The Effect of Academic Stress Upon the Anxiety and
Levels of Gifted High School Students*
Mary Yadusky-Holahan
Despite the paucity of empirical data concerning the
incidence and severity of anxiety and depression among
gifted and motivated students, the literature suggests that
three factors encourage these stress reactions. First, these
students create their own pressure to succeed by setting
high, sometimes unrealistic, goals for themselves (Gissrau,
1976). &dquo;The goals of these driven achievers are always one
step ahead of what they can produce, so they frequently
have a sense of failing to meet their impossibly high expec-
tations. Such students are in a constant state of stress,
even though they are the winners in the system&dquo; (Bovilsky,
1982).
Secondly, parents and teachers of the academically
talented also exert unusual pressures to succeed (Rothney
& Koopman, 1958). The student’s actual or perceived
inability to meet the expectations of these significant
others may increase the potential for higher levels of anxiety
and depression (Gowan & Bruch, 1971).
Finally, the stress that these students experience may
be compounded if the school they attend is residential. In
April of 1981, the Independent School Health Association
sponsored a conference on stress in residential schools
to examine this problem. They concluded that the primary
effect of a residential environment on the high-ability,
achievement-oriented student is prolonged stress due to
the inability of the student to escape academic and social
pressures (Bovilsky, 1982; Carapetyan, 1982).
Peer support is a crucial mechanism for dealing with the
stress and subsequent anxiety and depression created by
these three factors. Adolescent friendships provide a forum
for ventilating feelings which result from stress (Chaikin
& Derlega, 1974; Cozby, 1973; Rubin & Shenker, 1978).
Peers also provide a vehicle for self-evaluation, through
a comparison of the self to similar others. Through this
process of social comparison, unrealistic expectations
may be recognized and modified (Bleda & Castore, 1973;
Evans, 1974; Festinger, 1954).
A major forum for peer contact and support at a board-
ing school is the residence hall. Existing evidence suggests
that college students living in dormitories form friend-
ships on the basis of the proximity of their rooms (Ecklund,
Charlis, et al., 1972; Menne & Sinnett, 1971; Priest &
Sawyer, 1967). In addition, roommates become closer
friends than nonroommates (Newcomb, 1961; Rubin &
Shenker, 1978), particularly when they choose each other
rather than being arbitrarily paired (Hill & Stull, 1981;
Wheaton, 1974).
*The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the excellent editorial
assistance of H. Scott Swartzwelder and Jane Collins.
42
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on April 19, 2015
Depression
William Holahan
The central goal of this study was to compare the effects
of living alone or with a roommate upon anxiety and depres-
sion in the achievement-oriented, high-ability student. The
project was undertaken in an effort to isolate the effects
of living without a roommate on students under stress from
multiple sources. The data will be used to assist the school
in targeting the emotional needs of students and developing
programs to meet them.
It was anticipated that all of the students would report
increased anxiety and depression in relation to increased
academic pressure. In addition, higher levels of anxiety
and depression were expected among students in single
rooms, due to reduced peer contact and support. Students
who elected to live in single rooms were expected to create
both a physical and interpersonal distance from their peers
and thus find themselves excluded from the type of dyadic
friendship experienced by roommates. Moreover, the
personality traits which initially motivated certain students
to live alone may also contribute to their isolation. A final
hypothesis was that students in single rooms would report
a greater number of age-specific problems, since one con-
sequence of reduced peer contact is a reduced opportunity
for social comparison.
Method
Sample
Sixty twelfth-grade students from a public residential
high school served as subjects. All of these students, by
virtue of having completed a lengthy and competitive appli-
cation process and subsequently being invited to attend the
school, were identified as highly motivated to achieve
academically and as having exceptional intellectual ability.
The sample in this study consisted of thirty students
(19 male, 11 female) who had selected single rooms and
thirty students with chosen roommates (18 male,
12 female). All the students at the school living alone were
included, whereas those with roommates were selected
using a standard table of random numbers. Possible envi-
ronmental effects were controlled by matching an equal
number of students having roommates with those living
alone, by both residence hall and floor. Also, no pairs of
roommates were allowed to participate in the study, so
that roommate conflicts would not be duplicated.
Instruments
Three instruments were used in this study. Each was
administered to students at the school in a single group
setting. The data were gathered in three separate tests
over a period of five months.
 The Depression Adjective Check Lists (Lupin, 1981) are Table 1
thirty-two and thirty-four item adjective lists used to Mean DACL Score with Standard Deviation
measure self-reported depressive mood. Two item analyses for Student Groups at Three Testing Times
on separate male and female samples resulted in the

development of seven checklists. The four equivalent

forms of the list within the female set and the three equiva-
lent forms within the male set met the criterion of alternate
forms with high reliability. The normative sample of high
school and college students indicates that a typical mean
score for males ranges from 8.02 to 8.78 with standard
deviations from 4.77 to 5.47. A typical mean score for
female students ranges from 7.32 to 8.12 with standard
deviations from 4.77 to 5.49 (Lupin, 1981).
The IPAT Anxiety Scale (Krug, Scheier, & Cattell, 1976)
is forty-item instrument designed to provide an appraisal
a
of the student’s total anxiety level. The scale is sensitive to
change over time and provides separate scores for covert three groups: males with roommates (t = 4.30, df 34, =

and overt anxiety. The normative sample of high school .01), males without roommates (t = 1.85, df 36,
p < =

students resulted in a raw score mean of 30.0 with a stand-

p < .05), and females without roommates (t 1.86, df = 20,
=

ard deviation of 11.4 for males and a raw score mean of 33.1
with a standard deviation of 11.6 for females.
The Mooney Problem Check List (Mooney & Gordon,
.05). At testing three, significantly higher DACL scores
p<
were also reported, compared to testing one, in males with
roommates (t 2.47, df 34, p < .05) and in females without
= =

1950 revised) is a self-administered survey of personal roommates (t 2.34, df 20, p < .05). In comparing testing
= =

concerns. The High School Form used in this study con-

two with testing three, males without roommates had
tains 330 items, thirty in each of eleven problem categories.
significantly lower depression scores in the third testing
(t 1.69, df 36, p < .05), as did females with roommates
= =

Procedure (t 2.06, df 22, p < .05).

= =

The DACL and IPAT Anxiety Scale were administered

two days before classes began in the fall, in order to deter-
mine a baseline of anxiety and depression. A second testing,
using the DACL, IPAT Anxiety Scale, and the Mooney
Problem Check List, was administered approximately two
months later, during a time characterized by normal
academic pressure. The final testing, using the DACL and
IPAT Anxiety Scale, was scheduled two days before
semester examinations began in order to determine anxiety
and depression levels during a time of extreme academic
pressure. These will hereafter be referred to as the first,
second, and third testings, respectively.
All data-gathering sessions were held in a large recrea-
tional lounge located in the basement of one of the dor-
mitories. This was a quiet area which allowed subjects to
choose various seating arrangements optimal for their
comfort and to protect the confidentiality of their
responses.

Results

Depression Adjective Check Lists

Figure 1 and Table 1 summarize the effects of academic
stressors on mean DACL scores at chosen intervals in
the four groups of students. Mean DACL scores at testing
one closely correspond to national high-school norms. Figure 1. Mean (± SEM) depression adjective check list
Compared to these baseline results, the reported depres- scores over three testings for four student groups
sion at the second testing was significantly higher for (M - Male, F - Female).

43
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on April 19, 2015
 No significant differences between depression scores Mooney Problem Check List
of the four groups were observed within either testing one Similarities were noted between groups regarding cate-
or two. At the third testing, however, females without
gories with the greatest and least concentration of items
roommates generated higher depression scores than both marked. For all four groups the two categories expressed
females with roommates (t = 2.49, df = 21, p < .05) and as least problematic were (1) Home and
males without roommates (t = 1.70, df = 28, p < .05). Family and
(2) Curriculum and Teaching Procedures. In the four
IPAT Anxiety Scale categories having the greatest number of concerns identi-
Table 2 illustrates the relative homogeneity of reported fied, two were common f6,~ill groups: (1) Social and Recrea-
tional Activities and (2) Health and Physical Development.
anxiety scores in the four groups of students over several
As indicated by these results, the four groups were gener-
testings. None of the groups differed significantly from
national normative high-school groups and no rise in ally in concordance as to their perceived problems.
An item analysis, a portion of which is illustrated in
anxiety scores was observed as the semester progressed.
The Pearson coefficient of correlation between mean Table 3, revealed several unexpected differences both
DACL scores and mean IPAT Anxiety Scale scores was between groups and between sexes. Females without
0.56. roommates described themselves aslosing their temper,
being nervous, feeling inferior, moody, worrying, not living
up to their ideal, and wanting more time to themselves
Table 2
much more frequently than females with roommates. A
less extreme, though similar, trend was found among males.
Mean IPAT Anxiety Scale Score with Standard Deviation
for Student Groups at Three Testing Times
Discussion
Consistent with the hypothesis of this study, the depres-
sion reported by all groups, except females with room-
mates, was significantly higher during the second testing
than during baseline. Two groups, males with roommates
and females without roommates, reported
significantly
higher depression at the third testing compared to baseiine.
In addition to the three factors discussed above, viz.,
unrealistic goals, high expectations from significant others,
and the residential setting, stressors specific to this school
Table 3 situation may have contributed to this heightened depres-
Percentage of Students in Each Group Responding sion. These stressors include a demanding academic
to Specific Mooney Problem Checklist Item workload, a change in social status through being removed
from a school where they were the brightest to one in which
they are merely average, and the feeling that it would be
an admission of failure to their
community should they
be unable to meet the rigorous standards for retention.
The group of females with roommates did not respond
to these stressors as predicted. There are several possible
explanatory factors. First, persons in distress seek out
others similar in personality in order to compare reactions
(Firestone, Kaplan, & Russell, 1973; Gerard & Rabbie,
1961; Miller & Zimbardo, 1966; Rabbie, 1963; Schachter,
1959). Secondly, women report more intimate friendships
with their roommates than do men (Hill & Stull, 1981).
Finally, female friendships involve more sharing of confi-
dences than do those between males (Booth, 1972; Rubin
& Shenker, 1978). It is possible that females undergoing
stress during times of increased academic pressure
experience an elevated need for affiliation and this need
is satisfied by the emotional support and opportunities
for social comparison provided by a roommate.
Expanding this conclusion, it is possible to explain why
females without roommates meet the predictions under
the hypothesis that students in single rooms would report

44

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on April 19, 2015

 higher levels of depression than students with roommates.
That is, females living alone may not be able to meet their
increased need for emotional support and social compari-
son during times of academic stress due to the lack of
a roommate.
Males without roommates, however, may not respond
as clearly to peer group exclusion. Douvan and Adelson
(1966) report that adolescent males do not form restrictive
i friendships as do females. Rubin and Shenker (1978) found
that whereas intimate emotional self-disclosures are not
central to male friendships, they are to female friendships.
These factors may account for the results indicating that
males in single rooms were not significantly more depressed
than males with roommates.
The prediction that depression would rise relative to
greater academic stress was only supported by data from
the females in single rooms. Curiously, the other three
groups reported less depression before final exams than
during the time of normal academic demands. This unex-
pected trend may have been caused by an environmental
factor. An unexpected winter storm closed the school for
three days, and the third testing took place the evening of
the first day the school was closed. Although this condition
may have mitigated stress by providing time for extra study,
sleep and recreation, clearly it only reduced reported
depression to a significant degree in the group of females
with roommates. The only subjects who did not report
lower depression at this testing were the females without
roommates, they actually reported significantly more
depression than during their baseline test.
A surprising finding, inconsistent with predictions, was
that anxiety scores at the second and third testing remained
similar to the baseline and national norms. There are sev-
eral potential interpretations of these data. First, the instru-
ment may not have been sensitive to the particular appre-
hension of these students. Secondly, although the students
were assured of the confidentiality of their responses, they
may have distorted their answers to appear socially accept-
able. A third explanation is that anxiety truly was not
present in the students. Although anxiety is an expected
reaction to stress, these students may have developed
successful coping mechanisms over many years of grap-
pling with the demands of themselves and others for
achievement. All of the students in the sample had had
one or more years of residential living which may have
increased their tolerance for the singular stresses of this
living situation. Finally, although not a problem reported
with this instrument, the students may have formed a
response set to the items, resulting in little change in self
reported anxiety levels. Future research might be under-
taken using the Eight Parallel Anxiety Battery (Scheier
& Cattell, 1960), which provides alternate forms with
known interform reliability, to guard against this possibility.
The theory was advanced that students in single rooms
might be isolated because of personality factors, in addition
to the physical ones mentioned previously. The responses
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on April 19, 2015
of the students to the Mooney Problem Check List provide
support for this prediction in that students in single rooms
described their temperament more negatively than the
students with roommates. While it is unclear whether
these differences originally influenced their choice to live
alone or whether these responses were the result of sub-
sequently reduced peer contact, such dispositions would
seemingly sustain any alienation from peers and increase
the isolation of students without roommates.
Females without roommates reported losing their
temper, being nervous, feeling inferior, moodiness and
worrying much more frequently than did any other group.
These feelings seem to be unrelated to academic demands,
since a strikingly low percentage of females living alone
report feeling that they do not spend enough time in study.
Interestingly, 73% of the females in single rooms expressed
wanting more time to themselves. Perhaps this suggests a
desire to avoid situations with the potential for social
rejection or for solitude which may have originally en-
couraged their choice of a single room.
The prediction that students in single rooms would
report more age-specific problems was not strongly sup-
ported by the data. Although males and females without
roommates consistently checked more items per category
than males and females with roommates, respectively,
the differences were not significant. In fact, all four groups
were very similar in the categories they identified as most
and least problematic.
Conclusions
A preliminary
response to these data was the creation
of an affective education course to be included in the
school curriculum. The goals of this course are to teach
students to recognize stress and its expression in terms
of depression, to assist students in developing constructive
methods for dealing with stress, and to teach students the
communication skills necessary for building supportive
peer relationships.
In this population, a clear link has been established
between academic stress and depression. Moreover, it
has been found that students without the support of room-
mates generally describe themselves in terms of failure
(see Table 3, e.g. &dquo;Not living up to my ideal&dquo; and &dquo;Feeling
inferior&dquo;) and experience the emotional trauma associated
with self deprecation.
These findings have important implications for residential
high schools, colleges, and universities. They suggest the
need to alter the physical structure of residence halls to
increase social interaction. Since at times the students in
this study reported depression levels almost twice the
national norm, highly motivated students under academic
stress in a residential setting should be the target of coun-
seling outreach. Alert counselors should be able to antici-
pate predictable crisis periods, characterized by increased
academic demands, and enact preventative support
measures.
45
 References
Bleda, P. R., & Castore, C. H. Social comparison, attraction and choice
of a comparison other. Memory and Cognition, 1973, 1, 420-424.
Booth, A. Sex and social participation. American Sociological Reuiew,
1972, 37, 183-193.
Bovilsky, D. Up against the ivy wall. Independent School, 1982, 41 (3),
51-55.
Carapetyan, F. Students under siege. Independent School, 1982, 41 (3),
57-60.
Chaikin, A., & Derlega, V. Self disclosure. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press, 1974.
Cozby, P. C. Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin,
1973, 79, 73-91.
Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. The adolescent experience. NYC: John Wiley,
1966.
Ecklund, Charlis, et al. The effects of proximity, willingness to engage in
social interaction and sorority membership on the initial formation of
friendship patterns among previously unacquainted college freshmen.
Paper read at the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta,
April, 1972, 6 pp.
Evans, J. F. Motivational effects of being promised an opportunity to
engage in social comparison. Psychological Reports, 1974,34,
175-181.
Festinger, L. A. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Rela-
tions, 1954, 7, 117-140.
Firestone,I. J., Kaplan, K. J., & Russell, J. C. Anxiety, fear and affiliation
with similar-state versus dissimilar-state others: Misery sometimes loves
nonmiserable company. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
26, 409-414.
1973,
Gerard, H. B., & Rabbie, J. M. Fear and social comparison. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961,
62,
566-592.
.Gissrau, B. Test anxiety and the performance of juveniles. German
Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 1976,
25 (6), 216-221.
Gowan, J., & Bruch, C. B. The academically talented student and
guidance. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1971.
Hill, C. T., & Stull, D. E. Sex differences in effects of social and value
similarity in same-sex friendship. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1981, 41, 488-502.
Jourard, S. M. Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the trans-
parent self. NYC: Wiley-Interscience, 1971.
Book Reviews
Reva Jenkins-Friedman
Book Review Editor
MAKER, C. JUNE. Curriculum Development for the
Gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation, 1982;
392 pp. $32.50.
The purpose of C. June Maker’s book &dquo;is to provide
teachers and prospective teachers of the gifted with a
comprehensive handbook of theoretical and practical
approaches to teaching these special children&dquo; (p. ix). She
achieved her purpose although she is much shorter on
theory-particularly curriculum theory-than she is on
practice. Having said this, it must be observed that the
field of gifted education in general tends to be short on
curriculum theory as demonstrated by the dearth of writ-
46
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on April 19, 2015
Krug, S. E., Scheier, I.H., & Cattell, R. B. The handbook for the IPAT
anxiety scale. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability
Testing, 1976.
Lupin, B. The manual for the depression adjective check lists. San Diego,
CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1981.
Menne, J. M. C., & Sinnett, E. R. Proximity and social interaction in resi-
dence halls. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1971, 12, 26-31.
Miller, N., & Zimbardo, P. G. Motives for fear induced affiliation: Emo-
tional comparison or interpersonal similarity? Journal of Personality,
34, 381-403.
1966,
Mooney, R. L., & Gordon, L. V. Manual of the Mooney problem check
lists revised, NYC: The Psychological Corporation, 1950.
Newcomb, T. M. The acquaintance process. NYC: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1961.
Priest, R. F., & Sawyer, J. Proximity and peership: Bases of balance in
interpersonal attraction. American Journal of Sociology, 1967, 72,
633-649.
Rabbie, J. M. Differential preference for companionship under threat.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 643-648.
Rothney, J. W. M., & Koopman, N. Guidance of the gifted. In N. B. Henry
(Ed.), Education for the gifted, fifty-seventh yearbook. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1958.
Rubin, Z., & Shenker, S. Friendship, proximity, and self disclosure,
Journal of Personality, 1978, 46 (1), 1-22.
Schachter, S. The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press, 1959.
Scheier, I. H., & Cattell, R. B. The IPAT 8-parallel-form anxiety battery.
Champaign, IL: IPAT, 1960.
Wheaton, B. Interpersonal conflict and cohesiveness in dyadic relation-
ships. Sociometry, 1974, 37, 328-348.
Mary Yadusky-Holahan.
Address: Chatham County Mental Health Center, 1105 East Cardinal
Street, Siler City, North Carolina 27344.
William Holahan.
Address: Human Development and Psychological Services, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Peabody Hall, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina 27514.
ings which grapple with curriculum design theory as applied
to the education of the gifted.
True, most books on the education of the gifted have a
section or sections devoted to &dquo;differentiated curriculum&dquo;
but these are, with very few exceptions, atheoretical and
discuss and describe practice. It is not that program
planners are unmindful of the critical importance of differ-
tiated curriculum-few terms are used more frequently-
but rather that the basic significant questions of curriculum
design are ignored or dealt with inadequately. We enrich
or accelerate but we do not create total curriculum designs
and learning environments which would provide the gifted
with adequate and appropriate experience for nurturing