A Study on the Relation between Coping with Stressful Situations and Emotions with Forgiveness and Psychological Well-Being Variables Set in Student

Transcription

1 Applied Science Reports E-ISSN: / P-ISSN: App. Sci. Report. 3 (1), 2013: PSCI Publications A Study on the Relation between Coping with Stressful Situations and Emotions with Forgiveness and Psychological Well-Being Variables Set in Student Fatemeh Amini 1, Parvaneh Doodman 2, Fatemeh Boostani 3, Ali Edalati 4, Zhila Abbasi 4 1. Islamic Azad University, Lamerd branch, Iran 2. Faculty of Economics and Social Science, Payame Noor University, PO Box , Tehran, Iran 3. Islamic Azad University, Nourabad Mamasani Branch, Iran 4. Faculty of Economics and Social Science, Payame Noor University, PO Box , Tehran, Iran Corresponding author alisq2008@yahoo.com. Key words coping, emotions forgiveness psychological well-being A B S T R A C T The following research tries to study the relation between coping with stress and emotions (rational, emotional, detachment, advancement) with forgiveness and psychological wellbeing in Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz students. The sample to this research included 352 students who were selected through random stratified sampling. Data collection tools to this study were Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) and Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS) (positive and negative emotions). Results from Regression analysis suggested that coping and emotions styles variables had a great role in predicting forgiveness and psychological well-being. Results from Canonical analysis indicated that the linear combination of forgiveness and psychological well-being factors is predictable by the linear combination of coping (rational and emotional) and emotions (positive emotions and negative emotions) factors PSCI Publisher All rights reserved. Introduction Mental health is the main core in forming health and medical sciences in this field. Hence, its improving and disproving factors have always been under study. Accordingly, positive psychology approach and its features, such as character strength (sub-categories such as forgiveness, gratitude, and hope) and psychological well-being, are considered as improving psychological health factors. (Kashdan, Julian, Merritt and Uswatte, 2006). Positive psychology is the illustration of a change in psychology and it moves towards optimizing life quality through repairing damages. ( Snyder and Lopez, 2002) Hence, the aforementioned studies human strength points and perfection, scientifically, (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) and it is to find individual talents in coping with challenges and identifying individual empowering factors in daily experiences and factors which makes life worth living. Therefore, the positive approach in psychology could orientate future researchers and work in psychological rehabilitation. To components of forgiveness and psychological well-being are among the main positive psychology features. Forgiveness as in letting go of negative emotions (such as animosity), negative cognitions (such as thoughts about retaliation) and negative behaviors (such as verbal violence) are understandable in responding to injustice and also, it could include positive reaction towards wrongdoer. Forgiveness could include self, others and situation (natural disasters and incurable diseases). (Rye and Pargament, 2002) Psychological well-being is grasped in sense of cohesion in life, emotional balance and general satisfaction in life. (Langer, 2002) This variable includes factors such as emotion ( overcoming positive feelings in individuals by higher psychological well-being), cognition (understanding of control over life), behavior ( liveliness and activity), self-concept (having a positive and realistic self -concept), and interpersonal relations (human interaction with others). (Emmons and McCalogue, 2003; McCalogue, Emmons and Tsang, 2002; Worthington and Weed, 1999; Worthington, Berry, Parot, Plante and Sherman, 2001) Psychological well-being structure includes six components if life satisfaction, spirituality, happiness and optimism, maturity, positive relation with others and selfautonomy. Various factors could affect positive psychology. Psychological and emotional copings are among factors which affect forgiveness and psychological wellbeing. Most theories focus on the difference between coping strategies which could create psychological well-being and separate them from strategies which include lower psychological well-being. Problem-oriented and rational copings have higher compatibility with well-being, while emotion-oriented and

2 advancement copings have lower compatibility. (Carvar et al., 1989; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Maltby et al., 2007) Research findings suggest that comparing to emotion-oriented strategies, problem-oriented coping strategies are more adaptive. (Carvar et al., 1989) Since forgiveness is generally an adaptive process, it seems that it has a positive correlation with problem-oriented coping and a negative correlation with emotion-oriented coping. Hammonds, Banks and Mattis (2006) believed that forgiveness appears in presence of positive emotions, cognitions and behaviors and it will not appear in presence of negative emotions, cognitions and behaviors. Worthington (1998a), also, believes that forgiveness is a real decision and change in individuals experience and this change in behaviors is related to physical and mental health. Thompson et el. (2005) findings indicated that there is a positive relation between positive significant forgiveness and positive emotion and a negative significant relation between forgiveness and negative emotion. In this regard, Kashdan et al. (2006) findings on studying the relation between psychological well-being and personality capabilities in soldiers with posttraumatic stress disorders showed that positive emotions and positive events and attributes in these patients leads to life satisfaction, gratitude and forgiveness and in the same way, negative experiences and emotions lead to dissatisfaction and lesser forgiveness. As it was mentioned before, considering the positive psychology effects on mental health, basic and applied research on positive approach and factors which affect it seem to be of significance. Points stated above reveal the significance of further studies. Therefore, the following research tries to study the relation of rational, emotional, detachment, advancement copings, positive emotion and negative emotion with forgiveness and psychological well-being in university students. Considering the objectives, the following hypothesis is proposed: There is a canonical relation between rational, emotional, detachment, advancement copings, positive emotion and negative emotion variables set and forgiveness and well-being variables set. Methodology This research is a descriptive research and of correlative type. The statistical society to this research included all Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz students in the second semester of academic year. Random stratified sampling was used to select the participants. Accordingly, 375 students from 10 faculties were selected and questionnaires were distributed among students, subsequent to checking with the education faculties. 352 questionnaires out of 275 questionnaires were filled out. Data collection began by the beginning of the semester in February and ended by mid-may. The mean and standard deviation of participants age were and 3.08 years, respectively. Slos, 74.7 percent of students were studying for their bachelor s degree, 18.8 percent were studying for their master s degree and 6.5 percent were studying for their Ph.D. degree. Research Tools Tools used in this research included: Coping Style Questionnaire (CSQ): This scale is made by Roger, Jarvis and Najarian (1993). The scale contains 60 statements, which includes 4 sub-scales ( 16 rational statements, 15 detachment statements, 16 emotional statements and 13 advancement statements). Statements are ranked on a 4-grade scale (1 = never to 4 = always) by participants. Roger et al. (1993) reported that the reliability coefficient of this questionnaire using Cronbach s alpha for sub-scales of rational, detachment, emotional and advancement are 0.85, 0.90, 0.74 and 0.69, respectively. The reliability coefficient through Cronbach s alpha in this research was 0.87, 0.66, 0.71 and 0.61, respectively, in this research. Roger et al. (1993) determined the validly of this scale by factor analysis method and they reported that factor analysis results expressed four sub-scaled of rational, detachment, advancement and emotional copings. Validity of the questionnaire in this research was determined through criterion validity, from the correlation of this questionnaire sub-scales and coping inventory of stressful situations (CISS) (Endler and Parker, 1999). The correlation between sub-scale of advancement coping (CISS) and advancement coping (CSQ) was 0.23 which was significant at The correlation between sub-scale of thinking-oriented coping (CISS) and emotional and rational copings (CSQ) were and 0.66, respectively, which were significant at The correlation between sub-scale of emotion-oriented coping (CISS) and emotional and rational copings (CSQ) were 0.32 and -0.32, respectively, which were significant at Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): The positive and negative affect schedule was designed by Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1988). This scale is a self-evaluation toll and contains 20 statements which is designed to evaluate two mood aspects, positive emotion and negative emotion. This scale was translated into Persian by Bakhshipur and Dozhkam (2005). The scale includes two sub -scales of positive emotion and negative emotion and each sub-scale contains 10 statements. Statements are ranked on a 5-degree scale from never to always, by the participants. Watson et al. (1988) reported that the reliability coefficient of the sub-scale of positive emotion through Cronbach s alpha was 0.88 and for the sub-scale of negative emotion was The reliability coefficient of positive sub-scale in this research through Cronbach s alpha was 0.81 and for the negative emotion sub-scale was Also, its validity though negative and positive sub-scales with Beck depression inventory were reported 0.58 and -0.36, respectively and with manifest anxiety of Kattel Anxiety Inventory (KAI) were reported to be 0.51 and -0.35, respectively (Watson et al., 1998). Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HSF): This scale was designed by Thompson et al. (2002). (Thompson and Snyder, 2003) The scale is a pen and paper self-report tool which includes 18 statements. The scale contains three sub-scales of forgiveness of self (6 statements), forgiveness of others (6 statements) and forgiveness of situation (6 statements). Statements are ranked on a 7-degree scale (1 = Always wrong and 7 = Always wrong) by the participants. The total 91

3 forgiveness scale is calculated by the summing the sub-scales grades. 9 stamens from these 18 statements (items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17) are graded reversely. The reliability of the scale based on Cronbach s alpha in the primary research for the scale of total tendency towards forgiveness was in the range between 0.84 and 0.87 and for self, other and situation sub-scales it was in the range between 0.71 and (Thompson et al., 2002) (Thompson and Snyder, 2003) The reliability coefficient for this scale in this research through Cronbach s alpha for the total forgiveness scale was 0.83 and for the sub-scales of forgiveness of self, forgiveness of others and forgiveness of situation were respectively 0.78, 0.84 and The convergent structure validity of the questionnaire through calculating the correlation between the whole test and its sub-scales was calculated and it was indicated that the correlation of the tendency towards Headland forgiveness scale and three sub-scales of forgiveness of self, others and situation were respectively 0.78, 0.77 and 0.73, which are all significant at p<0.01. Psychological Well-Bing Scale: Psychological well-being scale is a pen and paper self-reporting tool which was designed by Ryff (1994). This scale contains 77 statements and it is provided for psychological well-being evaluation. The scale has been translated into Persian by Zanjani Tabasi. This scale includes 6 sub-scales of life satisfaction (19 statements), spirituality (13 statements), happiness and optimism (19 statements), maturity (8 statements), positive relation with others (8 statements) and self -autonomy (10 statements). To determine the scale reliability, Cronbach s alpha was used. The reliability confident for the whole scale was 0.94 and for sub-scales was in the range of 0.62 to 0.9. Also, the reliability coefficients using test-retest method was 0.76 and for sub-scales was in the range of 0.67 to (Zanjani Tabasi, 2004) The reliability coefficient for this scale using Cronbach s alpha for the whole scale was 0.94 and for subscales of life satisfaction, spirituality, happiness and optimism, maturity, positive relation with others and self-autonomy were respectively 0.84, 0.83, 0.85, 0.50, 0.78 and The psychological well-being structure validity was studied through two methods (Zanjani Tabasi, 2004) the first method is calculating the correlation coefficient for the whole scale with sub-scales in which results suggested that psychological well-being scale has a high correlation with its six subscales. The second method is the factor analysis method, according to the factor analysis results, the psychological wellbeing scale is saturated with six sub-scales which is named under life satisfaction, spirituality, happiness and optimism, maturity, positive relation with others and self-autonomy based on theoretical framework. (Zanjani Tabasi, 2004). Research Findings The descriptive findings of this research includes statistical indices of mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum participants score in understudies variables which are presented in Table 1: Table 1. Participants Scores Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Statistical Indices Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Variables Rational Coping Detachment Coping Emotional Coping Advancement Coping Positive Emotion Negative Emotion Forgiveness Psychological Well-Being To test the first research hypothesis, canonical correlation analysis was used. In this statistical method, all predicting variables are studied in one set and all criterion variables are studied in another set. The main objective for canonical correction is to determine the relation between predicting variables set and criterion variables set. In fact, the main objective in this method is to determine number of needed dimensions for understanding the relation between predicting variables set and criterion variables set. Put it another way, canonical correlation is similar to multi-variable Regression, while canonical correlation obtains more criterion variables. (Delavar, 1997) The first step in canonical correlation analysis is to assess the canonical model, completely. The most common significance test is F-test. To assess the significance, Wilks' Lambda, Hotelling s Trace, Pillai s Trace and Roy s Largest Root are usually used. Table 2 presents the complete canonical correlation model for participants. Table 2. Significance Tests for Complete Canonical Correlation Model in Participates Test Name Value F df1 df2 p-value Pillai s Trace Hotelling s Trace Wilks' Lambda Roy s Largest Root As it could be observed in Table 2, Wilk s Lambda value is (F(12, 688)=2.27, p=0.001); that is, there is a significant relation between two sets of variables. Hence, research hypothesis is approved. Wilk s Lambda presents a variance which model doesn t explain and as a result, it shows equal effect as 1- λ which shows the common variance 92

4 between two sets of variables that model can explain. In other words, the model in this research could explain 61 percent of the variance between rational, emotional, detachment, advancement, positive emotion and negative emotion with forgiveness and psychological well-being variables set. The second step in canonical correlation is determining the number of needed dimensions for understanding the relation between predicating variables set and criterion variables set. Theoretically, number of variables or canonical dimensions is equal with number of smaller set members and not all of them are significant, necessarily. In analyzing this hypothesis, both dimensions are significant. Table 3 presents the canonical dimensions for predicting and criterion variables in participants. Table 3. Canonical Dimensions for Predicting Variables Set and Criterion Variables Set in Participants Dimensions 1 2 Canonical Correlation Canonical Correlation Square Wilks Lambda 0/ F-ratio df df p-value As Table 3 presents, number of canonical dimensions is 2, which similar to the smaller set (2 criterion variables). These results suggest that F ratio in both dimensions is significant. Table 4 presents the standard canonical coefficients and structural coefficients for predicting variables set and criterion variables set for first and second canonical dimensions. Table 4. Structural and Standard Canonical Coefficients for Predicating and Criterion Variables Sets in First and Second Dimensions in Participants First Dimension Second Dimension Variables Standard Canonical Standard Canonical Structural Coefficients Structural Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients Rational Coping Detachment Coping Emotional Coping / Advancement Coping Positive Emotion Negative Emotion R 2 c Forgiveness Psychological Well-Being Pedhazur (1982) believes that structural coefficients of 0.30 are significant. Hence, structural coefficients, which are higher than 0.30, are explained. Among predicting variables, based on Table 4 in first dimension, rational coping, positive emotion, negative emotion and emotional coping had the highest effect on the predicting variables linear combination, respectively. On the other hand, on this dimension, among the criterion variables, psychological well-being and forgiveness had the highest role in criterion variables linear combination, respectively. In other words, on the first dimension, variables of psychological well-being and forgiveness are predicted by rational coping, positive emotion, negative emotion and emotional coping. In fact, the low score in rational coping, positive emotion, negative emotion and emotional coping are associated with psychological well-being and forgiveness. Meanwhile, the canonical determination coefficient value (R 2 c) is which explains the common variance value between two canonical sets of predicting and criterion variables. Also, among predicting variables, based on Table 4 in second dimension, emotional coping, positive emotion, negative emotion and rational coping had the highest effect on the predicting variables linear combination, respectively. On the other hand, on this dimension, among the criterion variables, forgiveness and psychological well-being had the highest role in criterion variables linear combination, respectively. In other words, on the second dimension, variables of forgiveness and psychological well-being are predicted by emotional coping, positive emotion, negative emotion and rational coping. In fact, the low score in emotional coping, positive emotion, negative emotion and rational coping are associated with forgiveness and psychological well-being. Meanwhile, the canonical determination coefficient value (R 2 c) is which explains the common variance value between two canonical sets of predicting and criterion variables. Discussion and Conclusion The objective in the research is to study the relation between rational, emotional, detachment and advancement copings and positive emotion and negative emotion with forgiveness and psychological well-being in students. In testing the research hypothesis, research findings from the first canonical dimension suggested that a linear combination of predicting factors including rational coping, positive emotion, negative emotion and emotional coping, respectively, could explain psychological well-being and forgiveness n university students. Results to the second dimension indicated that forgiveness and psychological well-being could be predicated by variables of emotional coping, positive emotion, negative emotion and rational coping. As canonical analysis results in this research shows, the linear combination of psychological well-being, rational coping and emotional coping could explain a considerable variance. Results of this study are in accordance with Carvar et 93

5 al. (1989), Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and Maltby et al. (2007). In fact, problem-oriented and rational copings have a higher compatibility with well-being and emotion-oriented and advancement copings have a lower compatibility with well-being. Canonical analysis results in this study, also, indicate that the linear combination of psychological well-being, positive emotion and negative emotion could explain a considerable variance. These findings are in accordance with Thompson et al. (2005). When individuals experience positive emotion which include a wide range of positive moods such as happiness, sense of empowerment, enthusiasm, interest and confidence (Watson end Tellegen, 1985), have a higher psychological well-being, comparing to the time when the experience negative emotion which includes negative moods such as rage, despair, hatred, humiliation, guild, fear and anger. Results from canonical analysis in this research suggest that the linear combination of forgiveness, rational coping and emotional coping explain a considerable variance. In fact, it could be said that comparing to emotion-oriented copings, problem-oriented copings are more adaptive. (Carvar et al., 1989) Since forgiveness is generally an adaptive process, it seems that problem-oriented coping is associated with more forgiveness, while emotion-oriented coping is associated with less forgiveness. Results from canonical analysis in this research indicated that the linear combination of forgiveness, positive emotion and negative emotion explain a considerable variance. Results from this research are in accordance with Kashdan et al. (2006). In explaining these findings, it could be said positive emotions, events and attributions in individuals lead to life satisfaction, gratitude and forgiveness and in the same way, negative experiences and emotions lead to dissatisfaction and lesser forgiveness. In addition to expanding theoretical fields related to studied variables, results from this research could be used by clinicians to improve the mental health factors. In fact, considering the significance and the role of positive psychology in improving mental health, it is recommended that mental health expertise consider including positive components in their workshops for improvement. Also, it is suggested that instead of repairing damages, experts change strategies towards optimizing life quality. References Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JJ Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, Emmons RA, McCullough ME Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, doi: / Hammond WP, Banks KH, Mattis JS Masculinity Ideology and Forgiveness of Racial Discrimination among African American Men: Direct and Interactive Relationships. Journal of Sex Roles, 55, Kashdan TB, Julian T, Merritt K, Uswatte G Social anxiety and posttraumatic stress in combat veterans: relations to well- being and character strengths. Journal of Behaviour Research and Therapy, 144(4), Langer E Well-being (mind-fullness versus positive evolution). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, Maltby J, Macaskill A, Gillett R The Cognitive Nature of Forgiveness: Using Cognitive Strategies of Primary Appraisal and Coping to Describe the Process of Forgiving. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(6), McCullough ME, Emmons RA, Tsang JA The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, Pedhazur EJ Multiple regression in behavioral research. Texas: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Roger D, Jarvis G, Najarian B Detachment and Coping: The Constraction and Validation of a New Scale for Measuring Coping Strategies. Journal of Personality individual Differences, 15(6), Rye MS, Pargament KI Forgiveness and romantic relationships in college: Can it heal the wounded heart? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, Seligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M Positive psychology: An introduction. Journal of American Psychologist, 55: Snyder CR, Lopez SJ Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press., 1-2. Thompson LY, Snyder CR, Hoffman L, Michael ST, Rasmussen HN, Billings LS, et al Dispositional forgiveness of self, other, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73, Thompson LY, Snyder CR Measuring forgiveness. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Watson CLA, Tellegen A Toward a consensual structure of mood. Journal of Psychological Bulletin, 98, Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Worthington EL Jr, Berry JW, Parrott L, III, Plante TG, Sherman AC Unforgiveness, forgiveness, religion, and health. In T. G. Plante & A. C. Sherman (Eds.), Faith and health: Psychological perspectives. New York: Guilford Press. Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 18,