Creating Crossroads for Self-Authorship: Investigating the

Provocative Moment

Jane Elizabeth Pizzolato

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 46, Number 6, November/December

2005, pp. 624-641 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0064

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/189021

Access provided at 6 Dec 2019 03:15 GMT from Columbia University Libraries
Creating Crossroads for Self-Authorship:
Investigating the Provocative Moment
Jane Elizabeth Pizzolato
Through examination of 613 students’ narratives
about self-selected important decisions, I
investigated the student and situation charac-
teristics related to provocation and use of self-
authored ways of knowing. The findings gesture
toward both particular skills students may need
to develop in order to self-author, as well as suggest
that movement through The Crossroads (Baxter
Magolda, 2001) may be externally induced
through programming, interventions, and reforms
related to common collegiate experiences.
Researchers who strive to more effectively
promote student learning and development
often seek ways of operationalizing ways of
knowing and constructing contexts to appro-
priately support student development (e.g.,
American College Personnel Association
[ACPA], 1996; Baxter Magolda, 1999;
Council for the Advancement of Standards in
Higher Education [CAS], 2004). A new push
for reform focused on improving college
student outcomes emerged from Baxter
Magolda’s (2001) introduction of empirical
evidence for self-authorship, a way of knowing
originally described by Kegan (1994). Here
self-authorship is defined as, “a relatively
enduring way of orienting oneself toward
provocative situations that includes recog-
nizing the contextual nature of knowledge
and balancing this understanding with one’s
own internally defined beliefs, goals, and sense
of self ” (Pizzolato, 2003; see also Baxter
Magolda, 2001; Kegan).
Evidence for self-authorship came when
participants in Baxter Magolda’s (2001)
Jane Elizabeth Pizzolato is Assistant Professor of Applied Developmental Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh.
624
longitudinal study of ways of knowing were
in their late 20s and early 30s. Self-authored
participants used their internally defined sense
of self and goals to direct their decision-
making and knowledge construction. These
methods of problem-solving and knowledge
construction appear to be ideal ways of
knowing that should be fostered in college
students. The ability to assess competing ideas
and to generate new ideas, coupled with the
development of a coherent, consistent sense
of self, speaks to existing calls for ways of
supporting the development of reflection
skills, of problem-solving skills, and of a
coherent identity in college students (e.g.,
ACPA, 1996; Astin, 1996; Baxter Magolda,
2001, 2003; King & Baxter Magolda, 1996;
Kuh, 1996). Additionally, self-authorship
should allow students to move from devel-
oping these skills to integrating their identity
development with their cognitive skills, thus
helping them better prepare to cope with the
demands of a democratic multicultural society
after college (see Baxter Magolda, 2001).
According to Baxter Magolda (2001),
development of self-authorship happened in
phases. Students entered college with episte-
mological orientations that favored following
formula. The students believed in immutable
right-wrong and good-bad distinctions, and
that authorities could and should teach them
these answers. Following formulas (e.g.,
directions and plans created by others), helped
Baxter Magolda’s students succeed in college
and find jobs. On the job and in their personal
lives, these students encountered situations
Journal of College Student Development
Self-Authorship
where there were multiple competing per-
spectives, expectations, and possibilities, and
there was no clear formula to which her
participants could cling. Baxter Magolda
labeled this moment when “the realization that
external sources of belief and definition were
insufficient for happiness brought acute
awareness that internal sources of belief and
definition were necessary” (p. 93) The Cross-
roads. The Crossroads, the first phase of self-
authorship, gave way to the second phase,
Becoming the Author of One’s Life, as parti-
cipants began to reconstruct their beliefs about
knowledge, themselves, and themselves in rela-
tion to others. The third phase, Internal Foun-
dations, represented a shift from constructing
to enacting beliefs, goals, and values in a way
that recognized and engaged multiplicity.
The Crossroads and the Provocative
Moment
Baxter Magolda (2001) described The Cross-
roads as a place of discontent where partici-
pants felt a need to work toward self-defi-
nition. The Crossroads is important in
catalyzing self-authorship development be-
cause it is through students’ experiences at The
Crossroads that they begin the search for
internally defined beliefs, goals, values, and
self-conceptions, and for how they might
integrate internal and external perspectives and
expectations.
Additional work on self-authorship
development has suggested that not all
experiences of discontent and expressed desire
to work toward self-authorship actually lead
to student movement toward Becoming the
Author of one’s Life, the second phase of self-
authorship (Creamer & Laughlin, 2005;
Pizzolato, 2003, 2004). In fact Pizzolato
(2003) suggested that The Crossroads may be
a compilation of experiences that culminates
in a provocative moment. This provocative
moment represents an experience that resulted
NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 ◆ VOL 46 NO 6
from jarring disequilibrium on the student’s
part in terms of her or his ways of knowing.
The provocative moment, unlike other
experiences that collectively comprised The
Crossroads, led to commitment to, rather than
only recognition of the need to turn inward
in a search for self-definition. Until this
provocative moment, students cycled through
experiences that left them contemplating such
a search and feeling dissatisfied with following
formulas, but not acting to relieve their
dissatisfaction in a way that helped them
construct a new way of knowing.
Because self-authorship is such a new
construct, however, there is little research on
the developmental process by which students
enter The Crossroads and move through
toward self-authorship. For example, although
self-authorship has been described in adults
(Kegan, 1994), identified in college graduates
(Baxter Magolda, 2001), examined in high-
risk students (Pizzolato, 2003, 2004) and
female students (Creamer & Laughlin, 2005),
the specific components of and skills associated
with self-authorship have not been identified.
These existing descriptions are helpful because
they identify what happened when students
began to self-author, but they do not speak to
what situation or student characteristics come
together to create Crossroads moments. If self-
authorship is a desired outcome of student
participation in higher education, further
investigation into The Crossroads, and more
specifically, the provocative moment, seems
important to clarify the components that must
come together to produce a provocative
moment for students that will propel them
across the self-authorship trajectory.
Purpose and Research Questions
The broad goal of this study is to begin to
develop a theoretical base from which reforms
and interventions to promote self-authorship
can be built. By investigating the conditions
625

and processes that give rise to a provocative
moment in The Crossroads, I aim to clarify
the student and situation characteristics
typically associated with provocation. Clari-
fication of these characteristics serves to deepen
shared understanding of how students can be
scaffolded through The Crossroads and across
the self-authorship trajectory. Because this
study does not have pre- and post-assessment
of self-authorship, characteristics, and process-
ing style associations with provocation and
displays of self-authorship, rather than
development, are examined here.
METHOD
Participants
The sample consisted of 613 undergraduates
at a large, public, Midwestern university.
Participants were recruited from under-
graduate courses from a variety of colleges at
the university (e.g., social sciences, arts and
letters, natural sciences, engineering). Addi-
tionally, I sampled courses with different target
populations (e.g., remedial courses, honors
courses, introductory courses, and advanced
courses). This sample allowed for study of self-
authorship in a more diverse group of students
than previous studies (e.g., Baxter Magolda,
2001; Egart & Healy, 2004; Hornak & Ortiz,
2004; Pizzolato, 2003).
The majority of the participants (69.5%)
were female. Most participants were White
(69.8%), with participants of color represent-
ing 27.8% of the sample (African American
or Black = 15.1%, American Indian or Alaskan
Native = .2%, Asian or Pacific Islander =
6.4%, Hispanic/Latino or Latina = 2.8%,
more than one category = 3.3%). An addi-
tional 2.4% of participants were classified as
Other, because the racial and ethnic identity
information they provided did not definitively
fall into a federally recognized category (e.g.,
626
Pizzolato
Palestinian). The racial and ethnic distribution
of participants is slightly more diverse than
the distribution in the university population
(79.2% White). Participants ranged from first-
year through seventh-year students, with
95.2% of participants distributed across the
first four years (first years = 29.0%, sopho-
mores = 22.6%, juniors = 25.0%, and seniors
= 18.6%). Ages ranged from 18 to 46, with
97.6% of participants between the ages of 18
and 23 (M = 19.7, SD = 2.7).
The Experience Survey
Participants completed a survey about deci-
sion-making that I entitled the Experience
Survey during an in-class assessment period
in the first 3 weeks of the Fall 2003 semester.
This survey asked students to describe two
important decisions they made. First, students
described the most important decision they
made other than their decision to apply to
college. Then students described their decision
to apply to college. For both decisions,
students were prompted to write narratives
about: (a) what the decision was, (b) when
they made the decision, and (c) why they made
the decision. Students were also prompted to
describe their decision-making process by
describing: (a) their options, (b) their decision,
(c) how they made their decision, and
(d) whether and why they were pleased with
their decision. These prompts were modified
from those recommended by M. Baxter
Magolda (personal communication, Fall 2002)
for interview assessment of self-authoring
abilities. The findings from this study are based
exclusively on data from the first decision,
which could include deciding to attend
college, but not their decision to apply to
college.
By asking students to describe their most
important decision, I aimed to capture
students’ ways of knowing when they faced a
Journal of College Student Development
Self-Authorship
decision-making situation most likely to call
on their most complex ways of knowing. Self-
authorship involves (a) the ability to reason
in ways that allow for engaging multiple
perspectives in a way that simultaneously
honors one’s own internally defined goals,
beliefs, and values; and (b) action congruent
with such reasoning. Decision-making also
involves reasoning (considering options) and
action (making the decision), and so asking
students to describe an important decision and
their decision-making process seemed an
appropriate way to investigate possible self-
authorship development. Additionally, because
students described the moment they con-
sidered most important, their decision likely
had real meaning or consequence for them,
and so it seemed probable that their most
complex way of knowing would be called
upon. Said otherwise, by asking students to
describe a personally important decision as
opposed to describing either their typical
problem-solving processes or how they would
respond to a particular problem, I aimed to
capture students’ optimal, as opposed to
typical, ways of knowing. Students who
evidence self-authorship through their deci-
sion-making should consider multiple per-
spectives, reflect on their goals, and work from
these internally defined goals and perspectives
(e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001; Kegan, 1994).
It is important to note that decision-
making is not taken as a proxy for self-
authorship, but rather a location in which it
is likely a student would provide evidence of
ways of knowing, and so possibly self-
authorship. I do not propose that students are
or are not developing self-authorship through
their decisions, but rather that in their
decisions students do or do not display self-
authorship. A separate pilot test of this survey
suggested it could elicit rich narratives of
students’ ways of knowing and possible
NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 ◆ VOL 46 NO 6
displays of self-authorship.
In the pilot phase of the questionnaire,
10 students were invited to complete the
survey. These students were invited to be pilot
participants because they were undergraduate
students with whom I was acquainted and who
had previously participated in an interview
investigating self-authorship. Following
completion of the survey, each student was
briefly interviewed to assess their reactions to
and understandings of the survey and its
reliability. These interviews and reading
through the completed surveys helped me
revise questions to enhance comprehensibility
and to preview the types of responses students
might give to the questions. Additionally, these
students’ responses to the survey were com-
pared to their responses to similar questions
during interviews to assess reliability between
responses in the two questioning formats.
Because self-authorship has only been assessed
through semistructured interviews, (Baxter
Magolda, 2001; Pizzolato, 2003, 2004) it
seemed important to check to see if students’
responses were consistent in interviews and to
a related set of questions and probes in a
written format.
Upon revision of the questionnaire, the
final version was piloted on 110 undergraduate
students with whom I was not acquainted.
Their responses to the survey were reviewed
and studied for patterns in self-authorship and
were used to preview the range of responses
students might give to these questions, and
the degree to which epistemological orien-
tation could be assessed from their responses.
Data Analysis Procedures
Grounded theory was used to analyze the
student and situation characteristics, and
processing styles associated with self-author-
ship. Grounded theory can be used to effec-
tively elaborate on existing theory because
627
 Pizzolato

TABLE 1.
Summary of Codes

Coding Category Selected Codes or Subcodes

Volitional Efficacy Low Volitional Efficacy; High Volitional Efficacy

Primary Source of
Behavior Regulation Others; External Sources; G–d; Self; No Apparent Source of
Behavior Regulation
Catalyst Internal Catalyst; External Catalyst
Decision-Making Purpose To Respond to an Immediate Situation; To Create or Plan for
Future Possible Selves; To Alleviate Relational Tensions; To
Alleviate Epistemological Dissonance; To Alleviate Emotional
Distress; To be Amused or Satisfied; Default/Lack of Purpose;
To Uphold a Set of Values
Provocation Provocative; Not sufficiently Provocative
Outcome Avoidance Equilibrium; Adjusted Equilibrium; Reconstructed
Equilibrium; Self-Authored Equilibrium

elaborations are derived from “systematically
gathered and analyzed” data (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998a, p. 12). In this study I aimed
to elaborate on the model of self-authorship
development proposed by Baxter Magolda
(2001) in the context of college students’ lives
through analysis of participant narratives. In
line with grounded theory methodology,
patterns, themes, and ultimately codes related
to The Crossroads and provocative moments
were constructed from students’ responses to
The Experience Survey using constant com-
parative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;
Strauss & Corbin, 1998a, 1998b). Because the
conditions and processing styles associated
with self-authorship have not been studied in
college students, preexisting codes did not
exist. Thus grounded theory via constant
comparative analysis seemed an appropriate
method for code building and data analysis
(Boyatzis, 1998; Glaser & Strauss; Strauss &
Corbin, 1998a, 1998b) In short, grounded
theory was used because the goal of this study
was to theorize about “plausible relationships”
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998b) between student
and situation characteristics and descriptions
of provocative moments.
To identify specific student and situation
characteristics associated with displays of self-
authorship and provocation, all narratives were
exclusively studied using constant comparative
analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss &
Corbin, 1998a, 1998b). My open coding
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998a, 1998b) of the pilot
responses predicted codes related to student
and situation characteristics associated with the
provocative moment, and the possible out-
comes of student decision-making other than
a display of self-authorship. Additional line-
by-line open coding of a subset of the
narratives from the study reported here
(N = 126) led to inclusion of a few new
subcodes with the different student and
situation characteristics. These analyses yielded
a set of codes used in the narrative analysis.
The overview of the codes is summarized in
Table 1. Specific definitions related to the
coding appear in the findings. Following this

628 Journal of College Student Development

Self-Authorship
open coding, axial coding (Strauss & Corbin,
1998a, 1998b) was employed in pattern and
theme building.
Finally, to check the trustworthiness of my
interpretations and to examine my biases
throughout the coding and pattern con-
struction process, two colleagues also coded
narratives in sets of 15. Whenever dis-
agreements arose the coding scheme was
revised until we could reach agreement.
FINDINGS
Two main themes related to the conditions and
processes associated with self-authorship
emerged from these codes. First, provocation
was related to situation and student charac-
teristics, but seemed most connected to
students’ decision-making purpose, which
arose from situation and student charac-
teristics. Second, all decisions ended with the
emergence of some form of equilibrium, the
type of which appeared related to whether
students experienced provocation.
Theme 1: Provocation in the
Decision-Making Process
Because an intense sense of disequilibrium or
provocation is hypothesized to be a precursor
to self-authorship and a characteristic of the
end of The Crossroads (e.g., Baxter Magolda,
2001; Pizzolato, 2003), consideration of the
characteristics inducing such provocation is a
necessary part of understanding how to
promote self-authorship. Whether students
experienced their decision-making situation as
a provocative moment seemed related to
characteristics of them as decision-makers and
characteristics of the situation, as well as their
purpose in decision-making. It is important
to note here that provocation coding was based
on the degree of provocation the student
seemed to experience. Situations with the
NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 ◆ VOL 46 NO 6
potential to be provocative, or situations where
students initially felt disequilibrized, but did
not then actively reconsider their goals or
conception of self were not coded as provoca-
tive. Coding of provocation was reserved for
narratives where students described experi-
ences indicative of high levels of disequilib-
rium propelling them to reconsider their goals
and/or conception of self with the intention
of possibly acting on their reflections. The
following student’s statement illustrates a
provocative moment:
After the acceptance letters from various
colleges came home prior to freshman
year I had to make this decision [whether
to attend college], because as a member
of my family you MUST work for the
family, like my father and his father. I had
to choose. My options were to go to
school or carry out the business. . . .I
thought about myself and . . . I became
more confident in the fact that I am
independent of my family’s business and
will become my own entity unassociated
with the business.
This student’s description of his decision-
making processes exemplifies The Crossroads.
He was dissatisfied with following formulas
for his life prescribed by his family, and he
felt a need for self-definition. More than a need
for self-definition, he described a commitment
to self-definition. This dissatisfaction coupled
with commitment suggests this experience was
provocative—pushing him from The Cross-
roads to Becoming the Author of [his] Life.
Student Characteristics. Looking more
closely at this student’s decision to attend
college rather than work in the family business,
it is clear that provocation is connected to
specific student characteristics. His decision
to attend college was grounded in his ability
to see himself as in control of his sense of
identity, to see himself as able to become
629

“independent of my family’s business.” When
the student received acceptance letters from
colleges he initially questioned his ability to
decide to go to college. This questioning came
less from not knowing what he wanted, and
more from wondering if he could make and
carry out his decision in the face of perceived
obstacles such as family expectation of him to
work in the business instead of attend college.
Could he make a decision in this situation?
How could he balance what he wanted with
what he knew his family expected? Through
reflection he discovered he could stay com-
mitted to his goal of attending college in spite
of challenges. This process shows signs of high
salient volitional efficacy—a belief in one’s
ability to persist in goal-directed behavior in
the face of challenges (e.g., Corno, 1989,
1993; Gollwitzer, 1999; Kuhl, 1987). If
students’ responses showed evidence of focus
on action towards a goal, they were coded as
high volitional efficacy, as opposed to low
volitional efficacy. Volitional efficacy is taken
as separate from one’s motivation and speaks
to the ability to control focus on a goal,
whereas motivation speaks to setting a
particular goal (see Eccles, Wigfield, &
Schiefele, 1998).
Across participants, high volitional
efficacy appeared strongly associated with
provocation. For example, one student initially
wavered in her decision to move out of her
father’s house after his wife began stealing to
support her drug addiction. Ultimately she
moved out because her reflections on what was
best for her helped her recognize her potential
for volitional efficacy in her situation.
I decided even though I love my father
and have been with him almost all my
life I would lose respect for him and it
wouldn’t be good for me or us if I stayed
in a house or a home that allowed people
to steal and hurt the ones I loved.
630
Pizzolato
Another student wrote about her difficulty
breaking up with her boyfriend. Initially she
was able to assess her situation. “My options
were to stay with him and miss out on ME
time or break up, suck it up, and move on.”
However, she was unable to actually “walk
away.” She sought advice, reflected on her
situation, and with time discovered high
salient volitional efficacy that allowed her to
“stay strong and actually walk away.” Her high
volitional efficacy seemed connected to her
reflections on what was best and what she
wanted for herself. Her volitional efficacy
appeared tied to her experience of her situation
as provocative.
Because The Crossroads are characterized
by the intense discontent and dissonance
arising from dissatisfaction with formula
following, it makes sense that students may
need more than one dissonant experience to
move them from feeling dissatisfied with
external definition to experiencing a provoc-
ative moment that leads them to search for
internal definition. For students who possess
high levels of volitional efficacy, however, their
experience of The Crossroads may not be as
long as that of their peers. Volitional efficacy
allows students to focus on identifying the
behaviors they need to attain their goals (Kuhl,
1987). For students with high volitional
efficacy they are less likely to become mired
in the emotions of a Crossroads experience,
and instead focus on their goals and how, given
possibilities and constraints, they will move
from where they are—The Crossroads—
toward their goals. Consequently, their
experience of a Crossroads Moment that is also
the Provocative Moment that propels them
from The Crossroads to Becoming the Author
of Their Life, may happen more readily for
students with high volitional efficacy than
those with low volitional efficacy.
In addition to volitional efficacy, students’
Journal of College Student Development
Self-Authorship
primary source of behavior regulation influ-
enced whether they experienced their situation
as a Crossroad Moment, and if so, whether it
was a provocative moment. The data suggested
five primary sources of behavior regulation:
(a) others (e.g., parents, peers), (b) external cir-
cumstances (e.g., institutional requirements),
(c) G–d, or (d) self. There was also a group of
students who did not show signs of any appar-
ent behavior regulation. Students in the latter
category were students who discussed their
decision-making as something that happened
to them and did not identify any force
(internal or external) that drove their behaviors
toward or away from a particular decision.
Student responses were coded for primary
source of behavior regulation by examining the
most influential source in their regulation of
their decision-making behaviors. For example,
if behavior was mostly governed by the
directions and demands of parents or peers,
behavior regulation source was coded as Other.
Although self-regulation was not always
associated with a display of self-authorship,
provocative moments certainly appeared
connected to an ability to self-regulate.
Students coded as self-regulating assessed their
situation, determined, and carried out a plan
of action. The student who eventually “walked
away” from her boyfriend was able to do so
because she possessed high volitional efficacy
and she self-regulated. As she said, “I wasn’t
happy with my decision at the time, because
it wasn’t what I wanted to do, it was what I
needed to do.” She knew walking away was
in her best interest, and stuck to her decision
in the face of her immediate desire to be with
her boyfriend, because of her ability to enact
her volitional efficacy via self-regulation. In
short, high volitional efficacy was necessary to
help students believe they knew how to work
through challenging situations, and then self-
regulation allowed them to enact their
NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 ◆ VOL 46 NO 6
volitional beliefs.
It could be argued that it is unclear
whether behavior regulation or ability to self-
author precedes the other, but pattern analysis
suggests self-regulation is a necessary but
insufficient condition of self-authorship.
Students who displayed self-authorship self-
regulated, but students who self-regulated did
not necessarily display self-authorship. For
example, one student showed signs of self-
regulation when she wrote, “Setting goals had
to become a priority to have a positive long-
term outcome. . . . I set my goals and became
determined right away.” Although she self-
regulated, this student did not self-author, in
fact one of her goals was to “just ignore my
personal feelings and problems.” Beyond not
displaying self-authorship, this student and
others who self-regulated but did not display
self-authorship, did not write narratives
indicative of provocation of self-authorship,
ignoring her feelings and problems did not
imply a commitment to self-definition. Thus
self-regulation appears to be a necessary but
insufficient condition for displays of self-
authorship.
If behavior regulation was not apparent,
or controlled by others or G–d, students also
tended to exhibit low volitional efficacy in
their decision-making and not experience their
situation as provocative. One student ex-
plained her inability to follow her own desires
or feel competent as a decision-maker when
her ex-boyfriend asked her out. “When he
asked me out again I was too weak to explain
I might want time to think about it, so I just
said yes, even though I’d thought about saying
no before.” And another student’s decision to
return to the same institution for a second year
illustrates how the use of others for behavior
regulation may stifle provocation.
I got accepted as a transfer student to an
HBC [Historically Black College] so I
631

could come back . . . or go to an HBC
in the South, where I eventually want to
live and become part of the majority
again. My parents made the decision . . .
I came back.
Although this student revisited her goals,
because her parents were her primary source
of behavior regulation, she was unable to
engage fully the provocative potential of the
situation. Said otherwise, this student’s
narrative excerpt illustrates a Crossroads
experience where she recognized the discon-
nect between formula (what her parents want
for her) and what she might ultimately prefer.
She also sees a possible need for self-definition,
but she has not yet committed to Become the
Author of her life.
Additionally, these narratives and others
like it point out two possibilities related to self-
authorship development in college students:
(a) Self-authorship in adolescence may look
different from self-authorship in college
graduates because of dependence on parents
for financial support and/or shelter, or (b) self-
authorship may need to be assessed in a
context broad enough to account for times
when students make individual decisions that
do not appear to be displays of self-authorship
in the narrow context of that decision or
experience, but in looking at the broader
situation of why the student made the
decision, what other decisions, situations, and
relationships had to be balanced and renegoti-
ated—it may actually be self-authored.
These examples imply that the provocative
moment is associated with student charac-
teristics of volitional efficacy and behavior
regulation. If students lack high volitional
efficacy, they tend to allow others to regulate
their behaviors—either because their low levels
of volitional efficacy do not allow them to cope
effectively with challenges to their goals, or
because despite their confidence in their ability
632
Pizzolato
to make a decision, the lack of salience
regarding volitional efficacy beliefs does not
push them to construct self-regulated plans for
achieving their goals. Regardless of the reason,
the lack of high volitional efficacy seems to
preclude or short-circuit students’ experience
of their situation as sufficiently provocative to
compel serious reconsideration of their goals,
ways of knowing, or conception of self.
Consequently, their ability to experience either
Crossroad moments or Crossroad moments
that could be characterized as provocative
moment, seems hindered.
Situation Characteristics. The afore-
mentioned student characteristics were
activated within the context of specific
decision-making situations. And these situa-
tions also appeared to influence whether
students were more likely to experience their
situations as provocative moments if they were
internally catalyzed—situations where the
student independently determined that a
decision needed to be made, others or social
factors did not require a decision. The
following student’s narrative illustrates the
relation between catalyst and the provocative
moment:
I [decided] to pierce my lip . . . My
options were to pierce my lip and in so
doing go against my father’s wishes and
not return home, or stay living at home,
but cut myself and hide the evidence. I
decided to pierce my lip. I recalled
previous parental advice and asked veiled
questions to my parents, and I thought
about it a long time until I came to
believe that I am an individual and no
matter how much I want to make my
father proud, my pride in myself must
come first.
The urgency this student felt was internally
catalyzed, and through her creation of deci-
sion-making options, she experienced intense
Journal of College Student Development
Self-Authorship
disequilibrium over whether her sense of self
was or should be defined by important others
in her life. This disequilibrium represented a
Crossroads moment in that through this
experience she also committed to an internal
search for self-definition.
It is important to note the nature of this
decision because self-authorship is typically
conceived of as healthy movement. Although
this student is choosing to figure out who she
is rather than continue to secretly cut herself,
and this is a good move in terms of self-care,
lip piercing may sound neither self-authored,
nor a movement toward “adult” choices.
Nonetheless, this moment is provocative in its
description of a student’s movement from
recognizing the need for self-definition to
commitment to such a quest.
Such provocation was often absent in
externally catalyzed situations—situations
where students made decisions because of an
emerging, externally created situation. For
example, one student chose between returning
to college or continuing as a nanny in
Tennessee. If she stayed the family would pay
for her schooling in Tennessee. If she returned
to her college, she had to pay tuition, but she
would be with her friends. Because her friends
were not in Tennessee, she returned home.
Other examples of externally catalyzed
situations included decisions about one’s
major. Such decisions typically were not
provocative. For example, one student de-
scribed her major selection this way, “The
advisor sits you down and asks what major you
want, and I just said, ‘Psychology!’ That was
that.” And other students unquestioningly
agreed to the majors their parents expected
them to declare. In these and other externally
catalyzed decisions, students rarely experienced
the high level of disequilibrium coupled with
commitment to Becoming the Author asso-
ciated with the provocative moment. Students
NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 ◆ VOL 46 NO 6
typically responded to externally catalyzed
situations by following formulas or making
decisions without sufficient reflection to
induce a level of disequilibrium that would
facilitate provocation (see also Baxter Magolda,
1992; Kegan, 1994; Perry, 1968).
Decision-Making Purpose and Provocation.
Further examination of student responses
suggested an additional variable in the
emergence of provocative moments—decision-
making purpose. Decision-making purpose, or
the reason the student engaged in decision-
making, arose from an interaction between
situation characteristics (i.e., catalyst) and
student characteristics (i.e., volitional efficacy
and behavior regulation). Eight purposes
captured the multitude of reasons why
students made decisions. As students’ con-
sidered why they had to make a decision, and
their own decision-making characteristics (e.g.,
Did they feel efficacious? Who got to decide
what they should do?), purpose emerged.
These eight purposes arose from analysis of
themes in the reasons why students engaged
in decision-making. Decision-making pur-
poses, their frequencies, and examples are
displayed in Table 2.
If decisions were externally catalyzed, and
students focused only on situation charac-
teristics (i.e., why they had to make this
decision), they often ignored their volitional
efficacy and did not self-regulate. For example,
one student’s doctor threatened to hospitalize
her if she continued to restrict her eating, so
the student “felt forced into” ending her eating
disorder. She said, “I didn’t want to be
hospitalized, so I had to stop.” Her decision
was primarily to respond to an immediate
situation; externally imposed nature of her
situation she allowed others to regulate her
behavior. In this case, the external catalyst
induced healthy changes, but did not lead to
provocation. This example of inducing change
633

Categories and Examples of Decision-Making Purposes
Category
To respond to an immediate situation
(n = 287)
To create or plan for future possible selves
(n = 80)
To alleviate relational tensions
(n = 52)
To alleviate epistemological dissonance
(n = 18)
To alleviate emotional distress
(n = 37)
To be amused or satisfied
(n = 80)
Default/Lack of purpose
(n = 29)
To uphold a set of values
(n = 30)
without creating even the precursor to self-
authorship is suggestive of the possibility that
students can change, even dramatically,
without actually self-authoring.
If students considered volitional efficacy
634
Pizzolato
TABLE 2.
Narrative Example
The most important decision I’ve made was when I was
involved in a carjack. I decided to cooperate with the
robbers and let them take my car after they put a gun
on me, because I thought material things aren’t
important if your life is on the borderline.
The most important decision I’ve made was the
decision to change my major. I made this decision last
year/Spring 2002 semester, because I had to decide
what was going to make me happy in life, and also what
was going to get me where I wanted to be.
The most important decision I’ve made was to give up
a once-wonderful friendship that became toxic . . . .My
options were allowing her bad nature to affect me, or
shutting it out.
The most important decision I’ve made was to stop
accepting what other people fed me (intellectually); to
choose to find my own belief system . . . .because
much of what is spoken about is false, or half-truths, or
just one side of a multifaceted realm. My options were
to conform and hate myself, or learn to live as I see fit.
The most important decision I’ve made was coming out
as gay. I made this decision in my junior year of high
school. I was hiding a part of myself. That was making
me feel unhappy and unable to feel comfortable around
people.
The most important decision I’ve ever made was having
unprotected sex in a bank parking lot. I made this
decision later at night after lots of drinking. I really liked
the girl I was with and wanted to have sex with her.
The most important decision I’ve made was changing
my major in my sophomore year . . . I went from a
criminal justice major to an advertising major. There
wasn’t really a process, it just happened.
The most important decision I’ve made was to remain a
virgin until marriage . . . .Self-denial is healthy when
related to many things. I made this decision because of
morals and logic.
or if they were self-regulated when making
externally catalyzed decisions, their decision-
making purpose often facilitated provocation.
One student’s decision to continue in college
after a change in her financial situation left
Journal of College Student Development
Self-Authorship
her without a way to pay tuition illustrates this
possibility. Because she focused on her
situation and her decision-making abilities, her
purpose was not merely to respond to an
immediate situation, but rather to plan for a
future possible self (see Markus & Nurius,
1986 for a discussion of possible selves), “I
had goals . . . to discover a creative way to
make a living that paid well so I could finish
my degree.” This purpose allowed for provoca-
tion. She considered what she wanted, and she
sought “a solution that met all aspects of my
goals.” Through reflection on her goals and
the situation’s external constraints, she said,
“I took risks when I accumulated enough
information,” and “I feel like I took control
of my life—financially and educationally. It
was a turning point.” Her recognition of her
competence coupled with her ability to self-
regulate pushed her into a provocative
moment—to reflect on and work from
internally defined goals.
This student’s experience was not unique.
Other students described provocative mo-
ments arising from externally catalyzed or
socially defined decisions (e.g., choosing a
major by an institutionally determined time,
or deciding to accept a marriage proposal).
Provocation seemed to arise because the
students oriented themselves toward their
situation with a purpose that allowed them to
see a variety of options in need of evaluation.
Although student and situation characteristics
influenced provocation, students’ decision-
making purposes also appeared to influence
the emergence of provocation.
Theme 2: Reaching Self-Authorship
and Other Decision-Making
Outcomes
Current research suggests that provocative
experiences and self-authorship are related
(e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001; Pizzolato, 2003,
NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 ◆ VOL 46 NO 6
2004), but whether provocation is a sufficient
or only a necessary condition remains unclear.
The nature of this relation between provoca-
tion and self-authorship was investigated in
this study. The findings from this analysis
gestured toward a relation between provoca-
tion and self-authorship, where provocation
was a necessary but insufficient condition for
displays of self-authorship. The disequilibrium
of provocative moments pushed students to
Becoming the Author by engaging in a search
for internal self-definition. College was the
first time one student’s parents were not
directing his religious beliefs. The experience
of a provocative moment led him to “make
my faith my own” and “make a conscious
effort to understand what and why I believe.”
As one student coped with her friend’s new
hedonistic behaviors she began to consider
multiple perspectives and try to do “what I
believed was best in my head AND my heart,
not just one or the other.” And another student
wrote:
I realized my “master plan,” my major and
[the] life I had picked for myself weren’t
what I really wanted. I could keep
working at “the plan” and try to be as
happy as possible or risk everything by
totally starting over. I started over,
changed my major and broke up with my
boyfriend of 4 years. I thought about it
constantly, talked to friends and family,
thought and thought, wrote down some
of my thoughts too. It was scary and
painful, but I knew it was right.
The outcome of this student’s decision and of
others following similar patterns, led to self-
authored equilibrium. These students devel-
oped new types and patterns of relationships
and reconstructed their conceptions of self
based on their clarifications and enactment of
internally defined goals and sense of self. Their
displays of self-authorship were associated with
635

TABLE 3.
Non-Self-Authored Outcome Categories: Definitions and Narrative Examples
Category Definition
Avoidance Decisions made and a sense of
Equilibrium equilibrium established by avoiding
reflection entirely
Adjusted Reestablishment of the same
Equilibrium patterns and ideas. Reflection on
goals and sense of self broached
and shut down by finding others to
support an absence of change in
goals and/or conceptions of self
Reconstructed Development of new types and
Equilibrium patterns of relationship and
reconstruction of conceptions of
self, as influenced by others and
potentially a desire to reach a level
of self-fulfillment such that the
person can realize potential, but
does not develop or work from
internally defined goals arising
from internally developed
principles and conceptions of self
their experience of a provocative moment and
its thrusting them to identify, construct, and
enact their internally defined beliefs, values,
and goals.
Although self-authorship was a possible
form of equilibrium, not all students displayed
self-authored equilibrium. Three distinct
forms of equilibrium captured the remaining
outcomes: avoidance, adjusted, and recon-
structed equilibrium (see Ruble & Seidman,
636
Pizzolato
Narrative Example
The most important decision I’ve made was
to get engaged. I never really made the
decision; I just decided to so I could decide.
The most important decision I’ve made was
to leave [name of university] and move
home. I made this decision 2 years ago,
because my personal beliefs were being
threatened. I was expected to change and I
saw no way out. I had two options: to stay
and be alone or move back home. I decided
to move back home . . . I talked to my
parents and we decided I should leave and
come home.
The most important decision I’ve made was
to accept Jesus Christ as my personal
savior. I made this decision because
everyone must choose to accept or reject
Christ. I could reject Christ and live for
myself, or accept Him and live a life that
pleases Him. I accepted. First I had to
realize that I was a sinner. I had to
understand that my sin separated me from
God and that I could not do anything to
save myself. I had to acknowledge that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that he
died to pay for my sins. I had to accept His
gift of forgiveness. I was relieved and happy
with my decision. I now have real peace
and joy. I only have to make the decision
once. God’s forgiveness lasts forever. It is
the most important decision in anyone’s life,
and I’m incredibly happy that I did it.
1996 for a discussion of adjusted and recon-
structed equilibrium). In each of these three
outcomes students reached equilibrium, but
it did not come through internally defined
goals, principles, or identity roles. Table 3
shows these other possible outcomes.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study build on existing
understanding of self-authorship (Baxter
Journal of College Student Development
Self-Authorship
Magolda, 2001; Creamer & Laughlin, 2005;
Kegan, 1994; Pizzolato, 2003, 2004) by
identifying motivation and attitudinal charac-
teristics associated with provocation. Current
literature on self-authorship suggests that self-
authorship develops through three phases: The
Crossroads, Becoming the Author of One’s
Life, and Internal Foundations (Baxter
Magolda, 2001). Movement from the dis-
content with formula following in The
Crossroads to commitment to self-defini-
tion in Becoming the Author may require
student experience of a provocative moment
(Pizzolato, 2003).
This study explored the student and
situation characteristics associated with student
experience of provocative Crossroads mo-
ments. The findings indicate that a recognition
of the need for self-definition is a necessary
but insufficient condition for movement along
the self-authorship trajectory. Students whose
narratives indicated their commitment to
engaging in this self-definition appeared to
possess two important motivational ap-
proaches: (a) high volitional efficacy and
(b) self-regulation. These two motivational
approaches worked together to help students
focus on their situations in problem-focused
ways (cf., emotion focused ways), and inde-
pendently regulate their behaviors in goal-
directed ways through self-discipline. From
this focus, a decision-making purpose emerged
that influenced the concerns that a student
focused on during the decision-making process
and ultimately whether the sense of equilib-
rium established via the process displayed a
self-authored form or not.
Volitional efficacy and self-regulation may
then be necessary motivational approaches to
situations for students to progress along the
self-authorship trajectory. More specifically, as
students move along the self-authorship
continuum, they move from having experi-
NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 ◆ VOL 46 NO 6
ences that thrust them into a state of disequi-
librium (The Crossroads), toward committing
to resolving the disequilibrium via internal
self-definition (The Provocative Moment and
subsequently Becoming the Author of One’s
Life). This shift from having experiences to
processing experiences in a way that leads to
greater internal definition is illustrative of the
subject-object shift that Kegan (1994) claimed
students must undergo if they were to move
from experiencing self-authorship as subject
to holding it as object. In other words, students
in The Crossroads are experiencing self-
authorship as subject because they are em-
bedded in experiences that are calling into
question their current ways of knowing or
conceptions of self. To extract themselves such
that they are able to reflect on and take control
of their discontent—make their Crossroads
object—students may need to work from
particular motivational approaches such as
high volitional efficacy and self-regulation.
Through their development of these capacities,
students in this study seemed better able to
shift from having experiences to processing
and taking control of their experiences in ways
that allowed them to move closer to Becoming
the Author of their Lives and developing
Internal Foundations.
The connection between movement
toward self-authorship and characteristics such
as volitional efficacy and self-regulation begins
to connect the college student development
literature to that of educational and devel-
opmental psychology. Motivational and
attitudinal constructs have long been con-
sidered predictors to goal achievement and
academic success (Ames, 1992; Elliot &
Harackiewicz, 1996; Locke & Latham, 1990;
McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Wentzel, 1991). If
self-authorship is related to and likely to
manifest itself in student goal-setting and
achievement processes it is not surprising that
637

similar constructs may be related to displays
of self-authorship. Future investigation into
how motivational, attitudinal, and cognitive
development constructs (e.g., conceptual
change) may be related to self-authorship
development may (a) prove fruitful in under-
standing the subskills and orientations that
students may need to develop toward self-
authorship, and (b) better bridge the fields in
a way that gives student affairs professionals
access to data-driven practices to most
effectively promote such development in
college students.
Practically this study suggests it may be
possible to induce self-authorship, and that
college students often find themselves in
potentially provocative moments, and so may
be particularly well positioned for self-
authorship interventions.
The findings of the study support the
underlying premises of Baxter Magolda’s
(2001, 2003, 2004; Baxter Magolda & King,
2004) learning partnership model. Inter-
estingly no students mentioned classroom
experiences in their narratives, which suggests
that instructors may not be fully exploiting
their potential role in self-authorship devel-
opment. This finding also suggests that
although classrooms may not provoke self-
authorship, they may be able to by better
understanding the processes and student
characteristics involved in self-authorship,
institutions may be able to implement the
learning partnership model in local ways that
may help develop student characteristics and
processing styles associated with self-author-
ship. Classrooms should, as she suggested,
validate learners’ capacity to know, and they
can do this by constructing tasks and activities
that will focus on and build students’ volitional
efficacy in problem-solving. By helping
students feel more efficacious when coping
with challenges in the particular domain or
638
Pizzolato
field in which the class is located, instructors
can validate students’ capacity to construct and
evaluate knowledge in that particular field.
This possibility then specifies what it means
to situate learning in the learner’s experience.
Such a situation does not mean that all
classroom learning must be related to students’
personal lives or lived experiences outside of
the classroom. Rather the findings of this study
imply that by situating learning in learners’
experiences of activities within the domain in
which they are working, educators may be able
to enhance students’ abilities to see themselves
as a capable of constructing knowledge.
Related to Baxter Magolda’s (2001)
encouragement of situating learning in
learners’ experience, advising relationships may
have tremendous potential to help students
self-author. Many students named their choice
or change of major (n = 90) as their most
important decision. Because students are in
the midst of making decisions about what they
enjoy and want to become, academic advisors
should ensure that their advising focuses on
students’ identity development and not merely
on course requirements, grades, or career
placement test scores. Conversations about the
reasons behind students’ interests, the impli-
cations of choosing particular majors, and
clarifying students’ understanding of who they
are, who they want to become, and how to
get from one to the other may prove particu-
larly helpful in creating provocative moments.
As students reflect on their goals, and their
implications, advisors may then help students
develop richer networks of information about
their choices, and support students’ con-
struction of increasingly more complex ways
of decision-making (Pizzolato, in press).
Students’ narratives also suggest that
residence hall advisors may be in a position
to help students process living experiences in
ways that push them toward provocative
Journal of College Student Development
Self-Authorship
moments. Living arrangement decisions were
common important decisions (n = 22), but
during these decisions most students focused
on the financial piece of the decision, or what
was easiest. As students begin to make plans
for the following school year, programs on
important considerations when making living
plans might help students balance con-
siderations of money and fun, with their own
needs and what will make them happiest given
their schedule in the upcoming year.
Choosing whether to drink or use illegal
drugs (n = 32), and decisions about rela-
tionships with significant others (n = 63) were
also frequently cited as important. Programs
to help students identify and evaluate multiple
perspectives in these decisions may facilitate
provocation and help students develop their
ability to balance competing ideas, long-term
benefits and consequences, and their own
desires and principles.
Limitations and Areas for Future
Research
There are multiple limitations to note. All
participants came from the same university.
Inclusion of students from a variety of
institutional types may emphasize decision-
making methods not represented in this study.
Also, because the sample was predominantly
White and female, study of demographic
differences would be helpful in investigating
demographic differences in self-authorship
development. This study’s sample included a
reasonably diverse group of students, but the
subgroups of students were not large enough
for meaningful analysis into such differences.
For example, although a mix of racial and
ethnic categories were represented, the size of
the groups other than White and Black were
not large enough for statistical analysis into
differences without clumping all other groups
into an Other category. Such a recoding
NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 ◆ VOL 46 NO 6
suggests that the other groups of students are
similar enough to be in the same group, which
is likely not true.
Additionally, the study examined provoca-
tion and processing in college students only.
Investigating self-authorship development in
adults who did not participate in higher
education, and in non-college-bound emerg-
ing adults would contribute to greater under-
standing of ways to promote self-authorship
in higher education.
Finally, this study relies on a single
narrative response where students recollect a
decision-making experience. Asking students
to recall events may not be the most reliable
way of collecting data. Real-time study of
decision-making, or studies that involve
multiple narrative responses would provide
helpful insight into the decision-making
process and self-authorship development. And
a longitudinal, real-time study would allow for
study of self-authorship development rather
than displays of self-authorship.
Conclusion
Current work on self-authorship suggests that
it arises from student processing of disequi-
librizing situations, and that self-authorship
can be facilitated through pedagogical,
curricular, and programmatic reforms to
higher education (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001,
2003, 2004; Baxter Magolda & King, 2004;
Hornak & Ortiz, 2004; King & Baxter
Magolda, 2004; Pizzolato, 2003). Con-
struction of such reforms and interventions,
and assessment of their effectiveness is made
difficult by the still-developing clarity regard-
ing the construct and process of self-author-
ship. The findings of this study begin to clarify
the process of self-authorship development by
focusing on the characteristics and com-
ponents of the provocative moment, which
moves students from The Crossroads toward
639

Becoming the Author of their Lives. Findings
suggest that provocative moments may be
externally induced through programming,
interventions, and reforms related to im-
portant decisions common among college
graduates.
Endnote. G–d is spelled two ways throughout this paper.
When quoting participants I use “God,” quoting their
narratives as written. Jewish tradition, part of my own
cultural practices, prescribes an incomplete spelling of
G–d in print.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Jane Elizabeth Pizzolato, 5940 Posvar Hall,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15206;
pizzolat@pitt.edu
REFERENCES
American College Personnel Association. (1996). The student
learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Retrieved
January 2002 from, http://www.acpa.nche.edu/sli/sli.htm.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Astin, A. W. (1996). What matters in college. Liberal
Education, 79(4), 4-15.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning
and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy.
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in
college: Gender related patterns in students’ intellectual
development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way:
Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-
authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2003). Identity and learning. Student
affairs’ role in transforming higher education. Journal of
College Student Development, 44, 231-247.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning partnerships model:
A framework for promoting self-authorship. In M. B. Baxter
Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory
and models of practice to educate for self-authorship
(pp. 37-61). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (Eds.). (2004). Learning
partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-
authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information:
Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis.
In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 111-141). New York: Springer-Verlag.
640
Pizzolato
Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions
of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher,
22, 14-22.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher
Education. (2003). Academic advising: CAS standards and
guidelines. Retrieved on January 2004 from, http://
www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/Research_Related/
CAS.htm.
Creamer, E. G., & Laughlin, A. (2005). Self-authorship and
women’s career decision-making. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 13-27.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation
to succeed. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol.
Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional
and personality development (5th ed., pp. 1017-1095). New
York: Wiley.
Egart, K., & Healy, M. P. (2004). An urban leadership
internship program: Implementing learning partnerships
“unplugged” from campus structures. In M. B. Baxter
Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory
and models of practice to educate for self-authorship
(pp. 125-150). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance
achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
628-644.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong
effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7),
493-503.
Hornak, A., & Ortiz, A. M. (2004). Creating a context to
promote diversity education and self-authorship among
community college students. In M. Baxter Magolda & P.
M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models
of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 91-123). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of
modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). A devel-
opmental perspective on learning. Journal of College Student
Development, 37(2), 163-173.
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Creating
learning partnerships in higher education: Modeling the
shape, shaping the model. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P.
M. King (Eds.), -Learning partnerships: Theory and models
of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 303-331).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless
learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College
Student Development, 27(2), 135-148.
Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The maintenance of
motivational states. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.),
Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 279-307). Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Gerlag.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful
theory of goal setting and task motivation. American
Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
Journal of College Student Development
Self-Authorship
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American
Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals
as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task
engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2),
381-395.
Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of ethnical and intellectual
development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Pizzolato, J. E. (2003). Developing self-authorship: Exploring
the experiences of high-risk college students. Journal of
College Student Development, 44, 797-812.
Pizzolato, J. E. (2004). Coping with conflict: Self-authorship,
coping, and adaptation to college in first-year, high-risk
students. Journal of College Student Development, 45,
425-442.
Pizzolato, J. E. (in press). Complex partnerships: Self-
authorship and provocative academic advising practices.
NACADA Journal.
NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2005 ◆ VOL 46 NO 6
Ruble, D. N., & Seidman, E. (1996). Social transitions:
Windows into social psychological processes. In E. T.
Higgins & S. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles (pp. 830-856). New York:
Guilford Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998a). Basics of qualitative research:
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998b). Grounded theory
methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp.
158-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence
and academic achievement in early adolescence. Child
Development, 62, 1066-1078.
641