The study examined the relationships between stress and coping
strategies among 283 college students. Participants completed
questionnaires relating to their stress perceptions, actual academic
loads and their coping strategies. The main objective was to explore the
effect of stress perceptions on coping behavior while accounting for
objective loads and demographic parameters. Multilevel analyses revealed
several indications: first, students' coping behavior could be
predicted from their reported stress perceptions and their appraisals of
their academic-related stress levels; second, students employed mainly
task- and emotion-oriented coping strategies; and finally,
students' age was a significant factor in determining their coping
behavior. Our findings suggest that, in stressful environments, each of
the coping strategies functions independently, with the type of strategy
adopted depending largely on the specific profile of each student's
stress perceptions and demographic characteristics.
This study examined the relationships between stress and coping
strategies among college students. Participants completed questionnaires
relating to their stress perceptions, actual academic loads and their
coping strategies. The main objective was to explore the effect of
stress perceptions on coping behavior, while also accounting for
objective loads and demographic parameters.
Sources of Academic Stress and its Likely Impact on Students
College students perceive academic life as stressful and demanding
(Wan, 1992; Hammer, Grigsby & Woods, 1998) and report experiencing
emotional and cognitive reactions to this stress, especially due to
external pressures and self-imposed expectations (Misra & McKean,
2000). They report on numerous stressors during term-time, including
academic demands and social adjustment.
Stress-inducing academic demands include grade competition; lack of
time and issues relating to time or task management (Macan, Shahani,
Dipboye & Phillips, 1990; Trueman., & Hartley, 1996); the need
to adapt to new learning environments (van-Rooijens, 1986) in terms of
the increased complexity of the material to be learned and the greater
time and effort required to do so; and the need to constantly
self-regulate and to develop better thinking skills, including learning
to use specific learning techniques (Fram & Bonvillian, 2001).
Emotional stress, such as anxiety, students' appraisal of the
stressfulness of the role's demands and of their ability to cope
with those demands (Wan, 1992), are also connected to academic stress.
Another category that evokes stress is social adjustment,
particularly adjusting to university life (Saracoglu, Minden, &
Wilchesky, 1989; Abouserie, 1994) and separating from family and
friends. Finally, other constraints include financial pressure (Miech
& Shanahan, 2000) and other technical difficulties.
Thus, academic stressors cover the whole area of learning and
achieving in and adjusting to a new environment in which a great deal of
content must be assimilated in a seemingly inadequate period of time.
Since students endeavor to adapt themselves to academic life, positive
adaptation and well-being factors are associated with fewer experienced
stress symptoms (Van-Rooijen, 1986; Tobin & Carson, 1994).
Coping strategies are assumed to have two primary functions:
managing the problem causing stress and governing emotions relating to
those stressors (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1986; Lazarus &
Folkman 1984). Interpreting their results in terms of this assumption,
most studies confirm two major related findings. The first is that a
situation is evaluated as stressful, in part, whenever the individual
perceives a lower ability to cope with it. The second finding is that
stressors perceived as controllable elicit more proactive coping
mechanisms (Karasek & Theorell, 1990), while those perceived as
uncontrollable elicit more avoidance strategies (Anshel & Kaissidis,
1997; Compas, Malcarne &
Fondacaro., 1988; Lazarus, 1981 ; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Roecker, Dubow & Donaldson, 1996).
Differences in the conceptualization of coping have led to a number
of ways of classifying coping strategies. Lazarus and Folkman (1984)
offered a widely used definition of coping, namely: constantly changing
cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external or internal
demands. Subsequently, Higgins and Endler (1995) grouped coping
strategies into three main classes: task-oriented, emotion-oriented, and
The task-oriented strategy is problem-focused. It involves taking
direct action to alter the situation itself to reduce the amount of
stress it evokes. In the emotion-oriented strategy, efforts are directed
at altering emotional responses to stressors. It also includes attempts
to reframe the problem in such a way that it no longer evokes a negative
emotional response and elicits less stress (Mattlin, 1990). Finally,
avoidance-oriented coping includes strategies such as avoiding the
situation, denying its existence, or losing hope (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). It also includes the use of indirect efforts to adjust to
stressors by distancing oneself, evading the problem, or engaging in
unrelated activities for the purpose of reducing feelings of stress
(Roth & Cohen, 1986).
The first two coping strategies involve pro-active efforts to alter
the stressfulness of the situation, with the use of emotion-oriented
strategies being favored by people whose personality disposition enables
them to easily enter into and sustain a state of emotional arousal in
response to, or in anticipation of, emotionally-laden events (Melamed,
1994). By contrast, avoidance strategies are characterized by the
absence of attempts to alter the situation. The two proactive
strategies, namely the task-oriented and emotion-oriented approaches,
are associated with better adjustment, as reflected in higher self-rated
coping effectiveness and less depression (Causey & Dubow, 1993;
Compas et al., 1988; Moos, 1990; Reid, Dubow & Carey, 1995: Strutton
& Lumpkin, 1993). Although avoidance-oriented coping may initially
be an appropriate reaction to stress, Billings and Moos (1981) have
shown that it is associated with poorer adjustment, and Endler and
Parker (1999) have suggested that, in the long run, task-oriented coping
is the most efficacious strategy.
Effects of Academic Stress and Demographics on Coping
Although a large body of literature has gauged the effects of
academic stressors on coping strategies, little research has examined
the importance of developing an integrative model, incorporating the
effects of the perceived and actual stressor parameters on coping
With respect to the effect of academic stress on coping, the higher
education literature shows that students' coping methods are
diverse, reflecting personal influences on their coping styles. Students
generally report using proactive behavioral methods, such as managing
their time, solving specific problems and seeking information and help
(Misra & McKean, 2000: Britton, 1991; Lopez, Mauricio, Gormley,
Simko & Berger, 2001; Collins, Mowbray & Bybee, 1999). Mattlin
et al, (1990) found that students also use cognitive emotion-related
behavior, such as positive reconceptualization of the stress-inducing
events, to cope with stress.
Permeating these results we find demographic differences in coping
styles. Researchers have found that ethnic, cultural (Kim, Won, Liu,
Liu, &, Kitanishi, 1997) and even socioeconomic (Cairns, 1989)
characteristics influenced coping behaviors. As for gender, Haarr and
Morash (1999) found that significant differences come into play with
respect to avoidance-based strategies, with women reporting a
significantly higher level of use of avoidance than men. Other
researchers found that males favor the use of task oriented methods and
physical coping resources, and are more likely to endeavor to solve
problems, while females are inclined to make more use of emotional and
social coping resources (Rawson, Palmer & Henderson, 1999).
Undergraduate male students who use task-oriented coping techniques
report experiencing less distress (Higgins & Endler, 1995), while
the use of emotion-oriented coping strategies was a significantly
positive predictor of distress in both men and women.
Age has also been found as a factor that mediates stress levels.
Studies that focused on perceived stress found that it decreases with
age (Cohen & Williamson, 1988; Hamarat, Thompson, Zabrucky, Steele,
& Matheny, 2001).
To summarize, studies of stress and coping offer only a partial
demonstration of the coping strategies employed. In particular, the
literature has viewed coping behaviors in relation to either
'actual' stress or perceived stress, without endeavoring to
determine from which aspect the coping behaviors derive. To investigate
this issue, an integrated model is required.
Conceptual Model of Coping Strategies
The proposed multilevel structural model (Figure 1) simultaneously
defines multidimensional constructs of objective variables (academic
load), subjective variables (stress perceptions) and relevant
demographics, and tests their direct and indirect effects on coping
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
In this formulation, perceived and objective stress parameters are
proposed to explain coping strategies. Accordingly, we formulated the
Hypothesis 1: Academic stress perceptions are predicted by
objective academic load variables.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived academic stress, objective academic loads
and demographic characteristics are correlated with the types of coping
strategies adopted by students.
Hypothesis 3: Academic loads predict the use of task-oriented
coping strategies, academic stress perceptions predict the use of
emotion-oriented coping strategies and demographic characteristics
predict the use of avoidance coping strategies.
The target population was students studying in Israeli academic
institutions. Questionnaires were distributed to students during the
2002 academic semesters. Except for two negligible refusals, all
students completed the questionnaires. Of the respondents, 153 (51.4 %)
were female, 119 (43.8 %) were male and 11 (4%) did not identify their
gender, comparable to the Israeli student distribution 2000/1 (56.5%
women and 43.5% male, Central Bureau of Statistics 2002, No. 53, Table
8.33 (1)). In terms of their marital status, 179 (63.3%) respondents
were single. 98 (34.6%) were married and 5 (1.8%) were divorced. Almost
a quarter of respondents (68, being 24.1%) had children: 26 (9.2%) had
one child, 22 (7.8%) had two children and 20 (7.1%) had three or more
children. Most respondents (173, being 61.l% of the sample) were
childless while 42 (14.8%) did not answer the question. Distribution by
academic degree sought indicated that 156 (55.2 %) of the students were
studying for their first degree and 127 (44.8%) were studying for their
second degree. The average age of the respondents was 30.13 years (SD =
6.78), with a range of 41 years (from 20 to 61 years).
We distributed the questionnaire to stratified samples of 283
students studying in national universities and colleges in Israel, who
participated in the study voluntarily. Class lecturers and assistants
distributed all questionnaires during class time. Academic institutions
were therefore selected by non-random convenience sampling. T-tests were
performed for gender and age distribution in the institutions. Results
show no significant differences in terms of gender (t = -0.55, F= 1.19,p
> 0.05) or age (t= -3.26, F = 0.67, p > 0.05). Therefore we
treated the students as one group.
This study comprised three parts: (1) the students' subjective
assessment of the stress they experience i.e., perceived stress: (2) an
investigation of the task- emotion-and avoidance-related coping
strategies they adopt; (3) an objective assessment of their actual
1. Perceived Stress
In accordance with Lazarus's (1990) definition, perceived
stress was defined as a condition subjectively experienced by
respondents who identify an imbalance between demands addressed to them
and the resources available to them to encounter these demands. It was
assessed in terms of the students' subjective experiences of their
academic stress. The question was: "Would you please share with us
your feelings of stress regarding your academic loads: How much stress
do you feel due to your academic studies?" Students answered on a
four-point Likert scale from not stressed at all (1) through very much
2. Task- Emotion and Avoidance-Oriented Coping strategies
Coping strategies were measured using the Coping Inventory for
Stressful Situations (Endler & Parker, 1999). This is a 53 --item
measure of coping style composed of three factors. (a) Task-oriented
coping --its subscales tap active and offensive coping styles, stressing
proactive responses to the stressors (e.g., "I focus on the problem
and see how I can solve it"). (b) Emotion-oriented coping--this
scale represents coping styles directed at altering negative emotional
responses to stressors, such as negative thinking (e.g., "My
efforts will surely fail"), lowered self confidence (e.g., "I
cannot handle this problem") or poor self image (e.g., "I am
useless"). (c) Avoidance--this represents withdrawal behaviors and
the redirection of personal resources towards different paths, such as
sports, leisure time, etc. (e.g., "I buy something"). The
scales for these three coping strategies range from 1 (seldom used) to 5
(always used). Higher scores represent a higher usage frequency for the
specific coping strategy. Cronbach alpha coefficients obtained for the
entire scale of coping strategies were: for task orientation, [alpha] =
0.89; emotional orientation, [alpha] = 0.87; avoidance, [alpha] = 0.83,
indicating that the coping strategies questionnaire is a reliable
measure of adult coping orientations for a college population.
3. Objective Stress Variables: Academic Loads
Academic loads were objectively assessed on an average weekly basis
in terms of: (1) class hours; (2) study hours during semesters and (3)
study hours during exam periods. Study hours included time spent in the
library, in laboratories and at home, to meet academic demands.
Data were collected with respect to each student's age, gender
and familial status. Since most of the students in our sample were not
parents, familial status was not subsequently included in the model.
This decision was supported by correlation calculations, which showed
that the degree of correlation between familial status, academic stress
perceptions and coping strategies was negligible.
To investigate the first hypothesis, a regression analysis was
performed on perceived academic stress, in order to evaluate the effects
of objective stress parameters on stress perceptions. An ENTER method
was used in each equation, with academic stress perceptions entered as
the dependent variable and variables relating to academic loads entered
as independent variables. The results (Table 1) showed that objective
parameters related to academic stress significantly affect academic
stress perceptions ([R.sup.2] = 0.075, F (3,283) = 5.97, p < 0.001).
Specifically, class hours (B = 7.30, [beta] = 0.14, t = 2.10, p <
0.04) and study hours during semesters (B = 0.11, [beta] = 0.20, t =
3.12, p < 0.00) positively affected academic stress perceptions. The
results supported the first hypothesis by showing that academic stress
perceptions can be predicted from objective academic loads.
To investigate the second hypothesis a Pearson correlation analysis
was performed. As shown in Table 2, certain coping behaviors were
significantly correlated with perceived academic stress, so supporting
our hypothesis. Specifically, the correlation of perceived academic
stress with task-oriented behaviors was significantly negatively (r =
-0.16, p < 0.05), while with emotion-oriented behaviors it was
significantly positively (r = 0.20, p < 0.01). Avoidance was also
positively correlated with academic stress, however the correlation was
not significant. These results indicate that students experiencing
academic stress utilize emotion-oriented coping strategies while
disfavoring task-oriented approaches.
These findings urged investigation of the third hypothesis, for
which purpose hierarchical regression analyses were performed. Separate
analyses were conducted using each of the three coping strategies as
dependent variables and the three other factors (namely, academic loads,
stress perceptions and demographic characteristics) as independent
variables. We were interested in investigating whether academic loads
predict the use of task oriented coping strategies, academic stress
perceptions predict the use of emotion oriented coping strategies and
demographic characteristics predict the use of avoidance coping
strategies. For this purpose, the independent variables were entered in
three steps in an ENTER procedure, in the following order: (1)
demographic characteristics (2) academic load variables and (3) academic
The results (Table 3) for all equations were significant,
indicating that each of the coping strategies was significantly
predicted by the independent variables, it is notable that for both task
and emotion oriented strategies, academic stress perceptions
significantly contributed towards predicting coping behavior,
notwithstanding that this variable was entered last. As hypothesized,
academic stress perceptions affected these two coping behaviors in
opposing ways. Thus, while academic stress perceptions significantly and
positively predicted the use of emotion-oriented strategies (B = 0.25, p
< 0.00), they significantly and negatively predicted the use of
task-oriented coping strategies (B = -0.21, [p.bar] < 0.00).
A deeper examination of the regression equations for the
emotion-oriented strategy reveals that the transition from step two
(inclusion of academic loads, B = -7.47) to step three (inclusion of
academic stress perceptions, B = 0.25) is relatively sharp and positive,
indicating that stress perceptions make an important positive
contribution to the prediction of emotion-oriented strategies. This
contribution is statistically significant (second step: R = 0.32,
[R.sup.2] = 0.10; third step: R = 0.36, [R.sup.2] = 0.13). Furthermore,
these results suggest that the greater the level of academic stress
experienced, the more students tend to manage it through
emotion-oriented coping strategies. A similar examination of the
regression equations with respect to the task oriented coping strategy
shows the opposite result, in that the sharp transition from step 2 to
step 3 is negative. Thus, while objective load variables shift students
towards the adoption of task-related coping behaviors (B = 7.28; p =
0.05), the subsequent inclusion of academic stress into the equations
reverses the results (B = -0.21 ; p = 0.00). These findings suggest
that, initially, students tend to use task-oriented strategies to manage
their objective academic loads. Having done so, they subsequently
refrain from using these strategies and focus on managing any remaining
academic stress perceptions.
Other findings of interest discerned from the analyses relate to
the demographic characteristics. Age has been found to be a substantial
variable appearing as a significant predictor for most of the coping
behaviors. The scores show that older students employ task-oriented
techniques in preference to any other coping strategy, while younger
students also employed emotion-oriented and avoidance strategies. We
found gender to be a significant variable only with respect to the
avoidance coping strategy, with males adopting this coping strategy more
We surveyed a varied sample of university and college students to
examine three hypotheses concerning the coping strategies employed by
students in response to different types of stress. We were particularly
interested in elucidating the role of academic perceived stress versus
academic objective loads in shaping the coping strategy used.
As we hypothesized, both academic stress perceptions and academic
loads had significant and unique effects on students' coping
strategies. The experience of academic stress was mainly associated with
the use of emotion-oriented behaviors, while being significantly
negatively related to adoption of task-oriented strategies. This
indicates that the nature of the stress perception can also be
significant in restraining the use of certain coping behaviors.
Moreover, objective and subjective stress experiences fulfilled opposite
roles in the prediction of coping behavior. In particular, the
subjective perception of academic stress acted as a restraining factor
in students' employment of task-orientated coping behaviors, while
objective academic loads supported the use of this coping strategy.
The statistical coefficient scores suggest that most academic
stress perceptions derive from actual academic loads. We further find
that both of these factors are addressed by working students through
proactive means. Academic load is addressed principally through a task
orientation and academic stress primarily through an emotion-oriented
strategy. The literature shows that proactive strategies are preferred
in situations that are, or are perceived to be, controllable (Karasek
& Theorell, 1990) and that students generally utilize proactive
behavioral methods to manage academic stress (Misra & McKean, 2000;
Britton & Tesser, 1991 ; Lopez et al, 2001; Collins et al, 1999).
Interpreted in this light, our data suggest that students perceive the
academic component of their stress to be at least partly controllable.
Therefore, they initially address academic stress through task-oriented
behaviors. As actual academic loads reduce, but the perception of stress
remains, task-oriented coping techniques lose their relevance, and
emotion-oriented behaviors predominate. This interpretation is also
partially supported by the work of Mandler (1993), who suggests that
individuals' reaction to stress takes two forms. First, individuals
ruminate about the stressful situation, their actions proceeding
automatically from the way they interpret it, in accordance with their
customary, learned behavioral patterns. Then, if this does not yield a
solution to the problem (i.e., the perception of stress remains),
emotional and affective reactions arise.
In agreement with Mattlin et al (1990), we find the utilization of
emotion-oriented strategies to be affected by academic loads. This may
be explained by the adaptive functions of emotions in managing stressful
situations, [such as are generated by heavy academic loads,] by
preparing the individual for more effective thought and action, for
example (Mandler, 1993).
The data also show that women and men employ a wide array of
similar strategies to deal with stress. Gender effects did not appear
even in examinations of the interactions between stress perceptions,
coping strategies and gender. Significant gender differences come into
play only with respect to the avoidance coping strategy, with men
reporting a significantly higher usage of avoidance as a coping tool.
This finding is inconsistent with much of the stress and coping
literature, in which distinct gender-based coping behaviors are well
established for all coping strategies, and with women reporting a
significantly higher level of use of avoidance than men (Haarr &
Consistently with the literature (Cohen & Williamson, 1988;
Hamarat et al, 2001), older working students' coping appears
task-oriented and they do not utilize indirect coping techniques. By
contrast, younger students generally choose to manage stress by either
emotion-oriented strategies or avoidance.
Overall, and in agreement with our hypotheses, we find that
students' academic stress perceptions can be predicted from their
objective academic load variables. Furthermore, perceived academic
stress, objective academic loads and demographic characteristics are
correlated with the types of coping strategy adopted by students, with
academic loads predicting the use of task oriented coping strategies,
academic stress predicting the use of emotion-oriented coping
strategies, and age and gender (demographic characteristics) predicting
avoidance reactions. Thus, the data support our proposed model. The main
implication of the results is that students who lace stressful
situations choose to deal with them through a "step-by-step"
coping strategy. As such, they initially adopt a task-focused approach
to manage their actual loads to reduce stress associated with phenomena
that they consider controllable. They then utilize indirect
emotion-oriented techniques to address residual perceived stress.
Abouserie, R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to
locus of control and self esteem in college students, Educational
Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational
Psychology, 14 (3), 323-330.
Anshel, M. H., & Kaissidis, A. N. (1997). Coping style and
situational appraisals as predictors of coping strategies following
events in sport as a function of gender and skill level. British Journal
of Psychology, 88, 263-276.
Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping
responses in attenuating the impact of stressful life events. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.
Britton, B. K. (1991). Effects of Time-Management Practices on
College Grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 405-411.
Cairns, E. (1989). Social class, psychological well-being and
minority status in Northern Ireland. The International Journal of Social
Psychiatry, 35(3), 231-249.
Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1993). Negotiating the
transition to junior high school: The contributions of coping strategies
and perceptions of the school environment. Prevention in Human Services,
Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a
probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacepan & O. Oskamp
(Eds.), The Social Psychology of Health. Newbury Park (CA): Sage
Collins, M. E., Mowbray, C. T., & Bybee, D. (1999). Measuring
coping strategies in an educational intervention for individuals with
psychiatric disability. Health and Social Work, 24(4), 279-290.
Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988).
Coping with stressful events in older children and young adolescents.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 405-411.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1999). Coping inventory for
stresssful situations (CISS): Manual (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in
a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health
status and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personal and Social
Psychology, 50, 517-579.
Fram, E. H., & Bonvillian, G. (2001) Employees as part-time
students: Is stress threatening the quality of their business
education'? Advanced Management Journal, 66(3), 30-35.
Haarr, N.H., & Morash, M. (1999). Gender, race and strategies
of coping with occupational stress in policing. Justice Quarterly,
Hamarat, E., Thompson, D., Zabrucky, K., Steele, D., & Matheny,
K. (2001). Perceived stress and coping resource availability as
predictors of life satisfaction in young, middle-aged, and older adults.
Experimental Aging Research, 27, 181-196.
Hammer, B. L., Grigsby D.T., & Woods S. (1998). The conflict
demand of work, family, and school among students at an Urban
University. The Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 220-226.
Higgins, J. E. & Endler, N. (1995). Coping, life stress, and
psychological and somatic distress. European Journal of Personality, 9,
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Health work: Stress,
productivity and the reconstruction of life. New-York: Basic Books.
Kim, K., Won, H., Liu, X., Liu, P. &, Kitanishi, K. (1997).
Students' stress in China, Japan and Korea: A transcultural study.
The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 43 (2), 87-94.
Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The stress and coping paradigm. In C.
Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, A. Kleinman & P. Maxim (Eds.), Models for
Clinical Psychopathology, MTP Press Limited Hardbound, 177-214.
Lazarus, R.S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement.
Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-13.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and
coping. New York: Springer.
Lopez, K G., Mauricio, A. M.. Gormley, B., Simko T., & Berger
E. (2001)Adult attachment orientations and college student distress: The
mediating role of coping styles. Journal of Counseling and Development,
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,
Mandler, G. (1993). Thought, Memory and Learning: Effects of
Emotional Stress. In Goldberger, L. & S. Breznitz (Eds.,) Handbook
of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. New-York: The free press.
Ch. 20, pp. 40-55.
Mattlin, J. A. (1990). Situational determinants of coping and
coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31(1),
Melamed, S. (1994). Life stress, emotional reactivity and their
relation to plasma lipids in employed women, Stress Medicine. 10,
Miech, R. A., & Shanahan, M. J. (2000). Socioeconomic Status
and Depression over the Life Course. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 41(2), 162-176.
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.
Moos, R. H. (1990). Coping Response Inventory Youth Form,
Preliminary Manual. Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA.
Rawson, H.R., Palmer, D. W., & Henderson J. (1999) Coping
resources and self-esteem differences between students selecting a large
and small college. Affairs Journal, 18(2), 72-80.
Roecker, C. E., Dubow, E. F., & Donaldson, D. (1996).
Cross-situational patterns in children's coping with observed
interpersonal conflict. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25.
Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and
coping with stress. American Psychology, 41, 813-819.
Saracoglu, B., Minden, H., & Wilchesky, M. (1989). The
adjustment of students with learning disabilities to university and its
relationship to self-esteem and self-efficacy. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 22, 590-592.
Strutton, D., & Lumpkin, J.R., (1993). The relationship between
optimism and coping styles of salespeople. The Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 13(2), 71-81.
Tobin, P.J., & Carson J. (1994) Stress and student social
worker. Social Work and Social Sciences Review. 5(3), 246-255.
Trueman, M., & Hartley, J. (1996). A comparison between the
time management skills and academic performance of mature and
traditional entry university students. Higher Education, 32, 199-215.
Van-Rooijen, L. (1986). Advanced students' adaptation to
college. Higher Education, 15(3-4). 197-209.
Wan, T. Y. (1992). Academic stress of international students
attending U.S. universities. Research in High Education, 33(5), 607-623.
Wilson, K. S., & Multon, K. D. (2001). The effects of stress
trod social support on health outcomes among first-year law students.
Paper presented at the American Psychological Association. San
(1) Title: Students in Universities, by Degree. Field of Study and
DAFNA KARIV, Ph.D.
School of Business Administration
The College of Management
TALI HEIMAN, PH.D.
Department of Education and Psychology
The Open University of Israel
Regression analysis for academic stress
perception with academic loads parameters
Variables B -- [t.bar] [p.bar]
Academic stress perception
Class hours 7.30 .14 2.10 .04
Study hours during semesters 0.11 .20 3.12 .04
Study hours during exam 4.26 .09 1.30 .24
Note: R =.274; [R.sup.2] =.075;
Adj [R.sup.2] = .063;
[F.bar] (3, 283) = 5.97; [p.bar] <.001.
Correlations between coping strategies and stress perceptions (N=283)
Coping Strategy Academic stress
Task-oriented -.16 *
Emotions-oriented .20 **
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01
Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Coping
Strategies with the Independent Variables: (1)
Demographic Characteristics, (2) Academic Loads
and (3) Stress Perceptions
Variables B -- [t.bar] [p.bar]
Age 1.77 .20 3.36 .00
Study hours during 7.28 .11 1.90 .05
Academic stress -.21 -.18 -3.03 .00
Note: R =.290; [R.sup.2] =.084; Adj [R.sup.2] = .064;
[F.bar] (6, 281) = 4.29; [p.bar] < .000.
Variables B -- [t.bar] [p.bar]
Age -2.85 -.26 -4.42 .00
Study hours during 0.12 .15 2.57 .01
Study hours during exam -7.47 -.10 -1.69 .05
Academic stress .25 .17 2.94 .00
Note: R =.357; [R.sup.2] = .128; Adj [R.sup.2] = .109;
(6, 281) = 6.86; [p.bar] < .000.
Variables B -- [t.bar] [p.bar]
Gender .21 .14 2.37 .02
Age -2.18 -.19 -3.20 .00
Study hours during exam -.13 -.17 -2.87 .00
Note: R =.289; [R.sup.2] = .084; Adj [R.sup.2] = .064,
[F.bar] (6,281) = 4.280, [p.bar] < .000.