TOPIC: Self-Efficacy and Psychological Adjustment as Predictors of Psychological

Wellbeing Among Undergraduate Students

BY

EGBE LUCY CHIOMA

 ABSTRACT

This study investigated self-efficacy and psychological adjustment as predictors of psychological

wellbeing among undergraduate students. Participants were drawn from Alex Ekwueme Federal
University Ndufe Alike Ikwo. Participants were selected through a convenient sampling
technique. A total of 389 consenting participants (215 males and 174 females) were selected for
the study. Their age ranged from 19 to 34 years with mean age of 23.46years and standard
deviation of 3.438. Three research instruments were adopted and they include general self-
efficacy scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995), Brief Adjustment scale – 6
(BASE-6) developed by Cruz et al. (2019) and psychological wellbeing scale developed by Ryff
(1989). The study adopts a cross sectional survey design, and multiple regression was used to
test the hypotheses. Findings showed that self-efficacy and psychological adjustment
significantly and jointly predicted psychological wellbeing among undergraduates, (R = .667, R2
= .445, F (2/386) = 154.65, P < .05) accounting for 44.5% of the variance observed in
psychological wellbeing. Independently, self-efficacy positively predicted psychological
wellbeing among undergraduates (β = .260; t = 6.163; P<.05). Findings also reveal that
psychological adjustment significantly and positively predicts psychological wellbeing among
undergraduates (β = .510; t = 12.080; P<.05). Relative to research findings, it is recommended
that self-efficacy and psychological adjustment training be integrated into university programs.
The management should develop workshops, courses or counselling services that focus on
enhancing self-efficacy and psychological adjustment skills to promote psychological wellbeing
among university students.
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

Psychological well-being is a crucial aspect of overall health and quality of life, particularly

among undergraduate students who face various academic, social and emotional challenges

(Eisenberg et al., 2007). In Nigeria, where academic competition is high, and social support

systems are often limited, undergraduate students may be vulnerable to poor psychological

wellbeing (Ladapo et al., 2015). Psychological wellbeing is a broad concept that refers to

people’s quality of life and integral development. It is understood as a state of satisfaction and

balance in essential areas of life, such as health, safety, education, economy, inter/intrapersonal

relationships, and social and political participation (Eaton et al., 2023).

Understanding has progressed thanks to positive psychology, which recognizes that someone

who is mentally or psychologically healthy is not someone who only exhibits the absence of

depressive or anxious symptoms. Conversely, it acknowledges that psychological well-being or

mental health also includes protective factors and positive functioning, such as high resilience

(Andrews & Chong, 2011; Cvetkovski et al., 2012); high social connection levels (Cacioppo et

al., 2014; Roffey, 2015); elevated hope (Lapierre et al., 2007); and spirituality (Burris et al.,

2009; Salmoirago-Blotcher et al., 2012).

A person's subjective perception of positive psychological states, such as happiness, life

fulfillment, and a sense of purpose, is referred to as psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989). It is a

comprehensive theory that takes into account several aspects of a person's mental and emotional

well-being, such as fulfilling relationships, personal development, positive self-esteem and

acceptance, and a sense of control over one's life. In a nutshell, psychological well-being is the

ability to face obstacles head-on, feel good about oneself and one's life, and have fulfilling

relationships and a sense of purpose. It is a complex concept that includes more than just the

absence of mental illness; it also includes a person's general sense of fulfillment, enjoyment, and

contentment in life. A person's total health and happiness depend greatly on their psychological

wellbeing. Moreover, positive emotions, healthy psychological functioning, and a sense of

meaning and purpose in life are all considered aspects of this mental state.

Researchers differ on what constitutes psychological wellbeing. According to the World Health

Organization (WHO, 2021) psychological wellbeing is defined as "a state of mind in which an

individual is able to develop their potential, work productively and creatively, and is able to cope

with the normal stresses of life." Positive emotions, psychological functioning, and a feeling of

meaning and purpose in life are all highlighted in this definition, which emphasizes the

multifaceted aspect of psychological wellbeing.

In contrast to merely being an emotion of happiness, psychological well-being is defined by Ryff

(1989) as a condition of optimal psychological functioning that involves six major aspects:

autonomy, positive relationships, self-acceptance, feeling of personal growth, purpose in life, and

mastery of surroundings. Psychological well-being, also known as subjective well-being, is

concerned with how individuals feel on a daily basis (Bradburn, 1969; Campbell, 1976). These

emotions can range from positive ones (like happiness and contentment) to negative ones (like

anxiety, despair, and discontent). Furthermore, Bradburn (1969) defined that: an individual will

be high in psychological well-being in the degree to which he has an excess of positive over

negative affect and will be poor in well-being in the degree to which negative affect

predominates over the positive.

One of the most essential goals which people as well as societies aim for is psychological

wellbeing. Numerous concepts, including contentment, happiness, optimism, positive affect,

positive mental health, well-being, and quality of life, have been used synonymously or

interchangeably in the literature.

Students who experience low psychological well-being are more likely to be unhappy,

dissatisfied with life, and have low self-esteem, all of which contribute to stress (Salman et al.,

2022; Amato, 1994). Higher education institutions typically overlook stress among their

students, forcing them to cope with mental health issues (Abdul Aziz et al., 2023; Farhan et al.,

2021). Increasingly concerning data regarding the prevalence of mental discomfort among

students has led to a rise in concerns regarding the mental health and psychological wellbeing of

college students (Metcalfe, et al., 2018). Levecque et al. (2017), for example, discovered that

51% of students were classified as suffering psychological distress, and that doctorate students

had a significantly higher relative risk (RR) of psychological distress than highly educated

employees. upper education pupils as well as highly educated adults in the broader public.

According to Evans et al. (2018), university students in the United States had a six-fold

increased risk of anxiety and depression in comparison to the general population, while 25% of

university students in the United Kingdom reported having low wellbeing (Byrom et al. 2020).

These numbers are very alarming because it has been shown that a contributing factor to student

attrition is low mental health and welfare among college students (Hunter & Devine, 2016;

Maher et al., 2020). Research has shown a negative correlation between depression and

psychological well-being (Clarke et al., 2011; Zadow et al., 2017). Additionally, a number of

research have revealed a connection between psychological wellbeing and university students'

perceptions of stress, resilience, mindfulness, perceived self-efficacy, and social support (Roberts
et al, 2011; Green et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the majority of these research were carried out in

Western nations and focused more on stress and other negative factors than on resilience and

self-efficacy, which are desirable traits. The domain of positive psychology holds that pathology,

dysfunction, and therapies are equivalent to disease prevention, mental health promotion, good

emotions, and optimal functioning (Kobau, 2011). Investigating both positive and negative

variables is therefore crucial. Hence, present study focuses on the predictive role of self-efficacy

and psychological adjustment on psychological wellbeing among undergraduates in a Nigerian

university.

Self-efficacy according to Bandura (1997), is the belief in one's capabilities to organize and

execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations. Put differently, self-

efficacy refers to an individual's confidence in their capacity to achieve in a given circumstance.

These beliefs, according to Bandura (1997), influence people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

Thus, a person's level of self-efficacy influences how they approach tasks, goals, and obstacles.

Since self-efficacy can be either task- or general-specific, people may have a variety of self-

efficacy beliefs at any given time. A person's beliefs about their own levels of self-efficacy can

affect how they feel, think, and motivate themselves. Because of this, people with different levels

of self-efficacy may display quite different behaviors. High self-efficacy individuals strongly

believe in their own abilities and see obstacles as tasks to be accomplished rather than dangers to

be avoided (Bandura, 1977). They are also highly committed and put a lot of effort into their

profession. Any challenges they face are easily surmounted and provide opportunities for

growth. By reducing stress, all of these factors can help people feel better about themselves and

are less likely to experience depression. People that have a low self-efficacy tend to be highly

doubtful about their own abilities (Bandura, 1977). This could result in their total avoidance of
challenges because they see them as harmful. These folks might ponder about their past mistakes

a lot, which can make obstacles more difficult to overcome. These individuals might therefore be

more vulnerable to stress and depression (Bandura, 1977). Bandura's Social Learning Theory

coined the term "self-efficacy," which refers to a person's belief in their ability to use resources

and skills to complete specific tasks (Bandura, 1993). According to Komarraju and Nadler

(2013), self-efficacy is a universal psychological need that governs a person's thoughts, feelings,

and decisions pertaining to their psychological well-being. As a result, self-efficacy plays a

crucial role in stress management by impacting the evaluation of stressors as well as the selection

and use of strategies to address them (Villada et al., 2017). According to Liu and Li (2018),

individuals with high self-efficacy perceive potentially hard situations as opportunities rather

than hazards. They are more likely to employ highly adaptable coping techniques in comparison

to those with low self-efficacy (Chang & Edwards, 2015; Zhao et al., 2015). Therefore, in order

to avoid stressors and encourage adaptive adjustment to this formative stage, self-efficacy is a

crucial personal resource for university students (Morton et al., 2014; Denovan & Macaskill,

2017).

Better well-being is correlated with high self-efficacy, whereas worse well-being is correlated

with low self-efficacy (Caprara, 2002; Bandura et al., 2003). Notably, studies have also shown a

favorable correlation between self-efficacy and psychological well-being (Bahadori Khosroshahi

et al., 2012). Likewise, research has shown a strong positive correlation between psychological

well-being and academic self-efficacy (Asghari et al., 2014; Priesack & Alcock, 2015). Koller

and Hicks (2016) discovered that Australian mental health practitioners would exhibit greater

levels of psychological capital (resilience, optimism, hope, and self-efficacy). They also said that

the psychological well-being (autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, relationship

to others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance) levels of this group were greater. Literature

supports the relationship between psychological wellbeing and self-efficacy. However, to bridge

the gap in literature, there is need for substantive empirical evidence supporting the interactions

of this variables among the Nigerian undergraduate population. Another variable of interest

considered by the research in the psychological adjustment of university students.

The concept of adjustment came in to being within human beings, as they have great capacity to

become accustomed in novel situations than any other living creatures. A well-adjusted

individual demonstrates harmonious behaviours and feelings and is good fit between himself, his

abilities and environment (Gul, 2001). The implication of this concept is that an individual is

involved in a rich, ongoing process of developing his or her potential, reacting to and in turn

changing the environment in a healthy, effective manner. Haber and Runyon (1984), defines

psychological adjustment as the ability to have an accurate perception of reality, the ability to

cope with stress and anxiety, a positive self-image, the ability to express the full range of

emotions and to have good interpersonal skills. According to the American Psychological

Association (2007) “adjustment” is defined as change in attitude, behaviour or both by an

individual on the basis of some recognised need or desire to change. Adjustment may come

about through forced external circumstances or through an understanding of the need for a

different and improved way of functioning. Adjustment or modification of behaviour is a goal of

therapeutic intervention. Consequently, a well-adjusted person is one who satisfies his or her

needs in a healthy, beneficial manner and demonstrates appropriate social and psychological

responses to situations and demands. A poor psychological adjustment impacts negatively on the

mental state of an individual, therefore it is imperative for individual to adjust perfectly with

their environment, in order to maintain a maximum usefulness of mental abilities. Adjusting

perfectly with the environment will help facilitate a positive psychosocial functioning of an

individual.

Having discussed the variables present in the study, its imperative to note that the findings of this

study will add to existing literature on psychological wellbeing and interventions in clinical

processes.

Statement of Problem

The Psychological wellbeing of university students in Nigeria is a pressing concern that requires

urgent attention. Research has shown that Nigerian University students experience high levels of

stress, anxiety, and depression (Bamidele & Adeyemo, 2017; Nwachukwu & Ordu, 2018). The

prevalence of mental health issues among Nigerian University students is reportedly higher than

the global average (World Health Organization, 2017). This situation is exacerbated by factors

such as academic pressure, financial stress, and social adjustment difficulties which can have

severe consequences, including decreased academic performance, increased dropouts, and even

suicides (Eisenberg et al., 2013).

Despite the importance of self-efficacy and psychological adjustment in predicting psychological

wellbeing there is a significant gap in literature regarding the predictive effect of these factors on

the psychological wellbeing of university students in Nigeria. While previous studies have

investigated the relationship between self-efficacy and psychological adjustment, and their

individual effects on psychological wellbeing, there is a lack of research examining their

combined predictive effect on psychological wellbeing (Adeyemo, 2017; Bamidele & Adeyemo,

2017). Furthermore, most studies have focused on western populations, with limited

generalizability to African contexts (Eisenberg et al., 2013). This gap in literature highlights the
need for research that investigates the predictive effect of self-efficacy and psychological

adjustment on the psychological wellbeing of university students in Nigeria, to inform the

development of culturally sensitive interventions aimed at promoting their mental health and

wellbeing.

Purpose of the Study

The general purpose of this current study aims to examine the predictive role of self-efficacy and

psychological adjustment on the psychological wellbeing of undergraduates in Alex Akwueme

Federal University Ndufu-Alike Ikwo (AE-FUNAI). Specifically, the study intends to examine

1. The link between self-efficacy and psychological wellbeing among undergraduates.

2. The relationship between psychological adjustment and psychological wellbeing among

undergraduates.

3. The joint effect of Self-efficacy and psychological adjustment on psychological wellbeing

among undergraduates.

Research Questions

1. Will self-efficacy predict psychological wellbeing among undergraduates.

2. Will Psychological adjustment predict psychological wellbeing among undergraduates.

3. Will self-efficacy and psychological adjustment jointly predict psychological wellbeing

among undergraduates.

Operational Definition of Key Study Variables

Psychological Wellbeing
Psychological wellbeing is a broad concept that refers to people’s quality of life and integral

development. It is understood as a state of satisfaction and balance in essential areas of life, such

as health, safety, education, economy, inter/intrapersonal relationships, and social and political

participation. This refers to the state of mind in which an individual is able to develop their

potential, work productively, and creatively, and is able to cope with the normal stresses of life;

as measured by Psychological Wellbeing scale developed by Ryff (1989).

Self-Efficacy

Self-Efficacy is the belief in one's own ability to achieve a desired result or objective. self-

efficacy also refers to an individual's confidence in their capacity to achieve in a given

circumstance despite all obstacles; as measured by General Self-efficacy scale developed by

Schwarzer et al (1995).

Psychological Adjustment

According to the American Psychological Association (2007) “adjustment” is defined as change

in attitude, behaviour or both by an individual on the basis of some recognised need or desire to

change. Adjustment refers to the behavioural process of balancing conflicting needs, or needs

challenged by obstacles in the environment; as measured by Brief Adjustment scale – 6 (BASE-

6) developed by Cruz et al. (2019)

 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Understanding the study's concepts requires an understanding of the conceptual review,

conceptual framework, theoretical review, and empirical analysis of research variables, all of

which were covered in this chapter.

Conceptual Review

Concept of Psychological Wellbeing

The concept of psychological well-being is wide and complex; it encompasses a person's entire

sense of purpose, happiness with life, and good emotions. For several decades, psychology has

been actively researching psychological well-being with the aim of better understanding the

elements that lead to its formation and preservation.

To define psychological well-being in a clear and straightforward manner is one of the major

issues facing this field of study. Ryff (1989) identified six characteristics of psychological well-

being: self-acceptance, autonomy, environmental mastery, personal progress, and pleasant

connections. These characteristics are a person's sense of self-determination, control over their

surroundings, capacity for personal development, ability to form satisfying relationships, and

sense of purpose in life. Diener et al. (2010) defined psychological well-being as a subjective
evaluation of one's life that is categorized by affirmative emotions, engagement, and meaning.

This definition encompasses a broad range of positive experiences, including happiness,

satisfaction, and a sense of fulfilment. Similar to this, Seligman (2002) put out the idea of

"positive psychology," which sees psychological well-being as a confluence of fulfilment and

enjoyment. This definition acknowledges that happiness is characterized by positive emotions,

pleasure, and a sense of meaning and purpose in life rather than just the absence of unpleasant

feelings or events.

Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) put out one of the first and most well-known models of

psychological well-being, characterizing it as the outcome of two factors: good mood and

participation in meaningful activities. This model predicts that people with greater levels of

psychological well-being are those who regularly feel happy and actively participate in activities

that they find significant. Additional components of psychological well-being, such as

meaningful connections (Diener et al., 2010), personal development (Linley & Joseph, 2004),

and a feeling of purpose (Ryff, 1989), have been added to this model by other researchers. These

factors are typically examined in studies on psychological well-being because they are thought to

be essential to its growth and preservation.

Psychological well-being can be impacted by environmental and individual factors, according to

studies. For instance, studies have indicated a correlation between positive psychological

attributes and increased well-being, such as conscientiousness and openness (Costa & McCrae,

1980). Furthermore, it has been discovered that environmental elements that promote well-being

include social support and access to green space (Oishi & Diener, 2001).

Concept of Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1977) defined efficacy expectancy as the belief in one's ability to successfully carry out

the actions required to achieve a desired result. He separated this from outcome expectancy,

which is the idea that a specific behavior would result in a specific outcome. The latter belief,

that a given behavior will result in a desired outcome, does not necessarily imply believing that

one will be able to effectively complete the tasks required to attain that objective.

Bandura and Locke (2003) reviewed nine meta-analyses that looked at self-efficacy beliefs in a

variety of behavioral settings (e.g., work-related performance, academic performance, athletic

performance, psychosocial functioning, health functioning). Self-efficacy was discovered to be a

powerful predictor of coping behavior, performance level, and tenacity in the face of severe

problems. It was also discovered that efficacy perceptions strongly impacted the relationship

between earlier and subsequent performance. To mobilize and sustain coping strategies, Bandura

and Locke found that conviction in one's own performance effectiveness, i.e., the belief that

desired goals can be attained by one's own efforts, is required. Bandura (1986) emphasized that

self-efficacy can influence actions without regard to previous conduct, citing multiple

experiments in which perceived self-efficacy predicted future behavior better than previous

performance.

Concept of Psychological Adjustment

The Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (2005) defines adjustment as the ability to

become more familiar with a new situation. Adjustment may be defined as a process of altering

behaviour or affective response so as to reach a harmonious relationship with a new or

challenging environment, situation or person. When people say they are in an adjustment period,

they typically mean they are going through a process of change and are searching for some level

of balance or acceptance with the a) environment, b) others, or c) themselves. The word

adjustment was borrowed initially from Juristics and then used in Mechanics, it was later

appropriated by biology and finally taken over by psychology (Lazarus 1976). According to the

American Psychological Association (2007) “adjustment” is defined as change in attitude,

behaviour or both by an individual on the basis of some recognised need or desire to change.

Adjustment may come about through forced external circumstances or through an understanding

of the need for a different and improved way of functioning. Adjustment or modification of

behaviour is a goal of therapeutic intervention. Consequently, a well-adjusted person is one who

satisfies his or her needs in a healthy, beneficial manner and demonstrates appropriate social and

psychological responses to situations and demands.

Adjustment in its Psychological Concept: This refers to the behavioural processes by which

humans and other animals maintain equilibrium among their various needs or between their

needs and the obstacles of their environment. According to the American Psychological

Association (2007) “adjustment” is defined as change in attitude, behaviour or both by an

individual on the basis of some recognised need or desire to change. A sequence of adjustments

begins when a need is felt and ends when it is satisfied. In the evolution of species on earth,

many organisms became extinct because they could not adapt successfully to the demands of

living while others survived and multiplied because they could adapt. Adaptation is the

biological structures and processes that facilitate the survival of species. The biological concept

of adaptation has been borrowed and changed by psychologists and renamed “adjustment”; this

emphasizes the individual's struggle to get along or survive in his or her social and physical

environments. Adjustment consists of two kinds of processes;

I. Fitting oneself into given circumstances

II. Changing the circumstances to fit one's needs

Adjustment represents a “functional” perspective for viewing and understanding not only animal

but also human behaviour.

Conceptual Framework

Psychological
Adjustment

Psychological
wellbeing

Self-efficacy

Figure 1.0: Conceptual framework (Source: Authors compilation)

According to the preceding conceptual framework, psychological adjustment and self-efficacy

are indicators of undergraduates' psychological wellbeing.

Theoretical Review

Theory of Psychological wellbeing

Seligman’s Positive Psychology Theory

Positive psychology theory of psychological wellbeing was proposed by Seligman (2002). It

emerged as a response to the traditional focus on pathology and the need to shift towards a more

positive perspective on human functioning and wellbeing. Seligman’s theory of positive

psychology is based on several key assumptions that shape its framework.

Firstly, the theory assumes that individuals have the capacity for growth and change. It

emphasizes the idea of human agency, suggesting that people can actively work towards

improving their lives and enhancing their wellbeing. This assumption aligns with the belief that

individuals are not passive recipients of circumstance but active participants in shaping their own

lives.

Secondly, the theory assumes that positive emotions and experiences are essential for optimal

psychological functioning. Seligman highlights the importance of cultivating positive emotions

such as joy, gratitude and love. He suggests that these positive emotions not only contribute to

subjective wellbeing but also enhance individual’s overall resilience and ability to cope with

challenges. Another key assumption of Seligman’s theory is the significance of personal

strengths and virtues. He proposes that individuals possess unique strengths and virtues that can

be harnessed to promote wellbeing. These strengths, such as creativity, kindness and

perseverance, can be cultivated and utilized to enhance personal growth and achievement.

Furthermore, the theory assumes that positive relationships and social connections are vital for

wellbeing. Seligman (2002) emphasizes the importance of social support and belongingness,

suggesting that positive relationships contribute to an individual’s overall happiness and life

satisfaction. Building and nurturing meaningful connections with others is seen as an essential

component of psychological adjustment. Additionally, the theory assumes that a sense of

meaning and purpose in life is crucial for wellbeing. It suggests that individuals who have a clear
purpose and engage in meaningful activities are more likely to experience higher levels of

satisfaction and fulfilment. Finding meaning in life can provide a sense of direction and

contribute to a greater sense of wellbeing.

Lastly, the theory assumes that positive psychology interventions can effectively enhance

wellbeing, thereby advocating for the development and implementation of interventions that

focus on promoting positive emotions, utilizing strengths, fostering positive relationship and

cultivating a sense of meaning. These interventions aim to enhance individual’s quality of life.

Strengths of Seligman’s Positive Psychology Theory

1. This theory has practical applications in various fields, such as education, therapy and

workplace settings. Positive psychology interventions based on Seligman’s Theory have been

developed and implemented to enhance wellbeing and promote positive outcomes.

2. Seligman’s theory shifts focus from solely addressing metal health issues to promoting

overall wellbeing and flourishing. It recognizes the importance of positive emotions,

strengths and meaningful connections in enhancing individual’s quality of life.

3. Seligman’s theory of positive psychology takes a holistic approach by considering multiple

aspects of human experience, including positive emotions, relationships, personal strengths,

and meaning in life. It acknowledges that wellbeing is influenced by various factors and

encourages a comprehensive understanding of human functioning.

Limitations of Seligman’s Positive Psychology Theory

1. Seligman’s theory presents a positive and optimistic view of human functioning, which may

oversimplify the complexities of human experiences. It is important to acknowledge that

individuals face unique challenges and that achieving wellbeing is a multifaceted process.
2. The theory’s emphasis on individual strengths and personal agency may not fully account for

cultural variations in understanding wellbeing. Cultural factors such as collectivism versus

individualism, may influence the relevance and application of positive psychology

interventions.

Theory of Self-efficacy

Bandura’s Self-efficacy Theory

The Self-efficacy theory by Bandura (1977) primarily focuses on how our beliefs about our own

ability or self-efficacy can influence our own behavior motivation and overall performance.

According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is specific to different task or situations. This implies

that an individual’s confidence in their ability may vary depending on the context. For example,

one may feel confident in their ability to solve math problems but less confident in their ability to

give a public speech.

One major assumption of this theory is that self-efficacy is influenced by four main sources of

information. The first source is mastery experiences. These are past successes or failures in

previous task. When one successfully accomplishes a task in the past, it may enhance their belief

in their ability to succeed again. On the other hand, repeated failures can lower self-efficacy

(Bandura, 1977).

The second source of self-efficacy is vicarious experiences. This refers to observing others who

are similar to you successfully completing a task. When people observe others perform a certain

task, it can influence their belief in their ability to perform similar task in future. Observing a

peer successfully present a seminar in front of a large audience can increase self-efficacy for

public speaking.
The third source is social persuasion. This involves the encouragement or discouragement we

receive from others. Positive feedback and support from others can boost our self-efficacy, while

negative feedback or criticism can lower it. For instance, if someone tells you that you are

capable of accomplishing a challenging task, it can increase your belief in your own ability.

The fourth source of self-efficacy is physiological and emotional states. How we feel physically

and emotionally can influence our self-efficacy. If you are feeling anxious or stressed, it can

lower your confidence in your abilities. Conversely, if you are feeling calm and focused, it can

enhance your self-efficacy. For example, if you are feeling relaxed before a test, you may have

higher self-efficacy in your ability to perform well.

Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977) emphasizes that self-efficacy has a direct impact on our

behavior and motivation. When we believe in our abilities, we are more likely to set challenging

goals, put in effort and persevere when faced with obstacles. On the other hand, low self-efficacy

can lead to avoidance behaviours.

Strengths of Bandura’s Self-efficacy Theory

1. Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977) had received empirical support across various contexts.

Studies have demonstrated the relationship between self-efficacy and performance, showing

that individuals with higher self-efficacy tend to perform better and persist in the face of

challenges.

2. The theory has practical implications in various fields, such as education, sports and therapy.

It provides a framework for understanding how self-belief can impact performance and

motivation, allowing individuals to develop strategies to enhance their self-efficacy.

3. The theory recognizes that self-efficacy is not a one-size-fits-all concept. It acknowledges

that individuals have different levels of self-efficacy in different domains, allowing for a

more comprehension of human behavior and motivation.

4. Bandura’s theory acknowledges that self-efficacy is not fixed and can change overtime. It

can be influenced by various factors, such as experiences, feedback, and emotions. This

dynamic nature allows for the possibility of improvement and growth.

Limitations of Bandura’s Self-efficacy Theory

1. Critics argue that Bandura’s theory places too much emphasis on self-beliefs as the primary

determinant of behavior. While self-efficacy is undoubtedly important, other factors, such as

external circumstances and social influences, can also play a significant role in shaping

behaviour.

2. Assessing self-efficacy can be challenging, as it relies on self-report measure that may be

subject to biases and inaccuracies. It can be difficult to capture the full complexity of an

individual’s beliefs about their abilities in a single measurement.

Theory of Psychological Adjustment

Person-Centered Theory

This theory was proposed by Roger (1951). According to rogers, every individual has an innate

tendency to strive towards self-actualization, and that psychological adjustment is a result of the

congruence between an individual’s self-concept and their experiences. Assumptions of this

theory is as follow:

 Actualizing Tendency: Roger (1951) assumed that individuals have an inherent tendency to

strive towards self-actualization, which is the process of becoming the best version of
 oneself. This tendency is innate and universal, and it drives individuals to seek out

experiences that promote growth and development.

 Self-Concept: Rogers (1951) defined self-concept as an individual’s perception of

themselves, including their beliefs, values and attitudes. The self-concept is a complex and

dynamic entity that is shaped by experiences and interactions with the environment.

 Congruence: another assumption of this theory is that psychological adjustment is a

congruence between an individual’s self-concept and their experiences. When an individual’s

experiences are consistent with their self-concept, they are more likely to be psychologically

adjusted. Congruence is achieved when the self-concept is aligned with the actual

experiences of the individual (Rogers, 1951).

 Unconditional Positive Regard: Rogers (1951) believed that individuals need to be accepted

and loved unconditionally, without judgment or evaluation, in order to develop a positive

self-concept and achieve psychological adjustment. Unconditional positive regard is essential

for creating a safe and supportive environment for growth.

 Free Will: Rogers (1951) believed that individuals have free will and are responsible for their

choices and actions. This assumption is central to the person-centered theory, as it

emphasizes the individual’s ability to make choices and take responsibility.

This theory emphasizes the importance of self-actualization and the need for individuals to strive

towards becoming the best version off themselves. Second, it highlights the role of unconditional

positive regard and empathic understanding in fostering a positive therapeutic relationship and

promoting psychological adjustment. Third, it emphasizes the individual’s responsibility for their

own growth and development, and need for them to take an active role in the therapeutic process.

Strengths of Person-Centered Theory

1. This theory takes a non-directive approach, which means that the therapist does not try to

direct the individual behaviour or thoughts. This non-directive approach is a strength, as it

allows individuals to take an active role in their own self-development.

2. This theory takes a holistic approach as it considers the individual as a whole, including their

physical, emotional, and spiritual experiences, hence acknowledging the interconnectedness

of human experience.

Limitations of Person-Centered Theory

While person-centered theory has been widely influential, it has also been subject to several

criticism and limitations. They are as follow:

1. Critics like Sullivan (1953) argue that this theory is too focused on the individual, and it

neglects the role of social and cultural factors in shaping behaviour and psychological

adjustment.

2. Ellis (1957) argue that the person-centered theory is optimistic in nature and fails to consider

the negative experiences and trauma in shaping the individual’s self-concept and behaviour.

Empirical Reviews

Self-efficacy and Psychological Wellbeing

Oshilaja et al. (2023) examined self-efficacy as a predictor of psychological wellbeing among

employees of selected organizations in Lagos. The major objectives of the study included:

determining the relationship between self-efficacy and psychological wellbeing; and

investigating the influence of exogenous variables on psychological well-being among

employees in some selected service and manufacturing organizations in Lagos. 515 employees

from selected organizations across telecommunications, manufacturing and banking industries

participated in the study. Results showed that there was significant positive relationship between

employees’ self-efficacy and psychological well-being. Self-esteem, self-efficacy and

organizational frustration were found to be significant predictors of psychological wellbeing

among employees in selected organization.

Also, Alkhatib (2020) investigated the relationship between psychological well-being, self-

efficacy and positive thinking among a sample of 350 students of Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz

University. Results of the study showed that students have moderate psychological wellbeing

level, and there was a positive relationship between psychological wellbeing, self-efficacy and

positive thinking. However, results showed that sociodemographic variables like gender, faculty,

academic level had no impact on psychological well-being or positive thinking. The impact was

within (academic level) on self-efficacy in benefit of master degree group.

Moreover, Siddiqui (2015) conducted a study on the impact of self-efficacy on psychological

wellbeing among undergraduate students. The sample consisted of 100 (50 male and 50 female)

students selected from the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. Results show a correlation

between self-efficacy and psychological wellbeing. Self-efficacy was found to be a significant

predictor of psychological wellbeing. No significant difference was observed between self-

efficacy of male and female undergraduates. However, a significant difference was observed in

psychological adjustment of both groups.

Psychological Adjustment on Psychological Wellbeing

Various studies have been carried out to understand the link between psychological adjustment

on psychological wellbeing. For instance, Moar et al. (2022) carried out a study on the

psychological wellbeing and adjustment among type 2 diabetes patients, and the role of
psychological flexibility among 102 adults with type 2 diabetes. Participants completed an online

battery of self-reported questionnaires, and were asked for demographics, general type 2 diabetes

features, treatment adherence, psychological flexibility, adjustment and wellbeing. Association

between psychological flexibility, adjustment and wellbeing among these patients were

examined. Findings reveal that adjustment was positively related to wellbeing. Additionally,

greater psychological flexibility was significantly associated with greater wellbeing but unrelated

to adjustment. In a hierarchical regression analysis, perception of change as positive (one of the

five psychological flexibility factors) significantly contributed to the explained variance in well-

being, beyond the contribution of adjustment. These findings indicate that positive perception of

change may enhance well-being independently from adjustment to diabetes since these two

constructs are distinct and independent

Accordingly, Chui and Chan (2020) studied positive thinking, school adjustment and

psychological wellbeing among Chinese college students. Their primary objective was to

investigate the moderating role of positive thinking in the effects of poor school adjustment on

stress and wellbeing. Adopting a cross-sectional survey design, 299 male and 396 female college

students aged 17 years to 28 years across eight universities in Hong Kong participated in the

study. Results confirmed that school adjustment was negatively related to stress, and positively

related to satisfaction. Adjustment was found to be indirectly related to psychological distress via

stress. Positive thinking moderated the relationship between school adjustment and life

satisfaction. School adjustment was more related to stress at higher levels of positive thinking,

while it was more related to life satisfaction at lower levels of positive thinking.

In another study, Olasupo et al. (2018) investigated adjustment, psychological wellbeing and

mental health of first year students in a South African University. Additionally, these researchers
also determined if relationships differ between male and female students. The model

hypothesizing that adjustment and psychological well-being will predict mental health was

supported. While the data fit the hypothesized model well, psychological adjustment, application

adjustment, and college adjustment were significant predictors of anxiety, depression, and social

dysfunction. Also, psychological well-being was a significant predictor of depression, anxiety,

and social dysfunction. Two paths (college adjustment and anxiety, and psychological well-being

and social dysfunction) were significantly different for both sexes.

Summary of Reviewed Literature

The conceptualization of each study variable to understand their interactions with one another

preceded the review of related literature. Psychological well-being is conceptualized as a

subjective evaluation of one's life that is categorized by affirmative emotions, engagement, and

meaning (Diener et al., 2010). Self-efficacy is conceptualized as the belief in one's ability to

successfully carry out the actions required to achieve a desired result (Bandura, 1977).

Psychological adjustment is conceptualized as change in attitude, behaviour or both by an

individual on the basis of some recognized need or desire to change (American Psychological

Association, 2007). A total of 3 theories were reviewed in this current study. Positive psychology

theory (Seligman, 2002) was used to explain psychological wellbeing as a construct. Self-

efficacy was explained using the Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) while psychological

adjustment was explained using person-centered theory (Rogers, 1951). Strengths and limitations

of these reviewed theories were discussed. Six empirical studies were reviewed to show the trend

and direction of similar studies. The researcher postulated three (3) hypotheses guiding the study.

These examined theories and empirical investigations provide a chronology, relationship, and

significance of the study variables, which are necessary to understand the current investigation.
Hypotheses

1. Self-efficacy will significantly predict psychological wellbeing among undergraduates

2. Psychological adjustment will significantly predict psychological wellbeing among

undergraduates

3. Self-efficacy and psychological adjustment will jointly and significantly predict

psychological wellbeing among undergraduates

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS

This chapter is discussed in subsections including Participants, instruments, pilot study,

procedure, design and statistics.

Participants

Participants of the study consist of a sample of 389 undergraduates of AE-FUNAI drawn from a

population of about 15,000 undergraduates (which is the estimate of undergraduates in AE-

FUNAI) retrieved from https://funai.edu.ng/news. The sample size was determined using the

Taro Yamane formula for sample determination. The researcher adopted a convenient sampling

for selecting participants of the study. A convenient sampling technique is a non-probabilistic

sampling procedure where respondents are selected based on their immediate accessibility and

proximity to the researcher. Out of the sample for the study, 174 (38.5%) respondents are

females while 215 (47.6%) are males. Participants age ranged from 19 years to 34 years. The

mean age of study participants is 23.46 years and a standard deviation of 3.438.

Instruments
Three research instruments will be adopted use to measure the study variable, they include the

10-item general self-efficacy scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995), Brief

Adjustment scale – 6 (BASE-6) developed by Cruz et al. (2019) and a 42 item psychological

wellbeing scale developed by Ryff (1989).

Psychological wellbeing scale

This is a 42 item self-report measure that measures the psychological well-being of individuals

wellbeing on 6 subscales which include; autonomy subscale (Q1, Q13, Q24, Q35, Q41, Q10, and

Q21), the environmental mastery subscale (Q3, Q15, Q26, Q36, Q42, Q12, and Q23), the

personal growth subscale (Q5, Q17, Q28, Q37, Q2, Q14, and Q25), the positive relations with

others subscale (Q7, Q18, Q30, Q38, Q4, Q16, and Q27), the purpose in life subscale (Q9, Q20,

Q32, Q39, Q6, Q29, and Q33), and the self-acceptance subscale (Q11, Q22, Q34, Q40, Q8, Q19,

and Q31). The psychological wellbeing measure has a 7-point Likert response format, ranging

from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7). A total of 21 items are reverse scored and they

are Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7, Q11, Q13, Q17, Q20, Q21, Q22, Q23, Q27, Q29, Q31, Q35, Q36,

Q37, Q38, and Q40. A higher score indicates a healthy psychological wellbeing while a low

score indicates a poor psychological wellbeing. The PWB scale has an internal consistency of .93

on self-acceptance subscale, .91 on positive relationship with others, .86 on autonomy, .90 on

environmental mastery, .90 on purpose in life, and .87 on personal growth subscale. The total

scale has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .89.

General Self-efficacy Scale.

This scale was developed by Schwarzer et al (1995). It is a 10 item self-report questionnaire that

measures an individual’s level of self-efficacy. The General self-efficacy scale is a 4-point

Likert format response item, with responses ranging from 1 (not true at all), 2 (hardly true), 3

(moderately true, and 4 (Exactly true). Examples of items on this scale include “I can always

manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”, and “thanks to my resourcefulness, I

know how to handle unforeseen situations. All items on this scale are direct score items. The

GSES sum score ranges from 10 to 40 with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The

General Self-Efficacy Scale is correlated to emotion, optimism, work satisfaction. Negative

coefficients were found for depression, stress, health complaints, burnout, and anxiety. The

General Self-efficacy scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of .90.

Brief Adjustment Scale – 6 (BASE – 6)

The Brief Adjustment Scale – 6 (BASE-6) is a self-report questionnaire evaluating general

psychological adjustment. The measure is comprised of 6 items and was developed for both

clinical and research purposes. Each item is scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7

(1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = extremely), and the maximum total score is 42 points, obtained

by summing the raw score of responses to items 1 through 6. The higher the score, the lower the

general psychological adjustment. The respondents choose one of the seven statements that best

define how they felt during that week. Specifically, among the six items, three items assess

individuals’ perception of emotional distress (i.e., anger, anxiety, and depression), while the last

three items assess related interference (i.e., self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, and

occupational/academic performance). Reliability value of BASE-6 scale is an alpha coefficient

of 0.74

Pilot Study (Reliability).

To ensure that instruments for data collection are reliability and fit for the population, the

researcher conducted a pilot test which ascertains the internal consistency of research instrument.

An internal consistency of a research instrument implies the degree to which the test yields

similar results overtime, hence reliable. 40 copies of questionnaires were distributed randomly to

undergraduates of Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka. Using a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient as a

medium for reliability testing, the researcher obtained an alpha coefficient of 0.89 on

Psychological Wellbeing Scale (PWS), 0.74 on the Brief Adjustment Scale (BASE – 6), and 0.73

on General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES). All research instruments were deemed reliable for the

study.

Procedure

A letter of identification was obtained from the office of the Head of Department. This letter of

identification was presented to prospective participants of the study to show that the researcher is

a final year student of Psychology. The researcher employed two research assistants that will aid

in distribution and gathering of copies of questionnaires. The researcher briefed the research

assistants on the importance of informed consent from participants. The researcher and research

assistants selected a total of 389 participants using a convenient sampling technique. Prior to

issuing of questionnaires, the researcher and assistants briefed the prospective respondents on the

nature of the study and obtained their consents through the administration of consent forms. The

participants were assured that their response was confidential and only used for the purpose of

the study. The researcher and assistants guided the researchers in responding to the items to

ensure that all copies of questionnaires issued out were returned. After data collection, the

researcher and assistants thanked the respondents for their participation. All collected data was

subjected to analysis using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS, Version 25).
Design and Statistics

The present study is a predictive study which adopts a cross-sectional survey design. A multiple

regression analysis was used as the statistical tool for data analysis. The justification for

statistical method surrounds the researcher’s interest in examining the predictive role of self-

efficacy and psychological adjustment on the psychological wellbeing of undergraduates.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter discusses the findings of the current study.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of study variables.

Variable Mean Std. deviation N

Psychological Wellbeing 63.55 32.17 389
Self-efficacy 23.74 4.14 389
Psychological Adjustment 29.86 7.73 389

Data in table 1 shows the average mean score and standard deviation of study variables obtained

by the study participants. On psychological wellbeing scale, a mean score of 63.55 and standard

deviation of 32.17 was obtained. On the self-efficacy scale, a mean score of 23.74 and standard

deviation of 4.14 was obtained. Lastly, on the psychological adjustment scale, a mean score of

29.86 and standard deviation of 7.73 was obtained.

Table 2: Zero order correlation, showing the relationship ship between study variables

Variables 1 2 3
 1 Psychological wellbeing 1
2 Self-efficacy .485** 1
3 Psychological Adjustment .625** .440** 1
** Correlation significant at P < .05
Findings in table 2 indicate that a positive significant correlation exists between self-efficacy and

psychological adjustment among undergraduates (r = .485, P < .05). Findings imply that a

significant rise in self-efficacy level is likely to result in a significant rise in psychological

wellbeing. Similarly, a positive significant correlation was observed between psychological

adjustment and psychological wellbeing (r = .625 P < .05), therefore implying that

undergraduates with high level of psychological adjustment would also have a high sense of

psychological wellbeing.

Table 3: multiple regression showing the independent predictive strength of study

variables.

Unstandardized coefficient Standardized

coefficients
B Std. Error Beta (β) t Sig
Constant -47.881 7.329 -6.533 .000
Self-efficacy 2.022 .328 .260 6.163 .000
Psychological 2.124 .176 .510 12.080 .000
Adjustment
Dependent variable: Psychological wellbeing

Findings in table 3 indicate that self-efficacy significantly and positively predicts psychological

wellbeing among undergraduates (β = .260, t = 6.163, P < .05). The findings imply that having a

poor self-efficacy is a risk factor for poor psychological wellbeing, whereas having a high self-
efficacy is a protective factor for healthy psychological wellbeing among undergraduates. In

order to maintain an optimal state of wellness, students need to develop their self-efficacy levels

to build resilience and optimism. Based on this observation, the first hypothesis which states that

“self-efficacy will significantly predict psychological wellbeing among undergraduates” is

hereby accepted.

Similarly, result in table 3 also indicate that psychological adjustment significantly and

positively predicts psychological wellbeing among undergraduates (β = .510, t = 12.080, P

< .05). This indicates that having a healthy psychological adjustment is significant to having a

healthy psychological wellbeing and vice versa. Relative to this finding, the second hypothesis

which states that “psychological adjustment will significantly predict psychological wellbeing

among undergraduates” is hereby accepted.

Table 4: Multiple regression showing the joint prediction of study variables (ENTER

method)

R R2 Adjusted Std. Durbin df F value Sig.

R2 error Watson
.667 .445 .442 24.03 2.206 2/386 154.65 .000
Dependent variable: Psychological wellbeing
Predictors: Psychological Adjustment, Self-efficacy

Using a multiple regression analysis (Enter Method), the findings in table 4 indicate that self-

efficacy and psychological adjustment jointly and significantly predicts psychological wellbeing

as it accounts for 44.5% of variation observed in psychological wellbeing (R = .667, R 2 = .445, F

(2/386) = 154.65, P < .05). Based on this observation, the third hypothesis which states that
“Self-efficacy and psychological adjustment will significantly and jointly predict psychological

wellbeing among undergraduates” is hereby accepted.

Summary of the results

1. Self-efficacy significantly and positively predicted psychological wellbeing among

undergraduates.

2. Psychological adjustment significantly and positively predicted psychological wellbeing

among undergraduates.

3. Self-efficacy and psychological adjustment significantly and jointly predicted psychological

wellbeing among undergraduates.

 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This chapter is focused with the discussion of the findings, its implication and limitations.

Additionally, recommendations and suggestions are also provided.

Discussion of the Findings

The first research question asked if self-efficacy will predict psychological wellbeing among

undergraduates of AE-FUNAI. Based on research findings, the first hypothesis which stated that

“self-efficacy would significantly predict psychological wellbeing among undergraduatess” was

confirmed, therefore bringing clarity to the question. The positive prediction observed imply that

respondents with high level of self-efficacy were more prone to having a healthy psychological

wellbeing. This supports the findings of Oshilaja et al. (2023) who found that a positive

relationship exists between self-efficacy and psychological well-being, whereas self-esteem and

self-efficacy were also found to be significant predictors of psychological wellbeing.

Additionally, Alkhatib (2020), reported a positive relationship between psychological wellbeing,

self-efficacy and positive thinking among university students. Findings of the present study

appear to be in congruence with empirical evidence, highlighting the significance of self-efficacy

on wellbeing. One could almost say that having a good level of self-efficacy serves as a

protecting factor for the subjective wellbeing of an individual.

Research findings also indicated that psychological adjustment significantly and positively

predicted psychological wellbeing among undergraduates. This observation validates the second

hypothesis which states “psychological adjustment will significantly predict psychological

wellbeing among undergraduates” thereby providing an answer to the second research question

which asks; “will psychological adjustment predict psychological wellbeing among

undergraduates of AE-FUNAI”. Research finding is consistent with Moar et al. (2022)) who

found that adjustment was related to wellbeing. He also opined that greater psychological

flexibility was significantly associated with greater wellbeing but unrelated to adjustment. Other

researchers like Chui and Chan (2020) who observed that adjustment was negatively related to

stress, and positively related to satisfaction. Adjustment was found to be indirectly related to

psychological distress via stress. Olasupo et al. (2018) found that psychological adjustment, and

college adjustment were significant predictors of anxiety, depression, and social dysfunction.

Finally, the third research question asked if self-efficacy and psychological adjustment will

jointly predict psychological wellbeing among undergraduates of AE-FUNAI. Based on

observation, self-efficacy and psychological adjustment jointly and significantly predicted

psychological wellbeing among undergraduates. This observation confirms the third hypothesis

stating that “Self-efficacy and psychological adjustment will jointly and significantly predict

psychological wellbeing among undergraduates”. This finding supports Seligman’s positive

psychology theory (2002) which serves as a theoretical framework for this study. This theory

suggests that a combination of personal strengths (like self-efficacy) and positive

relationships/coping skills (like psychological adjustment) is more likely to lead to flourishing

and psychological wellbeing.

Implications of the Study

The findings of this study have several implications which will be discussed independently.

These implications are theoretical, empirical and practical.

Theoretical implications: The findings of the present study provide a robust support for the self-

efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), highlighting the key tenet that an individual’s belief in their

ability to perform certain task promotes their psychological wellbeing. Research findings

reinforce the importance of self-efficacy, stating the need for theorists to continue exploring the

mechanisms by which self-efficacy influences mental health outcomes. Similarly, the findings

contribute to the theoretical framework of psychological adjustment, referring to the process of

coping with stress and adversity (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Empirical Implications: Present research findings have significant empirical implications for the

development of intervention aimed at enhancing psychological wellbeing among undergraduates.

The findings of the study portray the importance of self-efficacy and psychological adjustment

on wellbeing, thereby providing a clear direction for interventionists seeking to improve mental

health outcomes in this population. Specifically, interventions that target self-efficacy and

psychological adjustment, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and stress management

training, may be particularly effective in promoting psychological wellbeing among

undergraduates

Practical Implications: there are several practical implications for promoting psychological

wellbeing among undergraduates. First, academic advisors and psychological counselors can

help students develop self-efficacy and psychological adjustment skills, such as goal setting and
stress management, to enhance their academic and career choices. Secondly, mental health

professionals can incorporate self-efficacy and psychological adjustment into their therapeutic

practice, using evidence-based interventions such as CBT to address this issue. Thirdly, student

development programs can focus on building self-efficacy and promoting psychological

adjustment, providing students with the skills and resources they need to succeed academically

and personally. Finally, educators and policy makers can recognize the importance of promoting

psychological wellbeing among undergraduates, allocating resources and support to address the

mental health needs of this population.

Limitations of the Study

From the findings obtained, the following limitations were observed.

1. The reliance on self-reported data may be susceptible to biases, such as social desirability

bias or response distortion. However, the general self-efficacy scale, Base-6 and

psychological wellbeing scale are common psychological scales that have been proven

overtime to be reliable and serves as an accurate measure for psychological constructs.

2. The sample size for the study is relatively small. Although 389 participants serves as a

reasonable sample size, it may not be a true representative of the entire Nigerian

undergraduates. hence findings of this study cannot be generalized across all university

students.

3. Although findings add to existing literature on the relationship between the study constructs,

it may not have accounted for cultural and individual differences that could impact the

relationship between the variables.

4. The findings of these study may not generalize to other context, such as workplace or other

community settings. The study focused on undergraduates in a university setting.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made;

1. There is need to integrate self-efficacy and psychological adjustment training into university

programs. The management should develop workshops, courses or counselling services that

focus on enhancing self-efficacy and psychological adjustment skills to promote

psychological wellbeing among university students.

2. Encouraging goal setting and achievement is optimal. Students should be assisted in setting

realistic goals, as well as supporting them to achieve these setout goals. This will foster self-

efficacy and a sense of accomplishment.

3. Students’ wellbeing should be assessed regularly, and adjust programs and services

accordingly to ensure they meet the evolving needs of the students’ population

4. There is need for the establishment of peer mentoring programs that connect students with

trained mentors who can provide support and guidance

Suggestion for Further Studies

The findings of the study reveal that self-efficacy and psychological adjustment are important

factors in predicting psychological wellbeing among university students. However, the

researcher suggests that further studies be carried out to provide a better understanding to the

nature of relationship between study variables. They include:

1. A longitudinal study to examine the temporal relationship between self-efficacy,

psychological adjustment and psychological wellbeing among university students. This

would involve collecting data at multiple points in time, allowing for an examination of how

these variables change and influence each other overtime.

2. An intervention study design which tests the effectiveness of self-efficacy and psychological

adjustment training program on psychological wellbeing outcomes. This could involve

randomly assigning students to either a control group or an intervention group, and assessing

changes in self-efficacy, psychological adjustment and psychological wellbeing pre – and

post – intervention.

3. A moderation analysis that explores whether certain factors (e.g., gender, year of study,

course of study, financial status) moderate the relationship between self-efficacy,

psychological adjustment and psychological wellbeing. This would help identify specific

subgroups of students who may benefit most from targeted interventions aimed at enhancing

self-efficacy and psychological adjustment.

Conclusion

The research findings on self-efficacy and psychological adjustment as predictors of

psychological wellbeing among undergraduates shed light on the multipart relationship between

individual beliefs in the ability to overcome obstacles and how well an individual adjusts to the

environment in the context of subjective wellbeing. The researcher examined the participants of

the study and found that self-efficacy significantly and positively predicted psychological

wellbeing among study participants. Similarly, psychological adjustment significantly and

positively predicted psychological wellbeing among study participants. Findings of the study

justified the reviewed related literature and theoretical framework thereby confirming the

postulated research hypotheses.

Having recognized the significance of self-efficacy and psychological adjustment in influencing

psychological wellbeing, academic advisors and psychological counselors can help students

develop self-efficacy and psychological adjustment skills, such as goal setting and stress
management, to enhance their academic and career choices, as well as incorporating self-efficacy

and psychological adjustment into their therapeutic practice, using evidence-based interventions.

REFERENCES

Abdul Aziz, A. R., Raja Ashaari, R. N. S., & Mohd Ali, M. Z. (2023). The Impact of Stress to

Student’s Psychological Well-Being Amidst Covid-19 Pandemics. Sains Insani, 8(2),

179-189.

Adeyemo, D. A. (2017). Stress and coping strategies among university students in Nigeria.

Alkhatib, M. A. H. (2020). Investigate the relationship between psychological wellbeing, self-

efficacy and positive thinking at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University. International

Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 138 – 152

Amato, P. R. (1994). Life-span adjustment of children to their parents' divorce. The Future of

Children, 4(1), 143–164.

Andrews, A., & Chong, J. L. Y. (2011). Exploring the wellbeing of students studying at an

Australian university. Journal of the Australia and New Zealand Student Services

Association, 37, 9-38.

Asghari, F., Saadat, S., Atefi, K. S., & Janalizadeh, K. S. (2014). The relationship between

academic self-efficacy and psychological well-being, family cohesion, and spiritual

health among students of Kharazmi University. Iranian Journal of Medicine and

Education. 14, 581–593.

Bahadori Khosroshahi, J., & Hashemi Nosrat Abad T, T. (2012). The relationship between social

anxiety, optimism and self-efficacy with psychological well-being in students. Studies in

Medical Sciences, 23(2), 115-122.

Bamidele, O., & Adeyemo, D. A. (2017). Depression and anxiety among university students in

Nigeria: A review. Journal of Psychology and Behavioural Science, 5(2), 1-12

Bandura A, Locke E. A., (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.

Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Bandura A. (1986)., Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive

Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of

affective self‐regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child

Development, 74(3), 769-782.

Burris, J. L., Brechting, E. H., Salsman, J., & Carlson, C.R. (2009). Factors associated with the

psychological well-being and distress of university students. Journal of American

College Health, 57(5), 536-543.

Byrom, N. C., Dinu, L., Kirkman, A., & Hughes, G. (2022). Predicting stress and mental

wellbeing among doctoral researchers. Journal of Mental Health, 31(6), 783–791.

Cacioppo, S., Capitanio, J. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2014). Toward a neurology of loneliness.

Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1464-1504.

Caprara, G. V. (2002). Personality psychology: Filling the gap between basic processes and

molar functioning. S. 201-224 in C. von Hofsten and L. Bakman (Hg.): Psychology at the

turn of the Millennium: Volume 2. Social, developmental and clinical perspectives.

Chang, Y., & Edwards, J. K. (2015). Examining the relationships among self-efficacy, coping,

and job satisfaction using social career cognitive theory: An SEM analysis. Journal of

Career Assessment, 23(1), 35-47.

Chui, R. C. F & Chan, C. K. (2020). Positive thinking, School adjustment and psychological

well-being among Chinese college students. The Open Psychology Journal, 13, 151 –

159

Clarke, A., Friede, T., Putz, R., Ashdown, J., Martin, S., Blake, A., ... & Stewart-Brown, S.

(2011). Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): validated for

 teenage school students in England and Scotland. A mixed methods assessment. BMC

public health, 11, 1-9.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjetive well-

being: happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,

668-678.

Cruz, R. A., Peterson, A. P., Fagan, C., Black, W., & Cooper, L. (2019). Evalution of Brief

Adjustment Scale – 6 (BASE – 6): A measure of general psychological adjustment for

measurement-based care. Psychological Services. Advance online Publication.

Cvetkovski, S., Reavley, N. J., & Jorm, A. F. (2012). The prevalence and correlates of

psychological distress in Australian tertiary students compared to their community peers.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 46(5), 457-467

Denovan, A., & Macaskill, A. (2017). Stress and subjective well-being among first year UK

undergraduate students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 505-525.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2010). Well-being for public policy.

Oxford University Press.

Eaton, S., Pethrick, H., Turner, K. (2023). Academic integrity and student mental wellbeing: a

rapid review. CPAI 5, 34 – 58

Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Gollust, S. E. (2007). Help-seeking and access to mental health

care in a university student population. Medical Care, 45(7), 594 – 601.

Ellis, A. (1957). Rational psychotherapy and individual psychology. Journal of Individual

Psychology, 13(2), 135 144.

Evans, T. M., Bira, L., Beltran Gastelum, J., Weiss, L. T., & Vanderford, N. L. (2018). Evidence

for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology 36: 282–284.

Green, M., DeCourville, N., & Sadava, S. (2012). Positive affect, negative affect, stress, and

social support as mediators of the forgiveness-health relationship. The Journal of social

psychology, 152(3), 288-307.

Gul, S. (2001). Development of family adjustment test, Unpublished PhD thesis. University of

Peshawar. NWFP. Pakistan.

Hunter, K. H., & Devine, K. (2016). Doctoral students’ emotional exhaustion and intentions to

leave academia. International Journal of doctoral studies, 11(2), 35-61.

Kobau, R., Seligman, M. E., Peterson, C., Diener, E., Zack, M. M., Chapman, D., & Thompson,

W. (2011). Mental health promotion in public health: Perspectives and strategies from

positive psychology. American Journal of Public Health, 101(8), e1-e9.

Koller, S., & Hicks, R. E. (2016). Psychological capital qualities and psychological wellbeing in

Australian mental health professionals. International Journal of Psychological Studies,

8(2), 41-53.

Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit

beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter?. Learning and individual differences, 25, 67-

72.

Ladapo, O. A., Adebayo, A. A., & Ayodele, O. O. (2015). Psychological wellbeing and

academic performance among university students in Nigeria Journal of Education and

Human Development, 4(1), 1 – 9.

Lapierre, S., Dube, M., Bouffard, L., & Alain, M. (2007). Addressing suicidal ideations through

the realization of meaningful personal goals. Crisis, 28(1), 16-25.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.

Levecque, K., Anseel, F.,De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle. L., (2017). “Work

Organization and Mental Health Problems in PhD Students.” Research Policy 46 (4):

868–879.

Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review.

Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 11-21.

Liu, C., & Li, H. (2018). Stressors and stressor appraisals: The moderating effect of task

efficacy. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 141-154.

Maher, M. A., Wofford, A. M., Roksa, J., & Feldon, D. F. (2020). Exploring Early Exits:

Doctoral Attrition in the Biomedical Sciences. Journal of College Student Retention:

Research, Theory & Practice, 22(2), 205-226.

Maor, M., Zukerman, G., Amit, N., Richard, T., & Ben-Itzhak, S. (2022). Psychological well-

being and adjustment among type 2 diabetes patients: the role of psychological

flexibility. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 27(7), 1456–1467.

Metcalfe, J., Wilson, S., & Levecque, K. (2018). Exploring wellbeing and mental health and

associated support services for postgraduate researchers. Vitae.

https://re.ukri.org/documents/2018/mental-health-report/.
Morton, S., Mergler, A., & Boman, P. (2014). Managing the transition: The role of optimism and

self-efficacy for first-year Australian university students. Journal of Psychologists and

Counsellors in Schools, 24(1), 90-108.

Nwachukwu, I., & Ordu, E. (2018). Prevalence and correlates of depression among university

students in Nigeria. Journal of Affective Disorders, 231, 85-91

Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2001). Pleasures and subjective well-being. European

Journal of Personality, 15(2), 153–167

Olasupo, M. O, Idemudia, E. S. & Dimatkakso, M. (2018). Adjustment, psychological well-

being and mental health of first year students in a South African university. North

American Journal of Psychology. 20, 55-68.

Oshilaja, O. O., Akinbode, G., A., & Umukoro, O. S. (2023). Self-efficacy as predictors of

psychological wellbeing among employees of selected organizations in Lagos. African

Journal for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 26(1), 58 – 65.

Priesack, A., & Alcock, J. (2015). Well-being and self-efficacy in a sample of undergraduate

nurse students: A small survey study. Nurse Education Today, 35(5), e16-e20.

Roberts, R. E., Roberts, C. R., & Xing, Y. (2011). Restricted sleep among adolescents:

prevalence, incidence, persistence, and associated factors. Behavioral sleep medicine,

9(1), 18-30.

Roffey, S. (2015). Becoming an agent of change for school and student well-being. Educational

& Child Psychology, 32(1), 21-30.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: its current practice, implications, and theory.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1986). Carl Rogers on the development of the person – centered approach.

Person-Centered Review, 1(3), 257 – 259

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Exploration of the meaning of

psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069 –

1081.

Salmoirago-Blotcher, E., Crawford, S., Tran, C., Goldberg, R., Rosenthal, L., & Ockene, I.

(2012). Spiritual well-being may buffer psychological distress in patients with

implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary &

Alternative Medicine, 17(3), 148-154.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S.

Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and

control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C.

R. Synder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3 – 9). Oxford

University Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and wellbeing.

New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M., & Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. An introduction. The

American psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.

Siddiqui, S. (2015). Impact of self-efficacy on psychological wellbeing among undergraduate

students. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 2(3).

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Villada, C., Hidalgo, V., Almela, M., & Salvador, A. (2017). Assessing performance on an

evaluated speaking task. Journal of Psychophysiology.

World Health Organization. (2021). Mental Health. Retrieved from

https://www.who.int/healthtopics/mental-health/#tab=tab_1

Zadow, C., Houghton, S., Hunter, S. C., Rosenberg, M., & Wood, L. (2017). Associations

between positive mental wellbeing and depressive symptoms in Australian adolescents.

The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 34(2), 95-105.

Zhao, F. F., Lei, X. L., He, W., Gu, Y. H., & Li, D. W. (2015). The study of perceived stress,

coping strategy and self‐efficacy of Chinese undergraduate nursing students in clinical

practice. International journal of nursing practice, 21(4), 401-409.

 APPENDIX A

Regression

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychological Wellbeing 63.5476 32.16879 389
Self-Efficacy 23.7378 4.14158 389
Psychological Adjustment 29.8638 7.72561 389

Correlations
Psychologica Self- Psychologica
l Wellbeing Efficacy l Adjustment
Pearson Psychological 1.000 .485 .625
Correlation Wellbeing
Self-Efficacy .485 1.000 .440
Psychological .625 .440 1.000
Adjustment
Sig. (1-tailed) Psychological . .000 .000
Wellbeing
 Self-Efficacy .000 . .000
Psychological .000 .000 .
Adjustment
N Psychological 389 389 389
Wellbeing
Self-Efficacy 389 389 389
Psychological 389 389 389
Adjustment

Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Psychological . Enter
Adjustment,
Self-Efficacyb
a. Dependent Variable: Psychological Wellbeing
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate Durbin-Watson
a
1 .667 .445 .442 24.03052 2.206
a. Predictors: (Constant), Psychological Adjustment, Self-Efficacy
b. Dependent Variable: Psychological Wellbeing

ANOVAa
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 178612.476 2 89306.238 154.652 .000b
Residual 222901.894 386 577.466
Total 401514.370 388
a. Dependent Variable: Psychological Wellbeing
b. Predictors: (Constant), Psychological Adjustment, Self-Efficacy
 Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -47.881 7.329 -6.533 .000
Self-Efficacy 2.022 .328 .260 6.163 .000
Psychological 2.124 .176 .510 12.080 .000
Adjustment
a. Dependent Variable: Psychological Wellbeing

Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 22.7026 100.0688 63.5476 21.45557 389
Residual -59.14957 82.72614 .00000 23.96851 389
Std. Predicted Value -1.904 1.702 .000 1.000 389
Std. Residual -2.461 3.443 .000 .997 389
a. Dependent Variable: Psychological Wellbeing

APPENDIX B
Frequencies

Statistics
gender
N Valid 389
Missing 0

gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid male 215 55.3 55.3 55.3
female 174 44.7 44.7 100.0
Total 389 100.0 100.0
Descriptives (AGE)

Descriptive Statistics
Minimu Maximu Std.
N m m Mean Deviation
age 389 19.00 34.00 23.4602 3.43820
Valid N 389
(listwise)

APPENDIX C

Reliability

Scale: Psychological Wellbeing Scale

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 40 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 40 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables
in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.887 42
 Item Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
pw1 3.15 .736 40
pw2 3.35 .736 40
pw3 3.95 .221 40
pw4 3.45 .597 40
pw5 3.75 .543 40
pw6 3.45 .597 40
pw7 3.80 .516 40
pw8 3.00 .961 40
pw9 2.65 1.122 40
pw10 3.45 .504 40
pw11 3.43 .903 40
pw12 3.55 .639 40
pw13 3.60 .591 40
pw14 3.15 .802 40
pw15 3.45 .597 40
pw16 3.50 .599 40
pw17 3.05 1.037 40
pw18 3.40 .672 40
pw19 3.40 .591 40
pw20 3.30 .723 40
pw21 3.15 1.075 40
pw22 3.80 .405 40
pw23 3.55 .597 40
pw24 3.20 .992 40
pw25 3.40 .672 40
pw26 3.10 .900 40
pw27 3.25 .899 40
pw28 3.45 .597 40
pw29 2.98 .974 40
pw30 3.00 1.013 40
pw31 3.40 .591 40
pw32 3.30 .723 40
pw33 3.15 1.075 40
pw34 3.80 .405 40
pw35 3.55 .597 40
pw36 3.20 .992 40
pw37 3.40 .672 40
pw38 3.10 .900 40
pw39 3.25 .899 40
pw40 3.45 .597 40
pw41 2.98 .974 40
pw42 3.00 1.013 40

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
pw1 137.12 179.394 .401 .884
pw2 136.92 184.584 .136 .888
pw3 136.33 186.122 .278 .887
pw4 136.83 178.866 .540 .883
pw5 136.52 183.435 .280 .886
pw6 136.83 179.430 .504 .883
pw7 136.47 190.051 -.174 .891
pw8 137.27 167.640 .775 .877
pw9 137.62 179.933 .221 .889
pw10 136.83 183.071 .332 .886
pw11 136.85 186.285 .030 .891
pw12 136.72 182.769 .270 .886
pw13 136.67 187.507 -.001 .889
pw14 137.12 176.933 .481 .883
pw15 136.83 179.020 .530 .883
pw16 136.77 176.846 .668 .881
pw17 137.22 183.204 .127 .890
pw18 136.87 182.010 .297 .886
pw19 136.87 183.292 .263 .886
pw20 136.97 174.743 .658 .880
pw21 137.12 179.702 .242 .888
pw22 136.47 183.999 .335 .886
pw23 136.72 180.512 .435 .884
pw24 137.08 177.763 .344 .886
pw25 136.87 175.651 .660 .881
pw26 137.17 172.969 .594 .881
pw27 137.02 173.204 .585 .881
pw28 136.83 177.225 .646 .882
pw29 137.30 178.421 .326 .886
pw30 137.27 178.461 .309 .886
pw31 136.87 183.292 .263 .886
pw32 136.97 174.743 .658 .880
pw33 137.12 179.702 .242 .888
pw34 136.47 183.999 .335 .886
pw35 136.72 180.512 .435 .884
pw36 137.08 177.763 .344 .886
pw37 136.87 175.651 .660 .881
pw38 137.17 172.969 .594 .881
pw39 137.02 173.204 .585 .881
pw40 136.83 177.225 .646 .882
pw41 137.30 178.421 .326 .886
pw42 137.27 178.461 .309 .886

Scale Statistics
Std.
Mean Variance Deviation N of Items
140.27 187.846 13.706 42
Reliability

Scale: Brief Adjustment Scale - 6 (BASE-6)

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 40 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 40 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all
variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics
 Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.743 6

Item Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
BASE1 3.20 .992 40
BASE2 2.70 1.159 40
BASE3 3.00 .961 40
BASE4 2.45 1.085 40
BASE5 2.95 1.037 40
BASE6 2.35 .802 40

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
BASE1 13.45 12.049 .450 .715
BASE2 13.95 10.818 .521 .695
BASE3 13.65 10.695 .718 .640
BASE4 14.20 10.215 .683 .642
BASE5 13.70 13.651 .183 .786
BASE6 14.30 13.241 .385 .731

Scale Statistics
Std.
Mean Variance Deviation N of Items
16.65 16.131 4.016 6
Reliability

Scale: General Self-efficacy Scale

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 39 97.5
a
Excluded 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all
variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
 .734 10

Item Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
GSE1 2.95 .916 39
GSE2 2.97 .873 39
GSE3 2.44 1.095 39
GSE4 2.46 .996 39
GSE5 2.72 1.025 39
GSE6 2.46 1.097 39
GSE7 2.54 1.120 39
GSE8 2.97 1.038 39
GSE9 2.56 1.231 39
GSE10 2.21 1.080 39

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
GSE1 23.33 31.228 .055 .757
GSE2 23.31 31.166 .072 .753
GSE3 23.85 24.976 .589 .681
GSE4 23.82 25.414 .620 .679
GSE5 23.56 27.252 .404 .712
GSE6 23.82 25.993 .486 .698
GSE7 23.74 26.827 .392 .714
GSE8 23.31 28.113 .312 .725
GSE9 23.72 25.682 .435 .707
GSE10 24.08 25.441 .552 .687

Scale Statistics
Std.
Mean Variance Deviation N of Items
26.28 32.629 5.712 10