The Role of Social Support and Perceived Stress in Coping with Academic Pressure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64229/c4qdn613Keywords:
Academic Pressure, Perceived Stress, Social Support, Coping Strategies, Student Well-Being, Qualitative Study, Academic AdjustmentAbstract
Academic pressure has become an increasingly pervasive challenge in modern educational environments, influencing students’ mental well-being, motivation, and academic performance. This study explores how social support and perceived stress interact to shape students’ coping processes in response to academic demands. Drawing on qualitative interviews and contextual document analysis, the research examines the subjective meanings students attribute to academic pressure, the psychological mechanisms underlying perceived stress, and the diverse ways that social support influences coping responses. The findings reveal that academic pressure is not determined solely by objective workload but is significantly shaped by individual appraisals of controllability, expectations, and self-efficacy. High perceived stress is associated with maladaptive coping behaviors, including avoidance, procrastination, and emotional withdrawal, whereas lower perceived stress corresponds to more adaptive strategies such as planning, help-seeking, and problem-solving. Social support from peers, family, and teachers emerges as a critical buffer that reduces stress intensity, enhances coping capacity, and provides emotional reassurance during periods of heightened academic demand. However, the study also highlights the ambivalent nature of certain forms of support, particularly family expectations that may simultaneously encourage and pressure students. Overall, the analysis demonstrates that effective coping with academic pressure is a relational and interpretive process shaped by the interplay of internal appraisals and external social resources. The study underscores the importance of fostering supportive academic environments that strengthen students’ psychological resilience and promote healthier responses to academic challenges.
References
[1]Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
[2]Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2004). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Rowman & Littlefield.
[3]Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1–29.
[4]Gaonkar, D. P. (2001). Alternative modernities. Duke University Press.
[5]Said, E. W. (1993). Culture and imperialism. Vintage.
[6]Welsch, W. (1999). Transculturality: The puzzling form of cultures today. In M. Featherstone & S. Lash (Eds.), Spaces of culture (pp. 194–213). Sage.
[7]Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.
[8]Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2013). Postcolonial studies: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge.
[9]Damrosch, D. (2003). What is world literature? Princeton University Press.
[10]Moretti, F. (2000). Conjectures on world literature. New Left Review, 1, 54–68.
[11]Epstein, M. (2009). Transculture: A broad way between globalism and multiculturalism. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 68(1), 327–351.
[12]Ette, O. (2003). Literatur in Bewegung: Raum und Dynamik kultureller Prozesse. Velbrück Wissenschaft.
[13]Neumann, B., & Nünning, A. (2012). Travelling concepts of narrative. In M. Fludernik & J. Jacob (Eds.), Narratology in practice (pp. 1–21). De Gruyter.
[14]Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Community, culture, difference (pp. 222–237). Lawrence & Wishart.
[15]Gilroy, P. (1993). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness. Harvard University Press.
[16]Brockmeier, J. (2001). From the end to the beginning. In J. Brockmeier & D. Carbaugh (Eds.), Narrative and identity (pp. 247–280). John Benjamins.
[17]Casanova, P. (2004). The world republic of letters. Harvard University Press.
[18]Mani, V. (2017). Recoding world literature. Fordham University Press.
[19]Moretti, F. (2013). Distant reading. Verso.
[20]Damrosch, D. (2009). How to read world literature. Wiley-Blackwell.
[21]Damrosch, D. (2014). World literature in theory and practice. In T. Beebee (Ed.), The Routledge companion to world literature (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
[22]Attridge, D. (2004). The singularity of literature. Routledge.
[23]Bhabha, H. K. (1990). Nation and narration. Routledge.
[24]Ette, O. (2016). TransArea: A literary history of globalization. De Gruyter.
[25]Moretti, F. (1998). Atlas of the European novel 1800–1900. Verso.
[26]Casanova, P. (2010). Literature as a world. New Left Review, 31, 29–49.
[27]Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method. Continuum.
[28]Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
[29]Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Sage.
[30]Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
[31]Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.
[32]Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
[33]Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
[34]American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
[35]Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230.
[36]Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yee Kin Chong (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
