Grief, Coping, Resilience, and Post-Traumatic Growth in the Undergraduate Population ()
1. Introduction
The loss of a loved one can significantly impact an individual’s life. This can serve as a barrier that hinders an individual’s ability to function within society. The level of grief experienced by an individual is affected by the coping mechanisms they use and their level of resilience [1]. While previous research has investigated the importance of individual factors like grief, coping mechanisms, resilience, social support, perceived control, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic growth [1]-[5], there has been limited research investigating the relationship between these variables in the undergraduate population. The current study aims to determine the level of grief and post-traumatic growth experienced by a sample of adult undergraduate students and the factors affecting it.
1.1. Grief
Grief occurs when an individual experiences negative emotion because of their experience [6]. These emotions can impede an individual’s ability to function within society [6]. Although grief is generally perceived as a negative event [4], it can also positively affect personal growth and functioning within a society [4] [7]-[10]. For instance, people grow closer to the remaining family after the death of a loved one [4]. The level of grief an individual experiences is also affected by resilience [9], as lower levels of resilience results in greater experience of grief [9]. Post-traumatic growth after grief experiences may result from greater understanding of oneself, spirituality, and ability to relate to others [4]. This growth may result from individuals living with more intention and recognizing that one’s lifetime is limited [4].
1.2. Stress
Stress occurs when internal or external demands exceeds the resources limits of an individual [11]. Stress negatively affects both physical and psychological health [11]. The emotional response to stress varies between individuals [12], and some of this variation may result from differences in resilience and coping styles.
1.3. Resilience
Resilience refers to the likelihood that an individual will adapt when faced with a challenging experience [13]. Higher levels of resilience can lead to more positive outcomes when faced with trauma [14]. The level of resilience that an individual possesses is influenced by their culture, social support, internal sense of control, and frequency of stressors [13]-[17]. An individual’s appraisal of a stressor can influence the coping strategies they use [17], but the magnitude of the stressor can also affect the selection of coping strategy, and thereby resilience [16] [17].
1.4. Social Support
Social support is significantly associated with an individual’s ability to cope with grief [18]. While high levels of social support is seen immediately following the death of a loved one, these levels quickly decline [18]. Thus, social support is effective in helping individuals in grief, especially those who experience the sudden loss of a loved one [18].
1.5. Depression and Anxiety
Depression is an important factor when examining the severity of grief among individuals. Depression shares many common traits with grief, such as lack of appetite and energy [3]. While grief requires counselling or support, depression can often be treated with pharmacological interventions as well [3].
Anxiety is prominent when an individual is experiencing grief [5]. Anxiety typically relates to separation that has occurred because of the traumatic event [5]. The anxiety that individuals experience due to trauma often resolves on its own with time [5].
1.6. Sense of Control
Sense of control refers to the extent which an individual feels that they are in control of their life and events [13]. Individuals with higher internal sense of control are more likely to experience greater levels of trauma [13]. Internal sense of control is an important factor when attempting to understand the importance of resilience and trauma [13].
1.7. Coping
Coping strategies regulate stress, overcome challenges, and are a source of strength to protect the individual [19]. Coping strategies can be classified into three types—problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidant [19]-[21]. Problem-focused coping tries to remove the stressor or reduce its impact [20]. This can be achieved through planning, use of information, and positive framing [19] [20]. Emotion-focused coping refers to when an individual attempts to reduce the negative feelings that arise in response to an active threat (e.g., self-blame, emotional venting, and use of humor) [19] [20]. Avoidant coping refers to not engaging/acknowledging the presence of an event [20]. Avoidant coping can include behavioral disconnection, denial, and self-distraction (e.g., watching a movie) [19] [20].
1.8. Post-Traumatic Growth
Post traumatic growth refers to positive change experienced by an individual resulting from a traumatic event [10] [22]. The level of trauma an individual experiences can influence the amount of post-traumatic growth [23] [24]. There are five major areas in which individuals can see post-traumatic growth: relating to others (e.g., having empathy for others), new possibilities (e.g., interest in new things), personal strength (e.g., “I learned I was stronger than I previously thought”), spiritual change (e.g., a clearer understanding of spiritual life and matters), and appreciation of life (e.g., “I value my own life more than I did”) [10] [25]. The amount of growth an individual experiences in these categories is significantly affected by their cultural beliefs and personal interpretations of the events [26].
1.9. Current Study
The current study examined the relation between loss, trauma, coping, resilience, and post-traumatic growth in a sample of university students. The aims of this study was to identify the presence of loss and trauma among undergraduate students, post-traumatic growth, and factors affecting them.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Undergraduate students attending St. Mary’s University located in Calgary, Alberta, were invited to participate in the study. Inclusion criteria required participants to be current students at the University, which served as a proxy for age and intelligence requirements. Students were recruited through in-person classes and asked to fill out a series of questionnaires. The average age of these participants was 20.55 (SD = 3.264), as the sample consists of only current undergraduate students.
2.2. Measures
Participants in the study were given a socio-demographic questionnaire and asked to complete questions about their sex/gender, age, current year of study in university, major, student status, marital status, current living arrangement, work status, household income, ethnicity, and religious beliefs.
The 21-item Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG) [27] was used to assess grief (both past and present) that students have experienced related to the loss of a loved one. The TRIG is rated by participants on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“completely true”) to 5 (“completely false”). Eight items ask about past behaviors (e.g., “After this person’s death, I lost interest in my family, friends, and outside activities.”). Thirteen items ask about the participants present feelings (e.g., “I still cry when I think of the person who died.”). Scores for both past and present are counted and summed separately, higher scores are labeled as severe grief, lower scores are labelled as either normal or low levels of grief [28].
The 25-item Posttraumatic Growth Inventory—Expanded (PTGI-X) [10] was used to measure individual growth after experiencing trauma. The PTGI-X contains twenty-five items that are rated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (“I did not experience this change as a result of my crisis.”) to 5 (“I experienced this change to a very great degree as a result of my crisis.”). The PTGI-X is scored by summing scores of respective categories (“relating to others”, e.g., empathy), (“new possibilities”, e.g., new interests), (“personal strength”, e.g., learning you had more strength than you believed you had previously), (“spiritual change”, e.g., greater understanding of spiritual matters), and (“appreciation of life”, e.g., valuing life more) [10] [26]. Higher scores indicate more growth in the category.
The 21-item Depression Anxiety Scale (DASS-21) [29] was used to assess the extent of stress, anxiety, and depression in undergraduate students. The DASS-21 is rated by participants on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (“did not apply to me at all”) to 3 (“applied to me very much or most of the time”). The final score is obtained by summing each category individually and multiplying the sum by two.
The 12-item Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version (ISEL) [30] was used to assess perceived social support in the undergraduate population. The ISEL is rated by participants on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“definitely false”) to 4 (“definitely true”). The final scores are obtained through reverse scoring certain items and summing individual categories. Higher scores indicate higher perceived social support. Scores are classified into the “appraisal” referring to guidance or advice in life decisions [30], “belonging” refers to acceptance or empathy coming from others [30], or “tangible support” referring to financial or material assistance [30].
The 29-item Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale (RLCS) [31] was used to assess locus of control. This scale contains pairs of sentences and the participant has to choose one from each pair (e.g., “No matter how hard you try some people just don’t like you”; “People who can’t get others to like them don’t understand how to get along with others”). Final scores are obtained by summing responses of participants. Higher scores indicate an external locus of control, lower scores indicate an internal locus of control.
The 14-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) [32] was used to assess the amount of stress experienced by undergraduate students over the last month. The PSS is rated by participants on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (“never”) to 4 (“very often”). The final score is obtained through reverse scoring the positive questions, then summing all items. Higher scores indicate greater perceived stress.
The 21-item Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations–Situation Specific Version (CISS) [33] was administered to assess the frequency of different coping strategies in undergraduate students when in a stressful situation. The CISS is used to assess three different subscales of coping: task-oriented coping is related to the use of active problem-solving when faced with stressful situations [34] (e.g., “(I) analyze my problem before reacting”), emotion-oriented coping is related to affective reactions or self-blame when faced with a stressful situation [34] (e.g., “(I) focus on my general inadequacies”), and avoidance-oriented coping is related to strategies of distraction such as social diversion [34] (e.g., “(I) treat myself to a favorite food or snack”). Participants are asked to rate how often they use different strategies when faced with a difficult or stressful situation. The CISS is scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“very much”). Final scores for the CISS are obtained by summing all the items for each subsection. Greater scores indicate higher utilization of that coping strategy.
The 6-item Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) [35] was used to assess the level of resilience of undergraduate students. The BRS contains six items that is rated by participants on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). All six items measure the participant’s level of resilience. The BRS is scored by reverse coding items 2, 4, and 6 and computing the average of all items [35].
2.3. Procedure
After receiving approval from St. Mary’s University Research Ethics Board, participants were recruited from the undergraduate population at the university using convenience sampling. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participation in this study was completely voluntary, and participants were allowed to discontinue the study at any time. Full confidentiality was maintained by not gathering name or any identifying details of the participants. All participants who sign the informed consent were asked to complete the following: a sociodemographic questionnaire, a grief questionnaire (TRIG), a post-traumatic growth questionnaire (PTGI-X), a depression and anxiety scale (DASS-21), a social support scale (ISEL), a locus of control scale (RLCS), a perceived stress scale (PSS), coping inventory (CISS), and a resilience scale (BRS). Additionally, participants were also provided with information about mental health resources. Lastly, participants were given a debriefing sheet with information about coping and to remind them of their right to withdraw as well as the purpose of the study.
2.4. Analysis
Data was analyzed using a combination of correlation and regression models. A multiple linear regression model was used to investigate whether severity of grief can be predicted by resilience, social support, perceived stress, locus of control and depression and anxiety. Similarly, factors affecting post-traumatic growth were also examined.
3. Results
Of the 51 participants who completed the study, 6 (11.76%) did not experience grief. Socio-demographic details of participants are described in Table 1. Most participants were in their first year of study, psychology majors, full-time students, single, living with family, Caucasian, and identified as female and Christian (Table 1). The means and standard deviations of all the measures are described in Table 2.
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics.
|
n = 51 |
Gender |
|
Male |
13 (25.5%) |
Female |
37 (72.5%) |
Other |
1 (2.0%) |
Age in Years (mean, standard deviation) |
20.55 (3.264%) |
Year of Study |
|
First Year |
34 (66.7%) |
Second Year |
6 (11.8%) |
Third Year |
5 (9.8%) |
Fourth Year |
4 (7.8%) |
Fifth Year |
2 (3.9%) |
Major of Study |
|
English |
2 (3.9%) |
General Studies |
3 (5.9%) |
Psychology |
33 (64.7%) |
Biology |
9 (17.6%) |
Education |
1 (2.0%) |
History |
3 (5.9%) |
Student |
|
Part-time Student |
2 (3.9%) |
Full-time Student |
49 (96.1%) |
Current Marital Status |
|
Married |
1 (2.0%) |
Living Common-law |
3 (5.9%) |
Single |
47 (92.2%) |
Current Living Arrangement |
|
Alone |
1 (2.0%) |
With Partner/Spouse |
4 (7.8%) |
With Family |
46 (90.2%) |
Current Work Status |
|
Part-time Employed |
37 (72.5%) |
Full-time Employed |
3 (5.9%) |
Not Working |
11 (21.6%) |
Household Incomea |
|
Under $20,000 |
11 (21.6%) |
$20,001 - $40,000 |
3 (5.9%) |
$40,001 - $60,000 |
4 (7.8%) |
$60,001 - $80,000 |
11 (21.6%) |
$80,001 - 100,000 |
7 (13.7%) |
$100,001 or over |
14 (27.5%) |
Ethnicity |
|
Asian |
15 (29.4%) |
Black |
1 (2.0%) |
Latino |
2 (3.9%) |
Caucasian |
31 (60.8%) |
Indigenous |
1 (2.0%) |
Other |
1 (2.0%) |
Religious Beliefsb |
|
Christian |
33 (64.7%) |
Hinduism |
1 (2.0%) |
Atheist |
8 (15.7%) |
Agnostic |
6 (11.8%) |
Other |
1 (2.0%) |
aData missing for 1 participant; bData missing for 2 participants.
Table 2. Mean (Standard deviation) of measures (n = 51).
|
M |
SD |
TRIGb |
64.911 |
17.618 |
PTGIX Relating to Othersc |
18.25 |
8.99 |
PTGIX New Possibilitiesd |
9.54 |
4.79 |
PTGIX Personal Strengthc |
10.81 |
4.84 |
PTGIX Spiritual Growthc |
14.41 |
8.32 |
PTGIX Appreciation of Lifec |
9.41 |
3.78 |
DASS Stress |
20.47 |
9.99 |
DASS Anxiety |
15.53 |
11.19 |
DASS Depression |
15.68 |
9.87 |
ISEL Appraisal |
12.21 |
3.25 |
ISEL Belonginga |
11.46 |
2.81 |
ISEL Tangible |
12.84 |
2.54 |
RLCSa |
13.04 |
3.49 |
PSSa |
43.44 |
7.04 |
CISS Task |
22.92 |
5.09 |
CISS Emotional |
23.07 |
6.06 |
CISS Avoidant |
21.39 |
5.80 |
BRS |
3.06 |
0.34 |
aData missing for 1 participant; bData missing for 6 participants; cData missing; for 7 participant; dData missing for 8 participants.
3.1. Correlational Analysis
In order to examine the relationships between grief and posttraumatic growth with other variables, Pearson’s correlational analysis was conducted. The level of grief experienced had significant positive correlations with anxiety [r(49) = 0.357, p = 0.016] and emotional oriented coping [r(49) = 0.370, p = 0.012]. Posttraumatic growth relating to others had significant positive correlations with belonging [r(48) = 0.511, p = < 0.001], appraisal [r(49) = 0.420, p = 0.005], tangible support [r(49) = 0.309, p = 0.041], and avoidant-oriented coping [r(49) = 0.302, p = 0.046]. Posttraumatic growth (new possibilities) had a significant positive correlation with anxiety [r(49) = 0.308, p = 0.042], emotional oriented coping [r(49) = 0.308, p = 0.042], and resilience [r(49) = 0.364, p = 0.015]. Posttraumatic growth (personal growth) had a significant positive correlation with belonging [r(48) = 0.465, p = 0.002]. Posttraumatic growth (spiritual growth) had significant positive correlations with belonging [r(48) = 0.355, p = 0.019]. Posttraumatic growth (appreciation of life) had significant positive correlations with belonging [r(48) = 0.412, p = 0.006]. See Table 3 for correlations between variables.
Table 3. Correlation between variables.
|
TRIG |
PTGIX Relating |
PTGIX New Possibilities |
PTGIX Personal Growth |
PTGIX Spiritual Growth |
PTGIX Appreciation of life |
TRIG |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
PTGIX Relating |
0.104 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
PTGIX New Possibilities |
0.436** |
0.549** |
— |
— |
— |
— |
PTGIX Personal Growth |
0.088 |
0.697** |
0.562** |
— |
— |
— |
PTGIX Spiritual Growth |
0.101 |
0.597** |
0.653** |
0.584** |
— |
— |
PTGIX Appreciation of life |
0.166 |
0.541** |
0.510** |
0.674** |
0.626** |
— |
DASS Stress |
0.266 |
−0.064 |
0.164 |
−0.038 |
−0.113 |
0.181 |
DASS Anxiety |
0.357* |
0.063 |
0.308* |
0.080 |
0.051 |
0.103 |
DASS Depression |
0.291 |
−0.222 |
0.054 |
−0.123 |
−0.197 |
−0.102 |
ISEL Appraisal |
−0.004 |
0.420** |
0.066 |
0.197 |
0.202 |
0.122 |
ISEL Belonging |
0.044 |
0.511** |
0.285 |
0.465** |
0.355* |
0.412** |
ISEL Tangible |
−0.087 |
0.309* |
−0.071 |
0.254 |
−0.003 |
0.243 |
RLCS |
0.296 |
−0.299 |
−0.235 |
−0.283 |
−0.151 |
−0.216 |
PSS |
0.261 |
−0.191 |
−0.053 |
−0.291 |
−0.251 |
−0.192 |
CISS Task |
0.103 |
0.083 |
0.203 |
0.284 |
0.077 |
0.241 |
CISS Emotional |
0.370* |
0.172 |
0.308* |
−0.024 |
0.019 |
0.089 |
CISS Avoidant |
0.182 |
0.302* |
0.143 |
0.227 |
0.165 |
0.094 |
BRS |
0.041 |
−0.034 |
0.364* |
0.003 |
0.019 |
0.129 |
*p < 0.05 (2-tailed); **p < 0.01 (2-tailed).
3.2. Regression Analysis
To further understand the interrelationship between variables, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple comparison (revised alpha = 0.008). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that PTGIX (relating to others) is predicted by anxiety, stress, belonging, locus of control, emotional coping, avoidant coping, and resilience. The results were significant after Bonferroni corrections [F(7, 34) = 4.632, p = 0.001]. The final model accounted for nearly 50% of the variance in PTGIX (relating to others) (R2 = 0.488). Emotional coping and belonging were significant individual predictors in the model, with higher levels of both predicting greater PTGIX (relating to others) (Table 4). The remaining regression analyses are reported below, however, they are interpreted cautiously as they did not survive correction for multiple comparisons. Linear regression of TRIG grief level was conducted to determine whether it could be predicted by anxiety, stress, belonging, locus of control, emotional coping, avoidant coping, and resilience. Results found the model was significant before corrections [F(7, 36) = 3.078, p = 0.012, R2 = 0.374] (Table 5). Linear regression of PTGIX (new possibilities) was conducted to determine whether it could be predicted by stress, belonging, locus of control, emotional coping, avoidant coping, and resilience. The model was significant before corrections [F(7, 34) = 2.769, p = 0.022, R2 = 0.363] (Table 6). Linear regression of PTGIX (personal strength) was conducted to determine whether it could be predicted by stress, belonging, locus of control, emotional coping, avoidant coping, and resilience. The model was significant before corrections [F(7, 34) = 2.709, p = 0.024, R2 = 0.358] (Table 7). Linear regression of PTGIX (spiritual growth) was conducted to determine whether it could be predicted by stress, belonging, locus of control, emotional coping, avoidant coping, and resilience. The model was not significant [F(7, 34) = 1.299, p = 0.281, R2 = 0.211] (Table 8). Linear regression of PTGIX (appreciation of life) was conducted to determine whether it could be predicted by stress, belonging, locus of control, emotional coping, avoidant coping, and resilience. The model was significant before corrections [F(7, 34) = 2.023, p = 0.081, R2 = 0.294] (Table 9).
Table 4. Results of Linear regression analysis with posttraumatic growth inventory relating to others, the depression, anxiety and stress scale—21 items, interpersonal support evaluation list shortened version—12 items, rotter’s locus of control scale, perceived stress scale, coping inventory for stressful situations—situation specific version, brief resilience scale (n = 51).
|
|
|
95% CI |
|
|
|
Variable |
Beta |
SE |
LL |
UL |
β |
t |
p |
(Constant) |
19.606 |
14.478 |
−9.817 |
49.028 |
|
1.354 |
0.185 |
DASS Anxiety |
0.076 |
0.110 |
−0.147 |
0.299 |
0.099 |
0.693 |
0.493 |
ISEL Belonging |
1.801 |
0.469 |
0.848 |
2.754 |
0.527 |
3.842 |
<0.001 |
RLCS |
−0.412 |
0.310 |
−1.042 |
0.217 |
−0.169 |
−1.331 |
0.192 |
PSS |
−0.533 |
0.220 |
−0.979 |
−0.087 |
−0.420 |
−2.427 |
0.021 |
CISS Emotional |
0.883 |
0.284 |
0.305 |
1.460 |
0.605 |
3.106 |
0.004 |
CISS Avoidant |
−0.093 |
0.227 |
−0.553 |
0.368 |
−0.059 |
−0.409 |
0.685 |
BRS |
−4.183 |
3.844 |
−11.995 |
3.629 |
−0.150 |
−1.088 |
0.284 |
Note: CI = Confidence interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit, SE = Standard Error, 𝛽 = Beta.
Predictors: (Constant), Posttraumatic Growth Inventory Relating to Others.
Table 5. Results of linear regression analysis with Texas revised inventory of grief, the depression, anxiety and stress scale—21 items, interpersonal support evaluation list shortened version—12 items, rotter’s locus of control scale, perceived stress scale, coping inventory for stressful situations—situation specific version, brief resilience scale (n = 51).
|
|
|
95% CI |
|
|
|
Variable |
Beta |
SE |
LL |
UL |
β |
t |
p |
(Constant) |
44.750 |
30.486 |
−17.079 |
106.579 |
|
1.468 |
0.151 |
DASS Anxiety |
0.516 |
0.231 |
0.048 |
0.984 |
0.344 |
2.236 |
0.032 |
ISEL Belonging |
0.713 |
0.941 |
−1.196 |
2.622 |
0.110 |
0.758 |
0.454 |
RLCS |
1.392 |
0.653 |
0.067 |
2.717 |
0.292 |
2.131 |
0.040 |
PSS |
0.067 |
0.445 |
−0.835 |
0.969 |
0.027 |
0.151 |
0.881 |
CISS Emotional |
0.529 |
0.561 |
−0.609 |
1.666 |
0.190 |
0.943 |
0.352 |
CISS Avoidant |
0.803 |
0.472 |
−0.155 |
1.761 |
0.263 |
1.700 |
0.098 |
BRS |
−15.357 |
7.960 |
−31.500 |
0.786 |
−0.285 |
−1.929 |
0.062 |
Note: CI = Confidence interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit, SE = Standard Error, 𝛽 = Beta.
Predictors: (Constant), TRIG.
Table 6. Results of linear regression analysis with posttraumatic growth inventory new possibilities, the depression, anxiety and stress scale—21 items, interpersonal support evaluation list shortened version—12 items, rotter’s locus of control scale, perceived stress scale, coping inventory for stressful situations—situation specific version, brief resilience scale (n = 51).
|
|
|
95% CI |
|
|
|
Variable |
Beta |
SE |
LL |
UL |
β |
t |
p |
(Constant) |
1.618 |
8.387 |
−15.427 |
18.662 |
|
0.193 |
0.848 |
DASS Anxiety |
0.100 |
0.064 |
−0.030 |
0.229 |
0.250 |
1.564 |
0.127 |
ISEL Belonging |
0.561 |
0.272 |
0.009 |
1.113 |
0.316 |
2.066 |
0.047 |
RLCS |
−0.185 |
0.180 |
−0.550 |
0.180 |
−0.146 |
−1.031 |
0.310 |
PSS |
−0.212 |
0.127 |
−0.471 |
0.046 |
−0.323 |
−1.669 |
0.104 |
CISS Emotional |
0.275 |
0.165 |
−0.060 |
0.609 |
0.363 |
1.670 |
0.104 |
CISS Avoidant |
0.043 |
0.131 |
−0.224 |
0.310 |
0.053 |
0.327 |
0.745 |
BRS |
1.356 |
2.227 |
−3.170 |
5.881 |
0.094 |
0.609 |
0.547 |
Note: CI = Confidence interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit, SE = Standard Error, β = Beta.
Predictors: (Constant), Posttraumatic Growth Inventory New Possibilities.
Table 7. Results of linear regression analysis with posttraumatic growth inventory personal strength, anxiety and stress scale—21 items, interpersonal support evaluation list shortened version—12 items, rotter’s locus of control scale, perceived stress scale, coping inventory for stressful situations—situation specific version, brief resilience scale (n = 51).
|
|
|
95% CI |
|
|
|
Variable |
Beta |
SE |
LL |
UL |
β |
t |
p |
(Constant) |
13.674 |
8.872 |
−4.356 |
31.705 |
|
1.541 |
0.133 |
DASS Anxiety |
0.086 |
0.067 |
−0.051 |
0.222 |
0.204 |
1.272 |
0.212 |
ISEL Belonging |
0.765 |
0.287 |
0.181 |
1.349 |
0.409 |
2.664 |
0.012 |
RLCS |
−0.222 |
0.190 |
−0.608 |
0.164 |
−0.166 |
−1.169 |
0.251 |
PSS |
−0.259 |
0.135 |
−0.532 |
0.015 |
−0.373 |
−1.921 |
0.063 |
CISS Emotional |
0.184 |
0.174 |
−0.169 |
0.538 |
.231 |
1.059 |
0.297 |
CISS Avoidant |
0.032 |
0.139 |
−0.250 |
0.314 |
0.037 |
0.230 |
0.819 |
BRS |
−1.229 |
2.356 |
−6.016 |
3.558 |
−0.081 |
−0.522 |
0.605 |
Note: CI = Confidence interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit, SE = Standard Error, β = Beta.
Predictors: (Constant), Posttraumatic Growth Inventory Personal Growth.
Table 8. Results of linear regression analysis with posttraumatic growth inventory spiritual growth, anxiety and stress scale—21 items, interpersonal support evaluation list shortened version—12 items, rotter’s locus of control scale, perceived stress scale, coping inventory for stressful situations—situation specific version, brief resilience scale (n = 51).
|
|
|
95% CI |
|
|
|
Variable |
Beta |
SE |
LL |
UL |
β |
t |
p |
(Constant) |
13.203 |
16.095 |
−19.506 |
45.912 |
|
0.820 |
0.418 |
DASS Stress |
0.092 |
0.122 |
−0.157 |
0.340 |
0.134 |
0.750 |
0.458 |
ISEL Belonging |
1.085 |
0.521 |
0.026 |
2.144 |
0.355 |
2.082 |
0.045 |
RLCS |
−0.087 |
0.344 |
−0.788 |
0.613 |
−0.040 |
−0.254 |
0.801 |
PSS |
−0.295 |
0.244 |
−0.791 |
0.201 |
−0.260 |
−1.207 |
0.236 |
CISS Emotional |
0.188 |
0.316 |
−0.454 |
0.830 |
0.144 |
0.596 |
0.555 |
CISS Avoidant |
0.083 |
0.252 |
−0.429 |
0.595 |
0.059 |
0.330 |
0.744 |
BRS |
−1.588 |
4.274 |
−10.273 |
7.097 |
−0.064 |
−0.372 |
0.713 |
Note: CI = Confidence interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit, SE = Standard Error, β = Beta.
Predictors: (Constant), Posttraumatic Growth Inventory Spiritual Growth.
Table 9. Results of linear regression analysis with posttraumatic growth inventory appreciation of life, anxiety and stress scale—21 items, interpersonal support evaluation list shortened version—12 items, rotter’s locus of control scale, perceived stress scale, coping inventory for stressful situations—situation specific version, brief resilience scale (n = 51).
|
|
|
95% CI |
|
|
|
Variable |
Beta |
SE |
LL |
UL |
β |
t |
p |
(Constant) |
7.829 |
7.114 |
−6.629 |
22.287 |
|
1.101 |
0.279 |
DASS Stress |
0.042 |
0.054 |
−0.068 |
0.151 |
0.130 |
0.773 |
0.445 |
ISEL Belonging |
0.651 |
0.230 |
0.183 |
1.119 |
0.455 |
2.825 |
0.008 |
RLCS |
−0.112 |
0.152 |
−0.422 |
0.197 |
−0.110 |
−0.738 |
0.466 |
PSS |
−0.154 |
0.108 |
−0.374 |
0.065 |
−0.291 |
−1.429 |
0.162 |
CISS Emotional |
0.171 |
0.140 |
−0.113 |
0.454 |
0.280 |
1.223 |
0.230 |
CISS Avoidant |
−0.030 |
0.111 |
−0.256 |
0.197 |
−0.045 |
−0.266 |
0.792 |
BRS |
−0.591 |
1.889 |
−4.430 |
3.248 |
−0.051 |
−0.313 |
0.756 |
Note: CI = Confidence interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit, SE = Standard Error, β = Beta.
Predictors: (Constant), Posttraumatic Growth Inventory Appreciation of Life.
4. Discussion
Currently, there is limited research on grief, resilience, coping, and post-traumatic growth in the undergraduate student population. Bylund-Grenklo et al. (2021) investigated the impact of death of a parent on teenagers and found that over half the participants had not found a proper way to grieve for the loss they endured [8]. The current study found that nearly 90% of the respondents reported experiencing grief. Our study further found that higher levels of grief was associated with higher levels of anxiety and emotion-oriented coping. Posttraumatic growth was also associated with anxiety and emotional-oriented coping, but also with higher interpersonal support and resilience. Linear regression analysis showed that anxiety, stress, belonging, emotional coping, sense of control, avoidant coping, and resilience did not predict grief. However, stress, belonging, and emotional-oriented coping significantly predicted posttraumatic growth.
4.1. Grief
Our findings about anxiety were similar to [36] which reported individuals experienced higher levels of anxiety related to grief. However, our sample differs from [36] in that they observed caregivers while we observed undergraduate students with varying relationships to the deceased. Our findings about coping styles were similar to [37] which found a positive association between emotional coping styles and the amount of grief, but also varies from other studies [38]. Future research may clarify the relation between these variables.
4.2. Posttraumatic Growth and Interpersonal Support
Our study demonstrated a significant positive association between posttraumatic growth and interpersonal support. These findings suggest that individuals will experience more posttraumatic growth when interpersonal support is available. Our findings are similar to [39] which found that interpersonal support is positively correlated with higher levels of posttraumatic growth. However, other studies have found no significant relation between posttraumatic growth and interpersonal support [40]. The difference in findings could be attributed to [40] investigating online social support while we used questionnaires, and [39] investigating social support through partners. Future studies should further explore the difference between online and in-person support.
4.3. Posttraumatic Growth and Resilience
Our study found a significant positive relation between posttraumatic growth and resilience. Our findings are similar to findings by [41] which found resilience to be positively correlated with post-traumatic growth.
4.4. Posttraumatic Growth and Anxiety
Our study found a significant positive relation between posttraumatic growth and anxiety. These findings suggest that individuals who experience greater amount of anxiety will have more posttraumatic growth. Findings were similar to [42], which found the greatest levels of posttraumatic growth were associated with moderate anxiety levels. Furthermore, the type of traumatic event and presence of prolonged grief can affect the amount of anxiety [42].
4.5. Posttraumatic Growth and Relating to Others
Our study found that posttraumatic growth—specifically relating to others—had a significant positive correlation with stress, belonging, and emotional coping. Our findings differ from [42] who found no relation between post traumatic growth relating to others and stress. Future research should continue to investigate the role that stress plays on posttraumatic growth relating to others. A study by [43] found posttraumatic growth relating to others was associated with higher levels of emotional coping in a sample of caretakers of patients. There has been a lack of research into the relationship between posttraumatic growth relating to others and sense of belonging. This is likely owing to both concepts being similar to each other. Belonging refers to the extent to which an individual feels they fit in with others, while posttraumatic growth relating to others measures factors such as empathy felt by the individual.
4.6. Limitations
The primary limitation of this study was the relatively small sample size (n = 51) and use of convenience sampling, which decreases statistical power and generalizability to the larger population. Further studies may aim to collect data from a larger sample or combine data from multiple undergraduate samples.
The second limitation of the study is that information regarding when the loss occurred was not included in statistical analysis. Time elapsed since the loss maybe significantly associated with severity of grief and post-traumatic growth.
5. Conclusion
The study has the potential to inform post-secondary institutions about the impact grief has on the undergraduate population and the factors that can ameliorate its effects. Our findings suggest the need for greater awareness of grief in the undergraduate population and need for support systems to help them. Finally, our study suggests that certain factors which underlie grief—such as anxiety and emotion-oriented coping—may also provide an impetus for posttraumatic growth. As the current study is cross-sectional in nature, further longitudinal studies are required to determine whether a causal relation exists between severity of grief, use of emotion-oriented coping, and post-traumatic growth.
Abbreviation
TRIG, Texas Revised Inventory of Grief; PTGIX, Posttraumatic Growth Inventory-Expanded; DASS, The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale—21 Items; ISEL, Interpersonal Support Evaluation List Shortened Version—12 Items; RLCS, Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale; PSS, Perceived stress scale; CISS, Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations—Situation Specific Version; BRS, Brief Resilience Scale.