Problem-Solving Self-Appraisal, Awareness, and ...

Journal of Counseling Psychology 1986, Vol. 33, No. 1, 39-44

Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-0167/86/$00,75

Problem-Solving Self-Appraisal, Awareness, and Utilization of Campus Helping Resources Gary W. Neal

P. Paul Heppner

Counseling Center, Trinity University

University of Missouri - - Columbia

Utilizing resources in one's environment can be viewed as an important activity in the reallife problem-solving process. To test this logic, this study examined college students' awareness and utilization of campus helping resources, particularly the counseling center, as a function of students' problem-solving appraisal. Three hundred six undergraduate students representing all four classes completed the Problem-Solving Inventory and the Campus Resource Utilization Checklist, which assessed their awareness and utilization of 23 helping resources available on or near their campus. The results revealed that problem-solving appraisal was related to the awareness of, use of, and satisfaction with campus helping resources in general and that self-appraised ineffective problem solvers were less aware of, less satisfied with, and made use of fewer campus resources. Problem-solving appraisal did not relate to the awareness or use of the counseling center in particular. The results are discussed in terms of the applied problem-solving research, preventive interventions, methodological issues, and future research.

Several decades of research have documented that college students experience a broad range of educational, vocational, and personal problems (Heppner & Neal, 1983). As a result, numerous resources have been developed to assist students, such as counseling centers, ombudsmen, learning centers, career planning and placement centers, faculty advisors, and a number of other student affairs professionals. Subsequent research has examined students' awareness and utilization of these college and university resources, particularly counseling centers (e.g., Armstrong, 1969; Christensen, Birk, Brooks, & Sedlacek, 1976; Cole & Ivey, 1967; Donk & Oetting, 1967; Form, 1953a; Hummers & DeVolder, 1979; Koile & Bird, 1956). For example, investigators have found that from 14% to 50% of various student populations are ignorant of counseling services (e.g., Benedict, Apsler, & Morrison, 1977; Kramer, Berger & Miller, 1974; McMillin & Cerra, 1972; Minge & Cass, 1966), with most estimates of usage around 10%-25% (e.g., Benedict et al., 1977; Kirk, 1973; Sharf & Bishop, 1973). Investigators have related the differential perception and utilization of resources to a variety of variables, both institutional (e.g., size, Elton & Rose, 1973) and individual (e.g., sex, Abrahamson, 1954; Carroll & Jones, 1944; class, Carroll & Jones, 1944; Form, 1953b). No investigator, however, has sought to relate perceptions and utilization explicitly to students' personal problem-solving appraisal. Utilizing resources in one's environ-

ment can be viewed as an important activity in the real-life problem-solving process. Although impersonal laboratory problem solving has been the subject of much attention in psychology, little is known about how people go about solving real-life problems (D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Heppner, 1978). Only recently have investigators begun to examine how people solve real-life problems (e.g., Coyne, Aldwin & Lazarus, 1981; Heppner, Hibel, Neal, Weinstein, & Rabinowitz, 1982). One promising approach has examined self-appraisal variables as they relate to the applied problemsolving or coping process (e.g., Bandura, 1982; Butler & Meichenbaum, 1981; Kobasa, 1982). One particular line of research has examined the self-appraisal of problem-solving skill through an instrument called the Problem-Solving Inventory (PSI; Heppner & Petersen, 1982). The results from a number of studies (e.g., Baumgardner, Heppner, & Arkin, in press; Heppner, Baumgardner,& Jackson, 1985; Heppner et al., 1982; Heppner & Petersen, 1982; Heppner, Reeder, & Larson, 1983; Neal & Heppner, 1982; Phillips, Pazienza, & Ferrin, 1984) suggest that the cognitive appraisal of one's problem-solving skills is related to a number of cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes related to personal problem solving (e.g., expectations and attributions). In addition, other studies (e.g., Heppner & Anderson, in press; Heppner et al., 1983, 1985; Nezu, 1985) suggest this type of appraisal is related to several indexes of mental health (e.g., depression), which may be conceptualized as outcomes of the coping process (Rennet & Birren, 1980). More specifically, the self-appraised ineffective problem solver can be characterized, in part, as one who lacks self-awareness and insight; has a poor self-concept; tends to focus on emotional responses to problems as opposed to elements of the problem; attributes failure to stable personality characteristics (particularly ability); reports having many personal problems and not enough ego strength to deal with them; has an avoidant decision-making style; and tends to be depressed, anxious, and less well-adjusted psychologically in general. If, as has been suggested, seeking help from available resources is viewed as part of the problem-solving process, then it would

This article is based on the doctoral dissertation of the first author under the supervision of the second author. An earlier draft of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August 1984. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Audrey Remley and others at Westminster College who assisted in data collection. Our appreciation also goes to Susan A. Merkner for her diligent copy editing. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gary W. Neal, Counseling Center, Trinity University, 715 Stadium Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78284. 39

40

GARY W. NEAL AND P. PAUL HEPPNER

seem likely that an individual's problem-solving appraisal would influence his or her utilization of those resources. The present study tested this logic by examining the relation of (a) levels of problem-solving appraisal to (b) student's awareness, utilization, and satisfaction with a wide range of campus helping resources (e.g., chaplain, placement office, and resident advisor). In addition, given a counseling center's role in assisting students with personal, academic, and vocational problems, this study examined the relation of problem-solving appraisal to students' awareness, utilization, and satisfaction with the counseling center in particular. This study extended previous research by integrating two previously distinct areas: research on problem solving and student service utilization patterns. Specifically, it was hypothesized that (a) the self-appraised effective problem solvers would be aware of relatively more available resources than would the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers; (b) the self-perceived ineffective problem solvers would utilize more helping resources than would the self-perceived effective problem solvers; (c) the selfappraised effective (as opposed to ineffective) problem solvers would be more satisfied with the campus resources; and (d) the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers would utilize the counseling center more than would the self-perceived effective problem solvers. Second, this study examined differences in problem-solving appraisal across classes. Previous research on problem-solving appraisal (e.g., Heppner et al., 1982; Heppner & Petersen, 1982) has relied almost solely on students from introductory psychology classes and thus has been largely limited to freshmen and sophomores. The present study utilized a broader and more representative sample of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors in order to identify possible class differences in problem-solving appraisal. It was hypothesized that a linear relation would exist of class to problem-solving appraisal, with upperclass students being more confident, approaching problems, and reporting more personal control than underclass students.

Method

Subjects The total sample of this study consisted of 345 students attending a small midwestern liberal arts college. Students in their fifth year of study and those who reported having transferred from another college were eliminated, leaving a final sample of 306 students. The sample included 236 men (mean age = 19.7 years old) and 70 women (mean age = 19.6 years old); there were 90 freshmen, 100 sophomores, 73 juniors, and 43 seniors. This sample comprised 54.7% of the eligible (nontransfer and non-fifth-year) students enrolled during the semester of the investigation. The subjects were kept naive as to the nature of the experiment; they were told only that the study investigated how they solved problems and interacted with their environment.

skills (Heppner, 1982). Factor analysis has revealed three constructs: Problem-Solving Confidence (11 items), Approach-Avoidance Style (16 items), and Personal Control (5 items). Reliability estimates revealed that the constructs were internally consistent (.72-.90, N = 150) and stable over a 2-week period (.83-.89, N = 31). In addition to the three factor scores, a total PSI score is used as a single general index of problem-solving appraisal. Estimates of validity are provided in several investigations (e.g., DeClue, 1983-1984; Heppner et al., 1985; Heppner et al., 1982; Heppner & Krieshok, 1983; Heppner & Petersen, 1982; Heppner et al., 1983). The Campus Resource Utilization Checklist (CRUC; Neal, 1983/1984) is an instrument on which subjects indicate their awareness, utilization, and satisfaction with 23 student services available on the particular college campus or in the surrounding community (see Footnote 1). For each resource (e.g., resident advisor, counseling center, and dean of student life), subjects were to indicate (a) whether they were aware of the services of that resource (yes or no); (b) the number of times they had utilized the resource (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 + ); and (c) their satisfaction with the services of those resources that they had used, ranging from not at all (1) to a great deal (7). Procedure Data collection began with a pilot administration to 18 undergraduate research assistants in the winter semester of 1983. This administration was intended both to identify any problems in the procedures and to familiarize the research assistants with the procedure because they were to assist with subject recruitment and later administrations. Data collection was then conducted during the middle of the semester in 17 group administrations in dormitories, fraternity houses, and classrooms. Subjects were allowed to participate only once. Research assistants aided in data collection by organizing meetings in their dormitories and by helping proctor these group administrations of the instruments. Student participation was solicited primarily through on-campus advertising (e.g., fliers). The major inducement in soliciting subjects' participation was the offer of two monetary prizes (i.e., $50 for one student randomly selected from all participants, and $50 for the living unit that had the highest proportion of its residents participating). During each group administration, subjects initially were asked to read a brief description of the study, to sign a consent statement, and to complete a demographic information questionnaire. They then completed the PSI and the CRUC. After an examination of the distributions of PSI total scores, each class was divided into approximate thirds, and subjects were classified as high, moderate, or low PSI scorers. This produced approximately equal groups within each class and allowed examination of moderate PSI scorers, a group excluded in most previous research. The number of campus helping lesources of which subjects reported being aware, the number that they reported having used, and the mean reported satisfaction with each resource were combined into three total scores (Awareness Total, Use Total, and Satisfaction Total, respectively. Awareness Total and Use Total scores did not include the fraternity and sorority officers listed on the CRUC to equalize differences between Greek and independent students.) Results S u m m a r y Statistics

Ins~umen~ The Problem-Solving Inventory (PSI; Heppner & Petersen, 1982) is an instrument that assesses individuals' perceptions of their problem-solving behavior, l It consists of 32 six-point Likert scale items, where low scores indicate behaviors and attitudes typically associated with effective problem solving. Because the PSI is a self-rating questionnaire, scores should not be considered synonymous with subjects' actual level of problem-solving

The means and standard deviations on the PSI factors (ProblemSolving Confidence, Approach-Avoidance Style, and Personal Control) and PSI total, respectively, were 25.11, 8.41; 43.33, 11.43; 17.01, 4.92; and 85.45, 21.17. These appear comparable to those reported by Heppner and Petersen (1982). A summary of ICopies of the instruments are available from the first author.

AWARENESS AND UTILIZATION the means and frequencies of all subjects' responses on the CRUC appears in Table 1. For example, more than 14% of the sample reported being unaware of counseling center services, and 42.2% reported having utilized counseling services.

41

Table 2

Summary of Means, Standard Deviations, and F Ratios for Awareness Total, Use Total, and Satisfaction Total by ProblemSolving Level Level from Problem-Solving Inventory

Problem-Solving Appraisal, Awareness, Utilization, and Satisfaction With Resources The means and standard deviations of Awareness, Use, and Satisfaction Total scores are presented in Table 2. It was hypothesized that low PSI scorers (self-appraised effective problem solvers) would be aware of relatively more resources than would high scorers. A 2 × 3 (Sex × PSI) analysis of variance (ANOVA) on Awareness Total found a significant PSI effect, F(2,282) = 3.62, p = .028 (see Table 2). A Duncan's multiplerange test revealed that both low and moderate PSI scorers were aware of significantly more resources than were high scorers (p < .05). Thus the first hypothesis, that self-appraised effective (compared to ineffective) problem solvers would be more aware

Table 1

Awareness, Use, and Satisfaction With Campus Helping Resources

Campus resource

Aware (%)

Use (%)

Mean reported usea

Mean rated satisfactionb

Admissions office 94.7 73.5 2.58 4.85 Academic dean 80.3 34.9 1.65 4.25 Assistant academic dean 55.4 10.5 2.22 4.41 Registrar 95.4 89.1 3.55 5.60 Dean of student life 97.1 77.6 3.19 4.92 Assistant to dean of student life 74.3 56.8 3.31 5.65 Chaplain 88.8 32.8 3.16 5.69 Counseling center 85.9 42.2 2.97 5.55 Financial aid office 94.4 69.7 3.71 5.24 Placement service 77.6 27.7 3.04 5.45 President 74.2 13.1 2.25 3.98 Faculty academic advisor 96.1 87.5 4.05 5.09 Other faculty member 93.6 83.3 3.91 5.58 Communications skills workshop 47.2 11.8 3.69 5.27 Math lab 89.2 40.0 3.07 4.34 English assistants 69.6 8.2 2.96 4.92 Individual tutors 78.8 10.2 3.10 5.03 Resident advisor 97.7 72.2 3.43 4.81 Student academic counselor 96.1 54.5 2.77 4.64 Pledge father or mother 98.7 83.3 4.35 5.62 Pledge trainer 97.5 80.0 3.94 5.14 Other officer 92.3 74.6 4.02 5.46 Off-campus medical facility 86.8 51.1 2.20 4.30 aUse was reported from 1 to 5 + times. bSatisfaction was rated from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.

Low Measure Awareness total Use total Satisfaction Total

M

Moderate

SD

M

SD

High

M

SD

F

17.36a 3.08 16.77a 3.61 15.81b 3.94 3.62* 9.56a,b 2.88 9.81a 2.94 8.82 b 3.00 3.77* 5.32a

1.07

5.11a 0.86

4.55b

1.08 9.69**

Note. Awareness Total and Use Total ranged from 0 to 20. Satisfaction Total ranged from 1 to 7. Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05. *p < .05. **p < .0001.

of available resources, was supported. 2 No significant sex difference was found, F ( l , 282) = 0.57, p > .05. It was also hypothesized that high PSI scorers (self-appraised ineffective problem solvers) would utilize more helping resources than would low scorers. A 2 × 3 (Sex × PSI) ANOVA on Use Total found a significant PSI effect, F ( 2 , 2 8 2 ) = 3.77, p = .024 (see Table 2). A Duncan's multiple-range test indicated a significant difference only between the high and moderate PSI scorers (p < .05). Thus, contrary to the second hypothesis, it appears that self-appraised ineffective problem solvers utilize fewer resources, with moderate self-appraisers using the greatest number and self-appraised effective problem solvers using an intermediate number. 3 A significant sex difference was found, F(1, 282) = 13.01, p = .0004; and a Duncan's multiple-range test indicated that women reported having used more resources than did men (p < .05). Third, it was hypothesized that the self-appraised effective (as opposed to ineffective) problem solvers would be more satisfied with the campus resources. A 2 × 3 (Sex × PSI) ANOVA on Satisfaction Total found a significant PSI effect, F(2, 281) = 9.69, p = .0001 (see Table 2) and a significant sex difference, F(1, 281) = 7.74, p = .006. Duncan's multiple-range tests revealed that high PSI scorers (self-appraised ineffective problem solvers) reported being less satisfied than did either low or moderate scorers and that women reported more satisfaction with campus resources than did men (ps < .05). Finally, it was hypothesized that high PSI scorers (self-appraised ineffective problem solvers) would utilize the counseling 2A series of exploratory analyses on the awareness of each of the 23 campus resources supported the PSI main effect on Awareness Total. For 5 of the 23 resources, fewer of the high (as opposed to low) PSI scorers reported being aware of the services (ps < .05). Thus, the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers not only reported being aware of fewer campus resources in general but were also less likely to be aware of some particular resources. 3Additionally, analyses of the use of each of the 23 resources on the CRUC revealed a similar PSI effect. On the 5 resources where a significant PSI effect was found, the high PSI scorers reported less use than did the moderate or low PSI scorers (ps < .05). Thus, self-appraised ineffective problem solvers reported less total use of campus resources and less use of 5 particular resources than did the self-appraised effective problem solvers.

42

GARY W. NEAL AND P. PAUL HEPPNER

center more than would low scorers. A chi-square test on the coincidence of PSI category and self-reported use-nonuse of the counseling center was not significant, X2(2, N = 303) = 3.023, p > .05. Thus, the hypothesis that self-appraised ineffective problem solvers would utilize counseling services more than would self-appraised effective problem solvers was not supported. In addition, no significant relations were found of the PSI to awareness of the counseling services, X2(2, N = 304) = 1.130, p > .05; nor of the PSI to satisfaction with counseling services, F(2, 102) = 2.06, p > .05.

Class and Problem-Solving Appraisal To test the hypothesis that upperclass students are more confident, approach problems more readily, and feel more personal control than do underclass students, a 2 x 4 (Sex x Class) ANOVA was conducted on the PSI total score, and a 2 × 4 (Sex × Class) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on the three PSI factor scores. 4 No significant class differences were found on the PSI total score, F(3,298) = 0.43, p > .05; nor was there any significant sex difference, F(1,298) = 0.68, p > .05. The MANOVA overall test of the class effect on the three factor scores was also not significant (Wilks's h = .9539, p > .05). Likewise the specific ANOVASon the three factor scores indicated no significant differences across the classes, Fs(3, 298) = 1.23, 0.26, and 1.33, respectively, ps > .05. Thus it appears that there are no significant class differences in problemsolving appraisal among undergraduate students. Discussion The results indicated that the self-appraised ineffective (as opposed to effective) problem solvers reported being aware of significantly fewer campus resources, suggesting less environmental awareness and, perhaps, mastery. Such an interpretation is consistent with the results of a previous study (Heppner et al., 1983), which found that the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers reported a lower need to understand their experiential world. It remains unclear why the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers do not seem to gain as much information (from orientation or whatever other sources) as do other students. Are there differences in the amount or type of information retained or in students' appraisal of their knowledge of resources? These questions underscore the need for counseling centers to continue to examine how to more effectively reach certain target groups (Paul & Crego, 1979). Because the influence of various types of information on student perceptions is unclear (cf. Bigelow, Hendrix, & Jensen, 1968; Gelso & McKenzie, 1973; Nathan, Joanning, Duckro, & Beal, 1978), future research may address the role of individual differences, such as problem-solving appraisal, in receptivity to such information. The results also indicated that the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers not only are aware of fewer campus resources but also use fewer resources and are less satisfied with those they use. Although the lower awareness and satisfaction were hypothesized, it was expected that self-appraised ineffective problem solvers would utilize more (perhaps excessively so) rather than fewer resources; that is, they would seek assistance more often because

they perceived themselves to be less effective. Rather, it now appears the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers, not recognizing that using helping resources is an effective strategy, utilize available resources less than do other students. These results, however, are consistent with another study that found that selfappraised ineffective problem solvers returned less frequently to a career center and were less satisfied with those services (Heppner & Krieshok, 1983). Given the characterization from previous research of self-appraised ineffective problem solvers (e.g., having more problems, using drugs and alcohol more often, being less self-aware and insightful, having a poorer self-concept, and being more depressed), it seems that these individuals could benefit from the use of more campus resources. It is still unclear as to what types of interventions would be most helpful for such a target group, although both remedial and preventive problem-solving training merit examination (Heppner, Neal, & Larson, 1984). Contrary to our hypothesis, the results indicated no significant relation of problem-solving appraisal to the awareness or use of counseling services. Thus, in contrast to their relative ignorance and underutilization of campus resources in general, the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers are as aware of and use the counseling center as much as do the self-appraised effective and moderately effective problem solvers. One explanation may be that the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers are differentially aware of some resources and remember particularly relevant ones, such as the counseling center. Similiarly, the self-appraised ineffective problem solvers' use of counseling services may reflect a recognition that they need help (i.e., see themselves as ineffective) and seek it as the counseling center or that recognition may be made by others who refer these individuals to the counseling center. The results may also be confounded by a methodological issue. Previously, use of campus resources has been operationalized dichotomously; a resource was either used or not used (e.g., Christensen et al., 1976; Cole & Ivey, 1967; Hummers & DeVolder, 1979). However, important differences exist in the use of resources. For example, an older, returning student seeking assistance at a counseling center to brush up study skills at the beginning of the semester is quite different from the failing student on academic probation seeking study skills assistance during the first day of finals week. Methodologically, future research should differentiate the manner in which resources are used, specifically how (effectively vs. ineffectively), when (early vs. late in the problem-solving process), and why (i.e., consultation vs. "Tell me what to do"). The hypothesis that upperclass students would appraise their problem-solving skills more positively than would underclass students was not supported. One interpretation is that there is no systematic change in problem-solving appraisal across the college years, which may be cause for concern among advocates of the value of liberal arts education. Conversely, it is possible that such changes in problem-solving appraisal are masked by group means and cross-sectional data. Although some individuals may become more confident and approach problems after 4 years of college, the pattern for others may be just the opposite. Future longitudinal research may address the patterns of change in problem-solving 4The reader is referred to Neal (1983) for PSI means and standard deviations by class.

AWARENESS AND UTILIZATION appraisal throughout college, particularly as students interact with critical developmental tasks. Finally, it is important to consider the limitations of this study when interpreting the results. The data are correlational, crosssectional, and represent only students who remained in college. Information about those who did not persist is unknown. The results should be interpreted accordingly. Conversely, the large sample employed and the total proportion of the student body sampled enhance the study's external validity. Results of the study also integrate two previously distinct research areas and suggest that problem-solving appraisal is related to students' awareness, utilization, and satisfaction with campus resources.

References Abrahamson, A C. (1954). Counseling during a three year period. Journal of Higher Education, 25, 384-388. Armstrong, J. C. (1969). Perceived intimate friendship as a quasi-therapeutic agent. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16, 137-141. Baumgardner, A. H., Heppner, P. P., & Arkin, R. M. (in press). The role of causal attribution in personal problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Benedict, A. R., Apsler, R., & Mordson, S. (1977). Student views of their counseling needs and counseling services. Journal of College Student Personnel, 18, 1I0-114. Bigelow, G. S., Hen&ix, L. R., & Jensen, V. H. (1968). Impact of counseling center brochures. Journal of College Student Personnel, 9, 97-99. Butler, L., & Meicbenbaum, D. (1981). The assessment of interpersonal problem-solving skills. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment strategies for cognitive-behavioral interventions (pp. 197225). New York: Academic Press. Carroll, H. A., & Jones, H. M. (1944). Adjustment problems of college students. School and Society, 59, 270-272. Christensen, K. C., Birk, J. M., Brooks, L., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1976). Where clients go before contacting the university counseling center. Journal of College Student Personnel, 17, 396-399. Cole, C. W., & Ivey, A. E. (1967). Differences between students attending and not attending a pre-college orientation. Journal of College Student Personnel, 8, 16-21. Coyne, J. C., Aldwin, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depression and coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 439447. DeClue, G. S. (1983-1984). Patterns of intellectual functioning, ability, personality, and problem-solving style (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3928B. Donk, L., J., & Oetting, R. R. (1967). Change in college student attitudes toward sources of assistance for problems. Journal of College Student Personnel, 8, 315-317. D'Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem-solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78, 107-126. Elton, C. G., & Rose, H. A. (1973). The counseling center: A mirror of institutional size. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 1976-1980. Form, A. L. (1953a). Measurement of student attitudes toward counseling services. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 32, 84-87. Form, A. L. (1953b). Users and non-users of counseling services. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 32,209-213. Gelso, C. J., & McKenzie, J. D. (1973). Effect of information on students' perceptions of counseling and their willingness to seek help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 40~411. Heppner, P. P. (1978). A review of the problem-solving literature and its

43

relationship to the counseling process. Journal of Counseing Psychology, 25, 366-375. Heppner, P. P. (1982). A personal problem-solving inventory. In P. A. Keller & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (pp. 231-239). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange. Heppner, P. P., & Anderson, W. P. (in press). The relationship between problem-solving self-appraisal and psychological adjustment. Cognitive Therapy and Research. Heppner, P. P., Banmgardner, A. H., & Jackson, J. (1985). Problemsolving styles, depression, and attribution styles: Are they related? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 105-113. Heppner, P. P., Hibel, J., Neal, G. W., Weinstein, C., & Rabinowitz, F. (1982). Personal problem solving: A descriptive study of individual differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 580-590. Heppner, P. P., & Kriesbok, T. S. (1983). An applied investigation of problem-solving appraisal, vocational identity, and career service requests, utilization, and subsequent evaluations. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 31,240-249. Heppner, P. P., & Neal, G. W. (1983). Holding up the mirror: Research on the roles and functions of counseling centers in higher education. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(1), 81-89. Heppner, P. P., Neal, G. W., & Larson, L. M. (1984). Problem-solving training as prevention with college students. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, 514-519. Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 66-75. Heppner, P. P., Reeder, B. L., & Larson, L. M. (1983). Cognitive and affective variables associated with personal problem-solving styles. Journals of Counseling Psychology, 30, 537-545. Hummers, J., & DeVolder, J. P. (1979). Comparisons of male and female students' use of a university counseling center. Journal of College Student Personnel, 20, 243-249. Kirk, B. A. (1973). Characteristics of users of counseling centers and psychiatric services on a college campus. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 463-470. Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance among lawyers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,707-717. Koile, E. A., & Bird, D. J. (1956). Preferences for counseling help of freshman problems. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3, 97-106. Kramer, H. C., Berger, F., & Miller, G. (1974). Student concerns and sources of assistance. Journal of College Student Personnel, 15, 389393. McMillin, M. R., & Cerra, P. (1972). Student knowledge about a counseling center. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 10, 138-141. Minge, M. R., & Cass, W. A. (1966). Student perceptions of a university counseling center. Journal of College Student Personnel, 7, 141-144. Nathan, E., Joanning, H., Duckro, P., & Beal, D. (1978). Differential effectiveness of written and verbal communications in modifying students' perceptions of the counseling center's role. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 242-245. Neal, G. W. (1983-1984). Personal problem solving: Awareness and utilization of campus helping resources (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3939B3940B. Neal, G. W., & Heppner, P. P. (1982, March). Personality correlates of perceived effective personal problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, Detroit. Nezu, A. M. (1985). Differences in psychological distress between effective and ineffective problem solvers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 135-138. Paul, S. C., & Crego, C. A. (1979). Marketing counseling center pro-

44

GARY W. NEAL AND P. PAUL HEPPNER

grams in a student consumer society. Journal of College Student Personnel, 20, 135-139. Phillips, S. D., Pazienza, N. J., & Ferrin, H. H. (1984). Decision-making strategies and effective problem solving. Journal of Counseling Psy-

Shaft, R. S., & Bishop, J. B. (1973). Adjustment differences between counseled and noncounseled students at a university counseling center. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 509-512.

chology, 31,497-502. Renner, V. J., & Bitten, J. E. (1980). Stress: Physiological and psychological mechanisms. In .i.E. Birren & R. B. Sloane (Eds.), Handbook of mental health and aging (pp. 310-336). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hail.

Received February 7, 1985 Revision received May 28, 1985 •