CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Keeping in mind the research objectives of the present study, the collected
data were treated with descriptive statistics, Pearson’s product moment
correlations and regression analyses, specifically the moderated multiple
regression. The obtained results are described in three sections according
to the nature of analyses. The first section explains the descriptive
statistics about all variables included in the study. The second section
describes the inter-correlations among different variables. The third
section elaborates the results of moderated multiple regression analyses
that were used to address the primary objectives of the present study:

1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Descriptive statistics were operated to examine and understand the

distribution of scores on various variables used in the study. The mean,
standard deviations (SD), skewness and kurtosis of the scores on various
measures of the study are reported in Table-1. The statistics presented in
Table-1 show the dispersion of data through means and SDs, and the
skewness and kurtosis coefficients give an idea of the normality of the
score distributions. A skewness coefficient of .24 and a kurtosis coefficient
of .47 is significant at is significant at .05 probability level, the standard
errors of skewness and kurtosis being .12 and .24, respectively. A perusal
of the table of descriptive statistics reveals that the obtained mean score
on stress came out to be 19.12 with a standard deviation of 5.24. Mean and
SD for daily hassles were 86.06 and 44.95, respectively.

Mean and SD for Hope, Self-efficacy, Resilience and Optimism were 45.75
(SD = 24.41), 24.39 (SD = 8.86), 67.43 (SD = 14.52), 13.84 (SD = 4.27),
respectively. Scores on depression have a mean of 8.87 with a standard
deviation of 4.44. The mean scores for anxiety and adjustment were 10.37

108
and 34.50 with SDs equal to 5.95 and 15.94, respectively. Mean and SD for
anger were 8.55 and 4.71, respectively.

Table-1 Descriptive Statistics (N=400)

Variables Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Stress 19.1 5.2 -.18 -.46

Daily Hassles 86.1 44.9 -.09 -.39

Hope 47.7 24.4 .23 -.29

Self-efficacy 24.4 8.7 .03 -.25

Resilience 67.4 14.5 -.22 -.45

Optimism 13.8 4.3 .17 -.19

Depression 8.9 4.4 -.02 -.22

Anxiety 11.0 6.0 .03 -.34

Adjustment 34.5 15.9 .14 -.11

Anger 8.5 4.7 .22 -.29

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare two groups i.e.

young adults (18- 35 years) and middle age adults (36 – 64 years) on study
measures. Table-2 shows that there was no significant difference between
the groups on the scores of different measures except on optimism (t
=2.72, df = 398, p < .01). The obtained mean score on optimism for young
adults came out to be 13.4 with a standard deviation of 4.42. Men and SD
for middle age adults were 14.6 and 3.91, respectively. A significant
difference on optimism suggests that young adults and middle aged adult
differ on the level of optimism.

Overall, the obtained results suggest that there was no much difference in
two groups on the variables used in the study. Therefore, the data obtained

109
from both the groups (young adults and middle age adults) were clubbed
together obtained for further analysis.

Table-2 Independent Samples t-test

Variable Young adults Middle age t-value Significance

(N=250) adults level
(N=150)
Mean SD Mean SD
Stress 19.3 5.10 18.8 5.5 .85 NS

Daily Hassles 87.1 43.4 84.4 47.6 .58 NS

Hope 46.6 23.8 44.4 25.4 .87 NS

Self-efficacy 23.9 8.8 25.3 8.9 1.6 NS

Resilience 67.2 14.2 67.8 14.9 .42 NS

Optimism 13.4 4.4 14.6 3.9 2.72 .007

Depression 8.1 4.5 8.7 4.4 .57 NS

Anxiety 11.4 6.1 10.4 5.8 1.66 NS

Adjustment 34.7 15.2 34.2 17.2 .27 NS

Anger 8.5 4.5 8.6 5.1 .30 NS

*NS= Non Significant

2. CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS

In order to proceed further to the main objectives of the study, Pearson’s

product moment correlations were computed among the variables under
study to look for the existing associations among them. Table-3 presents
the inter-correlation matrix with the sample size of 400. Depending on the
hypothetical associations among the variables and keeping in view the
convenience of understanding, the correlations are explained under seven
different subheadings.

110
Correlation between stress and reactions to stress

For the present study, four reactions to stress were considered-

depression, anxiety, adjustment and anger. A careful perusal of
intercorrelation matrix (Table-3) reveals that stress bears significant
associations with all the reactions of stress. This implies that in general
population, stress plays an important role in contributing towards
depression, anxiety, adjustment and anger. The results for each reaction to
stress individually are described below:

a) Depression and Stress

Table -3 suggests that stress has a significant positive correlation with

depression (r = .33, p <.001). The positive association between stress and
depression indicates that as stress increases the person tends to be more
inclined towards depression. Stress influences the individual in a negative
way which further affects him leading to depression. It supports numerous
previous studies which explored the relationship between stress and
depression (e.g., Mundt, Reck, Backenstrass, Kronmüller, & Fiedler, 2000;
Hammen, 2005; Fountoulakis et al., 2006; Candrian et al., 2008; Starr et al.,
2012) which identified significant relationship between stress and
depression.

b) Anxiety and Stress

In table-3, another consequent reaction to stress, anxiety has also shown a

significant association with stress. It has brought out a substantial degree
of positive correlation with stress (r = .49, p <.001). As with depression,
stress also has a strong positive association with anxiety. This suggests
that as stress increases in individual’s life, he becomes more anxious. The
positive association supports the assertion of some of the pioneers (e.g.
Emmelkamp, Bouman & Scholing, 1992, Sarason, 1984) that anxiety is
elicited by psychological stress.

111
c) Adjustment and Stress

Stress has shown a significant negative correlation with adjustment (r = -

.34, p <.001). So, findings indicate that stress has an impact on individuals
adjustment suggesting that with an increase in the level of stress,
individual’s adjustment decreases or it can be said that individuals’
maladjustment increases. Stress influences people’s ability to adjust on
different levels and various areas such as in home environment, work
environment, medically, (health related issues), emotionally and socially.
This has been supported by Arnett (2004) that failing to achieve the
demands (stressors) may result in poor grades, financial problems, social
and family disputes, illness, and possibly dropping out of school. Other
research studies also found similar findings e.g., Dyson and Renk (2006),
Suefield (1997), Thoits (1995), Ano and Vasconcelles (2005) suggesting
that as the levels of distress increase, the ability of the individual to cope
or adjust no longer remains adequate.

d) Anger and Stress

In a similar vein, anger has shown a modest degree of positive correlation

with stress, the correlation coefficient being equal to .21 (p <.001). It
implies that stress has an impact on individual’s anger. The positive
correlation between stress and anger suggest that anger increases in the
individual as the level of stress increases. It can be inferred that stress is
an antecedent condition for development of anger. These findings support
the results of other research studies (e.g., Bodenmann, Meuwly, Bradbury,
Gmelch & Ledermann, 2010; Lee & Kim, 2006; Lee, 2003; Thomas &
Williams, 1991). The results showed that there was a positive correlation
of anger with perceived stress and mental health status. Perceived stress
and anger-in-expression were found to be significant predictor of mental
health.

112
Correlation between stress and psychological capital

The construct of psychological capital (PsyCap) is considered to be a

facilitator of human wellbeing and it is assumed that people with
psychological capital can effectively deal with life stress and its
consequences. The correlations among stress and all the dimensions of
PsyCap seem to provide an empirical support to this assumption. An
inspection of intercorrelation matrix (Table-3) reveals highly significant
associations among stress and different dimensions of PsyCap. All the four
domains of PsyCap have been found to be negatively associated with
stress.

Hope and Stress

The first dimension of PsyCap, hope, has shown a highly negative

correlation with stress (r = -.50, p < .001). The significant negative
association suggests that people with high hope experience less stress.
This supports the notion emphasised by Snyder (2000) that people with
higher levels of hope remember more positive comments and events about
themselves, whereas people with lower levels of hope remember more
negative comments and events. Also, Adams and colleagues (2002) in a
survey found that organizations with respondents reporting higher levels
of hope tended to be more successful than those with lower levels of hope.
Snyder and colleagues (1991) emphasized that college students with
higher hope showed better academic performance when compared with
the students with lower hope. Several studies (e.g., Creamer et al., 2009;
Elliot et al., 1991; and Peleg et al., 2009) suggest that higher levels of hope
have been associated with lower levels of psychological distress.

Self-efficacy and Stress

Similarly, the second dimension of PsyCap, self-efficacy, has shown a highly

negative correlation with stress (r = -.68, p < .001). The significant
negative associations suggest that people with high self-efficacy can cope

113
with stress more efficiently. This supports Bandura’s (1997) concept of
Self-efficacy suggesting that low levels of self-efficacy increases different
symptoms of psychological problems such as distress, anxiety, depression.
Torres and Solberg (2001) found that coping with stress in positive ways
tends to increase self-efficacy. This can lead to greater motivation and
success, resulting in positive health outcomes such as better quality of life
and both mental and physical well- being. Furthermore, other studies are
also in line with the results e.g., Just and Akin (2008), Ghaderi and Salehi
(2011), Badura (2007), Coffman and Gilligans (2003). Their result showed
that the higher level of self-efficacy was reduced the level of anxiety,
depression and stress.

Resilience and Stress

The third dimension of PsyCap, resilience, has shown a substantial

negative correlation with stress (r = -.34, p < .001). This significant
association supports Luthans (2002) definition of resilience as a “positive
psychological capacity to rebound, to ‘bounce back’ from adversity,
uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even positive change, progress and
increased responsibility”. Further, it has been supported that resilience
may be viewed as a coping strategy and could be an important target when
treating anxiety and depression, and attempting to reduce stress reactions
(Conner & Davidson, 2003). Studies have shown that resilience and social
support may protect against the development of traumatic stress and
depressive symptoms (Charuvastra et al., 2008; Southwick et al., 2005). In
another way, Lukow and colleagues (2015) also found that lower resilience
scores were associated with higher rates of psychological distress.

Optimism and Stress

On the lines of other dimensions, the fourth dimension of PsyCap,

optimism, has shown a highly negative correlation with stress (r = -.57, p <
.001). The significant negative association between optimism and stress

114
suggests that people with more optimism tend to have lower level of
stress. Individuals who are optimistic cope with stress and stressful events
effectively to accomplish the tasks. These results have been supported by
other studies e.g., Carver, Scheier and Segerstorm (2010) found that
optimists and pessimists react differently to stressors. Optimists being less
reactive to possible stressors, experience lower levels of stress.
Dispositional optimists strove to eliminate, reduce or manage stressors
rather than ignore, avoid, or withdraw from them (Nes & Segerstrom,
2006). Taylor and colleagues (2012) found that dispositional optimism
was associated with resilience to economic pressure and optimistic
mothers had higher levels of involved parenting behaviours. In addition,
optimism had beneficial effects in relation to academic stress for students
(Huan et al., 2006) and represented a relationship asset for newly married
couples (Neff, 2013).

Carver and colleagues (2010) found that individuals high in optimism,

approached challenges with enthusiasm and persistence. Aspinwall and
Taylor (1997) suggest that optimistic people feel less vulnerable which
makes them better able to process threatening or negative information.
Optimists processed information differently to pessimists, paying more
attention to negative information rather than trying to ignore it and then
they focused on the relevant aspects of it (Radcliffe & Klein, 2002).

Correlation between psychological capital and reactions to stress

The objectives of the study suggest exploring the relationship of

psychological capital with other reactions to stress after understanding its
relation with stress itself. In this direction, correlations of the dimensions
of PsyCap were analysed with depression, anxiety, adjustment and anger.
As expected, all the dimensions of PsyCap correlated negatively with these
reactions to stress i.e. Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment and Anger in the
present study.

115
a) Depression and Psychological Capital

All PsyCap dimensions were found to be related with depression in reverse

direction. The strength of association was found to be of substantial degree
for all the dimensions. The correlation of dimensions of PsyCap with
depression ranged between -.32 to -.64, (p < .001). Depression correlated
to an extent of -.60 (p < .001) with hope, -.64 (p < .001) with self-efficacy, -
.49 (p < .001) with resilience and -.32 (p < .001) with optimism. It gives us
an idea that psychological capital develops a positive sense of life in
individual. The significant negative association between psychological
capital and depression suggests that PsyCap play important role in the
development of depression. Stated another way, people with high level of
Psychological capital tend to experience less depression. It also implies
that as the level of PsyCap decreases, depression in the individual
increases. This supports the findings by Elliott and colleagues (1991) who
examined impact of hope on depression and psychosocial adjustment in a
group of adults and found that higher hope was associated with less
depression and greater overall psychosocial adjustment. These findings
accord with studies performed in the general population for hope (Snyder
et al., 1998). Chang (2003), Lynch et al. (2001), Chimich and Nekolaichuks
(2004), Hedayatial and Khazaei (2014) also showed the strong significant
relationship between depression and adult hope. Findings from research
studies (e.g., Scott et al., 2008; Kenner et al., 2006; Pinquart et al., 2004;
Makaremi, 2000) indicated that low levels of self-efficacy increases
different symptoms of psychological problems such as distress, anxiety,
depression, eating disorders, and alcohol abuse. Results of the research
study by Fava and Tomba (2009), Southwick et al. (2005), Monat et al.
(2007), Peat (2012) suggested those with perceived mental illness,
depression, anxiety and PTSD were less likely to be resilient to
deployment. Dispositional optimism and depression levels correlated
negatively in students (Schwartz et al., 2002), as well as in middle-aged
participants (Chang & Sanna, 2001).

116
b) Anxiety and Psychological Capital

Similarly, anxiety found to have strong and significant negative correlation

with the PsyCap dimensions. The correlation of anxiety with dimensions
of PsyCap were of substantially high degree, with correlation coefficient
ranging from -.55 to -.75 (p < .001 for all). Anxiety correlated to an extent
of -.61 (p < .001) with hope, -.75 (p < .001) with self-efficacy, -.59 (p <
.001) with resilience and -.55 (p < .001) with optimism.

The results are supported by other research studies. Indeed, trait anxiety
has been implicated as one of the vulnerability characteristics associated
with the development of stress-induced depression (Charney, 2004; Sandi
& Richter-Levin, 2009). Snyder, Shorey and associates (2002), Linveh
(2001), Snyder (1999) suggested that people with high-hope experience
less general anxiety and conversely, people with low-hope experience
more anxiety. Lewis and Kliewer (1995) supported with similar results
that hope was negatively associated with anxiety, and avoidance coping
was positively associated with anxiety. Bitsikal et al. (2010), Dodds et al.
(1991), Francis et al. (2007), Ghaderi and Salehi (2011) supported that
self-confidence and optimism were most strongly negatively associated
with anxiety and depression. Hjemdal et al. (2007, 2011) found that higher
resilience predicted lower levels of depression, anxiety, and obsessive-
compulsive symptoms.

c) Adjustment and Psychological Capital

Adjustment showed positive correlation with PsyCap. The significant

positive correlation was of very high degree, with correlation coefficient
ranging from .42 to .74 (p < .001 for all). Adjustment correlated to an
extent of .63 (p < .001) with hope, .71 (p < .001) with self-efficacy, .74 (p <
.001) with resilience and .42 (p < .001) with optimism. It implies that
psychological capital support the person to be well adjusted in life. Higher
the psychological capital, higher would be the adjustment of an individual;

117
consequently the person would be less maladjusted in his life. The findings
support the results found by Snyder (2002) that higher hope consistently
is related to better outcomes in academics, athletics, physical health,
psychological adjustment, and psychotherapy. Various studies conducted
by Bandura (1997); Maddux and Meier (1995) emphasized that self-
efficacy play a motivating role for achievement, better adjustment and
health-promotion, as well as it helps to cope a variety of stressful and
challenging situations. Dispositional Optimism, defined as high expectancy
for positive outcomes and a low expectancy for negative outcomes (Scheier
& Carver, 1985), was seen as a relatively stable personality trait (Scheier &
Carver, 1992). It was associated with better psychological adjustment to
stressors ranging from normative events such as entering college
(Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992) to extreme traumas like working at the site of
an airplane crash (Dougall, Hyman, Hayward, McFeeley, & Baum, 2001).

d) Anger and Psychological Capital

The associations among PsyCap and anger also followed the similar trend.
All PsyCap dimensions were found to be correlated negatively with anger.
The strength of relationship was -.69 (p < .001) with hope, -.45 (p < .001)
with self-efficacy, -.44 (p < .001) with resilience and -.74 (p < .001) with
optimism. Optimism has shown a relatively lower degree of correlation
with PsyCap (r = -.18), though significant beyond 99 % confidence level. It
suggests that people with psychological capital tend to have control over
their expression of anger.

Correlation between daily hassles and reactions to stress

Perusal of inter-correlation matrix (Table-3) reveals that daily hassles bear

significant associations with all the reactions of stress. This implies that in
general population, daily hassles plays an important role in contributing
towards depression, anxiety, adjustment and anger. The results for each
reaction to stress individually are described below:

118
a) Depression and daily hassles

Results shown in Table-3 suggests that daily hassles has a significant

positive correlation with depression (r = .74, p <.001). The positive
association between daily hassles and depression indicates that as hassles
increases the person tends to be more inclined towards depression.
Hassles influences the individual in a negative way which further affects
him leading to depression. It supports numerous previous studies which
explored the relationship between daily hassles and depression (e.g., Alloy
et al., 1997; Rojo-Moreno et al., 2002; Allen & Badcock, 2003; Allen et al.,
2004; Kumar, 2005; Gilbert, 2006; Uher, 2008; Steger & Kashdan, 2009)
which identified significant relationship between daily hassles and
depression.

b) Anxiety and daily hassles

Anxiety, another reaction to stress, has also shown a significant association

with daily hassles. It has brought out a very strong degree of positive
correlation with daily hassles (r = .81, p <.001). As with depression, daily
hassles have a strong positive association with anxiety also. This suggests
that as hassles increases in individual’s life, he becomes more anxious. In
may be in order to complete the tasks, or meeting some deadlines or
thinking of the consequences, in case, the task remains unfinished. The
positive association supports the assertion of some of the pioneers (e.g.
Rowlison & Felner, 1988; Barrett & Heubeck, 2000) that daily hassles or
events are related to anxiety. Another study by DuBois and colleagues
(1994) found that hassles prospectively predict conduct problems among
adolescents, consistent with the possibility that hassles may play a causal
role.

119
c) Adjustment and daily hassles

Daily hassles have shown a significant negative correlation with

adjustment (r = -.58, p <.001). The findings indicate that daily hassles have
impact on individuals adjustment suggesting that with an increase in the
level of hassles, individual’s adjustment decreases. Hassles affect the level
of adjustment on various areas such as home, health, occupational,
emotional and social adjustment. People with high level of daily hassles are
less adjusted in their life. The findings of the present study are in line with
the results of previous studies that also suggest that hassles predicted the
psychological adjustment of adolescents and adults measured in terms of
self-image (Tolan, Miller, & Thomas, 1988), as well as mood, well-being,
and mental health (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989;
Chamberlain & Zika, 1990; DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988;
Eckenrode, 1984; Lai, Hamid, & Chow, 1996; Thomson & Vaux, 1986; Wu &
Lam, 1993; Zika & Chamberlain, 1987)

d) Anger and daily hassles

In a similar vein, anger has shown a strong degree of positive correlation

with daily hassles (r= .75, p <.001). It implies that hassles have an impact
on individual’s anger. The positive correlation between daily hassles and
anger suggest that anger increases in the individual as the level of stress
increases. It can be inferred that daily hassles is an antecedent condition
for development of anger.

Correlation between psychological capital and daily life hassles

The construct of psychological capital (PsyCap) is considered to be a

facilitator of human wellbeing and it is assumed that people with
psychological capital can effectively deal with stress and its consequences.
The correlations among stress and all the dimensions of PsyCap seem to

120
provide an empirical support to this assumption. An inspection of inter-
correlation matrix (Table-3) reveals highly significant associations among
stress and different dimensions of PsyCap. All the four domains of PsyCap
have been found to be negatively associated with stress.

Hope and daily hassles

The first dimension of PsyCap, hope, has shown a highly negative

correlation with daily hassles (r = -.76, p < .001). The significant negative
association suggests that people with high hope have less daily hassles. It
could also be inferred that people with high hope deal with the hassles
effectively. This supports the notion emphasised by Snyder (2000) that
people with higher levels of hope remember more positive comments and
events about themselves, whereas people with lower levels of hope
remember more negative comments and events. Also, Adam and colleagues
(2002) in a survey found that organizations with respondents reporting
higher levels of hope tended to be more successful than those with lower
levels of hope. Snyder and colleagues (1991) emphasized that college
students with higher hope showed better academic performance when
compared with the students with lower hope.

Self-efficacy and daily hassles

Similarly, the second dimension of PsyCap, self-efficacy, has shown a highly

negative correlation with daily hassles (r = -.73, p < .001). The significant
negative associations suggest that people with high self-efficacy can cope
with stress more efficiently. This supports Bandura’s (1997) concept of
Self-efficacy suggesting that low levels of self-efficacy increases different
symptoms of psychological problems such as distress, anxiety, depression.
Luthans (2002), Torres and Solberg (2001) found that coping with stress
in positive ways tends to increase self-efficacy. This can lead to greater

121
motivation and success, resulting in positive health outcomes such as
better quality of life and both mental and physical well- being.

Resilience and daily hassles

The third dimension of PsyCap, resilience, has shown a substantial

negative correlation with daily hassles (r = -.52, p < .001). This significant
association indicates that people with high resilience have less daily
hassles. Stated another way, highly resilient people have the ability to
bounce back and deal with the stressful events. Results supports the
notion by Luthans (2002) who defines resilience as a “positive
psychological capacity to rebound, to ‘bounce back’ from adversity,
uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even positive change, progress and
increased responsibility”. Beasley et al. (2003), Southwick et al. (2005),
Hoge et al. (2007) also supported the findings.

Optimism and daily hassles

On the lines of other dimensions, the fourth dimension of PsyCap,

optimism, has shown a highly negative correlation with daily hassles (r = -
.47, p < .001). It implies that optimistic people have less daily hassles. It
may be due to the fact that they focus on good things rather than bad.
Other studies are in line with these findings. Optimism reduced the
adverse effects of such stressful life events (Gustafsson & Skoog, 2012) and
optimists perceive their situations as less stressful (Chang, Rand, & Strunk,
2000). Fredrickson and colleagues (2003) also found similar results and
supported the findings of the present study.

122
123
MODERATED HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION

In order to examine the moderating effect of psychological capital on

different reactions to stress, Moderated Hierarchical Multiple Regression
was applied. Moderation happens when the relationship between
independent variable(s) and dependent variable depends on the level of
moderator variable (Aiken & west, 1991). Moderator is the variable that
changes the association between independent variable(s) and dependent
variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Moderated multiple regression is a kind of
linear regression which is used to analyse the interactive effect of a
variable on the dependent variable. Experts dealing in multivariate
statistics have suggested two procedures for calculating the product of
independent and moderator variable. Aguinis (2004) suggest that product
term can simply be obtained by multiplying the raw scores of independent
variable and moderator variable. Moss (2010) suggests that the product
term must be calculated by multiplying the deviation scores of the
variables. For analysing the moderating effects the product of raw scores
on independent and moderator variables are calculated.

Initially, Hierarchical Moderated regression was tried using separate

scores on dimensions of PsyCap but as independent contribution of the
PsyCap variables was not significant in most of the cases. Therefore, all the
measures were clubbed together to form PsyCap as construct to find out
the moderating effect of PsyCap. Hierarchical approach differs from the
standard regression in the sense that it enters different sets of variables in
separate blocks one-by-one. For the purpose of moderating or interactive
effects, hierarchical regression is run by entering the main independent
variables and moderator variables in block-1. Second block is entered with
independent and moderator variables along with the product terms of both
(Aguinis, 2004). Thus independent and moderator variables are entered in
the hierarchy of blocks. Entry of variables in different blocks ensured the
provision of comparison of R2 as predicted by the set of main and
124
moderator variables with that predicted by after including product terms
of main and moderator variables. Also, hierarchical entry of the variables
in different blocks serves to control the effect of overlap among
independent variables and their products with the moderators.

After calculating all the product terms, the hierarchical multiple regression
was run through SPSS 16.0. There being one independent variable (stress)
and one moderator (four dimensions of PsyCap), four (‘independent
variable × moderator’) cross-product terms were generated. In the
regression analysis for the present study Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment
and Anger were treated as dependent variables and entered the equation
one by one. The hierarchical regression was run in two blocks. In block-1,
predictor variable (i.e. stress) and moderator (i.e., four dimensions of
PsyCap) variables were entered simultaneously. In block -2 along with
predictor and moderator variables the product terms of predictor and
moderator were used. The obtained results are explained in subsequent
sections, separately for different dependent variables.

i) Depression

The first dependent variable taken up for the regression analysis was
depression which is one of the responses to stress. The results of
regression analysis are presented in Table-4 and 5. Table 4 presents the
overall summary of the two blocks of hierarchical moderated regression. It
may be noted that Stress, Hope, Self-efficacy, Resilience, and Optimism
predicted Depression significantly. These five variables jointly accounted
for 55% of the variance in depression (Multiple R = .74, R2 = .55). The
explained contribution is significant at .0001 probability level, (F = 97.53,
df = 5 & 394). Table-5 presents the regression coefficients contributed by
different predictor variables in explaining Depression.

It can be observed from block-1 (Table-5) that self-efficacy is the most

significant contributor in depression (β = -.86; t = 12.59, p < .0001)

125
followed by hope (β = -.44; t = -8.04, p < .0001) and optimism (β = .29; t =
5.36, p < .0001). Stress (β = -.24; t = 4.76, p <.0001) and resilience (β = .17;
t = 2.72, p < .0001) have also contributed significantly towards depression.

It is further evident from Table-4 that the inclusion of moderators in block-

2 of the hierarchy increased the multiple R to .86 thereby explaining
almost 75% of variance in depression (F = 76.49, df = 4 & 390, p < .0001).
The increase of 20% variance accounted for by moderator terms is quite
sizable. This difference in the variance at the level of block-1 and block-2 is
clearly a consequence of moderating effect of the PsyCap.

Table 4: Summary of Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

Dependent Variable: Depression

Block Multiple R2 Adjusted SE of R2 F df df p-

R R 2 Estimate Change 1 2 level

1 .74 .55 .54 2.99 .55 97.53 5 394 .0001

2 .86 .75 .74 2.25 .20 76.48 4 390 .0001

Table-5 shows the extent to which each of the moderators contributes to

the prediction of Depression. The Beta (β) coefficients for dimensions of
PsyCap can be noted for Resilience (β = -2.63, p < .0001), Hope (β = 2.25, p
< .0001), Self-efficacy (β = 1.30, p < .0001), and Optimism (β = -.37, p < .05)
as significant. All these dimensions of PsyCap proved to be strong
moderators of the effect of stress on depression, a reaction to stress. If
these results are compared with other dependent measures, it is found to
be a case of strongest moderating effect of Psychological Capital.

126
 Table 5: Regression Coefficients. DV: Depression

Block Predictors Regression Standardized t P-

Coefficients Coefficients Level

B Std. β
Error

1 (Constant) 19.30 1.29 15.01 .001

Stress -.21 .04 -.25 -4.76 .001
Hope -.08 .01 -.44 -8.05 .001
Self-efficacy -.43 .03 -.87 -12.59 .001
Resilience .05 .02 .18 2.73 .001
Optimism .30 .06 .21 5.37 .001

2 (Constant) 15.37 4.37 3.52 .001

Stress -.23 .21 -.27 -1.11 .267
Hope -.64 .04 -3.52 -15.22 .001
Self-efficacy -1.42 .11 -2.84 -13.39 .001
Resilience .86 .11 2.79 7.93 .001
Optimism .67 .21 .65 3.27 .001
Strhope .02 .02 2.25 12.94 .001
Strefficacy .04 .01 1.31 7.16 .001
Stressilience -.03 .00 -2.63 -6.16 .001
Stroptimism -.02 .01 -.37 -2.02 .044

ii) Anxiety

The second dependent variable taken up for the regression analysis was
anxiety, as one of the reactions to stress. The results of regression analysis
are presented in Table-6 and 7. Table 6 presents the overall summary of
the two blocks of hierarchical moderated regression. It may be noted that
Stress, Hope, Self-efficacy, Resilience, Optimism predicted anxiety
significantly. These five variables jointly accounted for 59% of the variance

127
in anxiety (Multiple R = .77, R2 = .59). The explained contribution is
significant at .0001 probability level, (F = 117.81, df = 5 & 394).

Table 6: Summary of Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

Dependent Variable: Anxiety

Block Multiple R2 Adjusted SE of R2 F df df 2 p-

R R2 Estimate Change 1 level

1 .77 .59 .59 3.84 .59 117.81 5 394 .0001

2 .86 .74 .73 3.08 .15 55.45 4 390 .0001

Table-7 presents the regression coefficients contributed by different

predictor variables in explaining Anxiety. It can be observed from block-1
(Table-7) that self-efficacy is the most significant contributor in anxiety (β
= -.71; t = 10.91, p < .0001) followed by hope (β = -.26; t = 5.15, p < .0001)
and stress (β = -.09; t = 2.01, p < .05). Since stress and both the moderators
i.e. self-efficacy and hope have yielded negative coefficients, they tend to
reduce the level of anxiety substantially.

It is further evident from Table-6 that the inclusion of moderators in block-

2 of the hierarchy increased the multiple R to .86 thereby explaining
almost 74% (R 2 = .74) of variance in anxiety (F = 55.45, df = 4 & 390, p <
.0001). The increase of 15% variance accounted for by moderator terms is
quite sizable. This difference in the variance at the level of block-1 and
block-2 is clearly a consequence of moderating effect of the PsyCap.

Table-7 shows the extent to which each of the moderators contributes to

the prediction of Anxiety. The Beta (β) coefficients for dimensions of
PsyCap can be noted for Resilience (β = -2.79, p < .0001), Self-efficacy (β =
2.60, p < .0001), Optimism (β = -1.10, p < .0001) and Hope (β = .49, p <
.005) as significant.

128
 Table 7: Regression Coefficients. DV: Anxiety

Block Predictors Regression Standardized t P-Level

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. β
Error

1 (Constant) 25.57 1.65 15.48 .001

Stress -.11 .057 -.01 -2.01 .044
Hope -.07 .013 -.27 -5.15 .001
Self-efficacy -.48 .044 -.71 -10.91 .001
Resilience .04 .026 .09 1.42 .155
Optimism .01 .073 .01 .02 .985

2 (Constant) 7.39 5.98 1.23 .218

Stress .77 .28 .67 2.73 .007
Hope -.35 .06 -1.40 -6.00 .001
Self-efficacy -2.52 .15 -3.71 -17.32 .001
Resilience 1.01 .15 2.42 6.80 .001
Optimism 1.29 .28 .91 4.57 .001
Strhope .01 .01 .49 2.71 .005
Strefficacy .12 .01 2.61 14.14 .001
Stressilience -.04 .01 -2.80 -6.47 .001
Stroptimism -.09 .01 -1.11 -6.00 .001

All these dimensions of PsyCap proved to be strong moderators of the

effect of stress on depression, a reaction to stress. Studies shows that a
moderate level of stress may be required and even advantageous in order
to encourage an individual to succeed whereas an excessive amount may
overwhelm an individual and lead to anxiety, depression, physical illness,
and long-term physical and psychological health problems (Larson, 2006).

129
iii) Adjustment

The third dependent variable taken up for the regression analysis was
adjustment, as one of the reactions to stress. The results of regression
analysis are presented in Table-8 and 9. Table 8 presents the overall
summary of the two blocks of hierarchical moderated regression. It reveals
that five variables including stress contributed. The multiple correlation of
these variables equal to .82, the F ratio being 173.25 (df = 5 & 394). It is
significant at .0001 probability level. Therefore, all the five predictors, that
is, stress, hope, self-efficacy, resilience and optimism jointly account for 68
% of the variance in adjustment.

Table 8: Summary of Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

Dependent Variable: Adjustment

Block Multiple R2 Adjusted SE of R2 F df df 2 p-

R R2 Estimate Change 1 level

1 .82 .68 .59 8.97 .68 173.25 5 394 .0001

2 .83 .69 .73 8.88 .01 2.88 4 390 .0001

It can be observed from block-1 (Table-9) that self-efficacy is the most

significant contributor in adjustment (β = -.68; t = 11.84, p < .0001)
followed by resilience (β = -.44; t = -8.17, p <.0001), optimism (β = .35; t =
7.77, p < .0001), stress (β = -.12; t = 2.86, p < .005) and hope (β = -.10; t =
2.24, p < .05), respectively.

It is further evident from Table-8 that the inclusion of moderators in block-

2 of the hierarchy increased the multiple R to .83 thereby explaining
almost 83% variance in adjustment (F = 2.87, df = 4 & 390, p < .05). The
increase of 1 % variance explained by moderators is very minimal however
it signifies the change and impact of moderating variables i.e. PsyCap.

130
 Table 9: Regression Coefficients. DV: Adjustment

Block Predictors Regression Standardized t P-

Coefficients Coefficients Level

B Std. β
Error

1 (Constant) 89.25 3.85 23.16 .001

Stress -.38 .13 -.12 -2.87 .001
Hope -.07 .03 -.10 -2.25 .005
Self-efficacy -1.23 .10 -.68 -11.84 .001
Resilience -.49 .06 -.44 -8.18 .001
Optimism 1.33 .17 .36 7.78 .001

2 (Constant) 66.74 17.23 3.87 .001

Stress .55 .82 .18 .67 .503
Hope -.38 .17 -.59 -2.31 .021
Self-efficacy -.94 .42 -.52 -2.24 .026
Resilience .46 .43 .42 1.08 .280
Optimism -1.01 .81 -.29 -1.34 .182
Strhope .01 .01 .38 1.91 .047
Strefficacy -.02 .02 -.19 -.93 .352
Stressilience -.04 .02 -1.02 -2.16 .031
Stroptimism .13 .04 .61 3.02 .001

Table-9 shows the extent to which each of the moderators contributes to

the prediction of adjustment. The Beta (β) coefficients for dimensions of
PsyCap can be noted as resilience (β = -1.01, p < .05), optimism (β = .60, p
< .005) and hope (β = .38, p < .05). Relative strength of the predictors has
slightly changed at the level of block-2 due to the entry of all the
dimensions of PsyCap in adjustment as a reaction to stress.

131
iv) Anger

The fourth dependent variable taken up for the regression analysis was
Anger, as one of the reactions to stress. The results of regression analysis
are presented in Table-10 and 11. Table-10 presents the overall summary
of the two blocks of hierarchical moderated [Link]-10 reveals
that five predictors emerged as significant determinants of anger in block-
1 of hierarchical analysis. Multiple correlation at this level equals to .76 (F
= 104.45, df = 5 & 390, p < .0001). Therefore, 57 percent (R2 = .57) of the
variance has been accounted for by a set of five variables – hope, self-
efficacy, stress, optimism and resilience.

Table 10: Summary of Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

Dependent Variable: Anger

Block Multiple R2 Adjusted SE of R2

R R2 Estimate Change
F df df 2 p-
1 level

1 .75 .57 .56 3.11 .57 104.45 5 394 .0001

2 .84 .70 .70 2.57 .13 46.53 4 390 .0001

The magnitude and direction of individual contribution of each of variables

can be assessed from the standard regression coefficients entered in Table-
11. Hope, the dimension of Psychological capital, has contributed
maximum to the prediction of Anger (β = -.82, p < .0001) followed by self-
efficacy (β = -.50, p < .0001) but negative in direction. The negative impact
of the variable suggests that the people who are high in hope and self-
efficacy tend to have lower level of anger.

132
 Table 11: Regression Coefficients. DV: Anger

Block Predictors Regression Standardized t P-Level

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. β
Error

1 (Constant) 18.32 1.33 13.70 .001

Stress -.28 .05 -.31 -6.13 .001
Hope -.16 .01 -.83 -15.40 .001
Self-efficacy -.27 .04 -.50 -7.43 .001
Resilience .08 .02 .25 3.89 .001
Optimism .29 .06 .26 4.88 .001

2 (Constant) -.14 4.99 -.03 .977

Stress .38 .24 .42 1.60 .109
Hope -.77 .05 -3.97 -15.93 .001
Self-efficacy -.41 .12 -.77 -3.37 .001
Resilience .92 .12 2.83 7.46 .001
Optimism .05 .23 .04 .20 .845
Strhope .03 .01 2.47 13.12 .001
Strefficacy -.01 .01 -.13 -.67 .505
Stressilience -.03 .01 -2.66 -5.77 .001
Stroptimism .02 .01 .27 1.35 .177

Stress (β = -.31, p < .0001) has also contributed negatively which suggest
that some degree of stress which could be eustress helps the person to
have low anger. Contrarily, optimism (β = .26, p < .0001) and resilience (β
= .24, p < .0001) contributed positively to anger as reaction to stress.

The results of block-2 of hierarchical analysis (Table-9) point to

moderating effect of dimensions of Psychological Capital – Hope, Self-
efficacy, Resilience and Optimism. All these moderators along with stress
yielded a multiple R = .84 with anger being F value = 46.53 (df = 4 &390) is

133
significant at .0001 level of probability. Entry of four potential moderators
resulted into R2 change of .13 from block-1 to block-2.

Regression coefficients and standardized β coefficients entered in Table-11

depict the relative strength of predictor variables. Relative strength of the
predictors has changed at the level of block-2 due to entry of moderator
variables. Among moderators, Resilience contributes most to the
prediction of anger with a β coefficient of -2.65,p < .0001 followed by hope
(β = 2.46, p < .0001).

134