LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY This survey is created for the purpos.docx

LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY
This survey is created for the purpose of measuring the effects
of school and work on college students life satisfaction. Please
answer the following statements with the utmost truthfulness
and sincerity. Rest assured that all your answers on this survey
will be kept confidential and will be used only for this research
purpose. To ensure confidentiality, do not write or include your
name on this survey.
Considering the past 30 days please select one answer for the
following 40 questions.
Please check the appropriate box for your answer.
1. I spend a good amount of time socializing with friends.
(about 3-5 hrs per week)
Extremely Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
2. I feel that I have a strong support system from my family.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
3. I get an average of 7-9 hours of sleep per night.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
4. On a weekly basis, I often find myself feeling anxious.

Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
5. I have found it difficult to relax.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
6. I constantly worry about school assignments.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
7. I feel I have enough time to engage in hobbies that interest
me.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
8. I have accomplished most of the goals I have set.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
9. I spend an average of 1-2 hours studying daily.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)

10. I feel that my romantic relationship has been a stressful part
of my life.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
11. I feel that I have a strong support system from my romantic
partner.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
12. I recognize that I put good enougheffort into my school
work.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
13. I am motivated to achieve my school related goals.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
14. I am financially stable in my current situation.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
15. I am satisfied with the amount of quality time spent with
family.

Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
16. In most ways, my life is close to ideal.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
17. I am satisfied with my life.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
18. So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
19. The conditions of my life are excellent.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
20. If I could relive my life over , I would change almost
nothing.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
21. I like who I am.

Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
22. My life feels to be in good balance. to me.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
23. I am confident with myself.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
24. I celebrate my successes.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
25. I am satisfied with my level of self confidence.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
26. I have a rewarding life outside of work.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
27. I generally enjoy life and feel happy.

Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
28. I enjoy going to work.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
29. I am doing what I love.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
30. I am happy with the money I earn.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
31. I am satisfied with my grade point average (GPA).
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
32. My work does not cause me unessary undue stress.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
33. My work allows me time for fun and leisure.

Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
34. I am capable of completing assignments on time.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
35. I am confident meeting new people.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
36. I am happy in my relationships (family, friends, or other).
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
37. I am satisfied with the hours I work.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
38. I am satisfied with the hours I spend studying for school.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
39. I maintain a healthy diet.

Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
40. I make time to relax daily.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
For the following 5 questions please select the answer that best
identifies with you.
41. Sex :
▢ Female
▢ Male
▢ Non-binary
▢ Other
42. Ethnicity:
▢ White
▢ African American
▢ Native American/Alaskan Native
▢ Asian/Pacific Islander
▢ Hispanic/Latino
▢ Native Hawaiian
▢ Other
43. Race:
▢ White
▢ Black/ African American
▢ Indian (American)
▢ Alaskan Native
▢ Native Hawaiian
▢ Chinese
▢ Filipino

▢ Japanese
▢ Korean
▢ Vietnamese
▢ Other
44. Current Education:
▢ Undergrad
▢ Graduate
▢ Trade/ Technical/ Vocational Training
45. Educational goal:
▢ Associate Degree
▢ Bachelor’s Degree
▢ Master’s Degree
▢ Graduate degree
▢ Doctoral degree
Please answer the following 4 questions as best as possible.
46. Are you employed? _________. If yes, please state weather
part-time (1-30 hrs weekly) or full-time (30+ hrs weekly)
___________.
47. What is your age? :___________
48. How many class units are you currently enrolled
in?___________
49. How many hours do you work weekly? _____________
Thank you for answering this student survey. The answers you
have provided will help greatly in understanding the effects that
school and work have on college students’ life satisfaction
level.

Research Question:
Does employment status have a negative impact on the life
satisfaction of college students?
Introduction:
“Increased work hours tended to negatively affect sleep and
increase feelings of being overwhelmed (Autry, Day, Lederer, &
Oswalt, 2015).”

Hypotheses
Hypothesis #1
Students who work are less satisfied with their lives than
students who don’t work.
Hypothesis #2
Students who are planning to pursue a higher education are less
satisfied with their lives than students who are not.
Variables:
Independent Variables:
Employment status
Educational goals
Gender
Dependent Variable:
Life satisfaction
Our method:
Convenience sampling.
Online and paper surveys.
102 participants. (Females:63, Males: 39)
36 Likert Scale items, 5 demographic items, and 6 open-ended

items (47 in total).
One-way and two-way anova.
Results:
Hypothesis 1 : Students who work are less satisfied with their
lives than students who don’t work.
One-Way Anova
p = .43
Mean = 2.47Mean NEmployed 2.5078Unemployed 2.3724
Results:
Hypothesis 1 cont.:
Two-way Anova
Gender: p = .004
Employment status: p = .76
Interaction: p = .02FemaleMaleEmployed M = 2.45 (N = 46)M =
2.11 (N = 17)UnemployedM = 2.56 (N = 32)M = 3.00 (N = 7)

Results:
Hypothesis 2: Students who are planning to pursue a higher
education are less satisfied with their lives than students who
are not.
One-Way Anova
p = .49
Mean = .37MeanNAssociate's Degree2.4219Bachelor’s
Degree2.3844Master’s Degree2.6232Doctorate’s Degree2.427
Results:
Hypothesis 2 cont.:
Two-way Anova
Gender: p = .045
Educational goal: p = .042
Interaction: p = .022FemaleMaleAssociate's DegreeM = 2.33 (N
= 12)M = 2.57 (N = 7)Bachelor’s DegreeM = 2.40 (N = 25)M =
2.36 (N = 19)Master’s DegreeM = 2.34 (N =23)M = 3.33 (N =
9)Doctorate’s DegreeM = 2.33 (N = 3)M = 2.50 (N = 4)

Strengths and Weaknesses:
Strengths:
We gained stats on the lives of employed/unemployed college
students.
We obtained skills on analyzing and inputting data.
Weaknesses:
We had some missing data on a few of our paper surveys,
causing slight issues.
There are some questions that could have been phrased
differently for clarification.
Reference:
Lederer, A. M., Autry, D. M., Day, C. R. T., & Oswalt, S. B.
(2015). The Impact of
Work and Volunteer Hours on the Health of Undergraduate
Students. Journal of
American College Health, 63(6), 403-408. Doi:
10.1080/07448481.2015.1015028

Conclusion:
The results did not support either of our hypotheses.
Gender turned out to be a significant main effect when added to
our tests.
Men who are unemployed have higher life satisfaction.
274 Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological
Sciences, Volume 31, Number 3, September 2018
Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological
Sciences 2018;31:274-283 Research / Araştırma
DOI: 10.5350/DAJPN2018310305
The Relationship Between
Life Satisfaction,
Attachment Styles, and
Psychological Resilience in
University Students
Zahide Tepeli Temiz1 ,
Itir Tari Comert1

1Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakif University,
Department of Psychology, Istanbul - Turkey
ABSTRACT
The relationship between life satisfaction, attachment styles,
and psychological resilience
in university students
Objective: The main aim of the current research is to investigate
the relationship of attachment styles to life satisfaction
and psychological resilience of university students. Another aim
of the present study is to see whether life satisfaction
scores differ by the subjects’ level of psychological resilience.
Method: The current work is a descriptive study using the
relational screaning model. The study sample consisted of 425
university students, 302 of whom (71.1%) were female and the
remaining 123 (29.9%) male. Convenience sampling was used
in selecting the sample. The sample group was composed of
undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral students. Data was
collected through Experiences in Close Relationships Scale II
(ECRS-II) for attachment styles, the Satisfaction with Life
Scale
(SCLS) for life satisfaction, and the Resilience Scale for Adults
(RSA) for psychological resilience.
Results: Research findings concerning attachment styles of
university students indicated that 49.4% of the sample
displayed an avoidant and 48.9% an anxious attachment pattern.
Individuals taking a score below the median in both
anxious and avoidant dimensions of attachment, which
constituted 31.7% of the study population, were defined as
being
securely attached. Study findings showed that the anxiety and
avoidance sub-dimensions of attachment negatively
predicted the total score of satisfaction with life. An increase in
anxious and avoidant attachment scores was associated
with lower levels of life satisfaction. Multiple regression

analysis revealed that the anxious and avoidant attachment
styles
did not predict psychological resilience. In addition,
satisfaction with life scores of university students varied
according to
levels of psychological resilience. Individuals who had a high
level of psychological resilience were found to have increased
satisfaction with life compared to those who had a low level of
psychological resilience.
Discussion: There are many studies indicating attachment styles
to be the main determinant of subjective well-being.
Study findings show that secure attachment affects satisfaction
with life, which is one of the elements of subjective well-
being and positive development. It is seen that the ability of
university students to adapt to stressful and difficult conditions
and to cope with unfavorable situations is associated with their
satisfaction with life. Thus, psychotherapeutic interventions
focused on improvement of attachment relations and
enhancement of psychological resilience may increase the
overall
satisfaction with life.
Keywords: Attachment styles, life satisfaction, psychological
resilience, subjective well-being
ÖZ
Üniversite öğrencilerinin yaşam doyumları, bağlanma stilleri ve
psikolojik dayanıklılıklarının
birbirleriyle olan ilişkisinin incelenmesi
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın birinci amacı üniversite öğrencilerinin
bağlanma stilleri ile yaşam doyumu ve psikolojik dayanıklılık
düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Çalışmanın bir diğer
amacı ise psikolojik dayanıklılık düzeylerine göre üniversite
öğrencilerinin yaşamdan aldıkları doyumun farklılaşıp
farklılaşmadığını görmektir.
Yöntem: Bu çalışma ilişkisel tarama yöntemi ile yapılmış
betimleyici bir çalışmadır. Çalışmaya 425 üniversite öğrencisi

katılmıştır. Örneklem seçiminde kolay ulaşılabilir örnekleme
yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Örneklem grubu lisans, yüksek lisans ve
doktora düzeyinde öğrenim görmekte olan üniversite
öğrencilerinden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmaya 302 (%71.1) kadın,
123
(%28.9) erkek öğrenci katılmıştır. Üniversite öğrencilerinin
bağlanma örüntüleri Yakın İlişkilerde Yaşantılar Envanteri II
(YİYE-II),
yaşam doyumu Yaşam Doyumu Ölçeği (YDÖ), psikolojik
dayanıklılığı Yetişkinler İçin Dayanıklılık Ölçeği (YİDÖ)
kullanılarak
ölçülmüştür.
Bulgular: Örneklem grubunun bağlanma stillerini belirlemeye
yönelik yapılan analizler sonucunda, katılımcıların %49.4’ünün
kaçınmacı, %48.9’unun kaygılı bağlanma örüntüsü
sergiledikleri görülmektedir. Her iki bağlanma boyutunda
medyanın altında
puan alanlar güvenli bağlanma örüntüsü ile tanımlanmakta ve
örneklemin %31.7’sini oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçlarına
göre güvensiz bağlanmanın kaygı ve kaçınma alt boyutları
yaşam doyumu puanlarını negatif yönde yordamaktadır.
Bireylerin
kaygılı ve kaçınmacı bağlanma puanları arttıkça yaşam doyumu
düzeyleri düşmektedir. Çoklu regresyon analizi sonuçları
kaygılı
ve kaçınmacı bağlanma stillerinin psikolojik dayanıklılığı
yordamadığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca üniversite öğrencilerinin
psikolojik dayanıklılık düzeyine göre yaşamdan aldıkları doyum
farklılaşmaktadır. Psikolojik dayanıklılığı yüksek olan kişilerin
yaşam doyumu puanları, dayanıklılığı düşük olan gruba göre
anlamlı ölçüde yüksek bulunmuştur.
Tartışma: Bağlanma ilişkilerinin, öznel iyi oluşun temel
belirleyicisi olduğunu gösteren pek çok çalışma bulunmaktadır.
Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular güvenli bağlanmanın, pozitif
gelişimin ve öznel iyi oluşun bileşenlerinden biri olan
yaşam doyumunu etkilediğini göstermektedir. Üniversite

öğrencilerinin stres ve zorlu durumlara uyum gösterme ve
negatif durumlarla başa çıkma yetisinin, yaşamdan aldıkları
doyumla ilişkili olduğu görülmektedir. Bağlanma ilişkilerini
geliştirmeye ve psikolojik dayanıklılığı artırmaya yönelik
psikoterapötik girişimlerin genel yaşam doyumunu artıracağı
düşünülmektedir.
Anahtar kelimeler: Bağlanma stilleri, yaşam doyumu, psikolojik
dayanıklılık, öznel iyi oluş
How to cite this article: Tepeli-Temiz Z, Tari-
Comert I. The relationship between life satisfaction,
attachment styles, and psychological resilience in
university students. Dusunen Adam The Journal of
Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 2018;31:274-
283.
https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN2018310305
Address reprint requests to / Yazışma adresi:
Zahide Tepeli Temiz,
Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakif University,
Department of Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey
Phone / Telefon: +90-212-521-8100/6028
E-mail address / Elektronik posta adresi:
[email protected]
Date of receipt / Geliş tarihi:
December 22, 2017 / 22 Aralık 2017
Date of the first revision letter /
İlk düzeltme öneri tarihi:
January 30, 2018 / 30 Ocak 2018
Date of acceptance / Kabul tarihi:
March 13, 2018 / 13 Mart 2018

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6980-1226
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6032-4416
https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN2018310305
Tepeli-Temiz Z, Tari-Comert I
275Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological
INTRODUCTION
The interaction with the primary caregiver (mostly the mother)
in the first years of life is thought to
have a relatively critical impact on peoples’ lives.
Attachment theory examines the relationship between
infant and primary caregiver and explains the
development of personality on the basis of this
relationship (1,2). Attachment is defined in the
broadest sense as ‘emotional bond developed to a
special person’ (1-3). The need for emotional bonding
is highly functional for the survival and developmental
course of the newborn (4-7). The emotional bond
established with the primary caregiver also serves as a
“secure base” that allows for the child to explore the
surroundings (3,8,9).
The attachment pattern based on the emotional
interaction between the mother and the infant during
early childhood maintains its impact also in adulthood
(10), affecting the individual’s mental health and
behaviors.
Not least thanks to the effects of positive
psychology, psychological research is increasingly
focusing on the importance of life satisfaction (11). Life
satisfaction is a component of subjective well-being
(12) and a positive indicator of mental health (13).

Experimental studies emphasize the protective
mechanism of life satisfaction against negative effects of
stress and the development of psychological disorders
(14). Moreover, while high levels of life satisfaction are
associated with happiness and good living conditions
(15), low levels of life satisfaction are associated with
depression and unhappiness (11). Substantial evidence
suggests that attachment styles are the key determinants
of subjective well-being (16). It is seen that individuals
with secure attachments have high self-esteem with
both increased academic achievements and life
satisfaction (17).
Studies show that attachment has a direct impact on
life satisfaction (17-19). Psychological resilience is
defined in the most general sense as the ability to adapt
to stressful and difficult conditions. Psychological
resilience, also conceptualized as ‘stress-resistant
attitude’, represents the ability to cope with unfavorable
situations (20,21). The theories explaining psychological
resilience based on the developmental process actually
take into consideration the relationship established by
the child with the primary caregiver. Therefore,
psychological resilience is based on the child’s early
attachment relationships (21,22). While attachment
theorists assume that secure attachment enhances
psychological resilience (23,24), only a limited number
of studies have examined the relationship between
attachment and resilience (25). Several studies reported
that psychological resilience was also associated with a
high level of life satisfaction (26). This study primarily
aimed to examine the relationship of attachment styles
(anxious and ambivalent) of university students to their
life satisfaction and psychological resilience levels.
Another aim of the study was to see whether the life
satisfaction of university students differs according to

psychological resilience levels. Finally, the study also
aimed to examine the distribution of attachment
dimensions among university students.
METHOD
The study population consists of university
students enrolled in various faculties at state and
private universities of Turkey in the academic year
2016-2017. Convenience sampling was used in
selecting the sample. For this purpose, classes were
chosen randomly in the psychology department of
Fatih Sultan Mehmet Foundation University.
Responses to the measurement tools were obtained on
a voluntary basis. At Bogazici University, two courses
that were mandatory for all departments such as
History or Turkish were randomly selected and student
volunteers completed the scales. The scale items were
a l s o p r e p a r e d i n o n l i n e f o r m a t t o i m p r o v
e
generalizability of the study. Online questionnaires
were distributed among university students via Google
Docs; in this way, student volunteers participated in
the study. Out of 425 participating students, 71.1%
were female and 28.9% were male. The age range in
the sample including undergraduate, master’s, and
doctoral students was between 18 and 39 years
(Mean=22:50, SD=3.26). While the majority of
and psychological resilience in university students

students (70.8%) were studying at private universities,
28.5% were studying at state universities and 0.7% at
other (unidentified) universities. Distribution of the
study population by faculties showed that 65.9% were
from a faculty of science and letters, 9.6% from an
engineering faculty, 7.5% from a faculty of economics
and administrative sciences, 4.5% from a faculty of
education, 2.4% from a faculty of health sciences,
1.6% from a theological faculty, 1.2% from a faculty of
law, 0.9% from a faculty of communication, and 6.1%
from other faculties. Most of the study population
(86.4%) consisted of undergraduate students, whereas
10.1% and 3.5% of students were enrolled in master’s
and Ph.D. programs, respectively.
Measures
This study was approved by the ethics committee of
Fatih Sultan Mehmet Foundation University. The
measurement tools used in the current study were
administered individually to the students at Fatih Sultan
Mehmet Vakif University and Bogazici University. In
addition, students at other universities were reached via
Google Docs, where those who agreed to participate
voluntarily filled in online surveys. Confidentiality was
observed during administration and informed consent
was obtained from all students participating in the
study. It took approximately 15-20 minutes for the
student participants to complete the questionnaire.
D e m o g r a p h i c I n f o r m a t i o n F o r m : T h e
demographic information form prepared by the
researcher according to the purpose of the study is
composed of 16 questions about participants’ gender,
age, marital status, university and department where

they studied, financial status, the environments where
they mostly live in, birth order, academic achievement,
educational status of their parents, relationships with
their friends, and perceived peer influence.
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale II
(ECRS-II): In this study, ECRS-II was utilized, which
is commonly used for determining attachment styles in
adults and has a high measurement sensitivity.
Developed by Fraley et al. (27) in 2000, ECRS-II was
prepared as a 7-point Likert-type scale. It consists of 36
items, measuring two subscales: anxiety about
attachment (18 items) and avoidance of attachment (18
items). The odd-numbered items measure the anxiety
dimension and the even-numbered items the avoidance
dimension. Two different total scores are obtained
from the scale, varying between 18 and 126 for each
sub-dimension. An increase in the scores of the
subscales indicates an increase of anxiety or avoidance
of attachment, respectively (27).
The Turkish validity and reliability study of the
scale was performed by Selcuk et al. (28) Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient was found to be 0.90 for the
avoidance dimension and 0.86 for the anxiety
dimension. It was also reported that ECRS-II had a
high test-retest reliability, which was 0.81 for the
avoidance dimension and 0.82 for the anxiety
dimension. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were
detected as 0.88 for both anxious attachment and
avoidant attachment in this study.
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): SWLS
was developed by Diener et al. (15) in 1985. The scale,
which aims to measure general life satisfaction, consists
of five items and each item is answered according to a

rating system of seven. An increase in the scores of the
scale indicates that general life satisfaction is increasing.
The Turkish adaptation of the scale was performed by
Koker (29). The item-test correlations of the Turkish
form of the scale vary between 0.71 and 0.80. The test-
retest coefficient was found to be 0.85 (29). Cronbach’s
alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale was
detected to be 0.83 in this study.
Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA): RSA was
developed in 2003 by Friborg et al. (30). The scale
consists of five sub-dimensions. These dimensions are:
(1) personal strength; (2) structured style; (3) social
competence; (4) family cohesion; and (5) social
resources. In a study by Friborg et al. (30) in 2005, the
personal strength sub-dimension was further divided
into two sub-dimensions, ‘perception of self’ and
‘perception of future’, eliciting a six-factor structure.
The Turkish adaptation of the scale was performed
by Basim and Cetin (31). The total Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of the original scale is 0.86. Internal
consistency coefficients for the sub-dimensions of the
scale range from 0.66 to 0.81. Test-retest reliability
values range from 0.68 to 0.81. The reliability of the
scale was determined as 0.81. The scale has a six-factor
structure that overlaps with the original scale (31). The
internal consistency coefficient was found to be 0.89 in
the current study. Internal consistency coefficients of

the subscales were calculated between 0.59 and 0.78.
Statistical Analysis
SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences for
Windows) Version 21.0 was used for the statistical
analysis of the data obtained from the data collection
tools. Student’s t test and one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) were used to see whether demographic
variables differed with respect to anxiety and avoidance
dimensions, satisfaction with life, and psychological
resilience. In addition, one-way ANOVA was used to
assess the differentiation in the life satisfaction scores
according psychological resilience levels. Chi-square
test and correlation and multiple regression analyzes
were performed to assess the relationship of
independent variables (anxious-avoidant attachment)
with dependent variables (satisfaction with life,
psychological resilience, alexithymia). It was examined
whether the assumptions of multiple regression
analysis were met, and the data were found to exhibit
normal distribution. Since the correlation coefficients
between the predictor variables ranged from 0.372 to
0.374, it was determined that there was no multi-
collinearity problem. Multi-collinearity was also
examined in terms of variance inflation factors
(VIF<10), tolerance value (Tolerance>0.20), and
condition index (CI<30). Residual values were studies
with Mahalonobis distances and a multivariable
normality was assumed.
RESULTS
P a r t i c i p a n t s ’ a g e s r a n g e d f r o m 1 8 t o 3 9
(Mean=22.50 SD=3.26). The university students

participating in the study were asked about the
education levels of their parents. While 38.4% (n=163)
of the mothers were primary school graduates, 39.3%
(n=167) of the fathers were university graduates.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the
study population in terms of scores obtained from
different scales. ECRS-II has two dimensions (anxiety
and avoidance), whereas RSA has six sub-dimensions.
Descriptive statistics expressing means and standard
deviation values of sub-dimensions are provided in
Table 1.
Anxiety and avoidance sub-dimensions of ECRS-
II, which is applied for measuring participants’
attachment styles, were divided into two groups
b a s e d o n t h e i r m e d i a n s c o r e s . F o r a n x i o u
s
attachment, those having a score of below 64.00
were categorized as non-anxiously attached while
those above 64.00 were classed as anxiously attached.
For avoidant attachment, those having a score of
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the studied scales (n=450)
Variables Maximum value Minimum value Mean SD
Attachment:
Anxious 120 25 65.40 17.59
Avoidant 116 18 56.52 17.78
Life satisfaction 35 5 23.64 6.27
Psychological resilience 123 57 98.54 6.56
Perception of self 25 10 17.73 2.15

Perception of future 19 6 11.81 1.76
Structured style 20 4 11.31 2.30
Social competence 24 8 17.48 2.33
Family cohesion 28 10 17.70 2.80
Social resources 30 11 22.48 2.40
SD: Standart deviation
below 56.00 were defined as having a non-avoidant
attachment pattern whereas those above 56.00 were
defined as having an avoidant attachment pattern.
According to these criteria, the analysis showed that
49.4% of participants (n=210) had an avoidant
attachment pattern and 48.9% (n=208) an anxious
attachment pattern. Subjects who had low scores
from both anxious and avoidant attachment
dimensions were labeled with a secure attachment
pattern (n=135).
The mean score for psychological resilience of
securely attached individuals was 99.23 with a
standard deviation of 0.52. The satisfaction with life
scores of securely attached participants had a mean
value of 25.49 with a standard deviation of 0.50.

Participants’ scores for psychological resilience
and satisfaction with life were divided into two
groups based on their median scores. Chi-square
independence test, which was performed to determine
whether there was an association between avoidant
attachment patterns and level of psychological
r e s i l i e n c e ( l o w - h i g h ) , s h o w e d n o s i g n i f i
c a n t
association between avoidant attachment and
r e s i l i e n c e (χ 2 = 1 . 8 5 8 , p > 0 . 0 5 ) . C h i - s q u a r
e
independence test, performed to determine whether
there was an association between anxious attachment
patterns and level of psychological resilience, also
revealed no significant association between anxious
attachment and resilience (χ2=1.001, p>0.05).
Chi-square independence test showed a significant
relationship between avoidant attachment patterns
and level of satisfaction with life (low-high) among
university students (χ2=18.737, p<0.001) and also
demonstrated a significant association between
anxious attachment and satisfaction with life
(χ2=14.785, p<0.001).
Pearson correlation analysis was performed to
determine whether there was a linear relationship
between dependent and independent variables. The
findings showed that sex, perceived academic
achievement, the ECRS avoidance sub-dimension, and
satisfaction with life were associated with each other
(p<0.05). Order of birth was found to be positively
correlated with academic achievement (p=0.007,
p<0.05). Financial status, the place where they had
spent most of their lives (p=0.016, p<0.05), parents’
education level (p<0.001, p<0.001), and relationships
with friends (p=0.001, p<0.01) were positively

associated with life satisfaction (p<0.001, p<0.01) and
negatively associated with psychological resilience
(p=0.006, p<0.01). As the economic level increases,
people are more likely to live in urban centers and big
cities. The universities (state or foundation) of the
students were associated with their satisfaction with
Table 2: One-way variance analysis of life satisfaction levels by
some variables
Independent variables Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean
of squares F P
Academic achievement
Intergroup 519.977 2 259.988 6.786 <0.01
Intragroup 16090.539 420 38.311
Perceived economic level
Intergroup 2260.000 2 1130.000 33.072 <0.001
Intragroup 14350.515 420 34.168
Resilience-Perception of future
Intergroup 602.064 1 602.064 16.123 <0.001
Intragroup 15646.226 419 37.342
Friendship relations
Intergroup 1227.454 13 94.420 2.510 <0.01
Intragroup 15383.061 409 37.611

Education level
Intergroup 324.572 2 162.286 4.185 <0.05
Intragroup 16285.943 420 38.776
Psychological resilience
Intergroup 378.459 2 189.229 4.896 <0.01
Intragroup 16232.057 420 38.648
life at a level of p=0.040, p<0.05, with psychological
resilience at a level of p=0.028, p<0.05 and with
attachment-avoidance sub-dimension scores at a level
of p=0.007, p<0.05. While there was a significant
positive correlation of relationship with friends with
satisfaction with life, it was negatively associated with
the anxiety-avoidance dimensions of attachment. As
the number of close friends of the people increases,
satisfaction with life rises and insecure attachment
levels decrease. There was no significant relationship
between sex and psychological resilience (p=0.063)
and the anxious attachment sub-dimension (p=0.808).
Nevertheless, sex is significantly associated with
satisfaction with life (p=0.014, p<0.05) and the
avoidant attachment sub-dimension (p<0.001, p<0.01).
There is a significant relationship between age and

psychological resilience (p=0.001, p<0.01). In the
analyses regarding satisfaction with life, we examined
by one-way ANOVA whether the differences between
satisfaction with life and its potential independent
variables (academic achievement, perceived economic
level, perception of future, relationships with friends,
education level, self-esteem, psychological resilience)
were significant. The findings of these analyses are
shown in Table 2.
A significant difference was found between the
groups in the total scores of satisfaction with life with
respect to the level of academic achievement (high-
intermediate-low), (F
[2,420]
=6.78; p=0.001). Analysis of
Levene’s homogeneity of variance indicates that the
variances are homogeneous (p=0.873). Bonferroni test
was performed for post-hoc analysis. Satisfaction with
life was found to be significantly higher in patients with
a high level of perceived academic achievement
(Mean=24.36, SD=6.18) than in those with an
intermediate (Mean=23.15, SD=6.21) and low
(Mean=19.79, SD=6.04) level of academic achievement.
Analysis of the total scores of satisfaction with life
based on perceived economic level (low-middle-high)
revealed that there was a significant difference between
the groups (F
[2,420]
=33.072, p<0.001). Levene’s
homogeneity of variance analysis shows that the
variances are not homogeneous (p=0.003). Accordingly,

satisfaction with life differs among university students
in terms of perceived economic level. Examining the
mean difference of total scores of perception of the
future sub-dimension of RSA and satisfaction with life
shows a significant association (F
[1,419]
=16.123,
p=0.000). Levene’s homogeneity of variance reveals
that variances are homogeneous (p=0.453).
For the relationship with friends, a significant
difference between the groups was seen (F
[13,409]
=2.510,
p=0.003). Analysis of Levene’s homogeneity of
variance shows that variances are homogeneous
(p=0.068). Findings show that satisfaction with life is
significantly higher for those with more than one
close friend (Mean=24.04, SD=5.99). A significant
difference was also found between education level
(undergraduate, master, doctorate) and satisfaction
with life (F
[2,420]
=4.185, p=0.016). Analysis of Levene’s
homogeneity of variance shows that variances are
homogeneous (p=0.348). Mean scores of satisfaction
with life were higher (Mean=27.33, SD=5.51) in
participants who study for their doctorate compared
to undergraduates and master’s students.
One-way ANOVA was performed to test whether
satisfaction with life differs according to psychological

resilience levels. The total scores of psychological
resilience were divided into three groups: 1 standard
deviation below the mean, the mean, 1 standard
deviation above the mean. There is a significant
difference between satisfaction with life scores in terms
of psychological resilience level (F
[2,420]
=4.896,
p=0.008). Analysis of Levene’s homogeneity of
Table 3: Attachment dimensions predicting life satisfaction in
multiple regression analysis
Variable B Standard error B ß T p Dual correlation Partial
correlation
Constant 32.545 1.241 26.224 <0.001
Anxious attachment -0.084 0.018 -0.235 -4.745 <0.001 -0.299 -
0.226
Avoidant attachment -0.060 0.017 -0.172 -3.467 <0.001 -0.259 -
0.159
Life satisfaction R=0.338, R2=0.115, *p<0.05 was accepted as
statistically significant.

variance shows that variances are homogeneous
(p=0.550). As the level of psychological resilience rises,
satisfaction with life increases. Bonferroni test was
performed for post-hoc analysis. Satisfaction with life
scores of the group with high psychological resilience
(Mean=25.39, SD=6.49) were found to be significantly
higher than those with low psychological resilience
(Mean=21.5217, SD=5.42). These findings suggest that
satisfaction with life differs among university students,
based on their psychological resilience levels.
The anxiety and avoidance dimensions of
attachment that are thought to have an effect on
“satisfaction with life”, one of the indicators of
subjective well-being, were tested to disclose the
presence of such an effect using the “enter” method in
multiple regression analysis. The analysis shows that
anxious and avoidant attachment accounts for 11% of
the variance in satisfaction with life. It was observed
that insecure attachment dimensions were significantly
associated with life satisfaction (R=0.338, R2=0.115),
and anxiety and avoidance sub-dimensions of
attachment were found to be a significant predictor of
satisfaction with life (F
[2,420]
=27.162, p<0.001). The
increase in satisfaction with life was detected to be
related to the reduction in anxious and avoidant
attachment scores. The relative significance of the
predictor variables with respect to the standardized
regression coefficients (ß) is anxious attachment (ß=-
0.235) and avoidant attachment (ß=-0.172). The
regression analysis results regarding prediction of
satisfaction with life by attachment dimensions are

given in Table 3.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to
show that the anxiety and avoidance sub-dimensions
of attachment predicted the total score of the RSA,
one of the indicators of psychological resilience. This
analysis showed no significant associations of either
anxious or avoidant attachment dimensions with
psychological resilience (R=0.092, R2=0.008) and
attachment sub-dimensions were not found to be a
significant predictor of psychological resilience
(F
[2,422]
=1.805, p>0.05). The regression analysis results
regarding prediction of psychological resilience by
attachment dimensions are given in Table 4.
DISCUSSION
This study aims to examine the distribution of
university students’ attachment dimensions and the
relationship of insecure attachment patterns to
satisfaction with life and psychological resilience.
Analyzes performed in view of the aims of the study
indicate that most of the university students exhibit
insecure attachment (anxiety-avoidant) patterns. The
level of satisfaction with life is significantly lower in
insecurely attached individuals than that in securely
attached people. Another aim of the study is to see
whether the life satisfaction of university students
differs by their psychological resilience levels. Our
findings indicate that satisfaction with life differs
depending on psychological resilience levels,
increasing with a higher level of satisfaction with life.

Similar to previous studies, the presence of a two-
way relationship between life satisfaction and
psychological resilience may be suggested (26). The
relationship between the perception of future sub-
dimension of the RSA and satisfaction with life was
also investigated. Several studies reported a
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t
s ’
expectations about the future and the satisfaction
with their lives. It was reported that life satisfaction
was increased among those who perceived a positive
future (32). This finding is supported by the current
study.
Table 4: Multiple regression analysis to predict total
psychological resilience score
Variable B Standard error B ß T p Dual correlation Partial
correlation
Constant 101.011 1.371 73.690 <0.001
Anxious attachment -0.017 0.020 -0.046 -0.880 >0.05 -0.070 -
0.043
Avoidant attachment -0.024 0.019 -0.064 -1.233 >0.05 -0.082 -
0.060
Psychological resilience R=0.092, R2=0.008, *p<0.05 was
accepted as statistically significant.

Satisfaction with life is thought to be related to
ac ad e mic a chie vement (33). This hypothesis
resembles the results of the studies performed by Tov
and Diener (12) and Proctor et al. (11). Because of
concerns about the future, university students
consider their academic achievements as an important
factor for the ability to create their professional
identities (32).
According to Vitters, the personality characteristic
of extroversion is closely related to subjective well-
being (32). Dost (32), who studied the differentiation
of life satisfaction of university students according to
their level of loneliness, reported that the level of
loneliness increased with reduced satisfaction with life.
In this study, relationship with friends were
investigated to measure the association between
loneliness and life satisfaction. The latter was
significantly higher in those with multiple close friends
than those without. Analyses to determine whether
there is a significant relationship between sex and
satisfaction with life seem to remain controversial.
While there are studies showing that life satisfaction
differs according to sex (32), some others report that
there is no significant association between sex and
satisfaction with life (34). The results obtained from
this study show that the life satisfaction of female
participants is significantly higher than that of their
male counterparts. According to Diener, socio-
economic status is one of the main factors affecting
satisfaction with life (35). In this study, perceived
economic status was also found to be related to
satisfaction with life, in accordance with the findings in
the study by Proctor et al. (11).
Numerous studies regarding satisfaction with life

indicate that attachment relationships are key
determinants of subjective well-being (16). The study
by Hwang et al. (17) shows that satisfaction with life is
high among securely attached individuals. A substantial
number of studies indicate that attachment has a direct
impact on satisfaction with life (17,18). In this study, it
was observed that there was a significant relationship
of anxious and avoidant attachment dimensions with
life satisfaction; and these dimensions of attachment
were found to be significant predictors of satisfaction
with life. Findings of the current study support previous
reports in the literature. In this context, therapeutic
modalities that target disturbances in the attachment
system or focus on an improvement of family
relationships in an attachment-oriented manner, such
as attachment-based family therapy, may help to
increase individuals’ overall satisfaction with life.
The relationship between psychological resilience
and attachment has been examined in a limited number
of studies. Theories that attempt to explain
psychological resilience during the developmental
process suggest that supportive and reassuring family
interaction in early childhood shapes the child’s ability
to withstand challenging situations in adulthood
(35,21). In this context, studies by Kurilova (22) and
Jenkins (21) reveal that anxiety and avoidance
dimensions of attachment (36,37) negatively correlate
with psychological resilience. These studies suggest
anxious attachment to be an important predictor of
resilience, yet no such predictive ability is reported for
avoidant attachment. The hypothesis that attachment
styles predict psychological resilience was not
confirmed by the current study. The fact that avoidant
attachment did not predict psychological resilience
supports the results in the literature. Further studies to

be performed with different populations are needed to
test the relationship between attachment styles and
resilience.
In conclusion, attachment styles appear to be
closely related to satisfaction with life in adulthood.
On the other hand, as individuals’ satisfaction with life
rises, the level of adaptation to stress and resilience
also increases. It is thought that psychotherapeutic
interventions that are directed to modulate emotions,
improve the environment of trust between personal
relationships, and help coping with stress will enhance
secure attachment, overall satisfaction with life, and
psychological resilience.
REFERENCES
1. Ainsworth MD. Object relations, dependency, and
attachment:
a theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship. Child
Dev
1969; 40:969-1025. [CrossRef]
2. Ainsworth MD. Patterns of attachment behavior shown by the
infant in interaction with his mother. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
of
Behavior and Development 1964; 10:51-58.

3. Bowlby J. Attachment and Loss. Volume I, Attachment.
Second
ed. New York: Basic Books; 1969.
4. Ainsworth MD, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S. Patterns of
Attachment. A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation.
Second ed. New York: Psychology Press, 2014.
5. Collins NL, Read SJ. Adult attachment, working models, and
relationship quality in dating couples. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990;
58:644-663. [CrossRef]
6. Hazan C, Shaver PR. Attachment as an organizational
framework
for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry 1994;
5:1-22. [CrossRef]
7. Schaffer HR, Emerson PE. The development of social
attachments
in infancy. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1964; 29:1-77.
[CrossRef]
8. Bowlby J. Attachment and Loss. Volume II. Separation
Anxiety
and Anger. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

9. Kobak RR, Sceery A. Attachment in late adolescence:
working
models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others.
Child Dev 1988; 1:135-146. [CrossRef]
10. Gillath O, Karantzas GC, Fraley RC. Adult Attachment. A
Concise Introduction to Theory and Research. London: Elsevier;
2016.
11. Proctor CL, Linley PA, Maltby J. Youth life satisfaction: a
review
of the literature. J Happiness Stud 2009; 10:583-630.
[CrossRef]
12. Tov W, Diener E. Culture and Subjective Well-Being. In
Diener
E (editor). Culture and Well-Being. The Collected Works of Ed
Diener. New York: Springer; 2009, 9-42. [CrossRef]
13. Steger MF, Oishi S, Kesebir S. Is a life without meaning
satisfying? The moderating role of the search for meaning in
satisfaction with life judgments. J Posit Psychol 2011; 6:173-
180.
[CrossRef]
14. Proctor CL, Linley PA. Life Satisfaction in Youth. In Fava

GA, Ruini
C (editors). Increasing Psychological Well-being in Clinical and
Educational Settings, Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive
Psychology. New York: Springer, 2014, 199-215. [CrossRef]
15. Diener E, Diener M, Diener C. Factors Predicting the
Subjective
Well-Being of Nations. In Diener E (editor). Culture and Well-
Being. The Collected Works of Ed Diener. New York: Springer;
2009, 43-70. [CrossRef]
16. Martikainen L. The Family Environment in Adolescence as
a
Predictor of Life Satisfaction in Adulthood. In Vassar M
(editor).
Psychology of Life Satisfaction. New York: Nova Science
Publishers, 2012, 19-30.
17. Hwang K, Johnston MV, Smith JK. Adult attachment styles
and
life satisfaction in individuals with physical disabilities. Appl
Res
Qual Life 2009; 4:295-310. [CrossRef]
18. Chen W, Zhang D, Pan Y, Hu T, Liu G, Luo S. Perceived
social support and self-esteem as mediators of the relationship
between parental attachment and life satisfaction among

Chinese
adolescents. Pers Individ Dif 2017; 108:98-102. [CrossRef]
19. Guarnieri S, Smorti M, Tani F. Attachment relationships and
life satisfaction during emerging adulthood. Soc Indic Res
2015;
121:833-847. [CrossRef]
20. Liu JJW, Reed M, Girard TA. Advancing resilience: an
integrative,
multi-system model of resilience. Pers Individ Dif 2017;
111:111-
118. [CrossRef]
Informed Consent: Written consent was obtained from the
participants.
Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.
Conflict of Interest: Authors declared no conflict of interest.
Financial Disclosure: Authors declared no financial support.
Contribution Categories Author Initials
Category 1
Concept/Design Z.T.T., I.T.C.
Data acquisition Z.T.T., I.T.C.

Data analysis/Interpretation Z.T.T.
Category 2
Drafting manuscript Z.T.T., I.T.C.
Critical revision of manuscript Z.T.T.
Category 3 Final approval and accountability Z.T.T., I.T.C.
Other
Technical or material support N/A
Supervision N/A
Securing funding (if applicable) N/A
https://doi.org/10.2307/1127008
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1
https://doi.org/10.2307/1130395
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9110-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2352-0_2
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.569171
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8669-0_13
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2352-0_3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-009-9082-x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.009
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0655-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.007

21. Jenkins JK. The Relationship Between Resilience,
Attachment,
and Emotional Coping Styles. Unpublished Master Thesis, Old
Dominion University, Norfolk, 2016.
22. Kurilova J. Exploration of Resilience in Relation to
Mindfulness,
Self-Compassion, and Attachment Styles. University Of
Calgary,
Applied Psychology, Unpublished Master Thesis, Alberta, 2013.
23. Bowlby J. A Secure Base. Parent-Child Attachment and
Healthy
Human Development. U.S.A: Basic Books; 1988.
24. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in Adulthood.
Structure,
Dynamics, and Change. Second ed. New York: The Guilford
Press; 2016.
25. Bartley M, Head J, Stansfeld S. Is attachment style a source
of
resilience against health inequalities at work? Soc Sci Med
2007;
64:765-775. [CrossRef]
26. Kong F, Wang X, Hu S, Liu J. Neural correlates of

psychological
resilience and their relation to life satisfaction in a sample
of healthy young adults. Neuroimage 2015; 123:165-172.
[CrossRef]
27. Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response
theory
analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc
Psychol 2000; 78:350-365. [CrossRef]
28. Selcuk E, Gunaydin G, Sumer N, Uysal A. A new scale
developed to measure adult attachment dimensions: experiences
in close relationships-revised (ECR-R) - psychometric
evaluation
in a Turkish sample. Turkish Psychological Articles 2005; 8:1-
11.
(Turkish)
29. Koker S. Comparison of normal and problematic adolescents
in
terms of level of satisfaction with life. Specialty Thesis, Ankara
University Institute of Social Sciences, 1991. (Turkish)
30. Friborg O, Barlaug D, Martinussen M, Rosenvinge JH,
Hjemdal
O. Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. Int J
Methods Psychiatr Res 2005; 14:29-42. [CrossRef]
31. Basim HN, Cetin F. The reliability and validity of the

resilience
scale for adults-Turkish version. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 2011;
22:104-114. (Turkish)
32. Dost MT. Examining life satisfaction levels of university
students
in terms of some variables. Pamukkale University Journal of
Education 2007; 2:132-143. (Turkish)
33. Civitci A. The relationships between global life satisfaction
and
psychological needs in university students. Cukurova University
Institute of Social Sciences 2012; 21:321-336. (Turkish)
34. Comert IT, Ozyesil ZA, Ozguluk SB. Satisfaction with life,
meaning in life, sad childhood experiences, and psychological
symptoms among Turkish students. Psychol Rep 2016; 118:236-
250. [CrossRef]
35. Harrison KE. Evaluating The Interplay Between Attachment
and
Resilience on Adult Relationship. Unpublished Master Thesis,
San Diego State University Master of Arts in Communication,
2015.
36. Sumer N, Gungor D. Psychometric evaluation of adult
attachment

measures on Turkish samples and a cross-cultural comparison.
Turkish Journal of Psychology 1999; 14:71-106. (Turkish)
37. Bartholomew K, Horowitz LM. Attachment styles among
young
adults: a test of a four-category model. J Pers Soc Psychol
1991;
61:226-244. [CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.033
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.020
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.15
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294115626634
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Copyright of Dusunen Adam: Journal of Psychiatry &
Neurological Sciences is the property
of Yerkuere Tantim ve Yayincilik A.S. 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.

The Effects of School and Work on College Students’ Life
Satisfaction
Diana Gallardo,
Joanna Hernandez,
Vanessa Angulo,
Hannah Chen,
Violet Sarabia,
Blanca Salgado
East Los Angeles Community College
Psychology 92 Research Methods
Professor Ludwig

The Effects of School and Work on College Students’ Life
Satisfaction
As college students who work more than 25 hours a week,
balancing school and work life is a daunting task to complete.
We often find ourselves in the midst of sacrificing study time
for extra work hours and vise versa. Our study aims to
understand how the life satisfaction of college student’s varies,
depending on whether they work full time, part time, or are
unemployed. According to a report done by the Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce, about 14
million college students are employed (Strahota, 2015).
Working has become a fundamental responsibility for many
college students, including undergraduate and graduate
students. According to the NCES, “ In 2017, the percentage of
undergraduate students who were employed was higher among
part-time students (81 percent) than among full-time students
(43 percent). Our study also aims to determine any underlying
factors that can affect student’s life satisfaction. According to a
study conducted by Lang, the more hours students work per
week off campus results in less time socializing compared to
students who work on campus (Lang, 2012). Lang stated, “With
only so many hours in the day, something has to proverbially
“give” and it appears that many students who work off-campus
are willing to sacrifice time spent socializing and relaxing in
return for more money” (2012). Balancing school and work
can become very stressful and trying to keep up with other
aspects of life adds further stress, therefore, working college
students are less satisfied with their lives than non working
college students.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Throughout the U.S., many college students work while
attending school. Whether you work full- time or part-time,
being employed helps you pay personal expenses along with
school expenses. However, there are students who don’t work
because they may have financial support from their parents or
other sources. Most students who are full-time or part-time
students are employed and it is easier for them to be susceptible
to distraction because of this, leading to a stress-filled life.
“The ability of university students to adapt to stressful and
difficult conditions and to cope with unfavorable situations is
associated with their satisfaction with life” (Temiz, 2018).
Employed college students are more likely to encounter
difficulties in socializing, sleeping, and in more severe cases,
can even develop depression. This can lead to a decline in
health status which can become concerning, and should be
acknowledged in order to maintain mental and physical
stability. “Adult college students who return to school have
multiple factors affecting their life satisfaction such as family,
work, and school. These factors were set as the predictor of
students negative affect in a sample of working students from
across the country” (Denning, 2018). Working students face
many circumstances that make it difficult for them to
accomplish their goals and responsibilities. For example, some
situations that working students may face include the situation
where they did not get promoted, they did not pass a test, they
are not being acknowledged for their work. This can easily have
a negative impact on the satisfaction they feel with how their
life is going. According to the research, “Having the time of
their life: College Student Stress Dating and Satisfaction with
Life”, conducted by Catherine Coccia and Carol A. Darling,
college students who work are less satisfied with their life due
to
the lack of sleep, more stress, watching television and not
socializing with people. The study shows that “college students

face pressure from all elements of their environment; however,
the manner in which students approach their socio physical
environment may influence their overall life satisfaction”
(2016). This study gives us an insight as to how there are many
unseen/unaccounted for factors that play a role in life
satisfaction. Comparably, the article, “Not all roles are the
same: An examination between work, family, school
satisfaction, social integration, and negative affect among
college students” mentions how the greater amount of roles a
student has, the greater their stress will be, which can result in
low life satisfaction. For example, students who are trying to
balance work, school, and other responsibilities may have a
harder time trying to reach their life goals. Therefore, in our
own study, we decided to identify how the importance of
balance impacts students in terms of life satisfaction. All the
evidence presented leads us to the hypothesis that college
students who work either full-time or part-time are less satisfied
with their lives than college students who are unemployed.

METHODS
Participants
For this study, our participants will consist of East Los Angeles
community college students as well as students from other
community colleges and universities in the surrounding areas.
We will recruit participants by sharing an online link to our
survey with our peers and by posting the link on several social
media outlets. We will also share the online link with coworkers
who are enrolled in a community college or university.
Participants must be over the age of 18 in order to take part in
our study. We will not require the participants to be employed
since we are testing to see how life satisfaction varies between
part-time, full-time, and unemployed participants. We hope to
have 150 participants take part in our online survey with an
outcome of at least 100 valid surveys considering that we might
receive unanswered questions or missing data from the survey.
Materials
We will be conducting an online survey to gather data for our
study. The survey will consist of 40, 4-point likert scale
questions (1 being “extremely disagree” to 4 being “extremely
agree”), five multiple choice questions, and four open ended
questions. The purpose of the survey is to measure life
satisfaction and gather demographic data (see appendix B). We
plan on using Cronbach’s alpha to measure the internal
consistency in our data and multiple regression to predict the
value of our dependent variable as well as the other variables
that we will be taking into account. A consent form will be
given to all participants at the beginning of the survey (see
Appendix A).
Design
In order to achieve a successful research we decided to conduct
a survey design to receive accurate results. The survey will
include 40 four-point likert scale questions, six multiple choice,
and four open ended questions in order to measure life

satisfaction within college students. We decided to use a
convenience sampling method in order to select our
participants. Our independent variables are college students
who work either full time, part time, or are unemployed. Our
dependent variable is life satisfaction. We will also be testing to
see if other factors, aside from employment status, affect
students' life satisfaction, for example: age, gender, and social
life. The degree of sincerity of the students surveyed will be a
variable affecting the study. We will use multiple regression to
find those how closely items are related in the study.
Procedure
Before beginning the online survey that we will be providing,
the participants will be given a consent form which will inform
them of what our study is about and the role that they will be
taking if they decide to participate. The participants will then
complete our online survey. The survey itself is expected to last
for about 25-30 minutes. All data collected will be saved on the
online database so that it can be analyzed. We will keep in mind
the possibility of receiving surveys that are incomplete and/or
the participant didn’t meet the proper requirements in order to
be part of the study, therefore, we hope that at least 100 valid
surveys will be analyzed. We will use SPSS to analyze the
information we receive from the questionnaire and use multiple
regression analysis to analyze the links between independent
and dependent variables along with their relationship to validate
our hypothesis.
REFERENCE
Coccia, C., & Darling, C. A. (2016). Having the time of their
life: College student stress, dating
and satisfaction with life. Stress and Health: Journal of the
International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 32(1), 28–
35.https://doi-org.libproxy.elac.edu/10.1002/smi.2575
Denning, E. C., Brannan, D., Murphy, L. A., Losco, J. A., &

Payne, D. N. (2018). Not All Roles
Are the Same: An Examination Between Work-Family-School
Satisfaction, Social Integration and Negative Affect Among
College Students. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research,
23(2), 166–178. doi: 10.24839/2325-7342.jn23.2.166
Employment and Unemployment Rates by Educational
Attainment. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cbc.asp.
Jenkins, S. R., Belanger, A., Connally, M. L., Boals, A., &
Durón, K. M. (2013).
First‐generation undergraduate students’ social support,
depression, and life satisfaction. Journal of College Counseling,
16(2), 129–142.
Lang, B. K. (2012, May 31). The Similarities and Differences
between Working and
Non-Working Students at a Mid-Sized American Public
University. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ994213.
Strahota, H. (n.d.). Seventy Percent of College Students Work
While Enrolled ... Retrieved from
https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Press-release-
WorkingLearners__FINAL.pdf.
Temiz, Z. T., & Comert, I. T. (2018). The relationship between
life satisfaction, attachment
styles, and psychological resilience in university students.
Dusunen Adam: The Journal
of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 31(3), 274–283. Doi:
10.5350/dajpn2018310305.

Appendix A
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine whether
working full time, part time, or not working at all affect the life
satisfaction of college students and if so, which status has a
greater negative impact.

Eligibility: To participate in this study, you must be at least 18
years old and you must be enrolled as a student in any
community college or university.
Participation: Your participation will include taking an
anonymous online survey. The survey provided will consist of
50 questions which have been created to measure life
satisfaction and gather demographic data.
Risk of Participation: Participation in this study includes
minimal risk. Possible risks you may be exposed to include
feelings of nervousness and vulnerability when completing the
survey.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is
completely voluntary. You may withdraw from the study or
refuse to answer any of the survey questions without
consequence.
Confidentiality: The data that will be collected from this study
and shared for academic purposes will not reveal your identity.
The study provides completely anonymity to all participants. No
information that ties a participant to any results from the study
will be stored. Lastly, all data will be kept on a password-
protected computer.
Contact Information: If you have any further questions or need
any clarification regarding this study, please feel free to contact
Vanessa Angulo at:
Email: [email protected]
Phone number: 310-428-1473
Consent: Your signature below means that you understand all
information provided on this form, that all lingering questions
have been answered, and that you voluntarily agree to

participate in the study.
Signature of Participant
Date __________________ Printed Name
of Participant _______________________
Appendix B
LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY
This survey is created for the purpose of measuring the effects
of school and work on college students life satisfaction. Please
answer with the utmost truthfulness and sincerity. Rest assured
that all your answers on this survey will be kept confidential
and will be used only for this research purpose. To ensure
confidentiality, do not write or include your name on this
survey.
Considering the past 30 days please select one answer for the
following 40 questions.
Please check the appropriate box for your answer.
1. I spend a good amount of time socializing with friends.
(about 3-5 hrs per week)
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
2. I feel that I have a strong support system from my family.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)

3. I get an average of 7-9 hours of sleep per night.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
4. On a weekly basis, I often find myself feeling anxious.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
5. I have found it difficult to relax.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
6. I constantly worry about school assignments.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
7. I feel I have enough time to engage in hobbies that interest
me.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)

8. I have accomplished most of the goals I have set.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
9. I spend an average of 1-2 hours studying daily.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
10. I feel that my romantic relationship has been a stressful part
of my life.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
11. I feel that I have a strong support system from my romantic
partner.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
12. I recognize that I put good effort into my school work.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)

13. I am motivated to achieve my school related goals.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
14. I am financially stable in my current situation.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
15. I am satisfied with the amount of quality time spent with
family.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
16. In most ways my life is close to ideal.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
17. I am satisfied with my life.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)

18. So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
19. The conditions of my life excellent.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
20. If I could relive my life over , I would change almost
nothing.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
21. I like who I am.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
22. My life feels in good balance to me.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)

23. I am confident with myself.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
24. I celebrate my successes.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
25. I am satisfied with my level of self confidence.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
26. I have a rewarding life outside of work.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
27. I generally enjoy life and feel happy.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)

28. I enjoy going to work.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
29. I am doing what I love.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
30. I am happy with the money I earn.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
31. I am satisfied with my grade point average (GPA).
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
32. My work does not cause me undue stress.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
33. My work allows me time for fun and leisure.

Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
34. I am capable of completing assignments on time.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
35. I am confident meeting new people.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
36. I am happy in my relationships (family, friends, or other).
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
37. I am satisfied with the hours I work.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
38. I am satisfied with the hours I spend studying for school.

Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
39. I maintain a healthy diet.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
40. I make time to relax daily.
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
ExtremelyAgree (4)
For the following 5 questions please select the answer that best
identifies with you.
41. Sex :
▢ Female
▢ Male
▢ Non-binary
▢ Other
Running head: LIFE SATISFACTION
LIFE SATISFACTION
1
42. Ethnicity:
▢ White

▢ African American
▢ Native American/Alaskan Native
▢ Asian/Pacific Islander
▢ Hispanic/Latino
▢ Native Hawaiian
▢ Other
43. Race:
▢ White
▢ Black/ African American
▢ Indian (American)
▢ Alaskan Native
▢ Native Hawaiian
▢ Chinese
▢ Filipino
▢ Japanese
▢ Korean
▢ Vietnamese
▢ Other
44. Current Education:
▢ Undergrad
▢ Graduate
▢ Trade/ Technical/ Vocational Training
45. Educational goal:
▢ Associate Degree
▢ Bachelor’s Degree
▢ Master’s Degree
▢ Graduate degree
▢ Doctoral degree

Please answer the following 4 questions as best as possible.
46. Are you employed? _________. If yes, please state weather
part-time (1-30 hrs weekly) or full-time (30+ hrs weekly)
___________.
47. What is your age? :___________
48. How many class units are you currently enrolled
in?___________
49. How many hours do you work weekly? _____________
Thank you for answering this student survey. The answers you
have provided will help greatly in understanding the effects that
school and work have on college students’ life satisfaction
level.

LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY This survey is created for the purpos.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY This survey is created for the purpos.docx

Similar to LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY This survey is created for the purpos.docx (20)

More from croysierkathey

More from croysierkathey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY This survey is created for the purpos.docx