1

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to analyze the influence of gender differences,

and the number of life events on the levels of trait and state anxiety. The sample

comprised 148 male (M= 22.12 years, SD= 2.68 years) and 185 female (M= 22.08 years,

SD= 2.64 years) students. Anxiety was determined using the State-Trait Anxiety

Inventory (STAI), and Life Events were measured using the 1994 revision of the Social

Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS). Two hypotheses were tested. The first hypothesis

was supported that the level of trait and state anxiety increases with the number of life

events. The second hypothesis was also supported that women generally rate higher than

men in trait anxiety. It was concluded that anxiety cannot be solely determined by the

number of experienced major life events, as many social and psychological confounding

factors must be considered.

2

Assessing the Influence of Life Events and Gender differences on Anxiety.

Janice Fung

Anxiety is the pain in reaction to the threat of losing an object (Freud, cited in

Finlay-Jones and Brown, 1981). It can be a normal response to an environmental demand

for major transition (state anxiety), or it can be a permanent characteristic in the way

one‟s personality respond‟s to the world (trait anxiety). Stressful life events may

significantly induce anxiety disorders that last longer than transient duration (Blazer,

Hughes, and George, 1987). It is necessary to note that the significant associations

between major events and psychological symptoms as proposed by previous studies were

often weak correlations. For this reason, it has been suggested that major life events may

play a minor role to the variance of the prediction of psychological symptoms (Barrett

and Heubeck 2000; Johnson and Sarason 1977). In response to this predicament,

researchers have considered other variables that may mediate the impact of life change.

Several moderating factors that would affect one‟s predisposition to anxiety include

personality characteristics (Garnefski, Kraaij, and Spinhoven, 2001); early life

experiences (Jackson and Finney, 2002); the availability of social support (Aseltine, Gore,

and Gordon, 2000); socioeconomic status (Camasso and Camasso, 1986); physiological

and psychological health status (Addolorato, Mirijellow, Angelo, Leggio, Ferrulli,

Abenavoli, Vonghia, Cardone, Leso, Cossari, Capristo, and Gasbarrini., 2008); maturity

level (Jackson and Finney, 2002) and gender differences (Conger, Lorenz, Elder, Simons,

and Ge, 1993).

3

Researchers have suggested that focus should be made on daily life events, rather

than major life events (Barrett and Heubeck, 2000). In support of this theory, hassles are

more strongly correlated with psychological symptoms, such as anxiety, than are major

life events (Wagner, Compas, and Howell, 1988). Hassles are frustrating and distressing

experiences that come to characterize the everyday dealings with the environment

(Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, and Lazarus, 1981) (E.g. workplace bullying and financial

difficulties). Hassles have been argued to affect trait anxiety (Wagner et al., 1988), as

they are a consistent source of stress that requires continued adaptive efforts to cope.

Furthermore, studies have found that the frequency of hassles experienced are more

influential than major life in events on developing psychological symptoms among older

adolescents (Rowlison and Felner 1988; Wagner et al. 1988) and adults (Kanner et al.,

1981), with a positive association. These studies have measured psychological symptoms

in terms of self-image, mood, and well-being; however, studies on the specific

relationship between anxiety and life events have not been extensive (Barrett and

Heubeck, 2000). To gain a comprehensive overview of daily experience, uplifts may also

be investigated (Barrett and Heubeck, 2000). Uplifts are positive and pleasurable

experiences during the daily course. (E.g. building positive relationships, or receiving a

compliment (Lazarus, 1984). Previous studies have shown that uplifts increase positive

affect (Kanner et al., 1981). People with more mastery and self-efficacy have been found

to experience lower levels of anxiety during stressful events (Aseltine et al., 2000). This

suggestion is supportive of the proposed stress-buffering effects of uplifts, as the

generation of positive affect improves coping ability by promoting behaviors of personal

action and problem solving. However, several studies of hassles and uplifts have provided

4

inconsistent results with a combination of proposed positive and negative relationships

(Barrett and Heubeck, 2000).

It has been strongly suggested that stressful events and social resources are

distributed unequally across the different socioeconomic levels. Moreover, individuals of

disadvantaged social classes have relatively less access to social support (Thoits, 1982),

and higher exposure to hassles (Wagner et al. 1988; Conger et al. 1993) and major

adversities (Camasso and Camasso, 1986). Discrete and chronic events of hardship (such

as a life-threatening situation, unemployment, marital issues, and financial difficulties)

influence the predicament of the onset and intensity of a variety of physical and

psychological maladies (Barrett and Heubeck, 2000). Aseltine et al. (2000) suggested that

such negative life events are source of high levels of stress that are strongly associated to

higher levels of anxiety. Hence, lower socioeconomic status has been found to relate to

higher incidences of psychological impairment. This is an enduring finding in community

mental health research (Camasso and Camasso, 1986).

Having access to social support has been shown to be critical for psychological

well-being. Simply having an approachable and understanding relationship with another

individual (for example, friendship and family cohesiveness) or feeling belongingness to

a group (for example, a church or a club) can lead to reduced levels of anxiety,

depression, and physical complains (Camasso and Camasso, 1986). Studies have shown

that helpful resources are set in motion to serve individuals of middle and upper

socioeconomic classes amidst major life events (Turner, 1981). In contrast, the incidence

of stressors in disadvantaged societies brings about extremely high levels of stress and

5

strain, as their already small support networks are overwhelmed. Thus, the risk of anxiety

is increased (Turner 1981; Conger et al. 1993).

Furthermore, social scientists have consistently found gender differences in

experiencing stress (Bird and Fremont, 1991). Researchers have argued that men and

women are dissimilar in their reactivity of distress because of gender-oriented patterns of

socialization, self-conceptions, and responsibilities (Kessler and McLeod 1984; Gove

1984). For example, women typically bear more household and childcare duties than

men, regardless of their employment status (Ross, Mirowsky, and Huber, 1983). These

patterns influence the exposure and response to different types of stressful life events.

Kessler and McLeod (1984) found that women are more vulnerable than men to

experience negative life events in their social network as women tend to be more

emotionally involved with the lives of their peers. Women are also more negatively

influenced by health difficulties, relationship problems, and uncontrollable life events. In

comparison, men have been found to have greater exposure to health and financial

difficulties, and are more negatively influenced by income loss and controllable life

events (Conger et al., 1993). Women have been found to be at a greater risk to develop

symptoms of trait and state anxiety (Pearlin 1989; Finlay-Jones and Brown 1981;

Addolorato et al. 2008). Although women tend to indicate a higher frequency of negative

life events than men, they may be less likely to report them despite their greater level of

distress (Conger et al., 1993). However, there is growing evidence to suggest that men

display different symptoms of distress that are channeled into behaviours of overt

aggression, substance abuse, or behavioural misconduct (Lennon 1987; Pearlin 1989).

6

Thus this finding is incongruous to the theory that women have a greater vulnerability to

develop anxiety.

The aim of the present study was to analyze the relationship between trait and state

anxiety and the number of life events, and to investigate the differences between men and

women in trait anxiety. The first hypothesis stated that the level of trait and state anxiety

increases with the number of life events. The second hypothesis stated that women

generally rate higher than men in trait anxiety.

Method

Participants

The sample comprised 333 undergraduate psychology students across all Monash

University campuses that completed the study as part of a course requirement. There were

148 males (M= 22.12 years, SD= 2.68 years) and 185 females (M= 22.08 years, SD= 2.64

years).

Materials

Anxiety was determined using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI;

Spielberger et al., 1983) which was comprised of two parts- Form Y-1 (State) and Form

Y-2 (Trait). The inventory is a 40-item measure, of which 20 items of Form Y-1 measure

transitory forms of anxiety within an individual (State Anxiety). The items of Form Y-1

measure feelings of apprehension, tension, nervousness, and worry about the current

situation (A-State). Participants rate the degree to which each item indicates his or her

present feelings on a four-point Likert scale, where the scores range from “Not At All

7

(1)” to “Very Much So (4)”. Higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety. The other 20

items measure of Form Y-2 measure more stable forms of anxiety within an individual

(Trait Anxiety). Respondants rate the how they feel in generally, using a four-point Likert

scale, ranger from “Almost Never (1)” to “Almost Always (4)”.

Life Events were measured using the 1994 revision of the Social Readjustment

Rating Scale (SRRS; Holmes & Rahe, 1967). This measure consisted of 53-items that

describe different life events. The events were those of which were correlates of outcomes

of particular life events, or they were events which would lead one to adapt to the

changed circumstances. Each of the 43 items was ranked in order of the impact they make

upon one‟s life. The 43 items were divided into two different forms: (1) Controllable, or

(2) Uncontrollable life events. Each of the 43 items corresponds to a weighted ranking

according to its magnitude of impact.

Procedure

Class participants across all campuses of the university were to submit a consent

form before they completed the STAI and the SRRS. Scores were individually calculated,

and all collated data was computerized, and outliers were transformed before conducting

further statistical data analyses.

Results

Positive univariate outliers were detected in the collated data of age (ie. Older

students) and the number of life events (NLE). These extreme scores were lowered.

8

Furthermore, two positive univariate outliers were found in the LEcontrolled data and

were winsorised. No ouliers were detected in the LE-Uncontrolled data.

The relationship between anxiety (as measured by the STAI) and life events (as

measured by the SRRS) was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation.

Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure there was no violation of the assumptions

of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. There was a weak, positive correlation

between trait anxiety and the number of life events [r=.14, n=333, p<.01]; and a weak,

positive correlation between state anxiety and the number of life events [r=.15, n=333,

p<.01], with increasing number of life events associated with increases in trait/state

anxiety.

Table 1: Correlation between Anxiety (State and Trait) and the Number of Life Events.

Correlation with life events

(r)

N Significance

State anxiety 0.15 333 0.005

Trait anxiety 0.14 333 0.009

Notes: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the trait anxiety levels

for males and females. There was a significant difference in scores for males (M= 38.53 ,

9

SD= 9.36) and females [M= 41.42 , SD= 9.72 ; t(331)= -2.74, p= 0.007]. The magnitude

of the differences in the means was very small (eta squared= 0.02).

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Trait Anxiety in Males and Females.

Mean Standard Deviation

Males 38.53 9.36

Females 41.42 9.72

Notes: The unit of measurement is the „life events units‟ scores from the SRRS.

Discussion

In this study, some causal linkages have been addressed by the analysis of life

events and gender relating to trait and state anxiety levels. The results of the current study

parallel most of the previous research by supporting the hypotheses that (1) the level of

trait and state anxiety increases with the number of life events, and (2) that women

generally rate higher than men in trait anxiety.

The findings of the current study indicate that approximately 1.96% (r= 0.14) of

the respondents‟ scores of trait anxiety and 2.25% (r= 0.15) of state anxiety are explained

by the experienced number of life events. This is consistent with results obtained by

previous researchers, that major life events are significantly but weakly associated to

anxiety (Barrett and Heubeck 2000; Johnson and Sarason 1977). Therefore, as suggested

by Johnson and Sarason (1977), further analyses need to be made on the validity of the

10

life stress measures, and also on other factors that may affect the relationship between life

events and anxiety. Thoits (1982) offers some insight into the factors of social status on

anxiety, proposing that disadvantaged individuals have greater exposure to hassles, and

less access to social support, thus increasing anxiety levels. Turner (1981) proposes that

disadvantaged societies have smaller support networks. Hence it can be reasoned that this

would lead to an increased impact of daily hassles (Barrett and Heubeck, 2000). With

increased experiences of hassles, experiences of negative affect may be increased.

Positive affect has been found to improve coping ability by encouraging characteristics of

mastery and self-efficacy (Aseltine et al. 2000; Barrett and Heubeck 2000), therefore it

can be predicted that increased negative affect may consequently decrease stress coping

abilities, thus increasing trait anxiety levels.

The results of the current study suggest that women significantly rate higher than

men in trait anxiety levels, where 2% (eta squared= 0.02) of the scores of trait anxiety are

explained by gender differences. This finding is congruous with the theory that women

are more susceptible than men to higher levels of trait anxiety (Pearlin 1989; Finlay-Jones

and Brown 1981; Addolorato et al. 2008). However, the scale disregards several

confounding variables of gender differences which may have affected the validity of the

results. It needs to be considered that men and women are different in their exposure and

response to different types of life events (Ross et al., 1983). The items of the SRRS do not

consider this gender difference in its weighting of distress for each item. Furthermore,

previous research has suggested that men and women display distress with different

symptoms (Lennon 1987; Pearlin 1989); and that women tend to be reluctant in reporting

anxiety symptoms, despite experiencing high levels of distress (Conger et al., 1993). It is

11

suggested that the STAI be revised to account for these gender differences, perhaps by

developing segregate inventories for men and women.

The results of this study also fail to reflect the influences of daily hassles,

socioeconomic status, personality characteristics, gender characteristics, and the

availability of social support and sources of uplifts; hence the external validity of the

results is low. Several limitations have been found regarding the adequacy of the two

measures (STAI and SRRS) to account for many confounding factors. First of all, the

STAI scale consists of measures that can be indicative of several psychological disorders,

such as depression. Therefore, it is suggested for future research that the items of the

scale be revised to be more discriminatory towards anxiety among other diagnostic

groups. Secondly, the SRRS measure is biased in the weighting of stress levels of each

event. It does not consider the confounding individual differences, such as social status,

cultural values, personality, gender, or personal history. For example, the life event of

„major purchase (>$10,000)‟ may vary in its weighting of distress, depending on the

individual‟s financial circumstances. Finally, the SRRS does not consider the differential

sampling of participants with each application of the scale, thus undermining the

generalisability of the scale in its developmental research.

By exploring the many variables that influence the development of anxiety, this

study has implications in helping the wider community gain awareness of the various

social factors that accumulate to the development of anxiety. Thus communal attention

can be augmented towards the more vulnerable groups. In addition, this study may

increase awareness in the gender differences of the development of anxiety, thus

increasing responsiveness from psychological first-aid. In conclusion, this study has

12

revealed that trait and state anxiety levels cannot be solely determined by the number of

experienced major life events. In research, many confounding factors must be considered

with the methods of measurement as they affect one‟s predisposition to anxiety when

coping with stress.

13

References

Addolorato, G. et al. (2008). State and trait anxiety and depression in patience affected by

gastrointestinal disease: Psychometric evaluation of 1641 patience referred to an

inernal medicine outpatient setting. Journal of Clinical Practice, 62(7), 1063-

1069.

Aseltine, R. H. et al. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and delinquency: An

empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,

41(3), 256-275.

Barrett, S. and Heubeck, B. G. (2000). Relationships between school hassles and uplifts

and anxiety and conduct problems in grades 3 and 4. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 537-554.

Bieling, P. J. et al. (1998). The state-trait anxiety inventory, trait version: Structure and

content re-examined. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 777-788.

Bird, C. E. and Fremont, A. M. (1991). Gender, time use, and health. Journal of Health

and Social Behavior, 32(2), 114-129.

Blazer, D. et al. (1987). Stressful life events and the onset of a generalized anxiety

syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(9), 1178-1183.

Camasso, M. J. and Camasso, A. E. (1986). Social supports, undesirable life events, and

psychological distress in a disadvantaged population. The Social Service Review,

60(3), 378-394.

14

Conger, R. D. et al. (1993). Husband and wife differences in response to undesirable life

events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34(1), 71-88.

Finlay-Jones, R. and Brown, G. W. (1981). Types of stressful life event and the onset of

anxiety and depressive disorders. Psychological Medicine, 11,803-815.

Garnefski, N. et al. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and

emotional problems. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1311-1327.

Gove, W. (1984). Gender differences in mental and physical illness: The effects of fixed

roles and nurturant roles. Social Science and Medicine, 19, 77-91.

Jackson, P. B. and Finney, M. (2002). Negative life events and psychological distress

among young adults. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(2), 186-201.

Kanner, A. D. et al. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily

hassles and uplifts verses major life events. Journal of Behaviour Medicine, 4, 1-

39.

Kessler, R. C. and McLeod, J. D. (1984). Sex differences in vulnerability to undesirable

life events. American Sociological Review, 49, 620-631.

Lazarus, R. S. (1984). Puzzles in the study of daily hassles. Journal of Behavioural

Medicine, 7, 375-389.

Lennon, M. C. (1987). Sex differences in distress: The impact of gender and work roles,

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 290-305.

15

Pearlin, L. I. (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 30, 241-256.

Ross, C., Mirowsky, J., and Huber, J. (1983). Dividing work, sharing work, and in-

between: Marriage patterns and depression. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 25, 189-197.

Rowlinson, R. T. and Felner, R. D. (1988). Major life events, hassles, and adaptation in

adolescence: Confounding in the conceptualization and measurement of life stress

and adjustment revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 432-

444.

Thoits, P. A. (1982). Life stress, social support and psychological vulnerability:

Epidemiological considerations. Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 341-362.

Turner, R. J. (1981). Social support as a contingency in psychological well-being. Journal

of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 357-367.

Wagner, B. M. et al. (1988). Daily and major life events: A test of an integrative model of

psychosocial stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 189-205.

16

Appendices

Appendix 1: Check for assumption of normal distribution.

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error

age 333 19 44 22.09 2.649 2.676 .134

nr LE 333 0 20 5.77 3.280 .621 .134

state anxiety 333 20 67 37.66 9.480 .495 .134

trait anxiety 333 20 70 40.14 9.651 .319 .134

Valid N (listwise) 333

Descriptive Statistics

Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Error

age 14.515 .266

nr LE .458 .266

state anxiety -.018 .266

trait anxiety -.172 .266

Gender

Case Processing Summary

gender

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

trait anxiety male 148 100.0% 0 .0% 148 100.0%

female 185 100.0% 0 .0% 185 100.0%

17

Descriptives

gender Statistic Std. Error

trait anxiety male Mean 38.53 .769

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound 37.01

Upper Bound 40.05

5% Trimmed Mean 38.31

Median 38.00

Variance 87.516

Std. Deviation 9.355

Minimum 20

Maximum 66

Range 46

Interquartile Range 14

Skewness .377 .199

Kurtosis .040 .396

female Mean 41.42 .714

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound 40.01

Upper Bound 42.83

5% Trimmed Mean 41.20

Median 41.00

Variance 94.429

Std. Deviation 9.717

Minimum 20

Maximum 70

Range 50

Interquartile Range 14

Skewness .269 .179

Kurtosis -.274 .355

18

Extreme Values

gender Case Number Value

trait anxiety male Highest 1 250 66

2 68 62

3 86 61

4 45 59

5 210 59

Lowest 1 70 20

2 42 20

3 41 20

4 40 20

5 292 21

female Highest 1 324 70

2 314 65

3 112 63

4 311 63

5 134 62a

Lowest 1 295 20

2 145 23

3 104 23

4 139 24

5 137 24

a. Only a partial list of cases with the value 62 are shown in the table of upper extremes.

19

Trait anxiety:

20

21

Appendix 2: The correlation between trait anxiety (TA), state anxiety (SA), and the

number of life events (NLE).

22

Correlations

nr LE trait anxiety state anxiety

nr LE Pearson Correlation 1 .143** .153

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .005

N 333 333 333

trait anxiety Pearson Correlation .143** 1 .710

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .000

N 333 333 333

state anxiety Pearson Correlation .153** .710

** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .000

N 333 333 333

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Appendix 3: The comparison of males and females in trait anxiety (TA) levels.

Group Statistics

gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

trait anxiety male 148 38.53 9.355 .769

female 185 41.42 9.717 .714

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

trait anxiety Equal variances assumed .313 .576 -2.735 331

Equal variances not assumed -2.746 319.888

23

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

trait anxiety Equal variances assumed .007 -2.882 1.054

Equal variances not assumed .006 -2.882 1.050

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

trait anxiety Equal variances assumed -4.956 -.809

Equal variances not assumed -4.948 -.817