GEN Z PSYCHOLOGY : RESEARCH TO ASSESS THE STRESS AND ANXIETY AMONGST YOUNGSTERS FROM 3 DIFFERENT FAMILY TYPES
The current study takes a quantitative approach to explore the psychology , specifically stress and anxiety, of Gen Z from different family types. Including ANOVA to assess differences in measures of anxiety and stress by family types, and bi-variate correlational analysis to explore any existing association between the variables, the research design takes a mixed approach, overall, attempting to gauge a more comprehensive picture.
In this study, psychology variables that have been involved are anxiety, stress and family types. With family types being the independent variable and, perceived stress and anxiety (separately state and trait sub-test measures) serving being the dependent variables, an attempt is made to see if belonging to joint family, or nuclear family with two parents, or single parent family made any differences in Gen Z students’ general experience of anxiety and perceived stress or psychology. Further attempt is made to assess if there is a correlation between the two DV measures, as well.
Hypotheses used to study Gen Z psychology
- There is no significant relationship between perceived stress and anxiety among Gen Z students from different family types.
Sampling
The 79 participants for this psychology study were selected from the age group 18-23, all of them being Gen Z students, through purposive sampling. Two questionnaires have been administered.
Sampling, being an important part of any research, involves selecting a group of individuals as objectively as possible in order to find some characteristics which can be generalized to the entire population.
In this study the sample was selected as objectively as possible, and the population was taken from three family types- 26 from each, joint and single parent families and 27 from nuclear family.
In order to reduce sampling error, an attempt was made to reach out to a large number of participants (though final sample size was just short of intended target) selected as it increases the possibility of generalizing the results beyond the direct scope of this psychology study.
Test Description of Gen Z Psychology
In this study, the primary tool of data collection were questionnaires. It is a research instrument consisting items for the purpose of gathering information from participants. These questionnaires can be administered over various media, including phone, email and most conventionally face to face.
Questionnaires may contain two types of questions open and closed questions. An open question allows a participant to give rich and descriptive responses, making it a challenge for the enumerator to analyze and collect that amount of data. On the other hand, a closed question benefits the enumerator in terms of simple calculations and easier methods of analysis, however it doesn’t always serve the purpose of providing a well-rounded response from the participant.
In this research, 2 different questionnaires were administered to the sample involved. The two questionnaire with their descriptions are as follows:
- The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) is a commonly used measure of trait and state anxiety by Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983. There are 40 items divided into two forms: state anxiety, or anxiety about an event, and trait anxiety, or anxiety level as a personal characteristic. The 4-point scale for S-anxiety is as follows: 1.) not at all, 2.) somewhat, 3.) moderately so, 4.) very much so. The 4-point scale for T-anxiety is as follows: 1.) almost never, 2.) sometimes, 3.) often, 4.) almost always.
- 10 item Perceived Stress Scale developed by Cohen, S., Karmark, T & Mermelstein, R, (1983) was used to measure stress among employees. Scale included statements like how often you felt nervous and stressed, upset because of something that happened unexpectedly, angered because of things that were outside of your control etc. We rated in likerts’ Five point scale as 1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = very often, 5 = Very often. The reliability of coefficient for the scale is 0.76. Evidence for validity: higher PSS scores were associated with; failure to quit smoking, failure among diabetes to control blood sugar levels, greater vulnerability to stressful life event elicited a depressive symptoms and more colds.
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is the most commonly used questionnaire for assessing psychology stress experience. It is an indicator of the degree to which circumstances are evaluated as traumatic in one’s life. Objects have been designed to explore how volatile, uncontrollable and overwhelmed respondents consider life. The measure also contains a variety of basic questions about the present levels of tension felt. The PSS was planned for at least a junior high school education for use in group studies. The elements are easy to comprehend, and the options for the answers are easy to
grasp. In fact, the questions are generic in nature and are thus largely free of material unique to each subpopulation group. During the last month, the PSS questions talk about emotions and opinions. In any case, respondents are asked how much they experience a certain sense of being.
Procedure
The participants were first made aware of their rights and ethics involved in this research. They were also informed of their right to not participate and withdraw participation at any time. The questionnaire was sent to 90 respondents who were all university students between the age group 18-23.
Due to the ongoing lockdown situation owing to the global pandemic, the typically preferred face-to-face, i.e., in-person administration of the questionnaires was not possible. Participants were sent an email containing research details and an intranet connection to the website Google forms under which the questionnaire was available. The email explained the intent of the survey and had strict confidentiality guaranteed, with access to responses only exclusively available to the researcher. With the help of the scoring keys, scoring for data obtained on the two scales was done, as described in the next section.
Scoring of this psychology research
Perceived Stress Scale scores were calculated by reversing the answers (e.g., 0 = 4, 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1 & 4 = 0) to the four positively specified items (items 4, 5, 7, & 8) and then summing them all over the scale. Questions 2, 4, 5 and 10 of the PSS 10 item scale can be made to a simple 4 item scale.
In the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, item scores were added to obtain subtest total scores. Scoring were reversed for anxiety‐absent items (19 items of the total 40). Range of scores for each subtest is 20–80, higher scores typically indicative of greater anxiety. A cut point of 39– 40 has been suggested to detect clinically significant symptoms for the S‐Anxiety scale; however, Allard & Faust (2000) have suggested a higher cut score of 54–55 for older adults.
Results and Discussion
The findings of the present study with the objective of assessing the level of stress and anxiety among college students from different family types have been obtained by administering the State – Trait Anxiety Inventory developed by C.D. Spielberger, R.L. Gorsuch and R. Lushen, as well as the Perceived Stress Scale developed by Cohen, S. Karmark, and T. Mermelstein on a sample of 79 college students from different family types (joint family, nuclear family and single- parent family).
The results were calculated by subjecting the data obtained to Analysis of Variance to study impact of family types on state and trait anxiety, and perceived stress of the participants, and Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation to test the strength and direction of any potentially existing association between state and trait anxiety, and perceived stress of the participants.
The results obtained, are presented in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 given below:
Table 1: ANOVA for Effect of Family Type on DV Measures of STAI-State, STAI-Trait and Perceived Stress
| Dependent Variable Measure | Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | Test of Between – Subjects Effects | |||
| F | Sig. | F | df | Sig. | |
| STAI- State | 5.131 | .008 | 6.832** | 2 | .002 |
| STAI- Trait | 4.641 | .013 | 3.495* | 2 | .035 |
| Perceived Stress | 1.583 | .212 | 1.074 | 2 | .347 |
**Significant at 0.01 level.
* Significant at 0.05 level.
Referring to Table 1, ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects of different family types on State Anxiety scores; F = 6.832, p <0.01, indicating statistically significant effect of
family type on measures of State Anxiety of the participants. Therefore, null hypotheses stating no significant differences in State Anxiety scores of participants from different family types may be rejected. From Table 2, it may further be noted that Mean State Anxiety Scores of participants from nuclear family type (M = 44.73, SD = 13.43) appear to be noticeably higher than Mean State Anxiety Scores of participants from both joint family type (M = 36.26, SD = 8.07) and participants from single parent family type (M = 35.23, SD = 8.23).
Referring to Table 1, ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects of different family types on Trait Anxiety scores; F = 3.495, p <0.05, indicating statistically significant effect of family type on measures of Trait Anxiety of the participants. Therefore, null hypotheses stating no significant differences in Trait Anxiety scores of participants from different family types may be rejected.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Effect of Family Type on DV Measures of STAI-State, STAI-Trait and Perceived Stress
| Type of Family | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
| STAI-State | Joint | 27 | 36.259 | 8.06985 | 1.961 |
| Nuclear | 26 | 44.731 | 13.42701 | 1.999 | |
| Single Parent | 26 | 35.231 | 8.23314 | 1.999 | |
| STAI- Trait | Joint | 27 | 44.963 | 7.67855 | 2.031 |
| Nuclear | 26 | 48.538 | 12.94366 | 2.070 | |
| Single parent | 26 | 40.808 | 10.47290 | 2.070 | |
| Perceived Stress | Joint | 27 | 20.2963 | 5.66239 | 1.174 |
| Nuclear | 26 | 22.6154 | 7.23921 | 1.196 | |
| Single Parent | 26 | 20.7308 | 5.22730 | 1.196 |
From Table 2, it may further be noted that Mean Trait Anxiety Scores of participants from nuclear family type (M = 48.54, SD = 12.94) appear to be noticeably higher than Mean
State Anxiety Scores of participants from both joint family type (M = 44.96, SD = 7.68) and participants from single parent family type (M = 40.81, SD = 10.47).
Referring to Table 1, ANOVA revealed no statistically significant effects of different family types on Perceived Stress scores; F = 1.074, p >0.05, indicating no reliable effect of family type on measures of Perceived Stress of the participants. Therefore, null hypotheses stating no significant differences in Perceived Stress scores of participants from different family types cannot be rejected.
From Table 2, it may further be noted that Mean Perceived Stress Scores of participants from nuclear family type (M = 22.62, SD = 7.24) does not appear to be noticeably different compared to Mean Perceived Stress Scores of participants from both joint family type (M = 20.3, SD = 5.66) and participants from single parent family type (M = 20.73, SD = 5.23).
Further discussion of Descriptive Statistics (Table 2) measures bring to the forefront the following details: in the case of participants from joint families, the mean value of state anxiety is
36.259 with a standard deviation of 8.069 which indicates that the average range of scores lie between 28 to 44 which corresponds to average anxiety. The mean value of their trait anxiety is 44.963 with a standard deviation of 7.678 which means that the scores range between 37 to 51 which indicates average anxiety. The mean value of the perceived stress score is 20.296 with a standard deviation of 5.662 which means that the average scores lie between 15 to 25 which corresponds to low to average perceived stress.
In the case of college students from nuclear families, the mean value of state anxiety is found to be 44.731 with a standard deviation of 13.427, which means that the scores typically lie between 31 to 57 which indicates average to high anxiety. The mean value of their trait anxiety is
48.538 with a standard deviation of 12.943 which means that the scores lie between 36-60, which
also indicates average to high levels of anxiety. The mean value of the perceived stress scale is 22.615 with a standard deviation of 7.239, which means that the scores range between 15 to 29 which corresponds to moderate to high perceived stress.
In the case of college students from single-parent families, the mean value of state anxiety is 35.231 with a standard deviation of 8.233, which means that the scores typically range between 27-43 which corresponds to low to normal levels of anxiety. The mean value of their trait anxiety is 40.808 with a standard deviation of 10.472 which means that the scores lie between 30 to 50 which indicates average level of anxiety.
The mean score of perceived stress is 20.731 with a standard deviation of 5.227, which means that the scores typically range between 15 to 25 which corresponds to low to average levels of perceived stress. Here we can see that students from nuclear families are experiencing higher levels of stress and anxiety in comparison to students from joint families and single parent families. The students of joint families and single parent families show comparatively lower score range of state anxiety, trait anxiety and perceived stress.
Table 3: Correlations between Measures of STAI-State, STAI-Trait and Perceived Stress
| STAI- State | STAI- Trait | Perceived Stress | ||
| STAI- State | Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-Tailed) N | 1 | .902** | .750** |
| .000 | .000 | |||
| 79 | 79 | 79 | ||
| STAI- Trait | Pearson Correlation | .902 | 1 | .764** |
| Sig. (2-Tailed) | .000 | .000 | ||
| N | 79 | 79 | 79 | |
| Perceived | Pearson Correlation | .750 | .764 | 1 |
| Stress | Sig. (2-Tailed) | .000 | .000 | |
| N | 79 | 79 | 79 |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-Tailed)
Referring to Table 3, showing computed Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) between STAI-State, STAI-Trait and Perceived Stress, the results showed that the coefficient of correlation between STAI-State Anxiety and STAI-Trait Anxiety, r = +0.902, p
<0.01, indicating strong positive correlation between the state and trait anxiety measures, as would be expected from the same set of participants. Therefore, null hypotheses stating no significant relation between measures of State and Trait Anxiety of participants from across various family types may be rejected.
Referring to Table 3, Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) between State Anxiety and Perceived Stress, r = +0.750, p <0.01, indicating strong positive correlation between the State Anxiety and Perceived Stress Measures, implying that higher levels of State Anxiety would likely see correspondence with higher levels of Perceived Stress in the present group of participants.
Therefore, null hypotheses stating no significant relation between measures of State Anxiety and Perceived Stress of participants from across various family types may be rejected.
Referring to Table 3, Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) between Trait Anxiety and Perceived Stress, r = +0.764, p <0.01, indicating strong positive correlation between the Trait Anxiety and Perceived Stress measures, implying that higher levels of Trait Anxiety would likely see correspondence with higher levels of Perceived Stress in the present group of participants.
Therefore, null hypotheses stating no significant relation between measures of Trait Anxiety and Perceived Stress of participants from across various family types may be rejected.
Wolfradt, Hembel and Miles, in their study, investigated the relationship between perceived parenting styles, depersonalization, anxiety and coping behavior in a normal high school student sample (N=276). It was found that perceived parental psychological pressure correlated positively with depersonalization and trait anxiety among the adolescents. Perceived
parental warmth was positively associated with active coping and negatively correlated with trait anxiety in the adolescents. The groups with the authoritative and permissive style of both parents showed the highest score on active problem coping.
CONCLUSION
From the results of the present study as shown in the tables given, it may be concluded that there exist significant differences in state and trait anxiety of individuals from different family types. Also, there are statistically significant positive correlation between State and Trait Anxiety and Perceived Stress of college students from varying family types.
LIMITATIONS
- One of the major limitations of the present study was the use of self-report questionnaires to assess the participants stress and anxiety levels. The common possibility of participants potentially giving socially desirable responses instead of true spontaneous response could not be avoided.
- The data was mainly given out by e-mails, due to the pandemic situation. Due to lack of any supervision, some participants did not answer all the items in the forms.
IMPLICATIONS
The findings of this study can potentially predict the trend of anxiety and stress among the college students from different types of families. The findings of this study could also potentially be used to predict, prepare and aid the students cope with the levels of stress and anxiety.
It also emphasizes the importance of family type with respected to experienced levels of perceived stress and anxiety in the chosen sample.
REFERENCES
Andrews, B., & Wilding, J. M. (2004). The relation of depression and anxiety to life‐stress and achievement in students. British journal of psychology, 95(4), 509-521.
Bayram, N., & Bilgel, N. (2008). The prevalence and socio-demographic correlations of depression, anxiety and stress among a group of university students. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 43(8), 667-672.
Beiter, R., Nash, R., McCrady, M., Rhoades, D., Linscomb, M., Clarahan, M., & Sammut, S. (2015). The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students. Journal of affective disorders, 173, 90-96.
Bhasin, S. K., Sharma, R., & Saini, N. K. (2010). Depression, anxiety and stress among adolescent students belonging to affluent families: A school-based study. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 77(2), 161-165.
Dyson, R., & Renk, K. (2006). Freshmen adaptation to university life: Depressive symptoms, stress, and coping. Journal of clinical psychology, 62(10), 1231-1244.
D’Zurilla, T. J., & Sheedy, C. F. (1991). Relation between social problem-solving ability and subsequent level of psychological stress in college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Estrada-Martínez LM, Caldwell CH, Bauermeister JA, Zimmerman MA. Stressors in multiple life- domains and the risk for externalizing and internalizing behaviors among African Americans during emerging adulthood. J Youth Adolesc. 2012;41(12):1600–1612. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9778-3
Iqbal, S., Gupta, S., & Venkatarao, E. (2015). Stress, anxiety & depression among medical undergraduate students & their socio-demographic correlates. The Indian journal of medical research, 141(3), 354.
Kumaraswamy, N. (2013). Academic stress, anxiety and depression among college students: A brief review. International review of social sciences and humanities, 5(1), 135-143.
Kumaraswamy, N. (2013). Academic stress, anxiety and depression among college students: A brief review. International review of social sciences and humanities, 5(1), 135-143.
La Greca, A. M., & Lopez, N. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer relations and friendships. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 26(2), 83-94.
Mahmoud, J. S. R., Staten, R. T., Hall, L. A., & Lennie, T. A. (2012). The relationship among young adult college students’ depression, anxiety, stress, demographics, life satisfaction, and coping styles. Issues in mental health nursing, 33(3), 149-156.
Mejía, O. L., & McCarthy, C. J. (2010). Acculturative stress, depression, and anxiety in migrant farmwork college students of Mexican heritage. International Journal of stress management, 17(1), 1.
Metzger, R. L. (1976). A reliability and validity study of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Peleg-Popko, O. (2002). Children’s test anxiety and family interaction patterns. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 15(1), 45-59.
Potochnick, S. R., & Perreira, K. M. (2010). Depression and anxiety among first-generation immigrant Latino youth: key correlates and implications for future research. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 198(7), 470.
Spielberger, C. D., Sydeman, S. J., Owen, A. E., & Marsh, B. J. (1999). Measuring anxiety and anger with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Spielberger, C.D.; Gorssuch, R.L.; Lushene, P.R.; Vagg, P.R.; Jacobs, G.A (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. N. (2003). Perceived parenting styles, depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behaviour in adolescents. Personality and individual differences, 34(3), 521-532.
