Printer Friendly

Teachers' notion of the sources of stormy and stressful behaviors of adolescents: Ethiopian upper primary school teachers in focus.

INTRODUCTION

The question of whether or not adolescence is a more difficult stage than childhood and adulthood stages had long been controversial among developmental psychologists and thinkers. Stanley Hall was one of those who argue that adolescence is a period of turmoil (Arnnet, 1999). He was the first to boldly declare that adolescence is the period of storm and stress, as coined by him. He argued that adolescents are naturally characterized by higher rate of conflicts with their parents, higher intensity of emotional feelings, and higher tendency to involve in risky events than children and adults. According to Hall, cited in Beeck (n.d), the concept of storm and stress is universal in nature and biological in origin. That is, storm and stress characterizes all adolescents without exception and this problem emanates solely from biological factors (hormone production). Hall identified three major components of adolescent storm and stress: conflict with parents, emotionality, and risk taking tendencies (Ahmed, 2010). Hall's view had also attained strong support from the proponents of psychoanalytic theory of development, especially from Ana Freud and her associates (Arnnet, 1999).

Adolescent storm and stress is manifested by a number of specific behaviors like, argumentativeness, disobedience, breaking rules and norms, impulsiveness, recklessness, involvement in different risky activities etc. which are commonly cited in the literature of the area (E.g. Arnnet, 1999; Verkaik & Akbar, 2006; Hines & Paulson, 2006). These behaviors are offending and puzzling for the adults who deal with adolescents. The question is: How are the intentions of these behaviors conceived by the adults? Literature (E.g. Walsh, n.d) shows two possible ways of thinking of the sources of these stormy and stressful behaviors. One is scientific conception that attributes the problem to the nature of physical, mental, and psychological development characterizing this period and external social environment adolescents live in. The other is stereotypical beliefs in which adults lack the knowledge of the true sources of the stormy and stressful behaviors of this age and, hence, tend to portray them as intentionally rebellious, antisocial, destructive etc. Unfortunately such stereotypic belief has been long lived and widespread in the public globally (including great thinkers) since antiquity (Verdaik & Akbar, 2006; Hernandez, 2009).

In Ethiopia, where school disciplinary measures are characterized by corporal punishment (Ayalew Shibeshi, 1996); where most adolescent live in difficult life situations to be ill tempered and offend adults; and above all, where psychological trainings on adolescent development are scant, it is reasonable to anticipate high prevalence of wrong conception about the sources of adolescent storm and stress in the society in general and among teachers in particular. However, empirical data in this area seem to be scant.

In this research, adolescent storm and stress is taken as reality, not as something baseless as claimed by some scholars like Bandura, cited in Stronks (1993). Here, the belief that adolescent storm and stress stems from wild nature of adolescents is rather taken to be stereotypical.

Research Questions: In this research, the following were answered:

* What is the level of adolescent storm and stress in Ethiopian adolescent as observed by the studied upper primary school teachers?

* What is the level of teachers' stereotypic belief (conception) of the sources of adolescent storm and stress?

* Are the level of adolescent storm and stress and the level of the teachers' stereotypic belief about the sources of these behaviors related in any meaningful way?

* Do the three components of the adolescent storm and stress, jointly and independently, predict the stereotypic belief of the teachers significantly?

* Does the level of stereotypic belief of the studied teachers vary with sex, age, marital status, living or not living with adolescents, stages of adolescents lived with, sex of adolescents lived with, rural-urban disparity, field of study, perceived professional effectiveness.

METHOD

Population: The target population of this study was the upper primary school teachers from all administrative regions of Ethiopia who participated in the summer in-service training program of Adama Science and Technology University in 2011(GC). Out of the total population (5537), 373 respondents were selected as data sources of this study. Out of these, 363 (with 97% response rate) returned the filled out questionnaires and the data gathered from these respondents were analyzed.

Sampling Techniques: Stratified and systematic sampling techniques were employed. The stratified sampling technique was used to obtain the representative respondents from each field of study, batch, and sex while the systematic sampling was utilized to select the respondents from each batch of each field of study. The sample size was determined by the formula provided by Yamane, cited in Israel (1992).

Instruments of Data Gathering: Two data gathering instruments (26 items) were developed from literature by the researcher. The first was designed to gather information on the level of adolescent storm and stress as observed by respondents. This subscale contains 16 words or expressions that are frequently cited in the literature in the area (E.g. Holmbeck, 1988; Burnan & Holmbeck, in Arnnet, 1999) to describe stormy and stressful behaviors of adolescents. The teachers were asked to rate each word or expression (highly true =5 points, true = 4 points, undecided = 3, false = 2 points, and highly false =1 point) to indicate the extent to which they observed these behaviors in adolescents. This scale is also subdivided into three sub scales on the basis of the three components of adolescent storm and stress (conflict provoking behaviors 3 items, emotionality 8 items, and risk taking behavior 5 items) identified by Hall, in Arnnet, (1999).

The second instrument was designed to generate information on the extent to which the teachers negatively judge the adolescents. This instrument contains 10 negative judgmental words/adjectives that are frequently cited in the literature (E.g. Verkaik & Akbar, 2006; King, 2007; Ivana, 2009) to show negative and subjective judgments about adolescents. They are the measures of teachers' conception of sources of adolescent storm and stress. The teachers were asked, in the directions, to rate these words highly true = 5 points, true = 4 points, undecided = 3 points, false = 2 points, and highly false = 1 point to indicate the extent to which they attribute the stormy and stressful behaviors in the first instrument to these judgmental words. So, in this research it is assumed that the more the teachers associate these negative judgmental adjectives with adolescents the less likely they are aware of the true sources (internal biological and external social factors) of the stormy and stressful behaviors of adolescents and vice-versa. That is, the more they associate the words with adolescents, the more likely they are to have stereotypic beliefs of the causes of adolescent storm and stress.

The alpha coefficient for whole scale was found to be .90, for storm and stress sub scale was found to be .82, and for judgmental sub scale was found to be .87. Each item of these scales was validated by three experts in the area of psychology. One language expert checked the appropriateness of the descriptions.

Methods of Data Analysis: The statistical methods utilized to analyze the data of this research included percentage, multiple correlations, multiple regression, t-test, and one way ANOVA. All the statistical tests are performed at 0.05 alpha levels. The use of these statistical methods was preceded by checking the normality of the dependent variable (teachers' conception).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As depicted in Table 1, majority of respondents, in all the three sub scales, rated all the items true or highly true except one. Accordingly, 69.7% (23.1% + 46.6%), 79% (39.1% + 39.9%), and 53.7% (26.7% + 27.0%) of the respondents rated the items Obedient, Inconsistent, Breaking rules (in the conflict provoking sub scale) true or highly true respectively. Similarly, 60.9% (16.5% + 4.4%), 57.5% (19.8% + 37.7%), 49.9% (19.0% + 30.9%), 51% (12.7% + 38.3%), 77.1% (36.6% + 40.5%), 54.3% (17.9% + 36.4%), and 58.7% (15.7% + 40.3%), of them rated the items awkward, Anxious, Insecure, Confused, Easily become angry, Stressed, and Easily Despaired, (in the emotionality sub scale) true or highly true respectively. Only the item Depressed was rated false or highly false by higher portion of the respondents (43.3%) as compare to those who rated it true or highly true (36.1%). Further, 46% (16.0% + 30.0%), 45.5% (16.3% + 29.2%), 51.5% (17.1% + 34.4%), 62.9% (33.1% + 29.8%), and 49.6% (16.0% + 33.6%) rated Impulsive, Smoke, Drink Promiscuous, and Take narcotics (in risk taking sub scale) true or highly true respectively. Closer observation of each item shows that inconsistent (79%); Easily become angry (77.1%) and Disobedient (69.7%) were the behaviors rated by relatively higher proportion of the respondents true or highly.

Table 2 shows that most respondents have rated judgmental terms true or highly true. That is, 76.6% (24.0% + 52.6%), 58.4% (18.2% + 40.2%), 57% (17.9% + 39.1%), 50.7% (24.0% + 26.7%), 70.8% (29.5% + 41.3%), 62.7% (17.3% + 45.4%), 62.6% (18.5% + 44.1%), 52% (14.3% + 37.7%), 64.4% (27.8% + 36.6%), and 77.1% (32.5% + 44.6%) of the respondents rated the terms Rebellious, Rude, Restless, Selfish, Stubborn, Distractive, Undermine others, Irresponsible, Careless, and Violent true or highly true respectively. The observations of the magnitude of the percentages show that the terms Violent (77.1%), Rebellious (76.6%), and Stubborn (70.8%) were rated by relatively higher proportion of the respondents.

The results in Table 3 depict that all the three components of storm and stress (conflict provoking behaviors, emotionality, and risk taking behaviors) do significantly and positively correlate with teachers' stereotypic conceptions of the sources of these behaviors. That is, the correlation coefficients for conflict provoking behaviors and conception, emotionality and conception, and risk taking behavior and conception are .354, .527, and .444 respectively. As can be seen, emotionality has highest magnitude of correlation coefficient while conflict provoking behaviors have least magnitude of the three components of adolescent storm and stress.

As shown in Table 4, the three components of storm and stress (emotionality of adolescents, their conflict provoking behaviors, and their risk behaviors) have statistically significant combined contributions to the development of stereotypic beliefs of the respondents F(3,359) = 76.355, P< 0.05). Accordingly, 39 percent of variance is accounted for by the three categories of adolescent storm and stress in the stereotypic belief of the teachers.

The results in Table 5 show that each category of adolescent storm and stress has significantly contributed to the development of the stereotypic beliefs of the sources of these behaviors. Emotionality has highest contribution (Beta = .527, t(258) = 11.774, P < 0.05), followed by risk taking behaviors (Beta=.444, t(259) = 9.406, P < 0.05) which is again followed by conflict provoking behaviors (Beta = .354, t(260) = 1.185, P < 0.05. About 28%, 20%, and 12% of the variance are accounted for by emotionality, risky behaviors, and conflict provoking behaviors respectively in the stereotypic belief of the teachers.

Regression Equation for the model: Conception = 64.841-.691x E+.683 x RTB+.776 x CPB

The results in Table 6 depict that none of the calculated t-values is significant. Therefore, majority of the studied teachers do not vary in their stereotypic belief about the sources of adolescent storm and stress. Similar to the results in Table 6, none of the calculated F results in Table 7 is significant. That is, the respondents' stereotypic belief about sources of adolescent stormy and stressful behaviors do not vary with age F (2, 357)= .839, P > 0.05; field of study F(6, 355) = 1.634, P > 0.05; stage of adolescents lived with F(2, 200) = .410, P > 0.05; and self-perceived professional effectiveness F(3, 348) = 0.759, P > 0.05.

The findings of this study (Table 1) shows that most of the studied teachers have fairly high level of experience of storm and stress in Ethiopian adolescents as a group. Even though these data need to be supported by data from adolescents themselves to make bold conclusion, they can give strong clue of the prevalence of storm and stress in Ethiopian adolescents, at least in those observed by the population of this study. So, one can reasonably say that the study is in support of the view that adolescent storm and stress is a reality in adolescents, not a myth/fiction simply attached to this age group. Similar findings were also documented by several researchers (Coleman, 1990; Arnnet, 1999; Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998; Paikoff & Brooks-Gunn, 1991; Smetana, 1989; Larson & Ham, 1993; Larson & Richards, cited in Arnnet, 1999; Moffitt, 1993) in the area.

Most respondents (Table 2) attributed the stormy and stressful behaviors of adolescents to the negative judgmental words presented to them in the second instrument. This indicates that most of the respondents lack knowledge of the real source of these behaviors in adolescent and, hence, have high level of stereotypic belief about the reasons behind adolescent storm and stress. Hence, it is likely that these teachers are more of authoritarian in their approach to adolescents instead of using friendly discussion and advisory techniques to correct their disruptive behaviors, which are rooted in sources out of their control. This trend was found by Ayalew Shibeshi (1996) 15 years back that most of Ethiopian junior and senior secondary school teachers were characterized by hostile approach to their students. The high level of the existence of adolescent storm and stress indicated by the teachers (Table 1) is also the reflection of this trend. That is, teachers might have been hostile in their approach to the adolescents and this, as also asserted by Bandura, cited in King (2004) might have led them to be more aggressive in their approach to the teachers, which, in turn, might have caused the teacher judge them negatively.

The results (Table 3) show that the levels of all the three components of storm and stress are significantly and positively related to the level of teachers' stereotypic belief of the sources of these behaviors (conflict provoking behavior, r = .35**; emotionality, r = .53**; and risk taking behavior, r = .44**). This shows that the higher the level of adolescent storm and stress, the more the likelihood for the teachers to maintain stereotypic belief or, reversely, the higher the level of stereotypic belief the more likelihood for the teachers to mistreat the adolescents and aggravate stormy and stressful behaviors in them. This again further worsens the relationship between the two parties and vicious circle continues that way with destructive effect on adolescents. As revealed by the conducted regression analysis (Table 4), the three components of adolescent storm and stress jointly predicted the level of teachers' stereotypic belief about the reasons behind this problem. This indicates that (given that the teachers lack proper knowledge of the sources of the problem) the higher the level of adolescent storm and stress, the more the likelihood for the teachers to maintain stereotypic belief.

The next question pertains to the relative prediction of each component of adolescent storm and stress. Multiple regressions (Table 5) depicted that each of the three components has statistically significant adjusted beta value indicating that it independently predicts the stereotypic belief of the teachers. According to these results, the higher the emotional volatility, risk taking tendencies, and conflict provoking behaviors of adolescents the teachers observe / experience the more likely they are to hold stereotypic belief of the sources of adolescent storm and stress in this age group. So, according to these findings, frequent observations of and experience with these components of storm and stress in the adolescents significantly contributed to the development of stereotypic belief of these teachers.

The major problem with such negative image of adolescents among adults like teachers is that the more they view adolescents negatively, the more likely they will be authoritarian in their approach to this age group. Such approach to adolescents, in turn, may lead this group to aggression against adults putting more distance between the two. Such unfavorable situation again may lead adolescents to the generalization that adults are anti-adolescent people and no need of obeying them while in reality adolescents essentially need supports and guidance of adults.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The Ethiopian adolescent encountered by most of the studied upper primary school teachers are characterized by fairly high level of adolescent storm and stress. Most of the teachers have wrong understanding of the sources of the stormy and stressful behaviors of adolescent. Teachers' Stereotypic belief (wrong conception) of the source of stormy and stressful behaviors of adolescents can be attributed to their observation of these behaviors in this age group. The studied upper primary school teachers seem to have similar level of stereotypic belief about the reason behind adolescent storm and stress irrespective of their demographic background variables.

This study gives clues to the need for Leaders Of Upper Primary Schools, Woreda Education Offices, and Zonal Education Departments, in collaboration with Psychology Experts (especially with Developmental Psychologists), to regularly design short term training programs for upper primary school teachers on the development and characteristics of adolescents. Further, the findings of the regression analysis have important massage for the importance of counseling services in school settings for both teachers and students. The study also indicates the need for those higher institutions training teachers for this level of education to include a course on adolescent development in their training programs. The findings of this study cannot be taken for granted to make final generalization. So, additional studies seem to be desirable to generate a set of comprehensive nationwide baseline data in this area.

References

Ahmed, S.S. (2010). Recognizing adolescent storm and stress--Granville Stanley Hall. Retrieved from http://sultanspeaks.com/blog/?p=211

Arnett, J., J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/99/S2.00 Vol. 54, No. 5, 317-326. Retrieved from http://uncenglishmat.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/3/4/1434319/arnett.pdf

Ayalew Shibeshi (1996). Proceedings: School Discipline and Corporal Punishment In Ethiopian Schools. Addis Ababa: Ethiopia.

Beeck, H.O. (n.d). Adolescent times of storm and stress revised. Retrieved form http://www.jeugdonderzoeksplatform.be/publicaties/Paper_Adolescent_times_of_storm_and_stress_revised.pdf

Coleman, J. (1990) The nature of adolescence. In: Youth Policies in The 1990's, pp.8-27. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Books Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.heron.dmu.ac.uk/2006-02-28/041505835X%288-27%2951 940.pdf

Hernandez, J.M. (2009). The stereotypical teen. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1388392-stereotypical-teen

Hines, A.R., and Paulson, S.E. (2006). Parents' and teachers' perceptions of adolescent storm and stress: relations with parenting and teaching styles. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_164_41/ai_n17094446/

Israel, G.D. (1992). Determining Sample Size. Retrieved from http://www.soc.uoc.gr/socmedia/papageo/metaptyxiakoi/sample_size/samplesize1.pdf

King, M. R. (2004). Adolescence--overview, history, theory. Retrieved from http://www.psyking.net/id183.htm

Laursen, B., Coy, K. C, & Collins, W. A. (1998). Reconsidering changes in parent-child conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 69, 817-832. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132206

Larson, R., & Ham, M. (1993). Stress and "storm and stress" in early adolescence: The relationship of negative life events with dysphoric affect. Developmental Psychology, 29, 130-140. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1993-17160-001

Moffitt, T. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674701. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1994-05949-001

Aikoff, R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). Do parent-child relationships change during puberty? Psychological Bulletin, 110, 47-66. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1991-32889 -001

Smetana, J. G. (1989). Adolescents' and parents' reasoning about actual family conflict. Child Development, 60, 1052-1067. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/1130779

Stronks, G.G. (1993). Debunking the Stereotypes: Understanding the adolescents in our churches. Retrieved from http://www.reformedworship.org/article/june-1993/debunking-stereotypes-understanding-adolescents-our-churches

Walsh, D. (n.d). Why do they act the way they do? Retrieved from http://www.barrycounty.org/YSB/TeensAct.pdf

Verkaik, R. and Akbar, A. (2006). Behind the stereotypes: The shocking truth about teenagers. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/behind-the-stereotypes-the-shocking-truth-about-teenag ers-421295.html

Received: June 07, 2015

Revised: December 15, 2015

Accepted: May 26, 2016

Aseffa Tafa, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Adama Science and Technology University, Ethiopia
Table 1: Frequencies and Percentages of the Respondents regarding
the Level of Existence Adolescent Storm and Stress

                                    HT           T

S.     Items                    Fr     %     Fr     %
No.

       Conflict Provoking
       Behaviors
1      Disobedient              84    23.1   169   46.6
2      Inconsistent             142   39.1   145   39.9
3      Breaking rules & norms   97    26.7   98    27.0

       Emotionality
4      Awkward                  60    16.5   161   44.4
5      Anxious                  72    19.8   137   37.7
6      Insecure                 69    19.0   112   30.9
7      Confused                 46    12.7   139   38.3
8      Easily become angry      133   36.6   147   40.5
9      Stressed                 65    17.9   132   36.4
10     Easily despaired         57    15.7   156   43.0
11     Depressed                41    11.3   90    24.8

       Risk Taking Behavior
12     Impulsive                58    16.0   109   30.0
13     Smoke                    59    16.3   106   29.2
14     Drink                    62    17.1   125   34.4
15     Promiscuous              120   33.1   108   29.8
16     Take narcotics           58    16.0   122   33.6

                                   UN           F

S.     Items                    Fr     %     Fr     %
No.

       Conflict Provoking
       Behaviors
1      Disobedient              60    16.5   37    10.2
2      Inconsistent             44    12.1   26    7.2
3      Breaking rules & norms   99    27.3   39    10.7

       Emotionality
4      Awkward                  81    22.3   49    13.5
5      Anxious                  83    22.9   50    14.0
6      Insecure                 68    18.7   89    24.5
7      Confused                 86    23.7   73    20.1
8      Easily become angry      44    12.1   30    8.3
9      Stressed                 83    22.9   56    15.4
10     Easily despaired         81    22.3   59    16.3
11     Depressed                75    20.7   115   31.7

       Risk Taking Behavior
12     Impulsive                88    24.2   90    24.8
13     Smoke                    90    24.8   65    17.9
14     Drink                    85    23.4   56    15.4
15     Promiscuous              77    21.2   29    8.0
16     Take narcotics           115   31.7   38    10.5

                                   HF          Total

S.     Items                    Fr    %      Fr      %
No.

       Conflict Provoking
       Behaviors
1      Disobedient              13   3.6     363    100
2      Inconsistent             6    1.7     363    100
3      Breaking rules & norms   30   8.3     363    100

       Emotionality
4      Awkward                  12   3.3     363    100
5      Anxious                  21   5.6     363    100
6      Insecure                 25   6.9     363    100
7      Confused                 19   5.2     363    100
8      Easily become angry      9    2.5     363    100
9      Stressed                 27   7.4     363    100
10     Easily despaired         10   2.8     363    100
11     Depressed                42   11.6    363    100

       Risk Taking Behavior
12     Impulsive                18   5.0     363    100
13     Smoke                    43   11.8    363    100
14     Drink                    35   9.6     363    100
15     Promiscuous              29   8.0     363    100
16     Take narcotics           30   8.3     363    100

Note: HT = Highly True, T = True, UN = Undecided,
F = False, HF = Highly False, Fir = Frequency

Table 2: The extent to which the respondents associate
the stereotypic judgmental
adjectives with adolescents

                             HT           T

S.      Items             Fr     %     Fr     %
No.

1      Rebellious         87    24.0   191   52.6
2      Rude               66    18.2   148   40.2
3      Restless           65    17.9   142   39.1
4      Selfish            97    24.0   108   26.7
5      Stubborn           107   29.5   150   41.3
6      Distractive        70    17.3   184   45.4
7      Undermine others   67    18.5   160   44.1
8      Irresponsible      52    14.3   137   37.7
9      Careless           101   27.8   133   36.6
10     Violent            118   32.5   162   44.6

          UD            F           HF          Total

S.     Fr     %     Fr     %     Fr     %     Fr     %
No.

1      61    16.8   17    4.7     7    1.9   363    100
2      88    24.2   50    13.8   11    3.0   363    100
3      76    20.9   59    16.3   21    5.8   363    100
4      62    17.1   75    20.7   21    5.8   363    100
5      53    14.6   45    12.4    8    2.2   363    100
6      56    15.4   40    11.0   13    3.6   363    100
7      72    19.8   52    14.3   12    3.3   363    100
8      86    23.7   67    18.5   21    5.8   363    100
9      54    14.9   60    16.5   15    4.1   363    100
10     45    12.4   28    7.7    10    2.8   363    100

Note: HT = Highly True, T = True, UN = Undecided,
F = False, HF = Highly False, Fr = Frequency

Table 3: Association between adolescent storm and stress and
the stereotypic belief of the teachers

                                    Sum of     Sum of Conflict
                                  Conception      Provoking
                                                  Behaviors

Conception      Correlation           -
                Sig. (2-tailed)
                N                    363

Conflict        Correlation        .354 **            -
Provoking       Sig. (2-tailed)      .000
Behaviors       N                    363             363

Emotionality    Correlation        .527 **         .231 **
                Sig. (2-tailed)      .000           .000
                N                    363             363

Risk Taking     Correlation        .444 **         .388 **
Behavior        Sig. (2-tailed)      .000           .000
                N                    363             363

                                  Sum of Emotion     Sum of Risk
                                                   Taking Behavior

Conception      Correlation
                Sig. (2-tailed)
                N

Conflict        Correlation
Provoking       Sig. (2-tailed)
Behaviors       N

Emotionality    Correlation             -
                Sig. (2-tailed)
                N                      363

Risk Taking     Correlation          .293 **              -
Behavior        Sig. (2-tailed)        .000
                N                      363               363

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

Table 4: Summary of Regression Analysis on Combined contribution of
the three components of adolescent storm and stress

Model            SS          MS       df      F

Regression    5879.167    1959.722    3
Residual      9214.128     25.666    359    76.355
Total         15093.295              362

Model          P     Sign    [R.sup.2]    Effect Size

Regression
Residual      0.05   0.000   .390 (39%)      .639
Total

Table 5: Summary of Regression Analysis on the Relative contribution
of three components of adolescent storm and stress

                         Unstandardized     Standardized
                         Coefficients       Coefficients

Model                       B        SE         Beta

(Constant)               17.552    1.645           .527
Emotionality               .691     .059
(Constant)               25.071    1.265           .444
Risk Taking Behavior       .683     .073
(Constant)               22.200    2.032           .354
Conflict Provoking         .776     .108
  Behaviors

Model                      t      Sign   [R.sup.2]

(Constant)               10.668   .000   .275(28%)
Emotionality             11.774   .000
(Constant)               19.815   .000   .195(20%)
Risk Taking Behavior     9.406    .000
(Constant)               10.923   .000   .123(12%)
Conflict Provoking       7.185    .000
  Behaviors

Table 6: Mean comparisons for checking whether or not teachers '
level of stereotypic belief vary with the indicated variables
(t-test)

Independent      Categories   Dependent     N     Means
Variable                       Variable

Sex of           Male         Conception   74    36.5000
respondents      Female                    278   36.6583

Marital          Single                    118   36.8729
Status           Married                   225   36.5956

Rural-urban      Rural                     299   36.6087
Disparity        Urban                     60    36.5667

Living or not    Yes                       208   36.9567
living with      No                        153   36.1438
Adolescents

Independent      Categories     Std       t     df    Sig2-
Variable                                              tailed

Sex of           Male         6.43460   -.186   350    .852
respondents      Female       6.52032

Marital          Single       6.40185   .376    341    .707
Status           Married      6.53568

Rural-urban      Rural        6.35135   .046    357    .963
Disparity        Urban        7.02626

Living or not    Yes          6.62691   1.181   359    .239
living with      No           6.23701
Adolescents

Table 7: Mean comparison for checking whether or not teachers '
level of stereotypic beliefs varies with the indicated
Demographic Variables

Independent       Categories          Dependent     N     Means
Variable                               Variable

                  20-25                            106   36.0472
Age               26-40                            215   37.0233
                  41-65                            39    36.4359

Total                                              360   36.6722

Field of Study    Natu. Science                    81    36.0617
                  Social Science                   56    35.6786
                  Language                         71    37.7606
                  Education                        92    36.9783
                  Business                         26    34.6154
                  Technology          Conception   24    36.9583
                  Hp                               12    39.7500

Total                                              362   36.6464

Stage Of          Early Adolescent                 50    36.2200
Adolescents       Middle Adolescent                56    36.8929
Lived With        Late Adolescent                  97    37.2680

Total                                              203   36.9064

Self              Fair                              2    38.5000
Perceived         Good                             36    36.4722
Professional      Very Good                        179   37.1676
Effectiveness     Excellent                        135   36.1111

Total                                              352   36.6989

Independent       Categories            Std       F     df
Variable

                  20-25               6.68386
Age               26-40               6.46590   .839     2
                  41-65               5.78926

Total                                 6.45993

Field of Study    Natu. Science       6.83986
                  Social Science      6.95468
                  Language            6.43087
                  Education           5.54498   1.634    6
                  Business            5.85202
                  Technology          7.95356
                  Hp                  4.35107

Total                                 6.45005

Stage Of          Early Adolescent    7.27672
Adolescents       Middle Adolescent   7.07024   .410     2
Lived With        Late Adolescent     6.03379

Total                                 6.62848

Self              Fair                2.12132
Perceived         Good                6.50927
Professional      Very Good           6.00233   .759     3
Effectiveness     Excellent           6.97294

Total                                 6.42956

Independent       Categories                Sig
Variable

                  20-25
Age               26-40               357   .433
                  41-65

Total

Field of Study    Natu. Science
                  Social Science
                  Language
                  Education           355   .137
                  Business
                  Technology
                  Hp

Total

Stage Of          Early Adolescent
Adolescents       Middle Adolescent   200   .664
Lived With        Late Adolescent

Total

Self              Fair
Perceived         Good
Professional      Very Good           348   .518
Effectiveness     Excellent

Total
COPYRIGHT 2016 Community Psychology Association of India
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Tafa, Aseffa
Publication:Indian Journal of Community Psychology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:6ETHI
Date:Sep 1, 2016
Words:4791
Previous Article:Psycho socio problems of mothers of children with intellectual disability.
Next Article:Influence of early parental loss on the psychological functioning and sense of identity among young adults in Meru County, Kenya.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters