Research Article | Open Access

Autonomy in University Students: Predictive Role of Problem Focused Coping

    Noshi Iram Zaman

    Bahria University, Shangrilla Road, Sector E-8, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Uzma Ali

    Institute of Clinical Psychology, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan


Received
13 May, 2014
Accepted
22 May, 2018
Published
31 Mar, 2019

The objective of this study was to investigate the predictive role of problem focused coping with autonomy (Sub domain of psychological well-being) among university student of Karachi, Pakistan. The entire sample consisting of 105 students (51 males & 55 females) was selected from university of Karachi, Pakistan. Their age range was 19-35 years (mean age = 24.85; SD =.489). Autonomy (sub domain of Psychological Well-Being Scale-Urdu version; Ansari, 2010), Self-developed Coping Styles Scale-Urdu version (Zaman, 2015) along with demographic information form was administered. It was found that use of problem focused strategies predicts autonomy among university students. Data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics to address the research objectives. Results indicate that problem focused coping predicts autonomy among university students. Implications of results have been discussed.

The experiences of autonomy and/or control defined by self-determination theory have been most thoroughly studied in the context of people’s achievement of their personal goals and individual well-being, but the current study intends to examine the implications of these experiences in the context of predictor of problem focused coping (PFC) in autonomous behavior of university students.

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) assert that stress does not subsist in the situation/event, but rather is a result of the individual’s appraisal of that event that is producing stress. Appraisal varies from person to person. Positive thinkers as compared to negative thinkers appraise the stressful situation/ event as less threatening and cope effectively.

PFC strategies are useful action focused tactics to confront and tackle the life problems in the most effective manner. Folkman and Moskowitz, (2000) stated that PFC strategies comprises thoughts and instrumental behaviors, used to resolve or manage the fundamental causes of distress. Furthermore, they reported that these strategies are usually used in situations, where one has a personal control over an outcome. Whereas in those circumstances where one has no personal control these strategies are not considered to be effective.

PFC involves altering or managing the problem that is causing stress and is highly action focused. Mastroianni (2011) stated that PFC uses problem solving stratagems like generating alternative solutions such as through cost benefit analysis. Additionally, these strategies intended for self by finding alternative forms of gratification or lowering one’s ambition. Individuals engage in PFC mostly focus their attention on congregating the required resources (i.e. Skills, tools & knowledge) necessary to deal with the stressor. This involves a number of tactics such as gathering information, resolving conflict, planning and making decisions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus the PFC aims to change or eliminate the source of the stress by managing the problem.

It is observed during clinical practice that coping impacts one’s happiness and well-being, that's how one can perceive and interpret the situation by reacting to the problem, matters a lot. Thus the core of the well-being is happiness and satisfaction. Lykken (2000) asserts that removal of stresses and problems from people’s lives may help them feel less unhappy, but it doesn’t lead to happiness. Thus the way one use to cope with their problems is a significant factor for survival, growth and psychological well-being. Multiple researches examined the relationship between psychological well-being and psychological constructs such as, Lopes, Salovey, and Straus (2003) examined the relationship between emotional intelligence, personality and (social relationships) psychological well-being; self-enhancing cognitions (Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003); coping strategies (Kling, Seltzer, & Ryff, 1997) personal goals (Riediger, Freund, & Baltes, 2005) and role of autonomy in romantic relationships (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Autonomy in the current study is the sub domain of psychological well-being and taken from the psychological well-being model of Ryff (1989) and Ryff and Keyes (1995). An autonomous behavior is called when an individual’s behavior is experienced as willingly ratified and he fully endorses his own actions. Ryff and Singer (2008) defined autonomous behavior as having a sense of self-determination. The precept of autonomy needs control and independence, and given that independence is a component of autonomy (Ryff & Singer, 2006).

An autonomous behavior is considered to be self- determining and independent; evaluates self by personal standards, able to resist social pressure and can regulate behavior from within. Ryan and Deci (2000) reported that globally fulfillment of needs for autonomy and self-direction has long been considered important to people’s functioning. Furthermore, they assert that according to self-determination theory, individuals who undergo autonomous feelings, experience a sense of self-governance and independence about their behaviors, whereas who do not feel autonomous experience a sense of pressure and control from alien impulses or externally imposed incentives. Thus, in accordance with the evidence it is well documented that experience of autonomy has generally positive consequences and should be something that all individuals wish for.

The current study endeavors to explore the predictive role of problem focused coping in autonomy in university students of Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan is a sovereign growing country, encompassing more than 180 million people. If there is one thing that Pakistan has in abundance is youth. Youth of any country is considered to be a significant tool and labor force in the economic development of that region. Present study intends to draw special attention on Pakistani youth (university students) by exploring their coping styles and personality attributes and/or domains.

Coping is significantly related to the group of variables, which are essential for psychological and/or mental health, therefore, its study is enormously advantageous especially among university students. Students are considered to be a vital part of the economic growth of any country. University time is challenging as well as exciting for students. Lyrakos (2012) asserts that university students go through major life changes like going to and then leaving university are major contributors of stress regardless of their gender. Most the researches on this topic are conducted in western culture (Dyrbye, Thomas, & Shanafelt, 2006; Mosley, Perrin, Neral, Dubbert, Grothues & Pinto, 1994) and only few are carried in Pakistani culture(Jadoon, Yaqoob, Raza, Shehzad, & Choudhry, 2010). Those researches which were conducted in Asian culture only catered the medical students sample (Elzubeir, Elzubeir, & Magzoub, 2010; Saipanish, 2003; Sherina, Rampal, & Kaneson, 2004; Sreeramareddy, Shankar, Binu, Mukhopadhyay, Ray, & Menezes, 2007; Yusoff et al., 2011) and clinical data (Gracely et al., 2004; Katie & Jennie, 2006; Tepper, Rogers, Coleman, & Malony, 2001) ignoring the rest of the population. Additionally, those researches on the construct made use of western scales to measure coping. Among several other constructs, the concept of coping also varies culture to culture. Pakistan for having a collectivistic culture, keeping family interests over personal interests is an important factor that affects people’s coping strategies as well. In the current study the self-developed coping styles scale in Urdu language along with PLW scale Urdu version was used. The rationale behind this study was to foster the positive personality aspects, better coping strategies and autonomous behavior of young generation and help them in their successful life survival. As Kennedy (1968) said that, we must continue to strive to measure, which makes life worthwhile (Para. 22) and thus provide crucial information for professionals; educators, psychologists and policy-makers interested in fostering the welfare of youngsters. This study would be a significant step in this regard.

METHOD

Sample
The sample employed in the study was 105 students of University of Karachi, Pakistan. The sample included 51 males and 54 females. The age range of the sample was 19 to 35 years with the mean age of 24.85. 60.95% university students belong to the joint family structure and 39.04% belonged to a nuclear family structure. Language-wise 45.71% were Urdu speaking 14.28% Punjabi, 5% Sindhi, 6.66% Blochi, 5.71% Saraiki, 1.90% Pashto, 5.71% and 20% others. 51.42% university students in this sample were married and 48.57% were unmarried. The mean number of siblings of the sample was 5, in which 35.23% belonged to 1st birth order, 41.90% from 2nd birth order and 22.85% were last borns. The minimum qualification of the entire sample was intermediate level and the maximum and maximum was PhD level. Out of N = 105, 24.76% students belonged to single parents and for 75.23% student’s both parents were alive.

Instruments
Coping Styles Scale.
The Coping Styles Scale (CSS; Zaman, 2015) is self-developed scale designed for the age group of 18 to 50 years old adults. Coping Styles Scale is a self-report measure and consisting of 22 items. Each item answered on a 5 point Likert scale to show the extent to which the item is true for them. The score ranges from 5 “always” to 1 “not at all”. Coping Styles Scale indicated high levels of alpha level of problem focused coping (.88) and emotion focused coping (.89), respectively (Zaman, 2015). The Cronbach’s alpha of problem focused domain in the current study is .86.

Psychological Well-being Scale. Psychological Well-being Scale was originally developed by Ryff (1989) and translated and adapted in the Urdu language by Ansari (2010). Participants rate statements on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 6 indicating strong agreement. PWLS consists of 54 items, a theoretically grounded instrument focusing on six-dimensions of well-being: autonomy (AUT), environmental mastery (EM), personal growth (PG), positive relations with others (PR), purpose in life (PIL) and self-acceptance (SA). Each dimension included 9 items half of the items of PWLS are reversed score. In current study only one sub domain of PWL was used i.e. Autonomy. The Cronbach’s alpha of PWLS-Urdu is .85 (Ansari, 2010). The Cronbach’s alpha of sub domain of autonomy in the current study is 61. The scoring of the scale includes responses are totaled for each of the six subscales (about half of the responses are reversed score). High score on autonomy means self-determined and independent, able to resist social pressures to think and act in certain ways, regulate behavior from within and evaluates self by personal standards. Low scorer is concerned about the expectations and evaluations of others, relies on others judgment while taking decision and conforms to social pressures to think and act in certain manners.

PROCEDURE

At the start different departments of Karachi University were approached for getting consent for data collection. Brief description about the nature of research work was given to them. They kindly permitted to gather data from their departments. After that, the students were approached in classroom settings. Brief description about the nature of the study was given to them; they were assured about the confidentiality and anonymity. Before administering the scales, efforts were made to develop rapport with the participants. They were requested to fill the demographic information form, coping styles scale, and psychological well-being scale. Data was collected only from students with their consent for voluntarily participation in it. They were taken into confidence that all individual information would remain confidential and collective data would be utilized in the research only.

RESULTS

The correlation coefficient show significant positive relationship between PFC and autonomy among university students (r = .40; p=.000). Table 1 shows linear regression for predicting autonomy from PFC strategies.

Table 1:
Linear Regression for Predicting Autonomy from Problem Focused
Coping Strategies (N = 105)

***p < .001

Linear regression was computed to explore the level to which the PFC strategies predict the autonomy among university students (Table 2). There is a significant positive relationship between the autonomy and the PFC strategies. The model was a fit for the data (F = 19.71, p < .00).

Table 2:
Moderating Effect of Duration in University on Autonmy and Problem
Focused Coping (N = 105)

**p < .01. ***p < .00

There is a positive relationship between the PFC strategies and the autonomy. The relationship between the PFC strategies and autonomy is moderated by the duration of student in university. It is adding the 2% variance in it.

Fig. 1: Relationship of duration in university on autonomy and problem focused coping

There is a positive relationship between the autonomy and PFC strategies (Figure 1). This relationship is moderated by the duration of student in the university. As the duration increases the PFC strategies also increases.

Table 3:
Mean, Standard Deviation and t-Values of Problem Focused
Coping and Autonomy Strategies of Male and Female University
Students (N=105)

*p < .00

There is statistically significant difference on the level of autonomy among male and female university students. Results indicate that autonomy is high among male students as compared to females.

Table 4:
Mean, Standard Deviation and t-Values of Problem Focused
Coping and Autonomy Strategies on Marital Status of
University Students (N = 105)

*p < .00

There is statistically significant difference on the level of autonomy among single and married university students. Results indicates that it’s high among single (M = 38.11, SD = 9.10) students as compared to married (M = 34.18, SD = 5.09).

DISCUSSION

University students who have high analytical personality mostly use problem focused coping (Chai & Low, 2015). Claire (2012) also reported that international university students use PFC. Thus, university student’s academic achievement and adjustment was significantly predicted by their use of effective coping strategies (Abdullah, Elias, Uli & Mahyuddin, 2010).

Statistical analysis of present study reported here was based on a sample of 105 university students, who participated in this research, which is intended to measure the predictive role of PFC in autonomous behavior among university students. It was hypothesized that “PFC predicts autonomy among university students”. Our findings show that there is a positive correlation between use of PFC and autonomy (p < .00) among university students and PFC contributes 16% variance of autonomous behavior among university students. Our results are consistent with the findings of Bozoglan (2013) and Nelson, Hammen, Daley, Burge, and Davila (2001) who suggested a clear relationship between autonomous personality and stress coping. Coon (2008) also found that students using avoidant coping strategies were slow in career decision making, self-efficacy and career optimism.

The underlying factor behind the construct of autonomous behavior denotes that students who use this attribute is supposed to be clear headed in their decision making and attitudes towards self and world. They don’t want to distract themselves by using maladaptive and avoidant coping strategies. In current study students who use problem focused coping are found to be more autonomous.

The construct of autonomy needs control; in cognition and action level. This is related to Karasek’s (1979) notion of decision latitude, which is defined as potential control over tasks and conducts and includes “decision authority” and “intellectual discretion” (p. 290). Allen and Greenberger (1980) suggested that persons with lowered perceived control may attempt to modify their environment and restore their feelings of control through distractive acts.

Coping stratagems differ culture to culture (Lam & Zane, 2004). Different researches ascertained PFC effective and favourable by high lightening its mechanism of action in terms of directly approaching and confronting the issues (Parkes, 1990). Sonnentag and Frees (2012) reported self-efficacious attitude of an individual and credence of competence encourages him to use PFC during work related stress in any organization. Charles, Carver, and Connor-Smith (2010) stressed the notion of conscientious and use of problem focused coping among school children. Chinese middle to high grade mostly students use PFC to deal with their academic stress (Haung, 2009; Cheng, 2001; Chen, 2004).

Autonomy is an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance. Maslow and Rogers were well supporters of the concept, autonomy and the ideal of developing one’s own self. According to their viewpoint, the most developed person is most autonomous and autonomy is explicitly associated with not being dependent on others. Findings of the current study are well supportive of the precept that PFC and autonomous behavior is interrelated. Thus, PFC is a predictor of autonomous behavior of university students, which is a significant tool in progress and well-being of individuals.

Gender played significant role in use of autonomous behavior in current research (see Table 5). As men are socialized to be more independent and autonomous, their opinions are considered and decisions matter. Autonomy is the ability to make choices according to one’s own free will. It is well documented that altruistic actions will fail to produce satisfaction and happiness if it’s coerced. Shankland, França, Genolini, Guelfi, and Ionescu (2009) emphasized autonomy supported behaviour of classmates and teachers in academic settings, which has a significant impact on student’s intrinsic motivation, competence and school performance. These behaviour can absolutely encourage autonomous and responsibility taking behaviour among students (Castellanos, & Jones 2003; Shankland, 2007).

Marriage is a ubiquitous social status that is consistently linked to mental health. In present study married university students were more autonomous as compare to female university students (see Table 6). One possible explanation might be that marriage gives emotional comfort and feelings of being cared and belongingness. Consequently person feel stress free attitude and feel autonomy in taking decisions. So married people take things in a realistic manner and deal with their problems in the most effective way. A number of researches indicated several advantages of being married over singlehood. Dush and Amato (2005) assert that marriage is an institution, endorsed by the legal system, religion, societal norms and has a strong power to provide a sense of identity/social status to people embracing this institution by making marital bond. Kiecolt and Newton (2001) reported that married citizens as compared to unmarried ones enjoy better mental and physical health. So, use of PFC style leads autonomy among university students.

CONCLUSION

The current study provides to measure the impact of PFC in autonomy among university students. These findings are supportive of its statistically significant results in general. Thus, use of PFC is associated with autonomous behavior among university students that should be focused upon.

IMPLICATIONS

Pakistan is a sovereign growing country, having a population of over 180 million people and quite a big chunk of it comprises of the youth. Youth of any country is considered to be a significant working force in the economical development of that particular region. The rationale behind the two studies was to foster the positive personality aspects, better coping strategies and autonomous/independent behavior of young generation and help them in their successful life survival. As Robert Kennedy (1968) said that, we persistently struggle to evaluate, which creates living valuable. Through this study, it is endeavored to provide crucial information for professionals, educators, psychologists and policy maker engrossed in the development of the betterment/well-being of youngsters. It would be a significant step in this regards.

LIMITATIONS

As many researches in social sciences have certain limitations, even carefully designed due to which the findings are not considered to be generalized on diverse populations. The sample of 105 university students is relatively a small and all data of the research comprised of Karachi University, which limits the generalizability of the results.

REFERENCES

  1. Abdullah, M. C., Elias, H., Uli, J., & Mahyuddin, R. (2010). Relationship between coping and university adjustment and academic achievement amongst first year undergraduates in a Malaysian public university. International Journal of Arts and Sciences,3(11), 379-392.
  2. Ansari, S. A. (2010). Cross-validation of Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being: Translation into Urdu Language, Pakistan Business Review.
  3. Bozoglan, B. (2013). Stress coping approaches in terms of sociotropic and autonomous personalities: A cross-sectional study among Turkish university students. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 3(4), pp. 200-206.
  4. Castellanos, J., & Jones, L. (2003). The majority in the minority: Expanding the representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators and students in higher education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  5. Charles, S., Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and Coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679-704.
  6. Claire, B. (2012). Taking the plunge: Psychological stress, health and coping among international university students in Malta.
  7. Cheng, C. (2001). Assessing coping flexibility in real-life and laboratory settings: a multimethod approach. Journal of personality and social psychology,80(5), 814.
  8. Chen, X. (2004). Research on middle school students’ academic stresses, coping strategies, and coping psychological mechanisms, (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Chongqing: South-west Normal University.
  9. Coon, K. L. (2008). Predicting career decision-making difficulties among undergraduate students: The role of career decision making self efficacy, career optimism, and coping, (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, USA.
  10. Dyrbye, L. N., Thomas, M. R., & Shanafelt, T. D. (2006). Systematic review of depression, anxiety, and other indicators of psychological distress among U.S. and Canadian medical students. Academic Medicine, 81(4), 354-373.
  11. Elzubeir, M. A., Elzubeir, K. E., & Magzoub, M. E. (2010). Stress and coping strategies among arab medical students: Towards a research agenda. Education for Health, 23(1).
  12. Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Stress, positive emotion and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(4), 115-118.
  13. Gracely, R. H., Geisser, M. E., Giesecke, T., Grant, M. A. B., Petzke, F., Williams, D. A., & Clauw, D. J. (2004). Pain catastrophizing and neural responses to pain among persons with fibromyalgia. Brain.
  14. Huang, M. F. (2009). Resilience in chronic disease: The relationships among risk factors, protective factors, adaptive outcomes, and the level of resilience in adults with diabetes (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology).
  15. Jadoon, N. A., Yaqoob, R., Raza, A., Shehzad, M. A., Choudhry, Z. S. (2010). Stress and depressive symptoms/dysphoria among us medical students: Results from a large, nationally representative survey. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, 60(8), 699-702.
  16. Karasek. (1979). In Perrewe, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. (2006). Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, Employee Health, Coping & Methodologie, 5, 187.
  17. Katie, A., & Jennie, P. (2006). Coping and emotional adjustment following traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 21(3), 248-259.
  18. Kennedy, R. F. (1968). Remarks of Robert F. Kennedy at the University of Kansas.
  19. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: his and hers. Psychological bulletin,127(4), 472.
  20. Kling, K. C., Seltzer, M. M., & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Distinctive late-life challenges: Implications for coping and well-being. Psychology & Aging, 12(2), 288 295.
  21. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
  22. Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences Volume, 35, 641-658.
  23. Lykken, D. (2000). Happiness: The nature and nurture of joy and contentment. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., p. 288.
  24. Lyrakos, D. G. (2012). The impact of stress, social support, self-efficacy and coping on university students, multicultural European study. Scientific Research, 3(2), 143-149.
  25. Mastroianni, E. (2011). Examining ethnic identity as a form of appraisal for latinas in the Lazarus and Folkman Stress and Coping Model. The Baldwin-Wallace College Journal of Research & Creative Studies, 3(2), 1-19.
  26. Mosley, T. H., Jr., Perrin, S. G., Neral, S. M., Dubbert, P. M., Grothues, C. A., & Pinto, B. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and well-being among third-year medical students. Academic Medicine, 69(9), 765-7.
  27. Nelson, R. D., Hammen, C., Daley, S. E., Burge, D., & Davila, J. (2001). Sociotropic and autonomous personality styles: Contributions to chronic life stress. Cognitive Therapy & Research.
  28. Parkes, K. R. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity, and the work environment: Additive and interactive predictors of mental health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 399-409.
  29. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist.
  30. Riediger, M., Freund,A. M., & Baltes,P. B. (2005). Managing life through personal goals: Intergoal facilitation and intensity of goal pursuit in younger and older adulthood. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 60(2), 84-91.
  31. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 6, 1069-1081.
  32. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69, 719-727.
  33. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2006). Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being. Social Science Research.
  34. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudemonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies.
  35. Saipanish, R. (2003). Stress among medical students in a Thai medical school. Medical Teacher.
  36. Shankland, R. (2007). Adaptation des jeunes à l’enseignement supérieur. Les pédagogies nouvelles: aide à l’adaptation ou facteur de marginalisation (Doctoral dissertation, Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris 8).
  37. Shankland, R., França, L. R., Genolini, C. M., Guelfi, J. D., & Ionescu, S. (2009). Preliminary study on the role of alternative educational pathways in promoting the use of problem focused coping strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXIV(4), 499-512.
  38. Sherina, M. S., Rampal, L., & Kaneson, N. (2004). Psychological stress among undergraduate medical students. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 56(2).
  39. Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2012). Stress in organizations. Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 12: Industrial & Organizational Psychology. New York: Wiley.
  40. Sreeramareddy, C. T., Shankar, P. R., Binu, V. S., Mukhopadhyay, C., Ray, B., & Menezes, R. G. (2007). Psychological morbidity, sources of stress and coping strategies among undergraduate medical students of Nepal. Bio-Medical Central.
  41. Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sherman, D. K., Sage, R. M., & McDowell, N. K. (2003). Are Self-enhancing cognitions associated with healthy or unhealthy biological profiles? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85(4), 605-615.
  42. Tepper, L., Rogers, S. A., Coleman, E. M., & Malony, H. N. (2001). The prevalence of religious coping among persons with persistent mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52(5), 660-665.
  43. Vinothkumar, M., Arathi, A., Joseph, M., Nayana, P., Josh, J. E., & Sahana, U. (2016). Coping, perceived stress, and job satisfaction among medical interns: The mediating effect of mindfulness. Individual Psychiatry Journal, 25(2), 195-201.
  44. Yusoff, M. S. B., Yee, L. Y., Wei, L. H., Siong, T. C., Meng, L. H., Bin, L. X., & Rahim, A. F. A. (2011). A study on stress, stressors and coping strategies among Malaysian medical students. International Journal of Students Research, 1(2), 45-50.
  45. Zaman, I. N. (2015). Development and validation of coping styles scale: The relationship of coping styles with social support and psychological well-being of university students, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Institute of Clinical Psychology, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan.

How to Cite this paper?


APA-7 Style
Zaman, N.I., Ali, U. (2019). Autonomy in University Students: Predictive Role of Problem Focused Coping. Pak. J. Psychol. Res, 34(1), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2019.34.1.6

ACS Style
Zaman, N.I.; Ali, U. Autonomy in University Students: Predictive Role of Problem Focused Coping. Pak. J. Psychol. Res 2019, 34, 101-114. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2019.34.1.6

AMA Style
Zaman NI, Ali U. Autonomy in University Students: Predictive Role of Problem Focused Coping. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research. 2019; 34(1): 101-114. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2019.34.1.6

Chicago/Turabian Style
Zaman, Noshi, Iram, and Uzma Ali. 2019. "Autonomy in University Students: Predictive Role of Problem Focused Coping" Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 34, no. 1: 101-114. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2019.34.1.6