Philippine Military Academy April 17, 2019

Frustration Tolerance and Coping Mechanisms
of Fourth Class Cadets.
A Research Proposal Submitted to the Department of Management

In Partial Fulfillment for the Course Res 432
Thea Dizon Rafal
Angelo Jan Villa Sunido
Reinnel Jacob Labramonte Sumagaysay
Philippine Military Academy
April 17 , 2019
FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE AND COPING MECHANISM OF FOURTH CLASS CADETS 2
Abstract
The aims of this study are to determine the level of frustration tolerance, the
prominent coping mechanism and whether or not there were significant differences
between the level of frustration tolerance and prominent coping mechanisms when
compared in terms of company and sex of the fourth class cadets. The data from the
modified survey questionnaire were treated using the weighted mean and frequency
distribution for the level of frustration tolerance and prominent coping mechanism.
The Multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine possible
significant difference among the companies while the T-test was used to determine
possible significant difference between male and female cadets. Additionally, there
are 347 fourth class respondents that were divided into eight (8) companies chosen
using random sampling design.
Based on the findings, the fourth class cadets have a high frustration tolerance
whether it is grouped in sex or companies. Furthermore, the fourth class cadets used
appraisal-focused coping mechanism as a prominent coping mechanism whether it
is grouped by sex or companies. Likewise, there is no significant difference in both
level of frustration tolerance and type of coping mechanism when grouped by sex.
Meanwhile, there is a significant difference in both level of frustration tolerance and
prominent type of coping mechanism when grouped according to company. Based
on the findings and conclusions of the study, the researchers recommend that a
follow up study for the members of Class 2020 be conducted to determine possible
changes in the level of frustration tolerance and their coping styles.

Acknowledgment
The researchers would like to acknowledge the following for their contribution
in this research study:
To Ms. Joy G. Orallo, our research adviser, for all the support and help she
has given throughout the previous year and for her guidance in the duration of this
research study.
To Ms. Easter Belandres, the course director, for her assistance in the data
analysis using the statistical tools and the help she gave to the researchers in the
duration of the study.
To the research respondents, the fourth class cadets, for willingly cooperating
in the data gathering through the modified survey questionnaire, and for honestly
answering the provided questionnaire.
To our classmates, for their support and help to the paper editing and
research analysis
To the Commandant Of Cadets, for his approval in the data gathering to the
fourth class cadets.
To our family, who unselfishly supports us to this endless endeavour of our
training.
To the Almighty God, for his guidance and blessing to the researchers to
finish this research study on time.

Table of Contents
Page
Title 1
Abstract 2
Acknowledgement 3
Table of Contents 4
Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM
Background of the Study 9
Theoretical Framework/Conceptual Framework 13
Statement of the Problem 20
Research Hypotheses 21
Research Paradigm 22
Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY
Research Design 23
Population and Locale of the Study 23
Data Gathering Tools 25
Data Gathering Procedures 26
Treatment of Data 27
Chapter 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Level of Frustration Tolerance 29
Prominent Type of Coping Mechanism 39
Level of Frustration Tolerance of CCAFP Companies 45

Level of Frustration Tolerance of Male and Female Cadets 48
Prominent Coping Mechanisms of CCAFP Companies 49
Prominent Coping Mechanisms of Male and Female Cadets
51
Comparison among CCAFP Companies of the Frustration Tolerance 52
Comparison between Male and Female Cadets of the Frustration Tolerance 53
Comparison among CCAFP Companies of the Coping Mechanisms 54

Comparison between Male and Female Cadets of the Coping Mechanisms 55
Chapter 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions 57
Recommendations 58
References 61
Appendices
Appendix A 64
Slovin’s Formula
Appendix B 65
Letter of request for data gathering
Appendix C 66
Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D 69
Frequency Distribution Table among the sample N=165
Appendix E 70
Frequency Distribution Table of Emotion Focused Coping items
Appendix F 71
Frequency Distribution Table of Appraisal Focused Coping items
72
Appendix G
Frequency Distribution Table of Problem Focused Coping items 73
Appendix H
ANOVA Result of Frustration tolerance when grouped by
CCAFP companies
Appendix I 74
T-test of Frustration tolerance when grouped by sex
Appendix J 77
ANOVA of Coping Mechanisms when grouped by
CCAFP Companies
Appendix K
T-test of Coping Mechanisms when grouped by sex 79
Curriculum Vitae 81
List of Tables
Table No. Table Title Page
1 The Population of the Study ....................................................................................24
2 Demographics of Survey Respondents (N=165)…………………………………..24
3 Reliability Analysis of the Survey Questionnaire…………………………………….25
4 Reliability of individual items for Level of Frustration Tolerance……………….26
5 Reliability of individual items for Coping Mechanisms…………………………..26
6 The Mean Score Interpretation for Frustration Tolerance……………………….27
7 The Mean Score Interpretation for the type of Coping Mechanisms…….…….27
8 The P-Value Interpretation among/between the variables………………………..28
9 Over-All result for the level of frustration tolerance of fourth-class cadets……29
10 Level of Discomfort Tolerance of fourth class cadets…………………………….31
11 Level of Entitlement tolerance of fourth class cadets……………………………..33
12 Level of Emotional tolerance of fourth-class cadets………………………………35
13 Level of Achievement Frustration tolerance of fourth class cadets……………..37
14 Type of Coping Mechanisms of the fourth class…………………………………..40
15 Emotion-Focused Coping Mechanisms of the fourth class……………………...41
16 Appraisal Focused Coping Mechanism of the fourth class………………………42
17 Problem-Focused Coping Mechanism of fourth class…………………………….44
18 Level of Frustration tolerance grouped by company………………………………46
19 Level of Frustration tolerance grouped by sex……………………………………...48
20 Prominent Coping Mechanism of CCAFP Companies………………………………50
21 Prominent Coping Mechanisms of Male and Female Cadets……………………….51
22 ANOVA single factor table displaying CCAFP companies
deviations in the level of frustration tolerance…………………………………………………..52
23 T-test table displaying sex differences in the level of frustration tolerance………..53

Table No. Table Title Page
24 ANOVA single factor table displaying CCAFP companies……………………………54
deviations in the type of coping mechanisms…………………………………………………..56
25 T-test table displaying sex differences in the type of coping mechanisms………….69
26 Coping Mechanism Frequency among the sample (N=165)………………………70
27 Emotion Focused Coping Mechanism of fourth class……………………………...71
28 Appraisal Focused Coping Mechanism of fourth class……………………………72
29 Problem Focused Coping Mechanism of fourth class…………………………….73
30 Over-all ANOVA Result for Frustration Tolerance…………………………………..73
31 ANOVA Result for Discomfort Tolerance………………………………………………73
32 ANOVA Result for Entitlement…………………………………………………………..73
33 ANOVA Result for Emotional Tolerance……………………………………………….73
34 ANOVA Result for Achievement Frustration…………………………………………..73
35 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Frustration Tolerance……74
36 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Discomfort Tolerance……74
37 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Entitlement………………..75
38 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Emotional Tolerance……..75
39 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Achievement Frustration..76
40 Over-all ANOVA Result for Coping Mechanisms…………………………………….77
41 ANOVA Result for Emotion Focused Coping………………………………………..77
42 ANOVA Result for Appraisal Focused Coping……………………………………….77
43 ANOVA Result for Problem Focused Coping………………………………………..78
44 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for coping mechanisms…….79
45 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for emotion focused coping...79
46 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for appraisal focused coping..80
47 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for problem focused coping…80

List of Figures
No. Title Page
1 Research Paradigm………………………………………… 22
2 Respondents’ use of coping mechanisms (N= 165)....... 39

Chapter 148
THE PROBLEM
Background of the Study
The Philippine Military Academy (PMA) is known as a prestigious military
training institution that molds young Filipino people to be the military officer who can
withstand pressure in whatever circumstances they are in. It is part and parcel of
military training to experience frustration, stress, and emotional instability, which is
why a trainee should know how to handle such circumstances to get through. PMA
as the premier institution is a primary source of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) officers in the different branches of service, namely the Philippine Army (PA),
Philippine Navy (PN), and Philippine Air Force (PAF). In this regard, the level of
training inside the Academy is designed to cater to the needs of these three (3)
major services, mainly to handle senior enlisted personnel and new expensive
military assets like aircraft and warships.
The rich historical cultures and traditions of PMA help develop its distinction
from any other military academies outside the country and other sources of
commission in the AFP. The distinguished and accumulated achievements of a PMA
graduate from the previous years and across the globe foster the integrity and
excellence of the institution. One part of the traditions and cultures of PMA is the
intense pressure from the standards of the training regulations, upperclassmen, and
senior PMA cavaliers not just inside the academy but continuous after graduation.
The form of military respect that asked from the underclassmen is the essential
characteristics of all the military organization across the world. Furthermore, the
training that creates that form of respect involves pressures that test the
psychological capacity of a person.
The most adjustments inside the Academy or any training institution lies on
the new cadets or new trainees. The adjustments are normal to all trainees; even the
upper-class cadets, who went through the tough time of adjusting, understand that
the first moments of training is the most challenging time of the whole period. The
institution now faces the problem of those cadets that quit after a few months of
training; it is affected by the nature of a military work which is violent and stressful,
and also the environment full of pressure from the upperclassmen. The reason
behind the load, which is seen mostly from the PMA cadets, is that new trainees
were separated with the comfortable civilian life removing the civilian attributes from
them.
In the current batch of fourth class cadets, the PMA BAGSIK DIWA Class of
2022, it is seen that they have an enormous number of resigning fourth class cadets
after the Beast Barracks, the first two-month training inside the Academy. The
reasons that gathered were trivial and could be interpreted as a sign of a mental
discrepancy. This problem aroused the attention of the Philippine Military Academy
(PMA) Command Headquarters, and the CCAFP Brigade Commander and Staff of
the CCAFP because of the alarming number of fourth Class cadets who quit without
a sensible and rational reason to do so. The most disturbing part is when those
resigning fourth class if asked if their upperclassmen maltreated them, they explicitly
reply that they were not.
It is reflected that they are treated with the utmost respect but still they choose
to quit, for instance, a fourth class cadet was asked after he went on Absence
Without Leave (AWOL) the reason for his action, he said that he cannot take how the
upperclassmen shout at him. The previous illustration pertains to a maladaptive
coping to the stressful event and a lower tolerance to such. However, before entering
the academy, the new cadets were screened among the tens of thousands of young
Filipino youth who took the exam as to their determination to join the Cadet Corps,
making it undesirable for a new trainee to have a frivolous response.
Integrating the problem, the researchers are a concern with the coping style of
the fourth class cadets because of their maladaptive response to inherent Military
environment. Moreover, the level of frustration tolerance and type of coping
mechanisms are taken as the variables of this study to analyze such behaviors. The
level of frustration tolerance would undermine their capability to withstand
inconvenience, which is the necessary ability of a trainee since pressures are part of
the training. The prominent type of coping mechanism would define the common
used coping strategy of the fourth class that would help the upperclassmen to have a
deep-analysis in them, and have an appropriate leadership style.
There are few known studies that are related to the determination of
psychological capacity of PMA cadets, particularly the level of frustration tolerance
and prominent coping mechanisms. Additionally, the Cadet Welfare Office (CWO),
the guidance counseling office of PMA, was not able to emphasize the frustration
tolerance and coping mechanisms of cadets, which was seen as essential
information to account the development of cadets. Also, the higher offices such as
the Education and Training of Plans and Programs Office (MA5), that monitors the
character development of cadets in relation to the PMA vision and mission, focus
their monitoring on the leadership skills of upperclassmen and its effects on the
overall achievement of the company. Thus, this study would be relevant to PMA as it
will find out the level of frustration tolerance of fourth class cadets and prominent
coping mechanisms to the training in relation to their character growth.
Discussing the two important concepts which are the and variable in relation
with the concern in fourth class cadet, this study aims to determine the fourth class
cadet’s level of frustration tolerance as well as the strategies they use in dealing with
the challenges of the fourth class year. This study can help the Cadet Corps Armed
Forces of the Philippines (CCAFP) especially the upper-class cadets to analyze and
understand the type of coping mechanism and level of frustration tolerance of the
fourth class cadets to evaluate their leadership effectiveness. The upperclassmen
can also better help the fourth class cadets to adjust with the military environment
through understanding their coping style to motivate and influence them as a leader.
Indeed, one of the PMA goals is to teach the cadets to motivate each other
particularly the fourth class cadets, the same as a future Military Officer who can
motivate his men to still fight.
The study will only focus on the ability of the cadets to deal with frustration
and their prominent coping mechanisms which sex and company are the moderating
variables. In general, the study will be conducted to determine the change the
frustration tolerance of the fourth class cadets and the coping mechanism of fourth
class cadets. Specifically, this paper aims to know and assess first, the level of
frustration tolerance of fourth class cadets with regards to discomfort tolerance,
intolerance of difficulties and hassles, entitlement, intolerance of unfairness and
frustrated gratification, emotional intolerance, intolerance of emotional distress, and
achievement frustration, intolerance of frustrated achievement goals. Second, to

know the more prominent coping mechanism that fourth class cadets are
undertaking in the context of emotion-focused coping, appraisal focused coping and
problem-focused coping. Lastly, the researchers grouped the respondents by their
company and sex to determine if there are significant differences among them.
Theoretical Framework/Conceptual Framework
This section reviews the literature related to Lower Frustration Tolerance,
Frustration Intolerance, Frustration Discomfort Scale, Drive-Reduction Theory,
Frustration Aggression Theory, Reaction to Frustration, Coping Strategies,
Transactional Model of Stress Coping, and Coping as a coaching strategy. These
formulate the researcher's framework in describing the relationship between
Frustration Tolerance and Coping Mechanisms.
Lower Frustration Tolerance
Lower Frustration Tolerance (LFT) was defined by Chand(2015), like the
intolerance of discomfort, difficulties, frustration and afflictive emotion and impatience
that were created by a wrong perspective in a circumstance. He added that people
with LFT viewed the situation as unbearable. The nature of such was the following:
aggressive, moody, uneasy, lack of concentration, complaining, blaming, pessimistic,
unable to take responsibility, and leaving of a situation which one cannot stand.
According to Yadav (2017), LFT is the effect of devastation about the state of
being frustrated and challenging if not served. LFT is very similar to Low Discomfort
Tolerance (LDT). LDT is about the discomfort of pessimistic feelings that is strongly
avoided innately. These two variables are interchangeable that is frustration is
uncomfortable, and discomfort is frustrating. Another view for LFT is that it is a

feature of personality and antisocial disorder particularly obsessive and hyperactive
(Jeronimus, & Laceulle, 2017).
Frustration Intolerance
Frustration Intolerance is essential to Academic Achievement because of
various explanations (Wilde, 2012). According to Wilde, students who experience
such difficulties in tolerating frustration might involve increased difficulties with
procrastination that is inversely proportional to achievement. For instance, the
students who possess frustration intolerance struggle in their Academics because
they are easily frustrated and they tend to review less. Another perspective about
frustration intolerance is that it is preeminent in recent situations to a person that is
stressed (Jeronimus, & Laceulle, 2017).
Frustration Discomfort Scale
There are four subscales that were under the Frustration Discomfort Scale
(FDS) (Harringon, 2005a): Entitlement, Emotional Intolerance, Discomfort
Intolerance, and Achievement Frustration. Entitlement is the belief that the desires of
people should be accomplished and should not be hindered by other people that are
termed as fairness and immediate gratification. Emotional Intolerance is the
intolerance to emotional distress and should be avoided. Discomfort Intolerance
means that life should be free from hassles and comfortable. Lastly, Achievement
Frustration means that the individual must not be hindered upon reaching their
objectives (Wilde, 2012).

Drive-Reduction Theory
Drive Reduction Theory was first created by behaviorist Clark Hull and was
developed further by Kenneth Spence, who was his collaborator. This theory states
that the reduction of the drive is the primary force behind motivation, which is
important because it helps to explain behavior, learning, and motivation.
This theory was based on the concept of homeostasis, the idea that the body
actively works to maintain a certain state of balance or equilibrium. A basic example
of this is when our body regulates its temperature in order to maintain the natural
temperature necessary for it to continue moving. Behavior, according to Hull, was
one of the ways that an organism maintains this balance. Motivation arises as a
result of these biological needs according to Hull, this state of tension or arousal
caused by biological or physiological needs was termed by Hull as a drive. Thirst,
hunger, and the need for warmth are all examples of drives. A drive creates an
unpleasant state, a tension that needs to be reduced.
Frustration-Aggression Theory
The frustration-aggression theory is a psychological theory that aggression is
caused by blocking, or frustrating, a person's efforts to achieve a goal. The theory
has its origin in a 1939 hypothesis and study by Dollar, Doob, Miller, Mower, and
Sears.
According to frustration-aggression theory, frustration augments the
probability of aggression. Appalachian State University records that the original
proponents of the theory defined frustration as "the state that emerges when
circumstances interfere with a goal response." Subsequent research has found that
frustration is more likely to lead to aggression when the frustrated individual believes
that aggressive behavior will reduce his frustration.
Reaction to Frustration
The study of Kresh and Crutchfield (1962) categorized frustration reactions
into two classifications Adaptive and Maladaptive (Yadav, 2017). Furthermore, the
person adopts the maladaptive reactions when they respond through frustrations and
aggression. However, a person adopts the adaptive reactions when he tries to
overcome the barriers when his or her achievement goal is blocked. Such activity
creates a motivation for a person and understanding of psychological behavior.
(Yadav, 2017).
Coping Strategies
Coping means that the individuals’ efforts to manage and moderate ineternal
demands shoud appraised and exceed its resources (Lazarus& Folkman, 1984b).
Additionally, there are two categories that were mentioned under coping strategies
which is the emotion-focused coping, which aims to moderate inappropriate
emotions, and problem-focused coping, which aims to solve the cause of stress. The
emotion-focused coping is understood as maladaptive behavior compared to the
problem-focused coping. There is also an additional coping strategy the active
coping strategy that pertains to behavior of problem solving, acceptance and help
seeking (Krause,Kaltman, Goodman & Dutton, 2008).
Problem Focused Coping Strategy was used to habitually by personas
changeable than in appraised that are permanent. Otherwise the Emotion Focused
Coping Strategy focuses the appraisal event in unchangeable rather temporary
(Jurji, 2018). Problem focused approach emphasized the possibility of altering the
cause of stress to overcome the event. Emotional approach is more on consistently
identifying and expressing the emotional domain in a person as it includes denial,
focusing, positive reinterpretation and social seeking (Baker & Berenbaum, 2007).
Transactional Model of Stress Coping
The primordial stress coping studies were conducted by Canon (1915) and
Selye (1956) that opened the way for multi factor approach in understanding the
relationship of psychological and physiological aspects of systematic stress
(Campbell, O’Connor, 2010). The well-known theory were developed by Lazarus
(1991) and Folkman (1984), they viewed stress not as a stimulus or a response, but
as a person–environment relationship that is perceived as taxing or exceeding a
person’s resources. When faced with a stressful situation, a person will evaluate its
potential personal relevance and significance in terms of its impact on valued
personal goals. This process is known as primary appraisal. Lazarus and Folkman
(1984) distinguished among different types of primary appraisal: harm/loss; threat;
challenge; and benign.
Harm/loss appraisals refer to an injury or damage that has already been done,
such as being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Threat appraisals refer to a potential
for harm or loss, fairly typical before health screening tests for example. Challenge
appraisals refer to an opportunity for personal growth or mastery, for example being
involved in a weight loss program exercise program. When a source of stress
(stressor) is perceived as benign, no further appraisal or action is undertaken. Harm
and threat appraisals are associated with negative emotional reactions, whereas
challenge appraisals are linked to more pleasant emotions.

Coping as Coaching Strategy
There are three (3) coping strategies that are common in coaching. These
coping strategies are widely known and were emphasized by Elizabeth Saigal
(2017). The said coping strategies are used to respond to a challenging
circumstance to take over the situation. These coping strategies are known ad
emotion-focused coping, problem-focused coping, and appraisal-focused coping.
Emotion-focused strategies are directed in reducing the personal emotional
reaction, which includes managing feelings by isolation, and distraction. The
problem-focused coping are directed on eliminating the underlying cause by
determining the necessary information and evaluating through cost-effective
strategies. Furthermore, the appraisal-focused coping are directed towards
modifying how the individual comprehend the situation, this is more of accepting the
reality and adjusting thy self to cope with. Thus, these coping strategies are essential
for an individual to cope with the stressors (Saigat, 2017).
The Present Study
This study was formed from the Frustration Intolerance theory, Frustration
Discomfort Scale, Frustration-Aggression Theory, Transactional Model of Stress
Coping, and Coping as coaching strategy. The Frustration Intolerance states that the
intolerable frustrations can cause a person to have a lower achievement compare to
a person with higher level of frustration tolerance. This theory was taken to analyze
the cadet’s ability of frustration tolerance to have a higher achievement in terms of
character, academic, military and physical development.
Another theory that was taken was the Frustration Discomfort Scale (FDS),
that leveled the discomfort and frustrations. This theory has four sub-categories
which is the Discomfort Intolerance, Entitlement, Emotional Intolerance, and
Achievement frustration. The present study adopted the four sub categories but
changed the intolerance with tolerance. The following categories were considered as
part of the survey questionnaire to find out the level of frustration tolerance of fourth
class cadets: Discomfort Tolerance, ability to tolerate hassles, Entitlement, ability to
tolerate unfairness and frustrated gratification, Emotional Tolerance, ability to
tolerate emotional distress, and Achievement frustration, ability to tolerate frustrated
achievement goals.
Other theory that is related to this study is the Frustration-Aggression Theory.
It states that, frustration is normal inside the academy, especially when cadets were
given tasks or goals which are somehow unattainable. fourth class cadets were the
ones prone to be victims of these we call impossible compliances. These frustrations
are somehow blocking their path towards their goal, which is to survive inside the
academy. These factors cause aggression, which has both negative and positive
effects on cadets. The level of frustration that may cause their tolerances to be high
or low is significant to this study likewise it will be used to determine the level of their
frustration tolerance.
Aggression is negative when a cadet uses his aggressiveness to fight back to
their superiors. It could lead to insubordination, which is a grave offense for a
trainee. However, aggression could be used in a positive way. By being aggressive
towards work you could attain the impossible compliances that you were tasked to
do.
Transactional Model of Stress states that a person appraised himself to cope
with the environment that was distressing. This Coping style was first developed by
Lazarus (1992) that explains our attitude towards coping. This theory was inherent
and obvious in the training grounds of PMA. Such model provides a paradigm of a
cadet appraising himself to satisfy his inner needs.
Lastly, the coping as coaching strategies have three (3) coping styles:
Emotion-focused coping, Problem-focused coping, and Appraisal-focused coping.
The three common coping strategies were adopted by this study to determine the
prominent coping styles of fourth class cadets. As mentioned above, the coping
strategies are used as coaching that is included in the leadership quality
development of a cadet. Thus, the leadership quality of coaching would be
essentially related in knowing the prominent coping styles of fourth class cadets.
Statement of the Problem
The study will be conducted to determine the relationship between the fourth
class cadets’ ability to tolerate frustration and as well as find out the ways by which
they try to cope with the rigors of the military training.
Specifically, this study aims to seek answers to the following questions:
1.) What is the level of frustration tolerance of fourth class cadets in terms of
the following?
a. Discomfort Tolerance
b. Entitlement
c. Emotional Tolerance
d. Achievement Frustration
2.) What is the prominent coping mechanism of the fourth class cadets based
on the following?
a. Emotion-Focused Coping
b. Appraisal-Focused Coping
c. Problem-Focused Coping
3.) What is the level of frustration tolerance of the fourth class cadets when
grouped by company and gender?
4.) What is the prominent coping mechanism of the fourth class cadets when
grouped by company and gender?
5.) Is there a significant difference in the level of frustration tolerance of the
fourth class cadets when compared in terms of company and gender?
6.) Is there a significant difference in the coping mechanisms of the fourth
class cadets when compared in terms of company and gender?
Research Hypothesis
Ha1: There is a significant difference in the fourth class cadets’ level of
frustration tolerance when grouped in terms of gender.
Ha2: There is a significant difference in the fourth class cadets’ level of
frustration tolerance when grouped in terms of company.
Ha3: There is a significant difference in the fourth class cadets’ type of coping
strategy when grouped in terms of gender.
Ha4: There is a significant difference in the fourth class cadets coping strategy
when grouped in terms of company.

Research Paradigm
Figure 1
Input- Process - Output
INPUT
 Level of frustration
tolerance and prominent
coping strategies of fourth
class cadets
 Sex
 Company
PROCESS
Data gathering, analysis, and

interpretation of results
OUTPUT
Determined level of frustration

tolerance and coping strategies
of fourth class cadets
Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the details of the process employed in this study. This
contains the research design and methodology, the population and locale of the
study, data-gathering tool, data gathering procedure and treatment of data. The
description of the tools and resources used in gathering the information needed for
this study is also presented and is included in the content.
Research Design
The researchers used descriptive research design to conduct the study. The
quantitative method of data collection (e.g., survey) was used to determine the
following: the level of frustration tolerance, the prominent coping mechanism, and the
significant difference when grouped according to sex and company the cadets
belong to.
Population and Locale of the Study
The study was conducted at the Philippine Military Academy. The
respondents of this study were the fourth class cadets in the Cadet Corps Armed
Forces of the Philippines (CCAFP). Only the fourth class cadets were included in the
study since the aim of the study is to know how they are managing their possible
frustrations as they go through being members of the lowest class. The sampling
design used to determine the research respondents is random sampling according to
the number of cadets per company. Table 1 illustrates the population of the fourth
class cadets as of January 2019 and the sample size for the study (N=165). See
Appendix A for the computation of the sample size.

Table 1
The Population of the Study
Class Population Sample

4th Class (347) 347 165
Among the fourth class cadets, a total of 165 participants were selected to
answer the survey questionnaire from their total strength of 347. The 165 survey
questionnaires were distributed among the eight (8) CCAFP companies with an
equal sample of male cadets and a sample that ranges from 5-6 for female cadets.
The data in Table 2 report the demographic characteristics of the survey participants
(N = 165).
Table 2
Demographics of Survey Respondents (N=165)
Male Female Total

Company
Alfa 15 5 20
Bravo 15 5 20
Charlie 15 5 20
Delta 15 6 21
Foxtrot 15 6 21
Golf 15 6 21
Hawk 15 6 21
In addition, the age bracket of the sample is in the range of 17 - 21 years old
with an average of 19 years old. Furthermore, some of the survey participants were
a graduate of Senior High School, some were at the college level, and others already
earned their Bachelor’s Degree.

Data Gathering Tools
To achieve the objectives of the study, the researchers used a survey
questionnaire. The questionnaire items were taken from the different theories
mentioned in Chapter 1, moreover, these questions were self-constructed by the
researchers. Furthermore, the survey questionnaire is composed of two parts; part 1
contains the items referring to the level of frustration tolerance with four (4) sub-
categories which is the discomfort tolerance (4 items), entitlement (6 items),
emotional tolerance (6 items), and achievement frustration (4 items), additionally, the
total for frustration tolerance is 20 items, while part 2 contains the items referring to
the type of coping mechanisms which is the emotion-focused coping (5 items),
appraisal-focused coping (5 items), and problem-focused coping (5 items), with an
overall sum of 15 items.
The items were formulated using a five-point scale format demanding the
participants to answer a five-point scale of responses. The choices and their
numerical equivalent were (5) always; (4) often; (3) sometimes; (2) rarely (1) never.
The figures in Table 3, 4, and 5 show the Reliability level of the survey questionnaire
as a whole, and the reliability levels as well of the level of frustration tolerance and
type of coping mechanisms using the Cronbach’s Alpha in SPSS Statistics.
Table 3
Reliability Analysis of the Survey Questionnaire
Category Cronbach’s Alpha N of items
Frustration Tolerance and Coping 0.883 35
Mechanisms
Table 4
Reliability of individual items for Level of Frustration Tolerance
Discomfort Tolerance 0.750 4
Entitlement 0.776 6
Emotional Tolerance 0.829 6
Achievement Frustration 0.741 4
Over-all Frustration Tolerance 0.881 20
Table 5
Reliability of individual items for Coping Mechanisms
Emotion-Focused Coping 0.739 5
Appraisal-Focused Coping 0.863 5
Problem-Focused Coping 0.853 5
Over-all Coping Mechanisms 0.784 15
Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers first asked permission from the Commandant of Cadets to
conduct the study. When the permission was granted, the questionnaires were
given with due consideration to their company and sex and in accordance with the
number in Table 2. Moreover, the respondents of the survey were casually selected
by the researchers. Furthermore, the researchers gave the questionnaires during the
Evening Call To Quarters (1900H) and collected the same during the Tattoo
Inspection (2130H) of 14 January 2019.

Treatment of Data
The data gathered by the researchers were evaluated through weighted
means, frequency distribution, ANOVA single factor, and two-tailed T-test using the
SPSS Statistics and Microsoft Excel. The responses to the questionnaire on the level
of frustration tolerance were analyzed using the weighted mean as shown in Table 6.
Table 6
The Mean Score Interpretation for Frustration Tolerance
Statistical limits Interpretation Description
4.21 – 5.00 Always Very high frustration tolerance
3.41 – 4.20 Often High frustration tolerance
2.61 - 3.40 Sometimes Moderate frustration tolerance
1.81 – 2.60 Rarely Low frustration tolerance
1.00 - 1.80 Never Very low frustration tolerance
The responses to the questionnaire on the type of coping mechanisms were
analyzed using the weighted as illustrated in Table 7.
Table 7
The Mean Score Interpretation for the type of Coping Mechanisms
Statistical limits Interpretation Behavioral Description
4.21 – 5.00 Always 81%-100% percent of the time
3.41 – 4.20 Often 61%-80% percent of the time
2.61 - 3.40 Sometimes 41%-60% percent of the time
1.81 – 2.60 Rarely 21%-40% percent of the time
1.00 - 1.80 Never 0%-21% percent of the time

The comparison of results with the level of frustration tolerance and the type
of coping mechanisms among the CCAFP companies and according to sex were
analyzed using the Statistical Analysis tools of ANOVA Single Factor and two-tailed
T-test assuming unequal variances as presented in Table 8.
Table 8
The P-Value Interpretation among/between the variables
P-value Interpretation Description
P-value > 0.05 Accept the Null Hypothesis (Ho) and There is no significant
Reject the Alternative Hypothesis (Ha). difference
among/between the
variables.
P-value <0.05 Accept the Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) There is a significant
and Reject the Null Hypothesis (Ho) difference
among/between the
variables.
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The discussion on this chapter focuses on the level of frustration tolerance
and coping mechanisms of fourth class cadets. Furthermore, this chapter also
highlighted the differences on the level of frustration tolerance and coping
mechanism among the Cadet Corps Armed Forces of the Philippines (CCAFP)
companies. The respondents’ level of frustration tolerance and type of coping
mechanisms were compared in terms of sex and company.
Level of Frustration Tolerance
The level of frustration tolerance obtained from the survey questionnaire is
divided into four (4) categories: discomfort tolerance, entitlement, emotional
tolerance, and achievement frustration. The results for each category are the
average of all the eight (8) CCAFP companies from Alfa to Hawk. The over-all mean
of all fourth class cadets for frustration tolerance is 3.71013 which means that the
fourth class cadets have high frustration tolerance.
Table 9
Over-All result for the Level of Frustration Tolerance of Fourth Class Cadets
Categories Mean Interpretation

Discomfort Tolerance 3.7061 High frustration tolerance
Entitlement 3.4808 High frustration tolerance
Emotional Tolerance 3.5566 High frustration tolerance
Achievement Frustration 4.0970 High frustration tolerance
Over-all Mean: 3.71013 High frustration tolerance
The mean for each frustration tolerance category is shown in Table 9. Each
category suggests that the fourth class cadets have high frustration tolerance.
Nevertheless, the achievement frustration category has the highest mean while the
entitlement category has the lowest mean among the four (4) categories. In the
succeeding tables, the means of the four (4) frustration tolerance survey test items
were illustrated. Moreover, the possible explanations pertaining to the mean result of
each frustration tolerance category will be discussed after each table in the
succeeding parts of this chapter.
The overall average of the level of frustration tolerance of fourth class cadets
is interpreted as high frustration tolerance. One of the implications of this result, as
stated by Poonam Yadav (2017), is that the respondents already accept the reality of
frustration and look at the situation in a positive outlook rather than in an antagonistic
manner. He also added that acceptance of frustration is a part of existence and no
one is excused from it. He concluded that a person will anticipate experiencing
negative emotions such as irritation and displeasure.
The outcomes imply that the respondents had overcome the adjustment stage
of military training and are coping with the rigors of cadetship. One consideration of
the high frustration tolerance results of the fourth class cadets is the timing when the
study was conducted. It was already the seventh month of the fourth class cadets
when they were asked to answer the survey. Based on the results of the survey, the
fourth class cadets appear to have already adjusted to the hardships of training.
These may be shown when a fourth class cadet will be punished by his or her
upperclassmen, yet, he or she will take it as a part of the training and eventually
avoid the frustration.
In addition, the other factor that might have affected this result is the rigid
medical screening process of the Philippine Military Academy to the applicants. This
includes the psychological tests and interviews with the applicants that filter the
mentally capable candidates. Likewise, there is a certain case that aside from the
medical procedure that also filtered the respondents. This is the “authorize
resignation of fourth class cadets” by the Senior Tactical Officer (STO during the
First Academic Term academic year 2018-2019. This somehow eliminated the
fourth class cadets with low frustration tolerance. Consequently, the fourth class
cadets who had survived the seven months of rigid character, academic, military and
physical training demonstrated a high frustration tolerance.
Table 10
Level of Discomfort Tolerance of Fourth Class Cadets
Discomfort Tolerance Mean Interpretation

I am comfortable on my role as a fourth 3.7879 High
class cadet with regards to my upper
class cadets.
It is acceptable for me when my upper- 3.5758 High
class cadet ordered me to do some things
outside my comfort zone.
It is satisfactory for me when my upper- 3.3576 Moderate
class cadet ordered me to do some things
other than I planned on doing.
It is okay for me when I do things that are 4.1030 High
new to me and I have difficulty doing with.
Average: 3.7061 High
In table 10, the average is 3.7061 which means that the fourth class cadets
have a high level of discomfort tolerance. Furthermore, according to Wilde (2012)
discomfort tolerance is the ability to tolerate difficult, uncomfortable and pressured
situations. Moreover, test item number four (4) with the item relating to adaptation in
a new and difficult situation has the highest mean of 4.1030 among the test items. In
addition, most of the items suggest high frustration tolerance. However, test item
number three (3) has the lowest mean with the item relating to subordination with
3.3576 that is interpreted as moderate frustration tolerance, which means it can be
either low or high frustration tolerance depending on the situation. Likewise, only test
item number three (3) has the interpretation of moderate frustration tolerance.
Subordination has the lowest mean because of the possible effects of the
order of the upperclassmen. Furthermore, one explanation that is suitable for this
result is because fourth class cadets have limited time for themselves and most of
those times are planned to optimize preparation. Moreover, when an upper class
cadet takes that free time, it can result in insufficient preparation and can lead to
punishment. Nevertheless, the fourth class cadets have no control with the situation,
and they can only control their perception about it.
The overall result for discomfort tolerance is high frustration tolerance.
Consequently, this is consistent with the study of Jerry Wilde (2012) in his research
about frustration intolerance and academic achievement, which states that students
are willing to experience frustration discomfort to reach the higher achievement. In
relation to the military training, fourth class cadets show acceptance and
understanding of the fact that military life is full of surprising and uncomfortable
situations. To cope with the hardcore training fourth class cadets overcame their
frustration discomfort and try to meet the standards sanctioned upon them.
The highest loaded item was “It is okay for me when I do things that are new
to me and I have difficulty doing with.” This pertains to the adaptive skills of the
respondents to a completely new situation that would test their ability to manage the
stressing circumstances. One factor is because they are already expectant of the
nature of the military training to be difficult and firsthand to them. Since the beast
barracks, they are constantly bombarded with the new knowledge and values that
the military institution has been trying in instill to them. Furthermore, they had
already made the choice to stay behind and survive, adapting to the nature of the
military.
In addition, because of the rigid training, they already cope with the military
environment and traditions from morning to night. Moreover, they understand their
position to the CCAFP as the "lowest mammal" who be indoctrinated to become a
recognized cadet able to perform the standards of cadets. Furthermore, this results
in the ability to become accustomed to new things that were introduced gradually by
their upperclassmen and training officers. Thus, fourth class cadets have a degree of
acceptance that it is a part of training to be in great discomfort.
Table 11
Level of Entitlement Tolerance of Fourth Class Cadets
Entitlement Mean Interpretation

It is okay even if I don’t achieve things that I have 2.9576 Moderate
achieved in the past
The unfavorable environment doesn't affect me at all. 3.0788 Moderate
It is just fine when I improve on something even though 3.7394 High
its lesser than what I expected to improve on to.
It’s okay with me when my squad mates are favored 3.5091 High
over me.
I tend to encourage myself when I am not commended 4.0121 High
by my upperclassmen for doing a good job.
I don't pity myself for underachieving on my 3.5879 High
performance as a fourth class cadet.
In table 11, the average is 3.4808 which means the fourth class cadets have a
high level of entitlement tolerance. Research shows that entitlement tolerance is the
ability to tolerate unmet desires or needs from people (Wilde, 2012). Additionally,
test item number four (4) with the item relating to self-reassurance has the highest
mean of 4.0121 among the test items. In addition, most of the items suggest high
frustration tolerance. However, there are two (2) items that suggest moderate
frustration tolerance item’s one (1), it is okay even if I don’t achieve things that I have
achieved in the past, and two (2), the unfavorable environment doesn't affect me at all.
Additionally, test item number one (1) has the lowest mean with the item relating to
lesser achievements comparing to the past has the mean of 2.9576 that is
interpreted as moderate frustration tolerance. One of the reasons of this result is that
cadets are highly competent, and if the performance is not progressive other cadets
tend to compare their results to one another and will pressure each other to reach
the standard. Thus, cadets exhibiting the moderate frustration tolerance tend to be
temperate during these times.
Though entitlement has an interpretation of high frustration tolerance, it had
the lowest mean among the categories of the level of frustration tolerance. Moreover,
this category is described by research that a belief must be achieved, and other
people should not hinder this desire (Wilde, 2012). Further association with this is
that Wilde divided it into two facets of fairness and immediate gratification.
Additionally, the latter relates to the lowest loaded item that measures the ability to
tolerate inferior performance. The immediate gratification to compete and achieve
things now, and not gradually in the future describes why the mean is lower
compared to other items.
Whereas the other facet of entitlement is fairness, that describes the highest
item measuring the ability to tolerate a lack of social support or reassurance from a
superior. Further, this may be caused by the boundaries set by the upperclassmen to
the fourth class cadets to avoid familiarization. Additionally, when an upper cadet
constantly commends the fourth class cadets, they tend to familiarize with their
upperclassmen inconsistent with the leadership development program by the
Academy to establish authority by having a clear distinction among classes.
Another thing is they are expected to do well all the time. Moreover, it is a part
of their fundamental foundation as a cadet. Furthermore, if they will not reach the
standard of perfection or intentionally do otherwise, they will be automatically
punished and corrected. Thus, they should not be praised on something that they
are expected to perform that is why there no need for acclamation.
The boundaries set by the upperclassmen were clearly established to them.
From the start of Beast Barracks until now, they are clear on their limitations as a
fourth class cadet and thus, they do not need any constant moral support from the
upperclassmen. This is the most common situation not just inside the Academy but
also in the Armed Forces of the Philippines to do the right thing not withstanding
being acknowledged or not. Therefore, the fourth class cadets tend to engage in self-
reassurance to deal with these conventional boundaries.
Table 12
Level of Emotional Tolerance of Fourth Class Cadets
Emotional Tolerance Mean Interpretation
I don’t cry when the upper class punished me 3.6909 High

even though it is not my offense.
I don’t feel emotional when I commit mistakes. 3.2061 Moderate
I don’t feel bad when I am being corrected 3.7576 High
because of my offense.
I don’t feel anything bad when upperclassmen 3.2606 Moderate
talked to me harshly or rudely.
I can tolerate my feelings when I am 3.6606 High
misunderstood.
I can tolerate my feelings when I am punished 3.7636 High
In table 12, the average emotional tolerance is 3.5566 which means the fourth
class cadets have a high level of emotional forbearance. Emotional tolerance is
simply an ability to tolerate emotional distress or outbursts. It is further described in
the succeeding contexts. Test item number six (6) with the item relating toleration in
one’s feelings when punished has the highest mean of 3.7636 among the test items.
This means that they have sufficient self-control with their feelings and emotions.
Most of the items also suggest high frustration tolerance. Test item number two (2)
however, yielded the lowest mean of 3.2061 and it is interpreted as moderate
frustration tolerance. Two other test items, numbers two (2), I don’t feel emotional
when I commit mistakes, and four (4), I don’t feel anything bad when upperclassmen talked
to me harshly or rudely, yielded the interpretation of moderate frustration tolerance.
One factor that would explain the moderate frustration tolerance is that it is normal
for a person to feel emotional when he commits mistakes and it has drastic effects
unless he is desensitized. Thus, the cadets who exhibit such moderate frustration
tolerance may be more transparent with their emotions compared to those cadets
with higher frustration tolerance.
The fact that emotional tolerance refers to a belief that emotional distress is
tolerable and thus can be regulated has been established (Wilde, 2012). On the
other hand, it is also important to associate emotional intelligence with frustration
tolerance because it depicts one’s ability to manage emotions through different
dimensions vital to military decision making. Research shows that emotional
intelligence and frustration tolerance is significantly correlated (Kumari & Gupta,
2015). Furthermore, Kunmari and Gupta (2015) also identify self-awareness, self-
motivation, self-development, integrity, and commitment as a dimension of analysis

of emotional intelligence and thus, can be associated with emotional tolerance
category of frustration tolerance.
The high emotional tolerance of the fourth class cadets may be interpreted
that they already developed emotional management even after being away from their
comfort zones and respective families. Furthermore, the ability to resist the impulse
of feelings may be inferred in two reasons desensitization and rationalization. The
upperclassmen regularly remind the fourth class cadets on the reasons for their roles
and these were consistently instilled to them. Though, the fourth class cadets felt
common feelings of hurt on the way they are treated, they justify the treatment as
part of the training, thus, making them less affected.
Table 13
Level of Achievement Frustration Tolerance of Fourth Class Cadets
Achievement Frustration Mean Interpretation
I can do better even after I was punished 4.000 High

for being wrong.
I can cope with the standards of my upper- 3.8182 High

classmen without having negative
thoughts.
I can improve myself in the future even 4.3636 Very High

when I don’t reach my objectives now.
My deficiencies do not hinder me from 4.2061 High

aiming well in my studies.
In table 13, the average achievement frustration is 4.0970 which means the
fourth class cadets have a high level of frustration tolerance. Achievement frustration
tolerance is often attributed to entitlement frustration tolerance. Additionally, the
difference between the two is that the former focuses on personal goals while the
latter focuses on the desires you opted from other people. Test item number three
(3) with the item relating to aiming in the future has the highest mean of 4.3636
among the test items. This suggests very high frustration tolerance. All of the other
items suggest high frustration tolerance. However, test item number two (2) has the
lowest mean with 3.8182 that is interpreted as high frustration tolerance.
The primary objective of this category is to measure how far the fourth class
cadets can tolerate nonperformance (Wilde, 2012). The events inside the Academy
are really challenging and they aim to diminish one's self-worth to make them do
better the next time. This reason is also similar to Wilde's research that the more
willing the participant to bear frustration in pursuit of achieving, the higher the
grades. The fourth class cadets already reached their part of cadetship to the point
of no return because only a few months from now, they would already be upper class
cadets. They have proven their own insufficiencies do not hinder them from
overcoming the difficulties of being the lowest rank in the Cadet Corps.
The highest item loaded is “I can improve myself in the future even when I don’t
reach my objectives now.” It is interpreted as very high frustration tolerance, the
highest mean among the other entire items of the frustration tolerance category.
Recognizing the things that one lacks is a normal process that one can realized in
the first part of the training. As the cadets look back from the events that they have
hurdled in the past, they will look at it as a motivation to achieve future situations.
In conclusion, the fourth class cadets were noted to have a high level of
frustration tolerance in the training inside the Academy. Furthermore, this result
leads to a good implication for the CCAFP because it suggests that the fourth class
cadets are able to adjust to different circumstances. Additionally, these
circumstances are distinct within military training and affect them both physically and
psychologically. Moreover, it also implies the fact that the upper class cadets and the
Headquarters Tactics Group (HTG) have effective training and motivation methods.
Prominent Type of Coping Mechanisms
The type of coping mechanisms is divided into three (3) categories: emotion-
focused coping, problem-focused coping and appraisal focused coping. The results
for each category are the average of all the eight (8) CCAFP companies from Alfa to
Hawk. The results reflect that the prominent coping mechanism used by the fourth
class cadets from the results of the survey are appraisal-focused coping while the
least used coping mechanism is emotion-focused coping.
Figure 2
Respondents’ use of coping mechanisms (N= 165)
Problem-Focused Coping Appraisal-Focused Coping
34 24
78
1
4 5
18
Emotion-Focused Coping
*See Appendix D for Frequency Distribution Table
Among the 165 samples, there are 78 respondents that solely used appraisal-
focused coping as their coping mechanism, 34 for problem-focused coping and 18

for emotion-focused coping. Furthermore, there are 5 who both use emotion-focused
coping and appraisal-focused coping, 4 for problem-focused coping and emotion-
focused coping and 24 for problem-focused coping and appraisal-focused coping.
There is one respondent that used the three coping mechanisms equally.
Additionally, the frequency distribution (see Appendix D) result exemplifies the most
used coping mechanism of fourth class cadets. Further illustrations will be provided
through weighted means results in the succeeding tables.
Table 14
Type of Coping Mechanisms of the Fourth Class
Type of Coping Mechanism Mean Interpretation
Emotion-Focused Coping 3.1430 Often

Problem-Focused Coping 3.8024 Sometimes
Appraisal-Focused Coping 4.1164 Sometimes
In table 14, the prominent coping mechanism is appraisal focused coping
strategy that has a mean of 4.1164 which was used 61%-80% percent of the time.
Furthermore, with the same behavioral description and interpretation as appraisal-
focused coping, problem-focused coping is the second most commonly used coping
mechanism. The emotion-focused coping meanwhile has the least mean among the
three identified coping strategies. The possible explanations pertaining to the mean
result of each coping mechanisms will be discussed after each coping mechanism
table.
Table 15
Emotion-Focused Coping Mechanisms of the Fourth Class Cadets
Emotion-Focused Coping Mechanism Mean Interpretation

I tend to isolate myself from my squad mates or roommates 2.6485 Often
when I’ve committed an offense.
I do not speak for a long time when I am the source of 2.9758 Often
endorsement during a time.
I cry when no one sees me when I was endorsed. 2.6303 Often
I imagine myself not to be endorsed in the future. 4.2242 Always
I want to be alone when I am dealing with stress, hassles, 3.2364 Often
and difficulties.
Average 3.1430 Often
Table 15, shows the items that were rated by the respondents in the emotion-
focused coping category. The emotion-focused coping as used in this context
focuses more on the category of isolation and wishful thinking as a means to cope
with difficulties. Item number four (4) has the highest mean of 4.2242 among the
items which means it is used 81% - 100% of the time. Additionally, the least is item
number one (1) with the mean of 2.6485 which was used 41%-60% percent of the
time. The item with the highest mean pertains to wishful thinking aspect of emotion-
focused coping strategy. In addition, the item with the lowest means refers to
avoiding situation through isolation.
The emotion-focused coping according to Lazarus (1992) states that it
functions to change either the way stressful relationship with the environment is
attended to or the relational meaning of an event. The highest point item which
illustrates wishful thinking can be attributed to the statement of Lazarus in changing
the how one’s difficult circumstance is imagined or perceived. Wishful thinking
means interpreting or explaining reality based on what one wishes to be true. This
somehow can be a factor in determining one’s words or emotion. In the same study,
they have shown that wishful thinking is under the category of escape-avoidance that
is considered by Lazarus as universally bad coping strategy, as the wishful thinking
may be a hindrance to try more fruitful strategies in circumstances that can be
enhanced,
The emotion-focused coping has the lowest mean among the other coping
styles. Research shows that this type of coping mechanism is often associated with
misery and dysfunction (Stanton, Danoff-Burg, Cameron & Ellis, 1994), as cited by
Stanton, Kirk, and Cameron (2000). Additionally, it is also proven to be related to
negative adaptation or pessimism (Kohn 1996), as cited by Stanton, Kirk, and
Cameron (2000). Moreover, according to Jurji, Kasuma, Rahman, Shahrinaz & Aren
(2018), this coping mechanism is used when the situation is deemed to be
unchangeable to minimize emotional distress. In this regard, one can infer that this is
the least to be used because it is likely to lead to maladaptive behavior, which is
contrary to the need to adapt to the ever-changing circumstances. However, the
fourth class cadets still use this coping mechanism because of the role that they had
to do (Jurji et al., 2018).
Table 16
Appraisal-Focused Coping Mechanism of the Fourth Class Cadets
Appraisal-Focused Coping Mean Interpretation

Mechanism
I am confident to do things when I 4.1152 Sometimes
survive punishments from my
offenses.
I am confident to do things when I 4.3515 Always
survive a challenging day.
The problem becomes less 4.0970 Sometimes
threatening when I experience it in the
past.
I can solve the same problems in the 3.8545 Sometimes
past with ease.
I perform more after I survived a 4.1636 Sometimes
challenge.
Average 4.1164 Sometimes

Table 16, shows the items that were rated by the respondents in the
appraisal-focused coping category. The appraisal-focused coping is often associated
with emotion-focused coping. Both coping mechanisms agreed the people in difficult
that their situations regard their status as being out of their control and the only
means to cope with is to accept the reality. Item number two (2), I am confident to do
things when I survive a challenging day, has the highest mean of 4.3515 among the
items which means it is used 81% - 100% of the time. Additionally, the least is item
number four (4) with the mean of 3.8545 which was used 61%-80% percent of the
time. The item with the highest mean pertains to positive appraisal with oneself after
the situation. In addition, the item with the lowest means refers to positively
reappraising difficult past situations.
The appraisal-focused coping is defined in this study by modifying the
perceived judgments to make the situation less threatening. This may also mean that
the participant accepts the situation and see it as a constant cause of stressor. It is
related to positive reinterpretation, and focusing on self-growth. The appraisal-
focused coping strategies, according to Elizabeth Saigal a Certified Life Coach, are
directed about protesting one’s proposition and changing their reasoning. It includes
isolating one’s self from the situation or circumstance, revising ideas and values, or
determining the comedy in the situation to bring an assured result.
The primary reason for this as a main coping mechanism is the role and the
situation of the participant inside the Academy. They have no choice but to think
positively and cope with the upperclassmen and standards. Furthermore, seeing
things positively may relate to good adaptation skills in a difficult environment.
Moreover, the same path is given to everyone and it is a part of their journey to be
punished over and over again. Nevertheless, they tend to use this coping
mechanism to reduce anxiety in future difficulty by overcoming the new present
situation.
Table 17
Problem-Focused Coping Mechanism of Fourth Class Cadets
Problem-Focused Coping Mechanism Mean Interpretation

I plan during the night what to do for 3.9758 Sometimes
tomorrow’s activities.
I have a schedule of my activities during 3.6909 Sometimes
the day.
I follow well what I plan to do. 3.5455 Sometimes
I follow my list of priorities from first to last 3.6182 Sometimes
within the day or week.
I increase my effort in an area where I am 4.1818 Sometimes

underachieving.
Average 3.8024 Sometimes
In table 17, shows the items that were rated by the respondents in the
problem-focused coping category. The problem-focused coping refers to the ability of
a person to adapt to situations by solving the cause of such an event provided that it
is within his or her control. Item number five (5) has the highest mean of 4.1818
among the items which means it is used 61%-80% percent of the time. Additionally,
the least is item number three (3) with the mean of 3.5455 which was used 61%-80%
percent of the time. The item with the highest mean pertains to better performance.
In addition, the item with the lowest means refers to acting upon the plans to solve
the situations.
The problem-focused coping is commonly used in a changeable situation
(Jurji et al., 2018). Furthermore, it contains a series of cost-benefit analysis with
selection and application (O’Connor, 2010). In addition, many authors agree that this
coping mechanism is one of the recommended coping mechanisms that are adaptive
in nature trying to change the situation in favor of the concerned person.

Nevertheless, this coping mechanism is less used compared to appraisal-coping
mechanism.
One of the reasons that may explain to this phenomenon is because the
fourth class cadets experience unchangeable circumstances. Whether they try to
change their endorsement or problem at hand by improving themselves they still
cannot reach the standards of the upperclassmen. Furthermore, the cadets are
trained to provide constructive criticisms, even though the fault is inevitable, cadets
are required to go beyond that. The plan that a fourth class may want to apply is
useless because for one can never please his upperclassmen and second, he
doesn't have the full control of his time and resources.
Level of Frustration tolerance of CCAFP companies
The levels of frustration tolerance per CCAFP companies were obtained from
the survey questionnaire and are divided into four (4) categories: discomfort
tolerance, entitlement, emotional tolerance, and achievement frustration.
Furthermore, the results are separated per companies and per categories. Moreover,
the average mean of all fourth class cadets for frustration tolerance is 3.71013 which
means the fourth class cadets have high frustration tolerance as illustrated in Table
9.
Table 18
Level of Frustration Tolerance grouped by company
Companies Category Average

Discomfort Entitlement Emotional Achievement
Tolerance Tolerance Frustration
Alfa 3.7975 (H) 3.375 (M) 3.833 (H) 4.1125 (H) 3.7771 (H)
Bravo 3.8375 (H) 3.45 (H) 3.375 (M) 4.2 (H) 3.7156 (H)
Charlie 3.75 (H) 3.4083 (H) 3.225 (M) 4.05 (H) 3.6083 (H)
Delta 3.5952 (H) 3.6270 (H) 3.4841 (H) 4.0714 (H) 3.6944 (H)
Echo 3.8691 (H) 3.5635 (H) 3.8096 (H) 4.3214 (VH) 3.8909 (H)
Foxtrot 3.2976 (M) 3.5079 (H) 3.4921 (H) 3.8333 (H) 3.5327 (H)
Golf 3.8095 (H) 3.5714 (H) 3.7778 (H) 4.1667 (H) 3.8315 (H)
Hawk 3.7143 (H) 3.3333 (M) 3.4444 (H) 4.0238 (H) 3.6290 (H)
In table 18 it is illustrated that the Echo Company has the highest frustration
tolerance followed by Golf, Alfa, Bravo, Delta, Hawk, Charlie and last is Foxtrot. The
Achievement Frustration Tolerance of Echo Company has the highest mean among
all the categories of companies with a mean of 4.3214 and interpreted as very high
frustration tolerance. Furthermore, the Foxtrot Company who has the least mean
among the companies covers the lowest mean of Discomfort Tolerance among all
the categories of companies with a mean of 3.2976 and interpreted as moderate
Accordingly, the Echo Company has this company policy of treating each
other as a family they are also called "Echo Family". That can be one of the reasons
why their fourth class cadets have a higher frustration tolerance compared to the
other fourthclassmen. The other two succeeding top ranking companies, Golf and
Alfa, are also considered as a "White Company” or companies that treat their fourth
class cadets recognize after recognition giving them certain privileges. Additionally,
the Golf Company has this company tradition of giving leeway to the fourth class
cadets so that they may be able to think clearly and do what is right.
The Black Companies, the companies who treat their fourth class cadets
unrecognized for one year thus, depriving them in certain privileges that other fourth
class cadets’ experience, are in the subsequent ranks after Alfa, the Bravo Delta and
Hawk. In addition, it is already accepted that they have a lower level of frustration
tolerance than White companies. However, the bottom two companies are also
considered as white companies but they have diverse traditions compared to the
other three because Charlie Company is known to be a competitive company that
forces and pressures their cadets to excel in various field like Sports and Academics.
Furthermore, Foxtrot Company have a policy of "First Class and UnderClass policy",
which means that the rule of the First Class cadets are likened to the dictatorship
type of government, not giving certain privileges to all the underclass cadets. An
example of which is in giving punishments where they can sanction it to all the
underclassmen at the same time without considering the rank.
It is already accepted that when comparing companies Foxtrot Company has
the established legacy of the lowest popularity. Moreover, cadets would make an
effort to avoid endorsement among the first class cadets of Foxtrot Company
because they will not respect the ranking you have in giving punishment. Thus,
CCAFP companies have established various and diverse company traditions over
the years. Nevertheless, regardless of different companies, fourth class cadets all
have a high level of frustration tolerance.

Level of Frustration Tolerance of Male and Female Cadets
The levels of frustration tolerance based on sex were obtained from the
survey questionnaire and are divided into four (4) categories: discomfort tolerance,
entitlement, emotional tolerance, and achievement frustration. Furthermore, the
results are separated per companies and per categories. Moreover, the average
mean of all fourth class cadets for frustration tolerance is 3.71013 which means the
fourth class cadets have high frustration tolerance as shown in Table 9.
Table 19
Level of Frustration Tolerance grouped by sex
Category Sex
Male Female
Discomfort Tolerance 3.6958 (H) 3.7333 (H)
Entitlement 3.4750 (H) 3.4963 (H)

Emotional Tolerance 3.6083 (H) 3.4185 (H)
Achievement Frustration 4.0750 (H) 4.1556 (H)
Average 3.7135 (H) 3.7009 (H)
In table 19 it is illustrated that the Male cadets have higher frustration
tolerance than the female cadets with the mean of 3.7135 compared to 3.7009.
Nevertheless, the difference between the average means of the two sexes is not that
big. Likewise, female cadets have higher frustration tolerance when compared with
the frustration tolerance categories of male cadets. Furthermore, the male cadets
only have higher frustration tolerance in emotional tolerance category. The data
suggests that male cadets have higher emotional tolerance than female cadets.
It is generally accepted that females are more emotional than males.
Furthermore, this principle is seen in the comparison of categories of frustration

tolerance particularly the emotional tolerance of female cadets. Moreover, there are
certain emotions and feelings that a female may experience throughout the training.
It is also observed in the barracks because female cadets tend to give certain
punishments to the female fourth class cadets when their emotions are triggered. For
example, the female cadets tend to express how they feel by speaking harsh
languages and taking the offense personally rather than professionally to the
offender compared to the male cadets who just express themselves by giving
strenuous exercises without emotional involvement to the offender.
The study of Kumari and Gupta (2015) suggests that girls have higher
emotional intelligence than boys in the adolescent stage. Moreover, the definition by
the above-mentioned researchers about emotional intelligence states that it is the
ability to use the emotion to resolve difficulties and live a more efficient life. Since the
females have lower emotional tolerance it can be said that they tend to be affected
by their emotions more during training and have difficulties in resolving problems
because of this.
Prominent Coping Mechanisms of CCAFP companies
focused coping, problem-focused coping and appraisal-focused coping. The result is
separated per company integrating the prominent coping mechanism. The prominent
coping mechanism used by the fourth class cadet from each company is appraisal-
focused coping while the least used coping mechanism is emotion-focused coping.
Table 20
Prominent Coping Mechanism of CCAFP Companies
Companies Category
Appraisal-Focused Problem-Focused Emotion-Focused

Coping Coping Coping
Alfa 4.21 (A) 3.93 (O) 3.1 (S)
Bravo 4.22 (A) 3.88 (O) 3.49 (O)
Charlie 4.03 (O) 3.95 (O) 3.15 (S)
Delta 4.2571 (A) 3.8381 (O) 3.3048 (S)
Echo 4.1905 (O) 3.8667 (O) 3.295 (S)
Foxtrot 3.7524 (O) 3.4571 (O) 3.0286 (S)
Golf 4.1524 (O) 3.8571 (O) 3.7778 (O)
Hawk 4.1238 (O) 3.6571 (O) 3.0191 (O)
In table 20, it is illustrated that most of the CCAFP companies used the
appraisal-focused coping strategy 61%-80% percent of the time, while Alfa, Bravo
and Delta Companies using such 81%-100% percent of the time. Moreover, it is
shown that all of the CCAFP companies used the problem-focused coping strategy
61%-80% percent of the time. Furthermore, it is shown that most of the CCAFP
companies used the emotion-focused coping strategy 41%-60% percent of the time
except the Bravo Company that used it 61%-80% percent of the time.
As illustrated above, it is still the Foxtrot Company who has the lowest mean
among the three coping mechanisms. This supports the idea presented in the
frustration tolerance that because of their company tradition they are quite negative
on their roles. Furthermore, this variable is a vital aspect of understanding the
CCAFP companies coping mechanisms.
Prominent Coping Mechanisms of Male and Female Cadets
focused coping, problem-focused coping and appraisal-focused coping.
Furthermore, the result is separated per sex integrating the prominent coping
mechanism. Moreover, the prominent coping mechanism used by the fourth class
cadet from each company is appraisal-focused coping while the least used coping
mechanism is emotion-focused coping.
Table 21
Prominent Coping Mechanism of Male and Female Cadets
Category Sex
Male Female
Appraisal-Focused Coping 4.1067 (A) 4.1422 (A)
Problem-Focused Coping 3.8667 (O) 3.6311 (O)
Emotion-Focused Coping 3.0750 (S) 3.3244 (S)
In table 21, it is illustrated that both of the sexes used the appraisal-focused
coping and the problem-focused coping 61%-80% percent of the time. Moreover, it is
shown that both sexes used emotion-focused coping 61%-80% percent of the time.
Nevertheless, the female cadets used appraisal-focused coping and emotion-
focused coping more than male cadets. In addition, male cadets used problem-
focused coping more than female cadets. Furthermore, as discussed previously, the
implication of the frequency of the female cadets using emotion-focused coping more
than male cadets is because of the lower emotional tolerance of female cadets (see
table 19).
Comparison among CCAFP companies of the Frustration Tolerance
The mean for each company per item and category was analyzed using
ANOVA single factor in Microsoft Excel. Furthermore, the item statistics were used
from the SPSS Statistics tool to compute the mean. The overall result for the ANOVA
single factor is illustrated below.
Table 22
ANOVA single factor table displaying CCAFP companies deviations in the level of
Frustration Tolerance F crit Sig Finding
Discomfort Tolerance 2.9469 1.01E-06 significant

Entitlement 2.4377 1.15E-12 significant
Emotional Tolerance 2.4377 5.98E-05 significant
Achievement Frustration 2.9467 4.33E-05 significant
Over-all Frustration Tolerance 1.6613 1.78E-32 significant

ap is significant at 0.05 level.
In table 22, the P-value of the over-all frustration tolerance is 1.78E32 which is
lesser than 0.05 (P-value<0.05). Moreover, the interpretation for this result is that
there is a significant difference in frustration tolerance among CCAFP companies.
Accordingly, all the categories have an interpretation of a significant difference
because the p-value is lesser than 0.05. Thus, this result supported the ideas
discussed in the level of frustration tolerance among the CCAFP companies in Table
18.
As discussed earlier, all the CCAFP companies have diverse and various
company traditions and culture develop through the years. Furthermore, the kind of
treatment they receive from their upperclassmen play an important role in their
distinction. Though they have different answers to certain questions imposed they all
have a high level of frustration tolerance. Hence, regardless of the treatment
perceived or received by the fourth class cadets from different forms of leadership
and company policy, they adjust accordingly.
Comparison between Male and Female cadets of the Frustration Tolerance
The mean for each sex is analyzed by t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal
Variances in Microsoft Excel. Furthermore, the item statistics were used from the
SPSS Statistics tool to compute the mean. The overall result for t-Test Two-Sample
Assuming Unequal Variances in the succeeding tables.
Table 23
T-test table displaying sex differences in the Level of Frustration Tolerance
Frustration Male Female t Sig Finding

Tolerance
Discomfort 3.6958 (H) 3.7333 (H) -0.1643 0.6855 Not significant

Tolerance
Entitlement 3.475 (H) 3.4963 (H) -0.0876 0.2574 Not significant
Emotional 3.6083 (H) 3.4185 (H) 1.2011 0.9319 Not significant

Tolerance
Achievement 4.075 (H) 4.1556 (H) -0.4294 0.8749 Not significant

Frustration
Over-all 3.6892 (H) 3.6522 (H) 0.2146 0.8313 Not significant

Frustration
Tolerance
In table 23, the P(T<=t) two-tail is 0.8313 which is more than 0.05 (P-
value>0.05) for all the category. Furthermore, reject the alternative hypothesis (Ha)
and accept the null hypothesis (Ho). The interpretation for this result is that there is
no significant difference in frustration tolerance between male and female cadets.
Thus, the difference in their answers doesn’t fluctuate much and is the same for both
sexes.
The result of this table agrees with the study of Dave (2013), as cited by
Kunmari and Gupta (2015), which found that there is no gender difference in
frustration of students of Secondary schools. Moreover, Kunmari and Gupta
concluded that gender does not create an effect on frustration. Furthermore, if both
gender experience the same perception of frustration both have the same reaction to
it or toleration at some point.
Comparison among CCAFP companies of the Coping Mechanisms
The mean for each company per item and category was analyzed using
ANOVA single factor in Microsoft Excel. Furthermore, the item statistics were used
from the SPSS Statistics tool to compute the mean. The overall result for the ANOVA
single factor is illustrated below.
Table 24
ANOVA single factor table displaying CCAFP companies deviations in the type of
coping mechanisms
Coping F crit Sig Finding
Mechanisms
Emotion-Focused 2.6415 4.53E-13 significant

Coping
Appraisal-Focused 2.6415 0.000488 significant
Coping
Problem-Focused 2.6415 1.17E-06 significant
Coping
Over-all Coping 1.7871 2.09E-39 significant
mechanisms
In table 24, the P-value is 2.09E-39 which is lesser than 0.05 (P-value<0.05).
Furthermore, accept the alternative hypothesis (Ha) and reject the null hypothesis
(Ho). Moreover, the interpretation for this result is that there is a significant difference
in coping mechanisms among CCAFP companies.
One of the reasons that cause the variation among companies is because of
the company culture that was discussed in the earlier part of the results. This
tradition for each company is distinct and affects the leadership style of the upper-
class men and how the company operates. This culture is passed on from the
generation of cadets that enhances their sense of ownership and pride of their own
upbringing. In conclusion, the significant differences are caused by the fossilized
company tradition that influences the cadets in their leadership styles and molds
them as a follower.
Comparison between Male and Female cadets of the Coping Mechanisms
The mean for each sex is analyzed by t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal
Variances in Microsoft Excel. Furthermore, the item statistics were used from the
SPSS Statistics tool to compute the mean. The overall result for t-Test Two-Sample
Assuming Unequal Variances in the succeeding tables.

Table 25
T-test table displaying sex differences in the type of coping mechanisms
Coping Male Female t Sig Finding

Mechanism
Emotion- 3.075 (S) 3.3244 (S) -0.583 0.2521 Not significant

Focused
Coping
Appraisal- 4.1067 (O) 4.1422 (O) -0.3142 0.7614 Not significant

Focused
Coping
Problem- 3.8667 (O) 3.631 (O) 1.2481 0.5759 Not significant

Focused
Coping
Over-all 3.6828 (O) 3.6993 (O) -0.0785 0.9379 Not significant
Coping
Mechanisms
In table 25, the P(T<=t) two-tail is 0.9379 which is more than 0.05 (P-
value>0.05). Furthermore, reject the alternative hypothesis (Ha) and accept the null
hypothesis (Ho). Moreover, the interpretation for this result is that there is no
significant difference in coping mechanisms between male and female cadets.
The significance of this result pertains that there are no gender issues
regarding the use of coping mechanisms of male cadets and female cadets.
Moreover, it is inherent that there are physical and psychological distinctions
between male and female cadets. However, these differences may promote disparity
between the two sexes and may create a gap that is not consistent with one of the
training policy of the Military to build and to enhance camaraderie disregarding the
gender differences. Thus, one can infer that the trainers may use the same treatment
and motivation with both sexes during training.

Chapter 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a summary of this research study. This contains the
research conclusions and the recommendations based on the discussions in the
previous chapter.
Conclusions
Based on the findings gathered on the study of the Level of Frustration Tolerance
and Coping Mechanism of Fourth Class cadets, the following are the conclusions of
the study:
1.) The fourth class cadets have a high frustration tolerance in terms of discomfort
tolerance, entitlement, emotional tolerance, and achievement frustration.
2.) The prominent coping mechanism of fourth class cadets is appraisal focused
coping followed by problem-focused coping, and lastly, emotion-focused coping.
3.) The fourth class cadets have a high level of frustration tolerance regardless of
sex and the company they belong to.
4.) The fourth class cadets utilized the same type of coping mechanism which is
the appraisal focused coping regardless of sex and the company.
5.) Sex and Company do not affect the level of frustration tolerance of the fourth
class cadets.
6.) Sex and Company do not affect the type of coping mechanism of the fourth
class cadets.
Recommendations
Accordingly, the following are the recommendations of this study:
1.) To determine possible changes in the cadet’s level of tolerance to frustration
as well as their coping mechanisms, it is recommended to the CCAFP to have a
longitudinal study of the same for the members of the class 2020 until their first
class year.
2.) To identify the distinct CCAFP company traditions that might affect the level of
frustration tolerance and prominent coping mechanism, it is suggested to the next
researchers to conduct an exploratory study on said concerns.
3.) To be able to determine and compare the possibilities in differences in the
level of frustration tolerance and type of coping mechanism, it is recommended
that the Headquarters Tactics Group (HTG) conduct a similar study during New
Cadet Battalion Training (NCBn) or beast barracks and a month after
incorporation to class 2023.
4.) To identify if the cadet’s level of frustration tolerance and coping mechanism
has an effect on their conduct grade, it is recommended that the Department of
Tactical Office (DTO) to further study the following relationship: a.) the level of
frustration tolerance and conduct grade, b.) the prominent coping mechanism and
conduct grade.
5.) To identify the factors that might affect the level of frustration tolerance and
prominent coping mechanism, it is suggested to the Tactics Group Education
Plans and Programs (TG5) Office to conduct an exploratory study on said
concerns.
6.) To classify if the cadet’s level of frustration tolerance and coping mechanism
has an effect on their Physical Fitness Test (PFT) grade, it is recommended that the
Sports and Physical Development Unit (SPDU) to further examine the following
relationship: a.) the level of frustration tolerance and PFT grade, b.) the prominent
coping mechanism and PFT grade.
7.) To monitor the status of the fourth class cadets, it is recommended that the
Cadet Welfare Office (CWO) conduct a regular survey on the level of frustration
tolerance and type of coping mechanism for all incoming fourth class cad/ets.
8.) To further understand the leadership and character of cadets, it is also
recommended that this research study Center for Leadership and Professional
Excellence (CLPE) Office be utilized as an additional resource for their study on the
Cadet Leadership Development System (CLDS).
9.) To recognize the cadet’s level of frustration tolerance and coping mechanisms
as a contributing factor to the performance of cadets, it is recommended that the
Deputy Chief of Academy Staff for Education Plans and Programs (MA5) Office
should explore the results of this study as a basis for their annual cadet Character,
Academic, Military, and Physical (CAMP) Development Report to the
Superintendent, Philippine Military Academy (PMA). Moreover, the said office can
also conduct further study on the following relationship: a.) the level of frustration
tolerance and company traditions, b.) the prominent coping mechanism and
company traditions so as to determine the effect of company traditions to the cadet’s
level of frustration tolerance and type of coping mechanism
10.) To identify if the cadet’s level of frustration tolerance and the coping
mechanism has an effect on their academic performance, it is recommended that

the Headquarters Academic Group (HAG) conduct further study on the following
relationship: a.) the level of frustration tolerance and academic performance, b.) the
prominent coping mechanism and academic performance.

References
Alam, M. J., & Dulal, M. (2018). Coping Strategies of Stress Tolerance in Relation to
Military Training . Global Journal of HUMAN-SOCIAL SCIENCE: A Arts &
Humanities - Psychology, 9.
BABAR T. SHAIKH, A. K. (2004). Students, Stress and Coping Strategies: A Case of
Pakistani Medical School. Research Gate, 9.
Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior:
A review of research and theory. Carnegie Mellon University Research
Showcase, 28.
Diehl, M., Coyle, N., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (1996). Age and Sex Differences in
Strategies of Coping and Defense Across the Life Span. Psychology and
Aging, 14.
Dindelegan, C., Talpos, C., & Florina, S.-P. (2013). FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE
AND THE DEGREE OF NEUROTICISM OF DEINSTITUTIONALIZED
INDIVIDUALS . INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE of SCIENTIFIC PAPER ,
6.
Dolan, C. A., & Ender, M. G. (2008). The Coping Paradox: Work, Stress, and Coping
in the U.S. Army. Military Psychology, 21.
Gomes, A. R., & Afonso, J. M. (2016). Occupational Stress and Coping among
Portuguese Military Police Officers. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana ,
20.
Johnsen, B., Laberg, J. C., & Eid, J. (1998). Coping Strategies and Mental Health
Problems in a MilitaryUni. Military Medicine, 4.
Jones, A., Norman, C. S., & Wier, B. (2010). Healthy Lifestyle as a Coping
Mechanism for Role Stress in Public Accounting. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 22.
Joseph, C. (2016). Stress Coping Strategies in Indian Military PilotsPreliminary
Observations. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace,
20.
Jurji, N. M., Kasuma, J., Rahma, D. H., & I. Shahrinaz, M. A. (2018). STRESS
COPING STRATEGIES AND ITS RELATION TO QUALITY OF LIFE AMONG
THE SARAWAK MALAY ENTREPRENEURS . Journal of Fundamental and
Applied Sciences, 15.
Kaur, G. (2018, February). Study on Reaction to Frustration among Teacher
Trainees in Relation to Their Emotional Maturity. Online International
Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 14.
KAUR, M. (2014, June). STUDY OF ADOLESCENCE PROBLEMS IN RELATION
TO. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and
Literature (IMPACT: IJRHAL), 20.
Kumar, S., & Bhukar3, J. P. (2013). Stress level and coping strategies of college
students . Academic Jorunals, 7.
Kumari, A., & Gupta, S. (2015, December). A study of emotional intelligence and
frustration tolerance among adolescen. ADVANCE RESEARCH
JOURNALOFSOCIALSCIENCE, 8.
Landrum, J. L. (1963). Effects of Frustration tolerance training on young
institutionalized retarded children. 96.
Lawver, R. G., & Smith, K. L. (2014). Coping Mechanisms Utah Agriculture Teachers
Use to Manage Teaching Related Stress . Journal of Agricultural Education,
16.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping Theory and Research: Past, Present, and Future.
Psychosomatic Medicine , 14.
Manning, R. E., & Valliere, W. A. (2001). Coping in Outdoor Recreation: Causes and
Consequences of Crowding and Conflict Among Community Residents.
Journal of Leisure Research, 17.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Age Differences and Changes in the Use of Coping
Mechanisms. Journal tifCenmiology: PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES , 9.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment Theory and Affect
Regulation: The Dynamics, Development, and Cognitive Consequences of
Attachment-Related Strategies. Plenum Publishing Corporation, 26.
Moosa, E., & Munaf, S. (2012). Emotion and Problem Focused Coping Strategies: A
Comparative Study of Psychiatric Patients and Normal Adults . 5.
Nieva, R., & Leanor B Johnson, T. A. (1991). Occupational Stress: Coping of Police
and Their Spouses. 43.
Ntoumanis, Edmunds, & Duda, .. (2008, July 24). Understanding the coping process
from a selfdetermination. Retrieved from selfdeterminationtheory.org:
http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2009_NtoumanisEdumund
sDuda_BJHP.pdf
O’Brien, N. (2014). Academic Stress, Coping Mechanisms, and Outcome Measures
amongst College Students of . 53.
O'Connor, P. (2010). Coping with stress in military aviation: A review of the research.
Research Gate, 34.
Prosser, E. C. (2014). Relationships, Health, and Coping Among Active Duty Military
and Veterans. Psychology Commons, 32.
Rani, R., & Desway, Y. S. (2015, March). RELATIONSHIP OF FRUSTRATION AND
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF ADOLESCENTS OF GOVERNMENT AND
NON-GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS. BHARTIYAM
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION & RESEARCH, 8.
Ryan, K. (2013). How problem focused and emotion focused coping affects college
students’ . 46.
SakshiSharm. (2013, August 05). Occupational stress in the armed forces: An Indian
army perspectiv. IIMB Management Review, 11.
SamiraS.Bamuhair, AliI.AlFarhan, AlaaAlthubaiti, SajidaAgha, SaeedurRahman, &
NadiaO.Ibrahi. (2015). Sources of Stress and Coping Strategies among
Undergraduate Medical Students Enrolled in a Problem-Based Learning
Curriculum. Hindawi, 9.
SCHUSTER, R. M., HAMMITT, W. E., & MOORE, D. (2003). A Theoretical Model to
Measure the Appraisal and Coping Response to Hassles in Outdoor
Recreation Settings. Research Gate, 24.
Sharmila, S. (2016). Emotion and Problem Focused Coping Strategies: A
Comparative Study of Male and Female Engineering Students in Chennai
City. International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and
Management Studies , 3.
Shimaz, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Does Distraction Facilitate Problem-focused
Coping with Job Stress? A 1 year Longitudinal Study. J Behav Med, 12.
Sincero, S. M. (13, May 2012). Theories of Coping. Retrieved from explorable.com:
https://explorable.com/theories-of-coping
Stanton, A. L., Kir, S. B., Cameron, C. L., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2000). Coping Through
Emotional Approach: Scale Construction and Validatio. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology , 20.
Wilde, J. (2012). The Relationship between Frustration Intolerance and Academic
Achievement in College. International Journal of Higher Education, 8.
Yadav, P. (2017, September). Study of Frustration Tolerance among Senior
Secondary School Students. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH
CULTURE SOCIETY, 4.
Appendix A
Slovins Formula and the Computation of the Sample Size
e = 0.05 (5%)
Fourth Class Cadets = 347
N = 347
n= _________N_________
2
1+Ne
n= _________347_______
2
1+(347)(0.05)
n= 165
Appendix B
Letter of request for data gathering
Dear Respondents,
We are first class cadets from Golf Company and we are currently conducting
a survey in coping mechanism and frustration tolerance as part of our RES 432
Subject.
In connection with this, we would like to seek your cooperation for the success
of our research by answering honestly the following survey questionnaire. We would
like to inform you also that all information shall be treated with outmost
confidentiality.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Yours truly,
Cadet Rafal TD
Cadet Sumagaysay
Cadet Sunido AJV
Appendix C
Survey Questionnaire
Sex: Company:
Instructions: With the use of the scale below as a basis, kindly assess the factors
affecting your frustration tolerance and coping mechanism. Please put check marks
(/) on your answer.
Frustration Description
Scale
5 Always (81%-100% percent of the time)
4 Often (61%-80% percent of the time)
3 Sometimes (41%-60% percent of the time)
2 Rarely(21%-40% percent of the time)
1 Never (0%-20% percent of the time)
A. Frustration Tolerance: ability to tolerate unpleasant feelings or stressful

situations.
Statements 5 4 3 2 1
Discomfort Tolerance: The following questions address issues that determine your
tolerance of difficulties and hassles
1. I am comfortable with my role as a
fourth class cadet with regards to my
upper class cadets.
2. It is acceptable for me even when my
upper class cadet orders me to do
some things outside my comfort zone.
3. It is satisfactory for me when my upper
class cadet orders me to do some
things other than what I planned on
doing.
4. It is okay for me to do things that are
new to me and I have difficulty doing
with.
Entitlement: The following questions address issues that determine your tolerance of
unfairness and frustrated gratification.
5. It is okay even if I don’t achieve things
that I have achieved in the past.
6. Unfavorable environment doesn’t
affect me at all.
7. It is just fine when I improve on
something even though it’s lesser than
what I expected to improve on to.
8. It’s okay with me when my squad
mates are favored over me.
9. I tend to encourage myself when I am
not commended by my upper class
men for doing a good job.
10. I don’t pity myself for underachieving
on my performance as a fourth class
cadets.
Emotional Tolerance: The following questions address issues that determine your
tolerance of emotional distress.
11. I don’t cry when the upper class
punishes me even though it is not my
offense.
12. I don’t feel emotional when I commit
mistakes.
13. I don’t feel bad when I am being
corrected because of my offense.
14. I don’t feel anything bad when
upperclassmen talks to me harshly or
rudely.
15. I can tolerate my feelings when I am
misunderstood.
16. I can tolerate my feelings when I am
punished.
Achievement Frustration: The following questions address issues that determine
your tolerance of frustrated achievement goals.
17. I can do better even after I was
punished for being wrong.
18. I can cope with the standards of my
upper class men without having
negative thoughts.
19. I can improve myself in the future
even when I don’t reach my objectives
now.
20. My deficiencies do not hinder me from
aiming well in my studies.
B. Coping Mechanisms: techniques to cope with frustrating experiences

Statements 5 4 3 2 1
Emotion Focused Coping: The following questions address issues about isolation,
wishful thinking and distancing.
1. I tend to isolate myself from my squad
mates or roommates when I’ve
committed an offense.
2. I do not speak for a long time when I am
the source of endorsement during a
time.
3. I cry when no one sees me when I was
endorsed.
4. I imagine myself not to be endorsed in
the future.
5. I want to be alone when I am dealing
with stress, hassles and difficulties.
Appraisal Focused Coping: The following questions address issues about coping up
through your past experiences.
6. I am confident to do things when I
survive punishments from my offenses.
7. I am confident to do things when I
survive a challenging day.
8. The problem become less threatening
when I experience it in the past.
9. I can solve the same problems in the
past with ease.
10. I perform more after I survived a
challenge.
Problem Focused Coping: The following questions addresses your planning,
increasing effort and management of priorities
11. I plan during the night what to do for
12. I have a schedule of my activities during
the day.
13. I follow well what I plan to do.
14. I follow my list of priorities from first tto
last within the day or week.
15. I increase my effort in an area where I
am under achieving.
Appendix D
Frequency Distribution Table among the sample N=165
Table 26
Coping Mechanism Frequency among the sample (N=165)
Coping Mechanism Freq
N(%)
3 Coping Emotion Focused Coping, 1

Mechanism Appraisal Focused Coping and
Problem Focused Coping
2 Coping Emotion Focused Coping and 25

Mechanism Appraisal Focused Coping
Emotion Focused Coping and 6

Appraisal Focused Coping
1 Coping Emotion Focused Coping 18

Mechanism
Appraisal Focused Coping 78
Problem Focused Coping 34
Over-all Emotion Focused Coping 28
Appraisal Focused Coping 108
Problem Focused Coping 63

Appendix E
Frequency Distribution Table of Emotion Focused Coping items
Table 27
Emotion Focused Coping Mechanism of fourth class
No Coping Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
Mechanism N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
1 I tend to isolate 0 (0) 8 (6) 26 (21) 70 61 (32)

myself from my
squadmates or (41)
roommates when
I’ve committed an
offense.
2. I do not speak for 1 (1) 3 (13) 16 (24) 62 (38) 83 (24)
a long time when I
am the source of
endorsement
during a time.
3. I cry when no one 2 (1) 8 (18) 26 (26) 65 (36) 64(19)
sees me when I
was endorsed.
4. I imagine myself 1 (1) 10 (16) 44 (25) 67 (35) 43 (22)
not to be
endorsed in the
future.
5. I want to be alone 0 (1) 7 (2) 27 (18) 63 (37) 68 (42)
when I am dealing
with stress,
hassles and
difficulties.
Appendix F
Frequency Distribution Table of Appraisal Focused Coping items
Table 28
Appraisal Focused Coping Mechanism of fourth class
No Coping Mechanism Never Rarely Sometime Often Always
N (%) N (%) s N (%) N (%)
N (%)
11. I plan during the 0 (0) 10 (6) 34 (21) 68 52 (32)

night what to do for
(41)
12. I have a schedule of 2 (1) 22 (13) 40 (24) 62 (38) 39
my activities during
(24)
the day.
13. I follow well what I 1 (1) 30 (18) 43 (26) 60 (36) 31
plan to do.
(19)
14. I follow my list of 2 (1) 26 (16) 42 (25) 58 (35) 37

priorities from first to
(22)
last within the day or
week.
15. I increase my effort 1 (1) 3 (2) 30 (18) 61 (37) 69
in an area where I
(42)
am under achieving.
Appendix G
Frequency Distribution Table of Problem Focused Coping items
Table 29
Problem Focused Coping Mechanism of fourth class
No Coping Mechanism Never Rarely Sometime Often Always
N (%) N (%) s N (%) N (%)
N (%)
11. I plan during the 0 (0) 10 (6) 34 (21) 68 (41) 52 (32)

night what to do for
12. I have a schedule of 2 (1) 22 (13) 40 (24) 62 (38) 39
my activities during
(24)
the day.
13. I follow well what I 1 (1) 30 (18) 43 (26) 60 (36) 31
plan to do.
(19)
14. I follow my list of 2 (1) 26 (16) 42 (25) 58 (35) 37

priorities from first to
(22)
last within the day or
week.
15. I increase my effort 1 (1) 3 (2) 30 (18) 61 (37) 69
in an area where I
(42)
am under achieving.
Appendix H
ANOVA Result of Frustration tolerance when grouped by CCAFP companies
Table 30
Over-all ANOVA Result for Frustration Tolerance

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 20.98568 19 1.10451 21.5139 1.78E-32 1.661328
Within Groups 7.187509 140 0.051339
Total 28.17319 159
Table 31
ANOVA Result for Discomfort Tolerance

Between Groups 2.421418 3 0.807139 18.07904 1.01E-06 2.946685
Within Groups 1.250061 28 0.044645
Total 3.671479 31
Table 32
ANOVA Result for Entitlement

Between Groups 6.358309 5 1.271662 29.25256 1.15E-12 2.437693
Within Groups 1.825816 42 0.043472
Total 8.184125 47
Table 33
ANOVA Result for Emotional Tolerance

Between Groups 2.581546 5 0.516309 7.209446 5.98E-05 2.437693
Within Groups 3.007857 42 0.071616
Total 5.589403 47
Table 34
ANOVA Result for Achievement Frustration

Between Groups 1.360345 3 0.453448 11.50285 4.33E-05 2.946685
Within Groups 1.103775 28 0.039421
Total 2.46412 31
Appendix I
T-test of Frustration tolerance when grouped by sex
Table 35
T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Frustration Tolerance
Male Female
Mean 3.679167 3.652222
Variance 0.130727 0.18455
Observations 20 20
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 37
t Stat 0.214604
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.415627
t Critical one-tail 1.687094
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.831254
t Critical two-tail 2.026192
Table 36
T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Discomfort Tolerance
Male Female
Mean 3.695833 3.733333
Variance 0.102338 0.106008
Observations 4 4
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 6
t Stat -0.16431
Table 37
T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Entitlement
Male Female
Mean 3.475 3.496296
Variance 0.164306 0.190156
Observations 6 6
df 10
t Stat -0.08762
Table 38
T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Emotional Tolerance
Male Female
Mean 3.608333 3.418519
Variance 0.062667 0.087193
Observations 6 6
df 10
t Stat 1.201055
Table 39
T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for Achievement Frustration
Male Female
Mean 4.075 4.155556
Variance 0.04463 0.096132
Observations 4 4
df 5
t Stat -0.42942
Appendix J
ANOVA of Coping Mechanisms when grouped by CCAFP companies
Table 40
Over-all ANOVA Result for Coping Mechanisms
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between
Groups 36.74071 14 2.624336 48.75907 2.09E-39 1.787079
Within
Groups 5.651365 105 0.053823
Total 42.39207 119
Table 41
ANOVA Result for Emotion Focused Coping
Source of
Between
Groups 13.73539 4 3.433848 43.18364 4.53E-13 2.641465
Within
Groups 2.783107 35 0.079517
Total 16.5185 39
Table 42
ANOVA Result for Appraisal Focused Coping
Source of
Between
Groups 1.008408 4 0.252102 6.535591 0.000488 2.641465
Within
Groups 1.350079 35 0.038574
Total 2.358487 39
Table 43
ANOVA Result for Problem Focused Coping
Source of
Between
Groups 2.292284 4 0.573071 13.21154 1.17E-06 2.641465
Within
Groups 1.518179 35 0.043377
Total 3.810463 39
Appendix K
T-test of Coping Mechanisms when grouped by sex
Table 44
T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for coping mechanisms
Male Female
Mean 3.6828 3.6993
Variance 0.3572 0.3036
Observations 15 15
Df 28
t Stat -0.0785
Table 45
T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for emotion focused coping
Male Female
Mean 3.075 3.3244
Variance 0.4282 0.4871
Observations 5 5
df 8
t Stat -0.583
Table 46
T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for appraisal focused coping
Male Female
Mean 4.1067 4.1422
Variance 0.0332 0.0308
Observations 5 5
df 8
t Stat -0.3142
Table 47
T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for problem focused coping
Male Female
Mean 3.8667 3.6311
Variance 0.0602 0.1179
Observations 5 5
df 7
t Stat 1.2481
Curriculum Vitae
THEA D RAFAL
Address: Block 1, Lot 7, Las Villas de Dadiangas Brgy. City
Heights General Santos City,
Contact Number: 09556184492
Birthday: May 18, 1997
E-mail: thearafalpart2@yahoo.com.ph
Class: 2019
Rank: Cadet Captain
Branch of Service: Philippine Air Force
Educational Background
Level/Degree Name of School Year Attended
Philippine Military
April 2015-Present
Bachelor of Science Academy
University of the
Philippines Mindanao 2013-2015
College campus
Regional Science High
2009-2013
Secondary School of Region 12
Dadiangas West Central
2007-2009
Primary Elementary School
Notre Dame of Kabacan 2005-2007
Enhance Learning Center 2004-2005
Pilot Elementary School 2003-2004
Seminars/Trainings Attended
Title Address Inclusive Dates
Soldier Training
Nueva Ecija 2016
Development
Leadership
Nueva Ecija 2017
Development Course
Instructor’s Training Doctrine
2018
Development Training Command, Tarlac
Squadleader’s Philippine Military
2018
Seminar Academy
Philippine-Korean talk Philippine Military
2019
by HE Han Do Man Academy
Awards and Recognition
Philippine Military
2017-2019
Dean's List Academy
2nd Place Bible Quiz
YMCA Baguio City October 2018
Bee Contest
Letter of Philippine Military

November 2018
Commendation Academy
Military Philippine Military
June 2017
Commendation Medal Academy
Presidential Merit Philippine Military
July 2016
Award Academy
Philippine Military
May 2017
AGOS Academy
Over-all Best
Philippine Military
Presenter Regional April 2019
Academy
Research Forum 2019
Organizational Affiliations
Organization Position Inclusive Dates
PMA Christian
Admin Officer 2018-Present
Fellowship
S5 Council Head 2018-Present
Honor Committee Member 2019-Present
Psychological
Association of the Member 2019-Present
Philippines
ANGELO JAN V SUNIDO

Address: Bayuga Street Poblacion South Science
City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija
Birthday: April 05, 1996
E-mail: angelosunido@gmail.com
Class: 2019
Rank: Cadet Lieutenant
Branch of Service: Philippine Army
Philippine Military
April 2015-Present
Central Luzon State
2013-2015
College University
Muñoz National High
2009-2013
Secondary School
Accelerated Christian
2006-2009
Primary International School
Dep-Ed CLSU
2003-2006
Elementary
Little Lamb Learning
2004-2005
center
2018
M16 Rifle Philippine Military
Mar-15
Sharpshooter Academy
M14 Rifle Philippine Military
Mar-14
Sharpshooter Academy
MNHS Arnis Club Former President 2010-Present
PMA Arnis Corps
Member 2015-Present
Squad
REINNEL JACOB L SUMAGAYSAY
Address: #56 Burgos St., Pon. Ilawod, Lambunao, Iloilo

Birthday: July 16, 1997
E-mail: Sumagaysayrjl.19305@gmail.com
Class: 2019
Rank: Cadet Lieutenant
Branch of Service: Philippine Army
Philippine Military
April 2015-Present
Central Philippine
2014-2015
College University
Sun Yat Sen High Schol
2010-2014
Secondary of Iloilo, Inc.
Don Eugenio Ladrido
2003-2010
Primary Memorial Elem. Sch.
2018
Mathematics
Teachers Association
of the Makati City 2002-2010
Philippines(MTAP)
training
Philippine Military
Mar-15
Rifle Sharpshooter Academy
Philippine Military
Mar-14
Pistol Shrpshooter Academy
PMA Cadet Islamic
Member 2018-Present
Credence Society
PMA Cadet Conduct
Member 2017-Present
Policy Board

Philippine Military Academy April 17, 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Military Academy April 17, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frustration Tolerance and Coping Mechanisms

of Fourth Class Cadets.

A Research Proposal Submitted to the Department of Management

Thea Dizon Rafal

Angelo Jan Villa Sunido

Reinnel Jacob Labramonte Sumagaysay

Philippine Military Academy

The Multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine possible

using random sampling design.

appraisal-focused coping mechanism as a prominent coping mechanism whether it

is grouped by sex or companies. Likewise, there is no significant difference in both

Meanwhile, there is a significant difference in both level of frustration tolerance and

prominent type of coping mechanism when grouped according to company. Based

changes in the level of frustration tolerance and their coping styles.

in this research study:

duration of the study.

answering the provided questionnaire.

fourth class cadets.

To our family, who unselfishly supports us to this endless endeavour of our

finish this research study on time.

Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study 9

Theoretical Framework/Conceptual Framework 13

Statement of the Problem 20

Population and Locale of the Study 23

Data Gathering Tools 25

Data Gathering Procedures 26

Chapter 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Level of Frustration Tolerance 29

Prominent Type of Coping Mechanism 39

Level of Frustration Tolerance of CCAFP Companies 45

Comparison among CCAFP Companies of the Frustration Tolerance 52

Comparison between Male and Female Cadets of the Frustration Tolerance 53

Comparison among CCAFP Companies of the Coping Mechanisms 54

Chapter 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table No. Table Title Page

1 The Population of the Study ....................................................................................24

2 Demographics of Survey Respondents (N=165)…………………………………..24

3 Reliability Analysis of the Survey Questionnaire…………………………………….25

4 Reliability of individual items for Level of Frustration Tolerance……………….26

5 Reliability of individual items for Coping Mechanisms…………………………..26

6 The Mean Score Interpretation for Frustration Tolerance……………………….27

7 The Mean Score Interpretation for the type of Coping Mechanisms…….…….27

8 The P-Value Interpretation among/between the variables………………………..28

9 Over-All result for the level of frustration tolerance of fourth-class cadets……29

10 Level of Discomfort Tolerance of fourth class cadets…………………………….31

11 Level of Entitlement tolerance of fourth class cadets……………………………..33

12 Level of Emotional tolerance of fourth-class cadets………………………………35

13 Level of Achievement Frustration tolerance of fourth class cadets……………..37

14 Type of Coping Mechanisms of the fourth class…………………………………..40

15 Emotion-Focused Coping Mechanisms of the fourth class……………………...41

16 Appraisal Focused Coping Mechanism of the fourth class………………………42

17 Problem-Focused Coping Mechanism of fourth class…………………………….44

18 Level of Frustration tolerance grouped by company………………………………46

19 Level of Frustration tolerance grouped by sex……………………………………...48

20 Prominent Coping Mechanism of CCAFP Companies………………………………50

21 Prominent Coping Mechanisms of Male and Female Cadets……………………….51

22 ANOVA single factor table displaying CCAFP companies

deviations in the level of frustration tolerance…………………………………………………..52

23 T-test table displaying sex differences in the level of frustration tolerance………..53

Table No. Table Title Page

24 ANOVA single factor table displaying CCAFP companies……………………………54

deviations in the type of coping mechanisms…………………………………………………..56