Reed T DeAngelis1, Irene Escobar2, Andrea L Ruiz3, Gabriel A Acevedo4. 1. Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 155 Hamilton Hall CB #3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 123 W Franklin St., Chapel Hill, NC 27516. Electronic address: reedd@live.unc.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203. Electronic address: irene.escobar@unt.edu. 3. Department of Sociology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 10 Cocke Dr, San Antonio, TX 78249. Electronic address: andrea.ruiz@utsa.edu. 4. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, St Mary's University, One Camino Santa Maria, San Antonio, TX 78228. Electronic address: gacevedo3@stmarytx.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore (a) how perceptions of personal and divine control over one's sleep schedule combine in distinct ways to predict sleep quality among college students and (b) whether health behaviors and psychological distress mediate the associations between perceptions of sleep control and sleep quality. METHODS: We surveyed 1251 students attending a public university in South Texas. All measures were derived from self-reports. Binary logistic regression techniques were used to predict the odds of reporting high-quality sleep in the past month. Mediation analyses were used to decompose the estimated effects of perceptions of sleep control on sleep quality via smoking, drinking, and psychological distress. RESULTS: Compared to participants who reported both low personal control and low divine control over their sleep schedules, students who reported both high personal control and high divine control exhibited 148% greater odds of reporting high-quality sleep (odds ratio = 2.48; 95% confidence interval = 1.434-4.294). These same participants also showed the highest predicted probabilities of reporting high-quality sleep (22%) compared to students with other sleep control orientations. Mediation analyses indicated that reduced psychological distress partially accounted for these differences, whereas smoking and drinking behaviors did not. CONCLUSION: College students who felt they and God both shared full control over their sleep schedules reported the highest quality sleep, which was partially explained by their lower average levels of psychological distress.
OBJECTIVES: To explore (a) how perceptions of personal and divine control over one's sleep schedule combine in distinct ways to predict sleep quality among college students and (b) whether health behaviors and psychological distress mediate the associations between perceptions of sleep control and sleep quality. METHODS: We surveyed 1251 students attending a public university in South Texas. All measures were derived from self-reports. Binary logistic regression techniques were used to predict the odds of reporting high-quality sleep in the past month. Mediation analyses were used to decompose the estimated effects of perceptions of sleep control on sleep quality via smoking, drinking, and psychological distress. RESULTS: Compared to participants who reported both low personal control and low divine control over their sleep schedules, students who reported both high personal control and high divine control exhibited 148% greater odds of reporting high-quality sleep (odds ratio = 2.48; 95% confidence interval = 1.434-4.294). These same participants also showed the highest predicted probabilities of reporting high-quality sleep (22%) compared to students with other sleep control orientations. Mediation analyses indicated that reduced psychological distress partially accounted for these differences, whereas smoking and drinking behaviors did not. CONCLUSION: College students who felt they and God both shared full control over their sleep schedules reported the highest quality sleep, which was partially explained by their lower average levels of psychological distress.
Authors: James M Clinton; Christopher J Davis; Mark R Zielinski; Kathryn A Jewett; James M Krueger Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 4.062