SOCIAL SUPPORT, PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING AND DEPRESSION IN ADOLESCENT STUDENTS Presented by

SOCIAL SUPPORT, PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING ANDDEPRESSION IN ADOLESCENT STUDENTS

Presented by :

Miss. DOSHI DHARA R. DR. YOGESH A. JOGSANM.Phil. Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Psychology Department of PsychologySaurashtra University Saurashtra University

of 24

RAJKOT - 360 005 Rajkot - 360 005

of 24


: Presented by :

*Miss. Doshi Dhara R. & **DR. Yogesh A. JogsanDepartment of PsychologySaurashtra University

Rajkot-360002

Key Words : ...

ABSTRACT

The main purpose of this research was find out the meandifference between adolescent students in social support,psychological well-being and depression. The total 90 students(45 girls, 45 boys) were taken as a sample. The research toolfor social support SSQ was used. Which was made by Sarason,Levin, Basham & Sarason (1983). To measure psychological wellbeing, psychological well being scale was used made by Bhogleand to check depression in them BDI was used made by BeckWard, Mendesion Mock and Drbauge (1961). Here Gujaratiadaption used. t-test was applied to check significance ofSocial support, psychological well being and depression.Result reveald that significant different in social suport andnot significant different in psychological well being anddepression with respeat both adolescent girls & boys.

of 24

* Miss. Doshi Dhara R. M.Phill., Department ofPsychology

Saurashtra University Rajkot - 360 [email protected]

** Dr. Yogesh A Jogsan: Assistant Professor, Department ofPsychology

Saurashtra University Rajkot - 360 [email protected]

of 24


- Miss. Doshi Dhara R.

Social support is the perception and actuality that one iscared for, has assistance available from other people, andthat one is part of a supportive social network. Thesesupportive resources can be emotional, tangible, informationalor companionship. Social support can be measured as theperception that one has assistance available, the actualreceived assistance, or the degree to which a person isintegrated in a social network. Support can come from manysources, such as family, friends, pets, organizations,coworkers, etc.

Social support is studied across a wide range of disciplinesincluding psychology, medicine, sociology, nursing, publicheath and social work. Social support has been linked to manybenefits for both physical and mental health, but socialsupport is not always beneficial. Two main models have beenproposed to describe the link between social support andhealth : the buffereing hypothesis and the direct effectshypothesis. (Wills, T. A., 1991). Gender and culturaldifferences in social support have also been found.

Social support can be categorized and measured in severaldifferent ways. There are four common functions of socialsupport. (Wills, T. A., 1991, Wills, T. A., 1985, Uchino, B.,2004).

• Emotional support is the offering of empathy, concern,affection, love, trust, acceptance, intimacy, encouragement orcaring. (Langford, C.P.H.; Bowsher, J.; Maloney, J. D.;Lillis, P. P. 1997 : Slevin, M. L., et.al. (1996) It is thewarnth and nurturance provided by sources of social support.

of 24

(Taylor, S. E., 2011). Providing emotional support can let theindividual know that he or she is valued. It is also sometimescalled esteem support or appraisal support.

• Tangible support is the provision of financial assistance,material goods, or services. (Heaney, C. A. and Israel, B.A.,2008 : House, J. S. 1981). Also called instrumental support,this form of social support encompasses the concrete, directways people assist others.

• Informational support is the provision of advice, guidance,suggetions, or useful information to someone. (Krause, N.,1986) This type of information has the potential to helpothers problem solve. (Tilden, V. P., Weinert, S. C., 1987)

• Companionship support is the type of support that givessomeone a sense of social belonging. This can be seen as thepresence of companiens the engage in shared social activitieswith. (Uchino, B. 2004)

Researchers also commonly make a distinction between perceivedand received support. (Barrera, M. 1986). Perceivel supportrefers to a recipient's subjective judgement that provideswill offer (or have offered) effective help during times ofneed. Received support (also called enacted support) refers tospecific supportive actions offered by providers times ofneed. (Gurung, R. A. R., 2006)

Furthermore social support can be measured in terms ofstructural support of functional support. (Wills, T. A. 1998)Structural support (also called social integration) refers tothe extent to which a recipient is connected within a socialnetwork, like the number of social ties or how integrated aperson iswithin his or her social network family relationship,friends and membership inclubs and organizations contribute tosocial integration. (Lakey, B. 2011). Functional support looksat the specific functions that membrs in this social networkcan provide, such as the emotional, instrumental,

of 24

informational and companionship support listed above. (Uchino,B. 2004)

These different type of social support the different patternsof correlations with health, personality, and personalrelationships (Uchino, D. 2009). For example, perceivedsupport is consistently linked to better metnal health whereasreceived support and social integration are not. Some havesuggested that "invisible support" a form of support where theperson has support without his or her awareness, may be themost beneficial. (Bolger, N.; Amarel, D. 2007; Bolger, N.;Zuckerman, A., Kessler, R. C. 2000).

Social support systems are an important part of our lives.These systems include anyone we trust and can go to for help,advice, or any other type of emotional support. Your socialsupport system may be made up of your friends and familymembeers; the individuals you support each have their ownsocial support systems that can include : you, their directsupport professional, family members, friedns, health careproviders, co workers, social workers, techers, regionalcenter staff, anyone else who they trust.

Recently, in the U.K. there has been an acknowledgement thatindividuals with ID (Intellectual disabilities) enrolled inadult mental health services may require support in theirparenting roles (O'Keeffe & O'Hara, 2008). However,suprisingly little is known about the mental health needs ofsuch parents (Bouras, 2008). Studies in Australia, Canada andthe U.K. have found high levels of mental health difficultiesin parents with ID in comparison with parents in the generalpopulation (Feldman, Varghese, Ramsay, Rajska, 2002; Llewellynet. al., 2003; McGaw et. al. 2007). High rates have also beenfrind in pregnant women with ID. (McConnel, Mayes andLlewellun 2008). Found higher levels of stress, depression andanxiety n preganant women with ID in comparison with pregnantwomen without ID.

of 24

Brown and Harris (1978) posited that well being and supportare related. Belsky (1984) followed with a determinants ofparenting model, which suggested that there is a relationshipbetween psychological well being and social support within thegeneral parent population. Subsequently, Sterling (1998)posited a model that also stressed the relationship betweensocial support and psychological well being. Stmilar toBelsky, Sterling (1998) included three subsystems but on thebasis of her research findings adapts the model bysubstituting cognitive functioning for the childcharacteristies subsystem she does not include the childcharacteristies subsystem as it is not viewed as a primarydeterminant of parenting in Belsky's (1984) Model.

The incidence of depressive symptoms has been increasing amongcollege students. According to a study of college studentsreceiving counselling services between the years of 1988 and2001, a 20% increase occured in the number of students seekinghelp for depressive symptoms during that time period. In asurvey of university counseling center directors completed in2006, it was noted that 91.6% of the respndents that they hadobserved an increase in the number of students experiencingpsychological problems in the recent years. The development ofdepressive symptoms may have a significant impact on theabilite of college students to successfully complete academicrequirements. In a nation wide study. 43% of college studentsreported feeling so depressed that it was difficult for themto study.

Depressive symptoms can negatively impact the lives ofstudents. Students experiencing depressive symptoms reportgreater amounts of emotional suffering. This suffering mayimpact life satisfaction and academic performance. A largenational study (n=4,092) focused upon a comparison of themental health of college students and their non-collegeattending peers. A total of 2,188 students between the ages of

of 24

19 to 25 yeas who were currently attending college, and 2,904of their perrs hwo were ot attending college were surveyed todetermine the prevalence of spychiatric disorders and the rateof treatment received forthese disorders in each of thegroups. The result demonstrated tha the incidence of mooddisorders and anxiety disorders were high in both gruops. In anation wide survey conducted by the American college healthassociation in 2008, 94% of the students reported feeling overwhelmed by the demands of college life. (American CollegeHealth Association, 2009). Chronic levels of high anxiety areassociated with the development of depressive symptoms incollege students.

The American psychiatric Association provides specifiesymptomatic criteria for the medical diagnosis of majordepressive episode in the book, diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders, fourth edition, test revision(American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The symptomsindicative of a major depressive episode include the following:

1. Depressed mood for most of the day, nearly every day asindicated by either subjective report or osbervation madeby others.

2. Markedly diminished interest or pleqsure in all, oralmost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day.

3. Significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain,or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day.

4. Insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day.

5. Psychomotor agitation or retrdation nearly every day.

6. Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day.

7. Feelings of worthlessness or excessive or in appropriateguilt nearly every day.

of 24

8. Diminished ability to think or concentrate, orindecisiveness, nearly every day.

9. Recurrent thoughts of death, recurrent suicidal ideationwithout a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or aspecific plan for committing suicide.

There for to know the social support, psychological well beingand depression in adolescent students the research was doing.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

To provide focus for the literature review, electronicdatabase searches were used. All database searches wererestricted to articles published in the English language.

"Social support and social negativity finding in depression :perceived responsiveness to basc psychological needs" - by M.S. Ibarra & N. A. Kuiper they show that social relationsipscan influence the well being of depressed individuals bothpositively and negatively. How ever, processes underlyingthese diverse of fect are not clear. Drawing from selfdetermination theory, They propose that the extent to whichsocial relationship partners are perceived to fulfill orundermine basic psychological needs erves to explain both thepositive and negative effects that social relationships haveon the well being of depressed individual. This proposal formsa major tent of a model that integrates previous models ofsocial support mechanisms, namely, the buffering hypothesisand the main effects hypothesis. The model thus explains boththe positive and negative effects that social relationshipshave on the well being of depressed individuals. Presentationof this model of followed by discussion of the possibleeffects of two characteristics of depresed individual (i.e.,stress generation and negative cognitive style) on theirperceptions of relationship partners' responsiveness to basic

of 24

psychological needs. They conclud with suggestions for futureresearch and possible clinical aspplications.

"Psychological well being and social suport for parents withintellectual disabilities. Risk factors and intervention" - by: Darbushivece L.V. & Kroese B. S.(2012) : In studyindividuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) are morelikely to be socially isolated and at risk of poorpsychological well being. The added pressure of becoming aparent may mangnify these risks, which are highlighted insterling's "determinants of parenting" model. The authorsreviewed psycholgical well being and social support amongparents with ID, addressing three aims that explore theimportance of these two factors in their lives. The findingsare discussed within the context of sterling's model. Asystematic search of electronic databases was carried out.Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed,and the integrity and out comes of the studies are discussed.Parents with ID experience poorer psychological well beingthan the general parenting population and a relationship wasfound between psychological well being and social support. Twoof the intervention studies found evidence that by imporvingsocial support, psychyological well being was improved. Theauthors also observed that the relation ship between socialsupport findings of a positive relationship betweensatisfaction with social support and positive maternalreactions. Sterling's model was supported by the majority ofthe studies : how ever, a number of recommendations forfurther research are suggested to more fully explore therelationship between psychological well being and socialsupport.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of study were as under :

1. To measure the social support among adolescent students.

of 24

2. To measure the psychological well being among adolescentstudents.

3. To measure the depression among adolescent students.

NULL-HYPOTHESISTo related objectives of this study null-hypothesis were as

under :

1. There is no significant difference in social supportamong adolescent sutdent.

2. There is no significant difference in psychological wellbeing among adolescent students.

3. There is no significant difference in depression amongadolescent students.

METHODTOOLS :

For this purpose the following test tools were considered withtheir reliability, validity and objectivity mentioned in theirrespective manuals. In present study two inventory used inresearch.

(A) Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ) : (Sarason, Levin,Basham & Sarason, 1983) : Social support questionnaire(SSQ) developed by Sarason, Lavin, Basham & Sarason(1983) consists of 27 items. Each of the 27 items asks aquestion to which two part answers is requested. The itemasks the subject (a) to list the people to whom they canturn and on when they can realy in given sets ofcircumstances, and (b) indicate how satisfied they arewith these supports on a 6 point likert scale (verysatisfied, fairly satisfied, a little satisfied, alittle dissatisfied, very disatisfied). The SSQ yield twoscores (a) perceived availability of the number of

of 24

supportive persons listed (SSQ-N), and satisfaction withavailable support (SSQ - S). The number (N) score foreach item of the SSQ is the number of support personslisted.The social support avilable to deal with a givenproblem is rated on a scale ranging from very satisfiedto very dissatisfied. This yield a satisfaction (s) scorefor each item that ranges between 1 and 6. The overall Nand S Scores are obtained by dividing the sum of N or Sscores for all items by 27, the number of items includedin the social support questionnaire. The social supportquestionnaire has been found to have number of desirablepsychomefricproperties. It was found to have (a)stability over a 4 week period of time, and (b) highinternal consistency among items.

(B) Psychological well being scale : Psychological well beingscale was made by Sudha Bhogle (1995). 28 sentences areheld in this scale. 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 21sentences are negative and others are positive. Thereliability and validity of this scale was very high.

(C) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) : Beck, ward, Mendesion,Mock and Drabauge, (1961) : It is comprised of twenty oneitems. Although the inventory was designed as a clinicalinsturment but in practice it is frequently used todichotomies subjects into depressed and non-derpessedgroups. This inventory has test-retest reliabilitycoefficient ranging from 0.74 to 0.83 on different timeintervals and positively correlated with hamiltondepression rating scale with a person r of 0.71.Gujararti Translated in Sardar Patel University inGujarat (1990). This is 4 point scale. Reliability andvelidity of Gujarati adaption was 0.65 and 0.86.According to Back (1961). The mean BDI scores for thelow, middle, moderate, severe and exterme depression areas follows :

of 24

01-10 Low, These ups and downs are considered normal.

11-16 Mild mood disturbance.

17-20 Boraderline clinical depression

21-30 Moderate depression

31-40 Severe depression

40 & above Extreme depression

PROCEDURE :

The testing was done on a group of adolescents student (14 to17 years). The whole procedure to fill the inventory wasexplained to them fully and clearly. The instructions given onthe questionnaire were explained to them. It was also madeclear to then that theire scores would be kept secret. It waschecked that none of the subjects left any question unansweredor that no subject encircled both the snsweres given against aquestion.

SAMPLES :

According to the purpose of present study total 90 sample hasbeen selected.There were 45 girls adolescent students and 45boys adolescent studetns were taken as a sample from diffeentschools in Rajkot City (Gujarat).

RESEARCH DESIGN The aim of present research was to a study of social support,psychological well being and depression in adolescentstudents. Here scale for social support, SSQ was used, forpsychological well being, psychological well being scale was

of 24

used and to check depression Beck depression Inventory wasused.

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONThe main objective of present study was to study of socialsupport, psychological well being and depression amongadolescents. In it statistical 't' method was used. Resultdiscussion of present study is as under.

According to table-1 the result obtained on the basic area ofsocial support reveals significant difference among girls andboys adolescents.

Girls received higher mean score 133.36 as compared the boys128.20 (table-1). There mean difference was 5.16. Thestandared deviation score of girls received 13.58 and boysreceived 10.20. The t-value was 3.18. Which was significant at0.01 level. So we can say that first hypothesis aws notaccepted.

Gender differences have been found in social support research.(Gurung, R. A. R. 2006). Women provide more social support toothers and are more engaged in their social network (Thoits,P. A. 1995; Belle, D. 1987; Taylor et. al. 2000). Evidence hasalso supported the notion that women may be beter providers ofsocial support. In addition to being more involved in thegiving of support women are also more likely to seek outsocial support to deal with stress. (Tamers, L. et. al. 2002).Additionally, social support may be more beneficial to women.(Schwarzer, R; Leppin, A. 1984) Shelley Taylor and hercolleagues have suggested that these gender differences insocial support may stem from the biological difference betweenmen and women in how they respond to stress.

According to table-2 the result obtained on the basic are ofspychological well being reveals not significant differenceamong girls and boys.

of 24

Grils received 118.20 mean socre and boys received 124.30(table-2). There has mean difference was 6.14. The standareddeviation score of girls received 16.59 and boys received14.70. The t-value was 1.18 which was not significant. Itmeans the second hypothesis was accepted. Further genderdifferences were not found significant regarding psychologicalwell being of the subjects. Thus, it can be said theat bothgirls and boys are similar level of psychological well being.This is conformity with the findings of Sahoo (2009) and Sing(2011).

According to table-3 the result obtained on the basic are ofdepression reveals not significant difference among girls andboys adolescents.

Girls received 128.57 mean score and boys received 120.60 mean(table-3). There has mean difference was 7.97. The standarddeviation score of girls received 17.68 and boys received16.52. The t-vaule was 1.50 which was not significant. Itmeans the thired hypothesis was accepted further genderdifferences were not found significant regarding depression ofthe subjects. Thus it can be said that both girls and boys aresimilar level of depression. This is conformity with thefinding of Pndya (2010).

CONCLUSIONWe can conclude by data analysis as follows :

There were significant difference in social support amonggirls and boys adolescents students. There were notsignificant difference in psychological well being anddepression among them. Having a strong social support systemvital to maintaining mental health. Mental health is howpeople feel, think and act in life. For instance, mentalhealth affect how people think about and deal with challengesand problems.Making dicisions, relating to other people, andhandling stress and depression are all part of maintaining

of 24

mental health. Having a strong social support andpsychological well being is one of the best ways for you andthe people you support to maintain and buildpositive mentalhealth.

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY In the research work taken sample was not achieved withconcentration on particular area. The study was restricted toonly students. Therefore toher person was not affected withthe result. The present research includes 90 samples. Sogenralization of the result might be unfell here. No othermental except questionnaires had been adopted in the presentreesearch work for the collection of information. In sampleselection for this research random method was followed. Thepresent research is only a part of the study, thusgeneralization should not be consummated, the scientific isnot approached in the selection of sample. The conclusions ofthe present research are significant and not significant, soone aspect the limitation reveals that social support,psychological well being and depression are internal aspect ofa person's personality and character. There for in thispractical world all persons take differently and actdifferently. So it is inevitably complicated task to determinethe proportion of social support, psychological well being anddepression in person's character. Finally, the fact that thechoice of students was also been influenced by cultural,environmental, and familiar back ground was not taken intoaccount in the current study.

SUGGESTIONSEndeavour can be executed to analyze move than 90 data ofsample with efficancy to attain better results. For theaccumulation of informatio, variegated methods exceptquestionnaires can be adopted. Selection of sample can beaccomplished with the intake of different peoples from

of 24

different state and district to ascertain their socialsupport, psychological well-being and depression. To crown thededifice of the research work, other method of selectingsample can be appropriated.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY This study provides empirical evidence with regards topositive effects of social support in managing psychologicalproblems among students. Specifically the findings suggestedthat an increase in social support may lead to decreasepsychological problems among students. By having knowledge andunderstanding on this area (Social Support and Psychologicalwell being), it could help many parties, such as educators,counselors and psychologist to design and develop properintervention program to reduce depression among students. Thefinding of the study can help to design programs andstrategies to boost student's performance in academic life.The students themselves could benefit from the study.Information and ideas gained from this research could helpthem to face, manse, and handle the psychological problems.There fore, enhancing knowledge and strategies incontrollingpsychological problems among students may help to increasetheir academic achievement.

of 24

REFERENCE• American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and

statistical manual disorders, 4th Edition, Test Revision.

• Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendesion, M., Mock, J. andErbaugh, J. (1961). An Inventory for MeasuringDepression, Archives of General Psychimatry, 4, 561-571.

• Bhogles (1995). Assessing Psychological well beingScale : Unpublished Dissertation Dept of Psychology,Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat.

• Belsky, J. C. (1984). The dDeterminants of Parenting : AProcess Moedl Child Development, 55, 83-96.

• Brown, G. W. & Harris, T. O. (1978). Social Origins ofDepression : A Study of Psychiatric Disorder in Women,New York, Free Press.

• Bouras, N. (2008). Mental Health of People withIntellectual Difficulites, Current Opinion in Psychiatry,21, 439-440.

• Belle, D. (1987). Gender Differences in the SocialModerators of Stress, In Barnett, R. C., Biener, L.,Baruch, G. KI. Gender and Stress, New York : The FreePress, pp. 257-217.

• Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A. Kessler, R. C. (2000).Invisible Support and Adjustment to Stress, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79 : 953-961.

• Bolger, N.; Amarel, D. (2007). Effect of Social SupportVisibility on Adjustment to Stress : ExperimentalEvidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92: 458-475.

of 24

• Barrera, M. (1986). Distinctions Between Social SupportConcepts, Measures and Models, American Jornal ofCommunity Psychology 14(4) : 413-445.

• Darbyshire, L. V. & Kroese, B. S. (2012). PsychologicalWell being and Social Support for Parents withIntellecutal Disabilities : Risk Factors andIntefventions, Journal of Policy and Practice inIntellectual Disabilities : Vol. 9, Issue-I, pp. 4052.

• Feldman, M. A., Varghese, J., Romsay, J. & Rajska, D.(2002). Relationships between Social-support Stress,Mother-Child Interactions in Mothers with IntellecutalDisabilities. Journal of Applied Research in IntellectualDisabilities, 15, 314-232.

• Gurang, R. A. R. (2006). Coping and Social Supoort HealthPsycholog : A Cultural Apporach, Belmont, C. A. : ThomsonWadsworh, pp. 131-171.

• House, J. S. (1981), Work Stress and Social Support,Reading, M. A., Addison - Wesley.

• Heaney, C. A. & Israel, B. A. (2008). Social Networks AndSocial Support, In Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K. & Viswanath,K. Health Behavior and Health Education, Theory,Reseearch and Practice (4th Ed.), San Francisco, C. A. :Jossey Bass.

• Langford, C. P. H.; Bowsher, J., Maloney, J. P., Lillis,P. P. (1997). Social Supoort : A Conceputal Analysis,Journal of Advanced Nursing 25 : 95-100.

• Lakey, B. (2011). Social Support and Social Integration,Retrieved, 2011, 12-13.

• Llewellun, G., Mc Connell, D. & Mayes, R. (2003). Healthof Mothers with Intellectual Limitations, Australian andNewZeland Journal of Public Health, 27, 17-19.

of 24

• Mc Gaw, S., Shaw, T. & Beckley, K. (2007). Prevalence ofPsychopathology Across a Service Pouplation of Parentswith Intellecutal Disabilities and their children,Journal of Policy and practice in IntellectualDisabilities, 4, 11-22.

• Mc Connell, D., Mayes, R. & Llewellun, G. (2008).Prepartum Distress in Women with IntellectualDisabilities, Journal of Intellectual and DevelopmentalDiscability, 33, 117-183.

• M. S. Ibarra & N. A. Kuiper (2011). Social Support andSocial Negativity Finding in Depression : PerceivedResponsivness to basic Psychological Needs : Journal ofHealth, 119-125.

• O'Keefe, N. & O' Hara J. (2008). Mental Health Needs ofParents with Intellectual Disabilities, Current Opinionin Psychiatry, 21, 463-468.

• Pandya, A. (2010). Depression and Mental Health AmongStudents, Saurashtra Psychological Association, PrachiPublication.

• Selvin, M. L.; Nichols, S. E., Downer, S. M.; Wilson, P.;Lister, T. A. ; Arnott, S.; Maher, J.; Souhami, R. L.;Tobias, J. S.; Goldstone, A. H.; Cody, M. (1996).Emotional Support for Cancer Patients : What do PatientsRealy Want ? British Journal of Cancer, 74 : 1275-1279.

• Schwarzer, R.; Leppin, A. (1989). Social Support andHealth : A Meta-Analysis, Psycholosy and Health, 3 : 1-15.

• Sterling, J. D. (1998). Determinants of Parenting inWomen with Mental Retardation, Ann. Arobor, MI : TheFielding Institute.

of 24

• Sarason, I.; Levien, H. M.; Bashom, R. B., Sarason, B. R.(1983). Assessing Social Support : The Social SupportQuestionnaire, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 44(1), 127-139.

• Sahoo, F. M. & Atra, L. M. (2009). Psychological Wellbeing in Professional Groups, Journal of The IndianAcademy of Applied Psychology, 35(2), 211-217.

• Singh, D. (2011). Psychological Well being and self-esteem in professional College Students, Indian Journalof Health and well being 2(4), 657-569.

• Tamres, L.; Janicki, D.; Helgeson, V. S. (2002). SexDifferences in Coping Behavior : A Meta Analytic Review,Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 : 2-30.

• Taylor, et. al. (2000). Biobehavioral Responses to Stressin Females : Tend and Befriend, Not Filght or Flight,Psychological Review, 107 : 411-429.

• Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, Coping and Social SupportProcesses : Where are We ? What next : Journal of Healthand Social Beahvior, 27 : 78-79.

• Tilden, V. P.; Weinert, S. C. (1987). Social Support andThe Chronically Individual, Nursing Clinies ofNorthAmerica, 22(3) : 613-620.

• Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social Support : A Review In M. S.Friedman, The Handbook of Health Psychology, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 189-214.

• Uchino, B. (2004). Social Support and Physical Health :Undrstanding the Health Consequences of Relathionships,New Haven, CT : Yale University Press, pp. 16-17.

• Wills, T. A. (1991). Margret, Clerk, ed. Social Supportand Inter Personal Relationships, Prosocial Behavior,

of 24

Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 12 : 265-289.

• Wills, T. A. (1985). Supportive Functions ofInterpersonal Relationships, In S. Cohen & L. Syme.Social Support and Health. Orlando, FL : Academic Press,pp. 61-82.

• Wills, T. A. (19998). Social Support, In Blechman, E. A.& Brownell, K. D. Behavioral Medicine and Women, AComprehensive Handbook, New York, NY : Guilford Press,pp. 118-128.

of 24

RESULT TABLETable - 1 : Showing the Mean, SD and 't' Value of SocialSupport (N=90)

SampleGroup

N Mean S.D. t

Girls 45 133.36 13.58 3.18**Boys 45 128.20 10.20

* P < 0.05

**P < 0.01NS = Not Significant

Table - 2 : Showing the Mean, SD and t-value of Psychologicalwell being (N=90)

SampleGroup

N Mean SD t

Girls 45 118.20 16.59 1.18 (NS)Boys 45 124.30 14.70

* P < 0.05


Table - 3 : Showing the Mean, SD and t-vaule of Despression(N=90)

Sample Group

N Mean SD t

Girls 45 128.57 17.68 1.50(NS)Boys 45 120.500 16.52

* P < 0.05


of 24

SOCIAL SUPPORT, PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING AND DEPRESSION IN ADOLESCENT STUDENTS Presented by

Documents

Transcript of SOCIAL SUPPORT, PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING AND DEPRESSION IN ADOLESCENT STUDENTS Presented by