Indian Journal of Health Social Work
Menu
PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT AND EGO RESILIENCE IN SCHOOL
GOING ADOLESCENTS: A GENDER BASED STUDY
Lokesh Kumar Ranjan1, Anand M Ghadse2, Pramod R Gupta3
1Psychiatric Social Worker, Central India Institute of Mental Health Neuro Sciences, Dewada,
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, India. 2Occupational Therapist, Central India institute of mental health
and Neuro Science, Dewada, Rajnanadgaon, Chhattisgarh, India. 3Psychiatrist and Director, Central
India institute of mental health and Neuro Science, Dewada, Rajnanadgaon, Chhattisgarh, India.
Correspondence: Lokesh Kumar Ranjan, e-mail: lokeshr00@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Background –
Adolescence stage is a confused stage. At this stage for adolescent there is need of detachment from parents but on the other side there is also a challenge to be independent from parents. Person’s physical and mental health can be maintained through perceived social support and ego resiliency. It refers to the ability to adapt to constantly varying situations and regulate emotions effectively.
Aim-
To assess and compare the perceived social support and ego resilience among the school going adolescents.
Method-
The present study included 240 adolescents who were the students of the class 10th, 11th, and 12th grade of Delhi public school Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh India. Male and female students were selected randomly from each grade. The sample included 120 female adolescents and 120 male adolescents. Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support and Ego- Resilience Scale were used for the assessment of socio-demographic and clinical details of all the adolescents.
Results-
This study found that female has more perceived social support and ego resilience as compare to male and has positive correlation with school going adolescents.
Conclusion-
The perceived social support is directly proportional to ego resilience. In female social support is better than male as a result of this ego resilience is also better in female as compare to male.
Background –
Adolescence stage is a confused stage. At this stage for adolescent there is need of detachment from parents but on the other side there is also a challenge to be independent from parents. Person’s physical and mental health can be maintained through perceived social support and ego resiliency. It refers to the ability to adapt to constantly varying situations and regulate emotions effectively.
Aim-
To assess and compare the perceived social support and ego resilience among the school going adolescents.
Method-
The present study included 240 adolescents who were the students of the class 10th, 11th, and 12th grade of Delhi public school Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh India. Male and female students were selected randomly from each grade. The sample included 120 female adolescents and 120 male adolescents. Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support and Ego- Resilience Scale were used for the assessment of socio-demographic and clinical details of all the adolescents.
Results-
This study found that female has more perceived social support and ego resilience as compare to male and has positive correlation with school going adolescents.
Conclusion-
The perceived social support is directly proportional to ego resilience. In female social support is better than male as a result of this ego resilience is also better in female as compare to male.
Keywords- Perceived social support, ego resiliency, adolescents, gender.
INTRODUCTION
In a person’s life usually large cognitive, emotional, social, and physical changes are major transitional period in adolescence. Adolescence has been referred as a sensitive stage due to brain development, a phase in the life-span where susceptible towards development of depression is heightened (Andersen &Teicher, 2008).In adolescents, concerning family relations , school performance, interpersonal relationships (friends and romantic partners), and financial restraints are some stressful situation that experienced by individuals (Moksnes, 2010). According to the Planning Commission (2001), Adolescents account for one fifth of the world’s population. This implies 230 million (22.8%) Indians are adolescents in the age group of 10 to 19 years. In India’s population with every third person belonging to the age 10-24 years accounts for 373 million (30.9%) adolescents (Central bureau of Health Intelligence, 2012). Social support resources include family and relatives, friends, opposite sex, teachers, colleagues, neighbors, and ideological and religious groups or ethnic groups (Yildi, 1997). Hence, social support network can lead to positive health outcomes. Whereas, lack of social support will in turn create unhealthy state and delinquent behavior (Cohen & Wills, 1985 ) .Besides social s upports’ direct relationship with being healthy and feeling good, it is effective in reducing the impact of stressful life events (Eskisu, 2009).People who are social entities call people to support them when they have psychological problems. As natural supportive resources, social support resources play a role in facilitating the solution of psychological problems (Eker et al., 2001).Social support has also been linked to academic achievement. Here, the assumption is that a higher perception of support functions as a buffer against stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985).Social support seems to play this buffering role since it improves achievement at all educational levels of the students (Rosenfeld et al., 2000).
Block and Block (2006) stated that ego- Resiliency represents a protective factor against negative outcomes in major domains of life. There are a better adjustment and higher attainments at all stages of resilient in an individual’s life (Block, & Block, 1980). Ego-resiliency is a safe attachment and better preschool problem-solving ability in infancy (Arend et al., 1979). It is associated with empathic behavior toward peers, adaptability and social ly competent behaviors under stressing circumstances in childhood (Eisenberg et al., 2004 & Luthar, 1991). On the other hand, low levels of ego – resiliency predicted later use of age -Inappropriate defense of denial (Cramer, & Block, 1998) and were related to children’s egocentrism, although with different implications for boys and girls (Gjerde et al., 1988).
OBJECTIVES
1. To assess and compare sociodemographic among male and female with school going adolescents.
2. To assess and compare perceived social support among male and female with school going adolescents.
3. To assess and compare ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents
4. To the relationship of perceived social support and ego resilience with school going adolescents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research study was a cross-sectional comparative study among the male and female with school going adolescents. The present study included 240 adolescents who are the students of the class10th, 11th, and 12thgrade of Delhi public school Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh, India. The samples were selected randomly which included 120 female adolescents and 120 male adolescents. Male and female students were selected from each grade. Rapport was established by explaining the importance and the relevance of the study. Pa r t i ci pant s we re as s ur ed tha t the i r responses would be kept confidential and utilized only for the research purpose. They were asked to complete the questionnaires by following the instructions written on the top of the first page. Data was collected on the month of October 2018.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criterion Inclusion criteria for adolescents:
1. Age ranges of adolescents were between 15-19 years,
2. Adolescents of both sex,
3. Adolescents with written informed consent.
4. Exclusion criteria for adolescents: –
5. Age less than 15 and more than 19 years,
6. Adolescents without written informed consent.
TOOLS
Socio-demographic datasheet: The socio-demographic datasheet was semistructured and developed for the present study, and consisted of variables like age, sex, education, family income, and domicile.
Multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS):
It was developed by Zimet et al., (1988). MSPSS was used to assess the perceived social support. The scale evaluates the adequacy of social support received from three different sources namely family, friends and significant others. The scale has 12 items. Each item of the scale has 7 point options (1, very strongly disagree to 7, very strongly agree). Total scores range from 12 to 84. High scores indicate high social support. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency with an alpha coefficient of 0.85–0.91. Each item of the scale has 7 options which range.
Ego-Resilience Scale (ER89):
It was developed by Block &Kremen (1996) and was determined to have an adequate level of internal consistency (Cronbach‘s á = .82). The ER89 is comprised of 14 items, each rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale.Response options range from 1 (does not apply at all) to 4 (applies very strongly). Scores are determined by summing each item, with total scores ranging from 14 to 56.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The statistical analysis was done using Statistical Packages for the Social Science (SPSS)-16 software package for windows. For socio-demographic and variables, descriptive statistics were used such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation (SD). Chi square test was used for comparing categorical variables and t test was used for comparing continuous variables. Significance level of P<0.05 and P<0.01 was set at the outset of the study.
RESULTS
Table 1: Comparison of age among male and female with school going adolescents
INTRODUCTION
In a person’s life usually large cognitive, emotional, social, and physical changes are major transitional period in adolescence. Adolescence has been referred as a sensitive stage due to brain development, a phase in the life-span where susceptible towards development of depression is heightened (Andersen &Teicher, 2008).In adolescents, concerning family relations , school performance, interpersonal relationships (friends and romantic partners), and financial restraints are some stressful situation that experienced by individuals (Moksnes, 2010). According to the Planning Commission (2001), Adolescents account for one fifth of the world’s population. This implies 230 million (22.8%) Indians are adolescents in the age group of 10 to 19 years. In India’s population with every third person belonging to the age 10-24 years accounts for 373 million (30.9%) adolescents (Central bureau of Health Intelligence, 2012). Social support resources include family and relatives, friends, opposite sex, teachers, colleagues, neighbors, and ideological and religious groups or ethnic groups (Yildi, 1997). Hence, social support network can lead to positive health outcomes. Whereas, lack of social support will in turn create unhealthy state and delinquent behavior (Cohen & Wills, 1985 ) .Besides social s upports’ direct relationship with being healthy and feeling good, it is effective in reducing the impact of stressful life events (Eskisu, 2009).People who are social entities call people to support them when they have psychological problems. As natural supportive resources, social support resources play a role in facilitating the solution of psychological problems (Eker et al., 2001).Social support has also been linked to academic achievement. Here, the assumption is that a higher perception of support functions as a buffer against stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985).Social support seems to play this buffering role since it improves achievement at all educational levels of the students (Rosenfeld et al., 2000).
Block and Block (2006) stated that ego- Resiliency represents a protective factor against negative outcomes in major domains of life. There are a better adjustment and higher attainments at all stages of resilient in an individual’s life (Block, & Block, 1980). Ego-resiliency is a safe attachment and better preschool problem-solving ability in infancy (Arend et al., 1979). It is associated with empathic behavior toward peers, adaptability and social ly competent behaviors under stressing circumstances in childhood (Eisenberg et al., 2004 & Luthar, 1991). On the other hand, low levels of ego – resiliency predicted later use of age -Inappropriate defense of denial (Cramer, & Block, 1998) and were related to children’s egocentrism, although with different implications for boys and girls (Gjerde et al., 1988).
OBJECTIVES
1. To assess and compare sociodemographic among male and female with school going adolescents.
2. To assess and compare perceived social support among male and female with school going adolescents.
3. To assess and compare ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents
4. To the relationship of perceived social support and ego resilience with school going adolescents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research study was a cross-sectional comparative study among the male and female with school going adolescents. The present study included 240 adolescents who are the students of the class10th, 11th, and 12thgrade of Delhi public school Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh, India. The samples were selected randomly which included 120 female adolescents and 120 male adolescents. Male and female students were selected from each grade. Rapport was established by explaining the importance and the relevance of the study. Pa r t i ci pant s we re as s ur ed tha t the i r responses would be kept confidential and utilized only for the research purpose. They were asked to complete the questionnaires by following the instructions written on the top of the first page. Data was collected on the month of October 2018.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criterion Inclusion criteria for adolescents:
1. Age ranges of adolescents were between 15-19 years,
2. Adolescents of both sex,
3. Adolescents with written informed consent.
4. Exclusion criteria for adolescents: –
5. Age less than 15 and more than 19 years,
6. Adolescents without written informed consent.
TOOLS
Socio-demographic datasheet: The socio-demographic datasheet was semistructured and developed for the present study, and consisted of variables like age, sex, education, family income, and domicile.
Multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS):
It was developed by Zimet et al., (1988). MSPSS was used to assess the perceived social support. The scale evaluates the adequacy of social support received from three different sources namely family, friends and significant others. The scale has 12 items. Each item of the scale has 7 point options (1, very strongly disagree to 7, very strongly agree). Total scores range from 12 to 84. High scores indicate high social support. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency with an alpha coefficient of 0.85–0.91. Each item of the scale has 7 options which range.
Ego-Resilience Scale (ER89):
It was developed by Block &Kremen (1996) and was determined to have an adequate level of internal consistency (Cronbach‘s á = .82). The ER89 is comprised of 14 items, each rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale.Response options range from 1 (does not apply at all) to 4 (applies very strongly). Scores are determined by summing each item, with total scores ranging from 14 to 56.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The statistical analysis was done using Statistical Packages for the Social Science (SPSS)-16 software package for windows. For socio-demographic and variables, descriptive statistics were used such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation (SD). Chi square test was used for comparing categorical variables and t test was used for comparing continuous variables. Significance level of P<0.05 and P<0.01 was set at the outset of the study.
RESULTS
Table 1: Comparison of age among male and female with school going adolescents
N=Number, SD=Standard deviation
Table 1 shows that mean age and standard deviation (SD) of male (16.42±0.91) and female (16.20±0.94) with school going adolescents. There was no significant difference in the age among male and female with school going adolescents (t=1.871, P<0.05).
Table 2: Comparison socio-demographic details among male and female with school going adolescents
Table 1 shows that mean age and standard deviation (SD) of male (16.42±0.91) and female (16.20±0.94) with school going adolescents. There was no significant difference in the age among male and female with school going adolescents (t=1.871, P<0.05).
Table 2: Comparison socio-demographic details among male and female with school going adolescents
N=Number, df=Degree of freedom, NS=Not significant
Table 2 reveals that there was no significant difference in education and family income between both groups. In education, the number of adolescents who belonged to 10th class (21.7% male and 15.0% female)and 12th class (38.3% male and 37.5% female) were higher in comparison to adolescents who belonged to 11th class in both the groups. Results also show most of the family income of adolescents was belonged to middle class (55.8% and 52.5%) in both the groups.
Table3: Comparison of the perceived social support among male and female with school going adolescents
Table 2 reveals that there was no significant difference in education and family income between both groups. In education, the number of adolescents who belonged to 10th class (21.7% male and 15.0% female)and 12th class (38.3% male and 37.5% female) were higher in comparison to adolescents who belonged to 11th class in both the groups. Results also show most of the family income of adolescents was belonged to middle class (55.8% and 52.5%) in both the groups.
Table3: Comparison of the perceived social support among male and female with school going adolescents
*P<0.05, N=Number, SD=Standard deviation
Table 3 shows the comparison of perceived social support among male and female with school going adolescents using independent t-test which indicated that there were no significant differences in the domains of family (t=0.538) & significant difference found in friend (t=1.785, P<.05), significant other (t=1.659, P<0.05), and total perceived social support(t=1.662, P<0.05)in both the groups. Finding of this study showed that perceived social support was more in female as compare to male with school going adolescents.
Table 4: Comparison of the ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents.
Table 3 shows the comparison of perceived social support among male and female with school going adolescents using independent t-test which indicated that there were no significant differences in the domains of family (t=0.538) & significant difference found in friend (t=1.785, P<.05), significant other (t=1.659, P<0.05), and total perceived social support(t=1.662, P<0.05)in both the groups. Finding of this study showed that perceived social support was more in female as compare to male with school going adolescents.
Table 4: Comparison of the ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents.
* P<0.05, N=Number, SD=Standard deviation
Table-4 Shows mean score and SD (Standard deviation) of the ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents. The mean and SD of ego resilience in male was 36.13 ± 4.37 and female was 37.07 ±4.31. Result reveals that there was no significant difference found in ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents (t=1.679, P<0.05). Finding of this study showed that ego resilience was more in female as compare to male with school going adolescents.
Table 5: The relationship between perceived social support and ego resilience with school going adolescents.
Table-4 Shows mean score and SD (Standard deviation) of the ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents. The mean and SD of ego resilience in male was 36.13 ± 4.37 and female was 37.07 ±4.31. Result reveals that there was no significant difference found in ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents (t=1.679, P<0.05). Finding of this study showed that ego resilience was more in female as compare to male with school going adolescents.
Table 5: The relationship between perceived social support and ego resilience with school going adolescents.
The table 5 shows the correlation between perceived social support and ego resilience with
school going adolescents. The Pearson correlation was calculated to see the relationship between
these variables. The findings reveal that the significant positive correlation was found between
perceived social support and ego resilience with school going adolescents (P<0.01). It means
that as perceived social support become better than ego resilience also became better.
DISCUSSION
Findings of this study show that perceived social support and ego resilience were more in female adolescents in comparison to male adolescents. Some earlier studies were also supports present findings as Sun & Stewart (2007) reported that girls having better and positive connections with parents, teachers and peer relations than boys. In another study it has found that female adolescents having more perceived support structure received from parents, peers and other as compared to male adolescents (Mahaffy, 2004). It has seen that female adolescents as compared to male adolescents are more oriented toward peers for social support and they are also more satisfied with the support gained from their peers (Colarossi, 2001). Dumont and Provost(1999) found out in their study that female adolescents are generally having better social networks and are more open in socializing with their peers. In another study it has found that girls more cope with daily stressors by seeking social support and utilising social resources compared to male adolescents (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993).It has seen that girls evaluated a higher amount of perceived interpersonal stress and getting social support more than boys (Hampel & Petermann, 2005). Finding of this study showed that there was no significant difference found in ego resilience but ego resilience was more in female as compare to male with school going adolescents. The result of this study regarding gender differences in ego resilience is inconsistent with those of other earlier studies. Hampel & Petermann (2005) found that girls have been using resilience factors such as seeking and getting support more than boys. In another study it has found that the resilience subscales on empathy and helpseeking decrease with girls students having higher scores than boys (Sun & Stewart, 2007).It has seen that higher scores in girls than boys in communication, empathy, helpseeking and goals and aspiration which are related to social relations and social skills development are consistent (Broderick & Korteland, 2002).
The finding reveals that the significant positive correlation was found between perceived social support and ego resilience with school going adolescents. It means that as perceived social support become better the ego resilience also became better. Some earlier studies also support this such as Achour and Nor (2014) conducted a study and found that there exists a positive and significant correlation between resilience and social support. In another study it has found that resilience model is emphasized promotive factors (assets and resources), with social support as a main resource contributing to resilience. Social support was found to be signi ficantly posi tively associated wi th resilience (Fergus and Zimmerman’s, 2005).It has seen that social support as a buffer against the negative effects of stressful events, it is reasonable, then, that social support would be integral to and positively associated with resilience (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Individuals with high resiliency have personal qualities such as an internal locus of control, empathy, constructive self- image, hopefulness, an ability to consolidate daily responsibilities, and the ability to adjust effectively by reacting flexibly to varying situational needs. The concept of resilience has a strong importance during the adolescence stage with its ever changing emotional states and responses. Resilience assists healthy, well-adjusted individuals to cope better with everyday hassles, preparing them for future challenges, and possible adversity. Ego resilient individuals would experience lower levels of perceived stress and would use more effective coping strategies to handle such stress. This study is based on cross-sectional research design to assess and compare a gender difference among perceived social support and ego resilience in school going adolescents Findings of this study indicate that perceived social support and ego resilience were more in female adolescents in comparison to male adolescents. There was no significant difference found in ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents. The perceived social support and ego resilience were found positive correlation with school going adolescents. It means that if perceived social support become better the ego resilience also became better simultaneously. It is needed that adolescent’s resilience could be promoted through giving continuous encouragement, enhancement of their selfesteem and self-confidence as well as promoting their independence.
REFERENCES
Achour, M., & Nor, M. R. M. (2014). The effects of social support and resilience on life satisfaction of secondary school students.Journal of Academic and Applied Studies , 4(1), 12-20.
Ander sen, S. L., &Tei che r, M. H. (2008).Stress, sensitive periods and maturational events in adolescent depression.Trends in Neurosci-ences, 31, 183-191.
Arend, R., Gove, F. L., &Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Continuity of individual adaptation from infancy to kindergarten: A predictive study of ego-resiliency and curiosity in preschoolers . Child Development, 950-959.
Block, J., &Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and egoresiliency: conceptual and empirical connections and separateness . Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(2), 349.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (2006).Venturing a 30- year longitudinal study.American Psychologist, 61, 315-327.
Block, J.H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of egocontrol and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposiaon child psychology , 13, 39–101.
Broderick, P. C., &Korteland, C. (2002). Coping style and depressio n i n early adolescence: Relationships to gender, gender role, and implicit beliefs. Sex Roles , 46(7-8), 201-213.
DISCUSSION
Findings of this study show that perceived social support and ego resilience were more in female adolescents in comparison to male adolescents. Some earlier studies were also supports present findings as Sun & Stewart (2007) reported that girls having better and positive connections with parents, teachers and peer relations than boys. In another study it has found that female adolescents having more perceived support structure received from parents, peers and other as compared to male adolescents (Mahaffy, 2004). It has seen that female adolescents as compared to male adolescents are more oriented toward peers for social support and they are also more satisfied with the support gained from their peers (Colarossi, 2001). Dumont and Provost(1999) found out in their study that female adolescents are generally having better social networks and are more open in socializing with their peers. In another study it has found that girls more cope with daily stressors by seeking social support and utilising social resources compared to male adolescents (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993).It has seen that girls evaluated a higher amount of perceived interpersonal stress and getting social support more than boys (Hampel & Petermann, 2005). Finding of this study showed that there was no significant difference found in ego resilience but ego resilience was more in female as compare to male with school going adolescents. The result of this study regarding gender differences in ego resilience is inconsistent with those of other earlier studies. Hampel & Petermann (2005) found that girls have been using resilience factors such as seeking and getting support more than boys. In another study it has found that the resilience subscales on empathy and helpseeking decrease with girls students having higher scores than boys (Sun & Stewart, 2007).It has seen that higher scores in girls than boys in communication, empathy, helpseeking and goals and aspiration which are related to social relations and social skills development are consistent (Broderick & Korteland, 2002).
The finding reveals that the significant positive correlation was found between perceived social support and ego resilience with school going adolescents. It means that as perceived social support become better the ego resilience also became better. Some earlier studies also support this such as Achour and Nor (2014) conducted a study and found that there exists a positive and significant correlation between resilience and social support. In another study it has found that resilience model is emphasized promotive factors (assets and resources), with social support as a main resource contributing to resilience. Social support was found to be signi ficantly posi tively associated wi th resilience (Fergus and Zimmerman’s, 2005).It has seen that social support as a buffer against the negative effects of stressful events, it is reasonable, then, that social support would be integral to and positively associated with resilience (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Individuals with high resiliency have personal qualities such as an internal locus of control, empathy, constructive self- image, hopefulness, an ability to consolidate daily responsibilities, and the ability to adjust effectively by reacting flexibly to varying situational needs. The concept of resilience has a strong importance during the adolescence stage with its ever changing emotional states and responses. Resilience assists healthy, well-adjusted individuals to cope better with everyday hassles, preparing them for future challenges, and possible adversity. Ego resilient individuals would experience lower levels of perceived stress and would use more effective coping strategies to handle such stress. This study is based on cross-sectional research design to assess and compare a gender difference among perceived social support and ego resilience in school going adolescents Findings of this study indicate that perceived social support and ego resilience were more in female adolescents in comparison to male adolescents. There was no significant difference found in ego resilience among male and female with school going adolescents. The perceived social support and ego resilience were found positive correlation with school going adolescents. It means that if perceived social support become better the ego resilience also became better simultaneously. It is needed that adolescent’s resilience could be promoted through giving continuous encouragement, enhancement of their selfesteem and self-confidence as well as promoting their independence.
REFERENCES
Achour, M., & Nor, M. R. M. (2014). The effects of social support and resilience on life satisfaction of secondary school students.Journal of Academic and Applied Studies , 4(1), 12-20.
Ander sen, S. L., &Tei che r, M. H. (2008).Stress, sensitive periods and maturational events in adolescent depression.Trends in Neurosci-ences, 31, 183-191.
Arend, R., Gove, F. L., &Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Continuity of individual adaptation from infancy to kindergarten: A predictive study of ego-resiliency and curiosity in preschoolers . Child Development, 950-959.
Block, J., &Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and egoresiliency: conceptual and empirical connections and separateness . Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(2), 349.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (2006).Venturing a 30- year longitudinal study.American Psychologist, 61, 315-327.
Block, J.H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of egocontrol and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposiaon child psychology , 13, 39–101.
Broderick, P. C., &Korteland, C. (2002). Coping style and depressio n i n early adolescence: Relationships to gender, gender role, and implicit beliefs. Sex Roles , 46(7-8), 201-213.
Central bureau of Health Intelligence (2012,
June 18). National Health Profile 2011.
Prabhat Publicity, New Delhi .
Retrieved from http: / /
www.cbhidghs.nic.in
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985).Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.Psychological bulletin, 98(2), 310.
Colarossi, L. G. (2001). Adolescent gender differences in social support : Structure, function, and provider type. Social Work Research, 25(4), 233- 241.
Cramer, P., & Block, J. (1998). Preschool antecedents of defense mechanism use in young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 159.
Dumont , M., & Provost, M. A. (1999). Resilience in adolescents: Protective ro le of soc ial s uppor t , copi ng strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on experience of stress and depression. Journal of youth and adolescence, 28(3), 343-363.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S.A., & Murphy B. (2004) . The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children’s resiliency and adjustment.Child Development , 75, 25–46.
Eskisu, M. (2009) .Investigation of the relationship between the bullying grade, family functions and perceived social support among high school students.(Master’s Thesis, University of Istanbul Universi ty, I stanbul , Turkey).Ret r ieved f rom ht tps :/ / tez.yok.gov.tr.
Eker, D., Arkar, H., &Yaldýz, H. (2001).Factorial structure, validity, and reliability of revised form of the multidimensional s c ale of pe r ce i ve d s oci al support.Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 12(1), 17-25.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework fo r unde r s t anding he al t hy development in the face of risk. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 26, 399-419.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Boys play sport and girls turn to others: Age, gender and ethnicity as determinants of coping. Journal of adolescence, 16(3), 253.
Gjerde, P. F., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1988). Depressive symptoms and personality during late adolescence: Gender differences in the externalizationinternalization of symptom expression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 97(4), 475.
Hampel, P., &Petermann, F. (2005).Age and gender effects on coping in children and adolescents.Journal of youth and adolescence, 34(2), 73-83.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerabi l i ty and res i l ience: A s tudy of high- r is k adolescents. Child Development , 62, 600–616.
Mahaffy, K. A. (2004). Girls’ Low Self-Esteem: How I s I t Rel ate d t o Lat er socioeconomic Achievements?.Gender and Society, 18(3), 309-327.
Moksnes, U. K., Byrne, D. G., Mazanov, J., &Espnes, G. A. (2010). Adolescent st ress: Evaluat ion of the factor structure of the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire (ASQ-N). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 203-209
Planning Commission. (2001). Report of the Sub-Group on Adolescents for the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007).
Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, G. L. (2000). Social support networks and school outcomes: The centrality of the teacher. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal , 17(3), 205-226.
Sun, J., & Stewart, D. (2007).Age and gender effects on resilience in children and adolescents.International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 9(4), 16-25.
Yeldirin, Y. (1997). Development of perceived social support scale: A validity and reliability study. H.U Education Faculty Journal . 13. 81-87.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Fa r le y, G. K. (19 88) . T he multidimensional scale of perceived social support.Journal of personality assessment , 52(1), 30-41.
Conflict of interest: None
Role of funding source: None
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985).Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.Psychological bulletin, 98(2), 310.
Colarossi, L. G. (2001). Adolescent gender differences in social support : Structure, function, and provider type. Social Work Research, 25(4), 233- 241.
Cramer, P., & Block, J. (1998). Preschool antecedents of defense mechanism use in young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 159.
Dumont , M., & Provost, M. A. (1999). Resilience in adolescents: Protective ro le of soc ial s uppor t , copi ng strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on experience of stress and depression. Journal of youth and adolescence, 28(3), 343-363.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S.A., & Murphy B. (2004) . The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children’s resiliency and adjustment.Child Development , 75, 25–46.
Eskisu, M. (2009) .Investigation of the relationship between the bullying grade, family functions and perceived social support among high school students.(Master’s Thesis, University of Istanbul Universi ty, I stanbul , Turkey).Ret r ieved f rom ht tps :/ / tez.yok.gov.tr.
Eker, D., Arkar, H., &Yaldýz, H. (2001).Factorial structure, validity, and reliability of revised form of the multidimensional s c ale of pe r ce i ve d s oci al support.Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 12(1), 17-25.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework fo r unde r s t anding he al t hy development in the face of risk. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 26, 399-419.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Boys play sport and girls turn to others: Age, gender and ethnicity as determinants of coping. Journal of adolescence, 16(3), 253.
Gjerde, P. F., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1988). Depressive symptoms and personality during late adolescence: Gender differences in the externalizationinternalization of symptom expression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 97(4), 475.
Hampel, P., &Petermann, F. (2005).Age and gender effects on coping in children and adolescents.Journal of youth and adolescence, 34(2), 73-83.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerabi l i ty and res i l ience: A s tudy of high- r is k adolescents. Child Development , 62, 600–616.
Mahaffy, K. A. (2004). Girls’ Low Self-Esteem: How I s I t Rel ate d t o Lat er socioeconomic Achievements?.Gender and Society, 18(3), 309-327.
Moksnes, U. K., Byrne, D. G., Mazanov, J., &Espnes, G. A. (2010). Adolescent st ress: Evaluat ion of the factor structure of the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire (ASQ-N). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 203-209
Planning Commission. (2001). Report of the Sub-Group on Adolescents for the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007).
Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, G. L. (2000). Social support networks and school outcomes: The centrality of the teacher. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal , 17(3), 205-226.
Sun, J., & Stewart, D. (2007).Age and gender effects on resilience in children and adolescents.International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 9(4), 16-25.
Yeldirin, Y. (1997). Development of perceived social support scale: A validity and reliability study. H.U Education Faculty Journal . 13. 81-87.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Fa r le y, G. K. (19 88) . T he multidimensional scale of perceived social support.Journal of personality assessment , 52(1), 30-41.
Conflict of interest: None
Role of funding source: None
It’s a matter of great pride for me that All India Association of Medical Social Work Professionals is launching first issue of “Indian Journal of Health Social Work” on the auspicious occasion of 6th Annual National Conference of AIAMSWP, 2019.