The relationships among coping with stress, life satisfaction, decision-making styles and decision self-esteem: An investigation with Turkish university students
Main Article Content
Our aim in this study was to determine the relationships among styles of coping with stress, decision self-esteem, decision-making styles, and life satisfaction. The sample consisted of 492 university students. Life satisfaction was found to be positively correlated to problem-focused coping and seeking social support. It was also found that life satisfaction is significantly correlated to decision self-esteem and all decision-making styles (vigilance, buckpassing, procrastination, and hypervigilance). In addition, significant relationships were found among coping with stress, decision self-esteem and decision-making styles.
Stress can be defined as the situation which occurs when a human being faces events perceived by them as dangerous, physically and psychologically (Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith, Bem, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1996) or when the physical and psychological limit of the organism is coerced and threatened (Baltaş & Baltaş, 1996). Altunta¸ (2003) defines stress as frustrations brought about as the result of physical, mental and emotional burdens.
The sensation created by situations that cause stress and psychological excitation is extreme annoyance and this disturbance motivates the person to do something to reduce it. The process of dealing with situations that create stress is called coping (Atkinson et al., 1996). Coping with stress is defined as the individual’s cognitive and behavioral efforts. There are two important components to the coping process. The first one of these is based on the evaluation of coping behavior by passing it through the individual knowledge process. Hence, coping is a cognitive process. The second important point is that the individual either tries to do some active things against the stressful situation or prefers to lessen the threat level of the source of stress in a more passive style by considering the situation emotionally (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Özbay & Şahin, 1997).
There are some typical kinds of behaviors for coping with stress. In a stressful condition, it can be observed that smoking cigarettes, eating, or drinking alcohol, or a combination of these can be applied. As a reaction to stress, some people avoid confronting problems, and become introverted and passive. Another commonly used method for coping with stress is to react excessively. Excessive reaction can happen in different ways, such as being worried, being hurtful and turning anger against others (Şahin, 1998).
People who participate in business and social life in a more active way, enjoy the job they have and the social activities in which they participate, have positive expectations about their future. They include tolerance and flexibility in their characteristics and have positive emotional relationships with their close environment and thus they become stronger against stress and achieve living in good health (Baltaş & Baltaş, 1996).
There are different explanations related to the ways used in coping with stress (Korkut, 2004). While Folkman and Lazarus (1988) deal with emotion-focused coping and problem-focused coping, Endler and Parker (1990) deal with three types of coping with stress, namely, task-oriented coping, emotion-oriented coping and avoidance-oriented coping. Baltaş and Baltaş (1996) deal with coping with stress in three groups: physical, cognitive and behavioral.
Theoretically, many behaviors can be identified as strategies for coping with stress (Dağ, 1990). It should be mentioned here that the basis of the stress relies on the perception and evaluation of the individual. The basic factors for decreasing or increasing the stress are the individual’s explanation, evaluation and direction of events. For example, a physical and social environment can be extremely stressful for some, while others can be more relaxed and happy in the same environment (Cüceloğlu, 1991). Hence, variables such as social support, family attitude and economic level may be influential in determining the strategy of the individual for coping with stress (Anderson, 1988; Aysan, 1988).
Several events can cause stress in the daily life of an individual. One of the most important problems that leads to stress is the need to decide against changing events (Geçtan, 1989). Stress may affect our decision-making ability and may cause incorrect decisions and mistakes (Altuntaş, 2003). Thus, it is important to decide correctly in events that cause stress, especially if more alternatives exist, because decision making brings about more difficulties to individuals and may cause stress. In addition, the complexity of a decision can cause an individual to make a negative choice (Shiloh, Koren, & Zakay, 2001).
According to Kuzgun (1992), decision-making is an inclination to overcome the current problem when more than one way exists to lead us to an objective that is thought to be the satisfier of a requirement. Decision-making strategy includes the individual’s approach to the decision-making problem and methods that are followed during the decision-making process (Kuzgun, 2000). Phillips, Pazienza, and Ferrin (1984) define decision-making style as a situation which includes the approach, reaction and action of the individual who is about to make a decision.
Kneeland (2001) states the necessity of correct application of the decision- making process and timing to achieve a useful and effective decision. Inclination to one of several choices is defined as a cognitive process. In order to make an effective and healthy decision, this cognitive process should be carried out (Eldeleklioğlu, 1996). Before making a decision, choices must be evaluated effectively (Yeşilyaprak, 2003).
When inclining to one of many choices and facing events that cause stress, it is expected that decisions which make the individual pleased may also affect his/her life satisfaction in a positive direction. The term life satisfaction includes both being satisfied and finding pleasure and is a cognitive judgment process. During the lifetime of the individual, his/her life satisfaction level may stay constant or be changed. Life satisfaction is the individual’s positive evaluation of his/her whole life quality. Life satisfaction is defined as the evaluation of the life quality of the individual regarding criteria which are determined by him/her. The concept of life satisfaction is related to the evaluation of a whole life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Veenhoven, 1996).
In their daily or academic life university students face many situations which they have to cope with. For example, having a university education has potential for causing stress and making decisions about choosing a vocation and a life-partner may cause stress (Özbay, Ayas, & Çepni, 1994; Simons, Aysan, Thompson, Hamarat, & Steele, 2002). Ültanır (1998) determined that students have problems especially in personal and school-related subjects. Students make decisions about these subjects or subjects similar to these. Coping with stress and making a decision in a healthy way may increase life satisfaction level. In this manner, students can be more successful in relationships with their friends, and in their courses. Determining the relationship among coping with stress, decision-making styles and life satisfaction of the university students will assist psychological counseling and guidance services and attract attention of lecturers to this subject as well.
The aim in conducting this research was to determine the relationships among styles of coping with stress, decision self-esteem, decision-making styles, and life satisfaction. The following questions were to be answered in this study:
Is there a significant relationship between styles of coping with the stress and life satisfaction level of university students?
Is there a significant relationship between life satisfaction with decision self-esteem and decision-making styles of university students?
Is there a significant relationship between styles of coping with stress and decision self-esteem and decision-making styles of university students?
Method
Participants
The sample set of the research was taken from several faculties of Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey by the random set sampling method. The participants were 492 students (220 female, 272 male) who participated in the study as volunteers. The mean age of the participants was 21.39 years with a standard deviation of 2.16 years.
Instruments
Coping with Stress Scale (CSS) was developed with a sample of university students by Türküm (2002). It is 23-item Likert-type (5 = strongly agree, 1= strongly disagree) scale to measure styles of coping with stress. The scale consists of three subscales. These are seeking social support, problem-focused coping, and avoidance from coping with stress. Reliability coefficients for each subscale of the CSS were calculated as .85, .80, and .65, respectively. Total correlation for each subscale was found to be .61, .48, and .34 while the calculated correlation coefficient was found as .85 by the test-retest method (Türküm).
Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ) The Melbourne Decision-Making Questionnaire was developed by Mann, Burnett, Radford, and Ford (1997) based on Flinder’s Decision-Making Scale I-II. Mann et al. (1998) used the DMQ in cross- cultural research that included six countries with the aim of comparing decision self-esteem and the decision-making styles of university students.
The DMQ-I is a scale that aims to determine decision self-esteem level. It consists of 6 items. Grading is done by giving numerical values to items according to the answer as follows: true for me: score 2, sometimes true: score 1, not true for me: score 0. Higher scores are the indicators of a higher level of decision self-esteem. In this cross-cultural research, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was found to be .74.
The DMQ-II consists of 22 items and measures decision-making styles. The scale has four subscales, namely vigilance (six items), buckpassing (six items), procrastination (five items), and hypervigilance (five items) decision-making styles. This scale is answered and scored in the same way as the DMQ-I. Reliability coefficients of the subscales were calculated as follows: for vigilance .80, buckpassing .87, procrastination .81, and hypervigilance .74 (Mann et al., 1998).
The adaptations of the DMQ-I and DMQ-II to Turkish were performed by Deniz (2004). The reliability coefficients obtained from subscales calculated by the test-retest method varied between r = .68 and r = .87. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the DMQ I and DMQ-II varied between .65 and .80. A scale validity similar to those of the DMQ-I and DMQ-II was performed with the Decision Strategy Scale (DSQ) of Kuzgun (1992). Significant relationships between r = .15 and r = .71 were found between correlation coefficients of the DMQ I-II and DSQ (Deniz).
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985) and adapted to Turkish by Köker (1991) was used. The SWLS measures global life satisfaction and consists of 5 items of which the values are evaluated according to 7 scores (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). According to the results of the reliability study of the scale, the test re-test reliability was r = .85 and item total correlations varied between .71 and .80 (Köker).
Results
The analysis of relationships among life satisfaction, styles of coping with stress, decision-making styles, and decision self-esteem of university students was performed by Pearson correlation coefficients and results are given below.
The Relationship Between Life Satisfaction and Styles of Coping with Stress for University Students
The relationship between life satisfaction and coping with stress styles of university students was tested by using Pearson correlation analysis techniques and results are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Correlations Among Life Satisfaction and Styles of Coping with Stress
Note: ** p < .01 *** p < .001.
As shown in Table 1, there is a significant positive relationship between life satisfaction and problem-focused coping (r = .19, p < .001). A significant positive relationship between life satisfaction and seeking social support was also found (r = .16, p < .01). On the other hand, there was no significant correlation between life satisfaction and avoidance style (p > .05).
The Relationships Among Life Satisfaction, Decision Self-Esteem, and Decision-Making Styles of University Students
The statistical results of the analysis of the relationship among life satisfaction, decision self-esteem and decision-making styles of university students are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Correlations Among Life Satisfaction, Decision Self-Esteem, and Decision-Making Styles
Note: ** p < .01 *** p < .001.
A significant positive relationship between life satisfaction and decision self- esteem (r = .23, p < .001) and vigilance (r = .15, p < .01) was found. On the other hand, a significant level of negative relationship between life satisfaction and buckpassing (r = -.25, p < .001), procrastination (r = -.21, p < .001) and hypervigilance (r = -.21, p < .001) decision-making styles was found.
The Relationship Among Styles of Coping with Stress, Decision Self- Esteem, and Decision-Making Styles of University Students
The statistical results of the analysis of the relationship among styles of coping with stress, with decision self-esteem and decision-making styles of university students are given in Table 3.
Table 3. Correlations Among Coping with Stress Styles, Decision Self-Esteem, and Decision Making Styles
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001.
As shown in Table 3, there is a significant positive relationship between problem-focused coping and both decision self-esteem (r = .28, p < .001) and vigilance (r = .31, p < .001). A significant negative relationship was also found between problem-focused coping and buckpassing (r = -.18, p < .001), procras- tination (r = -.09, p < .05) and hypervigilance (r = .13, p < .001). As seen in Table 3, there is a significant negative relationship between avoidance style and decision self-esteem (r = -.11, p < .05). There is a significant positive relationship between avoidance style and buckpassing (r = .19, p < .001), procrastination (r = .15, p < .05) and hypervigilance (r = .18, p < .001). No significant relationship between avoidance coping style and vigilance was found. A significant positive relationship between seeking social support and vigilance was found, whereas a significant negative relationship between buckpassing and pro- crastination was found. On the other hand, there was no significant relationship between self-esteem and hypervigilance.
Discussion
At the end of this research, it was found that there is a significant positive relationship between life satisfactions and problem-focused coping and seeking social support. According to this result, it can be said that the individual can cope with stress if he/she has life satisfaction. Results of this study are similar to the results of the research of Bailey and Miller (1998) who found that university students with both high life satisfaction and high expectations live with less stress than do other university students who have less life satisfaction. The findings of the research of Simons et al. (2002) are also similar to the findings of the current study. They constituted their sample set from 172 college students for their research and found that the relationship between social support and stress monitoring with life satisfaction is significant.
Some events in daily life make coping with stress difficult. Having many responsibilities, being alone, having no time for relaxing and entertainment, and having anxieties about the meaning of life are examples of such events (Baltaş & Baltaş, 1996). These factors may have negative effects on the life satisfaction of individuals. Therefore, it cannot be expected that an individual will cope with his/her problems if he/she has low life satisfaction. In addition, since these individuals have feelings of loneliness, they may not seek social support to cope with their problems.
Social support is not only of use to live with more life satisfaction but also means that negative feelings like depression, being alone, and anxieties rarely occur. If an individual thinks that he/she is happy and optimistic then these properties protect him/her against the negative effects of stress (Korkut, 2004). Existing studies on stress show that individuals who are supported by their social environment do not have difficulties physically and cognitively when they are under stress (Altuntaş, 2003). So, the individual will have satisfaction from his/her life.
In this research, significant relationships among life satisfaction, decision self- esteem and decision-making styles were found. Individuals with higher decision self-esteem have satisfaction in their lives. Individuals with higher self-esteem believe in their decision-making abilities, consider themselves successful and think that their decisions will turn out well (Mann et al., 1998). This situation affects the life satisfaction level of the individual in a positive direction. According to research related to decision making, persons who have an effective decision-making style have more satisfaction in their lives (Bacanlı, 2000). These results also support our findings in the current research. Life satisfaction was found to be positively correlated to the vigilance decision-making style while it was found to be negatively correlated to the buckpassing, procras- tination and hypervigilance decision-making styles. The possibility of making mistakes will be minimized if individuals take care during the decision process. Individuals expect to have satisfaction from their lives if they are satisfied with their decisions. On the other hand the life satisfaction of individuals is negatively affected if they avoid deciding and/or postpone their decision.
Research findings show that the problem-focused coping style is positively correlated to decision self-esteem and the vigilance decision-making style, while it is negatively correlated to the buckpassing, procrastination, and hypervigilance decision-making styles. In problem-focused coping, individuals focus on the problem, share feelings about the problem and struggles with others. Moreover, they try to change the stressful situation by solving the problem, making a decision about and being very interested in the problem (Özbay & Şahin, 1997). In order to focus on problems, individuals must trust themselves and behave carefully. Our findings in this study support this situation. The findings of Deniz (2004) addressing individuals who have high problem-solving skills who were also able to have high decision self-esteem and a vigilance decision-making style also support the findings of the current research.
It has been seen in this study that individuals who use the avoidance style for coping with stress do not trust themselves. This lack of confidence makes individuals postpone their decisions and turn over their responsibility to others. Whenever they have to decide, they use the hypervigilance decision-making style as can be seen in this study. They show the avoidance behavior style for coping with stress instead of using the problem-focused coping style. This situation directs individuals to hypervigilance decision-making behavior. According to Mann et al. (1997), hypervigilance is associated with severe emotional stress. So, there is a negative relationship between hypervigilance and the problem- focused coping style. Moreover, some individuals withdraw in the face of stress, become withdrawn and passive and abstain from confronting problems (Şahin, 1998). Stress which becomes extreme can impair decision making (Güçray, 1996). When the intensity of stress is high, temporary mood disorder can occur. (İnanç, 1997). These kinds of temporary mood disorders may prevent a person from making a correct decision.
Individuals who turn towards seeking social support for coping with stress behave carefully when they are about to decide. Hence, they do not turn to buckpassing and procrastination. It is usual that individuals who think that they can have social support do not prefer postponing and delaying their decisions.
According to the results of this research, firstly, variables that affect life satisfaction of the students in negative way need to be removed and activities that increase their life satisfaction must be offered in their place. This situation can be provided by socially supportive environments both inside and outside the faculty. So, students can be helped to make decisions effectively when important decisions must be made, and to cope with situations that create stress. Since teacher support is important for students coping with stressful situations, these results should not be ignored by teachers. Moreover, it is thought that these results are important for effective guidance by psychological counseling services.
References
Altuntaş, E. (2003). Stress management. İstanbul: Alfa Publishing.
Anderson, S. A. (1988). Parental stress and coping during the leaving home transition. Family Relations, 37, 160-165.
Atkinson, R., Atkinson, R., Smith, E., Bem, D., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1996). Introduction to psychology. (Translator: Yavuz Alagon). Ankara: Arkada.
Aysan, F. (1988). Investigation of the strategies of the coping with stress of the high school students with respect to some variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Bacanlı, F. (2000). Development of Indecisiveness Scale. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 2, 7-16.
Bailey, R. C., & Miller, C. (1998). Life satisfaction and life demands in college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 51-56.
Baltas, A., & Baltas, Z. (1996). Stress and coping styles. İstanbul: Remzi.
Cüceloğlu, D. (1991). Humans and their behavior. İstanbul: Remzi.
Dağ, İ. (1990). The relationships among control focus, coping with stress strategies and psychological symptoms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Deniz, M. E. (2004). Investigation of the relation between decision-making self-esteem, decision- making styles and problem solving skills of university students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 4, 23-35.
Diener, E, Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Eldeleklioğlu, J. (1996). The relationship between decision strategies and parent attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, S. R. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 466-475.
Geçtan, E. (1989). Modern life and abnormal behaviors. İstanbul: Remzi.
Güçray, S. S. (1996). The reliability and validity of the Decision-Making Behaviors Scale. Çukurova University Journal of Education Faculty, 2, 60-68.
İnanç, B. (1997). Anxiety and stress. Çukurova University Journal of the Education Faculty, 2, 9-14.
Kneeland, S. (2001). Problem solving. (Translator: Nurdan Kalaycı) Ankara: Gazi.
Korkut, F. (2004). School-based preventive guidance and psychological counseling. Ankara: Anı.
Köker, S. (1991). Comparison of the level of life satisfaction of normal adolescents and adolescents with problems. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Kuzgun, Y. (1992). Decision Strategies Scale: Development and standardization. VII. National Psychology Congress Scientific Studies. Turkish Psychologists Association, Ankara (161-170) .
Kuzgun, Y. (2000). Vocational counseling. Ankara: Nobel.
Mann, L., Burnett. P., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997). The Melbourne Decision-Making Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 1-19.
Mann, L., Radford, M., Burnett, P., Ford, S., Bond, M., Leung, K., et al. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in self-reported decision-making style and confidence. International Journal of Psychology, 33, 325-335.
Özbay, Y., & Şahin, B. (1997). Coping with Stress Inventory: Validity and reliability study. IV. Guidance and Psychological Counseling Congress, Ankara University, Ankara., Turkey.
Özbay, Y., Ayas, A., & Çepni, S. (1994). Biopsychological and psychosocial approaches in stress research. Journal of Academic Comments, 6, 45-49.
Phillips, S. D., Pazienza, N. J., & Ferrin, H. H. (1984). Decision-making styles and problem-solving appraisal. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 497-502.
Shiloh, S., Koren, S., & Zakay, D. (2001). Individual differences in compensatory decision-making style and need for closure as correlates of subjective decision complexity and difficulty. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 699-710.
Simons, C., Aysan, F., Thompson, D., Hamarat, E., & Steele, D. (2002). Coping resource availability and level of perceived stress as predictors of life satisfaction in a cohort of Turkish college students-statistical data included. College Student Journal, 36, 129-141.
Şahin, N. H. (1998). A positive approach for coping with stress. Ankara: Turkish Psychologist Association Publications.
Türküm, A. S. (2002). The development of Coping with Stress Scale: Validity and reliability studies. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 2, 25-34.
Ültanır, E. (1998). The problems of the students of the Abant İzzet Baysal University. Bolu: Gökalp Press.
Veenhoven, R. (1996). The study of life satisfaction. In W. E. Saris, R. Veenhoven, A. C. Scherpenzeel, & B. Bunting (Eds), A comparative study of satisfaction with life in Europe (pp. 11-48). Eötvös, Hungary: Eötvös University Press.
Yeşilyaprak, B. (2003). Guidance services in education. Ankara: Nobel.
Altuntaş, E. (2003). Stress management. İstanbul: Alfa Publishing.
Anderson, S. A. (1988). Parental stress and coping during the leaving home transition. Family Relations, 37, 160-165.
Atkinson, R., Atkinson, R., Smith, E., Bem, D., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1996). Introduction to psychology. (Translator: Yavuz Alagon). Ankara: Arkada.
Aysan, F. (1988). Investigation of the strategies of the coping with stress of the high school students with respect to some variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Bacanlı, F. (2000). Development of Indecisiveness Scale. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 2, 7-16.
Bailey, R. C., & Miller, C. (1998). Life satisfaction and life demands in college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 51-56.
Baltas, A., & Baltas, Z. (1996). Stress and coping styles. İstanbul: Remzi.
Cüceloğlu, D. (1991). Humans and their behavior. İstanbul: Remzi.
Dağ, İ. (1990). The relationships among control focus, coping with stress strategies and psychological symptoms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Deniz, M. E. (2004). Investigation of the relation between decision-making self-esteem, decision- making styles and problem solving skills of university students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 4, 23-35.
Diener, E, Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Eldeleklioğlu, J. (1996). The relationship between decision strategies and parent attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, S. R. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 466-475.
Geçtan, E. (1989). Modern life and abnormal behaviors. İstanbul: Remzi.
Güçray, S. S. (1996). The reliability and validity of the Decision-Making Behaviors Scale. Çukurova University Journal of Education Faculty, 2, 60-68.
İnanç, B. (1997). Anxiety and stress. Çukurova University Journal of the Education Faculty, 2, 9-14.
Kneeland, S. (2001). Problem solving. (Translator: Nurdan Kalaycı) Ankara: Gazi.
Korkut, F. (2004). School-based preventive guidance and psychological counseling. Ankara: Anı.
Köker, S. (1991). Comparison of the level of life satisfaction of normal adolescents and adolescents with problems. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Kuzgun, Y. (1992). Decision Strategies Scale: Development and standardization. VII. National Psychology Congress Scientific Studies. Turkish Psychologists Association, Ankara (161-170) .
Kuzgun, Y. (2000). Vocational counseling. Ankara: Nobel.
Mann, L., Burnett. P., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997). The Melbourne Decision-Making Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 1-19.
Mann, L., Radford, M., Burnett, P., Ford, S., Bond, M., Leung, K., et al. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in self-reported decision-making style and confidence. International Journal of Psychology, 33, 325-335.
Özbay, Y., & Şahin, B. (1997). Coping with Stress Inventory: Validity and reliability study. IV. Guidance and Psychological Counseling Congress, Ankara University, Ankara., Turkey.
Özbay, Y., Ayas, A., & Çepni, S. (1994). Biopsychological and psychosocial approaches in stress research. Journal of Academic Comments, 6, 45-49.
Phillips, S. D., Pazienza, N. J., & Ferrin, H. H. (1984). Decision-making styles and problem-solving appraisal. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 497-502.
Shiloh, S., Koren, S., & Zakay, D. (2001). Individual differences in compensatory decision-making style and need for closure as correlates of subjective decision complexity and difficulty. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 699-710.
Simons, C., Aysan, F., Thompson, D., Hamarat, E., & Steele, D. (2002). Coping resource availability and level of perceived stress as predictors of life satisfaction in a cohort of Turkish college students-statistical data included. College Student Journal, 36, 129-141.
Şahin, N. H. (1998). A positive approach for coping with stress. Ankara: Turkish Psychologist Association Publications.
Türküm, A. S. (2002). The development of Coping with Stress Scale: Validity and reliability studies. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 2, 25-34.
Ültanır, E. (1998). The problems of the students of the Abant İzzet Baysal University. Bolu: Gökalp Press.
Veenhoven, R. (1996). The study of life satisfaction. In W. E. Saris, R. Veenhoven, A. C. Scherpenzeel, & B. Bunting (Eds), A comparative study of satisfaction with life in Europe (pp. 11-48). Eötvös, Hungary: Eötvös University Press.
Yeşilyaprak, B. (2003). Guidance services in education. Ankara: Nobel.
Table 1. Correlations Among Life Satisfaction and Styles of Coping with Stress
Note: ** p < .01 *** p < .001.
Table 2. Correlations Among Life Satisfaction, Decision Self-Esteem, and Decision-Making Styles
Note: ** p < .01 *** p < .001.
Table 3. Correlations Among Coping with Stress Styles, Decision Self-Esteem, and Decision Making Styles
Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001.
This research was supported by the Selcuk University Scientific Research Projects Coordinatorship. Appreciation is due to reviewers including
Ramazan Ari
Selcuk University
Faculty of Occupational Education
Campus 42075
Konya
Turkey
Liat Kulik
School of Social Work
Bar-Ilan University
Ramat-Gan
Israel
M. Engin Deniz, Selcuk University, Faculty of Technical Education, Department of Education, Campus 42075, Konya, Turkey. Email: [email protected]