QUANTIFYING THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ON

STRESS TOLERANCE IN COLLEGE STUDENTS

H elen W B lan d , PhD

Georgia Southern University, Jiann-Ping Hsu College o f Public Health

B ridget F M elton , EdD

Georgia Southern University, College Health and Human Sciences

L auren E B ig ham , EdS

University o f Georgia, Department o f Counseling Psychology

P aul D W elle , M S
Carnegie Mellon University, Department o f Engineering and Public Policy

Problem: Stress experience by millennial college students can be crip

pling. While stress is a universal and unavoidable phenomenon for col
lege students, the variance in ability to handle stress can be attributed
to stress tolerance (Welle & Graf, 2011). Research is needed to identi
fy effective tools that increase college students ability to tolerate and
positively cope with stress.
Purpose: The purpose o f this study was to quantify the impact o f phys
ical activity associated behaviors and exercise types significantly asso
ciated with high stress tolerance (HST) among college students.
Methods: Research design employed was an quantitative, analytical,
cross-sectional study of randomly selected college students (A,=936)
that completed a stress tolerance questionnaire (STQ) coupled with a
physical activity log. Statistical differences by type o f physical activity
and stress tolerance were determined by Chi-Square and Odds Ratio
(95%CI).
Results: Significant physical activity behaviors associated with HST
included: exercised (p=0.001), engaged in leisure activity (p=0.004),
engaged in extra-curricular activity (p=0.012), and engaged in ex
tra-curricular sport (p=0.039). Three out o f four types exercise were
significantly associated with HST: vigorous exercise, stretching, and
resistance training (p<0.05).
Conclusions: This study demonstrated the positive protective impact
o f physical activity behaviors and exercise on stress tolerance among
college students.
Key Words: stress tolerance, physical activity, coping mechanisms

559
56 0 / C ollege Student Journal

Introduction large amount of stress without suffering from

its crippling effect. Isolating factors that in
College students are assaulted by numer
crease stress tolerance while simultaneously
ous and constant personal, educational, and
protecting college students against adverse
social stressors. Specific stressors or chal
mental health would seem to be crucial.
lenges include, but are not limited to, inter
Physical activity has been well-document
personal relationships, living arrangements,
ed as an effective means of reducing stress and
personal finances, more frequent experiences
anxiety (Baghurst & Kelley, 2013). Research
of failure, and important career decisions (Ad
initially compiled by the Surgeon General
ler, Conklin, & Strunk, 2013; Keith, 2010). As
and reaffirmed by additional research studies
college students transition into adulthood and
(Smith, 2013; Brunes, Augestad, & Gud-
experience more challenges and barriers, per
mundsdottir, 2013, Abbas et al., 2001) suggests
ceived stress may increase as well (VanKim
that people who are more active demonstrate
& Nelson, 2013; Thurber & Walton, 2012).
lower levels of stress, anxiety and depression.
Stress among college students is unavoidable.
What has not been ascertained is the mecha
The various challenges and stressors asso
nism within how exercise impacts stress. Does
ciated with college may also have a negative
exercise remove or lower stress or does it
impact on the corresponding psychological
increase ones ability to tolerate stress? What
health of college students (Gubata, Urban,
types of exercise are most beneficial for lower
Cowan, & Niebuhr, 2013; Taylor, McCarthy,
stress or increasing stress tolerance?
Herbert, & Smith, 2009). Within randomly
While participation in physical activity
selected non-clinical samples of college stu
may contribute to the positive mental health
dents, prevalence rates of psychological and
of college students (Downs & Ashton, 2011),
psychiatric symptoms have been reported to be
this population is relatively inactive and not
between 30% and 50% (Blanco et al., 2008).
meeting daily physical activity recommen
Within the college student population, mental
dations as reported by the 2010 American
health disorders appear to be increasing in
College Health Associations National College
number as well as severity (Hunt & Eisenberg,
Health Assessment (ACHA, 2010). In order
2010). According to the 2010 National Survey
to promote and maintain a healthy lifestyle,
of Counseling Centers (Gallagher, 2010), 91%
current physical activity recommendations in
of counseling directors believe that there has
clude performing moderate-intensity physical
been an increase in the number of students with
activity for a minimum of 30 minutes on five
severe psychological concerns. Additionally,
days of each week or performing vigorous-in
previous research studies also indicate that the
tensity aerobic activity for a minimum o f 20
rate of depression has been on the rise over the
minutes on three days each week (Garber
last several years (American College Health
et al., 2011). However, 47.3% of males and
Association, 2010).
53.6% of females within the college student
While stress is a universal and unavoidable
population report performing zero vigorous or
phenomenon for college students, the variance
moderate physical activity during the previ
in ability to handle stress can be attributed to
ous seven days (ACHA, 2010). This lack of
stress tolerance (Welle & Graf, 2011).
physical activity during the college years is
Stress tolerance is a phenomenon that
concerning since many adult health behaviors
looks at not how to avoid the numerous stress
are established during this critical time period
or in ones life, rather how one effectively
(Taylor, McCarthy, Herbert, & Smith, 2009).
copes with the stress present in ones life.
In order to effectively combat the occurrence
People with high stress tolerance can handle
 Quantifying the Impact of Physical Activity on Stress Tolerance in College Students / 561
of high rates of physical inactivity (ACHA,
2010) and psychological struggles (Radhu et
al., 2012) reported within the college student
population, interventions designed to enhance
stress tolerance should be explored. The pur
pose of this study was to determine the impact
of various kinds of physical activity associated
behaviors and exercise types significantly asso
ciated with high stress tolerance among college
students. In order to fulfill this studys purpose,
the following hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 1: College students with high
stress tolerance would be significantly
more likely to employ physical activity as
sociated behaviors as coping mechanisms.
Hypothesis 2\ College students with high
stress tolerance would be significantly
more likely to regularly engage in four
different types of exercise.
Methods
The research methodology employed was
a quantitative, analytical, cross-sectional
design. Sampling methodology was a prob
ability, stratified random sample technique.
After receiving IRB approval for the research
study and protocol, data were collected from
healthful living courses at a mid-sized univer
sity in southeastern United States. This course
is required of every undergraduate student;
however, most take the course during then-
first year. A total of 25 sections of general
Healthful Living are offered each semester,
with either a large class format o f250 students
per section or a blended learning design with
40 students per section. Five classes were ran
domly selected to participate: three large and
two small sections. Instructors were contacted
and researchers collected data during the 5th
week of the semester (prior to information
taught on stress) during a normal class meet
ing (A=936). Informed consent was obtained
from all subjects prior to participation; no
incentives were given for participation.
Participants
O f those individuals who participated
in the study, 47.2% ( =460) were male and
48.9% ( =476) were female. The majority of
participants were freshman (N =689, 70.7%),
followed by sophomores (N =169, 17.4%),
juniors (/V=63, 6.5%), and seniors (A=15,
1.5%). Age in years mirrored class ranking
with the majority o f students being 18 or 19
years old (N=676, 72.2%). Out o f all the re
spondents, 60.8% (N = 592) identified them
selves as white, 25.8% (N =251) as Black,
or other (/V=93, 8.7%). These demographic
breakdowns are representative of the univer
sity as a whole.
Measures
The Stress Tolerance Questionnaire
(STQ) is comprised of four checklists to es
tablish prevalence of items related to stress:
life events checklist (LEC) (30 items), dai
ly hassle questionnaire (DHQ) (40 items),
stress symptomology inventory (42 items),
and lifestyle/ coping mechanisms checklist
(31 items) (Welle & Graf, 2011). The STQ,
based upon previously validated instruments
(Ryan-Wenger, Sharrer, & Campbell, 2005;
Edlin, 2009; Miller & Rahe, 1997; Schafer,
1999; Holmes, 1967), was modified and vali
dated for use among college students (Bland,
Melton, Welle, Bigham, 2012; Welle & Graf,
2011; Graf, Melton Gonzales, 2010); and used
verbatim for this study. Response to checklist
questions were: yes (2) or no (1). The authors
added four physical activity questions to
fulfill the purpose of this study. Participants
responded to how often they performed cer
tain exercises (moderate exercise, vigorous
exercise, stretching, resistance training) in the
past seven days: 0 days, 1-2 days, 3-4 days,
5-6 days and 7 days.
Psychometric properties of the STQ were
at acceptable levels. Validity was determined
by using previously established instrument
with expert content validity and construct
5 62 / C ollege S tudent Journal
validity established (Bland, Melton, Welle,
Bigham, 2012; Welle & Graf, 2011). Cronbach
alpha reliability test for internal consistency depict a population encountering important
was conducted and yielded an overall score of
0.945, indicating a highly reliable instrument. that are associated with a higher education.
Individual Cronbach alpha reliability scores
for subscales were: life events a =0.639, daily hassles as reported by participants are delin
hassles a = 0.822 stress symptomology a =
0.950 and coping mechanisms a = 0.763.
The outcome measure in this study was
stress tolerance. Previous research sets
guidelines to determine stress tolerance
scores: dividing the total number of stress
ors (frequency count) of an individual by
that individuals stress symptomatology
score which provides a Stress Tolerance
Ratio (STR) (Welle & Graf, 2011); a higher
number correlates with higher individuals
stress tolerance. Based upon the students
STR score and previous research, students
were assigned to high stress tolerance or low
stress tolerance groups (N=610), with medi
um stress tolerance scores omitted from final
analyses (N=326) (Welle & Graf, 2011).
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive (frequency, percentiles) and
inferential statistics (Odds Ratio, Chi Squares)
were calculated to describe the population un
der study and answer the hypotheses. In order
to ascertain differences in exposure to certain
factors between groups, 2x2 tables were con
structed and odds ratios calculated. Odds ratio
greater than 1.0 indicates a risk factor, and an
odds ratio less than 1.0 indicates a protective
factor (Friis & Sellers, 2013). To determine
statistical differences between groups, Chi-
square analyses were conducted. Chi square
analysis tests are conducted on categorical
data (i.e. yes/no) to looks at observed and
expected observations between groups. Chi
squares analyses tested the hypotheses of
association between the high and low stress
tolerance groups.
Results
Frequency of life events and daily hassles
life transitions as well as the responsibilities
Prevalence of stressful live events and daily
eated in Table 1. Over half of the participants
reported the following life events: beginning
college (N=454, 74.3%), feelings of uncer
tainty about the future/future career (7V=427,
70.0%), summer job plans (iV=387, 63.4%),
transfer to new university/moving (N=386,
63.3%), and a change in living conditions
(AN373, 61.1%). The most frequently re
ported daily hassles are associated with the
college culture. Over 80% of the participants
reported the following: tests (iV=551, 90.3
%), text messaging (AN535, 87.7%), procras
tination (N=508, 83.3%), pressure to do well
in school (N=505, 82.8%), and assignments/
papers (N=483, 79.2%). Coping mechanism
employed by participants included listening
to music (jV=889, 93.7%), sleeping (AN865,
91.1%), relaxing (/V=849, 89.7%), feelings
of support from firiends/family/instructors
(N=840, 88.6%), and surfing the internet
(AN839, 88.6 %). Of the four physical activity
associated behaviors, none of them were listed
in the top ten coping mechanisms employed
overall by students. The question remains,
when students are divided into the two groups
of high and low stress tolerance, as to whether
physical activity associated behaviors are em
ployed by the high stress tolerance group and
if they are protective/buffering factors of the
negative consequences of stress.
Hypothesis 1: College students with high
stress tolerance would be significantly more
likely to employ physical activity associated
behaviors as coping mechanisms.
To determine if Hypothesis 1 was support
ed, statistical significant differences between
low and high stress tolerance groups by
coping mechanisms were calculated (Table
 Quantifying the Impact of Physical Activity on Stress Tolerance in College Students / 5 6 3

Table 1. Ten Most Frequently Reported Life 2). Participants were given a yes/ no
Events, Daily Hassles, and Coping Mechanisms checklist of the 31 coping mechanisms
among College Students (N=973). and marked which coping mechanisms
Live Events/Daily Hassles/Stressors Freq.
they utilized to combat stress. O f the 31
(Percent)
coping mechanism, 14 were significantly
Life Events*
different between the high and low stress
1 Beginning College 454 (74.3%) tolerance groups (p<0.05). Through
2 Feelings of uncertainty about the 427 (70.0%) odds ratio calculations, each coping
future/future career
mechanism was classified as a protective
3. Summer job plans 387 (63.4%) factor, neutral (equal exposure) or risk
4. Transfer to new university/ moving 386 (63.3%) factor. O f these coping mechanisms,
5. Change in living conditions 373 (61.1%) four were regarded as physical activity
6 Change in plans for a major/carccr 295 (48.4%) associated behavior: exercised, engaged
choice in leisure activity, engaged in extra-cur
7. Trouble with boyfriend/girlfriend 282 (46.2%) ricular activity and participated in ex
8. Losing a friendship 266 (43.6%) tra-curricular sport.
9. Difficulty with roommates 253 (41.5%) All four physical activity associated
10. Not dating 252 behaviors were statistically significant
(41.3%)
protective factors (p<0.05) that were
Daily Hassles**
more likely to be employed by the high
1. Tests 551 (90.3%) stress tolerance group. Two other factors
2. Text messaging 535 (87.7%) were significantly protective as well:
3. Procrastination 508 (83.3%) feelings of social support and engaged
4. Pressure to do well in school 505 (82.8%) in social interaction (p<0.05). The other
5. Assignments/ papers 483 (79.2%) eight significant coping mechanisms
6. Deadlines 478 (78.4%) were actually risk factors that low stress
7. Worried about GPA tolerance students used: sleeping, having
474 (77.7%)
a spiritual outlet, blocking out stress,
8. Lack of sleep 470 (77.0%)
shopping, having sex, singing, reading
9. Pressure to do well in school 457 (77.8%) a book, writing in a journal, eating, and
10. Time Management 445 (73.0%) using a substance (p<0.05). The neutral
Coping Mechanisms factors, or the factors that did not corre
1. Listened to music 889 (93.7%) spond with changes in stress tolerance
2 Slept 865 (91.1%) included praying, cleaning the apartment,
3. Relaxed 849 (89.7%) and going on a trip/vacation. Hypothesis
4. Supported by friends/family/instructors
1 was supported, with students with high
840 (88.6%)
stress tolerance more likely to engage in
5. Surfed the internet 839 (88.6%)
physical activity associated behavior.
6. Engaged in social interaction 840 (88.5%) Hypothesis 2: College students with
7. Participated in internet social net 833 (87.8%) high stress tolerance would be signifi
works (face book, etc.)
cantly more likely to regularly engage in
8. Watched a movie 797 (84.2%) four different types o f exercise.
9. Called a friend 747 (78.7%) To ascertain if Hypothesis 2 was
10. Ate 737 (77.7%) supported, chi square analyses were
Life Events occurred in the last 12 months conducted to determine associations
Daily Hassles occurred in the last (1) month
564 / College Student Journal

Table 2. Significant Differences between High Stress Tolerance and Low Stress Tolerance
Students by Coping Mechanisms listed in Hierarchical Order and Grouped as Protective,
Equal Exposure and Risk Factors.
Variable N OR 95% C l Prob. Of Chi-Square
Protective Factors
Family/Friends/Teacher Supported 605 0.51 0.30,0.86 0.010*

Exercised 604 0.52 0.35,0.76 0.001**

Engaged in Social Interaction 605 0.56 0.35,0.91 0.017*

Engaged in Leisure Activity 606 0.59 0.41,0.84 0.004**

Extra-curricular Activity 605 0.66 0.48,0.91 0.012*

Extra-curricular Sport 606 0.71 0.51,0.98 0.039*

Neutral Factors

Partied 605 0.76 0.55,1.05 0.100

Relaxed 604 0.78 0.48,1.27 0.320

Played an Instrument 605 0.87 0.60,1.30 0.508

Called Mom 605 0.92 0.63,1.33 0.656

Sexual Activity w/ Multiple Partners 605 0.94 0.53,1.66 0.839

Watched a Movie 605 0.97 0.63,1.50 0.900

Took Study Breaks 604 0.98 0.68,1.43 0.928

Prayed 605 1.06 0.76,1.47 0.717

Cleaned Apartment 605 1.04 0.74,1.47 0.803

Went on a Trip/Vacation 605 1.01 0.69,1.47 0.950

Called Friend 605 1.12 0.75,1.67 0.569

Part, in Internet Social Networks 605 1.15 0.69,1.90 0.591

Listened to Music 605 1.17 0.59, 2.32 0.651

Quiet Time 606 1.24 0.87,1.85 0.224

Risk Factors
Involvement w/ Spiritual Outlets 605 1.26 0.89,1.77 0.185

Slept 605 1.29 0.74,2.26 0.368

Mentally Blocked Stress Out 605 1.49 1.07,2.04 0.018*

Shopping 605 1.50 1.09,20.6 0.013*

Surfed the Internet 605 1.51 0.88,2.57 0.130

Had Sex 605 1.53 1.06,2.21 0.022*

Sang 605 1.55 1.12,2.15 0.008**

Read a Book 605 1.72 1.24,2.38 0.001**

Wrote in a Journal 605 1.75 1.12,2.74 0.014*

Ate 605 1.76 1.19,2.62 0.005**

Used a Substance (i.e. alcohol) 605 1.80 1.27,2.54 0.001**

Note: OR = odds ratio; Cl = confidence interval

*denotes significance at alpha level 0.05
** denotes significance at alpha level 0.01
 Quantifying the Impact of Physical Activity on Stress Tolerance in College Students / 5 6 5
between stress tolerance and types o f exercise
(Table 3). Out of the four different types of
physical activity or exercise, college students
who have high stress tolerance were sig
nificantly more likely to engage in vigorous
exercise (p<0.01), stretching (p<0.05) and
resistance training (p<0.001'). Moderate exer
cise was not found to be associated with high
stress tolerance (p>0.05).
Table 3. Significant differences between High
Stress Tolerance and Low Stress Tolerance
groups and type o f exercise as assessed by
Chi-square Test.
X 1
Type of Exercise df Sign.
Value
Moderate Exercise 4 6.74 0.150
Vigorous Exercise 4
17.43 0.002*
Stretching 4 10.22 0.037*
Resistance Training 4 19.73 0.001**
* denotes significance at alpha level 0.05
** denotes significance at alpha level 0.01
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to assess dif
ferent physical activity associated behaviors
and types of exercises that were significantly
associated with high stress tolerance among
college students. The details of these findings
are discussed below.
Protective Physical Activity Coping
Mechanisms
The most frequently reported coping
mechanisms by participants included listen
ing to music, sleeping, relaxing, feelings o f
being supported by friends/family/instruc-
tors, and surfing the Internet. However, out
of the 10 most frequently reported coping
mechanisms, six were considered to be risk
factors for low stress tolerance. These six
factors included listening to music, sleeping,
surfing the Internet, participation in Internet
social networks, calling a friend, and eating.
Specifically, eating was considered to be a
significant risk factor. While the students may
be implementing several different strategies
for coping, they are still placing themselves
at risk for low stress tolerance by engaging in
coping strategies that are maladaptive.
Out of the most frequently reported coping
mechanisms, feelings o f being supported by
friends/family/instructors and engaging in
social interaction were considered to be pro
tective factors for high stress tolerance. Sim
ilar to a previous finding, the factor o f social
support, as reported through feelings o f being
supported by family, friends/instructor and en
gaging in social interaction, was considered
to be significant (Chao, 2009). Aside from the
previously cited significant factors, exercise
was also found to be a significant protective
factor. However, similar to previous research
suggesting that that students are relatively in
active and not meeting daily physical activity
recommendations (ACHA, 2010; Seo, Nehl,
Agley, Ma, 2007), exercise was not reported
as being a coping mechanism frequently en
gaged in by participants.
In support o f hypothesis 1, four out of
the six significant protective factors were
activity based: exercised, engaged in leisure
activity, engaged in extra-curricular activity
and engaged in extra-curricular sports. While
students with a high stress tolerance may pro
tect themselves by being active, it may also
be important to encourage those inactive stu
dents to get active and remain active. Through
physical activity, physically inactive college
students may establish a buffer against the ill
effects of stress.
Physical Activity Type and Stress Tolerance
There is a growing recognition o f the
value of regular physical activity for health
improvement and maintenance. Previous
research compiled by the Surgeon General
(US DHHS, 1996) suggests that people who
are more active demonstrate lower levels of
566 / College Student Journal

anxiety and depression symptoms. However, use of cross-sectional design was considered
previous research does not assess the different an additional limitation. Cross-sectional stud
types of exercise and their association with ies offer a single snapshot of population at a
stress tolerance. Hypothesis 2 invested partic given moment in time. One may find it help
ular types of exercise and stress tolerance, and ful when study ing stress tolerance to follow
found students in this study who engaged in participants over an extended period of time.
vigorous exercise, stretching, and resistance Additionally, cross-sectional studies cannot
training were significantly more likely to determine cause and effect relationships. Data
have high stress tolerance than those who did were only collected at a single institution and
not. These types of exercises typically have may not be reflective o f all colleges. Lastly,
participants who are focused on improving there are no established norms and guidelines
specific aspects of fitness. Most individuals for stress tolerance. Placing a participant into
have a goal or specific plan when they engage the high or low stress tolerance groups was
in strength, flexible or vigorous types o f exer based upon previous, limited research.
cise (Thompson, 2009). There have been sev
eral studies on stress management and yoga, Conclusions
which find a positive correlation (Chong et The results of this study suggest that
al., 2011; Yadav et al., 2012). Although, a college students often turn to coping mecha
relationship has been established, the mech nisms when faced with the daily hassles and
anism for improved stress tolerance would be stresses of life. However, a majority of the
suggested for further study. Vigorous physical coping mechanisms that were reported, such
activity has also been link to positive health as listening to music, sleeping, and surfing
behaviors in adolescence, yet the investiga the Internet do not relieve and may actually
tion of how stress management or tolerance exacerbate stress. In the attempt to effectively
is influenced by these health behaviors is not work through the hassles and stresses that are
fully understood (Delisle et al., 2010). present during college (Lumley & Provenza-
The finding that moderate physical activity no, 2003; Perry, 2003), it may be beneficial
did not equate to a higher stress tolerance is to employ protective coping mechanisms,
remarkable since moderate activity includes including feelings o f being supported by
the more popular types of exercise modes. Ad friends/family/instructors, engaging in so
ditionally, most individuals know they ought cial interaction and being active on various
to be engaging in moderate activity. One of levels. Additionally, is it important to employ
the limitations of this study was that physical additional protective mechanisms, particu
activity was self-reported. While self-reported larly vigorous physical activity, stretching
data are easier to obtain for surveillance studies, exercises and strength training. This study
most individuals over estimate physical activi confirms the importance of a variety o f physi
ty (Sallis & Saelens, 2008). Further investiga cal activity modes. Future research endeavors
tion is needed to assess the effects of physical may employ objective measures of physical
activity modalities and stress tolerance. activity as well as compare the impact of var
ious physical activity modes on different de
Study Limitations mographic groups in the college population.
Self-reported data was considered a lim
itation of this study. Participants may have Disclosures: None.
inaccurately reported their behaviors or have
forgotten certain past events. Secondly, the
 Quantifying the Impact of Physical Activity on Stress Tolerance in College Students / 5 6 7

References Edlin, G., & Golanty, E. (2009). Health & wellness. 10th
ed. Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Abbas, Y., Abbasi, N.M., Vahidi, R., Najafipoor, F., &
Friis R.H. & Sellers T.A. (2013). Epidemiologyfor public
Farshi, M.G. (2011). Effect o f exercise on psycho
health practice. 5th ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Jones
logical well-being in T2DM. Journal o f Stress Phys
& Bartlett.
iology & Biochemistry, 7(3), 132-142.
Gallagher, R.P. (2010). National Survey o f Counseling
Adler, A., Conklin, L., & Strunk, D. (2013). Quality o f
Center Directors 2010. The International Associa
coping skills predicts depressive
tion o f Counseling Services, Inc. Monograph Series
symptom reactivity over repeated stressors. Jour
Number 8S. Available at: http://www.iacsinc.org/
nal O f Clinical Psychology, 69(12), 1228-1238.
NSCCD%202010.pdf
doi: 10.1002/jclp.21993
Garber, C. E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M. R,, Franklin,
American College Health Association [ACHA], (2010).
B. A., Lamonte, M.J., Lee, I.M.,Neiman, D.C., &
American College Health Association-National
Swain, D. (2011). Quantity and quality o f exercise
College Health Assessment H; Reference Group
for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory,
Executive Summary Spring 2010. Linthicum, MD:
musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparent
American College Health Association.
ly healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise.
Baghurst, T., & Kelley, B. (2013). An examination o f
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(f),
stress in college students over the course o f a semes
1334-1357.
ter. Health Promotion Practice, [online series]: 2013
Nov 14. Graf, H., Melton, B., & Gonzales S. (2010). A qualitative
study o f stress, stressors and stress management.
Brunes, A., Augestad, L., & Gudmundsdottir, S. (2013).
Journal o f Georgia Public Health, 5(1), 24-37.
Personality, physical activity, and symptoms o f anxi
Gubata, M., Urban, N., Cowan, D., & Niebuhr, D.
ety and depression: The HUNT study. Social Psychi
(2013). A prospective study o f physical fitness,
atry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(5), 745-756.
obesity, and the subsequent risk o f mental disor
doi: 10.1007/s00127-012-0594-6
ders among healthy young adults in army training.
Blanco, C., Okuda, M., Wright, C., Hsin, D.S., Grant,
Journal O f Psychosomatic Research, 75(1), 43A8.
B. F. Liu, S.M., & Olfeon, M. (2008). Mental health
o f college students and their non-college-attending doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.04.003
Holmes, T.H., & Rahe, R.H. (1967). The social read
peers: Results from the National Epidemiologic
justment rating scale. Journal o f Psychosomatic
Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives
Research, 7/(2):213-8.
o f General Psychiatry, 65(12): 1429-37. doi: 10.1001/
Hunt, J., & Eisenberg, D. (2010). Mental health problems
archpsyc.65.12.1429.
and help-seeking behavior among college students.
Bland, H., Melton, B., Welle, P., & Bigham, L. (2012).
Journal o f Adolescent Health, 46(1), 3-10.
Stress tolerance: New challenges for Millennial
Keith, T. (2010). Depression and its negative effect on
college students. College Student Journal, 46(2),
362-375. college students. Undergraduate research. Journal
fo r the Health Sciences, 9 [online series],
Chong C, Tsunaka M, Tsang H, Chan E, Cheung W. (2011).
Lumley, M.A., & Provenzano, K.M . (2003) Stress
Effects o f yoga on stress management in healthy
management through written emotional disclosures
adults: A systematic review. Alternative Therapies in
Health & Medicine. 77(1), 32-38. improves academic performance among college
students with physical symptoms. Journal o f Educa
Chao, R. C-L. (2009). Managing perceived stress among
tional Psychology 95(3): 641-649.
college student: The roles o f social support and dys
Miller, M. A., & Rahe, R.H. (1997). Life changes scaling
functional coping. Journal o f College Counseling,
15, 5-21. for the 1990s. Journal o f Psychosomatic Research,
43, 279-292.
Delisle, T., Werch, C., Wong, A., Bian, H., & Weiler,
Perry, R.P. (2003) Perceived control and causal think
R. (2010). Relationship between frequency and in
ing in achievement settings. Canadian Psychology
tensity o f physical activity and health behaviors of
44(4), 312-331.
adolescents. School Health, 80(3), 34-140.
Radhu, N., Daskalakis, Z., Arpin-Cribbic, C., Irvine, J.,
Downs, A., & Ashton, J. (2011). Vigorous physical ac
& Ritvo, P. (2012). Evaluating a Web based cogni
tivity, sports participation, and athletic identity: Im
tive-behavioral therapy for maladaptive perfection
plications for mental and physical health in college
ism in university students. Journal O f American
students. Journal O f Sport Behavior, 34(3), 228-249.
College Health, 60(5), 357-366. doi: 10.1080/07448
Dubbert PM (2002) Physical activity and exercise: Re
481.2011.630703.
cent advances and current challenges. Journal o f
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70(3): 526-536.
568 / College Student Journal

Ryan-Wenger, N.H., Sharrer, V.W., & Campbell, K.K.

(2005). Changes in childrens stressors over the past
30 years. Pediatric Nursing,3 1 ,282-90.
Sallis, J., & Saelens, B. (2007). Assessment of physical
activity by self-report: status, limitations, and fu
ture directions. Research Quarterly For Exercise <
Sports, (2 Suppl), SI-SI 4.
Schafer, W. (1999). Stress management fo r wellness. 4th
ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.
Seo, D., Nehl, E., Agley, J., & Ma, S. (2007). Relations
between physical activity and behavioral and percep
tual correlates among Midwestern college students.
Journal o f American College Health,56(2), 187-197.
Smith, J. (2013). Effects o f emotional exposure on state
anxiety after acute exercise. Medicine and Science In
Sports A nd Exercise, 45(2), 372-378. doi:10.1249/
MSS.ObO 13e31826d5ce5
Taylor, J. P., McCarthy, M., Herbert, R. J., & Smith, P.
B. (2009). A comprehensive profile o f health risk
behaviors among student at a small Canadian univer
sity. College Student Journal, 43(2), 255-267
Thurber, C. A., & Walton, E. A. (2012). Homesickness
and adjustment in university students. Journal O f
American College Health, 60(5), 415^119.
Thompson, J. (2009). Conference on Multidisciplinary
approaches to nutritional problems. Symposium
on Performance, exercise and health. Exercise in
improving health v. performance. The Proceedings
O f The Nutrition Society, <55(1), 29-33. doi:10.1017/
S0029665108008811
U.S. Department o f Health and Human Services. (1996).
Physical activity and health: A report o f the Surgeon
General. Atlanta, GA: US Department o f Health and
Human Services.
VanKim, N. A., & Nelson, T. F. (2013). Vigorous physi
cal activity, mental health, perceived stress, and so
cializing among college students. American Journal
o f Health Promotion, 28(1), 7-15.
Welle, P.D., & Graf, H.M. (2011). Effective lifestyle
habits and coping strategies for stress tolerance
among college students. American Journal o f Health
Education,42(2),96-104.
Yadav, R., Magan, D., Mehta, N., Sharma, R., & Maha-
patra, S. (2012). Efficacy o f a short-term yoga-based
lifestyle intervention in reducing stress and inflam
mation: Preliminary results. Journal O f Alternative
And Complementary Medicine (New York, N.Y.),
18(1), 662-667. doi:10.1089/acm.2011.0265
Copyright of College Student Journal is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.