ISSN 1993-8233 ©2011 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
A study into the levels of decision making and coping
wıth stress of the students of physıcal education and
sports college
Murat Tekin
Karamano lu Mehmetbey University College of Physical Education and Sports, 70100 Karaman , Turkey. E-mail:murattekin76@gmail.com.
Accepted 18 February, 2011
The purpose of the current study is to investigate the levels of decision making and coping with stress of students of physical education and sports college. The research group was made up of 413 girls and 590 boys (Xage=21.4607±1.8792), 1003 in total, studying at the physical education and sports colleges
of Gazi University, Selçuk University, Kocaeli University, A rı brahim Çeçen University and Karamano lu Mehmet Bey University. To achieve the purpose of the research, “The Inventory of the Attitudes of Coping with Stress” and “Melbourne Scale of Decision Making” were based on and applied to the students that participated in the research. In the analysis and assessment of the data, multiple linear regression test was used and significance was taken as P<0.05 and in the evaluation of the data and the determination of the calculated values, SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) package program was used. At the end of the study, a significant relation was found between the levels of decision making and coping with stress of the students studying at the physical education and Sports College.
Keywords: Physical education, decision making, coping with stress. INTRODUCTION
Today, one spends most of his life in the process of instruction up to period of adulthood. University students’ levels of decision making and coping with stress are of importance. Human being, as a biological and social existence, has some physiological psychological and social needs. A university student is a person with his own developmental problems as an individual. He is in a position of finding his identity, adopting national and universal values of the society, adapting to it and reaching to maturity. Therefore, they face periods pursuant to efforts to cope with and being psychologically fine. So, it is important for them to adapt to social life and improve healthy social relations. In this respect, the needs, problems, the adaptation period of them to the university setting are also of importance (Özbay and Palanci, 2000). Conley (1991) puts an emphasis on the significance of defining decision making in terms of both quantity and the way it happens (Ferrara and Repa, 1993). In another study by Orlich et al. (1998), Court
(1990) defines decision making as the application of the resolutions depending on knowledge and skills and points out that, critical thinking improves the setting of learning where there are problem solving and discussion.
In another definition, decision making is given in 3 dimensions. These dimensions could be briefed as follows:
1. The content of the decision; the factors related to the decision. Educational program, personnel, students, financial and physical sources, the relation of school and community.
2. The process of decision making; how the decision is taken and the steps of decision making. Getting to know the problem, defining the problem, creating choices, expressing the decision, creating the decision and evaluating the validity of the decision.
3. Agreeing on the decision; it is not only important what the decision is dealt with but also who agrees on it
(Lipman et al., 1985).
The fact that individuals are always in an expectation and new approaches lead them to a difficult situation in terms of the strategies they follow in decision making. Therefore, while the individual shows behaviors of approach to a decision and decision making, the strategies and styles he uses gains importance. In order to feel satisfaction of life and improve himself, an individual should attain the skill of suitable and effective decision making to help him (Ersever, 1996). That a person regards a phenomenon, process or event as a problem could be related to the self-esteem of him. The relation he connects makes him see a source as a stress or accepts it as a natural process. Used by almost everybody in daily life, the concept of stress is also a psychological phenomenon experienced by many people. The concept of stress derives from the old French term “Esterece” with a meaning of “trouble” or “challenge”. However, it is most likely derived from the Latin word of “stringere” which means string or stretch (Graham, 1997). Stress is one of the most studied issues due to its short and long term negative effects in physical, mental, emotional sense on human being, depending on its intensity or on the perception type of perception by the one who experiences it. Stress has been defined in different forms up to the current time. In this study, one of the definitions of stress, cognitive definition putting an emphasis on human – environment interaction was investigated. Stress, in this sense, is “the demands putting the harmony of man into danger at the interaction of human – environment, forcing or exceeding current sources” (Folkman et al., 1986). As for coping with stress, it is defined as “the process of managing the demands over which the individual evaluates his sources as consumptive or extremely forcing” (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). The first one of these concepts is that, coping is a process or an ongoing complex interaction between an individual and his environment. The second one is that coping is regarded as the relation with the administration rather than eliminating it; stress is considered within a realistic point of view and thought that, not every problem will be coping. The third concept is that, this definition contains a concept of evaluation in it. If such a case is thought to be the one creating stress, it is the one creating stress.
Finally, coping is something to put an effort and contains cognitive and behavioral efforts concerning the management of the case leading to a potential stress. With the evaluation of the phenomenon of coping with stress as a process, it is clear that individuals make some evaluations dealing with the source of stress and the process of coping starts with a cognitive evaluation. Stress could have an impact on the life quality of an individual, causing to have a negative mental and emotional effect on people, so leading them to expe-rience discomfort (Gürça , 2008). When encountered with stress, individual is away from the setting of danger
or trying to adapt to a new situation by struggling. Being able to cope with the stressors that are a part of our daily life actively and on purpose is of great importance in terms of a healthy life. Coping with stress or in other words stress management is essential to keep mental and physical health and maintain a productive and efficient life. If stress is able to be controlled, it could be a motivating force encouraging him in order to cope with the factor preventing the individual from realizing his aims. Coping is the behavioral and cognitive efforts made, so as to control demands and conflicts coming from both internal and external factors. In another definition, coping is the total of behavioral and cognitive efforts allowing to reduce internal and external demands created by a stressful situation and to cope with or endure it (Pincus and Friedman, 2004). Students are affected by stress extensively. For the students coming to university and starting a new life; so many causes such as the new setting they are introduced, new friends and lecturers and economical troubles bear the potential of stress. The excessive and chronic stress emerging due to these causes have a negative impact on their learning process, performance and levels of decision making (Brown and Sue, 1999; Humphrey et al., 1998). The purpose of the researcher is to determine the relation between levels of decision making and coping with stress of the students at the college of physical education and sport.
In this sense, a trial should be made to determined following:
1. The relation between the levels of decision making and active planning sub-dimension in coping with stress; 2. The relation between the levels of decision making and seeking for support sub-dimension in coping with stress; 3. The relation between the levels of decision making and taking the religion as a shelter sub-dimension in coping with stress;
4. The relation between the levels of decision making and refrain abstraction (emotional-actual) sub-dimension in coping with stress;
5. The relation between the levels of decision making and refrain from abstraction (Bio-chemical) sub-dimension in coping with stress;
6. The relation between the levels of decision making and accept – cognitive reconstruction sub-dimension in coping with stress of the students at the college of physical education and sport .
METHOD Research group
The research group was made up of 413 girls and 590 boys (Xage=21.4607+1.8792), 1003 in total, studying at the physical education and sports colleges of Gazi University, Selçuk University, Kocaeli University, A ri Ibrahim Çeçen University and Karamano lu Mehmet Bey University.
Data collection
Current data concerning the purpose of the research was first given systematically through scanning of the literature. In that way, a theoretical framework was formed. Secondly, in order to achieve the purpose of the research, “The inventory of the attitudes of coping with stress”, developed by Özbay (1993) aiming at foreign students studying at a university in the United States of America and adapted to Turkish by Özbay and ahin (1997), and the “Melbourne Scale of Decision Making” developed by Mann et al. (1998) and adapted to Turkish by Deniz (2004) were based on and applied to the students that participated in the research. The characteristics of the data collection tool are given as follows.
Melbourne scale of decision making
“Melbourne Scale of Decision Making” originally developed by Mann et al. (1998) was adapted to by Deniz (2004) and carried out the study of validity and reliability. The validity and reliability studies of Melbourne Scale of Decision Making I – II (MSDM) were carried out over the evening, students of Selçuk University, Faculty of Technical Education, Department of Computer Systems Teaching and Automotive Teaching in the education year 2002 to 2003 and data was collected out of 154 students (Deniz, 2004).
Melbourne Scale of Decision Making was divided into two parts. 1st part: It is aimed at determining self-esteem in decision making. It
was made up of 6 items and 3 items were scored in the straightway while 3 of them were scored in the reverse way. The item of “True” were scored as 2 points, “Sometimes True” was scored as 1 point and “Not True” was scored as 0 point. The maximum score to be obtained in the scale was 12. Higher scores were the indicator of a higher self-esteem in decision making. 2nd part was comprised of 22
items and assessed the styles of decision making. It had four sub-factors (Deniz, 2004) namely:
1. The style of careful decision making: It is the case where individuals carefully search for the necessary knowledge, before making a decision and evaluating the alternatives carefully and then make a selection.
2. The style of shy-away decision making: It is the case where individuals keep away decision making, let others make the decision and so is the case where he avoids from decision making by handing the responsibility over another one.
3. The style of delaying decision making: It is the case where individuals constantly delay, postpone and run around his decision without a reasonable cause. This factor was expressed in 5 items. 4. The style of panic decision making: It is the case where individual exhibits hasty behaviors feeling himself under the pressure of time, as soon as he is in a position of decision making and puts an effort to find quick solutions. This factor was expressed in 5 items.
The inventory of the attitudes of coping with stress
In the research, the inventory of the attitude of coping with stress was used in order to determine the styles of coping with stress of university students. “The inventory of the attitudes of coping with stress” is the scale of coping with stress that was originally developed by Özbay (1993) aiming at foreign students studying at a university in the United States of America. The inventory was adapted to Turkish by Özbay and ahin (1997). The purpose of the inventory was to assess the styles of coping with stress of individuals at various stress conditions. At the end of factor analysis in the study of Turkish adaption, 43 expressions out of 56 items of original inventory of coping with stress were grouped under 6 factors. The inventory was arranged depending on a 5 scored Likert type and the participants were asked to read each item and mark
one of the choices of “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, “frequently” or “always”. Students were also asked to choose and mark the item best fitting them while answering the inventory.
6 factors determined through the technique was named as active planning, seeking for external support, taking the religion as a shelter, refrain abstraction (emotional-actual), refrain abstraction (Bio-chemical), accept – cognitive reconstruction. Besides, struc-tural factor analysis, criteriom validity was obtained with the help of a similar scale and findings were obtained concerning the validity of the test. The scale of the styles of coping with stress developed by ahin and Durak (1995) was used as a criterion. It was found in a relation between SSOS and IAOS at a level of 0.54 (p<0.001) in general sense. The reliability of the test was realized through the method of Cronbach Alfa inner consistency. General reliability coefficient of the test was found as 0.81. Özbay and ahin defined these 6 factors as follows.
Active planning: It was consisted of 10 items including rational
steps and methods of mostly doing something actively, starting the process directly, increasing active efforts, creating action plans, focusing on the thing at the moment and being in a systematic of problem solving.
Seeking for external support: Applying for social support could be
regarded in two ways. These are the tendency of the demand for instrumental external support and emotional external support. This sub-scale was consisted of 9 items aiming at assessing the attitudes of seeking for support at emotional, cognitive and physical level.
Taking the religion as a shelter: The items taken in this factor put
mostly an emphasis on taking a supreme power as a shelter, praying and taking hearth form beliefs. This factor was made up of 6 items.
Refrain-Abstraction (emotional-actual): It was taken in the
factorial structure as two-dimensional. The items were dealt with the attitudes of coping with stress in the form of abstracting oneself from the situation in a passive way and this factor was made up of 7 items.
Refrain abstraction (Bio-chemical): This dimension could be
thought of as the tendency to make a physiological change as a passive strategy of coping with difference from emotional – actual refrain and abstraction. These are the coping methods such as smoking, taking alcohol and feeling a propensity to drugs. This factor was represented through 4 items.
Accept – cognitive reconstruction: It is the method of accepting
the problem and looking for new solutions in a cognitive way. The sub-scale was made up of 7 items.
The analysis of the data
In the analysis and comment of the data, multiple linear regression test was used and the significance was taken as P<0.05. In the evaluation of the data and finding the calculated values, SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) was used.
FINDINGS
As given in Table 1, a significant relation was found between the total sub-dimension of the levels of decision making and the sub-dimension of active planning in coping with stress (p<0.05). The value of 18.471 F
Table 1.The capacity to explain the active planning sub-dimension in coping with stress of the levels of decision making of the students at the college of physical education and sports.
B SHB ββββ t P Dual Partial
r r
Fixed 31.107 1.111 28.011 0.000
Careful decision making -0.323 0.082 -0.136 -3.948 0.000 -0.134 -0.124 Shy decision making -0.208 0.090 -0.089 -2.322 0.020 -0.033 -0.073 Effective decision making 0.581 0.092 0.221 6.325 0.000 0.125 0.196 Panic decision making -0.430 0.100 -0.151 -4.287 0.000 -0.075 -0.134
R=0.291 R2=0.085 F=18.471 P=0.000
Table 2. The capacity to explain seeking for the external support sub-dimension in coping with
stress of the levels of decision making of the students at the college of physical education and sports.
B SHB ββββ t P Dual Partial
r r
Fixed 23.283 1.477 15.762 0.000
Careful decision making -0.969 0.109 -0.298 -8.896 0.000 -0.200 -0.271 Shy decision making -0.585 0.119 -0.182 -4.904 0.000 -0.057 -0.153 Effective decision making 0.958 0.122 0.266 7.844 0.000 0.098 0.241 Panic decision making -0.808 0.133 -0.208 -6.056 0.000 -0.178 -0.188
R=0.369 R2=0.136 F=31.504 P=0.000
obtained shows that, the levels of decision making as a whole explains active planning in coping with stress in a significant way. In the examination of t test results concerning the significance of regression coefficient, it is clear that there is an effective explanation between active planning sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making.
As is clear in Table 2, a significant relation was found between the total sub-dimension of the levels of decision making and the sub-dimension of seeking for external support in coping with stress (p<0.05). The value of 31.504 F obtained shows that, the levels of decision making as a whole explains seeking for external support in coping with stress in a significant way. In the exami-nation of t test results concerning the significance of regression coefficient, it is clear that there is an effective explanation between seeking for external support sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making. As is clear in Table 3, a significant relation was found between the total dimension of the levels of decision making and the sub-dimension of taking the religion as a shelter in coping with stress (p<0.05). The value of 5.646 F obtained shows that, the levels of decision making as a whole
explains taking the religion as a shelter in coping with stress in a significant way. In the examination of t test results concerning the significance of regression coefficient, it is clear that there is an effective explanation between taking the religion as a shelter sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making.
As is clear in Table 4, a significant relation was found between the total sub-dimension of the levels of decision making and the sub-dimension of refrain-abstraction (emotional) in coping with stress (p<0.05). The value of 26.926 F obtained shows that, the levels of decision making as a whole explains refrain-abstraction (emotional) in coping with stress in a significant way. In the examination of t test results concerning the significance of regression coefficient, it is clear that there is an effective explanation between refrain-abstraction (emotional) sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making. As given in Table 5, a significant relation was found between the total sub-dimension of the levels of decision making and the sub-dimension of refrain-abstraction (bio-chemical) in coping with stress (p<0.05). The value of 6.705 F obtained shows that, the levels of decision
Table 3. The capacity to explain the taking the religion as a shelter sub-dimension in coping
with stress of the levels of decision making of the students at the college of physical education and sports.
B SHB ββββ t P Dual Partial
r r
Fixed 15.166 1.310 11.578 0.000
Careful decision making 0.348 0.097 0.128 3.599 0.000 0.050 0.113 Shy decision making 0.390 0.106 0.145 3.686 0.000 0.055 0.116 Effective decision making -0.359 0.108 -0.119 -3.311 0.001 -0.048 -0.104 Panic decision making 5.416 0.118 0.017 0.458 0.647 0.037 0.014
R=0.166 R2=0.027 F=5.646 P=0.000
Table 4. The capacity to explain the refrain-abstraction (emotional) sub-dimension in coping
with stress of the levels of decision making of the students at the college of physical education and sports.
B SHB ββββ t P Dual Partial
r r
Fixed 11.559 0.848 13.627 0.000
Careful decision making 0.330 0.063 0.179 5.275 0.000 0.101 0.165 Shy decision making 0.556 0.068 0.304 8.121 0.000 0.109 0.249 Effective decision making -0.244 0.070 -0.119 -3.474 0.001 -0.097 -0.109 Panic decision making -0.548 0.077 -0.248 -7.157 0.000 -0.187 -0.221
R=0.345 R2=0.119 F=26.926 P=0.000
Table 5. The capacity to explain the refrain-abstraction (bio-chemical) sub-dimension in coping
with stress of the levels of decision making of the students at the college of physical education and sports.
B SHB ββββ t P Dual Partial
r r
Fixed 0.275 0.429 0.640 0.522
Careful decision making -0.112 0.032 -0.125 -3.533 0.000 -0.072 -0.111 Shy decision making -3.052 0.035 -0.035 -0.882 0.378 0.025 -0.028 Effective decision making -3.809 0.035 -0.039 -1.074 0.283 -0.042 -0.034 Panic decision making 5.181 0.039 0.049 1.338 0.181 0.000 0.042
R= 0.180 R2=0.032 F=6.705 P=0.000
making as a whole explains refrain-abstraction (bio-chemical) in coping with stress in a significant way. In the examination of t test results concerning the significance of regression coefficient, it is clear that there is an effecttive explanation between refrain-abstraction (bio-chemical) sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making.
As shown in Table 6, a significant relation was found between the total sub-dimension of the levels of decision making and the sub-dimension of accept – cognitive reconstruction in coping with stress (p<0.05). The value of 14.663 F obtained shows that, the levels of decision
making as a whole explains accept – cognitive reconstruction in coping with stress in a significant way. In the examination of t-test results, concerning the significance of regression coefficient, it is clear that there is an effective explanation between accept – cognitive reconstruction sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Table 6. The capacity to explain the accept – cognitive reconstruction sub-dimension in coping
with stress of the levels of decision making of the students at the college of physical education and sports.
B SHB ββββ t P Dual Partial
r r
Fixed 20.817 0.882 23.592 0.000
Careful decision making -0.137 0.065 -0.073 -2.112 0.035 -0.099 -0.067 Shy decision making -0.180 0.071 -0.097 -2.522 0.012 -0.076 -0.080 Effective decision making 1.240 0.073 0.006 0.170 0.865 -0.011 0.005 Panic decision making 8.694 0.080 0.039 1.091 0.276 0.032 0.034
R=0.261 R2=0.068 F=14.663 P=0.000
sub-dimensions of decision making levels and active planning sub-dimension in coping with stress (p<0.05). Depending on F value, there was an effective explanation between active planning sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making. These results show us that individuals have active efforts in taking more healthy decisions. Furthermore, it will help individuals in doing more active things, starting the process directly, increasing active efforts and taking healthier decisions in action plans and also help them in what and how to decide in the process of decision making.
Çetin (2008) investigated the decision making styles, social skill levels and the forms of coping with stress of a total of 980 students of the college of physical education and sport, 497 first year and 483 fourth year, chosen randomly at the universities of central Anatolia in the educational year 2006 to 2007 and found a significant relation between the decision making styles of the students and the sub-dimensions of coping with stress. Deniz (2004) found in the research named “A study into the Relation between the Students’ Styles of Self-Esteem Decision Making in Decision Making and their Problem Solving Skills of university students” having a higher level of stress were influenced in their level of decision making. Deniz (2006) examined stress, life satisfaction, self-esteem in decision making and the styles of decision making of 492 Turkish university students and found a significant relation between the styles of decision making of university students and their level of stress.
In a study carried out by Pullis (1992), professional stresses of teachers were examined in terms of stress sources of them, their effects and methods of coping with them. In this sense, 244 teachers were included in the research. At the end of the study, the stress sources concerning career development at school and workload were perceived more stressful compared to those concerning the relation with students and they had an effect on their level of decision making. In a study by Özbay and ahin (1997), it was found that the problem of individuals in coping with stress had an influence on their
decision making levels and that the level of decision making of those feeling confidence for themselves and behaving themselves carefully were affected. Folkman et al. (1986) found in their study carried out on 85 married couples that, evaluation and coping had a significant regressive impact for psychological symptoms and also found a relation between psychological symptoms and the strategy of planned coping with. The findings of these studies were parallel to the current study.
Individual features enable the sources of stress and methods of coping to reply in various contents and such individual features as optimism and pessimism might have an impact on exhibiting different types of coping attitudes in stressful situations (Chang and Bridewell, 1998). A significant relation was found between the total sub-dimensions of the levels of decision making and seeking for an external support in coping with stress (p<0.05). Depending on F value, there was an effective explanation between active planning sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making. According to these results, it reveals that individuals demand in searching external aid is important and when they need to decide, they collect information according to aims and targets. Furthermore, this result can be explained by individuals’ encounter to adaptation to new environments and orientation, effectuating and achieving, formation of expectation and future anxiety.
Radford et al. (1993) pointed out that, the university students with a higher level of decision making would experience less stress of decision making and exhibit more susceptible behaviors to selection and responsibility styles. As is clear in these researches, self-esteem has an impact on decision making process and the styles of decision making of individuals. Sandler (2000) investigated the impact of deciding their careers depending on the student’s integral model and perceived stress levels and found that, external variables had an impact on the levels of decision making of adult students. These studies also have parallel findings with the current study. A significant relation was found between the total
sub-dimensions of the levels of decision making and taking religion as a shelter in coping with stress (p<0.05). Depending on F value, while there was an effective explanation between taking religion as a shelter sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making considered in the levels of decision making, there was not a significant relation between panic decision making sub-dimensions. The results showed that, individuals took religion as a shelter mostly while taking decision, prayed and decided taking hearth from their beliefs. Such a result showed that, individuals having positive uncertainties in the process of decision making were sure about their future and in the case where they had no skill to decide reasonably, they took religion as a shelter.
Stone and Neale (1984) carried out a study on 12 married couples and found that while men used the methods of acting directly, women preferred such passive strategies as keeping away and praying. Active coping strategies had an impact on the levels of decision making. These studies also had similar findings with the current study. A significant relation was found between the total sub-dimensions of the levels of decision making and refrain – abstraction (emotional) in coping with stress (p<0.05). Depending on F value, there was an effective explanation between refrain – abstraction (emotional) sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making. The results showed that, one decided so comfortably while deciding or solving a problem by abstracting himself constantly in a passive way. In other words, in any situation and in a stress formation development, university students present more effective and active styles rather than having passive and abstractionist behavior. Thus, they present characteristics such as addressing and solving strategies.
In a study, Krenke (2000) examined casual relations between stressful events, the style of coping and the symptoms of stress at adolescents. 94 adolescents and their mothers were included in a 3 – year evaluation made up of critical life experiences, daily stress creators and the styles of coping. It was found that critical life experiences and daily stress creators were in a strong relation with each other and that, the type of stress creator was not in a constant connection with the stress symptoms in adolescents. On the contrary, withdrawing, which is a type of coping based on refrain, was found to be a certain indicator of stress symptoms in adolescents constantly. This study was also parallel with the current study. A significant relation was found between the total sub-dimensions of the levels of decision making and refrain – abstraction (bio-chemical) in coping with stress (p<0.05). Depending on F value, there was not an effective explanation between refrain – abstraction (bio-chemical) sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making, effective
decision making and panic decision making sub-dimensions considered in the levels of decision making. These results show that, individuals when making decisions are influenced by alterations in the physiological.
Ross et al. (1999) investigated stress sources among 100 university students and found that, bio-chemical levels especially had an impact on the levels of decision making depending on the levels of taking alcohol and using drugs. Howard and Medway (2004) examined the relation between the levels of dependence of the high school students in the period of adolescence and the cases of coping with stress. They carried out the study over 75 high school students and investigated the levels of dependence on their parents, the forms of coping, life stress and who they turned to in stressful situations. It was found in the study that the dependence in terms of confidence and affection of adolescents had a positive relation while it had a negative relation with the behaviors of coping with negative stress (refrain behaviors). In the study called Decision Making at People: the Performance of Men and Women on Different Cortisol Reactivity, Bos et al. (2009) 71 university students were included and it was found that the bio-chemical levels of students had an impact on their decision making levels. These studies had parallel findings with the current study. A significant relation was found between the total sub-dimensions of the levels of decision making and accept- cognitive in coping with stress (p<0.05). Depending on F value, while there was an effective explanation between refrain – abstraction (bio-chemical) sub-dimension in coping with stress and careful decision making, shy decision making effective decision making considered in the levels of decision making, there was not a significant relation between panic decision making sub-dimensions.
According to these results, when individuals come across any problem, they try to decide by finding rapid and new solutions in his opinion cognitively. In their study, Deniz and Yilmaz (2006) examined the relation between emotional intelligence of 428 university students and the styles of coping with stress. At the end of the study, they found that, there were significant relations in a positive way between the dimensions of total emotional intelligence, personal awareness, interpersonal skills, consistency, stress management and general mental situation of the university students and problem based coping sub-dimension out of the styles of coping with stress. Renk and Creasey (2003) found in their study carried out on university students that problem based and refrain based coping had an impact on the levels of decision making of the students.
In a study carried out on 21 high school students by Hains and Szyjakowski (1990), it was found that the program of group guidance developed by the researches depending on the education of stress inoculation and comprising the skills of cognitive coping and relaxation had an impact on the levels of decision making of
adolescents. A total of 211 university students, 76 boys and 135 girls, with an age mean of 18.8 were included in a study by Chang (1998) and the effect of high and low expectation on the skills of coping and problem solving at stressful academic and interpersonal situations was investigated. At the end of the study, it was found that students with a higher expectation had more problem solving skills compared to the ones with a lower expectation. In a study by Parkes (1984) carried out on 171 girl students of nursing school at the ages of 18 to 21, the relation between coping with special stressful events and control focus and cognitive approach was investigated. At the end of the study, it was found that models of coping were determined through internal effects, that there was a negative relation between whether they were stress creating events and the pressure felt, but that there was no mutual interaction with the control focus.
Phillips et al. (1984) carried out a study on a total of 243 university students, 153 girls and 90 boys and examined the relation between decision making styles and self-esteem dimension of effective problem solving. As a result of the study, it was found that decision making styles determined the style of problem solving in an effective way. These studies also had similarities with the current study. Stress indicators having the most effect in decision making affects the process of thinking. The process of thinking under stress has an effect on the levels of concentration loss, first planning lack of short term memory actions and quick decision (Massa et al., 2002). The findings in this study were parallel with the current study. At the end of the current study, a significant relation was found between the levels of decision making of the students at the college of physical education and sport and the levels of coping with stress. Stresses and behaviors at education change our attitudes. We should bear in mind what kind of realistic thinking structure we are going to use against the current problems. Developing conscious at a certain rate against stress and becoming sensible would lead people to adapt to the environment and develop their levels of decision making. The current study would shed light on the awareness of what the basic factors leading to stress are and what precautions should be taken for them. The fact that stress is manageable and controllable would encourage people in the application of these precautions. REFERENCES
Bos RVD , Harteveld M, Stoop H (2009). Stress and decision-making in humans: performance is related to cortisol reactivity, albeit differently in men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(10): 1449-1458 Brown M, Ralph S (1999). Using the DYSA programme to reduce stress
and anxiety in first-year university students. Pastoral Care, Sept., p. 813.
Chang E, Bridewell, WB (1998). Irrational beliefs, optimism, pessimism and psychological distress: a preliminary examination of differential effect in a college population. J. Clin. Psychol., 54 (2). 137-142. Chan DW (1998). Stressful life events, cognitive appraisals, and
psychological symptoms among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. J. Youth Adolesc., 27(4): 457-461.
Conley S (1991). Review of research on teacher participation in school decision making. Rev. Res. Educ., 17: 225–266.
Court D (1990). Skills in education: the perils of a frequent misnomer. Clear. House, 63(6): 265-266.
Çetin Ç (2008). Unpublished doctoral thesis, surveying some variables comparatively in terms of deciding styles, social skill levels and types of coping with stress of physical training and sports high school students. Gazi University, institute of educational sciences.
Deniz ME (2004). Investigation of the relation between decision making self-esteem, decision making style and problem solving skills of university students. Eur. J. Educ. Res.. 15: 23-35.
Deniz ME (2006). The Relationships among coping with stress, life satisfaction, decision-making styles and decision self-esteem: An investigation with Turkish university students. Social behaviour and personality: An Int. J., 34: 1161-1170.
Deniz ME, Yılmaz E (2006). Investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and styles of coping with stress. Turk. Psychol. Inf. Guid. J., 25(3): 17-26
Ersever HÖ (1996). Effects of gaining decision-making skills programme and experience of interaction group on university students’ deciding styles. Unpublished doctoral thesis Ankara: Ankara University, institute of social sciences.
Ferrara DL, Repa JT (1993). Measuring shared decision making. Educ. Leadersh., 2: 71-72.
Folkman S, Lazarus S, Gruen RJ, Delongis A (1986). Appraisal, coping, healt status and psychological symptoms. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 50(3): 571-579.
Graham H (1997). Use Stress to your advantage (Translated by: Sa lam M, Tezcan T). Istanbul: Alfa printing and publishing.
Gürça T (2008). 7 Ways for children’s coping with stress. My Baby US J., No. 105.
Hains AA, Szyjakowski M (1990). A Cognitive stress-reduction intervention program for adolescents. J. Counsel. Psycho., 37: 79-84.
Howard MS, Medway FJ (2004). Adolescents’ attachment and coping with stress. psychology in the schools, 41(3): 391 – 401.
Humphrey R, Mccarthy P, Popham Zc, Garland M, Gooch S, Hornsby K (1998). Stress and the contemporary student. Higher Educ. Q., 52(2): 221- 242.
Krenke SI (2000). Causal links between stressful events, coping style and adolescent symptomatology. J. Adolesc., 23: 675-691.
Lazarus RS, Folkman S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Lipham JM, Rankin RE, Hoeh JA (1985). The Principalship: concept, competencies and cases, New York: Longman, pp. 80-95.
Mann L, Radford M, Burnett P, Ford S, Bond M, Leung K, Nakamura H, Vaughan G, Yang KS (1998). Cross-Cultural differences in self-reported decision-making style and confidence”. Int. J. Psychol., 33: 325-335.
Massa P, Watkins C, Partridge B (2002). Decision making under stress. Available from: Http://Web.Umr.Edu/~Bpart/Eman313/DMUS.Htm [Accessed 16/05/05]
Orlich DC, Harder RJ, Callahan RC, Gibson HW (1998). Teaching strategies: a guide to better instruction (5. edition), New York: Houghton Mifflin company.
Özbay Y (1993). An Investigation of the relationship between adaptational coping process and self-perceived negative feelings on international students. (Doctoral thesis). Lubbock, Texas, Usa Özbay Y, ahin B (1997). Inventory of coping with stress attitudes:
validity and solidity study. 4th national psychological information and
guidance conference. Ankara: 1-3 September.
Özbay Y, Palancı M (2000). The Relationship between interpersonal stress and empathic skills. Bratislava: 21st international conference of
the stress and anxiety research society. 20-22 July.
Parkes KR (1984). Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping in stressful episodes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 46: 655-668.
Phillips SD, Pazienza NJ, Walsh D (1984). Decision-Making styles and progress in occupational decision making. J. Vocat. Behav., 25. 96-105.
everyday stress: transporting treatment interventions to the school setting. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev., 7: 223-240.
Pullis M (1992). An Analysis of the occupational stress of teachers of the behaviorally disordered: sources, effects and strategies for coping. Behav. Disord., 17(3): 191-201.
Radford MHB, Mann L, Ohta Y, Nakane N (1993). Differences between Australian and Japanese students in decisional self-esteem, decisional stress, and coping styles. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol., 24: 284-297.
Ross SE, Neibling BC, Heckert TM (1999). Sources of stress among college students. Coll. Student J., 33(2): 312- 317.
Renk K, Creasey G (2003). The Relationship of gender, gender identity and coping strategies in late adolescents. J. Adolesc., 26: 159-168. Sandler ME (2000). Career decision-making self-efficacy, perceived
stress, and an integrated model of student persistence: a structural model of finances, attitudes, behavior, and career development, Rese. Higher Educ., 41(5).
Stone AA, Neale JM (1984). The Effects of severe daily events on mood. J. Pers. Social Psychol., (46): 137-144.
ahin NH, Durak A (1995). Scale of coping with stress styles: application for university students. Turk. Psychol. J., 10: 34, 56-73.
