Mental Health and Academic Engagement: The Influence of Cyber Dating Abuse Victimization on Undergraduate Students ()
1. Introduction
The use of technology in communication has become an indispensable part of intimate relationships among the youth today. Technology enables partners to remain connected through constant exchange of text messages, instant messaging and through social media. These routine activities at times put them at risk of suffering from Cyber Dating Abuse (Mayoyo et al., 2020). Cyber Dating Abuse (CDA) refers to a kind of digital abuse caused by utilising digital media to socially embarrass a partner and cause them mental harm. Additionally, the great sum of time that is put into use of technology, high levels of exposure and proximity makes victims to be susceptible to this abuse which negatively impacts on their mental health.
The severity of negative effects like depression, anxiety and other behavioural problems (Eshelman & Levendosky, 2012) experienced by CDA victims is more intense than that caused by other dating violence (Zweig et al., 2014) owing to the relative permanency of texts or social media posts. Victims can re-read messages several times, thus increasing the negative effects of CDA (Melander, 2010). Equally, incidents of CDA can be quickly shared publicly, hence increasing emotional distress and negatively impacting a victim’s everyday life (Daslaluk, 2016). Bennett, Guran, Ramos and Margolin (2011) also found out that CDA caused more psychological distress when perpetrated by a dating partner than when it is perpetrated by a friend. CDA is negatively associated with crucial educational outcomes with victims reporting a lower sense of school attachment and school belonging; two important characteristics of student academic engagement.
A review of related literature indicates that a number of studies have been conducted to establish if aspects of mental and sexual health are connected to online dating platform use. A study by Jennings et al. (2023), examined differences in the psychopathology and sexual risk-taking behaviour of individuals who use online dating platforms for romantic relationships. The findings showed a possible relation between mental and sexual health concerns with use of online dating platforms. This finding corroborated findings by Obarska et al. (2020) who found an association between online dating platforms use and mental health symptomologies, such as depression, suicidal ideation, and compulsive sexual behaviour. Equally, another study by Turban et al. (2017) found an association between participants using social media to find sexual partners and several mental health concerns, including suicidal ideation, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression among a sample of veterans. Whereas these studies focused on participants who used online dating platforms, this current study focused on students who were already dating but utilised technology to perpetrate cyber dating abuse.
A study by Freire et al. (2023) sought to find out if the use of dating apps is associated with higher levels of stress, anxiety, or depression. Seventy percent of the four hundred and ninety-seven participants were female. Findings indicated that 34% of the students used or had used dating applications with recent users showing a statistically significantly higher depression score than non-users. Further, participants who self-identify with non-heterosexual orientations had a statistically significantly higher anxiety and depression score than heterosexuals. The depression scores in the study were slightly higher than those found in a study among Spanish students (Ramón-Arbués et al., 2020). Unlike the reviewed studies, the study which is the focus of this paper sought to examine the effect Cyber Dating Abuse victimization had on victims’ mental health and how this ultimately was related to their academic engagement.
2. Research Issue/Problem
Youth at the university are at a phase in their lives which involves forming of interpersonal relationships. Unfortunately, this period is one that is characterised by conflicts which are made worse by the regular usage of technology. This exposes them to cyber dating abuse which is likely to have negative consequences on the victims. This continued abuse if left unchecked is likely to negatively impact on the victim’s mental health which could lead to academic disengagement. This is likely to have undesirable effects on students’ retention and compliance and the education system. This paper therefore sought to examine this problem so as to understand, the nature and magnitude of the effect this has on academic engagement, especially amongst the affected Kenyan University students.
3. Research Objectives
i) To establish the prevalence rate of Cyber Dating Abuse among undergraduate university students in selected universities in Nairobi City County.
ii) To assess the influence of Cyber Dating Abuse on undergraduate victims’ mental health.
iii) To examine the extent to which CDA victimization affects the academic engagement of university students.
4. Research Questions
i) How prevalent is cyber dating abuse among undergraduate university students in Nairobi City County?
ii) What effect does CDA have on the victim’s mental health?
iii) How does Cyber Dating Abuse affect the victims’ academic engagement?
5. Research Methodology
The study was carried out in Nairobi County in Kenya between 2019 and 2020 and involved three universities randomly selected out of the possible 15 in Nairobi City County. This represented 20% of the target population. It adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey design. The focus of descriptive studies is to describe existing relationships, existing processes, perspectives or attitudes held; on-going practices and effects being felt or developing trends (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Using the sample size table by Krejcie and Morgan (1970), three hundred and eighty-four respondents were conveniently sampled for the study. The study utilised a self-administered questionnaire used to obtain quantitative data. Statistical analysis was conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24. Analysis of quantitative data involved both descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics yielded frequencies, percentages and is presented in frequency tables. A Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was used to examine the extent to which CDA victimization affects the academic engagement of university students and findings presented in graphs.
6. Procedure
To quantify the intensity of Cyber Dating Abuse the study used the Cyber Dating Abuse Scale (CDAS). This tool was adopted from a validated measure of Cyber Dating Abuse behaviours by Borrajo et al. (2015) and Reed et al. (2015). Sixteen items centring on victimization behaviours among intimate partners were selected and slightly revised to fit this study. The scale comprised three subscales, all focusing on behaviours perpetrated digitally. The first subscale had 7 items focusing on direct aggression. It comprised intentional behaviours aimed at threatening, hurting or humiliating a partner. The second subscale was on monitoring and controlling behaviours comprising 5 items focusing on intrusion on a partner’s privacy: controlling and keeping track of a partner’s activities, movement and relationships with others. The third subscale was composed of 4 items focusing on sexual coercion. The victimization scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .855.
To measure the prevalence of CDA, a question was constructed as follows: “Within the past one year have you suffered from CDA victimization?” The respondents were required to answer with a Yes or No. Victimization was considered if the respondents admitted having experienced any of the listed Cyber Dating Abuse behaviours. On the contrary if a respondent reported that they had not experienced any of the listed behaviours they were considered not to have been victims of Cyber Dating Abuse.
The paper also wanted to establish how the victimized respondents responded to CDA victimization. This was conducted by asking them to state how such behaviours in their relationships made them feel. Respondents were asked for their response to their most current instances of abusive behaviour to gauge the consequences. The study utilised the Kessler K 6 psychological distress scale to measure levels of CDA distress. The scale is a 6-item distress scale used to measure levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms in the past among the common people. It assesses the frequency of psychological distress within a reference period.
The respondents were asked to consider instances when they had suffered from CDA in the past one year and state how frequently they had experienced the following: felt nervous, hopeless, restless, worthless, depressed (Kessler et al., 2002). Responses to the six items were coded 0 for “None of the time” to 4 for “to all the time”. Scores ranged from 0 to 24. A score of below five was considered none or low level of distress; 5 - 12 was moderate while 13 or more was high level of distress. According to Kessler et al. (2002), the scale’s internal consistency and reliability at Cronbach’s alpha = .89 was excellent. Equally, the reliability analysis for this study at Cronbach’s alpha of .85 was good.
7. Limitations of the Study
Whereas use of Cyber Dating Abuse Scale (CDAS) to quantify the intensity of Cyber Dating Abuse and the Kessler K 6 psychological distress scale to measure levels of CDA distress were deemed adequate, it should be noted that the study was not able to establish causality but just established association between the variables. Therefore, other methods could be considered in future studies to establish causality. However, the findings of the study still shed light on the impact Cyber dating Abuse has on victims which calls for intervention to prevent harm for victims.
8. Presentation of Findings
8.1. Prevalence of CDA Victimization among Sampled Undergraduate Students
One of the objectives of this paper was to find out how often sampled undergraduate students from the selected universities in Nairobi City County in Kenya experienced Cyber Dating Abuse. The findings are as illustrated in Table 1.
Have you ever been a victim of CDA? n = 315
Table 1. Prevalence of CDA victimization among undergraduate students.
Response |
Frequency |
Valid percentage |
Yes |
275 |
87.3 |
No |
40 |
12.7 |
Total |
315 |
100.0 |
The victimization prevalence as per Table 1 shows that 87.3% of the respondents reported to have been victims of CDA. The high prevalence rates are expected given that a behavioural checklist was used as a measure of CDA in this study. Moreover, research shows that studies that use a behavioural checklist to account for prevalence, do report high levels of victimization especially for psychological violence (Reed, 2015). This prevalence was found to be much higher than that reported by Cutbush et al. (2012) who established a victimization prevalence of 31.5% of adolescents in their study. This could be attributed to the difference in time since the Cutbush and colleagues’ study as well as the age difference. Since 2012, there have been lots of changes in technology with recent years witnessing greater accessibility and use of technology among individuals. Given that the respondents in this study were emerging young adults, the higher prevalence rates could also be attributed to the greater access to technology that University students have in comparison to adolescents in high school. Furthermore, emerging young adults enjoy a lot more freedom in utilising technology in their intimate relationships with no restrictions from their guardians and University authorities unlike adolescents who mostly are regulated by their parents and schools.
However, the findings are in concurrence with Bennett et al. (2011) who found out that 92% of their respondents had experienced some electronic victimization in the past year. Bennett and colleagues’ study focused on victimization from both intimate partners and friends while this study focused only on intimate partners. This had a bearing on the kind of conclusions that could be made about the effect of CDA victimization specific to dating partners alone. Research has shown that studies report different prevalence rates as a result of differences in measurement, sampling and context. It has also been noted that differences may also arise due to underreporting because of the stigma associated with both perpetration and victimization (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010).
8.2. The Influence of Cyber Dating Abuse on Victimised Undergraduates’ Mental Health
The second objective of this paper was to assess the effect that CDA victimization had on victims’ mental health. The findings of the distress scale scores are presented as follows.
Descriptive statistics (Table 2) show that 26.1% of respondents experienced low levels of distress; 45.5% experienced moderate levels while 28.3% experienced high levels of distress. The analysis on of individual items on the distress scale indicated that for both males and females, the most frequently experienced CDA consequences were anxiety, depression and fear as reported by over a half of the respondents. The results are illustrated in Figure 1.
Table 2. Levels of distress among respondents.
Distress scores |
Frequency |
Valid percentage |
0 - 4 |
82 |
26.1 |
5 - 12 |
143 |
45.5 |
13 - 24 |
89 |
28.3 |
Total |
315 |
100.0 |
Figure 1. Distress scale scores in response to CDA victimization.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the negative effect most frequently experienced by 63.1% of female respondents and 52.1% of males was fear or nervousness. 60.1% of females and 55.8% of males experienced anxiety.54.3% of the females and 52.1% males suffered depression. Over a third of the respondents suffered from hopelessness, feeling worthless and having no energy.
These findings are consistent with those by Harned (2001) who found out that men and women who suffered physical and psychological IPV reported a similar degree of depressive and anxious symptoms at low intensities of aggression. Another study by Fergusson et al. (2005) also found out that both male and female victims of IPV suffered increased depression and anxiety. This however was a contrast to findings by Romito and Grassi (2007) who asserted that IPV had no influence on males’ depressive and panic symptoms.
Also, a Pearson correlation coefficient was conducted to examine the relationship between distress and frequency of direct aggression victimization. The Pearson correlation coefficient of r (165) = .234, p = .003 showed a significant positive though weak correlation between the two variables for males while a correlation coefficient of r (148) = .133, p = .108 indicated that there was no correlation between the two variables for females. The results therefore indicated that for direct aggression, the males were likely to suffer more distress with increased frequency of victimization unlike the females. This implied that distress increased with repetitive abuse which might occur as a result of having a partner who is controlling and practices coercive control violence. According to Johnson (1995), traditionally males are empowered to dominate and control females. This may therefore explain why men seemed to suffer more distress when they found themselves in relationships where their partners were domineering.
However, no correlation was established between the frequency of direct aggression and distress for the females. This agrees with the results in study of Bennett et al. (2011) which did not find any association between frequent direct aggressions with distress. Bennett’s speculation was that college students who were part of their sample experienced more digital dating abuse, cognitive dissonance caused them to expect the abusive behaviours hence they were not upsetting as much. This could explain why there was no correlation between the frequency of direct aggression and distress for the females in this study. This was because females might be accustomed to the traditional patriarchal expectations of having males control them. Hence, they were not affected by increased frequent direct aggression.
On the contrary, it could be that the females did not need repetitive direct aggression to suffer distress. Some CDA acts do not necessarily need to be done repeatedly for them to cause emotional distress to a victim. Indeed, for romantic partners, behaviours like sending a partner a humiliating/insulting message and threats of physical harm in just one incident is adequate to obtain desired effect, particularly when it is aimed at psychologically harming a partner and causing them emotional distress. The fact that it is done by an affectionate mate makes it even worse. Research findings show that abuse by a romantic partner leads to more psychological distress compared to victimization by a friend (Bennett et al., 2011) or even from a stranger for that matter. Also, this study exposed the likelihood of females blocking their partners when experiencing threats of any kind. They were also likely to engage with them showing that even occasional cases of direct aggression were taken seriously. Hence, they were enough to cause them emotional distress. This concurred with the assertion by Reed (2015), that some behaviour like threats of physical harm through technology was harmful and abusive even when they occurred in single episodes.
To establish the relationship between distress arising from CDA and frequency of monitoring and control victimization, a Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was computed. The Pearson correlation coefficient of r (165) = .172, p = .027 indicated that there was a significant positive, though weak correlation, between the two variables for the males. The correlation coefficient of r (149) = .241, p = .003 indicated a significant positive, though weak correlation, between the two variables for the females. The results, therefore, indicated that there was a relationship between frequent monitoring and control victimization and higher level of distress for both males and females. This implied that respondents who experienced frequent monitoring and control abuse had the likelihood of experiencing higher levels of distress.
This is in consonance with a study by Reed (2015) who also found out that both boys and girls experienced greater distress with greater frequency of monitoring/controlling abuse. This implied that repetitive monitoring and control experienced by individuals was problematic and increased the level of distress which was not the case with isolated cases of monitoring and control like what happens in instances of situational couple violence. The repetitive monitoring and control could be attributed to those partners who practised coercive control violence as a means of obtaining and maintaining power over their partners which explained the higher distress experienced by victims.
A Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was computed to establish the relationship between distress arising from CDA and the frequency of sexual coercion victimization. The Pearson correlation coefficient of r (165) = .141, p = .071 indicated that there was no significant correlation between the two variables for males. The correlation coefficient of r (149) = −.003, p = .976 also found no significant correlation between the two variables for the females. The results therefore implied that there was no relationship between the frequency of sexual coercion victimization and the distress for both males and females.
Sexual coercion was the least experienced form of Cyber Dating Abuse victimization among respondents in this study. The lack of correlation could be attributed to the fact that even in occasional cases, sexual coercion was negatively perceived by the respondents. This was in consonance with the assertion by Reed (2015), that some behaviours like pressurizing a partner to engage in sexual activity were harmful and abusive even when they occurred in single episodes. Also, Sorenson and Thomas (2009) found out that intimate partner violence victims perceived acts of sexual and physical violence more negatively than psychological violence. Equally, the female respondents in this study negatively perceived sexual coercion and this could explain why more females than males were likely to block their partners from gaining access to them in response to sexual coercion victimization. For the females, this response was a protective measure for shielding themselves against further harm. But, in response to this act, more males than females were likely to engage their partners to express their displeasure. This was in line with their gender socialization where males exhibited their masculinity by remaining in charge even in their romantic affairs.
8.3. The Correlation between Cyber Dating Abuse Prevalence and Victimized Undergraduate Students’ Academic Engagement
The third objective of this paper was to establish if there existed an association between victimization rates and distress experienced by the victims. Also, it investigated whether there was a relationship between distress experienced and behavioural academic engagement. A Pearson Coefficient correlation was conducted, and the results are as illustrated.
Table 3 shows the results of a Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient computed to indicate the relationship between CDA victimization and distress. A Pearson correlation coefficient of r (314) = .195, p ≤ .001 indicated that there was a significant positive, though weak, association between CDA victimization and distress. This implied that an increase in CDA victimization was associated with higher distress among cyber dating abuse victims.
Table 3. Correlation between distress and CDA victimization.
|
Distress Scores |
CDA victimization |
Distress Scores |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.195** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.000 |
N |
314 |
314 |
CDA
victimization |
Pearson Correlation |
.195** |
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
|
N |
314 |
314 |
** Correlation is significant at the .001 level (2-tailed).
Table 4 shows the results of a Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient computed to indicate the connection between behavioural academic engagement and distress. A Pearson correlation coefficient of r (314) = −.137, p = .015 indicated that there was a significant negative, though weak, relationship between distress and behavioural academic engagement. This implied that higher distress levels were associated with lower behavioural academic engagement.
Table 4. Correlation between distress and behavioural academic engagement.
|
Distress Scores |
Behavioural
academic engagement |
Distress Scores |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
−.137* |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.015 |
N |
314 |
314 |
Behavioural academic engagement |
Pearson Correlation |
−.137* |
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.015 |
|
N |
314 |
314 |
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
The paper examined the association between CDA victimization and academic engagement of Kenyan University students. It was an investigation intended to determine how the prevalence of CDA victimization influenced academic engagement. This was based on the assumption that distress which arose from CDA victimization could either lower or increase level of academic engagement. As envisaged, the results indicated a significant positive relationship between CDA victimization and distress (r (314) = .195, p ≤ .001) among undergraduate students in selected Universities in Nairobi City County. These results implied that individuals who experienced higher CDA victimization exhibited more distress.
Results indicated that there was a significant negative correlation between distress and behavioural academic engagement (r (314) = −.137, p = 015) among undergraduate students. This implied that the higher the levels of distress exhibited by the respondent the lower the level of behavioural academic engagement. The finding therefore, indicated that higher CDA victimization was associated with higher distress levels. This was related to lower behavioural academic engagement. Also, a study by Daslaluk (2016) showed that CDA increased distress and had a negative impact on a victim’s daily life. Equally, a study by Bennett et al. (2011) found out that CDA by dating partner resulted in great psychological distress for the victims. This finding is expected given that 74.5% of males and 75.2% of females reported to suffer mild to high levels of distress following victimization. The low behavioural academic engagement associated with distress could be attributed to the anxiety, depression and fear experienced by the victims. This most likely made it difficult for students to work with others. It also probably made others want to skip classes and even when they attended, they could not fully concentrate.
These results contrasted with those by Hancock (2014) which did not find a link between cyber dating harassment and academic engagement. The study sample in the case of Hancock (2014), however, was freshmen aged 17 - 19. Nevertheless, the results in this study tend to concur with findings by Schnurr et al. (2013) whose study indicated a relationship between cyber harassment and academic engagement. Hancock’s (2014) study respondents were first year University students while the respondents in the study by Schnurr et al. (2013) were secondary school students. Hancock attributed the lack of correlation to the fact that the respondents in her study had long distant relationships so there was no likelihood of them avoiding their victims and school to lead to academic disengagement. However, the victims and perpetrators in the study by Schnurr and colleagues went to the same school, probably explaining the link between harassment and academic disengagement.
In this study, it was conceptualised that a victim would want to avoid the perpetrator in person if attending the same University and sharing classes, hence leading to behavioural academic disengagement. It was also conceptualised that even when not studying in the same University, the distress arising from conflicts perpetrated through technology would lead to individuals becoming academically disengaged behaviourally. This could be attributed to several factors.
First, as envisaged, some respondents could have been having their partners in the same University and probably a few belonged to the same school or faculty. Consequently, descriptive statistics indicated that over a quarter of the participants occasionally skipped classes as they avoided their partners in person and this led to behavioural academic disengagement. Victims of revenge porn skipped classes for some few days following their victimization to avoid being in contact with not only their partners but also their classmates after their private photos and videos went viral. Results also indicated that 22.2% of the respondents had controlling partners who dictated on who to associate with during their group study. This led some of the respondents to avoid group discussions with some individuals thereby contributing to behavioural academic disengagement.
Besides, even when they were not studying in the same University and school, the distress arising from CDA victimization led to behavioural academic disengagement among the respondents. The descriptive results indicated that over a quarter of both males and females experienced high levels of distress. Also, a Pearson Correlation coefficient of r (312) = .195, p < .001 indicated that CDA victimization was positively correlated to distress. The r value that is close to .20 is interpreted to be practically significant. This distress could be the reason why over a quarter (26.7%) of the respondents failed to do their assignments on time or handed them in late hence an indication of behavioural disengagement among them. The psychological distress experienced by victims of CDA could likely account for low concentration among them, and this affected their ability to learn in the classroom. This, in turn, explains the behavioural disengagement experienced by CDA victims as indicated by the results.
Findings presented in this paper show that the use of digital technologies among undergraduate students provides them with an opportunity for perpetrators to control, harass and degrade their partners. This, in turn, was found to negatively impact on the victims’ participation in academic tasks. Of particular concern was that CDA victims were found to exhibit lower behavioural academic engagement. This was worrisome as research has indicated that low academic engagement was likely, in the long term, to affect students’ academic progress which negatively impacts their graduation rates and academic performance (Schnurr et al., 2013). Therefore, this called for the need to adopt strategies that could be instituted to inform prevention and intervention programmes to bring CDA to an end.
9. Conclusion
It was concluded that the high prevalence rates in CDA victimization negatively impacted the victim’s mental health. Over half reported frequently suffering from depression, fear, and anxiety. Equally, 73.8% experienced moderate to high levels of distress with over a quarter experiencing high levels of distress every time they experienced CDA.
10. Recommendations
It was therefore recommended that universities should incorporate awareness/mentorship programmes into existing ones to create awareness on the role of technology in perpetration of CDA to prevent it and enhance healthy dating. There is need to enhance and publicize on-campus support resources, such as counselling services and peer-led support groups, to ensure students are aware of where to turn for help. Victims should be encouraged to seek guidance and counselling to promote mental health among undergraduate University students.
Appendix
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION A: Cyber victimization questionnaire
For each of the behaviours described below, tick [√] the appropriate response as to how often IT HAS BEEN DONE TO YOU by your partner using technology.
Victimization Scale |
Tick √ the most appropriate as applies to you |
In the past 12 months, my current/recent x-partner has used technology (phone, internet and social
media) to do the following to me… |
Never |
Seldom |
Sometimes |
Often |
1. Access without permission my mobile phone or online account |
|
|
|
|
2. Sent me insulting/humiliating messages |
|
|
|
|
3. Spread rumours, gossip and jokes about me to
ridicule me |
|
|
|
|
4. Posted status or commented on another person’s photo to make me jealous |
|
|
|
|
5. Threatened to physically harm me |
|
|
|
|
6. Called/sent a message to threaten me |
|
|
|
|
7. Used information from my social networking site to ridicule or put me down |
|
|
|
|
8. Pressurized me to respond quickly to their calls, texts, or other messages |
|
|
|
|
9. Monitored my whereabouts and activities to
control where I am and with whom |
|
|
|
|
10. Sent me so many messages/chats that I felt
uncomfortable |
|
|
|
|
11. Pressurized me for my passwords to access my mobile phone or online accounts |
|
|
|
|
12. Snooped in on my messages, call logs and
contacts without my permission to check whether I am behaving correctly |
|
|
|
|
13. Pressure me to “sext”—(sharing of explicit
messages that may contain nude, semi-nude, or
provocative pictures or videos) |
|
|
|
|
14. Shared intimate information(chats) or
compromising images of me without my knowledge |
|
|
|
|
15. Pressurized me to have sex or engage in sexual activities online |
|
|
|
|
16. Sent to me a sexual/naked photo that I did not want/ask for |
|
|
|
|
SECTION B: Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6). This part wants to find out about your emotional state any time you experienced Cyber Dating Abuse.
Thinking about the last time in the past one year when you experienced any form of Cyber Dating Abuse as described in the behaviours listed in victimization questionnaire above, describe how you felt by ticking [√] one of the answers below:
Every time I experience (d) CDA, I… |
All the time |
Most of the time |
Some of the time |
A little of the time |
None of the time |
…feel nervous or fearful |
|
|
|
|
|
…feel so depressed that nothing can cheer me up |
|
|
|
|
|
…feel hopeless |
|
|
|
|
|
… feel that I have no energy to do anything and everything is an effort |
|
|
|
|
|
…feel worthless |
|
|
|
|
|
…feel that I am anxious or disturbed |
|
|
|
|
|