Available online at:
https://cc.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/cc%3Apsycjournal

J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.
Submitted Fall 2021; accepted June 2022.

What Are the Effects of Anxiety?
Authors: Amanda Garvin* and Hannelise Inden
Supervising Instructor: Michael Pollock, Psyc 110 (“Experimental Psychology”)
Department of Psychology, Camosun College, 3100 Foul Bay Road, Victoria, BC, Canada V8P 5J2
*Corresponding author email: forestdweller007@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
In this paper, we aimed to discover the compilation of effects that anxiety has on different
elements of life, so that we could better understand how to cope with its influence. Previous
research has predicted how sexual trauma, academic performance, and codependency are all
impacted by anxiety. In our first (correlational) study, we tested the strength of these
relationships by examining naturalistic daily changes in their variables longitudinally over a
period of one week. We measured sexual trauma with a traumatic rumination scale, academic
performance by using an academic performance scale, codependency by using three
codependency scales, and Anxiety with the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). Based on
the strength of correlation found between anxiety and codependency in our correlational study,
we then conducted a second (experimental) study to test for a causal relationship between these
two variables. Over a period of one week, we randomly assigned participants each day to either
do a guided meditation or scroll through social media. Using a single-blind procedure, we then
measured the effect this manipulation had upon codependency. Data pooled across participants
in our correlational study showed significant correlations of anxiety with academic performance
and codependency, but not with sexual trauma. Data pooled across participants in our
experimental study failed to establish a causal role of anxiety on codependency. Our
experimental study showed only one significant relationship which occurred in the opposite
direction that we predicted (see Table 2). The findings from our study revealed that was no large
impact of anxiety on codependency. However, considering the significance of the results from
our correlational study it could be suggested that the real-world implications of this research may
highlight a relationship between anxiety and reduced functionality - predictive qualities for
people with anxiety.
1. Introduction
1.1 Research Problem
The effect of anxiety is visible in many
parts of an individual’s life and occupies the
question of how to cope with its influence. A
potential research question is if anxiety’s
impact can be observed in relationship

attachment styles, predominantly with
individuals who have experienced sexual
trauma. Another promising research
question is if an individual's ability to take
on large academic tasks is affected by
anxiety. A finalizing topic of research is if
an individual's gravitation toward
codependent tendencies is caused by
anxiety. We aim to discover how the effects
243

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

of anxiety influence one’s ability to function
in day-to-day life, so that we can better
understand how to cope with its presence.
1.2 Literature Review
One factor previously found to be
associated with anxiety is sexual trauma
(Anderson & Kosloff 2020). For example, in
a correlational study, by Anderson &
Kosloff (2020) a total of 321 victims of
sexual or physical assault completed
questionnaires, self-reporting their levels of
attachment-anxiety and post-traumatic stress
(PTS) in two separate studies. In both
studies, researchers measured anxious
attachment with the Experiences in Close
Relationships Scale (revised). The scale
consisted of 36 items; they asked
participants to reflect on how they feel in
their relationship with their partner and then
rate each item using a 7-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree; 7 = fully agree). Each
item described a way that a person may feel
in a relationship (e.g., “I worry that romantic
partners won't care about me as much as I
care about them”). Additionally, researchers
measured PTS with the post-traumatic stress
disorder (PSTD) checklist for DSM-5 in
both studies. The checklist was designed to
highlight how frequently the participants
were reminded of their worst traumatic
experience. This checklist consisted of 20
questions that participants rated on a 5-point
scale (0 = not applicable; 4 = very
applicable). Each question assessed the
patient's frequency of traumatic memories
(e.g., “In the past month, how much were
you bothered by [memories of your worst
traumatic experience]”). Based on the data
collected in both studies, the researchers
were able to measure the overall means and
standard deviation of anxious attachment
and PTS: the means for anxious attachment
was (3.28) and the standard deviation (1.51),

PTS had a means of (45.76) and the standard
deviation was (18.06). Based on these
results, the researchers suggested that there
was positive correlation between
attachment-anxiety and PTS. The data
collected in study 1 identified a direct
relationship between attachment anxiety and
PTS (c’ = 2.73 p =0.02), in the second study
the relationship was again validated (c’ =
3.30, p <.01). Furthermore, it could be
predicted that individuals who have PTS
from assault trauma will experience greater
levels of attachment anxiety in relationships.
Another factor previously found to be
associated with anxiety is poor academic
performance (Cohen et al., 2019). For
example, in a correlational study by Cohen
et al. (2019), 342 Psychology students
volunteered to partake in 2 questionnaires.
They measured social anxiety with the
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS6/SPS-6), which had questions such as (e.g.,
“I have difficulty talking with other
people”). Researchers made a 12-item
questionnaire from the original 40-item
SIAS and SPS questionnaire and provided a
4-point scale with (0 = not at all
characteristic or true of me; 4 = extremely
characteristic or true of me). They then
summed items 1-6 to create a composite
SAIS score (x=.80). Additionally, they used
a 3-item measure to capture student’s
discomfort with an active learning
environment, with questions such as (e.g., “I
have skipped lectures in the past when I
knew we might have to make a presentation
or do group work.”). Students provided
responses on a 5-point Likert scale with (0 =
not at all true of me ; 4 = extremely true of
me). Researchers then summed the three
items to create a composite active learning
discomfort score (a=.68). This study was
conducted 3 times throughout the year: once
at the beginning of the school year, once in
the middle, and once at the end, overall
244

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

determining the grades and performance of
the students. The results in the third and
final study for the SIAS-6 and SPS-6
questionnaire ranged from 0-18, with a mean
of 5.95 and standard deviation of 3.71. In
total, 61.3% of the sample reached the social
anxiety disorder diagnostic cut off score of 7
or higher. The active learning discomfort
questionnaire results ranged from 0-3.64,
with a mean of 1.51 and standard deviation
of 0.84. Students' final grades ranged from
20%-100%, with a mean of 90% and
standard deviation of 12%. Based on these
results, the researchers suggested that
students who reported higher social anxiety
levels and greater discomfort with active
learning had significantly lower grades. In
conclusion, it can be predicted that
discomfort with an active learning
environment mixed with social anxiety
correlates with difficulty in academic
performance and lower grades.
A third factor associated with anxiety is
codependency (Springer et al., 1998). For
example, in a correlational study by Springer
et al. (1998), 217 psychology students filled
out a questionnaire booklet, self-reporting
their gravitation toward codependency.
Researchers measured anxiety using a SelfConsciousness Scale (SCS). Participants
filled out 23 statements where they selfreported how strongly they felt each
statement that applied to them on a scale of
1 to 5 (1 = not at all; 5 = very much). The
SCS scale contained questions highlighting
participants’ feelings of discomfort or
anxiety in social situations. Additionally,
codependency was measured using the
Codependency Assessment Inventory (CAI).
The assessment was composed of 60 true or
false questions that prompted the
participants to assess their levels of
autonomy, over-commitment to others, and
boundaries. Higher scores on the CAI scale
indicated higher levels of codependency.

Based on their results, the researchers
suggested that there is correlation between
codependency and social anxiety (r = 0.29).
Thus, it could be predicted that there is a
relationship between individuals who
experience social anxiety and their levels of
codependency.
1.3 Hypotheses
Based on the above literature review, we
predicted the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis #1: If anxiety increases then
sexual trauma will increase.
Hypothesis #2: If anxiety increases then
academic performance will decrease.
Hypothesis #3: If anxiety increases then
codependency will increase.
2. Methods
2.1 Participants
The two authors of this paper served as
the participants in its studies. The
participants ranged in age from 23 to 25
years old, with an average age of 24 years,
and included two cisgender women. The
participants were all undergraduate students
at Camosun College who completed the
current studies as an assignment for Psyc
110 (“Experimental Psychology”) and were
grouped together due to their mutual interest
in the effects of anxiety. Both participants
regularly experienced anxiety.
2.2 Correlational Study Methods
We first performed a correlational study
to test concurrently all of our hypotheses by
examining naturalistic daily changes in the
variables longitudinally. Each participant
kept a study journal with them at all times
over this study’s one-week period in order to
record self-observations of the following
four variables: (1) sexual trauma, (2)
245

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

academic performance, (3) codependency,
(4) and anxiety.
2.2.1 Sexual Trauma
To measure sexual trauma, participants
assessed their frequency of traumatic
rumination. For the sake of this study, we
are defining traumatic rumination as the
memory or fear of sexual trauma occurring.
The participants assessed their daily amount
of traumatic rumination on a scale that
ranged from 0 – 100. The guidelines of the
scale consisted of: 0 = no rumination, 25 =
some rumination, 50 = moderate rumination,
75 = high rumination, 100 = extreme
rumination. Over the course of the sevenday experiment, participants completed the
traumatic rumination scale every evening
before they went to bed.
2.2.2 Academic Performance
To measure academic performance, each
participant completed a scale from 0-100
based on their performance that day. For the
sake of this study, we are defining academic
performance as the ability to successfully
manage an academic course load. The
guidelines of the scale consisted of: 0 = not
at all academically productive, 25 = mild
academic productivity, 50 = moderate
academic productivity, 75 = high academic
productivity, and 100 = extreme academic
productivity).
2.2.3 Codependency
To measure codependency, each
participant completed three codependency
themed scales that each ranged from 0-100.
Each scale determined the severity of the
participant’s codependent tendencies. The
three different scales used to measure
codependency each measured a different
aspect of it: autonomy, desire for company,
and boundaries. We are defining autonomy
as the ability to rely on oneself. The
guidelines of the ‘autonomy’ scale consisted
of: 0= extreme autonomy, 25 = high
autonomy, 50 = moderate autonomy, 75 =

mild autonomy, 100 = no autonomy.
Additionally, we are defining desire for
company as the longing or need for another's
companionship. The guidelines of the
‘desire for company’ scale consisted of: 0=
no desire for company, 25= mild desire for
company, 50 = moderate desire for
company, 75 = high desire for company, 100
= extreme desire for company. Furthermore,
we are defining boundaries as the ability to
enforce what you are comfortable with and
how you would like to be treated by others.
The guidelines for the ‘boundaries’ scale
consisted of: 0 = extreme boundaries, 25 =
high boundaries, 50 = moderate boundaries,
75 = mild, 100 = no boundaries. Each
evening of the experiment, participants filled
out the three scales. We combined the data
from all three scales that was completed by
each participant.
2.2.4 Anxiety
To measure anxiety, each participant
completed the Hamilton Anxiety Rating
Scale (HAM-A) to document the severity of
their symptoms during the experiment. The
scale consisted of 14 questions that
measured the participants’ symptoms of
anxiety such as worries, feelings of tension,
and fear of strangers (refer to the Appendix
for the full anxiety scale used in the study).
Participants rated each symptom on a 5point scale (0=not present; 4=very severe).
We tallied the total number of points that
ranged from 0 –56 to determine our anxietyscore each day. The scale was designed to
assess weekly symptoms; for this study the
participants used the scale to determine their
daily symptoms. Participants completed the
scale every evening before they went to bed
over a seven-day time-period.
2.3 Correlational Study Planned Analyses
To assess the strength and statistical
significance of associations between
variables predicted by our three hypotheses,
246

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

we performed Pearson product moment
correlations of their predictor variables
sexual trauma, academic performance, and
codependency with their outcome variable
anxiety. For testing Hypothesis #1 we
correlated the participants’ daily amount of
anxiety using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating
Scale with the daily amount of sexual
trauma each participant experienced using a
subjective traumatic rumination scale. For
testing Hypothesis #2 we correlated the
participants’ daily amount of anxiety using
the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale with the
daily amount of academic performance
achieved by each participant by using a
subjective academic performance scale. For
testing Hypothesis #3 we correlated the
participants’ daily amount of anxiety using
the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale with the
daily amount of Codependency each
participant experienced using three
subjective scales: Autonomy, Desire for
Company, and Boundaries. We performed
all of the above correlations separately for
each participant as well as using data pooled
across all of the participants. For the
correlations using pooled data, in addition to
using the raw data, we also performed
correlations after we had first transformed
the data from each participant into z-scores
in order to standardize differences in
averages and variability seen between the
participants in their data and thus make them
more comparable. A correlation coefficient
was considered statistically significant if the
probability of its random occurrence (p) was
< .05 (i.e., less than 5% of the time expected
by chance alone).
2.4 Experimental Study Methods
Based on the strength of the correlation
between anxiety and codependency that was
found in our correlational study, we then
chose to conduct an experimental study to
test for a causal relationship between these

two variables from Hypothesis #3. We
manipulated the independent variable,
anxiety, over a one-week period by
randomly assigning the participants to either
an experimental condition or control
condition. The participants flipped a coin
every morning to determine what condition
they would participate in that day. For the
experimental condition, the participants did
a guided meditation in the morning when
they woke up. The guided mediation was
sourced from an online application called
Calm. The participants followed a 7 Days of
Calming Anxiety Course from the
application to determine if meditation would
reduce their anxiety
(https://app.www.calm.com/program/NYdp8
r6/7-days-of-calming-anxiety). The
meditations include topics such as being in
the present moment, the relationship
between mind and body, becoming nonreactive to thoughts, and so on. On days that
the experimental condition was assigned,
participants sequentially listened to the days
of the meditation course, with each
meditation being approximately twelve
minutes long. Contrary to this, on the
mornings that participants were randomly
assigned to the control condition, they sat
for twelve minutes and scrolled through
social media. We controlled for confounding
variables by ensuring that the duration in
which the participants participated in each
condition was equal, alongside this both
conditions required the participants to sit in
the mornings. Additionally, we hoped to
reduce experimenter expectancy effects by
doing two separate measures on our
codependency. Each night, we measured our
own codependency using a subjective scale.
The subjective scale to measure
codependency was composed of three
subscales: autonomy, desire for company,
and boundaries, as previously defined in our
correlational study. Alongside this, we did
247

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

an evening phone call with each other to
analyze the other participants’
codependency levels. We hoped to reduce
experimenter expectancy effects by
concealing the condition that the participant
was assigned to that day at the time of
codependency analysis.
2.5 Experimental Study Planned Analyses
To assess the statistical significance of
differences seen in codependency on guided
meditation experimental days vs. scrolling
through social media control days, Student’s
t-tests were performed. We performed t-tests
separately for each participant as well as
using data pooled across all of the
participants. For the t-tests using pooled
data, in addition to using the raw data, we
also performed t-tests after we had first
transformed the data from each participant
into z-scores in order to standardize
differences in averages and variability seen
between the participants in their data and
thus make them more comparable. An
average difference between conditions was
considered statistically significant if, using a
one-tailed distribution (i.e., to determine if
there is a difference between groups in a
specific direction), the probability of its
random occurrence (p) was < .05 (i.e., less
than 5% of the time expected by chance
alone).
3. Results
3.1 Correlational Study Results
As shown in Table 1, both codependency
and academic performance were both
significantly correlated with anxiety, while
in contrast sexual trauma was not found to
be significant for both participants. Sexual
trauma was not found to be significantly
correlated with anxiety using either the
pooled raw data (r = 0.25 and p = 0.41; see

Figure 1) or the pooled standardized data (r
= 0.42 and p = 0.14; see Figure 2). It can be
noted that there was significant correlation
between sexual trauma and anxiety for
participant #1 but not participant #2. It was
found however, that there was significant
correlation between academic performance
and anxiety using both the pooled raw data
(r = -0.62 and p = 0.02 see Figure 3) and the
pooled standardized data (r = -0.60 and p =
0.02; see Figure 4). It can be noted that there
was significant correlation between
academic performance and anxiety for
participant 1, but not participant #2.
Additionally, there was significant
correlation between codependency and
anxiety for both participants using both the
pooled raw data (r = 0.69 and p = 0.004; see
Figure 5) and the pooled standardized data (r
= 0.83 and p = 6.791E-05; see Figure 6).
Based on a comparison of the correlation
coefficients from the pooled standardized
data, codependency showed the highest
correlation with anxiety.
3.2 Experimental Study Results
As shown in Table 2, no significant
differences were found in codependency
between the low anxiety condition (guided
meditation) and the high anxiety condition
(social media scrolling) for the self-reported
data. Statistically significant differences
between these conditions using the selfreported data were not seen using participant
#1’s data (p = 0.055), the pooled raw data (p
= 0.286; see Figure 7), or the pooled
standardized data (p = 0.419; see Figure 8).
A statistically significant difference using
the self-reported data was found between
these conditions using participant #2’s data
(p = 0.020). As shown in Table 3, no
significant results were found in
codependency between the low anxiety
condition (guided meditation) and the high
248

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

anxiety condition (social media scrolling)
for the other-reported data. Statistically
significant differences between these
conditions using the other-reported data
were not seen using either of the
participant’s individual data, pooled raw
data (p = 0.460; see Figure 9), or pooled
standardized data (p= 0.344; see Figure 10).
4. Discussion
4.1 Summary of Results
Based on previous research, we
hypothesized that the increase in anxiety
would be associated with an increase in
sexual trauma rumination (Hypothesis #1),
as well as codependent tendencies
(Hypothesis #3). We also hypothesized that
an increase in anxiety would be associated
with a decrease in academic performance
(Hypothesis #2). Data pooled amongst
participants in our correlational study
supported the predicted relationship of
anxiety with academic performance and
codependency (Hypothesis #2 and #3).
However, the results of our correlational
study did not support a significant
association between anxiety and sexual
trauma (Hypothesis #1) and the results of
our experimental study did not support a
causal effect of anxiety on codependency
(Hypothesis #3).
4.2 Relation of Results to Past Research
Contrary to what was documented in
previous research, our correlational study
failed to support a relationship between
anxiety and sexual trauma. In comparison,
Anderson and Kosloff (2020) observed a
correlation between PTS from assault
trauma, and high-levels of attachment
anxiety in relationships. There are a few
potential reasons why our results may have

differed from that of the original study. The
first reason is that in the study conducted by
Anderson and Kosloff (2020) they had 321
participants engaged in the study, whereas
we only had 2 really cool participants.
Secondly, it can also be noted that the results
were statistically significant for participant
#1 but not participant #2. This is most likely
due to participant #2 not having experienced
sexual trauma, and therefore the fear or
rumination of sexual trauma occurring was
minimal. The third reason our results may
have differed is that we used different
methodology than Anderson and Kosloff
(2020). The study by Anderson and Kosloff
(2020) measured attachment anxiety on the
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale
(revised), whereas we measured general
anxiety with the Hamilton Anxiety Rating
Scale (HAM-A). They also measured sexual
trauma with a checklist from DSM-5, while
we measured sexual trauma with a
subjective traumatic rumination scale. It can
be noted that one similarity in both studies
was that all the participants self-reported
their anxiety and sexual trauma levels.
Similar to what was documented in
previous research, our study validated the
relationship between anxiety and academic
performance. A study by Cohen et al. (2019)
discovered a positive correlation between
high social anxiety and low academic
performance. Although both studies
predicted the same outcome, there were
some differences in our methodology. In the
study by Cohen et al. (2019) they had 342
participants and collected data on these
participants longitudinally over 1 year. In
comparison, our research data collection was
seven days, and the data was collected on
only two participants. It can also be noted
that Cohen et al. (2019) measured the effects
of social anxiety with the SAIS-6/SPS-6
scale. Contrary to this, we were more
focused on general anxiety and measured it
249

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

with The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale
(HAM-A). Additionally, Cohen et al. (2019)
measured academic performance by
observing discomfort in active learning
environments. We measured academic
performance on a subjective scale, selfreporting how academically productive we
felt that day. A notable difference in our
study which may have influenced our results
is that participant #2 was only taking 2
courses during the time of this study, which
resulted that participant receiving less
homework. Participant #1 was taking 4
courses at the time and was assigned a lot of
homework. This may account for the results
only being statistically significant for
participant #1, but not participant #2. One
final similarity between these two studies is
that all participants self-reported their levels
of anxiety and academic performance for the
duration of the study.
Supporting the evidence found in
previous research, our present study
confirms a relationship between anxiety and
codependency exists in our sample. In a
study by Spinger et al. (1998) researchers
found a correlation between anxiety and
codependency. Although our results were
comparable to their findings, there were
some notable differences within our
methodologies. For instance, in the study by
Spinger et al. (1998) they had 217
individuals participate, whereas we had only
2. Another difference is that Springer et al.
(1998) measured anxiety using a SelfConsciousness Scale (SCS), whereas we
measured anxiety using the Hamilton
Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A).
Furthermore, Springer et al. (1998)
measured codependency with a
Codependency Assessment Inventory (CAI),
and we measured codependency with a
subjective scale. Ultimately, Springer et al.
(1998) found correlation between people
who experienced social anxiety and higher

levels of codependency. Our hypothesis
matched these findings.
4.3 Implications of Results
The possible practical applications of our
current findings are that if an individual
experiences higher levels of anxiety within a
day, it may be predicted that this individual
will have lower academic performance and
higher codependency levels. Therefore, it
may be suggested, that on days of high
anxiety, an individual put less pressure on
themselves to operate at full capacity.
We originally conducted the current
studies to better understand how anxiety
affects the ability to function in day-to-day
life so we could learn more coping
strategies. What we learned from this
research is that high anxiety states may be
correlated with a lower ability to function
autonomously, as seen in both our academic
performance and codependency measures. A
limitation to our research was that we did
not conduct a manipulation check for
anxiety in our experimental study; future
research should consider more closely.
References
Anderson, G. T., & Kosloff, S. (2020).
Attachment and post-traumatic stress in
victims of interpersonal trauma: The
mediating role of emotion-focused
coping. Journal of Social & Personal
Relationships, 37(2), 667–675.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075198769
89
Cohen, M., Buzinski, S. G., ArmstrongCarter, E., Clark, J., Buck, B., &
Reuman, L. (2019). Think, pair, freeze:
The association between social anxiety
and student discomfort in the active
learning environment. Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Psychology,
250

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

5(4), 265–277.
https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000147
Springer, C. A., Britt, T. W., & Schlenker,
B. R. (1998). Codependency: Clarifying

the construct. Journal of Mental Health
Counseling, 20(2), 141–158.

251

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Table 1
Correlations for Study Variables

Variables

Anxiety & Sexual
Trauma
Anxiety & Academic
Performance
Anxiety &
Codependency

r

n

r

n

r

n

Pooled
standardized
data
r
n

0.92*

7

-0.08

7

0.25

14

0.42

14

-0.95*

7

-0.24

7

-0.62*

14

-0.60*

14

0.85*

7

0.82*

7

0.69*

14

0.83*

14

Participant #1

Participant #2

Pooled raw data

* p < .05.

252

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics using Self-Reported Data for Codependency Across Low and High Anxiety
Conditions

Low Anxiety

M

97.50

160.00*

Pooled
raw
data
118.33

Condition

SD

17.08

7.07

35.02

0.90

(Guided

n

4

2

6

6

High Anxiety

M

133.33

125.00*

128.13

0.05

Condition

SD

28.43

25.98

25.20

1.06

(Social Media

n

3

5

8

8

Condition

Statistic

Participant Participant
#1
#2

Pooled
standardized
data
-0.06

Meditation)

Scrolling)
Note. M, SD, and n, represent mean, standard deviation, and sample size, respectively.
Codependency was measured using a subjective scale ranging from 0-300, higher scores
indicated higher levels of codependency.
* p < .05 for comparison of low anxiety condition (guided meditation) with its respective high
anxiety condition (social media scrolling).

253

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics using Other-Reported Data for Codependency Across Low and High
Anxiety Conditions

Low Anxiety

M

105.00

140.00

Pooled
raw
data
116.67

Condition

SD

29.72

28.28

31.89

1.19

(Guided

n

4

2

6

6

High Anxiety

M

106.67

125.00

118.13

-0.10

Condition

SD

12.58

23.18

21.03

0.82

(Social Media

n

3

5

8

8

Condition

Statistic

Participant Participant
#1
#2

Pooled
standardized
data
0.13

Meditation)

Scrolling)
Note. M, SD, and n, represent mean, standard deviation, and sample size, respectively.
Codependency was measured using a subjective scale ranging from 0-300, higher scores
indicated higher levels of codependency.
* p < .05 for comparison of low anxiety condition (guided meditation) with its respective high
anxiety condition (social media scrolling).

254

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 1
Association Between Anxiety and Sexual Trauma Using Pooled Raw Data

Sexual Trauma ((Measured on a subjective scale
frrom 0-100, higher scores indicate greater sexual
trauma)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Anxiety (Anxiety (Measured on Hamilton Anxiety Scale, possible range of 0-56,
higher scores indicate greater anxiety)

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

255

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 2
Association Between Anxiety and Sexual Trauma Using Pooled Standardized Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

256

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 3
Association Between Anxiety and Academic Performance Using Pooled Raw Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

257

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 4
Association Between Anxiety and Academic Performance Using Pooled Standardized Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

258

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 5
Association Between Anxiety and Codependency Using Pooled Raw Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

259

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 6
Association Between Anxiety and Codependency Using Pooled Standardized Data

Notes. Marker colour differentiates participants: red = participant #1, orange = participant #2.
Some data might not be visible in the figure due to overlapping markers.

260

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 7
Average Self-Reported Data for Codependency Across Low and High Anxiety Conditions
Using Pooled Raw Data

Notes. Codependency scores for self-reported data is shown for both our low anxiety condition
(guided meditation) and our high anxiety condition (scrolling through social media) using pooled
raw data from all participants. Errors bars show ± 95% confidence levels. Overlapping
scatterplot shows data from each participant. Marker colour differentiates participants: red =
participant #1, orange = participant #2

261

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 8
Average Self-Reported Data for Codependency Across Low and High Anxiety Conditions
Using Pooled Standardized Data

Notes. Codependency scores for self-reported data is shown for both our low anxiety condition
(guided meditation) and our high anxiety condition (scrolling through social media) using pooled
standardized data from all participants. Errors bars show ± 95% confidence levels. Overlapping
scatterplot shows data from each participant. Marker colour differentiates participants: red =
participant #1, orange = participant #2

262

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 9
Average Other-Reported Data for Codependency Across Low and High Anxiety Conditions
Using Pooled Raw Data

Notes. Codependency scores for other-reported data is shown for both our low anxiety condition
(guided meditation) and our high anxiety condition (scrolling through social media) using pooled
raw data from all participants. Errors bars show ± 95% confidence levels. Overlapping
scatterplot shows data from each participant. Marker colour differentiates participants: red =
participant #1, orange = participant #2

263

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Figure 10
Average Other-Reported Data for Codependency Across Low and High Anxiety Conditions
Using Pooled Standardized Data

Notes. Codependency scores for other-reported data is shown for both our low anxiety condition
(guided meditation) and our high anxiety condition (scrolling through social media) using pooled
standardized data from all participants. Errors bars show ± 95% confidence levels. Overlapping
scatterplot shows data from each participant. Marker colour differentiates participants: red =
participant #1, orange = participant #2

264

Garvin & Inden - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2022). Vol. 4(1), pp. 243-265.

Appendix
Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A)

265