Daraei: Social Correlates of Psychological Well-Being Among Undergraduate Students in Mysore City

Soc Indic Res
DOI 10.1007/s11205-012-0162-1
Social Correlates of Psychological Well-Being Among

Undergraduate Students in Mysore City
Mina Daraei
Accepted: 20 September 2012

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract This study explores the impacts of social factors on psychological well-being
mainly, gender, educational levels of parents, family income, occupation of parents, and
family relationships. The research methodology I employed was guided by random sam-
pling techniques; I selected two hundred eighty students, between the ages of, 19 and 22,
from both genders, and different socioeconomic and religious backgrounds. These students
were selected from a total of 8 governmental and private colleges in Mysore. I prepared a
structured questionnaire for gathering the demographic information and assessing relevant
social factors. To measure psychological well-being, I administered Ryff’s psychological
well-being scales (Ryff in J Pers Soc Psychol 57(6):1069–1081, 1989). I used frequencies,
distribution, and contingency coefficient to describe the variables such as, age, gender,
education, religion, income, occupation and their association with type of colleges The
data were statistically tested through a one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Post Hoc
Test (Duncan’s Multiple Range Test) and a t test using (SPSS, version 16). The findings of
this quantitative study reveal that there were no gender differences in relation to psy-
chological well-being of students. Educational levels of parents, occupation, income, and
family relationships impact students’ psychological well-being. This study contributes to
the literature in two ways. First, my work explores multiple social factors in tandem,
instead of focusing on one social factor. Second, the current study probes into better
understanding of the sociological issues that are related to characteristics of psychological
well-being, particularly that of young college -age women and men. This research is
supported by previous studies related to the psychological well-being.
Keywords Psychological well-being (PWB) Social correlates Family relationships

Income Education Occupation Private and governmental colleges Undergraduate
students Mysore
M. Daraei (&)
University of Mysore, Mysore, India
e-mail: minad2003@gmail.com; gahaar@zoho.com
123
M. Daraei
1 Introduction
The concept of well-being is very vast and varies from place to place. It has been divided
into different categories i.e. physical well-being, psychological well-being, social well-
being, economic well-being, and spiritual well-being. This study focuses on psychological
well-being (PWB) based on Ryff’s definition; it will be elaborated in the following pages.
This approach emphasizes full growth of an individual, purpose in life, positive relation-
ships, and psychological functioning.
Investigating PWB in adolescence is a field of study has increased drastically (e.g. Rathi
and Rastagi 2007; Shek 2002). The current study addresses PWB of college students.
According to Erikson’s psychosocial development theory (cited in Hurlock 2004), this
period of life is classified in early adulthood. It is a period of adjustment to new social
expectations such as, spouse, parent, and breadwinner. In this period, people develop new
interests and values in order to keep up with new roles. One of the features of early
adulthood is a settling down age, when a boy or a girl reaches this age, it is the time of
settling down, and assuming the responsibility of an adult life. It is a productive age and
age of facing problems also in this period of life, individuals turn to concern over intimacy.
Having higher education for Indians is a crucial task, because they might have access to
a better job opportunity. On the other hand, for admitting in a university, Indian students
have to pass an entrance exam; hence, they experience a lot of tensions due to a tough
competition. It is well-documented that stressful life affects physical and PWB (e.g. Cohen
et al. 2007; Pearlin et al. 2005; Thoits 2006). The study of Mukhopadhyay and Kumar
(1999) in India shows that the experience of stress can have a negative impact on the PWB
of students, especially girls. Their study reveals that academic pressure is associated with
suicidal thoughts and hopelessness among Indian adolescent girls.
Deepening our knowledge on different aspects of PWB can help to design prevention
programs for students in order to drag up their psychological and social functioning. A
large body of research has found that PWB is affected by physical health, personality, life
experiences, socioeconomic status, and culture; for instance, contrast between individu-
alistic and collectivistic cultures reveals that the Western culture values self-oriented
aspects of PWB i.e. self-acceptance and autonomy; whereas the Eastern values other
dimensions of PWB such as positive relationship with others (Ryff 1995). Moreover, she
demonstrates that life experiences and how the people interpret those events provide useful
avenue for understanding human differences in PWB. The study indicates that the chronic
(long-term) physical conditions are associated with significant reductions in PWB levels,
for both males and females (Shieds and Wheatley Price 2001).
Furthermore, the study of Ryff and Schmutte (1997) reveal the association between
types of personality and dimensions of PWB. Along with the noted factors, socioeconomic
status (SES) is an influential factor in an individual well-being which usually defines in
terms of occupation, income, and education. Pearlin (1989) argues that social structure and
arrangements of people’s lives and their repeated experiences from these social factors can
deeply affect one’s well-being. Education as one of the social factors impacts physical and
PWB; people with higher levels of education experience lower levels of psycho- physio-
logical distress (Kessler 1982; Pearlin et al. 1981; Ross and Huber 1985).
Often, stressful situations and social environment that surround people’s lives influence
their well-being. For instance, low economic status could contribute to development of
psychological problems in individuals. Most likely, they are unable to cope with stressful
conditions such as, the loss of parents, diseases, unemployment, and scholastic failure.
Lynch et al. (1997) show that the parent’s socioeconomic status is directly impacts the
123
Social Correlates of Psychological
adult children’s socioeconomic status as well as their health and social behavior. Indi-
viduals from wealthy families with a higher education are more likely to possess their own
homes, excessive material possessions with lower level of job insecurity or unemployment
(Pearlin 1989).
The first objective of this study relates to whether differences exist on various educa-
tional levels, occupations, and incomes of families in relation to PWB of students. It can be
argued that disparities in socioeconomic status affect PWB. For example, Ryff and Singer
(2008) argue that PWB varies by age and socioeconomic status. But regarding the income
and its relationship with PWB, it is controversial it seems that the impact of wealth on
well-being in a poor country is not the same in a wealthy country (Diener and Biswas-
Diener 2002). My aim is to investigate the effect of income whether it receives support in
findings from this study.
The second objective is that to investigate the differences of students’ PWB in relation
to their family relationships. It means if a group of students have very good relationships
with their families, they also have greater levels of PWB. Baumeister and Leary (1995)
argue that people seem to have a fundamental need for close relationships. Family bond in
India is strong even joint family is practicing among some of the Indians. Thus, I assume
family relationships might be one of the social factors which impacts PWB of the students.
The final purpose of this study is that whether the differences exist among males and
females. Prior empirical studies found that there were differences among men and women
only in two dimensions of PWB, the remaining aspects were the same for both genders
(Ryff and Singer 1998; Ryff 1995).
The paper is organized as follows. First, I review the contribution of previous studies,
predominantly from the two approaches to well-being literature and capability approach, to
my understanding of social aspects of PWB. Then, I introduce my data source and the
measures I employed. Finally, I outline the main contributions in relation to the existing
literature and I summarize my main findings and present my conclusion. As this study
conducted in Mysore, I briefly describe the geographical context of my study. Karnataka is
one of the states in India which is located in the southwest. Mysore is one of the cities of
this state. It is a small city with 2,994,744. population, 58.65 % of this population live in
rural areas.1 Most of them are Hindu and their local language is Kannada, most of the
governmental colleges are Kannada medium but most of the private colleges are English
medium.
2 Review of Literature
Research on positive aspects of human being such as, positive thought, optimism, physical,
psychological, and social well-being have expanded enormously during the last two dec-
ades. After positive psychology movement (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000), studies
on the importance of positive thought, optimism, and well-being receive more attention
than ever before and the definition of human health has changed from absence of illness to
presence of wellness, that is, to focus on flourishing positive relationship with others,
opportunities to realize one’s potentiality and having sense of purpose in life (Ryff and
Singer 1998).
Ryan and Deci (2001) in their review on wellbeing, they divided it into two broad
traditions, one refers to happiness and satisfaction in life (hedonic well-being) and the other
1
www.census-2011.co.in.
123
M. Daraei
addresses human potentiality and functioning in life (eudaimonic well-being). The pre-
dominant view among hedonic psychologist is that well-being can be assessed by sub-
jective well-being (Diener and Lucas 1999). Subjective well-being (SWB) has been
assessed by measuring positive aspects like satisfaction in life and self esteem or by
measuring negative outcomes such as, depression, anxiety, and substance abuse (Diener
et al. 1985). Whereas eudaimonic approach of well-being emphasizes the self growth and
psychological functioning.
Waterman (cited in Snyder and Lopez 2008 p. 137) argues that eudemonia means when
people fully and historically engage themselves in activities. Ryff (1989) has explored the
question of well-being and synthesized views of self-actualization, maturity; life span
development; the fully functioning person; positive mental health and introduced a self-
report instrument to measure six dimensions of psychological well-being (PWB).
Since this study uses Ryff’s scale of PWB, its six dimensions will be explained in the
methodology section. Ryff highlights well-being as growth and human fulfillment because
it is deeply influenced by the surrounding context of people’s lives. This study focuses on
social factors such as, gender, education, occupation, income, and family relationships and
their impacts on PWB; thus, the studies related to noted factors will be reviewed. Ryff and
Keyes (1995) conducted a national survey on PWB and they found that age, gender,
education, and occupation had association with the degree of PWB.
In the case of gender, UK studies typically found that men reported higher PWB scores
than women (e.g. Clark and Oswald 1994; Clark et al. 1996). Theodossiou (1998) argues
that this is because women are typically more self-critical and assign a lower value to
themselves than do men (Lowenthal et al. 1975). However, studies using life satisfaction
measures in other countries did not agree (e.g. Frey and Stutzer 2000, identified no gender
difference using Swiss data, whilst Gerdtham and Johannesson 1997, found the higher life
satisfaction amongst females in Sweden).
Regarding socioeconomic aspects of PWB, Reynolds and Ross (1998, p. 224) argues
that ‘‘education often functions to pass on high status jobs and good incomes to adult
children of high status parents.’’ The importance of education lies in the fact that apart
from educational requirements, the most rewarding jobs are given to those with advan-
tageous backgrounds. In other words, education is meaningful not only because of its
relationship with advantageous family backgrounds, but also since education provides
individuals with abilities, skills and resources that eventually impact their well-being.
With respect to the relationship between income and individual well-being, the studies
show two different effects. Easterlin (1974, 1995) found that income is a poor predictor of
many measures of individual well-being. Clark and Oswald (1994) did not find a strong
relationship between income and PWB, whereas Clark et al. (2001) found a small positive
effect. Csikszentmilhalyi (cited in Palomer Lever 2004, p. 4) in his study among 1000
adolescents found that wealth does not make a person happier. Palomer Lever (2004)
conducted a study among three groups extremely poor, moderately poor, and not poor in
Mexico in order to find relationship between poverty and subjective well-being. The results
reveal that the extremely poor are the least satisfied followed by moderately poor. Also
study of Biswas-Diener and Diener (2001) in the city of Calcutta, India, show that income
is strongly associated with life satisfaction. In general, socioeconomic factors are good
predicators of subjective well-being (e.g. Easterlin 2001; Biswas-Diener and Diener 2001)
as well as PWB (e.g. Ryff and Singer 2008).
It is important to emphasize that along with socioeconomic factors, another social factor
i.e. family and social relationships play an influential role in PWB. Gencoz and Ozalal
(2004) studied the direct and indirect effects of social support on PWB among
123
undergraduate students in Turkey; their results reveal that social support is associated to
PWB. Shek (2002) studied family functioning and PWB in Chinese adolescents with
different economic backgrounds, the results indicate that family functioning is associated
with adolescent positive mental health. Studies of Baumeister and Leary (1995); La
Guardia et al. (cited in Ryan and Deci 2001, p. 155) show that security in attachment and
satisfying relationships have extensive influence on PWB. Family connectedness means a
sense of tie and closeness among family members, and it is one of the most important
social factors that contribute to positive effects on PWB.
In search of a relevant theoretical background in order to justify roles of social factors
on PWB, the capability approach of the economist Amartya Sen has a good potential.
Capability approach is a broad framework is used most prominently in development
thinking, social policy and political philosophy; it can also used to evaluate individual
well-being, inequality, and poverty. The core characteristic of the approach is its focus on
what people are effectively able to do and to be, that is, on their capabilities (Sen 1993). In
other words, these being and doing, which Sen calls it achieved functionings, together
make a life valuable. The major components of the capability approach are functionings
and capabilities. Functionings are the beings and doings or is an achievement, whereas
capability is the ability to achieve (Sen 1995). Thus, regarding the topic of the current
study, socioeconomic status of parents and strong family relationships enable the students
of this study to achieve the functioning of being PWB.
In sum, regarding the existing review of literature, studies conducted on well-being in
India prominently are based on hedonic approach or subjective well-being (e.g. Sree
Kumar 2008; Jethwani-Keyser 2008; Mukhopadhyay and kumar 1999; Biswas-Diener and
Diener 2001). Thus, there is a lack of literature on Ryff’s PWB or eudaimonic approach. I
felt exploring the impact of social factors on PWB based on this approach might be
promising.
3 Method
3.1 Participants
Of total of 2402 students, 52 students were in governmental colleges and 188 in private
colleges.3 Among those 134 (55.8 %) were in the age groups of 19–20 years and 106
(44.2 %) of them were 21–22 years old. 125(52.1 %) were male and 115(47.9 %) of them
were female. Among those 177 (73.8 %) were Hindu, 36 (15.0 %) were Muslim, and 27
(11.3 %) were Christian. In order to investigate the socioeconomic status of parents, the
level of their schooling, family income and their occupations were measured. The levels of
schooling ranged from illiterate to post graduate. Regarding the educational levels of
students’ fathers, 85(35.4 %) had bachelor degree followed by 70(29.2 %) had less than
PUC,4 47(19.6 %) of them held PUC, 11.7 % had post graduate degree, and 4.2 % were
illiterate. With respect to the educational levels of mothers, 84(35 %) had less than PUC,
2
The sample size was 280, but 40 tests and questionnaires were incomplete. Thus, the analysis was done on
the basis of 240.
3
There were 11 governmental and 19 private colleges in Mysore in 2008–2009.
4
PUC is pre-university degree in India; one who holds less than PUC means she/he has 8 or 9 or 10
standard. PUC degree means one holds 12 standard.
123
M. Daraei
67(27. 9 %) held PUC, 64(26.7 %) had bachelor degree, 14 (5. 8 %) had post graduate
degree, and 11 (4.6 %) were illiterate.
Monthly family income ranged from less than 10,000 Rupees to above 50,000 Rupees.
Occupations of fathers ranged from farmer 62(25, 85 %), labor15 (6.3 %), business
67(27.9 %), civil service 51(21.35 %), manager19 (7.95 %), and engineering 18(7.5 %).
Occupations of mothers ranged from house wife 142 (59.2 %), teacher 44(18.3 %), civil
service 28 (11.7 %), and self-employee 25 (10.4 %).
The sample of 280 students was selected by simple random sampling. There were 42
colleges in Mysore including the districts in 2008–2009, of those colleges 11 governmental
and 19 private colleges were in Mysore city. 7 women colleges were excluded because this
study focuses on both genders. Also I excluded 8 medical and engineering colleges the
reason of exclusion was that in my preliminary study I found out that majority of students
have high socioeconomic backgrounds. In India studying in medical and engineering
colleges are expensive; thus, most of the students are belonged to wealthy families. Then,
among remaining 15 science and art colleges, 8 colleges (3 governmental and 5 private)
were selected randomly. Finally among the total number of 5,500 students, 5 % of them
were selected for this study.5 In order to collect data, 40 students from each college were
selected randomly, 320 questionnaires and tests were distributed, of those I could collect
240. The data was collected in 2009 during the period of October to March.
3.2 Instruments
A structured questionnaire (see ‘‘Appendix 1’’) designed in order to gather socio-demo-

graphic information regarding to the topic of the current study. Some of the questions were
in relation to age of students, types of religion, education and occupation of parents, family
income, and number of persons living in home, types of housing (rental house or owned
house). As part of this questionnaire, 6 questions were asked to define the students’ family
relationships. These questions had likert format with four response options (always,
sometimes, seldom, and not at all) or (very good, good, a little good, not at all) Participants
circled a number ranging from 4 (always or very good) to 1 (not at all).
In order to measure PWB, this study used Psychological Well-Being Scale (Ryff, 1989)
(see ‘‘Appendix 2’’). This instrument is based on the idea of eudaimonic well-being. The
Ryff inventory consists of either 84 questions (long form) or 54 questions (medium form).
This study used long form consists of 84 questions grouped in the following 6 dimensions.
Each dimension has 14 questions. These dimensions are as following:
1. Self-Acceptance: measures a positive and accepting view of the self. The high score in this
dimension means an individual accepts multiple aspects of self and feels positive about her/
his past life. The Low score indicates dissatisfied with self, she/he is disappointed with what
has happened in past life, she/he likes to be different from what she/he is.
2. Positive relations with others: measures positive relationships, empathy, and intimacy.
The characteristics of high score in this dimension are, an individual has warm and
satisfying relationships with others, is able to show empathy, affection, and intimacy,
and is enable to understand give and take of human relationship. The low score relates
to having few trusting and close relationships, having difficulty in establishing warm
and open relationships, she/he is isolated and frustrated in interpersonal relationships.
5
The information on number of colleges and students was obtained from College Development Council of
Manasagangotri in University of Mysore. University of Mysore is the old and big university of postgraduate
courses. Some of the colleges are autonomous, but some of them are affiliated to University of Mysore.
123
3. Autonomy: measures independence and self-regulation of behavior. The high score in

this dimension means an individual is dependent and self determined, she/he is able to
resist social pressures to think and act in certain ways and evaluate self on the basis of
personal standards. The low score indicates she/he is concerned about evaluations and
expectations of others, for making a decision she/he relies on others’ judgments.
4. Environmental mastery: measures perceptions of competence in life. The characteristics
of high score in this dimension are, one has capacity of managing and mastering the
environment and makes effectively use of the surrounding opportunities. Whereas, the
low score refers to having difficulty in managing everyday affairs, one is unaware of
surrounding opportunities and feels unable to change or improve surrounding context.
5. Purpose in life: measures a sense of direction and meaning in life. The high score in this
dimension indicates one has goals in life, feels there is meaning to present and past life and
holds belief that has aims and objectives for living. The low score relates to having lack of
meaning in life, lack of sense of direction, and there are no objectives or purposes in life.
6. Personal growth: measures feelings of perceptions of growth, realizing potential and
being open to new experiences. The high score means one has feeling of continued
development, is open to new experiences, sees improvement in her/his self and
behavior over time. The low score indicates one lacks the sense of self improvement
over time; feels bored and uninteresting, and unable to develop new attitudes or
behaviors (Ryff 1995, p.101).
Each dimension noted above has 14 questions is based on a Likert- type response scale
with six response options (strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree,
slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree). Participants circled a number ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). To compute the overall score, I summed
the scores across all items on an interval scale. Possible scores for each subset ranged from
14 to 84, and possible scores for the entire dimensions (total PWB) ranged from 84(the
lowest) to 504(the highest). For this study, a high score indicated high PWB, and a low
score indicated low PWB. In all, each of the 6 dimensions has high levels of internal
consistency with alpha coefficients ranging from 0.86 to 0.93((Ryff 1989). The result of
cronbach’s alpha of PWB for this study is r = 0.92.
3.3 Data Analysis
First, frequencies and distribution were applied to the sample to describe the socio-
demographic features. And the contingency coefficient was used to find association
between types of colleges and variables such as, age, gender, religion, family members,
types of accommodation, educational level, occupation, income of parents. Then, a one
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to ascertain whether there are differences in
PWB of students according to their parents’ education, income, occupation, and family
relationships. Along with ANOVA, post hoc test (Duncan’s Multiple Range Test) was
applied to ascertain which groups differ from each other significantly. A t test was used to
investigate the differences in PWB of students according to their genders.
4 Results and Discussion
Univariate statistic, including frequencies and distribution were run to describe socio-
demographic profile of the sample to summarize the personal information of students in
123
M. Daraei
Table 1 Statistically significant

Father’s education Mean (PWB) SD SE F Sig
difference of PWB of students
according to father’s education
Illiterate 275.40 51.03 16.14 7.032 0.000
Less than PUC 295.34 57.42 6.86
PUC 333.47 52.49 7.66
Graduate 334.21 72.92 7.91
Post graduate 352.89 47 9.03
P \ .001
terms of their ages, genders, religions, and family members, types of accommodation,
educational levels of parents, occupations of parents, and families’ incomes. For finding
association between noted variables and types of colleges, contingency coefficient was run.
The results reveal that there was no association between age, gender, religion, types of
accommodation, family members and types of colleges. Whereas, occupation and educa-
tion of parents, family income had a significant association with types of colleges, they
were significant at (P = .000).
In other words, students of private colleges had higher socioeconomic backgrounds than
students in governmental colleges. The data were analyzed by different ways, first a one
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc test were used to compare the means
groups of independent variables i.e. education, occupation, income, and family relation-
ships to see whether the group means are significantly different from each other in relation
to PWB of students. As illustrates in (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4) the overall F is significant
(P \ .001) which indicates that there were significant differences between PWB of stu-
dents and education of parents. The results of post hoc also reveal that there were dif-
ferences between lower levels of education and higher levels of education. Regarding the
impact of occupation on PWB, the results indicate that there were differences between
PWB of students in relation to occupation of their fathers (F = 5.726) is significant
(P \ .001), (Tables 5, 6). But mothers’ occupations were insignificant. The demographic
variables of family income reveal the significant contribution to reported PWB (Tables 7,
8); for instance, students who had the lowest families’ incomes had also the lowest levels
of PWB (269.92). Also the results of post hoc show that the lowest income group is
different from other income groups.
To explore further the effect of family relationships on PWB of students, the results of
ANOVA and post hoc reveal that students who reported the lowest levels of family
relationships they also had the lowest levels of PWB, F (5.357) is significant P = .001
(Tables 9, 10).
Gender differences were then investigated using a t test. As seen in (Table 11) no
difference between males and females according to their PWB was observed (t (.238) = -
0.258, P [ . 001). The mean PWB scores of males and females were 322.30 and 324, 45
respectively which are almost identical.
In general, this study is based on three objectives: (1) to investigate whether differences
exist on various educational levels, occupations, incomes of families, and family rela-
tionships in relation to PWB of students. (2) To compare the PWB of students according to
their genders. With respect to the first objective, the findings indicate that there were
statistically significant differences in PWB of students according to educational levels of
parents, occupations of fathers, families’ incomes and family relationships.
This is consistence with the results of other studies that have found the socioeconomic
status is a good predicator of subjective well-being (e.g. Easterlin 2001; Biswas-Diener and
Diener 2001; Helliwell and Robert 2004) as well as PWB (e.g. Ryff and Singer 2008).
123
Table 2 Results of DMRT post

Fathers’ education N a = 0.05
hoc test difference of PWB
according to father’s education 1 2
Illiterate 10 275.40
Less than PUC 70 295.34
PUC 47 333.47
Graduate 85 334.21
Post graduate 28 352.89

Mother’s education Mean (PWB) SD SE F Sig
difference between PWB of stu-
dents according to mother’s
education Illiterate 283.27 67.42 20.32 8.150 0.000
Less than PUC 297.78 63.82 6.96
PUC 340.77 47.33 5.78
Graduate 339.03 68.11 8.51
P \ .001 Post graduate 352.85 60.40 16.14

Mother’s education N a = 0.05
according to mother’s education 1 2
Illiterate 11 283.27
Less than PUC 84 297.75
PUC 64 339.03
Graduate 67 340.03
Post graduate 14 352.85

Father’s occupation Mean (PWB) SD SE F Sig
according to Father’s occupation
Passing away 274.000 56.72 20.05 5.726 0.000
Farmer 301.12 62.24 7.90
Labor 301.46 62.09 16.03
Business 318.50 61.48 7.51
Engineer 342.11 102.07 24.05
Civil service 351.90 39.86 5.58
Manager 356.36 50.29 11.53
P \ .001
However, the impact of income in this study is controversial despite of differences between
low families’ incomes and other high families’ incomes.
It might be needless to say, one’s education has an impact on her/his occupation, but
income is controversial a businessman with a low level of education might have a higher
123
M. Daraei

Father’s occupation N a = 0.05
hoc test Duncan difference of
PWB according to father’s 1 2 3
occupation
Passing away 274.000
Farmer 301.12 301.12
Labor 301.46 301.46
Business 318.50 318.50
Engineer 342.11 342.11
Civil service 351.90
Manager 356.36

Family income N Mean (PWB) SD F Sig
according to their family incomes
Less than 1,0000 41 269.92 48.41
11,000–2,0000 72 332.47 50.41 9.339 0.000
21,000–30,000 61 347.62 47.70
31,000–40,000 25 318.56 88.08
41,000–50,000 25 318.84 87.65
50,000 and above 16 340.75 55.11
Total 240 323.33 64.42
P \ .001

Family income N a = 0.05
according to family income 1 2
Less than 10,000 41 269.92

31,000–40,000 25 318.56
41,000–50,000 25 318.84
11,000–20,000 72 332.47
50,000 and above 16 341.75
21,000–30,000 61 347.67

Family relationships N Mean (PWB) SD F Sig
according to family relationships
Not at all 4 248.25 16.27 5.357 .001
Little good 25 300.64 66.54
Good 111 317.27 65.72
Very good 100 338.74 59.15
Total 240 323.33 64.42
P = .001
income than one with a high level of education. On the other hand, an individual with a
high level of education might have a good job as well as a high income compared to an
individual who has a low level of education and a job with a low income. Nevertheless, it is
123

Family relationships N a = 0.05
according to family relationships 1 2
Not at all 4 248.25

Little good 25 300.64
Good 111 317.27
Very good 100 338.74
Table 11 Statistically insignifi-

Variable N of Mean SD SE t value df 2 tail
cant difference between PWB of
cases Sig
students according to gender
PWB
Male 125 322.30 71.05 6.035 - 238 0.797
0.258
Female 115 324.45 56.6 5.28
Mean difference = -2.14
important to clarify that socioeconomic status of families affects the education, occupation
of children. Because it can give a chance to their children to please their social and
psychological needs, as such, the findings of this study show that students whose parents
were educated and had a good job with a high income, they study in a good college;
whereas, students with a low socioeconomic status study in a governmental college with
less educational facilities. This is consistent with the study of Kozol (1991) who argues that
all social classes do not have access to education equally. Students from advantaged
families attend schools with better facilities and suitable learning environment, highly paid
teachers, good library, and computer labs which impact the socioeconomic status of
children in the future.
Education can helps individuals to improve their quality of lives and it is the key to
increasing economic efficiency and raises the poor from poverty. Therefore, educational
attainment is one of the determinants of occupational success because technology progress
has generated a need for advanced education and knowledge that indirectly affect the
economic status of an individual. For Indians access to a higher education can help them to
obtain well-pay jobs. As such, the findings of this study reveal those students’ parents who
had higher educational levels had also better jobs and incomes.
When we look at the other influential factor obtained for PWB of students in this study,
we can see that students who had good relationships with their families they also reported
greater levels of PWB. The result of the current study is supported by Chow (2007), he
found that students’ PWB were affected by their positive relationships with families and
friends. The studies of Bradburn (1969), Baumeister and Leary (1995), Lucas et al. (2003)
and Diener and Seligman (2002) show the positive association between social relation-
ships, social support and psychological functioning. They argue that social relationships
are one of the strongest correlates of positive emotions and attitudes. The impact of family
relationships on PWB of students in this study is par with this idea that in Indian culture the
123
M. Daraei
family is not only the social nucleus essentially responsible for satisfying basic needs, but
it also represents fundamental social base of support.
Furthermore, the finding of this study demonstrates no gender differences in relation to
students’ levels of PWB. But the study of Jethwani-Keyser (2008) in India reveal that
gender and caste discrimination were the two factors affected subjective well-being of
girls, in Indian culture even it lead to drop-out of girls. Also Helliwell and Robert (2004)
found that over all the satisfaction of males were more than females but regarding nations,
in Scandinavia, Asia, and North America, life satisfaction were slightly higher among
women. Although this study does not focus on culture in relation to PWB, the means of six
dimensions of PWB indicate that students obtained a high score in positive relations with
other and a low score in autonomy. This result is consistent with the finding of Ryff (1995)
that the Eastern culture values positive relations with others; whereas the Western values
self- acceptance and autonomy.
5 Conclusion
On the basis of the findings derived from the current study; I can conclude that there were
statistically insignificant differences between genders. Approximately the same levels of
PWB were observed for both females and males. I observe that students whose parents had
higher levels of education reported greater levels of PWB. Also there were significantly
differences between PWB of students in relation to their fathers’ occupations. Regarding
income, despite of significance of this variable, it should be explored in future studies with
a larger and more diverse sample in India. Furthermore, it was found that family rela-
tionships had an effect on PWB of students. In other words, on the basis of this study social
factors were good predictors of PWB.
As noted earlier in last decades, the role of PWB and positive thoughts in recovery from
chronic diseases and psychological distress i.e. depression, anxiety, and other problems
receive more attentions, but we should bear in mind that PWB is comprehensive matter and
is affected by various factors i.e. physical, personality, life experiences, culture, social
factors, and so forth. Another important finding from this study is related to dimensions of
PWB, the current study demonstrates that the dimension of positive relation with others
had a higher score and autonomy had a low score. It could be related to the influence of the
Eastern culture.
Finally, I can conclude that in assessing PWB, socioeconomic backgrounds and
family relationships are influential factors. It is important to continue conducting
research in order to facilitate deeper understanding of the various factors in relation to
the lives of individuals that explain PWB, particularly in India as a diverse country with
many religions, languages, cultures, and castes. In India, It would be promising, the
future study explore the impact of caste as a social stratification phenomenon that might
have influence on PWB through socioeconomic advantages for upper caste and disad-
vantages for lower caste. This study suggests that socioeconomic development through
reduction of inequality in education and employment in India can help individuals enjoy
greater levels of well-being. Socioeconomic development is a social policy taken by
government or Non Government Organizations (NGOs) in order to enable individuals,
specifically disadvantaged population in India that have a limited access to education and
employment. Also these types of study can provide information for those who are
involved in rendering social services.
123
Appendix 1
Dear student,
The following questions are designed to obtain information about your background for my research on “Social
Correlates of Psychological Well-being among Undergraduate students in Mysore City” Please read each question
carefully and provide your responses in the spaces provided.
Thank you for taking your time, please remember that all the information obtained from this questionnaire and test
will kept strictly confidential. It is not necessary to mention your name.
1) Age: …….. Years old.
2) Sex: Male Female
3) Religion: Hindu Muslim Christian Others
4) Type of College: Governmental private
5) Do you live with your family? Yes No
6) Total number of members in your family?
7) Educational status of your father:
8) Educational status of your mother:
9) Occupational status of your father:
10) Occupational status of your mother:
11) What is average monthly income of your family?
12) Type of accommodation:
Own house Rented house
13) How often do you discuss with your parent for making a decision?
Always Sometimes Seldom Not at all
14) Does your family go to the restaurant or cinema together?
123
M. Daraei
15) Does your family have good relationships with each other?
Very good Good A little good Not at all
16) How often do you go on a trip with your family?
17) How often do you receive support from your family?
18) How often do you prefer spend your time with your family?
Appendix 2
Psychological Well-being Test

1. Sometimes I change the way I act or think to be more like those around me.
Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree
Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree
2. I am not afraid to voice my opinion, even when they are in opposition to the opinions of most people.
3. My decisions are not usually influenced by what everyone else is doing.
4. I tend to worry about what other people think of me.
123
5. Being happy with myself is more important to me than having others approve of me.
6. I tend to be influenced by people with strong opinions.
7. People rarely talk to me in to doing things I don’t want to do.
8. It is more important to me to “fit in” with others than to stand alone on my principles.
9. I have influenced by my opinions, even if they are contrary to general consensus.
10. It’s difficult for me to voice my own opinions on controversial matters.
11. I often change my mind about decision if my friends or family disagree.
12. I am not the kind of person who gives to social pressures to think or act in certain ways.
13. I am concerned about how other people evaluate the choices I have made in my life.
14. I judge myself by what I think is important, not by the values of what others think is important.
123
M. Daraei
15. In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live.
16. The demands of everyday life often get me down.
17. I don’t fit very well with people and the community around me.
18. I am quite good at managing the many responsibilities of my daily life.
19. I often feel overwhelmed by my responsibilities.
20. If I were unhappy with my living situation, I would take effective steps to change it.
21. I generally do a good job of taking care of my personal finances and affairs.
22. I find it stressful that I can’t keep up with all of the things I have to do each day.
23. I am good at dealing with my time so that I can fit everything in that needs to get done.
24. My daily life is busy, but I derive a sense of satisfaction from keeping up with everything.
123
25. I get frustrated when trying to plan my daily activities because I never accomplish the thing I set out to d
26. My efforts to find the kinds of activities and relationships that I need have been quite successful.
27. I have difficulty arranging my life in a way is satisfying to me.
28. I have been able to build a home and a lifestyle for myself that is much to my liking.
29. I am not interested in activities that will expand my horizons.
30. In general, I feel that I continue to learn more about myself as time goes by.
31. I am the kind of people who likes to give new things a try.
32. I don’t want to try new way of doing things –my life is fine the way it is.
33. I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how you think about yourself and the world
34. When I think about it, I haven’t really important much as a person over the years.
123
M. Daraei
35. In my view, people of every age are able to continue growing and developing.
36. With time, I have gained a lot of insight about life that has made me a stronger, more capable person.
37. I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time.
38. I don’t enjoy in new situation that require me to change my old familiar ways of doing things.
39. For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth.
40. I enjoy seeing how my views have changed and matured over the years.
41. I gave up trying to make big improvement or changes in my life a long time ago.
42. There is truth to the saying you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
43. Most people see me as loving and affectionate.
44. Maintaining close relationships has been difficult and frustrating for me.
123
45. I often feel lonely because I have few close friends whit whom to share my concerns.
46. I enjoy personal and mutual conversations with family members or friends.
47. It is important to me to be a good listener when close friends talk to me about their problems.
48. I don’t have many people who want to listen when I need to talk.
49. I feel like I get a lot out of my friendships.
50. It seems to me that most other people have more friends than I do.
51. People would describe me a giving person, willing to share my time with others.
52. I have not experienced many warm and trusting relationships with others.
53. I often feel like I am on the outside looking in when it comes to friendships.
54. I know that I can trust my friends, and they know they can trust me.
123
M. Daraei
55. I find it difficult to really open up when I talk with others.
56. My friends and I sympathize with each other’s problems.
57. I feel good when I think of what I have done in the past and what I hope to do in the future.
58. I live one day at a time and don’t really think about the future.
59. I tend to focus on the present, because the future nearly always brings me problems.
60. I have a sense of direction and purpose in life.
61. My daily activities often seem trivial and unimportant to me.
62. I don’t have a good sense of what it is I’m trying to accomplish in life.
63. I used to set goals for myself, but that now seems like a waste of time.
64. I enjoy making plans for the future and working to make them a reality.
123
65. I am an active person in carrying out the plans I set for myself.
66. Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them.
67. I sometimes feel as if I have done all there is to do in life.
68. My aims in life have been more a source of satisfaction than frustration to me.
69. I find it satisfying to think about what I have accomplished in life.
70. In the final analysis, I’m not so sure that my life leads to a particular result.
71. When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out.
72. In general, I feel confident and positive about myself.
73. I feel like many of the people I know have gotten more out of life than I have.
74. Given the opportunity, there are many things about myself than I would change.
123
M. Daraei
75. I like most aspects of my personality.
76. I made some mistakes in the past, but I feel that all in all everything has worked out for the best.
77. In many ways, I feel disappointed about my achievements in life.
78. For the most part, I am proud of who I am and the life I lead.
79. I envy many people for the lives they lead.
80. My attitude about myself is probably not as positive as most people feel about themselves.
81. Many days I wake up feeling discouraged about how I have lived my life.
82. The past had its ups and downs, but in general, I wouldn’t want to change it.
83. When I compare myself to friends and acquaintances, it makes me feel good about who I am.
84. Everyone has their weaknesses, but I seem to have more than my share.
123
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for international attachment as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2001). Making the best of a bad situation: Satisfaction in the slums of
Calcutta. Social Indicators Research, 55(3), 329–352.
Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.
Chow, H. P. H. (2007). Psychological well-being and scholastic achievement among university students in
Canadian Praitie City. Social Psychology of Education, 10(4), 483–493.
Clark, A., Georgellis, Y., & Sanfrey, P. (2001). Scarring: The psychological impact of past unemployment.
Economica, 68(498), 221–241.
Clark, A., & Oswald, A. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. Economic Journal, 104(424), 648–659.
Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 69(1), 57–81.
Cohen, S., Janicki, D., Denise, M., & Gregory, E. (2007). Psychological stress and disease. Journal of
American Medical Association, 298(14), 1685–1687.
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? A literature review and
guide to needed research. Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Diener, E., & Lucas, P. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener & N.
Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). New York: Russell
sage foundation.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84.
Easterlin, R. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. David
& M. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth. New York, London: Academic Press.
Easterlin, R. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic
Behaviour and Organization, 27(1), 35–48.
Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111( July),
465–484.
Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. Economic Journal, 110(466), 918–938.
Gencoz, T., & Ozalal, Y. (2004). Direct and indirect effects of social support on psychological well-being.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 32(5), 449–458.
Gerdtham, U., & Johannesson, M. (1997). The relationship between happiness, health and socio-economic
factors: Results based on Swedish micro data. Working Paper in Economics and Finance, no. 207,
Stockholm School of Economics.
Helliwell, G. F., & Robert, D. P. (2004). The social context of well-being, The Royal Capital Society,
published on line, August, pp. 1435–1446.
Hurlock, E. B. (2004). Developmental psychology: A life span approach (5th ed.). Delhi: Mc Graw Hill.
Jethwani-Keyser, M. M. (2008). When teachers treat me well- I think I belong: School belonging and
psychological and academic well-being of adolescent girls in urban India. PhD thesis, New York
University.
Kessler, R. C. (1982). A disaggregation of the relationship between socioeconomic status and psychological
distress. American Sociological Review, 47(6), 752–764.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in American’s school. New York: Crown.
Lowenthal, M., Thurnher, M., & Chiriboga, D. (1975). Four stages of life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lucas, R. E., Andrew, C., & Yannis, G. (2003). Re-examining adaptation and the set point model of
happiness: Reactions to changes in mental status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3),
527–539.
Lynch, J. W., Kaplan, G. A., & Salonen, J. T. (1997). Why do poor people behave poorly? Variation in adult
health behaviors and psychological characteristics by stage of the socioeconomic life course. Social
Science and Medicine, 44(6), 809–819.
Mukhopadhyay, P., & Kumar, J. (1999). Academic pressure: It’s impact on the mental health of children.
Social Science International, 15(2), 39–45.
Palomer Lever, J. (2004). Poverty and subjective well-being in Mexico. Social Indicators Research, 68(1),
1–33.
Pearlin, L. I. (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30(3),
241–259.
Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. A., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 22(December), 337–356.
123
M. Daraei
Pearlin, L. I., Schieman, S., Fazio, E. M., & Meersman, S. C. (2005). Stress, health, and life course: Some
conceptual perspectives. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(2), 205–219.
Rathi, N., & Rastagi, R. (2007). Meaning in life and psychological well-being among pre-adolescents and
adolescents in India. Indian Academy Applied Psychology, 93(1), 31–38.
Reynolds, G., & Ross, C. E. (1998). Social stratification and health: Education’s benefit beyond economic
status and social origins. Social Problems, 45(2), 221–247.
Ross, C. E., & Huber, J. (1985). Hardship and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26(4),
312–327.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Exploration on the meaning of psychological well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
4(4), 99–104.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.
Ryff, C. D., & Schmutte, P. S. (1997). Personality and well-being: Reexamining methods and meaning.
Journal of Personality Social psychology, 73(3), 549–559.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1),
1–28.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to
psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.
Sen, A. (1993).Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen. (Eds.), The quality of life. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (1995). Gender inequality and theories of justice. In M. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women,
culture and development, Study of human Capabilities. Qxford: Clarenton Press.
Shek, D. T. L. (2002). Family functioning and psychological well-being, social adjustment, and problem
behavior in Chinese adolescents with and without economic disadvantage. Journal of Genetic Psy-
chology, 163(4), 497–502.
Shieds, M. A., & Wheatley Price, S. (November 2001). Exploring the economic and social determinants of
psychosocial health, Discussion Paper, no, 396.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2008). Positive Psychology. New Delhi: Rajkamal Electric press, South Asia
edition.
Sree Kumar, R. (2008). The patterns of association of religious factors with subjective well-being: a path
analysis. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(Special issue), 119–125.
Theodossiou, I. (1998). The effects of low-pay and unemployment on psychological wellbeing: a logistic
regression approach. Journal of Health Economics, 17(1), 85–104.
Thoits, P. A. (2006). Personal agency in the stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47(4),
309–323.
123

Daraei: Social Correlates of Psychological Well-Being Among Undergraduate Students in Mysore City

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daraei: Social Correlates of Psychological Well-Being Among Undergraduate Students in Mysore City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soc Indic Res

Social Correlates of Psychological Well-Being Among

Accepted: 20 September 2012

Keywords Psychological well-being (PWB) Social correlates Family relationships

A structured questionnaire (see ‘‘Appendix 1’’) designed in order to gather socio-demo-

3. Autonomy: measures independence and self-regulation of behavior. The high score in

3.3 Data Analysis

4 Results and Discussion

Table 1 Statistically significant

Table 2 Results of DMRT post

Table 3 Statistically significant

Table 4 Results of DMRT post

Table 5 Statistically significant

Table 6 Results of DMRT post

Table 7 Statistically significant

Table 8 Results of DMRT post

Less than 10,000 41 269.92

Table 9 Statistically significant

Table 10 Results of DMRT post

Not at all 4 248.25

Table 11 Statistically insignifi-

1) Age: …….. Years old.

2) Sex: Male Female

3) Religion: Hindu Muslim Christian Others

4) Type of College: Governmental private

5) Do you live with your family? Yes No

6) Total number of members in your family?

7) Educational status of your father:

8) Educational status of your mother:

9) Occupational status of your father:

10) Occupational status of your mother:

11) What is average monthly income of your family?

12) Type of accommodation:

Own house Rented house

Always Sometimes Seldom Not at all

14) Does your family go to the restaurant or cinema together?

Always Sometimes Seldom Not at all

Very good Good A little good Not at all

16) How often do you go on a trip with your family?

Always Sometimes Seldom Not at all

17) How often do you receive support from your family?

Always Sometimes Seldom Not at all

Always Sometimes Seldom Not at all

Psychological Well-being Test

Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree

Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree

Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree

3. My decisions are not usually influenced by what everyone else is doing.

Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree

Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree

4. I tend to worry about what other people think of me.

Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree

Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree

Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree

6. I tend to be influenced by people with strong opinions.

Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree

Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree

7. People rarely talk to me in to doing things I don’t want to do.

Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree

Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree