CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

In 20th century Internet has been the revolutionary invention. There has been a
striking growth in the use of internet users. It has brought the world much closer by bringing
the citizens and nations altogether. Internet has been the most effective tool which has made
the communication much better in terms of quick exchange of ideas and knowledge in every
part of the world. In addition to this, internet has broken all the international boundaries and
has made the world a much smaller place (Saroha 2014). In less than two decades, the internet
has grown from a curiosity to a basic component of current life. It has entered in every one of
the spheres of human life since the computerized world appeared. The fields like exchange,
education, corporate divisions, transportation, and correspondence are profoundly impacted
by internet. Internet assumes indispensable part to make people agreeable in their standard
life. India is one of the significant nations to get access to internet facility to carry its day-to-
day undertakings.
Today email and sites have turned into the favoured method for correspondence.
Organizations give internet access to their staff. By their exceptional nature, they encourage
practically moment trade and generally spreading of information, pictures and assortment of
material. This incorporates instructive and enlightening material as well as data that may be
undesirable or hostile to society. Internet utilize has developed gigantically to 566.4 percent
from the year 2000 to 2012. The most successive online users are from age group of 18-34
years; while the grown-ups from 55 or more age group have fast developing users class
(Pastore 2000). As indicated by the information gathered by Internet World Statistics, Asia
has the over the top number of internet users on the planet, around 922.3 million and
contributes 44 percent to the total population. Presently, individuals are getting so much
dependent on the internet, for example, chatting, facebook, internet based shopping and
looking for important data (Aradhana 2016). Online networking has changed the way
individuals communicate with each other. Apart from the advantages of using this technology
as a quick and convenient way of communication it has both constructive and antagonistic
effect on the general population (Ribica 2016).
Drastic changes have taken place in the way young generation chooses to
communicate with each other. Technology has made it easy for people to meet a companion
or communicate with people with just the click of a button through the advancement of
technology and emergency of social networking sites (Mishna et al 2009). Technology has
brought a change in the lives of many teenagers as it has become an integral part of their
lives, they play video games, listen to music, fitness tips, entertainment, and satisfying
psychological urges/emotions or gather information for school work but overall socializing is
one of the main reasons for working online (Rivers & Noret 2010). Download, upload, share,
Google it, Apps etc being functioned on the fingertips are some of the very common jargons
used by the youth now days (Shah 2016).During this age, adolescents are very much
impressed by their friends and peers and they involve themselves in risky and anti-social
behaviors. To fulfill their desires they take help of social platform/internet, as they can hide
their own selves and do whatever they want to (Kaur & Kaur 2016). Today, for some
adolescent’s online networking has turned out to be imperative piece of their life. Adolescents
have a naive inclination towards technology but they do not always use technology in right
ways (Ybarra 2004).
As India is becoming more digitalized, it has been a challenging task for the system
to safeguard the netizens from growing threats. In India, cybercrime cases grew 20 per cent in
2015, while an unexpected increase of 2400% since past ten years (The Times of India,
2016). The findings by the National Crime Records Bureau reported that there has been
increased in the cases of cyber crime from nine thousand six hundred and twenty two in 2014
to eleven thousand five hundred and ninety two in 2015 with almost 1/3rdof the crimes
committed related to financial benefits. A lot of refinement and upgradation has been required
for the Indian cyber laws as compared to the rules and regulations of other countries (Jamil &
Khan 2011). Not merely the advanced technology of internet that is tempting the users, but
the increased demand of internet with numerously digital supported services and platforms
which make the users to get addicted to internet like never before. According to the report,
24.33 per cent of the Indian population use the internet from their mobile phone in 2016 and
this statistical figure is expected to grow to 37.36 percent in 2021. Internet, however offers
several benefits to the society, simultaneously open up wide doors for cyber criminality in a
very refined and innovative ways (Shah 2016).
According to Council of Europe “Any criminal offence committed against or with the
help of a computer network is identified as cyber crime”. So computer or computation related
device is an essential for cybercrime perpetration and victimization (Shabnam et al 2016). In
simple words cyber crime includes phishing, credit card frauds, bank robbery, child
pornography, blackmailing, illegitimate downloading, transactions fraud, kidnapping children
via chat rooms, scams, cyber terrorism, spam, creation or spreading of viruses and so on. It
also covers the traditional crimes in which computers or networks are used to enable the
illegal activities (Gupta et al 2017).
Cyber Crime is a term used broadly to depict criminal action in which computers are
used as tool or a place of criminal movement and involve everything from electronic cracking
to denial of service assaults. It is likewise used to incorporate conventional violations in
which PCs or systems are utilized to carry the unlawful action. Cyber Crime predominantly
comprises of unapproved access to PC systems, data modification, data demolition and theft

2
of intellectual property. Cyber Crime with regards to national security may include hacking,
spying or data fighting and related exercises. “Cyber Crime” has been utilized to depict an
extensive variety of offenses, content offenses for example (spreading broadly child
pornography), computer-related imitation and extortion, (for example, ‘phishing'), including
offenses against PC information and frameworks, (for example, ‘hacking') and copyright
offenses (for example, the spreading of pirated content) (Kumar & Dahiya 2015).
These incidents provoked the cyber crime cells all over world to adopt defensive
measurements towards unchecked data related to internet usage. This extensive use of internet
provides a large platform of opportunities for those with criminal motives. Internet has
become a medium for cyber criminals to carry out a number of illegal activities which
altogether called as Computer Crimes or Cyber Crime. Halder and Jaishankar (2011) defines
Cybercrimes as: ‘Offences that are committed against individuals or groups of individuals
with a criminal motive to intentionally harm the reputation of the victim or cause physical or
mental harm to the victim directly or indirectly, using latest telecommunication networks such
as mobile phones (SMS/MMS) and mainly Internet (emails, notice boards and chat rooms)’.
The official website of the Cyber Crime Investigation Cell of Mumbai Criminal Investigation
Department calls it as an ‘invisible crime’ as the real identity of a criminal is hidden. With the
growing cases of cybercrime and to safeguard the internet users, professional help of
criminologists, sociologists and psychologists is being consulted to build up a trustworthy or
reliable profiles of hackers and other cyber criminals so as to improve the defensive strategies
in this field (Saroha 2014).
Cyber Crime numbers have consistently moved throughout the years. It has grown
evolutionary and at mid of 20th century it became a topic of concern. Around world the
growth of interconnectivity in recent years has increased cyber criminal activities (Frances &
Umeozulu 2012). Such violations went up 20% in 2015, contrasted with 2014, logging a
2,400% expansion in the course of the most recent decade. The National Crime Record
Bureau (NCRB) report demonstrates that cybercrime cases ascended from 9,622 in 2014 to
11,592 in 2015, about 33% of the cybercrime carried out for monetary profit. The quantity of
individuals captured in cybercrime cases ascended by more than 41% amid a similar period-
from 5,752 in 2014 to 8,121 in 2015. Other than cybercrime for monetary profit, the thought
processes likewise included deceiving, offending ladies, sexual misuse and individual
vengeance or settling scores. An examination of past NCRB reports uncovered that the
quantity of cybercrime was very low 10 years prior, with just 453 such cases reported in the
nation in 2006. This could be credited to expanding internet entrance in the previous couple
of years. Utilization of internet for different services has driven many to utilize the internet
for numerous reasons-be it individual and official correspondence, banking, teaching, e-
marketing, advanced lockers or person to person communication (NCRB Report 2015).

3
 In India the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000, deals with the acts in which
computer is used as a tool for carrying the unlawful act. The main objective of this Act is to
create an enabling environment for commercial use of IT. Various offences having bearing on
cyber-arena are also registered under the appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code with
the legal recognition of Electronic Records and the minor changes made in several sections of
the Indian Penal Code vide the Information Technology Act (Kumbhar & Gavekar 2017). In
India cyber crimes are registered under three broad heads, the Information technology (IT)
Act, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other State Level Legislations. Currently, the Ministry
of Home Affairs has issued an advisory to the Union Territory Administrations and State
Government on cyber crime. The State Government have been advised to put up adequate
or/and improved measurements and technical capacity in handling cyber crime and trained
manpower for find, registration, investigation and prosecution of cyber crimes (Dubbudu
2016).
Personality has been defined in an assortment of ways. ‘Personality is an ever
changing organization, inside the person, of psychophysical systems that create the
person’s characteristic pattern of thoughts, behaviour and feelings. Mischel (1986) defines the
term personality in a workable meaning- ‘Personality usually reforms to the distinguish
patterns of emotions and thoughts that characterize each individual’s adaptation to the
situations of his or her life’. Personality is determined as the recognizing qualities of a person
which segregates him or her from others when shown in a wide ways of circumstances and
conditions particularly social ones (Connell 1985).
Personality is an person’s enduring persistent response patterns across a variety of
situations which are composed of relatively stable patterns of action often referred to as traits,
internal attributes, beliefs, attitudes and motivations that are altogether combined into a more
or less integrated self structure (Harre & Lamb 1983) and that determine those commonalities
and differences in the psychological behaviour (feelings, thoughts, and actions) of people that
have continuity in time and that may or may not be easily understood in terms of the social
and biological pressure of the immediate circumstances alone (Maddi 1976).
According to Ramalingam (2006) personality is a sum total of psychological
characteristic of individual that are unique as well as common. It is a dynamic and combined
organization of the moral, mental, physical and social qualities of the person. Personality has
also defined as an arranged characteristics possessed by an individual who solely influences
his or her behaviours, cognitions and emotions in different circumstances. It is the distinctive
and dynamic patterns of individual behaviours, mainly focusing on feelings censing and
thinking. Personality of a person is also explained as the set pattern of references within
which he or she addresses the present situations and decides how to react or behave. In simple
words, ‘Personality is a comprehensive and the total framework of characteristics ways of

4
behaving, feeling and thinking that consist of an individual’s unique method of relating to the
environment.’
Personality is an incorporated whole with certain solid and some conceptual
dimensions. Every dimension has some particular reason and an important part to play in the
totality of one's being. The maturation change as a result of sequential growth and the
environmental interactions, which a person has throughout, largely determine the extent to
which his personality-potential shall be developed. Various aspects of personality are not only
interdependent even also so preciously coordinated with each other that whatever happens in
one aspect has its comparative effect on other domains. So for the comfort and better
understanding personality is categorized into intellect, physique, sociability and emotionality
(Shashirekha & Chengti 2008).
Conklin (1981) said that although there is a variation in the personality traits of
criminals or offenders but very fewer differences were seen in relation to the general
population. According to some evidences Zimbardo (1972) observed that as compared to the
general population the delinquent and criminals might be more emotionally disturbed.
Tenibiaje (1995) found that the personality traits of criminals and juvenile delinquents were
not similar in terms of psychoticism, extroversion and neuroticism.

Adolescence, the period of change from childhood to adulthood brings many changes
in young one’s ways of life. The progressions are because of advancement inside the
adolescent himself and to demands put upon him by the way of life in which he lives. His
social ideas and their controls offer ascent to new rationale of qualities, as he controls them
inside the bigger setting of rights and obligations. The youthful years are, principally, a time
of social improvement and alteration. Amid the pioneer years of adolescence there have been,
no doubt, a start of socialization and some obtaining of principal social abilities. It is a period
from youth until adult status has been achieved and a standout amongst the most interesting
and complex moves in the life expectancy. In this period the adolescent moves from reliance
to independency in his conduct and amid this move from youth to adulthood, the task of
achieving of self-sufficiency has been considered as an imperative part of individual's
personality. They are adapting more about 'this present reality' and attempting to take a stab at
both freedoms from guardians and incorporation in social gatherings (Kaur & Sharma 2014).

Utilization of internet is turning into an unavoidable instrument in immature life as it

is the real wellspring of educating, learning and amusement for them. As per Goel and Garg
(2015) teenagers and adolescents are among the top users who surf internet for learning,
amusement and research. As they are among top users they additionally confront hazard
components appended to it.

Jang et al (2008) and Wang et al (2011) said adolescents (also known as teenagers)

5
generally have poor self-regulation and low self-control and cognition than adults, but the
adolescents have the equal desire for independence as adults do. On the other side, in some
colleges the use of computers was encouraged and made mandatory for the adolescents. The
use of the internet is logical and common even outside the classroom. Most of the school
libraries and cyber cafe have internet access and that make easy for the adolescents to access
the internet. In addition to this, parent exercise less control over adolescents than younger
children. Therefore, adolescents are considered as the most vulnerable group to the attraction
of the internet.

Knowing well that a person’ attitude towards a stimulus can be used to predict his
actual behaviour towards such stimulus, one of the best ways of preventing or controlling
cyber crime is to observe how those adolescents think about cyber crime (Obi et al
2013).Hence, the awareness on cybercrime is very much needed for the adolescents. Lacks of
awareness/knowledge on such issues often end up in a serious damage on financial,
emotional, ethical or moral grounds. Therefore, besides tackling the cyber crimes there is an
important need to be focused on higher priority of creating awareness on cyber crimes among
the netizens (Shah 2016). The present piece of work deemed it necessary looking at the
influence different traits can have on cyber crime awareness. Keeping this in mind present
study entitled, ‘Effect of Personality Traits on Cyber Crime Awareness of Rural and Urban
Adolescents’ has been planned.

Objectives of the study

1. To study the gender and locale differences in personality traits among adolescents.

2. To determine gender and locale differences in cyber crime awareness of adolescents.

3. To study the effect of personality traits on cyber crime awareness of adolescents.

6
CHAPTER – II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The available literature on the topic “Effect of personality traits on cyber crime
awareness of rural and urban adolescents” have been reviewed and presented under following
headings:

2.1 Studies related to Personality Traits

2.2 Studies related to Cyber Crime

2.3 Studies related to Personality Traits and Cyber Crime

2.1 Studies related to Personality Traits

Mohata (2014) did a study to measure the effects of counseling on personality. This
study engaged 200 secondary level students for 2 years. Counseling was given only to
experimental group and pre post research design was used. Personality dimension was
measured through a standardized test which included 12 dimensions, 6 positive and 6
negative , activity-passivity, enthusiastic and non enthusiastic, assertive and submissive,
suspicious and trusting, depressive and non depressive, emotional instability and emotional
stability. On the basis of the counseling interventions, the results showed a significant change
in personality dimension of activity in the experimental group. It was also found that subjects
in class 10th were more active than in class 9th. Pannu (2012) conducted a research on
influence of personality factors and school influence on academic achievement of 1246
eleventh class students.Among which 585 were males and 661 were females. The sample was
collected from different government, aided and private senior secondary schools of Amritsar.
Results concluded that there was no influence of interaction between type of schools and
personality factors on academic achievements of adolescents. A significant influences of
interaction between type of school and personality factor B (less intelligent/more intelligent),
type of school and personality factor Q2 (socially group dependent/self sufficient) on
academic achievement of adolescents were found.

A study on personality as related to computer programming competency among under

graduate students in Bhagalpur, Bihar was done by Nasar (2007). Results revealed that
extroversion and also psychoticism has been seen to be identified with PC programming
competency of male students. While in female group extroversion has been discovered
irrelevantly identified with PC programming competency then again in introvert personality
neuroticism has been observed to be significantly connected to high PC programming
competency.
 Weijer and Leukfeldt (2017) studied big five personality traits of 3648 cyber crime
victims including emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and
openness to experience. Regression analysis were used to evaluate the relationship between
personality traits and three victim groups, that is cybercrime victims versus non- victims,
traditional crime victims versus non- victims and cybercrime victims versus traditional crime
victims. The study also threw a light on to forecast victimization of cyber dependent crimes
(hacking and virus infection) and cyber enabled crime (online intimidation, online consumer
fraud and theft from bank account). The findings showed that personality traits are not
significantly associated with cybercrime victimization but rather with victimization in
general. Only those with higher scores on emotional stability were less likely to become a
victim of cybercrime than traditional crime. Moreover the results revealed that there are little
differences between personality traits related to victimization of cyber- enabled and cyber-
dependent crimes. Lastly individuals with higher scores on openness to experience have
higher odds of becoming victim of cyber- enable crimes. Albladi and George (2018) did
multiple mediation analysis on personality traits and cyber-attack victimization. This research
put a light on five personality traits that is conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion,
agreeableness and openness to experience to suspect cyber- attack victimization in the context
of online social networks and investigates how different factors such as competence to deal
with online threats, trust in other members as well trusting network service provider,
motivation to engage in the network and experience with cyber-crime mediate and control this
relationship. This study enrolled 316 participants. The results demonstrated that all 5
personality traits except openness to experience have a significant indirect effect on
susceptibility to cyber attack victimization.

Tijdink et al (2016) did a study on association of personality traits as associated with

research misbehaviour in Dutch scientists. A cross sectional study was conducted which
included 535 Dutch biomedical scientists (response rate 65%) from four university medical
centers in the Netherlands. A validated personality questionnaires such as Dark Triad
(narcissism, psychopathy and machiavellianism), Rosenberg’ Self-Esteem Scale, The
Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ), and also demographic and job-specific
characteristics to investigate the association of personality traits with a composite research
misbehaviour severity score was used. The findings showed a positive association between
machiavellianism with self reported research misbehaviour, while narcissism, psychopathy
and self-esteem showed a negative association. Exploratory analysis revealed thatnarcissism
and research misconduct were more severe in persons in higher academic rank (professors),
and self-esteem scores and publication pressure were lower as compared to post graduates/
PhD fellows.

8
 Sinha (2003) conducted a research on personality adjustment of two hundred children
of low-socio economic status between the ages 10 to 11 years, studying in class fifth of tribal
and non-tribal area of Seralkella-Kharsawan district (Jharkhand). Results demonstrated that
non-tribal group of young men are better adjusted over tribal group of young men. Among
young ladies non-tribal group of young ladies are better adjusted over tribal group of young
ladies. At the point when the young men and young ladies of both the groups are compared, it
demonstrated that young men are better adjusted over young ladies. Parveen and Joshi (2014)
directed a relative investigation of children's personality among boys and girls. Sample was
comprised of 120 students (sixty boys and sixty girls) from different schools of Kumoun.
Noteworthy contrasts were found in the personality of both boys and girls. Boys were found
stronger physically and mentally than girls. Nature wise girls were caring, more
understanding and calm than boys. A study on relation of blood groups to personality traits of
male and female adults was conducted by Prakash (2009). Sixteen PF test was used and four
secondary level personality characteristics i.e. anxiety, tough pose, extraversion and
independence were explored. Results showed significant difference in personality factors of
females and males of different blood groups. Ramamoorthy et al (2009) conducted a research
on personality types of hundred graduate and post graduate physiotherapy students. Results
demonstrated that a physiotherapy student is a mix of (EFJS) extraversion, feeling, judging
and sensing.

Bala and Nanda (2007) conducted a research on impact of maternal employment on

personality traits of urban adolescents. Two hundred teenagers were studied (100 working and
100 non-working mothers). Results demonstrated that adolescents of non-working mothers
scored higher in creativity and higher accomplishments and adolescents of working mothers
were more bold, competitive and versatile. Impact of parent child relationship on the
personality of adolescents was studied by Shrivastava and Nagaich (2014). Study involved
four hundred adolescents (two hundred boys, two hundred girls) from professional and non-
professional streams of graduate colleges, chosen from Gwalior. Findings revealed that
rejected boys and girls demonstrated more negative personality disposition than accepted
boys and girls. The examination was done to evaluate the effect of parental behaviour on
personality of three hundred primary school children by Kumari (2011). Results demonstrated
that type and quality of parental conduct have amazing effect on development of personality
traits in children. Singh (2013) directed an examination on personality factors in connection
to educational accomplishments of adolescent girls. A sample of two hundred high school
girls was chosen to know the relationship between educational accomplishments and
personality. Some of the personality variables were adversely connected while some are
positively associated with educational accomplishments. It was likewise observed that

9
personality elements of low achievers were unique in relation to that of high achievers. Bawa
and Singh (2011) conducted an exploration on parental assistance with connection to
personality and self-esteem of competitive examination students. Two hundred students from
CAT and PMET were chosen who had cleared these examinations. Findings showed that 29%
students showing up in competitive exams have encouraging type of parental help though
23% have over protected parents. A large portion of the students who showed up in PMET
exam were having guidance type of parental help though the individuals who showed up in
CET had dominant type of parental help. High achievers in focused examinations have
direction sort of parental help though low achievers had predominant kind of parental help. In
PMET and CET just 24% and 34% had encouragement type of parental help respectively.
Results demonstrated that there is positive relationship between self-esteem and guidance and
negative connection amongst dominating and self-esteem kind of parental help. Praveen
(2010) conducted a study on personality and achievement in botany subject and found a
positive relationship amongst personality and accomplishment. Both are additionally
impacted by numerous factors, for example, type of school, locality, sex, medium of
instruction and family monthly income.

Meena and Agarwal (2011) did a research on emotional intelligence and personality
traits (extroversion and introversion) among adolescents. Study involved 120 adolescents
(both boys and girls) from class tenth, eleventh and twelfth. Results demonstrated that the
vast majority of the respondents have average level of emotional intelligence among boys and
girls. Majority of the respondents showed difference between boys and girls with respect to
personality traits. The results additionally revealed negative correlation between personality
traits and emotional intelligence among adolescent girls as compared to adolescent boys.
Dave and Gaur (2006) conducted a study on psychological adjustment of introverts and
extroverts of working and non-working mothers. The sample comprised of 240 girls (120 of
working and 120 of non-working mothers) and 240 boys (120 of working and 120 of non-
working mothers) from 14to 18 years old group. Findings revealed that overall adjustment
pattern of extrovert and introvert adolescents was average on social, home, emotional and
educational areas. Extrovert girls of non-working mothers were poorly adjusted whereas
extrovert boys of non-working mothers were well adjusted. Arvindgiri (2012) conducted a
comparative study on personality profile of rural and urban boys. The sample comprised of 80
boys (40 rural and 40 urban) from the age group of 10 to 12 years belonging to Surat City of
Gujarat. Findings revealed that urban boys were observed to be disciplined, brighter and
relaxed while rural boys were not disciplined and more excitable. Personality profile of
teachers in higher education was studied by Pareek et al (2003). The sample comprised of 33
participants both male and female attending the orientation course at Academic Staff College

10
of University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Age range, working experience and socio economic status
of the group was same. Results showed that overall personality profile in all the dimensions
was average indicating that teachers were reserved, emotionally less stable and sober type.
Teachers also deviate from ideal group of intelligent trait. Female teachers were found to be
shrewd, venturesome, controlled, suspicious and experimenting type. Science teachers were
seemed to be more suspicious, tender-minded and venturesome whereas social science
teachers were found to be more controlled, more intelligent and shrewd. Personality profile of
suicide prone youth was researched by Shukla (2016). Total sample comprised of sixteen
cases, which attempted suicide and were admitted in Ram Manohar Lohia hospital, Lucknow.
Results showed that suicide attempters showed intensely timid, extremely hesitant, sensitive,
shy and intimidated personality. They also showed self-conflict, anger, poor self-sentiment,
impulsion and depression. Maishi and Chand (2016) conducted a research on personality
correlates of drug abusers. Total of 200 adolescent boys were taken from the age group of 17
to 21 years from Agra city. Non- drug abusers were found to be more trustworthy,
emotionally stable and more active whereas drug abusers were found to be depressive,
emotionally unstable, passive, and suspicious in their personality traits.

Shashirekha and Chengti (2008) conducted a research on occupational status and

personality of employee with the assumption that employees of different occupational status
have different personality dimensions. The sample comprised of 200 employees (both male
and female) randomly taken from Gulbarga city. Results showed that males have higher level
of extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism than females. Also managers have higher scores in
neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism than the engineers, supervisors and clerks. Rani
and Vashistha (2011) conducted a research on personality factors as related to coping style of
stresses among parents of mentally sub-normal children. Total of one hundred and fifty
parents of mentally sub- normal children within the age group of 35- 55 years were taken
from Meerut city to measure the stress and coping level among them. Findings revealed that
personality factors were found to be affecting coping styles such as complaint and confront.
Nachimuthu (2006) conducted a study on 150 adults within the age group of 23 to 46 years to
assess the relationship between personality type and various occupational dimensions of three
professions namely police, lecturers and executives. A significant relationship was found
between personality and occupational commitment. Police and lecturers had less occupational
commitment as compared to executives. Also predominant personality type ESTJ
(Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking and judging) individuals had high occupational levels.

Ojha and Yadav (2014) conducted a research on ageing and personality. The study
aimed at comparing the old aged subjects with middle aged subjects in respect to some

11
positive personality factors namely self-esteem, self-efficacy, ego-strength, life satisfaction
and emotional stability and some negative personality factors namely anxiety, insecurity
alienation, identity crisis and loneliness. For this 100 working teachers (aged 40-55years) and
retired university teachers (aged 60-75 years) of male sex were administered the short scales
of concerned personality factors. The results revealed that aged subjects obtained significantly
lower scores on all positive factors and high scores on all negative factors. Thus it was
obvious that psychological wellbeing gets damaged during old age.

Branje et al (2006) conducted a study on big five personality development in

adolescence and adulthood. Two adolescence and their parents from 285 Dutch families rated
their own and their family member’s personality using accelerated longitudinal growth curve
analysis. The results revealed that for boys extraversion and openness decreased and for girls’
extraversion, agreeableness, openness and conscientiousness increased.On the other hand
mother’s conscientiousness and emotional stability increased whereas father’s agreeableness,
extraversion and emotional stability decreased. Differences in self and other reported
personality change were found, as well as interindividual differences in personality change.
Results interpreted that personality change is possible across the life course but these changes
are not similar for all individuals and depend on the type of observer. An investigation of five
types of personality trait continuity: a two- wave longitudinal study of Spanish adolescents
from age 12 to age 15 was done by Ibanez et al (2016). The sample comprised of 234
respondents. The findings showed stability in personality trait structure, as well as decreases
in the mean level of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The results also showed moderate
rank order consistency. Individual level changes were more pronounced for neuroticism and
conscientiousness. The findings showed some personality trait changes occurred from age 12
to 15, but the changes were less marked than expected during this period of biological and
social development. The results also support the disruption hypothesis, as it was found dips in
conscientiousness and to a lesser degree agreeableness.

A study was conducted on personality predictors of successful development: toddler

temperament and adolescent personality traits predict well-being and career stability in
middle adulthood by Blatny et al (2015). The study consisted of 83 people (58% women) in
an ongoing longitudinal study started in 1961. Based on children’s behavior in toddlerhood,
three temperamental dimensions were identified- positive affectivity, negative affectivity and
disinhibition. In adolescence, extraversion and neuroticism were measured at 16 years of the
age. Various characteristics of well-being were used as indicators of adaptive psychological
functioning in adulthood. Results revealed that extraversion measured at the age of 16 proved
to be the best predictor of well-being indicator. In case of self-efficacy it was also childhood

12
inhibitions. Lastly extraversion in adolescence, childhood disinhibitions and negative
affectivity predicted career stability.

Allik et al (2004) did a research on personality development of 2650 Estonian

adolescents (1420 girls and 1230 boys) from the age group of 12 to18 years from 6 th, 8th, 10th
or 12th grade of senior secondary schools. Although the mean levels of personality traits of
adolescents were quiet similar to the scores of adults, there was a developmental gap in
conscientiousness and agreeableness. Three of the five personality dispositions demonstrated
a modest cross sectional change in the mean level of the traits scores; the level of openness
increased and the level of conscientiousness and agreeableness decreased among 12 and 18
years of age. Although a five-factor structure of personality was already recognizable in the
sample of 12 year old children, it depicted that only an approximate congruence with the adult
structure, suggesting that not all children of that age have developed abilities required for
observing one’s own personality depositions and for giving reliable self reports on the basis
of these observations. It was seen that self-reported personality trait structure matures and
becomes sufficiently differentiated around age 14 to 15 and grows to be practically
indistinguishable from adult personality by the age of 16. It was observed that personality of
adolescents become more differentiated with age; along with the growth of mental capacities
the correlation among the personality traits and intelligence become smaller.

2.2 Studies related to Cyber Crime

Shah (2016) conducted a study of awareness about cyber laws for Indian youth. In
this study both qualitative and quantitative aspects were analyzed. In first stage, in-depth
interviews were conducted with two ethical hackers. In second stage a survey was conducted
on 100 young internet users on the awareness of cyber crimes in Anand, Gujarat. Respondents
from 17 to 35 years of age were selected. The opinions regarding level agreement were
gathered on likert scale and analyzed using percentages. The results showed that internet
users in Anand are thoroughly aware of cyber security and cyber crimes that are prevailing. A
growing net addiction was visible in the town. The convergence of smart phones and internet
are quiet popular. Other than hacking majority of users was not aware of crimes like cyber
stalking, phishing, cyber bullying, identify theft etc. A significant amount of internet users
were not even aware whom to contact for any grievances regarding cyber crime. The lack of
awareness was also observed drastically in case of protection towards their personal PCs and
laptops also, as half of the respondents were still the victim of various virus, not been
updating their passwords and have the tendency of sharing their personal information with
others. Regarding the illegal downloads, though the internet users were aware of
consequences still they take it for granted and been downloading movies, games, music etc.

13
 Sukanya and Raju (2017) did a research on cyber law awareness among youth of
Malappuram district, with an age group of 18 to 35 years who uses computer and internet
facilities in daily life. The study arrived at the fact that large majority of the youth (67.4%)
were familiar with the IT act 2000 in India but some of them (32.6%) are ignorant about it. It
was also revealed that most of the offences in act are familiar to them. But a few of them are
totally ignorant about this act. Youth have an idea about security measures in computer too. A
study on cyber crime awareness for prevention and its impact was done by Kumbhar and
Gavekar (2017). The sample included 200 respondents from different parts of Pune city. The
respondents were from the age group between 15 to 30 years those who use internet facility.
The data was collected from student/educated/working class by using questionnaire. The
findings reported that most of the young generation were users of internet. Among them
92.5% had positive response for the hacking that occurred during their online transactions. It
was also observed that 34.5% of the respondents were victim of hacking and 77% agreed in
response to feel insecure during online transactions.

Martis and Arjun (2018) conducted a research on cyber crime awareness among
youth in Udupi district. A total of 300 respondents (150 males and 150 females) from 16 to 30
years were chosen. Results showed that majority of the respondents (99.7%) use internet and
only 0.3 percent don’t use internet. When asked about the awareness of the word internet 94.3
percent were aware of this word and only 5.7 percent were not aware of this word. Further it
was seen that nearly 32.7 percent spend five hours and more on the internet, 25. 3 percent
spend two hours on the internet and 8.3 spend one hour on the internet and only 0.3
respondents don’t use internet. Among them 91.3 percent use internet on mobile phones
compared to rest of them. When respondents were asked about cyber crime awareness it was
seen that majority (76.3%) of the respondents were aware of the cyber crime and remaining
23.7 percent were not aware about it. It was also observed that there is very less awareness
about the different types of cyber crimes. The percentage of 34.3 knew about hacking, 7.7
about credit card fraud, five percent about phishing, 2.7 about cyber stalking, 1.6 about cyber
bullying, 1.3 about spam mails, one percent about morphing, 0.7 percent denial of service and
defamation and 0.3 percent about online frauds, identity theft and cyber terrorism.

2.3 Studies related to Personality Traits and Cyber Crime

Goel and Garg (2015) conducted a research on influence of excessive use of internet
on academic performance of 300 adolescents. The study emphasises the difference between
adolescent boys and girls on surplus use of internet. Their answer to the "Internet Usage
Scale"and GPA for the most recent year was gathered and dissected utilizing strategies
including enlightening measurements. The outcomes demonstrated that male young people

14
utilized more internet than females. Furthermore, excess use of internet has a remarkable
negative connection with academic performance of adolescents. Kumar and Dahiya (2015)
conducted a review on cybercrime awareness among B.Ed. educator trainees of Haryana. The
specimen included 120 B.Ed. educator trainees from colleges of Sonepat city. The review
demonstrated that male educator learners have more awareness than female educator learners
in respect to cybercrime. Male and female trainees of rural areas had almost equal awareness
towards cyber crime. Be that as it may, in urban territory female educator learners had less
awareness when contrasted with male learners. A comparative investigation on mobile usage
of 200 hostler and day scholar adolescents between the age of 17 – 18 years was done by
Kaur and Sharma (2014). Results demonstrated that both day scholars and hostlers jump at
the chance to surf versatile internet all the time. Hostlers surfed internet mainly for facebook,
educational sites, chatting, entertainment sites, e-mails, religious sites and pornographic sites
while day scholars surfed mainly for whatsapp followed by facebook, entertainment, chatting,
educational sites, search engines, e-mails, religious and pornographic sites.

Gupta et al (2017) studied the impact of cyber crime on adolescents through social
networking sites. The study was carried on 300 students in the age group of 12-19 years from
schools and colleges of Uttar Pradesh. It was found that respondents of age group 15-18 years
are more likely to use technology of social networking sites actively and quickly. Education is
also one of the most important factors in using social networking sites as it has increased the
rate and quality of collaboration among teenagers in social media. Lajwanti (2011) did a study
on the impact of internet surfing on the study habits of 120 students from art and science
streams and found that internet users and non users don't have noteworthy contrast however
they vary from each other on majority of the dimensions in their review propensities. Stream
of instruction, interactional impact of sex and internet use and non – use on study habits was
discovered unimportant i.e. these factors have no consolidated impact on study propensities
on higher secondary students. A research on differences in personality types and coping skills
of pathological and non-pathological internet users was conducted by Paul and Kamkhalia
(2003). The sample comprised of eighty respondents from age 16 to 45 years. No convincing
confirmation was found in the coping skills utilized by pathological and non-pathological
internet users. Furthermore, no distinction appeared in personality traits of pathological
internet users.

Chouhan and Golwalkar (2008) conducted a study on internet addiction and

depression. The research was conducted on 30 internet users from the age group of 18 to 22
years from Udaipur (Rajasthan). It was found that depression levels in internet addicts are
higher than the non-internet addicts. Hadlington (2017) explored the relationship between

15
risky cyber-security behaviours, attitudes towards cyber-security in a business environment,
internet addiction and impulsivity. Five hundred and thirty eight participants completed an
online questionnaire. The survey included an attitude towards cybercrime and cyber-security
in business scale, a measure of impulsivity, internet addiction and a ‘risky’ cyber security
behaviours scale. The results revealed that internet addiction was significant predictor of risky
cyber-security behaviours. A positive attitude towards cyber-security in business was
negatively related to risky cyber-security behaviours. The measure of impulsivity evaluated
that both motor and attentional impulsivity were both showed a significant positive predictors
of risky cyber-security behaviours, with non-planning being a significant negative predictor.
The results presented a further step in understanding the individual differences that may
govern good cyber security practices, highlighting the need to focus directly on more
effective training and awareness mechanisms.A cross sectional study was conducted on 328
adolescents of high school in the region of Turkey to assess the association of personality
traits and risk of internet addiction in adolescents byOzturk et al (2015). The data were
collected using a socio demographic information questionnaire, the internet addiction scale
and the adjective based personality scale. Findings showed that 15.9% subjects were at the
risk of internet addiction and 42.4% stated that the time they spend on online was acceptable.
It was also demonstrated that there was a significant differences in the average sub
dimensional scores for extraversion and openness to experience and between students at risk
of internet addictions and those who were not. Adolescents who were found to be at risk of
internet addiction nevertheless reported on the survey questionnaires that the amount of time
they spent online was acceptable. The study determined that participants’ risk of internet
addiction was associated with their levels of extraversion and openness to experience.

A study was conducted on personal characteristics related to the risk of adolescent

internet addiction in Shanghai, China by Xu et al (2012). Five thousand one hundred and
twenty two adolescents were selected from 16 high schools from Shanghai. The students were
examined on the basis of self administered questionnaire that included DRM 52 scale of
internet use. The DRM 52 scale included 7 sub scales related to psychological symptoms of
adolescent internet addiction (AIA). It was observed that only 8.8% were identified as internet
addicts. Adolescents who are low on the academic front are less likely to use internet, they
were more likely to develop adolescent internet addiction and have psychological symptoms
in 6 of the 7 sub scales. Male adolescents of senior high school whose monthly expenditure is
> 100 RMB were more likely to internet addicts. Also adolescents who spend more hours
online weekly or when they use internet mainly for playing games or real time chatting were
tended to develop adolescent internet addiction and show symptoms in all sub scales.

16
 Obi et al (2013) did a research on influence of personality and age on attitude towards
crime among adolescents. This study investigated 176 participants of age group 12-20 years
comprising of 110 males and 66 females from school of Nigeria. Big five inventory and
attitude towards crime scale were used to assess the results. The findings indicated that
extroversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness were significant predictors of attitude
towards crime while neuroticism and openness were not. Age was not a significant predictor
of attitude towards crime among adolescents.

Saroha (2014) did a study on Profiling a Cyber Criminal to identify the key
personality characteristics of cyber criminals and to outline a behavioural profile for the same.
A sample of 20 students aged 18 to 25 years with academic background in social sciences was
chosen and extensively interviewed by the researcher through unstructured/open-ended
interview format. The aim was to identify common themes emergent in their responses with
respect to the personality characteristics of cyber criminals. They were probed by the
researcher to tap into their beliefs about what identifiable traits conjure up a cyber criminal.
Different viewpoints were collated into a number of common themes which were then used to
arrive at the behavioural profile of a cyber criminal. The findings has been categorised into
four groups 1. Technical know-how such as intelligent focused, well-trained and so on. 2.
Personal traits includes insensitive, impatient, passionate etc. 3. Social characteristics such as
inferiority complex, low self worth, mass destruction etc and 4. Motivating factors like
monetary gain, greed, emotions, thrill-seeking etc. This study has mainly provided the base
for further studies.Kamruzzaman et al (2016) conducted a research on plight of youth
perception on cyber crime in South Asia. A cross sectional study was carried out on the total
sample of 118 respondents from Bangladesh. The results demonstrated that 46.61% of the
respondents belonging to the age group of 19-21 years and 66.1% male and 60.1% were in
vulnerability of cyber crime by internet frauds and 78.8% agreed that social media increase
victimization by spreading of false information (55.08%). It was also evaluated that 82.2%
respondents were affected by virus attacks, 56.7% were secondary victimize while 72.03%
felt unsafe on internet and 61.8% said awareness can reduce victimization.

Nevin (2015) conducted a research on cyber- pathology: examining the relationship

between dark E- personality and online misconduct. By using self-report survey data the
study explored whether the internet may decrease, increase or intensify the expression of
psychopathy. Quantitative data analysis revealed that when controlling for social context,
internet users exhibits higher level of psychopathy online then offline, which was especially
pronounced in sub samples. Further multivariate models investigated the role of “cyber
psychopathy” in understanding to have the clear idea of misconduct behaviour on internet like

17
cyber stalking, trolling, flaming and digital piracy. Results demonstrated that primary cyber-
psychopathy is positively correlated with one’s level of acceptability towards online
misconduct behaviours, while both primary and secondary cyber-psychopathy are positively
associated with one’s tendency towards engaging in such transgressions. The study served to
highlight the potential impacts of heightened psychopathic personality online, whereas
recommending practical implications that focus the need to foster empathy and close
psychological distance between internet users in the online communities.

Udris (2016) conducted a study on cyber deviance among adolescents and the role of
family, school and neighbourhood. This study using data from the second International Self-
Report Delinquency Study (ISRD-2), examined illegal downloading and hacking perpetration
among adolescents from 30 countries around the world. Participants were 68507 students
attending high schools of 7th, 8thand 9th grade. Using gender grade (proxy for age) and access
to a computer at home as covariates the study examined parental control, attachment to
family, self control, attitudes towards violence, attachment and disorganization to school and
attachment, integration and disorganization of the neighbourhood as possible predictors of
illegal downloading and hacking. Regression analysis revealed that all of the independent
variables with the expectation of family leisure were significantly associated with either
illegal downloading or hacking at a differing degree.

A study on exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization in

cyber bullying was conducted by Hinduja and Patchin (2008). An online questionnaire was
filled from 1378 adolescents who are internet users. Though the race and gender did not
significantly differentiate respondent victimization or offending but computer proficiency and
time spent online did. It was also analyzed that cyber bullying experiences were associated to
respondents who reported school problems like traditional bullying, substance use and
assaultive behavior.Kaur and Kaur (2016) conducted a research on cyber victimization. A
total of 145 students (92 females and 53 males), of the age group of 12- 17 years high on
cyber victimization were screened in on the basis of cyber bullying and victimization
questionnaire. They were selected from different public schools located in Ludhiana and
Patiala district. The present study revealed significant and positive correlation between cyber
victimization and suicide ideation (r = 0.49, p ≤ 0.01) and psychological distress (r = 0.85, p ≤
0.01). Suicidal ideation and psychological distress (r = 0.48, p ≤ 0.05) and negative
correlation between academic achievement and suicidal ideation (r = - 0.21, p ≤ 0.01) and self
esteem and suicidal ideation (r = - 0.36, p ≤ 0.05). Both males and females were found to be
equally susceptible to cyber victimization.

George et al (2017) studied cyber bullying among 1014 adolescents of age group 16

18
to 20 years. The respondents were from eight colleges situated in the Ernakulum district,
Kerala. Cyber bullying survey questionnaire was developed to gather the information of the
respondents. Results evaluated that all cyber bullying activities existed between college and
higher secondary students. The percentage of the students who witness cyber bullying
activities is comparatively higher than that of victimization and bullying. The misuse of
technology was seen in adolescents of Kerala community. Shabnam et al (2016) did a study
on underlying causes of cyber-criminality and victimization. The sample comprised of 175
undergraduate students from Bangladesh. The data were collected through interview method.
The study yielded some interesting findings about cyber criminality and victimization status
of the students as like nature of victimization, way of victimization, victim offender
relationship, types of cyber crime, nature of cyber crime criminal etc. Most of the studied
respondents have a little or no knowledge regarding cyber crime and they are involved in such
crime as offender just for mere interest and not for the illegal monetary gain; most of the
respondents have also encountered one or many of the cyber crimes in their online activities.
Psychological motivation was one of the main causes behind cyber-criminality of such youths
and its pertinent from the study that very few of them was aware about the Information and
Communication Technology Act.

A study on awareness of cybercrime and security was conducted by Mokha (2017).

Data was collected from 160 respondents through questionnaire and also from various books,
international journals, published nationals, various websites etc. Results concluded that with
the increase in the internet users, cyber crime had also increased. The study depicted that 48
per cent of the respondents shared their personal details with the other person even they don’t
know them properly. Also 55 percent of the respondents have agreed that their PCs are often
damaged by the viruses. The internet users struggled with spam e-mails, phishing calls and e-
mails asking for their sensitive information like bank account, mobile number, address etc.
Igba et al (2018) studied cybercrime among university undergraduates and its implications on
their academic achievement. A cross sectional survey was conducted with students in the
faculty of education, using an online questionnaire. The study included sample size of 207
under graduates. The results showed that under graduates perceive cyber crime as a tool for
personal development. It was interpreted that much needed to be done to ensure, safe, secure
and trustworthy network environment. This indicates that under graduates should be made to
imbibe value re-orientation in order to be more useful in life.

19
CHAPTER – III

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present investigation was carried out to evaluate the effect of personality traits on
cyber crime awareness of rural and urban adolescents. A systematic procedure was designed
for conducting the investigation, analysis and interpretation of data. The research
methodology adopted for conducting the present study has been discussed under the
following sub- headings:

3.1 Locale of the study

3.2 Selection of the sample

3.3 Research instruments

3.4 Pretesting of the tools

3.5 Collection of data

3.6 Statistical analysis of data

3.1 LOCALE OF THE STUDY

The sample for the present study was collected from following four Government
Senior Secondary Schools selected purposively from rural and urban areas of Ludhiana
district.
1. Government Senior Secondary School, Gobind Nagar, Ludhiana
2. Government Senior Secondary Model School, Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana
3. Government Senior Secondary School, Tharike, Ludhiana
4. Government Senior Secondary School, Ayali Khurd, Ludhiana

3.2 SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE

Sample
The study was based upon a sample of 200 respondents aged between 16-18 years,
studying in 11th and 12th grades drawn equally from rural and urban schools of Ludhiana
district. The respondents were equally distributed according to their gender (100 males and
100 females).

Rural Sample

The rural sample was drawn from randomly selected two blocks i.e. Block I and
Block II of Ludhiana district. A list of Government Senior Secondary Schools from each of
the selected block was procured from District Education Officer, Ludhiana. From this list,
two Government Senior Secondary Schools one from each block was purposively selected
and requisite sample of 100 rural adolescents, equally distributed over two genders was drawn
randomly.
Urban Sample
The urban sample was drawn from randomly selected one Zone i.e. Zone D of the
urban Ludhiana. A list of schools situated in the selected zone was procured from District
Education Officer, Ludhiana. From this list, two Government Senior Secondary Schools were
purposively selected and requisite sample of 100 urban adolescents, equally distributed over
two genders was drawn randomly.

21
3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

3.3.1 General Information Sheet

For collecting the demographic information of the respondents, a general information

sheet was prepared. The sheet comprised of 11 statements regarding the name of the school,
name, age, gender, grade,locale parental education and occupation, family size and number of
siblings. The respondents were asked to fill the information correctly; the statement regarding
the name of the respondents was kept optional.

3.3.2 Differential Personality Inventory Scale

The scale by Singh and Singh (2014) was used to assess the personality traits of
adolescents. It consisted of 150 items representing ten personality traits as follows:

1. Decisiveness- It is define as the ability of an individual to make quick and effective

decisions in controversial issues, to take clear cut stand over a given situation, decide
priorities and attends accordingly etc.
2. Responsibility- This means a person is accountable for his own actions, finish a task in a
given time, complete his part of work when working together, going somewhere or
meeting people on given time, take control over results or consequences etc.
3. Emotional Stability- A person is said to be emotionally stable when he has proper
control over his emotion or moods, have self-confidence, take comments and criticisms in
a positive and healthy way, etc.
4. Masculinity- Persons with this trait have ability to do more difficult and risky task, able
to face challenges boldly, he is more adventurous and show interest in mountaineering,
fighting etc.
5. Friendliness- Persons having such trait is often extrovert, develop good social contact
with people, lend a hand in time of trouble/difficult situations and show proper care and
affection to even juniors and unknowns.
6. Hetero Sexuality- This trait shows that a person is confident in working with the
opposite gender, do not feel shy and take active participation in working with members of
opposite gender.
7. Ego strength- This defines as an ability of an individual to focus and attend different
activities at a same time, his thoughts and actions are in harmony and often have feelings
of adequacy and vitality.
8. Curiosity- It means a person have strong urge to know or learn something new, he often
tend to explore every detail of the given object, reach the destination in appointed time,
tend to have clear understanding of talks of others or reactions of others towards oneself
etc.

22
9. Dominance- A person possessing this trait tend to influence over others for their duty,
tend to be the leader of the group, tend to settle controversy between rivals, tend to take
the charge of a difficult and complex task.
10. Self-Concept- A person with positive self-concept generally rate favourably on three
dimensions of self-concept, namely knowledge, expectation and evaluation of the self.
The reverse is true in case of persons having negative self-concept.

The scale was translated into Punjabi language for the ease and clear understanding of
the statements among adolescents. Each statement had two options i.e. true and false, and the
students were asked to attempt to each item. For all the ten personality areas, total scoring
was done with the help of the ten scoring stencils (scoring key) separately. When a response
of an item matches with an item given in the scoring key, a score of 1(one) was given. In case
response of an item does not match with the response given in the scoring key, a score of zero
was given. If the scores on traits are high this indicates high possessiveness of the concerned
trait and vice-versa.

From ten scoring keys, the level of each value was assessed as described below:

Scores Category

0 to 5 Low

6 to 10 Medium

11 to 15 High

3.3.2 Cyber Crime Awareness Scale

Cyber Crime Awareness Scale by Rajasekhar (2011) was used to assess cyber crime
awareness of the adolescents. The scale consists of 36 items related to different aspects of
cyber crime awareness. The scale has 21 positive and 15 negative statements. An individual’s
score is the sum of the scores of the 36 items.

Nature of Item serial number wise Total

statement
Positive 1,2,4,6,7,9,11,12,14,17,18,20,21,23,24,26,27,29,30,34,36 21
Negative 3,5,8,10,13,15,16,19,22,25,28,31,32,33,35 15
Total 36

The scale was translated to Punjabi so that adolescents could easily understand the
statements. The minimum and maximum scores ranged from 104 to 168. High scores

23
indicated as high cyber crime awareness and low scores indicated as low cyber crime
awareness.

Scores Category
104 to 125 Low
126 to 147 Medium
148 to 168 High

3.4 PRE-TESTING OF THE TOOLS

All the instruments used in the study were administered on 20 non sampled
adolescents in order to check the applicability of the tests in the population under the study.
It was found that instruments items were answered by the respondents without any
difficulty and the responses in the pre testing were found to be consistent and the subjects
performed the test in reliable manner.
3.5 COLLECTION OF DATA
The respondents were approached in the selected schools with the permission of the
principals through a letter of request which clarified the purpose the study. The questionnaires
was filled during the working days and working hours of the school. The respondents were
provided with necessary instructions regarding how to respond to each tool. The purpose of
the study was made clear to the respondents. They were assured that their identity would be
kept confidential and information provided by them would be used exclusively for the
purpose of research work only. Then the above mentioned scales on personality traits and
cyber crime awareness were used to collect the information from the adolescents. Each
student was given questionnaire individually in the class and asked to fill the questionnaire in
a given time on the spot.
3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA
The collected data were classified and tabulated in accordance with the objectives of
the study to arrive at meaningful and relevant inferences. The statistical analysis was done
using SPSS version 23. The data were analyzed usingdifferent statistical tools discussed
further.
3.6.1 Frequency and Percentages
Frequency and percentages were worked out to find out the distribution of the
respondents according to their socio-personal characteristics. For calculating percentages, the
frequency of respondents belonging to a particular sub-category was multiplied by 100 and
divided by the total number of respondents belonging to that particular category.

24
3.6.2 Arithmetic Mean
It was obtained by adding all the scores and dividing the total of scores by number of
observations.

1 n
A   Xi
n i 1
Where,
A= Arithmetic mean
n = The number of items (e.g., the number of items or numbers being averaged)
x1 = The value of each individual item in the list of numbers being averaged
3.6.3 Standard Deviation (S.D.)
Standard Deviation is the most widely used measure of dispersion of a series. It is
defined as the square root of arithmetic mean of the squares of deviations of individual
observations from their arithmetic mean. It is worked out by following formula:

 X  X 
2

S .D. 
n
Where,
S.D = Standard deviation
X = Individual observations

X = Mean of observations
n = Number of items.
3.6.4 t-test
It was used to study the statistical differences in the mean scores of the respondents
according to their gender. The following formula was used:

x1  x 2
t=
1 1
S 2(  )
n1 n2
Where,

X1 = Mean score of group 1

X2 = Mean score of group 2

s1 = Standard deviation of first set of values
s2 = Standard deviation of second set of values
n1 = Number of subjects in group 1

25
 n2 = Number of subjects in group 2
t = value of t-statistic

S2 = Pooled version
n1+ n2 = Degree of freedom
3.6.5 Karl Pearson’s Correlation Co-efficient
Karl Pearson’s Correlation Co-efficient was used to measure the degree of linear
relationship between the socio-personal characteristics of the respondents with their
personality traits and cyber crime awareness.

 XY   n
X Y
r

 X2  X   Y  Y 
2 2


 
 2

n n 
 

Where,
r = Correlation co-efficient
n = Number of respondents
X, Y = Variables
3.6.6 Z-test
It was used to determine the gender differences of respondents across varying
components and levels of personality traits and cyber crime awareness.
Formula used:

p1  p2
Z
1 1
PQ   
 n1 n2 
Where,
p1 = Proportions of female respondents
p2 = Proportions of male respondents
n1 = Total number of female respondents
n2 = Total number of male respondents

P = Combined proportions

Q = 1- P

26
CHAPTER – IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The present investigation was carried out to evaluate the effect of personality traits on
cyber crime awareness of rural and urban adolescents in the age group of 16-18 years.

4.1 Socio-personal profile of the respondents

Table 4.1.1 Distribution of rural respondents according to their Socio- Personal Profile

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50) Total (n=100)

S.
Variables Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No. Frequency
(f) (%) (f) (%) (f) (%)

1. Age (years)

16 19 38.0 9 18.0 28 28.0

17 18 36.0 27 54.0 45 45.0

18 13 26.0 14 28.0 27 27.0

2. Father’s Education

Illiterate 13 26.00 15 30.00 28 28.0

Primary 12 24.00 12 24.00 24 24.0

10th 14 28.00 14 28.00 28 28.0

12th 7 14.00 9 18.00 16 16.0

Diploma 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0

Graduation 3 6.00 0 0.00 3 3.0

Post
1 2.00 0 0.00 1 1.0
graduation

3. Mother’s Education

Illiterate 20 40.00 26 52.00 46 46.0

Primary 13 26.00 17 34.00 30 30.0

10th 9 18.00 7 14.00 16 16.0

12th 7 14.00 0 0.00 7 7.0

Diploma 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0

Graduation 1 2.00 0 0.00 1 1.0

 Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50) Total (n=100)
S.
Variables Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No. Frequency
(f) (%) (f) (%) (f) (%)

4. Father’s Occupation
Agriculture 6 12.00 8 16.00 14 14.0
Business 12 24.00 11 22.00 23 23.0
Service 15 30.00 17 34.00 32 32.0
Labour 17 34.00 14 28.00 31 31.0
5. Mother’s Occupation
Agriculture 2 4.00 0 0.00 2 2.0
Business 3 6.00 4 8.00 7 7.0
Service 7 14.00 7 14.00 14 14.0
Labour 18 36.00 20 40.00 38 38.0
Homemaker 20 40.00 19 38.00 39 39.0
6. Family Members
<5 11 22.00 8 16.00 19 19.0
5-8 38 76.00 39 78.00 77 77.0
>8 1 2.00 3 6.00 4 4.0
7. Sibling (male)
0 0 0.00 3 6.00 3 3.0
1 26 52.00 28 56.00 54 54.0
2 16 32.00 15 30.00 31 31.0
3 7 14.00 3 6.00 10 10.0
4 1 2.00 1 2.00 2 2.0
8. Sibling (female)
0 10 20.00 1 2.00 11 11.0
1 23 46.00 26 52.00 49 49.0
2 10 20.00 12 24.00 22 22.0
3 5 10.00 8 16.00 13 13.0
4 2 4.00 3 6.00 5 5.0

28
 Table 4.1.1 and Fig.4.1.1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of socio-
personal profile of rural respondents.

Age: The sample of rural respondents revealed that 28 per cent of total respondents belonged
to 16 years of age group, 45 per cent to 17 years of age group and 27 per cent of total
respondents were from 18 years of age group.

Father’s Education: The profile of father’s education elucidated that 28 per cent were
illiterate, 24 per cent were primary passed, 28 per cent were educated upto matric level, 16
per cent were educated upto 12th, three per cent were graduates, only one per cent of the
respondents had fathers who were post graduates and none of the respondents had fathers who
had diploma degree.

Mother’s Education: Distribution of respondents by mother’s education showed that 46 per

cent were illiterate, 30 per cent were primary passed, 16 per cent were educated upto matric
level, seven per cent were educated upto 12th, only one per cent of the respondents had
mothers who were graduates and none of the respondents had mothers who had diploma
degree.

Father’s Occupation: The profile of father’s occupation highlighted that 14 per cent were
farmers, 23 per cent were in business and 32 per cent were servicemen and 31 per cent were
labourers.

Mother’s Occupation: In contrast to this, more number of (39%) respondents had mothers
who were homemakers, 38 per cent were labourers, 14 per cent were in service and seven per
cent were doing business and only two per cent were farmers.

Family Members: The sample of rural respondents indicated that 19 per cent of respondents
belonged to small sized families, 77 per cent of respondents belonged to medium sized
families and four per cent of the respondents live in large sized families.

Sibling (male):The sample highlighted that three per cent of the respondents had no male
sibling, 54 per cent of the respondents had one male sibling, 31 per cent had two male
siblings, 10 per cent of the respondents had three male siblings and only two per cent of the
respondents had four male siblings.

Sibling (female):The sample of rural respondents revealed that 11 per cent of the respondents
had no female sibling, 49 per cent of the respondents had one female sibling, 22 per cent of
the respondents had two female siblings, 13 per cent of the respondents had three female
siblings and five per cent of the respondents had four female siblings.

29
Fig. 4.1.1 Distribution of rural respondents according to their Socio- Personal Profile

Respondent's Age
Percentage
60 54
38 36
40 26 28
18
20
0
16 17 18
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

Father's Education
40
30 28 28
30 26
Percentage

24 24
20 18
14
10 6
0 0 0 2 0
0
Illiterate Primary 10th 12th Diploma Graduation Post
graduation
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

60 52 Mother's Education
50
40
Percentage

40 34
30 26
18
20 14 14
10 2
0 0 0 0
0
Illiterate Primary 10th 12th Diploma Graduation
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

40 Father's Occupation 34 34
30 28
30
Percentage

24 22
20 16
12
10

0
Agriculture Business Service Labour
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

30
 50 Mother's Occupation
40 40 38
40 36
Percentage
30

20 14 14
6 8
10 4
0
0
Agriculture Business Service Labour Homemaker
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

100 Family Members

76 78
80
Percentage

60
40
22
16
20 6
2
0
<5 5-8 >8
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

60 56
52 Sibling (male)
50
Percentage

40 32 30
30
20 14
10 6 6
0 2 2
0
0 1 2 3 4
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

60 52 Sibling (female)
50 46
Percentage

40
30 24
20 20
20 16
10
10 4 6
2
0
0 1 2 3 4
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

31
Table 4.1.2 Distribution of urban respondents according to their Socio- Personal Profile

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50) Total (n=100)

S.
Variables Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No.
(f) (%) (f) (%) (f) (%)
1. Age (years)
16 3 6.0 7 14.0 10 10.0
17 25 50.0 26 52.0 51 51.0
18 22 44.0 17 34.0 39 39.0
2. Father’s Education
Illiterate 5 10.00 6 12.00 11 11.0
Primary 23 46.00 22 44.00 45 45.0
10th 13 26.00 11 22.00 24 24.0
th
12 7 14.00 7 14.00 14 14.0
Diploma 1 2.00 0 0.00 1 1.0
Graduation 0 0.00 3 6.00 3 3.0
Post graduation 1 2.00 1 2.00 2 2.0
3. Mother’s Education
Illiterate 20 40.00 19 38.00 39 39.0
Primary 19 38.00 15 30.00 34 34.0
10th 9 18.00 9 18.00 18 18.0
12th 2 4.00 2 4.00 4 4.0
Diploma 0 0.00 1 2.00 1 1.0
Graduation 0 0.00 4 8.00 4 4.0
4. Father’s Occupation
Agriculture 4 8.00 2 4.00 6 6.0
Business 4 8.00 3 6.00 7 7.0
Service 24 48.00 30 60.00 54 54.0
Labour 18 36.00 15 30.00 33 33.0
5. Mother’s Occupation
Agriculture 2 4.00 0 0.00 2 2.0
Business 1 2.00 0 0.00 1 1.0
Service 14 28.00 16 32.00 30 30.0
Labour 20 40.00 24 48.00 44 44.0
Homemaker 13 26.00 10 20.00 23 23.00

32
 Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50) Total (n=100)
S.
Variables Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No.
(f) (%) (f) (%) (f) (%)
6. Family Members
<5 9 18.00 20 40.00 29 29.0
5-8 37 74.00 26 52.00 63 63.0
>8 4 8.00 4 8.00 8 8.0
7. Sibling (male)
0 3 6.00 7 14.00 10 10.0
1 28 56.00 30 60.00 58 58.0
2 13 26.00 8 16.00 21 21.0
3 4 8.00 3 6.00 7 7.0
4 2 4.00 2 4.00 4 4.0
8. Sibling (female)
0 11 22.00 8 16.00 19 19.0
1 23 46.00 23 46.00 46 46.0
2 9 18.00 7 14.00 16 16.0
3 3 6.00 7 14.00 10 10.0
4 4 8.00 5 10.00 9 9.0

Table 4.1.2 and Fig.4.1.2 represents the frequency and percentage distribution of
socio-personal profile of urban respondents.
Age: The sample of urban respondents revealed that 10 per cent of total respondents belonged
to 16 years of age group, 51 per cent to 17 years of age group and 39 per cent of total
respondents belonged to 18 years of age group.
Father’s Education: The profile of father’s education highlighted that 11 per cent were
illiterate, 45 per cent were primary passed, 24 per cent were educated upto matric level, 14
per cent were educated upto 12th, threeper cent were graduates, twoper cent of the respondents
had fathers who were post graduates and only one per cent of the respondents had fathers who
had diploma degree.
Mother’s Education: Similarly, the distribution of respondents by mother’s education
showed that 39 per cent were illiterate, 34 per cent were primary passed, 18 per cent were
educated upto matric level, four per cent were educated upto 12th, four per cent of the
respondents had mothers who were graduates and only one per cent of the respondents had
mothers who had diploma degree.

33
Fig. 4.1.2 Distribution of urban respondents according to their Socio- Personal Profile

Respondent's Age
60 52
50
50 44
Percentage

40 34
30
20 14
10 6
0
16 17 18
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

50 46 44
Father's Education
40
Percentage

30 26
22
20 14 14
10 12
10 6
2 0 0 2 2
0
Illiterate Primary 10th 12th Diploma Graduation Post
graduation

Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

45 40 Mother's Education
40 38 38
35 30
Percentage

30
25
20 18 18
15
10 8
4 4
5 2
0 0
0
Illiterate Primary 10th 12th Diploma Graduation

Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

70 Father's Occupation 60
60
48
50
Percentage

40 36
30
30
20
8 8 6
10 4
0
Agriculture Business Service Labour

Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

34
 60 Mother's Occupation
48
50
40
Percentage 40
32
28 26
30
20
20
10 4
0 2 0
0
Agriculture Business Service Labour Homemaker

Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

Family Members
80 74

60 52
Percentage

40
40
18
20 8 8
0
<5 5-8 >8
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

70
Sibling (male)
60
60 56
50
Percentage

40
30 26
20 14 16
6 8 6
10 4 4
0
0 1 2 3 4
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

Sibling (female)
50 46 46

40
Percentage

30
22
16 18
20 14 14
8 10
10 6

0
0 1 2 3 4
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

35
Father’s Occupation: The profile of father’s occupation revealed thatsix per cent were
farmers, sevenper cent were in business, 54 per cent were servicemen and 33 per cent were
labourers.
Mother’s Occupation: In contrast to this, more number of the(44%) respondents had
mothers who were labourers, 23 per cent were homemakers, 30 per cent were in service, one
per cent in business and only twoper cent were farmers.
Family Members: The sample revealed that 29 per cent of respondents belonged to small
sized families, 63 per cent of respondents belonged to medium sized families and eight per
cent of the respondents live in large sized families.
Sibling (male):The sample of rural respondents depicted that 10 per cent of the respondents
had no male sibling, 58 per cent of the respondents had one male sibling, 21 per cent had two
male siblings, sevenper cent of the respondents had three male siblings and only four per cent
of the respondents had four male siblings.
Sibling (female):The sample of rural respondents explained that 19 per cent of the
respondents had no female siblings, 46per cent of the respondents had one female sibling, 16
per cent of the respondents have two female siblings, 10 per cent of the respondents had three
female siblings and nineper cent of the respondents had four female siblings.

Table 4.1.3 Distribution of total sample according to their socio-personal profile

Boys (n=100) Girls (n=100) Total (N=200)

S.
Variables Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No.
(f) (%) (f) (%) (f) (%)
1. Age (years)
16 22 22 16 16 38 19

17 43 43 53 53 96 48

18 35 35 31 31 66 33

2. Father’s Education

Illiterate 18 18 21 21 39 19.5

Primary 35 35 34 34 69 34.5

10th 27 27 25 25 52 26

12th 14 14 16 16 30 15

Diploma 1 1 0 0 1 0.5

Graduation 3 3 3 3 6 3

Post graduation 2 2 1 1 3 1.5

36
 Boys (n=100) Girls (n=100) Total (N=200)
S.
Variables Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No.
(f) (%) (f) (%) (f) (%)
3. Mother’s Education
Illiterate 40 40 45 45 85 42.5
Primary 32 32 32 32 64 32
th
10 18 18 16 16 34 17
12th 9 9 2 2 11 5.5
Diploma 0 0 1 1 1 0.5
Graduation 1 1 4 4 5 2.5
4. Father’s Occupation
Agriculture 10 10 10 10 20 10
Business 16 16 14 14 30 15
Service 39 39 47 47 86 43
Labour 35 35 29 29 64 32
5. Mother’s Occupation
Agriculture 4 4 0 0 4 2
Business 4 4 4 4 8 4
Service 21 21 23 23 44 22
Labour 38 38 44 44 82 41
Homemaker 33 33 29 29 62 31
6. Family Members
<5 20 20 28 28 48 24
5-8 75 75 65 65 140 70
>8 5 5 7 7 12 6
7. Sibling (male)
0 3 3 10 10 13 6.5
1 54 54 58 58 112 56
2 29 29 23 23 52 26
3 11 11 6 6 17 8.5
4 3 3 3 3 6 3
8. Sibling (female)
0 21 21 9 9 30 15
1 46 46 49 49 95 47.5
2 19 19 19 19 38 19
3 8 8 15 15 23 11.5
4 6 6 8 8 14 7

37
 Table 4.1.3 and Fig.4.1.3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of total
sample according to their socio-personal profile.

Age: The sample revealed that 19 per cent of respondents belonged to 16 years of age group,
48 per cent to 17 years of age group and 33 per cent belonged to 18 years of age group.

Father’s Education: The profile of the father’s education indicated that 19.5 per cent were
illiterate, 34.5per cent were primary passed, 26 per cent were educated upto matric level, 15
per cent were educated upto 12th, three per cent were graduates, only 1.5 per cent of the
respondents had fathers who were post graduates and 0.5 of the respondents had fathers who
had diploma degree.

Mother’s Education: Similarly, the distribution of respondents by mother’s education

showed that 42.5 per cent were illiterate, 32 per cent were primary passed, 17 per cent were
educated upto matric level, 5.5 per cent were educated upto 12th, only 2.5 per cent of the
respondents had mothers who were graduates and 0.5 of the respondents had mothers who
had diploma degree.

Father’s Occupation: The profile of the father’s occupation revealed that 10 per cent were
farmers, 15 per cent were in business, 43 per cent were servicemen and 32 per cent were
labourers.

Mother’s Occupation:In contrast to this, majority of the(41%)respondents had mothers who

were labourers, 31 per cent were homemakers, 22 per cent and four per cent were in service
and business respectively. Only two per cent of the mothers were doing farming.

Family Members: The sample of rural respondents depicted that 24 per cent of respondents
belonged to small sized family, 70 per cent of respondents belonged to medium sized family
and six per cent of the respondents live in large sized families.

Sibling (male):The sample of rural respondents revealed that 6.5 per cent of the respondents
had no male sibling, 56 per cent of the respondents had one male sibling, 26 per cent had two
male siblings, 8.5per cent of the respondents had three male siblings and only three per cent
had four male siblings.

Sibling (female):The sample of rural respondents elucidated that 15 per cent of the
respondents had no female sibling, 47.5 per cent of the respondents have one female sibling,
19per cent of the respondents had two female siblings, 11.5 per cent of the respondents had
three female siblings and seven per cent of the respondents had four female siblings.

38
Fig. 4.1.3 Distribution of total sample according to their socio-personal profile

Respondent's Age
60 53
50 43
Percentage

40 35
31
30 22
20 16
10
0
16 17 18
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

40 35 34 Father's Education

30 27 25
Percentage

21
18
20 14 16
10
1 0 3 3 2 1
0
Illiterate Primary 10th 12th Diploma Graduation Post
graduation
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

50 45 Mother's Education
40
40
32 32
Percentage

30
18 16
20
9
10 4
2 0 1 1
0
Illiterate Primary 10th 12th Diploma Graduation
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

Father's Occupation 47
50
39
40 35
Percentage

29
30

20 16 14
10 10
10

0
Agriculture Business Service Labour
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

39
 50 Mother's Occupation 44
38
40
33
Percentage 29
30
21 23
20

10 4 4 4
0
0
Agriculture Business Service Labour Homemaker

Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

80
Family Members
75
70 65
60
Percentage

50
40
28
30 20
20
5 7
10
0
<5 5-8 >8
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

70 Sibling (male)
58
60 54
50
Percentage

40 29
30 23
20 10 11
10 3 6 3 3
0
0 1 2 3 4

Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

60
Sibling (female)
50 46 49
Percentage

40
30 21 19 19
20 15
9 8 6 8
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
Rural Boys (n=50) Rural Girls (n=50)

40
 4.2 GENDER AND LOCALE WISE DIFFERENCES IN DIFFERENTIAL
PERSONALITY TRAITS AMONG ADOLESCENTS
Table 4.2.1: Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality traits among
rural respondents
Rural (n= 100)
Sr. Personality Boys (n= 50) Girls (n= 50)
Levels
No. traits Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Z–value
(f) (%) (f) (%)
1. Decisiveness Low 1 2.00 8 16.00 2.40*
Medium 40 80.00 39 78.00 0.19
High 9 18.00 3 6.00 1.83
2. Responsibility Low 1 2.00 2 4.00 0.58
Medium 34 68.00 37 74.00 0.54
High 15 30.00 11 22.00 0.89
3. Emotional Low 1 2.00 4 8.00 1.37
stability Medium 33 66.00 44 88.00 1.97*
High 16 32.00 2 4.00 3.63**
4. Masculinity Low 6 12.00 15 30.00 2.13*
Medium 41 82.00 34 68.00 1.30
High 3 6.00 1 2.00 1.02
5. Friendliness Low 1 2.00 0 0.00 1.01
Medium 23 46.00 28 56.00 0.90
High 26 52.00 22 44.00 0.74
6. Hetero sexuality Low 17 34.00 19 38.00 0.39
Medium 31 62.00 29 58.00 0.36
High 2 4.00 2 4.00 0.00
7. Ego strength Low 1 2.00 0 0.00 1.01
Medium 36 72.00 42 84.00 1.09
High 13 26.00 8 16.00 1.20
8. Curiosity Low 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Medium 25 50.00 28 56.00 0.54
High 25 50.00 22 44.00 0.56
9. Dominance Low 3 6.00 1 2.00 1.02
Medium 41 82.00 38 76.00 0.56
High 6 12.00 11 22.00 1.30
10. Self concept Low 1 2.00 0 0.00 1.01
Medium 42 84.00 42 84.00 0.00
High 7 14.00 8 16.00 0.27
11. Overall Medium 47 94.00 48 96.00 0.21
personality traits High 3 6.00 2 4.00 0.46
*Significant at 5% level (2- tailed)
**Significant at 1% level (2- tailed)

41
 100 96
94
88
90
84 8484
82 82
80
80 78
74 76
72
68 68
70 66
62
58
60 56 56
Percentage

52
50 50
50 46
44 44
38
42

40
34
32
30 30
30 26
22 22
18
20 16 16 16
14
12 12
8
10 6 6 6 6
4 4 44 4
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 0 00 0
0
Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium
Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

High
Decisiveness Responsibility Emotional Masculinity Friendliness Hetero sexuality Ego strength Curiosity Dominance Self concept Overall
stability personality
traits

Rural Boys (n= 50) Rural Girls (n= 50)

Fig. 4.2.1: Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality traits among rural respondents
 Table 4.2.1 and Fig. 4.2.1depicts the gender-wise differences across different levels
of personality traits among rural respondents. The results revealed that in low level of
decisiveness trait rural girls (16%) were found significantly (z = 2.40, p ≤ 0.05) ahead than
rural boys (2%). In the trait of emotional stability significant differences were found in
medium and high level. In medium level girls (88%) were significantly (z = 1.97, p ≤ 0.05)
higher than boys (66%). In high level boys (32%) were significantly (z = 3.63, p ≤ 0.01)
ahead as compared to girls (4%) indicating that more number of boys had better emotional
stability as compared to girls. In case of masculinity trait rural girls (30%) were significantly
(z = 2.13, p ≤ 0.05) higher than rural boys (12%) in low level. Non-significant results were
found in rest of the traits. In case of responsibility trait 30 per cent of rural boys and 22 per
cent of rural girls had high, 68 per cent of rural boys and 74 per cent of rural girls had
medium and two per cent of rural boys and four per cent of rural girls had low levels. In
friendliness trait 52 per cent of rural boys and 44 per cent of rural girls had high, 46 per cent
of rural boys and 56 per cent of rural girls had medium and two per cent of rural boys and
none of rural girls had low levels. In case of hetero sexuality trait both groups had four per
cent high, 62 per cent of rural boys and 58 per cent of rural girls had medium and 34 per cent
of rural boys and 38 per cent of rural girls had low levels. In case of ego strength trait 26 per
cent of rural boys and 16 per cent of rural girls had high, 72 per cent of rural boys and 84 per
cent of rural girls had medium and two per cent of rural boys and none of rural girls had low
levels. In case of curiosity 50 per cent of rural boys and 44 per cent of rural girls had high and
50 per cent of rural boys and 56 per cent of rural girls had medium level. In case of
dominance trait 12 per cent of rural boys and 22 per cent of rural girls had high, 82 per cent of
rural boys and 76 per cent of rural girls had medium and six per cent of rural boys and two
per cent of rural girls had low levels. In self concept 14 per cent of rural boys and 16 per cent
of rural girls were in high level, 84 percent in both the groups had medium and two per cent
of rural boys and none of rural girls had low levels. In overall personality traits six per cent of
rural boys and four per cent of rural girls had high and 94 per cent of rural boys and 96 per
cent of rural girls had medium levels.

43
 Table 4.2.2: Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality traits among
urban respondents
Urban (n=100)
Sr. Personality Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)
Levels Z–
No. traits Frequency Percent Frequency Percent value
(f) (%) (f) (%)
1. Decisiveness Low 3 6.00 7 14.00 1.31
Medium 39 78.00 40 80.00 0.18
High 8 16.00 3 6.00 1.59
2. Responsibility Low 0 0.00 1 2.00 1.00
Medium 34 68.00 42 84.00 1.44
High 16 32.00 7 14.00 2.10*
3. Emotional Low 1 2.00 5 10.00 1.67
stability Medium 38 76.00 39 78.00 0.18
High 11 22.00 6 12.00 1.31
4. Masculinity Low 1 2.00 10 20.00 2.81**
Medium 40 80.00 37 74.00 0.56
High 9 18.00 3 6.00 1.83
5. Friendliness Low 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Medium 24 48.00 20 40.00 0.75
High 26 52.00 30 60.00 0.71
6. Hetero Low 26 52.00 33 66.00 1.24
sexuality Medium 24 48.00 17 34.00 1.35
High 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
7. Ego strength Low 3 6.00 0 0.00 1.76
Medium 39 78.00 48 96.00 1.70
High 8 16.00 2 4.00 1.99*
8. Curiosity Low 0 0.00 2 4.00 1.42
Medium 28 56.00 29 58.00 0.18
High 22 44.00 19 38.00 0.57
9. Dominance Low 5 10.00 0 0.00 2.29*
Medium 38 76.00 37 74.00 0.18
High 7 14.00 13 26.00 1.45
10. Self concept Low 2 4.00 0 0.00 1.43
Medium 33 66.00 43 86.00 1.79
High 15 30.00 7 14.00 1.90
11. Overall Medium 47 94.00 48 96.00 0.21
personality High
traits 3 6.00 2 4.00 0.46
*Significant at 5 % level (2- tailed)

44
**Significant at 1% level (2- tailed)

45
 120

100 96 96
94

86
84
80 80
78 78 78
80 76
74
76
74
68
Percentage

66 66
60
58
60 56
52 52
48 48
44
40
38
40
46

34
32
30
26
22
20
18
20 14
16
14
16
14 14
12
10 10
6 6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2
0 00 00 0 0 0 0
0
Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Low

Low

Low
High

High

Medium

High

Medium

Low

High

Medium

Low

Low
High

Medium

High

Medium

Low

High

Medium

High

Medium

High

Medium

High

Medium

High
Decisiveness Responsibility Emotional Masculinity Friendliness Hetero sexuality Ego strength Curiosity Dominance Self concept Overall
stability personality
traits

Urban Boys (n=50) Urban Girls (n=50)

Fig. 4.2.2: Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality traits among urban respondents
 Table 4.2.2 and Fig. 4.2.2 represents gender-wise differences across different levels
of personality traits among rural respondents.. The findings showed that in high level of
responsibility trait urban boys (32%) were found significantly (z = 2.10, p ≤ 0.05) higher than
urban girls (14%) which explained that urban boys tend to finish a task in time, meet people
on appointed time and follow fixed schedule as compared to girls. In case of low level of
masculinity trait (20%) urban girls were found significantly (z = 2.81, p ≤ 0.01) higher than
urban boys (2%). In case of high level of ego strength urban boys(16%) were found to be
significantly (z = 1.99, p ≤ 0.05) higher than urban girls (4%) which revealed that urban boys
tend to concentrate and attend to different activities at a time and showed high coordination
between thoughts and actions than girls. In case of low level of dominance trait urban boys
(10%) were found significantly (z = 2.29, p ≤ 0.05) higher than none of the urban girls. Non
significant gender differences existed in other traits. The results depicted that 16 per cent of
urban boys and six per cent of urban girls had high, 78 per cent of urban boys and 80 per cent
of urban girls had medium and six per cent of urban boys and 14 per cent of urban girls had
low levels of decisiveness trait. In case of emotional stability trait 22 per cent of urban boys
and 12 per cent of urban girls had high, 76 per cent of urban boys and 78 per cent of urban
girls had medium and two per cent of urban boys and 10 per cent of urban girls had low
levels. In case of friendliness trait 52 per cent of urban boys and 60 per cent of urban girls had
high and 48 per cent of urban boys and 40 per cent of urban girls had medium levels. In
hetero sexuality trait 48 per cent of urban boys and 34 per cent of urban girls had medium, 52
per cent of urban boys and 66 per cent of urban girls had low levels. In curiosity 44 per cent
of urban boys and 38 per cent of urban girls had high, 56 per cent of urban boys and 58 per
cent of urban girls had medium, and none of urban boys but four per cent of urban girls had
low levels. In case of self concept 30 per cent of urban boys and 14 per cent of urban girls had
high, 66 per cent of urban boys and 86 per cent of urban girls had medium and four per cent
of urban boys and none of urban girls had low levels. In overall personality traits six per cent
of urban boys and four per cent of urban girls had high and 94 per cent of the urban boys and
96 per cent of the urban girls had medium levels.

47
 Table 4.2.3: Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality traits among
total respondents
Total (N=200)
Boys (n= 100) Girls (n= 100)
Sr. Personality Z-
Levels Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No. Traits value
(f) (%) (f) (%)
1. Decisiveness Low 4 4.00 15 15.00 2.71**
Medium 79 79.00 79 79.00 0.00
High 17 17.00 6 6.00 2.57**
2. Responsibility Low 1 1.00 3 3.00 1.01
Medium 68 68.00 79 79.00 0.00
High 31 31.00 18 18.00 2.43*
3. Emotional Low 2 2.00 9 9.00 2.19*
stability Medium 71 71.00 83 83.00 0.00
High 27 27.00 8 8.00 3.89**
4. Masculinity Low 7 7.00 25 25.00 3.60**
Medium 81 81.00 71 71.00 0.00
High 12 12.00 4 4.00 2.16*
5. Friendliness Low 1 1.00 0 0.00 1.01
Medium 47 47.00 48 48.00 0.21
High 52 52.00 52 52.00 0.00
6. Hetero sexuality Low 43 43.00 52 52.00 1.82
Medium 55 55.00 46 46.00 2.15*
High 2 2.00 2 2.00 0.00
7. Ego strength Low 4 4.00 0 0.00 2.04*
Medium 75 75.00 90 90.00 0.00
High 21 21.00 10 10.00 2.31*
8. Curiosity Low 0 0.00 2 2.00 1.42
Medium 53 53.00 57 57.00 1.07
High 47 47.00 41 41.00 1.20
9. Dominance Low 8 8.00 1 1.00 2.44*
Medium 79 79.00 75 75.00 0.00
High 13 13.00 24 24.00 2.12*
10. Self concept Low 3 3.00 0 0.00 1.76
Medium 75 75.00 85 85.00 0.00
High 22 22.00 15 15.00 1.39
11. Overall Medium 94 94.00 96 96.00 0.00
personality High
traits 6 6.00 4 4.00 0.66

48
* Significant at 5% level (2- tailed)
** Significant at 1% level (2- tailed)

49
 120

100 96
94
90
85
83
81
7979 79 79
80 75 75 75
71 71
68
Percentage

60 57
55
5252 52 53
4748 46 47
50

43
41
40
31
27
25 24
21 22
17 18
20 15 15
12 13
9 10
8 7 8
6 6
4 3 4 4 3 4
1 2 10 22 2 1
0 0 0
0
High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High
Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

Medium
Decisiveness Responsibility Emotional Masculinity Friendliness Hetero sexuality Ego strength Curiosity Dominance Self concept Overall
stability personality
traits

Total Boys (n= 100) Total Girls (n= 100)

Fig. 4.2.3: Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality traits among total respondents
 Table 4.2.3 and Fig. 4.2.3 elucidates gender-wise differences across different levels
of personality traits among total respondents.The results revealed that in low level of
decisiveness girls (15%) were found to be significantly (z = 2.71, p ≤ 0.01) higher than boys
(4%). In high level boys (17%) were significantly (z = 2.57, p ≤ 0.01) higher than girls (6%)
which indicated that boys had better ability to take quick decisions in controversial issues,
decide priorities and take clear cut stand over the given issues. In case of high level of
responsibility trait, boys (31%) were found to be significantly (z = 2.43, p ≤ 0.05) higher than
girls (18%) which illustrated that as compared to girls, boys tend to meet people on appointed
time, follow fixed schedule and finished a task in time. In case of low level of emotional
stability girls (9%) were found to be significantly (z = 2.19, p ≤ 0.05) higher than boys (2%).
In high level boys (27%) were significantly (z = 3.89, p ≤ 0.01) higher than girls (8%) which
described that boys had better control over their emotions, consider ailments in their proper
perspective and talk confidently with others as compared to their female counterparts. It was
also seen that majority of the respondents had average level of emotional stability i.e. 71% in
boys and 83% in girls. Similar results were observed by Meena and Aggarwal (2011) they
also found that the vast majority of male and female respondents have average level of
emotional stability. In case of low level of masculinity trait girls (25%) were significantly (z =
3.60, p ≤ 0.01) higher than boys (7%). In high level boys (12%) were significantly (z = 2.16,
p ≤ 0.05) higher than girls (4%) highlighting that more number of boys than girls had ability
to do risky work, accept job of police or military and handle challenges from others and face
them boldly. In case of medium level of hetero sexuality boys (55%) were significantly (z =
2.15, p ≤ 0.05) higher than girls (46%) which depicted that boys had normal relationship with
opposite sex, they don’t feel shy among members of opposite sex and take active participation
in working with members of opposite sex. In case of low level of ego strength boys (4%)
were significantly (z = 2.04, p ≤ 0.05) higher than none of the girls and in high level also boys
(21%) were significantly (z = 2.31, p ≤ 0.05) higher than girls (10%) which showed that boys
had better ability to concentrate and attend to different activities at a time, have better control
over impulses and tend to show high coordination between thoughts and actions than girls. In
case of low level of dominance trait boys (8%) were found to be significantly (z = 2.44, p ≤
0.05) higher than girls (1%). In high level girls(24%) were found to be significantly (z = 2.12,
p ≤ 0.05) higher than boys (13%) which revealed that more number of girls had better ability
to dictate over others for duty, tend to be the leader of the group and undertake the
supervision of a difficult and complex task as compared to boys. Non significant results were
observed in the rest of the traits. The findings described that in case of friendliness 52 per cent
of both the groups were in high level, 47 per cent of boys and 48 per cent of girls had medium
and one per cent of boys and none of girls had low levels. In case of curiosity 47 per cent of
boys and 41 per cent of girls had high, 53 per cent of boys and 57 per cent of girls had

51
medium and none of boys and two per cent of total girls had low levels. In case of self
concept, 22 per cent of boys and 15 per cent of girls had high, 75 per cent of boys and 85 per
cent of girls had medium and three per cent of boys and none of the girls had low levels. In
overall personality six per cent of boys and four per cent of girls had high and 94 per cent of
boys and 96 per cent of girls had medium levels.
Table 4.2.4 Gender differences in mean scores of rural respondents across different
personality traits

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

S. No. Personality Traits t - value
Mean±S.D Mean±S.D
1 Decisiveness 8.9±1.95 7.6±2.18 3.145**
2 Responsibility 9.32±1.86 8.5±1.91 2.178*
3 Emotional stability 9.52±2.3 7.9±1.64 4.055**
4 Masculinity 8.2±1.91 6.84±2.21 3.298**
5 Friendliness 10.28±2.01 10.44±1.77 0.422
6 Hetero sexuality 6.52±2.32 6.1±2.67 0.838
7 Ego strength 9.06±1.98 8.92±1.61 0.387
8 Curiosity 10.44±2.13 10.28±2.18 0.372
9 Dominance 8.1±1.82 8.94±2.13 2.118*
10 Self concept 8.78±1.73 9.26±1.12 1.647
11 Overall Personality Traits 89.12±8.312 84.78±8.11 2.643**
**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table 4.2.4and Fig. 4.2.4 highlights the gender differences in mean scores of rural
respondents across different personality traits. Significant differences existed in decisiveness,
responsibility, emotional stability, masculinity, dominance and overall personality traits. The
mean score of rural boys (8.9±1.95) were significantly (t = 3.145, p ≤ 0.01) higher than girls
(7.6±2.18) in the trait of decisiveness which interpreted that boys had more ability to take
quick decisions in controversial issues, to decide priorities and attend accordingly as
compared to girls. In responsibility trait again the mean score of boys (9.32±1.86) were found
to be significantly (t = 2.178, p ≤ 0.05) higher than girls (8.5±1.91). It implied that boys tend
to finish a task in time, meet people on appointment time and follow fix schedule as compare
to girls. In emotional stability also the mean score of boys (9.52±2.3) were significantly (t =
4.055, p ≤ 0.01) higher than girls (7.9±1.64) representing that boys had more control over
their emotions, they talk confidently with others, consider ailments in their proper
perspectives and face comments and criticisms realistically as compared to their counterparts.
In contrast to this Parveen and Joshi (2014) portrayed that nature-wise girls were caring, more
understanding and calm than boys.

52
 100 Personality Traits
89.12
90
84.78

80

70

60
Mean score

50
53

40

30

20
9.32 8.5 9.52 10.2810.44 10.4410.28
8.9 7.6 7.9 8.2 9.06 8.92 8.1 8.94 8.78 9.26
10 6.84 6.52 6.1

0
Decisiveness Emotional stability Friendliness Ego strength Dominance Overall Personality
Traits

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Fig. 4.2.4: Gender differences in mean scores of rural respondents across different personality traits
 In the trait of masculinity boys (8.2±1.91) were again (t = 3.298, p ≤ 0.01) found to
be significantly better as compared to girls (6.84±2.21) which indicated that they engage more
in arduous and risky work, are able to handle challenges from others and face them boldly and
take more interest in mountaineering, fighting etc as compared to girls. Girls (8.94±2.13)
were found to be significantly (t = 2.118, p ≤ 0.05) better as compared to boys (8.1±1.82) in
the case of dominance trait. This showed that girls tend to dedicate over others for duty, tend
to be the leader of the group, had better ability to settle controversy between rivals and
undertake the supervision of a difficult and complex task efficiently as compared to boys.

Across rest of the traits, the mean scores of rural boys and girls were found
comparable therefore no significant differences were noticed. Differences in overall
personality was found to be significant (t = 2.643, p ≤ 0.01) as rural boys scored higher mean
values (89.12±8.312) as compared to the rural girls (84.78±8.11) highlighting that their
overall personality is better than girls.

Table 4.2.5 Gender differences in mean scores of urban respondents across different
personality trait

S. Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Personality Traits t - value
No. Mean±SD Mean±SD
1 Decisiveness 8.66±2 7.86±1.99 2.007*
2 Responsibility 9.6±1.4 8.74±1.52 2.94**
3 Emotional stability 9.04±1.76 8.18±2.06 2.246*
4 Masculinity 8.46±1.84 7.36±2.2 2.709**
5 Friendliness 10.68±1.73 10.52±1.64 0.474
6 Hetero sexuality 5.38±2.02 4.8±2.38 1.313
7 Ego strength 8.58±1.98 8.88±1.32 0.891
8 Curiosity 10.08±2.18 9.64±2.03 1.044
9 Dominance 8.32±1.87 9.36±1.66 2.941**
10 Self concept 9.44±2.07 8.94±1.43 1.403
11 Overall Personality Traits 88.24±8.009 84.28±7.846 2.498**
**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

54
 100
88.24
90 84.28

80

70

60
Mean Score

50

40
55

30

20
10.68 10.52 9.64
9.6 8.74 8.88 10.08 9.44 8.94
8.66 7.86 9.04 8.18 8.46 7.36 8.58 8.32 9.36
10 5.38 4.8

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Fig. 4.2.5: Gender differences in mean scores of urban respondents across different personality trait
 Table 4.2.5 and Fig 4.2.5 shows the differences in mean scores of urban respondents
across different personality traits. The data revealed that in case of traits of ‘decisiveness’ and
‘emotional stability’, significant differences were found in mean scores of urban boys and
girls. The mean score of boys (8.66±2) in decisiveness were found to be significantly (t =
2.007, p ≤ 0.05) higher than girls (7.86±1.99) which illustrated that boys had greater ability to
take quick decisions in controversial issues and take a clear cut stand over the given issues
than girls. Similarly the mean score of boys (9.04±1.76) in emotional stability were also
found significantly (t = 2.246, p ≤ 0.05) higher than girls (8.18±2.06) explaining that boys had
better control over their emotions as compared to their counterparts.
The mean scores of boys (9.6±1.4) in responsibility trait were found to be
significantly (t = 2.94, p ≤ 0.01) higher than girls (8.74±1.52) which elucidated that boys tend
to finish their task in time. In masculinity trait also the mean score of boys (8.46±1.84) were
found to be significantly (t = 2.709, p ≤ 0.01) higher than girls (7.36±2.2) which interpreted
that boys had better ability to handle challenges as compared to girls. Whereas the mean score
in dominance trait (9.36±1.66) were found to be significantly (t = 2.941, p ≤ 0.01) higher in
girls than boys (8.32±1.87) which showed that girls tend to dedicate more over others as
compared to their counterparts. Overall personality differences were found to be significant (t
= 2.498, p ≤ 0.01) where urban boys (88.24±8.009) scored higher mean values than urban
girls (84.28±7.846) indicating that boys hold better overall personality as compared to girls.
According to a study conducted by Parveen and Joshi (2014) boys were found to be more
stronger mentally and physically than girls.
Table 4.2.6 Gender differences in mean scores of total respondents across different
personality traits
S. Boys (n=100) Girls (n=100)
No. Personality Traits
Mean±SD Mean±SD t - value
1 Decisiveness 8.78±1.97 7.73±2.08 3.67**
2 Responsibility 9.46±1.64 8.62±1.72 3.53**
3 Emotional stability 9.28±2.05 8.04±1.86 4.48**
4 Masculinity 8.33±1.87 7.1±2.21 4.25**
5 Friendliness 10.48±1.88 10.48±1.7 NA
6 Hetero sexuality 5.95±2.24 5.45±2.6 1.46
7 Ego strength 8.82±1.99 8.9±1.47 0.32
8 Curiosity 10.26±2.15 9.96±2.12 0.99
9 Dominance 8.21±1.84 9.15±1.91 3.54**
10 Self concept 9.11±1.93 9.1±1.29 0.04
11 Overall Personality Traits 89.12±8.312 85.78±8.11 3.737**
**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
NA (Non Applicable)

56
 100 Personality Traits
89.12
90 85.78

80

70

60
Mean score

50

40
57

30

20
10.48
9.46 8.62 9.28 8.04 10.48 10.26 9.96 9.11 9.1
8.78 7.73 8.33 7.1 5.45 8.82 8.9 8.219.15
10 5.95

Total boys (n=100) Total girls (n=100)

Fig. 4.2.6: Gender differences in mean scores of total respondents across different personality traits
 Table 4.2.6and Fig. 4.2.6 elucidates the gender differences in mean scores of total
respondents across different personality traits. Significant differences existed in decisiveness,
responsibility, emotional stability, masculinity, dominance and overall personality traits. In
decisiveness the mean score of boys (8.78±1.97) were significantly (t = 3.67,p ≤ 0.01) higher
than girls (7.73±2.08) which indicated that boys had better ability to take quick decisions in
controversial issues, to decide priorities and attend accordingly as compared to girls. In
responsibility trait also, the mean score of boys (9.46±1.64) were significantly (t = 3.53, p ≤
0.01) higher than girls (8.62±1.72). It implied that boys tend to finish a task in time, meet
people on appointment time and follow fix schedule in contrary to girls.Similarly in
emotional stability trait the mean score of boys (9.28±2.05) were significantly (t = 4.48, p ≤
0.01) higher than girls (8.04±1.86) depicting that boys had better control over their emotions,
they talk confidently with others, consider ailments in their proper perspectives and face their
comments and criticisms realistically as compared to their female counterparts.

In the trait of masculinity boys (8.33±1.87) were found to be significantly (t = 4.25, p

≤ 0.01) better as compared to girls (7.1±2.21)which highlighted that they do more arduous
and risky work, are able to handle challenges from others and face them boldly and take more
interest in mountaineering, fighting etc as compared to girls. In the trait of dominance, girls
(9.15±1.91) were found to be significantly (t = 3.54, p ≤ 0.01) better as compared to boys
(8.21±1.84) depicting that they tend to dedicate over others for duty, tend to be the leader of
the group, able to settle controversy between rivals and undertake the supervision of a
difficult and complex task more efficiently as compared to boys.

Across rest of the traits, the mean scores of total boys and girls were found to be
comparable therefore, no significant differences were noticed. Overall differences were found
to be significant (t = 3.737, p ≤ 0.01). Boys scored higher mean value (89.12±8.312) as
compared to the girls (85.78±8.11) attributing that boys have more desirable personality traits
as compared to their female counterparts. Sinha (2003) also highlighted that young men are
better adjusted over young ladies as they possess better personality traits.

58
Table 4.2.7 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban girls across
different personality traits

Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

S. No. Personality Traits t - value
Mean±SD Mean±SD
1 Decisiveness 7.6±2.18 7.86±1.99 0.624
2 Responsibility 8.5±1.91 8.74±1.52 0.695
3 Emotional stability 7.9±1.64 8.18±2.06 0.752
4 Masculinity 6.84±2.21 7.36±2.2 1.179
5 Friendliness 10.44±1.77 10.52±1.64 0.234
6 Hetero sexuality 6.1±2.67 4.8±2.38 2.567**
7 Ego strength 8.92±1.61 8.88±1.32 0.136
8 Curiosity 10.28±2.18 9.64±2.03 1.521
9 Dominance 8.94±2.13 9.36±1.66 1.098
10 Self concept 9.26±1.12 8.94±1.43 1.243
11 Overall Personality Traits 84.78±8.11 84.28±7.846 0.313
**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.2.7 and Fig. 4.2.7 shows the difference in mean scores of rural and urban
girls across different personality traits. The finding represented shows that in case of hetero
sexuality trait, significant difference was found in the mean score of rural and urban girls. The
mean scores of rural girls (6.1±2.67) were found to be significantly (t = 2.567,p ≤ 0.01) higher
than urban girls (4.8±2.38) which indicated that rural girls maintain a healthy relationship
with opposite sex, don’t feel shy among opposite sex and take active participation in working
with members of opposite sex. In rest of the traits non-significant difference existed.

59
 90 Personality Traits 84.78 84.28

80

70

60
Mean score

50

40

30
60

20
10.44 10.52 8.92 8.88 10.28 9.64 8.94 9.36 9.26 8.94
7.6 7.86 8.5 8.74 7.9 8.18 6.84 7.36
10 6.1 4.8

Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

Fig. 4.2.7: Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban girls across different personality traits
Table 4.2.8 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban boys across
different personality traits

Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

S.
Personality Traits t - value
No.
Mean±SD Mean±SD

1 Decisiveness 8.9±1.95 8.66±2 0.608

2 Responsibility 9.32±1.86 9.6±1.4 0.852

3 Emotional stability 9.52±2.3 9.04±1.76 1.173

4 Masculinity 8.2±1.91 8.46±1.84 0.693

5 Friendliness 10.28±2.01 10.68±1.73 1.066

6 Hetero sexuality 6.52±2.32 5.38±2.02 2.619**

7 Ego strength 9.06±1.98 8.58±1.98 1.211

8 Curiosity 10.44±2.13 10.08±2.18 0.834

9 Dominance 8.1±1.82 8.32±1.87 0.596

10 Self concept 8.78±1.73 9.44±2.07 1.729

11 Overall Personality Traits 89.12±8.312 88.24±8.009 0.539

**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.2.8and Fig. 4.2.8represents the difference in mean scores of rural and urban
boys across different personality traits. The data depicted that in case of hetero sexuality trait,
significant difference was found in the mean score, of rural and urban boys. The mean scores
of rural boys (6.52±2.32) were found to be significantly (t = 2.619,p ≤ 0.01) higher than urban
boys (5.38±2.02) which indicated that rural boys had a more positive relationship with
opposite sex as compared to their urban counterparts. In other traits differences were found to
be non-significant. In case of responsibility the mean score of urban boys (9.6±1.4) were
found higher than rural boys (9.32±1.86). Similarly Arvindgiri (2012) revealed that urban
boys were observed to be disciplined, brighter and relaxed while rural boys were not
disciplined and more excitable.

61
 100 Personality Traits
89.12
90 88.24

80

70

60
Mean score

50

40

30
62

20
8.9 8.66 9.32 9.6 9.52 9.04 8.46 10.28 10.68 9.06 8.58 10.44 10.08 8.78 9.44
8.2 8.1 8.32
10 6.52 5.38

Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

Fig. 4.2.8: Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban boys across different personality traits
Table 4.2.9 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of total respondents across different
personality traits

Boys(n=100) Girls (n=100)

S.
Personality Traits t - value
No.
Mean±SD Mean±SD

1 Decisiveness 8.25±2.16 8.26±2.02 0.034

2 Responsibility 8.91±1.92 9.17±1.52 1.063

3 Emotional stability 8.71±2.15 8.61±1.95 0.344

4 Masculinity 7.52±2.16 7.91±2.09 1.296

5 Friendliness 10.36±1.89 10.6±1.68 0.949

6 Hetero sexuality 6.31±2.5 5.09±2.22 3.651**

7 Ego strength 8.99±1.8 8.73±1.68 1.056

8 Curiosity 10.36±2.14 9.86±2.11 1.663

9 Dominance 8.52±2.02 8.84±1.84 1.173

10 Self concept 9.02±1.47 9.19±1.79 0.734

11 Overall Personality Traits 89.12±8.312 88.24±8.009 0.762

**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.2.9and Fig. 4.2.9 highlights the differences in mean scores of total boys and
total girls across different personality traits. The data revealed that in case of hetero sexuality
trait, significant difference were found in the mean score of total boys and total girls. The
mean score of total boys (6.31±2.5) was found to be significantly (t = 3.651, p ≤ 0.01) higher
than total girls (5.09±2.22) which interpreted that boys maintain a healthy relationship with
opposite sex, they are more confident while interacting with opposite sex members and are
ready to share work responsibilities with them as compared to girls.In other traits differences
were found to be non-significant.

63
 100 Personality Traits
89.12 88.24
90

80

70

60
Mean score

50

40

30
64

20
8.91 9.17 10.36 10.6 10.36 9.86
8.25 8.26 8.71 8.61 7.52 7.91 8.99 8.73 8.52 8.84 9.02 9.19
10 6.31
5.09

Total boys(n=100) Total girls (n=100)

Fig. 4.2.9: Locale-wise differences in mean scores of total respondents across different personality traits
4.3 GENDER AND LOCALE WISE DIFFERENCES IN CYBER CRIME
AWARENESS AMONG ADOLECENTS

Table 4.3.1 Gender-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime awareness
among rural respondents

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Cyber Crime
Z – value
Awareness Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
(f) (%) (f) (%)

Low 12 24.0 12 24.0 0.00

Medium 32 64.0 21 42.0 2.03*

High 6 12.0 17 34.0 2.51*

*Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

70 64
60

50
42
Percentage

40 34
30 24 24
20
12
10

0
Low Medium High

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Fig. 4.3.1 Gender-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime awareness
among rural respondents

Table 4.3.1 and Fig. 4.3.1 describesgender-wise distribution across different levels of
cyber crime awareness among rural respondents. It is clear from the table that percentage of
boys (64%)in medium category is significantly (z = 2.03, p ≤ 0.05) higher than girls (42%)
whereas the percentage of girls (34%) in high category is significantly (z = 2.51, p ≤ 0.05)
higher than boys (12%) which revealed that more number of girls had high level of cyber
crime awareness than boys.

65
Table 4.3.2 Distribution of urban respondents with regard to different levels of cyber
crime awareness

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Cyber Crime
Z – value
Awareness Frequency Percent Frequency
Percent(%)
(f) (%) (f)

Low 9 18.0 9 18.0 0.00

Medium 28 56.0 34 68.0 1.06

High 13 26.0 7 14.0 1.47

80 Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

70 68

60 56

50
Percenatge

40

30 26

20 18 18
14
10

0
Low Medium High

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Fig. 4.3.2 Distribution of urban respondents with regard to different levels of cyber
crime awareness

Table 4.3.2 and Fig. 4.3.2 shows distribution of urban respondents with regard to
different levels of cyber crime awareness. Among urban respondents non significant
differences were observed between boys and girls in all the three levels of cyber crime
awareness. The results indicated that 68 per cent of the girls and 56 per cent of the boys had
medium level of cyber crime awareness and 26 per cent of the boys and 14 per cent of the
girls had high level of cyber crime awareness whereas equal percentage (18%) of boys and
girls had low level of cyber crime awareness.

66
Table 4.3.3 Gender-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime awareness
among total sample

(N=200)

Boys (n=100) Girls (n=100)

Cyber Crime
Z – value
Awareness Percent Percent
Frequency(f) Frequency (f)
(%) (%)

Low 21 21.0 21 21.0 0.00

Medium 60 60.0 55 55.0 1.76

High 19 19.0 24 24.0 0.93

70 Level of Cyber Crime Awarenes

60
60 55

50
Percentage

40

30 24
21 21 19
20

10

0
Low Medium High

Boys (n=100) Girls (n=100)

Fig. 4.3.3 Gender-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime awareness
among total sample

Table 4.3.3 and Fig. 4.3.3 represents gender-wise distribution across different levels
of cyber crime awareness among total sample. Non significant differences were observed
between total sample. The results interpreted that 60 per cent of the boys and 55 per cent of
the girls had medium level of cyber crime awareness and more number of girls (24%) were
found in high level of cyber crime awareness as compared to boys (19%). Same number of
boys and girls (21%) were found in low level of cyber crime awareness.

67
Table 4.3.4 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of rural boys and girls with regard
to cyber crime awareness

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Cyber Crime
t –value
Awareness
Mean±S.D Mean±S.D

Low 117.92±3.63 117.42±6.037 0.246

Medium 137.38±6.158 135.71±6.709 0.927

High 152.83±6.08 153±4.95 0.067

180 Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

160 152.83 153
137.38 135.71
140
117.92 117.42
120
Mean score

100
80
60
40
20
0
Low Medium High
Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Fig. 4.3.4 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of rural boys and girls with regard
to cyber crime awareness

Table 4.3.4and Fig. 4.3.4 representsgender-wise differences in mean scores of rural

boys and girls in cyber crime awareness. Non significant differences were observed between
rural boys and girls with regard to cyber crime awareness. The data interpreted that in high
level of cyber crime awareness mean score of girls (153±4.95) was higher than boys
(152.83±6.08). In case of medium level boys were ahead (137.38±6.158) as compared to girls
(135.71±6.709). Similarly in low level of cyber crime awareness boys had high mean values
(117.92±3.63) as compared to girls (117.42±6.037). Kumar and Dahiya (2015) studied cyber
crime awareness among educator trainees and concluded that male and female trainees of
rural areas had almost same level of cyber crime awareness.

68
Table 4.3.5 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of urban boys and girls with regard
to cyber crime awareness

Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Cyber Crime
t – value
Awareness
Mean±S.D Mean±S.D

Low 116.56±6.502 120±3.536 1.396

Medium 136.82±5.278 136.38±6.504 0.288

High 153.62±5.839 154.29±4.386 0.265

180 Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

160 153.62 154.29
136.82 136.38
140
116.56 120
120
Mean score

100
80
60
40
20
0
Low Medium High
Boys (n=50) Girls (n=50)

Fig. 4.3.5 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of urban boys and girls with regard
to cyber crime awareness

Table 4.3.5 and Fig. 4.3.5 illustrates gender-wise differences in mean scores of urban
boys and girls in different levels of cyber crime awareness. Non significant differences were
observed between boys and girls with regard to cyber crime awareness. The results explained
that in high level of cyber crime awareness mean score of girls (154.29±4.386) were higher
than boys (153.62±5.839). In case of medium level of cyber crime awareness boys were
ahead (136.82±5.278) as compared to girls (136.38± 6.504) whereas in low level of cyber
crime awareness girls had high mean values (120±3.536) as compared to boys
(116.56±6.502).

69
Table 4.3.6 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of total boys and total girls with
regard to cyber crime awareness

(N=200)

Cyber Crime Boys (n=100) Girls (n=100)

t –value
Awareness Mean±SD Mean±SD
Low 117.33±4.963 118.52±5.173 0.761
Medium 137.12±5.723 136.13±6.529 0.866
High 153.37±5.756 153.38±4.735 0.004

Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

180
160 153.37 153.38
137.12 136.13
140
117.33 118.52
120
Mean score

100
80
60
40
20
0
Low Medium High
Boys (n=100) Girls (n=100)

Fig. 4.3.6 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of total boys and total girls with
regard to cyber crime awareness

Table 4.3.6and Fig. 4.3.6 highlights gender-wise differences in mean scores of total
boys and total girls regarding cyber crime awareness.Non significant differences were
observed between total boys and total girls. The findings revealed that in high level of cyber
crime awareness girls had higher mean score (153.38±4.735) as compared to boys
(153.37±5.756). In case of medium level of cyber crime awareness boys were ahead
(137.12±5.723) as compared to girls (136.13±6.529). On the other hand in low level of cyber
crime awareness girls had high mean values (118.52±5.173) as compared to boys
(117.33±4.963).

70
Table 4.3.7 Locale-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime awareness
among boys

Cyber Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

Crime Z - value
Awareness Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Low 12 24.0 9 18.0 0.72

Medium 32 64.0 28 56.0 0.72

High 6 12.0 13 26.0 1.73

Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

70
64
60 56

50
Percentage

40

30 26
24
20 18
12
10

0
Low Medium High

Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

Fig. 4.3.7 Locale-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime awareness
among boys

Table 4.3.7 and Fig. 4.3.7 describes locale-wise distribution across different levels of
cyber crime awareness among boys. Non significant differences were observed among rural
and urban boys. The results depicted that 64 per cent of the rural boys and 56 per cent of the
urban boys had medium level of cyber crime awareness whereas 24 per cent of the rural boys
and 18 per cent urban boys had low level of cyber crime awareness. On the contrary 26 per
cent of the urban boys and 12 per cent of the rural boys had high level of cyber crime
awareness.

71
Table 4.3.8 Locale-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime awareness
among total girls

Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

Cyber Crime
z value
Awareness
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Low 12 24.0 9 18.0 0.72

Medium 21 42.0 34 68.0 2.29*

High 17 34.0 7 14.0 2.30*

*Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

80 Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

68
70

60

50
Percentage

42
40 34
30 24
18
20 14
10

0
Low Medium High
Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

Fig. 4.3.8 Locale-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime awareness
among total girls

Table 4.3.8and Fig. 4.3.8 elaborates locale-wise distribution across different levels of
cyber crime awareness among total girls. The percentage of urban girls (68%) in medium
category is significantly (z = 2.29, p ≤ 0.05) higher than rural girls (42%) whereas the
percentage of rural girls (34%)in high category is significantly (z = 2.30, p ≤ 0.05) higher than
urban girls (14%) which depicted that rural girls had high level of awareness about cyber
crime than urban girls. In low level non significant results were found.

72
Table 4.3.9 Locale-wise distributionof overall adolescents across different levels of
cyber crime awareness

(N=200)

Rural (n=100) Urban (n=100)

Cyber Crime
Z –value
Awareness
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Low 24 24.0 18 18.0 1.15

Medium 53 53.0 62 62.0 2.68*

High 23 23.0 20 20.0 0.57

*Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

70
62
60
53
50
Percentage

40

30 24 23
18 20
20

10

0
Low Medium High
Rural (n=100) Urban (n=100)

Fig. 4.3.9 Locale-wise distribution of overall adolescents across different levels of

cyber crime awareness

Table 4.3.9 and Fig. 4.3.9 represents locale-wise distribution of overall adolescents across
different levels of cyber crime awareness. The results explained that percentage of urban
respondents (62%) in medium level were significantly (z = 2.68, p ≤ 0.05) higher than rural
respondents (53%) in the same level. In the other two levels differences were found to be non-
significant.

73
Table 4.3.10 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban boys with
regard tocyber crime awareness

Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

Cyber Crime
t – value
Awareness
Mean±S.D Mean±S.D

Low 117.92±3.63 116.56±6.502 0.612

Medium 137.38±6.158 136.82±5.278 0.371

High 152.83±6.08 153.62±5.839 0.268

180 Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

160 152.83 153.62
137.38 136.82
140
117.92 116.56
120
Mean score

100

80

60

40

20

0
Low Medium High
Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

Fig. 4.3.10 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban boys with regard
to cyber crime awareness

Table 4.3.10and Fig. 4.3.10 represents locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural
and urban boys in cyber crime awareness. Non significant differences were observed between
rural and urban boys with regard to cyber crime awareness. The scores depicted that in high
level of cyber crime awareness mean scores of urban boys (153.62±5.839) were higher than
rural boys (152.83±6.08). In case of medium level of cyber crime awareness rural boys were
ahead (137.38±6.158) as compared to urban boys (136.82±5.278). Similarly in low level of
cyber crime awareness rural boys had high mean values (117.92±3.63) as compared to urban
boys (116.56±6.502).

74
Table4.3.11 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban girls with
regard to cyber crime awareness

Cyber Crime Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

t - value
Awareness Mean±S.D Mean±S.D
Low 117.42±6.037 120±3.536 1.141
Medium 135.71±6.709 136.38±6.504 0.366
High 153±4.95 154.29±4.386 0.596

180 Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

160 153 154.29
135.71 136.38
140
117.42 120
120
Mean score

100
80

60

40

20

0
Low Medium High
Rural (n=50) Urban (n=50)

Fig. 4.3.11 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban girls with regard
to cyber crime awareness

Table4.3.11 and Fig. 4.3.11 elucidates locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural
and urban girls in cyber crime awareness.Non significant differences were observed between
rural and urban girls in relation with cyber crime awareness. The results highlighted that in
high level of cyber crime awareness mean score of urban girls (154.29±4.386) was higher
than rural girls (153±4.95). Also in case of medium level of cyber crime awareness urban
girls were ahead (136.38±6.504) as compared to rural girls (135.71±6.709). Similarly in low
level of cyber crime awareness urban girls had high mean values (120±3.536) as compared to
rural girls (117.42±6.037).

75
Table 4.3.12 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of overall adolescents with regard
to cyber crime awareness

(N=200)

Rural (n=100) Urban (n=100)

Cyber Crime
t – value
Awareness
Mean±S.D Mean±S.D

Low 117.67±4.878 118.28±5.378 0.385

Medium 136.72±6.371 136.58±5.938 0.119

High 152.96±5.121 153.85±5.264 0.563

180 Level of Cyber Crime Awareness

160 152.96 153.85
136.72 136.58
140
117.67 118.28
120
Mean score

100
80
60
40
20
0
Low Medium High
Rural (n=100) Urban (n=100)

Fig. 4.3.12 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of overall adolescents with regard to
cyber crime awareness

Table 4.3.12and Fig. 4.3.12 shows locale-wise differences in mean scores of overall
adolescents with regard to cyber crime awareness. Non significant differences were observed
between total respondents with regard to cyber crime awareness. The findings revealed that in
high level of cyber crime awareness mean score of urban respondents (153.85±5.264) were
higher than rural respondents (152.96±5.121). On the other hand in medium level of cyber
crime awareness rural respondents were ahead (136.72±6.371) in contrast to urban
respondents (136.58±5.938). In low level of cyber crime awareness urban respondents had
high mean values (118.28±5.378) as compared to rural respondents (117.67±4.878).

76
4.4 EFFECT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON CYBER CRIME AWARENESS OF
ADOLESCENTS

Table 4.4.1 Correlation between personality traits and cyber crime awareness among
rural respondents

S. No. Personality Traits Boys (r) Girls (r)

1 Decisiveness .047 .078

2 Responsibility .381** .096

3 Emotional stability .022 .039

4 Masculinity .309* -.305*

5 Friendliness .025 .221

6 Hetero sexuality -.137 -.219

7 Ego strength -.107 .144

8 Curiosity .240 .280*

9 Dominance -.096 .334*

10 Self concept .026 .061

11 Overall Personality Traits .161 .144

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.4.1 highlights correlation between personality traits and cyber crime
awareness among rural respondents. A significant and positive correlation existed between
traits of responsibility (r = 0.381, p ≤ 0.01) and masculinity (r = 0.309, p ≤ 0.05) among rural
boys indicating that as responsibility and masculinity among rural boys increase, their
awareness about cyber crime also increases. Among rural girls significant and negative
correlation between masculinity (r = - 0.305, p ≤ 0.05) existed highlighting that as masculinity
in rural girls increases their awareness decreases. A significant and positive correlation
between curiosity (r = 0.280, p ≤ 0.05) and dominance (r = 0.334, p ≤ 0.05) existed. This
shows that with increase in curiosity and dominance, cyber crime awareness among rural girls
increases.

77
Table 4.4.2 Correlation between personality traits and cyber crime awareness among
urban respondents

S. No. Personality Traits Boys (r) Girls (r)

1 Decisiveness .273 -.050

2 Responsibility .150 .403**

3 Emotional stability .298* -.042

4 Masculinity .188 -.090

5 Friendliness .260 .351*

6 Hetero sexuality .043 -.298*

7 Ego strength .319* -.074

8 Curiosity -.322* .276

9 Dominance .054 .441**

10 Self concept .112 -.076

11 Overall Personality Traits .303* .151

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.4.2 describescorrelation between personality traits and cyber crime awareness
among urban respondents. A significant and positive correlation existed between traits of
emotional stability (r = 0.298, p ≤ 0.05) and ego strength (r = 0.319, p ≤ 0.05) indicating that
as emotional stability and ego strength traits increases cyber crime awareness among urban
respondents also increases. Similarly a study conducted by Weijer and Leukfeldt (2017)
showed that only those with higher scores on emotional stability were less likely to become a
victim of cybercrime than traditional crime. A negative correlation between curiosity and
cyber crime awareness (r = -0.322, p ≤ 0.05) among urban boys existed indicating that as
curiosity increases their awareness about cyber crime decreases. Among urban girls a
significant and negative correlation between hetero sexuality (r = - 0.298, p ≤ 0.05) and cyber
crime awareness existed which indicates that as hetero-sexuality increases cyber crime
decreases whereas a significant and positive correlation between responsibility (r = 0.403, p ≤
0.01), friendliness (r = 0.351, p ≤ 0.05) and dominance (r = 0.441, p ≤ 0.01) was observed in
case of urban girls, which shows that these three personality traits were contributing
positively towards cyber crime awareness of urban girls. A significant and positive correlation

78
also existed between overall personality traits (r = 0.303, p ≤ 0.05) and cyber crime awareness
among boys which showed that as overall personality traits improve cyber crime awareness
also improves.

Table 4.4.3 Correlation between personality traits and cyber crime awareness among
total respondents

Sr. No. Personality Traits Boys (r) Girls (r)

1 Decisiveness .159 .022

2 Responsibility .277** .209*

3 Emotional stability .131 -.004

4 Masculinity .251* -.214*

5 Friendliness .150 .272**

6 Hetero sexuality -.076 -.230*

7 Ego strength .101 .060

8 Curiosity -.069 .281**

9 Dominance -.009 .366**

10 Self concept .093 .000

11 Overall Personality Traits .161 .144

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.4.3 indicatesa correlation between personality traits and cyber crime
awareness among total respondents. A significant and positive correlation existed between
traits of responsibility (r = 0.277, p ≤ 0.01) and masculinity (r = 0.251, p ≤ 0.05) among boys
demonstrating that as responsibility and masculinity increases, cyber crime awareness
improves. Among girls significant and negative correlation between hetero sexuality (r = -
0.230, p ≤ 0.05), masculinity (r = - 0.214, p ≤ 0.05) and significant and positive correlation
between responsibility (r = 0.209, p ≤ 0.05), curiosity (r = 0.281, p ≤ 0.01), friendliness(r =
0.272, p ≤ 0.01) and dominance (r = 0.366, p ≤ 0.01) existed suggesting that as
heterosexuality and masculinity increases cyber crime awareness decreases whereas as
responsibility, curiosity, friendliness and dominance increases cyber crime awareness also
increases.

79
Table 4.4.4 Correlation between personality traits and cyber crime awareness among
rural and urban respondents

Sr. No. Personality Traits Rural(r) Urban (r)

1 Decisiveness .032 .135
2 Responsibility .194 .276**
3 Emotional stability -.011 .139
4 Masculinity -.080 .063
5 Friendliness .129 .302**
6 Hetero sexuality -.192 -.115
7 Ego strength .014 .169
*
8 Curiosity .256 -.052
9 Dominance .174 .192
10 Self concept .055 .051
11 Overall Personality Traits .161 .303*
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.4.4 elucidatesa correlation between personality traits and cyber crime
awareness among rural and urban respondents. A significant and positive correlation existed
between trait of curiosity (r = 0.256, p ≤ 0.05) and cyber crime awareness among rural
respondents which portrays that as curiosity increases cyber crime awareness also increases.
Among urban respondents significant and positive correlation between responsibility (r =
0.276, p ≤ 0.01), friendliness (r = 0.302, p ≤ 0.01), overall personality traits (r = 0.303, p ≤
0.05) and cyber crime awareness existed demonstrating that as responsibility, friendliness and
overall personality traits increases cyber crime awareness among urban respondents also
improved.

Table 4.4.5 Correlation between cyber crime awareness and socio- personal profile
among rural respondents

Cyber Crime Awareness Boys (r) Girls (r)

Father’s Education .368** -.141
Mother’s Education .314* -.033
Family Members -.192 .237
Siblings (male) -.167 -.030
Sibling (female) .005 -.027
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

80
 Table 4.4.5depictsa correlation between cyber crime awareness and socio- personal
profile among rural respondents. A significant and positive correlation existed between cyber
crime awareness and father’s education (r = 0.368, p ≤ 0.01) as well as mother’s education (r
= 0.314, p ≤ 0.05) among rural boys which highlighted that with the increase in
parents’education the awareness of cyber crime among boys also improved.

Table 4.4.6 Correlation between cyber crime awareness and socio- personal profile
among urban respondents

Cyber Crime Awareness Boys (r) Girls(r)

Father’s Education .108 .249
Mother’s Education .242 .010
Family Members -.255 .080
Siblings (male) .073 .003
Sibling (female) -.423** -.121
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.4.6 shows acorrelation between cyber crime awareness and socio- personal
profile among urban respondents. A significant and negative correlation existed between
cyber crime awareness and female siblings (r = -0.423, p ≤ 0.01) among urban boys which
indicated that the male respondents with female siblings/sisters were less aware of cyber
crime. The reason could be attributed to the fact that communication and sharing between
brother and sister is often less as compared to between two male siblings and male siblings
often tend to ignore female sibling’s advice. Hence female siblings often tend to contribute
less towards their awareness as compared to other sources.

Table 4.4.7 representscorrelation between personality traits and demographic

variables among rural boys. A significant and positive correlation existed among mother’s
education (r = 0.282, p ≤ 0.05) and decisiveness trait which indicated thatboys whose mothers
were more educated had better ability to take clear cut and quick decisions. Similar results
were demonstrated by Bala and Nanda (2007) that adolescents of working mothers were more
bold, competitive and versatile.

A significant and positive correlation was also found between family members (r =
0.286, p≤ 0.05) and curiosity which showed that family members facilitate curiosity of the
respondents liketo explore the details of objects or things , tend to reach the destination in
time and tend to know the contents of talks of others or reaction of others toward oneself.

81
 Table 4.4.7 Correlation between personality traits and demographic variables among rural boys

Personality Traits

Hetero Ego Self Overall

Demographic Decisi- Responsibility Emotional Masculinity Friendliness Curiosity Dominance
sexuality strength concept personality
Variables veness (r) (r) stability (r) (r) (r) (r) (r)
(r) (r) (r) traits

Father’s
-.013 -.143 -.058 .207 -.068 -.111 -.124 .148 -.039 -.207 -.094
Education

Mother’s
.282* .025 .201 .147 -.109 .068 .013 -.151 .003 .171 .154
Education
82

Family
-.143 -.162 -.174 -.198 -.168 -.066 .007 .286* .045 -.214 -.182
Members

Siblings (male) .043 -.187 -.180 .046 .022 .141 -.064 .258 -.215 -.218 -.068

Sibling
-.256 .020 -.046 -.136 -.141 -.155 .179 .101 .091 -.221 -.135
(female)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

 Table 4.4.8Correlation between personality traits and demographic variables among rural girls

Personality Traits

Hetero Ego Self Overall

Demographic Decisiveness Responsibility Emotional Masculinity( Friendlines Curiosit Dominance
sexuality strength concept(r personality
Variables (r) (r) stability (r) r) s (r) y (r) (r)
(r) (r) ) traits

Father’s
.195 -.122 .087 .065 .005 -.158 -.214 -.143 .105 .076 -.035
Education

Mother’s
-.098 -.155 -.084 -.153 -.074 .453** .008 .146 .394** .099 -.129
Education
83

Family
.069 .007 .211 .140 .131 .348* .333* .305* .121 -.070 .415**
Members

Siblings
.005 .089 -.014 .051 -.033 .106 .075 .025 -.241 .198 .047
(male)

Sibling
.029 .067 .253 .104 .049 .185 .220 .138 .063 -.091 .260
(female)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
 Table 4.4.9 Correlation between personality traits and demographic variables among urban boys

Personality Traits

Hetero Ego Overall

Demographic Decisiveness Responsibility Emotional Masculinity Friendliness Curiosity Dominance Self
sexuality strength personalit
Variables (r) (r) stability (r) (r) (r) (r) (r) concept (r)
(r) (r) y traits

Father’s
.020 .091 .008 -.165 .216 -.013 -.040 -.045 .004 .042 .018
Education

Mother’s
.127 .020 .112 .209 .175 .255 .085 .017 -.086 .001 .216
Education
84

Family
-.138 -.068 -.232 -.009 -.172 -.128 .090 -.106 .123 .010 -.144
Members

Siblings
-.145 .031 -.146 -.215 .062 -.143 .092 -.226 .321* -.114 -.128
(male)

Sibling
-.048 -.045 -.165 .087 -.230 -.137 -.195 .072 -.051 .128 -.128
(female)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

 Table 4.4.8 highlightscorrelation between personality traits and demographic
variables among rural girls. A significant positive correlation between mother’s education (r =
0.453, p ≤ 0.01) and hetero sexuality trait existed which showed that with the increase in
mother’s education girls tend to feel more confident among the members of opposite sex and
have healthy relationship with opposite sex. A positive correlation between mother’s
education (r = 0.3944, p ≤ 0.05) and dominance trait was found which indicated that girls
whose mothers were more educated, they tend to be leader of the group and undertake the
supervision of difficult and complex task more effectively. A significant and positive
correlation was also seen between family members (r = 0.348, p ≤ 0.05, r = 0.333, p ≤ 0.05, r
= 0.305, p ≤ 0.05) and hetero sexuality which means family members motivate rural girls to
have healthy working relationship with members of opposite sex and have a confident
approach while interacting with them. A significant and positive correlation also existed
between family members and ego strength as well as curiosity indicating that family members
help them to have adequate control over impulses and tend to understand the contents of talks
of others or reaction of others towards oneself and explore details of objects or things which
are relatively new. In addition a positive and significant correlation was also found between
family members and overall personality traits, pointing that family members motivate and
encourage formation of a better overall personality among adolescents.

Table 4.4.9 illustrates a correlation between personality traits and demographic

variables among urban boys. A significant positive correlation between male siblings (r =
0.321, p ≤ 0.05) and dominance trait existed which indicated that presence of male siblings
in the family increase dominance among the urban boys leading to better settlement of
controversy between rivals, leadership of group and dictatorship over others for duty.

Table 4.4.10 shows correlation between personality traits and demographic variables
among urban girls. A significant positive correlation between father’s education (r = 0.371, p
≤ 0.05) and responsibility trait was found among urban girls highlighting that father’s high
level of education encourages girls to be more responsible, to finish their task in fixed
schedule and attend meetings in time.

Table 4.4.11 represents correlation between personality traits and demographic

variables among total respondents. A significant and positive correlation existed among
mother’s education (r = 0.155, p ≤ 0.05) and decisiveness trait which portrayed that
respondents whose mothers were more educated had better ability to take clear cut and quick
decisions.

85
 Table 4.4.10 Correlation between personality traits and demographic variables among urban girls

Personality Traits

Hetero Ego Self Overall

Demographic Decisiveness Responsibility Emotional Masculinity Friendliness Curiosity Dominance
sexuality strength concept personality
Variables (r) (r) stability (r) (r) (r) (r) (r)
(r) (r) (r) traits

Father’sEduca
.113 .307* -.040 .021 .247 .026 -.143 -.125 .161 -.029 .116
tion

Mother’s
86

.194 .076 -.110 .065 .070 -.055 -.110 -.105 .103 -.157 -.001
Education

Family
.211 -.048 .153 .217 .054 .002 .103 .023 .057 -.249 .147
Members

Siblings
.132 .035 .179 .134 -.091 -.004 .026 -.080 .204 -.034 .125
(male)

Sibling
-.060 -.096 .163 .114 .045 .258 .132 .083 -.193 -.121 .110
(female)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

 Table 4.4.11 Correlation between personality traits and demographic variables among total respondents

Personality Traits

Hetero Ego Self Overall

Demographic Decisiveness Responsibility Emotional Masculinity Friendliness Curiosity Dominance
sexuality strength concept personality
Variables (r) (r) stability (r) (r) (r) (r) (r)
(r) (r) (r) traits

Father’s
.086 .028 .004 .060 .085 -.077 -.122 -.038 .051 -.055 .005
Education

Mother’s
.155* .016 .057 .087 .005 -.060 .003 -.059 .088 -.012 .066
Education
87

Family
.005 -.065 -.017 .052 -.029 .059 .121 .118 .087 -.104 .064
Members

Siblings
.040 .018 .009 .038 -.013 .061 .036 .002 -.017 -.073 .031
(male)

Sibling
-.108 -.044 -.001 .004 -.068 .052 .068 .093 .012 -.045 -.002
(female)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

Internet has been the revolutionary invention of the 20th century. It has nearly shrunk
the world into a much smaller place by bringing the nations and citizens closer together in
terms of better communication and quick exchange of ideas and information. Internet,
however offers extraordinary advantage to society, likewise introduce open doors for
cybercrime utilizing new and very refined innovative instruments (Shah 2016).
Today email and sites have turned into the favoured method for correspondence. The
most successive online users are from age group of 18-34 years; while the grown-ups from 55
or more age group have fast developing users class (Pastore 2000). As indicated by the
information gathered by Internet World Statistics, mostly Asia has the over the top number of
internet users on the planet, around 922.3 million and contributes 44 percent to the total
population. Presently, individuals are getting so much dependent on the internet, for example,
chatting, facebook, internet based shopping and looking for important data (Aradhana 2016).
Online networking has changed the way individuals communicate with each other. Apart
from the advantages of using this technology as a quick and convenient way of
communication it has both constructive and antagonistic effect on the general population
(Ribica 2016).
Cyber Crime is a term used broadly to depict criminal action in which PCs or PC
systems are tool, a target, or a place of criminal movement and incorporate everything from
electronic cracking to denial of service assaults. “Cyber Crime” has been utilized to depict an
extensive variety of offenses, content offenses for example (spreading broadly child
pornography), computer-related imitation and extortion, (for example, ‘phishing'), including
offenses against PC information and frameworks, (for example, ‘hacking') and copyright
offenses (for example, the spreading of pirated content) (Kumar &Dahiya 2015).
These occurrences forced the security agencies worldwide to adopt defensive stand
towards unchecked internet usage. In India the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 deals
with the acts in which computer is used as a tool for carrying the unlawful act. Primary
objective of this Act is to create an enabling environment for commercial use of IT. Several
offences having bearing on cyber-arena are also registered under the appropriate sections of
the IPC (Indian Penal Code) with the legal recognition of Electronic Records and the
amendments made in several sections of the IPC vide the IT Act,2000 (Kumbhar & Gavekar
2017).
Cyber Crime numbers have consistently moved throughout the years. It has grown
evolutionary and at mid of 20th century it became a topic of concern (Frances & Umeozulu
2012). The National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) report demonstrates that cybercrime

88
cases ascended from 9,622 in 2014 to 11,592 in 2015, about 33% of the cybercrime carried
out for monetary profit. Other than cybercrime for monetary profit, the thought processes
likewise included deceiving, offending ladies, sexual misuse and individual vengeance or
settling scores (NCRB Report 2015).
Personality has been defined in an assortment of ways. ‘Personality is a dynamic
organization, inside the person, of psychophysical systems that create the
person’scharacteristicpattern of behavior, thoughts and feelings. ‘Personality is defined as
‘themore orless stable and enduring organization of persons of character, temperament,
intellect and physique, which determine his unique adjustment to the environment’ (Eysenck
1959).
Personality is an incorporated whole with certain solid and some conceptual
dimensions. Every dimension has particular reason and a critical part to play in the totality of
one's being. The maturation change as a result of chronological growth and the environmental
interactions, which an individual has throughout largely, determine the extent to which his
personality-potential shall be developed. Various aspects of personality are not only
interdependent but also so preciously coordinated that what happens in one aspect has its
relative effect on other domains. So for the purpose of comfort and better understanding
personality is categorized into physique, mind and intellect, emotionality and sociability
(Shashirekha & Chengti 2008).
Adolescence, the period of change from childhood to adulthood brings many changes
in young one’s ways of life. The progressions are because of advancement inside the
adolescent himself and to demands put upon him by the way of life in which he lives. His
social ideas and their controls offer ascent to new rationale of qualities, as he controls them
inside the bigger setting of rights and obligations. The youthful years are, principally, a time
of social improvement and alteration. Amid the pioneer years of adolescence there have been,
no doubt, a start of socialization and some obtaining of principal social abilities. It is a period
from youth until adult status has been achieved and a standout amongst the most interesting
and complex moves in the life expectancy. In this period the adolescent moves from reliance
to independency in his conduct and amid this move from youth to adulthood, the task of
achieving of self-sufficiency has been considered as an imperative part of individual's
personality. They are adapting more about 'this present reality' and attempting to take a stab at
both freedoms from guardians and incorporation in social gatherings (Kaur & Sharma 2014).
During the age, adolescents are very much impressed by their friends and peers and they
involve themselves in risky and anti-social behaviors. To fulfill their desires they take help of
social platform/internet, as they can hide their own selves and do whatever they want to (Kaur
& Kaur 2016).
Utilization of internet is turning into an unavoidable instrument in immature life as it

89
is the real wellspring of educating, learning and amusement for them. As per Goel and Garg
(2015) teenagers and adolescents are among the top users who surf internet for learning,
amusement and research. As they are among top users they additionally confront hazard
components appended to it. Lack of awareness on such issues often ends up in a severe
damage on financial, emotional, ethical or moral grounds. Therefore, besides tackling the
cyber crimes there is an important need to be focused on higher priority of creating awareness
on cyber crimes among the netizens. Hence, the awareness on cybercrime is very much
needed for the adolescents. So, keeping this in mind present study entitled, ‘Effect of
Personality Traits on Cyber Crime Awareness of Rural and Urban Adolescents’ has been
planned with the following objectives.
Objectives of the study:
 To study the gender and locale differences in personality traits among adolescents.
 To determine gender and locale differences in cyber crime awareness of adolescents.
 To study the effect of personality traits on cyber crime awareness of adolescents.
The present study was based upon a sample of 200 respondents aged between 16-18 years,
studying in 11th and 12th grades drawn equally from rural and urban schools of Ludhiana
district. The respondents were equally distributed according to their gender (100 boys and 100
girls). For selection of the sample, list of Government Senior Secondary Schools of Ludhiana
district was procured from District Education Officer, Ludhiana. For rural sample: two
Government Senior Secondary Schools were purposively selected from the two blocks i.e.
block I and block II of Ludhiana district. For urban sample: one zone i.e. zone D was
purposively selected from the Ludhiana district. Out of these selected rural and urban schools
the required numbers of respondents were randomly selected for data collection.
Each subject was first administered the Differential Personality Inventory developed
by Singh and Singh (2014) to assess the personality traits. The selected adolescents were then
administered Cyber Crime Awareness Scale by Rajasekhar (2011) to assess their cyber crime
awareness, Frequency and Percentages, Arithmetic Mean, Standard Deviation, T-test, Z-test
and Karl Pearson’s Coefficient of correlation were used to analyze the data.
Salient Findings
1. The socio-personal profile of the respondents showed that large number of the
respondents (48%) belonged to the age group of 17 years.
2. Large number of fathers of the respondents (34%) were educated upto primary, while
majority of mothers (42.5%) were illiterate.
3. Majority of the fathers of the respondents (43%) belonged to service class, while majority
of the mothers (41%) were labourers.
4. Large proportion of the respondents (70%) belonged to medium sized family.
5. Majority of the respondents had one male and one female sibling (56% and 47.5%).

90
6. Gender differences across different levels of personality traits among total respondents
were found to be significant in the traits namely decisiveness, responsibility, emotional
stability, masculinity, hetero sexuality, ego-strength and dominance while rest of the traits
showed non-significant results.
7. Gender differences in mean scores of rural respondents across different personality traits
were found to be significant in decisiveness, responsibility, emotional stability,
masculinity, dominance and overall personality.
8. Gender differences in mean scores of urban respondents across different personality traits
were found to be significant in decisiveness, responsibility, emotional stability,
masculinity, dominance and in overall personality traits.
9. Gender differences in mean scores of total sample across different personality traits were
found to be significant in the traits of decisiveness, responsibility, emotional stability,
masculinity, dominance and in overall personality. Boys were having more of desirable
personality traits as compared to girls.
10. Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban girls across different
personality traits were found to be non-significant except hetero-sexuality. Rural girls
were scoring better as compared to urban girls.
11. Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban boys across different
personality traits were found to be non-significant except hetero-sexuality. Rural boys
were found to be better as compared to their urban counterparts.
12. Locale-wise differences in mean scores of total sample across different personality traits
were found to be non-significant except hetero-sexuality. Boys were scoring better as
compared to girls.
13. In total sample majority of boys and girls have medium level of cyber crime awareness
followed by high level and low level.
14. Gender-wise differences in mean scores of rural boys and girls as well as urban boys and
girls with regard to cyber crime awareness were found to be non-significant.
15. Non-significant gender differences in mean scores of total respondents with regard to
cyber crime awareness were found. More number of girls had low and high level of cyber
crime awareness whereas more number of boys had medium level of cyber crime
awareness.
16. Results showed significant and positive correlation between responsibility and
masculinity traits with cyber crime awareness among rural boys.
17. In case of rural girls significant and positive correlation between curiosity and dominance
traits with cyber crime awareness existed whereas a significant and negative correlation
was found between masculinity and cyber crime awareness.
18. Among urban boys significant and positive correlation between emotional stability, ego-
strength and overall personality traits and cyber crime awareness was found whereas

91
 curiosity and cyber crime awareness were significantly and negatively correlated.
19. Significant and positive correlation existed between responsibility, friendliness and
dominance with cybercrime awareness and negative correlation existed between hetero
sexuality and cyber crime awareness.
20. In case of total boys significant and positive correlation between responsibility and
masculinity with cyber crime awareness existed. In case of total girls significant and
positive correlation of responsibility, friendliness, curiosity and dominance with cyber
crime awareness existed whereas masculinity and hetero sexuality were found to be
negatively correlated with cyber crime awareness.
21. Among total rural respondents positive correlation was seen between curiosity and cyber
crime awareness. In case of total urban respondents significant and positive correlation
existed between responsibility, friendliness and overall personality traits with cyber crime
awareness.
22. In case of rural boys positive correlation was seen between cyber crime awareness and
father’s as well as mother’s education. This showed that with increase in parents’
education the cyber crime awareness among boys also improved. Non-significant results
were found between cyber crime awareness and socio-personal profile among rural girls.
23. Among urban boys significant and negative correlation existed between cyber crime
awareness and female siblings. In case of urban girls non-significant results were seen
between cyber crime awareness and socio-personal profile.
24. A significant and positive correlation existed among mother’s education and decisiveness
among rural boys. A significant and positive correlation was also found between family
members and curiosity among rural boys.
25. In case of rural girls a significant and positive correlation between mother’s education
with hetero sexuality and dominance, family members with hetero sexuality, ego-
strength, curiosity and overall personality traits existed.
26. In case of urban boys a significant and positive correlation between male siblings and
dominance trait was found.
27. Among urban girls a significant and positive correlation existed between father’s
education and responsibility trait.
28. A significant and positive correlation existed among mother’s education and decisiveness
trait.

92
Limitations of the study

1. The presentf study was limited to the Government Schools of Ludhiana district.
2. The study was limited to the adolescents in the age range of 16-18 years.

3. The study assessed the effect of selected variable i.e. personality traits on cyber crime
awareness of school going adolescents.

Suggestions for future research

1. A similar study can be conducted in other districts of Punjab state.
2. A comparative study could be conducted among private and government school children.
3. A comparative study between adolescents belonging to different socio-economic status
could be undertaken.
4. A similar study could be conducted to investigate the effect of multiple variables on cyber
crime awareness.
5. A comparative study between adolescents and adults could be planned to see a difference
in their personality traits and cyber crime awareness.

General Recommendations

1. Parent-child interaction should be there for enhancing the child’s personality.

2. A positive environment should be given by the parents for the holistic development of
adolescent’s personality traits.
3. Preventive measures for online undertakings should be provided by cyber-crime cell.
4. Cyber-crime awareness course should be included in the curriculum so that students
should become aware about cyber crimes.
5. Seminars, lectures, workshops and orientation on cyber-crime by the experts should be
organized for the students.
6. Cyber-crime cells should be made active in both urban and rural areas.
7. Strict laws should be made by the government for the persons who are involved in various
illegal download and data theft.
8. Media like newspapers, facebook, whatsapp, television and radio can be used to the fullest
to make all the netizens aware about all kinds of cyber-crimes.
9. Rules and regulations for cyber-crime should be implemented strictly to make sure that no
one takes the security issues for granted.

93
 REFERENCES

Albladi S M and George R S (2018) Personality traits and cyber-attack victimization: multiple
mediation analysis. Retrieved from
https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/72372277/Albladi_Weir_ICCST_2017_Personal
ity_traits_and_cyber_attack_victimisation_multiple.pdf

Allik J, Laidra K, Realo A, and Pullmann H (2004) Personality development from 12 to 18

years of age: Changes in mean levels and structure of traits. Eur J Personality
18:445-62.

Aradhana (2016) Internet addiction disorder: prevalence and consequences.Psycho-lingua46:

141-45.

Arvindgiri A K (2012) Personality profiles of rural boys and urban children: A comparative
study. Gujrat ManovigyanDarshan 9: 55-57.

Bala R and Nanda P K (2007) Impact of maternal employment on personality traits of urban
adolescents.Indian J Psychometry Edu 38: 148-52.

Bawa S K and Singh D (2011) Parental assistance in relation to personality and self esteem of
competitive exams students. Ind J Psychometry Edu 42: 152-54.

Blatny M, Millova K, Jelinek M and Osecka T (2015) Personality predictors of successful

development: toddler temperament and adolescent personality traits predict well-
being and career stability in middle adulthood.Plos One10:1-21.

Branje S J , Lieshout F M and Gerris J R (2006) Big five personality development in

adolescence and adulthood. Euro J of Personality 21:45-62.

Chouhan V L and Golwalkar A (2008) Internet addiction- A new trend in cyber-age next a
kin depression.Gujrat J Psychology 28: 11-15.

Conklin J E (1981) Criminology (2nd edition) Cellier Macmillan, London.

Connell H M (1985) Essentials of Child Psychiatry, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Second

edition.Skoob Books London. (original not seen.Cited by Parveen A and Joshi K
(2014) Study of children’s personality among older boys and older girls.Ind J Health
Wellbeing 5: 1216-18).

Dave C and Gaur N (2006) Psychosocial adjustment of introverts and extroverts of working
and non working mothers. Ind J Psychometry Edu.37: 190-93.

Dubbudu R (2016) Most number of Cyber Crimes reported in Maharashtra & Uttar Pradesh.
Retrieved from https://factly.in/cyber-crimes-in-india-which-state-tops-the-chart/

94
Eysenck (1959) Headache, personality and stress.British J Psychiatric 111: 1193-97.

Frances and Umeozulu (2012) Perception of cyber crime among Nigerian youths, Caritas
University, Enugu.

George J, Alias J, Khader N A, Jabbar S and Ranjith N (2017) Cyber bullying among
adolescents. Int J Ind Psych 4: 74-81.

Goel V and Garg R (2015) To study the influence of access use of internet on academic
performance of adolescents. Asian J Home Science 10: 449-55.

Gupta S, Singh A, Kumari S and Kunwar N (2017) Impact of cyber crime on adolescents
through social networking sites.Int J Law3: 104-06.

Hadlington L (2017) Human factors in cybersecurity; examining the link between internet
addiction, impulsivity, attitudes towards cybersecurity, and risky cybersecurity
behaviours.Heliyon 3: 1-18

Halder D and Jaishankar K (2011) Cyber crime and the victimization of women: laws, rights
and regulations (original not seen.Cited by Saroha R (2014) Profiling a cyber
criminal.Int J Info Comp Tech 4: 253-58).

Harre R and Lamb R (1983) TheEncyclopaedia Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford Blackwell

Publishers Ltd, United States.

Hinduja S and Patchin J W (2008) Cyberbullying: an exploratory analysis of factors related to

offending and victimization. Deviant Behav 29: 129-56.

Ibanez M L, Viruela A M, Mezquita L, Moya J, Villa H, Camacho L and Ortet G (2016) An

investigation of five types of personality trait continuity: A two-wave longitudinal
study of Spanish adolescents from age 12 to age 15. Frontier Psych 7:1-7.

Igba I D, Igba E C, Nwambam, Nnamani S C, Egbe E U and Ogodo J V (2018) Cybercrime

among university undergraduates: Implications on their academic achievement. Int J
Appl Eng Res13: 1144-54.

Jamil D and Khan M N A (2011) Data protection act in India with compared to the European
Union countries. Inter J Electrical Computer Sci 11: 16-20.

Jang K S, Hwang S Y and Choi J Y (2008) Internet addiction and psychiatric symptoms
among Korean adolescents. J Sch Health78: 165-71.

Kamruzzaman, Islam A, Islam S, Hossain S and Hakim A (2016) Plight of youth perception
on cyber crime in South Asia.Amer J Info Sci Comp Eng2: 22-28.

95
Kaur H and Sharma S (2014) Mobile internet: A comparative study of hostlers and day
scholars.Psycho-lingua44: 93-97.

Kaur M and Kaur I (2016) Cyber victimization: dark side of virtual world. Ind J Heal
Wellbeing7: 1067-70.

Kumar D and Dahiya P (2015) A study of cyber crime awareness among B.E.d. teacher
trainess. Praachi J Psycho-Cultural Dimensions 31: 25-28.

Kumari A (2011) Impact of parental behavior upon the personality of their children.Ind J
Psychometry Edu 42: 62-65.

Kumbhar M and Gavekar V (2017) A study of cyber crime awareness for prevention and its
impact. Int J Trends Eng Res 3:240-46

Lajwanti (2011) Effect of internet surfing on the study habits of students. Psycho-lingua41:
161-65.

Maddi S R (1976) Personality Theories: A Comparative Assessment, Homewood Dorsey

Press, Illunious, US.

Maishi P N and Chand P (2016) Personality correlates of drug abusers. Psycho-lingua46:

233-36.

Martis P L and Arjun M S A (2018) Cyber crime awareness among youth in Udupi district.J
Forensic Sci Criminal Investigation8: 1-4.

Meena J and Agarwal S (2011) Emotional intelligence and personality traits (Extroversion
and Introversion) among adolescents.Ind J Health Wellbeing 2: 1101-04.

Mischel W (1986) Recounselling processing dynamics and personality dispositions.Annual

Review Psychology 49: 229-58.

Mishna F, McLuckie A, and Saini M (2009) Real-world dangers in an online reality: A

qualitative study examining online relationships and cyber abuse. Soc Work Res33:
107-18.

Mohata S (2014) A study to measure the effects of counselling on personality. Ind J

Psychometry Edu 45 : 145-50.

Mokha A K (2017) A study on awareness of cyber crime and security.Res J Human Soc Sci 8:
459-64.

Nachimuthu P (2006) Occupational commitment in relation to personality Psycho lingua36:

126-32.

96
Nasar R (2007) Personality as related to computer programming competency among under
graduate students in Bhagalpur.Behavioral Scientist 8: 49-52.

NCRB Report (2015) Original not seen.Cited by Mohan V (2016) Cybercrime up 2,400 times
in 10 yrs. Hindustan Times. 5 sept :8.

Nevin A D (2015) Cyber-psychopathy; examining the relationship between dark e-

personality and online misconduct.Masters thesis, The University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario.

Obi T C, Nwankwo B E, Agu S A, Aboh J U and Agbor N S (2013) Influence of personality

and age on attitude towards crime among adolescents. IOSR J of Hum Soc Sci 17:
80-86.

Ojha H and Yadav N P (2014) Ageing and personality. Ind J Psychometry Edu 45 :160-65.

Ozturk C, Bektas M, Ayar D, Oztornaci B O and Yagci D (2015) Association of personality

traits and risk of internet addiction in adolescents. Asian Nursing Res9: 120-24.

Pannu R (2012) Do personality factors and school influence academic achievement. Psycho-
lingua42: 203-08.

Pareek S, Mittal U and Hingar A (2003) Personality profile of teachers in higher education.
Ind J Psychometry Edu 34: 15-20.

Parveen A and Joshi K (2014) Study of children’s personality among older boys and older
girls.Ind J Health Wellbeing 5: 1216-18.

Pastore M (2000) Demographic of the net getting older. Retrieved from

http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,5901_448131,00.ht
ml

Paul P and Kamkhalia M D (2003) Differences in personality types and coping skills of
pathological and non pathological internet users. Ind J psycho issues 11: 17-23.

Prakash G P (2009) Relation of blood groups to personality traits of male and female
adults.Prachi J Psycho-Cultural Dimensions 25: 144-47.

Praveen D T (2010) Personality and achievement in Botany subject.Ind J Psychometry Edu

41: 193-95.

Rajasekhar S (2011) Cyber Crime Awareness Scale, National Psychological Corporation,

Agra.

Ramalingam P (2006) Dictionary of Psychology, Academic Publishers, New Delhi.

97
Ramamoorthy V, Mahesh R and Manirathnam T (2009) Personality types of physiotherapy
students.Praachi J Psycho-Cultural Dimensions 25: 140-43.

Rani S and Vashistha A C (2011) Personality factors as related to coping style of stresses
among parents of mentally sub –normal children. Behavioral Scientist 12: 57-62.

Ribica (2016) Impact of social networking on youth.Psycho-lingua46: 139-40.

Rivers I and Noret N (2010) Findings from a five-year study of text and email
bullying.British Edu Res J36: 643-71.

Saroha R (2014) Profiling a cyber criminal.Int J Info Comp Tech 4: 253-58.

Shabnam N, Faruk M O and Kamruzzaman M (2016) Underlying causes of cyber-criminality

and victimization: An empirical study on students. Soc Sci 5: 1-6.

Shah J (2016) A study of awareness about cyber laws for Indian youth. Int J Trend Sci Res
Dev 1: 10-16.

Shashirekha T and Chengti S K (2008) Occupational status and personality of employees.

Psycho lingua38: 90-93.

Shrivastava P and Nagaich N K (2014) Impact of parent child relationship on the

personality.Prachi J Psycho- Cultural Dimensions 30: 54-58.

Shukla S (2016) Suicide: The personality profile. Psycho-lingua46: 204-08.

Singh and Singh (2014) Differential Personality Inventory. National Psychological

Corporation, Agra.

Singh S (2013) Personality factors in relation to scholastic achievement of adolescent girls.

Ind J Psychometry Edu 44: 21-24.

Sinha S (2003) Personality adjustment: A survey of tribal and non tribal children of
Seralkella- Kharsawan district (Jharkhand).Ind J Psychol.Issues 11: 34-36.

Sukanya K P and Raju C V (2017) Cyber law awareness among youth of Malappuram
district.J Hum Soc Sci 22: 23-30.

Tenibiaje D J (1995) Personality characteristic of juvenile delinquents and adult criminals in

Ondo- state: A comparative study. M.Ed. Thesis, Guidance and Counselling
Department, Ilorin and Applied Psychology, University of Ilorin, Ilorin.

The Times of India (2016) Original not seen.Cited by Jamil D and Khan M N A (2011) Data
protection act in India with compared to the European Union countries. Inter J
Electrical Computer Sci 11: 16-20.

98
Tijdink J K, Bouter L M, Veldkamp C L S, van de Ven P M, Wicherts J M and Smulders Y M
(2016) Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch
scientists: A cross-sectional study. Plos One11: 1-12.

Udris R (2016) Cyber deviance among adolescents and the role of family, school, and
neighborhood: A cross-national study.Int J Cyber Criminology10: 127-46.

Wang H, Zhou X, Lu C, Wu J, Deng X and Hong L (2011) Problematic internent use in high
school students in Guangdong province, China. Plos One6: 1-8.

Weijer S G and Leukfeldt E R (2017) Big five personality traits of cybercrime

victims.Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw20: 407-12.

Xu J, Shen L X, Yan C H, Hu H, Yang F, Wang L, Kotha S R, Zhang L N, Liao X P, Zhang

J, Ouyang F X, Zhang J S and Shen X M (2012) Personal characteristics related to
the risk of adolescent internet addiction: A survey in Shanghai, China. BMC Pub
Heal12: 1-10.

Ybarra M L (2004) Linkages between depressive symptomatology and Internet harassment

among young regular internet users.Cyberpsychology Behavior 7: 247–57.

Zimbardo P G (1972) The pathology of imprisonment. Society9: 4-8.

99
EFFECT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON CYBER
CRIME AWARENESS OF RURAL AND URBAN
ADOLESCENTS

Thesis

Submitted to the Punjab Agricultural University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES
(Minor Subject: Sociology)

By
Anchal Thakur
(L-2016-HSc-348-M)

Department of Human Development and Family Studies

College of Home Science
PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
LUDHIANA – 141004

100
 2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research work is a great experience that has taught me the true value of patience,
persistence and precision. First and foremost, I convey my earnest thanks to the Almighty for
giving me strength and ability to understand, learn and complete this work.

I express my deepest appreciation to my advisor Dr. Tejpreet Kaur Kang, Professor-cum-

Head, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, for her valuable guidance
and unwavering support to me and believing in me at each and every turn of my dissertation.
Her suggestions have contributed to the successful completion of this Dissertation.

I owe a deep sense of gratitude to my Advisory Committee Dr. Seema Sharma, Principal
Extension. Specialist, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Dr. Simran K.
Sidhu, Professor, Department of Economics and Sociology for their excellent coverage, and
evaluation of my work for corrections and for encouraging me in each phase. I would also
extend my sincere thanks to Dr.Deepika Vig, (Dean PGs Nominee)Professor Department of
Human Development and Family Studies, for her kind comments and beneficial suggestions.

I would like to give special thanks to Dr. Sarita Saini , Associate Professor,Department of
Human Development and Family Studies for her expert and valuable guidance in my
dissertation.

My heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Davinder Singh (PhD. Scholar, PAU.Ludhiana) for helping and
guiding me with his expertise in statistics.

I wish my warmest appreciation to my sister Anshu Thakur for being my greatest supporter
without whom my thesis seems to be impossible. At the same time I am very much grateful to
my relative Mrs Manu and Mr Manuj Chandel for their motivation, support and
encouragement.

My acknowledgment would be unfinished without expressing my gratitude to my friendsMs.

Jennifer Newton, Ms Manisha Dhami, Ms Inreet Kaur, Ms Param, Ms Chandandeep Gill,
Ms Harmeen Grewal without whose encouragement the study would not have been
completed.

Above all I would like to thank my mother Mrs. Nirmal Thakur and my brothersMr. Anuj
Singh, Mr. Kamal Singh, Mr Gaurav Khullar and Mr. Manav Kashyap for their valuable
support, care and trust in me.

Last but not least this dissertation is dedicated to my fatherLate Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
Singhwho has been my constant source of inspiration.

In the end, I also place on record, my sense of gratitude to one and all who directly or
indirectly have lent their helping hand in this venture.

Date :
Anchal Thakur
Place :

101
Title of the Thesis : Effect of Personality Traits on Cyber Crime Awareness
of Rural and Urban Adolescents

Name of the Student : Anchal Thakur

and Admission No. (L-2016-HSc-348-M)

Major Subject : Human Development and Family Studies

Minor Subject : Sociology

Name and Designation : Dr. Tejpreet Kaur Kang

of Major Advisor Professor - cum - Head

Degree to be awarded : M.Sc.

Year of award of Degree : 2018

Total Pages in thesis : 97 + Annexures + VITA

Name of the University : Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004,

Punjab, India

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted to assess the ‘Effect of Personality Traits on Cyber Crime
Awareness of Rural and Urban Adolescents. The study was based on 200 adolescents (i.e. 100
rural and 100 urban) in the age range of 16-18 years. The sample was randomly drawn from
four Government Senior Secondary Schools purposively selected from rural as well as urban
areas of Ludhiana district. Self structured general information sheet was prepared to collect
the general information of the adolescents. ‘Differential Personality Inventory by Singh and
Singh and Cyber Crime Awareness Scale by Rajasekharwere used to assess personality traits
and cyber crime awareness of the respondents respectively. Results revealed significant
differences in personality traits of the respondents. Boys were scoring better than their female
counterparts in majority of the traits as well as in overall personality. Significant locale
differences existed between hetero sexuality in rural and urban boys and girls. In cyber crime
awareness gender differences were found to be significant among rural boys and girls whereas
non-significant differences were seen among urban boys and girls. Non-significant locale
differences existed between rural and urban adolescents. Masculinity, responsibility,
dominance, decisiveness, curiosity, hetero sexuality, ego strength, friendliness and overall
personality traits had made a positive and significant contributiontowards cyber crime
awareness of the adolescents. In demographic variables parents’ education, family members
and presence of male sibling were having a significant and positive relationship with the
personality and cyber crime awareness.

Keywords: Personality Traits, Cyber Crime Awareness, Adolescents

________________________ ______________________
Signature of Major Advisor Signature of the Student

102
Koj gRMQ dw isrlyK : pyNfU Aqy SihrI AlVW dy sweIbr
zurm aupr SKSIAq guxW dw pRBwv
ividAwrQI dw nW : AWcl Twkur
Aqy dw^lw nMbr (AY~l-2016-AY~cAY~ssI-348-AY~m)
pRmu`K ivSw : mwnv ivkws Aqy pirvwr AiDAYn
sihXogI ivSw : smwj Swsqr
mu`K slwhkwr dw nW : fw. (imisz) qyjpRIq kOr kMg
Aqy Ahu`dw pRoPYsr - km - hY~f

ifgrI : AYm.AYs.sI.
ifgrI nwl snmwinq krn : 2018
dw swl
Koj p`qr iv`c ku`l pMny : 97 + AMiqkwvW+ vItw
XUnIvristI dw nwm : pMjwb KyqIbwVI XUnIvristI,
luiDAwxw–141 004, pMjwb, Bwrq
swr

ieh AiDAYn pyNfU Aqy SihrI AlVW dy sweIbr kRweIm aupr SKSIAq
guxW dy pRBwv dw mulWkx krn leI kIqw igAw[ AiDAYn 16-18 swl dy
200 A`lVW (100 pyNfU Aqy 100 SihrI) aupr kIqw igAw[ sYNpl nUM
luiDAxw izly dy pyNfU Aqy SihrI sInIAr skYNfrI skUlW iv`coN
ilAw igAw[ A`lVW bwry Awm jwxkwrI svY inrimq jwxkwrI SIt bxw
ky leI geI[ isMG Aqy isMG duAwrw iqAwr iviBMn SKSIAq l`Cx kwF
Aqy rwjyskr duAwrw inrimq sweIbr kRweIm jwgrukqw skyl rwhIN
Al`VW dI kRmvwr sKSIAq Aqy sweIbr kRweIm jwgrUkqw jwnx leI
vriqAw igAw[ nqIjy qoN sKSIAq l`CxW iv`c ArQpUrn Prk pwieAw
igAw[ izAwdwqr SKSIAq guxW Aqy sMpUrn sKSIAq iv`c kuVIAw dy
mukwbly muMifAW ny ibhqr skor id`qw[ pyNfU Aqy SihrI mu`Mfy
kuVIAW iv`c ilMg ADwirq Prk pwieAw igAw[ sweIbr zurm jwgrukqw
iv`c pyNfU muMifAW Aqy kuVIAW iv`c ArQpUrn Prk pwieAw igAw
jdoNik SihrI muMifAW Aqy kuVIAW iv`c Prk ArQpUrn nhIN sI[
pyNfU Aqy SihrI A`lVW iv`c sQwn dw Prk ArQpUrn nhIN sI[
mrdwngI, izMmyvwrI, pRmu`Kqw, clwkI, ijigAwsw, ilMg iBMnqw,
GmMf mzbUqI, im`qrqw Aqy sMpUrn sKSIAq guxW dw sweIbr zurmW
pRqI jwgrukqw nwl pwjIitv Aqy ArQpUrn sbMD pwieAw igAw[
jnsMiKAkI pirvrqI iv`c mwipAW dI is`iKAw, pirvwrk mYNbrW Aqy
Brw dw hoxw sKSIAq Aqy sweIbr zurm pRqI jwgrukqw nwl ArQpUrn
Aqy swkwrAwqmk sbMD sI[

mu`K Sbd:sKSIAq l`Cx, sweIbr jurm, A`lV

__________________ ________________
mu`K slwhkwr dy hsqwKr iv`idAwrQI dy
hsqwKr

103
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.

NO.

I INTRODUCTION 1–6

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 7 – 19

III MATERIALS AND METHODS 20 – 26

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27 – 85

V SUMMARY 86 – 91

REFERENCES 92 – 97

APPENDICES i – xii

VITA

104
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

4.1.1 Distribution of rural respondents according to their Socio- 27-28
Personal Profile
4.1.2 Distribution of urban respondents according to their Socio- 33-32
Personal Profile
4.1.3 Distribution of total sample according to their socio-personal 36-37
profile
4.2.1 Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality 41
traits among rural respondents
4.2.2 Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality 44
traits among urban respondents
4.2.3 Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality 47
traits among total respondents
4.2.4 Gender differences in mean scores of rural respondents across 50
different personality traits
4.2.5 Gender differences in mean scores of urban respondents across 52
different personality trait
4.2.6 Gender differences in mean scores of total respondents across 54
different personality traits
4.2.7 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban girls 57
across different personality traits
4.2.8 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban boys 59
across different personality traits
4.2.9 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of total respondents 61
across different personality traits
4.3.1 Gender-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime 63
awareness among rural respondents
4.3.2 Distribution of urban respondents with regard to different 64
levels of cyber crime awareness
4.3.3 Gender-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime 65
awareness among total sample
4.3.4 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of rural boys and girls 66
with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.5 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of urban boys and girls 67
with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.6 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of total boys and total 68
girls with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.7 Locale-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime 69
awareness among boys

105
Table No. Title Page No.
4.3.8 Locale-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime 70
awareness among total girls
4.3.9 Locale-wise distribution of overall adolescents across different 71
levels of cyber crime awareness
4.3.10 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban boys 72
with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.11 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban girls 73
with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.12 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of overall adolescents 74
with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.4.1 Correlation between personality traits and cyber crime 75
awareness among rural respondents
4.4.2 Correlation between personality traits and cyber crime 76
awareness among urban respondents
4.4.3 Correlation between personality traits and cyber crime 77
awareness among total respondents
4.4.4 Correlation between personality traits and cyber crime 78
awareness among rural and urban respondents
4.4.5 Correlation between cyber crime awareness and socio- 78
personal profile among rural respondents
4.4.6 Correlation between cyber crime awareness and socio- 79
personal profile among urban respondents
4.4.7 Correlation between personality traits and demographic 80
variables among rural boys
4.4.8 Correlation between personality traits and demographic 81
variables among rural girls
4.4.9 Correlation between personality traits and demographic 82
variables among urban boys
4.4.10 Correlation between personality traits and demographic 84
variables among urban girls
4.4.11 Correlation between personality traits and demographic 85
variables among total respondents

106
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. No. Title Page No.

4.1.1 Distribution of rural respondents according to their Socio- 30-31
Personal Profile
4.1.2 Distribution of urban respondents according to their Socio- 34-35
Personal Profile
4.1.3 Distribution of total sample according to their socio-personal 39-40
profile
4.2.1 Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality 42
traits among rural respondents
4.2.2 Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality 45
traits among urban respondents
4.2.3 Gender-wise differences across different levels of personality 48
traits among total respondents
4.2.4 Gender differences in mean scores of rural respondents across 51
different personality traits
4.2.5 Gender differences in mean scores of urban respondents across 53
different personality trait
4.2.6 Gender differences in mean scores of total respondents across 55
different personality traits
4.2.7 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban girls 58
across different personality traits
4.2.8 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban boys 60
across different personality traits
4.2.9 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of total respondents 62
across different personality traits
4.3.1 Gender-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime 63
awareness among rural respondents
4.3.2 Distribution of urban respondents with regard to different 64
levels of cyber crime awareness
4.3.3 Gender-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime 65
awareness among total sample
4.3.4 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of rural boys and girls 66
with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.5 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of urban boys and girls 67
with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.6 Gender-wise differences in mean scores of total boys and total 68
girls with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.7 Locale-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime 69
awareness among boys

107
Fig. No. Title Page No.
4.3.8 Locale-wise distribution across different levels of cyber crime 70
awareness among total girls
4.3.9 Locale-wise distribution of overall adolescents across different 71
levels of cyber crime awareness
4.3.10 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban boys 72
with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.11 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of rural and urban girls 73
with regard to cyber crime awareness
4.3.12 Locale-wise differences in mean scores of overall adolescents 74
with regard to cyber crime awareness

108
 VITA

Name of the student : Anchal Thakur

Father’s name : Late Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh

Mother’s name : Smt. Nirmal Thakur

Nationality : Indian

Date of birth : 16.03.1993

Permanent home address : H. No. HJ-164, Housing Board Colony

Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Punjab, India

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Bachelor degree : B.Sc (Hons.) Home Science
University and year of award : Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana, 2016
OCPA : 7.32/10.00
Master’s degree : M.Sc. (Human Development and Family
Studies)
Minor (Sociology)

OCPA : 7.42 / 10.00

Title of master’s Thesis : Effectiveness of social advertisement in

promoting adoption of health and hygiene
practices by rural women

109
BLACK : 1-20,23-28,37-38,43-44,49-50,75-97

COLOUR : 21,31,34,35,42,45,48,51,53,55,58,60,62

22,32,33,36,41,46,47,52,54,56,57,59,61

39,63,65,67,69,71,73

40,64,66,68,70,72,74

110
Nock MK,Hwang I,Sampson N et al.Cross-national analysis of the associations among mental
disorders and suicidal behavior:
findingsfromtheWHOworldmentalhealthsurveys.PLoSMed.2009; 6: 1–17.

Park JY. The differences between middle school student and high school students where child
abuse have effects on adolescent suicide. Korean J. Fam. Soc.Work 2010; 28: 61–
92.

ZwierzynskaK,WolkeD,LereyaTS.Peervictimizationinchildhood and internalizing problems

in adolescence: a prospective longitudinal study. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2013;
41: 309–323.doi: 10.1007/s10802-012-9678-8.

Hong YS, Jeon SY. The effects of life stress and depression for
adolescentsuicidalideation.Ment.Heatlh Soc.Work2005;19:125– 149.

Kerr DC, Preuss LJ, King CA. Suicidal adolescent’s social support from family and peers:
gender-specific associations with psychology. J.Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2006; 34:
103–114.

National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaboration Agency. 2012,

April,2.Depression,suicide,and South Korea round-table conference: youth cause of
death, suicide, experts from various
fieldsoverlookingthesolution?.[Cited25September2012].Available from URL:
http://www.neca.re.kr/ktic/publication/disease
_view.jsp?runMode=boardView&seq=97&t=20130204093906430&
boardNo=GA&cpage=&range=10&block=10&searchCol=
subject&searchVal=%C0%DA%BB%EC&condition=&menu
Name=&named=%BF%AC%B1%B8%BA%B8%B0%ED% BC%AD.

Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005).
Lifetime prevalence and age of onset distribution of DSM-IV disorders in the
national comorbidity survey replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593-
602.

Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Gollust, S. (2007). Help-seeking and access to mental health
care in a University student population.Medical Care, 45(7), 594- 601.

World Health Organization.(2012). World suicide prevention day.Retrieved from

http://www.
who.int/mediacentre/events/annual/world_suicide_prevention_day/en/

111
(WHO, 2018) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-mental-health

Sex Differences in Developmental Trends of

Suicide Ideation, Plans, and Attempts among
European American Adolescents
Daria K. Boeninger, Ph.D.,1 Katherine E. Masyn, Ph.D.,2 Betsy J. Feldman, Ph.D.,3 and Rand D.
Conger, Ph.D.2

 J Health Soc Behav. 2015 Mar; 56(1): 114–130.

Gendered Contexts: Variation in Suicidal Ideation

by Female and Male Youth across U.S. States
Kathryn M. Nowotny,1 Rachel L. Peterson,2 and Jason D. Boardman1

 Meng H, Li J, Loerbroks A, Wu J, Chen H (2013) Rural/urban Background,

Depression and Suicidal Ideation in Chinese College Students: A Cross-Sectional
Study. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71313. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071313.

Suicidality and correlates among rural adolescents of China

. Xianchen Liu Jenn-Yun Tein, Ph.D, Zhongtang Zhao, M.D.Irwin N. Sandler, Ph.D.b
December 2005 Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages 443–451

Claire E. Margerison and Sidra Goldman‐Mellor, Association Between Rural Residence and
Nonfatal Suicidal Behavior Among California Adults: A Population‐Based
Study, The Journal of Rural Health, 35, 2, (262-269), (2019).

 Comparison of self-concept between rural and urban school going adolescent Dr.
Vikrant Ramchandra Wankhade International Journal of Physical Education, Sports
and Health 2016; 3(1): 90-93.

 Black Georgina, Roberts R, Li-Leng T. Depression in rural

adolescents: relationships with gender and availability of
mental health services. Rural and Remote Health2012; 12: 2092

112
 Prevalence and influence factors of suicidal ideation among
females and males in Northwestern urban China: a population-
based epidemiological study

 Huiwen Xu†,
 Weijun Zhang†,
 Xiaohua Wang,
 Jiaqi Yuan,
 Xinfeng Tang,
 Yi Yin,
 Shengfa Zhang,
 Huixuan Zhou,
 Zhiyong QuEmail author and
 Donghua TianEmail author

BMC Public Health201515:961

 Fleming, M. (2005). Gender in adolescent autonomy: Distinction between
boys and girls accelerates at 16 years of age. Electronic Journal of Research
in Educational Psychology. 3. 33-52.

 SSM - Population Health

Volume 3, December 2017, Pages 427-434. The prevalence and
correlates of suicidal behaviours (ideation, plan and attempt)
among adolescents in senior high schools in Ghana
KwakuOppong AsanteabNuworzaKugbeycJosephOsafoaEmmanuel Nii-
BoyeQuarshieadJacob OwusuSarfoe

ANGELA OSWALT, MSW https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/self-identity-and-values/

2011. DEC.

113