The Development of an Interpersonal Stressors Scale: Identifying Self-Imposed and Other-Imposed Interpersonal Stressors

Abstract

While there has been research focused on interpersonal relationships and their impact on stress and well-being, no instrument has been developed to comprehensively evaluate interpersonal stressors. This research sought to develop and validate an Interpersonal Stressors Scale (ISS) for Chinese college students through three studies. Focus groups were used to generate the initial item pool (Study 1). Then two large samples (N₁ = 511; N₂ = 330) were collected to explore the factor structure of the ISS and subsequently examine its reliability and validity estimates (study 2 and 3). Initial results indicated a model with 27 items and five first-order factors (interaction difficulty, behaving as expected, social criticism, relationship maintenance, and indebtedness avoidance) as well as two second-order factors (self-imposed stressors and other-imposed stressors) with strong psychometric properties. Criterion-related validity estimates indicated these two kinds of stressors were both associated with stress while having different relationships with general anxiety, depression, social anxiety, interpersonal satisfaction, and self-efficacy in social interactions. The nature and function of the structure for the ISS were discussed as well as the practical and research implications.

Keywords

Interpersonal stressors Interpersonal Stressors Scale Chinese college students

Introduction

Interpersonal relationships can lead to significant life stressors. Existing literature on the interpersonal stressors typically centers on overt, observable, and harmful events that involve two or more parties such as interpersonal conflict (Barki & Hartwick, 2004; Laursen, 2001), harassment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006), and bullying (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018; Zych et al., 2015). Corresponding measures also follow an “environmental” conceptualization that defines interpersonal stressors as discrete, observable, and negative events (e.g. Cohen et al., 1995; Potter et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2008), such as “another person at work did nasty things to you behind your back” in the Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Conflict Scale (Liu et al., 2008) and “criticized by spouse/significant others” in the Inventory of Small Life Events ( Zautra et al., 1986 ). However, this framework fails to recognize other potential interpersonal stressors such as chronic, uneventful social influences (e.g. high parental expectations; Wang & Heppner, 2002) or even seemingly benign events (e.g. attending a party). Consequently, existing measurements of interpersonal stressors may lack content validity because they do not capture all facets of interpersonal stress.

In contrast, the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) provides a more comprehensive conceptualization of interpersonal stressors including both observable events and more chronic or neutral social influences. Rather than focusing on specific external characteristics of stressors, the transactional model centers around individual cognitive appraisal of a situation for identifying what might be defined as interpersonal stressor. The current research aimed to develop and validate an Interpersonal Stressors Scale (ISS) based on the Transactional Model to evaluate the interpersonal stressors of Chinese college students in a more comprehensive way.

Interpersonal conflict, harassment, and bullying

Some studies focus on overtly negative social encounters, including interpersonal conflict (Barki & Hartwick, 2004), harassment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006), and bullying (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018; Zych et al., 2015). It is important to note that some researchers use interpersonal conflict and interpersonal stressors interchangeably (e.g. Potter et al., 2002). Interpersonal conflict is defined as a dynamic process that occurs between interdependent parties as they experience negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and interference behaviors with the attainment of their goals (Barki & Hartwick, 2004); it is characterized as negative interactions among individuals in which all parties could contribute to the interaction. Harassment refers to interpersonal behaviors aimed at harming another individual (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). Bullying refers to a situation where an individual is repeatedly exposed to harassing behavior over a prolonged period of time from one or more individuals and they are unable to defend themselves against this systematic mistreatment (Einarsen et al., 2010). Although both harassment and bullying could involve interpersonal conflict, these social interactions can be differentiated from interpersonal conflict because one party is a passive recipient of hostile behaviors (Liu et al., 2008).

All three of these concepts focus on overt negative social interactions but do not encapsulate the entirety of interpersonal experiences that could be perceived as stressful. Outside of interpersonal conflict, harassment, and bullying, there are chronic uneventful social influences or even seemingly neutral incidents that could cause interpersonal stress. For example, being ignored by others could be perceived as a salient interpersonal stressor through absence of interaction or responsiveness rather than directly negative behavior. Furthermore, an individual believing that others will evaluate them negatively could facilitate further interpersonal stress regardless of any overtly negative behaviors or interactions from others. Examples of these kinds of interpersonal stressors can be seen in signature symptoms of social anxiety disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and even in suicidal ideation, which is often associated with perceived burdensomeness and lacking a sense of belonging (Van Orden et al., 2010). Therefore, the key to a comprehensive conceptualization of interpersonal stressors should focus on individual’s negative appraisals of social situations rather than overt negative social encounters. This conceptualization is demonstrated through the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Interpersonal stressors in the transactional model of stress and coping

According to the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, a cognitive appraisal of the stressor must be present for any emotional or physiological reactions to occur (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This model refutes the notion that stressors should only be considered as a certain category of events because this ignores individual differences in perceptions of stress. A so-called “stressful” event may not be perceived as stressful by certain individuals, such as those that may have adequate resources to cope with the event, whereas seemingly benign or neutral events could be evaluated as stressful with different connotations for different individuals. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), the appraisal of stress depends on the extent of environmental demand and the number of resources available to individuals. Stress will emerge if appraisal of environmental demand surpasses the appraisal of resources available to cope with the demand.

Following the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, measurements of interpersonal stressors should take into consideration individual experiences and perceptions of stress, something that has been notably absent with existing measurement tools. To better encapsulate this comprehensive model of interpersonal stress considerate of cognitive appraisal, we utilized focus groups method to develop the initial item pool for our Interpersonal Stressors Scale (ISS). The focus group method provided a methodology that allows researchers to obtain a comprehension of the phenomenon through the population’s eyes (Byers et al., 2002) and avoid ethnocentric classifications and assumptions that are inaccurate (Podolefsky & Brown, 1999), which matches the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping’s emphasis on individuals’ cognitive appraisals of interpersonal stressors. Furthermore, the focus group method has been recommended in scale development due to its ability to improve scale’s content validity through forming a comprehensive item pool that is not constricted by potentially limited perspectives from researchers (Mallinckrodt et al., 2016; Hoyt & Mallinckrodt, 2012).

Interpersonal stressors among Chinese college students

Multiple studies reported high percentages of Chinese college students facing interpersonal stress and stress about intimacy issues, ranging from 30% to 54.6% (牟 & 马, 2016; 赵 et al., 2019). Among the various stressors faced by Chinese college students, interpersonal stressors are unique considering their intersections with college students’ developmental stage as emerging adults. On one hand, as college students leaving behind the familiarity and structure of relationships in grade school education, they must learn to navigate increasingly complex relationships and novel social environments. On the other hand, research indicates that college students often depend on emotional support from family and friends for a successful adjustment to college (Azmitia et al., 2013). Thus, these emerging adults are likely to be more vulnerable to interpersonal stressors as they work to establish and adjust their social network from existing relationships and developing new ones.

Furthermore, interpersonal stressors might be particularly salient for Chinese college students due to collectivistic cultural values that emphasize group conformity and interdependence (Chun et al., 2006; Hofstede, 2001). These values expect the development of complex interpersonal networks called Guanxi (a cultural characteristic in China that refers to the concept of drawing on a web of connections containing implicit mutual obligations, assurances, and understanding to secure personal and organizational interest and benefit; Park & Luo, 2001; Xin & Pearce, 1996) to thrive in Chinese society (Gabrenya & Hwang, 1996; Ulijn et al., 2005). Establishing and managing Guanxi may cause more interpersonal stress having to balance potentially conflicting expectations across various relationships (e.g. classmates, friends, family members, teachers) while also balancing self-versus-other expectations and desires. For example, Leung et al. (2011) found that increased parental expectations were associated with more career decision-making difficulties for college students in mainland China. Cross-culture researchers found that Chinese college students have higher social anxiety than students in the UK and the US (Essau et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2008; Zhong et al., 2008).

In addition, the number and density of the Chinese population (1.44 billion; National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2021) increase the potential for interpersonal interaction, which could lead to increased competition for limited educational resources, career opportunities, as well as more opportunities for interpersonal conflict. Combined with Chinese cultural values emphasizing one’s position/status in society as well as sensitivity to the experiences of others, Chinese college students encounter more social comparison as an added source of interpersonal stress. Overall, Chinese college students present with increased complexity in their relationships so their experiences could offer some novel insight for developing a more nuanced and comprehensive measurement tool.

The current study

Three studies were designed to develop a psychometrically sound scale measuring interpersonal stressors among Chinese college students and examine the psychometric properties of that scale. Study 1 developed initial scale items through focus groups. Study 2 assessed reliability and criterion-related validity estimates while exploring the factor structure of the scale. Study 3 evaluated and confirmed the reliability estimates and factor structure found in Study 2.

Study 1

Method

Data collection

To explore what Chinese college students identified as interpersonal stressors, six semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with one lead facilitator and one research assistant using the Krueger and Casey (2015) protocol. Both the facilitator and assistant were graduate students of Counseling Psychology trained in conducting focus groups. Before each interview, students were provided an informed consent detailing the purpose of the research and the rights of participants. Upon receiving consent, the lead facilitator would then detail the goals and rules for the focus group, inviting participants to share their experiences and observations of interpersonal stress in a collegiate setting. Ground rules were established, emphasizing that controversy and honest discussion would be encouraged with no requirement for the participants to reach a final consensus. Participants were invited to describe the scenes or events that were relevant to interpersonal interactions or relationships and make people feel stressed, without any prior definitions of stress or stressors according to the bottom-up manner in the focus group method.

Participants

Each of the three studies was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the primary institution of the first author. Participants were recruited through advertisements posted on WeChat, a commonly used social network platform in China. Six focus groups were conducted with 43 college students (22 female; 21 male) from two Chinese universities; the number of participants in each focus group ranged from 6 to 8. The age of participants ranged from 19 to 26 years old (M = 21.95, SD = 1.75). There were 10 freshmen, 6 sophomores, 8 juniors, and 15 seniors, while 4 students did not report their grades.

Data analysis

To ensure horizontalization, a process in which the researcher weights all participant statements with equal importance (Moustakas, 1994), the recordings from each focus group interview were transcribed and then independently coded according to the analytic framework of key concepts proposed by Krueger and Casey (2015) by three researchers. The purpose of coding was to extract events or situations that would cause interpersonal stress from the transcribed text and “coding consists of placing similar labels on similar things” (Krueger & Casey, 2015, pp.147). Further discussions were conducted to reach a consensus on the codes between all researchers. Based on the consensus, researchers worked independently to transform the codes into scale items and conducted further discussion to reach a consensus on the items that would be included for the initial scale (172 items). The initial scale was further shortened by merging similar items into more inclusive, abstract descriptions and clarifying how to define the concept of interpersonal stressors so as to exclude items only loosely connected to what was being assessed.

This shortened scale (113 items) was then delivered to ten professionals otherwise uninvolved in the study and unbiased in their judgments for evaluating linguistic accuracy, content validity, and relevance for the stressful interpersonal experiences of Chinese college students. Based on the responses from these professionals, all three researchers convened to re-evaluate each item before settling on the final version of the initial Interpersonal Stressors Scale (ISS) with 99 items.

Results

In the first round of coding, discussion, and consensus-making, 318 codes of interpersonal stressors were generated. These codes were then transformed into 172 items. In the process of discussing and establishing a consensus from the items, the researchers elucidated two principles, objectivity and social interactivity, of identifying interpersonal stressor codes and excluding other items that would not be as relevant to the study. The stressors described in the ISS were those that could be observed by self or others (objectivity) while engaging with others (social interactivity) as opposed to something like a lack of social skills, which would be a stressor more associated with self-efficacy than specifically a stressor arising from interpersonal interactions. 99 items remained in the initial ISS after completing this evaluation process.

Study 2

The purpose of Study 2 was to explore the factor structure, reliability, and criterion-related validity of the initial ISS. Criterion-related validity was evaluated through the constructs of general stress, general anxiety, depression, social interaction anxiety, and interpersonal satisfaction. Because interpersonal concerns contribute significantly to general stress (Byrne et al., 2007; Eisenberger et al., 2003; Levenstein et al., 1993), we hypothesized the frequency of the interpersonal stressors should be positively associated with general stress. In addition, interpersonal stress has been correlated to general anxiety and depression symptoms (Aanes et al., 2010; Coiro et al., 2017) as well as close ties to social interaction anxiety (Tabak et al., 2016; Siegel et al., 2018). Thus, we hypothesized the frequency of the interpersonal stressors should be positively associated with general anxiety, depression, and social interaction anxiety, while negatively associated with interpersonal satisfaction.

Methods

Participants

College students were recruited with the help of staff and faculty from four universities in China. The researchers emailed them to introduce the study purpose and design and mailed them questionnaires and informed consent documentation with instructions for completing the questionnaire. 750 questionnaires were delivered and 664 were retrieved (88.53%). After excluding surveys with missing values for over 50% of the items and straight-lined answers (i.e. 11111), 511 questionnaires remained (76.96%). 388 participants were male, 122 were female, and one participant did not identify their gender. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 29 years old (M = 20.14, SD = 1.52).

Measurements

Interpersonal Stressors Scale (ISS)

The initial version of the scale consisted of 99 items describing various interpersonal stressors that might be experienced by college students such as “Have conflicts with others” or “Seek approval from others.” Participants were invited to recall the experiences of interpersonal interaction that make them feel stressed and to rate the frequency (1 = never, 5 = always) of each stressor on a 5-point Likert scale.

Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS)

The Chinese version of the SIAS for college students (Mattick & Clarke, 1998; 叶 et al., 2007) was used to measure anxiety in social interactions. The SIAS consists of 19 items (i.e. I have difficulty making eye contact with others) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all characteristic or true of me, 5 = extremely characteristic or true of me) measuring the fit of items to personal characteristics. The Chinese version of the SIAS demonstrated good internal consistency (0.87), split-half reliability (0.86), and test-retest reliability (0.86) in the existing study (叶 et al., 2007). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was found to be .91.

Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21)

The Chinese version of the DASS-21 for college students (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995; Wang et al., 2016) was used to measure negative affect. The DASS-21 consists of 21 items on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = did not apply to me at all, 3 = applied to me very much or most of the time) measuring the frequency and severity of depression (i.e. “I felt that life was meaningless”), anxiety (i.e. “I felt I was close to panic”), and stress (i.e. “I found it hard to wind down”) during the previous week. The Chinese version demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha was .92, .83, .80, and .82 for the total scale, stress, anxiety, and depression subscales, respectively) in the existing study (Wang et al., 2016) and consisted of a similar structure to the original, except the item “I feel down-hearted and blue” was moved from the depression to the stress subscale for better model fit (Wang et al., 2016). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was found to be .93, .81, .81, and .81 for the overall scale, stress, anxiety, and depression subscales, respectively.

Interpersonal Satisfaction (IS)

One item (“To what degree do you feel satisfied with your general interpersonal interaction situation?”) on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied) was used to measure interpersonal satisfaction. The single-item measure has been found reliable and valid for assessing overall satisfaction with life, job, health, and relationships (e.g. Hromatko et al., 2015; 吴 et al., 2011).

Results

Preliminary analysis

The mean scores of frequency for each of the 99 items ranged from 1.37 to 3.31. We wanted the items of the scale to be representative of typical experiences of interpersonal stress of the populations that would be using the ISS. To do this, we deleted 20 items with frequencies lower than 2 (sometimes). Item-total correlations for the remaining 79 items ranged from 0.30 to 0.63 and all of them were significant. Missing value analysis for the remaining items indicated that no item had more than 2% of missing values. The expectation-maximization (EM) method was applied to replace the missing data before conducting the EFA.

First-order EFA

EFA was conducted on the dataset comprised of the 79 high-frequency items in SPSS 18.0. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was found to be significant (p < 0.001). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test for Sampling Adequacy returned a value of 0.88. The MAS values in the anti-image correlation matrix for all items were larger than 0.8. These results indicated the 79 items had adequate correlations for exploring the latent factor structure. The principal components method was conducted to extract the factors and the PROMAX oblique rotation method was applied to rotate the axes in the EFA. Items that (a) had communality lower than 0.4 or loaded less than 0.4 for any factor (45 items), (b) had cross-loadings exceeding 0.4 (three items), and (c) loaded onto a factor comprised of less than three items (four items) were deleted.

Following this process, 27 items remained and five factors were formed (Table 1) explaining 55.77% of the variance for the 27 items. The factors were interaction difficulty (ID, 6 items), behaving as expected (BE, 6 items), social criticism (SC, 5 items), relationship maintenance (RM, 5 items), and indebtedness avoidance (IA, 5 items). ID described stressors related to difficulties in communicating with others or fitting in with surrounding groups (e.g. “Be ignored by surrounding people”). BE described stressors related to efforts in meeting the expectations of others and trying to behave in a socially acceptable manner across interpersonal interactions and activities (e.g. “Take care of a lot of people's feelings”). SC described stressors related to conflict with or negative evaluation from others (e.g. “Others speak ill of me”). RM described stressors related to efforts with investing in significant relationships and maintaining a relational network (e.g. “Maintain important relationships (e.g. friends, lovers, families)”). IA described stressors related to feeling indebted to or guilty for others (e.g. “Cannot fulfill my promises to others”).

Table 1.

Factor loading for exploratory factor analysis of Interpersonal Stressor Scale (ISS).

ISS items	Factor loading
ISS items	ID	BE	SC	RM	IA
Second-order factor: Self-Imposed Stressors	–.07	.88	–.03	.91	.11
Second-order factor: Other-Imposed Stressors	.90	–.01	.93	.00	.86
Factor 1: Interaction Difficulty (ID)
1. Be ignored by surrounding people	.81	–.01	–.16	–.02	–.02
2. Cannot fit in with surrounding small groups	.76	–.10	.04	.04	–.02
3. Cannot get attention and reactions through social media	.72	.10	.01	–.07	–.07
4. Cannot find common ground with others	.72	.04	.18	.08	–.07
5. Cannot communicate well with surrounding people	.58	.01	.11	–.04	.16
6. Do not have things in common with someone I want to know better	.54	–.07	–.02	–.05	.29
Factor 2: Behaving as Expected (BE)
7. Spend time with my teachers/elders/leader	.01	.79	.00	–.03	–.04
8. Ask for advice from others	–.04	.79	–.11	.05	.12
9. Coordinate task distribution	–.04	.75	.14	.00	–.13
10. Speak in public	–.02	.71	–.06	–.16	.12
11. My teachers/elders/leaders are demanding of me	.11	.61	–.02	.05	–.01
12. Take care of a lot of people's feelings	.01	.59	–.01	.19	–.01
Factor 3: Social Criticism (SC)
13. Others speak ill of me	–.06	.06	.85	–.17	–.01
14. Others judge me	–.03	–.03	.85	–.03	.06
15. Have conflicts with others	.08	–.07	.76	.01	–.13
16. Others are unsatisfied with me	.08	–.03	.62	.25	.10
17. Be criticized by others	.03	.03	.54	.02	.21
Factor 4: Relationship Maintenance (RM)
18. Maintain important relationships (e.g. friends, lovers, families)	–.01	–.02	.00	.81	.03
19. Maintain appropriate boundaries with others	.07	–.02	–.17	.78	.10
20. Present well during social interactions	.06	.09	.03	.70	–.21
21. Balance school/work with important relationships (e.g. friends, lovers, families)	–.25	.06	.04	.69	.11
22. Spend time with people who are different (e.g. personality, ways of dealing with things, family background, life experiences) from me	.05	–.02	.09	.61	–.01
Factor 5: Indebtedness Avoidance (IA)
23. Owe others	–.15	–.03	.04	.04	.83
24. Hold others back	.12	–.06	–.07	–.04	.80
25. Reject others (e.g. help from others, requests for help, expressions of intimacy)	–.05	.08	.11	.02	.64
26. Cannot fulfill my promises to others	.09	.07	.20	–.11	.53
27. Get asked undesired questions (e.g. inquiring about my academic performance, job status)	.27	.03	–.14	.10	.49

Note. Factor loading >.40 are in boldface.

Second-order EFA

The correlations among these five factors revealed a potential second-order structure (Table 1). Specifically, ID, SC, and IA were found to have relatively high correlations with each other (.53 < rs < .58) while their correlations with BE and RM were relatively low (.20 < rs < .32). However, BE and RM were found to have a relatively high correlation with each other (r = .56). Further examination of all items that belonged to these five factors also indicated the possible presence of two higher-order factors. One higher-order factor seemed to describe interpersonal stressors arising from the behavior of others such as “be ignored by surrounding people” (ID), “Others speak ill of me” (SC), and “Owe others” (IA). The other high-order factor seemed to describe interpersonal stressors arising from a personal desire to establish or maintain positive relationships such as “Take care of a lot of people's feelings” (BE) and “Maintain appropriate boundaries with others” (RM). Therefore, a second-order EFA was implemented to explore the existence of a potential second-order structure for the newly developed scale.

The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < 0.001), Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test for Sampling Adequacy (0.73), and MAS values in the anti-image correlation matrix (all >0.8) indicated that the five factors had adequate correlations for exploring the second-order factor structure. Using the principal components method and the PROMAX oblique rotation method, two higher-order factors were extracted as expected. The second-order factors explained 77.00% of variance for the first-order factors. We labeled the two second-order factors other-imposed stressors and self-imposed stressors. The other-imposed stressors, describing stressors arising from the behavior of others, comprised of items from the interaction difficulty (ID), social criticism (SC), and indebtedness avoidance (IA) first-order factors. The self-imposed stressors, describing stressors arising from a personal desire to establish positive relationships, comprised of items from the behaving as expected (BE) and relationship maintenance (RM) first-order factors. The loadings of each first-order factor are demonstrated in Table 1.

Reliability and criterion-related validity

Internal consistency reliability was evaluated through Cronbach’s alpha and construct validity was evaluated by calculating Pearson’s correlation coefficients between factors of the ISS and measurements for the related constructs of general stress, general anxiety, depression, social interaction anxiety, and interpersonal satisfaction (Table 2). The internal consistency of the five first-order factors and two second-order factors were all adequate (0.76–0.90).

Table 2.

The means, standard deviation, Cronbach’s α, and criteria-related validity of ISS in two studies.

	Study 2 (n = 511)								Study 3 (n = 330)
	M	SD	α	stress	anxiety	depression	SA	IS	M	SD	α	IS	SISE
BE	2.72	0.78	.82	.12*	.06	–.03	–.11*	–.05	2.78	0.75	.83	.05	.22**
RM	3.09	0.92	.79	.11*	.04	–.07	–.08	–.02	3.05	0.83	.77	–.02	.20**
ID	2.14	0.62	.83	.40**	.42**	.47**	.40**	–.34**	2.29	0.54	.66	–.20**	–.29**
SC	2.90	0.76	.83	.27**	.32**	.30**	.11*	–.13**	2.31	0.59	.76	–.06	–.15**
IA	2.14	0.56	.76	.33**	.37**	.36**	.21**	–.16**	2.32	0.54	.69	–.14**	–.14*
SIS	2.72	0.78	.86	.13**	.06	–.06	–.10*	–.04	2.92	0.71	.87	.01	.24**
OIS	3.09	0.92	.90	.39**	.42**	.44**	.28**	–.25**	2.31	0.48	.86	–.16**	–.22**

SA: social interaction anxiety; IS: interpersonal satisfaction; SISE: social interaction self-efficacy; BE: behaving as expected; RM: relationship maintenance; ID: interaction difficulty; SC: social criticism; IA: indebtedness avoidance; SIS: self-imposed stressors; OIS: other-imposed stressors.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

All five first-order factors of the ISS were significantly and positively correlated with general stress (0.11 < r < 0.40). However, only frequencies for the second-order other-imposed stressors factor and its associated first-order factors (ID, SC, IA) demonstrated significant correlations with general anxiety (0.42, 0.32, 0.37, and 0.43 for ID, SC, IA, and other-imposed stressors, respectively), depression (0.47, 0.30, 0.36, and 0.44 for ID, SC, IA, and other-imposed stressors, respectively), and interpersonal satisfaction (−0.34, −0.13, −0.16, and −0.25 for ID, SC, IA, and other-imposed stressors, respectively). The frequencies for the second-order self-imposed stressors and its associated first-order factors (BE, RM) demonstrated non-significant correlations across the same constructs (−0.07 < r < 0.06).

Study 3

This study was conducted to confirm the factor structure, reliability estimates, and criterion-related validity of the ISS. To validate the bipartite structure found in Study 2, questionnaires were delivered to a new sample with interpersonal satisfaction and social interaction self-efficacy evaluated for criterion-related validity. The other-imposed stressors suggest dysfunctional relationships, which could be associated with a perception of failure in social interaction. Given experiences of failure could lead to low self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986), we hypothesized that the other-imposed stressors be negatively correlated with social interaction self-efficacy. In contrast, the self-imposed stressors should be positively correlated with social interaction self-efficacy. People who demonstrate high self-efficacy are more likely to undertake challenging tasks than those with low self-efficacy (Wood & Bandura, 1989), thus people who have high social interaction self-efficacy should be more likely to pursue high self-initiated demands toward relationship quality than those who have low social interaction self-efficacy. The self-imposed stressors are characterized by self-imposed demands toward good relationships, thus should be positively associated with social interaction self-efficacy.

Methods

Participants

Recruitment followed the process for Study 2 with staff and faculty assistance from two universities in China. 400 questionnaires were delivered to Chinese college students and 371 were retrieved (92.75%). After excluding surveys with missing values for over 50% of the items and straight-lined answers (i.e. 11111), 330 questionnaires remained (89.49%). 214 participants were female-identified, 114 were male-identified, and two participants did not identify gender. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 26 years old (M = 20.52, SD = 1.62).

Measurements

Interpersonal Stressors Scale (ISS)

The second version of the scale consisted of 27 items with 5 first-order factors and 2 second-order factors. Again, items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Subscale scores were calculated by averaging their subordinating items.

Social Interaction Self-Efficacy Scale (SISES)

The SISES (谢 & 张, 2009) was developed to measure the interpersonal self-efficacy of Chinese college students across six domains: intimation efficacy, impression management efficacy, benefit-others efficacy, connection efficacy, mood-control efficacy, and self-value efficacy. A total score calculated by averaging the subscale scores was used in this study. The scale consists of 36 items (e.g. “You usually keep in touch with your friends for years.” and “You always be considerate of others.”) on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = did not apply to me at all; 6 = applied to me very much). The scale has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha was .69, .63, .65, .72, .55, and .70 for the above dimensions, respectively; 谢 & 张, 2009), and has been used frequently for empirical studies in China (e.g. 赵晶 et al., 2016; 汪小容 et al., 2017). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .76 for the total score.

Interpersonal Satisfaction (IS)

Interpersonal satisfaction was evaluated with the same item identified for Study 2.

Results

CFA results

Five potential models were examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with the maximum likelihood parameter estimation method in MPlus 7.4. The first model (M1) is the five-factor model identified in Study 2 without higher-order structure. The second model (M2) is a higher-order model identified in Study 2 with five factors as the first-order structure and two overarching factors as second-order factors. The third model (M3) is a two-factor model with the two factors as the two second-order factors identified in Study 2. The fourth model (M4) is a higher-order model with the same five factors identified in Study 2 as the first-order structure and one overarching factor as second-order factor. The fifth model (M5) is a bi-factor model; the factor structure could be described simultaneously through the same five factors identified in Study 2 and a single factor. The single factor was not super-ordinate to the five specific factors, rather directly associated with the observed interpersonal stressor items.

The model fit results were summarized in Table 3. M1 and M2 fit better than parsimonious versions of alternative models and all indices for models M1 and M2 were acceptable (RMSEA = .047 and .047, CFI = .913 and .912, TLI = .903 and .903, SRMR = .053 and .054). There was no significant difference in model fit between M1 and M2 (Δχ²(4) = 8.34, p > 0.05), suggesting “the higher-order factor is able to accurately reproduce the correlations among lower-order factors” (Credé & Harms, 2015, pg. 852). The average variance extracted (AVE) for the two second-order factors were 0.74 and 0.92 (greater than the 0.5 recommended by Fornell & Larcker, 1981), suggesting that the two second-order factors had high ability to account for variance in the lower-order factors. In addition, M2 was consistent with EFA results from Study 2 identifying the presence of two second-order factors, allowing for deeper interpretation and classification of interpersonal stressors. Thus, we decided to adopt the M2 model for further evaluation.

Table 3.

Comparison of fit indices in potential structural models of the ISS.

Model	χ²			RMSEA		CFI	TLI	SRMR
Model	Value	df	p	Value	95% CI	CFI	TLI	SRMR
M1	541.000	314	2.73	.047	[.040, .053]	.913	.903	.053
M2	549.338	318	1.38	.047	[.040, .053]	.912	.903	.054
M3	696.780	323	<.001	.059	[.053, .065]	.857	.845	.059
M4	665.430	319	<.001	.057	[.051, .063]	.868	.854	.087
M5	790.222	303	<.001	.070	[.064, .076]	.814	.785	.157

RMSEA: root-mean-square error of approximation; CI: confidence interval; AIC: Akaike information criterion; BIC: Bayesian information criterion.

The modification index demonstrated that adding the residual correlation between item 23 (“Owe others”) and item 25 (“Reject others”) could reduce the chi-square by more than 20 points. After adding this residual correlation, the model fit turned out better (χ² (317) = 527.088, p < 0.001, RMSEA = .045, 90% CI [.038, 0.051], CFI = 0.920, TLI = 0.911, SRMR = 0.053); the change of chi-square was significant (χ² (1) = 22.25, p < 0.005) and the increase of CFI and TLI reached 0.01. Inspecting the content of these two items, both were loaded onto the indebtedness avoidance factor and seemed relevant to self-initiated behaviors. In contrast, other stressors for indebtedness avoidance did not seem to involve self-initiated behaviors but rather something like a passive state of being such as “Cannot fulfill my promises to others” or “Get asked undesired questions.” Therefore, adding the residual correlation seemed reasonable and the adjusted model M2 was established as the final model (The final version of the ISS in Chinese was attached as an appendix). In the final model, item loadings ranged from 0.39 to 0.81, and the loadings of the first-order factors ranged from 0.82 to 0.99 (Table 4).

Table 4.

The standardized loadings of the ISS in the final CFA model.

Items/Second-order factors	Loadings	Items/Second-order factors	Loadings
Interaction Difficulty	0.97	Social Criticism	0.92
Item 1	0.46	Item 13	0.80
Item 2	0.39	Item 14	0.70
Item 3	0.44	Item 15	0.42
Item 4	0.51	Item 16	0.57
Item 5	0.61	Item 17	0.67
Item 6	0.57
		Relationship Maintenance	0.90
Behaving as Expected	0.82	Item 18	0.65
Item 7	0.81	Item 19	0.65
Item 8	0.74	Item 20	0.69
Item 9	0.69	Item 21	0.56
Item 10	0.59	Item 22	0.63
Item 11	0.63
Item 12	0.62	Indebtedness Avoidance	0.99
		Item 23	0.52
		Item 24	0.56
		Item 25	0.49
		Item 26	0.56
		Item 27	0.56

Reliability and criterion-related validity

The internal consistency of the five first-order factors and two second-order factors were all satisfactory (0.66–0.87). Relationships between interpersonal stressors and social interaction self-efficacy as well as interpersonal satisfaction are demonstrated in Table 2. The frequency of self-imposed stressors was positively correlated with social interaction self-efficacy (0.22, 0.20, and 0.24 for BE, RM, and self-imposed stressors, respectively) while the frequency of other-imposed stressors was negatively correlated with social interaction self-efficacy (-0.29, -0.15, -0.14, and -0.22 for ID, SC, IA, and other-imposed stressors, respectively). The relationships between each subscale with interpersonal satisfaction were similar to those in Study 2; only the frequency of other-imposed stressors demonstrated significant and negative correlations with interpersonal satisfaction.

Discussion

This study developed a novel measurement tool to more comprehensively evaluate sources of interpersonal stress for Chinese college students. Whereas existing conceptualizations and measurements of interpersonal stress emphasize observable, external events such as interpersonal conflict (Laursen, 2001), harassment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006), and bullying (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018), the Interpersonal Stressors Scale goes beyond just the external to include recognition for self-imposed interpersonal demands contributing to stress. The development of the ISS involved three rigorous studies to establish and confirm its factor structure, reliability, and validity. Focus groups were conducted to create an initial item pool that would be comprehensive and representative of the target population (Mallinckrodt et al., 2016). The results of EFA and CFA in two independent samples indicated the presence of a five-factor structure encapsulating the nature of interpersonal stress more exhaustively (interaction difficulty, behaving as expected, social criticism, relationship maintenance, indebtedness avoidance) with two higher-order factors (self-imposed stressors, other-imposed stressors) to further delineate the initial five categories. The α coefficients across these samples indicate these factors have good internal consistency. Evidence of the comparison among plausible alternative models, the AVE values, and criterion-related validity further indicated the need and validity to differentiate between self-imposed and other-imposed stressors. In sum, preliminary evidence demonstrates that the ISS is a psychometrically sound scale for Chinese college students.

Interpersonal stressors experienced by Chinese college students

Some categories of interpersonal stressors found in the current study are similar to those in previous research, while some of them were fairly novel. For example, stressors about disagreement, aligned with the interaction difficulty factor, have been mentioned in research focusing on Chinese adolescents (Fan et al., 2016) as well as American adults (Hepp et al., 2020). Stressors about feeling criticized by others, aligned with the social criticism factor, have also been investigated in American women (Potter et al., 2002). However, stressors like managing appropriate boundaries (BE), staying in relationships with people who are different (RM), rejecting others, and getting asked undesirable questions (IA) have yet to be explored in-depth when considering interpersonal stress. These stressors become more salient when conceptualizing interpersonal stress through the Transactional Model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) which emphasizes the role of self-appraisal intersecting with external interpersonal demands. When an individual perceives interpersonal demands as exceeding the resources they have available to cope, then those demands become perceived as stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). With the Transactional Model, interpersonal demands not only constitute situations of explicit disagreement or harm, such as conflict or bullying but also internalized concerns such as the need to meet expectations of others or to maintain relationships. Thus, the Transactional Model opens the door for the inclusion of more self-initiated experiences of interpersonal stressors.

The distinction between other-imposed stressors and self-imposed stressors

This study also identified a category of self-imposed stressors through factor analysis and criterion-related validity tests that extend beyond traditional conceptualizations of interpersonal issues such as conflict and the other-imposed stressors found in this study. The self-imposed stressors did not significantly correlate with anxiety, depression, and interpersonal satisfaction, while the other-imposed stressors were positively correlated with anxiety and depression and negatively correlated with interpersonal satisfaction. In addition, the self-imposed stressors had positive relationships with social interaction self-efficacy whileother-imposed stressors had negative relationships with it. These results suggested that the self-imposed stressors may be a double-edged sword. Having self-imposed stressors could indicate functional conditions of individuals’ interpersonal interaction such as having high social interaction self-efficacy so to actively pursue good relationships, but could also indicate dysfunctional conditions if one’s demands for good relationships were overly high or irrational so to cause the feeling of helplessness and overwhelming stress. Therefore, self-imposed stressors may have a more complex mechanism than other-imposed stressors do and their effects on people's mental health may be moderated by other factors, for example, the feasibility and rationality of one’s self-standards for relationships.

These self-imposed stressors are similar to, though not completely aligned with, the relatively new and controversial concept of challenge-related stress (CS; Cavanaugh et al., 2000). The challenge-hindrance stress model (Cavanaugh et al., 2000) separated workplace stress into hindrance-related stress (HS) and challenge-related stress (CS). HS consistent with more traditional descriptions of stressors, referring to the “stress associated with job demands or work circumstances that involve excessive or undesirable constraints that interfere with or hinder an individual's ability to achieve valued goals” (Cavanaugh et al., 2000, pg. 3). CS is associated with job demands that are “pressure-laden and stressful” but “viewed as rewarding work experiences well worth the discomfort that was involved” (Cavanaugh et al., 2000, pg. 2). In a meta-analysis evaluating this model (Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019), differences between HS and CS were identified through the outcome variables of performance, organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, intent to quit, job search, positive affect, and engagement.

The self-imposed stressors identified in this study are similar to CS in that they had not as negative relationships with mental health variables as the traditionally conceptualized stressors did. However, there are distinctions to be made between them. One such distinction is that self-imposed stressors are defined through more practical parameters with neutral ways (i.e. behave as expected) rather than the broader characterization of challenge or hindrance. While CS takes some account of individual appraisals, defining specific stressors as “challenges” or “hindrances” fundamentally assumes that everyone evaluates challenge and hindrance in the same way and does so with consistency across different situations (Mazzola & Disselhorst, 2019). We agree that certain stressors can be identified as a challenge or hindrance, but those are not features that are inherent to stressors. Rather, the perception of and resources available to cope for any given interpersonal demand will influence whether a given experience skews more positive (CS) or negative (HS). Furthermore, differences between self-imposed stressors and other-imposed stressors are less clearly delineated as with CS and HS through their relationships with specific outcome variables (i.e. performance) and fewer assumptions can be made about whether self-imposed stressors have positive impacts on specific outcomes. Further research on the effects of self-imposed versus other-imposed stressors on specific outcome variables would be beneficial.

Practical implications

The ISS is able to identify the significance of various interpersonal stressors impacting individuals. The scores of items can be used to understand both the relative and normative tension of specific stressors manifesting for an individual while the scores of the 5 first-order and 2 second-order factors can be used to conceptualize abstract subtypes for how individuals experience interpersonal stress. Thus, the ISS is suitable to be used for facilitating self-awareness about interpersonal dynamics or for gathering more information about interpersonal functioning in counseling.

In this study, the results demonstrated that the other-imposed and self-imposed interpersonal stressors were different in underlying demands (i.e. coping with the behaviors of others versus a personal desire to pursue better relationships) and related differently to outcomes (adaptive patterns vs. maladaptive patterns of interaction). These results indicate that folks navigating the presence of other-imposed or self-imposed stressors should be met with different strategies for coping with their situations. People with self-imposed stressors may need to adjust their interpersonal goals and change some underlying beliefs such as “I should meet everyone’s needs” while people with other-imposed stressors may need more assistance with relational differentiation or positive coping strategies such as how to establish strong boundaries.

Limitations and future directions

The ISS items were generated based on relevant life experiences for Chinese college students and selected according to the frequencies of the empirical data and the results of factor analysis. This process was conducted to ensure the typicality, reliability, and validity of the ISS items as well as the theoretical comprehensibility of each subscale. However, items that were screened out could offer further valuable information. For example, social comparison and competition are thoroughly integrated into the culture of relationships for Chinese college students (Li et al., 2005; Xu & Fang, 2008), but in this study, there were not enough items relevant to these considerations to constitute a valid factor and so they were removed from the ISS. When considering the practical implications of the ISS, some caution may need to be exercised so as to not dismiss the presence of other potential interpersonal stressors that could be impacting individuals using this measurement tool, although the ISS does include a wide breadth of typical stressors for Chinese college students.

Another limitation refers to the external validity of this study. The ISS is suitable for Chinese college students. However, it is unknown whether the ISS is applicable for college students in other cultures or people who are not college students. Since interpersonal stressors may be diverse for different cultures and populations in different life stages or occupations, it would be beneficial to use bottom-up approach to investigate the interpersonal stressors for other populations and this study provided a method reference.

With the development of this scale, new research questions come out and more information might be found about the intersection of social functioning and mental health. Longitudinal researches about the precursors (e.g. personality, attachment, parenting, social support et al) and outcomes of the self-imposed and other-imposed stressors would provide deeper understandings of the mechanisms of people’s interpersonal functioning. Based on the dichotomy of interpersonal stressors, person-centered approach (e.g. latent profile analysis) could be used to identify groups with different compositions of interpersonal stressors and then to investigate the predictors and outcomes for these groups. These researches can help to explain how to identify at-risk students experiencing negative outcomes from different kinds of interpersonal stressors. Based on that, further studies could explore what strategies might be optimal to develop for successfully coping with each stressor. With the greater depth of knowledge obtained from using this scale and from future research observing the effects of various coping strategies targeted towards specific stressors, better mental health outcomes might be observed in counseling and school counseling practice.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China [grant number is 15ZDB139].

ORCID iDs

Danni Wang

Zhi-jin Hou

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Danni Wang, currently is a doctoral student in counseling psychology at Beijing Normal University. She got her Bachelor degree of Science in psychology major in 2013 and Master of Education in counseling psychology in 2016 both at Beijing Normal University. She primarily focus her research on self-regulation, coping and career development. Danni could be reached at bnuwdn@163.com.

Lu Tian, obtained her Ph.D. in counseling psychology at University of Missouri-Columbia. She currently is an associate professor at University of Northern Colorado and her main research interests include proactive coping, cross-cultural coping, and transitional coping for international students and immigrants.

Zhi jin Hou, got her Ph.D. in counseling program from Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2002. Currently she is a full professor in Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University. Her research interests include career development of adolescents, parent-child relationship and counseling process.

Jiang-Ping Zhou, got her Bachelor degree of Science in psychology in 2016 and her Master of Education in counseling psychology in 2019 at Beijing Normal University. Currently she is a mental health teacher in a high school in Shen Zhen, China.

Adam Zhao, is Counseling Psychology doctoral student at the University of Northern Colorado. Zhao got a B.S. dual degree in Psychology and Neurobiology & Physiology from the University of Maryland, College Park in 2015.

Hang Zhang, is currently a 1st year doctoral student in Developmental Psychology at Beijing Normal University. She gained a master’s degree of Counseling psychology in 2020 with Dr. Zhi-Jin Hou.

References

Aanes

M. M.

Mittelmark

M. B.

Hetland

(2010). Interpersonal stress and poor health: The mediating role of loneliness. European Psychologist, 15(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000003

Aquino

Lamertz

(2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1023

Azmitia

Syed

Radmacher

(2013). Finding your niche: Identity and emotional support in emerging adults' adjustment to the transition to college. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(4), 744–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12037

Bandura

(1986). Self-efficacy. In Bandura

(Ed.), Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (pp.390–453). Prentice–Hall.

Barki

Hartwick

(2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022913

Bowling

N. A.

Beehr

T. A.

(2006). Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998

Byers

P. Y.

Zeller

R. A.

Byers

B. D.

(2002). Focus group method. In Wiederman

M. W.

Whitley

B. E.

, Jr. (Eds.), Handbook for conducting research on human sexuality (pp. 173–193). Erlbaum.

Byrne

D. G.

Davenport

Mazanov

(2007). Profiles of adolescent stress: The development of the adolescent stress questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.004

Cavanaugh

M. A.

Boswell

W. R.

Roehling

M. V.

Boudreau

J. W.

(2000). An empirical examination of self‐reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021‐9C10.85.1.65

10.

Chun

C. A.

Moos

R. H.

Cronkite

R. C.

(2006). Culture: A fundamental context for the stress and coping paradigm. In Wong

P. T. P.

Wong

L. C. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 29–53). Springer.

11.

Cohen

Kessler

R. C.

Gordon

L. U.

(1995). Strategies for measuring stress in studies of psychiatric and physical disorders. In Cohen

Kessler

R. C.

Gordon

L. U.

(Eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 3–26). Oxford University Press.

12.

Coiro

M. J.

Bettis

A. H.

Compas

B. E.

(2017). College students coping with interpersonal stress: Examining a control-based model of coping. Journal of American College Health, 65(3), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2016.1266641

13.

Credé

Harms

P. D.

(2015). 25 Years of higher‐order confirmatory factor analysis in the organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 845–872. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2008

14.

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(2010). The concept of bullying and harassment at work. The European tradition. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace (pp. 3–39). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/ebk1439804896-3

15.

Eisenberger

N. I.

Lieberman

M. D.

Williams

K. D.

(2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science (New York, N.Y.), 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134

16.

Essau

C. A.

Leung

P. W. L.

Koydemir

Sasagawa

O'Callaghan

Bray

(2012). The impact of self-construals and perceived social norms on social anxiety in young adults: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Culture and Mental Health, 5(2), 109–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17542863.2011.563049

17.

Fan

Chu

Wang

Zhou

(2016). Interpersonal stressors in the schoolyard and depressive symptoms among Chinese adolescents: The mediating roles of rumination and co-rumination. School Psychology International, 37(6), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316678447

18.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

19.

Gabrenya

W. K.

Hwang

K. K.

(1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony and hierarchy on the good earth. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 309–321). Oxford University Press.

20.

Hepp

Lane

S. P.

Carpenter

R. W.

Trull

T. J.

(2020). Linking daily-life interpersonal stressors and health problems via affective reactivity in borderline personality and depressive disorders. Psychosomatic Medicine, 82(1), 90–98.

21.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture's recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 11–17.

22.

Hoyt

W. T.

Mallinckrodt

(2012). Improving the quality of research in counseling psychology: Conceptual and methodological issues. In Fouad

N. A.

Carter

J. A.

Subich

L. M.

(Eds.), APA handbook of counseling psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 31–57). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13754-003

23.

Hromatko

Bajoghli

Rebernjak

Joshaghani

Tadinac

(2015). Relationship satisfaction as a function of mate value. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(4), 242–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000055

24.

Krueger

A. R.

Casey

A. M.

(2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE.

25.

Laursen

(2001). Conflict and socioemotional development. In Smelser

N. J.

Baltes

P. B.

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 2535–2537). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01677-6

26.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

27.

Leung

S. A.

Hou

Z. J.

Gati

X.-X.

(2011). Effects of parental expectations and cultural-values orientation on career decision-making difficulties of Chinese University students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(1), 11–20.

28.

Levenstein

Prantera

Varvo

Scribano

M. L.

Berto

Luzi

Andreoli

(1993). Development of the Perceived Stress Questionnaire: A new tool for psychosomatic research. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 37(1), 19–32.

29.

Lin

Bray

M. A.

Kehle

T. J.

(2005). The measurement of stressful events in Chinese college students. Psychology in the Schools, 42(3), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20082

30.

Liu

Nauta

M. M.

Spector

P. E.

(2008). Direct and indirect conflicts at work in China and the US: A cross-cultural comparison. Work & Stress, 22(4), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802573984

31.

Lovibond

S. H.

Lovibond

P. F.

(1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. Psychology Foundation.

32.

Mallinckrodt

Miles

J. R.

Recabarren

D. A.

(2016). Using focus groups and Rasch item response theory to improve instrument development. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(2), 146–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000015596437

33.

Mattick

R. P.

Clarke

J. C.

(1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 455–470.

34.

Mazzola

J. J.

Disselhorst

(2019). Should we be “challenging” employees?: A critical review and meta‐analysis of the challenge‐hindrance model of stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 949–961. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2412

35.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.

36.

牟, 玉荣.

马, 俊云.

(2016). 农业院校大学生心理压力及应对方式调查研究 [Investigation on the psychological stress and coping style of agricultural college students]. 教育教学论坛, 47, 91–92.

37.

National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2021, May 11). 第七次全国人口普查公报 [Reports of the 7th national census]. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/202105/t20210510_1817178.html

38.

Nielsen

M. B.

Einarsen

S. V.

(2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.007

39.

Park

S. H.

Luo

(2001). Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.167

40.

Podolefsky

Brown

P. J.

(1999). Applying anthropology (5th ed.). Mayfield Publishing.

41.

Potter

P. T.

Smith

B. W.

Strobel

K. R.

Zautra

A. J.

(2002). Interpersonal workplace stressors and well-being: A multi-wave study of employees with and without arthritis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 789–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.789

42.

Siegel

D. M.

Burke

T. A.

Hamilton

J. L.

Piccirillo

M. L.

Scharff

Alloy

L. B.

(2018). Social anxiety and interpersonal stress generation: The moderating role of interpersonal distress. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 31(5), 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1482723

43.

Tabak

B. A.

Vrshek-Schallhorn

Zinbarg

R. E.

Prenoveau

J. M.

Mineka

Redei

E. E.

Adam

E. K.

Craske

M. G.

(2016). Interaction of CD38 variant and chronic interpersonal stress prospectively predicts social anxiety and depression symptoms over 6 years. Clinical Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 4(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702615577470

44.

Ulijn

Rutkowski

A. F.

Kumar

Zhu

(2005). Patterns of feelings in face-to-face negotiation: A Sino-Dutch pilot study. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600510798097

45.

Van Orden

K. A.

Witte

T. K.

Cukrowicz

K. C.

Braithwaite

S. R.

Selby

E. A.

Joiner

T. E.

Jr , (2010). The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychological Review, 117(2), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018697

46.

Wang

Shi

H.-S.

Geng

F.-L.

Zou

L.-Q.

Tan

S.-P.

Wang

Neumann

D. L.

Shum

D. H. K.

Chan

R. C. K.

(2016). Cross-cultural validation of the depression anxiety stress scale-21 in china. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), e88–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000207

47.

Wang

L. F.

Heppner

P. P.

(2002). Assessing the impact of parental expectations and psychological distress on Taiwanese college students. The Counseling Psychologist, 30(4), 582–608.

48.

汪, 小容., 苟, 亚春., 刘, 孝琼., & 黄, 之恒. (2017). 大学生人际交往现状及对策研究 [Research on the current situation and countermeasures of college students’ interpersonal communication]. 教育与教学研究, (11), 68–74.

49.

Wood

R. E.

Bandura

(1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407–415.

50.

吴, 志雄., 邱, 鸿钟., & 龚, 文进. (2011). 大学生自我接纳与人际信任、人际关系满意度的相关性研究 [Study on the relationships among college students' self-acceptance, interpersonal trust and interpersonal relationship satisfaction]. 中国健康心理学杂志, 19(12), 1496–1497.

51.

Xie

Leong

F. T. L.

Feng

(2008). Culture-specific personality correlates of anxiety among Chinese and Caucasian college students. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(2), 163–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.00253.x

52.

Xin

K. R.

Pearce

J. L.

(1996). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1641–1658.

53.

谢, 晶., & 张, 厚粲. (2009). 大学生人际交往效能感的理论构念与测量 [Theoretical construction and measurement of college students’ interpersonal contact efficacy]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 17(3), 330–332.

54.

Fang

(2008). An analysis on stress sources and coping strategies among agriculture-related impoverished undergraduates. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University (Social Science Edition), 17(5), 126–132.

55.

Zautra

A. J.

Guarnaccia

C. A.

Dohrenwend

B. P.

(1986). Measuring minor life events. American Journal of Community Psychology , 14(6), 629–655.

56.

叶, 冬梅., 钱, 铭怡., 刘, 兴华., & 陈, 曦. (2007). 社会交往焦虑量表和社交恐惧量表的修订 [Revision of social interaction anxiety scale and social phobia scale]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 15(2), 9–11.

57.

Zhong

Wang

Qian

Zhang

Gao

Yang

Chen

(2008). Shame, personality, and social anxiety symptoms in Chinese and American nonclinical samples: A cross-cultural study. Depression and Anxiety, 25(5), 449–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.20358

58.

Zych

Ortega-Ruiz

Del Rey

(2015). Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001

59.

赵, 晶., 郑, 林科., 肖, 琼., 董, 建红., & 魏, 晓言. (2016). 大学生成人依恋与人际交往效能 [Relationship between adult attachment and interpersonal contact efficacy in college students]. 中国健康心理学杂志, 24(1), 112–115.

60.

赵, 燕., 许, 新刚., & 郝, 红艳. (2019). 高职大学生心理压力状况调查与分析 [Investigation and analysis of psychological stress of college students]. 现代交际, ▪(19), 40–42.