1. You are asked to find and read a peer-reviewed article from a s.docx
Thesis_40093281
1. 1
Influences of Stress Appraisals and
Coping on Individual Well-Being
and Academic Performance
40093281
A Thesis Submitted as a Requirement for the Degree of BSc, Single Honours
Psychology, Queen's University Belfast. 2015.
2. 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my highest gratitude to my thesis supervisor Dr. Chris Gibbons
for his guidance and wisdom, Dr. Deaglan Page for assisting in data collection and my
thesis partner Emma-Louise Rea for the continuous support and encouragement.
3. 3
Abstract
The present research hypothesised that Stress Appraisals and Coping Resources will
have significant influences on individuals’ well-being and Academic Performance.
Based on the Transactional Model of Stress, the study focused on the Sources of Stress
during university, Coping Resources (Adaptive and Maladaptive) and Outcomes
measures (Academic Performance, Psychological Distress and Anxiety levels) (Lazarus
and Folkman, 1984). 118 first year undergraduates participated in a questionnaire based
survey. Results were analysed using Hierarchical Multiple Regression Model,
Mediation Analysis and Independent Samples t-test.
The study found that Sources of Stress (Financial Responsibility, Personal
Development, and Peer Support) rated higher as Hassles significantly influenced
outcome measures negatively. In contrast Sources of Stress (Interpersonal
Relationships) rated higher as Uplifts significantly influenced outcome measures
positively. Self-Efficacy significantly influenced all the three outcomes positively.
Optimism significant reduced Psychological Distress. Defensive Pessimism
significantly decreased Academic Performance and increased Anxiety Levels.
Additionally, Active Coping, Self-Blame and Venting were found to significantly
influence all three outcomes. There were also significant gender differences and
differences in individuals at risk of developing a stress related illness.
The results failed to reject the hypotheses for this study. The present findings have
implications on stress management training courses to improve student well-being and
academic performance.
4. 4
Influences of Stress Appraisals and Coping on Individual Well-Being and Academic
Performance
Stress is defined as the demands from the internal or external environment that upset the
norm, resulting in the homeostasis of physical and psychological well-being to restore
balance (Lazarus & Cohen, 1977). A recent study on 28,753 Americans in a National
Health Interview Survey (NHIS) found that individuals who reported high levels of
stress and held the perception that stress affected their health had an increased risk of
premature death by 43%. This study indicated that stress appraisals can affect mortality
outcomes (Keller et al., 2012). Research has shown the adverse biological implications
of perceiving stress as a hassle in coronary heart disease and pregnancy (Nabi et al.,
2013; Cannella, Auerbach & Lobel, 2013). However when individuals reappraise stress
and perceive it as an uplift, this leads to a positive physiological reaction, an experience
of Eustress (Ashkanasy, Härtel & Daus, 2002; Elder, Wollin, Härtel, Spencer &
Sanderson, 2003). There is growing evidence that stress is being attributed to positive
consequences, such as inspiring determination and hope to overcome hardship
(McManus, Keeling & Paice, 2004; Wong, Wong, & Scott, 2006). Researchers have
focused on the downsides of stress (Distress) and neglected the positive implications of
stress (Eustress). This is the argument that has driven the present research today.
According to Yerkes and Dodson (1908) as seen in Figure 1 below, there is an optimal
level of stress called Eustress at which individuals perform at their peak. After the
optimum, individuals become increasingly disorganized and this leads to an impairment
of task-performance (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). There are numerous experiments that
support this claim (Okamoto et al., 2015; Gibbons, Dempster & Moutray, 2008).
Unfortunately, stress has been predominantly addressed with regards to its negative
effects. Hence, this research aims to explore the arguments on Eustress and Distress on
5. 5
stress appraisal. The present research will be primarily focused on the Transactional
Theory of Stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Furthermore, reviewing previous theories
on stress will contribute to a better understanding of its effects.
Figure 1: Yerkes-Dodson Curve
6. 6
Background
1.0 The Response Model
Cannon (1915) formally pioneered the theory of stress called the Fight or Flight
response. This is the physiological reaction to threatening events by the activation of the
sympathetic nervous system, preparing the animal for fight or flight.
Selye’s (1950) General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) is a derivative of Cannon’s Fight
or Flight model. In the GAS model, there are three phases in the stress response: Alarm
Stage, Resistance Stage and Exhaustion Stage. The Alarm Stage is the initial reaction
where the body labels the situation as dangerous. To overcome the stressor, individuals
will respond through fight or flight, this is known as the Resistance Stage. However
when stress is persistent, the individual enters the Exhaustion Stage, where the body is
no long capable of resisting the stressful situation.
Both Cannon’s (1915) and Selye’s (1950) models of stress adopt a stimulus-response
framework, where the body has an autonomous response to stressors. This results in the
release of adrenocorticotropic hormones, leading to the distribution of cortisol and
adrenaline. These hormones trigger an increased heart-rate, production of sweat, blood
flow to muscles and releases energy storage. Although their models detail the
physiological responses to stress, they ignore the influence of psychosocial factors
affecting stress response.
7. 7
1.1 The Stimulus Model (Holmes & Rahe, 1967)
The Stimulus Model arose from looking at the environmental influences onto stress.
Stress is caused by external events negatively stimulating the individual causing them to
adapt to the situation which can result in readjustment (Weiner, Freedheim, Schinka &
Velicer, 2003; Figueroa-Fankhanel, 2014). This model is profound in highlighting
coping resources which influence the external stressors. Karasek and Thorell (1990)
have identified a distinct coping mechanism known as control that can have an effect on
handling stressors leading them to develop their Job-Demand-Control-Support (JDCS)
Model.
1.2 Job-Demand-Control-Support Model (Karasek and Thorell, 1990)
This model highlights the relationship between job demands, control and social support
at work affecting well-being. According to De Lange, Stern, Lien & Hauser (2005), a
high level of job demands, low control and little social support can lead to reduced job
satisfaction and increased burnout. Studies have found JDCS model to predict the risk
of cardiovascular disease (Diène, Fouquet & Esquirol, 2012), type II diabetes
(Cosgrove, Sargeant, Caleyachetty & Griffin, 2012), musculoskeletal diseases (Lang,
Ochsmann, Kraus & Lang, 2012) and major mental disorders (Stansfeld & Candy,
2006). In university, students are faced with numerous assessments (job demands),
receive little help from tutors (social support) and may feel a lack of control over their
circumstances.
However, the JDCS model highlights only a handful of coping strategies that influence
well-being; hence the Transactional Model of Stress is a more flexible model which can
encompass the influence of several factors on different outcomes.
8. 8
1.3 The Transactional Model of Stress
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) established the model for evaluating the processes of
coping with stressful events (see Figure 2 below). According to this framework,
stressful experiences are not passively received by the individual; rather they impact
depending on the individual appraisal of the stressor and the coping strategies at their
disposal (Cohen & McKay, 1984). Stressors are appraised as a Distress or Eustress
depending on Primary Appraisal, followed by Secondary Appraisals that determine
Coping Resources utilised. This results in outcomes which affect individual well-being.
The present research is based on the Transactional Model of Stress.
Figure 2: The Transactional Model of Stress
Demands
Sources of
Stress
Primary
Appraisal
Hassle
Uplift
Secondary
Appraisal
Coping
Resources
Affective
Outcomes
Distress
Eustress
Outcomes
9. 9
1.3.1 Primary Appraisal:
Primary appraisal is the initial response to the stimulus by giving a “What is it?”
reaction. Events can be rated as a Hassle or Uplift depending on past experiences and
individual mind-set (e.g: Part-time work during University can be regarded as a hassle
or uplift depending on one’s ability to manage the job demands and assignments).
As the present study focused on testing first year undergraduate students, academic and
person related stressors are highlighted in this section.
(a) Stress as a hassle
Enrolling into university can be a stressful experience which may present as homework,
examinations, the lack of time to complete assignments and not having understood the
material (Poros-Radillo et al., 2014). Students expressed that examinations are the
highest source of stress; however they find the anticipation of the exam overwhelming,
rather than undertaking the exam itself (Abouserie, 1994; Gadzella, Masten & Stacks,
1998). Additionally, university can be a difficult transition from a home environment to
independent living (Ross, Niebling & Heckert, 1999). This transition is especially
difficult for first-year students due to the lack of social support while apart from their
usual support groups (e.g: Friends and family) (Robotham & Julian, 2006). But even so,
social support may not necessarily be beneficial when it becomes a hindrance to
education (e.g: childcare or family pressure) (Thomas, 2002). Additionally, the
perceived lack of time in completing assignments is found to cause stress, rather than
workload itself (Macan, Shahani, Dipboye & Phillips, 1990). Students often forgo sleep
to complete assignments, reducing their ability to cope with stress (Hardy, 2003).
Lastly, students experiencing financial difficulties often suffer poorer mental health
10. 10
(Roberts, Golding, Towell & Weinreb, 1999). As financial concerns lead to undertaking
part-time work to sustain themselves, this results to time constraints and the reduction
of individual well-being (Anderson, Johnson & Saha, 2002).
(b) Stress as an uplift
There is little research in the study on Eustress during university transition; however
Eustress can be explained by the Holistic Model of Stress. According to this model,
Eustress is the extent to which the appraisal of a situation is perceived to enhance well-
being; whereas Distress is the extent to which the appraisal of a situation decreases
well-being (Nelson & Simmons, 2003). Reappraising stress as a functional tool
promoted the usage of Adaptive Coping Resources, improved individual cardiovascular
functioning and displayed less threat-related attentional bias (Jamieson, Nock &
Mendes, 2012). This showed stress reappraisal has physiological and psychological
benefits, which is the foundation of Stress Management and Cognitive-Behavioural
Therapies (Gross, 2002; Hofmann & Smits, 2008). Studies on yoga and meditation have
also shown to encourage positive reappraisal and reduce the negative impact of stress-
related neuroendocrine activity (Koole, Van Dillen & Sheppes, 2011; Krygier et al.,
2013).
As studies have shown, stressful situations can be appraised as Distress or Eustress.
11. 11
1.3.2 Secondary Appraisal:
After the Primary Appraisal of the stimuli, Secondary Appraisal is the individual’s
response of “How can I overcome this?” It accounts for coping options available and
decides upon the strategy that leads to the most favourable outcome.
Coping is defined as the constantly changing cognitive and behavioural efforts to
manage internal or external demands of the individual (Green & Roberts, 2008). The
present study focuses primarily on three coping resources which are: Optimism, Self-
Efficacy and Defensive Pessimism. Subjacent coping resources which consist of 14
different types of coping classified into Brief COPE are highlighted as well.
(a) Optimism
Optimism is defined as an individual’s generalised expectancy for positive outcomes
(Scheier & Carver, 1985). There has been substantial research on Optimism as it’s
shown to involve the cognitive reappraisal of the situation: the individual reframes
one’s judgement about a stressor to alter its emotional impact (Webb, Miles, & Sheeran,
2012; Cohn & Fredrickson, 2010; Ong, Mroczek & Riffin, 2011). Studies have found
positive emotion to predict better long-term adjustment after traumatic life events (Ong
et al., 2011) and to facilitate coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000) and better
psychological health (Troy, Wilhelm, Shallcross, & Mauss, 2010). These are lifelong
skills that can be useful in University experience.
(b) Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy is defined as the perceived capabilities to produce a desired action to
accomplish one’s own goals (Bandura, 1997). It is a sense of controllability over
12. 12
stressful circumstances, which can be an important determinant of behaviour (Suldo &
Shaffer, 2007). Those who perceive themselves as more efficacious can persevere
longer in difficult tasks and face them more constructively (Fida, Paciello, Tramontano,
Barbaranelli & Farnese, 2014). However, if individuals feel incompetent they are less
likely to achieve success (Alessandri, Borgogni, Schaufeli, Caprara & Consiglio, 2014).
Thus, Self-Efficacious beliefs are crucial for success and engagement in university. The
continuous need for adjustment to the academic environment can become increasingly
stressful (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).
(c) Defensive Pessimism
Defensive Pessimism is a cognitive strategy of self-handicapping as an excuse for poor
performance and to decrease negative emotions (Mehlman & Snyder, 1985). This
coping strategy creates a dampened view of the self to cushion one’s self-esteem in
adverse circumstances (Josephs, Larrick, Steele, & Nisbett, 1992). Individuals utilising
Defensive Pessimism displayed more assertiveness in tasks, suggesting that negative
self-views can manage expectations of others and increase one’s motivation and
engagement in goal pursuit (Norem, 2008; Showers, 1992). Although previous research
may suggest that pessimism is a maladaptive form of coping, others had suggested its
usefulness in managing well-being (Martin, Marsh, Williamson & Debus, 2003; Norem,
2008).
(d) 14 types of Coping
As there are an overwhelming number of coping resources to discuss, the Brief COPE
inventory serves to encompass all these coping resources simultaneously. It highlights
14 types of coping which are discussed in further detail below.
13. 13
Active Coping and Planning directs the individual to focus on bettering their situation; it
is associated with greater physical activity and decreased maladaptive psychological
functioning (Snow-Turek, Norris & Tan, 1996). Additionally, Positive Reframing and
Humour has been associated with increased resilience and better psychological health
(Aldao et al., 2010; Kuiper, Martin & Olinger, 1993). The Acceptance of circumstances
is used extensively to alleviate suffering from psychological and physiological pain
(McCracken, 1998; Hayes & Smith, 2005). Similarly, studies have found a positive
relationship between Religious behaviours and well-being (Koenig, 2009). Emotional
and Instrumental Support has also found to be helpful in reducing Distress and
strengthening social bonds which can in turn elevate psychological well-being
(Hetherington & Blechman, 2014; Singer, Biegel & Conway, 2014).
There are mixed findings on Self-Distraction and Behavioural Disengagement coping
mechanisms. Studies have found these coping mechanisms to help individuals recoup
after a stressful day, while others view them as a maladaptive form of avoidance and
procrastination (Taylor, 2012; Pouliot, 2014). Additionally, coping mechanism such as
Denial, Venting and Self-Blame are associated with decreased quality of life, increased
risk of developing depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Silva,
Crespo, Carona & Cristina Canavarro, 2015; Xia, Ding, Hollon & Yi, 2014; Schacter,
White, Chang & Juvonen, 2014).
These 14 types of coping mechanisms have been shown to influence individual well-
being either positively or negatively.
14. 14
1.3.3 Outcomes
This research will measure the consequences of different primary and secondary
appraisals in university students. Research on university students has shown a strong
association of appraisal affecting Academic Performance (Abouserie, 1994; Brougham,
Zail, Mendoza, & Miller, 2009), Psychological Distress (Dyson & Renk, 2006;
Laakkonen & Nevgi, 2014) and Anxiety levels (Sarason, 1984; Heilig, 2004; Reynolds,
Wilson, Austin & Hooper, 2012).
Hence the three outcome measures focused in this research are Academic Performance,
Psychological Distress and Anxiety levels.
Summary
As previous research has identified, university transition can induce perceived Distress
and Eustress amongst students. Hence this makes first year undergraduates an excellent
source of measuring stress. This research follows the previous line on inquiry: whether
the perception of stress (Primary Appraisal) and coping resources (Secondary
Appraisal) can affect individual well-beings (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
The hypotheses of this study are:
1. Sources of stress rated as hassle and uplift (Primary Appraisals) will have a
significant influence on outcome measures
2. Coping resources (Secondary Appraisals) will have a significant influence
on outcome measures
15. 15
For clarity, the predictors and outcomes for this study are represented in Figure 3 in
accordance with Lazarus and Folkman’s (1987) Transactional Model of Stress.
Figure 3: Transactional Model of Stress for the present study
Outcomes:
Academic
Performance
Psychological
Distress
Anxiety
Affective
Outcomes:
Distress
Eustress
Secondary
Appraisal:
Coping
Resources
(Adaptive or
Maladaptive)
Primary
Appraisal:
Hassle
Uplift
Demands:
Personal
Academic
16. 16
Method
Participants:
The participants in this study were recruited from first year BSc Hons Psychology
students at Queen’s University Belfast, ensuring a homogenous sample with similar
academic demands. A total of 135 participants were obtained and 118 (87.4%)
consented for the study. The median age was 19 (n=49) and 72.9% were females
(n=86). Age cohorts were tabulated in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Participant Age Cohort
Age Percentage (%)
< 21 80.4
22-30 14.4
31-41 4.2
41-50 1.0
Missing values in some of the items meant that response rate for some parts of the
questionnaire were less than 100.
17. 17
Design:
The experiment design used both a within and between sample designs with
respondents scores on different measures compared. A survey method of data collection
was used and all participants were questioned on the same predictors (Sources of stress
and Coping resources).
The measurements for sources of stress were derived from the National Student Survey
(NSS) (Gibbons, 2010). The survey required respondents to rate a number of common
university experiences in both academic and person specific terms, this is shown in
Table 2 below. In this study each of these measures were treated as a source of stress
and rated on a Hassles and Uplifts scale. Table 3 tabulates the Coping Resources
classified into adaptive or maladaptive. Table 4 tabulates outcome measures.
Table 2
Sources of Stress
Sources of Stress
No. Academic Specific No. Person Specific
1 Teaching Experience 8 Financial Concerns
2 Assessment and Feedback 9 Work-Home Interface
3 Fear of Failure 10 Management of Spare Time
4 Adjusting to Higher Education 11 Future Concerns
5 Organization and Management
6 Social Opportunities
7 Workload
19. 19
When analysing gender differences and individuals at risk of developing psychological
distress, participants were categorised based on:
1. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) – Participants were categorised into
the “Not at Risk” group when their total score was ≤ 2. Participants were
categorised into the “At Risk” group when they scored a total ≥ 3.
2. Gender – Participants were categorised into “Male” or “Female” based on
self-reporting.
Data was collected in February 2015.
Materials:
The present experiment utilised a 138 item survey based questionnaire design. The
questionnaire is a compilation of eight types of scale, each scale described below. The
full questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.
1. National Student Survey (NSS) Derivative
The first 33 items of the questionnaire contained items used in the NSS in 2010. It
measured academic-related sources of stress such as Teaching Experience, Assessment
and Feedback, Fear of Failure, Adjusting to Higher Education, Organization and
Management, Social Opportunities and Workload. It also contained personal sources of
stress such as Financial Concerns, Work-Home Interface, Management of Spare Time
and Future Concerns. The questionnaire utilized a continuous response scale. Each item
was rated twice – once as a ‘hassle’ (signifying distress) and once as an ‘uplift’
(signifying eustress). A rating scale from 0 to 5 was used, 0 indicating that it was no
source of hassle/uplift.
20. 20
2. Beck’s (1988) self-report Anxiety Inventory (BAI)
This scale is designed to measure physiological effects of anxiety and has been tested
for internal reliability (Bernard, 2001). The BAI consists of 10 questions on a four-point
Scale ranging from Not at all, Mildly, Moderately to Severely (Scoring: 1=Not at all &
3=Severely).
3. Brief COPE inventory (Carver, 1997)
Consisting of 28 items measuring a range of coping responses and has demonstrated
satisfactory psychometric properties (Cooper, Katona & Livingstone, 2008). The coping
resources include: Self-Distraction, Active Coping, Denial, Substance use, Emotional
Support, Instrumental Support, Behaviour Disengagement, Venting, Positive
Reframing, Planning, Humour Coping, Acceptance, Religion and Self-Blame. This is
measured on a four point scale ranging from one to four. (1 = I haven’t been doing this
at all & 4=I’ve been doing this a lot).
4. The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ 12-item version) (Goldberg &
Hillier, 1979).
This is a short version of the GHQ screening device to measure psychological distress
and has been credited for its reliability (Banks, Clegg, Jackson, Kemp, Stafford & Wall,
1980). This scale consist of 12 items on a four-point scale from ‘not at all true’, No
more than usual, rather more than usual and Much more than usual. A score of 0 is
given to Not at all true and No more than usual; a score of 1 is given to ‘Rather more
than usual’ and ‘Much more than usual’, giving a maximum score of 12. Participants
with a score of 3 and above are categorised as “At Risk” of distress, while participants
with a score lower than 3 are categorised as “Not at Risk” of distress.
21. 21
5. The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer, 1992)
This scale consists of 10 items and participants respond on a four-point scale from ‘not
at all true’ to ‘exactly true’ (1= Not at all true & 4=Exactly True). It is a context free
measure of Self-Efficacy and has displayed high internal consistency = 0.83 (Dalgard,
Stern, Lien & Hauser, 2012).
6. Norem’s (1986) Defensive Pessimism scale
This scale measures the tendency of participants using Defensive Pessimism as a coping
tool for appraising stressors. This consist of 6 items on a seven-point scale (1=Not at all
True of me & 7=Very True of me). It exhibits good construct validity, internal
consistency ( = 0.78), and test–retest reliability at 2 months ( = 0.74) (Hosogoshi &
Kodama, 2005).
7. Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS)
This scale is a psychological assessment measure designed to identify an individual’s
profile of character strengths (Optimism) and has been credited for its reliability
(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This scale consists of 5 items on a five-point scale from
Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree (5=Strongly Agree & 1= Strongly Disagree).
8. British Undergraduate Degree Classification
Participants rate their average grades ranging from a fail (45) to 1st class (90). This is a
measurement of Academic Performance.
22. 22
Procedure:
Data collection occurred over a series of lectures and the researchers obtained Informed
Consent prior to giving out questionnaires to the participants. The questionnaires were
returned after the lecture. Participant data was keyed in by individual researchers and
compiled into a large dataset.
Ethical considerations:
The study was approved by a university ethics committee (Appendix E). Participation
was voluntary and students were free to leave without question. Participation would be
rewarded with SONA points and confidentiality would be maintained at all times. There
were no penalties to participants who withdrew from the experiment.
23. 23
Results
Data Analysis:
Descriptive results of gender, age, stressors (Hassles and Uplifts), coping resources
(Adaptive and Maladaptive) and outcome measures were analysed. Next, correlations
were made between predictors (Stressors and Coping Resources) against three outcome
measures (Academic Performance, Psychological Distress and Anxiety). In the results,
Psychological Distress is represented as GHQ scores.
A Hierachical Multiple Regression Model was produced to estimate the effect of
predictors on the measured outcomes. Predictors with significant p-values were entered
into Regression in blocks, according to the Transactional Model of Stress. Block one
contained Stressors, Block two contained Coping Resources (Acquired skills) and Block
three contained Coping Resources (Dispositional Traits). Acquired Skills represented
coping resources in the Brief COPE scale, while Dispositional Traits represented
Optimism, Self-Efficacy and Defensive Pessimism. This procedure was to distinguish
between moderator and mediator variables (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Several
regressions were performed until it arrives at the most parsimonious regression in
accordance with Baron and Kenny (1986) recommendations: R2 was optimally large,
Adjusted R2 was not far off from R2 value and predictors with beta coefficients () of
<0.1 were removed. As three outcomes were measured: Academic Performance,
Psychological Distress and Anxiety, three parsimonious regression tables were
produced. Predictors which were significant in Block one or two and lose their
significance in Block three were tested for mediation effects. Two Independent t-tests
were carried out to identify differences in stressor ratings, coping resources and
24. 24
outcome measures in terms of gender and individuals in risk of developing a stress-
related illness.
Descriptive Data:
In this study, there were 118 participants in the study with 86 females and 32 males.
The minimum age was 18 and the maximum age was 41. The mean age was 20.686,
median was 19 and with a standard deviation of 4.274. Table 5, 6 and 7 below consisted
of descriptive data for the Sources of Stress, Coping Resources and Outcome measures
respectively.
27. 27
Correlations of all the primary and secondary variables against three outcome measures:
Academic Performance, GHQ and Anxiety were analysed. The correlation table for the
three outcome measures can be found in Table 8. Significant correlation coefficients
were noted.
28. 28
Table 8
Correlation Coefficient of Stressors against Academic Performance, GHQ and Anxiety
Correlation Coefficients
Stressor Rated Academic
Performance
GHQ Anxiety
Teaching On My Course Hassle -0.015 0.082 0.066
Uplift -0.072 -0.087 -0.007
Time Management Stress Hassle -0.320** 0.158 .231*
Uplift -0.066 -0.073 -0.229*
Intellectual Stimulation Hassle -0.244** 0.206* 0.085
Uplift -0.022 -0.198* -0.141
Social Opportunities Hassle -0.088 0.162 0.073
Uplift 0.046 -0.223* -0.162
Workload Hassle -0.221* 0.047 0.155
Uplift 0.049 -0.133 -0.109
Assessment Hassle -0.242** 0.134 0.134
Uplift 0.129 -0.171 -0.074
Interpersonal Relationships Hassle -0.042 0.14 0.082
Uplift -0.009 -0.088 0.061
Financial Responsibility Hassle -0.186 0.252* 0.230*
Uplift -0.126 -0.094 0.090
Peer Pressure Hassle -0.08 0.166 0.232*
Uplift -0.164 -0.107 0.063
Independent Leaving Home Hassle -0.09 0.185 0.142
Uplift -0.058 -0.041 0.133
Independent Self-Care Hassle -0.172 0.144 0.202*
Uplift -0.066 -0.06 -0.024
Independent Personal Safety Hassle 0.024 0.031 0.142
Uplift -0.176 -0.035 0.02
Career And Further Study Prospects Hassle 0.036 0.062 0.065
Uplift -0.163 -0.106 0.081
Personal Development Hassle -0.196 0.299** 0.227*
Uplift -0.176 -0.032 0.123
Academic Support Hassle -0.123 0.069 0.009
Peer Support Hassle -0.227* 0.108 0.262**
University Support Hassle -0.134 0.081 0.068
Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001
29. 29
Regression:
For all the outcome measures (Academic Performance, GHQ and Anxiety), the
parsimonious regression coefficients tables are shown below. The assumptions for using
regression on the outcomes were met. The criterion variable was continuous;
Mahalanobis distance values displayed no significant outliers; Scatter plots indicate no
linearity present; residual scores were normally distributed, indicating no relation to
predicted values; tolerance values did not exceed 0.2, indicating little or no multi-
collinearity.
Three hierarchical multiple regressions were performed for each of the outcomes:
Academic Performance, GHQ and Anxiety.
30. 30
Table 9
Parsimonious regression table for Academic Performance
Unstandardised
Coefficients
Standardised
Coefficients
Block Variable B Standard Error Beta
1 (Constant) 66.26 0.80
Peer Support (Hassle) -1.21 0.56 -0.20*
2 (Constant) 60.19 2.11
Peer Support (Hassle) -1.36 0.54 -0.23*
Active Coping 1.24 0.40 0.28**
3 (Constant) 53.52 5.08
Peer Support (Hassle) -1.21 0.51 -0.20*
Active Coping 0.97 0.40 0.22*
Defensive Pessimism -0.12 0.08 -0.15
Self-Efficacy 0.38 0.14 0.28**
R2=.251, adjusted R2= .223
Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001
The results of the regression indicated that the predictors explained 22.3% of the
variance in Academic Performance R2=0.251, F(2, 105) =9.24, p<0.001. Self-efficacy
(=0.276, p=0.006), Active Coping (=0.219; p=0.016) and Peer Support (Hassle) (=-
0.202; p=0.020) accounted for the most variance in Academic Performance.
31. 31
Table 10
Parsimonious regression table for GHQ
Unstandardised
Coefficients
Standardised
Coefficients
Block Variable B Standard Error Beta
1 (Constant) 18.20 1.63
Financial Responsibility (Hassle) 0.54 0.22 0.25*
Personal Development (Hassle) 0.39 0.16 0.25*
2 (Constant) 9.69 1.85
Financial Responsibility (Hassle) 0.48 0.18 0.23**
Personal Development (Hassle) 0.27 0.13 0.18*
Behaviour Disengagement 1.31 0.47 0.24**
Self-Blame 1.46 0.28 0.47***
3 (Constant) 31.14 4.18
Financial Responsibility (Hassle) 0.35 0.15 0.16*
Personal Development (Hassle) 0.23 0.11 0.15*
Behaviour Disengagement 0.75 0.41 0.14
Self-Blame 1.27 0.25 0.41***
Self-Efficacy -0.27 0.10 -0.25**
Optimism -0.34 0.13 -0.21*
Humour -0.21 0.13 -0.12
R2=0.637, Adjusted R2=0.604
Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001
The final regression explained 60.4% of variance in GHQ scores R2=0.604, F(3,
77)=11.671, p<0.01. As the Table 10 shows, Self-Blame (=0.406; p<0.001), Self-
Efficacy (=-0.251; p=0.006) and Optimism (=-0.206; p=0.014) accounted for the
most variance in GHQ.
32. 32
Table 11
Parsimonious regression table for Anxiety
Unstandardised
Coefficients
Standardised
Coefficients
Block Variable B Standard Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.72 2.05
Time Management Stress (Uplift) -0.31 0.26 -0.12
Financial Responsibility (Hassle) 0.46 0.23 0.21*
Peer Pressure (Hassle) 0.35 0.23 0.16
Peer Support (Hassle) 1.40 0.45 0.31**
2 (Constant) -1.77 2.15
Time Management Stress (Uplift) -0.25 0.23 -0.09
Financial Responsibility (Hassle) 0.45 0.20 0.20*
Peer Support (Hassle) 1.13 0.41 0.25**
Venting 1.46 0.31 0.42***
3 (Constant) 1.58 4.53
Time Management Stress (Uplift) -0.29 0.21 -0.11
Financial Responsibility (Hassle) 0.25 0.19 0.11
Peer Pressure (Hassle) 0.34 0.19 0.15
Peer Support (Hassle) 1.05 0.37 0.23**
Venting 1.49 0.28 0.43***
Self-Efficacy -0.32 0.12 -0.28**
Defensive Pessimism 0.15 0.06 0.22*
Optimism 0.20 0.16 0.12
R2=0.531, Adjusted R2=0.482
Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001
The final regression explained 48.2% of variance in Anxiety levels (R2=0.482, F(3,
76)=7.198, p<0.01). As Table 11 shows, Venting (=0.434; p>0.001), Self-Efficacy
(=-0.282; p=0.007) and Peer Support (Hassle) (=0.230; p=0.006) accounted for the
33. 33
largest variance in Anxiety. Financial Responsibility (Hassle) was significant in Model
2, but became not significant in Model 3, hence a Mediation Analysis was conducted
below.
Mediation Analysis:
Anxiety
It was found that Financial Responsibilities rated as a Hassle was influenced by possible
mediation effects, as it was previously significant in Block two and no longer in Block
three.
Two variables (Defensive Pessimism and Self-Efficacy) were mediators to this
occurrence. Mediation effects of Defensive Pessimism are shown in Figure 4 and Table
12, while Mediation effects of Self-Efficacy are shown in Figure 5 and Table 13.
36. 36
Independent Sample t-Test:
The assumptions for Independent Sample t-test were met. The variables within each
sample are independent; there is normal distribution of scores and homogeneity of
variance.
Table 14
Gender Differences for Stressors, Coping resources and Outcome measures
Gender
Males Females t df
Stressors Mean SD Mean SD
Time Management Stress
(Hassle)
6.313 1.975 7.193 1.634 -2.440* 113
Workload (Hassle) 5.813 1.925 6.864 2.114 -2.442* 111
Interpersonal Relationships
(Uplift)
7.000 2.477 8.014 1.983 -2.188* 101
Coping Resources
Social Support 15.656 3.907 17.176 2.696 -2.388* 115
Denial 2.188 0.592 2.628 1.018 -2.303* 116
Acceptance 5.548 1.524 4.812 1.673 2.148* 114
Self-Efficacy 31.094 4.409 28.714 4.888 2.405* 114
Outcomes
Anxiety 5.344 3.940 7.800 5.677 -2.249* 115
Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001.
Gender Differences across stressors, coping resources and outcome measures were
compared using an Independent Sample t-test (Table 14). The highest significant
difference were found in Workload (Hassle) t(111)= -2.442, p= 0.016, Time
Management Stress (Hassle) t(113)= -2.440, p= 0.016 and Self-Efficacy t(115)= 2.405,
p=0.018.
37. 37
Table 15
Differences in individuals At Risk and Not at Risk of developing stress related illness in
terms of Stressors, Coping resources and Outcome measures
Stress related illness
At Risk Not at Risk t df
Stressors Mean SD Mean SD
Assessment (Hassle) 3.154 1.461 2.627 1.26 2.005* 112
Interpersonal Relationships
(Hassle)
4.028 2.478 3.063 2.21 2.006* 98
Interpersonal Relationships
(Uplift)
7.135 2.417 8.046 1.972 2.07* 101
Personal Development
(Hassle)
5.813 3.632 3.853 3.378 2.642** 98
Coping Resources
Self-Efficacy 26.925 4.364 30.667 4.662 4.189*** 113
Optimism 16.400 2.942 18.818 3.136 4.039*** 115
Defensive Pessimism 30.525 8.394 25.455 7.975 -3.204** 115
Outcomes
Anxiety 10.375 6.046 5.395 4.083 -5.263*** 114
Academic Performance 62.200 6.873 66.720 6.093 3.622*** 113
Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001.
Participants were classified into “At Risk” and “Not at Risk” depending on their GHQ
scores. Differences in stressors, coping resources and outcomes were identified using an
Independent Sample t-test (Table 15).
Anxiety is shown to have the highest significant difference t(114)=-5.263, p<0.001
followed by Self-efficacy t(113)=4.189, p<0.001 and Optimism t(115)=4.039, p<0.001.
38. 38
Cronbach’s Alpha:
Table 16
Reliability Coefficients of measurements (Cronbach’s Alpha)
Scales Rated No of Items Cronbach's Alpha (α)
Teaching On My Course Hassle 2 0.706
Uplift 2 0.654
Time Management Stress Hassle 2 0.457
Uplift 2 0.522
Intellectual Stimulation Hassle 2 0.646
Uplift 2 0.646
Social Opportunities Hassle 2 0.715
Uplift 2 0.662
Workload Hassle 2 0.628
Uplift 2 0.763
Assessment Hassle 1 N/A
Uplift 1 N/A
Interpersonal Relationships Hassle 2 0.388
Uplift 2 0.342
Financial Responsibility Hassle 2 0.490
Uplift 2 0.344
Peer Pressure Hassle 2 0.532
Uplift 2 0.326
Independent Leaving Home Hassle 2 0.782
Uplift 2 0.746
Independent Self-Care Hassle 2 0.489
Uplift 2 0.673
Independent Personal Safety Hassle 2 0.805
Uplift 2 0.814
Career And Further Study
Prospects
Hassle 2 0.718
Uplift 2 0.796
Personal Development Hassle 2 0.845
Uplift 2 0.844
Academic Support Hassle 2 0.643
Peer Support Hassle 1 N/A
University Support Hassle 2 0.651
Anxiety 2 0.716
Brief COPE 10 0.823
GHQ 28 0.843
Generalised Self-Efficacy 12 0.843
Defensive Pessimism 10 0.879
Optimism 6 0.867
39. 39
There is a satisfactory level of internal reliability observed across all measures apart
from Time Management Stress (Hassle), Interpersonal Relationships (Hassle & Uplift),
Financial Responsibility (Hassle & Uplift), Peer Pressure (Uplift) and Independent
Self-Care (Hassle). The number of items in these scales can explain the unreliability of
this measure. Additionally reliability measures for Assessment (Uplift), Assessment
(Hassle) and Peer Support (Hassle) would not be calculated. Hence, caution must be
heeded when interpreting these measures with low or absent alpha levels.
40. 40
Discussion
The present findings failed to reject the following hypotheses, which were:
1. Sources of stress rated as hassle and uplift (Primary Appraisals) will have a
significant influence on outcome measures
2. Coping resources (Secondary Appraisals) will have a significant influence on
outcome measures
These findings which are explained in greater detail below contribute to the existing
body of research in stress appraisals and coping (Cohen & McKay, 1984; Aldao,
Jazaieri, Goldin & Gross, 2014).
Regression:
Academic Performance
Table 9 referred to participant’s self-reported estimation of their Academic Performance
in the first semester of University.
Peer Support as a hassle was the only stressor significantly influencing Academic
Performance. Peer Support can comprise of moral, academic and financial support
arising from friendships. However, support can become a hassle when it is absent or
negative. Individuals that continually receive negative support (e.g: Complaint,
discouragement) from their peers are caught in an unproductive psychological
environment, thus negatively influencing their academic achievements (Yeung,
McInerney & Ali, 2014).
41. 41
Coping resources such as Self-Efficacy and Active Coping significantly contributed to
Academic Performances. As Self-Efficacy and Active Coping increased, academic
results increased. All participants underwent identical assignments and exams during
the first semester of the course. Those that believed they could accomplish the
assessments reported higher academic results in comparison with their peers (Bandura,
1997). Likewise for Active Coping (where it is the ability to actively use positive
coping resources to overcome challenges) participants used this strategy performed
better than their peers. This suggests that individuals utilising these coping strategies
actively self-talk to transform their negative perception into positivity. Thus scoring
better grades compared to their peers (Snow-Turek, Norris & Tan, 1996).
Interestingly, individuals utilising higher levels of Defensive Pessimism reported lower
Academic Performances. Defensive Pessimism is a cognitive strategy of self-
handicapping as an excuse for poor performance and to decrease negative emotions
(Mehlman & Snyder, 1985). Previous studies have found positive influences of
Defensive Pessimism, identifying it as an adaptive coping strategy (Norem &
Illingworth, 1993). However, the present study suggests that Defensive Pessimistic
outlooks such as: ‘I can’t do this’ or ‘I will fail this exam’ can reinforce a negative
mind-set leading to reduced Self-Efficacy and competency (Martin, Marsh, Williamson
& Debus, 2003). However, the result from Defensive Pessimism affecting Academic
Performance is not significant hence caution must be drawn when interpreting this
result.
42. 42
GHQ
Table 10 illustrates the regression model with GHQ as the outcome measure. The GHQ
measures Psychological Distress, individuals with a higher score on the GHQ increases
their risk of developing a stress related illness.
Stressors significantly influencing GHQ were rated more as hassles than uplifts. Indeed,
increased hassle in financial responsibilities led to higher GHQ scores. Studies have
consistently shown a strong relationship between financial stress and negative health
implications (Roberts, Golding, Towell & Weinreb, 1999; Shim, Xiao, Barber & Lyons,
2009). Unsurprisingly, the present study has found to support this relationship when
Financial Responsibility becomes a hassle it leads to increased Psychological Distress.
Similarly to Financial Responsibility, Personal Development was found to increase
GHQ scores when it was rated higher as a hassle. When personal development becomes
a hassle it suggests that academic and social demands exceed one’s threshold of
performance (Kantanis, 2000). This overload can contribute to Psychological Distress.
Notably, utilising Maladaptive Coping Resources such as Behaviour Disengagement
and Self-Blame is found to increase GHQ scores. Behavioural Disengagement (used to
segregate oneself from stressful circumstances) is shown to have both positive and
negative outcomes on health and performance (Taylor, 2012; Pouliot, 2014). However
the present findings show that Behavioural Disengagement serves as a negative coping
strategy, suggesting that students procrastinate from stress inducing work. This leads to
increased distress when experiencing time-constraints. Self-Blame was the highest
predictor of GHQ scores (=0.406; p<0.001), indicating that lamenting in guilt can be a
foundation for developing a stress-related illness. This is supported by previous studies
on depression and PTSD development. As Self-Blame enforces negative attribution
43. 43
onto oneself in adverse circumstances this leads to increased Psychological Distress
(Ullman, Peter-Hagene & Relyea, 2014; Garnefski & Kraaij, 2014).
In contrast, utilising Adaptive Coping Resources such as Self-Efficacy, Optimism and
Humour was found to decrease GHQ scores. Individuals with positive mind sets cope
better because they view their stressful circumstances as temporary and are more
willing to accept reality and face challenges (Taylor, Collins, Skokan & Aspinwall,
1989). These findings suggest that a Self-Efficacious, Optimistic and Humorous mind
set can help reduce Psychological Distress when experiencing challenging difficulties in
University such as assessments or social demands (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, &
Schweizer 2010; Kuiper, Martin & Olinger, 1993).
Anxiety
Table 11 represents the regression model for Anxiety outcomes.
Similarly to the above regression models, Anxiety levels increased when stressors were
rated more as hassles than uplifts. For instance, Financial Responsibilities becoming a
hassle elevated Psychological Distress which in turn could raise anxiety levels (Shim,
Xiao, Barber & Lyons, 2009). Likewise, Peer Pressure such as academic and social
comparisons could contribute to rising Anxiety levels (Anderson, Tomlinson, Robinson
& Brown, 2011). Additionally, Peer Support rated as a hassle could stem from
friendships becoming negative and non-supportive in nature, leading to feelings of
isolation thus increasing Anxiety levels (Procidano & Heller, 1983). In contrast, when
Time Management in a stressful environment is rated as an uplift, it leads to a decrease
in Anxiety; indicating that efficient management of academic workloads and personal
commitments can reduce anxiety over their demands (Misra & McKean, 2000).
44. 44
However, this relationship between Time Management and Anxiety is not significant
and caution during interpretation must be heeded.
An increase in Maladaptive Coping Resources such as Venting and Defensive
Pessimism was found to increase Anxiety levels. Venting out inner frustrations to others
can serve to reinforce negative attitudes, leading to an increase in Anxiety (Grandinetti
Frustaci, Guerriero, Solaroli, Janiri & Pozzi, 2011; Liverant, Hoffman, & Litz, 2004).
The present study has consistently found Defensive Pessimism to negatively affect
individual well-being (Academic Performance and Anxiety), suggesting that individuals
who visualise failure in the impending future leads to increased Anxiety (van Tol et al.,
2012). This anxiety can negatively contribute to Academic Performance.
Interestingly, the present findings show an increase in Optimism leads to an increase in
Anxiety although previous researches show the reverse (Taylor, Collins, Skokan &
Aspinwall, 1989). This suggests that Optimists accept that they have to face challenging
circumstances, increasing their Anxiety over the impending hard work (Norem &
Illingworth, 1993). Perhaps this Anxiety acts as Eustress to perform adequately in
assessments. However, this is not a significant relationship hence results must be
interpreted with caution.
Mediation
There was a significant linear relationship between Financial Responsibility rated as a
hassle and Anxiety outcomes. This relationship is mediated by two coping resources:
Defensive Pessimism and Self-Efficacy.
45. 45
When Financial Responsibility is rated as a hassle, Defensive Pessimism elevated
Anxiety levels. Previous studies have found using Defensive Pessimism coping as a
strategy for financial emergency preparedness to increase one’s chances of survival or
the ability to recover (Hardy, 2003). However, consistent with the above regression
findings, Defensive Pessimism appears to be a Maladaptive Coping Resource. When
individuals undergo increased difficulty with finance (already experiencing significant
anxiety), the mediator Defensive Pessimism is found to further increase this anxiety.
In contrast, utilising an Adaptive Coping Resource such as Self-Efficacy is found to
mediate the finance anxiety relationship positively. Although individuals rated Financial
Responsibility higher as a hassle, coping with this distress with self-efficacious beliefs
leads to a reduction in anxiety levels (Asselmann, Wittchen, Lieb, Höfler & Beesdo-
Baum, 2015).
This mediation effect found for Financial Responsibility and Anxiety relationship can
be applied onto the Transactional Model of Stress. Although this stressor was rated as a
Hassle, results have shown that Coping Resources can influence Anxiety outcomes. The
mediator effects of Defensive Pessimism integrated into the Transactional Model of
stress is pictured in Figure 6, followed by Self-Efficacy mediation effects in Figure 7
(following page).
46. 46
Figure 6: Transactional Model of Stress (Financial Responsibility, Defensive Pessimism
and Anxiety relationship)
Figure 7: Transactional Model of Stress (Financial Responsibility, Self-Efficacy and
Anxiety relationship)
Independent Sample t-tests:
Gender Differences:
Significant Gender Differences were found in this study. In terms of stressors, women
were more likely to rate Time Management in a stressful environment and Workload as
Hassles. This is an interesting finding as it suggests that possibly women are worse at
managing time and workloads compared to men, hence rating it higher as a hassle.
Previous studies have shown women to be more susceptible to work stress (Conley,
Rudolph & Bryant, 2012; Radloff, 1975). Interestingly, meta-analysis of gender
differences in stress found that prevalence of depression in men increases when the
scales used included the alternative male-type symptom of depression (Martin,
Demands:
Financial
Responsibility
Secondary
Appraisal:
Defensive
Pessimism
Affective
Outcomes:
Distress
Outcomes:
Increase in
Anxiety
Primary
Appraisal:
Hassle
Secondary
Appraisal:
Self-Efficacy
Affective
Outcomes:
Eustress
Outcomes:
Decrease in
Anxiety
Demands:
Financial
Responsibility
Primary
Appraisal:
Hassle
47. 47
Neighbors & Griffith, 2013), indicating that scales measuring depression symptoms
should include male-type symptoms to gain a clearer picture on gender differences.
Women were also more likely to rate Interpersonal Relationships as an Uplift. This
supports previous findings on women engaging in larger support circles compared to
men (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987).
In terms of coping strategies, women engaged in more Denial but have more Social
Support in comparison to men. Previous studies have shown women to engage in
strategy that involve verbal expression (Tamres, Janick & Helgeson, 2002). Men were
more likely to have higher Self-Efficacy and Acceptance of circumstances, supported
by previous studies on this effect (Huang, 2013; Kessels, Heyder, Latsch & Hannover,
2014). Studies have also found women to use all types of coping strategies, whether
adaptive or maladaptive (Schmied et al., 2015).
Women expressed higher levels of anxiety compared to men. Other studies have shown
support for these findings, this could demonstrate differences in neurobiology of males
and females influencing anxiety levels (McLean, Asnaani, Litz & Hofmann, 2011;
McCarthy, Arnold, Ball, Blaustein & De Vries, 2012).
GHQ scoring differences:
The GHQ scores were used to classify individuals “At Risk” and “Not at Risk” of
developing a stress related illness (see method for classification method). The present
study compared the two groups on Stress Appraisals, Coping Resources and Outcome
measures.
48. 48
In terms of sources of stress, participants “At Risk” rated Assessments, Interpersonal
Relationships and Personal Developments higher as a hassle. Assessments and Personal
Developments rated as Hassles could reflect fear of examinations or work engagement
(Clark & Loxton, 2012). As individuals view stressors in a negative outlook, this can
lead to an elevation of stress, resulting in higher GHQ scores. On the flipside,
participants “Not at Risk” rated Interpersonal Relationships higher as an Uplift than a
Hassle. Interpersonal Relationships represent mutual relationships between family
members, friends or even romantic partners (Thoits, 2011). This highlights the
importance of maintaining positive interpersonal relationships, and this is supported by
the present study which shows a positive correlation between positive Interpersonal
Relations and psychological well-being. In terms of coping resources, those “At Risk”
utilised more Maladaptive Coping Resources such as Self-Distraction, Substance Use,
Behaviour Disengagement, Venting, Self-Blame and Defensive Pessimism. However,
those “Not at Risk” utilised increased levels of Adaptive Coping Resources such as
Social Support, Context Control, Dispositional Control, Self-Efficacy and Optimism
(Reeve, Shumaker, Yearwood, Crowell & Riley, 2013; Tan, Teo, Anderson & Jensen,
2011). This highlights the association of Adaptive Coping Resources to better
psychological well-being, whereas using Maladaptive Coping Resources leads to
increased risk of developing stress related illnesses (See more: Mahmoud, Staten, Hall
& Lennie, 2012).
In terms of Outcome measures, it was found that participants “At Risk” reported lower
Academic Performance and higher levels of Anxiety. Previous studies on depression
found poor psychological wellbeing significantly affecting one’s abilities to manage
challenges (Owens, Stevenson, Hadwin & Norgate, 2012; Murray, Farrington & Sekol,
2012). The relationship between Anxiety and Psychological Distress can be
49. 49
bidirectional. Experiencing Psychological Distress can decrease physical health, leading
to increased Anxiety over failing health. Poor physiological wellbeing is also found to
increase Anxiety levels, which in turn can escalate more Psychological Distress,
creating a downward spiral towards depression (Mahmoud, Staten, Hall & Lennie,
2012; Moussavi et al., 2007).
Summary
In terms of Stress Appraisals influencing individual well-being, Hassles from Financial
Responsibility, Personal Development, Peer Support and Peer Pressure are found to
have negative influences over Academic Performance, Psychological Distress and
Anxiety levels. In contrast, Time Management in a stressful environment and
Interpersonal Relationships rated as uplifts showed positive influence over Anxiety and
Psychological Distress.
Adaptive coping resources such as Self-Efficacy, Active Coping and Humour are found
to increase Academic Performances, reduce Psychological Distress and Anxiety levels.
Optimism was found to reduce Psychological Distress but increase Anxiety levels.
Maladaptive Coping Resources such as Behavioural Disengagement, Self-Blame and
Defensive Pessimism are found to decrease Academic Performances and raise
Psychological Distress and Anxiety levels. Anxiety levels increase when experiencing
financial difficulty, however when paired with mediators such as Self-Efficacy, it can
reduce Anxiety levels whereas Defensive Pessimism elevates the Anxiety levels.
In terms of Gender Differences, females are found to express higher Anxiety levels
compared to men. Women were found to have more Social Support and higher in
Denial while men were higher in Self-Efficacy and Acceptance. In terms of individuals
50. 50
at risk of developing a stress related illness, those “At Risk” are more likely to rate
Assessments, Interpersonal Relationships and Personal Development as Hassles. In
contrast, those “Not at Risk” are more likely to rate Interpersonal Relationships as an
Uplift. Additionally, those “At Risk” are less likely to use Adaptive Coping Resources
such as Social Support, Context Control, Dispositional Control, Self-Efficacy and
Optimism. Those “At Risk” were more likely to use Maladaptive Coping Resources
such Self-Distraction, Substance Use, Behaviour Disengagement, Venting, Self-Blame
And Defensive Pessimism. Finally, those “At Risk” were higher in Anxiety and
performed worse in Academic Performances.
51. 51
Implications:
The emerging theme from this study is that a positive outlook towards stressors and
utilising adaptive coping resources leads to better well-being.
Hence, one implication would be to raise awareness on these findings to encourage the
use of Adaptive instead of Maladaptive Coping Resources. This can be done through
advocating stress management programs (i.e: Meditation, Cognitive Behavioural
Therapy and Psychoeducation) in high stress environments. These interventions have
shown to decrease depressive symptoms, improve psychological well-being and leads to
higher positive appraisals (Steinhard & Dolbier, 2008). Distress is associated with
deterioration in psychological and physiological health (Bourne, 2012). Hence,
empowering individuals to reappraise distressful circumstances and use Adaptive
Coping Resources can hopefully lead to reduction in healthcare cost, usage anti-
depressant medication and mortality rates (Farquharson, Johnston, Johnston, Choudhary
& Jones, 2012; Keller et al., 2012; Cheung et al., 2015). Savings in healthcare costs can
be contributed to other health sectors and also to research. This can use to hire more
healthcare professionals in sectors that require additional help.
There is a need to raise awareness on stress management, however people may not
necessary see the need to undertake additional self-help programs, thinking that it will
only contribute to financial burden, time consumption and additional stress. University
is a stressful experience that students need to learn adaptive coping resources to perform
well and maintain healthy. One of the findings highlighted in the study was the hassles
of assessments, personal developments and peer pressure negatively impacting
individual well-being. Therefore, in the university context perhaps tutors (whom meet
with students on a regular basis) can provide this encouragement and support to
52. 52
students. To equip the tutors with abilities to handle student distress, the Continued
Professional Development (CPD) course should be implemented. This can ensure the
growth in knowledge, improve competence to practice, enhance their skills and
experience (Nicholls, 2014). In the first year of university, students require the support
from tutors as they begin their transition into independence and adulthood. Tutors can
encourage self-efficacious thinking by empowering students in their abilities to succeed
in assessments (Berk et al., 2014). Workshops and seminars can be hosted to encourage
stress management as well.
Limitations and Recommendations:
There were several limitations in this study which will be addressed and improved on.
Final regressions in the present study only accounted for 20% to 60% of variance in the
outcome measures. At least 40% of this variance is not explained by the present
findings, indicating a lack of comprehension in predictors affecting stress outcomes.
Thus, is the NSS a valid measurement tool for rating stressors? Past research has shown
the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983; Cohen,
Williamson, Spacapan & Oskamp, 1988) to be an effective self-report measure of stress,
which can be used in future studies on stress appraisals. Additionally, interviewing
students to gain perspective on their experiences of stressors and coping strategies
would be useful to grasp the array of stressors affecting well-being (Aselton, 2012).
The present study focused heavily on the Transactional Model of Stress, however only
Financial Responsibility as a Hassle was mediated by two Coping Resources (Defensive
Pessimism and Self-Efficacy) affecting Anxiety levels. We did not find mediation
effects of other Coping Resources onto Sources of Stress and outcome measures. This
53. 53
may suggest that future studies on the Transactional Model of Stress should investigate
other sources of stress that has a strong association to outcome measures and identify
possible coping resources that may mediate this relationship.
A recently popular coping strategy known as Mindfulness is shown to improve self-
esteem, optimistic outlooks and autonomy to perform (Rasmussen & Pidgeon, 2011;
Brown & Ryan, 2003). According to studies, Mindfulness involves oneself to reduce
rumination of the past and future by focusing on the present moment (Kabat-Zinn &
Hanh, 2009). This seems logical, as rumination over negative thoughts has been
considered as a risk factor for several psychological disorders (Ehring & Watkins, 2008)
(More on Mindfulness: Keng, Smoski & Robins, 2011). Thus, future research should
look at Mindfulness as an Adaptive Coping Strategy that has possible influences on
well-being.
Additionally, the present findings could be unrepresentative of the participant’s stress
effects as participants were only measured on a single instance. For that reason,
adapting a longitudinal design to measure stress effects over the course of their
university could be an improvement to the study. As students transition into second and
third year, their university demands increase as well. Thus, researchers can observe
changes in Coping Resources utilised and outcome measures. Additionally perceptions
of stress may change over time; participants may later appraise previous hassles as
uplifts or vice versa. Hence it would be beneficial to measure these changes on a
longitudinal basis.
54. 54
Conclusion:
In the present age where stress is inevitable, stress appraisals and coping strategies
utilised can either mould us into diamonds or crush us into ashes. This study shows that
positive Stress Appraisals and Coping Resources lead to better Academic Performance,
reduced Psychological Distress and Anxiety levels. Utilising the Transactional Model of
Stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) we need to appraise Hassles into Uplifts, hardships
into challenges and obstacles into goals. This stems from changing everyday habits and
thoughts. It is crucial that students see assessments and work as goal for achievement,
which the optimal amount of stress can stir them to work hard. It is also important for
them to remember to nurse their well-being, by using Adaptive Coping Resources to
overcome challenging circumstances.
55. 55
References
Abouserie, R. (1994) Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self-
esteem in university students, Educational Psychology, 14(3), 323–330.
Aldao, A., Jazaieri, H., Goldin, P. R., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Adaptive and maladaptive
emotion regulation strategies: Interactive effects during CBT for social anxiety
disorder. Journal of anxiety disorders, 28(4), 382-389.
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies
across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 30(2),
217-237.
Alessandri, G., Borgogni, L., Schaufeli, W. B., Caprara, G. V., & Consiglio, C. (2014).
From Positive Orientation to Job performance: The Role of Work Engagement and Self-
efficacy Beliefs. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1-22.
Anderson, D., Johnson, R. & Saha, L. (2002). Implications for Universities of Changes
in the Academic Work Role. Canberra, Department of Education, Science and Training.
Anderson, K. G., Tomlinson, K., Robinson, J. M., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Friends or
foes: Social anxiety, peer affiliation, and drinking in middle school. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(1), 61.
Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). An examination of sex differences in social
support among older men and women. Sex roles, 17(11-12), 737-749.
Aselton, P. (2012). Sources of stress and coping in American college students who have
been diagnosed with depression. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric
Nursing, 25(3), 119-123.
56. 56
Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J, and Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The
new frontiers in organisational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28, 307-338.
Asselmann, E., Wittchen, H. U., Lieb, R., Höfler, M., & Beesdo-Baum, K. (2015). Does
low coping efficacy mediate the association between negative life events and incident
psychopathology? A prospective-longitudinal community study among adolescents and
young adults. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 1-10.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Banks, M. H., Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., Kemp, N. J., Stafford, E. M., & Wall, T. D.
(1980). The use of the General Health Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in
occupational studies. Journal of occupational psychology,53(3), 187-194.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.51.6.1173
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring
clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. Journal of consulting and clinical
psychology, 56(6), 893.
Bernard, H. (2001). Research methods in anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
Berk, L. J., Muret-Wagstaff, S. L., Goyal, R., Joyal, J. A., Gordon, J. A., Faux, R., &
Oriol, N. E. (2014). Inspiring careers in STEM and healthcare fields through medical
simulation embedded in high school science education.Advances in physiology
education, 38(3), 210-215.
57. 57
Brougham, R. R., Zail, C. M., Mendoza, C. M., & Miller, J. R. (2009). Stress, sex
differences, and coping strategies among college students. Current Psychology, 28(2),
85-97.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and
its role in psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 84(4), 822.
Bourne, P. (Ed.). (2012). The psychology and physiology of stress. Elsevier.
Cannella, D., Auerbach, M., & Lobel, M. (2013). Predicting birth outcomes: Together,
mother and health care provider know best. Journal Of Psychosomatic Research, 75(4),
299-304. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.08.004
Cannon, W. (1915). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage. New York:
Appleton.
Carver, C. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’ too long: Consider
the brief cope. International Journal Of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92-100.
doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6
Clark, D. M. T., & Loxton, N. J. (2012). Fear, psychological acceptance, job demands
and employee work engagement: An integrative moderated meditation
model. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(8), 893-897.
Cheung, K., Aarts, N., Noordam, R., van Blijderveen, J. C., Sturkenboom, M. C.,
Ruiter, R., Visser L. E. & Stricker, B. H. (2015). Antidepressant use and the risk of
suicide: A population-based cohort study. Journal of affective disorders, 174, 479-484.
58. 58
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived
stress. Journal of health and social behavior, 385-396.
Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: A
theoretical analysis. Handbook of psychology and health, 4, 253-267.
Cohen, S., Williamson, G., Spacapan, S., & Oskamp, S. (1988). The social psychology
of health. The social psychology of health.
Cohn, M. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). In search of durable positive psychology
interventions: Predictors and consequences of long-term positive behavior change. The
journal of positive psychology, 5(5), 355-366.
Conley, C. S., Rudolph, K. D., & Bryant, F. B. (2012). Explaining the longitudinal
association between puberty and depression: sex differences in the mediating effects of
peer stress. Development and psychopathology, 24(02), 691-701.
Cooper, C., Katona, C., & Livingston, G. (2008). Validity and reliability of the brief
COPE in carers of people with dementia: the LASER-AD Study. The Journal of
nervous and mental disease, 196(11), 838-843.
Cosgrove M. P., Sargeant L. A., Caleyachetty R., Griffin S. J. (2012) Work-related
stress and Type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Med (Lond) 62:
167–73. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqs002
Dalgard, F., Stern, R., Lien, L., & Hauser, S. (2012). Itch, Stress and Self-efficacy
Among 18-year-old Boys and Girls: A Norwegian Population-based Cross-sectional
Study. Acta Dermato Venereologica, 92(5), 547-552. doi:10.2340/00015555-1309
59. 59
de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Houtman, I. L., & Bongers, P. M.
(2005). Different mechanisms to explain the reversed effects of mental health on work
characteristics. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 3-14.
Diène E., Fouquet A. & Esquirol Y. (2012) Cardiovascular diseases and psychosocial
factors at work. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 105: 33–9. doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2011.10.001
Dyson, R., & Renk, K. (2006). Freshmen adaptation to university life: Depressive
symptoms, stress, and coping. Journal of clinical psychology,62(10), 1231-1244.
Ehring, T., & Watkins, E. R. (2008). Repetitive negative thinking as a transdiagnostic
process. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 1(3), 192-205.
Elder, R.,Wollin, J., Härtel, C., Spencer, N., and Sanderson, W. (2003) Hassles and
uplifts associated with caring for people with cognitive impairment in community
settings. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 12, 271–278
Farquharson, B., Allan, J., Johnston, D., Johnston, M., Choudhary, C., & Jones, M.
(2012). Stress amongst nurses working in a healthcare telephone‐advice service:
Relationship with job satisfaction, intention to leave, sickness absence, and
performance. Journal of advanced nursing, 68(7), 1624-1635.
Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R. G., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M.
L. (2014). An Integrative Approach to Understanding Counterproductive Work
Behavior: The Roles of Stressors, Negative Emotions, and Moral
Disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-14.
Figueroa-Fankhanel, F. (2014). Measurement of Stress. Psychiatric Clinics Of North
America, 37(4), 455-487. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2014.08.001
60. 60
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of
coping. American psychologist, 55(6), 647.
Gadzella, B. M., Masten, W. G. & Stacks, J. (1998) Students’ stress and their learning
strategies, test anxiety and attributions, College Student Journal, 32(3), 416–423.
Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2014). Bully victimization and emotional problems in
adolescents: Moderation by specific cognitive coping strategies?. Journal of
adolescence, 37(7), 1153-1160.
Gibbons, C. (2010) Stress, coping and burn-out in nursing students. International
Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 1299–1309
Gibbons, C., Dempster, M., & Moutray, M. (2008). Stress and eustress in nursing
students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(3), 282-290.
Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F. (1979). A scaled version of the General Health
Questionnaire. Psychological medicine, 9(01), 139-145.
Grandinetti, P., Frustaci, A., Guerriero, G., Solaroli, S., Janiri, L., & Pozzi, G. (2011).
P01-156-Preliminary analysis of characteristics of coping in a sample of outpatient with
anxiety disorders. European Psychiatry, 26, 156.
Green, D. L., & Roberts, A. R. (2008). Helping victims of violent crime: assessment,
treatment, and evidence-based practice. Springer Publishing Company.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences.
Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. doi:10.1017/ S0048577201393198
Hardy, L. (2003) Helping students de-stress, Education Digest, 68(9), 10–17
61. 61
Hayes, S. C., & Smith, S. (2005). Get out of your mind and into your life: The new
acceptance and commitment therapy. New Harbinger Publications.
Heilig, M. (2004). The NPY system in stress, anxiety and depression.
Neuropeptides, 38(4), 213-224.
Hetherington, E. M., & Blechman, E. A. (2014). Stress, coping, and resiliency in
children and families. Psychology Press, 4th Ed.
Liverant, G. I., Hofmann, S. G., & Litz, B. T. (2004). Coping and anxiety in college
students after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17(2),
127-139.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale.Journal of
psychosomatic research, 11(2), 213-218.
Hosogoshi, H., & Kodama, M. (2005). Examination of defensive pessimism in Japanese
college students: Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Defensive
Pessimism Questionnaire. Japanese Health Psychology, 12, 27– 40.
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: a meta-
analysis. European journal of psychology of education, 28(1), 1-35.
Jamieson, J. P., Nock, M. K., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Mind over matter: reappraising
arousal improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 417.
Josephs, R. A., Larrick, R. P., Steele, C. M., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). Protecting the self
from the negative consequences of risky decisions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62(1), 26.
62. 62
Kabat-Zinn, J., & Hanh, T. N. (2009). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of
your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. Delta.
Kantanis, T. (2000). The role of social transition in students': adjustment to the first-
year of university. Journal of Institutional Research, 9(1), 100-110.
Karasek R. A., Theorell T (1990) Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the
Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books.
Keller, A., Litzelman, K., Wisk, L., Maddox, T., Cheng, E., Creswell, P., & Witt, W.
(2012). Does the perception that stress affects health matter? The association with
health and mortality. Health Psychology,31(5), 677-684. doi:10.1037/a0026743
Keng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on
psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical psychology review,31(6),
1041-1056.
Kessels, U., Heyder, A., Latsch, M., & Hannover, B. (2014). How gender differences in
academic engagement relate to students’ gender identity. Educational Research, 56(2),
220-229.
Koole S. L., Van Dillen L. F., Sheppes G. (2011). “The self-regulation of emotion,”
in Handbook of Self-Regulation, eds Vohs K., Baumeister R., editors. (New York:
Guilford Press; ), 22–40
Koenig, H. G. (2009). Research on religion, spirituality, and mental health: A
review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(5), 283-291.
Krygier, J. R., Heathers, J. A., Shahrestani, S., Abbott, M., Gross, J. J., & Kemp, A. H.
(2013). Mindfulness meditation, well-being, and heart rate variability: a preliminary
63. 63
investigation into the impact of intensive Vipassana meditation. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 89(3), 305-313.
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humour, stress, and
cognitive appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25(1), 81.
Laakkonen, J., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Relationships between Learning Strategies, Stress,
and Study Success Among First-Year Veterinary Students During an Educational
Transition Phase. Journal of veterinary medical education, 41(3), 284-293.
Lang J., Ochsmann E., Kraus T, Lang J. (2012) Psychosocial work stressors as
antecedents of musculoskeletal problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis of
stability-adjusted longitudinal studies. Soc Sci Med 75: 1163–74. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.015
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer
Pub. Co.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L. & Phillips, A. P. (1990) College students’
time management: correlations with academic performance and stress, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 760–768.
Mahmoud, J. S. R., Staten, R. T., Hall, L. A., & Lennie, T. A. (2012). The relationship
among young adult college students' depression, anxiety, stress, demographics, life
satisfaction, and coping styles. Issues in mental health nursing, 33(3), 149-156.
Martin, L. A., Neighbors, H. W., & Griffith, D. M. (2013). The experience of symptoms
of depression in men vs women: analysis of the National Comorbidity Survey
Replication. JAMA psychiatry, 70(10), 1100-1106.
64. 64
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Williamson, A., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping,
defensive pessimism, and goal orientation: A qualitative study of university
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 617.
McCarthy, M. M., Arnold, A. P., Ball, G. F., Blaustein, J. D., & De Vries, G. J. (2012).
Sex differences in the brain: the not so inconvenient truth. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 32(7), 2241-2247.
McCracken, L. M. (1998). Learning to live with the pain: acceptance of pain predicts
adjustment in persons with chronic pain. Pain, 74(1), 21-27.
McLean, C. P., Asnaani, A., Litz, B. T., & Hofmann, S. G. (2011). Gender differences
in anxiety disorders: prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of
illness. Journal of psychiatric research, 45(8), 1027-1035.
McManus, I. C., Keeling, A., & Paice, E. (2004). Stress, burnout and doctors' attitudes
to work are determined by personality and learning style: a twelve year longitudinal
study of UK medical graduates. BMC medicine, 2(1), 29.
Mehlman, R. C., & Snyder, C. R. (1985). Excuse theory: A test of the self-protective
role of attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49(4), 994.
Misra, R., & McKean, M. (2000). College Students' Academic Stress and Its Relation to
Their Anxiety, Time Management, And Leisure Satisfaction. American Journal of
Health Studies, 16(1), 41-51.
Moussavi, S., Chatterji, S., Verdes, E., Tandon, A., Patel, V., & Ustun, B. (2007).
Depression, chronic diseases, and decrements in health: results from the World Health
Surveys. The Lancet, 370(9590), 851-858.
65. 65
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Sekol, I. (2012). Children's antisocial behavior, mental
health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin,138(2), 175.
Nabi, H., Kivimäki, M., Batty, G. D., Shipley, M. J., Britton, A., Brunner, E. J., Vahtera
J., Lemogne C., Elbaz A. & Singh-Manoux, A. (2013). Increased risk of coronary heart
disease among individuals reporting adverse impact of stress on their health: the
Whitehall II prospective cohort study. European Heart Journal, eht216.
Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress: A more
positive approach.
Nicholls, G. (2014). Professional development in higher education: New dimensions
and directions. Routledge.
Norem, J. K. (2008). Defensive Pessimism, Anxiety, and the Complexity of Evaluating
Self‐Regulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 121-134.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: harnessing anxiety as
motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1208.
Okamoto, H., Fisher, F. D., Hernandez, D. C., Reitzel, L. R., Kendzor, D. E., Kish, D.
H., & Businelle, M. S. (2015). Trait Mindfulness and Stress among Homeless
Adults. Health Behavior and Policy Review, 2(2), 122-129
Ong, A. D., Mroczek, D. K., & Riffin, C. (2011). The health significance of positive
emotions in adulthood and later life. Social and personality psychology compass, 5(8),
538-551.
66. 66
Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Hadwin, J. A., & Norgate, R. (2014). When does anxiety help
or hinder cognitive test performance? The role of working memory capacity. British
Journal of Psychology, 105(1), 92-101.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook
and classification. Oxford University Press.
Pouliot, G. S. (2014). Can Videogames be Addicting? An Investigation into the Specific
Game Features and Personal Characteristics Associated with Problematic Videogame
Playing.
Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from
friends and from family: Three validation studies. American journal of community
psychology, 11(1), 1-24.
Radloff, L. (1975). Sex differences in depression. Sex roles, 1(3), 249-265.
Rasmussen, M. K., & Pidgeon, A. M. (2011). The direct and indirect benefits of
dispositional mindfulness on self-esteem and social anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, &
Coping, 24(2), 227-233.
Reeve, K. L., Shumaker, C. J., Yearwood, E. L., Crowell, N. A., & Riley, J. B. (2013).
Perceived stress and social support in undergraduate nursing students' educational
experiences. Nurse education today, 33(4), 419-424.
Reynolds, S., Wilson, C., Austin, J., & Hooper, L. (2012). Effects of psychotherapy for
anxiety in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review.Clinical psychology
review, 32(4), 251-262.
67. 67
Roberts, R., Golding, J., Towell, T., & Weinreb, I. (1999). The effects of economic
circumstances on British students' mental and physical health.Journal of American
College Health, 48(3), 103-109.
Robotham, D., & Julian, C. (2006). Stress and the higher education student: a critical
review of the literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(02), 107-117.
Ross, S. E., Niebling, B. C., & Heckert, T. M. (1999). Sources of stress among college
students. Social psychology, 61(5), 841-846.
Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: reactions to
tests. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(4), 929.
Schacter, H. L., White, S. J., Chang, V. Y., & Juvonen, J. (2014). “Why Me?”:
Characterological Self-Blame and Continued Victimization in the First Year of Middle
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health psychology, 4(3), 219.
School. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, (ahead-of-print), 1-10.
Selye, H. (1950). Stress: The physiology and pathology of exposure to stress. Montreal:
Acta Medica Publication.
Shim, S., Xiao, J. J., Barber, B. L., & Lyons, A. C. (2009). Pathways to life success: A
conceptual model of financial well-being for young adults. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 708-723.
Showers, C. (1992). Compartmentalization of positive and negative self-knowledge:
Keeping bad apples out of the bunch. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62(6), 1036.
68. 68
Silva, N., Crespo, C., Carona, C., & Cristina Canavarro, M. (2015). Mapping the
caregiving process in paediatric asthma: Parental burden, acceptance and denial coping
strategies and quality of life. Psychology & health, (just-accepted), 1-34.
Singer, G. H., Biegel, D. E., & Conway, P. (Eds.). (2014). Family Support and Family
Caregiving Across Disabilities. Routledge.
Snow-Turek, A. L., Norris, M. P., & Tan, G. (1996). Active and passive coping
strategies in chronic pain patients. Pain, 64(3), 455-462.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 240.
Stansfeld S, Candy B (2006) Psychosocial work environment and mental health–a meta-
analytic review. Scand J Work Environ Health 32: 443–62. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1050
Steinhardt, M., & Dolbier, C. (2008). Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance
coping strategies and protective factors and decrease symptomatology. Journal of
American College Health, 56(4), 445-453.
Suldo, S. M., Shaffer, E. J., & Shaunessy, E. (2007). An independent investigation of
the validity of the School Attitudes Assessment Survey-Revised. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment.
Tan, G., Teo, I., Anderson, K. O., & Jensen, M. P. (2011). Adaptive versus maladaptive
coping and beliefs and their relation to chronic pain adjustment.The Clinical journal of
pain, 27(9), 769-774.
69. 69
Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping
behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping.Personality and
social psychology review, 6(1), 2-30.
Taylor, S, (2012) Health Psychology, Eight Edition, McGraw Hill International
Taylor, S. E., Collins, R. L., Skokan, L. A., & Aspinwall, L. G. (1989). Maintaining
positive illusions in the face of negative information: Getting the facts without letting
them get to you. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,8(2), 114-129.
Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental
health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145-161.
Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional
habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 423-442.
Troy, A. S., Wilhelm, F. H., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2010). Seeing the silver
lining: cognitive reappraisal ability moderates the relationship between stress and
depressive symptoms. Emotion, 10(6), 783.
Ullman, S. E., Peter-Hagene, L. C., & Relyea, M. (2014). Coping, emotion regulation,
and self-blame as mediators of sexual abuse and psychological symptoms in adult
sexual assault. Journal of child sexual abuse, 23(1), 74-93.
van Tol, M. J., Demenescu, L. R., Van der Wee, N. J., Kortekaas, R., Marjan, N., Den
Boer, J. A Remco J. Renkena, van Buchemc, M. A., G., Zitmanb, F. G., Alemana A. &
Veltman, D. J. (2012). Functional magnetic resonance imaging correlates of emotional
word encoding and recognition in depression and anxiety disorders. Biological
psychiatry, 71(7), 593-602.
70. 70
Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of
the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion
regulation. Psychological bulletin, 138(4), 775.
Weiner, I., Freedheim, D., Schinka, J., & Velicer, W. (2003). Handbook of psychology.
New York: Wiley.
Wong, P. T., Wong, L. C., & Scott, C. (2006). Beyond stress and coping: The positive
psychology of transformation. In Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and
coping (pp. 1-26). Springer US.
Xia, L. X., Ding, C., Hollon, S. D., & Yi, Y. (2014). Interpersonal Self-Support,
Venting Coping and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms Among Adolescent
Earthquake Survivors. Current Psychology, 1-12.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity
of habit‐formation. Journal of comparative neurology and psychology,18(5), 459-482.
Yeung, A. S., McInerney, D. M., & Ali, J. (2014). Asian students in Australia: Sources
of the academic self. Educational Psychology, 34(5), 598-618.
71. 71
Appendix A (Note: Additional measures were included to cater for other researchers in
the group)
The sources of stress and coping index.
The sourcesof stressinred were those sourcesof stressfoundtobe significantcorrelates
withoutcome measures.Those leftinblackwere not.These sourcesof stresslinktothe
primaryappraisal inthe Transactional model andthose interestedinlookingatsourcesof
stressmightinclude some of these sources. Those sectionsinbluerelate tothe coping
resourcestestede.g.support,control,self-efficacy.Those sectionedingreenrefertothe
outcome measurese.g. learningcommunity,intellectual motivation,course satisfaction
and GHQ.
Stressisany demandthatleadsto a physiological andpsychological response.Someof
the demandsyouhave experiencedwhile youhave beenastudenthave ledtoa level
of stressthatactuallyenhancesyourperformance,increasesyoursatisfactionand
helpsyouachieve,suchasproducinga goodessay.We call these ‘uplifting’
experiences.
Some experiences,however,leadtodistress,forexample,the difficultiesyoumight
have had inunderstandingsome of the core reading.We call these sourcesof stress
‘hassles’.
The same experience canoftenbe asource of distress,ahassle, and anuplift,an
experience thathelpsyoutoachieve.Anessay,forexample,maybe distressingbut
alsoan experience whereyouconsolidatedyourlearningandachieved.
You are likelytohave hada numberof experiencesthatrelate toeachitemyouwill be
askedaboutbut itis youroverall response thatwe are askingyouto considerinyour
reply.
If the itemasksaboutan experience thatdoesnotapplytoyou please donotadd any
numerical value underhassleorupliftandclickonthe non-applicable option.
You will be shownaseriesof itemsandwe wouldlike youtorate each twice – once as
a hassle andonce as an uplift.Whenratingthe itemasa hassle,0 representsno
hassle,5 representsasignificantsource of distress.
Whenratingthe itemasan uplift,0 indicatesthatthe itemrepresentsnosource of
satisfactionorinfluence thathelpsyouachieve,5representsaninfluence thatreally
helpsyouachieve andgivesyouastrong sense of satisfaction.Forexample:
Hassle Uplift
Non-
applicable
0-5 Item 0-5
3 The extenttowhichteachingstaff explainthings. 5
72. 72
Hassle Uplift
0-5 Item 0-5
1. The extenttowhichteachingstaff explainthings.
2. The extenttowhichthe teachingstaff make the subjectinteresting.
3. Course deadlinesandthe pressure thisputsonme as a student.
4. Making sure time isspenteffectivelyon academicstudy.
5. The overall general intellectualstimulationonthiscourse.
6. The comprehensibilityof the material taughtonthe course.
7. How muchI am valuedduringtutorials.
8. The supportof otherstudentsonthiscourse.
9. The level of supportofferedbymypersonal tutor.
10. The level of supportofferedbyuniversitystaff.
11. The supportfrom the StudentGuidance Centre tomeetmyneeds
12. The opportunitiesthereare tointeractsociallywithotherstudents
on mycourse.
13. The extenttowhichassessmenttestsme onwhatI have
understoodnotwhatI have memorised.
14. Usingopportunitiestoengage withthe range of clubsandsocieties
available atthe university.
15. The workloadonmy course.
16. Havinga relationshipwithapartner.
17. Course deadlinesandthe pressure thisputsonme as a student.
18. Maintainingrelationshipswithfamilymembersbackhome.
19. Feelingpressure fromotherstouse recreational substances(drugs,
alcohol,tobacco)
20. Encouragementfromotherstoengage inactivitiesoutside your
comfortzone.
21. Movingaway fromparents.
22. Movingin withnew people.
23. Managementof fundsresponsiblytomeeteverydayneeds.
24. Part time jobwhilstatuniversity.
25. Dealingwitheverydaychores(Cooking,cleaning, washing,laundry)
26. Maintainingagood state of health.
27. Beingaware of local hazards. (eg.Dangerousareasinthe city)
28. Protectionof personal goods,propertyandself.
29. How mycourse is helpingme improve mycareerprospects.
30. The advice available formakingfurtherstudyandcareerchoices.
73. 73
Please tick the box that best applies toyou inresponse toeach
statement
34. I feel thatI am a personof worth,at leaston an equal plane withothers.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
35. I feel thatI have a numberof good qualities.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
36. All inall,I am inclinedtofeel thatIam a failure.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
37. I am able to do thingsaswell asmost other people.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
38. I feel Ido nothave much to be proudof.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
39. I take a positive attitude towardmyself.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
40. On the whole,Iam satisfiedwithmyself.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
41. I wishI couldhave more respectformyself.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
42. I certainlyfeel uselessattimes.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
43. At timesIthinkI am no goodat all.
StronglyAgree Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree
31. How the course has helpedme toimprove mypresentationskills.
32. How the course has helpedme toimprove mycommunication
skills.
33. The extenttowhichthe course helpsme manage new problems.
74. 74
Please tickthe box thatbestappliestoyouin response toeachstatement:
44. I oftenlose mysense of humourwhenI'mhavingproblems.
StronglyDisagree MildlyDisagree MildlyAgree StronglyAgree
45. I have oftenfoundthatmy problemshave beengreatlyreducedwhenItriedtofind
somethingfunnyinthem.
StronglyDisagree MildlyDisagree MildlyAgree StronglyAgree
46. I usuallylookforsomethingcomical tosaywhenIam intense situations.
Strongly Disagree MildlyDisagree MildlyAgree StronglyAgree
47. I mustadmitmy life wouldprobablybe easierif Ihadmore of a sense of humour.
StronglyDisagree MildlyDisagree MildlyAgree StronglyAgree
48. I have oftenfeltthatif I am ina situationwhere Ihave toeithercryor laugh,it'sbetter
to laugh.
StronglyDisagree MildlyDisagree MildlyAgree StronglyAgree
49. I can usuallyfindsomethingtolaughor joke aboutevenintryingsituations.
StronglyDisagree MildlyDisagree MildlyAgree StronglyAgree
50. It has beenmyexperience thathumourisoftenaveryeffectivewayof copingwith
problems.
StronglyDisagree MildlyDisagree MildlyAgree StronglyAgree
General Social Support - Coping
Please circle the numberthatbestappliestoyouinresponse toeachstatement:
Peoplesometimeslook to othersfor
companionship,assistance,orothertypesof
support.Howoften is each of the following kinds
of supportavailableto you if you need it?
None
of the
Time
A little
of the
Time
Some
of the
Time
Most
of the
Time
All of
the
Time
51. Someone youcancount onto listentoyou
whenyouneedtotalk
1 2 3 4 5
52. Someone togive yougoodadvice abouta
crisis
1 2 3 4 5
53. Someone tohave a goodtime with 1 2 3 4 5
54. Someone toconfide inortalkto about
yourself oryourproblems
1 2 3 4 5
75. 75
65. I oftenfeel Idon’thave enoughcontrol over the decisionsIhave tomake.
Stronglyagree Agree Neitheragree nor
disagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
66. In general Ifeel incontrol of the thingsthathappento me.
Stronglyagree Agree Neitheragree nor
disagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
67. The pace of learningoftenleavesme withlittlefeelingof control.
Stronglyagree Agree Neitheragree nor
disagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
You have done really well – thank you. These next items deal with ways you've been
coping with the stress in your life. The stress issue is the ‘it’ in some of the items!
There are many ways to try to deal with problems. These items ask what you've been
doing to cope with present stresses. Each itemsays something about a particular way
of coping and please avoid answering on the basis of whether how you’ve been coping
seems to be working or not—just whether or not you're doing it. Use these response
choices and try to rate each item separately in your mind from the others. Make your
answers as true FOR YOU as you can.
1 = I haven't been doing this at all
2 = I've been doing this a little bit
3 = I've been doing this a medium amount
4 = I've been doing this a lot
68. I've been turning to work or other activities to take my mind off things.
69. I've been concentrating my efforts on doing something about the situation I'm in.
70. I've been saying to myself "this isn't real."
71. I've been using alcohol or other drugs to make myself feel better.
72. I've been getting emotional support from others.
Item Not at
all
Mildly Moderately Severely
55. Numbnessortingling 0 1 2 3
56. Feelinghot 0 1 2 3
57. Wobblinessinthe legs 0 1 2 3
58. Fear of the worst happening 0 1 2 3
59. Dizzinessorlightheaded 0 1 2 3
60. Heart poundingorracing 0 1 2 3
61. Unsteady 0 1 2 3
62. Terrified 0 1 2 3
63. Nervous 0 1 2 3
64. Feelingsof choking 0 1 2 3
76. 76
73. I've been giving up trying to deal with it.
74. I've been taking action to try to make the situation better.
75. I've been refusing to believe that it has happened.
76. I've been saying things to let my unpleasant feelings escape.
77. I’ve been getting help and advice from other people.
78. I've been using alcohol or other drugs to help me get through it.
79. I've been trying to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive.
80. I’ve been criticizing myself.
81. I've been trying to come up with a strategy about what to do.
82. I've been getting comfort and understanding from someone.
83. I've been giving up the attempt to cope.
84. I've been looking for something good in what is happening.
85. I've been making jokes about it.
86. I've been doing something to think about it less, such as going to movies,
watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or shopping.
87 I've been accepting the reality of the fact that it has happened.
88. I've been expressing my negative feelings.
89 I've been trying to find comfort in my religion or spiritual beliefs.
90. I’ve been trying to get advice or help from other people about what to do.
91. I've been learning to live with it.
92. I've been thinking hard about what steps to take.
93. I’ve been blaming myself for things that happened.
94. I've been praying or meditating.
95. I've been making fun of the situation.
The following items ask you about some of the effects stresshas had on
you
96. If I had to choose again,I wouldstill wanttostudythissubject.
Stronglyagree Agree Neitheragree nor
disagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
97. I enjoymy studies.
Stronglyagree Agree Neitheragree nor
disagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
98. If the opportunityarises,Iwouldlike tostopthiscourse.
Stronglyagree Agree Neitheragree nor
disagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
