Characteristics of physiological indicators and individual personality characteristics of students under exam stress

Kukso Ol'ga Gennad'evna ORCID: 0000-0001-7851-8860 Senior Lecturer, Department of Management and Computer Science, Eastern Economics and Law Humanities Academy 450000, Russia, respublika Bashkortostan, g. Ufa, ul. Kommunisticheskaya, 86, of. 1 olgagen555@gmail.com

Kukso Polina Aleksandrovna ORCID: 0000-0003-1529-4809 PhD in Biology docent 450077, Russia, respublika Bashkortostan, g. Ufa, ul. Kommunisticheskaya, 86, kv. 1 polinalex.ks555@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Subject of research

Exam stress occupies one of the first places among the causes of mental stress in high school students.

The question of exam stress attracts the attention of many domestic and foreign researchers ^{[1, 2, 3]}. The development of the theory of general properties of the human nervous system by V.D.Nebylitsyn, revealing the connection of typological features of the nervous system with the structure of personality, allowed a deeper understanding of the features of autonomic response under various stressors, adverse effects leading to stressful states ^[4].

Recent scientific studies prove that exam stress has a negative impact on almost all systems of the students' body: nervous, cardiovascular and immune systems, an increase in the level of muscular and psycho-emotional tension of students ^[5]. After passing the exam, physiological indicators do not immediately return to normal – it usually takes several days for the blood pressure parameters to return to their original values.

The main role in resistance to stress is played by individual psychological characteristics of the individual. Some of these features can provide significant resistance to stress, while others, on the contrary, delay effective adaptation under stress. At the moment of meeting with a life situation, the subject evaluates his resources, opportunities (personal and environmental) to cope with it and on this basis an assessment of the situation is formed as more or less difficult (stressful) ^[6]. Subsequently, the available resources (personal qualities, knowledge, skills, values, opportunities, acquaintances and connections) a person realizes, reveals, uses in real behavior.

It is known that anxiety as a condition is characterized by subjectively experienced emotions, such as anxiety delays effective adaptation in learning conditions. Numerous studies by domestic and foreign researchers confirm that there is a significant positive relationship between anxiety and physiological arousal ^{[1, 2, 3, 7, 8]}.

Yu. Y. Kotsebuk et al. we studied the pre- and post-examination state of students with different levels of functional mobility of nervous processes. The authors have shown that students with a high level of functional mobility of nervous processes are able to adequately respond to exam stress in comparison with students with medium and low levels ^[1].

A. P. Astashchenko et al.  the levels of anxiety, depression and propensity to aggression were studied in students and frontal bioelectric asymmetric brain activity was recorded as a biological marker of the regulation of emotional processes during examination stress ^[2]. The authors noted that in a state of anxiety associated with exam stress, students' visual attention may be accompanied by a shift of attention to/from negatively colored emotional information. Students with a high level of anxiety and a shift in attention to threatening information are presumably characterized by a high level of hostility.  The authors suggested that difficulties with distraction  from emotional (threatening)  information is associated with a relatively higher level of activation of the frontal areas of the brain on the right.

According to proponents of positive psychology, positive emotions and optimism are important for success. It is known that a high level of optimism negatively affects mental health ^{[9, 10]}. A number of foreign authors believe that optimism is an individual characteristic that makes it possible to predict the psychological and physical well-being of a person ^{[11, 12, 13]}.

G. S. Kuzhukhar et al. It has shown that the main predictor of positive states in psychology students is a reduced level of anxiety ^[14]. The authors identified a risk group of psychological trainees with a tendency to negative and depressive emotions and a specific personality profile.

M. G.Kulyatskaya, A. A.Kamin showed that students with and without disabilities were evenly distributed. The authors identified three groups according to the level of self-activation ^[15]. Students with a low level of self-activation are characterized by a decrease in all the characteristics of resilience, meaningful life orientations, non-constructive coping strategies, in contrast to students with a high level of self-activation.

Many studies are devoted to the development of stress resistance programs [16. 17. 18]. The use of such programs improves physiological and psychological indicators. Macklem, G.L. has developed a preventive program that includes cognitive behavioral therapy and other clinical methods for the treatment of primary and secondary school children ^[16]. D.Christie, R. Thompson,  M. Sawtell  et al. We have developed a program for the prevention of type 1 diabetes mellitus for children ^[17]. The program is aimed at improving motivation indicators, self-management to improve glycemic control and quality of life. M. Eskin, A. Akyol, E.Y. ?elik, B.K. G?ltekin conducted a study on solving cognitive behavioral problems in patients with migraine and headache and showed that training can be effective for reducing stress and depression ^[18].

The peculiarities of the body's reaction to psychoemotional stress can serve as an indicator of the functional state. There are a number of vital physiological indicators that can act as an indicator of the holistic state.

Such characteristics include functional indicators of cardiac activity and bioelectric activity of the brain.  It is known that under stressful influences there is a change in the dynamics of the constant potential (omega potential)  a healthy person ^[19].

            In our previous works, two groups were identified according to the level of SMIL indicators for exam stress ^{[20, 21, 22]}.

            In this paper, two groups of students were identified according to the Robinson index.  We conducted a study, the purpose of which was to compare students in different functional states according to the Robinson index, according to the ratio of individual-personal characteristics and physiological indicators during examination stress.

Research methods

           As psychological indicators, character traits identified through the SMIL questionnaire were taken. These are well-known scales: from the 1st - the scale of "self-control" and up to the 0–th scale of social "introversion" (the method "" (SMIL) - L. N. Sobchik ^[23], and the method "Determining the level of anxiety" (C.D.Spielberg, Y.L.Khanin) was also taken ^[24]. In Russia, the methodology was adapted by Yu.L. Khanin.

As physiological indicators, the indicator of the work of the cardiovascular system, the Robinson Index and the indicator of the work of the brain, omega-potential, are taken. During the week, before and after the exam, measurements of hemodynamic parameters, blood pressure and heart rate were carried out using a tonometer that allows recording the heart rate on the wrist area of the right hand in a person; heart rate (HR), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (ADS and ADD), then the index was calculated Robinson (IR). The method of measuring the slow electrical activity of the brain (omega potentials, super-slow rhythmic fluctuations of the potential) was also used in the work. This method allows us to characterize the functional state of the brain of the subjects ^[25]. Omega-potential measurements were carried out according to the methodology of A.G. Sychev et al. ^[26]. Measurements of the level of constant potential of the brain (omega potential) were carried out and at the same time hemodynamic parameters were taken before the exam during the week, during the exam and after the exam during the week.

Using Excel and STATISTICA 10.0 programs, mathematical and statistical data processing was carried out using the parametric criterion of mathematical statistics - the Student's criterion for comparing averages between groups, the Spearman correlation coefficient (r) of correlation analysis.

The study was conducted during the academic year 2017-2018. The study involved 100 people aged 19-23 years (students of the Faculty of Psychology).

Results

The obtained values were conditionally divided into two ranges, which were characterized as: the first group of students whose stress was not detected (IR values from 9000 to 10000 units) and the second group of students with moderate stress (IR from 10000 to 12500 units).

The Robinson index was higher in the second group on the following days of observation (Fig. 1). Three days before the exam, 10731.82 ± 763.73 compared to the first group – 8662 ± 876.94 at p =0.001, the day before the exam 10801.36 ± 1040.53 compared to the first group 9167.96 ± 1009.65 at p =0.001, in exam day – 11981.55 ±1399.52 compared to the first group – 10672.46 at p= 0.005, the day after the exam - 10517.73 ± 1208.97 compared to the first group - 9460.15 ± 1421.59 at p = 0.03.

Fig.1. Dynamics of the Robinson index in students under exam stress.

Notes: Group 1 – without stress; group 2 – with "moderate stress". Day of Robinson index measurements: 1 – three days before the exam, 2 – the day before the exam; 3 – the day of the exam; 4 – 1 day after the exam; 5 – two days after the exam; 6 – three days after the exam; 7 – five days after the exam; 8 – seven days after the exam.

Two and three days after the exam, the Robinson Index indicators leveled off. And on the fifth and seventh day after the exam, the values increased again – 1009.09 ± 872.38 and 10562.27 ± 1310.61 compared to the first 9464.04 ± 874.35 and 9245.00 ± 776.66 at p = 0.001.

Comparison of average values showed an increase in omega potential only on the day of the exam in the second group (Fig. 2).

Fig.2. Dynamics of omega potential in students under exam stress.

Notes: Group 1 – without stress; group 2 – with "moderate stress". Day of omega potential measurements: 1 – three days before the exam, 2 – the day before the exam; 3 – the day of the exam; 4 – 1 day after the exam; 5 – two days after the exam; 6 – three days after the exam; 7 – five days after the exam; 8 – seven days after the exam.

Before the exam and after the omega-potential indicators did not differ.  On the day of the exam, the average omega potential in the first group was 38.58±6.46 and in the second group 44.82±5.38 (t=-2.81 with a significance level of 0.01).

Comparative analysis of anxiety indicators by the method of C.D. Spielberger with the help of the t-test (Table 1).

Table 1.

Comparative analysis of anxiety indicators in students under exam stress

Symbols:Group 1 – without stress; group 2 – with "moderate stress". Indicators of anxiety according to the method of C.D. Spielberger: CT – reactive anxiety, LT – personal anxiety. Mean – means, std.dev. – standard deviation, t-value – Student's criterion, p – significance level of differences.

Reactive and personal anxiety are not statistically different and lie within the limits of low anxiety. Reactive anxiety in the first group is 26.68 ± 5.28 and in the second group 25.45 ± 5.28, and personal anxiety in the first group is 15.35 ± 3.09, in the second group 14.27 ± 3.17 at p < 0.05. Correlation analysis of the relationship of anxiety indicators with physiological indicators showed the following (Table 2).

Table 2.

Comparative analysis of the relationship of anxiety indicators with the Robinson index and omega potential in students under exam stress

Symbols:Group 1 – without stress; group 2 – with "moderate stress". The values in the table are Spearman's correlation coefficients. The significance level of the differences is p < 0.05 – the correlation coefficient is highlighted in bold. Indicators of anxiety according to the method of C.D. Spielberger: CT – reactive anxiety, LT – personal anxiety. OP1 – omega-potential on the third day after the exam; OP2 – omega-potential on the fifth day after the exam; OP3 – omega-potential on the seventh day after the exam. 

Only the second group has an association of omega potential on the fifth day after the exam with reactive and personal anxiety (r = 0.75; r = 0.66 at p < 0.05).

Comparison of average SMIL indicators revealed a difference only on two scales (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Comparative analysis of SMIL indicators for students under exam stress

Symbols:Group 1 – without stress; group 2 – with "moderate stress". Indicators of SMIL scales: 1 - the scale of "neurotic overcontrol", 2 – "pessimism", 3 – "emotional lability", 4 – "impulsivity", 6 – "rigidity", 5 – "femininity-masculinity scale", 7 – "anxiety", 8 – "individualism", 9 - "optimism and activity" and 0 - "social introversion scale". Mean is the mean, std.dev. is the standard deviation, t–value is the Student's criterion, p is the significance level of differences.

The indicators are higher on the 2nd scale in the second group 64.00 ± 8.89, whereas in the first 56.97± 9.38 (t=-2.21 at p = 0.03); on the 4th scale in the second group 69.27 ± 3.23, and in the first group 60.57±11.53 (t=-2.46 at p =0.02). On the 2nd scale of "pessimism" and on the 4th scale of "impulsivity".

Correlation analysis of anxiety and SMIL indicators at p < 0.05 (Table 3).

Table 3.

Comparative analysis of personal anxiety with SMIL indicators in students under exam stress

             Symbols: 1 group – without stress; 2 group – with "moderate stress".  The values in the table are Spearman's correlation coefficients. The significance level of the differences is p < 0.05 – the correlation coefficient is highlighted in bold. Indicators of SMIL scales: 1 - the scale of "neurotic overcontrol", 2 – "pessimism", 3 – "emotional lability", 4 – "impulsivity", 6 – "rigidity", 5 – "femininity-masculinity scale", 7 – "anxiety", 8 – "individualism", 9 - "optimism and activity" and 0 -"social introversion scale". Anxiety index according to the method of C.D. Spielberger:  LT – personal anxiety. The significance level of differences *p < ,05.

The table shows the associations with personal anxiety that were reliable.

The first group has an inverse relationship of personal anxiety with indicators of the 4th "impulsivity", 6th "rigidity", 8th "individualism" (r = -0.36; r=-0.47; r = -0.40). With an increase in personal anxiety, they lead to a decrease in achievement motivation, hidden aggressiveness and a rational approach to problem solving.

Correlation analysis of SMIL and omega-potentials obtained during the entire period before and after exam stress at p < 0.05 (tal. 4). The table shows only reliable relationships of the 4th, 5th, 7th, and 9th scales.

Table 4.

Comparative analysis of the relationship of indicators of SMIL and omega-potentials scales in students under exam stress

Symbols:Group 1 – without stress; group 2 – with "moderate stress". The values in the table are Spearman's correlation coefficients. The significance level of the differences is p < 0.05 – the correlation coefficient is highlighted in bold. Indicators of SMIL scales: 4 – "impulsivity", 5 – "femininity-masculinity scale", 7 – "anxiety", 9 - "optimism and activity". OP1 is an indicator of omega potential on the day of the exam; OP2 is an indicator of omega potential on the day after the exam; OP2 is an indicator of omega potential on the third day after the exam; The level of significance of differences p

The first group revealed a relationship of the 4th and 7th scales and omega potential during the exam (r = 0.42; r = 0.43), while the second group noted a feedback of the 5th scale and omega potential a day after the exam (r = -0.70) and the 9th scale and omega potential three days after the exam (r = -0.75).

Discussion

The analysis of the Robinson index, an integral objective indicator of the severity of psychoemotional stress, allowed us to identify groups with different levels of stress. The first stress-free group was in a state of minimal, optimal tension of the regulation systems for satisfactory adaptation to the conditions of exam stress. The second group with moderate stress was in a state of functional tension, when the mobilization of protective mechanisms occurs with an increase in the activity of the sympatho-adrenal system. In these groups, different averages and different structures of the relationships of the Robinson Index and omega potential with individual personality characteristics were obtained.

The Robinson index was higher in the second group with "moderate stress" three days before the exam at p= 0.001, the day before the exam at p=0.001 (Fig. 1). Further, the significance of the differences decreases on the day of the exam at p=0.005, the day after the exam at p=0.03. Two and three days after the exam, the Robinson Index indicators did not differ. On the fifth and seventh days after the exam, the Robinson Index recovered to the usual relatively high values with a high level of significance at p= 0.001.

Based on the data of the bioelectric potential of the brain, an increase in omega potential was revealed only on the day of the exam in the second group with moderate stress - 44.82±5.38 compared to the first group without stress 38.58±6.46 (t=-2.81; p =0.01).  An increase beyond the regulatory limits was observed on the day of the exam (Fig. 2), but in the following days the processes were restored. Super-slow physiological processes are important for the regulation of human brain states during examination stress.

Reactive and personal anxiety are in the range of normative indicators (Table 1). Only the second group with "moderate stress" has an association of omega potential on the fifth day after the exam with reactive and personal anxiety (r = 0.75; r = 0.66 at p < 0.05). The optimal level of anxiety is associated with the recovery processes to the normative indicators of slow-wave activity.

Comparison of average individual and personal indicators by SMIL revealed a difference only on two scales (Fig. 3). Indicators for pessimism and impulsivity are higher in the second group with moderate stress. This pessimism, the main motivational orientation of avoiding failure, verbal type of thinking and impulsivity with a normative spread within 60-75T reveals an active personal position, pronounced resistance to environmental influences.

Only in the first group without stress, there was a connection between anxiety indicators and some individual-personal indicators according to SMIL. The inverse relationship of personal anxiety with impulsivity, rigidity, individualism was revealed (Table 3). With normative personal anxiety, there is a decrease in achievement motivation, latent aggressiveness and a rational approach to problem solving.

A comparative analysis of the relationship between individual and personal indicators of SMIL and slow-wave activity in students showed that the omega potential during the exam in the first group indicates the absence of stress and is associated with impulsivity and anxiety within the normative profile indicators (r = 0.42; r = 0.43). In the second group, the day after the exam omega-potential is inversely associated with masculinity-femininity (r = -0.70) and on the third day after the exam, omega potential is inversely associated with optimism (r = -0.75).  Students with such a profile without accentuation according to these scales have a high motivation for achievement and activity of interpersonal interaction, possibly associated with the rapid recovery of slow-wave activity after exam stress, up to standard indicators.

The study of two different functional states of the students' body showed that based on the analysis of the Robinson index, the omega potential of the brain and individual personality characteristics during examination stress, before and after the exam, we are dealing with complex adaptive systems that ensure the adaptation of the body to extreme conditions. The most difficult task for the human body is at the border of the emergence of a response to stress. It is here that the problem is solved, what is the set of vegetative components that could best meet the needs of the current situation and give a stable adaptation to stress.

The data obtained by us should be used in psychological and pedagogical practice when working with students. The results of this study will be useful for the development of psychocorrective coping programs with exam stress.

Conclusions

Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn. Two groups of students with different types of response to exam stress were identified according to the indicators of the Robinson index. The first group is students without stress and the second group is students with moderate stress. Exam stress in these groups has an unequal effect on the performance of the cardiovascular system and slow-wave activity of the brain of students.  

Students without stress had normative indicators of cardioregulation processes and super-slow physiological processes of the brain. A comparative analysis of the profile of the two groups showed that students without stress indicators are in the corridor of the relative norm. 

Only students without stress showed a feedback of anxiety indicators according to the method of C.D.Spielberg, Y.L.Khanin and individual personality characteristics of SMIL. At the desired level of personal anxiety, there is a decrease in achievement motivation, latent aggressiveness and a rational approach to problem solving.

A comparative analysis of the relationship between the indicators of the SMIL scales and slow-wave activity in students showed that the omega potential during the exam in students without stress indicates the absence of stress and is associated with impulsivity and anxiety within the normative indicators of the profile. 

In students with moderate stress, there was an increase in the processes of cardioregulation and super-slow physiological processes of the brain. The students were in a state of functional tension when the mobilization of protective mechanisms takes place.The Robinson index before the exam and immediately after it was high, then two and three days after the exam, the indicators decreased and then recovered to the usual relatively high values.  The increase in omega potential is registered only on the day of the exam. The SMIL profile had an increase in such individual and personal characteristics as pessimism and impulsivity with a normative spread. Students are characterized by a basic motivational focus on avoiding failure and impulsivity. Only in this group, the interrelationships of the SMIL and slow-wave activity scales were noted.  Namely, the day after the exam, the omega potential is inversely associated with masculinity-femininity and on the third day after the exam, the omega potential is inversely associated with optimism. With this profile without accentuations, the motivation of achievement and the activity of interpersonal interaction may affect the rapid recovery of slow-wave activity to normative indicators the day after exam stress.