28
201
No significant gender differences in avoidance focused were found in this study. Both males
and females showed similar coping responses in this regard. The reason may be that if males use
avoidance coping by using alcohol and drugs the females also use tranquilizers and sedatives to
avoid stress.
Multivariate analysis of variance was performed on study variables. Using multiple
ANOVAs inflates type 1 error rates and MANOVA helps control for the inflation under certain
conditions. MANOVA may find differences that do not show up under ANOVA. One-way
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for gender as independent variable and DSS and
its subscales as dependent variables were performed. To determine whether the one-way
MANOVA was statistically significant we
run multivariate test of Wilk’s Lambda
. Based on the
Wilk’s lambda criterion, test was significant
and the dependent variables varied significantly
with gender, F (5, 176) = 11.19, p < .001. Since a significant result was obtained from the
omnibus MANOVA test, a Univariate analysis of variance was performed. As predicted by
Hypothesis 6, gender made a significant unique contribution to predicting differences between
the daily stressors of males and females, univariate F= (1, 180) 7.55, p<.007. As it was predicted
(H6a) there were gender differences on the Family and Personal stressors of DSS F= (1,180), p<
.000. It was also predicted that males and females will have significantly different scores on the
subscales of DSS (H6 b,c,d). There was an interaction between DSS and gender. The interaction
appeared to be produced by the fact that the female mean was high on total DSS and family
stressors but remained indistinguishable from the males on other subscales.
A MANOVA was also conducted to examine the contribution of gender in predicting DSS,
coping and health. Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices
was .225, p> .001. Levene’s
test of equality of error variance was non significant. The hypothesis regarding the significant
24
202
contribution of gender model in predicting the daily stress, coping and health was accepted
Wilks’ lambda = .909,
F (3,176) = 5.85, p < .001. Given the significance of overall test, the
Univariate main effects were examined. Significant Univaraite main effects for gender were
obtained for DSS, F =6.64, < p .011, Coping, F = 11.58, p< .001; Health, F = 4.26, p< .040.
Females consistently scored high on these variables. Results demand to take serious actions to
reduce gender bias in the society.
6.4 Group Differences in DSS
Daily stressor scale was developed to find out the stressors of university teachers.
Researcher wanted to know that among lecturers, assistant, associate and full professors who
were more prone to stress. The researcher wanted to know that which group had the highest
stress level. In case of large discrepancies, remedial programs could be initiated and campus
administration could be advised to implement those programs.
When participants’ stress level was measured on DSS regarding their designation, it
supported our 9th hypothesis. There were significant mean differences among lecturers,
assistant, associate and full professors on DSS scores. Senior participants were facing more
stress as compared to junior participants. ANOVA revealed that associate professors showed the
highest mean on DSS, following the full professors and the lecturers. The lecturers showed
optimistic attitude and were confident about their abilities. Many explanations can be provided in
this regard. The reason may be that being the young and energetic, they had more positive
expectations from the future. They were trying to solve the problems creatively by growing
professionally, getting further studies, meeting the deadlines and being productive at their
workplace. The associate professors were mostly government employees, previously working in
24
203
education colleges. These colleges were merged and as a result Education University emerged in
2002. These government employees’ services were rendered by the UE administration. They
were not aware of the university culture where research and professional development was the
most important requirement. Initially no research training was provided to the participants in the
university. That is why associate professors showed high stress on the statements of Workplace
Stressors such as, “Professional growth”, “HEC standards” “Technological advances”,
“publication requirement”, “Further studies” and “Lack of empowerment at workplace”, as
compared to lecturers, assistant and full professors. Associate professors scored highest on the
workplace and professional stressors as compared to all other faculty members. The reason may
be that the associate professors got pessimistic about their abilities, had their own doubts about
their professional development and further studies ultimately perceiving themselves as
professionally stagnant and less competent. Other reasons may be that in spite of taking more
responsibilities at workplace and showing careful attitude towards the deadlines they were not
considered efficient as it was assumed that the seniors did not adapt to change. Another source of
stress might be their grown up children who needed more financial assistance to carry on their
studies. Family responsibilities and financial pressures might have added up into their daily
workplace stressors. The seniors, when unable to meet the stressors, tended to use dysfunctional
coping to deal with their job stressors by repatriating, resigning and striking.
The researcher of this study tried to do intercampus comparison to find out the stressors
of the teachers of university of Education. Inter-comparison of different campuses enabled the
researcher to find out which campus of the university had the least stress and how the campus
administration was managing the workload, resources and quality of education. Those campuses
which had lower stress levels could be considered benchmark for other campuses.
25
204
Hypothesis 10
th
was that participants belonging to different campuses of UE will score
differently on DSS. ANOVA revealed minor mean differences on DSS among the participants of
different campuses. Only the participants of Bank Road campus showed a significant mean
difference with the participants of Okara Campus depicting that the participants of Okara
Campus were more positive in their attitudes that is why they perceived less stressors. The
reason may be that the Okara Campus was constructed after the establishment of UE. The
participants were mostly young male members, seemed highly motivated and tasks oriented.
They were professionally developing themselves by enhancing their education that is why they
perceived less stress.
The junior participants of Okara campus might be more optimistic as they came from
technology driven educational settings, considering that they were more competent, having
enough resources to grow professionally by grabbing different job opportunities, foreign
scholarships and further education. These results are consistent with the findings of the present
study that lecturers perceive less stress as compared to associate and full professors. Studies
show that well contented workers were more positive and likely to be high performers on the job
as there is less possibility to be absent from job and show negative behavior (Donovan, 2000;
Locke, 1975). Similarly, positive affect at workplace was negatively related with less disengaged
behavior and organizational reprisal and higher organizational ownership (Donovan, 2000).
In contrast, Bank Road, being the female campus had the highest enrollment rate, lots of
ongoing educational programs and the center for conducting extra-curricular activities. These
phenomena made the participants overburdened and negative in stress appraisal. The other
explanation can be derived from the research findings that females have high vulnerability to
30
205
stress (Bolger & Zukerman, 1995; McDonoigh & Walters, 2001; Lindiwe, Asner-Self,
Kimberly, Schreiber, 2005).
Regarding 11
th
hypothesis
“
Optimism negatively predict daily stress and positively
predict psychological well being” the regression of optimism on daily stressors
was performed.
As hypothized, optimism was a significant predictor of daily stressors. The slope told that a one
unit increase in optimism is related with -2.21 units decrease in daily stressors. The standardized
beta (β
=-.65, p<.05) showed us that one standard deviation increase in optimism will be
reflected in a two third of standard deviation decrease in stress. R² (0.43) is the proportion of
variation in the dependent variable explained by the regression model. The sample R² tends to
optimistically estimate how well the models fit the population. Adjusted R² attempts to correct
R² to more closely reflect the goodness of fit of the model in the population. In our sample
the ∆
R² explained that 42% variation in stress was accounted for optimistic attitudes. Overall the
regression model was significant with F (1, 180) = 134.09, p< .001. This model contributed a
significant change (∆ R²= .42, p< .001) in the criterion variable.
Simple regression analysis also showed that optimism is a significant predictor of general
health and wellbeing. The slope tells that a one unit increase in optimism is related with -1.29
units decrease in GHQ scores. The standardized beta (β =
-.46, p <0.01) tells us that a one
standard deviation increase in optimism will be reflected in one half standard deviation decrease
in psychological illness. Participants with high optimism reported less psychological symptoms
and showed more healthy behaviors. The ∆R² explained that 20% variation in health was due to
optimistic attitudes. Results indicated that positive thinking was a significant predictor of general
24
206
health and well being. Overall the regression model was significant with F (1, 179) = 47.92, p<
.01. This model contributed a significant change (∆ R²= .20, p< .01) in the criterion variable.
In Pakistani cultural context gender accounts for substantial amount of variance in stress,
for this purpose multiple regression analyses were performed to see whether optimism remained
significant predictor while controlling for gender. It was found out that gender accounts 4%
variation in stress. It means that gender is a significant predictor for stress and stress varies with
gender. The role of gender in stress appraisal found in this study is in agreement with the
western researches that revealed that stress varies with gender (Bolger & Zukerman, 1995;
McDonoigh & Walters, 2001; Lindiwe, Asner-Self, Kimberly, Schreiber, 2005). When
optimism was entered in the model as a predictor variable it accounted for 45% variation in
stress. In the regression hierarchy optimism is a strong predictor which contributes to stress.
The beta -.64 showed that one standard deviation increase in positive thinking will cause two
third of standard deviation decrease in daily stress. Thus positive thinking is the predictor of
stress reduction in the present research, as it has been reported in previous studies (Tugade &
Fredrickson, 2004; Tugade, Fredrickson & Feldman Barret, 2004) across cultures.
Multiple Regression Analyses were also performed to see whether optimism remained
significant predictor of general health while controlling for gender. Results showed that gender
alone accounted for 2% variation in general health. Gender was a significant predictor in health
outcomes (p<.05). The predictor variable optimism accounted for 23% variation in health
outcome. In the hierarchy of regression optimism was a stronger predictor than gender in
contributing to health. Our beta -.45 told that one standard deviation increase in positive thinking
will cause half of the standard deviation decrease on General health questionnaire. Low score on
GHQ represented good health of the person.
29
207
Our 12
th
hypothesis was
that “
Optimism predicts problem focused coping positively and
avoidance and emotion focused coping negatively
”. When the optimism was regressed on coping
it was found out that optimism was a significant predictor of problem focused coping. Our
standardized beta (β =.35, p <0.01) showed that one standard deviation increase in
optimism will
be reflected in one third of standard deviation increase in effective coping. The ∆R² explained
that 12% variation in problem focused coping was due to optimistic attitudes. Results indicated
that positive thinking was significant predictor of problem focused coping with F (1, 179) =
25.55, p< .001. Optimist participants, even in the midst of environmental stressors such as bomb
blasts, suicidal attacks and other challenges, did not show absentee, negligence, maladjustment
and denial, rather, remained present at work and tried to solve their problems effectively. They
remained focused on their targets in spite of a lot of hindrances and considered their stressors
their challenges.
Previous researches were consistent with the present findings that optimism has been
associated with better psychological adjustment after breast cancer diagnosis (Epping-Jordan et
al., 1999), with the tendency to cope with breast cancer surgery (Carver et al., 1993) and with
more problem-focused coping and less denial following open-heart surgery (Scheier et al., 1998).
Preexisting level of positive mood predicted the tendency to cope through active engagement in
breast cancer women (Carver et al., 1993). Induction of pleasant mood into kidney cancer
patients reported greater ability in managing the illness, more optimistic about their
prognosis and stronger intention to follow the treatment regimen and exert effort to
overcome the illness than those induced into a negative mood (Schuettler & Kiviniemi,
2006).
28
208
The results show that optimism negatively predicts avoidance and emotion focused
coping. The standardized beta tells that the one standard deviation increase in optimism is related
with approximately one half of standard deviation decrease in avoidance coping and one third
decrease in emotion focused coping (β =
-
.43, p< .01, β =
-
.24, p< .01) respectively. The ∆R²
explained that 18% variation in avoidant focused coping is due to optimistic attitudes. Consistent
with previous research avoidance coping was predicting psychological problems in the
participants. A significant correlation was found between GHQ and tranquilizers used by the
participants in this research, r (182) = .15, p <.05.
Multiple regression analysis was performed to see the predictive value of gender and
optimism on overall coping behavior. In model 1Gender accounted for 6% variation in coping
behavior. It was meant that gender was a significant predictor (t=3.35, p< .001) in over all
coping. In model 2 the variable optimism accounted for only 1% variation in total coping and
was not a significant predictor. Our beta value (.24) tells that change in gender will bring change
in coping behavior i.e. males and females cope in different ways. Previous research supported
that females reported a greater likelihood of using all type of coping strategies (Eaton & Bradley,
2008) women reported using all type of coping behavior more often than men (Temres, janicki &
Helgeson, 2002). Optimism is a non-significant negative predictor (beta = -.11) of overall coping
behavior. It tells that when optimism increases the overall coping behavior decreases whether it
is emotion focused, avoidant focused or denial (Scheier et al., 1998). Regression analysis showed
that optimism and gender were the best predictors of stress reduction, health and coping behavior
in the present research.
Most of the concepts researched in Western countries have been replicated in this study.
Most of the results were in agreement with the previous researches. So it can be suggested that
21
209
the theories related with positive thinking, stress coping and health, developed in Western
countries can be applied in Pakistan if the researcher aligns these concept with the culture and
carefully uses the foreign measures or develops indigenous tools.
6.5 Conclusion
The goal of fostering positive thinking has ushered a new wave of interest and research
over the past two decades. Literature review revealed a high correlation between positive
emotions, effective coping and health outcomes. Work done in Western countries up till today as
a basis, researcher investigated the relationship between positive thinking, its effect on stress
appraisal, coping and health among university teachers in Pakistani context. The result showed
that positive thinking can be an important factor that buffer individuals against stress and
dysfunctional health outcomes. Participants having optimistic attitudes perceived less stress, used
problem focused coping and enjoyed more health. Gender differences were found among the
participants. Female participants perceived more stress as compared to male participants,
especially on Family and Personal dimension of the DSS. Gender differences were also found on
coping strategies and health outcomes.
The present study has its significance as the entire nation is under extreme chaos. There
are religious and liberal forces colliding, dividing the nation into fragments. The external and
internal negative forces are threatening the integrity and solidarity of the country. These
circumstances are inculcating depression, fear, violence and frustration in the university teachers
who unconsciously induce this negativity in the students.
25
210
Being psychologist, researcher did extensive research on the sources of stress, its
appraisal, consequences and factors affecting stress management. The findings revealed that
positive thinking plays a crucial role to deal with adversity, positive thinkers use problem
focused coping while encountering stress and they maintain good health in the midst of
adversity. The results also revealed that the optimists appraised the hindrances as manageable
and stressors as more easily resolvable. They developed fewer psychological symptoms by using
more problem focused coping. This research indicates that finding ways to cultivate positive
thinking is a critical need for optimal functioning.
The researcher tried to improve the quality of research by using adequate sampling
strategy, increasing the reliability of instruments by developing indigenous scale and applying
appropriate method of instructions. When foreign made standardized tests were used for this
study some items of the standardized tests were modified by the researcher keeping in view the
social, cultural and moral aspects. The language of some items was synchronized with the
native culture. These steps were vital to increase the generalizability of the findings and made
the study authentic. Countrywide data was collected to develop indigenous scale for daily
stressors. A stratified random sample was collected for the main study from a large public
university.
The results of this study suggest that optimism is associated with better psychological
adjustment to stressful events. It also supports the hypothesis that positive thinking is inversely
related to the daily stressors and prepares an individual to use problem focused coping in adverse
situations. The conclusions were consistent with
the Fredrickson’s Broaden and Build Theory of
Positive Emotions. These results can be utilized to deal with the challenges encountered by each
Pakistani.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
