RJunaid Final Paper

Running Head: PROTECTIVE VS. RISK FACTORS FOR DEPRESSION 1
Grade Level, Perfectionism, and Perceived Social Support from an Intimate Relationship:
Protective vs. Risk Factors for Depression and Anxiety in American College Students
Rhabia Jean Junaid
Houston Baptist University

PROTECTIVE VS. RISK FACTORS FOR DEPRESSION 2
Abstract
The current research examined how grade level, degree of perfectionism, and perceived social
support from a significant other affect level of depression and anxiety symptoms in college
undergraduate (n = 60) and graduate (n = 17) students at a faith based, private university in
southeast Texas. The questionnaire included the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
Support, the Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory, and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale – 21.
There was a significant positive correlation between high perfectionism scores and depression
(r = .450, p < .001), as well as between high perfectionism scores and anxiety (r = .474, p <
.001). Study findings indicate that those who perceive themselves as perfectionists are at an
increased risk for experiencing depression and anxiety; greater levels of depression and anxiety
place these students at an increased risk for other mental illnesses and suicidal ideation. Students
and universities can mutually benefit by reaching out to self-identified perfectionists and
teaching them new coping skills and how to identify distorted cognitions. Limitations to the
current study are also discussed.

Grade Level, Perfectionism, and Perceived Social Support from an Intimate Relationship:
Protective vs. Risk Factors for Depression and Anxiety in American College Students
The college years are typically a time of change and adjustment for the American student.
According to Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development (Erikson, 1963), the college
years are a time when American youth are in the process of transitioning between childhood and
adulthood. They are testing limits, establishing new identities, breaking dependent ties, and
forming intimate relationships. Also according to Erikson, failure to fully transition into
adulthood can lead to role confusion, alienation, and isolation. During this period of personal
transition, the American college student is also faced with the physical, financial, and emotional
stresses associated with the college experience. These can include reduced sleep and poor eating
habits, increasing debt as student loans mount, and difficulty coping with stresses related to the
college experience (Mahmoud et al., 2012). The timing of personal development during the
college years in combination with the stresses related to the college experience set the stage for
the onset of depression and anxiety. The prevalence of depression and anxiety among college
students around the world has been well documented (Garlow et al., 2008; Field et al., 2012;
Mahmoud et al., 2012).
In addition to the developmental and transitional milestones of the college years, several
other factors as they relate to depression and anxiety must be considered. Degree of
perfectionism and degree of perceived social support are two potential factors that may function
to protect against or contribute to depression and anxiety. According to Zhou, Zhu, Zhang, and
Cai (2013), perfectionism is a multidimensional construct that can serve to be adaptive or
maladaptive, with maladaptive levels leading to psychopathology. Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, and
Farley (1988) describe perceived social support as a multidimensional construct that may act as a

protective factor against depression and anxiety; they also recognize that a perceived lack of
social support may serve as a contributing factor to the development of depression and anxiety.
In their 2008 study, Garlow et al. examined the results of the College Screening Project at
Emory University to investigate if there was a significant relationship between severe depression
symptoms and suicidal ideation in college undergraduate students. They also sought to
determine if other intense emotional states such as anxiety were correlated with suicidal ideation.
The College Screening Project was developed by the American Foundation for Suicide
Prevention as an outreach program that was carried out over the internet in an effort to identify
at-risk students and encourage them to seek counseling.
For three consecutive years, Garlow and collogues (2008) contacted all undergraduate
students at Emory University, ages 18 and over, via email to participate in the study; 729
undergraduate students composed of 520 females and 205 males completed the study. The
College Screening Project used the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), which was created by
and is freely distributed by Pfizer (Spitzer, Kroenke, & Williams, 1999), to assess nine
symptoms of depressive disorders that may have occurred within the past 14 days. All scores
were converted into anchor points to categorize participants as having no depression, mild
depression, moderate depression, moderately severe depression, or severe depression. T-tests
and ANOVA were performed to determine effect size and between group differences.
At the end of the three year testing period, Garlow et al. (2008) found 16.5% of the
undergraduate participants experienced no depression, 29.6% experienced mild depression,
30.6% experienced moderate depression, 16.6% experienced moderately severe depression, and
6.6% were severely depressed. Of these participants, 11.1% (81 out of 729) reported suicidal
ideation within the past four weeks. Of those with current suicidal ideation, the mean PHQ-9

score fell into the “moderately severe depression” category; 40% of those students who scored in
the “severely depressed” category reported current suicidal ideation. The presence of intense
emotional states was also examined by Garlow et al. (2008). They found feelings of anxiety,
irritability, rage, desperation, and feeling out of control to be significantly more prevalent in
students who were currently experiencing suicidal ideation.
This study found that those students with the most severe symptoms of depression and
who were experiencing feelings of anxiety and desperation were more likely to experience
suicidal ideation. Eighty four percent of the participants in this study experienced some degree
of depression; of these, 11.1% reported suicidal thoughts. Of those who were thinking about
suicide, 84% were not receiving any type of mental health care. According to the authors,
depression is an identified risk factor for suicide and because suicide is a leading cause of death
among teenagers and young adults, vigorous efforts need to be made to implement outreach
programs on university campuses. These programs should aim to educate students and their
families as well as university staff to become aware of the signs and symptoms of depression and
suicidal ideation. Because it has been well established that depression is prevalent in college
undergraduate students, other investigators have aimed to look at the predictors of depression
and anxiety in their research.
According to Field, Diego, Pelaez, Deeds, and Delgado (2012), depression is on the rise
on college campuses around the world. Anxiety, sleep disturbances, intrusive thoughts, and
controlling intrusive thoughts were examined in a single population by the authors to determine
to what extent they served as predictors of depression in college undergraduate students.
Field and colleagues (2012) recruited 283 undergraduate students from psychology
classes at a southeastern university in the US, and they were given a 120-item anonymous

questionnaire. In addition to demographic questions, several scales were used to compose the
survey. The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) was
used to measure frequency of depression symptoms. Intensity of anxiety was measured using the
State Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970), and the Intrusive
Thought Scale (ITS; Field et al., 2009) was used to measure the frequency of intrusive thoughts.
The Difficulty Controlling Intrusive Thoughts Scale (DCITS; Field et al., 2009) was used to
assess thought control strategies, and the Sleep Disturbance Scale (SDS; Field et al., 2009) was
used to measure the frequency of sleep disturbances. ANOVA’s were conducted to find between
group differences, and a stepwise regression was then used to determine the primary predictor of
depression without the presence of anxiety (because anxiety is comorbid with depression (Field
et al., 2012)).
Field et al. (2012) found anxiety to be the strongest predictor of depression in college
undergraduate students. They were not surprised by this result since anxiety is frequently
comorbid with depression. After completing a stepwise regression to factor out anxiety, they
found sleep disturbances to be the second most significant predictor of depression after anxiety.
To the authors’ surprise, intrusive thoughts and controlling intrusive thoughts were shown to be
less of a predictor of depression. The results of this study imply that by surveying anxiety levels
and frequency of sleep disturbances, campus mental health care professionals can quickly and
easily screen for students who are at-risk for depression.
In their 2012 study, Mahmoud, Staten, Hall, and Lennie sought to investigate the
predictors of depression, anxiety, and stress in college undergraduate students. According to
these authors, depression and anxiety are not a direct result of stressful events; rather they are the
result of poor coping skills. From this perspective, Mahmoud et al. (2012) aimed to determine if

life satisfaction and the use of coping mechanisms were valid predictors of depression, anxiety,
and stress.
Mahmoud et al. (2012) randomly selected 508 undergraduate students from a
southeastern public university to complete a mail-in survey. The authors used the Depression
Anxiety Stress Scale – 21 (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1994) to measure the intensity of
depression, anxiety, and stress experienced by participants in the past week. The Brief COPE
Inventory (BCI; Carver, 1997) was used to measure the use of adaptive and maladaptive coping
strategies, and the Brief Students’ Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Scale (BSMLSS; Huebner,
1994) was used to assess satisfaction with social life, college life, and personal finances;
statistical analyses were completed.
Mahmoud et al. (2012) found sophomores to have the highest rates of depression and
anxiety of all undergraduate grade levels. Those who were female, used maladaptive coping
skills, had higher levels of life dissatisfaction, and who had a lower GPA were also more likely
to experience more intense levels of depression and anxiety. Belonging to a social organization,
living with someone else, and being religious were correlated with lower levels of depression
and anxiety. Specifically, the use of maladaptive coping strategies and life satisfaction were
found to be major predictors of depression and anxiety. The use of maladaptive coping
strategies, decreased life satisfaction, gender, and GPA were found to be major predictors of
stress. These authors conclude that on-campus annual mental health screening programs are
essential for early detection and intervention in the treatment of depression and anxiety. Further,
they recommend having nurses facilitate the process by teaching adaptive coping strategies to
students who present with symptoms of depression and anxiety. Other researchers agree that
coping strategies play a role in the development of depression.

In a 2012 study, Pamela Aselton asserted that 16% of all college students experience
depression at some point in their college careers. This led to an investigation of the primary
coping mechanisms and sources of stress in college students who had been diagnosed with
depression and were on antidepressants at the time of the study. This small sample
phenomenological study was conducted with 13 college students in New England between the
ages of 19-24. Extensive on-line interviews with open-ended questions were exchanged via
email 6-8 times with each participant. Thematic analysis was conducted on the transcript of each
interview to categorize statements into two categories: “sources of stress” and “means of
coping”.
The most common sources of stress listed by the participants were roommate issues,
academic problems, financial and career concerns, and pressure from family. The most
common coping mechanisms used among these 13 participants were talk therapy, physical
activities, self-talk and deep breathing, journaling, using marijuana, and listening to music. This
was a qualitative study that sought simply to identify the most common stressors and ways of
coping among college students who had a formal diagnosis of depression.
In identifying the stressors in this group, school related issues were the most common
sources of stress and the most common coping mechanisms were all related to
talking/thinking/writing things through or finding a way to escape (via listening to music, getting
high, or exercising). Aselton (2012) concludes that university mental health care professionals
and nursing staff should work to educate students and faculty about the dangers of failing to cope
with stress in an adaptive manner. While undergraduate students have been the primary target of
most research correlating depression with college life, a few studies have looked specifically at
graduate students.

Stress, coping, and barriers to wellness among graduate level psychology students were
assessed by El-Ghoroury, Galper, Sawaqdeh, and Bufka (2012). Their research set out to
measure how many psychology graduate students from a sample experienced significant levels
of stress, what their most commonly reported stressors were, what their most commonly used
coping mechanisms were, and what they perceived to be the greatest barrier to engaging in
wellness and self-care.
El-Ghoroury et al. (2012) surveyed 387 currently enrolled psychology graduate students
from 39 different states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico. Their internet based survey
assessed stress, coping, and barriers to wellness activities by using a modified version of a
survey created by the APA Advisory Committee on Colleague Assistance (ACCA). Statistical
analysis and descriptive discriminant analyses were conducted to explore which stress, coping,
and wellness barrier items were most commonly cited among the different ethnic groups
represented by the sample.
El-Ghoroury et al. (2012) found the most commonly cited sources of stress to be
academic pressures (68.1%), finances (63.9%), anxiety (60.7%), and poor work/school-life
balance (58.7%); over 70% of the participants reported that the level of stress they were
experiencing impaired their ability to function at optimal levels. The authors found the most
commonly used coping mechanisms to be support from friends (72.4%), family support (64.8%),
talking to a classmate (62.8%), regular exercise (54.3%), and hobbies (52%) and the most
commonly cited barriers to wellness and self-care were lack of time (70.6%), and cost (46.5%).
Based on the reported high levels of stress experienced by psychology graduate students and
their heavy reliance on social support as a coping mechanism, the authors of this study
recommend creating peer led support groups and mentoring programs to promote adaptive

coping skills among fellow psychology graduate students. To take these findings one step
further, other researchers have explored the impact of required counseling for counseling
students.
Prosek, Holm, and Daly (2013) sought to investigate if counseling students who
participated in counseling as a course requirement would demonstrate a decrease in overall
problems, depression, and anxiety. Fifty five graduate students who were enrolled in a Master’s
level counseling program were included in this study. Counseling students, who received
counseling services, as required by their degree programs, were given the 126-item Adult Self
Report (ASR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003) at intake to assess for total problems, DSM-oriented
depressive problems, and DSM-oriented anxiety problems. The ASR was administered a second
time at termination of the counseling sessions and statistical analysis was performed via t-test.
The results of the Prosek et al. (2013) study revealed there was a significant difference
between pretest and posttest scores on all three measures of total problems, depression, and
anxiety. The authors of this study conclude that counseling students may benefit from brief
counseling services as a required part of their degree program to help lower levels of depression
and anxiety.
Degree of perfectionism is another variable that has been linked to depression and
anxiety in college students. According to Benson (2003), perfectionism is a multifaceted
construct that centers on the need to be or the need to appear perfect. This construct is generally
viewed as maladaptive as it relates to psychopathology, but some researches argue there is also
an adaptive component that serves as a form of motivation to achieve one’s goals. Bergman,
Nyland, and Burns (2007) describe positive perfectionists as those who set realistic, attainable

standards in order to achieve success and its accompanying rewards. Negative perfectionists are
described as those who set unrealistically high standards in an attempt to avoid personal failure.
According to Short, Owens, Slade, and Dewey (1995), perfectionism has been widely
implicated in several psychopathologies. This implies that perfectionism in itself is a negative
construct. These authors sought to differentiate between positive and negative perfectionism and
to create a new measure of perfectionism that incorporated both the positive and negative aspects
of the construct; they also wanted to investigate how perfectionism varied across different
populations. In particular, Short et al. (1995) hypothesized depressed patients would exhibit high
levels of negative perfectionism and low levels of positive perfectionism.
Short et al. (1995) divided participants into four groups: a control group (N=225),
athletes (N=20), eating disordered participants (N=21), and those who were clinically depressed
(N=15). These investigators created a new survey with 40 questions to assess four types of
perfectionism: positive, negative, personal, and socially prescribed perfectionism. To assess for
validity of the new scale, the Dissatisfaction and Perfectionism subscales of the SCANS scale
(Slade & Dewey, 1986) was also administered to the study participants. ANOVAs were
conducted to explore between group differences.
The results of this study indicated that those with eating disorders and those who were
clinically depressed scored significantly higher than the control group on measures of negative
perfectionism. The control group and the athletes reported the highest levels of positive
perfectionism. All results were congruent with those of the SCANS scale. According to Short at
al. (1995), personal and socially prescribed perfectionism were meaningful only as they
pertained to positive perfectionism, but not in the context of negative perfectionism. The authors
of this study concluded that their newly constructed perfectionism scale was valid with this

sample population and their hypothesis was confirmed; depressed individuals experienced higher
levels of negative perfectionism and lower levels of positive perfectionism. In addition to
understanding the primary types of perfectionism and their correlates, it is also important to
understand how being a perfectionist influences one’s thought processes.
In their 2013 study, Zhou, Zhu, Zhang, and Cai aimed to investigate if perceived social
support served as a protective factor against depression and anxiety in students who were
perfectionists. Four hundred twenty six psychology students in China were surveyed using the
Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale (Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995), the
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21(Lovibond & Lovibond, 1994), and the Multidimensional
Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988). Partial
correlation analyses were performed using SSPS.
Zhou et al. (2013) found positive correlations between depression and perfectionism and
between anxiety and perfectionism. Negative relationships were found between perceived
social support and negative perfectionism, depression, and anxiety. Positive perfectionism was
also negatively correlated with depression. Notably, the authors also found that at some point in
people with high perceived social support, perfectionists’ levels of depression and anxiety
increase because of exceptionally high standards for performance. From these findings, the
authors concluded that a high degree of perceived social support may serve as a protective factor
against the development of depression and anxiety in students who are perfectionists.
Social support has long been viewed as a resource to help people cope with stress and
other difficulties in life. Many researchers have demonstrated the correlation between social
support and severity of psychopathology, and it is a common belief that social support can serve
as a protective factor by acting as a buffer between symptoms and stressful life events. There is

no concrete definition of social support or agreement on who qualifies as a social support, but we
can loosely define social support as referring to the availability of others on whom we can rely
on to care, value, and love us (Zhou et al., 2013).
Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, and Farley (1988) sought to show that the Multidimensional Scale
of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) was a reliable measure of perceived social supports from
friends, family, and significant others; the MSPSS was a relatively new measure at the time of
their research. Two hundred seventy five undergraduate students at Duke University were
administered the 12-item MSPSS as part of a course requirement, and 69 of these were retested
for a reliability measure. Students were also given the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL;
Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974) to assess for depression and anxiety since
these two constructs have been positively correlated with social support.
Factor analysis was conducted to ensure the MSPSS clearly differentiated between three
groups of perceived social support: family, friends, and significant other. Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha was used to determine that the scale had good internal reliability on both the subscales and
the whole scale. Construct validity was confirmed by correlating the depression and anxiety
measures of the HSCL with MSPSS scores. In addition to concluding that the MSPSS was
psychometrically sound, the authors made several observations about their results.
Gender differences were observed. While women reported receiving more support from
friends and significant others than men did, women also reported more symptoms of depression
and anxiety. This was surprising because despite the greater social support, women still
experienced more symptoms of depression and anxiety than did men. One could argue that
greater social support was sought in reaction to greater depression and anxiety symptoms rather
than greater depression and anxiety existing despite having greater social support. Additionally,

Zimet et al. (1988) found perceived social support from family to be more strongly inversely
related to depression than perceived support from a significant other. Finally, the authors
concluded that type A personalities (those who are driven and maintain a stressful lifestyle) are
the most likely to benefit from social supports as a buffer against psychopathologies and medical
illnesses such as coronary artery disease. Because perceived social support has been strongly
correlated with certain psychopathologies, some researchers have explored the possibilities of
using measures of perceived social support as a predictor for depression and anxiety.
Lin and Ensel (1984) explored the possibilities of using a “mobility table” based on one’s
negative life events and perceived social support to predict if they would experience depression.
The authors used a within-subjects repeated measures design to obtain measures of social
support and depression. At time one (T1), 1,091 participants were given a 118-item inventory to
assess life events and how desirable, undesirable, or ambiguous each event was. Social support
was measured with the Strong Ties Support Scale (Lin, Dean, & Ensel, 1981) and depression
was measured using the Center for Epidemiology Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). One year
later (T2), 871 of the original participants were reassessed on the same scales and change scores
were computed. Participants were categorized into four groups based on their change scores.
“The Normals” were not depressed at T1 or T2, “The Deteriorating” were not depressed
at T1 but were depressed at T2, “The Recovered” were depressed at T1 but not at T2, and “The
Chronics” were depressed at both T1 and T2, or moved in and out of depression between T1 and
T2. The” Normals” were found to have few undesirable life events and high levels of social
support at both T1 and T2. The “Deteriorating” reported more undesirable life events at T2 than
at T1 as well as a decrease in social support between the two times. The “Recovered” reported a
decrease in undesirable life events between T1 and T2 and an increase in social support, and the

“Chronics” reported high levels of undesirable life events at T1 and T2 as well as low levels of
social support at both T1 and T2.
Lin and Ensel (1984) concluded that vulnerability to depression was strongly influenced
by one’s past history of depression, an increase in negative life events, and a decrease in
perceived social support. According to the authors, the implications of this study are that
populations that are vulnerable to depression can be advised to work on creating strong social
supports and directed to supportive resources before a major depressive episode develops. This
study looked at social support in general, but others have focused specifically on intimate
relationships as social support.
There are mixed messages about the role of intimate relationships as they relate to
depression. Some researchers indicate depression develops in response to relationship
dissatisfaction and others indicate intimate relationships serve as a buffer against depression.
Here, the key is to differentiate between the two issues being addressed: 1) relationship
satisfaction as it relates to depression and 2) the existence of an intimate relationship as it relates
to depression. Burns, Sayers, and Moras (1994) surveyed 115 patients at a mental health clinic
in a repeated measures design. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson,
Mock, & Erbaigh, 1961) was used to assess depression, the Empathy Scale (Burns & Nolen-
Hoeksema, 1992) to assess how caring the patients thought their therapist was, and the
Relationship Satisfaction Scale (RSAT; Heyman, Sayers, & Bellack, 1994) was used to assess
satisfaction with one’s closest relationship; assessments took place at intake and at 12 weeks.
Their goals were to determine if there was a correlation between relationship dissatisfaction and
depression, to determine if depression effected relationship satisfaction, and to determine if other
variables simultaneously effected both depression and relationship satisfaction.

Burns et al. (1994) found relationship status to have only a small effect on depression
severity; despite large change scores on the RSAT, only small change scores were observed on
the BDI in these patients. They also found depression severity to have no impact on the level of
relationship satisfaction; depression did not lead to relationship dissatisfaction. This may be
because the significant other provided social support and therefore acted as a buffer against
depression and dissatisfaction with the relationship. Finally, the authors found married patients
showed greater improvement from depression than unmarried patients. In response, the authors
posed the following question: Are married people inherently able to recover from depression
faster than unmarried people, or is their recovery based on the relationship itself? The present
study will attempt to further investigate the relationship between relationship status and
depression.
The prevalence of depression and anxiety among college students has been well
established in the literature. Perfectionism has been linked to depression and anxiety based on its
adaptive or maladaptive use, and perceived social support has been shown to negatively correlate
with depression and anxiety. To date, there is very little research that specifically targets
graduate students to measure depression and anxiety, and there is little published information on
how depression and anxiety correlate with degree of perfectionism, and perceived social support
from an intimate relationship concurrently. This study will attempt to address a gap in the
research. Specifically, the researcher will investigate how the number of depression and anxiety
symptoms differs between undergraduate and graduate students, and how degree of
perfectionism and perceived social support from an intimate relationship correlates with
depression and anxiety among American college students.

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
H1: Undergraduate students (IV) will report a greater level of depression symptoms
(DV) than graduate students.
H0: There will be no difference in level of depression symptoms reported between
undergraduate and graduate students.
Hypothesis 2
H2: Graduate students (IV) will report a greater level of anxiety symptoms (DV) than
undergraduate students.
H0: There will be no difference in level of anxiety symptoms reported between
graduate and undergraduate students.
Hypothesis 3
H3A: Perfectionism scores (IV) will be positively correlated to the level of depression
symptoms (DV) reported.
H0: There will be no relationship between perfectionism scores and the level of
depression symptoms reported.
H3B: Perfectionism scores (IV) will be positively related to the level of anxiety
H0: There will be no relationship between perfectionism scores and the level of
anxiety symptoms reported.

Hypothesis 4
H4A: For students who are involved in an intimate relationship, perceived social
support scores (IV) will negatively correlate with the level of depression
H0: For students who are involved in an intimate relationship, there will be no
relationship between perceived social support scores and the level of depression
symptoms reported.
H4B: For students who are involved in an intimate relationship, perceived social
support scores (IV) will negatively correlate with the level of anxiety symptoms
(DV) reported.
H0: For students who are involved in an intimate relationship, there will be no
relationship between perceived social support scores and the level of anxiety
symptoms reported.
Method
Participants
A convenience sample of 77 undergraduate and graduate students at a local faith based
university in southeast Texas was utilized. The sample included 33 (42.9 %) males and 44
(57.1 %) females. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 52 with an average age of 22.75.
Ethnicity of the participants was as follows: 16 (20.8 %) Caucasian, 23 (29.9 %) African-
American, 23 (29.9 %) Hispanic, 7 (9.1 %) Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8 (10.4 %) participants
defined themselves as “Other”. The sample included 60 (77.9 %) undergraduate and 17 (22.1 %)

graduate students, and 51 (66.2 %) were single and 26 (33.8 %) defined themselves as being
involved in an intimate relationship. See descriptive statistics in Appendix A.
Measures
Each questionnaire contained an informed consent, a demographics section, and scales to
measure perceived social support, perfectionism, and depression and anxiety symptoms (see
Appendix B). The informed consent stated the subject and purpose of the study as well as the
procedure for administration and completion. Information pertaining to the risks and benefits of
participation, liabilities, and the right to withdraw and/or refuse to participate was also provided.
Contact information was provided for both the researcher and the faculty supervisor. The
demographics section of the questionnaire gathered information about age, gender, ethnicity,
grade level, and relationship status.
The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet et al., 1988)
was used to measure perceived social support from a significant other, family, and friends. The
MSPSS consists of 12 statements that are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “Very
Strongly Disagree” to 7 “Very Strongly Agree”. Scores on each subscale range from a low of 1
to a high of 7. Total scores across all 12 items range from a low of 1 to a high of 7. The
subscale measuring perceived social support from a significant other was the only score
calculated from this research. This was achieved by summing the scores for numbers 1, 2, 5, and
10 of the assessment, then dividing by 4. Participants were instructed to indicate how strongly
they felt about each of the 12 statements. Low scores on the “Significant Other” subscale
indicated a low level of perceived social support from a significant other, and high scores
indicated a high level of perceived social support. Zimet et al. (1988) indicated excellent internal

reliability of the “Significant Other” subscale (α = .91), and moderate test-retest reliability (r =
.72).
The Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory (PCI; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Gray, 1998)
was used to measure automatic perfectionistic thoughts. The PCI is a 25 item inventory rated on
a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from 0 “Not at All” to 4 “All of the Time”; no
reversed items are used. Total sum scores across all 25 items range from a low of 0 to a high of
100. Participants were instructed to indicate how frequently they experienced specific automatic
perfectionistic thoughts. Low scores on the PCI indicate a low degree of perfectionism and high
scores indicate a higher degree of perfectionistic thinking. Flett et al. (1998), suggest the PCI
has high internal consistency, adequate test-retest reliability, and construct validity was
demonstrated between the PCI and other perfectionistic thinking scales.
The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale – 21 items (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond,
1994) was used to measure symptoms of depression and anxiety; this scale also measures stress
levels, but those scores were not calculated or used for this research. The DASS-21 is a 21 item
inventory rated on a 4-point Likert scale with responses ranging from 0 “Did not apply to me at
all” to 3 “Applied to me very much/most of the time”. Depression symptoms were calculated
using sum scores of items 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, and 21 with no items reversed, and anxiety
symptoms were calculated using sum scores of items 2, 4, 7, 9, 15, 19, and 20 with no items
reversed. Participants were instructed to indicate how frequently or how severely the statements
applied to them over the two week period prior to assessment. Low scores indicated low levels
of depression and/or anxiety, and higher scores indicated higher levels of depression and/or
anxiety. Lovibond & Lovibond (1994) suggest a high correlation (r = .81) between the DASS-

21 and the BAI, and a high correlation (r = .74) between the DASS-21and the BDI. Adequate
convergent and discriminant validity were reported.
Procedures
The researcher obtained permission to conduct a supervised research study on the campus
of a faith based university in southeast Texas. Seven professors were contacted seeking
permission to survey their classes; five granted permission to include their classes in the
research. On the day of the survey, the researcher introduced herself and the general purpose of
the study, and briefly outlined the informed consent. Each volunteer was given a questionnaire
with an informed consent attached. Participants were instructed to read, sign, and date the
informed consent, and then detach it from the questionnaire. The researcher collected the
informed consents as the participants completed the questionnaire consisting of a demographic
section and three scales. The questionnaire took approximately ten minutes to complete. After
the researcher gathered all questionnaires, she thanked the participants and the professors for
their time and participation. Upon gathering all completed questionnaires, the researcher coded
all responses and used SPSS to conduct statistical analysis. Results were compared to all
hypotheses.
Results
The goal of the current study was to determine whether levels of depression and anxiety
were associated with grade level (undergraduate, graduate), level of perfectionism, or level of
perceived social support from an intimate relationship. All data were analyzed using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) versions 20.0 and 22.0. Parametric tests (t-tests
for independent samples and Pearson r) were run using a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
Descriptive statistics for each variable are listed in Appendix A.

Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis one predicted undergraduate students would report greater levels of
depression symptoms than graduate students. A one-tailed t-test for independent samples was
run between grade level and depression. After comparing mean scores for depression between
the two grade levels, no significant difference was found, t(73) = 0.177, p = 0.430. The researcher
failed to reject the null hypothesis (see Table1).
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis two predicted graduate students would report greater levels of anxiety than
undergraduate students. A one-tailed t-test for independent samples was run between grade level
and anxiety. After comparing mean scores for anxiety between the two grade levels, no
significant difference was found, t(74) = 0.678, p = 0.250. The researcher failed to reject the null
hypothesis (see Table2).
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis three predicted a positive correlation between perfectionism scores and level
of depression and anxiety symptoms reported.
For hypothesis H3A, a one-tailed, Pearson product – moment correlation coefficient, r was
run to determine the correlation between perfectionism scores and level of depression symptoms
reported. Scores for the two variables were compared, and it was found that high scores on the
PCI were significantly correlated to high levels of depression symptoms. This finding suggests a
positive correlation between perfectionism and depression, r = 0.450, p ˂ 0.001 (see Table 3).
For hypothesis H3B, a one-tailed, Pearson product – moment correlation coefficient, r was
run to determine the correlation between perfectionism scores and level of anxiety symptoms
reported. Scores for the two variables were compared, and it was found that high scores on the

PCI were significantly correlated to high levels of anxiety symptoms. This finding suggests a
positive correlation between perfectionism and anxiety, r = 0.474, p ˂ 0.001. The null
hypothesis was rejected (see Table 4).
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis four predicted a negative correlation between social support from an intimate
relationship and level of depression and anxiety symptoms reported.
For hypothesis H4A, a one-tailed, Pearson product – moment correlation coefficient, r was
run to determine the correlation between perceived social support from an intimate relationship
and level of depression symptoms reported. Scores for the two variables were compared; no
significant correlation between perceived social support from an intimate relationship and
depression was found, r = - 0.016, p = 0.471. The researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis
(see Table 5).
For hypothesis H4B, a one-tailed, Pearson product – moment correlation coefficient, r was
run to determine the correlation between perceived social support from an intimate relationship
and level of anxiety symptoms reported. Scores for the two variables were compared; no
significant correlation between perceived social support from an intimate relationship and
anxiety was found, r = 0.096, p = 0.324. The researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis (see
Table 6).
Discussion
The researcher studied levels of depression and anxiety among college undergraduate and
graduate students. The use of the MSPSS, PCI, and DASS-21 facilitated an understanding of
how students’ perceptions of their level of social support from a significant other and their level
of perfectionism can be related to their mental health.

Hypothesis one tested whether there was a significant, difference between grade level
(undergraduate, graduate) and level of depression symptoms reported. According to data
analysis, there was no significant difference present between the two variables. This implies that
undergraduate students experience the same level of depression symptoms as graduate students.
Hypothesis two tested whether or not there was a significant, difference between grade
level and level of anxiety symptoms reported. According to data analysis, there was no
significant difference between the two variables. This implies that undergraduate students
experience the same level of anxiety symptoms as graduate students.
The third hypothesis explored the correlation between perfectionism scores and levels of
depression and anxiety symptoms reported. Data analysis revealed the presence of a significant,
positive correlation between high perfectionism scores and depression, as well as between high
perfectionism scores and anxiety. These findings imply that perfectionists are more likely to
experience depression and anxiety than their more laid back counterparts.
The fourth hypothesis explored the correlation between perceived social support from an
intimate relationship and levels of depression and anxiety symptoms reported. Results of the
data analysis revealed there was no significant correlation between the two variables. These
findings indicate that students who view themselves as receiving social support from their
intimate partner are just as likely to experience depression and anxiety as their single
counterparts.
The results of the current study serve to guide the identification of risk factors for
depression and anxiety among college students. While undergraduate and graduate students are
equally likely to experience symptoms of depression and anxiety, those who perceive themselves
as perfectionists are significantly more likely to experiences these symptoms. Greater levels of

depression and anxiety places perfectionists at an increased risk for other mental illnesses and
suicidal ideation (Benson, 2003). For this reason, it is necessary to identify and reach out to
those students who self-identify as perfectionists.
Existing programs on college campuses target those students who are already displaying
signs and symptoms of depression and/or anxiety (Mahmoud et al., 2012). Efforts need to be
made to identify those students who believe they need to be or need to appear to be perfect and
therefore hide their symptoms of psychopathology relatively well. These students may even be
in denial about their symptoms because admitting to weakness may equate to a sign of
imperfection which may lead to cognitive dissonance about the perfectionist’s own self-worth.
Those students who strive for perfection have likely been advised to lower their standards
time and time again. A more effective approach would be to focus on the needs for acceptance
and approval, fear of failure, and developing effective coping skills for times of disappointment.
Cognitive restructuring may also be called for in which perfectionists are taught to identify
cognitive distortions and to challenge faulty thinking.
In looking at the results and findings of the current study, it is important to address
several limitations. A convenience sample from a small, private, faith-based university was
used. The findings from this sample may not generalize to the population of interest because this
sample may be inherently different on several fronts. Those who attend a private university may
be more likely to have greater financial security, and therefore fewer symptoms of depression
and anxiety because finances are less of a concern for them, than those who attend public
universities. Additionally, those who choose to attend a faith-based university may rely more on
their faith and spirituality as a coping strategy against depression and anxiety than those who
choose to attend a public university. Another limitation may be that the overwhelming majority

of respondents to the survey were between the ages of 18 and 19 years old. This age group of
students may be less likely to respond to a lengthy survey accurately, and they may be less likely
to represent the undergraduate population as a whole since they are at the beginning of their
college career as compared to juniors and seniors.
Depression and anxiety among college students has been well documented in the
literature. Because these mental illnesses can lead to more serious psychopathologies and
suicidal ideation if left untreated, extensive efforts are being made to identify risk factors for
depression and anxiety among college students around the world. The current study found that it
does not matter what level of education one is receiving while in college; all are equally
susceptible to depression and anxiety. The current study also found that receiving social support
from a significant other does not operate as a buffer against depression and anxiety in college
students. The researcher finds this to be an interesting trend and recommends further research in
this area. Finally, the current study found a significant, positive correlation between
perfectionism and levels of depression and anxiety among college students.
The nature of the perfectionist is to hide his or her imperfections, making it difficult to
identify and treat such individuals. The current study highlights the need to reach out to college
students who self-identify as perfectionists for the prevention of depression and anxiety. The
ultimate goal is prevention of more serious psychopathologies and suicidal ideation in this
population.

References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2003). Manual for the ASEBA adult forms and profiles.
Burlington, VI: University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Aselton, P. (2012). Sources of stress and coping in American college students who have been
diagnosed with depression. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 25,
119-123. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6171.2012.00341.x
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for
measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.
Benson, E. (November, 2003). The many faces of perfectionism. Monitor on Psychology,
34(10). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov03/manyfaces.aspx
Bergman, A. J., Nyland, J. E., & Burns, L. R. (2007). Correlates with perfectionism and the
utility of a dual process model. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 389-399.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.007
Burns, D. D., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1992). Therapeutic empathy and recovery from
depression in cognitive-behavioral therapy: A Structural equation model. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 441-449.
Burns, D. D., Sayers, S. L., & Moras, K. (1994). Intimate relationships and depression: Is there a
causal connection? Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 1033-1043.
doi: 0022-006x/94
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the
Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92-100.

Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins
Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19,
1-15.
El-Ghoroury, N. H., Galper, D. I., Sawaqdeh, A., & Bufka, L. F. (2012). Stress, coping, and
barriers to wellness among psychology graduate students. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 6(2), 122-134. doi: 10.1037/a0028768
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Field, T., Diego, M., Pelaez, M., Deeds, O., & Delgado, J. (2009). Breakup distress in university
students. Adolescence, 44, 705-727.
Field, T., Diego, M., Pelaez, M., Deeds, O., & Delgado, J. (2012). Depression and related
problems in university students. College Student Journal, 46(1), 193-202.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R, & Gray, L. (1998). Psychological distress and the
frequency of perfectionistic thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75(5), 1363-1381. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1363
Garlow, S. J., Rosenberb, J., Moore, D., Haas, A., Koestner, B., Hendlin, H., & Nemeroff, C. B.
(2008). Depression, desperation, and suicidal ideation in college students: Results from
the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention college screening project at Emory
University. Depression and Anxiety, 25, 482-488. doi: 10.1002/da.20321
Heyman, R. E., Sayers, S. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1994). Global marital satisfaction versus marital
adjustment: An Empirical comparison of three measures. Journal of Family Psychology,
8(4), 432-446. doi: 0893-3200/94
Huebner, E. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of multidimensional life
satisfaction scale for children. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 149-158.

Lin, N. A., Dean, A., & Ensel, W. M. (1981). Social support scales: A Methodological note.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 7(1), 73-90.
Lin, N. A., & Ensel, W. M. (1984). Depression-mobility and its social etiology: The Role of life
events and social support. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 176-188. doi:
208.185.200.95
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1994). The structure of negative emotional states:
Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck depression
and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335-343. doi: 0005-
7967/95
Mahmoud, J. S. R., Staten, R., Hall, L. A., & Lannie, T. A. (2012). The relationship among
young college students’ depression, anxiety, stress, demographics, life satisfaction, and
coping styles. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33, 149-156. doi:
10.3109/01612840.2011.632708
Prosek, E. A., Holm, J. M., & Daly, C. M. (2013). Benefits of required counseling for
counseling students. Counselor Education & Supervision, 52, 242-254. doi:
10.1002/j.1556-6978.2013.00040.x
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A Self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychology Measures, 3, 385-401.
Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative
perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(5), 663-668.
doi: 0191-8869/95
Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1986). Development and preliminary validation of SCANS.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5, 517-538.

Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R, & Lushene, R. (1970). The state/trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., & Williams, J. B. (1999). Validation and utility of a self-report
version of PRIME-MD. Journal of American Medical Association, 282(18), 1737-1744.
Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative
perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 663-668.
Zhou, X., Zhu, H., Zhang, B., & Cai, T. (2013). Perceived social support as moderator of
perfectionism, depression, and anxiety in college students. Social Behavior &
Personality: an International Journal, 41(7), 1141-1152. doi:
10.2224/sbp.2013.41.7.1141
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale
of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30-41.

Appendix A
Descriptive Statistics
Frequencies
Statistics
ID Age
Gende
r
Ethnicit
y Grade
Relationsh
ip
Multidimensio
nal Survey of
Perceived
Social Support
Perfectionis
m
Cognitions
Inventory
Depressio
n
Anxiet
y
NValid 77 76 77 77 77 77 77 77 75 76
Missin
g
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1
Mean
39.0000
22.750
0
1.571
4
2.5844
1.220
8
1.3377 5.6721 60.2613 5.9067 5.9211
Median
39.0000
19.000
0
2.000
0
2.0000
1.000
0
1.0000 6.0000 60.0000 4.0000 5.0000
Mode 1.00a
18.00 2.00 2.00a
1.00 1.00 7.00 64.00 .00 1.00
Std.
Deviatio
n
22.3718
6
8.5699
1
.4981
2
1.2177
5
.4174
9
.47601 1.53530 15.55927 5.55360
5.2631
1
Skewnes
s
.000 2.136 -.294 .494 1.373 .700 -1.569 -.003 1.164 .897
Std.
Error of
Skewnes
s
.274 .276 .274 .274 .274 .274 .274 .274 .277 .276
Kurtosis -1.200 3.586 -1.965 -.502 -.118 -1.551 2.093 .291 .742 .019
Std.
Error of
Kurtosis
.541 .545 .541 .541 .541 .541 .541 .541 .548 .545
Range 76.00 34.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 77.00 21.00 21.00
Minimu
m
1.00 18.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 20.00 .00 .00
Maximu
m
77.00 52.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 7.00 97.00 21.00 21.00
a. Multiple modesexist.The smallestvalueisshown

Frequency Tables
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 18.00 30 39.0 39.5 39.5
19.00 18 23.4 23.7 63.2
20.00 5 6.5 6.6 69.7
21.00 3 3.9 3.9 73.7
22.00 3 3.9 3.9 77.6
23.00 1 1.3 1.3 78.9
24.00 1 1.3 1.3 80.3
28.00 1 1.3 1.3 81.6
29.00 2 2.6 2.6 84.2
30.00 2 2.6 2.6 86.8
32.00 1 1.3 1.3 88.2
34.00 1 1.3 1.3 89.5
36.00 1 1.3 1.3 90.8
40.00 1 1.3 1.3 92.1
43.00 1 1.3 1.3 93.4
45.00 1 1.3 1.3 94.7
46.00 1 1.3 1.3 96.1
47.00 1 1.3 1.3 97.4
50.00 1 1.3 1.3 98.7
52.00 1 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 76 98.7 100.0
Missing System 1 1.3
Total 77 100.0
Gender
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 33 42.9 42.9 42.9
Female 44 57.1 57.1 100.0
Total 77 100.0 100.0
Ethnicity
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Caucasian 16 20.8 20.8 20.8
AfricanAmerican 23 29.9 29.9 50.6
Hispanic 23 29.9 29.9 80.5
Asian/PacificIslander 7 9.1 9.1 89.6

Other 8 10.4 10.4 100.0
Total 77 100.0 100.0

Grade
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Undergraduate 60 77.9 77.9 77.9
Graduate 17 22.1 22.1 100.0
Total 77 100.0 100.0
Relationship
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Single 51 66.2 66.2 66.2
Intimate Relationship 26 33.8 33.8 100.0
Total 77 100.0 100.0
Multidimensional Survey of Perceived Social Support
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 3 3.9 3.9 3.9
2.00 1 1.3 1.3 5.2
2.25 1 1.3 1.3 6.5
2.75 1 1.3 1.3 7.8
3.00 2 2.6 2.6 10.4
3.50 1 1.3 1.3 11.7
4.25 1 1.3 1.3 13.0
4.50 4 5.2 5.2 18.2
4.75 1 1.3 1.3 19.5
5.00 5 6.5 6.5 26.0
5.25 3 3.9 3.9 29.9
5.50 5 6.5 6.5 36.4
5.75 4 5.2 5.2 41.6
6.00 9 11.7 11.7 53.2
6.25 3 3.9 3.9 57.1
6.50 7 9.1 9.1 66.2
6.75 5 6.5 6.5 72.7
7.00 21 27.3 27.3 100.0
Total 77 100.0 100.0

Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 20.00 1 1.3 1.3 1.3
21.00 1 1.3 1.3 2.6
34.00 1 1.3 1.3 3.9
37.00 1 1.3 1.3 5.2
39.00 2 2.6 2.6 7.8
40.00 1 1.3 1.3 9.1
41.00 2 2.6 2.6 11.7
43.00 2 2.6 2.6 14.3
44.00 2 2.6 2.6 16.9
45.00 1 1.3 1.3 18.2
46.00 2 2.6 2.6 20.8
47.00 1 1.3 1.3 22.1
49.00 1 1.3 1.3 23.4
50.00 2 2.6 2.6 26.0
51.00 1 1.3 1.3 27.3
52.00 2 2.6 2.6 29.9
54.00 1 1.3 1.3 31.2
55.00 5 6.5 6.5 37.7
56.00 3 3.9 3.9 41.6
57.00 1 1.3 1.3 42.9
58.00 4 5.2 5.2 48.1
59.00 1 1.3 1.3 49.4
60.00 1 1.3 1.3 50.6
64.00 6 7.8 7.8 58.4
65.00 5 6.5 6.5 64.9
66.00 2 2.6 2.6 67.5
67.00 3 3.9 3.9 71.4
68.00 1 1.3 1.3 72.7
69.00 1 1.3 1.3 74.0
69.12 1 1.3 1.3 75.3
70.00 3 3.9 3.9 79.2
71.00 1 1.3 1.3 80.5
73.00 2 2.6 2.6 83.1
74.00 2 2.6 2.6 85.7
75.00 1 1.3 1.3 87.0
77.00 1 1.3 1.3 88.3
79.00 2 2.6 2.6 90.9
81.00 1 1.3 1.3 92.2
87.00 2 2.6 2.6 94.8
89.00 1 1.3 1.3 96.1
90.00 1 1.3 1.3 97.4
97.00 2 2.6 2.6 100.0

Total 77 100.0 100.0

Depression
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 12 15.6 16.0 16.0
1.00 5 6.5 6.7 22.7
2.00 7 9.1 9.3 32.0
3.00 7 9.1 9.3 41.3
4.00 8 10.4 10.7 52.0
5.00 4 5.2 5.3 57.3
6.00 6 7.8 8.0 65.3
7.00 3 3.9 4.0 69.3
8.00 4 5.2 5.3 74.7
9.00 4 5.2 5.3 80.0
10.00 2 2.6 2.7 82.7
11.00 2 2.6 2.7 85.3
12.00 2 2.6 2.7 88.0
13.00 1 1.3 1.3 89.3
16.00 2 2.6 2.7 92.0
17.00 2 2.6 2.7 94.7
19.00 1 1.3 1.3 96.0
20.00 1 1.3 1.3 97.3
21.00 2 2.6 2.7 100.0
Total 75 97.4 100.0
Total 77 100.0

Anxiety
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 9 11.7 11.8 11.8
1.00 11 14.3 14.5 26.3
2.00 6 7.8 7.9 34.2
3.00 5 6.5 6.6 40.8
4.00 5 6.5 6.6 47.4
5.00 8 10.4 10.5 57.9
6.00 6 7.8 7.9 65.8
7.00 1 1.3 1.3 67.1
8.00 1 1.3 1.3 68.4
9.00 5 6.5 6.6 75.0
10.00 5 6.5 6.6 81.6
11.00 2 2.6 2.6 84.2
12.00 3 3.9 3.9 88.2
14.00 2 2.6 2.6 90.8
15.00 2 2.6 2.6 93.4
17.00 3 3.9 3.9 97.4
18.00 1 1.3 1.3 98.7
21.00 1 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 76 98.7 100.0
Total 77 100.0

Appendix B
Informed Consent
INSTRUCTIONS: You are being asked to participate in a research study. Please read the
information below. If you agree to take part, sign the document on the line indicated at the
bottom of this page.
Subject of study: Students’ attitudes towards themselves.
Purpose: The research is part of the researcher’s formal course work in
psychology at Houston Baptist University.
Procedure: You will receive one questionnaire to complete. Please complete the
questionnaire following the instructions printed on it, and return the completed
questionnaire to the investigator as instructed.
Risks and benefits: The method of research used in this study poses minimal risk
to you. Confidentiality will be closely guarded. The information collected will
be examined in aggregate form only: no data will be linked to you personally.
The benefits to you include your support of higher education, as well as clarifying
your attitudes on the topic under investigation.
Liability: The investigator realizes his/her ethical responsibility to ensure that no
damaging consequences occur. However, Houston Baptist University will NOT
be held liable for any damaging consequences, and will NOT offer financial
assistance in such an event.
Right to Refuse and/or Withdraw: Your participation is voluntary. You may
refuse to take part. And you may withdraw from participation at any time by
contacting the researcher.
For Further Information: Contact the researcher, Rhabia Junaid, at
junaidrj@hbu.edu if you have any questions or concerns. The faculty supervisor
of the research is Dr. Valerie Bussell, who may be reached at 281-649-3051.
Informed Consent: By signing below, you agree to take part in this research
project under the conditions described. Please note that a questionnaire returned
without giving signed consent cannot be included in the study.
Signature______________________________________
Date__________________________________________

Please answer the following demographic-related items.
1. Age:________
2. Gender (circle one): Male Female
3. Ethnicity (circle one):
Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Other
4. Grade Level (circle one): Undergraduate Graduate
5. Relationship Status (circle one):
Single Married/In a Relationship/Dating
MSPSS – We are interested in how you feel about the following statements. Readeach
statement carefully. Indicate how you feel about each statement by circling one number
for each statement.
1. There is a special person who is around when I am in need.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Strongly Strongly Mildly Neutral Mildly Strongly Very Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
2. There is a special person with whom I can share joys and sorrows.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. My family really tries to help me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I get the emotional help and support I need from my family.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I have a special person who is a real source of comfort to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MSPSS – We are interested in how you feel about the following statements. Readeach
statement carefully. Indicate how you feel about each statement by circling one number
for each statement.
6. My friends really try to help me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. I can count on my friends when things go wrong.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I can talk about my problems with my family.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. There is a special person in my life who cares about my feelings.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. My family is willing to help me make decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. I can talk about my problems with my friends.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PCI – For each of the following statements, circle the answer that is best representative of
how frequently you have had these thoughts. Be sure to circle one number for each
statement.
1. Why can’t I be perfect?
0 1 2 3 4
Not at Rarely Some of the Most of the All of the
All Time Time Time
2. I need to do better.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
3. I should be perfect.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
4. I should never make the same mistake twice.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
5. I’ve got to keep working on my goals.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
6. I have to be the best.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
7. I should be doing more.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
8. I can’t stand to make mistakes.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time

statement.
9. I have to work hard all the time.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
10. No matter how much I do, it’s never enough.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
11. People expect me to be perfect.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
12. I must be efficient at all times.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
13. My goals are very high.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
14. I can always do better, even if things are almost perfect.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
15. I expect to be perfect.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
16. Why can’t things be perfect?
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time

statement.
17. My work has to be superior.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
18. It would be great if everything in my life were perfect.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
19. My work should be flawless.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
20. Things are seldom ideal.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
21. How well am I doing?
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
22. I can’t do this perfectly.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
23. I certainly have high standards.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
24. Maybe I should lower my goals.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time

statement.
25. I am too much of a perfectionist.
0 1 2 3 4
All Time Time Time
DASS-21 – For each of the following statements, circle the answer that is best
representative of how frequently or how severely the following statements have applied to
you over the past two weeks. Be sure to circle one number for each statement.
1. I found it hard to wind down.
0 1 2 3
Did not apply Applied to me to Applied to me to Applied to me
to me at all some degree/ a considerable degree/ very much/
some of the time a good part of the time most of the time
2. I was aware of dryness in my mouth.
0 1 2 3
3. I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feelings at all.
0 1 2 3
4. I experienced breathing difficulty.
0 1 2 3
5. I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things.
0 1 2 3

6. I tended to over-react to situations.
0 1 2 3
7. I experienced trembling (e.g. in the hands).
0 1 2 3
8. I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy.
0 1 2 3
9. I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make a fool of myself.
0 1 2 3
10. I felt that I had nothing to look forward to.
0 1 2 3
11. I found myself getting agitated.
0 1 2 3
12. I found it difficult to relax.
0 1 2 3

13. I felt down-hearted and blue.
0 1 2 3
14. I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with what I was doing.
0 1 2 3
15. I felt I was close to panic.
0 1 2 3
16. I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything.
0 1 2 3
17. I felt that I wasn’t worth much of a person.
0 1 2 3
18. I felt I was rather touchy.
0 1 2 3
19. I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical exertion.
0 1 2 3

20. I felt scared without any good reason.
0 1 2 3
21. I felt that life was meaningless.
0 1 2 3
Thank you for participating in this survey.

Table 1
Grade Level and Level of Depression
Group Statistics
Grade N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Depression Undergraduate 59 5.9661 5.57076 .72525
Graduate 16 5.6875 5.66532 1.41633
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Depression Equal
variances
assumed
.050 .823 .177 73 .860 .27860 1.57573
-
2.86182
3.41902
Equal
variances not
assumed
.175 23.480 .863 .27860 1.59122
-
3.00937
3.56657

Table 2
Grade Level and Level of Anxiety
Group Statistics
Grade N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Anxiety Undergraduate 60 6.1333 5.32810 .68786
Graduate 16 5.1250 5.09738 1.27435
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Anxiety Equal
variances
assumed
.258 .613 .678 74 .500 1.00833 1.48622
-
1.95302
3.96968
Equal
variances not
assumed
.696 24.485 .493 1.00833 1.44814
-
1.97734
3.99401

Table 3
Correlation for Perfectionism Scores and Level of Depression
Correlations
Perfectionism
Cognitions
Inventory Depression
Perfectionism Cognitions
Inventory
Pearson Correlation 1 .450**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 77 75
Depression Pearson Correlation .450**
1
N 75 75
**. Correlation is significantatthe 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Table 4
Correlation for Perfectionism Scores and Level of Anxiety
Correlations
Perfectionism
Cognitions
Inventory Anxiety
Perfectionism Cognitions
Inventory
Pearson Correlation 1 .474**
N 77 76
Anxiety Pearson Correlation .474**
1
N 76 76
**. Correlation is significantatthe 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Table 5
Correlation for Perceived Social Support from an Intimate Relationship and Level of Depression
Correlations
Multidimensional
Survey of
Perceived Social
Support Depression
Multidimensional Surveyof
Perceived Social Support
Pearson Correlation 1 -.016
N 26 25
Depression Pearson Correlation -.016 1
N 25 25

Table 6
Correlation for Perceived Social Support from an Intimate Relationship and Level of Anxiety
Correlations
Multidimensional
Survey of Perceived
Social Support Anxiety
Multidimensional Surveyof
Perceived Social Support
Pearson Correlation 1 .096
N 26 25
Anxiety Pearson Correlation .096 1
N 25 25

RJunaid Final Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to RJunaid Final Paper

Similar to RJunaid Final Paper (20)

RJunaid Final Paper