Mason - ECON 103 - Class Notes - Econ Week 1 Notes

Created by: Katie Blackmer Elite Notetaker

Schools > George Mason University > Economics > ECON 103 > Mason - ECON 103 - Class Notes - Econ Week 1 Notes

This preview shows pages 1 - 4 of a 20 page document. to view the rest of the content

Freddi Marsillo Lab Study 2 Research Report The present study conducted by Dr. George Howe’s class at the George Washington University attempted to address the effects of daily stressors and hassles on both positive and negative moods. Our general research questions focused on what daily stressors are, how they may influence both positive and negative emotions, and the time frame across which they appear. Daily stressors involve any type of hassle, challenge, or significant event one might encounter on a daily basis, affecting the individual’s mood and stress level. Daily stressors may be overtly negative, such as poor mental or physical health, financial struggles, or relationship issues. They may also be positive, such as a promotion at work or moving into a new residence. Though the items we examined in this study are “daily” stressors, they may occur immediately or across the following days. Past studies in the literature have used a daily diary method to record daily stressors. Bolger and Zuckerman conducted a fourteenday daily diary study to examine the significance of factors such as stressor exposure, stressor reactivity, coping choice, and coping effectiveness as possible explanations for the effect of neuroticism on distress in daily life and longitudinal effects of stressors and coping on distress (1995). The participants provided daily ratings of their exposure to interpersonal conflicts, their coping choices, and their emotional states for each of the fourteen days. The researchers examined personality as a defining factor in the stress process, and found that participants who ranked higher in neuroticism tended to have great levels of anger and depression, which fits the exposurereactivity model. The daily diary helped track the effects of negative emotions and how they may have changed from day to day.

Hoggard et al. used the daily diary approach to explore the impacts of everyday racial discrimination over time, and had participants complete a 20day diary study to show the effects of discrimination on depressive symptoms (2015). The researchers compared reports of depressive symptoms the day a stressful event occurred and two days after for racial and nonracial stressors, and analyzed whether racial identity served as a moderator for stressful events. The results of the compiled daily diary information showed that participants experienced similar increases for racial and nonracial stressors when stressful events occur, and similar decreases in the following two days. The daily reporting of stressful events and racial factors helped to draw an association between the events and the effect on depressive symptoms. Johnston et al. studied the effects of stress in nurses and how the main determinants of occupant stress (demand, control, effort, and reward) predict increased negative affect (2013). The data were collected using assessments every 90 minutes over the course of three nursing shifts. The findings showed that in general, high demand/effort, low control, and low reward were predictors of increased negative affect. High demand/effort, control, and reward were predictors of high positive affect. Daily diary studies are reliable methods for establishing cause and effect, since the data is collected over a relatively short period of time and eliminates time gaps where potential significant confounding factors may be causing certain results. Confounds occur when we are not able to explain the association between two things because a third factor may be causing both of them. Some of the confounds we controlled for in our study were personality traits, lack of sleep, financial issues, and physical and mental health. In this study we hypothesized that exposure to daily hassles and stressors will increase negative emotions and decrease positive emotions. We

narrowed this general hypothesis by breaking it up into two categories: effects happening within the same day, and effects lasting for more than one day. Our final four hypotheses were the following: 1) If the effects happen within the same day, the number of stressors on any day will be positively associated with the level of negative affect that day; 2) If the effects happen within the same day, the number of stressors on any day will be negatively associated with the level of positive affect that day; 3) If the effects last for more than one day, the number of stressors on one day will be positively associated with increases in negative affect from that day to the next; and 4) If the effects last for more than one day, the number of stressors on one day will be negatively associated with decreases in positive affect from that day to the next. A separate fifth hypothesis related to confounding factors was also considered, stating that findings should be consistent for the four primary hypotheses even after controlling for potential confounds. Method Participants Fortysix college students at the George Washington University consented to participate in this study. Measures Three research lab sections from Dr. Howe’s Clinical/Community Psychology class generated a list of items people generally appraise as stressors in their daily lives. Each lab section began this process by looking at general daily items that may cause people to feel stressed, such as financial struggles, interpersonal conflicts, social pressure, and stress resulting from school and/or work. These general items were gradually narrowed down to specific stressors and after generating and selecting plausible events, these were later combined into a

total pool, and twentyfive items from the pool were selected to be on the daily diary survey. In this study, we used ten items from the Positive and Negative Affects Schedule, with five positive and five negative affects. Watson and Clark (1988) used this scale to ensure that the selected items were relatively pure markers of either positive affect or negative affect. For each of the seven days of our study, participants were instructed to indicate which of the twentyfive items had occurred that day. Sample items included: “Lack of sleep,” “Conflict or stress with family members,” “Worry about maintaining relationships,” and “Fear of not achieving goals.” Participants either responded “yes” or “no” to each item. To measure potential confounds, we considered the following: demographics, loneliness, social support, Type A personality, and perceptions of control. In preparing this study, we used individual items to assess demographics such as age, gender, ethnicity (majority or non majority), identification as Hispanic or Latino (yes or no), and employment status (working or not working). To measure participants’ sense of loneliness, we used the UCLA Loneliness scale. Russell et al. (1978) used twentyfive items on a scale to assess loneliness that were designed to preserve diversity, with each item containing a statement about loneliness and a fourpoint response scale ranging from “I never feel this way” to “I often feel this way.” For each participant in the study, a total score of loneliness was calculated based on the sum of responses to the twentyfive items. To measure participants’ perceived social support as a confound, we used the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Zimet et al. (1988) initially constructed this scale with twentyfour items addressing relationships with family, friends, and significant others in the areas of social popularity, respect, and items directly related to social support. Each item

This is the end of the preview. Please to view the rest of the content