CHAPTER I INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The period of adolescence covers 10-19 years of age (WHO, 1990). In India, 22.5 % to 23 % constitute adolescent population (Government of India, 2007) which is a little above one fifth of the total population. Adolescence is an intriguing stage of life span development filled with many physical, cognitive, social, and emotional changes. The rapid physical development exhibited both internally and externally, during adolescence period makes youngsters vulnerable to the environment around them. Emotional development during this adolescence period offers limitless exhilaration and happiness for them and enables them to achieve what they aspire for. At this stage, the increase in academic demands and the complexity of the school structure makes the task of academic success for adolescents even more difficult which adds to the psychosocial problems that enter during this period. The interplay of home and school environment during such a critical and demanding phase of adolescence is crucial in overall development. 1.1. Theories of Adolescence According to Erikson’s (1950, 1968) theory, over the course of the life span, human progress through eight stages of development. In each stage, a unique development task confronts the individual with a crisis that must be faced. This crisis is not a catastrophe but a turning point of increased vulnerability and enhanced potential. The more successfully an individual resolves the crisis, the healthier that person’s development will be (Hopkins, 2000). During adolescence an individual is confronted with new roles andstatuses, e.g. vocational, infatuation. At this time, adolescents are faced with deciding who they are, what they are all about, and where they are moving in life. Parents are expected to explore many different roles of adolescents, as well as different paths within a particular role. If the adolescent explores such roles in a healthy manner and arrives at a positive path to follow in life, then a positive identity will be achieved. If an identity is pushed on the adolescent by parents or if the adolescent does not adequately explore many roles, and if a positive future path is not defined, then identity confusion reigns (Erikson, 1968). Either they withdraw, isolating themselves from peers and family, or they immerse themselves in the world of peers and lose their identity in the crowd (Santrock, 2007). Theorists also believe that this extraordinary complex process neither begins nor ends with adolescence (Marcia, 1989). It begins in infancy with the appearance of attachment, the development of a sense of self, and the emergence of independence. It ends with a life review and integration in old age. Thus an individual who develops a healthy identity is flexible and adaptive, open to changes in society, in relationships, and in careers (Adams, Gulotta & Montemayor, 1992). Piaget’s (1954) theory states that individuals actively construct their understanding of the world as they go through four stages of cognitive development. Each of these age-related stages consists of distinct ways of thinking. In Piaget’s (1954) theory, it is the different way of understanding the world that makes one stage more advanced than another; simply knowing more information does not make a person’s thinking more advanced. The formal operational stage, which occurs from the age of 11 through adulthood, is the fourth and final Piagetian stage. In this stage, individuals move beyond concrete experiences and think in abstract and more logical terms. As part of thinking more abstractly, adolescents develop images of ideal circumstances.They compare their parents with parents with ideal standards; they begin to entertain possibilities for the future and are fascinated with what they can be. In solving problems, formal operational thinkers are more systematic, developing hypotheses about why something is happening the way it is, and then testing these hypotheses in deductive fashion. To make sense out of the world, adolescents organize their experiences, separating important ideas from less important ones and connecting one idea to another. They also adapt their thinking to include new ideas, because the additional information furthers their understanding. 1.2. Psychosocial problems during adolescence Several key transitional periods surface at the elementary school level to middle school level, again from middle school to high school levels and even from high school to college levels. They naturally pose challenges for these adolescents and as a consequence dysfunction may occur. Psychosocial problems are induced at one time or the other during the adolescent period. Many of these problems are of transient nature and are seldom detected. ‘Adolescents exhibit these problems in varying degree by showing them in one place and not in another (e.g. home, school). The term psychosocial carries both controlled, behavior problems such as conduct disorders, educational difficulties, substance abuse, hyperactivity and over controlled, emotional problems like anxiety, depression etc. The physiological and psychological changes that take place during this crucial phase lead to intra conflict, which in turn results in expression of emotions and behavior. The struggle during adolescence period is further aggravated by social factors such as peer influence, school environment, academic pressure, etc. precipitating problematic behavior.Mental health and mental illnesses are determined by multiple and interacting social, psychological, and biological factors, just as health and illness in general. Mental, social, and behavioral health problems may interact so as to intensify their effects on behavior and well-being. According to Kazdin (1993), problems such as substance abuse, depression and suicide, eating disorders, and disorders of conduct (including crime and delinquency) affect the lives of a worrisome number of teenagers. Drug and alcohol abuse are associated with problems such as delinquency, truancy, defiance, sexual promiscuity, and violence (Donovan & Jessor, 1985; McGee & Newcomb, 1992; Newcomb & Bentler, 1989). Few adolescents are able to cope with or overcome these psychosocial changes and few are able to manage these changes; whereas many adolescents are vulnerable to these situations resulting in behavior or emotional problems. All these problems have different sorts of manifestations and adolescents who engage in these behaviors are often described as “under controlled”. According to World Health Report (2000), 20% of children and adolescents suffer from a disabling mental illness worldwide and suicide is the third leading cause of death among adolescents. 1.3. Behavior problems Behavior problems are the inability to appropriately behave according to the situation. All types of behavior problems can be defined in two terms namely behavioral deficits (too little behavior of a particular type) or behavioral excesses (too much behavior of a particular type) (Martin & Pear, 1996). Problem behavior is the behavior that is socially defined as a problem, as a source of concern, or as undesirable by the social and/or legal norms of conventional society and its institutions of authority; it is behavior that usuallyelicits some form of social control response, whether minimal, such as a statement of disapproval, or extreme, such as incarceration (Jessor, Graves, Hanson & Jessor, 1968; Jessor & Jessor, 1977; Jessor, Donovan & Costa, 1991; Jessor, 1991). Nearly all youth have transitory problems of adjustment, behavior, and emotion. Families of teenagers worry about rebellion, lack of academic motivation, and temptation for drugs and alcohol. Although such problems typically resolve with further development, when issues related to impulse control, emotion regulation, or behavioral development are quite extreme for the child's age and when they interfere with schooling and academic achievement, family life, or the attainment of independence, referrals may be made for diagnosis of a psychological or psychiatric condition (Hinshaw, 2010). Achenbach (1966), one of the pioneers in research on behavior problems took initiative to determine whether children’s problems formed more different patterns than were implied by the only two diagnostic categories for childhood disorders provided by the psychiatric nosology of that time (DSM — I; American Psychiatric Association, 1952). These two categories were Adjustment Reaction of Childhood and Schizophrenic reaction, Childhood type. By factor analyzing problems reported by child psychiatric case records, Achenbach (1966) found many more syndromes than were implied by the two DSM ~ I categories. The term “syndrome” is used to designate empirically identified patterns without implying assumptions about whether the etiologies are biological, environmental or a mixture of both. In addition to numerous syndromes, the factor analysis identified two broad groupings of which Achenbach (1966) coined the terms “Internalizing” and “Externalizing”. Internalizing problems are those that are primarily within the self and externalizing problems are those that primarily involve connect with people andsocial mores. Internalizing and externalizing expressions of dysfunction have both behavioral and affective components, as well as cognitive features (Cicchetti & Toth, 1991; Garber, Quiggle, Panak, & Dodge, 1991; Serbin, Schwartzman, Moskowitz, & Ledingham, 1991). Externalizing problems are characterized by behaviors that are harmful and disruptive to others primarily (externally oriented such as conduct problems), whereas internalizing problems such as withdrawal and anxiety are seen as behaviors that are geared primarily towards the self (internally oriented such as emotional problems). Researchers reported that internalizing behaviors are associated with four kinds of problems: behavioral (they are passive, indecisive, and helpless), emotional (sadness), somatic (food consummation and sleep is disturbed) and cognitive (thinking life is worth less) (Seligman, Reivich, Jaycox & Gillham, 1995). Developmental theory and research have focused on externalizing behavior problems in terms of four patterns: oppositional behaviors, oppositional/aggressive behaviors, hyperactive/ inattentive behaviors and a combination of hyperactive/inattentive and oppositional/aggressive behaviors (Stormshak, Bierman, & The Conduct Problems Research Group, 1998). Goodman (1999) has classified behavior problems into four dimensions namely emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/ inattention and peer problems. 1.3.1. Internalizing problems Internalizing behavior problems are characterized by feelings of self consciousness, anxiety, worries, unhappiness, withdrawal, shyness, and somatic complaints (Achenbach, 1991; Quay & LaGreca, 1986; Rutter, Tizard, & Whitmore, 1970). Internalizing behavior problems are also defined by core disturbances in self-harming emotions and moods such as sorrow, guilt, fear, and worry (Zahn-Waxler, Klimes-Doughan, & Slattery, 2000). While someamount of anxiety, fear and anger are considered as naturally occurring phenomena. However, excessively high levels of anxiety can be detrimental (Reed, Carter, & Miller, 1992). Both anxiety and depression are seen as part of a larger, more general category of what is called neuroticism, general psychological distress, or internalizing syndrome. Internalizing problems are often associated with peer relational difficulties and loneliness (Fordham & Stevenson-Hinde, 1999; Rubin, LeMare & Lollis, 1990) and low self-perceived academic competence (Weiss, Susser, & Catron, 1998). Children with anxiety disorder have reported more negative social expectations and lower self- competence than controls, to have a poorer social functioning, to receive less support from classmates, and to remain less accepted (Chansky & Kendall, 1997; LaGreca & Lopez, 1998). 1.3.2. Externalizing problems Externalizing behavior problems are of major concern to both education and mental health professionals. Such problems comprise most common referrals for children and adolescents to mental health services (Kazdin, 1987). Externalizing behavior problems are characterized as feelings of outbursts of anger, hitting and kicking, impulsive behaviors, hostile defiance, anti-social, destructive behavior, and over-activity, or arguing and teasing, social exclusion or harming peer’s reputation by spreading rumor which are also described as confrontative and non-confrontative types (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Willoughby, Kupersmidt, & Bryant, 2001). The prevalence rates of externalizing behavior difficulties (defined as disruptive and behaviorally troublesome) range between 12-16% (Broidy, et al., 2003; Shaw, Gilliom, Ingoldsby, & Nagin, 2003; Petras et al., 2004). In some of the above studies 4-12% of the boys were identified as having chronic aggressive behaviors.These disruptive behaviors influence relationships with parents, teachers, peers, and others in the children’s environment. These behaviors are also known to be associated with low school achievement and poor self-esteem. Even more alarming is the real possibility that children with one kind of externalizing problem are at high risk for developing other kinds of externalizing problems as well (Bird, Gould, & Staghezza, 1993). Childhood aggressive behavior is widely recognized as a precursor for antisocial behaviors, delinquent, and drug use in adolescence and adulthood. Externalizing problems have been associated with school failure, adult unemployment and criminality, especially in boys with high levels of early aggressiveness (Campbell, Pierce, March, Ewing, & Szumowski, 1994; Krohn, Thornberry, Rivera, & LeBlanc, 2001; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2000; Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990; Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990; Overbeek, Vollebergh, Meeus, Engels, & Luijpers, 2001; Stattin & Magnusson, 1989). 1.3.3. Prevalence of behavior problems in India There are many studies carried out in India to identify the prevalence of behavior problems among adolescents. In one study, 186 normal children who scored below the cut-off for psychiatric disorder were followed up for six years. After six years 20 children out of 186 had psychiatric disorder which indicated the high annual incidence rate (Malhotra, Kohli, Kapoor, & Pradhan, 2009). Dhoundiyal and Venkatesh (2009) reported conduct problems as the primary problem among the children followed by problem in the peer relations, prosocial behavior and emotional symptoms. In another epidemiological study conducted in the state of Goa, India among 2048 adolescents, 1% of adolescents are found to have anxiety disorders, 0.5% of adolescents are found to have depressive disorder, 0.4% of them are found with behavioral disorder and 0.2%of adolescents are found to have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. In another study, adolescents from urban areas and girls who faced gender discrimination are found to have higher prevalence of behavior problems. The multivariate model used in this study found an independent association of mental disorders with an outgoing ‘non-traditional’ lifestyle (frequent partying, going to the cinema, shopping for fun and having a boyfriend or girlfriend), difficulties with studies, lack of safety in the neighborhood, history of physical or verbal abuse and tobacco use (Pillai et al., 2008). Anees, Najam, Zulfia and Ali (2006) studied the prevalence of the psychosocial problems at Aligarh, India. They found a prevalence of 25.2% in 14-15 years age group and 10.3% in the 10-13 years age group. Srinath et al. (2005) found 12.5 % of prevalence rate of psychiatric disorders in the 4-16 yr old children. Ranimohanraj (2006) reported 24% of prevalence rate of depression among adolescents in Chennai, India. The findings revealed the importance of psychosocial determinants such as self-esteem, family relationship, social support and school environment. 1.3.4. Causes of behavior problems The problem behavior theory proposed by Jessor et al. (1968) included three major systems of explanatory variables namely the perceived-environment system, the personality system, and the behavior system. Each system is composed of variables that serve either as instigations for engaging in problem behavior or controls against involvement in problem behavior. It is the balance between instigations and controls that determine the degree of proneness for problem behavior within each system. The overall level of proneness for problem behavior, across all three systems, reflects the degree of psychosocial conventionality-unconventionality characterizing each adolescent. The theory has been organized to account for proneness to engage in problem behavior—10 behavior that departs from regulatory norms. The re-formulation and extension of problem-behavior theory organizes the main constructs from the theory into protective factors and risk factors (Jessor, 1991). The variables in problem- behavior theory were specified as either controls against or instigations to involvement in problem behavior. Controls are analogous to protective factors, and instigations are analogous to risk factors. Bandura (1986, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2004) and Mischel (1973, 1995, 2004) are the architects of the contemporary version of social cognitive theory, which initially was labeled cognitive social learning theory by Mischel (1973). According to Bandura (1986), behavior, environment and person/cognitive factors, such as belief, plans, and thinking, can interact in a reciprocal manner. However, a person can act to change the environment. Person/cognitive factors include self-efficacy (a belief that one can master a situation and produce positive outcomes) plans, and thinking skills. Thus, in Bandura’s (2002) view, the environment can determine a person’s behavior. According to Bandura (2002) self-regulation rather than abstract reasoning is the key to positive moral development. Moral behavior includes both negative aspects of behavior - cheating, lying, and stealing, for example and positive aspects of behavior such as being considerate to others and giving to a worthy cause. The ethnic or cultural variations in the individual’s behavioral development are explained by the Ecological system theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). According to this model, the child is affected by his or her immediate social and physical environment (the micro system) as well as by the interrelationships among the various settings of his or her immediate environment (the meso system). The child is further influenced by events occurring in settings in which he or she is not present (the exo system), which, in turn, are influenced by cultural attitudes and ideologies (the macro system). An ecological perspective thus, considers11 how the individual develops in interaction with the immediate environment, as well as how aspects of the larger context influence the individual and his or her immediate environment. Accordingly, ethnic differences in problem behavior can be explained through the influence of distal (i.e., social support) and/or proximal (i.e., parenting) environmental factors 1.3.5 Protective factors for behavior problems The theoretical role of protective factors is to decrease the likelihood of engaging in problem behavior: Protective factors in general are a combination of personal and environmental factors (Rutter, 1995), including positive relationships, high self-esteem, good coping skills, school achievement and personal control and optimism (Buchanan & Flouri, 2001; Major, Richards, Cooper, Cozzarelli, & Zubek, 1998). Some characteristics are particularly important in protecting children from maladjustment such as eliciting positive responses from others, being active and energetic, possessing easy temperament, etc. and some factors believed to protect children include autonomy, ability and desire to accomplish tasks on their own (Kim- Cohen, Moffit, Caspi, & Taylor, 2004; Gordon, 1998). Positive self-perceptions and motivation to behave in an adaptive way are also protective factors (Masten, 2001), as well as an optimistic and positive attribution style (i.e. the view that good things are likely to happen and are due to personal competence and permanent causes) (Seligman et al., 1995). A warm and intimate relationship with parents serves as a protective factor against externalizing and internalizing behavior problems (Dekovic, Buist, & Reitz, 2004). Further, it is stated that social support acted as a buffer to a vulnerable child from the emergence of psychopathology by enhancing self-esteem and providing opportunities for adaptation. It is also stated that positive peer relationship function as a12 protective factor, for children with internalizing problems (Dekovic et al., 2004; Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984). 1.3.6. Risk factors for behavior problems The theoretical role of risk factors, by contrast, is to increase the likelihood of engaging in problem behavior: risk factors provide models for problem behavior (e.g., peer models for alcohol use), greater opportunity to engage in it (greater availability of marijuana and other illicit drugs), and personal and contextual vulnerability for its occurrence (e.g., limited perceived chances for success in life, or peer pressure to use drugs). Risk factors are defined as those conditions that are associated with a higher likelihood of negative behavior (problem behavior). Risk factors consistently found across studies include low educational aspiration and low self-esteem (Jessor, Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995). Poor school motivation is stated to be the single most important marker for identifying adolescents likely to be at high risk (Resnick & Burt, 1996). Problem behavior emerges due to the feeling of low sense of self-worth, dissatisfaction and low confidence in own abilities (Gessor et al., 1995). Low self-esteem is also found to be a significant predictor of mental health problems and externalizing problems (Baldwin et al., 1989; Stacy, Sussman, Dent, Burton, & Flay, 1992). Risk factors for behavior problems occur throughout children’s development, and children face new risks as they mature and encounter new challenges. Children’s environments also become more complex as they grow older, making intervention more difficult. Reducing these risks has the possibility to prevent the development of multiple problems. Risk factors are characteristics of the individual or environment that place children on trajectories for negative outcomes. A risk factor for a negative behavior is not necessarily a cause of this behavior, but could be a trait or a13 state, an experience, a situation or a process that enhances the probability or the risk of a negative behavior. 1.3.7. Studies on models of behavior problems Chen and Simons-Morton (2009) identified psychosocial and family factors as vulnerable precursors to the co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptomology. Gaylord-Harden (2008) used Structural Equation Modeling which indicated that positive parenting was related to higher achievement and lower behavior problems. It was also found that positive parenting was a direct predictor of achievement and adaptive behavior. Simons-Morton, Chen, Hand, and Haynie (2008) used autoregressive latent trajectory (ALT) analysis and found that adolescent conduct problems and parenting practices were associated in both cross-sectional and prospective analyses. Further, Pederson, Vitaro, Barker and Borge (2007) found that behavior problems in the early school years were associated with middle- childhood peer rejection and rejection, in turn, leading to lower friendship and subsequently higher adolescent internalizing problems, but not externalizing problems. Vandewater and Lansford (2005) found that joint family contexts (socioeconomic resources), mothers’ and adolescents’ experiences of outside- family contexts (perceived social network quality and experience of school stress respectively), and individual characteristics of mothers (distress) were related to adolescents’ externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Atzaba-Poria and Pike (2005) found that maternal positivity, paternal negativity, and parental support mediated the link between ethnicity and internalizing problems. They reported that lack of social support, contributed to children’s internalizing problems directly as well as indirectly through parenting style. In addition to it,14 they found that although parenting style significantly influenced children’s internalizing problems, social support was a much stronger contributor. 1.4. Need for the study Adolescence is a vulnerable period marked by rapid physiological, cognitive and psychological changes. This is a crucial stage for choosing an appropriate career based course, depending on their interest and marks scored in the public examinations which ultimately determine and shape the future of adolescents. On account of this, adolescents are put into pressure to score high marks. A few of the adolescents manage and cope with such demands, but some of them fail in their attempts which results in emotional outbursts, social problems, psychological distress, etc among adolescents. This is substantiated by a study carried out in India by Srinath et al. (2005) which reported that behavioral problems are relatively high among the Indian adolescents compared to those in other countries. Similarly, prevalence of psychosocial problems and problem behavior is also reported as high among Indian adolescents (Anees et al., 2007; Hiremath, Hunshal, & Gaonkar, 2008). In India, the competition among students is high particularly in the educational sector. One main reason is due to the paucity of universities in our country. Enrolment for collegiate education is 12.4 percent compared to the other countries like America where 30 percent of school going population reach college level (Sibal, 2010). The fee structure of the upcoming private educational institutions in India is high compared to government and government aided institutions. Many Indian parents find it difficult to meet the expenses for job oriented (lucrative), professional, career oriented course in private institutions on account of their inadequate income and stringent economic condition. Due to this straitened situation, Indian parents become15 more anxious and uncertain in securing admission in courses of high demand at a good quality oriented institute. Because of such insecurity, highly ambitious parents pressurize their offspring to score high marks especially during higher secondary education to establish familial and financial status and for their wards’ future career prospects. Such kind of high parental expectations may lead to negative impact on adolescents. Even though, parental expectation seems to have positive influence on adolescents growth and development, when it becomes unrealistic, adolescents tend to experience psychological distress such as anxiety, anger, depression, etc. which could surface as behavior problems. A significant number of college students reported that parental expectations are major personal handicaps in their adjustment to college (Anderson & Yuenger, 1987; Archer & Lamnin, 1985). Studies also indicated that Asian adolescents’ parents’ expectations were higher than their American counterparts (Crystal et al., 1994). These findings indicate the importance to understand the impact of parental expectations and its consequences in the Indian context. Further, it is imperative to study whether the adolescents are able to fulfill or meet their parental expectations and its negative impact on them. Despite high parental expectations, a few adolescents are able to handle and succeed in fulfilling their parents’ aspirations but a few are unable to do so. This is due to high self-esteem and optimistic attitude of the individual in perceiving and overcoming the distress situation. These personality constructs helps adolescents to withstand the environmental and social pressures that prevail around them. Further, adequate social support and favorable school environment would facilitate in dealing with the dynamic nature of the adolescence phase. These factors may also help them to surmount the distress and to maintain good mental health of the individual.16 Since the adolescent population consists of one fifth of the total population in India, it becomes indispensible to conduct the present study on influence of parental expectations and other psychosocial factors on behavior problems of adolescents and their causal factors. Further, this may help the government and policy makers to formulate remedial measures to overcome these problems. This would also help the family and school for guiding the youth in proper direction. Moreover, youth can be motivated to channelize their potential and thereby enhancing their well-being to make them an asset to the nation. 1.5. Parental expectations A primary way parents socialize their children is by communicating the goals they want their children to attain, the aspirations they want their children to fulfill, and the values they want their children to internalize. Parental goals and aspirations are best described as internal representations of desired states or outcomes that parents hold for their children. These, in turn, organize and direct parents’ behaviors toward their children (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Wentzel, 1998). With respect to school achievement, parents set certain goals and hold certain aspirations for their children, such as doing well in math class, graduating high school, and attending college. Similarly, parents communicate to their children the values with respect to school (i.e., importance of education), intending their children to adopt these values and beliefs. Researchers have found that parental aspirations, goals, and values are related to their children’s setting of academic goals, persistence in school, course enrollment, intellectual accomplishments, and attendance of college (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Keeves, 1972; Pugh, 1976).7 The common thread that runs through the parents and their wards is the agonizing anxiety in fulfilling parental aspirations. To some extent, the parents transmit these aspirations to their adolescents in the form of expectations. Many parents believe that transmitting a sense of high expectations to their offspring is one way of helping the adolescent to build confidence, self-esteem, and personal standards of merit and value. But such expectations to succeed at times become unrealistic and also detrimental to the personality of adolescents. A few parents tend to expect from their offspring who are incapable of meeting such demands. In case of unfulfillment of such demands by adolescents, parents tend to become frustrated that lead to physical violence and emotional outbursts. Much existing research concerned with parental aspirations focuses on the educational and career aspirations that parents hold for their children. According to Hallam and Creech (2007) parental aspirations are conceptualized as status-attainment model which is driven by socio-economic factors, and alternatively interpreted within a blocked-opportunities model whereby aspirations are manifested as over-achievement in compensation for barriers to success. Parental aspirations, interest, and parent child discussions have a powerful influence on educational and psychosocial outcomes for children. Cultural difference exists in the extent of importance given to adolescents’ failures or successes by parents. Research suggests that, relative to Asian parents, European American parents are more likely to focus children on successes rather than failures (Dennis, Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Mizuta, 2002; Miller, Wiley, Fung, & Chung-Hui, 1997). Dennis et al. (2002) found that American mothers showed more positive emotion and gave their children more praise and encouragement than did Japanese mothers. Children from different cultural heritages, therefore, may be faced with different kinds of parental expectations in their adolescence and young adulthood. Because of the18 hierarchical relationship emphasized in Confucian cultures, parents in these cultures directly communicate their expectations to their children and continue to do so even when children become young adults. In middle-class North American culture, a more equal relationship between children and parents is reported as typically preferred when children become adolescents. Once children are viewed as independent individuals, parental expectations are less strongly imposed upon children than before (Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake & Weisz, 2000; Triandis, 1995). Consistent with the literature on culture and parenting, Chang (1998) found that Asian American college students perceived their parents to be more critical than did European Americans and felt fearful of not fulfilling their parents’ expectations to a greater degree than did European Americans. The study also reported that Asian Americans reported higher levels of depression and hopelessness than did European Americans and that these differences were in part due to Asian Americans’ higher levels of perfectionism. Thus, it is possible that lower levels of well-being reported in past research by East Asians and Asian Americans relative to Americans and European Americans (Chang, 2002; Suh, 2002; Twenge & Crocker, 2002) were in part due to their lower levels of perceived fulfillment of parental expectations. Specifically, it is consistently reported that Asians and Asian Americans do not feel satisfied with their lives or with themselves because they feel that they have not attained the standards imposed by their parents. Adolescents living in Mainland China generally experience high levels of demands from their parents to perform well in school, which negatively impact Chinese adolescents’ psychological functioning (Siu & Watkins, 1997). Many studies conceptualized parental expectations in terms of the views that parents hold regarding the highest level of education that their children will19 attain (Reynolds, 1991). Seginer (1986) proposed a more complex conceptualization of parental educational expectations and defined them as consisting of three dimensions: (1) realistic expectations-parental predictions of the level of academic performance of their children; (2) idealistic expectations- including the wishes and hopeful anticipations held by the parents related to their children in academic realms; and (3) standards of achievement namely, the implicit measures by which the parents evaluate their children's academic attainments. Moreover, Seginer (1986) stated expectations as a function of cognitive guidelines to one's behaviors which in turn affect the level of performance or quality of action of the focal person. Later, Seginer (1995) differentiated between two perceptions of parental expectations. The first relates to the family learning environment, including family expectations and behaviors related to the relevant field of studies and educational attainments of the children as reported by parents, whereas the second approach focused on the same parameters but as perceived by the children themselves. In Seginer's (1995) view, the advantage of the first approach (based on parental reports) is especially relevant for potential interventions, because it suggests the kind of parental behaviors that help or hinder children's academic achievements. Its main disadvantage lies in the difficulty to reach parents for research purposes. The second approach — based on students’ perceptions of parental expectations - focuses on the subjective reality as experienced by the children themselves and allows understanding the meanings that children give to their parents’ expectations regarding their own school based academic achievements. Parents’ support of their children can be in the form of positive, yet realistic expectations and aspirations for children, attention and responsivity to what's happening in children's lives and in the provision of information and experiences that foster20 development (Alexander & Entwisle, 1988; Marjoribanks, 1979, 1990;Scott- Jones, 1984). Chen and Lan (1998) found that Chinese students were more willing than American students in trying to meet parental expectations regarding academic achievement, and that the scores of Chinese students on parent- related fears induced by poor examination results were significantly higher than those of American students. Another study reported that Chinese students experienced greater anxiety than did their American counterparts because the former feared that unsatisfactory academic performance will disappoint their parents and make them worry (Xing, Huang, Huang, Sanchez, & Ye, 2005). To strive for academic excellence is perceived as a moral obligation that links with family pride, and the consequence of poor performance is not an individual but a familial matter; hence, children become stressed when they know that they have not met the demands and expectations of their parents (Xing et al., 2005; Yu & Chen, 2001). The academic stress of students comes mostly from examinations, tests, excessive homework, unsatisfactory performance, time pressures, intense competition with other students, and parent and teacher expectations (Burnett & Fanshawe 1997; Gu, 1999). Late adolescents’ own issues may contribute to a skewed perspective of what the adolescents believe are expected of them, or they may be biased negatively when evaluating themselves (Rubel, Eisenberg & Higgins, 1994). A significant number of college students reported that parental expectations are a major personal stressor in their adjustment to college (Anderson & Yuenger 1987; Archer & Lamnin 1985). Archer and Lamnin (1985) reported that college students rate parental expectations and conflicts as their second most stressful problem, preceded only by intimate relationships. Parental pressure is reported by 48% of college students who were receiving counseling at a university-baseda centre (Duncan & Anderson, 1986). Similarly, Kagan and Squires (1984) reported that 10% of college students are worried about pleasing their parents often and 5% are worried always. Further, they stated that although students indicated parental expectations are worrisome to them, expectations themselves are not most problematic. In fact, Wang and Heppner (2002) stated that how well college students feel they are living up to their parents’ expectations related strongly with their psychological distress, whereas parents’ actual expectations are not related to college students’ emotional distress. Self- discrepancy theory offered one potential explanation for why discrepancies between parental expectations and college students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations will cause such emotional turmoil. This cognitive theory was developed with the notion that conflicting beliefs between the ideal self (i.e., attributes that individuals wish that they possess), actual self (i.e., the attributes that individuals believe that they possess currently), and ought self (i.e. attributes that individuals believe they should or are obligated to possess) result in negative emotions (Higgins, 1987). Corsini (1999) defined pressure as “excessive or stressful demands made on an individual,” giving an example of parental pressures for achievement. Thus, when students perceive the demands (e.g., high expectation) from their parents as excessive, they feel the pressure to achieve. On the other hand, Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990) defined parental expectations as a “tendency to believe that one’s parents set high goals and are overly critical”. An important dimension that has emerged from the literature review is the perceived discrepancy between parental expectations and students’ self- performance (Wang, 1997) and discrepancy between parents and students’ standards (Aldwin & Greenberger, 1987). Both discrepancies (parents and students) were found to be more significant predictors of depression than22 parental pressures or expectations alone. Given the importance of meeting family/parents’ expectations in a traditional Asian family, such a discrepancy or feeling of not meeting parental expectations may be more stressful than the expectations or pressures themselves. These discrepancies has a telling effect on their adolescents’ well-being and behavior problems like anxiety, depression, academic stress, emotional stability, adjustment, interpersonal difficulties, aggression, etc. India being predominantly collectivistic society, Indian parents emphasize the goals and interests of the group over those of individual members (Triandis, 1995). Further, the decisions, behavior, and self-definition of individuals within such a tradition are expected to reflect the needs, values, and expectations of the larger group (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Perhaps the most salient domain for the expression of these values is influenced by the family. One such aspiration or desire of the parents is making their children obey or adhere to the values and expectations of the parent or family members. Mostly, such expectations have assumed a normalistic trend among parents in the Indian society. At times, these expectations are in consonance with the individual’s interest and potential. Adolescents’ exhibit problem behaviors when they find difficulty in establishing autonomy in relationship with parents such as unrealistic parental expectations or aspirations, low parental warmth, over protective parents etc. A statistical analysis report was submitted by Lippman et al. (2008) based on National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS) at the US Department of Education for taking necessary actions for future plans of the children. Several studies used NELS data to examine issues related to parental expectations. For instance, Masino and Hodapp (1996) found that parents”23 expectations were higher among students who performed better in school regardless of student disability status. Fan (2001) found that parents’ expectations were positively associated with growth in student achievement in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies from grade 8 through grade 12, even after statistically controlling for socioeconomic status. Studies have also examined which characteristics are associated with differences in the educational expectations parents have for their children. Cheng and Starks (2002) found that Asian, Hispanic, and Black students perceived higher parent educational expectations of them than White students. Both Glick and White (2004) and, Hao and Bonstead-Bruns (1998) used NELS data to examine differences in parents’ expectations based on immigrant status and found that parents of immigrant families tended to have higher expectations for their children than parents of non-immigrant families. In a different study involving ninth-grade students from a Midwest state, Hossler and Stage (1992) accounted for 36 percent of the variation in students’ predisposition to college (i.e., choice on whether to continue their education beyond high school) in a model that found a direct association with parents’ expectations. Moreover, the magnitude of the direct association between the two was approximately three times larger than the next strongest association between participation in high school activities and students’ predisposition to college. Research on differences based on parental characteristics has shown that expectations are greater among parents with higher incomes and higher levels of educational attainment (Fan 2001; Roscigno & Crowley 2001). In India, primarily the children are dependent on their parent’s choice from childhood up to the college entry level. A study and survey involving parental expectations and its consequences will help the parents to understand the importance of realistic expectations and it will be more useful for the well-being and growth of Indian adolescents.24 1.6. Self-esteem The concept of self provides a way to organize and integrate one’s life experiences involving cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of the self. The ‘self? has been viewed as a global self-worth and as a profile across domains. Global self-worth or self-esteem has been defined as “the overall value that one places on the self as a person in contrast to domain-specific evaluations of one’s competence or adequacy” (Harter, 1990). This suggests that judgments or perceptions of competence in specific domains are separate from an overall sense of self-worth but contributing to the level of self-worth. The term ‘self-perception’ include perceptions of competence in various domains, and the different domains often used in a research context are behavioral conduct, physical appearance, and scholastic and athletic competency (Harter, 1986). Other measures have also included psychological well-being and social and family relations as indicators of self-esteem (Ouvinen-Birgerstam, 1985). According to Rogers (1961), self-esteem is a personal judgment of worthiness. Rogerian theory states that people who have a consistent self-view across situations are psychologically healthier than people whose self-view is variable across situations (Pervin, Cervone, & Oliver, 2005). Thus, people with high self-esteem tend to have a consistent self-view. In Rogers’ (1961) view, self-esteem and self-concept are also affected by the degree of acceptance and positive regard received in daily social interaction. Positive, supportive social relationships increase psychological well-being and self-esteem (Pervin et al., 2005). Self-esteem reflects perceptions that do not always match reality (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger & Vohs, 2003). In the mid 1960s, Rosenberg (1965) and social-learning theorists defined self-esteem in terms of a stable sense of personal worth or worthiness. An adolescent’s self-esteem indicates a25 perception about whether he or she is intelligent and attractive, but that perception may not be accurate. Thus, high self-esteem may be accurate, justified perceptions of one’s worth as a person and one’s successes and the accomplishments but it can also indicate an arrogant, grandiose, unwarranted sense of superiority over others. In the same manner, low self-esteem is either an accurate perception of one’s shortcomings or a result of personal judgment of unworthiness, distorted, even pathological insecurity and_ inferiority (Santrock, 2007). Self-esteem has been predicted from perceived social support across relational contexts such as classroom, friends, and families (Harter, 1996; Harter, Bresnick, Bouchey, & Whitesell, 1997). Associations have also been indicated between higher self-esteem and secure attachment (Sroufe, 1988; Vershueren, Marcoen, & Scoefs, 1996), and a higher self-esteem and an internal locus of control, i.e. an attribution of success to internal causes (Wang, Kick, Fraser, & Burns, 1999). Self-esteem has predicted later educational and occupational attainment (Wang, et al., 1999). It is also thought to play a critical role in motivating behavior, which is important for school adjustment and achievement (Harter, 1986; Bandura, 1986). Self-esteem has been found to be mediating between social support and reduced levels of behavior problems among young adolescents (Moran & DuBois, 2002). Recent studies have focused on externalizing and aggressive behaviors of younger children in relation to their self-esteem. Low global self-esteem has been related to externalizing problems, aggression, and anti-social behavior, even after controlling for self-ratings of poor peer relations (Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2005; Fergusson & Horwood, 2002). It has also been stated that the most aggressive children, in comparison with non- aggressive children, have polarized and rigid self-systems (i.e. globally positive26 or negative). In yet another study, it was found that those who overestimate their competence and their relationships are at a greater risk for increased behavior problems (Edens, 1999). A few researchers have told that bullies generally do not have a lower self-esteem and even that continued deviant behaviors actually elevate self-esteem (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). High self- esteem also leads to aggression when it is threatened or disputed by others (Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000; Brendgen, Vitaro, Turgeon & Poulin, 2002; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; VanBoxtel, DeCastro, & Goossens, 2004). A high or unrealistically inflated sense of self-esteem and pride, ‘egotism’ or narcissism is thought to be related to aggressive behaviors in both children and adolescents (Baumeister et al., 2003; Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Hughes, Cavell & Grossman, 1997; Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993; Rudolph & Clark, 2001). Because of cognitive distortions (and probably a threatened self-esteem), children with externalizing behavior problems are hypothesized to easily interpret (and misinterpret) others being hostile, leading them to behave aggressively (Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey & Brown, 1986). Openshaw, Thomas and Rollins (1984) reported that adolescent’s self- esteem is more a function of the reflected appraisal of the parents than it was of adolescents’ aping their parents’ self-esteem. It was found that low self-esteem was associated with adolescents’ use of maladaptive achievement strategies which, in turn, were associated with their maladjustment at school and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors (Aunola, Nurmi & Stattin 2000). High self-esteem is a protective cover for adolescents exposed to multiple risks in their context (Luster & McAdoo, 1995). Hare (1984, 1985) described the usefulness of area-specific self-esteem. He used different sources of self-esteem such as peer groups, home environments, and school contexts to demonstrate that self-esteem outcomes vary between the context and the area-27 specific self-evaluation. Researchers, examined self-esteem in African American urban adolescents, and demonstrated that adolescents with more personal control over their environment tended to have higher ratings of self- esteem (Chapman & Mullis, 2000; Fenzel, Magaletta, & Peyrot, 1997; Mandara & Murray, 2000; Zimmerman, Ramirez-Valles, & Maton, 1999). Hence, a key variable relating to behavior problems of adolescents is self-esteem. Many studies have focused on both individual predisposition toward behavior problem and on the environmental circumstance likely to precipitate the problems. There has been a long standing correlation between low self-esteem and behavior problems. Self-esteem can be used to predict behavior problems and possible occurrence of depression, anxiety etc. (Nunley, 1996). Research indicates that self-esteem acts as an “anxiety-buffer” with those with high self-esteem coping significantly better with stressful situations than those with low self-esteem (Elton, Burrows & Stanley, 1980; Greenberg, et al., 1992). 1.7. Optimism Optimism and pessimism exert a great deal of influence on decision- making, risk-taking, and physical and mental health (Chang, 2001), but existing research on optimism and pessimism is fraught with disagreements about the definitions of optimism-pessimism as well as disagreements about the relation of optimism to pessimism (Peterson & Chang, 2003). The most accepted description of the constructs is Scheier and Carver’s (1985) view of optimism and pessimism as generalized positive and negative outcome expectancies. Other investigators (Dember, Martin, Hummer, Howe & Melton, 1989) have defined those constructs more broadly as a positive and negative outlook on life. Scheier and Carver (1985) conceptualized optimism-pessimism as relating28 to future expectations only. Dember et al. (1989) include present perceptions as well as future expectations in their model of optimism. Researchers have also differentiated optimistic and pessimistic explanatory styles (Peterson & Seligman, 1987), optimistic biases or illusions (Taylor & Brown, 1988), unrealistic optimism (Weinstein & Klein, 1996), unrealistic pessimism (Dolinksi, Gromski, & Zawisza, 1987) and defensive pessimism (Norem & Cantor, 1986). All those models may be interrelated but have distinct cognitive processes. Optimism is a generalized tendency to expect positive outcomes or the belief that “good rather than bad things will happen in a person’s life” (Scheier & Carver, 1993). Optimism has been identified as performing a self-regulatory function within control theory, which postulates that as long as an individual’s expectancies of eventual success are sufficiently favorable, they are likely to be engaged in efforts to reach desired goals, despite adversities that may arise (Carver & Scheier, 1981). Lazarus (1991) in his Cognitive-Motivational- Relational (CMR) theory of emotion also identifies the self-regulatory role of optimism and identifies self-esteem as a belief that moderates the person’s relationship to the environment by influencing appraisal and coping and thus potentially mitigating the damaging effects of stress and adaptation. The CMR theory provides a framework to understand adaptation to salient life events or stressful situations. During an appraisal, an individual evaluates the importance and meaning (based on beliefs, goals and/or personal commitments) of an event or situation and responds at an emotional level if the event or situation is appraised as relevant. Optimism is referred to as an appraisal style within this framework as this predisposition can influence the way an individual thinks, feels and acts in a particular situation.29 High pessimism and low optimism appear to be directly or indirectly linked to feelings of hopelessness and other psychological symptoms (Chang, 2002). Hardin and Leong (2005) found that optimism and pessimism mediated the relations between ideal, ought and undesired self-discrepancies and emotional distress. In both Asian and European Americans, pessimism predicted higher levels of both depression and social anxiety, and lack of optimism predicted higher levels of social anxiety. Pessimism also fully mediated the relation between undesired self-discrepancies and depressive symptoms. Optimism is also related to psychological benefits such as greater life satisfaction, more positive affect and fewer depressive symptoms (Chang, 1998; Chang & Sanna, 2001; Marshall, Wortman, Kuslas, Hervig, & Vickers, 1992; Scheier, Carver & Bridges, 2001), while pessimism was found to be related to more depressive symptoms, negative affect and psychological stress (Chang, 1998; Strunk, Lopez & DeRubeis, 2006). Generalized expectancies function as schemas that can either facilitate or retard and inhibit healthy psychological functioning, Although success is generally thought to induce high ability, failure may be beyond one’s control and thus does not necessarily result in low ability. Therefore, although failure experiences lead to negative expectancies, these expectancies need not necessarily imply self-worth. Dispositional optimism and pessimism, i.e. positive and negative outcome expectancies for the future, have contrasting effects on physical and psychological well-being and adjustment. Pessimism, not optimism, is often the more important perpetrator for outcomes such as mortality (Schulz, Bookwala, Knapp, Scheier, & Williamson, 1996), anxiety, perceived stress, and self-rated health (Robinson-Whelen, Kim, MacCallum, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1997). Hence, optimism is also an important factor that influences behavior problems in adolescents.30 1.8. School environment School is considered one of the important factors for the social and emotional development; however it can also be a source of negative life events Research has proved that school is the most important stabilizing force in the lives of young people next to family. Studies also show that school climate can affect many areas and pupils within schools, For example, a positive school climate has been associated with fewer behavior and emotional problems for students (Kuperminc, Leadbeater, Emmons & Blatt, 1997). Specific research on school climate in high-risk urban environments indicates that a positive, supportive, and culturally conscious school climate can significantly shape the degree of academic success experienced by urban students (Haynes & Comer, 1993). Furthermore, researchers have found that positive perceptions of school climate are protective factors for boys and may supply high-risk students witha supportive learning environment yielding healthy development, as well as preventing antisocial behavior (Haynes, 1998; Kupermine et al., 1997). Characteristics of schools, such as the physical structure of a school building and the interactions between students and teachers, are two diverse factors that help to define the broad concept of school climate. Freiberg (1998) states, “school climate can be a positive influence on the health of the learning environment or a significant barrier to learning”. Positive school climate, by definition, is characterized by strong collaborative learning communities (National School Climate Council, 2007). Further, researchers have identified the following factors that influence school climate: 1. number and quality of interactions between adults and students (Kuperminc, Leadbeater, & Blatt, 2001), 2. students’ perception and teachers’ perception of their school environment, or the school’s personality (Johnson, Johnson, & Zimmerman, 1996), 3. environmental factors (such as the physical buildings and classrooms,31 and materials used for instruction), 4. academic performance (Johnson & Johnson, 1993), 5. feelings of safeness and school size (Freiberg, 1998), 6. feelings of trust and respect for students and teachers (Manning & Saddlemire, 1996). According to Fend and Prester (1986), school environment includes control by teacher, pressure to achieve, possibilities for students to participate, competition among pupil and peer acceptance. Therefore, school climate is multi-dimensional and influences many individuals, including students, parents, school personnel, and the community. Teachers’ strategies to handle what happens in the classroom are an important aspect of teacher roles. When the classroom climate is comfortable and children are positive toward schoolwork, and the relationships are positive, various strategies will function well. A general finding has been that externalizing problems, such as aggressive and disruptive behaviors, are especially disturbing to teachers (Coleman & Gilliam, 1983; Mullen & Wood, 1986; Stephenson, Lindfoot, & Martin, 2000). Consequently, the choices of strategies dealing with these behaviors are probably most precarious. About 20% of the teachers were found to lack confidence in their ability to handle children’s problematic behaviors (Stephenson, et al., 2000). However, knowledge about teacher beliefs and factors that may influence teacher’s strategies and their relation to children’s behavioral development is scarce (Vartuli, 1999). Praise or rewards for good behavior, and the use of reprimands and punitive sanctions have used over the years (Mayer, 1999; Short & Short, 1989; Tulley & Chiu, 1998). There is accordance among many researchers that efficient teacher management is an important prerequisite for effective classroom teaching and learning (Opdenakker & VanDamme, 2006; Wheldall & Beaman, 1998). However, it is important to understand the reason behind individual differences in classroom management or disciplinary strategies.32 Teacher orientation is a concept related to teacher attitude and has been widely used to describe teachers’ desired behaviors and practices in the classroom. A custodial orientation implies controlling attitudes, a focus on the maintenance of order, the teachers favoring punitive sanctions, and impersonal teacher- student relationships. In contrast, teachers with a humanistic orientation, favor a classroom climate of open interaction and communication, close teacher- student relationships, student initiatives and flexibility of rules. Students are considered responsible and able to exert self-discipline (Lunenburg & Schmidt, 1989; Schmidt & Jacobson, 1990). A few studies have indicated that teacher criticism and children’s feelings of stress and helplessness have been associated with children’s negative self-judgments (Heyman, Dweck & Cain, 1992; Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997). Children’s peer relationships are also important in their social functioning, and are even more important as the child approaches adolescence. By middle childhood, more than 30% of children’s social interactions involve peers. Social position, i.¢., standing in the peer group, is mainly defined by the extent to which a child is accepted by and seen as an attractive partner to those around him or her. The other aspect is the child’s satisfaction with his or her situation with peers - that he or she does not feel lonely but experiences social fulfillment in daily life. The nature of children’s relationships with peers can also have an impact on their behavioral and school adjustment, and both poor peer acceptance and self-perceived loneliness are assumed to be negatively associated with well-being and other aspects of social adjustment. Loneliness and peer acceptance express the child’s peer relationships as seen from the inside and from the outside and the possible differentiation of these two phenomena would probably extend our understanding of children’s social world.= Adolescents spend a large proportion of their day in school pursuing school-related activities. While the primary purpose of school is the academic development of students, its effects on adolescents are far broader, also encompassing their physical and mental health, safety, civic engagement, and social development. Further, its effects on all these outcomes are produced through a variety of activities including formal pedagogy, after-school programs, caretaking activities (e.g., feeding, providing a safe environment) as well as the informal social environment created by students and staff on a daily basis. Schools, more comprehensively as an environment affects multiple aspects of adolescent development. Research has repeatedly demonstrated the interconnectedness between safety and health affecting the academic environment, academics affecting health and social development. Research on school climate suggests that positive interpersonal relationships and optimal learning opportunities for students in all demographic environments can increase achievement levels and reduce maladaptive behavior (McEvoy & Welker, 2000). At the level of the group, children’s peer relationships are often characterized by social acceptance (popular vs. neglected or rejected), by visibility in the group, the connection to the other members (network centrality) or of dominance and reputation (Grifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). At the most general level, peer acceptance or socio-metric status refers to the degree to which children are liked or disliked by their peers. Reis, Trockel and Mulhall (2007) reported that elements of school climate were found to be a factor in the psychological adjustment of middle school students. What children learn about themselves in school through interaction is equally important as the academic knowledge they receive. School climate, if positive, can provide an enriching environment, both for personal growth and academic success.34 1.9. Social support Social support functions as a buffer or protection when stress arises. Implicit in this view is the idea that to be helpful, support that is provided must be appropriate to the needs the stress creates. According to this view, individuals experiencing high levels of stress should display relatively low levels of psychological difficulties and physical symptoms if they have good support (Sarason & Sarason, 2009). An alternative perspective focuses on the availability of support regardless of the particular set of circumstances. From this perspective, social support resembles a component of personality that influences multiple facets of a person's life and how it develops. Bowlby's (1982) attachment theory expresses similar idea in its concern with the role of social ties in personal development. Bowlby (1982) defined attachment as an interpersonal bond that has important developmental implications. According to this theory, the child seeks proximity to the mother when stress arises, but her contribution goes far beyond providing a stress buffer for the child. Attachment protects the child but also contributes to a cognitive and behavioral repertory of skills and outcome expectations. Secure attachment provides an environment for personal growth, including curiosity, learning to take reasonable risks in solving problems and the ability to take initiatives. With secure attachment, the child acquires skills that facilitate coping and avoid stressors that will otherwise be overwhelming. The theory emphasizes the individual differences in the capacity to form and benefit from social attachments. Research on the relational self provides additional evidence consistent with the bidirectionality of social ties and the support they provide (Andersen & Chen, 2002). The relational self is the self in relation to others and evolves in the course of life. It is a person's conceptualization of relationships that arise from experiences in interpersonal encounters. Most people have multiple35 relational selves that differ with regard to the features of situations and the aspects of personality they activate. Social support is being linked to relational selves, the sense of support available from particular others and from people in general being part of an individual's orientation to interpersonal relationships. Perceptions of support reduce fear of failure and anticipations of danger because of the availability of caring providers. Consequently, they free the individual to attend to the realities of situations, explore alternative. It can take a bidirectional perspective that integrates what people bring to situations with what situations do to them. Personal relationships grow in a mixture of the objective (what happens) and the subjective (what each person is thinking about, able to do, and looking for). Although it might not be perfect, for each participant in a relationship there is a certain person-environment fit. Children and adults differ in their temperaments and the need for interpersonal exchanges of various types. Chess and Thomas (1990) showed that children with certain temperamental traits are more likely to avoid developing serious behavioral problems, if their parents are able to take account of their child's temperament, provide pertinent support (love, attention, acceptance) and avoid creating a stressful environment. The bidirectional view focuses attention on the match between the participants in a relationship. From this perspective, support is not simply a matter of matching social provisions with needs, but also matching people with each other based on their cognitive and behavioral styles. Murberg & Bru (2004) observed that support from parents’ moderate the relationship between negative life events and emotional problems among adolescent girls. Moreover, support from parents, friends and teachers was directly, negatively associated with emotional problems in both the genders. DeWit et al. (2000) has indicated that students’ exposure to an unfavorable school culture (marked by perceptions of low teacher and classmate support,