The Importance of College Roommate Relationships: A Review and Systemic Conceptualization

Abstract

This article reviews empirical studies of the role of college roommate rela- tionships in students’ mental health and college adjustment. We propose a systemic conceptualization of roommate relationships that highlights roommates’ interdependence and origins of roommate relationship dy- namics. We discuss practice implications for student affairs professionals, provide a case example, and offer recommendations for future research.

Full text

JSARP 2014, 51(1) © NASPA 2014 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004
43
Erb, S. E., Renshaw, K. D., Short, J. L., & Pollard, J. W. (2014).
The importance of college roommate relationships: A review and systemic conceptualization.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(1), 43–55.
Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004
Sarah E. Erb, Doctoral Candidate, George Mason University. Keith D. Renshaw, Associate Professor, Depart-
ment of Psychology, George Mason University. Jerome L. Short, Associate Professor, Psychology, George
Mason University. Jeffrey W. Pollard, Afliate Professor of Psychology,George Mason University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erb at serb@gmu.edu.
The Importance of College Roommate
Relationships: A Review and Systemic
Conceptualization
Sarah E. Erb,
George Mason University
Keith D. Renshaw,
George Mason University
Jerome L. Short,
George Mason University
Jeffrey W. Pollard,
George Mason University
This article reviews empirical studies of the role of college roommate rela-
tionships in students’ mental health and college adjustment. We propose
a systemic conceptualization of roommate relationships that highlights
roommates’ interdependence and origins of roommate relationship dy-
namics. We discuss practice implications for student affairs professionals,
provide a case example, and offer recommendations for future research.
Forty-one percent of Americans between ages 18 to 24 are currently enrolled as undergraduate
students (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). For those 21 million traditional-aged students, the
college years represent a developmentally critical time period. Several major psychological theorists
emphasize the importance of social functioning during these years. Erikson’s (1968) stage theory of
psychosocial development asserts that young adults’ primary objective is to experience intimacy in
relationships rather than isolation. Cultivating mature interpersonal relationships is one of Chick-
ering and Reisser’s (1993) seven vectors of psychosocial developmental issues that college students
face. Lastly, traditional-aged college students fall within Arnett’s (2000) emerging adulthood stage
that is characterized by prolonged identity formation and is closely tied to romantic relationships
and friendships (Barry, Madsen, Nelson, Carroll, & Badger, 2009). In sum, for millions of college
students, interpersonal relationships are essential to psychological development.
e theoretical importance of interpersonal relationships for college students is supported
by empirical studies linking social functioning to mental health and adjustment to college life.
Students’ ability to form meaningful relationships with other students leads to gains in multiple
dimensions of psychological well-being, including environmental mastery, personal growth, pur-
pose in life, and self-acceptance (Bowman, 2010). e quality of new college friendships predicts
Innovations in Research and Scholarship Features
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1)
doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA 2014
44
College Roommate Relationships
how well students adjust to interpersonal experiences at college, their feelings of attachment to a
university, and their coping with academic demands (e.g., Buote et al., 2007). Students’ ability to
develop quality friendships at college predicts decreases in both internalizing and externalizing
problem behaviors (Pittman & Richmond, 2008). ough these studies conclude that forming
and maintaining social relationships are key developmental tasks, little is known about the roles of
specic types of social relationships, such as roommate relationships.
Importance of College Students’ Roommate Relationships
College roommate relationships can be an important aspect of students’ social functioning and
college life for several reasons. First, roommates are a specic type of interpersonal relationship
widely and uniquely experienced by college students. In a study of 23,518 undergraduates from
44 U.S. campuses, 40% reported living on campus: in campus residence halls, fraternity or soror-
ity houses, or other university housing (American College Health Association, 2012). Aggregate
percentages may mask the fact that the portion of undergraduates living on campus varies consid-
erably. Some universities, such as Princeton, have approximately 97% of undergraduates living on-
campus (Wecker, 2011). is review focuses more on studies of on-campus, instead of o-campus,
roommate relationships because we later recommend how student aairs professionals can use
research ndings to help create positive roommate relationships.
College roommate relationships are unique among students’ interpersonal relationships be-
cause they live together. Roommates have frequent contact, negotiation of responsibilities, and
compromises about the living environment (e.g., noise level, sleep/waking hours, visitors, and de-
cor). Students’ roommates are typically the rst nonfamily members and rst people of equal status
(i.e., in contrast to a parent-child relationship) with whom they live. ese “rsts” bring added
challenges to students’ abilities to get along with one another.
Unlike students’ other friendships, they often do not choose roommates and may experience
personality mismatches. In a sample of 31,500 students in a nationwide survey, 50.1% of women
and 44.1% of men reported “frequent” or “occasional” conict with roommates or housemates (Liu,
Sharkness, & Pryor, 2008). In a nationwide survey, 5.6% of undergraduates reported that roommate
diculties hindered their academic performance (e.g., received a lower grade on an exam, received
an incomplete, or dropped a course), which is more than the 4.0% of students who said that alcohol
use did the same (American College Health Association, 2012). Roommate conict is a widespread
experience among college students.
Despite the presence of college roommate relationship studies over several decades, no litera-
ture reviews summarize and synthesize the empirical knowledge about roommate relationships.
is article does so in order to achieve several objectives. First, we critically examine the ndings
and quality of previous studies. Next, we utilize family systems theory to organize the empirical
knowledge of roommate relationships and provide an overarching conceptualization. We then de-
scribe practical implications for student aairs professionals with a case example that highlights
key points. Finally, we make recommendations for future research that can help address specic
gaps with more targeted and methodologically rigorous research. Overall, we address the following
questions:
1. What is the role of roommate relationships in students’ mental health and college adjustment?
2. Where may relational dynamics between roommates originate?
3. How can student aairs professionals, such as college counseling center and residence life
sta, use the proposed conceptualization to enhance roommate relationships, particularly
when conict arises?
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1) © NASPA 2014 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004
45
College Roommate Relationships
4. What future research on roommate relationships is needed to inform future eective
practices?
e studies included in the present review examined how aspects of undergraduate room-
mate relationships related to mental health outcomes and students’ adjustment to college life. We
identied relevant peer-reviewed journal articles by rst searching PsycINFO and Google Scholar,
using the following search term combinations: “undergraduate” and “roommate,” “college” and
“roommate,” and “roommate” and “relationships.” Several journals not indexed in PsycINFO were
searched individually, including the Journal of Student Aairs Research and Practice, the Journal of
College and University Student Housing, and the Journal of College Student Development. e 10 most
relevant studies are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Literature Review of College Roommate (CR) Relationships
Study Population Findings
Quantitative Empirical Studies Linking CR Relationships to Important Outcomes
Waldo & Fuhriman, 1981 19 pairs of on-campus CR at a large Mid-
western university (94% female) CRs who rated themselves as having the
highest level of trust and intimacy within
their relationship rated themselves as
having signicantly higher overall emo-
tional adjustment
Waldo, 1984 138 students at a large East Coast univer-
sity (75 men) Use of positive CR communication skills
was signicantly associated with more
positive overall psychological adjust-
ment
Waldo, 1986 Same sample as Waldo, 1984 Positive CR communication skills and
higher quality CR relationship were both
associated with higher GPA and greater
retention
Lepore, 1992 228 students (122 female), mostly under-
graduates (93%) Demonstrated that a supportive room-
mate relationship can exert a cross-
domain buering eect of social support
Dusselier, Dunn, Wang, Shel-
ley, & Whalen, 2005 416 residence hall students at a Mid-
western university (57% men) Frequent conict with CR was signicant
predictor of overall stress level
Qualitative Studies of CR
Keup, 2007 8 high school seniors (6 females), inter-
viewed individually over 3 time points
(2 of which were during their rst year
of college)
Diculty with CR relationships was
among the greatest disappointments of
the rst year; and CR diculties had a
negative eect on overall satisfaction
Bradbury & Mather, 2009 9 rst-generation students (7 females),
interviewed individually twice during
rst year of college
3 of the 4 participants who lived on
campus had diculties with their CRs;
1 participant’s roommate problems was
a factor in her decision to transfer to
another university
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1)
doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA 2014
46
College Roommate Relationships
Roommate Relationships as Protective or Risk Factors for Adjustment
Given the multiple ways in which roommates can interact, it is not surprising that empirical
evidence suggests these relationships can enhance or reduce mental health and adjustment to col-
lege. Several studies demonstrate that positive roommate relationships may help protect them from
psychological distress. In an early study of students in a large Midwestern university, ve pairs of
on-campus roommate participants who scored highest on a measure of trust and intimacy within
their relationship, as compared with the ve pairs with the lowest scores, rated themselves as hav-
ing signicantly higher emotional adjustment than the second group (Waldo & Fuhriman, 1981).
e small sample limits generalization, but the study indicated the potential value of supportive
roommate relationships.
In a larger study of 138 students from an east coast university, raters assessed students’ use of
positive communication skills during hypothetical situations with roommates and found that the
skills were signicantly associated with positive overall psychological adjustment (Waldo, 1984).
In a follow-up study of 127 of these participants, positive roommate communication skills and
self-reports of higher quality relationships with roommates were each signicantly associated with
higher GPA and greater retention, as indicated by their registration the following semester (Waldo,
1986). e design and data analysis techniques in these studies did not account for interdepen-
dence that may exist between roommates’ communication skills or their adjustment. However,
the results show that positive roommate relationships may have longer-term benets for students’
psychological and academic functioning.
Other studies provide evidence for roommate relationships’ role as a protective factor for stu-
dent mental health. A study of 228 students showed that high levels of social support from room-
mates 2 weeks after moving in together weakened the association between conict within general
Table 1 (continued)
Literature Review of College Roommate (CR) Relationships
Study Population Findings
Jaggers & Iverson, 2012 23 Black males at a predominantly White
university who participated in 3 focus
groups
Frequent roommate conicts, negative
racial stereotypes, interracial tensions,
and disagreements with residence hall
sta about unevenly applied disciplinary
actions compared to White students
Studies of CR Interdependence
Anderson, Keltner, & John,
2003 37 pairs of on-campus roommates at a
large Midwestern university Demonstrated emotional convergence
(specically, greater similarity in their
emotional experience and expression)
over time among CR using dyadic data
analysis techniques
Haeel & Hames, 2014 103 pairs of randomly assigned rst-year
students CR (66 female pairs) at a pri-
vate, midsized Midwestern university
Used dyadic data analysis techniques to
demonstrate that cognitive vulnerability
to depression (specically, a rumina-
tive response style) can be “contagious”
among CRs
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1) © NASPA 2014 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004
47
College Roommate Relationships
friendships (also assessed 2 weeks after move-in) and psychological distress 7 weeks later, even after
adjusting for the eects of baseline psychological distress (Lepore, 1992). e participants lived
with their roommates in o-campus apartments, which may create dierent expectations than
traditional on-campus housing.
Some studies suggest that roommate relationships can be a risk factor for mental health prob-
lems and poor adjustment to college. In a study of 416 students in residence halls at a Midwestern
university, frequent conict with one’s roommate was a signicant predictor of overall stress level
(Dusselier, Dunn, Wang, Shelley, & Whalen, 2005). Students described their roommate conict in
open-ended responses and mentioned annoyance at their roommates’ habits, such as coming home
late and waking them.
Qualitative studies of students generally have small samples and the ndings have limited gen-
eralizability, but they can provide more detailed descriptions of negative processes within roommate
interactions. In a longitudinal study of eight high school students’ idealized expectations of college
life and their subsequent disillusionment, diculties with roommate relationships were among the
greatest disappointments of the rst year and had a negative impact on students’ overall satisfaction
(Keup, 2007). Interviews of nine rst-generation Appalachian college students found that students
maintained more family responsibilities, spent minimal time with roommates, and had trouble
adjusting to roommates from dierent family backgrounds (Bradbury & Mather, 2009). In a focus
group study of 23 Black undergraduate men at a predominantly White university in the Midwest,
students reported numerous experiences of roommate conicts, interracial tensions, and disagree-
ments with residence hall sta (Jaggers & Iverson, 2012). e students also reported interactions
with roommates and sta that included negative racial stereotypes, unevenly applied disciplinary
actions, and lack of support.
e small samples and overall dearth of empirical research on college roommate relationships
limits the ability of counseling center sta, residence life professionals, and others in the college
community to conceptualize roommate relationships with empirical grounding. e lack of a thor-
ough conceptualization of roommate relationships limits theoretically informed research regarding
how interpersonal dynamics between roommates develop, and the function that roommates serve
in students’ adjustment to college and mental health. To begin to address this need, the following
section examines family systems theory and proposes a theoretically informed, empirically testable
conceptualization of college roommate relationships.
Roommate Relationship Conceptualization Using Family Systems Theory
Family systems theory emerged in the mid-twentieth century as an outgrowth of general sys-
tems theory, present in the elds of biology, physics, and chemistry (Doherty & McDaniel, 2010).
Systems theory examines relationships between parts, and posits that a system is not simply the
sum of its parts. Family systems theory asserts that one family member’s functioning inuences and
is inuenced by interactions within various family relationships (Doherty & McDaniel, 2010). An
example is that children of depressed parents are at higher risk for a variety of behavior problems
and psychological symptoms than children whose parents are not depressed (Cummings & Davies,
1994). Family systems theory posits that subsystems within the family (e.g., dyadic relationships)
inuence other subsystems and overall family functioning. Intense closeness between mothers and
adolescents predicts a higher likelihood of marital separation, whereas closeness between fathers
and younger children has a more positive impact on the husband-wife relationship, and predicts a
lower likelihood of marital separation (Schindler & Coley, 2012). By conceptualizing individuals
through their experiences within the greater family system of interactions among various indi-
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1)
doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA 2014
48
College Roommate Relationships
viduals or subgroups, family systems theory emphasizes the interdependence of individual family
members.
Family systems researchers have grappled with how to best account for the nonindepen-
dence between family members in their research designs and statistical analyses (Fisher, 1982).
Many researchers have criticized the averaging of family members’ scores to represent a sum-
mary of the family, rather than taking into account the individual contributions of each person’s
scores (Handel, 1997). One approach to address the interdependence of family members is the
actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) that allows one to empirically test associations
within and between dyads (Cook & Kenny, 2005; Rayens & Svavarsdottir, 2003). Researchers
can examine both the extent to which a family member’s score on an independent variable of
interest aects his or her own score on an outcome (i.e., an actor eect) and on another family
member’s outcome score (i.e., the partner eect). Researchers can then examine how both actor
and partner eects from a dyad within a family system aect overall family outcomes (Rayens &
Svavarsdottir, 2003).
Application of Family Systems Theory to Roommate Relationships
Family systems theory is well-suited to the conceptualization of college roommate relation-
ships because of characteristics they share in common with families. Koerner and Fitzpatrick
(2004) have identied three primary denitional features of families: structural (presence of family
members), functional (accomplishing psychosocial tasks such as maintaining a household, social-
izing children, and providing emotional and material support), and transactional (groups of inti-
mates that develop a family identity and experience a history and a future). Research indicates that
laypeople have broadened their concepts of families to include many intimate relationships, such as
biological parents with children, extended families, stepfamilies, blended families, and unmarried
cohabiting heterosexual and same-sex couples with, or without, children (Weigel, 2008). College
roommates live together, maintain a living space, and share experiences that accumulate over time.
ey may also provide emotional and material support and plan future activities together. Frequent
contact and shared experiences necessitate communication and problem-solving. ere are, how-
ever, clear dierences in college roommate and family systems. College roommates are usually un-
related biologically, have minimal or no shared history, and do not include parent-child hierarchies.
e similarities that exist, however, suggest family systems theory is applicable to many aspects of
college roommate relationships.
A systemic conceptualization of roommate relationships posits that students’ outcomes (e.g.,
mental health and adjustment to college) are inuenced by one another, and are interdependent.
ere is some empirical support for this assertion. Anderson, Keltner, and John (2003) conducted
a study of 37 same-sex pairs of on-campus roommates at a large Midwestern university. ese
roommates were assessed after living together for 2 weeks and again after 9 months at the end of
the school year. Correlations of roommates’ emotional expressiveness after 9 months were signi-
cantly larger than those after 2 weeks, which demonstrated emotional convergence (i.e., signicant
increases in similarity of emotional expressiveness) among both male and female pairs of room-
mates (Anderson et al., 2003). Haeel and Hames (2014) conducted a similar study with 103 pairs
of randomly assigned freshman roommates at a selective, private, Midwestern university. Results
indicated that participants whose roommate had a ruminative response style (i.e., a cognitive vul-
nerability to depression that involves a tendency to focus attention on one’s negative mood) were
more likely to also develop higher levels of cognitive vulnerability over 3- and 6-month intervals
(Haeel & Hames, 2014). ese studies were particularly informative as they collected data from
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1) © NASPA 2014 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004
49
College Roommate Relationships
both roommates and used data analysis techniques that accounted for the interdependence of
roommates’ functioning.
Family systems research can assist our conceptualization of college roommate systems by pro-
viding explanations for where interpersonal dynamics among roommates originate: their family of
origin. ere is evidence that family of origin functioning aects college students’ social and psy-
chological functioning. In a study conducted at a large public southern university, 17 students from
dysfunctional family of origin environments (either disengaged or enmeshed) and 21 students from
positively functioning family of origin environments (balanced in cohesion and exibility) role-
played interpersonal conict scenarios (Larkin, Frazer, & Wheat, 2011). Both male and female
students from dysfunctional family environments exhibited signicantly more negative, and less
positive, verbal behaviors than students from positively functioning environments (Larkin et al.,
2011). In a study of 208 upperclassmen from a Midwestern university, students’ ratings of the over-
all functioning of their family during their upbringing signicantly predicted the quality of their
friendships at college (Wise & King, 2008). A study of 320 students from a public Northeastern
university found that students from less emotionally expressive families more often used avoidant
emotional coping and had more diculty adjusting to college than students from more expressive
families (Johnson, Gans, Kerr, & LaValle, 2010). Although these studies did not focus on room-
mate relationships, the ndings are consistent with the notion that dysfunction within families of
origin may be associated with dysfunction within roommate relationships.
e hypothesis about the connection between families of origin and roommate relationships
is similar to a core component of systemic family theory: the intergenerational transmission of
interpersonal patterns. is concept posits that family patterns and styles of interactions tend to be
“passed down” from one generation to the next (Bowen, 1978; Harvey, Curry, & Bray, 1991). For
example, children’s exposure to interpersonal aggression and abuse, conict and divorce, parenting
styles, and communication patterns within their families of origin increases their likelihood of re-
enacting these dynamics within their future families as adults (e.g., Serbin & Karp, 2004). rough
modeling, families may teach children behaviors for interacting within family systems and act as
socializing agents. e degree of emotional expressiveness within college students’ families of origin
predicts their style of emotional expression and skill in communication when discussing topics that
are personally meaningful to them (Halberstadt, 1986). Given that college roommate relationships
may act as the rst interpersonal system students live within after leaving their family of origin, a
fuller conceptualization of roommate relationships should account for the likelihood that students’
families of origin inuence how roommate systems function.
Family systems theory is applicable to a conceptualization of college roommate relationships
for three main reasons. First, groups of roommates are interpersonal systems that, like families,
consist of varying numbers of individuals who live together and share similar challenges (e.g., ne-
gotiating expectations of one another). Second, like family members, roommates’ outcomes (e.g.,
mental health and adjustment to college) may be interdependent with one another. Lastly, students
may bring familiar relational patterns from their families of origin with them into their roommate
relationships. A systemic perspective of roommate relationships helps explain how such relation-
ships develop over time (interdependently) and where dynamics among roommates originate (their
family of origin).
Translations of Theory to Practice in Student Affairs Settings
In accordance with calls for increased translation of theory to practice within the student
aairs community (e.g., Reason & Kimball, 2012), we next provide examples of potential appli-
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1)
doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA 2014
50
College Roommate Relationships
cations of the proposed roommate relationship conceptualization. ese applications are geared
toward counseling center and residence life professionals, as they are in unique positions to uti-
lize a family systems perspective to guide their work with students on roommate-related issues.
To illustrate how a systemic conceptualization of roommate relationships could inform college
counseling center clinicians’ treatment plans, we use a case example, followed by explanations
for how residence life professionals can consider roommates’ interdependence when designing
interventions.
Clinical Applications and a Case Example
e following case example, which represents an amalgam of clients seen by the rst author,
is presented as an example of how the systemic conceptualization of roommate relationships can
inform techniques used by counseling center professionals. Molly is an undergraduate in the rst
semester of college who presents as a new therapy client to her college counseling center. She was
referred by the resident assistant (RA) of her residence hall, after several meetings in which Molly’s
RA attempted to provide her with support for her depression and homesickness, and her dicul-
ties asserting herself with her roommate, Beth. During this rst session, Molly tearfully revealed
feelings of worthlessness, lack of energy, insomnia, and bouts of crying. She explained that the
transition to college has been dicult without her parents helping her make day-to-day decisions.
Molly said that when she shared her feelings with Beth, she felt dismissed emotionally, and later
overheard Beth calling her a “baby” when talking to their hall mates. Molly connected her low
mood to her inability to assertively negotiate room duties with Beth. Molly sadly admitted that she
has struggled with these types of interpersonal patterns all her life.
Molly agreed that the counselor could consult both Beth and her RA. During a subsequent
phone consultation, Beth states, “I just don’t get Molly! Growing up in my family, we didn’t feel the
need to share everything that Molly is constantly sulking about, and if we needed to communicate
something, we just said it! I can never tell what Molly is trying to get at . . . and it annoys me how
emotional she is!” During another phone consultation, Molly’s RA hypothesizes that, “Molly has
real problems standing up for herself, which appears related to how overprotective her parents have
been. And Beth, she errs on the side of being pushy, and can come across as pretty cold. I wish I
knew how to help them!”
e proposed systemic conceptualization of college roommate relationships could help Molly’s
counselor explain Molly’s symptoms, which could in turn inform treatment plans. Rather than
assuming Molly’s depressive symptoms and diculties adjusting to college are the result of home-
sickness alone, it may help to focus on how dysfunction within the roommate relationship may ex-
acerbate her symptoms. In other words, both Molly and Beth’s dysfunctional behaviors with respect
to the roommate relationship (i.e., actor and partner eects) may impact Molly’s symptoms. One
could view conict within the roommate relationship as a product of Molly’s and Beth’s dysfunc-
tional family of origin environments. In other words, both Molly’s dysfunctional family background
(i.e., actor eect) and her roommate Beth’s dysfunctional family background (i.e., partner eect)
inuence Molly’s experience of dysfunction within the roommate relationship.
Based on this conceptualization, Molly’s treatment plan could include working to improve the
roommate relationship. is aspect of the treatment plan might involve helping Molly and Beth
understand how each of their family of origin environments inuences their interpersonal expecta-
tions of others, especially in the context of their relationship with one another. A more empathetic
stance toward one another and a willingness to act dierently in the roommate relationship than
they had in their families of origin may follow.
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1) © NASPA 2014 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004
51
College Roommate Relationships
If Molly’s counselor were to work with both Molly and Beth together, the counselor could
use techniques from family systems therapies. During an initial appointment with both Molly
and Beth together, the systemic technique of interventive interviewing could facilitate perspective
taking and shift patterns within the relationship (Tomm, 1987a). e counselor could help Molly
and Beth understand the cyclical nature of their interactions rather than focusing solely on their
own linear actions and reactions (Tomm, 1987b). For instance, “Beth, what do you do when Molly
is feeling down? When you get annoyed/frustrated, what does Molly do? Molly, what do you do
when Beth gets annoyed/frustrated with you? When you feel down, what does Beth do?”
e counselor could also use reexive questions to redene each roommate’s actions (i.e.,
change how they interpret each other’s behaviors) and explore new hypothetical patterns of in-
teractions (Tomm, 1988). For example, “Molly, if you were to think of Beth’s family as having a
dierent way of dealing with emotions than your family, would it be easier or harder to not take her
frustration with you personally?” “Beth, if you were to support Molly while she’s feeling down, do
you think it would take Molly longer to adjust to college or do you think her homesickness would
go away quicker?” “Molly, if Beth viewed your homesickness as a temporary side eect of adjusting
to being far away from parents that you are close to, would it be easier or more dicult for her to
tolerate you feeling down?”
Techniques from integrative behavioral couple therapy (IBCT) could serve a similar purpose,
as these techniques acknowledge interdependence within interpersonal systems. e counselor
could use IBCT to promote Molly and Beth’s acceptance of one another through the technique
of empathetic joining: having each person express their emotions without accusations (Dimidjian,
Martell, & Christenson, 2002). e counselor could provide neutral interpretations of each person’s
perspective (e.g., having dierent emotional expression “styles”), and encourage “soft” disclosures
rather than “hard” disclosures (e.g., Molly discussing feeling hurt at overhearing Beth complaining
about her to their hall mates, and Beth discussing feeling vulnerable when Molly shows sadness
because she does not feel comfortable expressing that emotion herself). e counselor could also
use tolerance interventions to help Molly and Beth let go of their desire for each other to be dif-
ferent or change. One could achieve this by illuminating positive aspects of negative behaviors and
becoming desensitized to the negative behavior by repeating an amplied version of it in-session
and faking the negative behaviors during times when they do not feel naturally compelled to do so
while at home (Dimidjian, Martell, & Christenson, 2002). ese acceptance and tolerance strate-
gies could shift the roommate system, such that the cycle of negative interactions becomes less
pronounced, or even dissipates altogether.
If Molly’s counselor worked with Molly alone, rather than Molly and Beth together, she could
use similar approaches. e counselor could help Molly increase her awareness of how interper-
sonal patterns within her family of origin aect her expectations of others and behaviors toward
others. rough perspective-taking skills, Molly could understand and depersonalize Beth’s ac-
tions. Assertiveness skills could help Molly interact dierently with Beth than she acts within her
family of origin. ese techniques are compatible with family systems therapy, which assumes that
changes in one family member have a snowball eect, resulting in shifts throughout the system.
e techniques are also similar to IBCT’s focus as much or more on the recipient of the behavior
as on the agent of the behavior. In other words, altering the way that the recipient perceives the
behavior (i.e., Molly interpreting Beth’s discomfort with her emotional expression as a “dierent
emotional style” rather than an attempt to hurt her emotionally) can have as much of a psychologi-
cal impact as changing the agent’s frequency or intensity of the behavior (Dimidjian, Martell, &
Christenson, 2002).
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1)
doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA 2014
52
College Roommate Relationships
Practice Applications for Residence Life Professionals
Residence life professionals versed in roommate relationship dynamics could use scenarios like
the one with Molly and Beth to practice roommate conict interventions. We envision training
programs pairing counseling center and residence life professionals to create and practice inter-
ventions that incorporate the techniques described in the case study. Residence life professionals
could use the systemic conceptualization of roommate relationships in the following ways. First,
the conceptualization could guide screening or matching students for housing assignments by the
interpersonal styles that are similar to their family of origin. en professionals could design col-
lege orientation workshops that prepare rst-year students with realistic expectations for roommate
relationships and equip them with skills for successful cohabitation. Later, they could monitor stu-
dents’ roommate relationships for stressors that make them psychologically vulnerable, and conduct
conict resolution that emphasize the interdependence of college roommates and an awareness
of their history of interpersonal system functioning. If roommates granted permission, a dialogue
among residents, their sta, and counseling sta could further enhance the interventions. Lastly,
professionals could enhance roommate relationships through workshops, group activities, and re-
treats that emphasize the same themes.
We believe that through these interventions, professionals could establish a language of in-
terpersonal supportive inquiry within residence hall environments and systems that aids in com-
munication and understanding. Many empirical questions about roommate relationships remain,
and they need to inform implementation of these systemic interventions. Next, we address the
gaps in research on roommate relationships and describe how research could aid student aairs
professionals.
Recommendations for Future Research
Although sparse, research on college roommate relationships indicates that they aect stu-
dents’ functioning and mental health. ere are notable limitations among the small number of
studies on roommates. Many of the studies collected data from only one roommate, examined
only one predictor or outcome, used cross-sectional data and methodologically-weak analyses, and
lacked reliable and valid assessment of what causes roommate relationship diculties. e follow-
ing recommendations for future research can advance our knowledge in this area.
Dyadic Data Collection and Analyses
A systemic understanding of roommates would add to the literature by accounting for the
interdependence within roommate dyads. We recommend collecting data from two or more room-
mates and using data analysis techniques that account for interdependence (such as APIM). Using
APIM in family systems research has helped clarify the interdependence of family members’ re-
sponses and shown that an individual’s thoughts, behaviors, and feelings are signicantly inuenced
by the thoughts, behaviors, and feelings of others within their system. (e.g., Friedlander, Kivlighan,
& Shaer, 2012; Kenny & Ledermann, 2010). Collecting data from more than one roommate
within the interpersonal system of roommates and utilizing APIM would allow researchers to
examine how students’ perceptions of dysfunction within their roommate relationship aect both
their own mental health and college adjustment (actor eects), as well as that of their roommates
(partner eects). We also need to understand how relationship dynamics vary by the number of
roommates they have.
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1) © NASPA 2014 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004
53
College Roommate Relationships
Multiple Outcomes and Predictors
Research on roommate relationships should assess multiple outcomes and predictors in their
research designs. Evaluating the eect of roommate dysfunction on outcomes such as psychological
functioning, interpersonal domains, adjustment to college, academic performance, and retention
would provide a more thorough understanding of the role that roommate relationships play in col-
lege student life. We need more study of how environmental characteristics such as living on or o
campus, size and diversity of the student body, the design of living spaces, and distance from home
relate to the functioning of roommate relationships.
Match/Mismatch Patterns in Individual Differences Between Roommates
Examining individual dierences such as race and sexual orientation among roommates could
provide a greater understanding of match/mismatch patterns that inuence the functioning of
roommate relationships. e compatibility of roommates’ personality traits, behavior patterns (e.g.,
drinking, sleep vs. waking hours), and communication styles may be associated with optimal or det-
rimental outcomes. Some research has examined this topic. In a study of 84 female roommate pairs,
many dierences among personality traits were unassociated with levels of conict, although the
more dissimilar the roommate pairs were in conscientiousness and need for autonomy, the less they
liked each other (Heckert et al., 1999). A study of 180 pairs of roommates in a large Midwestern
university indicated that roommates who were similar in communication patterns (i.e., both room-
mates were high in willingness to communicate and communication competence, and low in verbal
aggressiveness) reported the highest roommate satisfaction and liking (Martin & Anderson, 1995).
In a study of 150 roommate pairs at a predominantly White Southeastern university, the room-
mates who both identied as White had higher relationship satisfaction than African American-
White dyads (Phelps et al., 1998). Besides continued research on American roommate dierences
in ethnicity, we could better understand cultural eects by studying roommate relationships that
include international students. Studies should also compare matching with random assignment of
roommates.
Future research should explore how dierences between roommates’ families of origin aect
their relationship. It would be informative to see whether matches/mismatches between certain
styles within families are more predictive of roommate relationship dysfunction. In terms of the
case example presented earlier, if Molly had been paired with a roommate whose family was simi-
larly over-involved emotionally, and Beth had been matched with a roommate whose family was
similarly distant emotionally, their roommate relationship might have been much more positive,
despite the fact that both family descriptions represent theoretically dysfunctional family of origin
environments. Results of research examining these nuances in family of origin environments could
be used to optimally match roommates together.
Longitudinal Data Collections
e research literature on roommate relationships would be signicantly enhanced with lon-
gitudinal data collection. Ideally, one would assess college students before, during, and after living
together and follow them across multiple roommate arrangements as long as they are students. An
examination of baseline functioning and later outcomes would aid in understanding the trajectory
of change within roommate relationships, as well as associated changes in outcomes of interest.
Results would allow residence life sta and student aairs to identify normal developmental stages
of roommate relationships (e.g., a “honeymoon” period at the beginning of the semester, followed
by increases in conict), and detrimental factors at various time points that could signal a need for
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1)
doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA 2014
54
College Roommate Relationships
intervention. is research design would provide evidence of the directionality among variables
related to roommate relationship functioning.
We have critically examined the research ndings on roommate relationships and proposed
that family systems theory could help to better understand roommate relationships and lead to
the development of more methodologically rigorous research that includes systems concepts. Our
hope is that increases in our knowledge of good functioning roommate relationships will guide
student aairs professionals in designing interventions that lead to greater student mental health
and adjustment to college.
References
American College Health Association. (2012). American College Health Association – National College Health Assessment II:
Undergraduate reference group executive summary, fall 2011. Hanover, MD: American College Health Association.
Anderson, C., Keltner, D., & John, O. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84(5), 1054–1068.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through twenties. American Psychologist,
55(5), 469–480.
Barry, C. M., Madsen, S. D., Nelson, L. J., Carroll, J. S., & Badger, S. (2009). Friendship and romantic relationship qualities in
emerging adulthood: Differential associations with identity development and achieved adulthood criteria. Journal of Adult
Development, 16(4), 209–222.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Bowman, N. A. (2010). The development of psychological well-being among rst-year college students.Journal of College
Student Development,51(2), 180–200.
Bradbury, B. L., & Mather, P. C. (2009). The integration of rst-year rst-generation college students from Ohio Appalachia.
NASPA Journal, 46(2), 258–281.
Buote, V. M., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., Adams, G., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., Polivy, J., & Wintre, M. G. (2007). The importance of
friends: Friendship and adjustment among rst year university students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(6), 665–689.
Chickering A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental
studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and child development. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied
Disciplines, 35(1), 73–112.
Dimidjian, S., Martell, C. R., & Christensen, A. (2002). Integrative behavioral couple therapy. In A. Gurman & N. Jacobson (Eds.),
Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy (3rd ed., pp. 251–277). New York, NY: Guilford.
Doherty, W. J., & McDaniel, S. H. (2010). Family therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dusselier, L., Dunn, B., Wang, Y., Shelley II, M. C., & Whalen, D. F. (2005). Personal, health, academic, and environmental pre-
dictors of stress for residence hall students. Journal of American College Health, 54(1), 15–24.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Friedlander, M. L., Kivlighan, D. M., & Shaffer, K. S. (2012). Exploring actor-partner interdependence in family therapy: Whose
view (parent or adolescent) best predicts treatment progress? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 168–175.
Fisher, L. (1982). Transactional theories but individual assessment: A frequent discrepancy in family research. Family Process,
21(3), 313–320.
Haeffel, G. J., & Hames, J. L. (2014). Cognitive vulnerability to depression can be contagious. Clinical Psychological Science,
2(1), 75–85.
Halberstadt, A. G. (1986). Family socialization of emotional expression and nonverbal communication styles and skills. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 827–836.
Handel, G. (1997). Family worlds and qualitative family research: Emergence and prospects of whole-family methodology. Mar-
riage & Family Review, 24(3–4), 335–348.
Harvey, D. M., Curry, C. J., & Bray, J. H. (1991). Individuation and intimacy in intergenerational relationships and health: patterns
across two generations. Journal of Family Psychology, 5(2), 204–236.
Heckert, T. M., Mueller, M. A., Roberts, L. L., Hannah, A. P., Jones, M. J., Masters, S., & Bergman, S. M. (1999). Personality
similarity and conict among female college roommates. Journal of College Student Development, 40(1), 79–81.
Jaggers, D., & Iverson, S. V. (2012). “Are you as hard as 50 Cent?” Negotiating race and masculinity in the residence halls.
Journal of College & University Student Housing, 39(1), 186–199.
Johnson, V. K., Gans, S. E., & Kerr, S., & LaValle, W. (2010) Managing the transition to college: Family functioning, emotion cop-
ing, and adjustment in emerging adulthood. Journal of College Student Development,51(6), 607–621.
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence
model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359–366.
Keup, J. R. (2007). Great expectations and the ultimate reality check: Voices of students during the transition from high school
to college. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(1), 3–31.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Communication in intact families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family com-
munication (pp. 177–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM

JSARP 2014, 51(1) © NASPA 2014 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0004
55
College Roommate Relationships
Larkin, K. T., Frazer, N. L., & Wheat, A. L. (2011). Responses to interpersonal conict among young adults: Inuence of family
of origin. Personal Relationships, 18(4), 657–667.
Lepore, S. J. (1992). Social conict, social support, and psychological distress: Evidence of cross-domain buffering effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 857–867.
Liu, A., Sharkness, J., & Pryor, J. H. (2008). Findings from the 2007 administration of your rst college year (YFCY): National
aggregates. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research, University of California, Los Angeles.
Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1995). Roommate similarity: Are roommates who are similar in their communication traits
more satised? Communication Research Reports, 12(1), 46–52.
Phelps, R. E., Altschul, D. B., Wisenbaker, J. M., Day, J. F., Cooper, D., & Potter, C.G. (1998). Roommate satisfaction and ethnic
identity in mixed-race and white university roommate dyads, Journal of College Student Development, 39(2), 194–203.
Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and psychological adjustment during the transi-
tion to college. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 343–361.
Rayens, M. K., & Svavarsdottir, E. K. (2003). A new methodological approach in nursing research: An actor, partner and interac-
tion effect model for family outcomes. Research in Nursing and Health, 26(5), 409–419.
Reason, R. D., & Kimball, E. W. (2012). A new theory-to-practice model for student affairs: Integrating scholarship, context, and
reection. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(4), 359–376.
Schindler, H. S., & Coley, R. L. (2012). Predicting marital separation: Do parent-child relationships matter? Journal of Family
Psychology, 26(4), 499–508.
Serbin, L. A., & Karp, J. (2004). The intergenerational transfer of psychosocial risk: Mediators of vulnerability and resilience.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 333–363.
Tomm, K. (1987a). Interventive interviewing: Part I. Strategizing as a fourth guideline for the therapist. Family Process, 26(1),
3–13.
Tomm, K. (1987b). Interventive interviewing: Part II. Reexive questioning as a means to enable self-healing. Family Process,
16(2), 167–183.
Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, strategic, or reexive questions? Family
Process, 27(1), 1–15.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES
2012–001; Ch. 3). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/ch_3.asp
Waldo, M. (1984). Roommate communication as related to students’ personal and social adjustment. Journal of College Stu-
dent Personnel, 25(1), 39–44.
Waldo, M. (1986). Academic achievement and retention as related to students’ personal and social adjustment. Journal of Col-
lege and University Student Housing, 16(1), 19–23.
Waldo, M., & Fuhriman, A. (1981). Roommate relationships, communication skills and psychological adjustment in residence
halls. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 11(1), 31–35.
Wecker, M. (2011, October 13). Top 10 National Universities for Campus Housing. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2011/10/13/top-10-national-universities-
for-campus-housing
Weigel, D. J. (2008). The concept of family: An analysis of laypeople’s views of family. Journal of Family Issues, 29(11), 1426–
1447.
Wise, R., & King, A. (2008). Family environment as a predictor of the quality of college students’ friendships. Journal of Family
Issues, 29(6), 828–848.
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated | 173.9.48.25
Download Date | 1/30/14 8:07 PM