RESULTS AND THEIR DISCUSSION

The present study attempt to analyze the self regulation in women (especially
working women all performing multiple roles) in the context of cognitive
dysfunctions & life stress which tend to be caused by cognitive load as well as
demanding situations. Data were obtained from a sample of 318 working women
(their age ranging between 30 to 45) from different professions (Educational sector,
Finance and corporate sector) located in Delhi.
Raw data consisted of scores on subscales of Self regulation questionnaire,
Self efficacy questionnaire, Problem solving inventory, Stroop test, Thought
occurrence questionnaire, Recall test and presumptive stressful life event scale.
The data obtained was subjected to statistical analysis in terms of Pearson
Product Moment Correlation, Factor Analysis, and t-ratio, as per the suitability of
the research questions.

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF SCORES ON 28 VARIABLES

The means for indices of self regulation namely Receiving (REC),
Evaluating (EVA), Triggering (TRI), Searching (SEA), Formulating (For),
Implementing (IMP), Assessing (ASS) and Total score for Self Regulation
Questionnaire are 32.54, 28.65, 29.57, 32.94, 30.03, 30.72, 30.10 and 215.55 and
standard deviation for these indices are 4.92, 3.62, 3.94, 4.69, 4.50, 4.76, 4.21 and
21.91 respectively.
For the variable of problem solving, the means and SD‟s for Problem solving
confidence (CON) are 29.10 and 7.83, for Approach Avoidance Style (AA) 45.48 &
8.51, for Personal Control (PC) 16.39 & 4.52, and for Problem solving Total 90.97
& 17.16 respectively
The mean and standard deviation for variable of Recall 1st trial (R_1st) are
18.47 & 13.35; for Recall 2nd trial (R_2nd) 21.16 & 12.30; for Recall 3rd Trial (R_3rd)
26.79 & 12.95; for Recall 4th trial (R_4th) 32.36 & 15.01 and Recall 5th Trial (R_5th)
38.52 & 17.54 respectively.

89
 Table 1
Means and Standard deviation of Scores on 28 Variables

Sr. No. Variables Mean Std. deviation

1. Receiving 32.54 4.93
2. Evaluating 28.65 3.62
3. Triggering 2957 3.94
4. Searching 32.94 4.7
5. Formulating 30.03 4.51
6. Implementing 30.72 4.76
7. Assessing 31.1 4.21
8. Self Regulation Questionnaire 215.55 21.91
9. Coping Self Efficacy 162.4 34.62
10. Problem Solving Confidence 29.1 7.83
11. Approach Avoidance Style 45.48 8.51
12. Personal Control 16.39 4.52
13. Problem solving Questionnaire 90.97 17.16
14. Stroop Test 98.78 11.25
15. Thought Occurance Questionnaire 80.94 13.36
16. % Recall 1st Trial 18.47 10.28
17. % Recall 2nd Trial 21.16 12.3
18. % Recall 3rd Trial 26.79 12.95
19. % Recall 4th Trial 32.36 15.01
20. % Recall 5th Trial 38.52 17.54
21. Stress_Past one Year 3.34 2.34
22. Stress_Life Time 12.54 4.75
23. stress_total 15.88 5.35
24. Stress_Personal 8.65 5.33
25. Stress_Impersonal 7.47 2.82
26. Stress_Desirable 4.32 2.11
27. Stress_Undesirable 6.36 2.76
28. Stress_Ambiguous 5.2 2.24
For the variable of Life Stress, the means and SD‟s for Stress past one year
(S_one year) are 3.34 & 2.34, for Stress life time (S_LT) 12.54 & 4.74; for Stress
total (S_total) 15.88 & 5.35; for Stress personal (S_per) 8.65 & 5.33; Stress
Impersonal 7.47 & 2.81; Stress Desirable 4.32 & 2.10; Stress Undesirable 6.36 &
2.76; and for Stress Ambiguous are 5.20 & 2.23 respectively.

90
 SECTION – I
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES OF SELF-REGULATION,
COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS AND LIFE STRESS
Pearson product moment correlation was used to find out the degree of
covariance and relationship between indices of self regulation cognitive functioning
and life stress. Correlations between indices of self regulation (variables 1 to 9)
cognitive functions (variables 10 to 20) and stress (variables 21 to 28) for the total
group (n=318) as well as two subgroups formed on the basis of scores of self
regulation, Gr. I (Functional self regulation group) n=114; Gr. II (Dysfunctional self
regulation group) n=108, have been discussed below
Value of coefficient of correlation between composite indices of self
regulation and measures of problem solving, cognitive interference, and
concentration for total group (n=318) were -.54 (P<.01), -.48 (p<.01), -.10 (P<.05)
respectively. As the direction of scoring of tests of problem solving (PSI), cognitive
interference (stroop) and concentration (TOQ) are in the reverse direction, negative
value of coefficient of correlation is indicative of positive association. These
correlation values reveal that there is a highly positive and significant association
between self regulation and problem solving capacity (r = -.54, P< .01), the capacity
to handle cognitive interference (r = -.48, P< .01) and capacity to concentration (r = -
.10, P< .05).
Further self regulation was found to positively correlated with indicators of
memory function as measured by recall test at five different interval of time span, r
= .78, .79, .84, .86, .87 (P< .01) for all the five different recall trials. Except for these
values of r, i.e. between triggering, searching and assessing indices of self regulation
and thought occurrence (r = .03, .06, .06, all NS) other values of coefficient of
correlations between self regulation & cognitive function indices range from -.46 to
.75. Negative values indicating positive cognitive functions. These values of r reveal
that there is a strong positive association between self regulation and cognitive
functions.

91
 Table II

Inter-correlation between measures of Self regulation, Cognitive functions and Life stress for the Total Group (N=318)

REC EVA TRI SEA FOR IMP ASS Total CES CON AA PC Total SC_W Tho_Q R_1 R_2 R_3 R_4 R_5 Ist Yr Life Stress Per Im Des Und Amb
SRQ PrSl time Total
REC 1.00
EVA 0.32 1.00
TRI 0.48 0.15 1.00
SEA 0.65 0.30 0.52 1.00
FOR 0.58 0.22 0.36 0.47 1.00
IMP 0.65 0.13 0.36 0.54 0.55 1.00
ASS 0.51 0.35 0.33 0.51 0.25 0.40 1.00
Total
0.86 0.47 0.64 0.82 0.71 0.76 0.67 1.00
SRQ
CES 0.42 0.22 0.31 0.43 0.26 0.32 0.41 0.48 1.00
CON -0.36 -0.17 -0.28 -0.40 -0.28 -0.34 -0.34 -0.44 -0.37 1.00
AA -0.44 -0.20 -0.39 -0.44 -0.34 -0.38 -0.34 -0.52 -0.36 0.68 1.00
PC -0.30 -0.04 -0.14 -0.23 -0.34 -0.32 -0.19 -0.32 -0.25 0.29 0.37 1.00
Total
-0.46 -0.19 -0.36 -0.46 -0.39 -0.43 -0.38 -0.54 -0.41 0.87 0.91 0.58 1.00
PrSl
SC_W -0.40 -0.16 -0.32 -0.41 -0.35 -0.39 -0.33 -0.48 -0.37 0.84 0.88 0.58 0.97 1.00
Tho_Q -0.12 0.20 -0.03 -0.06 -0.21 -0.25 0.06 -0.10 -0.09 0.10 0.06 0.22 0.13 0.14 1.00
R_1 0.66 0.38 0.51 0.66 0.51 0.58 0.54 0.78 0.33 -0.30 -0.37 -0.31 -0.41 -0.37 -0.05 1.00
R_2 0.69 0.33 0.49 0.65 0.53 0.63 0.56 0.79 0.34 -0.33 -0.39 -0.31 -0.43 -0.39 -0.12 0.83 1.00
R_3 0.71 0.37 0.52 0.70 0.57 0.66 0.58 0.84 0.36 -0.36 -0.39 -0.31 -0.44 -0.40 -0.11 0.85 0.91 1.00
R_4 0.73 0.39 0.52 0.70 0.62 0.68 0.57 0.86 0.38 -0.36 -0.42 -0.34 -0.46 -0.43 -0.12 0.81 0.88 0.91 1.00
R_5 0.75 0.39 0.52 0.71 0.64 0.70 0.55 0.87 0.44 -0.45 -0.49 -0.40 -0.55 -0.52 -0.19 0.79 0.84 0.89 0.93 1.00
Ist Yr -0.46 -0.15 -0.29 -0.37 -0.36 -0.30 -0.30 -0.46 -0.27 0.20 0.29 0.21 0.29 0.25 0.13 -0.39 -0.47 -0.46 -0.46 -0.43 1.00
Life
-0.34 -0.17 -0.37 -0.32 -0.30 -0.34 -0.30 -0.43 -0.39 0.24 0.30 0.33 0.34 0.32 0.06 -0.41 -0.37 -0.38 -0.41 -0.44 0.03 1.00
time
Stress
-0.50 -0.21 -0.46 -0.45 -0.42 -0.43 -0.40 -0.58 -0.47 0.30 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.40 0.11 -0.53 -0.53 -0.54 -0.57 -0.58 0.46 0.90 1.00
Total
Per -0.25 -0.04 -0.29 -0.21 -0.18 -0.18 -0.23 -0.28 -0.29 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.23 0.05 -0.26 -0.26 -0.25 -0.28 -0.29 0.24 0.46 0.51 1.00
Im -0.38 -0.21 -0.39 -0.40 -0.38 -0.39 -0.37 -0.51 -0.41 0.25 0.34 0.34 0.37 0.35 0.10 -0.49 -0.52 -0.51 -0.52 -0.53 0.38 0.80 0.88 0.36 1.00
Des -0.35 -0.10 -0.36 -0.31 -0.30 -0.23 -0.33 -0.40 -0.42 0.28 0.38 0.31 0.40 0.36 0.05 -0.34 -0.37 -0.37 -0.38 -0.40 0.46 0.65 0.77 0.41 0.68 1.00
Und -0.37 -0.16 -0.31 -0.29 -0.34 -0.34 -0.22 -0.41 -0.28 0.20 0.24 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.06 -0.44 -0.45 -0.44 -0.45 -0.45 0.33 0.72 0.79 0.39 0.71 0.43 1.00
Amb -0.41 -0.20 -0.37 -0.43 -0.32 -0.40 -0.36 -0.51 -0.38 0.21 0.28 0.25 0.30 0.28 0.14 -0.41 -0.38 -0.41 -0.45 -0.45 0.27 0.65 0.70 0.36 0.59 0.39 0.26 1.00

Value of p is significant at .05 level - .09

Value of p is significant at .01 level - .13

92
 Baumeister, Dewall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, J.M. (2005) looked at any
cognitive impairment as a result of self regulation deficits. Pintrich, & Garcia, 1999
reported that mastery goal orientation is positively related to cognitive strategies. In
this sense close association between self regulation and cognitive functions tend to
go hand in glove which is established by the present results.
When data for Gr. I (functional self regulation group, n= 114) and Gr. II
(dysfunctional self regulation group, n= 108) were subjected to correlation analysis
separately no qualitative differences come to the fore. Self regulation scores for both
the groups (Gr. I & Gr. II) correlated positively with problem solving capacity and
cognitive interference scores (r = -.34, -.34 & -.38, -.29, P< .01 respectively).
It is pertinent to mention that negative scores of problem solving capacity
and cognitive interference indicates positive outcomes. Correlation between self
regulation and concentration were non-significant for both the groups (r = -.04 &-.02
respectively). For both the groups evaluation indices of self regulation correlate non-
significantly with problem solving capacity, cognitive interference and capacity for
concentration.
In addition, thought occurrence scores which represent capacity for
concentration show negative association with evaluating (r =.29, p< .01) and
positive association with formulation (r = -.19, p< .01) and implementation (r = -.22,
p< .01) in Gr. I and positive association with formulation (-.17, p< .01) but negative
association with assessment (r = .24, p< .01) in Gr. II. Correlations for indices of self
regulation and recall are positive, highly significant and are of comparable
magnitudes.
Though self regulation is an independent agency and act wholistically,
Baumeister et al, 1999 and Carver & Scheier, (1981) have broken down into
components. In this sense, if different components tend to associate themselves with
specific cognitive tasks, it hints at the context based specific contribution for that
particular cognitive task.

93
 Table III

Inter-correlation between measures of Self regulation, Cognitive functions and Life stress for the Functional Group (N=114)

REC EVA TRI SEA FOR IMP ASS Total CES CON AA PC Total SC_W Tho_Q R_1 R_2 R_3 R_4 R_5 Ist Yr Life Stress Per Im Des Und Amb SES
SRQ PrSl time Total
REC 1.00
EVA 0.16 1.00
TRI 0.35 0.08 1.00
SEA 0.63 0.29 0.40 1.00
FOR 0.32 0.15 0.33 0.30 1.00
IMP 0.61 -0.11 0.36 0.47 0.36 1.00
ASS 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.37 0.10 0.25 1.00
Total
0.76 0.41 0.60 0.77 0.60 0.69 0.56 1.00
SRQ
CES -0.33 -0.28 -0.17 -0.29 -0.34 -0.37 -0.29 -0.48 1.00
CON -0.10 -0.08 -0.16 -0.25 -0.12 -0.18 -0.21 -0.25 -0.14 1.00
AA -0.32 -0.10 -0.28 -0.33 -0.17 -0.27 -0.15 -0.36 -0.03 0.71 1.00
PC -0.26 0.07 -0.14 -0.03 -0.29 -0.27 -0.03 -0.23 0.01 0.39 0.50 1.00
Total
-0.27 -0.06 -0.24 -0.27 -0.21 -0.28 -0.17 -0.34 -0.07 0.86 0.92 0.69 1.00
PrSl
SC_W -0.27 -0.07 -0.24 -0.25 -0.23 -0.27 -0.17 -0.34 -0.06 0.83 0.89 0.70 0.97 1.00
Tho_Q -0.08 0.29 -0.14 0.09 -0.19 -0.22 0.09 -0.04 0.07 -0.01 -0.01 0.26 0.07 0.09 1.00
R_1 0.67 0.34 0.48 0.61 0.46 0.64 0.47 0.84 -0.45 -0.15 -0.32 -0.16 -0.26 -0.27 0.03 1.00
R_2 0.62 0.31 0.52 0.58 0.44 0.58 0.47 0.80 -0.44 -0.16 -0.31 -0.12 -0.25 -0.24 0.02 0.83 1.00
R_3 0.66 0.34 0.53 0.63 0.49 0.65 0.52 0.87 -0.53 -0.13 -0.27 -0.15 -0.23 -0.24 -0.01 0.88 0.91 1.00
R_4 0.66 0.38 0.50 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.44 0.87 -0.48 -0.17 -0.28 -0.19 -0.26 -0.28 -0.03 0.76 0.82 0.87 1.00
R_5 0.70 0.32 0.51 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.41 0.89 -0.44 -0.27 -0.37 -0.28 -0.37 -0.39 -0.15 0.75 0.76 0.83 0.91 1.00
Ist Yr -0.39 -0.13 -0.36 -0.27 -0.32 -0.14 -0.37 -0.45 0.15 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 -0.07 -0.40 -0.47 -0.47 -0.42 -0.40 1.00
Life
-0.13 0.11 -0.23 -0.02 -0.27 -0.39 -0.06 -0.23 0.04 0.13 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.19 -0.31 -0.24 -0.27 -0.31 -0.32 0.17 1.00
time
Stress
-0.31 0.01 -0.37 -0.17 -0.38 -0.37 -0.25 -0.42 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.10 -0.45 -0.44 -0.46 -0.46 -0.46 0.68 0.84 1.00
Total
Per -0.22 0.12 -0.34 -0.11 -0.27 -0.23 -0.12 -0.26 0.04 0.08 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.07 -0.29 -0.30 -0.31 -0.35 -0.35 0.68 0.66 0.86 1.00
Im -0.32 -0.11 -0.30 -0.18 -0.38 -0.40 -0.31 -0.46 0.16 0.11 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.24 0.11 -0.50 -0.46 -0.49 -0.45 -0.45 0.48 0.79 0.85 0.48 1.00
Des -0.21 0.06 -0.29 0.01 -0.19 -0.10 -0.04 -0.17 -0.03 0.07 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.03 -0.18 -0.25 -0.20 -0.21 -0.22 0.69 0.42 0.69 0.71 0.48 1.00
Und -0.23 -0.14 -0.25 -0.19 -0.35 -0.34 -0.22 -0.40 0.25 0.01 0.13 0.19 0.12 0.15 0.05 -0.43 -0.36 -0.44 -0.44 -0.42 0.27 0.73 0.69 0.45 0.75 0.23 1.00
Amb -0.17 0.14 -0.19 -0.14 -0.18 -0.26 -0.21 -0.23 -0.05 0.16 0.20 0.09 0.19 0.21 0.12 -0.25 -0.24 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 0.40 0.47 0.57 0.56 0.41 0.17 0.02 1.00
SES 0.39 0.13 0.48 0.44 0.25 0.46 0.43 0.58 -0.27 -0.20 -0.34 -0.14 -0.29 -0.27 -0.09 0.48 0.43 0.50 0.48 0.46 -0.28 -0.04 -0.18 -0.13 -0.18 -0.14 -0.13 -0.07 1.00

Value of p is significant at .05 level - .16

Value of p is significant at .01 level - .22

94
 Table IV

Inter-correlation between measures of Self regulation, Cognitive functions and Life stress for the Dysfunctional Group (N=108)

REC EVA TRI SEA FOR IMP ASS Total CES CON AA PC Total SC_W Tho_Q R_1 R_2 R_3 R_4 R_5 Ist Yr Life Stress Per Im Des Und Amb SES
SRQ PrSl time Total
REC 1.00
EVA 0.21 1.00
TRI 0.42 0.07 1.00
SEA 0.45 0.19 0.28 1.00
FOR 0.54 0.17 0.24 0.23 1.00
IMP 0.50 0.15 0.11 0.27 0.47 1.00
ASS 0.44 0.29 0.23 0.46 0.17 0.25 1.00
Total
0.82 0.44 0.54 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.63 1.00
SRQ
CES 0.21 0.06 0.20 0.16 0.09 0.01 0.23 0.22 1.00
CON -0.16 -0.09 -0.08 -0.18 -0.09 -0.15 -0.24 -0.22 -0.10 1.00
AA -0.39 -0.11 -0.33 -0.33 -0.30 -0.27 -0.24 -0.45 -0.13 0.59 1.00
PC -0.11 0.09 -0.01 -0.06 -0.15 -0.06 -0.01 -0.08 -0.06 0.07 0.02 1.00
Total
-0.32 -0.09 -0.22 -0.29 -0.25 -0.24 -0.26 -0.38 -0.14 0.87 0.87 0.28 1.00
PrSl
SC_W -0.22 -0.04 -0.16 -0.25 -0.18 -0.19 -0.19 -0.29 -0.08 0.86 0.83 0.29 0.98 1.00
Tho_Q -0.08 0.11 0.12 0.02 -0.17 -0.28 0.24 -0.02 0.10 -0.07 0.03 0.01 -0.02 -0.02 1.00
R_1 0.42 0.26 0.30 0.46 0.22 0.25 0.37 0.52 0.16 -0.09 -0.17 -0.17 -0.18 -0.13 -0.03 1.00
R_2 0.41 0.17 0.26 0.41 0.33 0.33 0.39 0.53 0.05 -0.10 -0.22 -0.18 -0.21 -0.16 -0.03 0.65 1.00
R_3 0.47 0.29 0.27 0.54 0.36 0.40 0.53 0.65 0.12 -0.14 -0.32 -0.15 -0.29 -0.22 0.02 0.60 0.81 1.00
R_4 0.55 0.23 0.29 0.51 0.47 0.51 0.44 0.69 0.16 -0.12 -0.32 -0.17 -0.28 -0.21 -0.05 0.65 0.83 0.85 1.00
R_5 0.64 0.31 0.34 0.56 0.46 0.49 0.57 0.77 0.26 -0.25 -0.42 -0.10 -0.39 -0.31 -0.02 0.62 0.72 0.85 0.86 1.00
Ist Yr -0.32 0.04 -0.10 -0.18 -0.11 -0.09 0.05 -0.18 -0.08 0.01 0.17 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.14 -0.13 -0.25 -0.16 -0.24 -0.17 1.00
Life
-0.13 -0.09 -0.26 -0.08 -0.06 -0.02 -0.13 -0.17 -0.21 0.04 0.13 0.28 0.15 0.15 -0.15 -0.16 -0.06 -0.07 -0.09 -0.11 -0.32 1.00
time
Stress
-0.30 -0.07 -0.32 -0.17 -0.12 -0.07 -0.10 -0.27 -0.25 0.04 0.22 0.31 0.21 0.18 -0.08 -0.24 -0.18 -0.16 -0.21 -0.20 0.16 0.88 1.00
Total
Per 0.00 0.11 -0.15 0.05 0.06 0.10 -0.02 0.03 -0.10 0.04 -0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 -0.05 -0.01 0.04 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.29 0.30 1.00
Im -0.08 0.00 -0.27 -0.10 -0.06 0.01 -0.08 -0.14 -0.14 0.06 0.25 0.27 0.23 0.22 -0.13 -0.12 -0.20 -0.16 -0.17 -0.13 0.10 0.73 0.81 0.17 1.00
Des -0.19 0.02 -0.32 -0.11 -0.01 0.13 -0.16 -0.15 -0.21 0.09 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.25 -0.27 -0.12 -0.11 -0.13 -0.10 -0.11 0.19 0.60 0.73 0.21 0.65 1.00
Und -0.14 0.06 -0.13 -0.01 -0.04 -0.02 0.13 -0.04 -0.14 0.02 0.06 0.24 0.10 0.08 -0.03 -0.13 -0.16 -0.03 -0.10 -0.04 0.16 0.66 0.77 0.24 0.62 0.38 1.00
Amb -0.31 -0.24 -0.29 -0.29 -0.22 -0.23 -0.24 -0.41 -0.20 0.00 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.11 -0.23 -0.10 -0.19 -0.26 -0.28 0.01 0.59 0.62 0.18 0.46 0.30 0.12 1.00
SES 0.54 0.41 0.31 0.51 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.67 0.01 -0.19 -0.38 -0.01 -0.31 -0.27 0.07 0.43 0.47 0.58 0.56 0.62 -0.23 -0.11 -0.23 0.15 -0.25 -0.19 -0.12 -0.21 1.00

Value of p is significant at .05 level - .16

Value of p is significant at .01 level - .22

95
 Overall picture emerged from three correlation matrices (i.e. for total group,
functional self regulation group and dysfunctional regulation group) reveals there is
a positive and highly significant correlation between self regulation cognitive
functions, that is, higher will be the self regulation capacity the more sharp tend to
be the cognitive functions, that is better the problem solving capacity, less the
cognitive interference in the task performance and somewhat better the
concentration and better the memory function. Indices of concentration correlate
somewhat weakly with self regulation as compared to other indices of self
regulation.
In the context of correlation between self regulation and life stress again the
coefficients of correlations between various indices of self regulation and life stress
were derived for all the three groups separately, which were -.58, P< .01 for total
group, -.42 for Gr. I and -.27 for Gr. II. In terms of directions of association and
level of significance all the three are comparable with only difference that in case of
Gr. II which represents dysfunctions level of self regulation this association tend to
be somewhat week, if magnitude of value of r is any indication. Total score of stress
correlate negatively and significantly with all the indices of self regulation in total
group, values of r ranging between (-.21 to -.50), for Gr. I except for one value of r
i.e. between evaluation & stress (r = .01). all other values are negative and
significant and range between -.17 to -.38. However correlation of stress in Gr II is
negative and significant for indices of receiving (r = -.30), triggering (r = -.32) and
searching (r = -.17) only. Gross (1998) reported that emotional regulation is tend to
reduce the effects of specific emotions experienced in the situation, automatic
stereotyping of responses to deal with challenges to self esteem become overlearned
according to Richards, & Gross, (2000)
Perusal of the three tables of correlations (table II, III & IV ) reveals that self
regulation capacity is negatively associated with life stress. However no significant
differences have come out in the nature of association of these variables when

96
analysis was done for two groups having relatively higher and lower scores of self
regulation. The reason for this seems to be arbitrariness in the division of groups in
terms of self regulation as suggested by the authors of the test of self regulation
questionnaire.
These correlation analyses for three group suggest that differences in
subjects‟ self regulation capacity in terms of test scores are not marked to the degree
of showing effects in the other areas of psychological functioning the individuals
especially cognitive performances. All the subjects selected in fact were educated
and working women who might be conducting themselves satisfactorily both at
work place as well as home in terms of performing all types of tasks which call for
role of their cognitive functions. In terms of stress experience the highly negative
and significant correlation between self regulation and life stress for Gr. I i.e.
Functional self regulation and negative and significant level of association but low
magnitude of value of coefficient of correlation between self regulation and life
stress for dysfunctional group indicate that with decrease in the level of self
regulation subjects tend to become more prone to be stressful.
These results do not confirm the contention of differential association of
cognitive functions for functional and dysfunctional self regulation as was
hypothesized in hypothesis no I & II that „Functional Self Regulation in women
would be positively associated with sharp Cognitive Functions‟ whereas
„Dysfunctional Self Regulation in women would be negatively related to Cognitive
Functions‟. The 2nd part of these hypotheses which relates with association of life
stress with self regulation, that is functional self regulation would be negatively
associated with life stress and dysfunctional self regulation would have positive
relationships between these two variables is supported by the results though
somewhat weekly.
Self regulation indices and recall which is a memory function are positively
and significantly correlated in case of all these groups viz. total, functional self
regulation group (Gr. I) and dysfunctional self regulation group (Gr. II). Zimmerman
97
(1990) reported that good self regulation expands knowledge & cognitive
competencies of subjects while poor self regulation fall behind.
The range of correlations between given indices of self regulation and five
trials of recall at different time intervals was .33 to .75 for total groups, .31 to .70 for
group I, and .17 to .64 for Gr. II. Comparative positions of Gr. I & Gr. II for
correlation between all involved indices as well as composite index of self
regulation and recall clearly shows marked differences in the degree of association
between these two variables i.e. self regulation & recall, the degree of association
though positive and highly significant but of low magnitude for dysfunctional self
regulation group as compared to the functional self regulation group. It was
observed that finely tuned cognitive control system has been found to be associated
with enhanced emotional self regulation (Compton, Robinson, Ode, Quandt,
Fineman, & Carp, 2008).These results support to the hypotheses 7th which state that
capacity to recall would be positively associated with self regulation in women.
In the context of relationship between life stress and cognitive functions
again the obtained correlation coefficient give a clear picture of negative association
between these. The range of correlation between life stress & different indices of
cognitive performance range between .43 to -.58 for the total group, .28 to -.46 for
Gr. I and .31 to -.24 for Gr. II (values of r for problem solving capacity & cognitive
interference being read as –ve due to their reverse scoring system)
Relatively higher degree of negative association between life stress &
cognitive functions for functional self regulation group as compared to dysfunctional
self regulation group is indicative of lesser tendency to be stressful across situations.
This kind of situation was expected to be more availability of psychic resources for
performing various psychological functions as compared to individual with low
level of self regulation capacity. These findings lend support to the hypotheses 8th
which state that high Life Stress would impair Cognitive Functions in women.

98
The significant points which emerged from correlational analysis are as
follows:
1. Correlations between self regulation, problem solving ability, capacity to
handle cognitive interference and memory functions were highly positive and
significant.
2. No differences were observed in trends of these correlations for functional
self regulation group and dysfunctional self regulation.
3. Correlations between self regulation and concentration were non-significant
for both the groups but with recall these are positive and significant.
4. Evaluation indices of self regulation correlated non-significantly with
problem solving capacity, cognitive interference and capacity for
concentration.
5. Self regulation and life stress were negative and significant in all the three
group i.e. Total Group, Functional Self regulation Group and dysfunctional
self regulation Group.
6. No differences have been observed between association of cognitive
functions with self regulation in case of functional and dysfunctional groups.
7. Correlations between life stress and cognitive functions are negative in all
the three groups. Magnitude of coefficient of correlation between life stress
and cognitive function is higher in the negative direction.

SECTION II
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Since information obtained from correlational analysis among variables
could be considered as suggestive as some unknown overlaps tend to eclipse the real
relationships among variables undertaken for investigation. To partial out this
overlap factor analysis was used for measures of self regulation, cognitive functions
and life stress.
Principal component method of factor analysis was used to factor correlation
matrix. Unities were used in diagonal and Kaiser‟s criterion was used for rotation of
factors. All the three correlation matrixes i.e. for total group, for functional self
regulation group and for dysfunctional regulation group were subjected to factor
analysis separately.
99
 Table: V

Principal Component Varimax Rotated Factor Loading for Total Group

(N-318)

Sr. Factor Loadings

No. Variable 1 2 3 4 h2
1 Receiving 0.78 -0.20 -0.23 0.01 0.69
2 Evaluating 0.38 -0.06 -0.09 0.58 0.49
3 Triggering 0.48 -0.33 -0.18 0.12 0.39
4 Searching 0.72 -0.18 -0.27 0.16 0.64
5 Formulating 0.65 -0.17 -0.16 -0.26 0.54
6 Implementing 0.72 -0.15 -0.19 -0.24 0.64
7 Assessing 0.54 -0.22 -0.24 0.38 0.54
8 Coping Self Efficacy 0.27 -0.41 -0.36 0.14 0.39
9 Problem Solving Confidence -0.22 0.10 0.85 -0.05 0.78
10 Approach Avoidance Style -0.27 0.17 0.84 -0.04 0.81
11 Personal Control -0.22 0.28 0.45 0.38 0.48
12 Stroop Test -0.24 0.19 0.92 0.08 0.95
13 Thought Occurance Questionnaire -0.18 0.03 0.06 0.77 0.62
14 % Recall 1st Trial 0.82 -0.26 -0.11 0.13 0.78
15 % Recall 2nd Trial 0.87 -0.24 -0.12 0.04 0.83
16 % Recall 3rd Trial 0.90 -0.23 -0.14 0.06 0.89
17 % Recall 4th Trial 0.90 -0.26 -0.16 0.05 0.90
18 % Recall 5th Trial 0.86 -0.27 -0.28 -0.01 0.89
19 Stress_Past one Year -0.48 0.22 0.12 0.10 0.30
20 Stress_Life Time -0.17 0.90 0.11 -0.01 0.86
21 Stress_Personal -0.11 0.60 0.11 0.00 0.38
22 Stress_Impersonal -0.33 0.83 0.10 0.02 0.81
23 Stress_Desirable -0.17 0.73 0.24 -0.01 0.62
24 Stress_Undesirable -0.29 0.71 0.02 0.08 0.60
25 Stress_Ambiguous -0.33 0.59 0.10 -0.02 0.47
Percentage of Variances Explained 29.79 16.91 12.68 5.82 65.20

For the total group (N- 318) four factors, for functional and dysfunctional
self regulation group (N-114, & 108) respectively, six factors in each groups were

100
obtained after rotation for orthogonal simple structures. Factor loading of 0.30 and
above were taken into consideration for interpretation. Description of varimax
rotated factors for the total group is as follows:
Factor I

Sr. No. Variable Factor Loading

1 Receiving 0.78
2 Evaluating 0.38
3 Triggering 0.48
4 Searching 0.72
5 Formulating 0.65
6 Implementing 0.72
7 Assessing 0.54
14 % Recall 1st Trial 0.82
15 % Recall 2nd Trial 0.87
16 % Recall 3rd Trial 0.90
17 % Recall 4th Trial 0.90
18 % Recall 5th Trial 0.86
19 Stress_Past one Year -0.48
22 Stress_Impersonal -0.33
25 Stress_Ambiguous -0.33

Factor I is general factor which has high and significant loading of subscales
of self regulation namely Receiving (.78), Evaluating (.38), Triggering (.48),
Searching (.72), Formulating (.65), Implementing (.72), Assessing (.54).
All the five indices of recall task (factor loading ranging between .82 to.90)
and three indices of stress i.e. for one year (-.48), impersonal (-.33) and ambiguous
(-.33).
This factor can be named as general factor of self regulated function.
Common variance shared by subscales of self regulation, recall and subscales of

101
stress but with negative sign reflect the self regulated behavior manifestation which
favours the capacity for recall. Negative factor loading on indices of anxiety is
indicative of inverse relationship between self regulation and anxiety. Emotion
regulation like that of stress and cognitive control involve both monitoring and
executive components of self regulation (Larsen, & Prizmic, 2004). Baumeister et al
2005, have shown that cognitive impairment implicate self regulation deficits.
Which is evident in this factor structure. Percentage explained by each factor.
Factor II

Sr. No. Variable Factor Loading

1 Triggering -0.33
2 Coping Self Efficacy -0.41
3 Stress_Life Time 0.90
4 Stress_Personal 0.60
5 Stress_Impersonal 0.83
6 Stress_Desirable 0.73
7 Stress_Undesirable 0.71
8 Stress_Ambiguous 0.59

This factor has highly positive and significant factor loadings on all the six
subcategories of variable of stress which range from .59 to .90. Two subscales of
self regulation i.e. Triggering & Coping self efficacy have -.33 & -.41 factor
loading.
Primarily this factor represents life stress in totally overlap of two variables
of self regulation namely triggering and coping self efficacy but is the negative
direction is indicative of reverse effect of life stress on person‟s self appraisal of
his/her ability to cope with environment as well as possibility of triggering the shift
for controlled processing and goal change. This factor highlights the debilitating role
of stress in coping and opting for goal oriented and self regulating strategies.
Larsen, & Prizmic, 2004, pointed out that, emotional regulation of stress in
daily life require ability to recognize and down regulate
102
 Factor III

Sr. No. Variable Factor Loading

1 Coping Self Efficacy -0.36
2 Problem Solving Confidence 0.85
3 Approach Avoidance Style 0.84
4 Personal Control 0.45
5 Stroop Test 0.92

This factor has significant and high loading of factor on Problem solving
confidence (.85), approach avoidance style (.84), personal control (.45), stroop test
(.92) and coping self efficacy (-.36).
This factor can be named as factor of „Cognitive functions‟. All the three
indices of problem solving namely problem solving confidence, approach avoidance
style and personal control share variance with stroop test of quite higher level
indicating the strong communality in them. Factor loading of coping self efficacy
with negative sign is indicative of its positive affinity with cognitive functions (high
score on all the indices of cognitive functions is indicative of low cognitive
functions).
This factor reveals the implied positive relationship between persons
efficient cognitive functioning and his/ her positive subjective perceptions of
capabilities for meeting the challenges. In the context of context of academic
performance there is ample evidence that differences in high and low achieving
students are closely linked to individual‟s level of self regulation. (Zimmerman &
Schunk, 2008)
Factor – IV

Sr. No. Variable Factor Loading

1 Assessing 0.38
2 Personal Control 0.38
3 Thought OccurrenceQuestionnaire 0.77

103
 This factor has significant and positive factor loading on variable of Thought
occurrence(.77), Assessing indices of self regulation (.38) and personal control
indices of problem solving (.38)
This factor can be named as factor of „concentration‟ highly positive and
significant loading on the test of cognitive interference and moderately positive
factor loading of personal control subscale of problem solving reveal that capacity
for maintaining concentration in the presence of distraction and individual‟s self
perceptions of control over their behavior while solving problems are
interconnected. However the assessing aspect of problem solving behavior which
involves evaluation of progress and plan comes out to be negatively related with
concentration function. It might be the case in the sense that as per the structure of
this factor the whole focus is on avoiding cognitive interference and maintaining
focused attention only. The overall problem solving aspect of behavior does not
come into play here in this context. In high performing subjects Pirolli, & Bielaczyc,
(1989); Pirolli, Recker, (1994), found that acquisition of cognitive skills is linked
with the use of self regulation strategies. Cognitive control and emotional regulation
go together according to Compton et al (2011).
Comparison of factors structures obtained for functional self regulation
group (N =114) and dysfunctional self regulation group (N =108). Correlation
matrixes for these two were also subjected to principal component method of factor
analyses. Six factors of varimax rotated factors were obtained for each group.
Problem solving capacity has emerged as independent factor for Group I
(Factor I) and Group II (factor II). Capacity of self regulation is the defining features
of factor II in Gr. I and factor III in Gr. II. In both cases its negative affinity with
stress is obvious (-.31 & -.36), but negative factor loading of coping self efficacy (-
.64) in Gr. I & low concentration (.44) in Gr. II are somewhat perplexing. Life stress
has emerged as independent factor (factor IV & V) in Gr. I. In Gr. II life stress and
low capacity for concentration are embedded together in factor I. Factor V
represents life stress relating to recent past (-.88). Receiving subscale of self
regulation and life time stress are having positive factor loading.

104
 Table: VI

Principal Component Varimax Rotated Factor Loading for Functional Self

Regulation Group (N-114)

Component
Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 h2

Receiving -0.16 0.78 -0.03 -0.21 -0.04 -0.02 0.67

Evaluating -0.07 0.24 -0.09 0.02 0.68 0.39 0.69

Triggering -0.15 0.51 -0.09 -0.35 -0.05 -0.07 0.42

Searching -0.19 0.77 0.04 0.00 0.27 -0.15 0.73

Formulating -0.13 0.49 -0.31 -0.24 -0.18 0.29 0.52

Implementing -0.17 0.70 -0.31 0.07 -0.30 -0.20 0.75

Assessing -0.08 0.47 -0.13 -0.04 0.44 -0.30 0.52

Coping Self Efficacy -0.20 -0.64 0.18 -0.05 -0.06 -0.31 0.59

Problem Solving Confidence 0.87 -0.05 0.02 -0.07 -0.13 0.17 0.81

Approach Avoidance Style 0.88 -0.17 0.06 0.13 -0.08 0.08 0.83

Personal Control 0.67 -0.11 0.10 0.20 0.36 -0.25 0.71

Stroop Test 0.97 -0.12 0.11 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.97

Thought Occurance Questionnaire 0.03 -0.16 0.10 -0.04 0.76 -0.03 0.62

Stress_Past one Year 0.02 -0.31 0.08 0.86 -0.20 0.11 0.89

Stress_Life Time 0.14 0.00 0.89 0.21 0.18 0.26 0.94

Stress_Personal 0.11 -0.07 0.40 0.76 0.11 0.28 0.84

Stress_Impersonal 0.09 -0.23 0.82 0.31 -0.06 0.15 0.85

Stress_Desirable 0.10 0.03 0.21 0.87 0.05 -0.02 0.82

Stress_Undesirable 0.03 -0.20 0.89 0.12 -0.08 -0.16 0.87

Stress_Ambiguous 0.11 -0.14 0.21 0.29 0.11 0.75 0.73

105
 Table: VII

Principal Component Varimax Rotated Factor Loading for Dysfunctional

Group (N-108)

Component
Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 h2
Receiving -0.11 -0.14 0.53 0.55 0.36 -0.11 0.75
Evaluating 0.03 0.03 0.59 0.11 -0.25 0.18 0.45
Triggering -0.20 -0.11 0.40 0.11 0.24 -0.46 0.50
Searching -0.03 -0.18 0.58 0.24 0.22 -0.03 0.48
Formulating -0.08 -0.11 0.26 0.67 0.12 0.08 0.55
Implementing 0.04 -0.15 0.21 0.77 -0.01 0.08 0.66
Assessing 0.03 -0.17 0.78 0.04 -0.07 -0.07 0.65
Coping Self Efficacy -0.15 -0.05 0.34 -0.06 0.16 -0.33 0.28
Problem Solving Confidence -0.03 0.91 -0.09 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.84
Approach Avoidance Style 0.12 0.81 -0.22 -0.19 -0.18 0.08 0.79
Personal Control 0.55 0.14 0.09 -0.13 -0.03 -0.37 0.48
Stroop Test 0.17 0.97 -0.06 -0.09 -0.01 -0.05 0.98
Thought Occurance Questionnaire -0.14 -0.04 0.44 -0.68 -0.03 0.06 0.68
Stress_Past one Year 0.04 0.02 0.02 -0.13 -0.89 0.00 0.81
Stress_Life Time 0.85 0.01 -0.16 -0.04 0.37 0.24 0.95
Stress_Personal 0.18 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.10 0.77 0.67
Stress_Impersonal 0.86 0.09 -0.08 0.03 -0.04 0.12 0.78
Stress_Desirable 0.72 0.16 -0.21 0.24 -0.24 0.14 0.73
Stress_Undesirable 0.75 -0.01 0.17 -0.05 -0.14 0.13 0.63
Stress_Ambiguous 0.47 -0.09 -0.36 -0.39 0.24 0.27 0.64

In factor VI of Group II, stress (personal) has factor loading of .77, triggering

subscale of self regulation (-.46) and coping self efficacy (-.33) are negatively

aligned with personal stress. Low personal control factor of cognitive functioning is

showing negative association at this level (-.37). In Group II, three indices of self

regulation viz. receiving (.55), formulating (.67) and implementation = .76 define
106
the factor IV, where variable of stress has negative factor loading (-.39) and

distractions in performing the task also tend to be low (-.68).

Overall in case of functional self regulation group, self regulation, problem

solving, and life stress have emerged as independent factors in addition, in one

factor sub-domains of self regulation reflect overlap with problem solving, in

another with stress. In case of dysfunctional self regulation group, life stress is

defining features of three factors highlighting negative affinity with personal control

factor self regulation while and aspects of problem solving has appeared as one

independent factor. Factor of overall self regulation is highlighting its negative

association with stress but positive factor loading of thought occurrence on this

factor are somewhat unexpected.

The main points which emerge from factor analysis are as follows:

1. In general self regulation and capacity for recall of learned material appear in

factor analysis as coexistent and this constellation is accompanied by

absence of life stress (factor I). This factor by implication lends support to

hypotheses 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

2. Life stress negatively aligns with coping self efficacy and capacity for taking

new turns while handling new situations (Factor II). This factor partially

supports the contention of the hypothesis that high life stress would impair

cognitive functions of women.

3. There is close link of problem solving capacity with coping self efficacy

(Factor III).

4. Capacity to maintain concentration and perception of personal control are

interlinked, however evaluation of information input is inversely related to it

(Factor IV).

107
5. In the functional self regulation group problem solving capacity (factor I);
life stress (Factor III & factor IV) emerged as independent factors.
6. All indices of self regulation capacity have appeared as well knit construct in
factor II of Group II. Negative association of immediate life stress is also in
line. However negative factor loading of coping self efficacy variable is
beyond comprehension.
7. In case of Group III which represent dysfunctional self regulation group
problem solving comes on as independent factor (factor II). Factor of life
stress shows association with lack of control over their emotions and
behavior (Factor I).
8. In dysfunctional self regulation group also, overall capacity for self
regulation is negatively align with ambiguous stress and thought
occurrence(Factor IV).

SECTION III
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUP
MEANS
To test the hypotheses pertaining to the differences in groups with regard to
selected variable, t-ratios were computed the results of which are as follows:
For testing hypotheses 4 that „women with sharp cognitive functions would
be high on self regulation as compared to women with disrupted cognitive functions,
two groups of subjects with sharp cognitive functions (n =36) and disrupted
cognitive functions (n =46) were selected. Criteria for selecting sharp cognitive
functions subjects used was their low score on problem solving ability (M - 1/2 SD =
82.5) and low score on stroop test (score of 98 and below the cut off used as per
manual). For disrupted cognitive functions, selection criteria was high score on
problem solving (i.e. M+ 1/2 SD i.e.98.5) and high score in stroop test (score of 99
and above as per normal). The means, standard deviation and t-ratio are shown in
table VIII:

108
 Table VIII

Comparison of women with sharp and disrupted cognitive functioning on Self

Regulation and coping self efficacy

Cognitive Functioning
Variables t-ratios
Sharp(n=36) Disrupted(n=46)
Means SD Means SD
REC 34.69 4.30 30.57 4.88 4.00**
EVA 28.72 3.11 28.17 4.05 0.67
TRI 31.42 3.30 29.09 3.86 2.89**
SEA 35.03 3.83 31.48 4.19 3.95**
FOR 32.47 4.83 27.50 3.18 5.60**
IMP 33.58 3.98 28.22 3.88 6.15**
ASS 32.94 3.73 30.48 4.12 2.80**
Total SR 228.86 19.14 205.50 18.91 5.52**
CES 181.83 10.31 14.67 8.84 3.83**

**Significant at .01 level

t-ratio for the composite index of self regulation was found to be 5.52 which

is significant at .01 level. Except for evaluation subscale of self regulation

questionnaire, t-ratio for all the other subscale (viz receiving, 4.0, triggering, 2.89,

searching, 3.95, formulating, 5.60, Implementing, 6.15, and assessing, 2.80.) are

significant at .01 level.

Mean scores of self regulation for subjects with sharp and disrupted

cognitive functions clearly reveal the superior self regulation capacity of those who

showed better cognitive functioning in terms of their ability to solve problems, lesser

cognitive interference while performing cognitive activities. Those subjects who had

relatively poor cognitive functioning were found to have relatively lower degree of

self regulation capacity. Similarly variable of cognitive self efficacy also showed the

same trend (t-ratio for sharp disrupted cognitive functioning 3.83, P< .01).

109
 Cognitive self efficacy is person‟s perceived ability to cope effectively with
life challenges. Subjects with sharp cognitive functions have been found to be high
on self regulation as compared to subjects with disrupted cognitive functions.
Construct of self regulation involves better information input, its effective
use than self evaluation & choosing better alternative then their implementation and
outcome evaluation. All these attributes when in operation do favor effective
performance tasks which require the use of cognitive skills. These results confirm
the conjecture stated in the 4th hypothesis.
To test the 5th hypothesis that „self regulation in women with high life stress
would be dysfunctional as compared to women with low life stress, t-ratio were
computed for differences in scores of self regulation of subjects with high and low
life stress. Means, Sds and t-ratio for scores of self regulation indices are shown in
the table IX
Table IX:

Comparison of high and low stressed women on Self Regulation and

Coping self efficacy

Stress Level
Variables t-ratios
Low(n=140) High(n=111)
Means SD Means SD
REC 35.02 4.07 28.75 4.25 11.89**
EVA 29.33 3.46 27.21 3.68 4.69**
TRI 31.17 3.20 27.25 4.30 8.28**
SEA 35.09 3.50 29.79 4.83 10.06**
FOR 32.05 4.12 27.08 3.80 9.82**
IMP 33.12 4.23 27.73 4.13 10.13**
ASS 32.50 3.98 28.51 3.83 8.01**
Total SRQ 228.28 17.08 196.32 17.52 14.55**
CES 177.14 29.35 139.12 32.06 9.78**

**Significant at .01 level; *Significant at .05 level

Obtained t-ratio for the composite score of self regulation (t =14.55, p< .01)
as well as subscales of self regulation (Receiving = 11.89; Evaluating = 4.69;

110
triggering = 8.28; Searching = 10.06; formulating = 9.82; Implementing = 10.13;
and Assessing = 8.01) are significant at .01 level. Similar differences have been
found for the variable coping self efficacy in high and low stressed subjects (t =
9.78, p< .01)
Differences in mean scores of self regulation for low and high stress subjects
confirm the contention that subjects who posses better self regulation capacity tend
to be low on life stress this appears to be made possible by the appropriate planning,
implementation realistic self evaluation, as they are able to deal the life situations
more effectively and realistically rather than stress. The results being overwhelmed
by confirm the 5th hypothesis.
To test the differences in self regulation for high and low stress subjects from
among. Those who have high problem solving capacity, 56 subjects with low life
stress and 38 subjects with high life stress were selected. t-ratio were computed for
their scores of self regulation, mean scores, standard deviations and t-ration are
shown in the table X:
Table X
Comparison of high and low stressed women (among women with high problem
solving capacity) on Self Regulation

Stress Level
Variables t-ratios
Low(n=56) High(n=38)
Means SD Means SD
REC 35.82 3.61 32.05 4.70 4.39**
EVA 29.64 3.52 28.58 3.12 1.50
TRI 31.77 3.13 28.92 2.95 4.42**
SEA 36.02 3.44 33.18 3.70 3.81**
FOR 33.63 3.92 29.58 4.25 4.75**
IMP 34.23 4.06 29.66 4.38 5.19**
ASS 32.71 3.85 31.26 3.98 1.77
Total SRQ 233.82 15.63 213.24 18.84 5.76**
**Significant at .01 level
t-ratio for self regulation scores of low and high stress individuals but both
with superior problem solving ability were 4.39 for receiving, 4.42 for triggering,
3.81 for searching, and 4.75 for formulating, 5.19 for implementing. Differences in

111
mean scores of self regulation clearly indicate that despite being equally effective in
problem solving capacity subjects with low stress level do show better self
regulation as compared to subjects with high level of stress. As shown in the table,
two indices of self regulation namely evaluation and assessment which are directly
related with cognitive functions remain unaffected by levels of stress. In sum these
results indicate that subjects with high problem solving capacity and high self
regulation are less stressed as compared to subjects with high problem solving but
low self regulation. These results to confirm the 6th hypothesis that is “Self
regulation of women having high problem solving capacity but low life stress would
be higher than those with high problem solving capacity but high life stress”.

Overall the results of obtained t-ratio for some different groups reveal that

self regulation of women is significantly affected by stress level. Stress level as such

tend to influence the overall as such tend to influence the overall self regulation

scores in general as well as in cases when groups were further taken in terms of

restricted criteria like high problem solving group of women only. Cognitive

functions have also emerged as significant variable with regard to self regulation

scores of women. Sharp cognitive functions favoring self regulation in women.

For testing the differences in cognitive functions in terms of stress, two

groups of subjects i.e women with high life stress scores (n = 111) and women with

low life stress scores (n = 140) were taken. Criteria of selection for high and low

stress score was M ± 1/2 Sd used. Following this way life stress scores of 18.55 and

above was taken as high and score of 13.21 and below was taken as low stress. 140

subjects with low stress and 111 subjects with high life stress were taken. Their

scores on variables representing cognitive functions namely, Problem solving,

Stroop test, and Thought Occurrenceand Recall were analyzed. The means, standard

deviation, and t-ratio are shown in table XI

112
 Table XI

Comparison of high and low stressed women on Cognitive functioning

Stress Level
Variables t-ratios
Low(n=140) High(n=111)
Means SD Means SD
Total PrSl 83.22 16.70 100.77 14.78 8.70**
SC_W 94.00 11.74 104.42 9.07 7.71**
Tho_Q 79.28 11.79 82.68 14.50 2.05*
Recall 36.02 11.96 16.68 5.32 15.80**

**Significant at .01 level *Significant at .05 level

t-ratio for composite index of problem solving has been found to be 8.70,
which is significant at .01 level, t-ratio for scores of stroop color-word test is 7.71
which is significant at .01 level, t-ratio for thought occurrence score has been 2.05
significant at .05 level. Obtained t-ratio for recall task score has been 15.80 which is
significant at .01 level.
It is pertinent to mention that in case of variables of problem solving, stroop
color-word, and thought occurrence higher scores are indicative of low performance
with respect to that low performance with respect to that variable. In this sense, high
mean scores of problem solving i.e. 100.77 is high stress group are indicative of
poor capacity of problem solving in high stress group as compare to problem solving
score of 83.22 is low stress subjects. Similarly mean score of stroop color word test,
which measures the level of cognitive interference revealed that in high stress
group‟s cognitive interference (mean = 104.42) is significant more than subjects in
low stress group (mean = 94.00). In case of thought occurrence scores which
measure the capacity for concentration, higher scores are indicative of more
cognitive disruption and low concentration.
Mean scores of this variable in high stress group (82.68) than low stress
group (79.28) indicate the interfering effect of stress on concentration as well.

113
 In case of performance on recall task mean scores in high stress group
(16.68) are markedly lower than mean score in low stress group (36.02) indicating
that in low stress group performance in recall task is significantly superior.
In totality, this analysis clearly revealed the significant differences in
cognitive performance in high and low stress subjects, problem solving capacity,
focused attention (stroop), capacity for concentration and recall functions better in
case of low stress subjects. This analysis lend support to hypothesis 7th that high life
stress impair cognitive functions in women.
Main points which emerged from analyses of t-ratios are as follows:
1. Mean scores of self regulation of women with sharp cognitive functions were
significantly higher than those of women with disruptive cognitive functions.
2. Mean scores of self regulation of women with high life stress were
significantly low than self regulation scores of high stress women.
3. In high problem solving group of women scores of self regulation were
significantly higher case of women with low life stress as compared to
women with high life stress.
4. Scores of cognitive functions viz. problem solving, focused attention,
concentration & recall in low stressed women were significantly higher than
these scores in high stress women.

114