Overview

In developmental science, adjustment has many different definitions. Typically, however, it refers to the process of balancing conflicting needs and doing so in either positive (adjustment) or negative ways (maladjustment). As such, it figures prominently in the study of adolescence given that the period of adolescence tends to be perceived as one where individuals begin to learn how to adjust to their new cognitive, physical, and social abilities. They are expected to do so in ways that successfully respond to social demands, including ways that set them on a path toward successful adulthood. Yet, the conceptualization of adjustment still tends to be not well developed, an important limitation given the concept’s importance to the study of adolescence.

Adjustment

In developmental science, adjustment is an often used term that refers to reactions to identifiable stressors, with adjustment involving adapting the self to the situation, changing the situation, or both. Studies examining adjustment range widely, such as adjustment to school, parental conflict, chronic illnesses, adoption, victimization, or even to adolescence itself. Adjustment can also refer to the relative presence or absence of diagnosed psychological disorders, symptoms, or negative mood. The broad scope of what constitutes adjustment is reflected in the wide range of ways that it is measured, ranging from a focus on depressive systems to how one generally copes with a situation. The most specific way that adjustment is used arguably is in the contexts of adjustment disorders, but even those have been criticized as being too vague and poorly defined and constituting an indefinite symptomatology (see Strain and Diefenbacher 2008).

As a construct, adjustment has not been the subject of much commentary in and of itself; it is simply assumed to cover a broad range of factors. The notable exception to lack of effort to conceptualize adjustment appeared in 1940 by Sarbin (1940), who viewed adjustment as focusing on conformity to cultural norms, mores, and traditions, or as focusing on a mastery of one’s environment in ways that are adequate and satisfying to individuals, or as a compromise of one’s beliefs or needs in ways that remain satisfying, such as changing one’s standards. Although considerably dated, more current uses of the term adjustment do seem to fall in those three broad categories.

Two reasons may explain the lack of effort to better conceptualize the nature of adjustment. One reason is that, rather than focus on adjustment itself, research on adjustment has focused on what stress or factor adjustment specifically referred to. For example, one of the most fruitful areas of research involves adjustment to chronic illnesses and diseases. That area has led to multiple views of what constitutes adjustment. A leading example conceptualized adjustment to diseases as focusing on mastery of disease-related tasks, preserving functional status, having low negative affect and no psychological disorder, and addressing issues of quality of life in multiple domains (such as physical, functional, social, sexual, and emotional domains) (see Stanton et al. 2001). Other conceptualizations also have emerged to describe adjustment to illnesses, some of which add a focus on retaining a purpose in life, regulating distress, restoring relationships with others, and maintaining a positive mood and self-worth (for a review, see Stanton et al. 2007). Importantly and although this area of research has centered more on adults than on youth, it reveals how a multitude of factors influence adjustment, such as socioeconomic status, culture and ethnicity, gender, as well as personality attributes and coping mechanisms. This area of research also shows, however, that the study of adjustment has become much more specialized and focused.

Another reason for a lack of focus on a more general concept of adjustment is a continued focus on its extremes. Notably, there is considerable focus on maladjustment, in the sense of focusing on pathology and problem behavior. This broad focus is of significance even though research on the formal diagnosis of adjustment disorder in adolescence is a common diagnosis for nonpsychotic youth and research relating to it remains quite scarce (see Pelkonen et al. 2007). Equally importantly, research increasingly focuses on positive adjustment, as highlighted by the positive youth development movement. Both of these extremes of adjustment provide important understandings of the nature of adolescence as well as factors that do contribute to effective adjustment, although more of a focus has been placed on the more negative side of adjustment as opposed to the optimal side. That research, much of which has been conducted in the United States, has shown that most adolescents appear “adjusted” in that they take pleasure in many aspects of their lives and are satisfied with most of their relationships most of the time (Offer and Schonert-Reichl 1992). Adolescents also appear adjusted in that large national samples report that the vast majority of youth in the United States do not show signs of psychopathology, with one leading study showing, for example, that 78% of youth in its national sample were deemed adjusted, with 44% being well or adequately adjusted and the other 34% marginally adjusted (McDermott and Weiss 1995). These may appear to be impressive and positive findings, but the converse is also true: approximately 20% of youth suffer from psychopathology and are deemed in need of mental health care. This line of research, although focusing on the negative, highlights well the benefits that can come from research focusing on adjustment.

Conclusion

Adjustment serves as a key construct in the study of adolescence. Yet, like many other constructs, such as normality and adaptation, it remains contested. A look at how the construct is used reveals that it likely will remain undeveloped, although widely used.

Cross-References