See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340279130

A Study of Mental Health and Socio Economic Status among Youth

Research · October 2013

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18721.97128

CITATIONS READS

0 557

3 authors, including:

Roshan Lal Dahiya Rajesh Kumar

Panjab University Uttrakhand ayurved University
18 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Clinical pictures in ILD View project

Mental health View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roshan Lal Dahiya on 30 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Study of Mental Health and Socio Economic Status among Youth
Dr. Roshan Lal
Asst. Prof. Dept. of Psychology, Panjab University, Chandigarh
Shivani Sharma
M.A Psychology, (Final Year), IGNOU
Rajesh Kumar
Asst. Prof. Dept. of Psychology, P.G. Govt. College, Sector-46, Chandigarh

Abstract

Mental Health delineates either emotional or cognitive well being of an individual. When it is
absent it becomes a mental disorder. From the disciplinary viewpoint of positive psychology, mental
health is all about the ability of an individual to enjoy life to the fullest and maintain a balance between
the life efforts and life activities. Good mental health helps in successful adaptation in the
surroundings. The major concern these days is the mental health among youth. It is an imperative
concept. The major factor affecting their mental health is the socio economic status. There is a high
level of inferiority amongst youth regarding this factor. It is believed that low socio economic status is
a risk factor for mental illness. The current study has been designed to study the mental health and
socio economic status of the youth. The sample consists of 100 college students; age ranging from 18-
24 years was randomly selected from different colleges of Chandigarh. The participants were well
informed about the purpose of the study and also assured about their confidentiality. The Mental
Health Inventory (Jagdish and Srivastava, 1983) has been used to quantify the study and their
socioeconomic status was measured with the help of family income. The statistically analyzed result
corroborates that subjects of high income family possess good mental health as compared to the low
income participants.

Key words: Mental Health, Socioeconomic status, Youth

INTRODUCTION:

We all know that the youth age is an imperative stage where major changes of one‟s life take
place. Either it will lead you towards success, happiness and stronger mental well being or vice versa.
Situations vary from one youth to another and so the reasons. The modern era is well featured by the
quickness in all life spheres like never before. On one side, technology and economic growth is at rise
and on the other hand individual mental health is at stake. There are so many mental illnesses,
dissatisfactions, and confusions around. So many young age, school going and college going students
are at the risk of serious mental imbalance. Youth is an important time of life which is present between
childhood and adulthood. The actual maturity of the young individuals may not always correspond to
their chronological age. Youth holds a specific or a particular outlook attitude. They are young and
they have new, fresh and budding thoughts, view points, ideas and beliefs. They want everything to be
easy and also want to get every wish satisfied. There is one really famous definition of Youth by world
popular name- Robert Kennedy-
"This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of
the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for
adventure over the life of ease."

Youth and Mental Health

Mental health is not just the absence of the mental disorders and the mental illness, but it is also
defined as the capability to tackle the life challenges with ease and positive approach. In order to live a

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 03, Number: 06, October-2013 Page 65

health, both physical and mental health has to be strong and perfect. Youth age individuals generally
experiment with behaviors, appearances and attitudes. In order to look the best and have the best
among college friends and their circle, youths can experience mental health problems like anxiety,
stress, learning disability, depression, family issues, harassment, and so on. If the mental health is not
well maintained it can result in suicide and self injurious acts.

One of the major factors affecting the youth mental health is the socio economic status. Low
socio economic status mostly limits the wishes and wills of a youth. This can result in inferiority
complex, life confusion, embarrassment, smaller friend circle, low confidence level and ultimately
imbalance in the mental health. Thus, a good mental health is very important for a good life. Youth can
not succeed in personal and academic life efficaciously if he or she is going through a rough mental
phase. World Health Organization defines mental health as-"a state of well-being in which the
individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work
productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community".

Kerri Anne Brussen (2010) in the study focused on the process to maintain the mental health of
the youth. It is a crucial life changing stage where the chances are high that the youth may get
diagnosed with a mental illness. Even, Professor Patrick McGorry (2007) said that the most essential
investment must be made in youth mental well being. He has actually driven the agenda for
transforming the approach towards the youth metal well being. This investment is the best buy
according to him. He did the research on Australian youth and found that the mental health disorders
are quite common amongst the young age people of Australia.

As per Richards, Campania, & Muse-Burke (2010) “There is growing evidence that is showing
emotional abilities are associated with prosocial behaviors such as stress management and physical
health.” They also found that youths who have lesser emotional expression is responsible for misfit
behaviors that are the direct reflection of the mental disturbances. Because of low family economic
status, it may lead to lack of confidence in youth which further results in low emotional expression and
then mental imbalance. A study conducted by Strine, Chapman, Balluz, and Mokdad (2008) stated
“Inadequate social and emotional support is a major barrier to health relevant to the practice of
psychiatry and medicine, because it is associated with adverse health behaviors, dissatisfaction with
life, and disability”.

Socio Economic Status (SES)

There is a strong connection between youth and the socio economic status. How? These days,
the young generation tries to make one‟s impact over others through high economic status, more
money and high standard of living. If anything out of these 3 things is lacking, most of them feel low
in the surrounding crowd. High/low socio economic status can either make or break an individual,
especially a young individual. There have been so many researches in this field which indicate that
SES is the most imperative factor influencing the quality of life for not only the youth but for children
and families too.

When we talk about the SES and youth, the mental health is most affected after the physical
health. Incrementing evidences support the association present between lower SES and low or negative
psychological /mental health outcomes. Moreover, several studies support the outcome of highly
positive mental outcomes like higher confidence level, optimism, better control and self-esteem when
linked with high SES among youth.

Newacheck, Hung, Park, Brindis, & Irwin, 2003 found that the low SES leads to higher level of
suicide attempts, episodic heavy drinking and cigarette smoking in youth. On the other side, Weissman
et al., 1984; Spencer et al., 2002; Goodman, 1999 stated that young generation of low income families

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 03, Number: 06, October-2013 Page 66

usually has higher levels of behavioral and emotional difficulties which also includes conduct
disorders, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and depression.

OBJECTIVES:

On the basis of the aforesaid literature the following objectives have been derived:

1. To compare the mental health socio-economic status among youth.

HYPOTHESIS:

1. It is hypothesized that there will be a significant difference between socio economic status of
youth and their mental health.

METHOD:

Sample-
The sample of the current study comprising of 100 college youth ( 50 males and 50 females) in the age
group of 18-24 years were randomly selected from colleges of the City Beautiful, Chandigarh. All the
participants heterogeneously related in term of their socio-economic status, some of the participants
were selected from high and others were from low socioeconomic status and the family monthly
income was the criteria adopted for the same. Every participant was assured that their results will be
confidential and will never be used for any other purposes.

Tools-
Mental Health Inventory (MHI): Developed by Jagdish Prasad and Srivastava (1983) consisting of
total 54 items distributed in six different dimensions i.e. Positive Self Evaluation (PSE-10 items),
Perception of Reality (PR-8 items), Integration of Personality (IP-12 items), Autonomy (AUT-6
items), Group Oriented Attitudes (GOA-9 items) and Environmental Mastery (EM-9 items). Each
dimension consists of some negative and some positive items. In total, there are 22 positive items (true
keyed) and 32 negative items (false keyed). The socio-economic status has been assessed with the help
of their monthly family income and they further divide in to low (less then Rs. 10000/-) and high
group (Rs. 15000/- and above).

Statistical Analysis-
In order to attain the chief objectives, the retrieved data were analyzed for getting the mean, SD and t-
values of all the six dimensions in a separate way.

Procedure-
First of all, the participants have been provided comforts and then, they were asked to submit the proof
of their family monthly income to enable us for grouping you as desired. After that, the subjects were
asked to seat comfortably and the related instructions as per the manual were conveyed to them
through their easy language and confirmed the understanding level of each participant. There were 4
responses for each item/statement i.e. „Always‟, „Often‟, „Rarely‟, and „Never‟. They were told to read
each item carefully and then tick the most appropriate response. There was no time limit. But, still they
were asked to finish the questionnaire as soon as possible. Finally, Mental Health Inventory was
administered on the respective sample. After the completion of test the questionnaires were collected
from the students and the obtained data was analyzed through the respective statistical method.

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 03, Number: 06, October-2013 Page 67

RESULTS:

Table-I : Significance of difference between Mental Health Dimensions and Socio Economic Status
(High & Low) among Youth

DIMENSIONS OF MENTAL LOW SOCIO ECONOMIC HIGH SOCIO ECONOMIC

HEALTH STATUS STATUS
PSE M = 25.8 SD = 3.39 M = 26.28 SD = 2.78
( Positive self-evaluation ) t= 0.77
PR M = 20.2 SD = 2.94 M = 20.58 SD = 2.63
( Perception of Reality ) t= 0.69
IP M = 29.1 SD = 3.51 M = 30.14 SD = 3.64
( Integration of Personality ) t= 1.46
AUT M = 14.96 SD = 2.12 M = 15.26 SD = 2.07
( Autonomy ) t= 0.73
GOA M = 23.24 SD = 3.48 M = 25.32 SD = 3.30
( Group Oriented Attitudes ) t= 3.05**
EM M = 22.5 SD = 3.17 M = 21.26 SD = 3.03
( Environmental Mastery ) t= 2**

The above shown table portrays the means, standard deviations and the t-values of six different
dimensions of MHI. The analysis of the t-value quantified that there are significant differences
between the SES groups in two dimensions of mental health that are GOA and EM, the obtained t-
value is 3.05 and 2 respectively. These values are significant at 0.01 levels. Furthermore, the two socio
economic groups did not differ on PSE, PR, IP, and AUT dimensions. The t-values of these 4
dimensions are insignificant.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of the study was to quantify the mental health of low and high socioeconomic
status groups of youth by using Mental Health Inventory (MHI). The results shown in the table depict
that there are significant differences on two dimensions of mental health that are Group Oriented
Attitudes (GOA), and Environmental Mastery (EM).

The t-value obtained fo the first dimension (PSE) is 0.77 which is insignificant. This may be
because these days every college going youth is quite confident of one‟s self and they know about their
identity and also realize their potentialities. The mean score of the low socio economic status group
was found to be higher than the high socio economic group. Still, there is no level of significance. The
level of self esteem and self evaluation differ in the socioeconomic status groups (Rosenberg, Morris;
Schooler, Carmi; & Schoenbech, Carrie, 1989).

The obtained „t‟ value (0.69) of the second dimension (PR) is also insignificant. There is hardly
any difference between the mean and SD scores of the both the groups. This may be because the young
generation is quite well aware of the reality surrounding them irrespective of their socio economic
status. They very well know the difference between the fantasies and the reality. The high SES youth
takes the reality along with stressful situations as challenging and also increment their efforts for
coping with the issues with ease (Bandura, 1989; Padsakoff & Farh, 1989).

On the third mental health dimension (IP), High socio economic status group scored better than
the lower economic group. This proves that the young generation of higher income family is quite
bold, understand other‟s emotions very well and can concentrate on their work with more efficacy. As

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 03, Number: 06, October-2013 Page 68

they have money, they take part in more activities without bothering about the financial status. Due to
some reasons the t-value did not reach the significant level.

On the fourth dimension i.e. autonomy, low income group students were found to be little less
autonomous than high income group students. On the t-test value, the difference found to be quite
insignificant. It is due to the fact that mostly the youth is well aware of the truth that one should
depend on one‟s own potentialities and not others. In support of this, it has been said that the high
economic and highly efficient youth are happy but have exaggerated beliefs about their abilities to
control the world around them (Taylor, 1998).

Now, it is the time to discuss about the two dimensions of mental health where the differences
are quite significant among two groups of youth regarding SES.

When it comes to the 5th dimension (GOA), it has been found that the differences in the low
and high socio economic status groups are highly significant ay 0.01 level. The t-value on this
dimension is 3.05. Here the hypothesis is well approved. It is very much obvious that the students from
higher economic groups are more confident than the lower economic groups and thus, they are more
able to get along with others. They perform well in group oriented tasks.

The differences on the sixth dimension (EM) are also significant. The t-value came out to be 2,
which is significant at 0.01 level. Here, the students from low socio economic status groups are high
on this dimension. This may be because, low SES groups face more responsibilities and more day to
day tasks and they have to make more adjustments. This way they obtain mastery over the
environment better as compared to the high SES groups.

During the exploration of mental distress during global economic crisis, found SES still
remains a predictor for mental health especially for younger ages; unemployment and housing being a
key factor. Interestingly demographic groups (i.e. gender, race etc.) showed no significant difference
for depression (Cokes & Kornblum 2010).
A Hong Kong study using adult individual-level factors depression was found to relate to the
economic downturn, but unemployment in this case was not of prime importance (Lee et al. 2010).

In response to such problems, Kyriopoulos & Tsiantou (2010) warns that policies must reduce
inequality along social determinants. Their conclusion says that the economic crisis will in some way
affect the ability to finance the health care and unemployment and this will increase the risk of mental
disorders and result in suicides.

Even one more study revealed that there is a strong association between SES and mental health
of the youth. The odds of a youth from a family living in low income has mental health problem three
times that of a youth from a family that is living in good socio economic status. This relationship is
stable and consistent across several nations. (Lipman, E. L., & Boyle, M. H 2008). The various
findings like, Robert and Hirschfeld (2000) corroborated that the people from low economic groups
are more prone to mental illnesses especially depression as compared to the high economic groups.
Thus, the youth from higher SES are more balanced on their mental health.
Further, Richard and Miech (1998) also proved that the adolescent mental disorders were more
likely to be found in families of low socioeconomic status as compared to the high socioeconomic
status families.

Several more studies have found that the socio economic status definitely affects the student
(youth) outcomes (Baharudin & Luster 1998. Jeynes 2002. Eamon 2005. Majoribanks 1996.
Hochschild 2003, McNeal 2001. Seyfried 1998). They can be low in academics, in social interactions,
confidence, and may have a poor friend circle.

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 03, Number: 06, October-2013 Page 69

 This US study indicated that the health status and risks for children are affected negatively due
to a combination of social determinants (including economic crisis) as health benefits and support
services are reduced (Miller & Coulter 1984). Supporting this finding on health status, Ludermir &
Harpham (1998) explaining urbanization in Brazil and quality of life, concluded, economic
displacement or unemployment emerges as a significant risk factor for mental health outcome and is
more important than rural to urban migration due to economic difficulties. Family SES origins appear
to play an influential role during this formative period, as the similar review of literature significantly
proved the association between SES and mental disorders (Costello et al. 1997; Velez, Johnson, and
Cohen 1989; and Rutter et al. 1974). The afflicted young adults are not trivially afflicted by the low
socio economic status but are indeed functioning more poorly than their non-disordered peers
(Newman et al. 1996).

On the other hand, adversities linked to low SES may damage the psychological functioning of
individuals, especially youth and also play a role in the etiology of mental disorders, (Turner,
Wheaton, and Lloyd 1995; Link, Lennon, and Dohrenwend 1993; Kohn 1981; Wheaton 1978). Mental
health gets hampered and is over represented in the lower social strata (Kessler et al. 1994;
Dohrenwend et al. 1992; Link and Dohrenwend 1989; Neugebauer, Dohrenwend, and Dohrenwend
1980; Wheaton 1978; Holzer et al. 1986).

REFERENCES:

1. Baharudin, Rozumah & Tom Luster (1998). Factors related to the quality of the home
environment and children's achievement. Journal of Family Issues, 19(4), 375-403.
2. Bandura, A. (1989). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. The
Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 2, 411-424.
3. Brussen, Kerri Anne (2010). Youth Mental Health. Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin, Vol. 16,
No. 1, Spring 2010: 1-4.
4. Cokes, C & Kornblum, W 2010, 'Experiences of Mental Distress by Individuals During an
Economic Downturn: The Story of an Urban City', The Western Journal of Black Studies, vol.
34, no. 1, pp. 24-35.
5. Costello, Elizabeth Jane, Elizabeth M. S. Farmer, Adrian Angold, Barbara J. Burns, and
Alaattin Erkanli. 1997. “Psychiatric Disorders among American Indian and White Youth in
Appalachia: The Great Smoky Mountains Study.” American Journal of Public Health 87:827-
832.
6. Dohrenwend, Bruce P., Itzhak Levav, Patrick Shrout, Sharon Schwartz, Guedalia Naveh, Bruce
Link, Andrew Skodol, and Ann Stueve. 1992. “Socioeconomic Status and Psychiatric
Disorders: The Causation-Selection Issue.” Science 255:946-952.
7. Eamon; Magon & Keeman (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting
influences on academic achievement of Latino young adolescents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescenc, 34(2), 163-175.
8. Hirschfeld, Robert M. A. (2000). Psychosocial Predictors of Outcome in Depression.
Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress; Fifth edition, Edited by Kenneth
L. Davis, Dennis Charney, Joseph T. Coyle, and Charles Nemeroff.
9. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
10. Hochschild, Jennifer L. (2003). Social Class in Public Schools. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4),
821-840.
11. Holzer, Charles E., Brent M. Shea, Jeffrey W. Swanson, Philip J. Leaf, Jerome K. Myers,
Linda George, Myrna Weissman, Phillip Bednarski. 1986. “The Increased Risk for
SpecificSocial Psychiatric Disorders among Persons of Low Socioeconomic Status.”
American Journal of Social Psychiatry 6:259-271.
12. Jagdish, P; & Srivastava, A. K. (1983) Mental Health Inventory (MHI), Varanasi,
Manovigyanik Prakashan Sansthan.

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 03, Number: 06, October-2013 Page 70

 13. Jeynes, William H. (2002). Examining the effects of parental absence on the academic
achievement of adolescents: the challenge of controlling for family income.
14. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23(2).
15. Kessler, Ronald C., K.A. McGonagle, S. Zhao, C.B. Nelson, M. Hughes, S. Eshleman, H.U.
Wittchen, and K.S. Kendler. 1994. “Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of DSM-III-R
Psychiatric Disorders in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Study.”
Archives of General Psychiatry 51: 8-19.
16. Klerman, G.; Weissman, M.; Rounseville, B.; & Chevron, E. (1984). Interpersonal
psychotherapy of depression. Basic Books, New York.
17. Kohn, Melvin. 1981. “Social Class and Schizophrenia: A Critical Review and a
Reformulation.” Pp. 127-143 in The Sociology of Mental Illness: Basic Studies, edited by O.
Grusky and M. Pollner. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
18. Konopka, G. (1973). Requirements for Healthy Development of Adolescent Youth.
Adolescence; VIII(31), p. 2.
19. Kyriopoulos, J & Tsiantou, V 2010, 'Η οικονομική κρίση και οι επιπτώσεις της στην σγεία και
την ιατρική περίθαλψη', ARCHIVES OF HELLENIC MEDICINE, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 834-40.
20. Lee, S, Guo, W-j, Tsang, A, Mak, ADP, Wu, J, Ng, KL & Kwok, K (2010), 'Evidence for the
2008 economic crisis exacerbating depression in Hong Kong', Journal of Affective Disorders,
vol. 126, no. 1-2, pp. 125-33.
21. Link, Bruce G. and Bruce Dohrenwend. 1989. “The Epidemiology of Mental Disorders. Pp.
102-127 in The Handbook of Medical Sociology, edited by Howard Freeman and Sol
22. Levine. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
23. Link, Bruce G., Mary Clare Lennon, and Bruce P. Dohrenwend. 1993. “Socioeconomic Status
and Depression: The Role of Occupations Involving Direction, Control, and Planning.”
American Journal of Sociology 98:1351-87
24. Lipman, E. L.; & Boyle, M. H. (2008). Linking Poverty and Mental Health: A Lifespan view.
The Provincial Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health at CHEO.
25. Ludermir, AB & Harpham, T (1998), 'Urbanization and mental health in Brazil: Social and
economic dimensions', Health & Place, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 223-32.
26. Majoribanks, Kevin. (1996). Family Learning Environments and Students‟ Outcomes: A
Review. Journal of Comparitive Family Studies, 27(2), 373-394.
27. McNeal, Ralph B. (2001). Differential effects of parental involvement on cognitive and
behavioral outcomes by socioeconomic status. Journal of Socio-Economic,s 30(2), 171.
28. McGorry P (2005). “Every me and every you”: responding to the hidden
29. challenge of mental illness in Australia. Australas Psychiatry; 13: 3-15.
30. McGorry, Patrick D; Purcell, Rosemary; Hickie, Ian B; & F Jorm, Anthony (2007). Investing
in youth mental health is a best buy. The Medical Journal of Australia, Volume 187 No. 7.
31. Miech, Richard A.; Caspi, Avshalom; Moffitt, Terrie E.; Wright, Bradley E.; & Silva, Phil A
(1998). Low Socioeconomic Status and Mental Disorders: A Longitudinal Study of Selection
and Causation During Young Adulthood. CDE Working Paper No. 98-05.
32. Miller, CA & Coulter, EJ 1984, 'The world economic crisis and the children: A United States
case study', World Development, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 339-64.
33. Neugebauer, Richard, Bruce P. Dohrenwend, and Barbara Dohrenwend. 1980. “Formulation
of Hypotheses about the True Prevalence of Functional Psychiatric Disorders among Adults in
the United States.” Pp. 45-94 in Mental Illness in the United States: EpidemiologicalSocial
Estimates, edited by B. P. Dohrenwend et al. New York: Praeger.
34. Newacheck P; Hung Y; Park J; Brindis C; & Irwin, Jr. C (2003). Disparities in adolescent
health and health care: Does socioeconomic status matter? Health Services Research, 38:1235-
1252.
35. Newman, Denise L., Terrie E. Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, Lynn Magdol, Phil A. Silva, and
Warren R. Stanton. (1996). “Psychiatric Disorder in a Birth Cohort of Young Adults:

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 03, Number: 06, October-2013 Page 71

 Prevalence, Co-Morbidity, Clinical Significance, and New Case Incidence From Age 11 to 21.”
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64:552-562.
36. Patel, V. & Prince, M. (2010). Global mental health - a new global health field comes of age.
JAMA, 303, 1976-1977.
37. Richards, K.C.; Campania, C. & Muse-Burke J.L (2010). "Self-care and Well-being in Mental
Health Professionals: The Mediating Effects of Self-awareness and Mindfulnes". Journal of
Mental Health Counseling 32 (3): 247.
38. Rosenberg, Morris; Schooler, Carmi; & Schoenbech, Carrie (1989). Self-esteem and adolescent
problems: Modeling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, American Sociological
Association, Vol. 54, No. 6.
40. Rutter, Michael, Bridget Yule, David Quinton, Olwen Rowlands, William Yule, and Michael
Berger. 1974. “Attainment and Adjustment in Two Geographical Areas: III. Some Factors
Accounting for Area Differences.” British Journal of Psychiatry 125:520-533.
41. Seyfried, Sherri.F. (1998). Academic achievement of African American preadolescents: The
influence of teacher perceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26
(3), 381-402.
42. Strine, T.W.; Chapman, D.P.; Balluz, L & Mokdad, A.H. (2010). A systematic review:
Students with mental health problems--a growing problem. International Journal of Nursing
Practice 16 (1): 1–6.
43. Turner, R. Jay, Blair Wheaton, and Donald A. Lloyd. 1995. “The Epidemiology of Social
Stress.” American Sociological Review 60:104-125.
44. Velez, C. N., J. Johnson, and P. Cohen. 1989. “A Longitudinal Analysis of Selected Risk
Factors of Childhood Psychopathology.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry 28:861-867.
45. Wheaton, Blair. 1978. “The Sociogenesis of Psychological Disorder: Reexamining the Causal
Issues with Longitudinal Data.” American Sociological Review 43:383-403.

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 03, Number: 06, October-2013 Page 72

View publication stats