Anxiety Among Young Adults: Its Impact on Well-Being and the Role of

Coping levels

Vineeta Dr. Sonali kondal

UID: 23MHY10034 Department of

Psychology

Masters Student Assistant

Professor

Chandigarh University Chandigarh

University

Abstract

The aim of this present study to examine the impact of anxiety on well-being among young
adult and explore the role of coping levels . A total of 200 students (100 from engineering and
100 from non-engineering streams) from the Tricity. region (Chandigarh, Mohali, Panchkula)
participated in this study. Standardised tools used State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger,
1972), the WHO-5 Well-being Index, and the Coping Scale (Hamby, Grych, & Banyard,
2013). Data were analyzed using Python’s pandas library, employing descriptive statistics,
Pearson correlation, and t-tests revealed a significant negative correlation between anxiety
and well-being. Students who went through higher levels of anxiety often showed to have
lower well-being scores. However ,this wasn’t the case across the board. Those who had
strong coping skills managed their anxiety more effectively—their sense of well-being
remained relatively stable, during challenging times. These findings underscore the
importance of strong coping for mental health and highlight the value of integrating coping
skills training into university mental health services to support students’ holistic well-being.

Keywords: Anxiety, Coping , Well-being , engineering, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.

Introduction

Anxiety has become increasingly prevalent among young adults in college settings, raising
serious concerns for academic performance and mental health. A recent umbrella review
reported that the overall prevalence of anxiety among college and university students has a
median of about 32%, with estimates ranging up to 55% in some samples. Such high rates
make anxiety one of the most critical issues faced by today’s students. The college years
coincide with late adolescence and emerging adulthood, a developmental stage marked by
major social and emotional changes and academic challenges. These pressures can contribute
to elevated stress and anxiety, which in turn can undermine students’ well-being. Competitive
academic environments—especially in demanding professional courses—are often associated
with chronic stress. For example, engineering and medical students frequently report high
stress levels compared to peers in other fields. Indeed, engineering students may be at higher
risk of stress-related health problems than students in many other disciplines. This context
makes it important to understand how anxiety impacts well-being in student populations, and
whether certain factors can buffer its negative effects.

Psychological well-being refers to an individual’s subjective assessment of their mental and

emotional health, including facets such as life satisfaction, positive mood, and optimal
functioning. Prior research has consistently found that higher anxiety is associated with lower
well-being in young people. Students with elevated anxiety tend to report poorer life
satisfaction and motivation, and difficulties in social and academic functioning, compared to
their less anxious counterparts. Persistent anxiety not only causes personal distress but can
also lead to serious outcomes such as academic failure or even suicidal ideation if left
unmitigated. Understanding factors that might alleviate this harmful impact is therefore of
both theoretical and practical importance.

Coping skills are one set of factors that may moderate the relationship between anxiety and
well-being. According to Lazarus and Folkman’s stress and coping theory, coping
encompasses the cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage internal or external stressors.
Effective, adaptive coping strategies (e.g. active problem-solving, emotional regulation, and
seeking social support) can act as psychological buffers that protect individuals from the full
impact of stress and anxiety. Empirical studies have shown that positive or active coping
styles are associated with better mental health and higher well-being among students. In
contrast, maladaptive coping responses such as avoidance and denial are linked to poorer
outcomes, including heightened anxiety and emotional distress. Thus, students who can draw
on constructive coping mechanisms might maintain relatively stable well-being even in the
face of high anxiety, whereas those with poor coping skills may experience greater declines
in well-being under stress.

In the Indian academic context, and particularly in the Tricity region (Chandigarh, Mohali,
Panchkula), rigorous programs like engineering are perceived to impose heavy workloads and
intense performance pressure on students. It remains an open question, however, whether
students in such high-pressure courses actually exhibit higher anxiety or lower well-being
than students in other streams. Empirical evidence on academic stream differences in mental
health is limited and not always consistent. Some studies suggest that all students, regardless
of major, are vulnerable to mental health challenges in today’s competitive academic climate.
Given this background, it is valuable to examine whether engineering students differ from
non-engineering students in anxiety and well-being levels, or if these issues are pervasive
across disciplines.

Current Study and Hypotheses: The present study investigated the relationship between
anxiety and well-being in a sample of college students, with a specific focus on the role of
coping mechanisms. We also compared anxiety and well-being between students from
engineering and non-engineering academic backgrounds. Based on the literature, we
hypothesized that anxiety would be negatively associated with well-being, and that effective
coping strategies would buffer (moderate) the negative impact of anxiety on well-being. We
further hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in anxiety or well-being
levels between engineering and non-engineering students, given that both groups experience
substantial academic stress. By testing these hypotheses, the study aims to contribute to our
understanding of how coping can protect mental health in young adults and to inform campus
mental health interventions.

Method

Participants
Participants were 200 college students between 18 and 25 years old, recruited from various
institutions in the Tricity region of North India (Chandigarh, Panchkula, and Mohali). The
sample was evenly split by academic stream, with 100 students from engineering programs
and 100 from non-engineering programs (e.g. arts, sciences, commerce). The gender
distribution was approximately balanced (48% male, 52% female). Most participants were
undergraduates (with a few postgraduates) and came from middle-class backgrounds. All
participants had a functional command of English, as the measures were administered in
English. Inclusion criteria required that students be currently enrolled in a college program in
the specified age range and provide informed consent. Students who provided incomplete
questionnaire responses were excluded from the study.

A target sample size of 200 was determined a priori to ensure adequate statistical power. A
power analysis using G*Power software indicated that a sample of about 103 would be
needed to detect a moderate effect size (f^2 ≈ 0.15) in a regression-based moderation model
with α = .05 and power (1–β) = 0.80. The final sample of N = 200 thus provided sufficient
power for detecting medium effects and allowed more precise estimation of correlations and
group differences with narrow confidence intervals.

We employed a non-probability purposive sampling strategy to select students from both

engineering and non-engineering streams. Participants were recruited through multiple
channels, including faculty referrals, student counselors, online college forums, and word-of-
mouth. Data collection took place between February 25 and April 5, 2024. Students
participated either in person or online, according to their convenience. For in-person data
collection, surveys were administered in quiet settings on campus (such as classrooms and
library spaces) with permission from the institution. Additionally, an online survey (using
Google Forms) was circulated for students who preferred to participate remotely.

All participants provided informed consent before taking part in the study. They were assured
of confidentiality and anonymity of their responses, and informed that participation was
voluntary and they could withdraw at any time without penalty. No monetary or course credit
incentives were offered for participation; instead, participants were debriefed about the
purpose of the study and given contact information for campus counseling services in case
the survey raised any personal concerns. Administration of the questionnaires took about 20–
25 minutes per student. To minimize missing data, participants were instructed to complete
all items in one sitting and were reminded to answer every question. The study procedures
were reviewed and approved by the institutional ethics committee of the university.

Anxiety: Anxiety levels were measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).
The STAI is a well-established self-report questionnaire that assesses two dimensions of
anxiety: state anxiety (transitory anxiety in a given moment) and trait anxiety (general
propensity to be anxious). In this study, we focused on the trait anxiety scale to gauge
participants’ typical anxiety levels. The STAI consists of 40 items (20 for state anxiety and
20 for trait anxiety) rated on a 4-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate greater anxiety.
The STAI has demonstrated good reliability and validity in college populations; for example,
its internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) is around 0.90 for the trait subscale in prior studies. In
our sample, the STAI was administered in English (which participants were proficient in),
and the trait anxiety score was used as the overall anxiety measure.

Well-Being: Psychological well-being was assessed with the World Health Organization-5
Well-Being Index (WHO-5). The WHO-5 is a brief 5-item scale developed by the WHO to
measure subjective well-being in terms of positive mood, vitality, and general interests.
Participants rate each item (e.g. “I have felt cheerful and in good spirits”) according to how
they felt over the past two weeks, using a 6-point scale from 0 (“At no time”) to 5 (“All of the
time”). Total scores range from 0 to 25, with higher scores indicating better well-being.
Despite its brevity, the WHO-5 has been shown to have sound psychometric properties and is
often used as a screening tool for well-being or depression. In this study, the WHO-5
demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s α ≈ 0.84 in prior research) and provided a
unidimensional index of each student’s current well-being.

Coping: Coping ability was measured using the Coping Scale by Hamby, Grych, and
Banyard. This is a 13-item questionnaire that assesses the cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral strategies individuals use to deal with problems (partially adapted from earlier
coping inventories by Holahan & Moos and others). Participants respond on a 4-point Likert
scale (1 = “Not true at all” to 4 = “Mostly true”) to statements about how they handle stress
(e.g. “I try to think of different ways to solve the problem” or “I tend to avoid dealing with
the situation”). The Coping Scale yields an overall coping score, with higher scores reflecting
a greater use of adaptive coping strategies. Previous studies using this scale have reported
good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ≈ 0.88). In the present sample, the coping scale also
showed good reliability. This measure does not differentiate specific coping styles in separate
subscales; rather, it provides a global indicator of an individual’s level of coping skills or
resilience in the face of stress.

In addition to these primary measures, we collected basic demographic information (age,

gender) and recorded each participant’s academic stream (engineering or non-engineering) as
a grouping variable. Academic stream was treated as a quasi-independent variable to compare
groups, while age and gender were used for descriptive purposes. No other psychological
scales or biomarkers were included in the study.

All data were analyzed using Python (with pandas library ) and SPSS syntax for verification.
Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) were computed for all key variables.
Pearson’s product-moment correlation analysis was conducted to examine the bivariate
relationships between anxiety, well-being, and coping. To test group differences,
independent-samples t-tests compared engineering and non-engineering students on anxiety
and well-being. For all inferential tests, a significance level of α = .05 (two-tailed) was used.
Effect sizes were calculated for the t-tests (Cohen’s d) and interpreted following conventional
benchmarks (with d ≈ 0.2 as small, 0.5 medium). Although a formal moderation analysis (e.g.
using multiple regression) was considered to test the buffering effect of coping, the key
moderation pattern was evaluated by examining the correlation results and subgroup
comparisons on well-being at different coping levels. All statistical assumptions (normality,
homogeneity of variances) were checked; the distributions of anxiety, well-being, and coping
scores did not show severe departures from normality.

Results

Descriptive Statistics: Participants’ scores on the anxiety, well-being, and coping measures
indicated moderate levels of anxiety and well-being on average. The mean trait anxiety score
(STAI) in the total sample was M = 45.62 (SD = 9.57). For context, this mean falls in the
moderate range of the STAI, suggesting that, on average, students experienced a fair amount
of anxiety. The mean well-being score (WHO-5) was M = 14.80 (SD = 4.69) out of 25,
which corresponds to moderate subjective well-being (a score below 13 on this scale can
indicate risk of poor well-being, whereas our sample mean was slightly above that threshold).
The average coping score was M = 35.28 (SD = 6.10) out of a maximum of 52 (13 items ×
4), indicating a moderate to high use of coping strategies overall. These aggregate statistics
are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Key Variables (N = 200)

Variable Mean (M) Standard Deviation (SD)

Anxiety (STAI score) 45.62 9.57
Well-Being (WHO-5 score) 14.8 4.69
Coping (total score) 35.28 6.1

Correlation Analysis: Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to evaluate the

associations among anxiety, well-being, and coping (see Table 2 for correlations). The results
revealed a significant negative correlation between anxiety and well-being (r = –0.45, p
< .01). This indicates that students with higher anxiety tended to report lower levels of
psychological well-being, supporting our first hypothesis. The magnitude of this correlation
(approximately 0.45) is in the moderate range, suggesting a substantial inverse relationship
between these variables. There was also a significant positive correlation between coping
and well-being (r = +0.41, p < .01), meaning students who reported better coping skills also
tended to have higher well-being. In addition, anxiety and coping were negatively
correlated (r = –0.39, p < .01), indicating that those with greater coping abilities had
somewhat lower anxiety levels. All three correlations were statistically significant at the 0.01
level. Together, these findings suggest that anxiety, well-being, and coping are interrelated in
expected ways: high anxiety co-occurs with low well-being, whereas effective coping co-
occurs with higher well-being and lower anxiety.

Table 2. Pearson Correlations Among Anxiety, Well-Being, and Coping

Variables Anxiety Well- Coping

Being
Anxiety (STAI) – –0.45** –0.39**
Well-Being (WHO- –0.45** – +0.41**
5)
Coping (Total) –0.39** +0.41** –

Note: p<0.01 for all correlations (two-tailed).

These correlation results provide initial evidence for the hypothesized relationships. In
particular, the inverse association between anxiety and well-being is consistent with prior
research linking higher anxiety to poorer mental health outcomes. The positive link between
coping and well-being supports the notion that students who employ adaptive coping
strategies experience better well-being. Moreover, the negative correlation between coping
and anxiety implies that good copers may manage to keep their anxiety levels lower.

Group Comparisons (Engineering vs. Non-Engineering): An independent-samples t-test

was conducted to compare the mean anxiety scores of engineering students (n = 100) and
non-engineering students (n = 100). The difference in anxiety was not statistically significant,
t(198) = 0.09, p = .93 (mean_anxiety_engineering = 45.72, mean_anxiety_non-eng = 45.52;
essentially identical). Similarly, a t-test for well-being scores showed no significant
difference between engineering (M = 14.60) and non-engineering students (M = 15.00),
t(198) = –0.83, p = .409. Thus, students in engineering programs did not differ
significantly in either anxiety or well-being compared to students in other fields,
contrary to any expectation that engineering students might be worse off. The 95%
confidence intervals for the mean differences included zero in both cases, and the effect sizes
were very small (d < 0.1), indicating negligible practical differences. These results support
our third hypothesis that the levels of anxiety and well-being are comparable across the two
academic streams.

Although we hypothesized no group differences, it is notable that the lack of difference

suggests the mental health challenges measured (anxiety and reduced well-being) are
common to students irrespective of their discipline. In other words, both engineering and
non-engineering students in this sample experienced similar average anxiety and well-being,
reflecting the broad impact of student stress across fields. This finding aligns with the notion
that competitive academic environments in general can elevate student anxiety, not only
those traditionally considered high-pressure like engineering or medicine. It appears that in
the present context, being an engineering student did not confer additional risk for anxiety or
lowered well-being relative to other students.

Moderating Role of Coping: While a formal moderation test was not conducted through an
interaction term, the pattern of correlations provides insight into coping’s potential buffering
effect. The key observation is that some students with high anxiety still reported moderate or
high well-being, and these students tended to have above-average coping scores. In contrast,
among students with poor coping skills, even moderate levels of anxiety corresponded with
notably low well-being. This pattern is illustrated by the significant correlations: anxiety was
less strongly related to well-being for those high in coping (partialing out coping reduced the
anxiety–well-being correlation). We can infer that coping likely played a moderating role,
wherein students with stronger coping skills did not experience as steep a decline in well-
being at higher anxiety levels. To illustrate, simple split-group analyses showed that the
correlation between anxiety and well-being was more negative among students with low
coping scores than among those with high coping scores (though these analyses are
exploratory). Thus, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that effective coping
attenuates the harmful impact of anxiety on well-being. This finding will be further examined
in the discussion.

Discussion

This study set out to investigate the link between anxiety and well-being in young adult
students, and to determine whether coping mechanisms mitigate the negative effects of
anxiety. We also explored differences between engineering and non-engineering students.
The findings largely support our hypotheses and offer insights relevant to student mental
health theory and practice.

Anxiety and Well-Being: Consistent with prior research and our predictions, we found that
higher anxiety was significantly associated with lower psychological well-being. The
moderate negative correlation (r ≈ –0.45) indicates that students who report intense or
frequent anxiety symptoms tend to also report diminished well-being – for example, they
likely feel less satisfied with life and experience fewer positive feelings. This result reinforces
a substantial body of evidence linking anxiety to adverse mental health outcomes in college
populations. It echoes the findings of Nagaraj (2017), who observed an inverse relationship
between anxiety and well-being in adults, and other studies that document how excessive
anxiety can impair life satisfaction and daily functioning. In the context of college students,
heightened anxiety might stem from academic pressures, uncertainty about the future, or
social challenges, and our results confirm that these anxieties have a tangible toll on students’
subjective well-being. Over time, if anxiety becomes chronic, it could potentially lead to
more severe problems like depression or burnout. The cross-sectional nature of our data
cannot establish causality, but it is plausible that anxiety contributes to poorer well-being
(e.g. through stress hormones or negative thought patterns reducing happiness) and
conversely that students with low well-being may become more anxious (e.g. if they lack
positive emotional resources, they might cope less effectively with stress).

Role of Coping : A central finding of this study is the apparent buffering role of coping in
the anxiety–well-being relationship. We found that coping skills were positively correlated
with well-being and negatively correlated with anxiety. More importantly, students with high
coping skills did not show as strong a trade-off between anxiety and well-being as those with
weaker coping skills. In practical terms, this suggests that effective coping strategies can
protect or preserve well-being even when a student is experiencing significant anxiety.
This result is in line with classic theoretical models of stress and coping. Lazarus and
Folkman’s (1984) transactional theory posits that when individuals appraise stressors, those
with better coping resources can manage the demands more successfully, thus reducing the
impact of stress on their well-being. Our data provide empirical support for this framework in
a college student sample: those who endorsed using active or adaptive coping (e.g. planning,
seeking support, positive reframing) tended to maintain higher well-being despite anxiety. In
contrast, those lacking coping strategies (or perhaps relying on maladaptive strategies like
avoidance) showed the expected inverse relationship between anxiety and well-being more
strongly. These findings align with other research emphasizing that coping moderates mental
health outcomes. For instance, active coping and problem-solving are associated with
better psychological outcomes under stress, whereas avoidance coping exacerbates anxiety
and distress. By demonstrating a moderating pattern, our study highlights the importance of
strengthening coping skills as a means to bolster student resilience.

It should be noted that we inferred moderation from correlation patterns; a more rigorous test
(such as an interaction term in regression) would be needed to statistically confirm coping as
a moderator. Nevertheless, the evidence is suggestive: coping emerges as a beneficial factor
that accompanies lower anxiety and higher well-being. Future longitudinal research could
examine if teaching coping skills to highly anxious students leads to improvements in their
well-being over time, which would more directly test the causal moderating effect.

Engineering vs. Non-Engineering Students: An interesting outcome of this study was that
no significant differences were found between engineering and non-engineering students
on either anxiety or well-being. We had hypothesized null differences, and the results support
that hypothesis. This finding implies that students in engineering programs were, on average,
just as anxious and just as happy/unhappy as students in other academic streams. This runs
somewhat counter to a popular assumption that engineering students (or other professional
course students) face uniquely high stress that might translate into higher anxiety or poorer
well-being. Our results suggest that the mental health burden in college is widespread and not
confined to any one type of program. One possible explanation is that while engineering
students do experience substantial academic stress, students in other fields face stressors of
their own (such as uncertain career prospects, heavy coursework in sciences or humanities,
etc.), leveling out the overall anxiety levels. Additionally, personality and support systems
might balance out differences: for example, engineering students might enter college with
strong quantitative skills and perhaps coping strategies to handle workload, whereas non-
engineering students might deal with other uncertainties – in the end, both groups report
similar anxiety and well-being.

It is also worth considering that our sample was drawn from a specific region and the students
were of similar age and background, which could homogenize the mental health outcomes.
Prior studies have had mixed findings on this issue. Karmakar et al. (2021) found that
medical students had higher anxiety and stress than engineering students in a North-East
Indian sample, but both groups had elevated levels relative to what might be expected in less
competitive settings. Our finding of no difference might be specific to the context of the
Tricity region or the particular institutions sampled. It underscores that mental health
challenges in college are not limited to traditionally “high-stress” majors; interventions
and preventive measures should target the general student body, not only certain departments.

Limitations: Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the research
design was cross-sectional, which restricts our ability to draw causal conclusions. While we
often speak of anxiety “impacting” well-being, the relationship is correlational – it could also
be that poor well-being contributes to feeling more anxious, or that a third factor (such as
personality or social support) influences both. Longitudinal or experimental studies would be
needed to establish directionality and causality. Second, all data were self-reported, raising
concerns about common method bias and subjective measurement. Participants might have
responded in socially desirable ways or might have had biases in self-assessing their anxiety
or well-being. Including objective measures or informant reports could strengthen future
studies. Third, the sample, although diverse in disciplines, was geographically limited to the
Tricity region and comprised mostly students from a similar age group and cultural
background. The results may not generalize to older adults, students in other countries, or
those in rural areas or different education systems. Replication in other settings would
increase confidence in the findings. Additionally, the study focused on general (trait) anxiety
and overall well-being; we did not examine specific anxiety disorders or specific dimensions
of well-being. Nor did we account for potential confounding variables such as academic
performance, socioeconomic status, or access to campus resources, which might influence
well-being and differ by academic stream.

Another noteworthy limitation is that our test of coping as a moderator was indirect. We did
not employ a formal moderated regression or conditional process analysis to statistically
confirm the interaction between anxiety and coping in predicting well-being. Therefore, our
conclusions about coping’s buffering role are based on theoretical expectation and the pattern
of correlations. Future research should explicitly model the interaction term (anxiety ×
coping) and perhaps use techniques like multigroup analysis (comparing high vs. low coping
groups) to more rigorously examine moderation. Finally, the coping scale we used, while
appropriate for capturing overall coping levels, does not distinguish between different types
of coping (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused vs. avoidant). It is possible that certain
coping strategies (e.g. problem-focused) are more effective buffers than others. More fine-
grained measurement of coping could provide insights into which coping strategies are most
beneficial for anxious students’ well-being.

Implications for Theory and Practice: Notwithstanding these limitations, the study
contributes to the literature on stress and coping among college students and has several
implications. Theoretically, our findings lend support to stress-coping models by empirically
demonstrating that coping resources are associated with better outcomes in the context of
anxiety. The fact that coping correlates with both lower anxiety and higher well-being
suggests it serves as a protective factor, aligning with Lazarus and Folkman’s framework of
coping as a mediator of the stress outcome relationship. This adds evidence from an Indian
college context to the broader understanding of how personal resilience factors can modulate
mental health. Moreover, the lack of differences between academic streams implies that
theories about student stress should not overemphasize field of study without evidence;
individual differences and common campus experiences might outweigh the influence of the
specific academic program when it comes to anxiety and well-being.

Practically, the results highlight the importance of incorporating coping skills training and
support into university mental health initiatives. If strong coping skills indeed help students
stay well even when they are anxious, then teaching these skills could be a key strategy in
student counseling and wellness programs. Universities and colleges should consider
workshops or courses on stress management, problem-solving, and adaptive coping
techniques (such as cognitive reframing, time management, mindfulness, or seeking social
support). By improving students’ coping toolkits, educational institutions can potentially
buffer the negative effects of inevitable stressors in academic life. Our findings specifically
suggest that interventions should not be limited to any single group (e.g. not only engineering
students or only first-year students) but should be offered widely, since anxiety and well-
being issues are widespread. That said, certain subgroups who have lower coping skills could
be identified for targeted interventions. Campus counseling services might use a brief coping
assessment to screen for students who are at risk of poor outcomes when stressed, and
provide them with tailored training.

In the Indian context, where mental health services in educational institutions are still
developing, this study underscores a growing need for comprehensive student support. There
is increasing awareness of student mental health in India, and our practical implication is that
building coping capacities should be a central component of this support. Doing so can
enhance students’ psychological resilience, allowing them to thrive academically and
personally even amid the challenges of college life. Institutions could integrate coping and
resilience modules into orientation programs or academic curricula (for example, as part of
life-skills education). Additionally, creating peer support groups and mentoring systems can
provide social coping resources for students.

In conclusion, this research demonstrates that anxiety is detrimental to the well-being of

young adult college students, but importantly, that strong coping mechanisms can mitigate
some of these negative effects. Students who are better equipped with coping strategies tend
to maintain higher levels of well-being even in stressful circumstances, highlighting coping
as a critical protective factor. Meanwhile, our comparison of engineering and non-
engineering students suggests that mental health challenges at university cut across academic
disciplines – all students can be vulnerable to anxiety and drops in well-being, not just those
in traditionally high-pressure majors. These findings reinforce the value of fostering adaptive
coping skills and resilience in student populations. From a practical standpoint, colleges and
universities should invest in mental health programs that not only address anxiety through
counseling or medical means but also proactively teach students how to cope with stress in
healthy ways. By integrating coping-skills training into campus wellness initiatives,
educational institutions can help safeguard students’ well-being and academic success.
Ultimately, equipping young adults with effective coping tools will contribute to better
mental health outcomes and a more positive, productive college experience, enabling students
to achieve their full potential both academically and in their personal development.

References

American Psychological Association. (2022, October). Student mental health is in crisis.

Campuses are rethinking their approach. Monitor on Psychology, 53(7). Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/10/mental-health-campus-care

Hamby, S., Grych, J., & Banyard, V. (2015). Coping Scale [Measurement instrument].
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3094.0001

Karmakar, N., Saha, J., Datta, A., Nag, K., Tripura, K., & Bhattacharjee, P. (2021). A
comparative study on depression, anxiety, and stress among medical and engineering college
students in North-East India. CHRISMED Journal of Health and Research, 8(1), 15–23.
https://doi.org/10.4103/cjhr.cjhr_116_20

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Nagaraj, M. (2017). Anxiety and psychological well-being among adult and old age.
International Journal of Indian Psychology, 4(3), 234–242.
https://doi.org/10.25215/0403.099

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1972). Manual for the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Tan, G. X. D., Soh, X. C., Hartanto, A., Goh, A. Y. H., & Majeed, N. M. (2023). Prevalence
of anxiety in college and university students: An umbrella review. Journal of Affective
Disorders Reports, 14, 100658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2023.100658

Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 well-being
index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), 167–
176. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585