20
Females reported a larger number of friend members (M = 2.03 vs. M = 1.41) than
males. It should be noted that in these categories the differences were very minor. The
differences in the other categories were non-significant (p > .05).
The fifth, sixth, and seventh hypotheses were tested using the same analysis of
variance test (ANOVA). These hypotheses assumed differences between student-athletes
and nonathletes-students and first-year and second-year students in the SACQ college
adjustment scores.. The analysis revealed a significant main effect for student
identification (student-athlete, nonathlete-student) on SACQ full scale scores, F(1, 259) =
8.32, p < .001, 2 = 0.031, but non-significant main effect for year (first-year vs. second-
year), F(1, 259) = .49, 2 = 0.002, p = .486. Figure 3 illustrates the significant difference
between athlete and nonathlete in SACQ full scale scores. Finally, data analysis revealed
no interaction between student identification and year on the SACQ, F(1, 259) = .364, 2 =
0.001, p = .547.
51
50
SACQ full scale scores
49
48
Athlete
47
Nonathlete
46
45
44
43
Student-Identifaction
Figure 3: Mean values for college adjustment by student identification (athletes vs.
nonathlete)
21
CHAPTER IV:
DISCUSSION
Entering college is both a notable transition and milestone for many in late
adolescence. Several predictors of successful college adjustment have been identified
including personality, self-concept, expectations, parental attachment, and motivation
(Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Boulter, 2002; Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005;
Halamandaris & Power, 1999; Kenny & Rice, 1995; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). It is also
important to investigate resources in the new environment that influence students'
adjustment during this transition. Tao et al. (2000) argued that social support is the most
important factor in reducing the negative effects of the college transition. In fact, support
from peers buffers much of the stress related to students' college transition (Hinderlie &
Kenny, 2002). In regards to student-athletes, Giacobbi et al. (2004) found that support
from teammates had a positive impact on first-year student-athletes' adjustment to both
college life and intercollegiate athletics. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate
student-athletes' transition into college.
The primary purpose of this investigation was to examine the impact of social
support, namely team support, on student-athletes during their college transition. It was
assumed that student-athletes have the unique opportunity to enter into a potential support
network composed of the appropriate support providers. Therefore, it was postulated that
student-athletes would rely on team support during their first-year of college, thus
producing higher college adjustment scores when compared to nonathlete-students. In this
study, first-year and second year-student athletes were compared to first-year and second-
year nonathlete-students on their network composition and adjustment scores.
Several hypotheses were forwarded for this investigation. First, literature suggests
that network members who have similar features to the recipient provide more effective
social support (Vaux, 1988). In addition, network development is a gradual and ongoing
process, especially during the college experience (Pratt, 2000). An aim of this study was to
investigate whether student-athletes enter into a support network composed of similar
featured members (i.e. teammates and other athletes) and utilize that support. Therefore, it
was hypothesized that significant differences would be obtained between first-year
student-athletes and first-year nonathlete-students in the number of support members
within each of the network categories. It was also hypothesized that significant differences
22
would be obtained between second-year student athletes and second-year nonathlete-
students in the number of support members within each of the network categories. Finally,
this study went beyond the current literature and proposed that significant differences
would be obtained between first-year student athletes and second-year student-athletes in
the number of support member within each of the network categories.
Results revealed that there was not a significant difference in network composition
between any of the four groups (i.e., first-year student-athletes, first-year nonathlete-
students, second-year student-athletes, and second-year nonathlete-students) in the
aforementioned hypotheses. Therefore, the aforementioned hypotheses were not supported.
However, the results indicated that student identification (i.e. athlete, nonathlete) had a
small to medium effect on network composition. Yet, year and student identification by
year had nonsignificant effects. Thus, student-athletes differed from nonathlete-students
in regards to the number of people in their support network categories. Student-athletes
had a significantly higher numbers of teammates, other athletes, and athletic staff in their
support network when compared to nonathlete-students. In addition, student-athletes had a
significantly lower number of family, peer and friend network members when compared to
nonathlete-students. The results of this study indicate that the athletic experience does
impact student-athletes social support network. However, this network composition does
not differ based on year in school (e.g. first-year compared to second-year). These results
support the findings of Giacobbi et al. (2004) and Tracey & Corlett (1995) in that athletes
rely on their team for support. However, both these studies investigated only first-year
student-athletes and did not conduct a comparison to nonathlete-students or
upperclassmen.
In regards to gender and support network, research has been equivocal. Even
though there is some evidence that gender influences social support, some theorists believe
that gender only becomes a salient factor when investigating sources of support (i.e.
support network composition; Vaux, 1988). In regard to the transition into college, there
has been contrasting evidence in regards to gender influencing the utilization of peer
support (Colarossi, 2001; Hays & Oxley, 1986; Narayanan et al., 1999). Therefore, the aim
of this research was also to investigate the influence of gender on network composition
during the college transition. Thus, it was hypothesized that significant differences would
be obtained between males and females in the number of support members within each of
23
the network categories. Results indicated that gender was significant factor associated with
network composition. In particular, there was a significant difference between males and
females in that females had a greater number of friend support. The current finding is
similar to Colarossi (2001) where adolescent females had a greater number of supportive
friends when compared to adolescent males. However, the present study found no
difference in any other category of support. Therefore, the results do not support the
findings of Hays and Oxley (1986) where females rely more on peers for support than
males. The results of this study also do not support the findings of Colarossi (2001) or
Narayanan et al.(1999). Both studies indicate a difference in males and females in their
utilization of family support, however, the present study found no difference.
Even though student-athletes relied on their team for social support, it is important
to investigate whether their satisfaction with social support is associated with college
adjustment. Research shows that social support may be the most important factor in
reducing negative effects of the transition into college (Tao, et al, 2000). Pratt et al. (2000)
conducted an intervention that utilized social-support-focused discussion groups with first-
year students and found social support to predict adjustment. Based on previous research, it
was postulated that social support would be significantly associated with college
adjustment. As anticipated, the results of this study indicated that perceived social support
is a significant factor associated with college adjustment. Notably, however, social support
only accounted for 8% of the variation in college adjustment. Even though these results are
in accordance with findings in the extant literature (Tao et al, 200; Pratt et al., 2000),
further investigation is needed on the relationship between social support and college
adjustment. For example, different forms of social support and its influence on the college
transition should be investigated.
Currently, there is limited research investigating the adjustment of student-athletes
during the college transition. It was assumed in this study that student-athletes receive a
unique opportunity to enter into a potential support network to aid with the transition.
Research indicates that team and athlete support has a positive association to college
adjustment and that student-athletes use team support to cope with the transition (Tracey &
Corlett, 1995). Given that the extant literature provides evidence that teammates are
effective support providers during the college transition, it was proposed that first-year
student-athletes would exhibit better adjustment to college than first-year nonathlete-
24
students. Results revealed that there was not a significant difference in adjustment scores
between first-year student-athletes and first-year nonathlete-students. Furthermore, the
results indicated that student identification (i.e. athlete, nonathlete) had a small to medium
effect on adjustment. However, year and student identification by year had small and
nonsignificant effects. The extant literature does provide some support for this unexpected
finding. According to Papanikolaou et al. (2003), first-year student-athletes simultaneously
face a college transition as well as a transition to a higher level of athletic competition. The
sport transition may be an additional stressor influencing first- year student-athletes'
adjustment. Thus the athletic experience provides student-athletes with another obstacle
during the college transition. Therefore, the additional transition of sport competition may
be causing there to be no difference in adjustment scores when comparing first-year
student-athletes to first-year nonathlete-students. It is important to note that both student-
athletes and nonathlete-students had average adjustment. However, student-athletes may
exhibit higher adjustment if they did not have a athletic transition, yet further investigation
is warranted.
The current study went beyond the current literature and compared second-year
student-athletes to second-year nonathlete-students. It was proposed that second-year
student-athletes would exhibit higher adjustment scores than second-year nonathlete-
students. Results revealed that there was no significant difference in adjustment scores
between second-year student-athletes and second-year nonathlete-students. As stated
previously, student identification (i.e., athlete, nonathlete) had a small to medium effect on
adjustment; however, year and the interaction of student identification and year had small,
nonsignificant effects. Thus, there was no difference in adjustment levels between second-
year student-athletes and second-year nonathlete-students. Student-athletes have reported
their secondary role (i.e. athlete) to be a major stressor that requires an extensive amount of
time (Humphrey, Yow, & Bowden, 2000). Due to the extensive demands of sport, the
extent to which the athlete role is, in fact, a secondary role for the student-athlete may be
questionable. Even though student-athletes have to juggle their dual roles, the results of
this study indicated that student-athletes are similarly adjusted to college as nonathlete-
students. Therefore, the result of the present study do not support the assertion that student-
athletes' dual role may result in greater levels of stress for student-athletes (Wilson &
25
Pritchard, 2005). Further research should be conducted on student-athlete coping and how
coping influences their sport-related stress.
Finally, there is limited research on the difference between adjustment scores
among first-year and second-year student-athletes. According to the extant literature, as the
first-year progressed, the quality of the student-athletes' network improved (e.g., team
support) and the athletes began to appraise their transition in a more positive light
(Giacobbi et al., 2004). Therefore, it was hypothesized that second-year student-athletes
would exhibit higher adjustment scores than first-year student-athletes. Results revealed,
however, that there was no difference in adjustment scores between first-year student-
athletes and second-year student-athletes. Furthermore, results indicated that the factor of
year and the interaction of year and student identification had small, nonsignificant effects
on adjustment. Thus, second-year student-athletes did not display higher adjustment to
college when compared to first-year student-athletes. Even though there is evidence
suggesting that sport participation acts as a buffer against college stress (Wilson &
Pritchard, 2005), the results of this study suggest that further investigation is warranted
into student-athletes' adjustment and whether sport participation suppresses better
adjustment of college in athletes.
Limitations
Important data were obtained in this study; however, the study does have
limitations. First, a limitation of this study is the overall sample size and group distribution.
The overall sample of this study was 263 participants. Due to the number of variables that
were investigated, the sample size was smaller than desired. Therefore, the limited sample
size coupled with convenience sampling may diminish the ability to generalize the present
results. In addition, groups were not proportionally represented in the sample. For
example, second-year student-athletes (n = 37) were underrepresented in the study and
only made up 14% of the sample. As a result, other groups were over-represented, such as
first-year nonathlete-students (n = 92). Therefore, the relationships found in this study may
not accurately depict the true relationships occurring in the student-athlete and nonathlete-
student populations.
Regarding the convenience sampling, the extent to which the student-athlete and
nonathlete-student groups were representative of these groups in the overall population of
students is an open-question. The participants were not obtained by random sampling of
26
identified population subgroups but rather obtained because of availability. It is therefore
difficult to know the extent to which the results of this investigation are generalizable
beyond this sample.
In addition to a limited sample size, the timing of data collection also constitutes a
considerable limitation. Given the nature of this study, data collection should occur within
the smallest interval possible. When investigating the phenomenon of adjustment at a
given transition point (e.g., transition initiation), it is imperative to begin data collection at
the start of the transition period. In the present study, data collection began three weeks
into the fall semester and lasted for two months. This delayed and extended data collection
period may confound the results. In addition, most first-year participants were assessed at
the start of the data collection period due to on-campus events for first-year students.
However, there was difficulty obtaining second-year student-athletes, which is evident in
the small group sample size, and caused the extended data collection period. For optimal
results, all participants should have been assessed within the first two weeks of the school
year.
Conclusion and Future Directions
The present study has provided an examination of the relationship between social
support and college adjustment in intercollegiate athletes. In particular, the influence of
team support on first-year student-athletes ability to adapt to the college experience was
investigated. The results have indicated that student-athletes', both first-year and second-
year, were similarly adjusted to college than first-year and second-year nonathlete-
students. There was a significant difference in network composition between student-
athletes and nonathlete-students, indicating that student-athletes rely on the appropriate
support providers (i.e. athletes). However, this did not produce better college adjustment
scores than first-year and second-year nonathlete-students; however both groups exhibited
normatively typical adjustment scores. Furthermore, year in school was not a significant
factor associated with college adjustment, indicating that there was no difference in
adjustment scores in first-year and second-year student-athletes. However, it is necessary
to further investigate the influence of intercollegiate athletics on student-athletes' college
adjustment. In particular, it is important to compare student-athletes to nonathlete student
on different forms of college adjustment. For example, according to Baker and Siryk
(1986), there are four forms of college adjustment: academic, social, personal-emotional,
27
and institutional. It would be necessary to assess whether athletes have a strength and
weakness in a particular area of adjustment. This could lead to the development of specific
college adjustment interventions for both student-athletes and nonathlete-students.
First-year and second-year student-athletes and nonathlete-students were only
investigated in this study. Furthermore, there was no difference in adjustment scores
between first-year and second-year student-athletes. Therefore, it would also be beneficial
to study college adjustment across all years (freshmen to senior) of college athletes. It
would be important to examine trend of adjustment scores from entrance to departure of
college. Additional research on adjustment across all years in college would produce
valuable information on student-athlete development.
Finally, as stated by Vaux (1988), network members who are similar to the support
recipient usually provide more effective support. Even though student-athletes' utilized
team-support, additional research should be conducted on different forms of social support
and its impact on college adjustment. Ultimately, continued research in this area would
necessitate the development of interventions for student-athletes as they transition into
college.
Overall, the current study has provided an adequate foundation for future studies on
the relationship of social support on college adjustment in intercollegiate athletes. This
study is one of the first studies to investigate network composition and its relation to
student-athlete college adjustment. Finally, it is the first study to compare both first-year
and second-year student-athletes and nonathlete-students populations. Further research is
necessary, however, to increase our knowledge on the relationship of teammate support on
college adjustment in intercollegiate athletes.
28
APPENDIX A
HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL
Florida State
UNIVERSITY
Office of the Vice President For
Research Human Subjects
Committee Tallahassee, Florida
32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 FAX
(850) 644-4392
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
Date: 4/28/2006
To:
Desaree Dreher
2700 W. Pensacola St. Apt. 1312
Tallahssee, FL 32304
Dept.: EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
AND LEARNING SYSTEMS From:
Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research
The relationship between social support and transition to college in first-year athletes
The forms that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced
above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects Committee.
Your project is determined to be Exempt per 45 CFR 46.101(b) 2 and has been approved by an accelerated
review process.
The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh
the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit.
This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.
If the project has not been completed by 4/25/2006 you must request renewed approval for
continuation of the project.
You are advised that any change in protocol in this project must be approved by resubmission of the project
to the Committee for approval. Also, the principal investigator must promptly report, in writing, any
unexpected problems causing risks to research subjects or others.
By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that
he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the
department, and should review protocols of such investigations as often as needed to insure that the project is
being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Protection from Research Risks. The
Assurance Number is IRB00000446.
29
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT
Florida State University Consent to Participants in a

Research Study
The purpose of this study is to better understand the relationship between social support and the transition to
college. This research study is entitled: The Relationship between Social Support and Transition to College in
First-Year Athletes. This study is being conducted as a Master's Thesis.
During this study, you will be asked to fill out two surveys assessing information about your social support and
adaptation to college.
You participation in this study is strictly voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks to you if you agree to participate
in this study. Accordingly, there are no consequences if you decide not to participate in the study.
The results of this study will be anonymous and confidentiality will be held to the extent allowed by law. As well,
your name will not be known or requested and will not be reported in any published research that results from this
study.
If you have any questions or want to view the results of the study please contact me, Desaree Dreher, at (973)
214-4786 or at dvd04@fsu.edu, or my advisor Dr. Robert Eklund at eklund@coe.fsu.edu.If you have any
question about your rights as a participant in this study, or if you feel you have been placed at risk,
you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the
Vice President for the Office of Research at (850) 644-8633I have read the information in this consent
form and agree to participate in this study. I have had the chance to ask any questions about this study,
and they have been answered for me.
Print Name_________________
X______________________________ Date
30
APPENDIX C
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
Demographic Information:
Age:__________
Gender- Circle One: Male or Female
Race- Circle One: Caucasian
African American
Asian American
Non-white Hispanic
Native American
Other
Circle One: Student-Athlete or Nonathlete-Student
Circle One: Freshman (1st year) or Sophomore (2nd year)
31
APPENDIX D
SOCIAL SUPPORT QUESTIONNAIRE (SSQ)
INSTRUCTIONS: (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)
The following questions ask about people in your environment who provide you with help or support.
Each question has two parts:
Part 1:
List all the people you know, excluding yourself, whom you can count on for help or support in general.
Give the person's initials and their relationship to you. Please use one of the following relationship
categories:
Family member Instructor Athletic Staff (coaches, trainers, etc.)
Peer (at FSU) Teammate Other
Friend (not at FSU) Athlete (other sport)
Example of Part 1:
1) K.C. (peer) 4) B.T. (friend) 7) R.Y. (instructor)
2) H.T.. (teammate) 5) D.D. (athletic staff) 8)
3) V.F. (teammate) 6) E.B.. (athlete) 9)
Please list your support network:
1) 4) 7)
2) 5) 8)
3) 6) 9)
32
Part 2:
Please circle how satisfied you are with the support you receive from your support network in regards
to each item.
1) Can you really count on your support network to listen to you when you need to talk?
How satisfied?
6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

satisfied satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
2) Could you really count on your support network to help you if a person whom you thought was a good
friend insulted you and told you that he/she didn't want to see you again?
How satisfied?

3) Do you feel that you are an important part of your support networks life?
How satisfied?

4) Do you feel your support network would help you if you were married and had just separated from
your spouse?
How satisfied?

5) Could you really count on your support network to help you out in a crisis situation, even though they
would have to go out of their way to do so?
How satisfied?

33
6) Can you talk with your support network frankly, without having to watch what you say?
How satisfied?

7) Can you really count on your support network to distract you from your worries when you feel stress?
How satisfied?

8) Does your support network make you feel that you truly have something positive to contribute to
others?
How satisfied?

9) Can you really count on your support network to be dependable when you need help?
How satisfied?

10) Could you really count on your support network to help you out if you had just been from your job or
expelled from school?
How satisfied?

11) Can you totally be yourself with your support network?
How satisfied?

34
12) Do you feel your support network really appreciates you as a person?
How satisfied?

13) Can you really count on your support network to give you useful suggestions that help you to avoid
making mistakes?
How satisfied?

14) Can you count on your support network to openly and uncritically to your innermost feelings?
How satisfied?

15) Will your support network comfort you when you need it by holding you in their arms?
How satisfied?

16) Do you feel your support network would help if a good friend of yours had been in a car accident and
was hospitalized in serious condition?
How satisfied?

17) Can you really count on your support network to help you feel more relaxed when you are under
pressure or tense?
How satisfied?
35
18) Do you feel your support network would help you if a family member very close to you died?
How satisfied?

19) Does your support network accept you totally, including both your worst and your best points?
How satisfied?

20) Can you really count on your support network to care about you, regardless of what is happening to
you?
How satisfied?

21) Can you really count on your support network to listen to you when you are very angry at someone
else?
How satisfied?

22) Can you really count on your support network to tell you, in a thoughtful manner, when you need to
improve in some way?
How satisfied?

36
23) Can you really count on your support network to help you feel better when you are feeling generally
down-in-the-dumps?
How satisfied?

24) Do you feel your support network truly loves you deeply?
How satisfied?

25) Can you count on your support network to console you when you are very upset?
How satisfied?

26) Can you really count on your support network to support you in major decisions you make?
How satisfied?

27) Can you really count on your support network to help you feel better when you are very irritable, ready
to get angry at almost anything?
How satisfied?

satisfied satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfie
37
APPENDIX E
STUDENT ADAPTATION TO COLLEGE QUESTIONNAIRE
38
39
REFERENCES
Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1984). Social support and life stress: New directions for
communication research. Human Communication Research, 11, 322.
Belle, D. (1987) Gender differneces in the social moderators of stress. In R. C. Barnett, L.

Biener. & G.K. Baruch (eds. ), Gender and stress (pp.257-277). New York: The Free
Press.
Bernzonsky, M. D. & Kuk, L. S. (2000). Identity status, identity processing style, and the
transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 81-98.
Bianco, T. & Eklund, R. (2001). Conceptual considerations for social support research in sport
and settings: The case of sport injury. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 85-
77.
Boulter, L. T. (2002). Self-concept as a predictor of college freshman academic adjustment.

College Student Journal, 36, 234-246.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York:
Academic Press.
Cohen, S. & Willis, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-337.
Curtona, C. E. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment. In
L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A source book of current theory, research,
and therapy (pp. 291-309). New York: John Wiley.
Day, A. L. & Livingstone, H.A. (2003). Gender difference in perception of stressors and
utilization of social support among university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 35(2), 73-83.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support,
and peer support in the academic success of minority first generation college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 46, 223-236.
Dornbusch, S. M. (2000). Transition from adolescence: A discussion of seven articles. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 15, 173-177.
Downey, P. V. (2005). An exploration of the adjustment processes of freshmen student athletes

and non-athlete students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, West Virginia University.
Fisher, S., Frazer, N., & Murray, K. (1986). Homesickness and health in boarding school.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 93, 378-390.
40
Fusilier, M.R., Gangster, D.C., & Mayes, B.T. (1986). The social support and health
relationship: Is there a gender difference? Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 145-
153.
Giacobbi, P. R., Lynn, T. K., Wetherington, J. M., Jenkins, J., Bodendorf, M., & Langley, B.
(2004). Stress and coping during the transition to university for fist-year female athletes.
The Sport Psychologist, 18, 1-20.
Halamandaris, K. F. & Power, K. G. (1999). Individual differences, social support and coping
with examination stress: a study of the psychosocial and academic adjustment of first
year home students. Personality & Individual Differences, 26, 665-685.
Harrison, R. (1981). Psychosocial dimensions of student athletes: Implications for developmental

studies. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, October, 113 114.
Hays, R. B. & Oxley, D. (1986). Social network development and functioning during a life
transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 305-313.
Hinderlie, H. H. & Kenny, M. (2002).Attachment, social support, and college adjustment among
black students at predominantly white universities. Journal of College Student
Development, 43, 327 339.
Humphrey, J. H., Yow, D. A., & Bowden, W. W. (2000). Stress in college athletics: Causes,
consequences, coping. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Half-Court Press.
Jackson, L. M., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W. & Hunsberger, B. E. (2000). Great expectations: The
relation between expectancies and adjustment during the transition to university. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2100-2125.
Kenny, M. E. & Rice, K. G. (1995). Attachment to parents in late adolescent college students:
Current status, applications, and future considerations. Counseling Psychologist, 23, 433-
456.
Kenny, M. & Stryker, S. (1996). Social network characteristics and college adjustment among
racially and ethnically diverse first-year students, Journal of College Student
Development, 37, 649- 658.
Koplik, E. K., & Devito, A. J. (1986). Problems of freshmen: Comparisons of classes of 1976
and 1986. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 124-131.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lin, N. (1986). Conceptualizing social support. In N. Lin, A. Dean, & W. M. Ensel(Eds.), Social
support, life events, and depression (pp. 17-30). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
41
Lin, N. (1986). Conceptualizing social support. In N. Lin, A. Dean, & W.M. Ensel (Eds.), Social
support, life events, and depression (pp. 17-30). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Medora, N., & Woodward, J. (1986). Loneliness among students at an Indian University.
International Review of Modern Sociology, 16, 117-133.
Narayanan, L., Menon, S. & Spector, P. (1999). Stress in the workplace: A comparison of gender
and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63-73.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2005). 2005-2006 National Collegiate Athletic

Association Manual. Indianapolis, Indiana: Author.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2006). Presidential task force. Retrieved March 22,
2006, from http://www.ncaa.org.com
OBryant, B. J. (1993). School counseling and the student athlete. In W. D. Kirk, & S. V. Kirk,
Sarah V. (Eds.), Student athletes: Shattering the myths and sharing the realities (pp. 13-
24). Alexandria, VA, US: American Counseling Association.
Olejnik, S. & Algina, J. (2003) Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect
size for some common research designs, Psychological Methods, 8, 434-447.
Oppenheimer, B.T. (1984). Short-term small group intervention for college freshmen Journal of
Counseling Psychology. 31, 45-53
Pancer, S. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Alisat, S. (2000). Cognitive complexity of
expectations and adjustment to university in the first year. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 15, 38-57.
Papanikolau, Z., Nikolaidis, D., Patsiaouras, A., & Alexopoulos, P. (2003). The freshman
experience: High stress low grades, Athletic Insight, 51.
Petrie, T. A., & Stoever, S. (1997). Academic and non-academic predictors of female student
athletes academic performance, Journal of College Student Development, 38, 599-608.
Pratt, M. W., Bowers, C., Terzian, B., Hunsberger, B., Mackey, K., Thomas, N., et al., (2000).
Facilitating the transition to university: evaluation of a social support discussion
intervention program. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 427-441.
Rice, K. G. (1992). Separation-individuation and adjustment to college; A longitudinal study.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 203-213.
Sarason, I.G., Levine, H.M., Basham, R.B., & Sarason, B.R (1983). Assessing social support:
The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 127-
139.
42
Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990). Social support: The sense of acceptance
and the role of relationships. In B.R. Sarason, I.G. Sarason, & G.R. Pierce (Eds.), Social
support: An interactional view (pp. 397-426). New York: Wiley.
Schwarzer, R. & Leppin, A. (1991). Social support and health: A theoretical and empirical
overview. Journal of Social and Persona; Relationships, 8, 99-127.
Schwitzer, A. M., Robbins, S. B., & McGovern, T. M. (1993). Influences of goal instability and
social support on college adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 21
25.
Shumaker, S. A. & Brownell, A. (1984). Toward a theory of social support: Closing conceptual
gaps. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 11-36.
Steinberg, L. (1999). Adolescence (5th ed.), Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Stern, G. G. (1966). Myth and reality in the American college. AAUP Bulletin, 52, 408-414.
Tao, S., Dong, Q., Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B. & Pancer, S. M. (2000). Social support:
Relations to coping and adjustment during the transition to university in the People's
Republic of China. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 123-144.
Tracey, J., & Corlett, J. (1995). The transition experience of first-year university track and field
athletes. Journal of the Freshmen Year Experience, 7, 82 102.
Tinto,V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student
leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 422-455.
Wilson, G., & Pritchard, M. (2005). Comparing sources of stress in college student athletes and
non-athletes. Athletic Insight, 71.
Wintre, M. G., Bowers, C. Gordner, N., & Lange, L. (2006). Re-evaluating the university
attrition statistic: a longitudinal follow-up study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21,
111-132.
Wintre, M. G. & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-year students adjustment to university life as function
of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescence Research, 15, 9-37.
Wiseman, H. (1997). Far away from home: the loneliness experience of overseas students.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 277-298.
Vaux, A. (1988). Social support. New York: Prager
43
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Desaree Valerie Festa Dreher was born on September 24, 1982 and was raised in Wayne,
New Jersey by her mother and Italian family. Her sport participation, life experiences, and
supportive family environment led her to pursue a psychology degree with a minor in sport and
coaching at Eastern University located in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Desaree continued her higher
education at Florida State University, majoring in Sport Psychology within the Department of
Educational Psychology and Learning Systems. During the completion of her sport psychology
degree, Desaree was the Vice-President for the Applied Sport Psychology student organization
and worked with various student-athletes. Desaree already began her Ph.D. in The Combined
Program in Counseling Psychology and School Psychology.
44

The Relationship Between Social Support

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relationship Between Social Support

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

The Relationship Between Social Support

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL SUPPORT AND COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT IN

Table 1. Participants Demographics 13

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for participants . 17

Table 4. Univariate F-statistic for support network variables by student identification

Table 5. Univariate F-statistic for support network variables by

Figure 1. Means for network member types by student-identification (athlete vs.

Figure 2. Means for network member types by gender 20

Purpose Statement and Hypotheses

To further explore specific differences in network members attributed to student

Network member type

As shown in Figure 1, non-athletes reported a larger number of members than

Network member types

Figure 2: Mean values for network member types by gender

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL

Dept.: EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

AND LEARNING SYSTEMS From:

Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Florida State University Consent to Participants in a

Gender- Circle One: Male or Female

Race- Circle One: Caucasian

Circle One: Student-Athlete or Nonathlete-Student

Circle One: Freshman (1st year) or Sophomore (2nd year)

SOCIAL SUPPORT QUESTIONNAIRE (SSQ)

INSTRUCTIONS: (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)

Each question has two parts:

Family member Instructor Athletic Staff (coaches, trainers, etc.)

Peer (at FSU) Teammate Other

Friend (not at FSU) Athlete (other sport)

Please list your support network:

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

11) Can you totally be yourself with your support network?

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

6 - very 5- fairly 4- a little 3- a little 2- fairly 1-very

STUDENT ADAPTATION TO COLLEGE QUESTIONNAIRE

Belle, D. (1987) Gender differneces in the social moderators of stress. In R. C. Barnett, L.

Boulter, L. T. (2002). Self-concept as a predictor of college freshman academic adjustment.

Dornbusch, S. M. (2000). Transition from adolescence: A discussion of seven articles. Journal of

Downey, P. V. (2005). An exploration of the adjustment processes of freshmen student athletes