An Overview of

Nancy K. Schlossberg’s Transition Theory

Cecilia Santiago CSA 552: Process of Adult Development

Dr. Carol A. Lundberg 5 November 2004

Santiago 1

An Overview of Nancy K. Schlossberg’s Transition Theory

Dr. Nancy K. Schlossberg is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland in the

Department of Counseling and Personnel Services and has served on the faculties of Wayne

State University, Howard University, and Pratt Institute. She received her B.A. degree in 1951

from Bernard College in sociology and her Ed.D. degree in 1961 from Teachers College,

Columbia University, in counseling. She was the first woman executive at the American Council

on Education, where she established the Office of Women in Higher Education (Schlossberg,

1989, pg. xvii). Schlossberg is an “expert in the areas of adult development, adult transition,

career development, adults as learners, and intergenerational relationships” (University of

Maryland Website; Fass Speakers Bureau Website). She is the current President of a consulting

group, Transition Works. Dr. Schlossberg has co-authored several books including, Improving

Higher Education Environments for Adults (1989), Counseling Adults in Transition (1984), and

Perspectives on Counseling Adults (1978), among others (Schlossberg, 1989). In recent years,

Dr. Schlossberg has shifted her interest in adult learners’ transitions to writing about adults’

transitions into retirement.

The Transition Theory was created because of a “need for a framework that would

facilitate an understanding of adults in transition and lead them to the help they needed to cope

with the ordinary and extraordinary process of living” (Evans, et al., 1998). “Schlossberg’s

theory is typically categorized as a theory of adult development…However, the theory is also

relevant to traditionally aged students. Schlossberg’s earliest extended treatment of her

conceptualizations appeared in The Counseling Psychologist in 1981. Describing her model as a

vehicle for ‘analyzing human adaptation to transition, Schlossberg asserted that adaptation was

affected by the interaction of three sets of variables: the individual’s perception of the transition,

Santiago 2

characteristics of the pretransition and posttransition environments, and characteristics of the

individual experiencing the transition” (Evans, et al., 1989). The theory was revisited several

times, once in 1989 and then in 1995.

The works of Daniel Levinson, Bernice Neugarten, Erik Erickson, Arthur Chickering,

among others, influenced Dr. Schlossberg’s Transition Theory. Dr. Schlossberg states in one of

her first articles on the Transition Theory (1981) that “the original conceptualization of this

model stemmed from a number of helpful discussions with Dr. Sue Smock, Acting Director,

Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University, and with Dr. William Schafer, Associate

Professor, Department of Measurements and Statistics, College of Education, University

Maryland” (Schlossberg, 1981).

As previously mentioned, it was in Dr. Schlossberg’s 1981 article; “A model for

analyzing human adaptation” in the Counseling Psychologist journal, that the Transition Theory

(then called a model) was first presented. This article and model was based on many “empirical

research, as well as, theory building, that had been done in recent years” (Schlossberg, 1981).

The model was developed to create a framework in which practitioners would be able to

understand why people react and adapt so differently to transition and why the same person can

react and adapt so differently at different points in life. As a result of this study, Dr. Schlossberg

wrote a book in 1984, Counseling Adults in Transition, where she was successful in “linking

transition theory to the contemporary version of Egan’s helping model. This connection provided

substantial support for theory-to-practice efforts of counseling or programming nature” (Evans,

et al., 1998).

In 1989, in collaboration with Dr. Arthur W. Chickering and Dr. Anne Q. Lynch, Dr.

Schlossberg revisited the theory as a result of a study of adult learners (non-traditional aged

Santiago 3

students) and the outcome of an investigation to learn about the differences between adult

learner’s participation in the learning process and that of traditionally aged students. The adults

selected for this study were affiliated in some way with the Returning Students’ Program of the

Counseling Center at the University of Maryland, College Park; Academic Advising of

University College at the University of Maryland; and Mini College, University College, and the

Adult Student Information Center at Memphis State University (Schlossberg, et al., 1989). The

students’ affiliations to these centers gave the researchers almost complete certainty that the

students were in a transition stage.

Dr. Schlossberg and her colleagues “defined a transition as ‘any event, or non-event that

results in changed relationships, routines, assumptions, and roles” (Evans et al., 1998). However,

if the transition is not recognized by the individual as such and it is not considered a transition,

but instead a change. “Changes may occur without the individual’s attaching much significance

to them” (Evans, et al., 1998). According to Schlossberg, it important “to understand the

meaning that a transition has for a particular individual, one needs to consider the type, context,

and impact of the transition” (Evan, et al., 1998). The first step is to define the type of transition:

anticipated1, unanticipated2, chronic “hassles”3 or non-event4 (Schlossberg, 1984). Second

identify “the relationship [or context] of the individual to the event or nonevent resulting in

changes is central to the understanding of transitions” (Schlossberg, 1984). Finally, assess the

impact that the transition has on the individual to determine the “degree to which a transition

alters [the] daily life. Both positive and negative transitions, as perceived by the individual,

produce stress; the impact of such stress is dependent on the ratio of the individual’s assets and

1 Anticipated transitions: Ones that occur predictably (Evans, et al., 1998) 2 Unanticipated transitions: Ones that are not predictable or scheduled (Evans, et al., 1998) 3 Chronic “hassles”: Ones that are pervasive and continuous (Evans, et al., 1998) 4 Nonevent transitions: Ones that are expected but do not occur (Evans, et al., 1998)

Santiago 4

liabilities5” (Evans, et al., 1998). Figures 1 and 2 summarize the Transition Theory and identify

the factors that influence an individual’s transitions.

Figure 1: The Individual in Transition (Schlossberg, 1984)

Figure 2: The Individual in Transition: A Detailed Look (Schlossberg, 1984)

5 Assets and Liabilities: The balance between recent positive and negative affective experiences that more effectively predicts the individuals subjective sense of well-being that either type of experience alone (Schlossberg, 1984). This “helps explain why the same person reacts differently at different times (Evans, et al., 1998)

Santiago 5

When the theory was revised in 1989 and 1995, the latter with the help of Waters and

Goodman (1995), the new conceptualized theory included and “presented the transition theory as

having three components: approaching change, taking stock, and taking charge. The taking stock

section introduced the 4 S’s: situation, self, support, and strategies. The 4 S’s represents a

reframing of Schlossberg’s previous discussions of coping resources as variables characterizing

the transition, the individual, and the environment. The taking charge section introduced the

terminology of moving in, moving through, and moving out to describe the phases of transitions.

When a person is going through the “moving in” process, he or she will need to “learn the ropes

to become familiar with the rules, regulations, norms, and expectation of the new systems”

(Schlossberg, 1997). When a person is experiencing the “moving through” process, they are in

survival mode and when going through the “moving out” phase they may experience feelings of

grief event if the individual perceives the transition to be a positive one and self initiated

(Schlossberg, 1997). “Transitions may lead to growth, but decline is also a possible outcome, and

may be viewed with ambivalence by the individuals experiencing them” (Evans, et al., 1998).

Both Figures 3 and 4 give a representation of the Transition Theory.

Figure 3: Coping Resources (Schlossberg, 1984)

Santiago 6

Figure 4: Adapted from Schlossberg, Waters and Goodman (Evans, et al., 1998)

The basic idea of the 4 S’s is to find a systematic process of mastering change while

taking stock and taking charge. To cope well with transition the individual needs to address these

four concepts, the first three of which help adults to take stock (Sargent and Schlossberg, 1988).

The individual needs to examine their own situation by asking evaluating questions about the

situation, self, supports, and strategies for coping. In Sargent and Schlossberg’s (1988),

“Managing adult transitions” article, they identify key questions for each S concept, which are as

follows:

Situation: What kind of transition it? Is the situation perceived as positive, negative,

expected, unexpected, desired, or dreaded? Did the transition come at the worst of best

time possible? Is it “on time” or “off schedule”? Is it voluntary or imposed? Is the

individual at the beginning, middle, or end of the transition?

Santiago 7

Self: What kind of strengths and weaknesses does the individual bring to the situation?

What is the person’s previous experience in making a similar transition? Does he or she

believe there are options? Is he or she basically optimistic and able to deal with

ambiguity?

Supports: They are people who are likely to help—or hinder—the person getting

through the transition. Does that person have support from family, friends, co-workers,

and supervisors? In what ways do those people give support? In what ways do they

hinder the person’s efforts to change? Once the individual has taken this inventory or

stock of his or her assets and liabilities, the next step is to take charge.

Strategies for coping: This is the stage where the plan of action to cope with the

transition comes into play. Does the person use several coping strategies of just one? Can

the person creatively cope by changing the situation, changing the meaning of the

situation, or managing reactions to stress?

Schlossberg integrated the Cormier and Hackney Model to provide a “useful vehicle for

identifying effective actions that can be taken to support individuals in transitions” (Evans, et al.,

1998). Cormier and Hackney’s model proposes five stages that can help a professional

effectively guide students through transitions, specifically in identifying the 4 S’s (Evans, et al.,

1998), the “five stages are (1) relationship building, (2) assessment, (3) goal setting, (4)

interventions, and (5) termination and follow-up” (Evans, et al., 1998). However, the Cornier and

Hackney Model was not the first helping model Dr. Schlossberg integrated into the theory. In

1984, before Schlossberg revised her theory, she used the Egan’s Helping Model. The concepts

are the same and applicable to student affairs, except that the Cormier and Hackney Model may

Santiago 8

sound more clinical. The following chart “illustrates how Egan’s model effectively integrated

into the transition framework, with the knowledge base of adult development…The helping

skills include provision of a new and clarifying perspective, and influencing action or inaction

through utilization of various strategies” (Schlossberg, 1984).

Figure 5: Helping Adults in Transition: A Content Process Model (Schlossberg, 1989) The reason why this theory is so helpful, practical, and well developed is because

Schlossberg and her collaborators have used “an array of writings and gleaned the most

important concepts from them, added their insights, and created a dynamic model that can

provide a solid foundation for practice that is responsive to both commonalities and

idiosyncrasies” (Evans, et al., 1998). Some people, however, may feel that this method of

formulating theory is not as credible as the “traditional” way of doing so. Dr. Schlossberg’s

“work reflects [her and her colleagues’] ability to identify, extract, and integrate core ideas”

(Evans, et al., 1998). Furthermore, it reflects the theory’s perspective and operational

multiplicity. The theory’s practicality is also a benefit. “The theory can be used as an

intervention model, such as the Generalist Intervention Model (GIM) that social workers use

Santiago 9

when working with clients. The Cormier and Hackey’s counseling model is very similar to the

GIM model because it has planned change processes that emphasize the assessment of client

strengths (Kirst-Ashman and Hull, 1999). The only precaution that may result due to the

practicality of the theory is that professionals need to be competent counselors/interviewers. As

student affairs professionals, one needs to ensure that students do not feel marginalized and feel

that they do in fact matter and one of the ways that this can be achieved is through our

interventions and by continuously assessing the campus climate. It is also important for student

affairs professionals to be able to process and understand the information gathered from the

students that are going through the transitions, while understanding the relationship between the

students and their environment.

To solidify the theory’s practical framework, I would ask for Bronfenbrenner’s

Ecological Systems Theory to be considered as possible addition to the Transition Theory. Figure

6 illustrates a person’s “ecology, which Bronfenbrenner’s [Ecological Systems Theory] defines

as complex layers of environment, each having an effect on a [person’s] development. This

theory has recently been renamed “bioecological systems theory” to emphasize that a [person’s]

own biology is a primary environment fueling [their] development.

Figure 6: Bronfenbrenner's Ecological System (www.usu.edu/.../lectures/ chp12socdev/socdev.htm)

Santiago 10

The interaction between factors in the [person’s] maturing biology, [their] immediate

family/community environment, and the societal landscape fuels and steers [their] development.

Changes or conflict in any one layer will ripple throughout other layers. To [understand the

students’ transitions] then, we must look not only at the students and their immediate

environment, but also at the interaction of the larger environment as well” (Brofenbrenner’s

Ecological Systems Theory Website).

Dr. Schlossberg’s theory is very applicable to my work in diversity and multicultural

affairs. Even though I agree with Evans et al. (1998) that there needs to be “more research

related to diverse student populations, such as students of color, student with disabilities, lesbian,

gay, and bisexual students, and international students,” I believe that it is a powerful tool when

working with the aforementioned student populations. The theory allows the students to be

treated as individuals, since this theory articulates that everyone handles transitions in very

different ways from one another.

Relating to the personalized approach of the Transition Theory, another concept that

emerged from Dr. Schlossberg’s work that is very relevant to my work is the “Marginality and

Mattering” concept. Schlossberg’s article, “Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building

community” (1989), explains that transitions and feeling of marginality are many time

interrelated; people in transition often feel marginal and that they do not matter. “For members of

minority groups, marginality is often a permanent condition; others, such as new college students

from dominant populations, may temporarily experience these feelings. Schlossberg suggested

that when individuals feel marginal, they worry about they mater to anyone to someone else”

(Evans, et al., 1998). In addition, Schlossberg’s theory “indicates that feelings of marginality and

mattering may discourage or encourage campus involvement and community development,

Santiago 11

aspects university life that have been linked to student success.” (Kodama, C.M, 2002).

Schlossberg (1989) argues that mattering represents a compelling social obligation and a

powerful source of social integration; that are bonded to society not only by virtue of our

dependence on others but their independence on us” (Schlossberg, 1989; Cuyjet, 1998). This

concept prompts us to think about what our campuses are doing (or not) to make our

environments inclusive and the effectiveness of the established diversity programs. Moreover, it

helps us reevaluate what our institutions are doing to work towards improving the access, equity

and quality of the educational experience for all students, specifically that of non-traditional

students, underrepresented students and/or first-generation college students.

Learning more about Dr. Nancy Schlossberg’s Transition Theory has provided me with

new insights about working with adult or non-traditionally aged students, a population I did not

know much about. In addition, the theory has helped me think about new ways to be more

effective in my work with all students, specifically those students who are more likely to

experience transitions while in college, such as underrepresented and first-generation students. It

has made me be more intentional about the questions I ask students who seek my advice or are

going through transitions. I have found that this theory is versatile, well developed and extremely

useful. I wish that there were more theorists like Dr. Schlossberg who would consistently

reevaluate their work and make theories practical and inclusive of many student populations.

Santiago 12

References

Alford, S.M. (1998). The impact of inner-city values on student social adjustment in commuter

colleges. NASPA Journal, 35(3), 225-233.

Chea, K. (in press). Validating underrepresented students’ college aspirations and college-going

plans in a summer program for high school students. Retrieved on October 24, 2004,

from http://forms.gradsch.psu.edu/equity/sroppapers/2002/CheaKeo.pdf.

Cheng, D.X. (2004). Students’ sense of campus community: What it means, and what to do

about it. NASPA Journal, 41 (2), 216-234.

Cuyjet, M.J. (1998). Recognizing and addressing marginalization among African-American

college students. College Student Affairs Journal, 18 (1), 64-71.

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory,

research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Farley, J.E. (2002). Contesting our everyday work lives: The retention of minority and working

class sociology undergraduates. The Sociological Quarterly, 43 (1), 1-25.

Fass Speakers Bureau (n.d.). Dr. Nancy K. Schlossberg. Retrieved November 1, 2004 from

http://www.fasspr.com/fsb/NancySchlossberg.html

Kirst-Ashman, K.K., and Hull Jr., C.H. (1999). Understanding Generalist Practice (2nd ed.).

Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Kodama, C.M. (2002). Marginality of transfer commuter students. NASPA Journal, 39(3), 233-250.

Paquette, D. and Ryan, J. (2001). Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. Retrieved

November 3, 2004 from http//: pt3.nl.edu/paquetteryanwebquest.pdf.

Parker, M. & Flowers, L.A. (2003). The effects of racial identity on academic achievements and

Santiago 13

perceptions of campus connectedness on African American students at predominantly

white institutions. College Student Affairs Journal, 22(2), 180-194.

Sargent, A.G. and Schlossberg, N.K. (1988). Managing adult transitions. Training &

Development Journal, December 1988, 58-60.

Schlossberg, N.K. & Entine, A.D. (Eds.). (1977). Counseling adults. Monterey: Brooks/Cole

Publishing Company.

Schlossberg, N.K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. Counseling

Psychologist, 9(2), 2-18.

Schlossberg, N.K. (1984). Counseling adults in transitions. New York: Springer Publishing

Company.

Schlossberg, N.K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In D.C.

Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community (New

Directions for Student Services, No. 48, 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N.K., Lynch, A.Q., & Chickering, A.W. (1989). Improving higher education

environments for adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N.K. (1997). A model of worklife transitions. In R. Feller and G. Walz (Eds.),

Career Transitions in Turbulent Times. Greensboro: Eric Counseling & Student Services

Clearinghouse.

Torosyan, R. (1999). Applying learning to life: A theoretical framework in context. Et Cetera, 56

(1), 3-24).

Transition works…New ways to think about change. (n.d). About Nancy Schlossberg. Retrieved

on November 1, 2004 on www.transitionguide.com

University of Maryland. (n.d). College of Education News. Retrieved on November 1, 2004 from

Santiago 14

http://www.education.umd.edu/news/wnr0410.schlossbergLecture.html

Woodward, V.S. & Sims, J.M. (2000). Programmatic approach to improving campus climate.

NASPA Journal, 37(4), 539-552.