Stress and Life Satisfaction

Stress and Life Satisfaction
A STUDY OF A SPECTRUM OF FACTORS AFFECTING STRESS & LIFE

SATISFACTION
Hareem Kapadia, Aamna Sami, Hira Asif | Methods of Data Analysis | April 22, 2018
Table of Contents
S Title Page
1 Abstract 2
2 Sample 3
3 Smoking between the sexes 8
4 Stress between the sexes 10
5 Stress levels across ages 14
6 Stress levels for different sources of stress: 19
Graphical representations
7 Stress levels for different sources of stress: An 22
analytical investigation
8 Stress levels across marital status groups 31
9 Stress levels of people with children 35
10 Internal factors affecting stress 38
11 Factors affecting life satisfaction 51
12 Life satisfaction of various education levels 69
13 Optimism across ages 78
14 Conclusion 84
PAGE 1
Abstract
The situations and pressures that cause stress are known as stressors. We usually think
of stressors as exogenous variables such as university, work, children or even midlife
crisis. The following study examines whether stress is caused by such external factors
or whether it is innate factors such as human nature that cause it. The study shows
that to a significant extent stress can be internal or self-generated especially through
negative experiences in life.
Another common misperception is that people smoke due to stress is also been
debunked. The study also examines the effect of age on optimism and finds that age
does influence optimism as one would expect. it also models the innate factors on life
satisfaction to check the extent to which they contribute to this variable.
PAGE 2
SAMPLE
Method
The study uses a self-administered questionnaire given to 439 people of different ages and
all backgrounds.
DEMOGRAPHICS:
I. AGE:
94 people are in the age group 18-24.
80 people are in the age group 50+.
age 5 groups
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
18 - 24 94 21.4 21.4 21.4
25 - 32 87 19.8 19.8 41.2

33 - 40 83 18.9 18.9 60.1
Valid
41 - 49 95 21.6 21.6 81.8
50+ 80 18.2 18.2 100.0
Total 439 100.0 100.0
PAGE 3
II. GENDER:
The number of male participants in the survey was 185.
The number of female participants in the survey was 254.
Sex
MALES 185 42.1 42.1 42.1
Valid FEMALES 254 57.9 57.9 100.0
Total 439 100.0 100.0
PAGE 4
III. MARITAL STATUS:
The number of single people is 105.

The number of people in a steady relationship is 37.
The number of people who are living with partner is 37.
The number of people who are married for the first time is 189.
The number of people who are remarried is 30.
The number of people who are separated is 10.
The number of people who are divorced is 24.
The number of people who are widowed is 7.
marital status
SINGLE 105 23.9 23.9 23.9
STEADY RELATIONSHIP 37 8.4 8.4 32.3
Valid LIVING WITH PARTNER 37 8.4 8.4 40.8
MARRIED FIRST TIME 189 43.1 43.1 83.8
REMARRIED 30 6.8 6.8 90.7
PAGE 5
SEPARATED 10 2.3 2.3 92.9
DIVORCED 24 5.5 5.5 98.4
WIDOWED 7 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 439 100.0 100.0
IV. EDUCATION:
The number of people who have received primary education is 2.

The number of people who have received some secondary education is 53.
The number of people who have completed high school is 85.
The number of people who have some additional training is 120.
The number of people who have completed undergraduate is 123.
The number of people who have completed postgraduate is 56.
highest educ completed
Valid PRIMARY 2 .5 .5 .5
PAGE 6
SOME SECONDARY 53 12.1 12.1 12.5
COMPLETED HIGHSCHOOL 85 19.4 19.4 31.9
SOME ADDITIONAL TRAINING 120 27.3 27.3 59.2
COMPLETED UNDERGRADUATE 123 28.0 28.0 87.2
POSTGRADUATE COMPLETED 56 12.8 12.8 100.0
Total 439 100.0 100.0
PAGE 7
DOES GENDER AFFECT SMOKING BEHAVIOUR?
We begin by examining whether the mean number of smokers in males and females are
equal.
First we need to check if the assumption for normality holds:
H0: The data for smokers in all categories of gender is normally distributed.
H1: The data for smokers in all categories of gender is not normally distributed.
Tests of Normality
Sex Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
MALES .500 184 .000 .465 184 .000

Smoker
FEMALES .488 252 .000 .497 252 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Since significance is less than 0.05 in all cases of K-S and S-W tests, therefore, we
can conclude that the data for smokers of both genders is not normally
distributed.
Since our assumption does not hold we will use non-parametric test.
PAGE 8
MANN-WHITNEY U TEST:
We are now using M-W test to test our hypothesis:
H0: The mean number of male smokers = The mean number of female smokers.
H1: The mean number of male smokers ≠ The mean number of female smokers.
From the above table we can see that the significance is 0.483 (which is greater than
0.05), thus we will retain our null hypothesis.
We can conclude that the number of smokers among all the categories of gender
is equal.
PAGE 9
DOES GENDER CONTRIBUTE TO STRESS LEVEL?
First we need to check if the assumption for normality holds:

H0 : The data for stress levels of both genders is normally distributed.
H1 : The data for stress levels of both genders is not normally distributed.
Since significance level for K-S test (0.015 and 0.015) is less than 0.05 and significance level
for S-W test (0.096 and 0.176) is greater than 0.05, there is a 50% probability that the data
follows normal distribution.
Tests of Normality
sex Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.
MALES .074 184 .015 .987 184 .096

Total perceived stress
FEMALES .064 249 .015 .992 249 .176
Now we will examine if the mean stress level is equal among all categories of gender.
We will assume that normality is being supported and use a parametric test.
PAGE 10
This conclusion is supported by the QQ Plot above which shows data follows the line of
normality.
This conclusion is supported by the QQ Plot above which shows data follows the line of
normality.
PAGE 11
We will use F-test to check for equality of variances.
Testing for Homogeneity of Variances

H0: Variances are equal
H1: Variances are not equal
L.O.S
α=0.05
Test statistic:
F0.05(183,248)= 1.30
The critical value of F is 1.30.
Since our Fcalc (1.936)>1.30, therefore we will reject H0.
We can conclude that the variances are not equal. We will go for non-pooled t-test.
Group Statistics
sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
MALES 184 25.79 5.414 .399

FEMALES 249 27.42 6.066 .384
PAGE 12
Independent Samples Test
Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

(2- Difference Difference Confidence
tailed) Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal 1.936 .165 - 431 .004 -1.634 .564 -2.742 -.526

variances 2.898
Total assumed
perceived Equal - 415.886 .003 -1.634 .554 -2.723 -.544
stress variances 2.948
not
assumed
Now we need to examine if there is statistical evidence to prove stress levels for both
females and males are equal. For this purpose, we will use t-test.
H0: mean stress level for females = mean stress level for males
H1: mean stress level for females ≠ mean stress level for males
Alpha=0.025 t(0.025,416)= ±2.364
The critical value of t is ±2.364.
Since our t calculated (-2.948) < -2.364, therefore we reject H0.
We can conclude that the mean stress level of females and males is not equal.
PAGE 13
DOES AGE CONTRIBUTE TO STRESS LEVEL
Now we will check whether the mean stress level among all age groups is equal or not.
First, we need to check if the assumption for normality holds:
H0 : The data for stress levels among all age groups is normally distributed.
H1 : The data for stress levels among all age groups is not normally distributed.
Since significance level for K-S test (0.082, 0.200, 0.200) and S-W test (0.172, 0.483,
0.309, 0.388, 0.605) is greater than 0.05, therefore, we can conclude that the data
follows normal distribution.
Tests of Normality
age 5 groups Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
18 - 24 .100 93 .023 .980 93 .172
25 - 32 .100 86 .035 .986 86 .483
Total perceived stress 33 - 40 .092 82 .082 .982 82 .309
41 - 49 .075 95 .200* .986 95 .388
50+ .078 77 .200* .987 77 .605
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

PAGE 14
This conclusion is supported by the QQ Plot above which shows only slight deviation of
data from the line of normality in values ranging from 10-20 and 40-50.
data from the line of normality in values ranging from 30-40.
PAGE 15
PAGE 16
We check the significance associated to the Levene statistic to check the

homogeneity of variances.
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1.340 4 428 .254
Since the statistic equals 0.254 which is greater than 0.05, we conclude that
variances are not equal.
We proceed with the ANOVA test.
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 500.761 4 125.190 3.755 .005
Within Groups 14271.082 428 33.344
Total 14771.843 432
PAGE 17
We can see that the significance value is 0.005, which is below 0.05 and, therefore,
We can conclude that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean stress
levels between the different age groups.
Tukey HSDa,b
age 5 groups N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
25 - 32 86 25.65
50+ 77 25.75
41 - 49 95 26.62 26.62
33 - 40 82 26.77 26.77
18 - 24 93 28.60
Sig. .710 .163
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are

displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 86.075.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of

the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not
guaranteed.
A Tukey post hoc test revealed that the stress levels were statistically significantly lower
in age groups 25-32 and 50+, and higher in age group 18-24. There was no statistically
significant difference in the stress levels of age groups 41-49 and 33-40.
PAGE 18
DOES THE SOURCE OF STRESS CONTRIBUTE TO STRESS LEVEL?
GRAPICAL REPRESENTATIONS
Now we take a look at the different sources of stress, and how many people contribute
their overall stress to these sources.
Out of the 439 people surveyed:
223 people reported that their stress was due to work.
12 people reported that their stress was due to spouse or partner.
12 people reported that their stress was due to relationships.
25 people reported that their stress was due to children.
27 people reported that their stress was due to family.
20 people reported that their stress was due to health/illness.
33 people reported that their stress was due to life in general.
54 people reported that their stress was due to money/finances.
16 people reported that their stress was due to time.
source of stress
WORK 223 50.8 52.8 52.8
SPOUSE OR PARTNER 12 2.7 2.8 55.7
RELATIONSHIPS 12 2.7 2.8 58.5
CHILDREN 25 5.7 5.9 64.5
FAMILY 27 6.2 6.4 70.9

Valid
HEALTH/ILLNESS 20 4.6 4.7 75.6
LIFE IN GENERAL 33 7.5 7.8 83.4
MONEY/FINANCES 54 12.3 12.8 96.2
TIME (lack of time, too much to do) 16 3.6 3.8 100.0
Total 422 96.1 100.0
Missing System 17 3.9
Total 439 100.0
PAGE 19
The box plot below shows peoples stress scored divided on the basis of the sources
of stress.
Upon close examination it can be observed that:
Work, family and life in general appear to have similar medians. Health/illness
and spouse or partner have the highest median stress levels. Time has the lowest
median stress level.
Relationships has the smallest variability. Work and health/illness appear to

have the same variability which is the highest among all the other sources.
Work has three outliers. Relationships has one outlier. Life in general has one
outlier. Money/finances has two outliers.
PAGE 20
PAGE 21
DOES THE SOURCE OF STRESS CONTRIBUTE TO STRESS LEVELS?
ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
The next thing we chose to explore whether any group experiences more stress than
others based on the cause of stress. To check whether it is possible to run an ANOVA in
this case.
We first need to check if normality holds.
Testing for normality
H0: Stress levels across stress factors are normally distributed
H1: Stress levels across stress factors are not normally distributed
L.O.S:
α= 0.05
Decision:
Reject H0 if sig < 0.05. Since majority of the sig>0.05, we do not reject H0.
Conclusion:
Stress levels across stress factors are normally distributed.
Tests of Normality
source of stress Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
WORK .071 222 .009 .990 222 .145
Total perceived stress SPOUSE OR PARTNER .149 12 .200* .936 12 .444
RELATIONSHIPS .197 12 .200* .882 12 .092
PAGE 22
CHILDREN .086 24 .200* .973 24 .752
FAMILY .117 26 .200* .976 26 .770
HEALTH/ILLNESS .147 20 .200* .967 20 .687
LIFE IN GENERAL .075 32 .200* .965 32 .381
MONEY/FINANCES .160 53 .002 .968 53 .173
TIME (lack of time, too much to do) .160 16 .200* .960 16 .656
data from the line of normality.
PAGE 23
This conclusion is supported by the QQ Plot above which shows deviation of data from
the line of normality in values ranging from 25-30, 30-35, and 40-45.
the line of normality in values ranging from 25-30 and 35-40.
PAGE 24
PAGE 25
PAGE 26
data from the line of normality in values ranging from 10-20, 25-28 and 30-35.
the line of normality in values ranging from 20-25 and 35-40.
PAGE 27
Therefore, run a parametric test.
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
.857 8 408 .553
We check the significance associated to the Levene’s statistic to see if the variances are
equal. Since the sig equals 0.553 which is > 0.05, we conclude that the variances are
equal.
PAGE 28
One-Way-ANOVA
HO: The mean stress levels from all sources of stress are equal
H1: At least one of the mean stress levels differ
L.O.S:
α= 0.05;
df1= 8
df2= 408
Test Statistic:
F= S2between / S2within
Fcal= 1.898
Critical Value and Critical Region:
F (0.05,8,408)= 2.02
Decision:
Reject H0 if Fcal >2.02. Since Fcal= 1.898, we do not reject H0.
Conclusion:
The mean stress levels across the different sources of stress are equal.
ANOVA
Between Groups 504.244 8 63.030 1.898 .059
Within Groups 13550.087 408 33.211
Total 14054.331 416
PAGE 29
The Tukey HSD test shows a difference in mean stress levels for the people stressed out by
their spouses or partners and stressed out due to time. However, the F-statistic contradicts
this result. This may be due to a Type I error caused because of unequal and a few very
small sample sizes.
Tukey HSDa,b
source of stress N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
TIME (lack of time, too 16 25.06

much to do)
FAMILY 26 25.54 25.54
CHILDREN 24 25.54 25.54
MONEY/FINANCES 53 26.06 26.06
LIFE IN GENERAL 31 26.10 26.10
WORK 223 26.73 26.73
RELATIONSHIPS 12 27.83 27.83
HEALTH/ILLNESS 20 29.50 29.50
SPOUSE OR PARTNER 12 30.67
Sig. .218 .085
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group
sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
PAGE 30
DOES MARITAL STATUS GROUP AFFECT STRESS?
The next thing we explore is whether people with various marital status experience more
stress than others using One-Way-ANOVA. To check whether it is possible to run an
ANOVA in this case, we first need to check for normality.
H0: Stress levels across marital status groups are normally distributed
H1: Stress levels across marital status groups are not normally distributed
L.O.S:
α= 0.05
Decision:
Reject H0 if sig < 0.05. Since majority of the sig>0.05, we do not reject H0.
Conclusion:
Stress levels across marital status groups are normally distributed.
We can therefore use a parametric test for the difference in means.
PAGE 31
Tests of Normality
marital status Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
SINGLE .100 103 .012 .974 103 .039
STEADY .097 37 .200* .968 37 .359

RELATIONSHIP
LIVING WITH .188 35 .003 .957 35 .189

PARTNER
Total perceived
MARRIED FIRST .081 187 .004 .989 187 .160
stress
TIME
REMARRIED .112 30 .200* .939 30 .085
SEPARATED .193 10 .200* .901 10 .226
DIVORCED .109 24 .200* .982 24 .932
WIDOWED .399 7 .001 .730 7 .008

.763 7 425 .619
We check the significance associated to the Levene’s statistic to see if the variances are
equal. Since the significance equals 0.553, which is > 0.05, we conclude that the variances
are equal.
PAGE 32
One-Way-Anova
HO: The mean stress levels across all marital status groups are equal
H1: The mean stress level for atleast one marital status group differs
L.O.S:
α= 0.05;
df1= 7
df2= 425
Test Statistic:
Fcal= 2.749
Critical Value and Critical Region:
F (0.05,7,425)= 2.09
Decision:
Reject H0 if Fcal >2.09. Since Fcal= 2.749, we reject H0.
Conclusion:
The mean stress level for at least one marital status group differs.
ANOVA
Between Groups 639.875 7 91.411 2.749 .008
Within Groups 14131.968 425 33.252
Total 14771.843 432
PAGE 33
Tukey HSDa,b
marital status N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
WIDOWED 7 22.43
MARRIED FIRST TIME 187 25.82 25.82
REMARRIED 30 26.67 26.67
LIVING WITH PARTNER 35 26.69 26.69
SINGLE 103 27.46 27.46
DIVORCED 24 27.67 27.67
STEADY RELATIONSHIP 37 28.43
SEPARATED 10 30.90
Sig. .072 .092
The Tukey HSD table confirms our finding which shows that the means stress levels of
people that are married are higher and the mean stress levels of people that are widowed
are lesser than the rest of the marital status groups.
PAGE 34
DO CHILDREN AFFECT STRESS LEVELS?
In our sample, we have 183 people have children and 249 that do not have children. We
hypothesize that people having children may have a higher stress score than those not
having children for which we run and independent samples t-test.
Group Statistics
child N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
YES 183 26.34 5.425 .401

NO 249 27.04 6.134 .389
But first we check for the equality of variances.
Testing for equality of variances

H0: σ2children = σ2no children
H1: σ2children ≠ σ2no children
L.O.S
α= 0.05; α/2 = 0.025
df1= 182; df2= 249
Test statistic:
F= (S2children/S2no children)*(σ2no children / σ2children)
Critical Value & Critical Region:

F (0.025, 182, 249) = 1.43
1/ F(0.025, 249, 182) = 0.70
Reject H0 if Fcal < 0.70 or Fcal>1.43.
Decision:
Since Fcal=2.832, we reject H0.
Conclusion: PAGE 35
Variances of the two groups are unequal.
We therefore use a non-pooled t-test.
Independent samples T-test

H0: Mean stress of people having children= Mean stress of people with no children
H1: Mean stress of people having children>Mean stress of people with no children
L.O.S:
α= 0.05
α/2= 0.025
df= 415.5
Test Statistic:
t = ((x1 bar- x2 bar) – (mew1-mew2))/Root((s1^2/n1)+(s2^2/n2))

t(0.025, 416)= 1.966
Reject H0 if tcal<-1.966 or tcal>1.966.
Decision:
Since tcal=1.249, we do not reject H0.
Conclusion:
The mean stress to those people having children and those having no children is equal.
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

(2- Difference Difference Confidence
tailed) Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
PAGE 36
Equal 2.832 .093 - 430 .221 -.697 .569 - .421
variances 1.225 1.816
Total assumed
perceived Equal - 415.481 .213 -.697 .559 - .401

stress variances 1.249 1.795
not
assumed
PAGE 37
INTERNAL FACTORS AFFECTING STRESS
We hypothesize that optimism, positive qualities, negative qualities, life satisfaction,

perceived control, mastery, are predictors of perceived stress.
Now that we have thoroughly analyzed the external factors causing stress and have
concluded that whether a person has or doesn’t have children does not effect stress score,
nor does marital status, or age, we turn our attention to the endogenous factors that we
scored using respondents answers from the questionnaire.
We hypothesize that a persons positive characteristics, negative characteristics, life

satisfaction, perceived control and mastery maybe factors contributing to a persons’ stress.
Therefore, we explore which of these factors are good indicators or predictors of stress.
Optimism as a predictor of stress
Testing of Beta
H0: β2=0; Optimism score is not a useful predictor of stress.
H1: β2<0; Optimism score is not a useful predictor of stress.
L.O.S:
α= 0.05
df= (n-1)= 438
Test Statistic:
t= (b2-β2)/ Sb2
tcal= -11.005
t(0.05, 438)=-1.28
Decision:
Reject H0 if tcal< -1.28. Since tcal is <-1.28, we reject H0.
Conclusion:
Optimism score is a useful predictor of stress score.
PAGE 38
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 40.380 1.266 31.888 .000

1
Total Optimism -.618 .056 -.469 -11.005 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Total perceived stress
Mastery as a predictor of stress
Testing for beta
H0: β2=0; Mastery score is not a useful predictor of stress score.
H1: β2<0; Mastery score is a useful predictor of stress score.
L.O.S:
α= 0.05
df= (n-1)= 438
Test Statistic:
t= (b2-β2)/ Sb2
tcal= -16.051
t(0.05, 438)= -1.28
Decision:
Reject H0 if tcal< -1.28. Since tcal <-1.28, we reject H0.
Conclusion:
PAGE 39
Mastery score is a useful predictor of stress.
Coefficientsa

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 46.320 1.241 37.331 .000

1
Total Mastery -.901 .056 -.612 -16.051 .000
Positive effect as a measure of stress
Testing for beta
H0: β2=0; Positive effect score is not a useful predictor of stress score.
H1: β2<0; Positive effect score is a useful predictor of stress score.
L.O.S:
α= 0.05
df= (n-1)= 438
Test Statistic:
t= (b2-β2)/ Sb2
tcal= -10.219
t(0.05, 438)= -1.28
Decision:
Conclusion: PAGE 40
Positive effect is a useful predictor of stress.

Coefficientsa

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 38.732 1.202 32.236 .000

1
Total positive affect -.356 .035 -.442 -10.219 .000
Negative effect as a predictor of stress
Testing for beta
H0: β2=0; Negative effect score is not a useful predictor of stress score.
H1: β2>0; Negative effect score is not a useful predictor of stress score.
L.O.S:
α= 0.05
df= (n-1)= 438
Test Statistic:
t= (b2-β2)/ Sb2
tcal= 18.944
t(0.05, 438)= 1.28
Decision:
Reject H0 if tcal >1.28. Since tcal >1.28, we reject H0.
Conclusion:
Negative effect score is a useful predictor of stress score.

PAGE 41
Coefficientsa

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 15.886 .609 26.091 .000

1
Total negative affect .558 .029 .674 18.944 .000
Life Satisfaction as a predictor of stress
Testing for beta
H0: β2=0; Life satisfaction score is not a useful predictor of stress score.
H1: β2<0; Life satisfaction score is a useful predictor of stress score.
L.O.S:
α= 0.05
df= (n-1)= 438
Test Statistic:
t= (b2-β2)/ Sb2
tcal= -11.808
t(0.05, 438)= -1.28
Decision:
Conclusion:
PAGE 42
Life satisfaction score is a useful predictor of stress.
Coefficientsa

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 36.251 .843 43.014 .000

1
Total life satisfaction -.426 .036 -.494 -11.808 .000
PAGE 43
Perceived Control of Well being as a predictor of Stress
Testing for beta
H0: β2=0; Perceived control & well being score is not a useful predictor of stress score.
H1: β2<0; Perceived control & well being score is a useful predictor of stress score.
L.O.S:
α= 0.05
df= (n-1)= 438
Test Statistic:
t= (b2-β2)/ Sb2
tcal= -14.683
t(0.05, 438)= -1.28
Decision:
Conclusion:
Perceived control & well being score is a useful predictor of stress.
PAGE 44
Regression Model
After running the useful predictor tests, we can conclude that optimism (D1), mastery
(D2), positive affect (D3), negative affect (D4), life satisfaction (D5) and perceived control
and well being (D6) scores are all useful predictors of stress score.
We can therefore generate a linear regression model to predict a persons stress score
based on these factors:
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 37.827 − 0.11𝐷1 − 0.331𝐷2 − 0.061𝐷3 + 0.339𝐷4 − 0.154𝐷5 − 0.078𝐷6
Coefficientsa

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 37.827 1.706 22.175 .000
Total Optimism (D1) -.011 .053 -.008 -.202 .840
Total Mastery (D2) -.331 .060 -.222 -5.531 .000
Total positive affect (D3) -.061 .029 -.074 -2.080 .038

1
Total negative affect (D4) .339 .029 .412 11.584 .000
Total life satisfaction (D5) -.154 .032 -.177 -4.892 .000
Total percieved control and -.078 .019 -.159 -3.995 .000

well being (D6)
PAGE 45
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Square Estimate
1 .794a .631 .626 3.577
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total percieved control and well being, Total

life satisfaction, Total negative affect, Total positive affect, Total
Optimism, Total Mastery
b. Dependent Variable: Total perceived stress
The fitted regression model explains a 63.1% variation in stress due to variation in the
following factors. The value of R shows a strong positive relationship between stress and
independent variables. A 10% increase in the independent variables causes a 9.94%
increase in stress.
The model shows us that optimism, mastery, positive affect (characteristics), life
satisfaction and perceived control and well being are all inversely related to stress.
A one-unit increase in a persons self scored optimism decreases their stress score by 0.11
units.
A one-unit increase in a persons mastery score decreases their stress score by 0.331 units.
This is to say that the higher a people perceives themself to be in control of life, the less
stress he/she feels.
A one-unit increase in a person’s positive affect score (positive experiences in recent

weeks) causes a decrease in stress by 0.061 units.
However, a one-unit increase in a person’s negative affect score (negative experiences in

recent weeks) causes an increase in stress by 0.339 units.
A one-unit increase in a person’s life satisfaction score decreases stress score by 0.154
units.
A one-unit increase in one’s perceived control and well-being (control over ones well-
being) decreases stress score by 0.078 units.
The constant 37.828 shows that stress mainly depends on other variables that have not
been accounted for in our model.
PAGE 46
Goodness of fit of the model
H0: R2 = 0 ; The model is not a good fit on the data

H1: R2 > 0; The model is a good fit on the data
L.O.S
α = 0.05
Test statistic:
F(0.05,6,417)= 2.18
Fcal = 118.897
Decision:
Reject H0 if Fcal>2.18. Since Fcal > 2.18, we reject H0.
Conclusion:
The model is a good fit of the data.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
PAGE 47
Regression 9127.201 6 1521.200 118.897 .000b
1 Residual 5335.214 417 12.794
Total 14462.415 423
b. Predictors: (Constant), Total percieved control and well being, Total life satisfaction, Total
negative affect, Total positive affect, Total Optimism, Total Mastery
Finally, we will check if the assumptions of the residuals are met.
I. Normally distributed.
The table and scatter plot below shows that residuals are approximately normally
distributed.
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Unstandardized Residual .044 424 .052 .993 424 .064
PAGE 48
II. Independence of residuals
This graph shows us that the residuals are following a linear trend which means residuals
are not independent.
PAGE 49
Therefore, we can conclude that our model is violating the assumptions of residuals.
PAGE 50
FACTORS AFFECTING LIFE SATISFACTION
Now we examine the effects of different variables on Life Satisfaction. We expect

optimism, positive effect, negative effect, perceived stress, self-esteem, social
desirability and total control to be useful predictors of life satisfaction.
First, the variables will be checked individually if they are useful predictors of life
satisfaction. We begin with testing whether the variables follow normality or not.
Optimism
H0 : Optimism follows normal distribution
H1 : Optimism does not follow normal distribution
Since significance associated to the KS test and SW test equals 0 which is < 0.05, we
reject H0
Therefore, we can conclude that optimism does not follow normality.
Tests of Normality
Total Optimism .073 435 .000 .975 435 .000
PAGE 51
This conclusion is supported by the QQ Plot above as it shows diversion of the data from
the line of normality in the values ranging from 5 to 15.
Now we run a regression between life satisfaction and optimism to check if optimism is a
useful predictor of life satisfaction.
Useful predictor test
H0 : optimism is not a useful predictor of life satisfaction
H1 : optimism is a useful predictor of life satisfaction
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 6.096 1.448 4.209 .000

1
Total Optimism .737 .064 .483 11.482 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Total life satisfaction
Since the significance associated to optimism equals 0 which is < 0.05, we reject H0,
thus concluding that optimism is indeed a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
PAGE 52
Positive Effect
H0 : Positive effect follows normal distribution
H1 : Positive effect does not follow normal distribution
Tests of Normality
Total positive affect .066 436 .000 .979 436 .000
reject H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that positive effect does not follow normal distribution
PAGE 53
the line of normality in values ranging from 10 to 20 and 40 to 50.
Now we run a regression between life satisfaction and positive effect to determine
whether positive effect is a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
H0 : positive effect is not a useful predictor of life satisfaction
H1 : positive effect is a useful predictor of life satisfaction
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized T Sig.

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 9.327 1.405 6.640 .000

1
Total positive affect .387 .041 .415 9.504 .000
Since the significance associated to positive effect equals 0 which is < 0.05, we reject H0,
thus concluding that positive effect is indeed a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
PAGE 54
Negative Effect
H0 : Negative effect follows normal distribution
H1 : Negative effect does not follow normal distribution
Tests of Normality
Total negative affect .123 435 .000 .924 435 .000
reject H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that negative effect does not follow normal distribution.
This conclusion is supported by the above QQ Plot which shows deviation from the line
of normality in the overall data.
PAGE 55
Now we run a regression between life satisfaction and negative effect to determine
whether negative effect is a useful predictor of life satisfaction
Life Satisfaction
H0 : negative effect is not a useful predictor of life satisfaction
H1 : negative effect is a useful predictor of life satisfaction
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 28.245 .902 31.306 .000

1
Total negative affect -.303 .044 -.316 -6.927 .000
Since the significance associated to negative effect equals 0 which is < 0.05, we reject H0,
thus concluding that negative effect is indeed a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
PAGE 56
Stress
H0 : Stress follows normal distribution
H1 : Stress does not follow normal distribution
Tests of Normality
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Total perceived stress .069 433 .000 .992 433 .021
Since significance associated to the KS test and SW test equals 0 and 0.021 which are
both < 0.05, we reject H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that stress does not follow normal distribution.
This conclusion is supported by the above QQ Plot which shows a deviation from the line
of normality in the data ranging from 40 to 50.
Now we run a regression between life satisfaction and stress to determine whether stress
is a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
PAGE 57
H0 : stress is not a useful predictor of life satisfaction
H1 : stress is a useful predictor of life satisfaction
Coefficientsa

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 37.688 1.329 28.352 .000

1
Total perceived stress -.574 .049 -.494 -11.808 .000
Since the significance associated to stress equals 0 which is < 0.05, we reject H0, thus
concluding that stress is indeed a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
PAGE 58
Self-esteem
H0 : Self-esteem follows normal distribution
H1 : Self-esteem does not follow normal distribution
Tests of Normality
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.
Total Self esteem .138 436 .000 .915 436 .000
Since significance associated to the KS test and SW test equals 0 which is < 0.05, we reject
H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that self-esteem does not follow normal distribution.
of normality in the overall data.
Now we run a regression between life satisfaction and self-esteem to check if self-esteem
is a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
PAGE 59
H0 : Self-esteem is not a useful predictor of life satisfaction
H1 : Self-esteem is a useful predictor of life satisfaction
Coefficientsa

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.809 1.790 1.010 .313

1
Total Self esteem .613 .053 .488 11.629 .000
Since the significance associated to self-esteem equals 0 which is < 0.05, we reject H0, thus
concluding that self-esteem is indeed a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
PAGE 60
Social Desirability
H0 : Social desirability follows normal distribution
H1 : Social desirability does not follow normal distribution
Tests of Normality
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Total social desirability .116 433 .000 .971 433 .000
Since significance associated to the KS test and SW test equals 0 which is < 0.05, we reject
H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that social desirability does not follow normal distribution.
of normality for data ranging from 0 to 1.
Now we run a regression between life satisfaction and social desirability to check if
social desirability is a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
PAGE 61
H0 : Social desirability is not a useful predictor of life satisfaction
H1 : Social desirability is a useful predictor of life satisfaction
Coefficientsa

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 20.456 .908 22.536 .000

1
Total social desirability .361 .160 .108 2.258 .024
Since the significance associated to social desirability equals 0.024 which is < 0.05, we
reject H0, thus concluding that social desirability is indeed a useful predictor of life
satisfaction.
PAGE 62
Total Control
H0 : Total control follows normal distribution
H1 : Total control does not follow normal distribution
Tests of Normality
Total percieved control and .058 430 .002 .987 430 .001
well being
Since significance associated to the KS test and SW test equals 0.002 and 0.001, respectively,
which are both < 0.05, we reject H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that total control does not follow normal distribution.
of normality in the data ranging from 20 to 30 and 80 to 90.
PAGE 63
Now we run a regression between life satisfaction and total control to check if total
control is a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
H0 : Total control is not a useful predictor of life satisfaction
H1 : Total control is a useful predictor of life satisfaction
Coefficientsa

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 9.758 1.555 6.277 .000

1 Total percieved control and .209 .025 .373 8.313 .000
well being
Since the significance associated to total control equals 0 which is < 0.05, we reject H0, thus
concluding that total control is indeed a useful predictor of life satisfaction.
Now that we have determined which variables are useful predictors of life satisfaction,
we will now create a regression models with the useful predictors.
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Square Estimate
1 .616a .380 .369 5.352
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total percieved control and well being, Total

social desirability, Total positive affect, Total negative affect, Total
Optimism, Total Self esteem, Total perceived stress
b. Dependent Variable: Total life satisfaction
The fitted regression model explains a 38% variation in life satisfaction due to variation
in optimism, positive effect, negative effect, stress, self-esteem, social desirability and
total control. A low R2 in this case is not a negative indication of the model as this model
predicts human behavior which is harder to predict than another physical phenomenon.
The value of R shows a strong, positive relationship between life satisfaction and the
PAGE 64
independent variables. A 10% increase in the independent variables causes a 61.6% change in
life satisfaction.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 7240.249 7 1034.321 36.105 .000b
1 Residual 11831.333 413 28.647
Total 19071.582 420

b. Predictors: (Constant), Total percieved control and well being, Total social desirability, Total
positive affect, Total negative affect, Total Optimism, Total Self esteem, Total perceived stress
Now we check the significance associated to F. The significance equals 0 which is <0.05. This
indicates that R2 statistically significant and can be generalized for predictions
PAGE 65
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 10.878 3.752 2.899 .004
Total Optimism .389 .077 .255 5.071 .000
Total positive affect .144 .044 .153 3.292 .001
Total negative affect .069 .051 .073 1.355 .176

1 Total perceived stress -.334 .070 -.291 -4.799 .000
Total Self esteem .229 .068 .182 3.351 .001
Total social desirability .068 .137 .021 .500 .617
Total perceived control and -.039 .030 -.070 -1.296 .196

well being
LifeSat = 10.878 + 0.389Op + 0.144PA + 0.069NA – 0.334Str + 0.229SE + 0.068SD –

0.039TC
Constant: A person’s life satisfaction score is 10.878 when no other factors are involved.
This could be intrinsic satisfaction or due to other unknown factors.
Op: A one-point increase in optimism increases the life satisfaction score by 0.389
points.
PA: A one-point increase in positive affect increases the life satisfaction score by 0.144
points.
NA: A one-point increase in negative effect increases the life satisfaction score by 0.069
points.
Str: A one-point increase in stress decreases the life satisfaction score by 0.334 points.
SE: A one-point increase in self-esteem increases the life satisfaction score by 0.229
points.
SD: A one-point increase in social desirability increases the life satisfaction score by
0.068 points.
TC: A one-point increase in total control decreases the life satisfaction score by 0.039
points.
PAGE 66
Now we check the residual assumptions:
i. Residuals follow normality

H0: Residuals follow normality
H1: Residuals do not follow normality
Tests of Normality
Unstandardized Residual .044 421 .052 .995 421 .236
Since significance associated to the KS test and SW test equals 0.052 and 0.236, respectively,
which are both > 0.05, we do not reject H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that residuals do follow normality.
This conclusion is supported by the above QQ Plot which shows little to no deviation
from the line of normality.
PAGE 67
ii. Residuals are independent
R2linear = 0.62
R2quadratic = 0.622
R2cubic = 0.629
All fitted models have an R2 > 0.3 which shows that the residuals are not independent.
PAGE 68
DOES EDUCATION LEVELS EFFECT LIFE SATISFACTION?
Another test we will conduct will check if different education levels have different mean
life satisfaction scores.
H0 : μprimary = μsecondary = μhighschool = μadditionaltraining = μundergrad = μpostgrad

H1 : at least one of the means life satisfaction scores if different
First, we check if the life satisfaction of education follows normal distribution
Tests of Normality
highest educ completed Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
PRIMARY .260 2 .
SOME SECONDARY .147 52 .006 .934 52 .006
COMPLETED HIGHSCHOOL .089 85 .091 .986 85 .483
SOME ADDITIONAL .074 118 .157 .986 118 .249

Total life satisfaction TRAINING
COMPLETED .083 123 .038 .973 123 .015

UNDERGRADUATE
POSTGRADUATE .073 56 .200* .986 56 .776

COMPLETED
PAGE 69
Primary
For this study, primary education has been ignored due to negligible sample size (n=3).
Some secondary

H0 : The life satisfaction of secondary education follows normality
H1 : The life satisfaction of secondary education does not follow normality
Since significance associated to the KS test and SW test both equal 0.006 which is < 0.05, we reject
H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that the life satisfaction of secondary education does not follow normal
distribution.
of normality in the data ranging from 8-14 and 32-37.
PAGE 70
High School Education

H0 : The life satisfaction of high school education follows normality
H1 : The life satisfaction of high school education does not follow normality
Since significance associated to the KS test and SW test equals 0.091 and 0.483,
respectively, and since both are > 0.05, we do not reject H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that the life satisfaction of high school education follows
normality.
from the line of normality in the data.
PAGE 71
Additional Training

H0 : The life satisfaction of additional training follows normality
H1 : The life satisfaction of additional training does not follow normality
Therefore, we can conclude that the life satisfaction of additional training follows
normality.
from the line of normality in the data.
PAGE 72
Undergraduate

H0 : The life satisfaction of undergrad education follows normality
H1 : The life satisfaction of undergrad education does not follow normality
respectively, and since both are < 0.05, we reject H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that the life satisfaction of undergrad education does not
follow normality.
PAGE 73
Postgrad

H0 : The life satisfaction of postgrad education follows normality
H1 : The life satisfaction of postgrad education does not follow normality
Therefore, we can conclude that the life satisfaction of postgrad education follows
normality.
of normality in the data ranging from 5-11.
PAGE 74
Since 3/5 follow normality, we go for a parametric test. In this case since there are more
than 2 populations, we go for One-way ANOVA.
Homogeneity for variance

Total life satisfaction
1.717 5 430 .129
We check the significance associated to the Levene statistic to see if the variances are
equal. Since the statistic equals 0.129 which is > 0.05, we conclude that variances are
equal.
One-Way Anova
ANOVA
Between Groups 422.729 5 84.546 1.863 .100

Within Groups 19511.828 430 45.376
Total 19934.557 435
Now we carry out the F-test to check for our original hypothesis.
𝑆𝑆 𝑏/𝑤
α=0.05 Test Statistic: Fcal = 𝑆𝑆 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛
Critical Value: F(0.05 (5, 430)) = 2.23 Rule of rejection: Reject H0 if Fcal > 2.23
Decision Statement: Since Fcal < 2.23, we do not reject H0, hence concluding that the
mean life satisfaction of all education levels does not have a significant difference.
PAGE 75
Tukey HSDa,b
highest educ completed N Subset for alpha =

0.05
SOME ADDITIONAL TRAINING 118 21.15
POSTGRADUATE COMPLETED 56 21.91
PRIMARY 2 22.00
COMPLETED HIGHSCHOOL 85 22.21
SOME SECONDARY 52 22.77

COMPLETED 123 23.72
UNDERGRADUATE
Sig. .951

This conclusion is supported by the Tukey table above which shows that all means lie in
the same column, meaning there is no significant difference between them.
PAGE 76
ARE YOUNGER PEOPLE MORE POSITIVE?
A popular belief is that when one is younger, he/she has a more positive and optimistic
outlook on life. We will conduct a test to check levels of optimism throughout various
age groups.
H0 : μ18-24 = μ25-32 = μ33-40 = μ41-49 = μ50+
H1 : At least one of the mean optimism scores differ
First we check for normality in order to determine whether to use a parametric test or a
non-parametric test.
Tests of Normality
age 5 groups Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
18 - 24 .094 93 .043 .968 93 .021
25 - 32 .118 86 .005 .981 86 .241
Total Optimism 33 - 40 .115 83 .008 .954 83 .005
41 - 49 .089 95 .060 .970 95 .029
50+ .126 78 .004 .963 78 .022

.
PAGE 77
Age group: 18-24 years
H0: The optimism of ages 18-24 follows normality
H1: The optimism of ages 18-24 does not follow normality
Therefore, we can conclude that the optimism of ages 18-24 does not follow normality
PAGE 78
Age group: 25-32 years
respectively, and since one is < 0.05, we reject H0.
Therefore, we can conclude that the optimism of ages 25-32 does not follow
normality.
PAGE 79
Age Group: 33-40 years
normality.
of normality in the data ranging from 10-15 and 28-30.
PAGE 80
Age Group: 41-49 years
respectively, and since one is < 0.05, we reject H0.
normality.
PAGE 81
Age group: 50 +
H0: The optimism of ages 50+ follows normality
H1: The optimism of ages 50+ does not follow normality
Therefore, we can conclude that the optimism of ages 50+ does not follow normality.
PAGE 82
Since 5/5 do not follow normality, we go for non-parametric test, which is the Kruskal-
Wallis H independent samples test.
Test Statisticsa,b
Total Optimism
Chi-Square 15.206
df 4
Asymp. Sig. .004
a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: age 5
groups
Since significance equals 0.004 which is < 0.05, we reject H0, hence concluding that mean
optimism for all ages has a significant difference.
PAGE 83
Conclusion
After carefully examining the effect of the demographic/external variables, i.e. age, gender
and education levels and if a person has children on stress, we find that none of the four
factors are have a strong enough effect on stress. The data therefore negates various
assumptions that we may make in real life.
For example, a person may assume that a younger person has less worries and therefore
takes less stress in life or that a person without children probably experience less stress.
However, after a thorough investigation of our sample, the study suggests that no such
conclusions can be drawn.
After the analysis of the external variables, we draw our focus to the effects of internal
variables on stress. These include optimism, positive and negative experiences, how much
a person feels he is in control of his life and of his well- being and how satisfied a person is
with their life. The results are coherent with our assumptions. We find that optimism,
positive experiences, life satisfaction and perceived control of well-being all have an
inverse effect on stress, while negative experiences have a very significant positive effect.
In this model, optimism, positive effect, better self-esteem and better control in life have a
direct and positive effect on life satisfaction. However, it is surprising that negative
experiences also have a positive effect on life satisfaction. Not surprisingly, stress has a
negative effect.
Finally, we find that the age influences optimism.
The regression models do not appear to be not a good fit. However, since this is a study of
human behavior, there is always a huge element of unpredictability.
PAGE 84

Stress and Life Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stress and Life Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stress and Life Satisfaction

A STUDY OF A SPECTRUM OF FACTORS AFFECTING STRESS & LIFE

94 people are in the age group 18-24.

87 people are in the age group 25-32.

83 people are in the age group 33-40.

95 people are in the age group 41-49.

80 people are in the age group 50+.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

18 - 24 94 21.4 21.4 21.4

25 - 32 87 19.8 19.8 41.2

50+ 80 18.2 18.2 100.0

Total 439 100.0 100.0

The number of male participants in the survey was 185.

The number of female participants in the survey was 254.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

MALES 185 42.1 42.1 42.1

Valid FEMALES 254 57.9 57.9 100.0

Total 439 100.0 100.0

The number of single people is 105.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

SINGLE 105 23.9 23.9 23.9

STEADY RELATIONSHIP 37 8.4 8.4 32.3

Valid LIVING WITH PARTNER 37 8.4 8.4 40.8

MARRIED FIRST TIME 189 43.1 43.1 83.8

REMARRIED 30 6.8 6.8 90.7

DIVORCED 24 5.5 5.5 98.4

WIDOWED 7 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 439 100.0 100.0

The number of people who have received primary education is 2.

highest educ completed

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

COMPLETED HIGHSCHOOL 85 19.4 19.4 31.9

SOME ADDITIONAL TRAINING 120 27.3 27.3 59.2

COMPLETED UNDERGRADUATE 123 28.0 28.0 87.2

POSTGRADUATE COMPLETED 56 12.8 12.8 100.0

Total 439 100.0 100.0

First we need to check if the assumption for normality holds:

Sex Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MALES .500 184 .000 .465 184 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

First we need to check if the assumption for normality holds:

sex Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.

MALES .074 184 .015 .987 184 .096

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Testing for Homogeneity of Variances

sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

MALES 184 25.79 5.414 .399

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

Equal 1.936 .165 - 431 .004 -1.634 .564 -2.742 -.526

age 5 groups Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

18 - 24 .100 93 .023 .980 93 .172

25 - 32 .100 86 .035 .986 86 .483

Total perceived stress 33 - 40 .092 82 .082 .982 82 .309

41 - 49 .075 95 .200* .986 95 .388

50+ .078 77 .200* .987 77 .605

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

We check the significance associated to the Levene statistic to check the

Total perceived stress

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

1.340 4 428 .254