See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236803880

Undergraduate Students' Adaptation to College: Does Being Married Make a

Difference?

Article  in  Journal of College Student Development · September 2003

DOI: 10.1353/csd.2003.0055

CITATIONS READS
34 2,356

2 authors, including:

Cricket Meehan
Miami University
11 PUBLICATIONS   419 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cricket Meehan on 22 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

8QGHUJUDGXDWH6WXGHQWV
$GDSWDWLRQWR&ROOHJH'RHV
%HLQJ0DUULHG0DNHD'LIIHUHQFH"
'DZQD&ULFNHW0DUWLWD0HHKDQ&KDUOHV1HJ\

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 44, Number 5, September/October

2003, pp. 670-690 (Article)

3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/csd.2003.0055

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary/v044/44.5meehan.html

Access provided by Miami University (22 Apr 2015 14:53 GMT)

Undergraduate Students’ Adaptation to College:
Does Being Married Make a Difference?
Dawna-Cricket-Martita Meehan Charles Negy
Increasing numbers of married people
matriculate as undergraduate students
across the United States; yet few studies have
investigated how they fare in their academics
and personal relationships as students. In
this study, married undergraduate students
(n = 79) were compared with single under-
graduate students (n = 192) on the Student
Adaptation to College Questionnaire (Baker
& Siryk, 1989). The results indicated that
married students have moderate difficulties
adjusting to the demands of higher education
relative to unmarried students. Although
social support from families and friends
correlated with improved adjustment to
college, support from the students’ spouses
was not associated with improved college
adjustment even when the spouse was also
a student. Married students reported signi-
ficantly high levels of marital distress on
multiple relationship dimensions. These
findings underscore the importance of
university counselors being prepared to help
couples adapt to these new roles and find
constructive ways to manage and decrease
stress related to college attendance. Recom-
mendations on how institutions can respond
to the unique needs of married under-
graduate students are provided.
Although some of the literature in the
psychological research of student adaptation
has focused specifically on common stress-
ors in an academic setting, rarely addressed
is the ability of married students to manage
Dawna-Cricket-Martita Meehan is a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at the University of Central
Florida. Charles Negy is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Central Florida.
670
the demands of college attendance with their
home life. The focus of this study was the
relationship between marital status and
satisfaction and adaptation to college among
undergraduate students.
Examining the impact marriage has on
undergraduate students’ success in college
is important for two reasons. First, the
enrollment of married students is increasing
at colleges and universities across the United
States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau
(2003b), college attendance throughout the
United States has increased 55% between
1973 and 1993, while the number of married
college students has remained steady at 7%
(2003a). Because such trends are likely to
persist, it behooves faculty and staff to
respond to the unique needs and challenges
experienced by married undergraduate
students in order to facilitate their success
in college. Second, from a psychotherapeutic
perspective, learning more about how
college attendance adversely impacts marital
relationships may provide greater under-
standing to clinicians and counselors work-
ing with couples in therapy whose distress
is linked to one or both partners’ role as a
student.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Although research focusing on the academic
and personal concerns of undergraduate
students is relatively sparse, the following
is a review of concerns that have been
Journal of College Student Development
Adaptation to College
identified in the literature. The most common
academic concerns reported by under-
graduate students are academic hassles such
as scheduling conflicts and inaccessible
classes, exams, grade competition, time
demands, professor and class environment,
motivation to study, and future success in a
career (Li & Kam, 2002; Tyrrell, 1992).
Common personal concerns include intimate
relationships, personal hassles such as not
having enough time for personal activities,
parental conflicts, finances, self-doubt about
academic ability, and interpersonal conflicts
with friends (Archer & Lamnin, 1985; Li &
Kam; Frazier & Schauben, 1994). According
to Archer and Lamnin, women report having
roommate conflicts and personal appearance
issues more frequently than men, whereas
men report having issues relating to meeting
other students and making friends, judgment
or acceptance by peers, and peer pressure.
Frazier and Schauben stress the importance
of considering gender-specific stressful
events on female student populations, such
as a rape or sexual trauma. Moreover, the
need to explore additional sources of stress,
such as life satisfaction, career aspirations,
academic performance, clinical pathology,
sex-roles, and social support, has been sug-
gested in the literature (Archer & Lamnin;
Frazier & Schauben).
More recently, researchers have begun
to focus their attention on a subpopulation
of college students referred to as nontradi-
tional students (Dill & Henley, 1998;
Mallinckrodt, Leong, & Kralj, 1989), often
defined as students who, in addition to
attending college, may be married, a married
or single parent, a caretaker for an elderly
family member, a full-time worker, or are
retraining for a new career (Ellis & Hirsch,
1995; Rosenthal et al., 2000;University of
Central Florida). According to the U.S.
SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5
Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics (2002), 73% of
today’s undergraduate students meet at least
one of the criteria defining nontraditional
students. Moreover, many nontraditional
students must contend with increased
responsibilities related to their additional
roles, unlike younger, traditional students
who typically may not have these added
responsibilities (Legako, 1996; Norton,
Thomas, Morgan, Tilley, & Dickins, 1998;
Stern, 1998).
In an effort to determine if nontraditional
students have higher stress levels than
traditional students, Dill and Henley (1998)
compared both groups of students on per-
ceived levels of stress. In their study,
nontraditional students were defined as
students over the age of 25 attending college
for the first time or who have returned to
college after a break in their education due
to career, family, or personal reasons. It was
found that nontraditional students reported
significantly higher class attendance, worried
less about academic performance, and
enjoyed homework significantly more than
the traditional students. Traditional students
reported being significantly more concerned
with social and peer relationships than
nontraditional students, who in contrast
reported being more concerned with respon-
sibilities at home. Among the sample of
students in the study by Dill and Henley, it
appears that traditional students’ stress is
linked directly with course work and aca-
demic performance, whereas nontraditional
students’ stress is linked with concerns about
college disrupting or interfering with other
aspects of their lives.
Adaptation to college has been re-
searched frequently among populations such
as nontraditional students and graduate
students, while few studies have focused on
671

married students exclusively. The follow-
ing is a brief review of research that has
focused on married students’ adaptation to
college, including stressors related to college
attendance.
Perceived support from spouse has been
found to correlate with marital and emotional
adjustment among medical students (Katz,
Monnier, Libet, Shaw, & Beach, 2000).
Although stress related to being a student in
medical school was associated with the well-
being of both the students and their spouse,
high levels of marital support correlated
negatively with stress. Essentially, spousal
support appears to act as a buffer against
stress, especially if spousal empathy is
present.
Married students often must commute to
college, unlike many traditional students
who live either on campus or in nearby
residences. It would seem that commuting
would add additional stress to married
students’ lives; however, Govaerts and Dixon
(1988) found that there was no difference
between the global marital satisfaction levels
of commuting couples versus noncommuting
couples. On a specific level, commuters did
report less satisfaction with the time they
spent with their spouse and with their
affective communication than noncom-
muting couples. Govaerts and Dixon found
that overall communication tended to be
stronger in couples that had higher marital
satisfaction levels irrespective of their
commuting status, suggesting that a positive
communication between partners may serve
as a buffer to stress.
Stern (1998) found that married graduate
students experience more satisfaction with
respect to their programs in comparison to
unmarried graduate students; however,
married graduate students experience less
satisfaction in their social and extracurricular
672
Meehan & Negy
activities than unmarried graduate students.
Somewhat paradoxically, married students
with additional roles, such as parenting and
working, reported greater satisfaction overall
with graduate training and less stress from
graduate studies; however, multiple-role
involvement correlated with diminished
satisfaction in other areas of life, such as
social events and hobbies, specifically when
compared with the students’ report of their
satisfaction in those areas prior to returning
to school. Married women reported receiving
higher levels of social support from family,
friends, and husband than unmarried women;
and married women without children indi-
cated the most willingness to utilize uni-
versity-based support services. Women with
children between the ages of 8 and 19
endorsed the highest levels of relationship
stress and concern about child-related issues,
primarily due to the amount of time spent
balancing college demands with raising their
children, often to the detriment of their
marriage relationship. Mothers who re-enter
the workforce or who go back to school
reported that they needed their spouse or
partner to help with the demands of child-
rearing at home, resulting in less time for
the spousal relationship (Hoffman & Young-
blade, 2002). Married women with infants
and toddlers however, did not report more
relationship stress than married women
without children. Overall, these findings
suggest that married female students, especi-
ally those who have children school-aged or
older, experience higher levels of stress than
both married female students with young
children and unmarried, childless female
students (Stern).
In a study on undergraduate married
students, Norton et al. (1998) examined the
impact being married had on six student
couples, finding that their first year of
Journal of College Student Development
Adaptation to College
college particularly was more stressful and
that the most effective buffer of stress was
support from their spouse. Results from
follow-up research during the second year
of the study were consistent with the first-
year results, but suggested that there was a
decrease in the amount of spousal support.
Norton et al. speculated that the decision to
attend college initially is shared by the
couple, but after the burden of additional
responsibilities takes over, support tends to
diminish. The current authors further specu-
late that it may be that the nonstudent spouse
becomes resentful of the additional respon-
sibilities that he or she has to shoulder.
Legako (1996) found that graduate
training has a modestly aversive effect on
graduate students’ spousal relationships in
the area of time spent together. Specifically,
although couples did not report feeling
emotionally isolated from one another when
together, they lacked adequate amounts of
time together; thus, quantity of time together
was identified as a problem. Couples also
reported dissatisfaction in areas of their lives
not related to school, given that the couples
had less time to engage in those activities
than they did prior to entering graduate
school.
Brannock (1996) assessed marital satis-
faction of married graduate students at
various points during their graduate pro-
grams. Levels of satisfaction were fairly
consistent at the commencement, the mid-
way point, and toward the completion of the
degree program; however, students from
divorced parents had significantly lower
levels of marital satisfaction than students
from intact families, and couples involved
in marital therapy had lower levels of marital
satisfaction than couples not in therapy. This
latter finding may be a function of dis-
satisfied couples being more likely to be in
SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5
therapy than satisfied couples. Nonetheless,
among Brannock’s sample of married stu-
dents, relationships were relatively stable
throughout graduate school.
In Johnston’s (1996) study of married
students training to be nurses, students who
were unsuccessful in establishing or main-
taining their career were unable to maintain
high self-esteem and they tended to have
relatively less-satisfying spousal rela-
tionships. In a similar study of medical, law,
and other graduate students, Sokolski (1996)
found that marital satisfaction correlated
with commitment, physical intimacy, and
self-disclosure in the relationship; moreover,
greater marital satisfaction was found among
couples in which both partners were students
than among couples with only one partner
in school. This latter finding suggests that
students married to a nonstudent spouse are
more likely to have distressed relationships
than students married to another student. The
current authors speculate that perhaps there
is more understanding about the demands of
college between partners when both partners
actively are students.
Altogether, the findings indicating that
married students experience heightened
stress in relation to college attendance can
be viewed within the context of the family
stress model of adjustment and adaptation
proposed by McCubbin and Patterson
(1983). Specifically, using a modified
model originally developed by Hill (1949),
McCubbin and Patterson argue that a
stressful event (A) interacts with both the
family’s resources (B) and the family’s
appraisal and definition of the event (C) to
produce disruption and stress to the family’s
stability (X). Applying this ABC-X model
to married college students, attending college
(a stressful event) should interact with the
time, energy, and effort couples have to
673

devote to their marriage and other areas (the
family’s resources) and with the new roles
and expectations that having one or both
partners attending college creates within the
family (the family’s definition of the event).
Ultimately, the process leads to heightened
levels of stress and disruption to the couple’s
or family’s functioning (the disruption of the
family’s stability). According to McCubbin
and Patterson, over time the couple or family
will be pressured to utilize and/or expand
their adaptive resources to redefine their
stressful event(s) as a means of coping with
their situation.
THE CURRENT STUDY
As previously indicated, most studies on
married students have focused on graduate
students or students in professional pro-
grams. With the exception of the study by
Norton et al. (1998), conspicuously lacking
in the literature are studies shedding light on
how being married influences adjustment to
the demands of college among under-
graduate students. In this study, married
undergraduate students were compared with
single undergraduate students not in a
committed relationship and with single
undergraduate students who were involved
in a romantic relationship (i.e., a committed
heterosexual, gay, or lesbian relationship
outside of marriage) on their adaptation to
the academic demands of college and on
various social and personal adjustment
aspects related to their college experience.
Undergraduate students from a public,
metropolitan university completed surveys
self-measuring their adaptation to college,
marital/relationship satisfaction, social
support, and life stressors. Multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) and multi-
variate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA)
674
Meehan & Negy
were used to analyze the data because we
made between-group comparisons involving
more than one dependent variable. Through
canonical correlation analysis we assessed
the correlation between two sets of multiple
variables.
Partly based on past research (e.g.,
Legako, 1996) and partly on the McCubbin
and Patterson (1983) family stress model of
adjustment and adaptation, we first hypoth-
esized that married undergraduate students
would manifest higher levels of difficulties
with respect to adjustment to college than
unmarried undergraduate students. More
specifically, it was predicted that married
students would have significantly lower
scores on Academic Adjustment, Social
Adjustment, and Personal-Emotional sub-
scales of the Student Adaptation to College
Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1989)
than single students.
Second, it was predicted that married
students receiving relatively high levels of
social support would manifest better adjust-
ment to college than married students
reporting relatively low levels of social
support. This hypothesis was made in light
of other studies (e.g., Katz et al., 2000;
Norton et al., 1998) that found spousal
support to correlate positively with emo-
tional adjustment. Third, it was predicted that
married students whose spouse is also a
student would demonstrate better adjustment
to college than students whose spouses are
not attending college. Sokolski (1996) had
found that married students report more
enjoyment from college attendance when
their spouses also attend college. It seems
reasonable to expect that couples who are
both students have more in common and
would be more understanding with each
other’s situation than couples in which only
one partner is a student.
Journal of College Student Development
Adaptation to College
Due to the relatively few studies that
have been conducted examining the impact
being married may have on undergraduate
students’ adaptation to college, we included
gender as a study variable given that gender
is a common variable of study fundamental
to most social science research (Cozby,
1997).
METHOD
Participants
Participants for this study were under-
graduate students attending a large, public
metropolitan university in the southeastern
section of the United States with a total
student body of more than 38,000 students
(55.2% female, 44.8% male). The ethnic
composition of the student body includes
White (67.9%), African American (7.9%),
Hispanic/Latino (10.7%), Asian (5.0%), with
remaining students reporting “Other” ethnic
identities (8.5%). The majority of first-year
students live on campus (67%), whereas the
majority of others live off campus (79%).
The university at which this study took place
currently does not publish demographic
information concerning students’ marital
status.
All of the participants were recruited
through classroom announcements and
advertisements in university media. All
student participants, 79 married (63 female,
16 male) and 192 unmarried (132 female,
60 male), were at least 18 years of age.
Specifically, 192 self-identified as White
American, 21 as African American, 36 as
Hispanic or Latino, 10 as Asian, and 12 as
“Other.” Students received extra credit in
their respective course for participation. Of
the 192 unmarried participants, 102 students
identified themselves as being in a com-
mitted romantic relationship.
SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5
Measures
All participants completed the following
instruments.
1. A consent form describing the general
purpose of the study and informing the
students of their rights as research
participants was signed by each.
2. A demographic sheet was used to obtain
each participant’s age, gender, ethnicity,
marital status, number of hours em-
ployed outside the home, student status
including number of college hours
completed, number of college hours
currently enrolled, and college major;
information about the student status of
the student’s spouse and the marital
status of the student’s parents was also
obtained.
3. Student Adaptation to College Ques-
tionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1989).
The SACQ is a 67-item questionnaire
designed to assess how well a student
perceives he or she is adapting to the
college experience and its demands. It
can be administered individually or to
groups, and takes approximately 20
minutes to complete. In addition to a
full-scale adaptation score, the SACQ
also provides four subscales relating to
different aspects of college adjustment:
(a) Academic Adjustment, (b) Social
Adjustment, (c) Personal-Emotional
Adjustment, and (d) Goal Commitment
/ Institutional Attachment. Each SACQ
item is a statement that the student
responds to on a 9-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (doesn’t apply to me at
all) to 9 (applies very closely to me).
Normative data for the SACQ were
derived from a sample of first-semester
and second-semester first-year students
at a university in Massachusetts (Baker
675

& Siryk, 1989), suggesting that the
norms are limited for cross-institution
comparisons. The standard score utilized
for the full scale and each of the sub-
scales is the T score, which has a mean
of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The
SACQ has Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
that range from .81 to .90 for Academic
Adjustment; .83 to .91 for Social Adjust-
ment; .77 to .86 for Personal-Emotional
Adjustment; .85 to .91 for Goal Commit-
ment/Institutional Attachment; and .92
to .95 for the full scale. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients for the current sample
ranged from .82 to .95; .95 for the full
scale, .85 for Academic Adjustment, .85
for Social Adjustment, .89 for Personal/
Emotional Adjustment, and .82 for Goal
Commitment/Institutional Attachment.
For additional information about the
development and psychometric prop-
erties of the SACQ, see Baker and Siryk
(1989).
4. Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised
(MSI-R; Snyder, 1997). All married
participants and unmarried participants
involved in a committed relationship,
independently from their spouses and/
or significant others, also completed the
MSI-R, a 150-item, true-false, self-
measurement of relationship functioning
designed to identify both the nature and
intensity of distress in distinct areas of
the couple’s interaction. The MSI-R
includes two validity scales, one global
distress scale, and ten additional scales
assessing specific dimensions of the
relationship.
• Inconsistency (INC). A validity scale
assessing the individual’s consistency in
responding to item content. (High scores
reflect greater inconsistency.)
676
Meehan & Negy
• Conventionalism (CNV). A validity
scale assessing the individual’s tenden-
cies to distort the appraisal of their
relationship in a socially desirable
direction. (High scores reflect denial of
common relationship shortcomings.)
• Global distress (GDS). Measures the
individual’s overall dissatisfaction with
the relationship.
• Affective communication (AFC). Evalu-
ates the individual’s dissatisfaction with
the amount of affection and under-
standing expressed by his or her partner.
• Problem-solving communication (PSC).
Assesses the couple’s general ineffec-
tiveness in resolving differences.
• Aggression (AGG). Measures the level
of intimidation and physical aggression
experienced by the individual’s from his
or her partner.
• Time together (TTO). Evaluates the
couple’s companionship as expressed in
time shared in leisure activity.
• Disagreement about finances (FIN).
Measures discord in the couple’s rela-
tionship regarding the management of
finances.
• Sexual dissatisfaction (SEX). Assesses
the individual’s dissatisfaction with the
frequency and quality of intercourse and
other sexual activity.
• Role orientation (ROR). Evaluates the
individual’s advocacy for a traditional
versus nontraditional orientation toward
marital and parental gender roles. (High
scores reflect a nontraditional orienta-
tion.)
• Family history of distress (FAM). Re-
flects the disruption of relationships
within the individual’s family of origin.
Journal of College Student Development
Adaptation to College
Only individuals who have children
were asked to complete the following
two subscales:
• Dissatisfaction with children (DSC).
Assesses the relationship quality be-
tween the individual’s and his or her
children as well as parental concern
regarding one or more children’s emo-
tional and behavioral well-being.
• Conflict over child rearing (CCR).
Evaluates the individual’s perception of
the extent of conflict between partners
regarding child-rearing practices.
The MSI-R is administered to each
partner in the relationship independently
and requires approximately 25 minutes
to complete. Individuals’ responses are
scored along the 11 profile scales (13
profile scales if they have children) and
are plotted on a standard profile sheet
based on gender-specific norms using
normalized T scores, which have a mean
of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.
Each of the scales excluding the validity
scales (INC and CNV) and ROR are
scored in a direction whereby higher
scores reflect higher levels of rela-
tionship distress. On ROR, higher scores
reflect more egalitarian views toward
marital and parental gender roles. Nor-
mative data for the MSI-R were obtained
from a sample of 2,040 people (1,020
intact couples) across the United States.
The normative sample represents a broad
representation of married couples with
varying ages, from their late teens
through their early nineties, education
and occupation levels, and ethnicities.
Coefficients of internal consistency
based on intact couples’ scores for the
12 scales (excluding INC) average .82
(range = .70 to .93), and test-retest
SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5
stability coefficients average .79 (range
= .74 to .88). Cronbach’s alpha co-
efficients for the current sample ranged
from .73 to .93; for Global Distress (.93),
Affective Communication (.86),
Problem-Solving Communication (.87),
Aggression (.84), Time Together (.81),
Disagreement About Finances (.73),
Sexual Dissatisfaction (.82), Role Orien-
tation (.77), Family History of Distress
(.81), and Conventionalism (.83). For
additional information about the devel-
opment and psychometric properties of
the MSI-R, see Snyder (1997).
5. Multidimensional Scale of Perceived
Social Support (MSPSS; Dahlem, Zimet,
& Walker, 1991). Social support was
assessed using the 12-item MSPSS to
determine the students’ perception of
social support from three distinct groups:
family, friends, and significant other.
Each item is responded to on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strong-
ly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree).
The MSPSS takes about 5 minutes
to complete. Normative data for the
MSPSS were derived from a study by
Dahlem et al. based on scores from 154
students at an urban college. The MSPSS
obtained Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
of internal consistency ranging from .90
to .95: for the full scale (.91), Family
scale (.90), Friends scale (.94), and
Significant Other scale (.95). Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients for the current sample
ranged from .93 to .96: for the Full scale
(.93), Family scale (.93), Friends scale
(.95), and Significant Other scale (.96).
For additional information about the
development and psychometric proper-
ties of the MSPSS, see Dahlem et al.
6. Social Readjustment Rating Scale
(SRRS; Holmes & Rahe, 1967). The
677

SRRS consists of 43 life events that are
often reported as stressful. Respondents
are asked to endorse those items they
have experienced in the last 12 months.
Seventeen events are rated as desirable
(e.g., vacation, marriage), 18 are rated
as undesirable (e.g., death of a loved one,
divorce), and 8 are rated as neutral
events (e.g., change in working condi-
tions, change in living environment).
Recently, to address the criticisms of the
original approach, each event in the
SRRS has been re-weighted according
to the amount of stress it produced in
the more recent normative sample. Death
of a spouse was identified as the most
stressful event and Christmas was
identified as the least stressful event
(Scully, Tosi, & Banning, 2000). The
SRRS takes approximately 10 minutes
to complete. The SRRS was included to
determine if any of the reported stress
is a function of events unrelated to
college attendance.
Procedure
Announcements for volunteer participation
in the current study were made in under-
graduate classrooms in the Psychology
department and on research boards advertis-
ing the study. Students who volunteered to
participate were provided surveys in a group
format in the classroom. All students were
asked to complete the consent form, demo-
graphic form, SACQ, MSPSS, and SRRS.
In addition, any student involved in a
romantic relationship with a significant
partner, regardless of marital status, was
invited to complete the MSI-R based on that
relationship.
RESULTS
To determine whether the married (married
refers to those who are legally married) and
678
Meehan & Negy
unmarried (unmarried refers to those in-
volved in committed, but not legally married,
relationships as well as those not involved
in any romantic relationships) groups
differed significantly from one another on
demographic variables, a MANOVA was
performed with marital status as the inde-
pendent variable and age, class standing,
social support (as measured by the MSPSS),
and life stress (as measured by the SRRS)
as the dependent variables. In addition, χ2
analyses were conducted to determine
whether the married and unmarried groups
differed on gender, ethnicity, student status
(full-time vs. part-time), work status, and
parents’ marital status (the dependent
variables) with marital status as the fixed
factor.
Marital status was associated with a
significant effect on the demographic
variables, using Wilk’s Lambda, F(4, 237)
= 53.88, p = .000. Univariate analyses
indicated a significant effect for age,
F(1, 240) = 175.66, p = .000; and class
standing, F(1, 240) = 17.21, p = .000. No
significant differences between the married
and unmarried students were found on social
support, F(1, 240) = 3.40, ns; and life stress,
F(1, 240) = 0.08, ns. The χ2 analyses indi-
cated significant effects for student status
(χ2 = 62.34, p = .000) and parents’ marital
status (χ2 = 15.52, p = .008). There were no
differences between the groups on gender
(χ2 = 3.35, ns), ethnicity (χ2 = 2.40, ns), and
work status (χ2 = 1.42, ns).
To test the first hypothesis, that married
undergraduate students would manifest
higher levels of difficulties with respect to
adjustment to college than unmarried under-
graduate students, a MANCOVA was per-
formed with marital status and gender as the
independent variables and the four subscales
of the SACQ (Academic Adjustment, Social
Adjustment, Personal-Emotional Adjust-
Journal of College Student Development
Adaptation to College

ment, and Goal Commitment / Institutional the Personal-Emotional Adjustment scale,

Attachment) as the dependent variables, with
age, student status, class standing, and
parents’ marital status as covariates.
Marital status was associated with a
significant effect on the SACQ, F(4, 213)
= 2.57, p = .039. Univariate analyses indi-
cated a significant effect for the Social
Adjustment subscale, F(1, 216) = 10.02,
p = .002, η2 = .044; and for the Goal Com-
mitment/Institutional Attachment subscale,
F(1, 216) = 6.28, p = .013, η2 = .028. Speci-
fically, married undergraduate students had
significantly lower scores on Social Adjust-
ment (M = 102, SD = 21.70, T = 39) than
unmarried undergraduate students (M = 120,
SD = 27.48, T = 45.5), and lower scores on
Goal Commitment/Institutional Attachment
(M = 100, SD = 15.39, T = 48) than un-
married undergraduate students (M = 103,
SD = 17.62, T = 49.5). No significant differ-
ences between the married and unmarried
students were found on the Academic
Adjustment scale, F(1, 216) = 0.71, ns; and
F(1, 216) = 1.17, ns. Table 1 shows the raw
score means, standard deviations, and mean
T scores for the married and unmarried
students on the SACQ subscales.
Gender also was associated with a
significant effect on the SACQ, F(4, 213)
= 4.81, p = .001. Univariate analyses indi-
cated a significant effect for the Academic
Adjustment subscale, F(1, 216) = 7.85,
p = .006, η 2 = .04. Specifically, female
undergraduate students had significantly
lower scores on Academic Adjustment
(M = 154, SD = 23.58, T = 53) than male
undergraduate students (M = 165, SD =
24.99, T = 57). No significant differences
between females and males were found on
the Social Adjustment scale, F(1, 216)
= 0.95, ns; the Personal-Emotional Adjust-
ment scale, F(1, 216) = 0.60, ns; and the
Goal Commitment/Institutional Attachment
scale, F(1, 216) = 0.33, ns. Table 2 shows
the raw score means, standard deviations,
and mean T scores for the female and male

TABLE 1.
Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations, and T ScoresA
for Married and Unmarried Students on the SACQ Subscales

Married Students Unmarried Students

(n = 79) (n = 192)

SACQ Subscales M SD T M SD T

Academic Adjustment 164 25.09 56.5 154 23.53 53.0

Social Adjustment 102 * 21.70 39.0 120 * 27.48 45.5

Personal-Emotional Adjustment 94 25.05 49.5 90 26.34 47.5

Goal Commitment / Institutional

Attachment 100 * 15.39 48.0 103 * 17.62 49.5

A
T scores based on an average of the combined norms for male and female second-semester college
freshman in the SACQ manual (Baker & Siryk, 1989).
* p < .05.

SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5 679

 Meehan & Negy

TABLE 2.
Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations, and T ScoresA for
Female and Male Students on the SACQ Subscales

Female Students Male Students

(n = 195) (n = 76)

SACQ Subscales M SD T M SD T

Academic Adjustment 154 * 23.58 53 165 * 24.99 57

Social Adjustment 120 27.48 44 102 21.28 40

Personal-Emotional Adjustment 91 26.27 48 94 24.90 49

Goal Commitment / Institutional

Attachment 103 17.55 48 101 15.25 50

1
T scores based on the norms for female and male second-semester college freshman in the SACQ manual
(Baker & Siryk, 1989).
* p < .05.

participants on the SACQ subscales. correlations were not significant: χ2(6) =

There was no significant main effect for
a Gender × Marital Status interaction,
F(4, 213) = 0.74, ns. To test the second
hypothesis, that married students who report
receiving social support would manifest
better adjustment to college than married
students reporting less social support, a
canonical correlation analysis was per-
formed, which allows the assessment of
relationships between two sets of variables
by generating pairs of linear combinations
of variables (one linear combination from
each of the two sets) (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1983). The subscales of the MSPSS were
used as the independent variables and the
subscales of the SACQ were used as the
dependent variables.
The first canonical correlation accounted
for the relationship between social support
and adaptation to college (R = .51, account-
ing for 26% of the variance) and was
statistically significant, χ 2 (12) = 25.17,
p = 0.01. The remaining two canonical
2.97, ns, and χ2(2) = 0.01, ns, respectively.
Table 3 presents the correlations between the
social support subscales and their canonical
variates and between the adaptation to col-
lege variables and their canonical variates.
With a cutoff correlation of .30 for inter-
pretation of the structure coefficients
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983), it was found
that married students who had relatively high
levels of social support from friends (0.91)
and family (0.52) manifested better academic
adjustment (0.46), social adjustment (0.91),
personal-emotional adjustment (0.82), and
more commitment and attachment to the
goals and institution (0.76) relative to
married students with less social support.
For exploratory purposes, a canonical
correlation analysis was performed to
determine if unmarried students who report
receiving social support would manifest
better adjustment to college than unmarried
students reporting less social support. Again,
the subscales of the MSPSS were used as

680 Journal of College Student Development

Adaptation to College
the independent variables and the subscales
of the SACQ were used as the dependent
variables.
The first canonical correlation accounted
for the relationship between social support
and adaptation to college (R = .34, account-
ing for 12% of the variance) and was
statistically significant, χ 2 (12) = 30.34,
p = .002. The remaining two canonical
correlations were not significant: χ 2 (6)
= 6.78, ns, and χ2(2) = 2.36, ns, respectively.
Table 3 presents the correlations between the
social support subscales and their canonical
variates and between the adaptation to col-
lege variables and their canonical variates.
Using the same cutoff correlation of .30 for
interpretation of the structure coefficients,
it was found that unmarried students who had
relatively high levels of social support from
friends (0.75) and family (0.44) manifested
better social adjustment (0.89) and personal-
TABLE 3.
Correlations Between Social Support and Adaptation to College (SACQ) Variables
and Their Respective Canonical Variates for Married and Unmarried Students
Variable
Social Support Subscales
Family
Friends
Significant Other
SACQ Subscales
Academic Adjustment
Social Adjustment
Personal-Emotional Adjustment
Goal Commitment / Institutional Attachment
* p .30.
SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5
emotional adjustment (0.51) and more
commitment and attachment to the goals and
institution (0.67) relative to unmarried
students with less social support.
In order to determine if married students
differed on demographic variables as a
function of their spouse’s student status, a
MANOVA was performed with spouse’s
student status as the independent variable
and age, gender, ethnicity, student status
(full-time vs. part-time), class standing, work
status, parents’ marital status, social support
(as measured by the MSPSS), and life stress
(as measured by the SRRS) as the dependent
variables.
Spouse’s student status was not asso-
ciated with a significant effect on the
demographic variables, F(9, 65) = 0.90, ns.
No significant differences between the
married students whose spouses were
students and married students whose spouses
Married Students Unmarried Students
(n = 79) (n = 192)
0.52 * 0.44 *
0.90 * 0.75 *
0.22 0.11
0.46 * 0.01
0.91 * 0.89 *
0.82 * 0.51 *
0.76 * 0.67 *
681
 Meehan & Negy

TABLE 4.
Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations, and T ScoresA
for Married Female and Married Male Students on the SACQ Subscales

Female Students Male Students

(n = 63) (n = 16)

SACQ Subscales M SD T M SD T

Academic Adjustment 163 25.08 56 169 25.41 59

Social Adjustment 101 22.07 38 107 20.17 42

Personal-Emotional Adjustment 92 25.42 49 103 22.14 54

Goal Commitment / Institutional

Attachment 100 15.70 47 102 14.44 50

A
T scores based on the norms for female and male second-semester college freshman in the SACQ manual
(Baker & Siryk, 1989).

were not students were found on any of the
demographic variables (p .05 for all).
To test the third hypothesis, that married
students whose spouses also are students
would demonstrate better adjustment to
college than students whose spouses are not
attending college, a MANOVA was per-
formed using data only from the married
participants, with spouse’s student status and
gender as the independent variables and the
four SACQ subscales as the dependent
variables.
There was no significant main effect for
spouse’s student status, F(4, 72) = 1.14, ns;
or for gender, F(4, 72) = 2.29, ns. Addi-
tionally, there was no significant main effect
for a Gender × Spouse’s Student Status
interaction, F(4, 72) = 1.12, ns. Table 4
shows the raw score means, standard devi-
ations, and mean T scores for the married
female and married male participants on the
SACQ subscales.
To explore whether couples in which
both are students have more satisfying
relationships than couples in which only one
is a student, a MANOVA was performed
using data only from the married parti-
cipants, with spouse’s student status and
gender as the independent variables and the
MSI-R subscales as the dependent variables.
There was no significant main effect for
spouse’s student status, F(11, 65) = 1.15, ns.
There was a significant main effect for
gender, F(11, 65) = 2.43, p = .01. Univariate
analyses indicated a significant effect for the
Sexual Dissatisfaction subscale, F(1, 75)
= 10.80, p = .002, η2 = .13; and Role Ori-
entation subscale, F(1, 75) = 4.07, p = .05,
η 2 = .03. Specifically, female married
students had significantly higher scores on
Sexual Dissatisfaction (M = 9, SD = 3.02,
T = 64) than male married students (M = 10,
SD = 3.50, T = 61). On the other hand, male
married students had significantly higher
scores on Role Orientation (M = 11, SD =
2.50, T = 64) than female married students
(M = 11, SD = 2.59, T = 61). In addition,
there was no significant main effect for a
Gender × Spouse’s Student Status inter-
action, F(11, 65) = 0.20, ns. Table 5 shows

682 Journal of College Student Development

Adaptation to College

the means, standard deviations, and mean T
scores for the married female and married
male students on the MSI-R subscales.
To explore whether marital satisfaction
is related to students’ adaptation to college,
a canonical correlation analysis was per-
formed using the MSI-R subscales as the
independent variables and the SACQ sub-
scales as the dependent variables with the
married students’ data. The first canonical
correlation accounted for the relationship
between marital satisfaction and adaptation
to college (R = .71, accounting for 50% of
the variance) and was statistically signi-
ficant, χ2(44) = 76.43, p = .002. The re-
maining three correlations were not signi-
ficant: χ2(30) = 29.40, ns, χ2(18) = 12.11, ns,
and χ2(8) = 3.97, ns, respectively. Table 6
presents the correlations between the MSI-R
subscales and their canonical variates and
between the SACQ subscales and their
canonical variates. The MSI-R subscales that
were significantly related to their canonical
variates were Conventionalism (0.30),
Affective Communication (–0.64), Problem-
Solving Communication (–0.42), Time
Together (–0.57), and Family History of
Distress (–0.35). Among the SACQ sub-
scales, Social Adjustment (0.84), Personal-
Emotional Adjustment (0.71), and Goal
Commitment / Institutional Attachment
(0.79) were significantly related to their

TABLE 5.
Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations, and T ScoresA
for Married Female and Married Male Students on the MSI-R Subscales

Female Students Male Students

(n = 63) (n = 16)

MSI-R Subscales M SD T M SD T

Conventionalism 8 3.19 60 * 7 2.85 55

Inconsistency 3 2.67 48 3 2.67 47
Global Distress 14 5.89 63 * 14 5.10 67 *
Affective Communication 8 3.07 60 * 8 3.22 63 *
Problem-Solving Communication 13 5.06 61 * 13 5.03 61 *
Aggression 6 2.82 63 * 6 2.52 65 *
Time Together 7 2.71 61 * 7 2.59 63 *
Disagreement About Finances 7 2.71 62 * 7 1.77 64 *
Sexual Dissatisfaction 9 3.02 64 * 10 3.50 61 *
Role Orientation 11 2.59 61 * 11 2.50 64 *
Family History of Distress 7 2.79 61 * 7 2.49 61 *

A
T scores based on the normalized sample of 1,020 females and 1,020 males in the MSI-R manual (Snyder,
1997).
* Ts > 60 are considered clinically significant (Snyder, 1997).

SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5 683

 Meehan & Negy

TABLE 6.
Correlations between Marital Satisfaction (MSI-R) and Adaptation to College
(SACQ) Variables and Their Respective Canonical Variates
for Married and Unmarried Students

r
Married Students Unmarried Students
Variable (n = 77) (n = 103)

MSI-R Subscales
Conventionalism 0.30 * 0.40 *
Inconsistency –0.26 –0.07
Global Distress –0.28 –0.54 *
Affective Communication –0.64 * –0.73 *
Problem-Solving Communication –0.42 * –0.69 *
Aggression –0.16 –0.32 *
Time Together –0.57 * –0.55 *
Disagreement About Finances –0.29 –0.61 *
Sexual Dissatisfaction –0.15 –0.46 *
Role Orientation 0.29 –0.25
Family History of Distress –0.35 * –0.45 *

SACQ Subscales
Academic Adjustment 0.19 0.49 *
Social Adjustment 0.84 * 0.72 *
Personal-Emotional Adjustment 0.71 * 0.94 *
Goal Commitment / Institutional Attachment 0.79 * 0.75 *

* r s > ± 0.30 are statistically significant at the .05 level (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983).

canonical variates. and adaptation to college (R = .57, account-

To explore whether an unmarried,
committed relationship with a significant
other correlates with students’ adaptation to
college, a canonical correlation analysis was
performed using the MSI-R subscales as the
independent variables and the SACQ sub-
scales as the dependent variables with data
from unmarried students who completed the
MSI-R based on their dating relationships.
The first canonical correlation accounted for
the relationship between marital satisfaction
ing for 32% of the variance) and was
statistically significant, χ 2 (44) = 66.77,
p = .02. The remaining three canonical
correlations were not significant: χ2(30) =
29.22, ns; χ 2(18) = 14.19, ns; and χ 2(8)
= 2.14, ns, respectively. Table 6 presents the
correlations between the MSI-R subscales
and their canonical variates and between the
SACQ subscales and their canonical variates.
The MSI-R subscales that were significantly
related to their canonical variates were

684 Journal of College Student Development

Adaptation to College
Conventionalism (0.40), Global Distress
(–0.54), Affective Communication (–0.73),
Problem-Solving Communication (–0.69),
Aggression (–0.32), Time Together (–0.55),
Disagreement About Finances (–0.61),
Sexual Dissatisfaction (–0.46), and Family
History of Distress (–0.45). Among the
SACQ subscales, Academic Adjustment
(0.49), Social Adjustment (0.71), Personal-
Emotional Adjustment (0.94), and Goal
Commitment / Institutional Attachment
(0.75) were significantly related to their
canonical variates.
Finally, when comparing the present
sample of married undergraduate students’
MSI-R scores to scores from married couples
who served as the national normative sample
for the MSI-R, the married students had
scores greater than one standard deviation
(10 T-score points) from the scores of the
national normative sample on the following
subscales: Conventionalism (T = 60 for
females), Global Distress (T = 63 for fe-
males, T = 67 for males), Affective Com-
munication (T = 60 for females, T = 63 for
males), Problem-Solving Communication
(T = 61 for females, T = 61 for males),
Aggression (T = 63 for females, T = 65 for
males), Time Together (T = 61 for females,
T = 63 for males), Disagreement About
Finances (T = 62 for females, T = 64 for
males), Sexual Dissatisfaction (T = 64 for
females, T = 61 for males), Role Orientation
(T = 61 for females, T = 64 for males), and
Family History of Distress (T = 61 for
females, T = 61 for males).
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to
examine the relation between undergraduate
students’ marital status and adaptation to
college. Overall, the results offered partial
SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5
support for the hypotheses made at the outset
(see The Current Study section above).
Regarding the first hypothesis, married
students were found to have scores reflective
of poorer adjustment to college on two
SACQ subscales (Social Adjustment and
Goal Commitment/Institutional Attachment)
compared to unmarried students. Married
students had been predicted to manifest
poorer adjustment to college than unmarried
students given the former group’s increased
and sustained responsibilities at home and
toward their marriage. No differences
between the married and unmarried students
were found on the Academic Adjustment and
Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscales,
which may have been due to the nature of
the subscales. The two subscales on which
they differed—Social Adjustment and Goal
Commitment / Institutional Attachment—
appear to load on factors that are more
indicative of how well a student is fitting into
the overall college environment, whereas
Academic Adjustment and Personal-Emo-
tional Adjustment—the two subscales on
which they did not differ significantly—load
more on factors that are idiosyncratic to each
student. Married students may not have time
available to fully participate in extra-
curricular and student-related activities at
college, whereas they value the areas that are
personally relevant to them, namely their
academic performance and their emotional
adjustment.
The finding that married students ob-
tained lower scores than unmarried students
on Social Adjustment and Goal Commitment
/ Institutional Attachment, and comparable
scores on Academic Adjustment and Per-
sonal-Emotional Adjustment, is consistent
with the family stress model of adjustment
and adaptation proposed by McCubbin and
Patterson (1983). According to the model,
685

married students would be expected to
manifest low levels of adjustment in re-
sponse to a stressful event such as college
attendance; yet, because their resources for
coping would be compromised by being
spread across domains, married students, by
necessity, would adapt by garnering their
limited resources and judiciously applying
them to areas they deem most important
(such as aspects of the college experience
as measured by the Academic Adjustment
and Personal-Emotional Adjustment sub-
scales). Nevertheless, given that these two
subscales (Academic Adjustment and Per-
sonal-Emotional Adjustment) primarily
assess motivational levels, academic per-
formance, general psychological distress,
and somatic complaints, the absence of
contrasting results can be seen as positive
information; that is, both the married and
unmarried students in this sample reported
normal levels of adaptation to college with
regard to motivation, application, and
performance (as measured by the Academic
Adjustment subscale) and psychological
distress and somatic complaints (as measured
by the Personal-Emotional Adjustment
subscale).
As predicted, married students reporting
relatively high levels of social support did
manifest better adjustment to college than
married students reporting relatively low
levels of social support. Specifically,
encouragement and support from their
family and friends were related to better
academic adjustment, social adjustment,
personal-emotional adjustment, and com-
mitment and attachment to their college.
Surprisingly, married students’ social support
from their spouse did not correlate signi-
ficantly with their adjustment to college. For
married students, perhaps their school-
related demands are secondary to their
686
Meehan & Negy
domestic and relationship responsibilities at
home; that is, the support they receive from
their spouse possibly focuses primarily on
their family responsibilities and minimally
on their school responsibilities. Similarly, the
unmarried students reporting relatively high
levels of social support, specifically from
friends and family, also manifested better
adjustment to college than unmarried stu-
dents reporting relatively low levels of social
support. As was found with married students,
encouragement and support from family and
friends were related to better social adjust-
ment, personal-emotional adjustment, and
commitment to their college.
Contrary to prediction, married students
whose spouse also was a student did not
manifest better adjustment to college nor
have more satisfying relationships than
married students whose spouse was not in
school. It was speculated that spouses who
were both students would have similar
experiences and goals related to their
commitment to education and that these
similarities would create an atmosphere of
mutual care and understanding related to the
challenges and frustrations of being a
student; however, the data did not support
this hypothesis. It may be that instead of
reaping the rewards of a shared pursuit of
higher education, the experience of dual-
enrollment status among couples compounds
their level of stress. The burdens of doubled
college-related expenses, reduced income,
and stress from assignments and exams
collectively compromise the quality of their
relationships.
There were significant gender differ-
ences among the married students with
regard to adaptation to college. Male
undergraduate students scored higher on the
Academic Adjustment subscale than did
female undergraduate students. One possible
Journal of College Student Development
Adaptation to College
explanation is that the university, including
professors, caters to male students more than
female students; however, in the absence of
evidence for that possibility, it may be more
likely that males derive more meaning from
academic competence, similar to how males
have the tendency to define themselves in
terms of their occupation (Wigfield, Battle,
Keller, & Eccles, 2002). It deserves mention,
though, that although there were statistically
significant differences between the genders
on academic adjustment, both groups in the
current study endorsed higher levels of
adjustment relative to the SACQ national
normative sample of students. Further study
is warranted to determine how undergraduate
students’ motivation level, ability to apply
themselves to academic work, academic
performance, and satisfaction with the
academic environment differ between mar-
ried male and married female students.
There also were gender differences
among the married students’ reports of
marital satisfaction. Male students endorsed
a relatively more egalitarian view regarding
marital roles than did female students. It
deserves noting that, although it appears that
men in this study appeared to hold non-
traditional values toward marriage more than
women, in absolute terms, both men and
women in this study endorsed egalitarian
views toward marriage substantially more
than couples throughout the United States
who had served in the MSI-R normative
sample. Additionally, female students
expressed less sexual satisfaction with their
spouses than did their male counterparts. The
women may be dissatisfied with the amount
of intimate time they have with their partner
due to the amount of time they must focus
on school-related responsibilities. Further
study is warranted to explore the possible
reasons why gender differences emerged on
SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5
these specific relationship dimensions
among undergraduate students.
In this study, the quality of married
students’ relationships with their spouse
correlated positively with their adaptation to
college. Married students who were satisfied
with the amount of affection and under-
standing expressed by their partner and who
were effective in resolving differences
manifested better social adjustment, per-
sonal-emotional adjustment, and loyalty to
their college. Similar findings were observed
among students who were involved in a
dating relationship who were satisfied with
their relationships. The correlational nature
of these data precludes making a causal
connection between relationship satisfaction
and adjustment to college. It seems reason-
able to speculate that stable, satisfying
relationships have a positive effect on one’s
adjustment to the demands of college; yet,
it could be that positive adjustment to college
affects the quality of a student’s relationship
with a significant other outside the academic
arena. In all likelihood, adjustment in both
relationship and college domains mutually
influence each other.
Finally the married students in this study
expressed significantly greater distress on
multiple dimensions in their marriages than
married couples who formed the normative
sample of the MSI-R. Specifically, married
students had more difficulty displaying
affection and resolving differences with their
spouses, reported elevated levels of aggres-
sion with each other, shared less time
together, and generally were less satisfied in
the relationships than data indicate for
couples in the standardization sample.
Moreover, the married students also reported
more conflict over financial matters and the
sexual component of their relations, were
less traditional in their views of marriage,
687

and reported coming from conflict-ridden
families of origin significantly more than the
married couples in the normative sample.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Married undergraduate students were found
to have moderate difficulties adjusting to
college, particularly in areas such as be-
coming involved with other students on
campus and feeling connected or attached
to the institution they attend. Although social
support from family and friends positively
correlated with adjustment to college,
curiously, feeling supported by one’s spouse
was not associated with improved adaptation
to college. Further, the student status of the
participants’ spouses was not associated with
their college adjustment. Last, in comparison
to the fairly large group of couples who
comprised the standardization sample for the
MSI-R, the present sample of married
undergraduate students manifested signi-
ficantly high levels of marital distress on
multiple dimensions in their relationships.
Although the current data seem to
portray a situation that is not particularly
optimistic for students attending college
while married, these findings should not
discourage married individuals from pur-
suing higher education necessarily. Rather,
because these findings suggest that indi-
viduals opting to attend college while being
married are at risk for compromising their
marital happiness and may be jeopardizing
their education, every effort should be made
within the institution to ensure that married
undergraduate students are successful, both
inside and outside school. Specifically, these
findings underscore the importance of
university counselors’ being prepared to help
couples adapt to their new roles, recognizing
that there may be additional tension in the
688
Meehan & Negy
home related to college attendance, and
finding constructive ways to manage and
decrease school-related stress.
The results obtained from this study are
not without limitations. The student parti-
cipants were not randomly selected, and all
attended a single university—the institution
at which this study was conducted. Con-
sequently, these findings may not generalize
to other married students, especially those
attending universities in other geographic
regions of the country. Moreover, some of
the instruments used for this study had
inherent limitations that were noted pre-
viously; perhaps the most notable was the
SACQ, which was normalized on students
from only one university in the Northeastern
United States.
Future studies of this nature should be
conducted with married students from
diverse colleges and universities across the
United States to determine if the results
reported herein are robust. Also, more studies
that include students in committed, yet
unmarried relationships (including gay and
lesbian relationships) are warranted to shed
more light on the effects of college attend-
ance with these students.
Colleges and universities across the
United States can anticipate increased
enrollment by these nontraditional students
in light of increased sociodemographic
changes taking place throughout the country.
Consequently, it seems critical that univer-
sities consider ways they can improve the
educational experiences of their students
who—for whatever reason—elect to take on
the challenges of higher education while
contending with the array of demands that
typically accompany the early years of
marriage. For example, institutions could
offer incoming student orientations targeted
specifically for students who are married.
Journal of College Student Development
Adaptation to College
During such orientation meetings, students
could be advised about the hazards of
balancing academic demands with marital
responsibilities, particularly if students must
also maintain some form of employment out
of economic necessity. Incoming married
students also could benefit from information
about any forms of support readily available,
such as those that may be provided by a
student counseling center on campus or by
agencies within the community. Counseling
staff also could provide outreach services to
married students tailored specifically to the
perceived needs of married students.
Last, the findings from this study may
aid counselors and clinicians working with
SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2003 X VOL 44 NO 5
student populations by alerting them to the
array of stressors and challenges confronting
married students. Traditionally, many gradu-
ate school programs training counselors to
work in academic settings tend to focus on
servicing the needs of individual students;
such programs will need to broaden the focus
of their training to include couples and even
families to better serve the counseling needs
of this growing population of nontraditional
students.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Charles Negy, University of Central
Florida, Department of Psychology, P.O. 161390,
Orlando, FL 32816.
689

REFERENCES
Archer, J., & Lamnin A. (1985). An investigation of personal
and academic stressors on college campuses. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 26, 210-215.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1989). Student Adaptation to
College Questionnaire: Manual. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Brannock, R. S. G. (1996). The impact of graduate school
on the marital satisfaction of doctoral students. Disser-
tation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities &
Social Sciences, 56, 2563.
Cozby, P. C. (1997). Methods in behavioral research (6th
ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, G. D., & Walker, R. R. (1991). The
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support: A
confirmation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47,
756-761.
Dill, P. L., & Henley, T. B. (1998). Stressors of college: A
comparison of traditional and nontraditional students.
Journal of Psychology, 132, 25-32.
Ellis, J. B., & Hirsch, J. K. (1995). Attitudes of traditional
and nontraditional college students towards suicide.
College Student Journal, 29(4), 455-448.
Frazier, P. A., & Schauben, L. J. (1994). Stressful life events
and psychological adjustment among female college
students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 27, 280-292.
Govaerts, K., & Dixon, D. N. (1988). Until careers do us
part: Vocational and marital satisfaction in the dual-career
commuter marriage. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counselling, 11, 265-281.
Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. New York: Harper
& Row.
Hoffman, L. W., & Youngblade, L. M. (2002). Mothers at
work: Effects on children’s well-being. Family Therapy,
29(3), 188.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social re-
adjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 11, 213-218.
Johnston, K. A. (1996). Selected predictor variables for the
role strain among registered nurse baccalaureate degree
students and their implications for higher education.
Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Human-
ities & Social Sciences, 57, 1045.
Katz, J., Monnier, J., Libet, J., Shaw, D., & Beach, S. R. H.
(2000). Individual and crossover effects of stress on
adjustment in medical student marriages. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 341-351.
Legako, M. A. (1996). Graduate school and marriage: Life
much happier when we were ignorant Christians.
Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The
Sciences & Engineering, 56, 4586.
Li, H., & Kam, W. (2002). Types and characteristics of stress
on college campus. Psychological Science (China), 25(4),
398-401.
690
View publication stats
Meehan & Negy
Mallinckrodt, B., Leong, F.T., & Kralj, M.M. (1989). Sex
differences in graduate student life-change stress and
stress symptoms. Journal of College Student Devel-
opment, 30 (4), 332-338.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress
process: The double ABC-X model of adjustment and
adaptation. Marriage & Family Review, 6(1-2), 7-37.
Norton, L. S., Thomas, S., Morgan, K., Tilley, A., & Dickins,
T. E. (1998). Full-time studying and long-term relation-
ships: Make or break for mature students? British Journal
of Guidance & Counselling, 26, 75-88.
Rosenthal, G. T., Folse, E. J., Allenman, N. W., Boudreaux,
D., Soper, B., & Von Bergen, C. (2000). The one-to-one
survey: Traditional versus nontraditional student
satisfaction with professors during one-to-one contacts.
College Student Journal, 34(2), 315-320.
Scully, J. A., Tosi, H., & Banning, K. (2000). Life event
checklists: Revisiting the Social Readjustment Rating
Scale after 30 years. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60, 864-876.
Snyder, D. K. (1997). Marital Satisfaction Inventory–
Revised (MSI-R). Los Angeles: Western Psychological
Services.
Sokolski, D. M. (1996). A study of marital satisfaction in
graduate student marriages. Dissertation Abstracts
International, Section B: The Sciences & Engineering,
56, 4645.
Stern, L. S. (1998). The experience of women combining
multiple roles and graduate training in counseling
psychology. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section
B: The Sciences & Engineering, 58, 6829.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate
statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
Tyrrell, J. (1992). Sources of stress among psychology
undergraduates. Irish Journal of Psychology, 13, 184-192.
University of Central Florida. (n.d.). Nontraditional Student
Association. Retrieved April 27, 2003, from http://
pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~nsa
U.S. Census Bureau, United States Department of Com-
merce. (2003a). Retrieved May 1, 2003, from http://
www.census.gov
U.S. Census Bureau, United States Department of Com-
merce. (2003b). Retrieved June 25, 2003, from http://
w w w. c e n s u s . g o v / p o p u l a t i o n / w w w / p o p - p r o f i l e /
schenrol.html
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. (2002). Retrieved April 27, 2003,
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2002/analyses/
nontraditional/index.asp
Wigfield, A., Battle, A., Keller, L., & Eccles, J. (2002). Sex
differences in motivation, self-concept, career aspiration,
and career choice: Implications for cognitive develop-
ment. In A. McGillicuddy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.),
Biology, society, and behavior: The development of sex
differences in cognition (pp. 93-124). Westport, CT: Ablex
Publishing.
Journal of College Student Development