Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1986, Vol. 32, No. 1,94-103 0022-0167/85/800.75

Expectation and Reality in Freshman

Adjustment to College
Robert W. Baker Ogretta V. McNeil
Clark University College of the Holy Cross

Bohdan Siryk
Wang Laboratories

Earlier investigations of the "freshman myth" have focused on the differences

between expectations and perceptions of the college environment, finding that
entering students typically anticipate more from that environment than is
subsequently realized. The research reported here examines differences be-
tween expectations and perceptions of self-assessed adjustment to college to
determine whether students also expect more of themselves than is subse-
quently realized. Occurrence of the myth in this new form is found with sam-
ples of freshmen at two colleges. Differences in occurrence of the myth in var-
ious aspects of the adjustment are described, and the possibility of differences
in occurrence at the two colleges is considered. Evidence concerning the
course of the myth over time is presented, and individual differences in and
behavioral correlates of the myth are identified. Implications of findings are
discussed and new lines of investigation proposed.

It is not often that a psychological re-
search finding is confirmed repeatedly by
different investigators working in many
different places with many different kinds
of samples, and even with different meth-
odological designs, but that is what happens
in the case of the "freshman myth" (Stern,
1966, 1970). The myth refers to the fact
that, on the average, entering freshmen have
expectations concerning college that are
more positively toned than the actual expe-
rience of being in college (Berdie, 1966,1967,
1968; Buckley, 1971; Herr, 1971; King &
Walsh, 1972; Pate, 1970; Pervin, 1966;
Schoemer, 1973; Standing & Parker, 1964;
Stern, 1966,1970; Watkins, 1978; Whiteley,
1982). Matriculant myth might be a more
appropriate name for the phenomenon, be-
cause it is found also in transfer students
(Buckley, 1971; Donato, 1973), even to the
same degree as with freshmen (Buckley,
1971).
The research described in this article was supported
in part by funds from an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
Grant to Clark University.
Requests for reprints or copies of the scales used in
this study should be sent to Robert W. Baker, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester,
Massachusetts 01610.
The matriculant myth has been reported
in more than a dozen institutions, including
small and large private and public colleges
and universities, a junior college, a military
academy, and an Ivy League university, from
the eastern, western, northern, and southern
sections of the nation and from Australia. It
happens for both male and female students
(Berdie, 1966; King & Walsh, 1972), and for
freshmen from both private and public high
schools irrespective of Scholastic Aptitude
Test verbal scores (Pervin, 1966). It seems
to occur in both academic and nonacademic
aspects of the college experience, although
one investigator found a larger effect for the
former (Donato, 1973).
The myth is found whether entering stu-
dents are tested for expectations while still
in high school, while on summer vacation
following graduation from high school, dur-
ing an orientation period before the begin-
ning of the college's academic year, soon
after the beginning of the first semester, or
even retrospectively by recall later in the
freshman year (Watkins, 1978). It is found
in studies that compare students' expecta-
tions of college with their own subsequent
perceptions of the actual college experience,
in other studies that use as comparison
groups already-enrolled students from any

94
 FRESHMAN ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE
of all four college years, and in one study that
uses a cross-sectional approach, testing
several different samples from a freshman
class at various points during an academic
year (King & Walsh, 1972).
The amount of lapsed college experience
time between the testing for expectations
and the assessment of perceptions ranges in
the several studies from 2 weeks through
nearly 4 full academic years. The biggest
drop from expectation to perception ap-
parently occurs during the first year of en-
rollment (Berdie, 1966, 1968), even during
the first month (King & Walsh, 1972).
Individual differences in occurrence of the
myth, and conditions affecting its occur-
rence, have received some attention. The
effect—that is, the amount of disenchant-
ment—is less for matriculants who had
greater prior familiarity with the college they
were entering (Pate, 1970), tends to be less
for women than for men (Berdie, 1966; King
& Walsh, 1972), and can be mitigated by fa-
cilitative interventions during the first year
of enrollment (Whiteley, 1982).
Several investigators have looked for dif-
ferences in adjustment to college as corre-
lates of individual variations in the extent to
which the myth occurs. More pronounced
myth effect is associated with lesser partic-
ipation in campus activities or attainment of
campus leadership positions (Berdie, 1966),
with poorer academic performance in college
(Lauterbach & Vielhaber, 1966), with more
frequent change of major (Herr, 1971; Shaw,
1968), and with higher incidence of leaving
college before graduation (Shaw, 1968).
All studies but two use as means of mea-
suring expectations and perceptions either
the College and University Environment
Scales (Pace, 1963) or its parent scale, the
College Characteristics Index (Stern, 1963),
both of which are designed to elicit student
appraisals of the college environment in its
various aspects. The exceptions are Wat-
kins (1978), who used a specially constructed
scale to measure student satisfaction with
the academic environment, and Whiteley
(1982), who used a measure of psychological
sense of community, or quality of interper-
sonal relationships, derived from the Envi-
ronmental Assessment Inventory (Stokols,
1975).
The present study examines the matri-
95
culant myth anew, but with a major change
in method that could expand its definition.
Where all previous studies investigated dif-
ferences between expectations and percep-
tions of the college environment, this one
looks primarily at differences between ex-
pectations and perceptions of the student's
self-assessed adjustment to college. Does
the matriculant myth extend to the student's
appraisal of himself or herself in terms of
anticipated and actual adaptation to the
college environment and experience? The
matriculant myth as presently defined says
that students expect more from a college
than they see themselves as actually getting,
but do they also expect more from them-
selves than they actually get?
Evidence will also be examined concerning
the generality of the myth through collection
of data at two institutions additional to those
where it has already been demonstrated. Its
differential occurrence in different aspects
of student adaptation to college, and possibly
in the two institutions, will be considered, as
will its pattern of occurrence over time (i.e.,
how soon the disillusionment sets in and its
course over the academic year). Finally,
individual differences in the occurrence of
the myth will be explored, especially in
relation to behavioral correlates of such
differences in other aspects of adjustment to
college.
Method
Materials
This new opportunity to investigate the matriculant
myth arose in a research project that included devel-
opment of an instrument for measuring adjustment to
college, reported in an earlier issue of this journal (Baker
& Siryk, 1984). The present study employs an ex-
panded version of the original instrument.
An assumption underlying the development of the
scale is that adjustment to college is multifaceted and
involves demands varying in kind and degree and re-
quiring a variety of coping responses (or adjustments)
that will themselves vary in effectiveness. Thus, the
scale consists of 67 statements alluding to various as-
pects of the experience of adjusting to college, and the
student is asked in effect to assess on a 9-point rating
scale how well he or she is dealing with the aspect in
question.
An academic adjustment subscale consists of 24 items
referring to various facets of the educational demands
characteristic of the college experience. A social ad-
justment subscale has 20 items pertaining to various
96 R. BAKER, o. MCNEIL, AND B. SIRYK
facets of the interpersonal-societal demands inherent
in that experience. A personal/emotional adjustment
subscale contains 15 items aimed at determining how
the student is feeling both psychologically and physi-
cally, whether he or she is experiencing general psy-
chological distress and its somatic accompaniments. A
goal commitment/institutional attachment subscale is
composed of 15 items relating to the student's feelings
about being in college in general and at the college of
attendance in particular, especially to the quality of the
relationship or bond that is established between the
student and the institution.
There is no overlap of items among the academic,
social, and personal/emotional subscales, but the at-
tachment measure contains eight items that are also on
the social adjustment subscale and one that is on the
academic adjustment subscale. The attachment sub-
scale contains items from other subscales because it was
constructed by including in it any item from the original
version of the adjustment scale that correlated to a
certain minimum degree with attrition in two prior
samples of freshmen at Clark University.
In addition to scores for each of the four subscales, the
instrument also yields a full-scale score as an index of
overall adjustment to college, with higher scores indi-
cating better adjustment.
Reliability and validity data for the earlier 52-item
version of the scale are described elsewhere (Baker &
Siryk, 1984) and are based on several years of research
with three successive freshman classes. Cronbach's
(1951) alpha, a measure of internal consistency reli-
ability, ranged from the -70s for the personal/emotional
subscale, through the .80s for the other subscales, to the
-90s for the full-scale score. Correlations among the
subscales ranged from .39 to .78.
Regarding validity, statistically significant relation-
ships were found between the subscales and several
criterion variables expected to be differentially relevant
to the subscales. Criterion variables—representing
important behaviors or accomplishments in the lives of
students—included attrition, appeals for services from
a psychological clinic, grade point average, election to
an academic honor society, involvement in social ac-
tivities, and outcome of application for dormitory as-
sistant positions. Important to note as another indi-
cation of validity, the scale has been found to reflect
differences among black students in their adjustment
to predominantly white colleges as a function of dif-
ferences in prior interracial experience (Graham, Baker,
&Wapner,1984).
The overall purpose of the scale, as has been stated,
is to provide indices of self-assessed adjustment to
college, and almost all items are clearly phrased to serve
that end. However, 4 and possibly 5 of the 24 academic
adjustment items, and 2 of the 20 social adjustment
items, involve some degree of evaluation of specific as-
pects of the college environment, blurring somewhat the
distinction that has been drawn here between percep-
tion of self-assessed adjustment and perception of the
environment. Thus, a student's response to an item
like "I am satisfied with the extracurricular activities
available at...." may be expected to reveal something
about the quality of his or her adjustment to the so-
cial/organizational life of the campus, and thus qualify
for a measure of self-assessed adjustment, but it is also
the kind of item that might be expected to appear on a
scale measuring a student's perception of the college
environment. The same would hold in the academic
sphere for the item "I am satisfied with the number and
variety of courses available at " Even in these few
ambiguous instances, however, there is some degree of
emphasis on evaluating how the self is faring in relation
to demands presented by the college environment.
To measure anticipated rather than actual adjust-
ment, the above-described instrument was adapted in
such a manner as to elicit predictions by incoming stu-
dents as to how they expected to feel about themselves
and their life circumstances at college 6 or 7 weeks fol-
lowing matriculation based on their knowledge of
themselves in past situations and on what they knew
about the college they were entering. This was ac
complished by using for all items in the anticipated
adjustment scale the common prefix / expect plus the
root of each of the items from the actual adjustment
scale. This alteration also involved changes of tense
and dropping of words like lately or recently in the
actual adjustment scale items, the purpose of which in
the actual adjustment measure was to orient the student
toward evaluation of self in the present or immediate
past.
For example, where an item on the scale measuring
actual adjustment reads "Recently I have had trouble
concentrating when I try to study," the adaptation for
the measure of anticipated adjustment is worded "I
expect.... to have trouble concentrating when I try to
study." It is expected that differences in response from
initial to subsequent testing in the present study will be
less a consequence of technical changes in tense or
specific wording of items than of differences between
anticipated and actual adjustments.
Procedure
The study was conducted at two institutions in the
same academic year, but with somewhat different tim-
ing and method of solicitation.
The adjustment scale, adapted to measure expecta-
tions, was mailed in early July of 1980 to the approxi-
mately 550 students who were to matriculate the fol-
lowing September at Clark University in Worcester,
Massachusetts. It was completed and returned by 327
members of the class (165 men, 162 women).
The adjustment scale itself was sent to those 327 re-
spondents in the 8th week of the first semester and the
5th week of the second semester. It was returned on
those two occasions by 236 (114 men, 122 women) and
204 (99 men, 105 women) freshmen, respectively. The
number of Clark students returning forms on all three
occasions was 185 (91 men, 94 women).
The expectations scale was also sent to the approxi-
mately 660 freshmen who were matriculating at Holy
Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts, distributed
in their campus mailboxes at the start of an orientation
period immediately prior to the beginning of the aca-
demic year. It was completed and returned by 172
students (58 men, 114 women). The adjustment scale
was sent to the entire Holy Cross freshman class in the
8th week of the first semester only and was returned by
258 students (112 men, 146 women). The number of
Holy Cross freshmen returning the questionnaires on
both occasions was 123 (45 men, 78 women).
 FRESHMAN ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE
Results
To determine the reliability of the ex-
panded scale, coefficient alpha (Cronbach,
1951) was calculated for the two adminis-
trations of the anticipated adjustment scale
(i.e., once at each of the two institutions) and
for the three administrations of the actual
adjustment scale (i.e., two at Clark and one
at Holy Cross), using the total number of
respondents available at each testing (see
Procedure for sample sizes). The resulting
five alpha values for the full scale ranged
between .93 and .95; for the academic ad-
justment subscale, between .84 and .88; for
the social adjustment subscale, between .90
and .92; for the personal/emotional adjust-
ment subscale, between .78 and .85; and for
the attachment subscale, between .85 and
.91.
Correlations among the subscales ranged
from .36 to .87, the higher values occurring
in the comparisons of the social adjustment
and attachment subscales, as would be ex-
pected because they share several common
items. The range of correlations among the
three subscales that do not share common
items was .36 to .66.
With regard to occurrence of the matri-
culant myth in self-assessed adjustment to
college, Table 1 shows that on the full scale
score and on both the academic and social
adjustment subscale scores, there are sta-
tistically significant declines from antici-
pated adjustment to actual adjustment in
the first semester for both institutional
samples and, for the Clark sample, from
anticipated adjustment to actual adjustment
in the second semester as well. However, no
significant change across testings occurs on
the personal/emotional subscale for either
sample. The matriculant myth does indeed
occur in this new form of expression but
apparently not necessarily in all areas of
adjustment. The fact that there is a signif-
icant decline at one institution and not the
other on the attachment subscale has pos-
sible implications for the role of institutional
or sample characteristics in occurrence of the
myth, which we consider in the Discussion
section.
Regarding the myth's pattern of occur-
rence over time, there is some evidence that
it begins sooner than earlier studies have
97
indicated. The reader will note in the an-
ticipated adjustment column of Table 1 that
the anticipated adjustment scores are higher
in all instances for the Clark sample (tested
in early summer) than for the Holy Cross
freshmen (tested during an orientation pe-
riod immediately prior to the beginning of
the academic year); all differences are sig-
nificant at less than .01 level by t test, except
in the case of the institutional attachment
subscale, where the p value is .08. If it can
be assumed that the Holy Cross sample
would have scored at the same level as the
Clark sample had it been tested at the same
time earlier in the summer, this finding
suggests either that there may be some myth
effect even prior to the start of the academic
year—a kind of goal-gradient phenomenon,
expectations tempering as matriculation
approaches—or within the first few days
after arrival on campus.
Also, with respect to the myth's pattern of
occurrence over time, Table 1 shows that for
the Clark sample the declines already noted
in the first semester continued into the sec-
ond semester, with statistically significant
further reductions from the first to the sec-
ond semester on the social adjustment and
institutional attachment subscales. On the
full scale and the academic and social ad-
justment subscales, the effect seems to be
somewhat frontloaded, most of the decline
having occurred by the time of the first se-
mester testing. On the institutional at-
tachment subscale, however, the decline
continued apace.
Analysis of direction of score change for
individual participants from anticipated to
actual adjustment shows clearly that the
myth is not experienced by all students.
The proportion of participants at the two
colleges showing either no change or an ac-
tual increase on any particular measure (i.e.,
full scale or subscales) ranges from 31% to
60%.
Although there are individual differences
in the occurrence of the myth, they are not
associated with sex. Analysis of variance for
both samples reveals no significant Sex X
Time of Testing interactions. Thus, there
is no difference in the present study between
male and female students in the extent to
which they experience the myth.
To address the issue of behavioral corre-
98 R. BAKER, o. MCNEIL, AND B. SIRYK

o « co co ec

I I I I
a> N i.
« "><":T Or t
~<M
1 1
! I C O U3 (M ^H O

Oi> tDcoc-
S -t'^
(MM
oooi
I-HI-I

lOCOr-l CJJI- CMCCO

Oii-i cokoco

SOO St!1^ «o ^* r- Oio

1a
1§

,.-^ ^^^^ ^DC^i—I t—I^H

S *c ic
rt ^H
D- ^ o
<T> C^) CN
ui) in
^H —I

*" """"S .-

COO
jj 3 •S3 3 g S ^ 3 ^ 3 S 8 S « S
« fa < CC d. < -3 Ct. < CC (L, < » V
•sl •& o.
 FRESHMAN ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE
lates of the myth, for each institutional
sample two groups of participants were
identified: those clearly manifesting the
myth and those not doing so. For the Clark
sample, students showing a decline of 15% or
more on the full scale score from anticipated
to actual adjustment in either the first or
second semester were regarded as mani-
festing the myth. There were 92 such stu-
dents. Clark students showing no such de-
cline in excess of 5% were regarded as not
manifesting the myth. The number of
freshmen in this category was also 92. The
fact that there were declines of 5.4% in mean
full scale score from the anticipated adjust-
ment measure to actual adjustment in the
first semester and 7.0% from anticipated
adjustment to actual adjustment in the sec-
ond semester made it seem reasonable to
tolerate some slight downward shift in score
in determining membership in the no-myth
group and to set the cut-off point somewhat
in excess of those values in determining
membership in the myth group.
Because of the smaller number of students
in the Holy Cross sample, the somewhat
lower starting point for that sample on the
measure of anticipated adjustment, and a
smaller dech'ne in mean full scale score from
anticipated to actual adjustment (3.4%),
different cut-off scores were used. Myth-
manifesting students were defined as those
who showed declines of 10% or more from
anticipated to actual adjustment (n = 33).
Students not manifesting the myth were
defined as those who showed no decline (n
= 48).
As seen in Table 2, members of the Clark
myth group, as compared with those in the
Clark no-myth group, earned lower grade
point averages and fewer course credits in
the freshman year; were less likely to win
annual academic honors in the sophomore,
junior, and/or senior years (annual honors
were not awarded at Clark in the 1980-1981
academic year); were less likely to be
awarded general ("Latin") or departmental
honors at graduation; were more likely to be
known during the freshman year to a psy-
chological services center (an agency offering
psychodiagnostic and psychotherapeutic
services to the university community); were
more likely to withdraw from college before
the start of the sophomore year; and were
99
less likely to graduate on time (i.e., within
eight semesters from matriculation). The
difference between the groups with respect
to election to Phi Beta Kappa, a national
academic honor society, was in a direction
consistent with the foregoing results but
narrowly missed significance at the .05
level.
The only significant difference between
the Holy Cross myth and no-myth groups on
any of the behavioral correlates for which
data were available was on freshman year
grade point average, that average being lower
for the myth group (see Table 2).
Discussion
Several aspects of the findings of this
study merit discussion. First, why is the
myth not found with the measure of per-
sonal/emotional adjustment? Why, in ef-
fect, is the matriculating student's prediction
about himself or herself more accurate or
more realistic with respect to that facet of
adjustment to college than others? One
possible explanation involves the, relative
roles of characteristics of the individual and
characteristics of the environment in ad-
justment to college and the relative knowl-
edge of those two sets of factors that a stu-
dent can have and use as a basis for pre-
dicting effectiveness of his or her adjust-
ment.
Probably most matriculating students
have had ample opportunity prior to starting
college to observe themselves in new and
stressful circumstances and to know how
they react to such circumstances in terms of
psychological and physical feeling states,
which is what the items of the personal/
emotional subscale measure. They have less
opportunity, by contrast, to know and assess
the consequences of the particular social and
academic characteristics of the environment
into which they will be moving and to which
the items of the academic and social ad-
justment subscales refer. Possibly, matri-
culating students can be more accurate in
making predictions on the basis of the self
that they already know than the environ-
ment that they do not yet know.
This line of explanation suggests new
areas of investigation and modes of inter-
vention. Possibly there would be individual
differences in myth effect in personal/emo-
100 R. BAKER, o. MCNEIL, AND B. SIRYK

tional adjustment to college as a function of Possibly, too, differences in myth effect in

differences among entering students in prior
opportunity to have tested oneself in, and to
know how one would react to, new and
stressful circumstances, those with less such
opportunity being more likely to experience
the myth effect in this aspect of adjustment,
this aspect of adjustment could be a function
of differences among students in self-
awareness or self-understanding, those with
less self-awareness or self-understanding
being more likely to experience the myth
effect. To the extent that these kinds of

Table 2
Behavioral Correlates of the Matriculant Myth

Clark" Holy Cross

Measure No myth Myth Nomyth d Myth"

Freshman yr. GPA

M 2.78 2.55b 3.15 2.97
SD 0.60 0.62 0.43 0.35
c
t 2.62** 1.94*
df 181 79
Credits earned
freshman yr.
M 7.73 7.30 33.1 33.8
SD 0.72 1.41 2.13 2.67
( 2.62** 1.24
df 182 79
Students winning yrly.
academic honors, 1981-82,
1982-83, or 1983-84
n 25 11 24 12
% 27.2 12.0 50.0 36.4
X 2 (l) 6.77** 1.47
Students elected to
Phi Beta Kappa
n 1 1 4 6 2
% 12.0 4.3 12.5 6.1
X 2 (l) 2.61 0.33
Students awded. gen. or
dept. honors at grad.
n 17 7 Iflf 4
% 18.5 7.6 20.8 12.1
X 2 (l) 3.88* 1.04
Students known to Psych.
Serv. Center freshman yr.
n 6 14
% 6.5 15.2 NA
X 2 (D 2.75*
Students withdrwg.
before start of soph. yr.
n 6 24 3 1
% 6.5 26.1 6.3 3.0
X 2 (l) 11.51** 0.02
Students grad. on time
n 70 47 45 29
% 76.1 51.1 93.8 87.9
X 2 (l) 11.36** 0.85
a b
The number of participants in each Clark group is 92 unless otherwise specified. N = 91 because one student
withdrew before compiling a grade point average. c All tests of significance are one-tailed, as direction of differences
d e f
was predicted. N = 48. N = 33. Includes general honors only; Holy Cross does not award departmental
honors.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
 FRESHMAN ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE
relationships obtained, it would seem de-
sirable to attempt interventions—even be-
fore the student is to begin college—aimed
at improving awareness and understanding
of self.
Testing further the implications of the
foregoing explanation, there should be in-
dividual differences in myth effect in both
academic and social adjustment as a function
of differences among entering students in
awareness and understanding of the aca-
demic and social characteristics of the par-
ticular college environment they are about
to experience (cf. Pate, 1970). To the extent
that these expectations were borne out, it
would seem worthwhile to consider inter-
ventions aimed at improving such awareness
and understanding, again even prior to ma-
triculation.
The relationship between other possible
differences in personal characteristics of
matriculating students and individual dif-
ferences in the myth effect begs further in-
vestigation. Are some students more prone
than others to the myth because they are less
realistic in general about themselves and
their environment? Are some more easily
satisfied or dissatisfied than others? Are
some more prone to disenchantment? Do
some use better judgment than others in
gathering information about the institution
and evaluating themselves in terms of fit?
Are some more predisposed than others to
transition shock?
Another finding of the present study
meriting discussion is the fact that a myth
effect was found at only one of the two in-
stitutions on the measure of institutional
attachment. Procedural differences in the
treatment of the two samples preclude close
comparison of findings across the samples
for differences between them, and indeed the
difference in timing of administration of the
anticipated adjustment measure may in part
account for the finding at issue (see com-
ments in Results section concerning possible
myth effect before, or very soon after, arrival
on campus for the Holy Cross sample). If
the Holy Cross sample had been tested ear-
lier in the summer, at the same time as the
Clark sample, and had their anticipated
adjustment score thereby been higher, then
there might have been a significant decline
101
from that measure to the actual adjustment
measure.
However, it may also be noted in this re-
gard that the lack of myth effect in the Holy
Cross sample could in some part be due to
the institutional attachment index holding
up better for them than for the Clark fresh-
men in the first semester administration of
the actual adjustment scale. The reader will
note in the first semester adjustment column
of Table 1 that although the scores for the
Clark sample are higher than those for the
Holy Cross sample on four of the five mea-
sures, on the institutional attachment sub-
scale the reverse is true. These differences
are significant, by t test, only in the case of
the academic and personal/emotional sub-
scales, where the p values are less than .01 in
each instance.
Thus, it may be conjectured that the lack
of myth effect in the Holy Cross sample on
the institutional attachment subscale could
be due in some part to a greater degree of
institutional attachment being formed in
members of that group than in members of
the Clark sample. This suggests that dif-
ferences associated with institutional char-
acteristics, or student characteristics, may
play a role in the occurrence of the myth ef-
fect. If so, it could be a matter of consider-
able significance, given a clear positive re-
lationship between the institutional at-
tachment measure and continuance of en-
rollment in college (Baker & Siryk, 1984).
Probably a better piece of evidence for the
importance of institutional or sample char-
acteristics is the fact that behavioral corre-
lates of the myth effect are clearly and con-
sistently found in one sample and not the
other. Whatever it is about Holy Cross or its
student body that results in a very low rate
of attrition before the sophomore year, and
in a very high percentage of on-time gradu-
ation, may also contribute to a lesser decline
in score on the institutional attachment
subscale than that seen in the Clark
sample.
The fact that Holy Cross is religiously af-
filiated, ensuring a particular sort of match
between almost all of its students and the
institution on at least one important variable
or set of variables, may be one such factor.
Other possible clues are seen in the charac-
102 R. BAKER, 0. MCNEIL, AND B. SIRYK
terizations of the two institutions offered by
one of the published guides to colleges
(Fiske, 1983). There, Holy Cross is de-
scribed as "like a big family" (p. 201) and "a
large but supportive community" (p. 202).
Clark, on the other hand, is represented as
individualistic, requiring "a strong streak of
self-motivation and responsibility" in its
students because of academic programs and
a social scene that are "determinedly un-
structured" (p. 100).
Quite apart from the findings of this
study, it seems reasonable to assume that
institutional and sample characteristics
would play a role in occurrence of the ma-
triculant myth and would offer a significant
area for investigation. The tests employed
in this study could provide useful means for
such investigation and for evaluating the
consequences of differences among institu-
tions and among kinds of students for stu-
dent adjustment to college (see Graham et
al., 1984, for an example of such a study, fo-
cusing on the role of student characteris-
tics).
The kinds of behavioral correlates of the
matriculant myth noted in the present study
indicate quite clearly that important issues
are at stake in this phenomenon, and should
occasion interest in intervention into the
lives of affected students. How effectively
one performs academically in college, how
well one adapts psychologically and/or so-
cially, whether one continues studies at the
college of original enrollment, or the timeli-
ness with which one accomplishes important
educational goals are all matters of no small
consequence. The tests employed here offer
a means of identifying students in whom the
myth effect is occurring, ideally in time
for interventions that might influence its
behavioral correlates. One other finding of
this study, the occurrence of the myth effect
very early in the college experience, indicates
the importance of promptness of interven-
tion.
Finally, the findings of the present study
may be interpreted as providing additional
validity information regarding the scale
employed to measure adjustment to college,
because of its apparent sensitivity in re-
flecting what is happening in students as
they attempt that adjustment.
References
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1984). Measuring adjust-
ment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
31,179-189.
Berdie, R. F. (1966). College expectations, experi-
ences, and perceptions. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 7, 336-344.
Berdie, R. F. (1967). A university is a many-faceted
thing. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 45,
768-775.
Berdie, R. F. (1968). Changes in university percep-
tions during the first two college years. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 9,85-89.
Buckley, H. D. (1971). A comparison of freshman and
transfer expectations. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 12,186-188.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the in-
ternal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297-334.
Donate, D. J. (1973). Junior college transfers and a
university environment. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 14, 254-259.
Fiske, E. B. (1983). Selective guide to colleges,
1984-85. New York: New York Times Book Com-
pany.
Graham, C., Baker, R. W., & Wapner, S. (1984). Prior
interracial experience and black student transition
into predominantly white colleges. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 47,1146-1154.
Herr, E. L. (1971). Student needs, college expecta-
tions, and "reality" perceptions. Journal of Edu-
cational Research, 65,51-56.
King, H., & Walsh, W. B. (1972). Change in envi-
ronmental expectations and perceptions. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 13, 331-337.
Lauterbach, C. G., & Vielhaber, D. P. (1966). Need-
press and expectation-press indices as predictors of
college achievement. Educational and Psychologi-
cal Measurement, 26, 965-972.
Pace,C. R. (1963). Technical manual: College and
University Environment Scales. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Pate, R. H., Jr. (1970). Student expectations and later
expectations of a university enrollment Journal of
College Student Personnel, 11, 458-462.
Pervin, L. A. (1966). Reality and nonreality in student
expectations of college. Journal of Psychology, 64,
41-48.
Schoemer, J. R. (1973). Higher education misrep-
resented—Who is responsible? NASPA Journal, 10,
192-197.
Shaw, K. A. (1968). Accuracy of expectation of a
university's environment as it relates to achievement,
attrition, and change of degree objective. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 9,44-48.
Standing, G.R..& Parker, C. A. (1964). The College
Characteristics Index as a measure of entering stu-
dents' preconceptions of college life. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 6,2-6.
Stem, G. G. (1963). Scoring instructions and college
norms: Activities Index and College Characteristics
Index. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Psy-
chological Research Center.
 FRESHMAN ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE 103

Stem, G. G. (1966). Myth and reality in the American
college. AAUP Bulletin, 52,408-414.
Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context. New York:
Wiley.
Stokols.D. (1975). Toward a psychological theory of
alienation. Psychological Review, 82, 26-44.
Watkins, D. (1978). A note on student satisfaction
with university: A case study. Education Research
and Perspectives, 5,45-53.
Whiteley, J. H. (1982). Effects of the freshman year.
In J. M. Whiteley, B. D. Berlin, J. S. Jennings, L. Lee,
H. A. Magafia, & A. Resnikoff (Eds.), Character de-
velopment in college students: Vol.1. The fresh-
man year (pp. 129-172). Schenectady, NY: Char-
acter Research Press.
Received April 23,1984
Revision received August 8,1984 •

Instructions to Authors

Articles submitted to the Journal of Counseling Psychology should be concisely written in simple,
unambiguous language. They should present material in logical order, starting with a statement of
purpose and progressing through an analysis of evidence to conclusions and implications, with the
conclusions clearly related to the evidence presented.
Authors should prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psy-
chological Association (3rd ed.). All manuscripts must include an abstract of 100-15C words typed
on a separate sheet of paper. Typing instructions (all copy must be double-spaced) and instructions
on preparing tables, figures, references, metrics, and abstracts appear in the Manual. Also, all manu-
scripts are subject to editing for sexist language.
APA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration
by two or more journals. APA policy also prohibits duplicate publication, that is, publication of a
manuscript that has already been published in whole or in substantial part in another publication.
Authors of manuscripts submitted to APA journals are expected to have available their raw data
throughout the editorial review process and for at least 5 years after the date of publication.
This journal publishes brief reports, which also must include an abstract and be submitted in triplicate.
To ensure that a brief report does not exceed four printed pages, follow these typing instructions: (a)
Set the typewriter to a 48-space line and type the text, (b) Count all lines except the abstract, title,
and by-line; be sure to count the lines for acknowledgments, headings, footnotes, tables, and references.
If you have exceeded 400 lines, shorten the material.
Because reviewers have agreed to participate in a blind reviewing system, authors submitting man-
uscripts are requested to include with each copy of the manuscript a cover sheet, which shows the title
of the manuscript, the authors' names and institutional affiliations, and the date the manuscript is
submitted. The first page of text should omit the authors' names and affiliations but should include
the title of the manuscript and the date it is submitted. Footnotes containing information pertaining
to the authors identity or affiliations should be on separate pages. Every effort should be made to see
that the manuscript itself contains no clues to the authors' identity.
Manuscripts should be submitted in triplicate (the original and two photocopies), and all copies should
be clear, readable, and on paper of good quality. Authors should keep a copy of the manuscript to guard
against loss. Mail manuscripts to the Editor, Charles J. Gelso, Department of Psychology, University
of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.