See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335600586

Stressors and Stress Responses of Filipino College Students

Research · September 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 8

4 authors, including:

Marison R. Dy Melissa Payawal Ferido

University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippine General Hospital
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sanchez Ria
University of the Philippines Los Baños
3 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stressors and Stress Responses of College Students View project

Grace Maglunog and Marison Dy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marison R. Dy on 04 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Stressors and Stress Responses of Filipino College Students

Marison R. Dy
Dept. Of Human and Family Development Studies
College of Human Ecology
UPLB, Laguna
marisrd@yahoo.com

Klarisse Espiritu-Santo
Dept. Of Human and Family Development Studies
College of Human Ecology
UPLB, Laguna

Melissa P. Ferido
Dept. Of Human and Family Development Studies
College of Human Ecology
UPLB, Laguna
mpferido@yahoo.com

Ria D. Sanchez
Dept. Of Human and Family Development Studies
College of Human Ecology
UPLB, Laguna
iyahmiah@yahoo.com
 ABSTRACT

The study determined the stressors and stress responses of Filipino college
students in relation to sex, course, and academic classification. There were 258
respondents for the study. Of the respondents, 68% were females and 32% were
males. According to their degree, 42% belonged to the soft sciences and 58% to the
hard sciences. In terms of academic classification, 10% were freshmen, 36%
sophomores, 33% juniors, and 21% seniors. The top five overall stressors of the
respondents were academic difficulty of subject matter, workload due to subjects, time
management because of subjects, responsibilities due to being on one’s own, and time
management because of both subjects and organizations. The most frequently
occurring stress responses were affective stress responses followed by cognitive
responses. For both male and female respondents, the top stressors were academics,
workload due to subjects, and time management concerns. Overall, the males reacted
to stress through affective responses and females through cognitive responses.
Students enrolled in the hard and soft sciences both considered academics, workload
due to subjects, and time management concerns as their top stressors. Those in the
soft sciences reacted with cognitive stress responses while those in the hard sciences
reacted with affective stress responses. Generally, all students, regardless of their
academic classification pointed out that academics, workload due to subjects, and time
management were their main stressors. They all reacted to stress with affective stress
responses. These patterns can be monitored to maintain the psychological and physical
well-being of adolescent students. Further studies can consider bigger samples in
various universities and other socio-demographic variables which are related to stress
perceptions.

Keywords: adolescence, stress, stressor, stress responses

 INTRODUCTION

Stress is described as any factor that makes adaptation to an environment

difficult for the individual to maintain a state of equilibrium between himself and the
external environment (Humphrey, Yow & Bowen 2000). It includes a physical and
mental response to meet the demands of the stressful event (Richlin-Klonsky & Hoe
2003). These events or conditions that put a strain on the individual are called stressors
(Santrock 2003). There are variations in individual reactions to stressors. The factors
for the variations may be due to the differences in their age, sex/gender, ethnicity,
genetic predisposition, medical history, religious beliefs, physical fitness, attitudes and
behavior patterns, social support, education status, and socioeconomic background
(Larkin 2005).
College students in the Philippines are very often in the late adolescent years. As
students, they are said to experience a unique cluster of stressors (Garrett 2001) which
may have a significant impact on their ability to cope with college life (Dussellier etal.
2005). Some of these may be internal while some may be external to the individual.
There are interpersonal, intrapersonal, academic and environmental stressors (Ross,
Neibling & Heckert 1999). Generally, it was the intrapersonal stressors (change in
sleeping habits, desire for vacation/break, change in eating habits, new responsibilities)
which were reported as the most frequent sources of stressors of college students. The
fifth source was the increased class workload. Agolla and Ongori (2009) specifically
pointed out stressful activities such as exams, papers, organization activities, deadlines
and the like.
How adolescents perceive stress is crucial to their well-being as individuals and
learners. The individual's perception of the stressor and ability to adapt to the stressor
are significant in the perception of whether the stressor is equal to or exceeding his
emotional and behavioral resources to cope (Hardesty 2006; Amponsah & Owolabi
2011). Exposure to many stressors during this period can be related to psychological
symptoms such as depression and anxiety (Charbonneau et al. in Moksnes et al. 2010).
If it is severe and prolonged, it could affect the student’s academic performance and
campus life along with an increase in potential behavior for substance abuse and other
like behaviors (Richlin-Klonsky & Hoe in Busari 2012).
The action and state of individuals due to the presence or perceived presence of
these stressors is termed as stress response (Larkin 2005). It must be noted that stress
response is different from coping. Stress response is the "fight or flight" reaction to a
stressor where adrenaline is released to the body (Larkin 2005) while coping is the
psychological process where an individual tries to fight and manage psychological
stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Stress responses can be categorized as affective,
behavioral, cognitive and physiological depending on the individual’s age, financial
status, social support, gender, and other related variables (Larkin 2005). Affective or
emotional responses to stress are exhibited in behaviors concerned with emotional
states (Campbell & Ehlert 2012). Examples of negative emotions associated with
stressors are anxiety, depression, anger, annoyance, guilt, and fear (Larkin 2005;
Busari 2012). Behavioral responses to stress usually involve trying to reduce or tolerate
the stress in positive or negative ways depending on the influence of personal
characteristics (Weiten, Dunn, & Hammer, 2012). Negative responses may include
escape/avoidance, substance abuse, eating disorders, irritability, aggression, inactivity,
regression behaviors, alienation, or changes in sleeping patterns (Larkin, 2005;
McLaughlin & Christner 2009). Cognitive responses deal with how people evaluate a
stimulus, its significance and available coping strategies (Campbell & Ehlert 2012).
Examples include pessimistic ways like worrying, catastrophic thinking, poor
concentration, selective attention, thought blocking, rumination, hopelessness and
feelings of incompetence (Larkin 2005). Physiological stress response is defined as a
normal general, non-specific increase in arousal or activation as the body reacts to
stress (Campbell & Ehlert 2012). Examples of these are a decrease in the immune
functions, making the person susceptible to diseases; an upset stomach, headaches,
exhaustion, difficulty in breathing, trembling, stuttering, rapid weight loss or gain
(McLaughlin & Christner 2009; Busari 2012). According to Larkin (2005), many studies
have findings which agree that it is important to understand how each individual handles
stress because conscious and unconscious responses of individuals to stress affect
their activities and bodily functions.
There have been many other studies on perceived stress, stressors that cause
stress, how adolescents handle stress, and the impact of these on their academic life. In
the Philippines however, there have only been a few studies dealing with stress
responses of tertiary students to particular stressors. This study aims to find out the
present stressors and kind of stress responses most exhibited by students of the
University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB). Specifically, it answered the following
research questions:
1.) What are the socio-demographic characteristics of the UPLB students?
2.) What are the stressors and stress responses of UPLB students?
3.) What is the relationship between sex, academic degree, and academic classification
to the stress responses of UPLB students?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research Design
A cross-sectional research design was used to analyze different student
classifications at the same time period.

Sample and Study Site

The population of the study was the set of all undergraduate students of the
University of the Philippines Los Banos enrolled during the 1st Semester A.Y. 2012-
2013 categorized according to their sex category, academic classification (freshmen,
sophomore, junior, or senior) and classification of their degree program (soft science or
hard science). Some degrees in the soft sciences were BS Development
Communication, BS Human Ecology, and AB Sociology while examples of degrees in
the hard sciences were BS Chemistry, BS Biology, and BS Civil Engineering. The
population consisted of 11,305 students of which 4,409 are male and 7,052 are females
(Office of the University Registrar, 2012). Out of 11,305 students, 258 were sampled
through convenience sampling.
 The national university was the only Philippine university in the top 100 schools
in Asia, ranking 67th, according to the QS University Ranking of Asian universities
(Cerda, 2013).

Research Instrument
A questionnaire written in English was reproduced. This self-administered
questionnaire had three parts: a) the first part gathered their socio-demographic
information like sex, academic field (Soft Science or Hard Science), and academic
classification (Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, or Senior); b) the second part gathered
responses to college stressors (pre-identified based on the works of Hart (2007) and
Milanes (2010); and c) the third part determined the stress responses and the intensity
of the experienced response to the predetermined stressors based on the Affective,
Behavioral, Cognitive, and Physiological Stress Responses of Larkin (2005).

Data Gathering Procedure

A self-administered questionnaire was distributed for this study to find out the
most frequently occurring stressors and stress responses of the 258 students. To
acquire the respondents, the researcher went to places where there were many
students in line during the registration period, surveyed students of large classes, and
went to different dormitories and apartments inside the UPLB campus. Copies of the
questionnaire were handed or electronically mailed to the respondents.

Data Analysis Procedure

The data gathered from the questionnaire was analyzed using descriptive
statistics where frequencies and percentages were derived to describe the socio-
demographic profile of the respondents, their stressors, stress responses and the
impact of these on their make-up. To determine the relationship between stress
responses and sex (male or female), academic field (Soft science or Hard Science), and
academic classification (Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, or Senior), counts and ratios
were made depending on the stressor being experienced.
To determine the top stressors that students experienced, each respondent was
asked to select five out of the predetermined stressors and rank the selected stressors
from 1 (least frequent stressor) to 5 (most frequent stressor). The total ranks of each
stressor taken from the respondents were computed and ranked from highest to lowest.
To identify the stress responses for each stressor, each respondent was asked to
identify how he/she responded to each stressor by ranking the intensity of each specific
stress response from 0 (does not experience), 1 (low), 2 (fair), or 3 (high). Since
response rank equal to 3 indicates that the respondent is most aware of that stress
response, in analyzing the data, the rank equal to 3 was considered as the indicator that
the respondent exhibited such stress response.
For each stressor, each of the 258 students was classified in one domain of the
stress responses based on the number of his/her responses of rank equal to 3 in each
of the specific stress responses of each domain. Since the four domains differed in the
number of specific stress responses, the ratio per domain was computed and the ratios
were used for the comparison. The domain with the highest ratio was where the student
was classified for the particular stressor.
 Across all stressors, each respondent was also classified into an overall stress
response domain. This was done by determining the most frequent domain he/she was
classified in across all stressors. This was the main method of analysis used for
associating the differences/similarities between the socio-demographic characteristics
and the stress responses. If ever there was a tie in the ratios (e.g. affective and
behavioral domains), the respondent would be categorized in another domain such as
“Affective & Behavioral.” The “Not Classified” domain was created for the individuals
who did not respond with a rank equal to 3 to any specific stress responses.
The t-test was used to compare the dominant stress responses of males and
females and students in the hard and soft sciences. The F-test was used to compare
the dominant stress responses of students based on their academic classification.

RESULTS

Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

In the study, 68% of the 258 respondents were females (175 students) and 32%
were males (83 students). In terms of academic degree, 42% (109) were enrolled in
soft science courses and 58% (149) were in hard science courses. The sample was
composed of 27 freshmen (10%), 93 sophomores (36%), 85 juniors (33%), and 53
seniors (21%).

Stressors of the Students

Table 1 shows the most frequent stressors of the respondents. Results showed
that the top five stressors were: academics, workload due to subjects, time
management, responsibilities due to being on one’s own, and financial problems.

Table 1. Ranking of the Stressors of UPLB students (N=258)

Stressor Ranking
Academics (difficulty of subject matter) 1
Workload (amount of workload due to subjects) 2
Time management 3
Responsibilities due to being one’s own (e.g. laundry, food, 4
Budgeting expenses, etc.)
Financial problems 5
Extracurricular activities 6
Parental pressure on academic performance 7
After graduation plans 8
Workload (amount of work that needs to be exerted to 9
organizations/fraternity/sorority
Peer relationships 10

Stress Responses of the Students Per Stressor

The highlighted portions in Table 2 show the highest average number of
respondents who answered rank equal to 3 per stress response per domain for each
stressor. It can be seen that a greater number of students manifested cognitive stress
Table 2. Average number of respondents who answered rank=3 per stress response for each domain
Stressor Affective Behavioral Cognitive Physiological

Academics (difficulty of subject) 57.40 35.13 72.00 43.20

Being on one’s own 18.00 18.00 21.43 10.80
Being with new people 12.80 11.63 14.71 7.00
Having a new classroom set-up 7.00 6.63 10.14 5.60
Responsibilities due to being on one’s own
14.80 14.63 17.43 10.00
(e.g. laundry, food, budgeting, etc.)
Dating with friends (bonding) 6.20 11.50 10.14 8.40
Extracurricular activities 10.80 13.50 17.14 15.60
Peer relationships 10.60 12.50 15.86 9.60
Workload (amount of workload due to
50.60 28.50 47.71 33.60
subjects)
Workload (amount of work that needs to be 22.80
21.13 24.71 16.60
exerted for organizations/fraternity/sorority)
Time Management 51.00 27.25 41.14 27.00
Parental pressure on academic performance 43.40 22.00 30.00 15.00
Financial problems 25.20 18.38 21.57 11.80
After graduation plans 32.80 11.38 24.57 12.20
Current romantic relationships 20.80 13.38 21.57 11.80

Table 3. Percentage of respondents classified according to their stress response domain per stressor

Stressor Affective Behavioral Cognitive Physio’l Not classified

N % N % N % N % N %
Academics (difficulty of 64 24.8 21 8.1 104 40.3 35 13.6 34 13.2
subject matter)
Workload (amount of 68 26.4 31 12.0 60 23.3 33 12.8 76 29.5
workload due to subjects)
Time Management 76 29.5 18 7.0 50 19.4 17 6.6 97 37.6
Responsibilities due to being 27 10.5 30 11.6 34 13.2 9 3.5 158 61.2
on one’s own (e.g. laundry,
food, budgeting, etc.)
Financial problems 44 17.1 25 9.7 31 12.0 11 4.3 147 57.0
Extracurricular activities 16 6.2 22 8.5 31 12.0 20 7.8 169 65.5
Parental pressure on 72 27.9 21 8.1 34 13.2 4 1.6 127 49.2
academic performance
After graduation plans 61 23.6 12 4.7 40 15.5 8 3.1 137 53.1

Workload (amount of work 38 14.7 30 11.6 33 12.8 15 5.8 142 55.0

that needs to be exerted for
orgs/fraternity/sorority)
Peer relationships 22 8.5 30 11.6 28 10.9 11 4.3 167 64.7

responses for stressors like academics, workload for organization activities, current
romantic relationships, and being on one’s own. There were more students who
manifested affective responses for stressors like time management, workload due to
subjects, parental pressure on academic performance, and after graduation plans. More
respondents manifested behavioral responses when dating with friends.
Table 3 shows the percentage of respondents classified according to their stress
response domains for the top ten stressors. Not considering the not classified domain,
the following are the most frequent responses to the stressors: Cognitive stress
responses were most exhibited for stressors such as academics, responsibilities due to
being on one’s own, and extracurricular activities while affective stress responses were
the most frequent response when dealing with stressors such as time management,
parental pressure, workload due to subjects, and after graduation plans. The behavioral
response was the most seen in peer relationships.
According to Table 4, a third of the respondents resort to using affective stress
responses and more than a quarter showed cognitive responses. Some respondents
are classified as being in 2-3 stress response domains. This is a sign that stress
reactions do not occur in isolation. The American Psychological Association (2012)
believes that this occurs because of the body’s response mechanisms that help us
when dealing with our environment.

Table 4. Percentage of Respondents Classified According to Their Overall Stress Response Domain to
All Stressors
Overall Stress Response Classification N %
Affective 79 30.6
Cognitive 70 27.1
Behavioral 33 12.8
Physiological 20 7.8
Affective & Behavioral 6 2.3
Affective & Cognitive 17 6.6
Affective & Physiological 4 1.6
Behavioral & Cognitive 7 2.7
Behavioral & Physiological 3 1.2
Cognitive & Physiological 1 0.4
Affective, Behavioral & Cognitive 2 0.8
Affective, Behavioral & Physiological 1 0.4
Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive & Physiological 2 0.8
Not Classified 13 5.0
Total 258 100.0

Relationship of Stressors and Stress Responses to Socio-demographic Characteristics

of the Students

Stressors and Stress Responses of Male and Female Students

Results show that the only difference between the top five stressors of males
and females is their third most frequent stressor (Table 5). Males perceived that
financial problems are their third most frequent stressor while girls perceived it as time
management because of subjects.
More males manifest affective stress responses than females (Table 6). They
also manifest cognitive responses. Females were prone to both affective and cognitive
reactions. For both sexes, affective was the most common stress response.
Table 5. Top Five Stressors Frequently Experienced by Male and Female Respondents

Ranking Stressor
Male Female
1 Academics (difficulty of subject matter) Academics (difficulty of subject matter)
2 Workload (amount of workload due to Workload (amount of workload due to
subjects) subjects)
3 Financial problems Time management because of subjects
4 Responsibilities due to being on one’s own Responsibilities due to being on one’s own
(e.g. laundry, food, budgeting expenses, (e.g. laundry, food, budgeting expenses, etc.)
etc.)
5 Time management because of subjects Time management because of subjects and
and organizations organizations

Table 6. Percentage Comparison of Males and Females according to Stress Responses

Overall stress response classification Male Female

N % N %
Affective 28 33.73 51 29.14
Behavioral 12 14.46 21 12.00
Cognitive 19 22.89 51 29.14
Physiological 11 13.25 9 5.14
Affective & Behavioral 3 3.61 3 1.71
Affective & Cognitive 4 4.82 13 7.43
Affective & Physiological 0 0.00 4 2.29
Behavioral & Cognitive 1 1.20 6 3.43
Behavioral & Physiological 1 1.20 6 3.43
Cognitive & Physiological 0 0.00 1 0.57
Affective, Behavioral & Cognitive 2 2.41 0 0.00
Affective, Behavioral & Physiological 0 0.00 1 0.57
Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive & Physiological 1 1.20 1 0.57
Not Classified 1 1.20 12 6.86
Total 83 100 175 100

The comparison of the stress responses of male and female respondents,

determined by the highest percentage of respondents in each domain, can be seen in
Table 7. Females, generally, showed cognitive stress responses while males showed
affective responses. When looking specifically into each predetermined stressors, males
and females have similar reactions to most of the stressors. They do differ in a few such
as: being on one’s own, being with new people, having a new classroom set up, extra-
curricular activities, peer relationships, and workload in organizations/fraternities/
sororities. These mentioned stressors are related to individual adjustments and social
activities.
Table 7. Comparison of stress responses of male and female in terms of domains
Stressors Domains
Male Female

Academics (difficulty of subject matter) •Cognitive •Cognitive

Being on one’s own •Behavioral •Cognitive

Being with new people •Affective/ •Cognitive

•Behavioral
Having a new class room set-up
•Behavioral •Cognitive
Responsibilities due to being on one’s own (e.g. laundry,
Food, budgeting expenses, etc.) •Cognitive •Cognitive

Dating with friends (bonding) •Behavioral •Behavioral

Extracurricular activities •Behavioral/ •Cognitive

•Cognitive
Peer relationship
•Affective •Behavioral
Workload (amount of workload due to subjects)
•Affective •Affective
Workload (amount of work that needs to be exerted
to organizations/ fraternity, sorority) •Affective •Cognitive

Time management •Affective •Affective

Parental pressure on academic performance •Affective •Affective

Financial problem •Affective •Affective

After graduation plans •Affective •Affective

Current romantic relationship •Cognitive •Cognitive

A t-test was conducted to compare the means of the affective and cognitive
responses between the males and females. There was no significant difference in the
affective responses between males (M= 1.30, SD=0.637) and females (M=1.42, SD=0.
629); t(256)= 1.45, p=0.147. These results suggest that sex does not have an effect on
the affective stress responses of the students.
On the other hand, when the cognitive responses were compared, there was a
significant difference between the males (M=1.19, SD=0.623) and females (M=1.39,
SD=0.600); t(256)= 2.43, p=0.015. The results suggest that sex has an effect with
women showing more of the cognitive stress responses.

Stressors and Stress Responses According to Academic Field (Soft vs. Hard Science)
Among the respondents of each field, the most frequent stressors were
examined. Table 8 shows that the two academic field classifications had no difference in
the first two stressors but they differed in the third, fourth, and fifth most frequent
stressors.
Table 8. Ranking of stressors of soft and hard sciences

Stressor
Ranking Soft science
1 Academics (difficulty of subject matter)
2 Workload (amount of workload due to
subjects)
3 Time Management because of
Subjects and organization
4 Time management because of subjects
5 Extracurricular activities
Hard science
Academics (difficulty of subject matter)
Workload (amount of workload due to
subjects)
Time management because of subjects
Responsibilities due to being on one’s own
(e.g. laundry, food, budgeting., etc.)
Financial activities

The overall comparison of stress responses according to their field is found in

Table 9. Results show that most respondents belonging to the soft sciences reacted to
stress through cognitive responses while hard science respondents mostly have
affective responses to stress.

Table 9. Percentage of respondents classified according to their overall stress responses by academic
field

Overall stress response classification Soft science Hard science

N % N %
Affective 25 22.9 54 36.2
Behavioral 12 11.0 21 14.1
Cognitive 39 35.8 31 20.8
Physiological 9 8.3 11 7.4
Affective & Behavioral 1 0.9 5 3.4
Affective & Cognitive 9 8.3 8 5.4
Affective & Physiological 0 0.0 4 2.7
Behavioral & Cognitive 3 2.8 4 2.7
Behavioral & Physiological 2 1.8 1 0.7
Cognitive & Physiological 0 0.0 1 0.7
Affective, Behavioral & Cognitive 0 0.0 2 1.3
Affective, Behavioral & Physiological 1 0.9 0 0.0
Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive & Physiological 2 1.8 0 0.0
Not Classified 6 5.5 7 4.7
Total 109 100 149 100

Table 10 shows that students from the soft sciences, generally, showed cognitive
stress responses while those from the hard sciences showed more affective responses
when looking specifically at the stressors. The two groups have similar reactions to
most of the stressors except for the following stressor: being on one’s own, being with
new people, responsibilities due to being on one’s own, extra-curricular activities, peer
relationships, and workload in organizations/fraternities/sororities. These mentioned
stressors are related to individual adjustments and social activities.
Table 10. Comparison of stress responses of respondents in soft and hard sciences in terms of domains
Stressors Domains
Soft science Hard science

Academics (difficulty of subject matter) •Cognitive •Cognitive

Being on one’s own •Affective •Behavioral

Being with new people • Cognitive •Affective

Having a new class room set-up •Cognitive •Cognitive

Responsibilities due to being on one’s own (e.g. laundry, •Cognitive •Behavioral

Food, budgeting expenses, etc.)

Dating with friends (bonding) •Behavioral •Behavioral

Extracurricular activities •Cognitive •Behavioral

Peer relationship •Cognitive •Behavioral

Workload (amount of workload due to subjects) •Affective •Affective

Workload (amount of work that needs to be exerted • Cognitive • Affective

to organizations/ fraternity, sorority)

Time management •Affective •Affective

Parental pressure on academic performance •Affective •Affective

Financial problem •Affective/Cognitive •Affective

After graduation plans •Affective •Affective

Current romantic relationship •Cognitive •Cognitive

A t-test was done to compare the means of the affective and cognitive responses
between the students in the hard and soft sciences. There was no significant difference
in the affective responses between students in the hard sciences (M= 1.43, SD=0.634)
and soft sciences (M=1.32, SD=0. 629); t(256)= 1.36, p=0.174. These results suggest
that the academic degree they are taking up does not have an effect on the affective
stress responses of the students. Similarly, for the cognitive responses, there was no
significant difference between the students in the hard sciences (M= 1.29, SD=0.581)
and soft sciences (M=1.37, SD=0.655); t(256)= 1.12, p=0.263. These results suggest
that the academic degree they are taking up does not have an effect on the cognitive
stress responses of the students.

Stressors and Stress Responses According to Academic Classification

The first and second most frequent stressors for all the academic classifications
are the same: academic difficulty of subject matter and workload from subjects (Table
11). It seems that no student is exempted from these. The differences can be seen in
the succeeding ranked stressors.

Table 11. Ranking of stressors by academic classification

Stressor
Ranking Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
1 Academics (difficulty Academics (difficulty Academics (difficulty Academics (difficulty
of subject matter) of subject matter) of subject matter) of subject matter)
2 Workload (amount of Workload (amount of Workload (amount Workload (amount
workload due to workload due to of workload due to of workload due to
subjects) subjects) subjects) subjects)
3 Parental pressure on Time management Time management Time management
academic because of subjects because of subjects because of subjects
performance & organizations
4 Responsibilities due Responsibilities due Time management After graduation
to being on one’s to being on one’s own because of subjects plans
own (e.g. laundry, (e.g. laundry, food,
food, budgeting budgeting expenses,
expenses, etc.) etc.)
5 After graduation Time management Extracurricular Extracurricular
plans because of subjects & activities activities
organizations

Table 12. Percentage of respondents classified according to their overall stress responses by academic
classification
Overall stress response Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior
classification N % N % N % N %
Affective 9 33.3 28 30.1 28 32.9 14 26.4
Behavioral 3 11.1 9 9.7 10 11.8 11 20.8
Cognitive 8 29.6 28 30.1 23 27.1 11 20.8
Physiological 3 11.1 6 6.5 8 9.4 3 5.7
Affective & Behavioral 0 0 2 2.2 3 3.5 1 1.9
Affective & Cognitive 3 11.1 6 6.5 5 5.9 3 5.7
Affective & Physiological 0 0 1 1.1 2 2.4 1 1.9
Behavioral & Cognitive 1 3.7 2 2.2 3 3.5 1 1.9
Behavioral & Physiological 0 0 1 1.1 1 1.2 1 1.9
Cognitive & Physiological 0 0 1 1.1 0 0 0 0
Affective, Behavioral & 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 1 1.9
Cognitive
Affective, Behavioral & 0 0 1 1.1 0 0 0 0
Physiological
Affective, Behavioral, 0 0 1 1.1 0 0 1 1.9
Cognitive & Physiological
Not Classified 0 0 7 7.5 1 1.2 1 1
Total 27 100 93 100 85 100 53 100
 The overall comparison of stress responses according to their academic
classification (Table 12) shows all year levels exhibited the highest percentage in the
affective responses except for the sophomore group which had a tie between affective
and cognitive responses. The second most exhibited stress response for all levels was
the cognitive response.
According to stressors, the freshmen and seniors showed more affective
responses while the sophomores and juniors manifested more cognitive responses
(Table 13). The cognitive response was shown by all levels for the stressors: academic
difficulty and current romantic relationship. The affective response was manifested by all
levels for the following stressors: time management, parental pressure in academic
performance, and after graduation plans.

Table 13. Comparison of stress responses of respondents by academic classification in terms of domains
Stressors Domains
Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior
Academics (difficulty of •Cognitive •Cognitive •Cognitive •Cognitive
subject matter) •
Being on one’s own •Behavioral •Cognitive •Behavioral •Affective

Being with new people • Cognitive •Cognitive •Cognitive/ •Affective

Behavioral
Having a new class room set-
up •Cognitive •Cognitive •Cognitive •Behavioral

Responsibilities due to being •Behavioral •Affective/ •Cognitive •Behavioral

on one’s own (e.g. laundry, Cognitive
Food, budgeting expenses)

Dating with friends (bonding) •Affective •Behavioral •Behavioral •Behavioral

Extracurricular activities •Cognitive •Cognitive •Cognitive •Behavioral

Peer relationship •Affective •Cognitive •Cognitive/ •Behavioral

Behavioral
Workload (amount of •Affective •Cognitive •Affective •Affective
workload due to subjects)

Workload (amount of work • Affective •Affective •Cognitive • Affective/

that needs to be exerted Behavioral
to organizations,etc)

Time management •Affective •Affective •Affective •Affective

Parental pressure on •Affective •Affective •Affective •Affective

academic performance

Financial problem •Behavioral •Affective •Affective •Affective

After graduation plans •Affective •Affective •Affective •Affective

Current romantic relationship •Cognitive •Cognitive •Affective/ •Affective

Cognitive
 Table 14 shows the comparison of the affective responses across the four year
levels. The computed F-value of 0.195 was lesser than the critical F-value of 2.696 at
0.05 level of significance with 3 and 254 degrees of freedom. The affective stress
responses do not differ across the year levels.
Table 14. Affective stress responses across year levels

SS df MS F p
Between: 0.237 3 0.079 0.195 0.900
Within: 102.901 254 0.405
Total: 103.138 257

The comparison of the cognitive responses across the four year levels can be
seen in Table 15. The computed F-value of 0.713 was lesser than the critical F-value of
2.696 at 0.05 level of significance with 3 and 254 degrees of freedom. The cognitive
stress responses do not differ across the year levels.
Table 15. Cognitive stress responses across year levels

SS df MS F p
Between: 0.807 3 0.269 0.713 0.545
Within: 95.876 254 0.377
Total: 96.684 257

DISCUSSION

Stressors and stress responses

Academics and workload turned out as the top stressors of the students. The
courses they have, the assignments, requirements, exams, other responsibilities, and
the meaningfulness of the tasks affect their perceptions and experience of their
workload in a semester (Jonkman, Boer, and Jagielski, 2006; Student Workload Task
Force Report, 2012). These are heavy concerns by themselves but are often related to
other concerns like fear of failing, pressures to succeed in one’s field, and expectations
after graduation in terms of employment and salary (Hirsch and Ellis, 1996; Sax,
Lindholm, Atin, Korn and Mahoney, 2001; Busari, 2012).
The pressure of academic demands place strains on the individual’s physical and
psychological health states as he/she adjusts to college life and living arrangements
(Ross, Neibling and Heckert, 1999). Moreover, strains can also be seen in their
interpersonal relationships with family members and peers through the process of
adjustment.
In terms of the stress responses, a third of the respondents resorted to using
affective stress responses and more than a quarter showed cognitive responses (Table
4). Some respondents were classified as being in 2-3 stress response domains. These
show that stress reactions do not occur in isolation. The American Psychological
Association (2012) believes that this occurs because of the body’s response
mechanisms that help us when dealing with our environment.
 According to McNabb (1997), the affective domain affects a person’s motivation
level, self-esteem level, and degree of socialization which are usually caused by the
individual’s environment. The most frequent responses shown by the respondents were
anxiety and fear. Anxiety may be due to the student’s constant anticipation of
uncertain events such as what questions will the exams contain, will he/she pass the
class, and will his/her group mates be responsible enough and the like. Fear is shown
as a frequent response most likely due to the thinking that courses in the university are
highly difficult and thus, easy to fail. Anxiety and doubts can be powerful sources of
stress which can further aggravate one’s state (Santrock, 2003). These pessimistic
ways cause the highest probability of becoming a depressed person than any of the
other stress responses (Metalsky, Halberstadt & Abramson as cited by Davila &
Fincham, 2005).
The most frequent cognitive responses were worrying followed by catastrophic
thinking. The stressors associated with worry were related to academic expectations of
others on the individual and the individual on themselves, coupled with the
responsibilities he/she must accomplish because of those expectations. Taken together,
these are heavy to bear for young people due to their level of development. Intense
catastrophic thinking was answered most frequently for stressors related to socialization
like interactions with new people, peers and organization members. These may indicate
that adolescents are still developing social competence and the skills associated with it.
According to Metalsky, Halberstadt & Abramson (as cited by Davila, & Fincham, 2005),
this domain is most likely to cause the highest probability of a depressed person than
the other domains. For adolescent health, this is important because certain negative
cognitive responses to negative events may increase the likelihood of depression (Alloy,
Abramson, Whitehouse, Hogan, Tashman, Steinberg, Rosee and Donovan, 1999).
Behavioral responses ranked third as the most frequent stress reaction of the
respondents. This implies that deflection of behavior in negative responses such as
smoking, doing drugs, social withdrawal, over or under eating, and escape or avoidance
to stressful situations were rarely done by the respondents. The students either deflect
their responses to positive behaviors or resolve it through the other domains. For the
physiological stress responses, the implication is that the respondents rarely have body
related reactions to stress or they might not be aware of these.

Stressors and Stress Responses Between Male and Female Students

As students, both males and females experience the difficulty of academic

courses and the workload given to them every semester. However, males placed
financial problems as their third most frequent stressor while girls perceived that it was
time management because of subjects. These stressors were also seen by Busari
(2012) and Bataineh (2013). Male students’ financial concerns may still be adjusting to
budgeting their expenses or are really lacking in financial resources. Food requirements
of young males are also greater than females. In addition, if they are into online
activities like surfing the Net and gaming, these could put a strain on their budget.
Females, on the other hand, could be more conscious about their subjects’ demands
and the expectations of significant adults about their studies, thus, feeling the need to
have more time to meet academic requirements.
Affective responses were the most common stress response for both the male
and female students. Shacham & Lahad (2004) explained that the affective reactions
like fear were the same for both males and females when they were exposed to the
same environment. In this case, since the two sexes go to the same university, they
have the same or similar environment and are exposed to the same stressors. The
difference lies in the expression of the feelings.
It should be considered that females are more expressive with their feelings, act
out less than males, are more emotionally sensitive (Busari, 2012) and are more prone
to looking at situations as more stressful (Folkman, 2011). Because of the difference in
their expressiveness and perceptions, females tend to exhibit a higher percentage of
cognitive responses when stressors arise, especially when looking at the specific
stressors (Table 7). According to Garrett (2001), females more frequently thought of
their concerns and gave more time to dwelling on their concerns. Further, cortisol levels
are higher in females and this affects cognitive and affective processes, making them
more prone to depression (Kudielka and Kirschbaum, 2004). It is important to note that
cognitive stress responses is the leading cause for chronic depression and may
contribute to the emergence of affective disorders (Stroud, Salovey and Epel, 2002),
something for females to be wary of.
In their research, Shacham & Lahad (2004) found out that the males looked for
other practical solutions when stressors arose and their responses became more
behavioral in nature. Thus, they were more frequent than females in exhibiting
behavioral responses. In this study, however, the second most frequent stress response
of males was cognitive (Table 6). This difference may be due to situations or contexts of
the respondents. The male students here may resort to cognitive responses more than
behavioral because they are taught to think before they act, to evaluate the situation
and come up with possible strategies before engaging in a particular course of action.
Still, between the male and female students, the males showed more behavioral
stress responses (Table 6). Male responses are more marked by a pattern of fight or
flight (Calaguas, 2011) or by action directed to reducing or overcoming the stress. This
is likely due to sex-linked, neuroendocrine responses to stress and also to cultural roles
and expectations from males to do something about a situation (Taylor et al., 2000).
Consistent with the findings here regarding physiological stress responses,
Busari (2012) also found out that males showed more of the physiological components
than the females. This can be due to the fight or flight response which shows metabolic
activity like increased heart rate, blood pressure and cortisol levels (Taylor et al, 2000).
Androgen hormones appear to regulate such responses especially those linked to
hostility and reactivity. Cultural expectations may also play a role for male responses
since they are looked at as providers and protectors of their families.

Stressors and Stress Responses According to Academic Field (Soft vs. Hard Science)

The students from the two academic fields commonly pointed out to academic
difficulty, workload, and time management as their top stressors (Table 8). Students’
stress levels can be affected by various factors such as task size and task difficulty
(Lindsay, 2010). When students perceived that their academic courses and tasks were
large and difficult, they experienced more stress (Everson, Tobias, Hartman, &
Gourgey, 1993). In this study, the academic field they are in does not seem to matter
since the students perceive that tertiary education in the national university is difficult.
They are all in academically challenging curricula whose demands they have to meet in
addition to the developmental events that are normative to adolescence (Hardesty,
2006).
The students from the soft sciences, however, pointed out extracurricular
activities also a top stressor. This could be due to their involvement in organizations and
related activities which demand time and may conflict with academic requirements. On
the other hand, students from the hard sciences included responsibilities on one’s own
and finances as top stressors. Responsibilities of living on their own may be a concern
for them because they have to do various tasks by themselves, despite their academic
workload. Finances may be a concern for them due to their need for laboratory supplies,
books, chemicals, and other requirements which are expensive.
Students in the hard sciences manifested more of the affective stress responses
(Tables 9 and 10). These changes in emotional states may be due to fears and
anxieties like they feel they may not pass the subject, they may not have enough time
and resources to meet the requirements, or they may not meet the expectations of
significant people. Generally, this academic field is considered to be more rigorous and
perceived expectations from others and the self are most likely higher (Calaguas, 2011).
Hard science degrees also have a greater number of math intensive classes which may
add to the degree’s perceived difficulty (May and Casazza, 2012). When difficulties
arise, these may cause them to question their capabilities, the people around them, or
their situations. Thus, emotions such as anger, fear, or guilt could manifest.
The students from the soft sciences manifested more of the cognitive stress
responses. Their top stressors would lead to worrying and focusing on their subjects,
the workload, or how to balance their time for subjects and extracurricular activities.
Much as this academic field may not be perceived as rigorous as the hard sciences,
still, there are requirements to fulfill whose size and difficulty are also demanding. The
students have organization responsibilities to attend to and other extracurricular
activities their time can or may afford. When the stressors arise, they respond by
worrying or overanalyzing or catastrophic thinking.

Stressors and Stress Responses According to Academic Classification

The top two stressors were common for the four academic classifications-
academic difficulty and workload (Table 11). This can be explained by the adjustments
of freshmen to the content, requirements, learning conditions, and teaching style in the
university. The sophomores may have adjusted to university life but then, they are now
required to choose a major area of specialization or some already have major subjects
in their curriculum. The number of courses and units usually increase by a course or 3
units. During the junior level, there are more major courses and the units are still heavy
at 21-24 units. Senior students are more focused on their major subjects and are more
pressured to pass them in order to graduate.
 The differences can be seen in the remaining stressors. Freshmen students
pointed to parental pressure on their academic performance as the third stressor. This
is most likely due to parental expectations to finish a degree and to prioritize their
studies so as not to waste family resources. The other year levels stated time
management maybe because of their difficult courses and they may have joined
organizations they believe can help them grow personally and later, professionally. For
the fourth stressor, freshmen and sophomores find it difficult to handle responsibilities
that come with independent living vis-à-vis their studies. They are doing a lot of things
for themselves on their own, more so if they come from far places. Juniors found it
stressful to balance academic and organization responsibilities while seniors were now
plagued by concerns of what to do or what will happen after they graduate. In the fifth
stressor, freshmen students were surprisingly concerned with after graduation plans.
This could be due to questions about the appropriateness of their current course to their
abilities and interests and how this can affect their possible career paths. Sophomores
stated that time management due to subjects and organizations was a stressor maybe
because they were finding it hard to balance these two. Juniors and seniors pointed out
extracurricular activities as a stressor due to their participation in varsity sports,
organizations, fraternities or sororities. These are necessary too, not only as an outlet,
but also as part of their resumes for job hunting.
In the study of Bataineh (2013), there were no significant differences in academic
stress among students with different levels of study. In a way, it affirms the findings here
since the top stressors were, to some extent, similar for all the year levels.
In terms of the overall stress responses, the trend was toward more of the
affective responses followed by cognitive responses except for the sophomores for
whom there was a tie between the two responses (Table 12). This finding was similar to
that of Misra, McKean, West and Russo (2000). Many studies, according to Eccles,
Wigfield, Midgeley, & Adler (1984) have expressed that as children grow older, they
experience more academic failures and lowered expectations. This is suggested to
result from age-related student attitudes. Individuals tend to integrate their failure into
their self image which is associated to self-esteem. This could be one underlying cause
of the affective responses of the respondents. Also, as adolescents, the students may
experience emotional tensions or instability due to their inability to make adjustments to
situations, expectations, and social relations. They tend to attribute anxiety to those
situations which give rise to frustrations like their academic courses, requirements and
parental expectations they fear they will not be able to meet. Yurgelon-Todd and
Killgore (2006) also emphasize that the adolescent brain is still learning to control the
emotions as the prefrontal cortex develops. Thus, they tend to be impulsive and
emotional.
The cognitive responses were the second frequent response. These were
exhibited by all levels for academic difficulty of subject matter (Table 13). This is
understandable given the reputation of the national university. Students worry if they
can overcome the academic hurdles during that semester or if the courses are too
difficult, what are they to do, what are their options. This was a greater concern of the
freshmen who were still adjusting to the learning conditions of the university. The older
students already had coping mechanisms to deal with stressors in the college
environment while the freshmen have yet to develop these coping mechanisms and
build other resources (Misra etal., 2000).
The trend for affective, cognitive, and physiological stress responses were that
these were decreasing as students achieved a higher level of academic classification.
The behavioral responses, on the other hand, were increasing. The reason for this may
lie in Kobasa’s concept of “hardiness” and a “stress-hardy personality” (Kahn, 2012). A
“hardy” individual is one who is able to regulate the amount of stress he has
experienced and shows no increase in medical or psychological symptoms. They can
even be healthier than when they started. Their approach to life incorporates behavioral
and cognitive skills (Kahn, 2012). The increase in behavioral responses may mean a
foundation for the development of habits used to tolerate or overcome stress.

CONCLUSION

The top five overall stressors of the respondents were academic difficulty of
subject matter, workload due to subjects, time management because of subjects,
responsibilities due to being on one’s own, and time management because of both
subjects and organizations. The most frequently occurring stress responses were
affective stress responses followed by cognitive responses. For both male and female
respondents, the top stressors were academics, workload due to subjects, and time
management concerns. Overall, the males reacted to stress through affective
responses and females through cognitive responses. Students enrolled in the hard and
soft sciences both considered academics, workload due to subjects, and time
management concerns as their top stressors. Those in the soft sciences reacted with
cognitive stress responses while those in the hard sciences reacted with affective stress
responses. Generally, all students, regardless of their academic classification pointed
out that academics, workload due to subjects, and time management were their main
stressors. They all reacted to stress with affective stress responses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

One recommendation for adolescents is to improve their time management and

prioritization skills such as studying some concepts every night. That way, the workload
on the subjects such as passing a major paper/project or preparing for an exam or
presentations would not be perceived as task heavy compared to studying or doing the
project the night before the exam/deadline. In this way, the difficulty of the subject
matter or task is reduced. Also, students should learn to relax from time to time. Doing
activities such as watching a movie with friends or family or activities that involve
spending time with others in one’s social group help in boosting self-esteem and the
need of belongingness which help people handle stressful situations.
Schools are recommended to consider the capacity of adolescent students to do
the work they require in order to learn and finish their degrees. Courses should be
stimulating but also not beyond their capabilities to handle and not beyond their time
and financial resources. Improving communication between the faculty and students
about the course and requirements may also improve the students’ academic
performance.
Further studies can consider bigger samples from various universities in the
country. Other variables which can influence stress perceptions can also be studied like
the impact of the social support systems, the availability of financial resources and
protective factors against stress.
The stressors and stress responses of students can be monitored by the
university guidance or health office to maintain their psychological and physical well-
being. These offices can offer stress management interventions and disseminate these
services to the various colleges/units.
Stress management is very important in adolescence since many stressors are
experienced during this stage. Cumulative and simultaneous negative stressors are
potential threats to healthy development during this stage (Moksnes, 2011). Not being
able to manage the stress and responding to it negatively could compromise the
physical and psychological well-being of the individual in this stage and for the rest of
his/her life.

LITERATURE CITED

Agolla, J. E. & Ongori, H. 2009. An assessment of academic stress among

undergraduate students: the case of University of Botswana. Educational
Research and Review, 4(2), 63-70.

Alloy, L.B. L.Y. Abramson, W.G. Whitehouse, M. E. Hogan, N. A. Tashman, D. L.

Steinberg, D. T. Rosee, and P. Donovan. 1999. Depressogenic cognitive styles:
predictive validity, information processing and personality characteristics, and
developmental origins. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37: 503-531.

American Psychological Association (2012) Mind/body: Stress. Retrieved September

21, 2013 from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/stress.aspx

Amponsah, M. and H.O. Owolabi, 2011. Perceived stress levels of fresh university
students in Ghana: a case study. British Journal of Educational Research,
1(2): 153-169.

Bataineh, M.Z. 2013. Academic stress among undergraduate students: the case of
Education Faculty at King Saud University. International Interdisciplinary Journal
of Education, 2 (1), 82-88.

Busari, A.O. 2012. Identifying difference in perceptions of academic stress and reaction
to stressors based on gender among first year university students. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2 (14): 138-146.

Calaguas, G.M. 2011. Curriculum and sex-specific differences in academic stress

arising from perceived expectations. International Journal of Human and Social
 Sciences, 6(1): 63-366. Retrieved September 30, 2013 from
http://www.waset.org/journals/ijhss/v6/v6-1-10.pdf
Campbell, J. and U. Ehlert. 2012. Acute psychosocial stress: does the emotional stress
response correspond with physiological responses? Psychoneuroendocrinology,
37 (8), 1111-1134.

Cerda, J. 2013. 5 Philippine universities among Asia's best. Philippine Star. Retrieved
March 6, 2013 from www.philstar.com/campus/2013/06/11/952819/5-philippine-
universities-among-asias-best

Charbonneau, A. M., A.H. Mezulis and J.S. Hyde. 2009. Stress and emotional
reactivity as explanations for gender differences in adolescents’ depressive
symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1050–1058.

Davila, J. & F.D. Fincham. 2005. Abnormal Psychology In Hewstone, M., F. Fincham,
and J. Foster. (Eds.) Psychology. New Jersey: BPS Blackwell Publishing, pp.39

Dussellier, L., B. Dunn, Y. Wang, M. Shelley and M. Whalen. 2005. Personal, health,
academic, and environmental predictors of stress for residence hall students.
Journal of American College Students Health, 54, 78-84.

Eccles, J.S., A. Wigfield, C. Midgely and T.F. Adler. 1984. Grade-related changes in
the school environment : Effects on achievement motivation. In J.G. Nicholls
(Ed.). The development of achievement motivation. pp. 283-331. Greenwich,
CT : JAI Press.

Everson, H. T., S. Tobias, H. Hartman and A. Gourgey. 1993. Test anxiety and the
curriculum: The subject matters. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International
Journal, 6(1), 1-8. Retrieved July 10, 2014 from
doi:10.1080/10615809308249528

Folkman, S. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Stress, Health, and Coping. New York:
Oxford University Press. pp. 66-67

Garrett, J.B. 2001. Gender differences in college related stress. Undergraduate Journal
of Psychology 14: 5-9.

Hardesty, R.B. 2006. Stress, Coping, and their Prediction of Mental Health Outcomes in
International Baccalaureate High School Students. Graduate School Theses and
Dissertations. University of South Florida. Retrieved July8, 2014 from.
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3869

Hart, A. 2007. Causes of Stress on Students. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from
http://www.stressmanagementblog.com/causes-of-stress/causes-of-stress-on-
students-18/
Humphrey, J. H., D.A.Yow and W.W. Bowden. 2000. Stress in College Athletes:
Causes, Consequences, Coping. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Half-Court
Press.

Jonkman, M., F.D. Boer, and J. Jagielski, J. 2006. Are we over-assessing our
students? The students' view. Paper presented at the 17th Conference of the
Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Auckland, New Zealand.

Kahn, M.H. 2012. What is hardiness? Retrieved February 8, 2013 from

www.mhkcoaching.com/index.php/hardiness

Kudielka, B.M. and C. Kirschbaum. 2004. Sex differences in HPA axis responses to
stress: a review. Biological Psychology, 69: 113–132. Retrieved February 8,
2013 from www.elsevier.com/locate/biopsycho

Larkin, K..T. 2005. Stress and Hypertension. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press. pp. 67- 85.

Lazarus, R.S. and S. Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York:
Springer Publishing Company, Inc. pp. 3-14

Lindsay, E.D. 2010. The impact of task value upon the stress and workload levels of
first year engineering students. The Higher Education Academy Engineering
Centre. Curtin University, Australia, pp 1-11.

May, R. W. and S.P. Casazza. 2012. Academic major as a perceived stress indicator:
extending stress management intervention. College Student Journal, 46 (2): 264-
273.

McLaughlin, C. L., & Christner, R. W. (2009). Understanding stress: helping students

affected by the economic crisis. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists. Retrieved from August 14, 2104 from
http://www.nasponline.org/educators.aspx

McNabb, J. G. 1997. Key affective behaviors of students as identified in a selected

group of secondary school teachers using SCANS categories. Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education, 34(4): 29-41.

Milanes, K.H. 2010. Impact of Stress on the Academic Performance of Nursing

Students of Trinity University of Asia. Retrieved September 22, 2013 from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 46509660/Impact-of-Stress-in-the-Academic-
Performance

Misra, R., M. McKean, S. West and T. Russo . 2000. Academic stress of college
students: comparison of students and faculty perceptions. College Student
 Journal, 3 (2): 236-245. Retrieved February 8, 2013 from
www.freepatentsonline.com/article/College-Student-Journal/131318270.html

Moksnes U.K., E.O. Moljord , G.A. Espnes and D.G. Byrne. 2010. The association
between stress and emotional states in adolescents: The role of gender and self-
esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 49 (5), 430-435. Retrieved
August 5, 2013 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0191886910002060

Moksnes, U.K. 2011. Stress and health in adolescents: The role of potential
protective factors. Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Office of the University Registrar. 2012. Enrollment Data SY 2012-2013. University of

the Philippines Los Banos.

Richlin-Klonsky, J. & R. Hoe. 2003. Sources and Levels of Stress among UCLA
Students. Student Affairs Briefing 2. Student Affairs Information and Research
Office, UCLA. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from http://www.sairo.ucla.edu/
SAIRO%20BRIEFINGS/SAIRO%20Briefing2.pdf

Ross, S. E., B.C. Niebling,and T.M. Heckert. 1999. Sources of stress among college
students. College Student Journal, 33 (2): 312-318.

Santrock, J.W. 2003. Adolescence. 9th ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Sax, L., J. Lindholm, .A. Atin, W. Korn and K. Mahoney. 2001. The American
Freshman:National Norms for Fall 2001in Santrock, JW. 2003. Adolescence. 9th
ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill)-

Shacham , M. and M. Lahad. 2004. Stress reactions and coping resources mobilized
by children under shelling and evacuation. Australasian Journal of Disaster and
Trauma Studies : 2004 (2):1174-4707. Retrieved February 8, 2013 from
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2004-2/shacham.htm

Stroud, L.R., P. Salovey and E. S. Epel. 2002. Sex differences in stress responses:
social rejection versus achievement stress. Biological Psychiatry ;52: 318–327.

Student Workload Task Force Report. 2012. Los Angeles, California: Otis College of Art
and Design. Retrieved July 20, 2013 from http://www.otis.edu/strategic-initiatives

Taylor, S.E., L. C. Klein, B. P. Lewis, T. L. Gruenewald, R. A. R. Gurung and J. A.

Updegraff. 2000. Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-
befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107 (3): 411-429.
 Yurgelun-Todd, D.A. and W.D. Killgore. 2006. Fear-related activity in the prefrontal
cortex increases with age during adolescence: a preliminary fMRI study.
Neuroscience Letters, 406, 194-199.

View publication stats