30 Pages Pschology Thesis

Running Head: THE EFFECTS OF SELF-EFFICACY AND STRESS ON ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
The effects of self-efficacy and stress on the academic motivation of undergraduate students
Name
Affiliation
THE EFFECTS OF SELF-EFFICACY AND STRESS ON ACADEMIC MOTIVATION 2
Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter One .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 6
Definition of Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 6
Stress ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Research Aim .......................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 7
1.4 Research Question/ Hypothesis .............................................................................................................. 8
1. 5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................................... 9
1.7 Chapter Outline ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two................................................................................................................................................ 11
Literature Review........................................................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Stress ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Theorizing stress ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Sources of stress.......................................................................................................................................... 14
Effects of stress ........................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Academic Motivation............................................................................................................................ 16
2.3 Academic Self-efficacy ......................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter Three.............................................................................................................................................. 22
Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Research Design.................................................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Research Approach ............................................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Research Instrument.............................................................................................................................. 23
3.4 Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................................................ 23
Chapter Four ............................................................................................................................................... 25
Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Reliability Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................................. 25
4.3 Correlation Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 27
4.4 Model Summary.................................................................................................................................... 31

4.5 Regression ............................................................................................................................................. 32
4.6 Principal Factor Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 34
Communalities Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 34
Eigen Values ............................................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter Five ................................................................................................................................................ 39
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation............................................................................................... 40
5.2 Connecting Stress and Self-Efficacy..................................................................................................... 40
5.3 Hypothesis Testing................................................................................................................................ 43
Chapter Six.................................................................................................................................................. 44
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 44
References ................................................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 57
Abstract
Academic motivation is an essential factor in academia as it determines the ability of
students to retain in colleges and complete their degrees. With greater rates of dropouts, it is of
concern to evaluate the various factors associated with academic motivation to impact it
positively. In this study, independent variables of stress and academic self-efficacy were
examined with academic motivation as the dependent variable. Gender was taken as the control
variable for regression analysis. The results indicated weak, however significant between both,
self-efficacy and academic motivation and stress and academic motivation. Additionally, the
combined variable of stress and academic self-efficacy also has a positive significant relationship
with academic motivation. Future studies should explore the impact of various demographics on
academic motivation.
Chapter One
Introduction
In spite of the constantly rising rates of enrollment within the United Kingdom in
institutions of post-secondary education, lower performance in academics and higher rates of
dropouts stay persistent concerns amongst the undergraduates (Tinto, 1994). For institutions of
academics, high rates of attrition complicate the place and planning of enrollment by adding
burdens on struggles to recruit more students. Dropping out from college, before attaining a
terminal degree poses itself as a loss of investment and unused human prospective, for the
students (Jaeger and Page, 1996). Poor performance in academics is usually the indicator of
problems in adjusting to college and students become more likely to dropout (Martaugh, Burns
and Schuster, 1999).
This research evaluates the combined impact of two factors of social cognitive variables on the
performance of students in academics. These factors are stress and self-efficacy and have been
investigated in-detail as indicators of adjustment to academics. However, this paper concentrates
clearly on evaluating the comparative significance of the aforementioned factors in the
explaining of success in college.
Academic stress has been considered as an important factor which found to be negatively
correlated to academic motivation among undergraduate students, where’s academic self-
efficacy positively correlated with students’ self-reliance, confidence and their ability to carry
out academic tasks such as exams preparation. Academic motivation is considered as an
important factor for students in relation to doing their study and making their learning more
interesting for them which subsequently result in better academic motivation. Present study will
investigates the joint effects of two related social cognitive factors academic stress and self-
efficacy on the academic motivation
The main purpose of this study is to explore whether self-efficacy and stress are
significant contributing factors in undergraduate student’s academic motivation. The statistical
analysis will be conducted to see if there is a positive correlation between self-efficacy and
academic motivation, stress is negatively correlated with academic motivation and academic
self-efficacy is a mediating factor between academic motivation and stress. Present study aim to
address and investigate the effects of academic self-efficacy and stress on the academic
motivation of participants using Zajacova, Lynch and Espenshade (2005) Academic self-efficacy
subscale which is formed from both the academic milestones scale (Lent et al., 1986) and the
college self-efficacy inventory (Solberg, O’Brien, Villareal, Kennel, and Davis, 1993).
1.1 Background of the Study
Definition of Self-Efficacy
The term of self-efficacy is delineated as the evaluation of one’s own competence to
execute any course of activities essential to achieve desired results successfully by one’s self
(Bandura, 1986). This is a construct that is multidimensional in nation as it differs in accordance
with demand domains (Zimmerman, 2000) and hence, it should be assessed at an extent that is
particular to the domain of outcomes (Pajares, 1996). Therefore, academic self-efficacy must be
measured by an individual in an academic setting where it translates into the confidence of
students in their capabilities to accomplish academic tasks while preparing for writing of terms
papers and examination. A wide meta-analysis of research regarding self-efficacy in
environments of academics decided that the greatest particular self-efficacy in academics guides
had the greatest impact on academic motivation. The more general measures of self-efficacy are
less closely related to academic motivation (Multon, Brown and Lent, 1991). Common measures
of self-efficacy were not discovered to be indicators of college success (Lindley and Borgen,
2002) although self-efficacy in academics has been shown to consistently predict retention and
grades in college.
An expansive literature body has depicted that self-efficacy in academics is associated
positively with college grades (Bong, 2001) in addition to persistence in college. Bandura (1993)
proposes that convictions of self-efficacy impact the outcomes of college by enhancing the
persistence and motivation of students to accomplish challenging tasks of academics and by
supporting the effective utilization of acquired skills and knowledge. Torres alongside Solberg
(2001) has revealed a positive relationship between self-efficacy in academics and the quantity
of hours spent by students studying.
Stress
Stress, in general, is describes as a mental condition of psychological stimulation that
outcomes when external demands exceed or ta the adaptive abilities of a person (Lazarus and
Folkman, 1984). The demands of the environment are named as stressors and they can appear in
the shape of an ongoing strain or an acute instance, while stress denotes the inner perceived
cognitions and emotions.
1.2 Research Aim
The aim of this research is to assess the impacts of stress and self-efficacy in academic
motivation of undergraduate students.
1.3 Research Objectives
The following are the objectives for this study:

 To assess the self-efficacy and its impacts on undergraduate students’ performance in
academics.
 To assess the stress and its impacts on academic motivation of undergraduate students.
 To assess the combined impact of self-efficacy as well as stress on the academic
motivation of undergraduate students.
1.4 Research Question/ Hypothesis
Based upon the research objectives and the research questions, the following research hypotheses
are formed.
H1: Stress will be negatively correlated with academic motivation
H2: Higher levels of self-efficacy will be positively correlated with academic motivation of
students.
H3: Academic self-efficacy is a mediating factor between academic motivation and stress.
H4: Gender differences will impact the levels of self-efficacy and stress.
1. 5 Significance of the Study
Along these lines psychological hypothesis places a solid negative relationship between self-
viability and observed stress, and experimental discoveries offer backing for this hypothesis. In
various studies, self-viability and anxiety among understudies have been reliably appeared to
have medium to solid negative relationships (Gigliotti and Huff, 1995; Solberg, Hale, Villarreal,
and Kavanagh, 1993; Torres and Solberg, 2001). As social subjective hypothesis gives a
reasonable structure connecting self-adequacy and anxiety, most research has investigated their
independent parts in clarifying scholarly results. Almost no work has analyzed their joint impact
as determinants of scholarly achievement in school. Hence, this study aims to fulfill this research
gap by examining the combined effect of stress and academic self-efficacy on the academic
motivation of undergraduate students. This investigation will contribute significantly to the
literature body by evaluating the impacts of the aforementioned factors while keeping gender as
the control variable.
1.6 Limitations of the Study
The sample size for this study has been kept as 100 respondents. This sample data was collected
from respondents that belonged to first and second year of college. The level of stress related to
academics varies among different disciplines. However, we have selected the respondents at
random. Hence, the specialization area has not been given its due significance in this study.
Therefore, the results of this study are not generalized to students of all specialization areas.
1.7 Chapter Outline
Chapter 1: Introduction
An introduction to self-efficacy, stress, academic motivation and the role gender plays in
difference in academic motivation is given.
Moreover, the Aim, Objectives, Research Questions and Significance of the Study along with
Limitation and Value of Research are all reported in the first chapter.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
A comprehensive review of literature has been undertaken to emphasize the importance of the
research topic in the present literature.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
A quantitative research is undertaken where self-efficacy and stress are taken as independent
variables, academic motivation is taken as the dependent variable and gender of the students is
taken as a control variable. The framework of data collection is also explained.
Chapter 4: Discussions
Discussion based on the results derived from the quantitative research and data collection is
included. Furthermore, the results of the research are related to present literature to contrast the
outcomes of the study with similar or contradictory studies.
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The research is concluded in the light of the presented literature and the results and discussions
of the analyzed data. The study is concluded based on the outcomes of the quantitative research.
Recommendations regarding future researches are also made.

Chapter Two
Literature Review
2.1 Stress
Stress is a gathering of physical, emotional and mental reactions that happen when we
experience something novel, difficult, perilous or energizing (Selye, 1978). This condition can be
encountered as a negative as well as positive energy in an individual's life. Eustress or positive
stress, can uplift mindfulness, enhance motivation and performance (Selye, 1978). Distress or
negative stress can hinder execution, lessen focus and motivation, and add to weakness (Selye,
1978).
Despite the fact that stress can affect the physical and psychological well-being of
individuals of all ages, specific concern is attributed toward students of post-secondary
education. Outcomes of a nationwide study showed that students of Canadian college experience
critical stress levels (Adlaf, Demers and Gliksman, 2005). For instance, greater than half of
understudies from six colleges in Ontario documented that their level of stress is greater than
normal or extreme. This stress often hinders scholarly execution. The move from secondary
school to undergrad training is described by change, conformity, and equivocalness identifying
with interruption of schedules, security, consistency, and lost feeling of control that was set up
amid secondary school. This move is perplexing and regularly includes a few concurrent
stressors, for example, another living atmosphere, acquiring individual security (e.g., self-regard
and solace), assembling another support system socially, money related concerns,
school/individual life equalization (Chernomas and Shapiro, 2013; Moscaritolo, 2009; Sheu,
Lin, and Hwang, 2002), and scholastic stressors (Altiok, 2013;Goff, 2011). Students of post-
secondary education themselves have recommended that there is a solid correlation of scholastic,
individual, way of life, and monetary problems that can bring about expanded stress and a
decrease in scholarly execution.
A stressor is a variable that impacts the occurrence of an anxiety reaction (Selye, 1978).
An investigation by Ross and associates (1999) discovered that the most continuous stressors
among undergrads were an adjustment in dozing propensities, excursions/breaks, change in
dietary patterns, new obligations, and expanded workload of class. Stressors most dominatingly
documented by understudies at University of Arizona State incorporate scholastic obligations,
profession issues, committing more than individual capacity, funds, and close connections
(Moses, Pabedinskas, and Eli, 2010).
Stress can be expanded by cooperation in hazardous practices that are normal amongst
post-auxiliary understudies (Kwan, Faulkner, Arbor-Nicitopoulos and Cairney, 2013). For
instance, it has been observed that post-optional understudies have high rates of liquor use,
episodic drinking, unprotected intercourse (King, Vidourek and Singh, 2014), and
experimentation with drugs (Holloway, Bennet, Perry, and Gorden, 2014). College understudies
additionally document unfortunate rest propensities, being physically idle (Haase, Steptoe, Sallis
and Wardle, 2004), scattered eating (Cornblatt, 2009), and poor dietary patterns. In addition to
that, if an understudy is tested with deficient stress administration abilities, constrained
flexibility, absence of social bolster, or poor psychological wellness; general wellbeing can be
impacted negatively (Fonagy, 1994; Rutter, 2012; Verger et al., 2009). Accordingly, a critical
angle to supporting understudies amid post-auxiliary training is to comprehend the stressors they
confront and tending to the routes in which stress can be overseen.
A few researchers recommend that eustress may effectively affect scholastic execution
among understudies; in any case, research on this subject is constrained (Joo, Durband, and
Grable, 2008). Negative stress affects scholarly working is the worry of this investigation. This
sort of stress or agony can prompt trouble in concentration, nervousness, disappointment,
fractiousness, surliness, feeling overpowered, fretfulness or weakness, or an adjustment in
conduct or schedules (Selye, 1978). These side effects may affect scholarly execution. For sure,
studies give proof that stress can block scholarly execution.
Theorizing stress
Three transcendent viewpoints used to conceptualize stress have been recognized in the
writing. These perspectives think of stress to be based on reaction, based on stimuli, or based on
transaction (Hill, 2012). The response-based perspective, created and inspected by Selye in 1956,
characterizes stress from a restorative point of view, considering it to be a reaction of the body to
poisonous boosts. While the perspective based on stimuli, created by Holmes alongside Rahe
(1967), characterizes stress from the point of view of physiological encounters as life occasions
that require conformity or adjustment. At long last, the exchange based perspective, depicted by
the Stress and Coping Transactional Theory (Lazarus, 1966), recommends that stress is an active
procedure of giving significance, modifying, and adapting that dwells inside of the connecting
relationship between the individual and their surroundings (Lazarus, 1991). Moreover, this
perspective perceives that stress must be comprehended inside of the setting of the individual
atmosphere context (Lazarus, 1991). TTSC recommends that three sorts of evaluation are the
essential arbiters of the individual environment collaboration. Essential evaluation happens as the
individual judges if a circumstance is undermining in that the requests of the circumstance
exceed the accessible assets. In the event that the circumstance is seen as conceivably
undermining, auxiliary examination happens in which accessible adapting choices or practices
are deliberated. Reappraisal alludes to a steady assessment procedure of considering and altering
prior essential or optional examinations as the circumstance develops (Lazarus, 1966). Stressful
encounters are biological in nature, that is, stress is interceding by a person's examination of the
stressor and mental, and social assets accessible (Glanz and Schwartz, 2008). Shared
characteristics and extensive cover are present between the active procedure of stress in the
aforementioned theory and socioecological way to deal with wellbeing utilized as a part of this
examination. Accordingly, the exchange based meaning of stress will be utilized inside of this
study. As needs be, stress impacts and is affected by the post-auxiliary grounds environment and
effects mental, social, and physical wellbeing and prosperity of college understudies.
Sources of stress
Even though greatest number of adults in the United Kingdom accounts that family,
connections, work and real life changes speak to critical stress sources, examination has
recognized other particular reasons for stress experienced by undergraduate students. Specific
stressors encountered by post-optional understudies can be identified with: phase of life,
individual components, or scholastics. Stresses identified with phase of life include: the
requirement to adjust to expanded autonomy, move to adulthood, assembling another social
bolster system, changes involved with guardians, and acquiring individual security (Parker,
Summerfeldt, Hogan, and Majeski, 2004). Usually distinguished individual stress sources for
post-auxiliary understudies incorporate budgetary issues, school/individual life adjustments, and
absence of spare time (Jimenez et al., 2010; Moscaritolo, 2009). In addition to that, labouring
(either full-time or part-time) while seeking after instruction, further worsens stress (Magnussen
and Amundson, 2003), are concerns in regards to getting to childcare for understudies's children
who are additionally guardians (Pryjmachuk and Richards, 2007). Inadequate management of
time and observed substantial workloads connected with course necessities add a further
component to the stress experienced by a few understudies (Magnussen and Amundson, 2003).
In that capacity, an essential stress source amongst post-optional understudies identifies with
scholastics. Scholastic concerns including workload, exams, and stress over grades have been
referred to as top stress sources for a few understudies (Altiok and Üstün, 2013; Shaban, Khater,
and Akkhu-Zaheya, 2012). Going after preparing opportunities and arrangement for passage into
the expert group are additionally possible stressors for understudies in programs of expert
degrees (Lo, 2002).
Effects of stress
From the point of view of health and academics, it is worrying that numerous college
understudies report elevated amounts of anxiety. Anxiety has been recognized as a dangerous
element in the improvement of heart and inside illness, herpes, abuse of substance, and resistant
working. Anxiety has likewise been connected with rest challenges and cerebral pains. Anxiety
can add to disease straightforwardly through physiological impacts, or through maladaptive
wellbeing practices indirectly (Glanz and Schwartz, 2008). Over the top negative push (or
misery) has been found to lessen work viability, add to unfortunate propensities and outcome in
negative outcomes in the long-run which include: addictions, wrongdoing, non-attendance, poor
scholarly execution, school dropout, proficient burnout, and vocation disappointment (Dusselier,
Dunn, Wang, Shelley, and Whalen, 2005). A few studies have highlighted the negative
association between academic performance and stress (Flouri and Kallis, 2011), and scholarly
execution ( Richardson, Abraham, and Bond, 2012). Stress has been distinguished as the first
obstacle to scholastic execution, outranking alternate obstructions to adapting, for example, viral
contaminations, rest aggravations, worries about relatives and companions, and relationship
issues. Besides, scholarly execution and anxiety exist in a patterned relationship, in which
expanding anxiety can contrarily affect scholastic execution and poor execution then adds to an
increase in stress (Dusselier et al., 2005). The important of negative stress in addition to the
significance of efficient systems of management of stress constrain further examination
regarding stressors experienced by college understudies.
2.2 Academic Motivation

Motivation is one of the greatest vital and broadly contemplated ideas in instructive
examination on account of its solid association with scholarly results, for example, learning and
accomplishment. Motivation impacts the scholastic achievement or absence of accomplishment
of college understudies. As indicated by Ryan alongside Deci (2000), people are "normally
inquisitive, self-persuaded, need to learn, need to apply their abilities and gifts, and are
motivated" (p. 68). Then again, people are powerless against different sorts of outside and inner
energies. A singular model that investigates motivation is the Theory of Self-Determination
(SDT) (Ryan and Deci, 2000). SDT holds that individual's development propensities and mental
needs are the premise for self-motivation and identity combination, and in addition the
conditions that encourage those positive procedures. As indicated by SDT, inherent practices are
performed to keep up the individual's characteristic motivation and don't happen because of
outside strengths. These practices are performed in light of three needs: the requirement for self-
sufficiency, the need ability, and the requirement for an association with others. These
requirements prompt coordinated, persevering practices with respect to the person, as indicated
by the hypothesis. Conversely, outward practices happen suddenly, and the individual carries on
along these lines purposefully to accomplish a result: to get a prize, to maintain a strategic
distance from blame, or to pick up endorsement (Deci and Ryan, 1996).

In and understanding of scholastic motivation, academic scientists have received various
hypothetical methodologies including the anticipation worth model, attribution hypothesis,
objective introduction hypothesis, and self-determination hypothesis (Opdenakker, Maulana and
sanctum Brok, 2012). Among these, Theory of Self-Determination (SDT) of scholarly inspiration
by Deci alongside Ryan (2008) is seen as a sound structure for clarifying the distinctions among
understudies as far as learning techniques, performance and persistence are concerned
(Vansteenkiste, Lens and Deci, 2006) additionally, for connecting inspiration to instructive
situations, for example, the classroom atmosphere (Opdenakker, Maulana and cave Brok, 2012).
In a late conceptualization of SDT, three sorts of motivational development have been suggested
(1) Autonomous inspiration alludes to participating in a movement with a feeling of volition and
self-support and incorporates inherent motivation and all around disguised types of external
inspiration. (2) Controlled inspiration comprises of both outside parameter, for example, prize
and discipline and introjected parameter in which an incomplete disguise has happened in view
of the longing for endorsement, shirking of disgrace and self-regard. (3) Motivation means
nonattendance of goal and inspiration.
Vallerand and associates (1992) outlined a scale to gauge the precepts of self-
determination hypothesis. Resulting to the first form of the measure in French, its English
adjustment has been produced and named as Scale of Academic Motivation (AMS) .
Thusly, the AMS has been deciphered into diverse dialects. Hence, SDT has created a lot
of examination in the field of training in various societies (Vallerand et al., 1992). For example,
Şahin alongside Çakar (2011) analysed the scholarly motivation in Turkish pre-administration
instructors. They discovered no noteworthy contrasts at the levels of scholastic motivation by sex
and scholarly accomplishment. Then again, in an examination of American understudies, women

had more elevated amounts of general motivation in addition to characteristic and extraneous
inspiration. Specialists of SDT have likewise investigated how social connections identify with
motivational procedures. Social settings that bolster self-governance draw on giving positive
criticism in time, considering learners' points of view, permitting learners their own decision and
self-activity practices; while keeping away from the utilization of pressures and possibilities to
control conduct. Then again, controlling settings incorporate apparent coercive systems and
plainly controlling dialect (Vansteenkiste, Lens and Deci, 2006). Albeit both self-governing
motivation and controlled inspiration guide conduct, the previous prompts better mental
wellbeing, execution and more determination though controlled motivation yields encounters of
pressure and commitment.
2.3 Academic Self-efficacy
Inside of the structure of Theory of Social Cognitive by Bandura (1997) the term of self-
adequacy is seen as a central point and characterized as "confidence in one's abilities to compose
and execute the game-plans required to create given accomplishments" (p.3). Academic writings
regarding self-efficacy propose that individuals with larger amounts of self-efficacy are more
likely to pursue testing objectives and to have stern commitment notwithstanding when they are
encountered by troubles. Despite what might be expected, individuals with lower levels of self-
adequacy will probably maintain a strategic distance from troublesome errands, have less effort
and commitment to pursue their own objectives and tend to be more powerless against anxiety
and discouragement (Bandura, 1993). Inside instructive examination, notwithstanding studies
managing general self-adequacy convictions, particular self-efficacy areas, for example, educator
self-viability and scholastic self-adequacy have been measured and conceptualized. Skaalvik
alongside Skaalvik (2007) characterized instructor self-efficacy as "individual educators'

convictions in their own particular capacities to arrange, compose, and do exercises required to
accomplish given instructive objectives (p.612). Educator self-adequacy was observed to be
connected with instructors' classroom practices and execution (Rimm-Kaufman and Sawyer,
2004) in addition to their understudies' learning and inspiration. As another particular area of
self-efficacy, scholastic self-efficacy alludes to an understudy's recognition with respect to skill
in learning and performing scholarly errands (Schunk and Pajares, 2002). It must be specified
that scholarly self-viability is much like, however different, from scholastic self-idea which
alludes to "people's information and discernments about themselves in accomplishment
circumstances" (Bong and Skaalvik, 2003, p.6). An examination conducted by Ferla and
associates (2009) examination shows that scholarly self-viability and scholastic self-idea were
two related, however adroitly and experimentally particular mental factors. Their discoveries
further uncovered that scholastic self-viability was a more grounded indicator of scholarly
accomplishment though scholarly self-idea had more impact on motivational components. An
investigation by Zajacova and associates (2005) demonstrated that scholarly self-efficacy was a
superior indicator of scholastic accomplishment than anxiety in college students. Self-adequacy
is inspected in connection to sex, too. A meta-examination which included 247 examinations
exhibited that men had marginally higher scholastic self-adequacy convictions contrasted with
women. Additionally, self-efficacy convictions contrasted by the branch of knowledge
demonstrating that men indicated more prominent viability convictions in arithmetic, computer,
and sociologies while women showed higher viability convictions in dialect expressions (Huang,
2013).
Scholarly self-viability can be affected by a few elements. In one investigation,
understudies with higher scholarly self-viability reported observing that their guardians esteemed
their educating and had exclusive requirements setup (Fan and Williams, 2010). Members with
higher scholastic self-viability felt more engagement and enthusiasm for their workload (Fan and
Williams, 2010). Interestingly, understudies with lower scholastic self-viability were observed to
be less eager to learn, not able to focus in school, and not able to go up against challenges when
they emerged amid school. In an investigation by Thijs alongside Verkuyten (2008), scholastic
self-viability of understudies was contrarily influenced by associate dismissal and negative
expressions. Understudies who got negative opinions about themselves created negative
discernments about their capacities and scholarly self-adequacy (Thijs and Verkuyten, 2008).
Scholastic self-adequacy is produced separately by the understudy and companions have been
found to not absolutely impact scholarly self-viability emphatically (Uwah et al., 2008).
There lies a solid relationship between scholastic self-adequacy and scholarly
accomplishment (Wang and Castaneda-Sound, 2008). The academic writings uncover a positive
connection between scholastic self-adequacy and higher scholarly accomplishment. A few
longitudinal investigations have observed that scholarly self-adequacy is prescient of scholastic
accomplishment (Huang, 2013). Scholarly self-viability has additionally been found to anticipate
classroom motivations, self-regulation, and feeling of school having a place, and natural
inspiration in the context of classroom (McMahon and Wernsman, 2009). Understudies with
higher scholarly self-viability have been discovered to advance more exertion with scholastic
work in examination to those with lower scholarly self-adequacy (Fan and Williams, 2010;
Uwah et al., 2008). Understudies with low scholarly self-viability frequently don't accomplish or
even endeavour higher request learning assignments in school; hence, these understudies
additionally need positive learning and motivation (Uwah et al., 2008). Scholastic self-viability
discernments frame understudies' profession goals and give fulfilment to understudies.
Possessing scholastic self-adequacy is essential for understudy accomplishment and learning.

Chapter Three
Research Methodology
In the third chapter, this study will portray the exploration design and procedure that will
be produced in this investigation. This part will start with the restatement of the issue. Next, the
section will talk about the techniques and examination plan. This will incorporate the exploration
setting and members, instruments, and variables in this study. The main role of this exploration is
to enhance administrations for undergraduate understudies and to add to the examination on
working with undergraduate understudies in comparable settings to enhance academic
motivation. By adapting more about these understudies, advisor instructors can get ready to
guide college administration to be powerful with this particular populace. This section will
likewise incorporate a clarification of the exploration inquiries and data examination.
3.1 Research Design
This study utilizes a quantitative method approach which integrates and brings qualitative
data in order to obtain a comprehensive analysis of the research problems which are inherent in
the field of academic and educational performance. As a result of this, the research method
which is used is more accurate and complete. Moreover, a wider perspective is achieved which
makes use of different types of data in the same study. The instruments developed in this study
will make use of questionnaires and an interview technique in order to make use of specialists,
experts, and experienced personnel who can provide an analysis of what the current situation is
regarding satisfaction with respect to motivations of academics in undergraduate students.
Gender will also be considered with this technique.

3.2 Research Approach
There are research approaching that can go with an exploratory research but for this study
a quantitative approach has been opted. Muijs (2010) explains that a quantitative approach aims
at amplification and clarification of the research question through the use of numerical data that
can be manipulated and analyzed through mathematical and statistical models (Muijs, 2010). The
approach would is selected due to the deductive nature of the study where the study would
narrow down the self-efficacy and stress impact on the academic motivation in undergraduate
students.
3.3 Research Instrument
Research instrument is the device or the means that a researcher uses for the sake of data
collection and information gathers that can pave way for the resolution of the research questions.
Considering the nature and approach of this study a Likert scale based questionnaire was selected
to be the research instrument. Likert scales are helpful in the studies where the perceptions,
opinions or attitudes towards a phenomenon are being investigated (Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011).
The research instrument for the study was divided into four categories. The first section inquired
about the demographic variables, the second section inquired about the self-efficacy of students,
the third section extracted information about stressors of education and finally the last section
was dedicated towards the academic motivation dimension for undergraduate students.
3.4 Data Collection and Analysis
The main research instrument is a survey based questionnaire that employs Likert Scales
for extraction of opinion from the students. All participation was voluntary and no respondent
was coerced in any of their responses. A letter of thanks was sent in the form of email to all that
participants of the study. Boone and Boone (2012) state that Likert scales are ordinal in nature
hence descriptive statistic work best with Likert Scales (Boone & Boone, 2012), accepting this
assumption the study uses descriptive statistics but to answer the research questions inferential
statistics are also used. The techniques used for analysis include the test for reliability and
validity, the descriptive analysis, the demographic analysis and regression.

Chapter Four
Results
4.1 Reliability Analysis
As the questionnaire includes the multi questions so it is necessary to measure the
consistency of the questions. In SPSS, value of Cronbach is the most important measure of
reliability
Section Cronbach Alpha Coefficient
Overall Questionnaire 0.800
Self-Efficacy 0.725
Stress 0.801
Academic motivation 0.73
The value of the Cronbach Alpha Coefficient is more than the required value of 0.70
hence it is deemed that the research instrument is valid and reliable.
4.2 Descriptive Statistics
The demographics undertaken for this study were the gender (Control Variable), Age and
Educational Year of the respondents. As the data was collected from students of undergraduate
studies from all years and post-graduation, the descriptive statistics for the demographics are
given below:
Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Male 47 47.0 47.0 47.0
Female 53 53.0 53.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The statistics indicate that almost half of the sample respondents were male while the
other half were female. Although female are on the higher end, 51%, they are not significantly
higher than the male respondents.
Age
Valid Cumulative
Valid 18-20 8 8.0 8.0 8.0
20-25 47 47.0 47.0 55.0
25+ 45 45.0 45.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The most dominant ages for the students, as evaluated by descriptive statistics, are 20-25
years and 25+ years of age. The least number of students belonged to the age group of 18-20
years. The greatest number of student ages lied in the range of 20-25 years i.e., 47%.
Education
Valid Cumulative
Valid First 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
Second 10 10.0 10.0 29.0
Third 38 38.0 38.0 67.0
Fourth 29 29.0 29.0 96.0
Post-
4 4.0 4.0 100.0
Graduation
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The education level of the students was evaluated for the four years of college and post-
graduation. Most of the respondents belonged to the third year of college. It is well known that
third year is particularly stressful as there are assignments and tasks leading to the final year
project. Moreover, most institutes make it compulsory to accomplish an internship of a pre-
specified time period for all students to progress to the final year.
Descriptive Statistics
Minimu Maximu Std.
N m m Mean Deviation
Gender 100 1.00 2.00 1.5100 .50242
Age 100 1.00 3.00 2.3700 .63014
Education 100 1.00 5.00 2.8900 1.14499

Valid N
100
(listwise)
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Academic Motivation Between Groups 77.684 1 77.684 .380 .539
Scale Within Groups 20034.426 98 204.433
Total 20112.110 99
Academic Stress Between Groups 6583.729 1 6583.729 3.104 .081
Subscale Within Groups 207839.261 98 2120.809
Total 214422.990 99
Academic Self-Efficacy Between Groups 633.496 1 633.496 .860 .356
Subscale Within Groups 72167.344 98 736.401
Total 72800.840 99
The control variable of gender has been tested by the One-Way ANOVA test. The above
table shows that gender does not have any significant relation with any of the three variables
separately.
4.3 Correlation Analysis
The correlation test is a measure of the strength and direction of relationship that subsists
between two or more variables in any equation or model. In this model there exist three
variables, namely, Self-Efficacy in Students, Stress Experienced by Students and Academic
Motivation. The following correlations were obtained when correlation analysis was performed.
Correlations
Academic Academic Stress Academic Self-

Motivation Scale Subscale Efficacy Subscale
Academic Motivation Pearson Correlation 1 -.208* .212*
Sig. (2-tailed) .038 .034
Scale N 100 100 100
Academic Stress Pearson Correlation -.208* 1 -.521**

Sig. (2-tailed) .038 .000
Subscale N 100 100 100
Academic Self-Efficacy Pearson Correlation .212* -.521** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .034 .000
Subscale N 100 100 100
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The Pearson correlation “r” between the self-efficacy of students and academic
motivation was calculated to be 0.212, which a weak but positive association. The *represent
that the significance of this relationship is very high i.e., p<0.05. The positive sign or the absence
of a negative indicator that there is a positive relation between the two variables and the level of
significance was calculated to be 0.004 which is less than the p-value hence the relationship can
be considered statistically significant.
The Pearson correlation “r” between self-efficacy and stress of students in undergraduate
courses was calculated to be -0.521, which a moderate but negative association. The negative
sign or the absence of a positive indicates that there is a reverse relation between the two
variables and the level of significance was calculated to be 0.000 which is less than the p-value
hence the relationship can be considered statistically significant.

The Pearson correlation “r” between the stress undertaken by students and academic
motivation in students was calculated to be -.208, which is a weak yet significant relationship.
The negative sign or the absence of a positive indicates that there is an adverse relation between
the two variables and the level of significance was calculated to be 0.034 which is less than the
p-value hence the relationship can be considered statistically significant.
4.4 Partial Correlation

Correlations
Academic Academic Stress
Control Variables Motivation Scale Subscale
Academic Academic Motivation Correlation 1.000 -.117
Self-Efficacy Scale Significance (2-tailed) . .248
Subscale df 0 97
Academic Stress Correlation -.117 1.000
Subscale Significance (2-tailed) .248 .
df 97 0
4.5 Correlations by Gender
Correlationsa
Academic Self-
Academic Academic Stress Efficacy
Motivation Scale Subscale Subscale
Academic Motivation Scale Pearson 1 -.319* .273
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .063
N 47 47 47
Academic Stress Subscale Pearson -.319* 1 -.611**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .000
N 47 47 47
Academic Self-Efficacy Pearson .273 -.611** 1
Subscale Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .063 .000
N 47 47 47
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

a. Gender = Male
Correlationsa
Academic
Motivation Academic Stress Academic Self-
Scale Subscale Efficacy Subscale
Academic Motivation Scale Pearson Correlation 1 -.117 .161
Sig. (2-tailed) .405 .249
N 53 53 53
Academic Stress Subscale Pearson Correlation -.117 1 -.385**
Sig. (2-tailed) .405 .004
N 53 53 53
Academic Self-Efficacy Pearson Correlation .161 -.385** 1
Subscale Sig. (2-tailed) .249 .004
N 53 53 53
a. Gender = Female
4.6 Partial Correlation by Gender
Correlationsa
Academic Self- Academic Motivation Correlation 1.000 -.200

Efficacy Subscale Scale
Significance (2-tailed) . .183
df 0 44
Academic Stress Subscale Correlation -.200 1.000
Significance (2-tailed) .183 .
df 44 0
a. Gender = Male
There is a considerable, huge positive relationship between the two sorts of evaluations, many
controlling both for Academic Self-Efficacy Subscale. The factor of Gender is an additional
control for the evaluation of the correlation relationship between academic stress, academic self-
efficacy and academic motivation. However, the significance of this relationship is null hence
gender does not act a control factor for this relationship for Male respondents.
Notice that the incomplete relationship is fairly less than the straightforward relationship. This
proposes part of the straightforward connection is because of each of the variables being
identified with IQ. At the point when acad is "uprooted" from the grades, their relationship is to
some degree weaker. This is a regular result while partialing.
Correlationsa
Academic Self- Academic Motivation Correlation 1.000 -.060
Efficacy Subscale Scale Significance (2- . .672
tailed)
df 0 50
Academic Stress Subscale Correlation -.060 1.000
Significance (2- .672 .
tailed)
df 50 0
a. Gender = Female
4.7 Model Summary
Model summary is important as it facilitates in understanding the variation and the causes
behind the variation in any model. The model that is being tested in this study aims to study the
intention to use e-services. There are 3 variables in it. The dependent variables are the self-
efficacy of students and the stress students feel while the dependent variable is academic
motivation. Gender is taken as a control variable to assess the difference based on gender. The
model summary is presented in the table below:
4.8 Regression
Regression analysis is a popular statistical test that is used to study the relationship and
impact of one variable over other in a study. Mostly the variables are clustered as either
dependent variable (or outcome variable) or independent variables. The model is known as
regression model.
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 117.796 14.603 8.067 .000
Gender 2.900 2.843 .102 1.020 .310
Academic Stress Subscale -.047 .036 -.152 -1.301 .196
Academic Self-Efficacy .075 .061 .143 1.234 .220
Subscale
a. Dependent Variable: Academic Motivation Scale
The regression model consisted of one dependent variable that is the academic motivation
is this case and two independent variables which are self-efficacy and stress. Both the
independent variables have a p-value statistic of less than 0.005 hence they are considered
significant. The p-value for Gender is non-significant which indicates that academic motivation
is not differentiated by gender of the students. The unstandardized value of B for Self-efficacy is
.142 which means that 14.2% impact in academic motivation is due to the variable of self-
efficacy. The unstandardized value of B for Stress is .407 which means that 40.7% impact in
academic motivation is due to the variable of stress. The remaining 45.1% impact is due to other
unknown variables.
The standard regression equation is:
Y = α + β1X1 + β2X2
Where:
 Y = Academic motivation
 Α = Constant
 β = Per unit change in variable
 X1 = Self-Efficacy
 X2 = Stress
When values of the variables are substituted in the regression equation, the following equation is
derived.
Y = 4.117+ 0.142 (Self-Efficacy) + 0.407 (Stress)
Model Summaryc
Mod R R Adjusted Std. Error of Change Statistics
el Square R Square the Estimate R Square F df1 df2 Sig.
Change Chang F
e Chan
ge
1 .10 .010 .000 .44368 .010 .999 1 98 .320
a
0
2 .50 .258 .235 .38816 .248 16.019 2 96 .000
b
8
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender
b. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Stress, Self Efficacy
c. Dependent Variable: Academic motivation
The above able shows that while taking gender as a control variable, a significant
relationship is present between the independent and dependent variables. Separately, gender does
not impact any significant change in academic motivation.
Residuals Statisticsa
Minimu Maximu Std.
m m Mean Deviation N
Predicted Value 3.2413 4.6671 3.9833 .22527 100
Std. Predicted Value -3.294 3.035 .000 1.000 100
Standard Error of
.055 .148 .075 .020 100
Predicted Value
Adjusted Predicted
3.3317 4.6233 3.9853 .21850 100
Value
Residual -1.05966 .89231 .00000 .38223 100
Std. Residual -2.730 2.299 .000 .985 100
Stud. Residual -2.946 2.370 -.002 1.011 100
Deleted Residual -1.23379 .94820 -.00194 .40341 100
Stud. Deleted Residual -3.073 2.429 -.005 1.024 100
Mahal. Distance .978 13.356 2.970 2.435 100
Cook's Distance .000 .356 .014 .040 100
Centered Leverage
.010 .135 .030 .025 100
Value
a. Dependent Variable: Academic motivation
4.9 Principal Factor Analysis
Communalities Analysis
Communalities indicate the amount of variance in each variable that is accounted for.
When the principal component analysis for the total questionnaire (excluding the demographic
variables) was performed the results indicate that all 82 variables out of 82 have an extraction
percentage of more than 40% hence they indicate that all questions are valid and important. All
variables can be extracted as they are valid for this study.
Communalities
Initial Extraction
MQ1 1.000 .724
MQ2 1.000 .764

MQ3 1.000 .793
MQ4 1.000 .732
MQ5 1.000 .778
MQ6 1.000 .798
MQ7 1.000 .766
MQ8 1.000 .782
MQ9 1.000 .808
MQ10 1.000 .820
MQ11 1.000 .753
MQ12 1.000 .735
MQ13 1.000 .756
MQ14 1.000 .782
MQ15 1.000 .778
MQ16 1.000 .777
MQ17 1.000 .778
MQ18 1.000 .836
MQ19 1.000 .819
MQ20 1.000 .707
MQ21 1.000 .745
MQ22 1.000 .771
MQ23 1.000 .775
MQ24 1.000 .741
MQ25 1.000 .825
MQ26 1.000 .722
MQ27 1.000 .750
MQ28 1.000 .832
SQ1 1.000 .795
SQ2 1.000 .753
SQ3 1.000 .830
SQ4 1.000 .827
SQ5 1.000 .883
SQ6 1.000 .852
SQ7 1.000 .787
SQ8 1.000 .861
SQ9 1.000 .796
SQ10 1.000 .857
SQ11 1.000 .775
SQ12 1.000 .778
SQ13 1.000 .866

SQ14 1.000 .815
SQ15 1.000 .643
SQ16 1.000 .756
SQ17 1.000 .819
SQ18 1.000 .853
SQ19 1.000 .668
SQ20 1.000 .793
SQ21 1.000 .853
SQ22 1.000 .864
SQ23 1.000 .701
SQ24 1.000 .804
SQ25 1.000 .771
SQ26 1.000 .876
SQ27 1.000 .877
SE_Q1 1.000 .765
SE_Q2 1.000 .736
SE_Q3 1.000 .742
SE_Q4 1.000 .809
SE_Q5 1.000 .695
SE_Q6 1.000 .711
SE_Q7 1.000 .775
SE_Q8 1.000 .780
SE_Q9 1.000 .798
SE_Q10 1.000 .758
SE_Q11 1.000 .834
SE_Q12 1.000 .754
SE_Q13 1.000 .801
SE_Q14 1.000 .692
SE_Q15 1.000 .777
SE_Q16 1.000 .682
SE_Q17 1.000 .727
SE_Q18 1.000 .759
SE_Q19 1.000 .738
SE_Q20 1.000 .836
SE_Q21 1.000 .787
SE_Q22 1.000 .717
SE_Q23 1.000 .787
SE_Q24 1.000 .750
SE_Q25 1.000 .753

SE_Q26 1.000 .758
SE_Q27 1.000 .753
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Eigen Values
There were 25 variables taking part in the model, the Principal Component Analysis test
reveals that 7 Eigen values with the value of more than 1 are loaded. The first Eigen value is
calculated to be 22.131, the second Eigen value is calculated to be 6.682, the third Eigen value is
5.698, the fourth Eigen value is 3.195, the fifth Eigen value is 2.867, the sixth Eigen value is
2.584 and the seventh and smallest Eigen value extracted is 2.410.
Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Component Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 22.131 26.989 26.989 22.131 26.989 26.989
2 6.682 8.149 35.138 6.682 8.149 35.138
3 5.698 6.949 42.087 5.698 6.949 42.087
4 3.195 3.897 45.983 3.195 3.897 45.983
5 2.867 3.496 49.479 2.867 3.496 49.479
6 2.584 3.151 52.630 2.584 3.151 52.630
7 2.410 2.938 55.569 2.410 2.938 55.569
8 2.196 2.678 58.247 2.196 2.678 58.247
9 2.052 2.502 60.749 2.052 2.502 60.749
10 1.838 2.241 62.990 1.838 2.241 62.990
11 1.726 2.104 65.095 1.726 2.104 65.095
12 1.641 2.001 67.096 1.641 2.001 67.096
13 1.541 1.879 68.974 1.541 1.879 68.974
14 1.395 1.702 70.676 1.395 1.702 70.676
15 1.331 1.623 72.299 1.331 1.623 72.299
16 1.327 1.618 73.918 1.327 1.618 73.918
17 1.132 1.381 75.299 1.132 1.381 75.299
18 1.116 1.362 76.660 1.116 1.362 76.660
19 1.013 1.235 77.895 1.013 1.235 77.895
20 .982 1.197 79.092
21 .944 1.151 80.244
22 .917 1.118 81.362
23 .879 1.072 82.433

24 .856 1.044 83.477
25 .782 .954 84.431
26 .746 .909 85.341
27 .707 .862 86.203
28 .650 .792 86.995
29 .622 .758 87.753
30 .588 .717 88.470
31 .572 .697 89.168
32 .547 .668 89.835
33 .537 .655 90.490
34 .509 .620 91.111
35 .474 .578 91.689
36 .438 .534 92.223
37 .419 .511 92.734
38 .405 .494 93.228
39 .379 .462 93.690
40 .350 .427 94.117
41 .334 .408 94.525
42 .328 .400 94.925
43 .305 .372 95.297
44 .293 .357 95.654
45 .265 .323 95.977
46 .239 .291 96.268
47 .233 .284 96.552
48 .223 .272 96.824
49 .221 .270 97.094
50 .201 .245 97.339
51 .182 .221 97.560
52 .171 .209 97.769
53 .152 .186 97.954
54 .145 .177 98.132
55 .137 .167 98.298
56 .127 .154 98.453
57 .122 .149 98.601
58 .112 .136 98.738
59 .109 .133 98.870
60 .102 .125 98.995
61 .092 .112 99.107
62 .085 .103 99.210
63 .081 .099 99.308
64 .070 .085 99.393
65 .063 .076 99.470
66 .058 .071 99.541
67 .048 .058 99.599
68 .044 .054 99.653

69 .043 .052 99.705
70 .040 .049 99.754
71 .037 .045 99.799
72 .028 .034 99.833
73 .026 .032 99.865
74 .023 .028 99.893
75 .019 .023 99.916
76 .017 .021 99.937
77 .014 .017 99.954
78 .012 .014 99.968
79 .009 .011 99.979
80 .008 .010 99.989
81 .006 .007 99.996
82 .004 .004 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Chapter Five
Discussion
As proposed by the Theory of Social Cognitive (Bandura, 1986) and bolstered by past
exploration discoveries, (such as Chowdhury and Shahabuddin, 2007; McGeown et al., 2004),
some weak to moderate relationship among scholarly motivation (and the majority of its sub-
scales) and scholastic self-efficacy were found in the present study. The correlation coefficients
were found to be between
In the present study, sex was not an indicator of scholarly motivation. Ryan alongside
Deci (2000) documented that women have a tendency to have more elevated amounts of
motivation. An investigation by Brouse and associates (2010) in which scholarly motivation of
American understudies was analysed in connection to sexual orientation, class and wellspring of
instalment, uncovered that women had more elevated amounts of scholastic motivation.
Likewise, Vecchione and associates (2014) discovered that in Italian understudies, women had
higher scores for scholastic motivation.
Hackett and associates (1992) recognized both observed anxiety and scholastic self-
viability as indicators of total evaluation point mean (GPA) for customary understudies selected
in schools of engineering. Decent grades were connected with lower observed anxiety and high
self-adequacy.
5.1 Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation
Theory of Social Cognitive recommends an association between motivation and self-
efficacy since people's result desires depend on their assessments of their execution in given
circumstances (Bandura, 1986). The proposed linkage between motivation and self-efficacy has
been upheld by examination information. In a research by Chowdhury alongside Shahabuddin
(2007) self-adequacy was essentially identified with both inward and outer inspiration in
undergrads. Another noteworthy positive connection between self-adequacy and characteristic
inspiration was accounted for by Walker and associates (2006) in understudies. They
additionally discovered a noteworthy negative connection between amotivation and self-
efficacy. McGeown and associates (2004) investigated, to what degree age, sexual orientation,
SES, identity and self-adequacy foresee interior and outside scholastic motivation. Their
discoveries demonstrated that self-adequacy is the best indicator of characteristic and scholarly
inspiration.
5.2 Connecting Stress and Self-Efficacy
Stress and self-efficacy are firmly related ideas. In subjective model of stress by Lazarus
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), individual convictions, for example, self-viability are vital in
assessing requests from the surroundings. Every outside interest is assessed as a ""risk"" or a
""test,"" and individuals with high self-adequacy convictions will probably assess the requests as
a test (Chemers, Hu, and Garcia, 2001; Pintrich and De Groot, 1990). The degree to which a
man feels sure about his or her fitness to handle a given circumstance influences whether a given
assignment is seen as stressful or undermining, instead of as a test. At the point when an
assignment is assessed as a test, an individual will probably choose a compelling adaptation
methodology to endure dealing with the errand. Self-viability hence influences the view of
outside requests and intervenes the connection between outer stressors and mental stress.
Utilizing a model of path analytic, Chemers and associates (2001) discovered that the impact of
scholarly self-adequacy on stress was entirely intervened by assessments of requests as danger or
test. In another course, physiological excitement states connected with stress and uneasiness
offer data influencing self-viability judgments (Solberg et al., 1998). Also, Hackett and
associates (1992) recommended that stress and uneasiness may discourage self-adequacy
judgments in understudies.
Stress, in this way, impacts self-efficacy separately too. As indicated by the results of this
investigation, a substantial relationship however weak is present between the two variables. The
gender was initially explored in relation to the three variables of the study. The results indicated
no significant associations among these variables and gender of the students. However, when
taken as a control variable in the regression analysis, results indicated that a significant
relationship is present for combination of gender and the independent variables, i.e., stress and
academic self-efficacy. As the sample did not have substantial difference in the number of
respondents from both the genders, no statement can be made about the abilities of the gender in
terms of handling of stress and possession of self-efficacy in the attainment of academic
motivation.
Concentrating all the more particularly on math execution among secondary school
understudies, Pajares alongside Kranzler (1995) inferred that arithmetic self-viability applied a
solid impact on execution, while math tension had an impact just through its relationship with
self-adequacy. In a study with students of lesser age, both anxiety and self-adequacy were
fundamentally connected with execution in English; however, self-viability seemed, by all
accounts, to be a more grounded indicator (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990). These studies discover
self-adequacy to be a preferable indicator of scholarly accomplishment over anxiety. A
considerably lesser number of examinations has tended to the joint impact of self-viability and
mental stress on diligence for students. Among college understudies, Sandler (2000) discovered
that profession choice making self-viability was a more reliable indicator than observed stress.
Torres alongside Solberg (2001) considered industriousness expectations among Hispanic
understudies and inferred that scholastic self-adequacy anticipated the result, while school
anxiety did not. In the search of the literature for this study, only a singular research was found
(Gigliotti and Huff, 1995) that incorporated the three scholarly results: evaluations, credits and
constancy. In any case, they utilized summed up measures of anxiety and self-viability and did
not observe either to be essentially identified with any result. At long last, a fascinating
examination led at a junior college demonstrated that understudies who got guidance on self-
viability and anxiety administration essentially enhanced their evaluations and ingenuity rates,
contrasted with understudies who got learning abilities preparing (Barrios, 1997). These writings
propose that both scholarly stress and self-viability have some impact on scholastic results, and
there is some confirmation that self-adequacy may be a superior indicator.

However, the findings of this research report the contradictory. The outcomes of
statistical analysis indicate stress to be a more prominent indicator of academic motivation in
comparison to self-efficacy. Hence, the outcomes of this research present a novel concept that
has not yet been reported in any other investigation.
5.3 Hypothesis Testing
The hypotheses are tested using the regression test. When testing the hypothesis we have
derived that when all independent variables would become nullified or zero, still the academic
motivation will be taken as its constant value that is 4.117.
Model Summaryd
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error Change Statistics
Square Square of the R Square F df1 df2 Sig. F
Estimate Change Change Change
1 .100a .010 .000 .44368 .010 .999 1 98 .320
b
2 .508 .258 .235 .38816 .248 16.019 2 96 .000
3 .517c .268 .237 .38762 .010 1.267 1 95 .001
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender
b. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Stress, Self-Efficacy
c. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Stress, Self-Efficacy, Interaction Term
d. Dependent Variable: Academic motivation
To check and test the hypothesis, it is important to assess the p-value and the level of
significant of independent variables.
Hypothesis Result
H1: Stress will be negatively correlated with academic motivation p-value 0.000) <
0.05
Hypothesis is
accepted
H2: Higher levels of self-efficacy will be positively correlated with p-value 0.000) <
academic motivation of students. 0.05
Hypothesis is
accepted
H3: Academic self-efficacy is a mediating factor between academic p-value 0.000) <
motivation and stress. 0.05
Hypothesis is
accepted
H4: Gender differences will impact the levels of self-efficacy and stress. p-value 0.000) <
0.05
Hypothesis is
rejected
Chapter Six
Conclusion
The domain of academia is extremely vast as no generalizations can be made regarding
its phenomena. Each institute, which is a rather bigger component of the educational system,
contains members of diverse cultures and backgrounds. There are a wide number of programs
offered to the students which make their generalization more difficult. This study attempt at
providing a generalized examination of undergraduate students belonging from all years of
college as well as post-graduation students those are yet to pursue higher education. The
variables of stress in undergraduate students that they feel as a result of academic workload and
challenges, and the self-efficacy of student to confront these challenges and accomplish
academic success were taken as independent variable. The dependent variable is taken as
academic motivation in students. Gender was taken as a control variable to evaluate the impact
of gender on the relationships between the dependent and independent variables.

A quantitative approach was employed in the accomplishment of this study. The research
design was in the form of a questionnaire which was emailed to the students. Participation in the
study was made voluntary for all the respondents. The data was collected and analyzed by SPSS
software. The results of the statistical analysis indicated that a weak, however significant
relationship existed between the variables of self-efficacy and academic motivation. In
contradiction to the former scholarly contribution on the topic, stress had a greater impact on
academic motivation in comparison to self-efficacy. Gender did not have any significant
relationship with any of the variables independently. However, in regression analysis, gender
was kept as the control variable and showed significant relationship to academic motivation in
combination with stress and self-efficacy.
Future studies should conduct examinations that explore the phenomenon of stress as a
more prominent indicator of academic motivation. It is additionally recommended that future
investigation should explore the various factors of academic motivation in relation to gender,
cultural background and other demographics.

References
Adlaf, E., Demers, A., & Gliksman, L. (2005). The 2004 Canadian Campus Survey. Toronto:
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
Altiok, H. O., & Üstün, B. The stress sources of nursing students. Educ Sci Theory Pract
[Internet]. 2013; 13 (2): 760-6.
Altıok, Ö. (2013). Reproducing the nation. Contexts, 12(2), 46-51.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.

Barrios, B. A., & Hartmann, D. P. (1997). Fears and anxieties.
Bong, M. (2001). Between-and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle
and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of
educational psychology, 93(1), 23.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are
they really?. Educational psychology review, 15(1), 1-40.
Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension (JOE), 50(2).
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college
student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational psychology, 93(1), 55.
Chernomas, W. M., & Shapiro, C. (2013). Stress, depression, and anxiety among undergraduate
nursing students. International journal of nursing education scholarship, 10(1), 255-266.
Chowdhury, M. S., & Shahabuddin, A. M. (2007). Self-Efficacy, Motivation and Their
Relationship to Academic Performance of Bangladesh College Students. College
Quarterly, 10(1), 1-9.
Cornblatt, J. (2009). Lonely Planet.
Croasmun, J. T., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Using Likert-Type Scales in the Social Sciences. Journal
of Adult Education, 40(1), 19-22.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being
across life's domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(1), 14.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of
learning. Learning and individual differences, 8(3), 165-183.
Dusselier, L., Dunn, B., Wang, Y., Shelley iI, M. C., & Whalen, D. F. (2005). Personal, health,
academic, and environmental predictors of stress for residence hall students. Journal of
American college health, 54(1), 15-24.
Fan, W., & Williams, C. M. (2010). The effects of parental involvement on students’ academic
self‐efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation.Educational Psychology, 30(1), 53-
74.
Ferla, J., Valcke, M., & Cai, Y. (2009). Academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept:
Reconsidering structural relationships. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 499-
505.
Flouri, E., & Kallis, C. (2011). Adverse life events and mental health in middle
adolescence. Journal of adolescence, 34(2), 371-377.
Fonagy, P. (1994). Mental representations from an intergenerational cognitive science
perspective. Infant Mental Health Journal, 15(1), 57-68.
Gigliotti, R. J., & Huff, H. K. (1995). Role-related conflicts, strains and stresses of older-adult
college students. Sociological Focus, 28(3), 329-342.
Gigliotti, R. J., & Huff, H. K. (1995). Role-related conflicts, strains and stresses of older-adult
college students. Sociological Focus, 28(3), 329-342.
Glanz, K., & Schwartz, M. D. (2008). Stress, coping, and health behavior.Health behavior and
health education, 211-236.

Glanz, K., & Schwartz, M. D. (2008). Stress, coping, and health behavior.Health behavior and
health education, 211-236.
Goff, A. M. (2011). Stressors, academic performance, and learned resourcefulness in
baccalaureate nursing students. International journal of nursing education
scholarship, 8(1).
Haase, A., Steptoe, A., Sallis, J. F., & Wardle, J. (2004). Leisure-time physical activity in
university students from 23 countries: associations with health beliefs, risk awareness,
and national economic development.Preventive Medicine, 39(1), 182-190.
Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., & Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social
cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in
engineering. Journal of counseling Psychology, 39(4), 527.
Hill, R. (1958). Generic features of families under stress. Social casework.
Holloway, K. R., Bennett, T. H., Parry, O., & Gorden, C. (2014). Characteristics and
consequences of prescription drug misuse among university students in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Substance Use, 19(1-2), 156-163.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale.Journal of
psychosomatic research, 11(2), 213-218.
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: a meta-analysis. European
journal of psychology of education, 28(1), 1-35.
Jaeger, D. A., & Page, M. E. (1996). Degrees matter: New evidence on sheepskin effects in the
returns to education. The review of economics and statistics, 733-740.

Jimenez, C., Navia‐Osorio, P. M., & Diaz, C. V. (2010). Stress and health in novice and
experienced nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing,66(2), 442-455.
Joo, S. H., Durband, D. B., & Grable, J. (2008). The academic impact of financial stress on
college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 10(3), 287-305.
King, K. A., Vidourek, R. A., & Singh, A. (2014). Condoms, Sex, and Sexually Transmitted
Diseases: Exploring Sexual Health Issues Among Asian-Indian College
Students. Sexuality & Culture, 18(3), 649-663.
Kwan, M. Y., Faulkner, G. E., Arbour-Nicitopoulos, K. P., & Cairney, J. (2013). Prevalence of
health-risk behaviours among Canadian post-secondary students: descriptive results from
the National College Health Assessment.BMC public health, 13(1), 548.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of
emotion. American psychologist, 46(8), 819.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress. Appraisal, and coping, 725.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic
performance and perceived career options. Journal of counseling psychology, 33(3), 265.
Lindley, L. D., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Generalized self-efficacy, Holland theme self-efficacy,
and academic performance. Journal of Career Assessment, 10(3), 301-314.

Lo, R. (2002). A longitudinal study of perceived level of stress, coping and self‐esteem of
undergraduate nursing students: an Australian case study.Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 39(2), 119-126.
Magnussen, L., & Amundson, M. J. (2003). Undergraduate nursing student experience. Nursing
& health sciences, 5(4), 261-267.
McGeown, S., Goodwin, H., Henderson, N., & Wright, P. (2012). Gender differences in reading
motivation: does sex or gender identity provide a better account?. Journal of Research in
Reading, 35(3), 328-336.
McMahon, S. D., Wernsman, J., & Rose, D. S. (2009). The relation of classroom environment
and school belonging to academic self-efficacy among urban fourth-and fifth-grade
students. The Elementary School Journal,109(3), 267-281.
Moscaritolo, L. M. (2009). Interventional strategies to decrease nursing student anxiety in the
clinical learning environment. Journal of nursing education, 48(1), 17.
Moses, K. S. (2012). The Effect of Stress on Self-Reported Academic Performance Measures
Among Hispanic Undergraduate Students at Arizona State University (Doctoral
dissertation, Arizona State University).
Muijs, D. (2010). Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic
outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of counseling psychology, 38(1), 30.
Murtaugh, P. A., Burns, L. D., & Schuster, J. (1999). Predicting the retention of university
students. Research in higher education, 40(3), 355-371.

Opdenakker, M. C., Maulana, R., & den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher–student interpersonal
relationships and academic motivation within one school year: Developmental changes
and linkage. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1), 95-119.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in
mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary educational psychology, 20(4), 426-443.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. (2001). The development of academic self-efficacy.), Development of
achievement motivation. United States.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self and self-belief in psychology and education: A
historical perspective. Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological
factors on education, 3-21.
Parker, J. D., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. A. (2004). Emotional intelligence
and academic success: Examining the transition from high school to
university. Personality and individual differences, 36(1), 163-172.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 33.
Pryjmachuk, S., & Richards, D. A. (2007). Mental health nursing students differ from other
nursing students: Some observations from a study on stress and coping. International
journal of mental health nursing, 16(6), 390-402.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university
students' academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological
bulletin, 138(2), 353.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers' self-efficacy beliefs,
attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to
the" responsive classroom" approach. The Elementary School Journal, 321-341.
Ross, S. E., Niebling, B. C., & Heckert, T. M. (1999). Sources of stress among college
students. Social psychology, 61(5), 841-846.
Rutter, M. (2012). Resilience as a dynamic concept. Development and psychopathology, 24(02),
335-344.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being.American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
ŞAHİN, H., & ÇAKAR, E. (2011). EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN ÖĞRENME
STRATEJİLERİ VE AKADEMİK GÜDÜLENME DÜZEYLERİNİN AKADEMİK
BAŞARILARINA ETKİSİ. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(3).
Sandler, M. E. (2000). Career decision-making self-efficacy, perceived stress, and an integrated
model of student persistence: A structural model of finances, attitudes, behavior, and
career development. Research in Higher Education, 41(5), 537-580.
Selye, H. (1978). On the real benefits of eustress. Psychology Today, 11, 60-70.
Shaban, I. A., Khater, W. A., & Akhu-Zaheya, L. M. (2012). Undergraduate nursing students’
stress sources and coping behaviours during their initial period of clinical training: A
Jordanian perspective. Nurse Education in Practice, 12(4), 204-209.

Sheu, S., Lin, H. S., & Hwang, S. L. (2002). Perceived stress and physio-psycho-social status of
nursing students during their initial period of clinical practice: the effect of coping
behaviors. International journal of nursing studies, 39(2), 165-175.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of
educational Psychology, 99(3), 611.
Solberg, V. S., Gusavac, N., Hamann, T., & Felch, J. (1998). The Adaptive Success Identity Plan
(ASIP): A career intervention for college students. The Career Development
Quarterly, 47(1), 48.
Solberg, V. S., Hale, J. B., Villarreal, P., & Kavanagh, J. (1993). Development of the College
Stress Inventory for Use with Hispanic Populations: A Confinnatory Analytic
Approach. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,15(4), 490-497.
Solberg, V. S., O'Brien, K., Villareal, P., Kennel, R., & Davis, B. (1993). Self-efficacy and
Hispanic college students: Validation of the college self-efficacy instrument. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 80-95.
Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2008). Peer victimization and academic achievement in a multiethnic
sample: The role of perceived academic self-efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(4), 754.
Tinto, V., & Goodsell, A. (1994). Freshman interest groups and the first-year experience:
Constructing student communities in a large university. Journal of The First-Year
Experience & Students in Transition, 6(1), 7-28.

Torres, J. B., & Solberg, V. S. (2001). Role of self-efficacy, stress, social integration, and family
support in Latino college student persistence and health. Journal of vocational
behavior, 59(1), 53-63.
Uwah, C., McMahon, H., & Furlow, C. (2008). School belonging, educational aspirations, and
academic self-efficacy among African American male high school students: Implications
for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11(5), 296-305.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.
(1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and
amotivation in education. Educational and psychological measurement, 52(4), 1003-
1017.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic
motivation. Educational psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.
Verger, P., Combes, J. B., Kovess-Masfety, V., Choquet, M., Guagliardo, V., Rouillon, F., &
Peretti-Wattel, P. (2009). Psychological distress in first year university students:
socioeconomic and academic stressors, mastery and social support in young men and
women. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 44(8), 643-650.
Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics,
intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive
engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(1), 1-12.

Wang, C. C. D., & Castañeda-Sound, C. (2008). Among various groups of undergraduate
students served by college counselors, first-generation college students (FGCSs) are
considered 2007). FGCSs are those students whose parents did not attend ondary
institution. Relative. to peers with college-educated parents, FGCSs tend to be less
prepared for the university environment and subsequendy feel. Journal of College
Counseling, 11, 101.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic
success in college. Research in higher education, 46(6), 677-706.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic
success in college. Research in higher education, 46(6), 677-706.
Zimmerman, B. J., Boekarts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). A Social Cognitive
Perspective. Handbook of self-regulation, 13.

Appendix
Section 1:
1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.
2. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.
3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.
4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.
5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.
6. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.
7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.
8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.
9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution.
10. I can usually handle whatever comes my way.

30 Pages Pschology Thesis

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

30 Pages Pschology Thesis

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Running Head: THE EFFECTS OF SELF-EFFICACY AND STRESS ON ACADEMIC MOTIVATION

4.4 Model Summary.................................................................................................................................... 31

Academic motivation is an essential factor in academia as it determines the ability of

institutions of post-secondary education, lower performance in academics and higher rates of

and Schuster, 1999).

investigated in-detail as indicators of adjustment to academics. However, this paper concentrates

clearly on evaluating the comparative significance of the aforementioned factors in the

explaining of success in college.

correlated to academic motivation among undergraduate students, where’s academic self-

out academic tasks such as exams preparation. Academic motivation is considered as an

efficacy on the academic motivation

significant contributing factors in undergraduate student’s academic motivation. The statistical

1.1 Background of the Study

The term of self-efficacy is delineated as the evaluation of one’s own competence to

(Bandura, 1986). This is a construct that is multidimensional in nation as it differs in accordance

measured by an individual in an academic setting where it translates into the confidence of

papers and examination. A wide meta-analysis of research regarding self-efficacy in

An expansive literature body has depicted that self-efficacy in academics is associated

persistence and motivation of students to accomplish challenging tasks of academics and by

of hours spent by students studying.

Stress, in general, is describes as a mental condition of psychological stimulation that

cognitions and emotions.

1.2 Research Aim

motivation of undergraduate students.

1.3 Research Objectives

The following are the objectives for this study:

 To assess the self-efficacy and its impacts on undergraduate students’ performance in

 To assess the combined impact of self-efficacy as well as stress on the academic

motivation of undergraduate students.

1.4 Research Question/ Hypothesis

H1: Stress will be negatively correlated with academic motivation

1. 5 Significance of the Study

motivation of undergraduate students. This investigation will contribute significantly to the

the control variable.

1.6 Limitations of the Study

1.7 Chapter Outline

difference in academic motivation is given.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

research topic in the present literature.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

taken as a control variable. The framework of data collection is also explained.

outcomes of the study with similar or contradictory studies.

Recommendations regarding future researches are also made.

encountered as a negative as well as positive energy in an individual's life. Eustress or positive

individuals of all ages, specific concern is attributed toward students of post-secondary

school to undergrad training is described by change, conformity, and equivocalness identifying

decrease in scholarly execution.

among undergrads were an adjustment in dozing propensities, excursions/breaks, change in

documented by understudies at University of Arizona State incorporate scholastic obligations,

(Moses, Pabedinskas, and Eli, 2010).

post-auxiliary understudies (Kwan, Faulkner, Arbor-Nicitopoulos and Cairney, 2013). For

that, if an understudy is tested with deficient stress administration abilities, constrained

confront and tending to the routes in which stress can be overseen.

sort of stress or agony can prompt trouble in concentration, nervousness, disappointment,

fractiousness, surliness, feeling overpowered, fretfulness or weakness, or an adjustment in

studies give proof that stress can block scholarly execution.

individual judges if a circumstance is undermining in that the requests of the circumstance

undermining, auxiliary examination happens in which accessible adapting choices or practices

stressors encountered by post-optional understudies can be identified with: phase of life,

requirement to adjust to expanded autonomy, move to adulthood, assembling another social

post-auxiliary understudies incorporate budgetary issues, school/individual life adjustments, and

degrees (Lo, 2002).

can add to disease straightforwardly through physiological impacts, or through maladaptive