Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Affect
Description
There is limited research on bullying among college students and even less research on hazing behaviors among students who are in a campus organization. Previously used scales were created for use with children and were not behavior specific, leaving out adult experiences college students may encounter and asking about bullying in general which leaves the definition up to the responder. This study aimed to create an instrument that examines behavior specific experiences with college students and their peers, in the general college setting and specific to a campus organization they belong to. Five hundred and two undergraduate students completed surveys of college experiences, affect, and well-being. Results indicate one factor for college bullying and one factor for hazing in college organizations. Bullying and hazing were found to be similar but different, with students having more experiences with bullying and the two experiences having different relations to affect and well-being. This study lends to the growing literature on bullying experiences of adults and begins the necessary evaluation of hazing in college organizations.
ContributorsDimberg, Sierra Kelsey (Author) / Tracey, Terence (Thesis advisor) / Kochenderfer-Ladd, Becky (Thesis advisor) / Robinson-Kurpius, Sharon (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
Objective: The present study sought to 1) examine the measurement of emotional complexity (EC) by examining the associations among different indicators of EC (i.e., covariation between positive affect and negative affect; overall, negative, and positive granularity; overall, negative, and positive differentiation) derived from the same data set and identifying a latent factor structure; and 2) evaluate the predictive ability of EC on psychological distress, emotional well-being, and physical functioning while accounting for stressful contexts. The utility of assessing emotion diversity (ED) as another aspect of EC was also explored.
Methods: 191 middle-aged adults from a community-based study on resilience were asked to complete 30 daily diaries assessing positive and negative affect. At least 6 months later, participants completed a phone interview that assessed distress (i.e., depressive and anxiety symptoms), well-being (i.e., WHO-5 well-being, vitality, social functioning), physical functioning, and perceived stress.
Results: A three-factor solution with latent factors representing overall, negative, and positive EC was identified. Overall EC significantly predicted enhanced physical functioning, but was not associated with distress or well-being. Contrary to study hypotheses, positive and negative EC were not associated with future distress, well-being, or physical functioning, though a trend toward improved physical functioning was noted for positive EC. In contrast, positive and negative ED were both associated with less distress, and better well-being and physical functioning. Overall ED was unexpectedly related to worse outcomes (i.e., more distress, less well-being, decreased physical functioning). Stress did not moderate the relationship between emotional complexity and the outcome variables.
Conclusions: Different indicators of EC represent distinct aspects of emotional experience. Partial support of the hypotheses found. Physical functioning was the only outcome influenced by EC. The inclusion of stress did not change the results. The discrepancy between the findings and those in the literature may be related to reliability of EC indicators and absence of contextual factors. Further exploration of ED revealed a potentially important construct of emotional experience that is deserving of further inquiry.
Methods: 191 middle-aged adults from a community-based study on resilience were asked to complete 30 daily diaries assessing positive and negative affect. At least 6 months later, participants completed a phone interview that assessed distress (i.e., depressive and anxiety symptoms), well-being (i.e., WHO-5 well-being, vitality, social functioning), physical functioning, and perceived stress.
Results: A three-factor solution with latent factors representing overall, negative, and positive EC was identified. Overall EC significantly predicted enhanced physical functioning, but was not associated with distress or well-being. Contrary to study hypotheses, positive and negative EC were not associated with future distress, well-being, or physical functioning, though a trend toward improved physical functioning was noted for positive EC. In contrast, positive and negative ED were both associated with less distress, and better well-being and physical functioning. Overall ED was unexpectedly related to worse outcomes (i.e., more distress, less well-being, decreased physical functioning). Stress did not moderate the relationship between emotional complexity and the outcome variables.
Conclusions: Different indicators of EC represent distinct aspects of emotional experience. Partial support of the hypotheses found. Physical functioning was the only outcome influenced by EC. The inclusion of stress did not change the results. The discrepancy between the findings and those in the literature may be related to reliability of EC indicators and absence of contextual factors. Further exploration of ED revealed a potentially important construct of emotional experience that is deserving of further inquiry.
ContributorsArewasikporn, Anne (Author) / Zautra, Alex J (Thesis advisor) / Davis, Mary C. (Committee member) / Doane, Leah D (Committee member) / Infurna, Frank J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016