An Evaluation of Coping Interventions and Gender-Specific Implications for College

Student Stress and Health

A Dissertation Presented
by
Natalie E. Grey
to
The Graduate School
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Social and Health Psychology

Stony Brook University

May 2013

UMI Number: 3565910

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3565910
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Copyright by
Natalie E. Grey
2013

Stony Brook University

The Graduate School

Natalie E. Grey

We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the
Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend
acceptance of this dissertation.
Marci Lobel, Ph.D. Dissertation Advisor
Professor, Department of Psychology
Anne Moyer, Ph.D. - Chairperson of Defense
Associate Professor, Department of Psychology
Marvin Goldfried, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
Jenny Hwang, Ph.D.
Associate Dean & Director, Prevention and Outreach, Stony Brook University

This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School

Charles Taber
Interim Dean of the Graduate School

ii

Abstract of the Dissertation

An Evaluation of Coping Interventions and Gender-Specific Implications for College
Student Stress and Health
by
Natalie E. Grey
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Social and Health Psychology
Stony Brook University
2013

Rates of stress among college students are rising and becoming a growing concern for college
counseling and health centers. Based on relevant theory and prior research, this dissertation
examines (Study 1) the effects of two coping interventions in reducing distress and improving
coping-self-efficacy and (Study 2) the association between coping self-efficacy, perceived stress,
and students self-reported health status and vulnerability to illness. In Study 1, three cohorts of
third-year female college students studying science, technology, engineering, or mathematics
were assigned to a coping planning intervention, a combined mentoring and modeling/coping
planning intervention, or a control group. Outcome variables included perceived stress, coping
self-efficacy, career barriers, and graduate school decision stress. Self-concept clarity and
optimism were examined as moderators. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed that both the
coping planning and the combined intervention groups experienced significant decreases in
iii

perceived stress and graduate school decision stress over the course of a semester compared with
the control group. The combined intervention group also experienced decreases in career barriers
and increases in coping self-efficacy over time compared with the coping planning and control
groups. Participants high in self-concept clarity experienced greater improvements in perceived
stress and coping self-efficacy in the intervention groups compared to participants with low selfconcept clarity. Results suggest that the mentoring and modeling intervention may be specific in
its ability to reduce career barriers and improve coping self-efficacy above and beyond the
effects of coping planning.
Using structural equation modeling, Study 2 examined the role of gender and the
potential mediating influence of perceived stress on the association between coping self-efficacy
and health status and vulnerability to illness in undergraduates. Self-concept clarity and social
support were examined as potential moderators of the relationship between perceived stress and
the health measures. Finally, achievement motivation was examined as a predictor of perceived
stress, with GPA included as a potential moderator of this relationship. Findings emphasize the
differential health benefits of coping self-efficacy based on students gender, and the mediating
influence of perceived stress on health outcomes for both genders. For female college students,
coping self-efficacy was found to directly correspond to lower feelings of stress and lower
perceived vulnerability to illness, and indirectly to better health status through the mediating role
of perceived stress. For male students, coping self-efficacy directly corresponded to lower
perceived stress and indirectly to self-rated health status but was not related to vulnerability to
illness. Results suggest that social support and self-concept clarity may promote self-reported

iv

health by buffering the effects of perceived stress, and that these effects vary by gender.
Implications of these findings for interventions with students are discussed.

Table of Contents
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix
Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................x
Overview ..........................................................................................................................................1
Study 1 .............................................................................................................................................2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................2
Stress Among Women in STEM..............................................................................................2
Coping With Stress ..................................................................................................................4
Coping Planning ......................................................................................................................5
Self-Concept Clarity ................................................................................................................7
Optimism..................................................................................................................................8
The Current Study ....................................................................................................................8
Method
Participants .........................................................................................................................10
Interventions ......................................................................................................................10
Procedure ...........................................................................................................................12
Measures ............................................................................................................................13
Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................................................15
Weekly Data Analysis........................................................................................................15
Results .........................................................................................................................................16
Preliminary Analyses .........................................................................................................16
Weekly Data Analyses .......................................................................................................17
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................19
Strengths and Limitations ..................................................................................................22
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................24
Study 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................25
Coping Self-Efficacy .........................................................................................................26
Gender, Stress, and Self-Rated Health in College Students ..............................................28
Gender and Social Support in College Students ................................................................29
Self-Concept Clarity ..........................................................................................................30
Achievement Motivation ...................................................................................................31
The Present Study ..............................................................................................................32
Method ........................................................................................................................................32
Participants .........................................................................................................................32
Measures ............................................................................................................................33
Procedure ...........................................................................................................................35
Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................................................36
Results .........................................................................................................................................37
Preliminary Analyses .........................................................................................................37
Structural Equation Modeling Analyses ............................................................................38
vi

Discussion ...................................................................................................................................42
Strengths and Limitations ..................................................................................................45
Implications........................................................................................................................46
References ......................................................................................................................................49
Tables and Figures .........................................................................................................................69

vii

List of Tables
Table 1. Zero-order Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations of Study 1 Variables ...69
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations by Gender of Study 2 Variables...70
Table 3. Zero-order Correlations Among Study 2 Variables for Males (Top Right) and Females
(Bottom Left) 71

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Model describing hypothesized associations among study variables including
moderator effects. .72
Figure 2. Structural equation model for male college students. ...73
Figure 3. Structural equation model for male college students ....74

ix

Acknowledgements
I am so grateful to many people whose efforts and cooperation not only made this
dissertation possible, but also a profoundly meaningful learning experience. First and foremost,
my sincerest thanks go to my incredible advisor, Marci Lobel, for her guidance, support,
encouragement, and invaluable suggestions. Thank you for always encouraging me to think
beyond writing a thesis, questioning me, and offering me deep insight from your own
experiences. It is a truly an honor to have the opportunity to work with a professor who cares so
much about her students and their success.
I would also like to thank my committee members, Anne Moyer, Marvin Goldfried, and
Jenny Hwang whose feedback, assistance, and expertise have greatly improved my dissertation. I
greatly appreciate the gracious time spent assisting me with this project. I would also like to
thank Bonita London, Sheri Levy, and Lisa Rosenthal for their guidance and feedback as well as
their support during my graduate career. My gratitude also goes to the women of WISE, CarrieAnn Miller, Doreen Aveni, and Sharon Pavulaan. Thank you for your friendship and allowing
me to interact with your fantastic students.
My thanks goes out to my dedicated undergraduate research assistants whose hard work
helped make this project possible. Thank you to Miryam Yusufov, Azadeh Issapour, Janna
Coronel, and Michelle Guarino for your diligence and enthusiasm.
I would also like to thank my labmates and friends Ceylan Cizmeli, Melissa Auerbach,
Susan Darlow, Jada Hamilton, and Dolores Cannella. I am lucky to have such strong and
intelligent women in my life. I would also like to thank Natalie Nardone, June Kim, and Diane
Kim for all the good times we shared at Stony Brook.
x

Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family for their unconditional
support and unwavering love. Thank you for always believing in me and pushing me to do my
best. Thank you for being my shoulder to cry on, the voice of reason, and the encouragement I
needed during this time in my life. To my best friend, biggest supporter, and partner, Richard
Meester, I truly do not think I could have done this without you. Thank you for your patience,
your help, and for always bringing a smile to my face when I needed it most.

xi

Overview
This dissertation includes two distinct studies, both of which examine stress and coping
in college students. Study 1 evaluated the efficacy of two types of coping interventions in
reducing perceived stress, career barriers, and graduate school decision stress and improving
coping self-efficacy in female college students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) fields. Three groups of undergraduate women in STEM fields in their third
year of college were assigned to one of three conditions: (1) participate in a weekly, online
coping planning intervention, (2) participate in a mentoring and modeling intervention in which
they were assigned a female doctoral student mentor in addition to coping planning, or (3) no
intervention. The first goal of Study 1 was to examine the effectiveness of the interventions in
reducing perceived stress, graduate school decision stress, and career barriers, and improving
coping self-efficacy over time in comparison to the control group. A second goal of Study 1 was
to examine participant characteristics that may enhance the efficacy of the interventions,
therefore self-concept clarity and optimism were examined as potential moderators.
Study 2 used structural equation modeling techniques to explore the gender differences in
the relationship between coping self-efficacy and self-reported health status and vulnerability to
illness in college students. Specifically, Study 2 examined the role of perceived stress in
mediating the effects of coping self-efficacy on self-rated health measures and whether this
relationship varied between male and female students. Study 2 also investigated social support
and self-concept clarity as potential moderators of the relationship between stress and health.
Finally, the relationship between achievement motivation, perceived stress, and academic
performance was explored in both genders.
1

Study 1
Gender disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields
are sizeable and occur at all levels of achievement (Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010; Valian,
2007). However, the largest disparities are seen as women advance in STEM fields; women
remain dramatically underrepresented both in higher-level education and in upper level positions.
Fewer women get advanced degrees in STEM fields than other fields (National Science
Foundation, 2012). While there are many explanations proposed as to why such disparities exist,
resulting in a leaky pipeline of fewer women advancing in the hard sciences, one explanation
that has been neglected in much of the literature is that of stress and coping differences between
men and women in STEM. This study incorporates two coping interventions, a coping planning
intervention and a combined mentoring and modeling/coping planning intervention, that address
stress and coping in female college students in STEM fields.
Stress Among Women in STEM
In general, women are more likely to experience chronic stress and minor daily stressors
than men in both community adult samples and college samples (Broughham, Zail, Mendoza &
Miller, 2009; Matud, 2004). A large number of incoming college students report feelings of
being frequently overwhelmed. This is especially true for women. For example, in a recent
survey, 17.6% of men and 38.8% of entering first-year college women reported feeling
overwhelmed by all I had to do (Pryor et al., 2010). In addition to the stressors women in
traditional fields experience, women in non-traditional fields must also cope with the added
stress of being in a male-dominated field in which bias is more prevalent and the resources to

cope with it are fewer (e.g., Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009; Erwin & Maurutto, 1998;
Morganson, Jones, & Major, 2010).
Discrimination. One of the major stressors women face in non-traditional fields is bias
and discrimination. Many female students leave STEM fields due to poor teaching and
uncomfortable classroom experiences. Such environments are classically described as chilly
(Hall & Sandler, 1982). In addition to a sexist climate, a lower expectation for women than for
men in nontraditional classrooms is often communicated. Professors will ask female students
easier questions, make seemingly helpful comments, and doubt womens work and
accomplishment more often than men (e.g., Erwin & Maurutto, 1998; Ferreira, 2003).
Additionally, compared to female students, male students are called upon more often to answer
professors questions and get more positive feedback (e.g., Erwin & Maurutto, 1998; Ferreira,
2003). Cumulatively, such behaviors may imply to both men and women that womens
contributions are not valued or that women are not expected to contribute to class discussion,
ultimately lowering womens self-confidence and performance (e.g., Bonnot & Croizet, 2007;
Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau, 2004; Settles, 2004).
Lack of Social Support. Lack of social support has been shown to lead to dissatisfaction
and greater attrition of women scientists (Dresselhaus, Franz & Clark, 1995; Ferreira, 2003). As
the number of women in an area increases, so will their access to social networks and important
resources. Women scientists have been found to benefit from role models and mentors who
understand the unique barriers that women experience in their subsequent fields (Etzkowitz et
al., 2000). For example, a study conducted with young women in science, engineering, and
technology programs in colleges, universities, and technical institutes found that family members
3

and other role models were important influences in career-decision-making (Madill et al., 2004).
Small focus groups were conducted with 123 young women in STEM and responses were coded
to answer questions regarding career-decision-making. Key individuals serving as role models or
mentors, especially female instructors, played an important influence in increasing participants
math and science-related self-efficacy in nontraditional areas of study (Madill et al., 2004).
However, because few women are advancing to higher levels in STEM, there is a shortage of
role models and mentors for undergraduate women in STEM fields.
Coping With Stress
Coping has been defined as the constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts put
forth in order to manage demands that are taking up or exceeding the resources of an individual
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In general, people who rely more on approach coping, such as
problem-solving and seeking information, experience fewer psychological symptoms (Chang et
al., 2007). In contrast, avoidance coping, such as withdrawal or denial, is generally associated
with psychological distress (Diong et al., 2005).
One of the most prominent and consistent findings in the coping literature is that women
use more social support than do men (Taylor et al., 2000). Women in particular maintain more
close same-sex relationships than do men, they use more social support when distressed than do
men, they report benefits from contact with their female friends and relatives, and they provide
more frequent and more effective social support to others than do men, and such finding are
reported from a young age (Cheng & Chan, 2004; Eschenbeck, Kohlmannn, & Lohaus, 2007;
Rueger, Malecki, & Demaray, 2010). Women often rely on social support from peers in similar
situations. Thus, women in STEM fields may derive the most benefits from the support of other
4

women in the same fields because other women are familiar with the stressors associated with
male-dominated fields. However, women in STEM may perceive a dearth in the social support
available to them and may not have access to the same amount of benefits of social support as
women in traditionally female-dominated fields. Based on these findings, women in STEM
would likely benefit from interventions geared towards either compensating for a lack of social
support or designed to promote perceived social support, for example by providing them with
role models or by enrolling them in mentoring programs. These findings served as the basis for
the mentoring and modeling intervention in which participants were assigned a female doctoral
student mentor.
Coping Planning
Coping planning is an element of the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA;
Schwarzer, 1992), which is a model of the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors in
which volitional and motivational constructs predict changes in health behavior (Lippke,
Ziegelmann, & Schwarzer, 2004; Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2003; Schuz, Sniehotta,
Wiedemann, & Seemann, 2006; Sniehotta, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005; Ziegelmann, Lippke, &
Schwarzer, 2006). While devised for health behaviors, coping planning can be used to study
other behaviors as well. Coping planning is based on the concept of implementation intentions
(Gollwitzer, 1999). Coping planning refers to the anticipation of barriers and the generation of
alternative behaviors to overcome them (Scholz, Sniehotta, Burkert, & Schwarzer, 2007;
Sniehotta, et al., 2005). By anticipating barriers and pre-determining how to cope with them,
people are less likely to succumb to these barriers (Sniehotta, et al., 2005). For example, a person
may devise a coping plan in reference to exercising: If I plan to run on Sunday but the weather
5

does not permit it, I will go swimming instead (Schwarzer, 2008). Several randomized
controlled trials have used planning interventions in order to improve health behaviors including
physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption and found favorable results (e.g.,
Luszczynska, 2006; Luszczynska, Tryburcy, & Schwarzer, 2007; Ziegelmann, Lippke, &
Schwarzer, 2006).
Planning interventions have primarily been implemented in order to promote the adoption
and maintenance of health behaviors. In such instances, coping planning refers to the anticipation
of problems that could inhibit the long-term maintenance of a goal (Sniehotta, Schwarzer,
Scholz, & Schuz, 2005). In an intervention meant to improve physical activity in young, middleaged, and older adult orthopedic outpatients, participants were randomly assigned to either an
interviewer-assisted or a self-administered planning intervention. In terms of coping planning,
older and middle-aged adults benefitted more from the interviewer-assisted planning while
younger adults benefitted more from the self-administered planning. Coping planning also
appeared to be important for long-term maintenance of physical activity (Ziegelmann, Lippke, &
Schwarzer, 2006). Additionally, coping planning has been found to be effective in reducing the
chance of exercise relapse; participants who reported significantly more behavioral and cognitive
coping strategies to high risk situations for exercise relapse were less likely to relapse themselves
(Simkin & Gross, 1994).
Although coping planning is an element of the HAPA and has therefore been used in
interventions meant to improve health behaviors, coping planning is very similar in principle to
anticipatory coping (Schwarzer, 2000). Anticipatory coping refers to efforts meant to deal with
impending threats. When individuals face a critical event that they are certain or fairly certain
6

will occur in the near future, such as an exam or a job interview, engaging in anticipatory coping
allows them to manage these perceived risks. Anticipatory coping can include investing ones
resources to prevent or combat the future stressor or to maximize an anticipated benefit
(Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002). Thus, anticipatory coping may be used in any context, for example
in anticipating speaking in public or anticipating company downsizing, not just in terms of
improving health behaviors. Therefore, it is expected that prompting participants to engage in
coping planning in domains not specific to health behaviors will also result in beneficial
outcomes.
Self-Concept Clarity
The current study incorporates two types of coping interventions meant to reduce stress
and improve coping in female college students in STEM. Another aim of the current study is to
examine participant characteristics that may enhance the efficacy of the interventions. The first
variable of interest was self-concept clarity. The association between self-esteem and adaptive
coping has been replicated in many studies (e.g., Jorgensen & Dusek, 1990; Tyszkowa, 1990).
However, research has also shown that self-concept clarity may underlie the association between
self-esteem and coping behavior (van der Werff, 1990; Smith, Wethington, & Zhan, 1996). Selfconcept clarity refers to ones self-knowledge, particularly having a well articulated, consistent,
and stable view of the self (Campbell, 1990; Campbel & Lavallee, 1993). It has been suggested
that having an unclear or unstable self-concept may interfere with adaptive primary and
secondary appraisals of stressful events (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, &
Gruen, 1986) or may lead individuals to use maladaptive coping strategies (Smith, Wethington,
& Zhan, 1996; Epstein, 1992). Additionally, it has been suggested that those individuals with a
7

clear self-concept have more behavioral options in their repertoire to draw upon in stressful
situations (Baumgardner, 1990). Because they will be more likely to draw upon adaptive coping
strategies under stress and will be better able to process self-relevant information to guide their
coping behavior, it is expected that individuals with high self-concept clarity will benefit more
from the coping interventions than individuals with low self-concept clarity.
Optimism
Another intrapersonal variable of interest that may enhance the efficacy of the coping
interventions is optimism, or the tendency to expect good things rather than bad things to occur
(Scheier & Carver, 1985). Optimism is considered to serve a protective function in a wide
variety of stressors (Miller et al., 1996). Optimists have been found to use more adaptive coping
strategies (Fontaine et al., 1993) and have healthier perceptions of stress (Scheier et al., 1986)
than pessimists. In addition, it is thought that optimists are more likely to engage in efforts to
manage stressors than their pessimistic counterparts (Carver & Gaines, 1987). For example,
undergraduate students rated high in optimism were more likely to use active coping when
dealing with the stress of college (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992). It is expected then that optimistic
students will benefit more from the coping interventions than pessimistic students. Optimistic
students may be more likely to engage in adaptive coping strategies, and expect that such
strategies will be effective in reducing their perceptions of stress.
The Current Study
The effectiveness of two types of coping interventions, a coping planning intervention
and a combined mentoring and modeling/coping planning intervention, were examined in
reducing stress and increasing coping self-efficacy in female college students in STEM fields.
8

The coping planning intervention was administered as a weekly online intervention in which
participants listed anticipated stressors and plans to cope with them. The mentoring and
modeling intervention assigned each participant a female doctoral student mentor in a related
field. In addition to providing regular social support, mentors discussed graduate school and
careers in their respective fields and arranged for the participants to visit their lab or attend a
graduate class. The main year of interest in the current study was the participants third year of
college, a typically stressful period as students begin facing the decision of whether to pursue
graduate school or employment opportunities after graduation and in what fields. Three cohorts
of third-year women in STEM fields enrolled in a formal program at their university were
assigned to one of three conditions: (1) participate in coping planning as a stand-alone
intervention, (2) participate in a more resource-intensive, mentoring and modeling intervention
in addition to coping planning, or (3) no intervention at all over the course of the Spring
semester. The goals of the study were to (1) examine the effectiveness of the two coping
interventions in reducing perceived stress, graduate school decision stress, and career barriers,
and improving coping self-efficacy over time compared to a control group, and (2) examine selfconcept clarity and optimism as potential moderators that may affect the efficacy of the coping
interventions.
Hypotheses. It was predicted that participating in either coping intervention would
reduce perceived stress, perceived career barriers, perceived graduate school decision stress, and
would improve coping self-efficacy over time. However, it was expected that the interventions
would be differentially effective; it was predicted that students participating in the combined
mentoring and modeling/coping planning intervention would benefit most. Similarly, it was
9

expected that students in the coping planning only condition would evidence more improvements
than participants in the control group, but not as much participants in the combined intervention
condition. It was also hypothesized that participants high in optimism and high in self-concept
clarity would benefit more from the coping interventions than students low on these constructs,
as optimism and self-concept clarity would moderate the effects of coping behavior.
Method
Participants
The study sample was drawn from students enrolled at large, public university in New
York pursuing a STEM major. All participants were female students enrolled in a formal singlesex program designed for women in STEM fields. The sample included three different cohorts of
students: Group 1 (N = 47) consisted of STEM women who entered their first year in 2008;
Group 2 (N = 35) consisted of STEM women who entered their first year in 2007; and Group 3
(N = 65) consisted of STEM women who entered their first year of college in Fall 2006.
Participants were from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, with 68 identifying as European
American or White, 57 as Asian, 10 as African American, 5 as Latino or Hispanic, and 7 as
Other. The mean age of participants was 20.78 (SD = 0.61). Participants majors varied within
STEM fields, including Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Biology, Biochemistry, Biomedical
Engineering, Chemistry, Computer Science, Mechanical Engineering, and Physics. All three
groups were surveyed during their third year of college for purposes of comparison. Participants
were compensated monetarily.
Interventions

10

Coping planning. A brief coping planning exercise was developed based on the selfadministered planning intervention described by Ziegelmann, Lippke, and Schwarzer (2006).
Participants in Groups 1 and 2 completed an online coping planning exercise on a weekly basis
during the Spring semester of their third year which involved the following components: (1)
participants were asked to think of two potential barriers or problems they expected to occur
within the next two weeks and describe them in detail and were given the example, Next
Thursday I have an exam in a class that I really enjoy and if I do poorly on it, I will feel like I let
myself down), and (2) participants were asked to record as many solutions as they could to each
of the two barriers or problems with a minimum of two solutions per barrier (e.g., I will keep
telling myself that I will do my best on the exam and will be happy with whatever grade I get").
Mentoring and modeling intervention. Group 2 participated in a mentoring and
modeling intervention during the Spring semester of their third year. During the first week of
classes, all students in Group 2 were assigned a female doctoral student in a related STEM field
as a mentor to provide guidance about graduate training and career issues as well as to provide
social support to their mentees. A total of 10 mentors were each assigned three to four students
from Group 2 who were pursuing a major similar to the mentors area of graduate study. Before
meeting with their mentees for the first time, the mentors attended a group training session. The
mentors were available for communication with mentees via email and in person as needed. In
addition, all mentees met with their mentors in groups on two occasions, once during the first
week of classes and once in the middle of the semester. During their first group meeting, mentors
led a two-hour interactive discussion with their mentees. Mentors described their personal
accounts of the graduate school application process including the reasons they went to graduate
11

school, how they got into graduate school and how they chose their areas of study. Next, the
mentors spoke with their mentees about important issues concerning finding, selecting, and
applying to graduate school. Topics covered included a discussion about professors, funding,
location, entrance exams, recommendation letters, and personal statements. Next mentors
discussed career decisions such as the required degrees, salary, quality of life, and applying for a
job. Mentees were encouraged to ask questions throughout the meeting.
During their second group meeting, mentors arranged a visit to their laboratory or
arranged for their mentees to sit in on a graduate class with them in order to provide their
mentees with a sense of familiarity with the graduate school environment and answer any
questions that the mentees had. These visits lasted one to two hours depending on whether the
mentor arranged a laboratory or classroom visit. In addition to participating in the mentoring and
modeling intervention, participants in Group 2 also completed the weekly, online coping
planning intervention.
Procedure
Online surveys. All three groups completed a 15-minute, web-based questionnaire on a
secure web server (www.psychdata.com) once at the beginning of the semester in the Fall of
their third year. Included in this web-based questionnaire were optimism and self-concept clarity
scales.
In the Spring semester of their third year, all three groups completed 15-minute, webbased weekly diaries. Students logged into www.psychdata.com at the end of each of the 15
weeks of the semester. The weekly diaries included measures of perceived stress, coping selfefficacy, carrier barriers, and graduate school decision stress. In addition to these scales, Group 1
12

and Group 2 also completed the coping planning exercise in their weekly diaries. Group 3 served
as a comparison group and did not participate in the coping planning exercise at all during their
college years.
Measures
Perceived stress. Participants completed the four-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS;
Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). An example item includes, In the last month, how
often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life? The
original PSS was altered slightly by changing the phrase in the last month to in the last week
because participants completed the scale on a weekly basis during the Spring semester of their
third year. Participants rated each item on a scale of 0 (Never) to 4 (Very Often). Higher scores
indicate more perceived stress. The coefficient alpha reliability for this scale in the present
sample was .72.
Coping self-efficacy. Participants completed the 26-item Coping Self-Efficacy Scale
(CSES; Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor, & Folkman, 2006) measuring perceived selfefficacy in coping with threats and challenges every week during the Spring semester of their
third year. Participants were asked, When things arent going well for you, how confident are
you that you can do the following? The scale then lists 26 coping behaviors such as Keep from
getting down in the dumps or Talk positively to yourself. Participants rated their responses on
a scale from 0 (Cannot Do At All) to 10 (Certain Can Do). Items scores were averaged to
compute a single score. Higher scores indicate more coping self-efficacy. The coefficient alpha
reliability for this scale in the present sample was .81.

13

Career barriers. Participants completed the 70-item Career Barriers Inventory-Revised

(CBI-R; Swanson, Daniels, & Tokar, 1996) on a weekly basis during the Spring semester of their
third year. The scale contains 13 subscales such as Lack of Confidence, Inadequate Preparation,
and Conflict Between Children and Career Demands. Participants were asked to indicate how
much a barrier such as, experiencing gender discrimination in hiring for a job, would interfere
with their career progress. Participants rated items on a scale of 1 (Would Not Hinder At All) to 7
(Would Completely Hinder). Item scores were averaged to compute a single score. Higher scores
indicate more career barriers. The coefficient alpha reliability for this scale in the present sample
was .76.
Graduate school decision stress. A 26-item measure was developed for this study to
assess how concerned or worried participants were about graduate school decisions. Items
included stressors involving the graduate school application process (e.g., At this point, to what
extent are you concerned or worried about deciding which graduate school program(s) to apply
to?), stressors involving attending graduate school (e.g., At this point, to what extent are you
concerned or worried about whether you will be successful in graduate school?), as well as
stressors involving time after completing graduate school (e.g., At this point, to what extent are
you concerned or worried about how much money you will earn after graduate school?).
Participants rated each item on a scale from 1 (Not At All) to 6 (Extremely). Item scores were
averaged to compute a single score such that higher scores indicating higher stress. The
coefficient alpha reliability for this scale in the present sample was .79. Participants completed
the graduate school decision stress measure on a weekly basis during the Spring semester of their
third year.
14

Self-concept clarity. Participants completed the 12-item Self-Concept Clarity Scale

(SCCS; Campbell et al., 1996) measuring the degree to which individuals have a clear notion of
who they are. Participants completed the SCCS one time at the beginning of the Fall semester of
their third year. An example item is, I seldom experience conflict between the different aspects
of my personality. Participants rated the items on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree). Ten of the 12 items were reverse-scored. Higher scores reflect higher selfconcept clarity. Coefficient alpha reliability was .84.
Optimism. Participants completed the 10-item Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R;
Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) once during the Fall semester of their third year. An example
item is, In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. Participants rated the items on a scale
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The LOT-R contains four fillers which were
not scored. Three of the remaining six items were reverse-scored so that high values indicate
optimism. Cronbachs alpha for the LOT-R in the present study was .75.
Demographics. Participants also answered a set of demographic questions, including
their race/ethnicity, age, and major.
Statistical Analysis
Weekly Data Analysis
Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to evaluate changes over time as a
function of condition for the weekly data obtained for perceived stress (PSS), coping selfefficacy (CSES), career barriers (CBI-R), and graduate school decision stress (GSDS). Group 1
was coping planning as standalone intervention group, Group 2 was the combined mentoring and
modeling/coping planning intervention group, and Group 3 was the control group. HLM is more
15

accurate than repeated measures analysis of variance as a method for analyzing longitudinal data
analysis of variance for different levels of variables, including assessing covariates without
assuming homogeneity of slopes among groups (Byrk & Raudenbush, 1992).
In HLM, first individual change is modeled using growth trajectories for each participant.
Subsequently, the intercept and slope of the average growth trajectories are aggregated across
individuals. Because slope reflects the increase, decrease, or stable pattern of scores over time, it
is the parameter of primary interest in the current study.
In this study, three primary models were tested. PSS, CSES, CBI-R, and GSDS scores,
respectively, were the Level-1 outcomes in each model. In Model 1, time was considered a lower
level predictor variable. In Model 2, dummy-coded variables representing the comparison
between (a) Group 1 and Group 2 and (b) Group 1 and Group 3 were entered as higher order
predictor variables (i.e., between-person variables). An additional HLM analysis was run using
an alternative dummy-coding scheme to get the final comparison between Group 2 and Group 3.
Finally in Model 3, potential moderating effects of self-concept clarity and optimism by group
interaction on study outcomes (i.e., PSS, CSES, CBI-R, and GSDS scores, respectively), were
assessed using HLM. The regression coefficients presented in the sections to follow are
unstandardized (b).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Zero-order correlations, means, and standard deviations for study variables can be found
in Table 1. Mean scores on the PSS indicated that participants were experiencing a considerable
amount of stress in the Spring semester in their third years (M = 2.49, SD = 0.56). As well,
16

participants on average scored high on graduate school decision stress and career barriers. Chisquare analyses revealed there were no significant group differences in sociodemographic
characteristics examined, including ethnicity, major, and age. One-tailed t tests revealed no
significant differences among the group means at baseline for the PSS, CSES, CBI-R, and
GSDS.
Weekly Data Analyses
Model 1. Separate models were tested for the PSS, CSES, CBI-R, and GSDS, which
were assessed weekly. Time was significantly related to the PSS (b = 0.07, p < .001), the CSES
(b = 0.33, p < .001), the CBI-R (b = -0.04, p < .05), and the GSDS (b = -0.08, p < .01). Thus,
PSS, CBI-R, and GSDS scores significantly decreased over time, whereas CSES scores
significantly increased over time. However, significant variation around the PSS-time slope, 2
(146) = 187.22, p < .001, the CBI-R-time slope, 2 (146) = 151.34, p < .001, the GSDS-time
slope, 2 (146) = 125.42, p < .001, and the CSES- time slope, 2 (146) = 190.76, p < .001, was
evident, indicating the need to add group as a higher order predictor in the model.
Model 2. The next HLM model for the PSS included group as a higher order predictor. In
the model predicting the PSS-time slope, significant differences were found between the
comparison group (Group 3) and Group 2 (b = 0.71, p = .002) and Group 1 and Group 3 (b =
0.64, p = .04), but not between Group 1 and Group 2 (b = 0.01, p = .93). Post hoc examination of
this interaction revealed a significant decline in PSS scores across time for the participants in
Group 2 (b = 0.24, p = .003), Group 1 (b = 0.18, p = .002), and in Group 3 (b = 0.02, p =
.04). As the regression coefficients for this analysis suggest, however, the decline in PSS scores
was significantly steeper (i.e., the PSS-time slope was more negative) for those participants in
17

both Group 1 and Group 2 relative to those participants in the comparison group.
A similar model was run for CSES with group entered as a higher order predictor. In the
model predicting the CSES-time slope, significant differences were found between the
comparison group and Group 1 (b = 0.29, p = .03), the comparison group and Group 2 (b = 0.45,
p = .01), and between Groups 1 and 2 (b = 0.39, p = .004). Post hoc examination revealed a
significant increase in CSES scores across time for the participants in the comparison group (b =
0.79, p = .006) and Group 2 (b = 1.05, p = .003), but not for participants in Group 1 (b = -0.06, p
= .30).
The model for CBI-R was also run with group as a higher order predictor. Only Group 2
significantly differed from the comparison group (b = 0.08, p = .002). There was a trend for
Group 1 to differ from the comparison group, but the finding was not statistically significant (b =
0.05, p = .08).
Lastly, we ran a similar model for GSDS with group entered as a higher order predictor.
In the model predicting the GSDS-time slope, significant differences were found between Group
2 and Group 3 (b = 0.12, p = .004) and Group 1 and Group 2 (b = 0.09, p = .03), and between
Group 1 and Group 3 (b = -0.15, p = .03). Post hoc examination of this interaction revealed a
significant decline in GSDS scores across time for the participants in the Group 2 (b = 0.36, p =
.002), Group 1 (b = 0.14, p = .04), but not in Group 3 (b = 0.02, p = .11). The decrease in GSDS
scores was significantly steeper (i.e., the GSDS-time slope was more negative) for those
participants in Group 2 relative to those participants in Group 1, indicating greater reductions in
GSDS in Group 2 compared to Group 1.
Model 3. In the HLM models examining the potential moderating effects of self-concept
18

clarity and optimism by group interaction on study outcomes, no significant differences were
found when testing optimism by group interaction on PSS, CSES, CBI-R, or GSDS (p > .4 in all
cases). In contrast, significant interaction effects for self-concept clarity by group were observed
over time for PSS and CSES. Specifically, participants high on self-concept clarity in Groups 1
and 2 showed significantly greater reductions in perceived stress than in Group 3 (b = 1.45, p =
.001; b = 1.02, p = .04; respectively). Similarly, participants high on self-concept clarity in
Groups 1 and 2 showed greater increases in coping self-efficacy than those in Group 3 (b = 1.18,
p = .03; b = 1.05, p = .01, respectively).
Discussion
This study compared three groups of undergraduate women in STEM fields in their third
year of college assigned to participate in either a combined mentoring and modeling intervention
and online coping planning exercise (Group 2), only an online coping planning exercise (Group
1), or no intervention (Group 3). Results of this longitudinal study indicated that, compared with
the control group, participants in the combined mentoring and modeling intervention/coping
planning group were successful in alleviating perceived stress, increasing coping self-efficacy,
and decreasing perceived career barriers and graduate school decision stress over time. As
predicted, participating in a group mentoring and modeling intervention in conjunction with a
weekly online coping planning exercise showed greatest benefit on all study outcome variables
over time.
Compared to the control group, participants in the online coping planning only group
were successful in alleviating perceived stress and graduate school decision stress over time, but
not in perceiving fewer career barriers or increasing coping self-efficacy. In fact, the control
19

group actually showed a greater increase in coping self-efficacy over time than did the coping
planning only group, which experienced a slight decrease over time. It is possible that asking
participants to anticipate and list impending threats may have reduced their confidence in their
ability to put forth efforts to combat or prevent the threats. However, coping planning was
effective in reducing both general perceived stress as well as graduate school decision stress,
indicating that it may be possible to reduce stress without affecting coping self-efficacy. There
may be some characteristic of this exercise, for example a feeling of catharsis or hopefulness,
that may occur while listing expected stressors during coping planning that reduces stress
irrespective of coping self-efficacy.
When comparing the combined intervention group to the coping planning only group, the
combined intervention participants showed greater improvements in coping self-efficacy, career
barriers, and graduate school decision stress. The combined intervention group was unique in its
ability to reduce perceived career barriers as compared with either the coping planning only
group or the control group. These results indicate that the mentoring and modeling intervention
in which participants were assigned a mentor probably led to the alleviation of stress and
improvements in coping self-efficacy and career barriers over and above the effects of coping
planning. Often, the higher education classroom environment in STEM fields is not only less
hospitable for women than for men, but also increases the likelihood that womens advancement
will suffer as a result. For example, undergraduate women in STEM often report feelings of
intimidation, isolation, and even hostility from male peers and male faculty (e.g., Erwin &
Maurutto, 1998; Ferreira, 2003; Hollenshead, Younce, & Wenzel, 1994; Meinholdt & Murray,
1999; Warrington & Younger, 2000) Research has shown the importance of relationships and
20

interpersonal connections to womens psychological well-being in particular (e.g., Fletcher,

2004; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Striver, & Surrey, 1991), suggesting that a lack of social support in
STEM fields may be particularly harmful to women (Morganson, Jones, & Major, 2011). In such
cases, the support from a fellow woman in STEM who has endured similar situations may be
extremely beneficial in improving stress and coping outcomes.
Finally, self-concept clarity and optimism were examined as potential moderators. No
significant interaction effects were found for optimism. Participants rated high on self-concept
clarity showed greater improvements in perceived stress and coping self-efficacy in both
intervention groups compared to the control group. As some studies have shown, knowing
oneself may guide ones behavior, possibly by the act of maximizing or minimizing ones
personal attributes in certain situations (Baumgardner, 1990; Epstein, 1973). It has also been
found that self-concept clarity is related to more active coping behavior (Berzonsky, 1992).
Similarly, self-concept clarity has been related to increased use of the self as a basis for decisionmaking (Setterland & Niedenthal, 1993). It may be that intervention participants high in selfconcept clarity were exposed to important cues during their interventions, such as advice from
their mentor or practice applying various coping planning techniques. Their clear self-concepts
may have also led them to more effectively apply relevant coping strategies they learned to
certain stressful situations, explaining the improvements in perceived stress and coping selfefficacy compared to control group participants. It appears that self-concept clarity may be one
personality characteristic that enhances the effectiveness of coping interventions.
Study findings support the use of the combined mentoring and modeling/coping planning
intervention to improve perceived stress, graduate specific stress, coping self-efficacy, and career
21

barriers. One explanation for the gender disparity in STEM fields is that women tend to
underestimate their abilities in these fields (Correll, 2001; Ehrlinger & Dunning, 2003).
Providing role models who are successful in these fields has been one way to convey to women
that they too can be successful (Marx, Stapel, & Muller, 2005). Participants in the combined
mentoring and modeling intervention were provided female graduate student mentors in similar
fields of study. These women may have served as successful role models to the participants. The
combined mentoring and modeling intervention was also more effective than the online coping
planning intervention alone in all study outcomes but perceived stress. This suggests that the
mentoring relationship specifically was effective in the improving the participants perceptions
of graduate school decision stress, career barriers, and coping self-efficacy. While the coping
planning only group did show reductions in both perceived stress and graduate school decision
stress, these reductions were not as great as the combined intervention group. Additionally,
coping self-efficacy actually decreased slightly in the coping planning only group. These
findings indicate that, although the mentoring and modeling intervention may be more time and
resource intensive than a weekly, online coping planning exercise, the benefits of providing
undergraduate women in STEM with mentors in related fields may be worth the added cost.
Strengths and Limitations
The current study had many strengths. First, we collected data from undergraduate
women in STEM fields longitudinally, specifically during their second semester of their third
year, a time considered to be one of the most stressful periods of college. Second, our
investigation included three different cohorts of undergraduate women enrolled in a formal,
single-sex program (WISE). Third, we examined the effectiveness of two different kinds of
22

coping interventions, namely a weekly, online coping planning exercise, and a mentoring and
modeling intervention in conjunction with coping planning, in comparison to a control group
who did not participate in any intervention. Finally, we were able to assign participants in the
combined intervention to graduate students in related fields. This added several advantages.
Mentors were able to tailor their information about graduate school and professional careers to
the specific concerns their participants had about advancing in the field. Additionally,
participants may have perceived their mentors as being appropriate role models to whom they
could relate and may have even shared relevant characteristics with. Social learning research
suggests that models who are liked, regarded as competent, and are perceived as credible and
relevant are more effective than those who are not (Bandura & Walters, 1963; Lefkowitz, Blake,
& Mouton, 1955). Similarly, like characteristics such as similar personal traits, interests, and
backgrounds are important predictors of credibility and relevance (Kazdin, 1994). These factors
may have led to the mentors being more effective role models for the participants.
The study did have certain limitations. First, the current study did not randomly assign
participants to a condition, but rather investigated three separate cohorts of students each
assigned to a different condition. Because each cohort was already relatively small, we were not
able to randomly assign participants within each cohort. Second, we did not compare a coping
planning only group to a mentoring and modeling intervention only group; the mentoring and
modeling intervention also included a coping planning component. This makes it difficult to
predict whether a mentoring and modeling intervention would be as effective without the coping
planning component. However, based on the finding that coping planning alone did not decrease
career barriers, increase coping self-efficacy, or reduce graduate school decision stress as much
23

as the combined intervention group, we can infer that the mentoring and modeling intervention
may be an especially effective intervention component. Third, this study only included female
STEM students enrolled in a formal, single-sex program at one university. We do not know if
these findings are generalizable to other programs at other universities, or other parts of the U.S.
or elsewhere. Finally, because they were in their third year, and enrolled in a special program for
female STEM students, it is expected that the women in this study were highly invested and
committed in STEM fields, as well as high achieving students. We therefore do not know if we
will see improvements in women who are not enrolled in a formal STEM program, who may not
be as invested in STEM fields, or who may not be as high achieving. These women may differ in
such a way that changes the effectiveness of the coping interventions.
Conclusion
Because women are still outnumbered by men in STEM, especially at they advance, it is
important to investigate the efficacy of coping interventions in reducing stress, both general and
specific to graduate school and careers, and improving coping self-efficacy. The current study
examined two types of coping interventions in comparison to a control group. Assigning
undergraduate women to a mentor in a related field in conjunction with an online coping
planning exercise proved to be the most effective in improving stress and coping outcomes over
time, although the online coping planning exercise as a standalone intervention was also
effective in reducing perceived stress and graduate school decision stress over time. Finally, selfconcept clarity appeared to enhance the reduction of perceived stress and increases in coping
self-efficacy in the intervention conditions. Further investigation of coping interventions is
important in order to improve the advancement of women in male-dominated fields.
24

Study 2
College is stressful for many students and can negatively impact students psychological
and physical well-being (Dunkel-Schetter & Lobel, 1990; Lumley & Provenzano, 2003; Pierceall
& Keim, 2007). Reports of being frequently overwhelmed increased in college students from
16% in 1985 to 27% in 2002 (Sax, 1997; 2003). In a study by Hudd et al. (2000), high levels of
stress were reported for 52% of college students during a typical college semester. In fact, levels
of stress among students are increasing; perceived stress among incoming college freshmen in
2010 was at a record high (Pryor et al., 2010). In this study 201,818 full-time, first-year college
students from 279 colleges and universities registered the lowest emotional health observed since
1985 (Pryor et al., 2010). Deaux and Major (1987) suggest that entering college may activate
threat in students because of the move away from established social support networks such as
family and friends, and toward the uncertainty of new and less established networks.
Additionally, students must learn to live independently, handle finances, maintain academic
standards, cope with daily hassles, and adjust to a new social life (Abouserie, 1994; Blankstein et
al., 1991; Brougham, Zail, Mendoza, & Miller, 2009; Crespi & Becker, 1999; Frazier &
Schauben, 1994; Larson, 2006).
In addition to the emotional and cognitive demands associated with perceived stress,
research has shown that psychological stress is negatively related to physical health. Stress has
been linked to a variety of health problems, from weakened immune functioning, recurrent
headaches, and the common cold, to cardiovascular disease (Cohen et al., 1998; Cohen, Miller,
& Rabin, 2001; Jenkins, 1998; Marlowe, 1998). Stress has also been linked indirectly to physical
health; adverse health outcomes may occur because stress encourages maladaptive behaviors
25

such as smoking, fragmented sleep, less exercise, and poor nutrition (Krueger & Chang, 2008;
Sander, 2009; Steptoe et al., 1996). College students, despite the perception that they are
relatively free of health problems, have been shown to experience physical and psychological
difficulties similar to older adults (Fayers, 2002; Rosenthal & Schreiner, 2000).
Because of their important associations with stress and well-being, the influences of
constructs such as coping self-efficacy, social support, and personality traits on stress and health
have been the focus of many studies. However, many of these studies have investigated only one
or two of these constructs using univariate techniques and/or have focused on older populations
who may experience more time-urgent or life-threatening health problems than college students.
Using structural equation modeling techniques, the aim of the present study was to examine the
role of perceived stress in mediating the relationship between coping self-efficacy and self-rated
health in college students, as well as to investigate the health benefits of social support and selfconcept clarity, which may differentially predict the association between stress and health. To
examine how associations between coping self-efficacy and health outcomes might differ for
female and male college students, the role of gender in associations among coping self-efficacy,
perceived stress, and self-reported health was also examined. Finally, the relationship between
achievement motivation, stress, and academic performance was also investigated. Previous
research relating stress and health to coping self-efficacy, social support, self-concept clarity, and
achievement motivation is described in the following sections.
Coping Self-Efficacy
Coping self-efficacy is defined as ones perceived ability to cope with the demands of a
stressful situation. Research in stressful settings has repeatedly confirmed the importance of
26

coping self-efficacy in predicting perceived stress and health outcomes (Bandura, 1997; Benight
& Bandura, 2004; Chesney et al., 2006; Holahan & Holaham, 1987; Terry, 1994, Wiedenfeld et
al., 1990). For example, the role of coping self-efficacy has been examined in helping individuals
recover from negative, traumatic, and stressful experiences such as chronic illness, phobias, and
bereavement (Bandura, 1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004). Coping self-efficacy may be a
particularly important in an individuals judgment of stressful situations. Lazarus and Folkmans
(1984) definition of stress focuses on the interplay between people and their external
environment. The transactional model conceptualizes stress as the result of an individuals
appraisal of a stressor (primary appraisal) and an individual's appraisal of resources to cope with
that stressor (secondary appraisal). In other words, a stressor is perceived as being stressful if its
burden outweighs ones perceived ability to cope with that stressor. The model therefore
proposes that if a stressor is perceived as positive or challenging rather than a threat, and if the
individual possesses adequate coping strategies, stress may not necessarily follow the presence
of a potential stressor. Stress is only thought to result if there is an imbalance between an
individuals perceived ability to cope and perceived demands of the stressor. According to this
model, a person with high coping self-efficacy should, in turn, appraise a difficult task as a
challenge to be mastered, as opposed to a threat.
Coping self-efficacy has also been directly related to positive health outcomes. High selfefficacy has been linked to the use of health enhancing behaviors (Bandura, 1997), while low
self-efficacy has been related to the use of maladaptive coping strategies, such as denial and selfblame, and anxiety and negative well-being (Bandura, 1997; Holahan & Holaham, 1987; Terry,
1994). Coping self-efficacy has also been related to improved immune function (Wiedenfeld et
27

al. 1990), reduced blood pressure response (Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982), and lower
catecholamine responsivity (Bandura et al., 1985). Because previous research has confirmed the
relationship of coping self-efficacy to both stress and health, the present study aims to examine
the direct relationship between coping self-efficacy and health outcomes, as well as the indirect
relationship mediated by perceived stress.
Gender, Stress, and Self-Rated Health in College Students
Existing research has yielded consistent patterns of gender differences on stress and selfrated health in college student populations. Regarding stress, research has shown that female
students tend to view more events as being stressful and appraise them as more severe than men
(Adlaf et al., 2001; Brougham, Zail, Mendoza, & Miller, 2009; Hudd et al., 2000; Matud, 2004;
Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002). Additionally, research suggests that women may also be
more susceptible to stress than men as the experience of stress has been found to be more
strongly related to mental health problems in women (Sandanger et al., 2004). In regards to
research examining patterns of self-reported health status in college students, female students
also report more health problems than male students (Vaez & Laflamme, 2003; Vingilis et al.,
1998; Wade, Pevalin, & Vingilis, 2000). Interestingly, women, both students and older adults,
report more health-promoting behaviors than men (Larouche, 1998; Vaez & Laflamme, 2003;
Denton, Prus, & Walters, 2004). For example, male students have been found to drink and use
tobacco more frequently and engage in binge drinking to a greater extent than female students
(Vaez & Laflamme, 2003). Similarly, female students have been found to practice better
nutrition, have better interpersonal relationships, and take responsibility for their health to a
greater extent than male students (Larouche, 1998). Because of this discrepancy, researchers
28

have posited that gender differences in self-reported health are due to differences in
interpretations of symptoms between the sexes. Because such research has been conducted using
self-report health measures, it appears that female students may have a different view of illness
and lower threshold for symptom perception than their male counterparts (Gijsbers van Wijk et
al., 1999; Green, 1990). Another explanation for gender differences in self-reported health
involves gender norms; male students may report overly positive health status due to masculine
norms of invulnerability, insensitivity, and independence, and the perception that health is
primarily manifested in physical appearance (Baffi, Radican, Sefchick, & Impara, 1991; Davies
et al., 2000). Consequently, male students may be less concerned about, or possibly even
unaware of, their health problems, especially when compared to their female counterparts.
Gender and Social Support in College Students
Research on college students suggests that social support promotes psychological wellbeing by buffering the effects of perceived stress, though gender differences appear to exist in
students use of social support (Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkwirth, 2000;
Elliot, Herrick & Witty, 1992). In particular, women have been found to have higher levels of
social support than men and be more likely to use this support when faced with a threat (Dwyer
& Cummings, 2001; Shumaker & Hill, 1991; Tamres et al. 2002). In the current study, social
support is classified into three types, perceived support from family, friends, and significant
other. This distinction is considered important because different individuals may rely on, or even
benefit from, family, friend, or significant other support to a different extent (Dwyer &
Cummings, 2001; Procidano & Heller, 1983). As they move away from home and immerse
themselves in a new environment, college students may be less likely to seek support from
29

family members and instead turn to their friends and romantic partners during times of stress.
Students may derive more benefits from the support of other students who are familiar with the
stressors associated with college demands.
Self-Concept Clarity
Another construct that may serve as an important moderator of the pathway linking
perceived stress and self-reported health outcomes is self-concept clarity. Self-concept clarity
refers to the extent to which self-beliefs are clearly and confidently defined (Campbell et al.,
1996, p. 141). Self-concept clarity has been shown to be inversely related to psychological
distress, including stress and anxiety (Campbell et al., 1996; De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005;
Lavallee & Cambell, 1995). Research indicates that individuals with self-concept clarity may be
more effective at self-regulation and have greater perceived control when confronted with stress
than those with self-concept confusion (Gramzow, Sedikides, Panter, & Insko, 2000; McConnell
& Strain, 2007). Similarly, self-concept clarity may affect primary and secondary appraisals of
stress. Having a stable and well-defined self-concept has been related to the use of adaptive
coping strategies, possibly due to more behavioral options to draw upon in stressful situations
(Baumgardner, 1990; Epstein, 1992; Smith, Wethington, & Zhan, 1996). Individuals with high
self-concept clarity may be better able to process self-relevant information to guide them in their
appraisals of stress situations, which ultimately leads to positive physical and mental well-being.
Some empirical research has found gender differences in self-concept clarity. In samples
of Canadians (Campbell et al., 1996), Estonians (Matto & Realo, 2001), Koreans (Kim, 1998),
and Slovakians (Fickova, 2000), men reported higher levels of self-concept clarity than women.

30

However, these gender differences were relatively small and, due to small sample sizes, may
have been unreliable.
Achievement Motivation
Because stress is determined by an individuals cognitive appraisal, another important
factor to consider, particularly in the college population, is achievement motivation. According
to the classical contributions of Murray (1938), achievement motivation is the need to do things
well, overcome obstacles, accomplish something difficult, attain high standards, and compete
with and surpass others. Research on gender differences in achievement motivation has yielded
inconsistent findings, with many studies showing no gender differences in the construct (Cokley,
Bernard, Cunningham, & Motoike, 2001; Ligon, 2006).
Achievement motivation may be related both to an individuals appraisal of a stressor, as
well as to their individual style of coping. Research has shown that individuals with high
achievement motivation tended to appraise more situations as challenging and use more taskoriented, active coping strategies (Santiago-Rivera, Bernstein, & Gard, 1995). These tendencies
ultimately reversed the negative effects of stress. Similarly, another study of college students
found a positive relationship between achievement goal orientation, specifically a strong desire
for mastery and problem solving, and task-oriented coping (Morris, Brooks, & May, 2003).
Based on these findings, it is predicted that achievement motivation will be negatively related to
perceived stress in the current study. In addition, because achievement motivation is associated
with high academic standards, we also expect that students academic performance, as measured
by grade point average (GPA), will differentially predict stress. Specifically, we expect that
achievement motivation will predict stress more strongly for students with low GPA.
31

The Present Study

The present study used structural equation modeling to examine the self-rated health of
college students. Specifically, this study explored how coping self-efficacy influenced students
self-reported health status and vulnerability to illness. Consistent with previous research on selfrated health in college students and empirical support provided by multiple-group analyses
(described below), the present analyses were conducted separately for male and female students.
The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1. Based on research on stress and health in
college students, perceived stress was examined as a potential mediator between coping selfefficacy and self-reported health, which was operationally defined with two variables: perceived
health status and perceived vulnerability to illness. Further, based on the research examining
achievement motivation in college students, achievement motivation was examined as a
predictor of perceived stress, including the potential moderating effect of GPA on the
relationship between achievement motivation and perceived stress.
In addition, several moderators of the pathway linking perceived stress and self-reported
health outcomes were examined. Specifically, social support and self-concept clarity were
expected to promote health by buffering the effects of perceived stress. Further, we predicted that
social support from friends and significant other would more strongly protect against stress in
college students than support from family as students establish new networks away from home.
Method
Participants
A total of 158 (102 women and 56 men) Psychology students enrolled in an upper
division Psychology course at a large, public university in New York participated in a web-based
32

study for extra credit during the Fall 2009 semester. Mean age of the sample was 20.12 (SD =
0.61). Participants were from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, with 83 identifying as
European American or White, 44 as Asian, 10 as African American or Black, 7 as Latino or
Hispanic, and 14 as Other.
Measures
Perceived stress. The 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was used to measure levels
of perceived stress over the past few weeks (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). The PSS is
designed to measure how unpredictable, overwhelming, and uncontrollable respondents perceive
their lives. Respondents were asked to report how often they felt stressed on a 5-point scale,
ranging from never to very often. The alpha reliability for this scale in the present sample was
.86.
Health status. Participants completed a 6-item Health Status Scale (Andersen & Lobel,
1995). Three questions assessed perceived quality of health (e.g., My current health is:) and
were rated on a scale of 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Excellent). The remaining three questions assessed
perceived satisfaction with ones health status (e.g., I am content with my current state of
health) and were rated on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The
coefficient alpha reliability for this scale was .84 in the current sample.
Vulnerability to illness. Participants completed the 10-item Vulnerability to Illness
Scale (Andersen & Lobel, 1995) assessing perceived physical health. An example item is, I
seem to get sick easily. Participants rated items on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree). Cronbachs alpha for the scale was .86 in the current sample.

33

Coping self-efficacy. Participants completed the 26-item Coping Self-Efficacy Scale

(CSES; Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor, & Folkman, 2006) measuring perceived selfefficacy in coping with threats and challenges. Participants were asked, When things arent
going well for you, how confident are you that you can do the following? The scale then listed
26 coping behaviors such as Keep from getting down in the dumps or Talk positively to
yourself. The scale consists of three factors: use problem-focused coping, stop unpleasant
emotions and thoughts, and get support from friends and family. Participants rated their
responses on a scale from 0 (Cannot Do At All) to 10 (Certain Can Do). Higher scores indicate
more coping self-efficacy. The alpha reliability for this scale in the present sample was .87.
Self-concept clarity. We assessed self-concept clarity with the 12-item Self-Concept
Clarity Scale (Campbell et al., 1996), which measures the degree to which an individual has a
clear concept of who they are. An example item is, In general I have a clear sense of who I am
and what I am. Participants were asked to rate items on a 5-point scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 5
= Strongly Agree). Ten of the 12 items were reverse scored so that higher scores reflect higher
self-concept clarity. The coefficient alpha reliability for this scale was .89 in the current sample.
Social support. Participants completed the 12-item Multidimensional Scale of Perceived
Social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988). The Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support consists of three factor groups, that is, social support from family,
social support from friends, and social support from significant other. Example items include,
There is a special person who is around when I am in need, and, I get the emotional help and
support I need from my family. Participants were asked to rate items on a scale from 1 (Very
Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived social
34

support. Cronbachs coefficient alpha values for this scale in the present sample were .82 for the
family subscale, .87 for the significant other subscale, and .89 for the friends subscale.
Achievement motivation. Participants completed Part One of the Work and Family
Orientation Questionnaire (WOFO; Spence & Helmreich, 1978) consisting of 23 items. The first
part of the WOFO consists of four subscales, namely Mastery (e.g., Once I undertake a task, I
persist), Work (e.g., I find satisfaction in a job well done), Competitiveness (e.g., I enjoy
working in situation involving competition with others), and Personal Unconcern (e.g., I worry
because my success many cause others to dislike me). Participants rated items on a scale from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Alpha coefficients ranged from .75 for Personal
Unconcern to .80 for Competitiveness.
Demographics. Participants also answered a set of demographic questions including
their race/ethnicity, age, gender, major, and grade point average.
Procedure
Participants completed a web-based questionnaire during the Fall 2009 semester.
Students were emailed links to their designated survey that were active for exactly one week.
Participants were able to log into www.psychdata.com at any time during the week the link to the
survey was active. The survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete and consisted of
measures of coping self-efficacy, perceived stress, perceived health status, perceived
vulnerability to illness, perceived social support, achievement motivation, self-concept clarity,
and demographic questions.

35

Statistical Analysis
Structural equation modeling using AMOS 17.0.1 (Arbuckle, 2008; Byrne 2004) was
conducted to examine the potential mediating effect of perceived stress on the association
between coping self-efficacy and self-report measures of health status and vulnerability to
illness. In addition, self-concept clarity and the social support variables were examined as
potential moderators of the relationship between perceived stress and the health measures.
Finally, achievement motivation was examined as a predictor of perceived stress, with GPA
included as a potential moderator of this relationship. Analyses were conducted for females and
males separately, consistent with previous research on stress and coping, health, social support,
and academic performance (Brougham, Zail, Mendoza, & Miller, 2009; Davies et al., 2000;
Isaac, Malaney, & Karras, 1992; Matheny, Ashby, & Cupp, 2005) and the multiple-group
analyses presented below. Results indicated univariate normality for all measures variables,
meeting the assumption underlying the maximum-likelihood procedure used in this study.
Overall goodness of fit was assessed using the chi-square statistic. However, because this fit
index is sensitive to violation of normality assumptions and to sample size, other fit indices
assessed included Bentlers comparative fit index (CFI; Bollen & Long, 1993), with scores
closer to 1.0 indicating good fit, and Browne and Cudecks (1993) root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), for which values of less than .10 indicate a good fit.
Perceived stress, health status, and vulnerability to illness were assessed as latent
variables with respective scale items as manifest variables. Coping self-efficacy was assessed as
a latent variable with its three subscales as manifest variables. Similarly, achievement motivation
was assessed as a latent variable with the work, mastery, and competitiveness subscales as
36

manifest variables. Personal unconcern was not included as a manifest variable since it did not
correlate with any of the study variables, including other achievement motivation subscales.
Consistent with preliminary correlational analyses presented below, each model also included
correlations between the error terms for each of the latent health measures.
Mediator analyses were completed according to criteria put forth by MacKinnon and
colleagues (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, &
Sheets, 2002). Perceived stress was considered a significant mediator of the association between
coping self-efficacy and self-report measures of health status and vulnerability to illness if three
conditions were met: (1) the path from coping self-efficacy to perceived stress was significant,
(2) the paths from perceived stress to the health measures were significant, and (3) the paths
from coping self-efficacy to the health measures were attenuated when perceived stress was
included in the model. The Sobel test was also used as an additional test of mediation, providing
an estimate of indirect effects based on the standard error of the mediated effect.
Finally, product terms were used as predictors to examine the potential moderator effects
of GPA on the relationship between achievement motivation and stress, and the effects of social
support from friends, family, and significant other, and self-concept clarity on the relationship
between stress and latent health measures. As recommended, before testing interaction effects,
predictors were centered to control for multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Gender differences. Means, standard deviations, and t test values by gender are
presented in Table 1. Gender differences were not found on self-concept clarity or coping self37

efficacy. Female students reported greater perceived stress, t(156)= 5.70 p<.001; poorer selfreported health status, t(156)= 3.01, p =.04; and greater vulnerability to illness than male
students, t(156)= 4.27, p =.02. Female students reported higher GPA than their male counterparts
(mean= 3.26 and 2.80, respectively), t(156)= 3.42, p=.03. However, male students reported
higher levels of achievement motivation, particularly on the work, t(156)= 4.19, p =.004,
mastery, t(156)= 3.99, p =.03, and competitiveness subscales, t(156)= 4.25, p =.01, than female
students. Finally, women reported greater levels of perceived social support from friends,
t(156)= 5.22, p <.001, and family, t(156)= 3.77, p =.01, than their male counterparts.
Correlations. Correlational analyses were conducted for male and female students
separately (see Table 2). Correlations were similar in both genders for health status and
perceived stress; perceived stress was negatively related to most variables with the exception of
vulnerability to illness, which was positively related. Health status was inversely related to
perceived stress and positively related to coping self-efficacy and aspects of social support. Selfconcept clarity was also found to correlate negatively with vulnerability to illness for female
students (not significant for male students). In female students, vulnerability to illness was
negatively related to social support (not significant for male students). The personal unconcern
subscale of achievement motivation was not significantly correlated with any variables of
interest other than GPA for either gender.
Structural Equation Modeling Analyses
Multiple-group analyses. Multiple-group analyses on both the structural and
measurement models were conducted to examine gender as a potential moderator of the
analytical model. A chi-square difference test was performed to test whether the gender
38

differences model was significantly different from the group invariant model with regard to the
main paths between the latent constructs (structural model). Results of this test revealed that the
parameter estimates for these paths did significantly differ according to gender, 2(12) = 24.84, p
=.04. Next, an omnibus multiple-group analysis of all item loadings (measurement model) also
revealed a significant difference between male and female students, 2(24) = 49.28, p <.001.
Follow-up chi-square difference tests conducted for each latent construct revealed significant
gender differences for the two health measures, namely self-rated health status, 2(5) = 7.63, p =
.03, and vulnerability to illness, 2(9) = 16.97, p = .02, and perceived stress, 2(9) = 9.21, p =
.02, and achievement motivation, 2(2) = 6.13, p = .04, but not for coping self-efficacy, 2 (2) =
3.18, ns. The significant multiple-group analyses on the structural model and the measurement
model are consistent with previous research and provide empirical support for testing separate
analytical models for male and female students.
Female students. Because the product terms used to examine the potential moderator
effects of GPA on the relationship between achievement motivation and stress, and the effects of
social support from friends on the relationship between stress and latent health measures were
not significant, they were removed from the model. After removal of these interaction variables,
a good fit between the theoretical model and the data was found for female college students,
2(22, N = 102) = 109.54, p =.02, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06 (CI: .04-.07) (see Figure 2).
The potential for perceived stress to act as an explanatory mechanism for the association
between coping self-efficacy and the health outcomes was examined according to criteria put
forth by MacKinnon and colleagues (2002; 2007), wherein significant associations were
necessary between the predictor and mediator variable, as well as between the mediator and
39

outcome variables. Additionally, associations between the predictor and outcome variables
should be attenuated when the mediator is included in the model. Results demonstrated
significant paths between coping self-efficacy and perceived stress, as well as between perceived
stress and health status and perceived stress and vulnerability to illness. A model examining the
association between coping self-efficacy and health status and vulnerability to illness without
inclusion of perceived stress demonstrated that higher levels of coping self-efficacy were
associated with better health status and lower vulnerability to illness ( = .37, p < .001, = -.34,
p =.02, respectively). When perceived stress was included in the model, the association between
coping self-efficacy and health status was reduced to nonsignificance ( = .07, ns) and the
association between coping self-efficacy and vulnerability to illness was attenuated, but
remained significant ( = -.31, p =.03). These findings suggest that perceived stress functioned as
a complete mediator in the relationship between coping self-efficacy and health status, and a
partial mediator in the relationship between coping self-efficacy and vulnerability to illness.
Results from Sobel test analyses provided additional support for indirect effects in the
association between coping self-efficacy and health status and vulnerability to illness through
perceived stress (z = 4.78, p < .001, z = -2.08, p =.04, respectively).
A direct negative relationship between achievement motivation and stress was also
observed for female students ( = -.28, p =.04). Concerning moderator effects, the interaction of
perceived stress with self-concept clarity was associated with health status and vulnerability to
illness ( = .34, p =.03; = -.29, p =.04, respectively), indicating that for female college students
high in self-concept clarity, greater stress was associated with better health status and less
vulnerability to illness as compared to individuals low in self-concept clarity. Similarly, the
40

interaction of stress with social support from friends and significant other were associated with
health status ( = .38, p =.02; = .32, p =.03) but not with vulnerability to illness ( = .08, ns;
= .05, ns). These results indicate that for female students higher in perceived social support from
friends and significant other, greater stress was associated with better health status than women
with low perceived social support.
Male students. As in the female student model, GPA was not a significant moderator of
the relationship between achievement motivation and stress, and social support from family did
not moderate the stress/health relationship so these product terms were removed from the model.
Unlike the female student model, the interaction of social support from friends was also not
significant for either health measure and was removed from the model. After removal of these
product terms, the theoretical model was a good fit for male college students, 2(17, N = 56) =
92.14, p= .03, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .07 (CI: .05-.09) (see Figure 3). In contrast to the model for
female students, fewer significant paths were observed.
Perceived stress was again examined as a potential moderator of the association between
coping self-efficacy and health measures. Results demonstrated significant paths between coping
self-efficacy and perceived stress, as well as between perceived stress and health status. The path
between perceived stress and vulnerability to illness was not significant, however. A model
examining the association between coping self-efficacy and health status without inclusion of
perceived stress demonstrated that higher levels of coping self-efficacy were associated with
better health status ( = .27, p = .04). When perceived stress was included in the model, the
association between coping self-efficacy and health status was reduced to nonsignificance ( =
.11, ns). These findings suggest that perceived stress functioned as a complete mediator in the
41

relationship between coping self-efficacy and health status. Results from Sobel test analyses
provided additional support for indirect effects in the association between coping self-efficacy
and health status through perceived stress (z = 4.69, p <.001).
As in the female student model, a direct negative relationship between achievement
motivation and stress was also observed for male students ( = -.35, p =.03). Concerning
moderator effects, the interaction of perceived stress with self-concept clarity was associated
with health status ( = .31, p =.04) indicating that for male college students high in self-concept
clarity, greater stress was associated with better health status as compared to individuals low in
self-concept clarity. Similarly, the interaction of stress with social support from significant other
were associated with health status ( = .35, p =.02), but not with vulnerability to illness ( = .08,
ns). These results indicate that for male students higher in perceived social support from a
significant other, greater stress was associated with better health status than in men with low
perceived social support.
Discussion
College is a particularly stressful period of many students lives, leading to many
negative outcomes ranging from poor academic performance to physical health problems
(Gerber & Puhse, 2008; Lumley & Provenzano, 2003; Pritchard et al., 2007). Sarafino and
Ewing (1999) noted that being able to assess and reduce student stress is an important concern
for college counseling and health centers because of students many adjustment and physical
health problems (p. 76). Through the use of structural equation modeling, the current study
provides empirical support for the likely influence of coping self-efficacy on perceptions of
stress and self-rated health in both male and female students. These findings also indicate that
42

there may be differential health benefits of coping self-efficacy based on students gender, and
the mediating influence of perceived stress on health outcomes for both genders. Finally, results
suggest that social support and self-concept clarity may promote self-reported health by
buffering the effects of perceived stress, and that these effects vary by gender.
For female college students, coping self-efficacy was found to directly correspond to
lower feelings of stress and lower perceived vulnerability to illness, and indirectly to better
health status through the mediating role of perceived stress. These findings are consistent with
research examining the direct and indirect effects of coping self-efficacy on health (Bandura,
1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004; Chesney et al., 2006; Holahan & Holaham, 1987; Terry, 1994).
For male students, coping self-efficacy directly corresponded to lower perceived stress
and indirectly to self-rated health status but was not related to vulnerability to illness. As with
female students, coping self-efficacy was mediated by lower levels of stress to predict better
health status in male students. Interestingly, coping self-efficacy was not related to vulnerability
to illness either directly or indirectly, possibly confirming research showing that male students
tend to adhere to masculine norms of invulnerability in regard to self-reported health (Baffi,
Radican, Sefchick, & Impara, 1991; Davies et al., 2000). The differences in the relationships
between stress and health in male and female student may indicate a gender-specific bias in
students self-reported health. It is possible that women were more accurate when responding to
measures involving health self-awareness. Based on previous research, women may be more
sensitive to changes in their health and may be better at recognizing illness symptoms (Larouche,
1998; Wade et al., 2000). Similarly, male students may have underreported their health

43

problems. Preliminary gender difference analyses are consistent with these interpretations (See
Table 1).
Regarding the other psychosocial variables examined in relation to stress and health in
the present study, achievement motivation predicted lower levels of perceived stress in both male
and female students. This is consistent with research suggesting that individuals with high
achievement motivation tend to appraise more situations as challenging rather than stressful
(Santiago-Rivera, Bernstein, & Gard, 1995). The findings also underscore the lack of gender
differences in achievement motivation in the literature. Unlike achievement motivation, social
support was associated with stress and health differentially for men and women. For female
students with high perceived social support from friends and from significant other, greater stress
was associated with better health status than female students with low perceived social support,
while for male students, only social support from significant other moderated this association. As
predicted, support from family was not a significant moderator for either gender. Social support
has been shown to provide many benefits under stressful situations. Research suggests that social
support contributes to happiness and life satisfaction and is negatively related to mental health
problems (Ben-Zur, 2009; Brown, Alpert, Lent, Hunt, & Brady, 1988; Lundberg, McIntire, &
Creasman, 2008). Research has also shown that women tend to use more social support when
under stress than their male counterparts (Dwyer & Cummings, 2001; Shumaker & Hill, 1991;
Tamres et al. 2002), which may be reflected in the findings of the present study. On the other
hand, male students may derive the most benefit from a single close individual rather than a
group of friends or family. Finally, consistent with prior research, self-concept clarity was
inversely related to stress (Campbell et al., 1996; De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005; Lavallee &
44

Cambell, 1995) and therefore was associated with better health by serving as a buffer against
stress. In female students, self-concept clarity was associated with better health status and lower
vulnerability to illness; however, in male students, self-concept clarity was only associated with
better health status. These differential findings likely reflect the gender-specific bias in which
men conceal vulnerability.
Strengths and Limitations
The current study contributes to existing research on stress and health in several ways.
First, through the use of structural equation modeling, the current study simultaneously examined
hypothesized moderating and meditational relationships among psychosocial factors, including
gender, and stress and health. This approach investigated more fully how coping self-efficacy
affects student health. Second, the present study examined several variables that provide a basis
for the development of interventions aimed to improve mental and physical health in college
students. Finally, the current study examines the relationship between coping self-efficacy and
health in young adults rather than older populations suffering from life-threatening illness and/or
chronic disease.
Several limitations to this study must be mentioned. First, the sample size was
comparatively small and was skewed by gender. Second, the current study examines perceived
stress and self-reported health outcomes in a specific population (university students), which
limits the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the sample consisted of students enrolled
in a Psychology course who may have been more cognizant of their perceptions of everyday
stress and health than the student population at large. Second, causation could not be determined.
There may be other variables not included in these analyses that are important to consider in the
45

experience of stress and health. For example, inclusion of a cognitive appraisal variable, such as
harm, loss, or challenge, could have been an important moderator of associations between
several variables (e.g., coping self-efficacy, achievement motivation) and perceived stress.
Finally, self-report has inherent limitations such as potential bias due to mood, subjectivity in
reporting, and social desirability.
Implications
In addition to its theoretical contributions, the findings in this study provide a practical
basis for interventions and health promotion efforts in universities, which, based on increasing
levels of stress and stress-related illnesses in college students, are crucial. Health problems
during early adulthood can lead to more serious health issues in later life. Thus, it is important to
determine the nature of the relationship between coping self-efficacy and health in college
students, as well as to determine the important buffers to stress, in order to develop interventions
and implement them before health problems become more severe. The findings in the current
study suggest that universities should focus their efforts on interventions for students that
promote coping self-efficacy, perceived social support, and achievement motivation and reduce
perceived stress. To make the most impact, interventions may need to be tailored differently for
female and male students. In female college students, coping self-efficacy was both directly and
indirectly related to health outcomes through the mediating role of perceived stress. It is
therefore important to focus efforts on improving coping self-efficacy as well as reducing
perceived stress in female college students. On the other hand, for male college students, coping
self-efficacy was completely mediated by reductions in stress to predict better health status,
indicating that interventions for male students should emphasize stress reduction techniques.
46

Additionally, since achievement motivation and social support may serve as a buffer against
stress for both male and female college students, interventions targeting students low on these
variables may be particularly important. While self-concept clarity also served as a buffer against
stress, it is usually conceptualized as a trait in the literature and may not be amenable to change
(Campbell et al., 1996).
A number of interventions have been developed to improve coping and reduce stress,
often incorporating aspects of psychoeducation, relaxation training, cognitive-behavioral
therapy, social support, coping skills training, and/or mindfulness training (Grey, Lobel, Moyer,
Yusufov, in preparation). Most coping interventions emphasize fitting coping strategies to
specific stressors, giving instructions for the application of the skills that are taught, and applying
the coping skills in practice sessions. For example, a coping skills training program designed for
college students with high test anxiety was presented as an educational program designed to
expose students to a wide range of coping skills, such as cognitive restructuring, time
management, goal-setting, stimulus control and effective study techniques that have been shown
to reduce test anxiety and its negative effects on academic performance (Smith, 1989). Students
in the intervention group showed significant decreases in measures of anxiety, higher levels of
academic performance on classroom tests, as well as increases in self-efficacy compared to
controls. In addition to coping interventions, interventions have also been developed to enhance
achievement motivation in students by educating them on the advantages of adopting temporary,
unstable attributions of academic abilities when experiencing failure, and internal, stable
attributions when experiencing success (Perry, Hechter, Menec, & Weinberg, 1993).
Achievement motivation was enhanced by the instructional training. Levels of stress among
47

students are at a record high and the emotional and physical health of college students is
worsening (Pryor et al., 2010). Assisting college students in building effective coping skills
through interventions such as these could become a significant and important tool in alleviating
the increasing burden of stress and help students maintain long-term health, both mentally and
physically.

48

References
Abouserie, R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self-esteem in
university students. Educational Psychology, 14, 323-330.
Adlaf, E. M., Gliksman, L., Demers, A., & Newton-Taylor, B. (2001). The prevalence of
elevated psychological distress among Canadian undergraduates: Findings from the 1998
Canadian Campus Survey. Journal of American College Health, 50, 6-72.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
New York: Sage
Andersen, M., & Lobel, M. (1995). Predictors of health self-appraisal: Whats involved in
feeling healthy? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 121- 136.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 users guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters.
Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2004). The ups and downs of attributional ambiguity:
Stereotype vulnerability and the academic self-knowledge of African American college
students. Psychological Science, 15, 829836.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A longitudinal
investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college adjustment
and performance. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, 9891003.
Baf, C. R., Redican, K. J., Sefchick, M. K., & Impara, J. C. (1991). Gender role identity, gender
role stress, and health behaviors: An exploratory study of selected college males. Health
Values, 15, 9-18.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191215
49

Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a
function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 43, 5-21.
Bandura, A., Taylor, C. B., Williams, S. L., Mefford, I. N., & Barchas, J. D. (1985).
Catecholamine secretion as a function of perceived coping self-efficacy. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 406414.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963) Social learning and personality development. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Baumgardner, A. H. (1990). To know oneself is to like oneself: Self-certainty and self-affect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1062-1072.
Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The
role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1129- 1148.
Ben-Zur, H. (2009). Coping styles and affect. International Journal of Stress Management, 16,
87101.
Berzonsky, M . D . (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60, 771788.
Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in
attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.
Blankstein, K. R., Flett, G. L., & Koledin, S. (1991). The brief college student hassles
scale: Development, validation, and relation with pessimism. Journal of College Student
Development, 32, 3, 258264.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and
50

Education, 17, 369-386.

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890 902.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (Eds). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Bonnot, V., & Croizet, J. C. (2007). Stereotype internalization and womens math performance:
The role of interference in working memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
43, 857-866.
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, 85-97
Brown, S., Alpert, D., Lent, R., Hunt, G., & Brady, T. (1988). Perceived social support among
college students: Factor structure of the social support inventory. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 35, 472-478.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model t. In K. A. Bollen,
& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-161). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models in social and behavioral
research: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less
traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 272 300.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 538-549.
51

Campbell, J. D., & Lavallee, L. E (1993). Who am I?: The role of self-concept confusion in
understanding the behavior of people with low self-esteem. In R. E Baumeister (Ed.),
Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 3-20). New York: Plenum.
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Selfconcept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141-156.
Carver, C. S., & Gaines, J. G. (1987). Optimism, pessimism, and postpartum depression.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 449462.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Womens underrepresentation in science:
Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218-261.
Chang, E. C., Sanna, L. J., Riley, M. M., Thornburg, A. M., Zumberg, K. M., & Edwards, M. C.
(2007). Relations between problem-solving styles and psychological adjustment in young
adults: Is stress a mediating variable? Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 135144.
Cheng, S. & Chan, A. C. M. (2004). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support:
Dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescents. Personality and Individual
Differences, 37, 1359-1369.
Chesney, M. A.; Neilands, T. B.; Chambers, D. B.; Taylor, J. M.; & Folkman, S., (2006). A
validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health
Psychology, 11, 421-437.
Cohen, S., Frank, E., Doyle, W. J., Skoner, D. P., Rabin B. S., & Gwaltney, J. M., Jr. (1998).
Types of stressors that increase susceptibility to the common cold in healthy adults.
52

Health Psychology 17, 214 223.

Cohen, S., Miller, G. E., & Rabin, B. S. (2001). Psychological stress and antibody response to
immunization: A critical review of human literature. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63, 7-18.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Cokley, K., Bernard, N., Cunningham, D., & Motoike, J. (2001). A psychometric investigation of the
Academic Motivation Scale using a United States sample. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 34, 109-119.
Correll, S. J. 2001. Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments.
American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1691-1730.
Crespi, T. D., & Becker, J. T. (1999). Mental health interventions for college students: Facing the family
treatment crisis. Family Therapy, 26, 141-147.
Davies, J., McCrae, B. P, Frank, J., Dochnahl, A., Pickering, T., Harrison, B., et al. (2000). Identifying
male college students perceived health needs, barriers to seeking help, and recommendations to
help men adopt healthier lifestyles. Journal of American College Health, 48, 259-267.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related
behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369-389.
De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural
justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 157173.
Denton, M., Prus, S., & Walters, V. (2004). Gender differences in health: A Canadian study of
the psychosocial, structural and behavioural determinants of health. Social Science and
Medicine, 58, 2585-2600.
53

Diong, S. M., Bishop, G. D., Enkelmann, H. C., Tong, E. M. W., Why, Y. P., Ang, J. C. H., et al.
(2005). Anger, stress, coping, social support and health: Modelling the relationships.
Psychology & Health, 20, 467-495.
Dresselhaus, M, Franz, J., & Clark, B. (1995). Update on the chilly climate for women in
physics. The American Physical Society Committee on the Status of Women in Physics
Gazette, 14, 4-9.
Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Lobel, M. (1990). Stress among students. New Directions for Student Services,
49, 17-34.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (2000). The
relation between perfectionism and distress: Hassles, coping, and perceived social
support as mediators and moderators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 437453.
Dwyer, A., & Cummings, A. L. (2001). Stress, self-efficacy, social support, and coping
strategies in university students. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 35, 208220.
Ehrlinger J., & Dunning, D.A. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and mislead) estimates
of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 5-17.
Elliott, T. R., Herrick, S. M., & Witty, T. E. (1992). Problem-solving appraisal and the effects
of social support among college students and persons with physical disabilities. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 39, 219-226.
Epstein, J.L. (1992). School and Family Partnerships. In M. Atkin (ed.) Encyclopedia of
Educational Research. New York: MacMillan.
Eschenbeck, H., Kohlmann, C.W., & Lohaus, A. (2007). Gender differences in coping
strategies in children and adolescents. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 18 26.
54

Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Uzzi, B., & Neushatz, M. (2000). Athena Unbound: The
Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Erwin, L., & Maurutto, P. (1998). Beyond access: Considering gender deficits in science education.
Gender and Education, 10, 51-69.
Fayers, P. M. (2002). Understanding self-rated health. Lancet, 359, 187-188
Felsten, G., & Wilcox, K. (1992). Influences of stress and situation-specific mastery beliefs and
satisfaction with social support on well-being and academic performance. Psychological Reports,
70, 291-303.
Ferreira, M. M. (2003). Gender issues related to graduate student attrition in two science departments.
International Journal of Science Education, 25, 969-989.
Fickova, E. (2000). Psychometric relations between self-esteem measures and coping with stress.
Studia Psychologia, 42, 237-242.
Fletcher, J. K. (2004). Relational practice: A feminist reconstruction of work. In A.
Barnes (Ed.), The handbook of women, psychology, and the law (pp. 79-123). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in middle-aged community
sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C , DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986).
Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.
Frazier, P. A., & Schauben, L. J. (1994). Stressful life events and psychological adjustment among
55

female college students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 27, 280292.
Gerber, M., & Puhse, U. (2008). Dont crack under pressure! Do leisure time physical activity
and self-esteem moderate the relationship between school-based stress and
psychosomatic complaints? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 65, 363-369.
Gijsbers van Wijk, C. M. T., Huisman, H., & Kolk, A. M. (1999). Gender differences in physical
symptoms and illness behavior: A health diary study. Social Science and Medicine, 49,
1061-1074.
Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
American Psychologist, 54, 493503.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Harder, J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype
threat and womens achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 29, 17-28.
Graham, R. J. (1981) The role of perception of time in consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 7, 335342.
Gramzow, R. H., Sedikides, C., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2000). Aspects of self-regulation
and self-structure as predictors of perceived emotional distress. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 188206.
Green, K. E. (1990). Common illnesses and self-care. Journal of Community Health, 15, 329338.
Grey, N.E., Lobel, M., Moyer, A., & Yusufov, M. (2013). Students in distress: Meta-analytic

56

evaluation of stress reduction interventions for undergraduate and graduate students.

Manuscript in preparation.
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women.
Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of
American Colleges.
Hedeker, D., & Gibbons, R. D. (2006). Longitudinal data analysis. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley-Interscience.
Helmreich, R. L., Beane, W., Lucker, G. W., & Spence, J. T. (1978). Achievement
motivation and scientific attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 222226.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: AAUW.
Holahan, C. K., & Holahan, C. J. (1987). Life stress, hassles, and self-efficacy in aging: A
replication and extension. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 574592.
Hollenshead, C., Younce, P. S., & Wenzel, S. A. (1994). Women graduate students in mathematics and
physics: Reflections on success. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering,
1, 63-88.
Hudd, S., Dumlao, J., Erdmann-Sager, D., Murray, D., Phan, E., Soukas, N., et al. (2000).
Stress at college: Effects on health habits, health status and self-esteem. College Student
Journal, 34, 2, 217 227.
Isaac, P. D., Malaney, G. D., & Karras, J. E. (1992). Parental educational level, gender

57

differences, and seniors aspirations for advanced study. Research in Higher Education,
33, 595-606.
Jenkins, C. D. (1998). Cardiovascular disease. In E. A. Blechman & K. D. Browness (Eds.),
Behavioral medicine and women: A comprehensive handbook {pp. 158-181). New York:
Guilford. Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (1991).
Women's growth in connection. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Jorgensen , R. S., & Dusek , J. B. (1990). Adolescent adjustment and coping strategies. Journal
of Personality, 58, 503513.
Kim, D. I. (1998). Self-concept clarity it Korea: Personality, self-consciousness and behavioural
correlates. Unpublished Mater Thesis, Chung-Ang Unversity, Seoul, South Korea.
Krueger, P. M., & Chang, V. (2008). Being poor and coping with stress: health behaviors and the
risk of death. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 889-96.
Larouche, R. (1998). Determinants of college students health-promoting lifestyles. Clinical
Excellence for Nurse Practitioners, 98, 35-44.
Larson, E. A. (2006). Stress in the lives of college women: Lots to do and not much time.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 579606
Lavallee, L. F., & Campbell, J. D. (1995). Impact of personal goals on self-regulation processes
elicited by daily negative events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 341
352.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. NY: Springer
Lefkowitz, E. S. (2005). Things have gotten better: Developmental changes among emerging
adults after the transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 4063.
58

Lippke, S., Ziegelmann, J. P., & Schwarzer, R. (2004). Behavioral intentions and action
plans promote physical exercise: A longitudinal study with orthopedic rehabilitation
patients. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 470483.
London, B., Downey, G., Bolger, N., & Velilla, E. (2005). A framework for studying social
identity and coping with daily stress during the transition to college. In G. Downey, J.
Eccles, & C. Chatman, (Eds). Navigating the future: Social identity, coping, and life
tasks. RSF Press: NY.
Lukwago, S. N., Kreuter, M. W., Bucholtz, D. C., Holt, C. L., & Clark, E. M. (2001).
Development and validation of brief scales to measure collectivism, religiosity, racial
pride, and time orientation in urban African American women. Family & Community
Health: The Journal of Health Promotion & Maintenance, 24, 63-71.
Lumley, M. A., & Provenzano, K. M. (2003). Stress management through written emotional
disclosure improves academic performance among college students with physical
symptoms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 641-649.
Lundberg, C. A., McIntire, D. D., & Creasman, C. T. (2008). Sources of social support and selfefficacy for adult students. Journal of College Counseling, 11, 5872.
Luszczynska, A. (2006). Effects of an implementation intention intervention on
physical activity after MI are mediated by cognitive processes, change in forming
action plans. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 900908.
Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2003). Planning and self-efficacy in the adoption and
maintenance of breast self-examination: A longitudinal study on self-regulatory
cognitions. Psychology and Health, 18, 93108.
59

Luszczynska, A., Tryburcy, M., & Schwarzer, R. (2007). Improving fruit and
vegetable consumption: A self-efficacy intervention compared to a combined
self-efficacy and planning intervention. Health Education Research, 22, 630638.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 593-614.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
Madill , H.M, Ciccocioppo, A.L., Stewin, L.L, Armour, M.A., & Montgomerie, T.C.
(2004). The Potential to Develop a Career in Science: Young Womens Issues
and Their Implications for Careers Guidance Initiatives. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counseling, 26, 1-9.
Marlowe, N. (1998). Stressful events, appraisal, coping and recurrent headache. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 54, 247-256
Marx, D. M., Stapel, D. A., & Muller, D. (2005). We can do it: The interplay of a collective selfconstrual orientation and social comparisons under threat . Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 432-446.
Matheny, K. B., Ashby, J. S., & Cupp, P. (2005). Gender differences in stress, coping, and
illness among college students. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 61, 365-379.
Matto, H. & Realo, A. (2001). The Estonian Self-Concept Clarity Scale: Psychometric properties
and personality correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 59-70.

60

Matud, M.P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37, 1401-1415.
McConnell, A. R., & Strain, L. M. (2007). Content and structure of the self-concept. In C.
Sedikides & S. J. Spencer (Eds.), The self: Frontiers of social psychology (pp. 5173).
New York: Psychology Press.
Meinholdt, C., & Murray, S. L. (1999). Why aren't there more women engineers? Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5, 239-263.
Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002).
Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students' college
experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 896-918.
Moos, R.H. (1993). Coping Response Inventory Youth Forum: Professional Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Moos, R. H., Brennan, P. L., Fondacaro, M. R., & Moos, B. S. (1990). Approach and avoidance
coping responses among older problem and nonproblem drinkers. Psychology and Aging,
5, 31-40.
Morganson, V. J., Jones, M. P., & Major, D. A. (2010). Understanding womens
underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: The role of
social coping. The Career Development Quarterly, 59, 169-179.
Morris, E., Brooks, P., & May, J. (2003). The relationship between achievement goal orientation
and copying style: Traditional vs. nontraditional college students. College Student
Journal, 37, 3-9.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality: A Clinical and Experimental Study of
61

Fifty Men of College Age. Oxford England: Oxford Univ. Press.

National Science Foundation (2012). Graduate enrollment in science and engineering grew
substantially in the past decade but slowed in 2010. National Science Foundation,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/.
Perry, R. P., Hechter, F. J., Menec, V. H., & Weinberg, L. E. (1993). Enhancing achievement
motivation and performance in college students: An attributional retraining perspective.
Research in Higher Education, 34, 687-723.
Pierceall, E. A., & Keim, M. C. (2007). Stress and coping strategies among community
college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31, 703712.
Precidano, M . E . , & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and
from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11,
1-12.
Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., DeAngelo, L., Blake, P. L., & Tran, S. (2010). The American
freshman: National norms Fall 2010. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA.
Rosenthal, B. S., & Schreiner, A. C. (2000). Prevalence of psychological symptoms among
undergraduate students in an ethnically diverse urban public college. Journal of American
College Health, 49, 12-18.
Rueger, S. Y.; Malecki, C. K.; Demaray, M. K. (2010). Relationship between multiple
sources of perceived social support and psychological and academic adjustment in early
adolescence: Comparisons across gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 47-61.
Sandanger, I., Nygrd, J. F., Srensen, T., & Moum, T. (2004). Is womens mental health more
62

susceptible than mens to the influence of surrounding stress? Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39, 177-184.
Santiago, Rivera, A.L.; Bernstein, B.L., & Gard, T.L. (1995). The importance of achievement
and the appraisal of stressful events as predictors of coping. Journal of College Student
Development. 36, 374-383.
Sarafino, E. P., & Ewing, M. (1999). The Hassles Assessment Scale for Students in College:
Measuring the frequency and unpleasantness, Journal of American College Health, 48,
75-87.
Sax, L. J. (1997). Health trends among college freshmen. Journal of American College
Health, 45, 252262.
Sax, L. J. (2003). Our incoming students: What are they like? About Campus, 8, 15 20.
Scholz, U., Sniehotta, F. F., Burkert, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2007). Increasing physical exercise
levels: Age-specific benefits of planning. Journal of Aging and Health, 19, 851-866.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The cost of accepting gender
differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in womens experience in the
math domain. Sex Roles, 50, 835850.
Schuz, B., Sniehotta, F. F., Wiedemann, A., & et al. (2006). Adherence to a daily flossing
regimen in university students: effects of planning when, where, how and what to do in
the face of barriers. Journal of Clinical Periodontics, 33, 612-619.
Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Hemisphere, Washington, DC.
Schwarzer, R. (2000). Manage stress at work through preventive and proactive coping. In E. A.
Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behaviour (pp. 342-355).
63

Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Schwarzer, R. (2008). Models of health behaviour change: Intention as mediator or stage as
moderator? Psychology & Health, 23, 259-263.
Schwarzer, R., & Taubert, S., (2002). Tenacious goal pursuits and striving toward personal
growth: Proactive coping. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions
and challenges (pp. 19-35). London: Oxford University Press.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications in generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
Scheier, M. E, Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, C. S. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies
of optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 12571264.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life
Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.
Setterlund, M. B., & Niedenthal, P. M. (1993). Who am I? Why am I here?: Self-esteem, selfclarity, and prototype matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 769
780.
Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 487-500.
Shumaker, S. A., & Hill, D. R. (1991). Gender differences in social support and physical health.
Health Psychology, 10, 102-111.

64

Simkin, L. R., & Gross, A. M., (1994). Assessment of coping with high-risk situations for
exercise relapse among healthy women. Health Psychology, 13, 274-277.
Smith, R. E. (1989). Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and locus of
control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 228.
Smith, M., Wethington, E., & Zhan, G. (1996). Self-concept clarity and preferred coping styles.
Journal of Personality, 64, 407434.
Sniehotta, F.F., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2006). Action plans and coping plans
for physical exercise: A longitudinal intervention study in cardiac rehabilitation.
British Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 2337.
Sniehotta, F. F., Schwarzer, R., Scholz, U., & Schuz, B. (2005). Action planning and
coping planning for long-term lifestyle change: Theory and assessment. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 565576.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
797-811.
Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (2001). Locus of control and health behaviour revisited: A
multivariate analysis of young adults from 18 countries. British Journal of Psychology,
92, 659-672
Swanson, J. L.; Daniels, K. K.; & Tokar, D. M. (1996). Assessing perceptions of career-

65

related barriers: The Career Barriers Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 219244.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd Ed). New
York: Harper Collins.
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, 35-64
Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Gruenewald, T.L, Gurung, R.A.R, & Updegraff,
J.A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fightor-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411-429.
Terry, D. (1994). Determinants of coping: The role of stable and situational factors. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 895910.
Vaez, M., & Laamme, L. (2003). Health behaviors, self-rated health, and quality of life: A study
among rst-year Swedish university students. Journal of American College Health, 51, 156-162.
Valentiner, D.P., Holahan, C.J., & Moos, R.H. (1994). Social support, appraisals
of events and controllability, and coping: An integrative model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66, 1094-1102.
Valian, V. (2005). Sex disparities in advancement and income. Retrieved September 10, 2006 from
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/genderequity/equitymaterials.html.
Valian, V. (2007). Women at the Top in Science--And Elsewhere. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams
(Eds.), Why aren't more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence. (pp. 27-37).
Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association.
66

Van der Werff, J. (1990). The problem of self-conceiving. In S. Jackson, & H. Bosma (Eds.)
Coping and self-concept in adolescence (pp. 14-30). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Vingilis, E., Wade, T. J., & Adlaf, E. (1998). What factors predict student self-rated physical health?
Journal of Adolescence, 21, 83-97.
Vitaliano, P. P., Maiuro, R. D., Russo, J., & Becker, J. (1987). Raw versus relative scores in the
assessment of coping strategies. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 1-18.
Wade, T. J., Pevalin, D. J., & Vingilis, E. (2000). Revisiting student self-rated physical
health. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 785-791.
Walsh, M., Hickey, C., & Duffy, J. (1999). Influence of item content and stereotype
situation on gender differences in mathematical problem solving. Sex Roles, 41, 219-240.
Warrington, M., & Younger, M. (2000). The other side of the gender gap. Gender and
Education, 12, 493-508.
Wiedenfeld, S. A., O'Leary, A., Bandura, A., Brown, S., Levine, S., & Raska, K.(1990). Impact
of perceived self-efficacy in coping with stressors on components of the immune system.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1082-1094.
Ziegelmann, J.P., Lippke, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2006). Adoption and maintenance of
physical activity: Planning interventions in young, middle-aged, and older adults.
Psychology and Health, 21, 145163.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., &. Farley, G. K. (1988). The
multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment,
52, 30-41.
Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S., & Berkoff, K. A. (1990).
67

Psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 610-617.

68

Table 1
Zero-order Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations of Study 1 Variables
Variable

1. Perceived stress

2. Career barriers

.33**

3. Coping self-efficacy

-.41**

-.51**

4. Graduate school decision stress

.37**

.45**

-.29**

5. Self-concept clarity

-.26*

.11

.31**

.19

6. Optimism

-.24*

-.22*

.08

.14

.09

Means

2.49

5.18

8.56

4.27

3.83

3.59

Standard deviations

.56

.92

2.02

1.13

.72

.64

*p<.05; **p<.01

69

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations by Gender of Study 2 Variables
Males

Females

Variable

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Perceived stress

33.64

5.98

40.01

6.12

5.70***

Health status

24.22

4.14

19.96

4.38

3.01*

Vulnerability to illness

28.18

8.40

34.87

8.22

4.27*

Coping self-efficacy

191.68

45.66

195.56

44.79

.79

Self-concept clarity

39.06

8.38

38.45

8.10

.58

SS-Friends

17.43

4.59

22.45

5.31

5.23***

SS-Family

10.87

4.10

13.97

3.93

3.77**

SS-Significant other

20.91

4.33

21.02

4.45

.82

AM-Work

27.43

3.19

21.37

3.97

4.19**

AM-Mastery

26.33

4.60

20.54

4.32

3.99*

AM-Personal Unconcern

16.05

4.35

15.92

4.51

.24

AM-Competitiveness

14.87

2.92

11.01

2.87

4.25*

GPA

2.80

.62

3.26

.53

3.42*

Note. AM = Achievement motivation; GPA = Grade point average; SS = Social support.

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

70

Table 3
Zero-order Correlations Among Study 2 Variables for Males (Top Right) and Females (Bottom Left)
Variable

10

11

12

13

1. Perceived stress

-.38*

.29*

-.64**

-.48**

-.37**

-.12

-.23**

-.35*

-.41*

-.09

-.03

-.21*

2. Health status

-.37*

-.49**

.32**

.30**

.18*

.04

.16*

-.04

.06

-.04

.09

.13

3. Vulnerability to illness

.35*

-.52**

-.18*

-.10

.05

.05

.08

-.03

-.09

.00

-.09

-.15

4. Coping self-efficacy

-.64**

.41**

-.25*

.59**

.29**

.31** .10

.43**

.32** -.03

.07

.05

5. Self-concept clarity

-.47**

.32**

-.21*

.55**

.15

.23** .27**

.12

.14

.08

.12

.20*

6. SS-Friends

-.39**

.21*

-.17*

.35**

.31**

.52** .56**

.06

.04

.03

.07

.07

7. SS-Family

-.25**

.17*

-.20*

.32**

.28**

.40*

.40**

.16

.00

.02

.01

.05

8. SS-Significant other

-.29**

.18*

-.19*

.29**

.37**

.55*

.38*

.11

.05

.04

.08

.07

9. AM-Work

-.30*

.03

.08

.39**

.10

.02

.03

.02

.52** .05

.23** .35*

10. AM-Mastery

-.32*

.07

.06

.29**

.12

.05

.03

.03

.57**

-.02

.35** .34*

11. AM-Personal Unconcern

-.07

-.02

-.01

-.05

.09

.01

.01

.02

.09

.07

-.13

.39*

12. AM-Competitiveness

-.05

-.09

.03

.03

.09

.02

.01

.05

.27**

.35** -.08

.37*

13. GPA

-.26*

.22*

-.09

.08

.25*

.12

.08

.10

.39*

.38*

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01

71

.35* .29*

Figure 1. Model describing hypothesized associations among study variables including moderator effects. Manifest variables on
which latent variables are based and error terms are not shown. SS = Social support.

72

Figure 2. Structural equation model for female college students. Manifest variables on which latent variables are based and error terms
are not shown. SS = Social support. Paths with bolded numbers are statistically significant, p<.05.
73

Figure 3. Structural equation model for male college students. Manifest variables on which latent variables are based and error terms
are not shown. SS = Social support. Paths with bolded numbers are statistically significant, p<.05.

74