According to the dynamic-interactionist paradigm, it may be assumed that the achievement and social strategies individuals deploy contribute to their personal adjustment during a certain transition period, which again shapes the kinds of strategies they use later on (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Caspi, 1998; Caspi, Bem & Elder, 1989; Elder, 1985; Magnusson, 1990). Therefore the main focus of the set of studies presented here was on investigating these paths by identifying positive and negative cumulative cycles between achievement and social strategies and various kinds of environmental feedback, such as academic achievement, success in initiating new interpersonal relationships and satisfaction with them, and positive and negative life events. Moreover, since it has been suggested that individual differences in on-line perceptions and behaviours are crucial factors that maintain the stability of personality and cognitions (Caspi, 1999), one aim of this work was to study the extent to which social strategies are associated with interpersonal behaviour and person perception, and what are the mechanisms that are responsible for the impact of strategies on people’s interpersonal relationships.
During young adulthood individuals face more transitions than in any other period of their life-span (Caspi, 1999). These transition situations have been found to arise from social and biological changes that require persons to organise their activities around new tasks (Caspi & Moffit, 1993; see also Ruble & Seidman, 1996 for a review). On the one hand, it has been suggested that personality differences are revealed best during transitions into unpredictable new situations, when there is pressure to behave but no information on how to behave adaptively, and this accentuates personality differences (Caspi & Moffit, 1993). On the other hand, some other researchers (Cantor, 1990; Norem, 1989; Zirkel & Cantor, 1990) have suggested that more change can be predicted when people face transitions because they require the development of new goals and strategies. Hence, assessing behaviour at these novel, ambiguous and uncertain life-points may give us crucial information about individual personality. Consequently, in the present work I was particularly interested in studying personality-environment transactions during young adulthood in the context of transition to a new educational environment.
It may follow from these repeated transitions and reorganisations of life tasks that young adulthood is especially important for later life-span development (Belli, Schuman & Jackson, 1997). First of all, adolescence and young adulthood have been suggested to be the most important age period with respect to the formation of identity (Erikson, 1959; Fitzgerald, 1988; Havighurst, 1948; Meeus, 1996; Rubin, Wetzler & Nebes, 1986). During this process, conceptualisations about and attitudes towards the self are formed (Nurmi, 1997), and general properties of the self and the world are determined (Belli et al ., 1997). Success in dealing with a particular transition may therefore have an especially strong influence on an individual’s self-concept. Moreover, successes and failures are likely to be well remembered, since young adulthood has been shown to make a unique contribution to the development of life-span memory. Events that occur during this phase are better remembered than events that occur during other phases of people’s lives (Belli et al ., 1997; Fitzgerald, 1988).
In Western culture the line between different developmental stages is hard to draw, and it has been suggested that becoming an adult is probably more dependent on the extent to which a person has achieved independence and self-reliance in various aspects of development than on any single role transition (Arnett & Taber, 1994). However, there are some developmental tasks imposed on young adults by society, such as getting started in education or an occupation and finding a congenial social group, which may be determining factors for later well-being (Havighurst, 1948) (1) . Because of these long-term consequences, it is essential to study the extent to which an individual’s personality may facilitate or hinder the achievement of such tasks during the transition process.
It has been suggested that individuals direct their lives in an age-graded sociocultural context in terms of constructing a variety of personal goals and strategies (see e.g. Cantor, 1990; Little, 1989; Nurmi, 1992a; 1993; 1997; Pervin, 1989; Salmela-Aro, 1996; Strough, Berg & Sansone, 1996; Zirkel & Cantor, 1990; Nurmi, 1997). Although the contents of these goals are specific to the individual, they have been shown to reflect people’s normative developmental tasks and institutional transitions (Nurmi, 1992a; Strough, Berg & Sansone, 1996). The goals must be translated into appropriate action before they can be accomplished, and individuals do this by deploying various types of cognitive-motivational strategies (Cantor, 1990; Nurmi, 1997; Showers & Cantor, 1985). Thus, strategies have been considered as a link between the goal and the observable behaviour (Showers & Cantor, 1985), and therefore they can be expected to contribute to the individual’s success in dealing with specific developmental transition.
Strategies have been defined as latent mental structures that are stored and carried forward over time in memory and then activated by a specific goal or a situation (Crick & Dodge, 1994). They could also be described as a process, during which individuals anticipate possible behavioural outcomes in a given situation and plan their future behaviours (Nuttin, 1984; Mischel et al ., 1996). These anticipations can arouse positive or negative emotions, which influence the amount of effort people invest in the task at hand (Deppe & Harackiewicz, 1996; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Leary & Atherton, 1986). Individuals also monitor their behaviour throughout the performance, and evaluate their goal attainment in terms of causal attributions (e.g. Weiner, 1986; Zuckerman, 1979). What has been suggested to be common for flexible individuals is that they can apply many types of strategy in different situations, whereas deploying only one type of strategy throughout various situations is likely to be maladaptive (Cantor, 1990; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Daleiden & Vasey, 1998; Quiggle, Garber, Panak & Dodge, 1992). It thus seems that action control must be based on a flexible social-cognitive system that discriminates across situations and tasks rather than obligatory and rigid construals of events and the subsequent cognitions (Mischel et al ., 1996; Mischel & Shoda, 1995).
Various types of process models also have been described in the context of stress and coping, and they show both similarities with and differences from the cognitive-motivational strategy models described above. The term coping refers to thought and behaviour that is adopted to reduce stress and avoid adverse outcomes of environmental and psychological threats (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore, the main difference between coping and cognitive-motivational strategies is that coping can be considered more as a reaction to external events than as a part of an individual’s self-direction process. The most important similarities between the two concepts are that, first, both coping and self-direction have been described as multi-sequence processes (Cantor, 1990; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Secondly, it has been found that different types of coping and cognitive-motivational strategy may be effective in different situations (Bolger, 1990; Cantor, 1990; Carver & Scheier, 1994; Mischel et al ., 1996). Third, despite findings emphasising flexibility, some coping techniques and cognitive-motivational strategies have been suggested to be more effective than others (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Cantor, 1990; Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999; Holahan & Moos, 1987; McCrae & Costa, 1986). Hence, although this dissertation does not focus on stress and coping and, consequently, they are not discussed further here, information about them may provide useful when the results are interpreted.
Strategic patterns have been described in terminologically different ways. Motivational strategy (e.g. Boekaerts, 1996; Pintrich, Marx & Boyle, 1993) has been used when the focus has been directly on goals that students adopt in different learning situations - e.g. mastery-orientation vs. performance-orientation (Dweck, 1986; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992) - and on the impact of these goals on cognitive engagement. In this framework, the term 'cognitive strategy' has been used to refer to the problem-solving or thinking strategies that students use in learning tasks (Boekaerts, 1996; Pintrich et al ., 1993). To avoid conceptual confusion, the term 'achievement strategy' will be used here to refer to the cognitive, motivational and attributional processes through which people aim to achieve their goals, regulate their anxiety, control events and outcomes and maintain their self-esteem in study-related situations (Cantor, 1990; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Several types of achievement strategy have been described. For example, Cantor and her colleagues (Cantor, 1990; Norem & Cantor, 1986a, 1986b) described two types of strategy among young people who were successful in a university environment. An optimistic strategy was characterised by straightforward striving for success based on high outcome expectations and positive past experiences, and on the desire to enhance an already strong image of competence (Cantor, 1990; Norem, 1989). These positive outcome expectancies usually help people to attain their goals because they make it easy to work hard (Armor & Taylor, 1998; Scheier & Carver, 1985). In contrast, typical of students using a defensive-pessimistic strategy was having defensively low expectations and feeling very anxious and out of control before performance. However, these negative expectations did not become self-fulfilling prophesies, but rather served as a protective attributional cover and motivator before performance, thus leading to a successful outcome (Cantor, 1990; Norem & Cantor, 1986b; Sanna, 1996).
In turn, other types of strategy have been found to be associated with poor performance and problem behaviour. For example, Berglas and Jones (1978) described a self-handicapping strategy in the context of academic underachievement. Because self-handicappers are concerned about potential failure, they concentrate on task-irrelevant behaviour in order to create an excuse for it, instead of formulating task-related plans. Although this strategy provides them with attributional benefits, it also decreases the likelihood of success. Another prototypical example of a maladaptive behavioural pattern is learned helplessness (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978; Seligman, 1975), which can also be conceptualised as a strategy (Cantor, 1990). Helpless individuals have been shown to lack belief in personal control, and therefore to be passive in achievement-related situations rather than formulating task-oriented plans (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Although a considerable amount of research has been carried out on each of these cognitive strategies (e.g. Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Higgins, Snyder & Berglas, 1990; Onatsu-Arvilommi & Nurmi, in press; Norem & Cantor, 1986a; 1986b; Snyder & Smith, 1982), we do not know how typical the use of a certain strategy is. Therefore, one aim of this work was to use a person-oriented approach to identify naturally-occurring subgroups of people who would differ in the types of achievement strategy they deployed . Moreover, since it has been suggested earlier that illusory glow optimism and defensive pessimism are associated with success in academic environments (Norem & Cantor, 1986a; 1986b; Norem & Illingworth, 1993), whereas self-handicapping and learned helplessness lead to underachievement (Abramson et al., 1978; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Jones & Berglas, 1978; Nurmi et al., 1995), a further aim was to study the extent to which the achievement strategies people deploy are associated with subsequent academic success and satisfaction and various patterns of positive and negative life events .
There are numerous studies that demonstrate how different types of achievement strategy predict how successful people are in various achievement or study situations (e.g. Dweck & Legget, 1988; Jones & Berglas, 1978; Norem & Cantor, 1986a; 1986b; Onatsu-Arvilommi & Nurmi, in press). If people expect to do well, they typically set task-related goals, construct plans for their realization and invest a high level of effort in carrying them out (Mischel et al., 1996; Norem, 1989; Nurmi, 1993). This enhances the probability of success in the task at hand, and strengthens images of competence in future situations. In turn, a person who is anxious or anticipates failure often tries to avoid the situation (Peterson & Seligman, 1984), or behaves in a way that will provide an excuse for potential failure (Jones & Berglas, 1978). These types of behaviour typically decrease the likelihood of success in the task at hand, and consequently may lead to low well-being, the accumulation of negative life events, and a tendency to deploy even more maladaptive strategies in the future (Cantor, 1990; Eronen, 2000; Nurmi, 1997). Consequently, it has been suggested that the relationship between strategies and performance is cyclical and cumulative (see Cantor, 1990; Nurmi et al., 1995). However, this assumption has rarely been tested, and there are only few studies that concentrate on developmental dynamics, or even the stability of cognitive-motivational strategies in real-life academic settings (e.g. Onatsu-Arvilommi & Nurmi, in press) (2) . Another aim in this dissertation was thus to investigate academic success and satisfaction as factors that might predict the strategies people apply. The extent to which the tendency to use a certain strategy is an individual characteristic that shows some stability across time was also investigated .
Cognitive and motivational patterns also play an important role in initiating and maintaining interpersonal relationships (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Langston & Cantor, 1989). They have been conceptualised in various terms: Langston and Cantor (1989) described these patterns as social strategies , Crick & Dodge (1994) as social problem-solving strategies , Goffman (1959) as self-presentation strategies , and Eronen, Nurmi & Salmela-Aro et al. (1997) as social reaction styles . Even though these conceptualisations overlap, there are also some important differences. Strategic self-presentation has been defined as an attempt to regulate one’s own behaviour to create a particular impression on others (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Social strategy, in turn, has been used to refer to the intricate organisation of the feelings, thoughts, effort-arousal and actions by which people accomplish their personally meaningful goals (Cantor, 1990; Langston & Cantor, 1989). Social problem-solving is a concept that refers to the outcome of various steps of interpreting contextual information, selecting a behavioural goal and mentally producing and evaluating the alternative behavioural responses evoked by a specific situation (Crick & Dodge, 1994). The term social strategy is used in this dissertation to refer to the ways in which people typically feel and react in challenging social situations by anticipating behavioural outcomes and related affects, and by planning and investing effort in the situation at hand. This terminological choice was made for the sake of conceptual clarity, although the term social reaction style has been used in some of the articles included in the dissertation (3) .
It has been suggested that adaptive social strategies are typified by optimism, positive affects and approach-orientation towards others, providing a basis for success in initiating social relationships (Eronen et al., 1997; Langston & Cantor, 1989). On the other hand, pessimism and avoidance are typical of various types of maladaptive patterns (Arkin, Lake & Baumgardner, 1986; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Langston & Cantor, 1989). However, because social strategies have mainly been studied from a variable-oriented perspective focusing on one type of strategy at a time, we do not know the extent to which individuals apply the different kinds of strategies described in the literature. Therefore, one aim of this dissertation was to discover what kinds of social strategies young adults deploy by using a person-oriented approach .
Although it has been suggested that individuals use self-protective strategies to minimise the likelihood of being evaluated unfavourably, the actual resulting tendency is to diminish positive feedback from others (Arkin et al., 1986; Cantor, 1990; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). This, again, may predispose people to unpopularity and loneliness (Jones & Carver, 1991; Newcomb, Bukowski & Pattee, 1993), and diminish positive interpersonal life events. However, these causal hypotheses have rarely been tested, especially among adults. Consequently, a further objective of this work was to study the extent to which social strategies predict young adults’ success and satisfaction with peer relationships and life events, and their feelings of loneliness.
Entrance into a new interpersonal environment is a situation that provides an important knowledge for the self. Success in initiating peer relationships, as evidenced by sociometric status, is an important source of self-validational knowledge (Boivin & Hymell, 199; Harris, 1995; Schoeneman, Tabor & Nash, 1984). If an individual is accepted by new peers, he or she is likely to feel competent and optimistic about future social situations, whereas problems in initiating new relationships may increase his or her self-doubts and pessimism. These feelings and thoughts may then influence the kinds of social strategies individuals deploy in the future (Nurmi & Salmela-Aro, 1997). However, only a few prospective studies have focused on the impact of peer relationships and interpersonal satisfaction on social strategies. Therefore, one aim in this dissertation was to investigate sociometric status, feelings of loneliness, and satisfaction with peer relationships and positive life events as factors that might predict the social strategies young adults apply. Moreover, the extent to which the tendency to use a certain strategy is an individual characteristic that shows some stability across time was also studied .
It might be assumed that social strategies are reflected in the ways in which people behave in social situations and interact with other people. For example, socially anxious and shy people have been shown to display more reticence and withdrawal, and to be less responsive in interpersonal situations, than unshy individuals (Cheek & Buss, 1981; Jones & Carpenter, 1986; Lord & Zimbardo, 1985). Moreover, a protective self-presentational style is often typified by withdrawal from social interaction, and by self-handicapping behaviours (Arkin, Appleman & Burger, 1980; Arkin et al., 1986). This, again, may predispose people to unpopularity and feelings of loneliness (Jones & Carver, 1991; Newcomb et al., 1993).
Individuals' social strategies might also be assumed to be reflected in the ways in which they perceive other people and social interactions. For example, it has been shown that individuals subjectively interpret other peoples' behaviour in the light of their own personality (eg. Gara et al ., 1993; Markus & Smith, 1981). They have been shown to use the same categories in describing others as they do in describing themselves (Hirschberg & Jennings, 1980; Lewicki, 1983; Schrauger & Patterson, 1974), suggesting that an individual self-schema provides an interpretative framework for organising other people's schema-relevant behaviours (Markus, Smith & Moreland, 1985). It has also been proposed that people may project their undesirable traits onto other individuals on a defensive level (for a review, see Holmes, 1978), or as a cognitive result of supression (Newman, Duff & Baumeister, 1997). Another possibility is that they project the cause of their feelings onto others. For example, a socially anxious person may perceive others as threatening and intrusively active (Daleiden & Vasey, 1997).
These biased perceptions and expectations may create self-fulfilling prophesies that cause the originally false definition of the person or a situation to become true (Darley & Fazio, 1980; Jones, 1986; Merton, 1957; Snyder, 1981). Hence, differences in on-line perceptions and behaviours have been suggested to maintain the individual variations of personality, and their importance in developmental research has been emphasised (Caspi, 1999). Therefore, the next aim was to study whether social strategies are associated with interpersonal behaviour and person perception. The extent to which the impact of social strategies on popularity, unpopularity, loneliness and satisfaction with the group atmosphere is mediated through interpersonal behaviour and person perception was also studied.
Subjective well-being is a broad category of phenomena that includes people’s emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgements of life satisfaction, and therefore it has been defined as a general area of scientific interest rather than a single specific construct (Diener et al ., 1999). It has been suggested that psychological well-being may be viewed as both outcome, and antecedent in terms of an individual’s success in dealing with normative developmental tasks and transitions (Ryff & Singer, 1999). In line with these suggestions well-being was studied as both a predictor and a result of an educational transition. The focus was, first, on the extent to which various factors of well-being (i.e. depression, self-esteem, loneliness and satisfaction with the group atmosphere) predict young adults’ success in dealing with normative age-graded transition and related outcomes in terms of sociometric status and positive and negative life events. Since various cognitive, emotional and behavioural deficits have been described in the context of depression, loneliness, and low self-esteem it could be hypothesised that these deficits may interfere in an individual’s adaptation to a novel environment (Baumgardner, 1991; Campbell & Fairey, 1985; Gotlib, 1982; Heatherton & Ambady, 1993; Kuiper, MacDonald & Derry, 1982; Lewinson, Mischel, Chaplin & Barton, 1980; Miller, 1975). Moreover, although it seems that personality factors exert a substantial influence on well-being, environmental feedback has also been shown to contribute to it (Diener et al ., 1999). Hence, I was also interested in the extent to which achievement and social strategies, and young adults’ success in dealing with normative age-graded transition and related outcomes in terms of sociometric status and positive and negative life events, predict their subjective well-being.
Subjective well-being may be conceptualised in terms of specific components or of a global higher-order factor. Both approaches have advantages: the fact that various components often correlate substantially (Compton, Smith, Cornish & Qualls, 1996) speaks for the need for a global concept, whereas the deployment of domain-specific components may give more detailed information. In line with these suggestions, subjective well-being was operationalised in terms of both higher-order factors and domain satisfactions. Of the global concepts, depression was chosen to reflect unpleasant affect (Diener et al ., 1999). Moreover, the following life domains were also included: (1) work in terms of satisfaction with studies; (2) one’s group in terms of loneliness, and satisfaction with peer relations and with the group atmosphere; and (3) the self in terms of self-esteem (Diener et al ., 1999).
This work focuses on six research questions:
1. What types of achievement and social strategy do young adults deploy in the context of transition to university (Articles I and II )?
2. How common is the use of a certain achievement or social strategy among university students (Articles I and II )
3. Does the deployment of these strategies predict people’s success in their studies, their life events, or in the initiation of new peer relationships, and their well-being (Articles I , II , III and IV )?
4. Does young adults’ success in dealing with various challenges in a new environment (e.g. success in studies, life events, peer relationships and well-being) predict changes in their strategies and well-being in a prospective setting (Articles I , II , and IV )?
5. How are social strategies associated with interpersonal behaviour and person perception (Article V )?
6. Is the impact of social strategies on popularity, unpopularity, loneliness and satisfaction with the group atmosphere mediated by interpersonal behaviour and person perception (Article V )?