Social Problem-Solving Dimensions and Avoidance Coping with Academic Stress: an Archival Sex-Stratified Study of Master’s Students in Tehran

Abstract

Academic stress is a persistent challenge in higher education, and students’ responses to stressful academic demands may be related to how they habitually appraise and approach problems. This archival cross-sectional correlational study examined associations between five dimensions of social problem solving—positive problem orientation, negative problem orientation, rational problem solving, impulsivity/carelessness style, and avoidance style—and avoidance coping in 382 master’s students (218 women and 164 men) enrolled at public universities in Tehran during the 2011–2012 academic year. Social problem-solving dimensions were measured with a researcher-developed/adapted questionnaire prepared with reference to the Social Problem-Solving Inventory–Revised (SPSI-R), whereas avoidance coping was assessed using the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS). Because several variables deviated from normality, Spearman rank-order correlations were reported separately for women and men. Avoidance problem-solving style was strongly associated with avoidance coping among women (ρ = .968, p < .001) and men (ρ = .860, p < .001). Negative problem orientation was similarly associated with avoidance coping among women (ρ = .964, p < .001) and men (ρ = .975, p < .001). Rational problem solving and positive problem orientation were not significantly associated with avoidance coping in either group; impulsivity/carelessness was non-significant among men, whereas the corresponding female coefficient could not be treated as valid because the archived coefficient and p-value were internally inconsistent. No formal between-sex comparison of correlations was available. The findings therefore support an association between maladaptive problem orientation/avoidant problem-solving tendencies and avoidance coping in this historical student sample, but the unusually large coefficients, incomplete psychometric documentation, and archival nature of the data require cautious interpretation.