Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271

http://france.elsevier.com/direct/ERAP/

Original article

Stressful academic situations: study on appraisal variables in adolescence

Sophie Govaerts *, Jacques Grégoire
Faculté de psychologie et des sciences de l’éducation, Université Catholique de Louvain, Place du Cardinal Mercier,
10, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Received 15 September 2003; accepted 30 May 2004

Abstract

Several studies emphasized the key role of the cognitive appraisal processes on the way stress is experienced by adolescents. Surprisingly,
few studies applied this concept to the academic stress. This research studied adolescents’ cognitive appraisal processes and their relationships
with academic stress. A sample of adolescents (N = 100, mean age = 16.9 years) reported 145 academic stressful situations. Sex and age
differences were analyzed. Girls granted greater importance to the stressful situation, while boys perceived themselves as having more
resources for coping with it. Student’s age was negatively correlated with the perception that the stressful situation will be resolved on its own.
Five appraisal patterns were identified using cluster analysis. Subsequent analysis showed that the five groups differ in their perceived degree
of stress. One group was labelled at-risk appraisal group, demonstrating a high level of perceived stress, and two groups showed a favorable
appraisal pattern associated with low level of perceived stress. Implications for future research and applications in school psychology are
suggested.
© 2004 Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

Résumé

Plusieurs études soulignent le rôle clé joué par les processus d’appraisal cognitifs dans la manière dont les adolescents vivent le stress. Ces
processus restent cependant peu étudiés dans le domaine scolaire. Cette recherche a pour but d’examiner les processus d’appraisal cognitifs
chez les adolescents et leur impact sur le stress académique. Un échantillon d’adolescents (N = 100, âge moyen = 16,9 ans) ont rapporté
145 situations scolaires stressantes. Les différences liées au sexe et à l’âge ont été étudiées. Les filles accordent plus d’importance à la situation
stressante tandis que les garçons perçoivent avoir davantage de ressources pour y faire face. L’âge des élèves est négativement corrélé avec la
perception que la situation va se régler d’elle-même. Une analyse en cluster a permis de mettre en évidence cinq groupes d’élèves présentant
des patterns d’appraisal spécifiques. Ces cinq groupes se sont avérés se distinguer quant à leur niveau de stress perçu. Un groupe a pu être
spécifiquement mis en évidence comme groupe d’appraisal à risque, présentant un niveau de stress particulièrement élevé, et deux groupes ont
révélé un pattern d’appraisal favorable, associé à un faible niveau de stress. Les implications pour les recherches ultérieures ainsi que pour la
psychologie scolaire sont discutés.
© 2004 Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cognitive appraisal; Academic stress; Adolescence; Upper secondary education

Mots-clés : Appraisal cognitif ; Stress académique ; Adolescence ; Enseignement secondaire supérieur

1. Introduction opmental period, many situations tax resources and require

Over the past 10 years, a key research trend has explored
the issue of adolescent stress and coping. During this devel-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sophie.govaerts@psp.ucl.ac.be (S. Govaerts).
1162-9088/$ - see front matter © 2004 Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.erap.2004.05.001
major adjustments (Hauser and Bowlds, 1990; Seiffge-
Krenke, 1995).
Several studies undertaken on the stressors faced by ado-
lescents have demonstrated the crucial role played by the
teenager’s cognitive appraisal of these situations (e.g., Bur-
gess and Haaga, 1998; Chan, 1998; Seiffge-Krenke et al.,
262 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271
2001). According to the cognitive theory of emotions, stress
is defined as “a relationship between the person and the
environment that is appraised by the person as relevant to his
or her well-being and in which the person’s resources are
taxed or exceeded” (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985, p.152).
Independently of the situation’s objective characteristics, an
individual will only perceive a situation as stressful if it is an
issue for this person and if this person feels that it threatens or
surpasses his/her internal or external resources.
Two processes are distinguished in cognitive appraisal
(Folkman and Lazarus, 1985; Tomaka et al., 1997). Primary
appraisal reflects the perceptions of the nature and the poten-
tial risk (or threat) of a situation. Secondary appraisal refers
to the perceptions of individual’s own resources or skills to
cope with the situation. By acting interdependently, these
two types of perception determine to what extent one per-
ceives the demands of the situation as being within his/her
resources or not. In this way, these types of perception have a
direct effect on the type of emotions experienced by the
subject (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985). An individual will
perceive the situation as stressful if he/she perceives
himself/herself as having insufficient resources (secondary
appraisal) to deal with the perceived demands of the situation
(primary appraisal). Conversely, an individual is unlikely to
feel stress when he/she feels they have the resources needed
to deal with the situation at hand.
The appraisals also have an impact on the type of coping
strategies used to deal with a difficult situation and conse-
quently on the individual’s adaptation to the situation (Laz-
arus, 1990). Depending on how an individual perceives the
situation, he/she will choose certain coping strategies over
others. These strategies will or will not facilitate adaptation at
a later stage.
According to the work of Lazarus and his colleagues,
Perrez and Reicherts (1992) have suggested refining the
concept of appraisal by taking into account six subjective
dimensions of the way in which an individual cognitively
appraises a situation. The first dimension is the valence of the
situation, which is defined as the subjective importance the
subject grants to the situation in terms of personal relevance.
The controllability is the subjective perception of the indi-
vidual’s ability to control the stressful situation. Changeabil-
ity is defined as the subjective perception of whether or not
the situation will change on its own. The ambiguity repre-
sents the subjective degree of uncertainty created by the
situation. The recurrence is bound to the subjective percep-
tion that the situation will happen again in the future. And
finally, familiarity is defined as the subjective evaluation of
the importance of an individual’s experience with this type of
situation. This set of variables determines how an individual
cognitively appraises a stressful situation. Studies have been
undertaken on professional stress (Perrez and Reicherts,
1992; Reicherts and Pihet, 2000), but never specifically with
a population of adolescents. However, Boekaerts (1996) has
emphasized the importance of taking these six dimensions
into account in order to obtain a more refined understanding
of the appraisal and coping mechanisms at work in adoles-
cent’s stress process.
Given the importance of the appraisal concept in experi-
encing a stressful episode, it seems surprising that so little
research has been specifically dedicated to this issue in the
school environment. After all, school-related pressure and
expectations are the most frequently cited and intense daily
stressors mentioned by adolescents (Armacost, 1989;
De Anda et al., 2000; Halstead et al., 1993; McGuire et al.,
1987). Studies undertaken in this area have focused primarily
on the issues of the coping strategies that students use to deal
with the stressful situations they encounter at school (to
mention but the most recent: de Anda et al., 2000; Dumont
and Provost, 1999; Rijavec and Brdar, 2002; Torsheim and
Wold, 2001). These studies have paid little attention to the
appraisal processes that preceded these strategies. We chose
to undertake the present study in order to refining the under-
standing of these mechanisms. We chose to limit ourselves to
studying the cognitive appraisal of academic situations, ex-
cluding difficulties arising in the area of interpersonal rela-
tions. Indeed, in most studies undertaken in schools,
learning-related difficulties topped the list in terms of preva-
lence and degree of stress perceived (De Anda et al., 2000;
Dumont, 2000; Geisthardt and Munsch, 1996). Moreover,
given its new and mobilizing effects on a cognitive level, an
academic situation often tests a student’s resources, creating
an atmosphere conducive to stress. Academic situations are
also conveyors of important family and social issues for
adolescents.
In studying the individual characteristics of students’ cog-
nitive appraisals of stressful academic situations, a twofold
objective guided the present research.
Our first objective was to examine the relationships be-
tween gender, age, type of educational programme and ado-
lescents’ appraisals of stressful academic situations.
As regards gender-related effects, an ever-increasing
amount of research has demonstrated the gender differences
in adolescents’ psychological experience of stress. Girls re-
port more negative events than boys and in some cases they
consider themselves more at risk (Compas et al., 1986;
Swearingen and Cohen, 1985). The consistent pattern of
gender differences in the literature may reflect differential
representation and understanding of stressful situations. In
this respect, Seiffge-Krenke (1990) has reported gender-
related differences in the appraisal of the same normative
demands: girls evaluate the same event—for example receiv-
ing bad grades in class—as four times more threatening than
boys of the same age. Moreover, girls evaluate the same
problem as more complex and of a more internal origin than
boys. They also continue to think about an event more after it
is over than boys in the same situation.
Given these results, our hypothesis is that girls would
evaluate academic situations at school as more threatening
(primary appraisal) than boys. Such an appraisal should
 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271
conduce to a more acute perception of the degree of stress
reported.
Age has also been reported as an important variable in
studies examining the way a population of children and
adolescents evaluate stressors and the way in which they face
these (Altshuler and Ruble, 1989; Caspi et al., 1987). Devel-
opmental changes ensuing from cognitive maturation are one
of the factors that explain why our perception of and ability to
cope with stressful events generally sharpen with age. More-
over, as explained by Boekaerts (1996), by becoming in-
creasingly familiar with different types of situations, children
improve their ability to evaluate the events they are facing.
Older adolescents also have a more extensive repertory of
strategies and greater skill in picturing the problem from
several different perspectives (Seiffge-Krenke, 2000).
We hypothesize that the evolution noted in the literature
on evaluating a stressful episode also occurs in stressful
academic situations at school. In particular, we expect that
the older students would perceive themselves as having more
control over the situation and more resources to deal with it
(secondary appraisal) than their younger counterparts. The
older students should also be more familiar with stressful
school situations than the younger students.
To our knowledge, no research has been done on the
relationship between the type of educational programme
attended and the stress created by academic situations. Sev-
eral authors emphasize yet the importance to study stress
mechanisms and its specificity in specific contexts (Boe-
kaerts, 1999; Frydenberg, 1999). Our study should make
some progress on this matter by exploring the connections
between the type of educational programme attended and the
cognitive appraisals students make of stressful academic
situations at school.
By exploring differences related to gender, age and type of
educational programme attended, our research will clarify
their relationships with the processes of cognitive appraisal
of stressful academic situations. We will also examine the
relations between different types of stressful academic situa-
tions and the students’ cognitive appraisals.
The second objective of this study is to highlight profiles
or patterns of students with unique ways of appraising stress-
ful academic situations at school. We aimed to identify ‘natu-
rally occurring’ groups of students who would differ in the
way they appraise stressful academic situations. We will then
examine the utility of these profiles in differentiating be-
tween adolescents based on the degree of stress reported for
each situation and the subjective satisfaction during the situ-
ation.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
One hundred upper secondary education students (64 girls
and 36 boys) aged 15–20 (M = 16,9, SD = 1.3) took part in the
263
study. To ensure maximum variability of the sample set, two
establishments were selected, each of which provides a dif-
ferent type of educational programme. One offers general
educational programme, providing students with basic
courses preparing for higher education. The other offers
technical educational programme and vocational educational
programme.1
Within these two schools, five classes took part in the
study. A total of 41 students in grade 10 and 41 students in
grade 12 participated in the experiment, along with 18 ado-
lescents from grade 11. Fifty-two students went to a general
educational programme, while 48 were enrolled in technical
and vocational educational programmes (technical pro-
gramme: n = 35 and vocational programme: n = 13).
2.2. Procedure and measures
The data were collected through a questionnaire adminis-
tered collectively during an hour of class time. Students were
asked to recall a stressful academic situation at school that
had occurred during the academic year, and to provide a
description as detailed as possible of the characteristics of
this situation and of what made it stressful to them.
The students had to complete a questionnaire evaluating
their appraisals. All appraisal variables were measured on
four-point Likert scales. The first six items measured the six
subjective dimensions (valence (“How was this situation
important to you?”), controllability (“Did you feel like you
had any influence over this situation?”), changeability (“Did
you think this situation could be resolved on its own?”),
ambiguity (“Did you feel like you had all the information you
needed on the situation to cope?”), recurrence (“Did you
think the situation was going to recur?”) and familiarity
(“Have you ever been in a similar situation?”)) as set out by
Perrez and Reicherts (1992) and Reicherts and Pihet (2000).
Following two items measured the primary and secondary
appraisal, respectively. Primary appraisal was evaluated by
asking the subjects to judge the relative difficulty of the
situation compared to other situations experienced during the
year (“Compared to other school situations you have been in
this year, how awkward and difficult was this situation?”).
Secondary appraisal was measured by asking students to
what extent they felt capable of coping with this situation
1
This research takes place within the French-speaking Belgian educatio-
nal context. In upper secondary education, three types of educational pro-
gramme are distinguished. In general educational programme, the weekly
timetable divides into common core curriculum (28 periods of 50 min each)
and one optional course (four periods). This type of programme offers
students broad perspectives for continuing their studies. Technical educatio-
nal programme is close to general education in as much as it offers students
broad perspectives for continuing their studies. The difference lies in the
choice of a technical option (sport, science, ...) covering a quarter of the total
course load (eight periods). Vocational educational programme is clearly
career oriented (horticulture, mechanic, construction, care services, ...),
which characterizes the bulk of the students’ course load (25 periods). The
core curriculum represents only nine periods a week.
264 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271
(“Did you feel capable of coping with the situation?”). The
formulation of the latter items is close to that used in other
studies (e.g., Penley and Tomaka, 2002; Tomaka et al., 1997).
Finally, one item aimed to measure the level of perceived
stress by the student, while another attempted to evaluate the
student’s subjective satisfaction during the situation.
After having filled in the items for this first stressful
situation, the students were asked to redo the investigation
using their choice of a second stressful academic situation.
So students having completed their entire questionnaire de-
scribed two stressful academic situations at school and com-
pleted for each of these situations the items described above.
In all, but three2 statistical analyses reported below, only the
first stressful academic situation reported by the students was
taken into account. Indeed, we could not analyze all the
stressful academic situations because they were not indepen-
dent observations: the same student’s reported two different
situations.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive analysis of stressful academic situations
The 100 students (64 girls, 36 boys) reported 145 stressful
academic situations experienced at school during the current
academic year. Sixty-four percent of the students reported
two stressful situations, 17% reported one stressful situation,
and 19% reported none at all. A chi-square statistic was
computed to test the independence between the number of
stressful situations reported by the students and the type of
educational programme attended. The analysis revealed that
these two variables were related (v2 (4, N = 100) = 10.80,
p < 0.05). The students in technical educational programme
appeared to have a completely opposite profile to the students
in the other two types of education: many more students than
expected reported no stressful situations at all (12% of the
19% of the total students that reported no stressful situa-
tions), and far fewer students reported two such situations
(16% of the 64% of the total students that reported two
stressful situations). We did not observe any relation between
gender (v2 (2, N = 100) = 5.06, p > 0.05) or grade (v2 (4,
N = 100) = 6.11, p > 0.05) and the number of stressful
situations reported.
The 145 reported stressful academic situations were bro-
ken down into four different categories according to their
content. The percentage associated with each category was:
written evaluation situations = 32.5% (e.g., written tests or
exams), oral evaluation situations = 22.5% (e.g., oral tests or
exams), work management/organization situations = 41.2%
2
Only three statistical analysis take into account the two stressful situa-
tions reported by the students: descriptive analysis concerning the rela-
tionships between the number of stressful situations and (1) the type of
educational programme, (2) the gender and (3) the grade.
Fig. 1. Distribution of the categories of stressful academic situations accor-
ding to the educational programme (percentage).
(e.g., “This was a stressful situation because I had to manage
two tests and a lot of homework for the following day”) and
school report situations = 3.8% (e.g., “I was very stressed
because the teacher gave the school reports and I did not
know how many failures I would have”). The percentage
associated with each category was approximately the same
for the two situations reported by our subjects.3 Given the
low percentage of the ‘school report’ situation, further analy-
sis shall only take into account three categories of stressful
learning situations, namely ‘written evaluation situations’,
‘oral evaluation situations’ and ‘work management/orga-
nization situations’.
Analysis were undertaken to examine the relationships
between these three categories of stressful situations and the
type of educational programme, the grade, the gender, as well
as the level of stress perceived by the students.
There were significant differences in the distribution of
answers among the different categories of stressful situations
when it came to the type of educational programme (general,
technical and vocational) attended by the students (v2 (4,
N = 77) = 10.95, p < 0.05). These results suggest that students
face different types of stressful situations depending on their
educational programme (Fig. 1). More specifically, we noted
that students in general education reported stressful work
management/organization situations more frequently and in
a higher proportion than students in the other two types of
educational programme. The rest of the stressful situations
reported by these students are shared rather evenly between
written evaluation situations and oral evaluation situations.
The students taking vocational educational programme re-
ported an equal number of work management/organization
situations and of oral evaluation situations, while reporting
only very few written evaluation situations. This is the com-
plete opposite of the students in technical educational pro-
gramme, for whom written evaluation situations represented
3
As explained in the ‘Section 2.2.’, students were asked to fill all the items
of the questionnaire for two different stressful academic situations.
 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271 265

Finally, there was not significant difference between the

three categories of stressful academic situations on the level
of stress reported by the students (F (2, 77) = 0.24, P > 0.05).
For this analysis, an ANOVA was computed because the
‘level of stress’ variable could be considered as an interval
variable.

3.2. Analysis of the individual differences in the cognitive

appraisal of stressful academic situations

Statistical analysis were conducted to determine the dif-

ferences in the cognitive appraisals of stressful learning situ-
ations depending on the individual characteristics of the
students (gender, age, type of educational programme at-
tended) and on the category of stressful academic situation
reported.
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and
t-values for girls and boys for the eight appraisal variables.
Fig. 2. Distribution of the categories of stressful academic situations accor- t-Tests were conducted to determine if boys and girls differed
ding to the grade level (percentage). in their cognitive appraisal of stressful academic situation.
Girls (n = 55) differed from boys (n = 25) in their perception
the bulk of the stressful situation categories. This was fol- of the valence of the stressful situation, as well as in the
lowed by work management/organization and oral evaluation perception of their resources to deal with the situation. In
situations. other words, girls granted greater importance to the stressful
As far as the relationship between categories of stressful experience, while boys perceived themselves as having more
academic situations and the grade (10, 11 or 12) of the resources to deal with it. It is interesting to note that despite
students are concerned (Fig. 2), the p-value was marginally this difference in the perception of stressful situations, the
significant (v2 (4, N = 77) = 9.37, p = 0.053). Even if the girls and boys in our sample set were quite close in terms of
relationship between these two variables only marginally met the level of stress reported (t (78) = 0.66, p > 0.05).
the statistical criterion of 0.05, it is interesting to note, how- Pearson correlations were computed between the age of
ever, that as they move through the school system, students the students and the appraisal variables. These were low, but
report an increasingly high number of stressful work statistically significant for the changeability (r = –0.22,
management/organization situations. Written and oral evalu- p < 0.05) variable. These were non-significant (p > 0.05) for
ation situations were broken down fairly evenly in grade the remaining appraisal variables (valence (r = –0.02), con-
10 and grade 12. In grade 11, however, far more stressful trollability (r = 0.17), ambiguity (r = 0.20), recurrence
written evaluation situations were reported than oral evalua- (r = –0.14), familiarity (r = –0.08), perceived difficulty
tion situations. (r = 0.11), perceived resources (r = 0.11)). While the link
The relationship between the gender of the students and between the age of the students and the changeability vari-
the categories of stressful academic situations was not sig- able is weak, this result suggests that the older the students,
nificant (v2 (2, N = 77) = 2.17, p > 0.05). This means that boys the less they tend to think the situation will be settled on its
and girls reported the same categories of stressful situations. own. It is however, important to note that the limited age
Table 1
Appraisal assessments in relation to gender
Appraisal variables Girls (n = 55) Boys (n = 25) t-value
Mean SD Mean SD
Valence 3.55 0.60 3.12 0.83 2.47 **
Controllability 2.62 1.04 2.60 1.08 0.22
Changeability 1.57 0.84 1.40 0.71 0.76
Ambiguity 2.26 0.88 2.08 0.95 0.72
Recurrence 3.15 1.06 2.88 1.13 1.16
Familiarity 2.58 1.10 2.40 1.26 0.59
Perceived difficulty (primary appraisal) 3.28 0.72 3.12 0.83 0.75
Perceived resources (secondary appraisal) 2.38 0.81 2.84 0.75 2.36 **
Perceived stress 3.36 0.70 3.24 0.92 0.66
Perceived satisfaction 2.70 0.98 2.92 1.04 0.89
Notes: All variables were measured on four-point Likert scales. ** p ≤ 0.01.
266 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271

range of the students (15–20 years) could result in lower
correlations.
There were significant differences in the way students in
different types of educational programmes evaluated stress-
ful academic situations. ANOVA demonstrated that at least
two of the three types of educational programmes differed in
the valence, recurrence and familiarity variables (Table 2).
The Games-Howell procedure for multiple post hoc com-
parisons was applied to localize these differences. This pro-
cedure was chosen because it is accurate when sample sizes
are unequal (Field, 2000). As regards the valence variable,
only one difference appeared to be significant: students in
vocational education granted greater importance to the
stressful academic situation they reported than students in a
technical educational programme (p < 0.05). In terms of the
perception of the recurrence of stressful academic situations,
students attending a technical educational programme had a
higher perception of the recurrence of stressful situations
reported than their counterparts in general education
(p < 0.01). Finally, regarding the perception of the familiarity
of stressful academic situations, students in technical educa-
tion perceived them as more familiar than those students in
vocational education (p < 0.05).
ANOVA were calculated to bring to the fore any differ-
ences in cognitive appraisal between the different categories
of stressful situations (Table 3). These tests revealed that at
least two of the three categories of reported stressful situa-
tions differed in the variables of familiarity, relative difficulty
of the situation (primary appraisal) and perception of re-
sources (secondary appraisal). The Games-Howell proce-
dure for multiple post hoc comparisons was applied to local-
ize these differences. Only two categories of stressful
situations differed for the familiarity variable. Students per-
ceived work management/organization situations as less fa-
miliar than written evaluation situations (p < 0.01). Oral
evaluation situations were perceived as being between the
two latter categories in terms of their familiarity. As regards
the variables ‘relative difficulty of the situation’ and ‘per-
ceived resources’, there was only a significant difference
between the categories of ‘oral evaluation situations’ and the
‘work management/organization situations’ (p < 0.05). Stu-
dents reported having more difficulties with work
management/organization situations than with oral evalua-
tion situations. Paradoxically, students reported having the
least resources to cope with these latter situations, despite the
fact they perceived them as being the least difficult. Con-
versely, for the work management/organization situations

Table 2
Appraisal assessments in relation to types of educational programme
Appraisal variables General education Technical educational Vocational educational F-value
(n = 43) programme programme
(n = 22) (n = 13)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Valence 3.49 0.59 3.09 0.86 3.69 0.48 3.98 **
Controllability 2.56 1.03 2.64 1.09 2.77 1.09 0.21
Changeability 1.63 0.93 1.41 0.66 1.31 0.78 1.05
Ambiguity 2.14 0.80 2.23 1.02 2.38 1.04 0.37
Recurrence 2.86 1.14 3.59 0.96 2.85 1.21 3.89 **
Familiarity 2.35 1.23 3.05 1.04 2.23 0.73 3.39 **
Perceived difficulty (primary appraisal) 3.16 0.75 3.36 0.73 3.23 0.83 0.51
Perceived resources (secondary appraisal) 2.47 0.80 2.55 0.91 2.69 0.76 0.39
Perceived stress 3.36 0.78 3.23 0.87 3.31 0.63 0.22
Perceived satisfaction 2.84 1.01 2.41 1.05 3.15 0.89 2.60
Notes: All variables were measured on four-point Likert scales. ** p ≤ 0.01.

Table 3
Appraisal assessments in relation to categories of stressful academic situations
Appraisal variables Written evaluation Oral evaluation Work management/ F-value
situations situations organization situations
(n = 25) (n = 17) (n = 33)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Valence 3.40 0.76 3.24 0.66 3.45 0.67 0.56
Controllability 2.72 1.06 2.88 1.05 2.52 1.00 0.76
Changeability 1.48 0.65 1.47 0.62 1.58 1.00 0.14
Ambiguity 2.24 0.97 2.24 1.09 2.15 0.80 0.08
Recurrence 3.40 0.91 3.18 1.02 2.76 1.15 2.81
Familiarity 3.08 1.08 2.47 1.07 2.12 1.11 5.52 **
Perceived difficulty (primary appraisal) 3.16 0.75 2.88 0.70 3.42 0.75 3.13 *
Perceived resources (secondary appraisal) 2.64 0.81 2.06 0.83 2.73 0.72 4.45 *
Perceived stress 3.36 0.91 3.33 0.84 3.24 0.66 0.17
Perceived satisfaction 2.64 0.91 3.06 1.06 2.73 1.07 0.95
Notes: All variables were measured on four-point Likert scales. * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.
 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271
perceived as being the most difficult, the students reported
having more resources for coping. The category of ‘written
evaluation situations’ is between the two other categories in
terms of the level of difficulty and of perceived resources.
3.3. Cluster analysis of appraisal patterns of stressful
academic situations
In this study, we aimed to identify ‘naturally occurring’
groups of students who would differ in the way they appraise
stressful academic situations. Cluster analysis classifies indi-
viduals into groups (labelled ‘clusters’) using a measure of
similarity to produce homogenous patterns or profiles of
individuals (Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1984). This statisti-
cal method was computed in order to highlight homogenous
groups of students which would differ according to the eight
appraisal variables measured in this study (valence, control-
lability, changeability, ambiguity, recurrence, familiarity,
primary appraisal and secondary appraisal). The ‘k-means’
method was chosen to group adolescents into clusters, as it
minimizes intra-cluster variability (Aldenderfer and Blash-
field, 1984), ensuring maximum homogeneity among the
groups. A five-cluster solution was chosen as the most likely
solution, based on the conceptual meaningfulness of the
clusters as well as on a discriminant analysis computed on
these groups. This procedure has already been used in other
research as cluster analysis validation procedure (Chung et
al., 1998).
Table 4 presents the means of the eight appraisal variables
for the five clusters and the F-values of the means difference
of the five clusters on the eight appraisal variables. In cluster
analysis, the F tests provided by ANOVA should be used only
for descriptive purpose because the clusters have been cho-
sen to maximize the differences among cases in different
clusters. Consequently, the observed significance levels
should be corrected (Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1984). For
this reason, although the ANOVA of the eight appraisal
variables shows that they all play a significant role in the
constitution of the groups at a p value of 0.05, we decided to
use a more conservative significance level of p < 0.01. Only
four appraisal variables met this criterion. These are the
recurrence, familiarity, primary appraisal and secondary ap-
praisal variables. These four variables will act as a basis for
interpreting the profiles obtained for the five clusters.
Table 4
Means of the five clusters for each appraisal variable and F-values
Appraisal variables
1 (n = 18) 2 (n = 23)
Valence 3.72 3.57
Controllability 3.17 2.09
Changeability 1.22 1.39
Ambiguity 2.11 2.26
Recurrence 3.83 3.43
Familiarity 3.33 1.65
Primary appraisal 3.67 3.52
Secondary appraisal 1.94 2.26
Notes: All variables were measured on four-point Likert scales. * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.
267
Students in the first (n = 18) and second (n = 23) groups
perceived themselves as having insufficient resources (sec-
ondary appraisal) to deal with the perceived demands of the
situation (primary appraisal): the academic situations they
reported at school was perceived as extremely difficult and
their resources as weak. Theoretically, this appraisal should
lead to a greater perception of the level of stress and to less
satisfaction during the situation. However, the profiles of
these two clusters differed when it comes to the recurrence
and familiarity variables. The students in cluster 1 perceived
reported stressful academic situations as extremely recurrent
and familiar, whereas those in cluster 2 saw them as moder-
ately recurrent and familiar. For this reason, the first group
was labelled ‘unfavorable appraisal for familiar academic
situations’ and the second ‘unfavorable appraisal for unfa-
miliar academic situations’.
The students in groups 3 (n = 15) and 4 (n = 11) perceived
the difficulty of academic situations (primary appraisal) as
being proportional to their resources for coping (secondary
appraisal). This pattern should theoretically be moderately
stressful for the two groups. There was, however, a huge
contrast between these two clusters when it comes to the
recurrence and familiarity variables. The students in group
3 claimed the academic situations they have reported are
neither particularly recurrent nor familiar, which showed that
the reported events were new and isolated. The members of
group 4, to the contrary, reported the situations as being
extremely familiar and very recurrent. These two groups
were labelled ‘moderately favorable appraisal for unfamil-
iar academic situations’ (group 3) and ‘moderately favor-
able appraisal for familiar academic situations’ (group 4).
The fifth group (n = 13), labelled ‘favorable appraisal for
familiar academic situations’ had a different profile. Stu-
dents within this group perceived the situation as not very
difficult and considered that they had plenty of resources to
cope. Theoretically speaking, this situation should be per-
ceived as not very stressful and the students should be satis-
fied during the situation. The students in this group also
perceived the situations they reported as being extremely
recurrent and very familiar.
A discriminant analysis was used to examine the accuracy
of the clusters derived. This procedure allows to check the
percentage of correct classification. The results showed that
Clusters F-value
3 (n = 15) 4 (n =11) 5 (n = 13)
3.47 3.30 2.67 6.10 *
3.07 2.30 2.50 4.58 *
1.27 1.80 2.25 4.75 *
2.20 3.20 1.42 7.15 *
1.20 2.90 3.67 65.28 **
1.40 3.80 3.33 42.17 **
3.17 2.70 2.42 23.56 **
3.00 2.80 3.08 15.41 **
268 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271
Table 5
Means of the five clusters for perceived stress and perceived satisfaction variables and F-values
1 (n = 18) 2 (n = 23)
Perceived stress 3.67 3.48
Perceived satisfaction 2.50 2.61
Notes: All variables were measured on four-point Likert scales. * p ≤ 0.05.
97.4% of the subjects were categorized correctly, with the
results ranging from 100% for groups 2–5 to 91.3% for group
1 (the other 8.7% would have been incorrectly attributed to
group 2).
In a second stage, we examined the usefulness of these
profiles in differentiating between adolescents according to
the level of reported stress and to the subjective satisfaction
during the situation.
ANOVA were computed to examine these differences
(Table 5). The variable of the level of perceived stress set at
least two of the five clusters apart. The Games-Howell pro-
cedure for multiple post hoc comparisons was applied to
localize these differences. The mean differences between
two pairs of groups were statistically significant. Groups
1 and 5 differentiate in terms of the level of stress reported by
the students. The adolescents in group 1 reported having a
significantly higher level of stress than those in group 5
(p < 0.05). Groups 1 and 4 were also contrasting in terms of
the level of stress perceived by the students, the students in
group 1 perceiving the academic situations as more stressful
than those in group 4 (p < 0.05).
Differentiating between clusters using another variable
than the one used to create the groups has proven an efficient
technique for validating this type of analysis (Aldenderfer
and Blashfield, 1984). This technique has already been used
in other researches (e.g., Filsinger et al., 1979).
The variable of subjective satisfaction during the situation
did not differ significantly in any of the groups. It is interest-
ing to note, however, that group 1, having reported the high-
est level of stress of all five groups, also had the lowest
satisfaction mean. The students in groups 4 and 5, having
reported the least stressful situations of all five groups, had
very high satisfaction means (Table 5).
We also examined the differences in belonging to the five
groups according to the adolescents’ gender (v2 (4, N = 80)
= 2.8, p > 0.01), age (v2 (4, N = 80) = 0.8, p > 0.01) and type
of educational programme (v2 (8, N = 80) = 9.5, p > 0.01).
None of these variables allowed to significantly discriminate
between clusters.
4. Discussion
Experiencing stressful academic situations is quite com-
mon among the students of our sample from upper secondary
education. Indeed, 80% of the adolescents reported having
experienced at least one stressful academic situation during
the current academic year.
Clusters F-value
3 (n = 15) 4 (n = 11) 5 (n = 13)
3.33 2.80 2.92 3.41 *
2.90 3.00 3.00 0.48
Interestingly, the results of the study have shown that in
our sample set, the subject’s individual characteristics (gen-
der, age and type of educational programme attended) were
related to the students’ appraisal of these stressful academic
experiences at school.
As regards the gender variable, the girls in our sample set
granted greater importance to the stressful situation, while
the boys perceived themselves as having more resources for
coping with it. In the tradition of Seiffge-Krenke’s results
(1990), we had postulated that the girls would evaluate the
school academic situations as more threatening than the
boys. Our results did not back this hypothesis. It is interesting
to note, however, that while the girls did not perceive the
academic situation as more threatening (primary appraisal)
than the boys, they did perceive themselves as having fewer
resources (secondary appraisal) for coping with it. This ap-
praisal pattern is unfavorable regarding stress, as we had
hypothesized. These results go along with other research that
has shown that girls and boys are not equal in the stress
mechanisms (Compas et al., 1986; Swearingen and Cohen,
1985). Nevertheless, the fact that the primary/secondary ap-
praisal pattern was unfavorable for girl students did not result
in a higher level of reported stress. So contrary to our hypoth-
esis and to other studies having found gender-related differ-
ences in the frequency and intensity of reported stress (boys
having reported less stress than girls, Dumont, 2000), our
study revealed no major differences at this level. Our high
sample age (M = 16.9 years) constitutes a possible explana-
tion of this phenomenon. In fact, Seiffge-Krenke et al. (2001)
showed that age interact with gender on perceived level of
stress, with females in early adolescence experiencing higher
level of stress.
The students’ age was also related to the variables of
cognitive appraisal of the stressful situation: it had a signifi-
cant negative correlation with the variable of the perception
of changeability. While the link between age and changeabil-
ity was weak, the results suggested that the older the students
in our sample set, the less they tended to think the stressful
situation will be resolved on its own. Other studies had
already demonstrated the effect of developmental maturation
on how adolescents experience stressful situations (Seiffge-
Krenke, 2000). Contrary to our hypothesis, we could not
establish any connection between the age of the student and
the control they perceived having over the stressful situation.
This should be considered seriously giving the importance of
the control perception variable in the self-regulation of learn-
ing (Zimmerman, 2000). Nor do the results allow us to
support the hypothesis that as adolescents move through the
 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271
school system, their familiarity with stressful academic situ-
ations and resources reported for coping with such situations
increases. These results need to be taken carefully: the lim-
ited age range of the students (15–20 years) could result in
lower correlations (Field, 2000).
The study results demonstrate the relation between the
type of educational programme and the way students evalu-
ate stressful academic situations. In this sense, students in
technical educational programme were the complete oppo-
sites of students in general educational programme and voca-
tional educational programme. They perceived stressful aca-
demic situations as less isolated and more familiar. These
results support the importance to study the characteristics of
stress and coping mechanisms in the different communities
(Frydenberg, 1999), and in this case in the different educa-
tional programmes communities. As this aspect of our re-
search was new and exploratory, other studies would be
needed to undertake a more detailed analysis of the impact of
the type of educational programme on how adolescents expe-
rience academic stress. This turn out to be important regard-
ing intervention in these different types of educational pro-
grammes.
In the future, it would be interesting to examine the inter-
action of appraisals with other individual personality vari-
ables. To this end, using the five factor model of personality
(Costa and McCrae, 1992) could clarify the connections
between the type of personality and the type of appraisal of
stressful academic situations at school. Penley and Tomaka’s
research (2002) had interesting results in this sense with an
adult population.
Using cluster analysis, five groups of students with par-
ticular appraisal patterns were distinguished. These groups
were then compared on the basis of four of the eight appraisal
variables using to form the clusters: perceived demands (pri-
mary appraisal) and perceived resources of the situation
(secondary appraisal), recurrence and familiarity of the re-
ported academic situations. The first and second group were
labelled ‘unfavorable appraisal for familiar (group
1)/unfamiliar (group 2) academic situations’ because the
resources perceived by the students were low but the de-
mands of the situation were high. This should theoretically
lead to a greater perception of the level of stress. Groups
3 and 4 were labelled ‘moderately favorable appraisal for
unfamiliar (group 3)/familiar (group 4) academic situations’
because the resources for coping were perceived by the
students as proportional to the demands of the situation. This
pattern is theoretically only moderately stressful. As for
group 5, it was labelled ‘favorable appraisal for familiar
academic situations’. Students in this group should theoreti-
cally report low level of stress. Using the hierarchy of the
level of perceived stress that emerges from the interpretation
of these five clusters, it is possible to examine the differences
between the groups and to pinpoint one group of students
(group 1 ‘unfavorable appraisal for familiar academic
situations’) with a less favorable appraisal profile than the
269
others. This profile relates to a higher perception of the level
of stress. The students in this cluster perceived school aca-
demic situations as more difficult than their coping skills
could handle. The reported situations were also situations on
one hand with which all the young people were familiar and
on the other hand with which they felt would have to face
again in the near future. These results go along with the
studies of Lazarus and Folkman (1984), showing that a situ-
ation is especially likely to cause stress if the person feels
threatened or does not feel like he/she has the personal and
environmental resources needed to cope with it. The young
people with such profiles tend to be in environments condu-
cive to what certain researchers have called learned helpless-
ness (Seligman, 1991). It could be interesting to study the
stress appraisal variables to gain a better understanding of
such mechanisms. Other studies are needed to reply to these
results and to refine our knowledge of such young people in
difficult situations. Pinpointing these students is a determin-
ing factor when you realize the threatening and crippling
impact of experiencing stress on the psychological and emo-
tional equilibrium of young people (Compas et al., 1993;
Dise-Lewis, 1988; Fanshawe and Burnett, 1991; Gad and
Johnson, 1980; Johnson and McCutcheon, 1980), as well as
on their behavioral reactions and their academic performance
(Fontana and Dovidio, 1984; Garrison et al., 1987; Vaux and
Ruggiero, 1983).
On the other hand, two groups with a favorable appraisal
pattern regarding stress could be highlighted (group 4 ‘mod-
erately favorable appraisal for familiar academic situa-
tions’ and group 5 ‘favorable appraisal for familiar aca-
demic situations’). According to Boekaerts (2002), we think
it is important to note that not all the students who face
challenges in school react in a negative way. It is of major
importance to identify those resilient students and to describe
how their adjustment is influenced by their perception of
their resources. Our two groups of ‘resilient’ students saw
their resources as at least proportional to the demands of the
academic situation they reported. Thus, in term of interven-
tion research, it could be fruitful to consider appraisal as a
lever of the stress mechanisms. Working on a realistic per-
ception of the resources and of the academic demands could
be an interesting way of managing stress. This idea is also
emphasized in the work of Perrez and Reicherts (1992).
Besides the subjective perception of a stressful situation,
these authors suggested that the objective characteristics of
the situation were also of importance. Perrez and Reicherts
(1992) firmly believed that subjects capable of an accurate
perception and representation of the situation characteristics
have better chances of developing adaptational responses
than subjects who have deformed their portrayal of reality.
Given the small size of our sample set and the lack of
balance between the gender, grade and type of educational
programme variables, further research would be needed to
confirm our observations. But despite these limitations, the
results of our study do confirm the importance emphasized in
270 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271
literature of the concept of appraisal in adolescent’s psycho-
logical experience of stress. In addition to the many studies
on the way students cope with stressful school situations, it
would also be important to study the appraisal variables
preceding these coping strategies. As Compas et al. (2001)
pointed out, there is a need to place coping in a broader
context of research. With Frydenberg (1999), we think that it
is necessary “to explode the myth that only ‘coping’research-
ers can contribute to an understanding of coping. On the
contrary, it is often the research of those who do not neces-
sarily address coping directly which helps us understand how
we have learned to cope and how we can learn to cope better
(p. vii).” Together with several recent studies, our research
was a first step in this direction, enlightening the appraisal
variables in the stress mechanisms. Nevertheless, this exclu-
sive research focus on one isolated part of the coping process
constitutes one limitation of the present study. Other studies
are needed that investigate the relationships between ap-
praisal and coping variables in the academic stress process.
For example, it would be interesting to compare the ‘unfavor-
able appraisal group’ to the ‘resilient group’ highlighted in
this study in terms of the coping strategies the students
belonging to these two groups use. Such an understanding
strikes us as being crucial to providing the right kind of
intervention in this area. We hope the merit of our study will
be to have enlightened the importance of taking into consid-
eration in further research a relatively neglected part of the
academic stress and coping process.
References
Aldenderfer, M.S., Blashfield, R.K., 1984. Cluster Analysis. Sage, Beverly
Hills, USA.
Altshuler, J.L., Ruble, D.N., 1989. Developmental changes in children’s
awareness of strategies for coping with uncontrollable stress. Child Dev.
60 (6), 1337–1349.
Armacost, R.L., 1989. Perceptions of stressors by high school students. J.
Adolesc. Res. 4, 443–461.
Boekaerts, M., 1996. Coping with stress in childhood and adolescence. In:
Zeidner, M., Endler, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Coping John. Wiley & Sons
Inc, New York, pp. 452–484.
Boekaerts, M., 1999. Coping in context: goal frustration and goal ambiva-
lence in relation to academic and interpersonal goals. In: Frydenberg, E.
(Ed.), Learning to Cope: Developing as a Person in Complex Societies.
Oxford University press, Oxford, pp. 175–197.
Boekaerts, M., 2002. Coping with challenge. Anxiety, Stress and Coping 15
(4), 321–326.
Burgess, E.S., Haaga, D.A.F., 1998. Appraisals, coping responses, and
attributions as predictors of individual differences in negative emotions
among pediatric cancer patients. Cognit. Ther. Res. 22 (5), 457–473.
Caspi, A., Bolger, N., Eckenrode, J., 1987. Linking person and context in the
daily stress process. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52 (1), 184–195.
Chan, D., 1998. Stressful life events, cognitive appraisals, and psychological
symptoms among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. J. Youth Adolesc.
27 (4), 457–472.
Chung, H., Elias, M., Schneider, K., 1998. Patterns of individual adjustment
changes during middle school transition. J. Sch. Psychol. 36 (1), 83–101.
Compas, B.E., Connor-Smith, J.K., Saltzman, H., Harding Thomsen, A.,
Wadsworth, M.E., 2001. Coping with stress during childhood and
adolescence: problems, progress, and potential in theory and research.
Psychological Bulletin 127 (1), 87–127.
Compas, B.E., Orosan, P.G., Grant, K.E., 1993. Adolescent stress and
coping: implications for psychopathology during adolescence. J. Ado-
lesc. 16, 331–349.
Compas, B.E., Slavin, L.A., Wagner, B.M., Vannatta, K., 1986. Relationship
of life events and social support with psychological dysfunction among
adolescents. J. Youth Adolesc. 15 (3), 205–221.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1992. Normal personality assessment in clinical
practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychol. Assess. 4 (1), 5–13.
de Anda, D., Baroni, S., Boskin, L., Buchwald, L., Morgan, J., Ow, J., et al.,
2000. Stress, stressors and coping among high school students. Child.
Youth Serv. Rev. 22, 441–463.
Dise-Lewis, J.E., 1988. The life events and coping inventory: an assessment
of stress in children. Psychosom. Med. 50, 484–499.
Dumont, M., Provost, M.A., 1999. Resilience in adolescents: protective role
of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on
experience of stress and depression. J. Youth Adolesc. 28 (3), 343–363.
Dumont, M., 2000. Expérience du stress à l’adolescence. Journal Interna-
tional de Psychologie 35 (5), 194–206.
Fanshawe, J.P., Burnett, P.C., 1991. Assessing school-related stressors and
coping mechanisms in adolescents. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 61, 92–98.
Field, A., 2000. Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. Sage
Publications, London.
Filsinger, E., Faulkner, J., Warland, R., 1979. Empirical taxonomy of reli-
gious individuals: an investigation among college students. Sociol. Anal.
40, 136–146.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R.S., 1985. If it changes it must be a process: study of
emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 48 (1), 150–170.
Fontana, A., Dovidio, J.F., 1984. The relationship between stressful life
events and school related performances of type A and B adolescents. J.
Human Stress 10, 50–54.
Frydenberg, E., 1999. Understanding coping: towards a comprehensive
theoretical framework. In: Frydenberg, E. (Ed.), Learning to Cope:
Developing as a Person in Complex Societies. Oxford University press,
Oxford, pp. 9–30.
Gad, M.T., Johnson, J.H., 1980. Correlates of adolescent life stress as related
to race, SES, and levels of perceived social support. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychiatry 9, 13–16.
Garrison, C., Schoenbach, V., Schluchter, M., Kaplan, B., 1987. Life events
in early adolescence. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 26, 865–
872.
Geisthardt, C., Munsch, J., 1996. Coping with school stress: a comparison of
adolescents with and without learning disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 29
(3), 287–296.
Halstead, M., Johnson, S.B., Cunningham, W., 1993. Measuring coping in
adolescents: an application of the ways of coping checklist. J. Clin. Child
Psychol. 22, 337–344.
Hauser, S.T., Bowlds, M.K., 1990. Stress, coping and adaptation. In: Feld-
man, S.S., Elliott, G.R. (Eds.), At the Threshold: the Developing Adoles-
cent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, DA, pp. 388–413.
Johnson, J.H., McCuthcheon, S.M., 1980. Assessing life stress in older
children and adolescents: preliminary findings with the life events check-
list. In: Sarason, I.G., Speilberger, C.D. (Eds.), Stress and Anxiety.
Hemisphere, Washington, DC, pp. 111–125.
Lazarus, R.S., 1990. Theory-based stress measurement. Psychol. Inq. 1,
3–13.
Lazarus, R.S., Folkman, S., 1984. Stress, Appraisal and Coping. Springer,
New York.
 S. Govaerts, J. Grégoire / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 54 (2004) 261–271
McGuire, D.P., Mitic, W., Neumann, B., 1987. Perceived stress in
adolescents: what normal teenagers worry about. Can. Ment. Health 35
(2), 2–5.
Penley, J.A., Tomaka, J., 2002. Associations among the Big Five, emotional
responses and coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences 32 (7), 1215–1228.
Perrez, M., Reicherts, M., 1992. Stress, Coping and Health. Hogrefe &
Huber Publishers, Seattle.
Reicherts, M., Pihet, S., 2000. Job newcomers coping with stressful situa-
tions. A micro-analysis of adequate coping and well-being. Swiss Jour-
nal of Psychology 59, 303–316.
Rijavec, M., Brdar, I., 2002. Coping with school failure and self-regulated
learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education 17 (2), 177–194.
Seiffge-Krenke, I., 1990. Developmental processes in self-concept and cop-
ing behaviour. In: Bosma, H., Jackson, S. (Eds.), Coping and Self-
concept in Adolescence. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 51–68.
Seiffge-Krenke, I., 1995. Stress, Coping and Relationships in Adolescence.
Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Seiffge-Krenke, I., 2000. Causal links between stressful events, coping
styles, and adolescent symptomatology. J. Adolesc. 23, 675–691.
271
Seiffge-Krenke, I., Weidemann, S., Fentner, S., Aegenheister, N., Poe-
blau, M., 2001. Coping with school-related stress and family stress in
healthy and clinically referred adolescents. European Psychologist 6 (2),
123–132.
Seligman, M.E., 1991. Learned Optimism. Alfred Knopf, New York.
Swearingen, E.M., Cohen, L.H., 1985. Life events and psychological
distress: a prospective study of young adolescents. Dev. Psychol. 21 (6),
1045–1054.
Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., Ernst, J.M., 1997. Cognitive and
physiological antecedents of threat and challenge appraisal. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 73 (1), 63–72.
Torsheim, T., Wold, B., 2001. School-related stress, school support, and
somatic complaints: a general population study. Journal of Adolescent
Research 16 (3), 293–303.
Vaux, A., Ruggiero, M., 1983. Stressful life change and delinquent behavior.
Am. J. Community Psychol. 11, 169–183.
Zimmerman, B.J., 2000. Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive per-
spective. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook
of Self-regulation: Theory, Research, and Applications. Academic Press,
San Diego, CA, pp. 13–41.