In today’s society it is not uncommon for students to juggle the demand of multiple roles; it is generally seen as a normal part of university life. Multiple roles are becoming more complex and dealing with them can lead to increased stress and strain on your psychological well-being. Even though studies show that combining two roles is demanding and has effects on individuals’ psychological well-being, it is evident that not all people react to these demands in the same way (Swanson, Broadbridge & Karatzias, 2006).
Not all people deal with stress in the same way and this is the central idea in terms of psychological transactional models of stress and coping. It argues that the direct relationship between demands on health is influenced by people’s perceptions or cognitive evaluation of the level of demands and their ability to cope with them (Swanson et al. (2006). The transactional model attempts to identify individual factors which will affect the interaction evaluation. For students a number of socio-demographic factors like age, gender, financial resources may affect the evaluation. Trait characteristics such as optimism or neuroticism and situational factors like control, motivation or self-efficacy may underpin attitudes and behaviours.
(Broadbridge & Swanson, 2006) state that the number of students who work whilst they study has increased. A recent study in the UK indicates that 41% of students are working whilst they study at university (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2005). Half of these students will engage in term time employment at some stage through their academic years (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2006). One of the main reasons students take on term time employment is due to the financial obligations involved in studying. Studies found that the students most likely to work were those who lived at home with their parents and those from less well-off backgrounds (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2006).
When we look at the impact of employment for students who work whilst studying the research generally indicates the negative effects, suggesting that working during semester can lead to poorer academic performance (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2006), (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2005),(Moreau & Leathwood, 2006).
Students tend to work in the service industries, within retail, catering, hotels or bars (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2005). The flexibility within the service sector has made it more attractive for students to work in this area. The hours of work vary making it easier for students to fit their working commitments around their classes.
Working has had a negative effect on student’s studies. An action research project identified term time working as an issue that has influenced students in being unable to properly prepare for exams. Being employed whilst studying restricted the time students had available to study for exams and assignments (Greenbank et al. (2009). Overall this has affected their degree results (Callender, 2008).
Students who were working have stated that they feel as though their studies were ‘always’ or usually a struggle compared to non working students. It has meant that they are finding it difficult in being able to manage the workloads and demands of university life. Some common negative effects were students feeling tired, ratty, and susceptible to colds, feeling run down, experiencing sleep problems and missing deadlines (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2006). Not being able to manage the demands has shown that students suffered above average stress levels (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2005). Students in employment have reported more perceived stress and less satisfaction than those not working. There was no direct report of gender difference in terms of stress itself, (Swanson et al. (2006) however women did report higher stress scores than men and they were also more likely to talk about the stress and the impact it has on their health, study and family (balancing).
Disadvantages to students working (Curtis & Shani, 2002):
51% of students said that their part-time employment had effected their academic work, 22% on average missed classes, 4% failed to hand in assignments, 9% handed in late assignments, 4% received a failed grade on assignments and 46% said they would have got better grades had they not been working. There is evidence to confirm that students who do work whilst studying find it harder to deal with the demands of combining the two roles and this has in turn had an effect on their studies. On the other hand one study did suggest that around two thirds of students they surveyed reported that working had no real impact on their academic studies (Curtis & Shani, 2002). Of the students who were not working whilst studying said they choose not to work because they feared it would interfere with their studies (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2006), they wanted to have a more balanced lifestyle, working involved too much pressure and workload and they didn’t want to have to juggle the multiple workloads. (Manthei & Gilmore, 2005).
Some students who did work said that it had a positive effect on them and they enjoyed working during the semester. Students said that being employed had benefits; they gained knowledge, skills and had better time management which was all relevant. Some students said working gave them confidence, transferrable skills and a financial means to a better social lifestyle whilst at university (Broadbridge & Swanson, 2006). There are always going to be advantages and disadvantages of working whilst studying. I could not find a clear definitive answer as to whether students who work and study experience more stress than those who do not work. From the findings there is a link that having a higher demand workload can increase the levels of stress but it is entirely dependent on how each individual copes with it.
JDSC is a model that demonstrates research on work/job related stress over two decades ago. (Sanne et al. (2005). This model helps employees identify whether they and their staff members are stressed out or not. The JDSC model has three main complements that help identify the virtues psychological demands, control or decision, attitude and social support of those students that work and not work while studying at university. It is said that tension or strain hypothesis, high demands added with high control lead into psychological tension due to the experience to high demands (Sanne et al, (2005). Students who don’t work and study have low demands/low control will not have any sort of strain/tension but students that work and study at the same time have high demands/ low control will usely have different reactions of psychological tension within their student life. It has shown in the JDSC model that students who have low demand and low control are not as stressed out as those students with high demands and low control as they will feel more stressed out.
According to the JDSC model two aspects of work environment, job demands and job control both of these aspects determine the health and well being of people if you are students, employees etc. It has been identified that the most unfavourable outcomes for students are when they have to high of strain/ tension from the situations they are dealing with (Verhoeven, Maes, Kraaij, Joekes 2003). Students’ that work while studying at university have higher demands and lower control than those who don’t work but study at the same time. It is showing that students who have high demand and low control are more stressed than those students who don’t work, because students that work and study have more stress on their shoulders as they have a lot of responisbility with work and studying. The main reason of the JDSC model is to discover the correlation between job conditions and health/ well being outcomes of people (Verhoeven et al, 2003). The JDSC model also measures how the demand side of things refers to the task requirements on hand and how the control side refers to people making a decision that’s how the control part is undertaken or examined. Where the support part of the JDSC side refers to when people have a close personal relationship with other people for example like students or workers.
It has been established during the duration of the JDSC model that the later changes in three indicators of stress, which are low grade inflammation in the body, C-reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen and white blood cell count (WBC) (Clays, De Bacquer, Delanghe, Kittel, Renterghem, De Backer 2005). It has been identified that these factors will have some effect on our stress levels which will impact on our job, demands, support and control factors. Stress plays a big role in the JDSC model because this is what the JDSC model measures. Stress is an important factor in our lives that we have to establish and embrace it as it comes into our lives as a part of life.
We come across stress quite often students encounter it with their workload, workers with project deadlines etc, so we just have to deal with it the best way possible. This is where the JDSC model comes into play as it measures the stress level of people. We know that the stress level of students working while studying at university and those students who do not work whilst studying, are not that similar because the ones that work and study have a higher stress level as they have more responsibilities. The students that work and study their demand and support factors of the JDSC model are very high as they have a lot of aspects they have to consider when they are studying and working at the same time, but on the other hand the students that don’t work and study their demand and support factors are less than those that combine the two roles (Clays et al, 2005). This is indicating that students who work and study at the same time get stressed more than those students that don’t work because the students that work have more to worry about with university and work so there is more to cope with rather than those that don’t work.
Overall this showed how the factors of the JDSC model measured stress on students that worked and students that don’t work while studying at university. It identified which factor of the JDSC model had the most impact on students that work and study to those that don’t work and study, it was also established that students that worked had high demand and students that don’t work had low demand meaning that the students that work while studying have higher stress levels than those who don’t work.
Method
The data for this study was provided by the Organisational Behaviour lecturer, and is a culmination of results from questionnaires filled in by Organisational Behaviour students from our current class (Summer school 2011) as well as from previous years. The sample group was selected for convenience owing to the fact that time is very much a factor for the Summer school courses. There were a total of four questionnaires used, and it was up to each group to interpret the data set in relation to their chosen research question.
A notable weakness in the data collection process was found in the Demographic Questionnaire, in that when the data was inputted to the master spreadsheet some of the responses did not fall under the supplied categories. This was especially the case for the ‘nationality’ and the ‘how long does it take you to get to University’ items. The variation of responses meant that certain points of data had to be individually reworded to as to conform with the rest of the points that had been entered correctly. This rewording was necessary for data collation and interpretation. While this need for rewording wasn’t a great detriment to the study as a whole, it was still a weakness in the collection and data entry methodology adopted by this study.
Participants
There were a total of 261 participants in this study with a relatively even gender distribution. For the purposes of this study five ethnic backgrounds were provided for the participants to select, and those were: New Zealand European, Maori, Asian, Pacific Island and Other (see Table 1 for a full demographic breakdown). The participants for this study are or have been Organisational Behaviour students who have filled out the questionnaires during class – some of the data used for this study are from students of previous years. Due to the nature of the questionnaires, it is impossible to tell who filled in each survey, and whether they are current or past students.
Materials
Four questionnaires were used for this survey; a generic demographic questionnaire (see Appendix 1), a Job-Demands-Control-Support stress questionnaire (see Appendix 2), a Type A Personality questionnaire (see Appendix 3) and the Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory (see Appendix 4). The demographic survey covered the age group, gender and ethnicity of the student, as well as whether they have a job while at University or not, whether the student lives at home while at University or not, and whether the student enjoys being at University or not. Finally, it also gathered data on how long it takes the student to get to University each day.
The JDCS questionnaire, Type A Personality questionnaire and Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory were selected for this study due to the fact that each one examines a different facet of stress, and their results can be directly applied to the current research. The Type A Personality questionnaire in particular was very useful for this study as there is proven research on how Type A individuals have a tendency to experience greater stress (Caplan & Jones, 1975). While this study does not look specifically at Type A personality in relation to stress, the data gained from this questionnaire was very informative.
Procedure
As this research study was a course requirement, it was undertaken in groups of four to six students. Each group member was given the four questionnaires to fill out in class then a single group member entered all of the data in to a spreadsheet supplied by the lecturer. The current class data was combined with the data from previous classes to provide a larger subject pool. This was all completed within 48 hours. The data were then collated to produce useable results.
Findings
Our findings have revealed that even though experienced stress has been rated as higher for females than for males there is no significant difference between the two (p=0.3). We have also found that the experienced stress levels of the students in this study are average (see Table 2 for Mean Stress Scores). We found no significant difference between those who work and those who do not (p=0.7), however we did find a significant difference between working males and working females (p=0.02). No difference was found between non-working males and females (p=0.17).
We found very little significant statistical difference upon our analysis of the JDSC items. Higher significant difference was found in those who were working than those who were not, while there was no noticeable difference with the JSSC items when it came to gender. Significant difference was found for the Demands item of the JDSC (see Table 3), while no difference was found for the Control item (see Table 4). There was significant difference in both the Support (see Table 5) and Role (see Table 6) items, as well as for the Negative Relationship item (see Table 7), but none for the Change item (see Table 8).
Discussion
Our results have found that there are very clear areas, according to the JDSC, that the participants of this study rate as being stressful. The most stressful experience that we have found is the ‘Demands’ item on the JDSC, which shows that there is a difference in the stress experienced by working and non-working female students, but not between the working and non-working male students. D’Zruilla and Sheedy (1991) stated that ‘demands’ placed on students is a great source of stress for them – classes, assignments, work ect... – and our results are congruent with this. We have also found that under the ‘Demands’ item there is a marked difference regarding the experience of stress between non-working males and females. This could suggest that gender plays some part in the priorities of students who do not work, perhaps relating to the priorities of each gender (spending time with family, parties, vacation, assignments) that have nothing to do with work. It could also suggest that not working while at University could leave students with too little to do, and that the stress from that is handled differently by each gender, but this is clearly an area that requires further study.
Another area that we have identified from the JDSC that appears to be related to the experience of stress in University students is ‘Support’. Our results for this item were particularly interesting in the fact that the only non-significant figure was for females. This is strange because females have been tagged as the gender that relies more on social supports (Greenberger, 1981). The fact that there is no difference between working and non-working females in regards to support suggests that the stress felt by the majority of the female participants was not influenced by the support aspects of their lives. We could go on to extrapolate that the females in our study have sufficient enough support in their lives to combat any stress relating from working while at University, and not working while at University. On the other hand, the difference between in the male score alludes to the idea that support factors do influence their experience of stress.
Overall these results are in line with those of Kohn and Frazer, who state that support aspects are directly related to the stress experienced by University students. We can see that support is a factor in both working and non-working students when it comes to the experience of stress. It would be useful to look in to the reasons why support is not so significant to female students, however. Perhaps researching further in to age or ethnicity might yield more illuminating results.
Another source of stress that we have identified is ‘Change’, as stated by Pfeiffer, 2001. It’s been asserted that the Change items on the JDSC have been correlated with a more stressful experience with students – more unexpected change, more stress – however our results do not show this. We have found almost the exact opposite to what Pfeiffer said, in that Change didn’t seem to have any relationship with the stressful experience of the students in our study. There was no significance at all between the genders, or between those who were employed while at University and those who were not. Our findings could be the result of many factors, such as the fact that this particular group of students didn’t experience a large amount of change during their University life, so it has never been a cause of stress for them, or perhaps due to the fact that change in and of itself isn’t as big a contributor to University students as was first claimed. To analyse this further we would need to go back to the JDSC and perhaps take a closer look at the items under the Change section to see if they are relatable to our particular sample.
Swanson, Broadbridge and Karatzias (2006) claimed that the Roles in a student’s life have a direct effect on their experience of stress, and that even having to manage just two roles (eg: student and employee) could have an impact on the students’ experienced stress. We found that the Role aspects of the JDSC only really interacted with the stress experienced by students who worked. This is in line with the theory of Swanson, Broadbridge and Karatzias (2006), because it is showing that the Role items have a direct and significant relationship on the stress experienced by students. It is not surprising that there are no significant results for non-working students, especially with the previous research that we have found on this subject. Everything seems to point towards the fact that multiple roles will undoubtedly lead to a greater experience of stress, so if you were to remove a role (eg: the student quits their job so they can spend more time studying) then, in theory, the student would experience less stress.
It would be beneficial to look in to the average amount of ‘Roles’ a student needs to fulfil during their University career, and see what sort of interaction that has on the stress experienced by them. It may also be interesting to correlate the Role and Change items of the JDSC to see if there is any change in the stress experience of students who work several, shorter-term jobs while at University as opposed to students who work one steady job. All of the previous research we have found to do with the experience of stress for working students has all been paid work, however looking in to students who have taken up volunteer positions as opposed to paid positions while at University may also be worthwhile.
We found very little interaction between the Negative Relationship and Control aspects of the JDSC and the experience of stress. There were only two significant results that we found; one was under the Negative Relationships item relating to non-working students, and the other was under the Control item relating specifically to female students. As we were unable to find any previous studies that looked in to either of these two aspects in any detail we can only assume that the relationship isn’t very strong.
In regards to the Negative Relationship items on the JDSC, we could assume that its effect on the stress experienced by students could be attributed to that non-working students have less social contacts, so the negative relationships that they do have (if any) really stand out to them, and are thus a greater contributor to their stress, however more research will need to be done in to this specific topic area to get a greater understanding.
As for the Control items on the JDSC, we can see that there is only an issue around control and its effect on stress when it comes to the female students. There is no interaction between control and working vs. non-working students or with the male students. As with the Negative Relationships items, we have been unable to find much research on control and its effect on stress in relation to University life, or its interaction with working students and their perceived stressful experiences. If further research were ever to be performed in this specific area it would be advisable to take ethnicity in to account. The majority of our sample group come from ethnic backgrounds where females are not afforded as much control as males, and they may have an effect on their stress experiences when it comes to University life.
As previously stated, the experience of stress has always been predicted to be higher in females than in males (Greenberger, 1981). To a degree our results support this conclusion, however the difference is not large and it is not across all aspects of experienced stress. It is interesting to note that Support was the one area of the JDSC in which males seemed to show a difference in their experience of stress, while females did not. This alludes to the idea that males seem to need just as much support when it comes to the working and University lives as females do.
Aside from the Support item, no obvious differences could be found. Females scored slightly higher than males on the Holm-Rahe Life Stress Scale, but not by a significant amount. Judging from our prior research we had actually been expecting gender to make a greater impact on the results than it did. This is also the same for the results of the working vs. non-working students.
As Sanne and colleagues (2005) discussed, the JDSC model is very useful for identifying if an individual is stressed, and if so what area/s are causing the greatest stress experience in their present lives. We have found this tool to be useful in so much as it has shown that University can also be classed as a ‘job’ for students, and can thus cause them to experience stress in a variety of ways, much the same as students who have paid employment. Sanne et al. (2005) go on to state that when there is high demand and low control exerted on an individual that this is the kind of environment in which stress occurs, and to a degree our research concurs with this theory. We can clearly see that Demands do play a role in the experienced stress of students, but Control does do so as much. We can also see with all of our results that there is no glaring pattern to reinforce the idea that working students experience more stress than non-working students. Overall the stress levels appear to be consistent with each other, leading us to conclude that there doesn’t appear to be much difference between the experienced stress of students who work and students who don’t, and gender very clearly does not play an overall role in this. Granted, there are certain aspects of the JDSC where we can see a variance in the results in terms of gender, however these results are not consistent across all aspects.
If this study were to be repeated there are a few alterations that could be made to ensure the process runs effectively, the first of which being ensuring that there is greater homogeneity in the subject group. There is a possibility that the data could have been skewed due to the unbalanced ethnic backgrounds and ages of the sample. If this is unavoidable, then a larger subject group is suggested. It is also suggested that specific protocols be set in place for data entry to minimize human error and to preserve the integrity of the data, such as having standard conventions for data points as opposed to allowing the researchers to use their own.
Conclusion
In general, students are prone to stress whether they are working or not working and the level of stress increases by the demand of the academic workload and the job. There are many things that cause stress for college students and these can be classified in four main sources which are; interpersonal sources, intrapersonal sources, academic sources and environmental stressors. Responses to stress can be emotional, behavioral, cognitive or physiological. reactions to stress. Those responses can be positive or negative depending on the situation and the coping skills that the individual has at their disposal.
During the duration of this report it showed which factors of the JDSC model measured the most stress on students that worked and students that don’t work while studying at university. It identified which factor of the JDSC model had the most impact on students that work and study to those that don’t work and study, it was also established that students that worked had high demand and students that don’t work had low demand meaning that the students that work while studying have higher stress levels than those who don’t work.
There are always going to be advantages and disadvantages of working whilst studying. I could not find a clear definitive answer as to whether students who work and study experience more stress than those who do not work. From the findings there is a link that having a higher demand workload can increase the levels of stress but it is entirely dependent on how each individual copes with it.
Recommendation
We believe that if students have better time management skills when they are engaging both work and study they are able to reduce the amount of stress and demand on their psychological well-being. Also university and employs should be more supportive of students with in regards of their work load.
References
Abouserie, R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus-of-control and self-esteem in university students. Educational Psychology, 14(3).
Aldwin, C., & Greenberger, E. (1987). Cultural differences in the predictors of depression. American Journal of Community Psychology. 15, 789-813
Broadbridge, A., Swanson, V. (2005). Earning and learning; how term-time employment impacts on student's adjustment to university life. Journal of Education and Work, 18(2), 235-249.
Broadbridge, A., Swanson, V. (2006). Managing two roles. Community, Work and Family, 9(2), 159-179.
Callender, C. (2008). The impact of term-time employment on higher education student's academic attainment and achievement. The Journal of Education Policy, 23(4).
Clark, E.J. & Rieker, P.P. (1986). Gender differences in relationships and stress of medical and law students. Journal of Medical Education. 61, 32-40.
Caplan, R., Jones, K. (1975). Effects of work load, role ambiguity, and Type A personality on anxiety, depression, and heart rate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 713-719.
Clays, E., Bacquer, D., Delanghe, J., Kittle, F., Renterghem, L., Backer, G. (2005). Associations between dimensions of job stress and biomarkers of inflammation and infection. JOEM, 47(9).
Collins, S., Coffey, M., Cowe, F. (2009). Stress, support and well-being as perceived by probation trainees. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 56(3), 238-256.
Curtis, S., Shani, N. (2002). The effect of taking paid employment during term-time on student's academic studies. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(2).
Darling, C. A., McWey, L. M., Howard, S. N. and Olmstead, S. B. (2007), College student stress: the influence of interpersonal relationships on sense of coherence. Stress and Health, 23: 215–229. doi: 10.1002/smi.1139
D'Zurilla, T. J., & Sheedy, C. F. (1991). Relation between social problem-solving ability and subsequent level of psychological stress in college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 841-846.
Felsten, G. & Wilcox, K. (1992). Influences of stress and situation-specific mastery beliefs and satisfaction with social support on well-being and academic performance. Psychological Reports. 70,291-303.
Giancola, J., Granwitch, M., Borchert, D. (2009). Dealing with the stress of college: a model for adult students. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(3).
Greenback, P., Hepworth, S., Mercer, J. (2009). Term-time employment and the student experience. Education and Training, 51(1).
Greenberg, J. (1981). A study of stressors in the college population. Health Education.
12, 8-12.
Hamaideh, S. (2011). Stressors and reactions to stressors among university students. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 57(1).
Kamarudin, R., Aris, A., Ibrahim, N. (2009. Stress and academic performance; a study among pre-science students in UiTM Negeri Sembilan. presented at the meeting of the CSSR 08'09, Malaysia.
Kohn, J.P. & Frazer, G.H. (1986) An academic stress scale: identification and rated importance of academic stressors, Psychological Repo.
Lazarus, R.S. (1966) Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R.S. & Cohen, J.B. (1977) Environmental stress. In Human Behaviour and Environment (Volume 2) (eds. I. Altman and J.F. Wohlwill). New York: Plenum.
Lesko, W.A. & Summerfield, L. (1989). Academic stress and health changes in female college students.Health Education. 20,1, 18-21.
Manthei, R., Gilmore, A. (2005). The effect of paid employment on university students' lives. Education and Training, 47(3).
Misra, R., McKean, M., West, S., Russo, T. (2000). Academic stress of college students; comparison of student and faculty perceptions. College Student Journal.
Moreau, M., Leathwood, C. (2006). Balancing paid work and studies: working (-class) students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 23-42.
Padailla, A., Alvarez. M., Lindholm, K. (1986). Gererational status and personality factors as predictors of stress in students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioural Science, 8(3), 275-288.
Pfeiffer, D. (2001). Academic and environmental stress among undergraduate and graduate college students: a literature review
Piko, B. (1999). Work related stress among nurses; a challenge for health care institutions. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 119(3).
Ruscoe, G., Morgan, J., Peebles, C. (1996). Students who work. Adolescence, 31(123).
Sanne, B., Mykletun, A., Dahl, A., Moen, B., Tell, G. (2005). Testing the Job-Demand-Control-Support model with anxiety and depression outcomes; The Hordaland Health Study. Occupational Medicine, 55, 463=473.
Swanson, V., Broadbridge, A., Karatzias, A. (2006). Earning and learning; role congruence, state/trait factors and adjustment to university life. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 895-914.
Verhoeven, C., Maes, S., Kraaij, V., Joekes, K. (2003). The Job-Demand-Control-Support model and wellness/health outcomes; a European study. Psychology and Health, 18(4), 421-440.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Faculty of Business- Bachelor of Business
Organisational Behaviour 466641
STUDENT GROUP PROJECT (summer school 2011)
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHEET
Please circle
Age: 17-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Gender: Male Female
Ethnicity: NZ European Maori Pacific Island Asian Other
Do you have a job while studying? Yes No
Do you live at home with your parents? Yes No
Overall, do you enjoy being a University Student? Yes No
How long does it take you to get to University?
0-10 min 10-20 min 20-30 min 30-40 min 40-60 min more than 1 hour
Thank you for your time
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
ESTIMATING YOUR PERSONALITY TYPE
This exercise is designed to help you understand the type theory and to give you some idea of your personality. The Myers-Brigg type Indicator (trademark MBTI, copyright consulting Psychologist Press Inc) is one way to determine your personality type.
The following exercise therefore is only an introductory way of assessing your type and how it can relate to other people.
1 Estimating your Type
Read the description below of:
- The way you behave;
- The words people use to describe you.
2 Allocate a total of 10 points to the two boxes according to the extent that the descriptions fit the way you act. Then allocate a total of 10 points to how well the words describe you.
Example
Or
7 The way I act 3
6 Words which describe 4
me
E total 13 I total 7
Do this for each of the four Type dimensions below
E Extroversion Or Introversion I
I like variety, talking to, I like to get to know people
people, doing exciting things. The way I like to act and things in depth. I am quiet
I am a communicator, and need time on my own.
Energetic, enthusiastic talkative, sociable, restless, fun, domineering.
Words which may be Quiet, shy, deep, reserved, used to describe me , aloof, serious.
E total I total
S Sensing Or Intuition N
F1 Detailed, perfectionist, realistic, practical, narrow.
The way I like to act.
Words which may be used to describe me
I consider the deeper meaning and possibility of things, I like the use of symbols and abstract creative ideas.
Creative, imaginative, visionary, vague, unconventional, artistic.
S total N Total
Adapted from Introduction to type by Isabel Briggs-Myers Consulting Psychologists Press. Inc., 1987.
lc inn Vhc, Tnninmi-n, in !lg.,. m,n f7i'a nrrli n 1 h.,Cm nerl r.= Veahc 1-lincnh tr=". 100 1 hi, Cnnc,
T Thinking Or Feeling F
Logical, good thinker strong, Caring, feeling, empathetic, TI
unsympathetic, analytical, Words which may be emotional, warm-hearted,
scientific used to describe me concerned for people, soft hearted.
T Total F total
Judgement Or Perception P
3 total P total
3 Transfer your scores below
4 Now subtract the scores in each column (le E I, S-N etc). Put the difference in absolute terms (ignore + or -) and the letter that has the highest score. (eg E4).
5 Next choose an important person in your life like your partner, manager, workmate or parent and estimate his or her type.
Read the description of your type and the other person in the following pages. What implications does this have for:
- Your career and job satisfaction?
- Conflict and understanding?
- Your relationship and communication with that other person?
Appendix 4
The Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory
The Social Readjustment Rating Scale
INSTRUCTIONS: Mark down the point value of each of these life events that has happened to you during the previous year. Total these associated points.
Now, add up all the points you have to find your score.
150pts or less means a relatively low amount of life change and a low susceptibility to stress-induced health breakdown.
150 to 300 pts implies about a 50% chance of a major health breakdown in the next 2 years.
300pts or more raises the odds to about 80%, according to the Holmes-Rahe statistical prediction model.
Sources: Adapted from Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe. Homes-Rahe Social Readjustment Rating Scale, Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Vol II, 1967.