See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https:www .researchgate.ne tpublic ation282391421 [631172]

See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https://www .researchgate.ne t/public ation/282391421
Influence of Family Environment and Self- esteem on Hostility of Adolescents
Article · No vember 2012
CITATIONS
0READS
1,389
2 author s, including:
Some o f the author s of this public ation ar e also w orking on these r elat ed pr ojects:
Personality and F abric c olor Pr eferences of Girls View pr oject
Manik andan K
Univ ersity of Calicut
31 PUBLICA TIONS    11 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
All c ontent f ollo wing this p age was uplo aded b y Manik andan K on 03 Oct ober 2015.
The user has r equest ed enhanc ement of the do wnlo aded file.

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

88 Published by: South Asian Academic Research Journals
ACADEMICIA :

A n I n t e r n a t i o n a l
M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y
R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l
INFLUENCE OF FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF -ESTEEM ON
HOSTILITY OF ADOLESCENTS

DIVYA . T. V*; MANIKANDAN. K.**

*Research Scholar ,
Department of Psychology ,
University of Calicut ,
Calicut University ,
Kerala .
**Associate Professor ,
Department of Psychology ,
University of Calicut ,
Calicut University ,
Kerala .

ABSTRACT

The current study examines the influence of family environment and self -esteem on
hostility of adolescents. Four hundred participants were selected participated in this
study, which includes 138 males and 262 females. The variables Family
environment, Self -esteem and Hostility were assessed by using Family Environment
Scale, Self -esteem Inventory and Multiphasic Hostility Inventory. Data were
processed by ANOVA (2×3) followed by Scheffe’s test. The results revealed that
Family Environment and Self -esteem ha ve a major role in the development of
Hostility among adolescents.

KEYWORDS: Family Environment, Self -Esteem, Hostility.
______________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION
Adolescence is recognised as a vitally im portant stage of development that confronts individuals
with substantial changes in many spheres of life. Mabey and Sorensen (1995) defines
adolescence period as “a stage of person‟s life between childhood and adulthood. It is a period
of human developm ent which a young person must move from dependency to independence,

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

89 autonomy and maturity. The person moves from being a part of family group to being part of a
peer group and standing alone as an adult.”
Adolescence is the transition period between child hood and adulthood extending
generally from 11 to 20 years (Bhatt & Advani, 1970). It is the period of life from puberty
characterized by marked physiological changes, development of sexual feelings, efforts towards
the construction of identity and a prog ression from concrete to abstract thought and characterized
by intense individual transformation. Adolescents want to perceive themselves as adults with
capable decision making skills but also want to remain members of a larger peer group. In social
development, family plays a major part in an adolescent‟s life. The family in general and parents
in particular are the most important support systems for adolescents. The main characteristics of
family are universality, emotional basis, formative influence, nuclear position in the social
structure, responsibility of the members and social regulation.
Dinkmeyer (1965) describes, “Family has the most significant role to play in the
development of personality. The customs and beliefs of our society are first handed down within
the family. Here the child first observes and then internalizes. The values of parents, social,
political, religious beliefs and customs are transmitted via the family.” Well – adjusted parents
will fulfil their role properly and provi de children with the physical and psychological support
they need and this contributes to personality development. Such family environment will be
perceived as comfortable by adolescents.
Adolescent period is a time of change where the young person is facing new experiences.
The various environments in which they move are likely to face new and unexpected situations
and events which the adolescent may never have previously encountered. Of this, family
environment helps the individual to face thes e unexpected situations and the family
environments impart an influential space in child development.
Moss (1989) defines family environment as “the global images that people form about
their family based on the experiences with family members. Family environment has been
conceptualised as the quality of human interaction. It includes those aspects which foster
growth and development such as family trust and confidence, sharing ideas, parental approval
and affection. It plays an important role in chi ld adjustment (Billings & Moss, 1982). The
family environment is one of the major micro system in which adolescents navigate the
complexity of identity formation (Bradely & Crowyn, 2000; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Swick &
William, 2000). Barber and Delfabbro (2000) indicate that high level of conflict and low level of
cohesion in the family environment has been linked to conduct problems during adolescence.
The other variable self -esteem plays an important part in our life. In every aspect of life,
the ben efits of high self -esteem can be observed. Self -esteem can be defined “as general feeling
of self -worth” (Bong & Clark, 1999). The most broad and commonly cited definition of self –
esteem is by Rosenberg (1965) he explains it “as favourable or unfavourabl e attitude towards
self”. Self -esteem refers to one‟s affective or evaluative appraisal of the self, that is, self -esteem
reflects the extent to which a person likes or dislikes the self or the extent to which a person
thinks negatively or positively of the self. Baumeister (1993) contends that self -esteem implies

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

90 self-acceptance, self -respect and feeling of self – worth. High self -esteem and a positive self –
concept are important characteristics of children.
Self-esteem according to Good (1973) is “the judgement and attitude an individual holds
towards self”. According to Coppersmith (1967) “Self -esteem is a personal judgement of
worthiness that is expressed in attitudes that individual holds towards himself. It is the
subjective experience with whic h the individual conveys to others by verbal reports and by other
overt expressive behaviour”.
Self-esteem can manifest either as underlying dispositional tendency (trait self -esteem) or
a transient psychological condition (state self -esteem) (Fleming & C ourthey, 1984; Rosenberg,
1965). Self -esteem involves something akin to an attitude towards self. Self -esteem is
associated with numerous self beliefs that pertain either to the self as a whole or its particular
attributes. It is also associated with fee lings about oneself, either globally to the self or locally to
certain attributes. Self -esteem is considered to be an important predictor of leadership ability
because initiatives and confidence are two most important factors that leadership requires
(Cremer, Knippenberg, Mullender & Stinglhamber, 2005).
Burn (1982) point out that self -esteem is the complex cognitive affective response, which
accompanies behaviour in accordance with conscience. Corey (1994) states that self -esteem is
the way one feels abo ut oneself, including the degree to which one possesses self -respect and
self-acceptance. Self -esteem is the sense of personal worth and competence that a person
associates with that of self -concept.
The family environment plays a crucial role for the de velopment of the adolescent. If the
family environment is not warm, cohesive and parent -adolescent interaction is not in proper
manner the adolescent is likely to develop hostility.
Hostility is a broad construct involving cognitive, affective, and behavi oural aspects. The
cognitive component consists of negative belief and attitudes towards others. Among these are
cynicism (i.e. a belief that others are motivated by selfish concerns), mistrust (i.e. expectation
that others are likely to be provocative a nd hurtful) paranoia and denigration (Smith, 1994). The
affective component of hostility varies from anger, irritation and resentment (i.e. a feeling of
indignation) to rage and it often occurs in response to provocation (Smith, 1994). Suraez and
Willia ms, (1990) have emphasized the independent role of anger, and have tended to see
irritation as an essential component of affective hostility. Direct physical aggression is, however
common in hostile persons, whereas verbal aggression in the form of hatefu l insults, opposition,
argumentativeness, and sarcasm are more typical (Smith, 1994).
Kagan (1971) defines hostility as wish for specific class of goals, to cause pain, distress
or anxiety to another person or surrogate of that person. Spielberger (1998) defined hostility as a
complex set of feelings and attitudes that motivate aggressive and vindictive behaviour.
Considering the age and gender it was found that no difference in hostility was found between
male and female students (Kay, Duerksen, Pike & Anderson, 2003) whereas younger students
were more hostile than older students (Jackson, Finney, 2002). The strongest predictors of
hostility are non acceptance, impulse and life satisfaction (Mitorfan, & Ciuluvica, 2012). The

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

91 cognitive component of hosti lity is associated with antisocial behaviour, suicidal thought,
depression and conduct disorder (Pakiz, Reinherz & Giaconia, 1997). Affective hostility (i.e.
anger and irritability) on the other hand has been shown to have somatic complaints and is
associ ated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. (Miller, Smith, Turner, Guijarro &
Hallet, 1996).
Life becomes difficult if it comes to adolescence, as adolescence is that span of life where
change is inevitable in all aspects, be it social, emotional, physical and psychological.
Family is a place where a child learns to deal with emotions and drives in a socially
acceptable manner. The changes in the family structure and climate have made an impact on
adolescents. It is through the family that the ch ild develops self -esteem. In the present scenario
family interaction and communication are less and conflict is high. The parents are in a hurry to
improve their standard of living and they have no time to engage in child rearing activities. This
in turn affects the adolescent‟s personality traits such as self -esteem and hostility.
The child‟s environment during infancy goes a long way in giving a desirable or
undesirable direction for his future development in all spheres of life. Thus the importance of
adolescent‟s environment during early years is immense for his future develop ment, in normal
circumstances this is the family environment. Family ties are weakening and children commit
suicide and engage in undesirable behaviour because of low self -esteem and hostility. Research
has shown that hostility create a mental and psycho social problems such as poor academic
achievement, impaired social functioning, suicide and substance abuse (Hicke 2001;
Marmorstein, & Lacono, 2004; Renout, Kovacs & Mukerji, 1997; Angst, Angst, Stassen, 1999).
Epidemiological studies documented that pr evalence of hostile behaviour of adolescence is
increasing (Bennett, 1994). This prompted the investigator to conduct this study.
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The participants of this study comprised of 400 adolescents (Male = 262, Female = 138).
All the particip ants were in the age range of 17 -21. Incidental sampling technique was used for
the study. A major portion that is 74.5% of them belonged to rural area while 25.5% were from
urban, with nuclear to joint ratio of 86.5% and 13.5%, respectively.
INSTRUMENTS
Following psychometric tools were employed to assess the different variables included in
the study.
1. SELF -ESTEEM SCALE: This scale consisted of 20 items based on 5 point likert scale.
The spilt half reliability and test -retest reliability of the scale was fo und to be 0.95 and
0.90. The content validity coefficient of the scale was 0.41 (Immanuel & Sam Sanand
Raj, 1985). The maximum score of the scale is 120 and minimum 20.

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

92 2. FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE : The family environment scale consisted of 59
items. The participant is asked to respond to statements as „YES‟ or „NO‟. The numerical
weightage given to the responses were 1 for correct answer and 0 for incorrect. The sum
of the score of the items in the s cale yield total family environment score of the
participant. Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale is found to be .80. The face validity of
the scale has been assured by many experts (Divya & Manikandan, 2010)
3. MULTIPHASIC HOSTILITY INVENTORY : This is a five point likert scale and
consists of 44 items. Multiphasic hostility measures hostility on the basis of two
dimensions that is experience and expression of hostility. Experience of hostility is a
subjective process including angry feelings or cynical th oughts. Expression of hostility is
more observable components which include acts of verbal and physical aggression. The
components of hostility that come under experience are self criticism, guilt and cynicism.
Expression of hostility includes acting out, criticism of others and projection hostility.
The reliability of the scale was determined by odd even reliability. The product moment
correlation between the tests was found to be .75. The correlation coefficient obtained
was .64. The face validity of th e scale has been assured by many experts in the field
(Jayan & Baby Shari, 1995).
PROCEDURE
These instruments were administered to the adolescents, and were assured that the
provided information will be kept strictly confidential and it will be used for research purpose
only. After collecting the responses were scored according to the procedure and it was
statistically analysed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To know how the variable self -esteem influences hostility along with family environment
the investigator computed the variance of hostility due to self -esteem and family environment.
For this the self -esteem was categorized into three groups – low, average and high based on the
principle mean ± half SD (Mean=66.49 SD=11.04). Family environment was categorise d into
two groups based on the median (43.00) as a cut -off point, those that fall on above the median
labelled as healthy and those who have below the median as unhealthy family environment. The
obtained data were analyzed using 3 x 2 ANOVA and followed by Scheffe‟s test to know if there
is any significant difference among the mean scores of self -esteem groups on hostility. The
results are presented in table 1.

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

93 TABLE1
SUMMARY OF ANOVA OF HOSTILITY BY FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF –
ESTEEM (2X3)
Variabl
e Residual Main effect
Interaction
Family Environment Self-esteem
Sum of
squares Mea
n
squa
re Sum
of
squar
es Mea
n
squar
e F Sum
of
squar
es Mean
squar
e F Sum
of
squar
es Mea
n
squar
e F
Self
criticis
m 3224.4
9 8.18 50.15 50.1
5 6.13
* 18.64 9.32 1.14 7.11 3.55 0.
43
Guilt 3707.1
56 9.40 29.28 29.2
8 3.11 264.9
9 132.4
9 14.08*
* 1.75 5.87 0.62
Cynicis
m 9288.6
0 23.5
7 163.2
1 163.
21 6.92
** 115.9
7 57.98 2.46 35.47 17.7
3 0.75
Criticis
m of
others 8302.4
8 21.0
7 0.43 0.43 0.20 14.72 7.36 0.34 32.88 16.4
4 0.78
Acting
out 9900.7
1 25.1
3 38.27 38.2
7 1.52 430.5
0 215.2
5 8.57** 162.2
2 81.1
1 3.23
*
Projecti
on
hostility 5600.3
9 14.2
1 43.61 43.6
1 3.07 234.9
1 117.4
5 8.27** 7.74 3.87 0.27
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 (df 2, 399)
By examining table 1 it can be seen that there is a significant difference in the variable
under study. Family environment was found to be significantly influencing the variables self –
criticism and cynicism. The calculated F value of self -criticism was 6. 13 (p < .05) and for
cynicism 6.92 (p < 0.01) respectively. Researchers have also reported that the roots of hostility
lie in difference in family environment (Rose, 1988, Smith, Mc Gonigle, Turner, Ford &
Slattery, 1991). The family environment factors s uch as attachment style and parental rearing are
involved in the development of anger and hostility in youth (Muris, Meesters, Morren &
Moorman, 2004). Development of hostility seems to have enhanced in families as hostile
children described their family a s high in conflict and low in cohesion in comparison to low
hostile children (Smith, Pope, Sanders, Allerd, & Keffe, 1988). The factors of hostility that is

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

94 guilt, acting out and projection hostility were found to have been significantly influenced by the
variable self -esteem. The calculated F value was 14.08 (p < .01), 8.57 (p < .01) and 8.27 (p< .01)
for guilt, acting out and projection hostility respectively. A two -way interaction between family
environment and self -esteem was found (F = 3.23, p< .05) o n the variable acting out which
indicates that these two variables were crucial in the development of acting out – the hostile
behaviour. A central aspect of self -concept is self -esteem. Self -esteem is a general feeling of
self-worth (Bong & Clark, 1999) . Children who have high self -esteem will be confident, happy,
highly motivated and low self -esteem comes from poor self -image. Adolescents‟ self -esteem on
later violent offending and hostility tend to be largely explained by the psycho -social context in
which self -esteem developed (Boden, Fergusson & Horwood, 2007)
Since the variable self -esteem and family environment explained a significant result, as a
follow up „t‟ test (self -criticism, cynicism) and Scheffe‟s F was calculated (Guilt, Acting out, and
Projection Hostility), to know which level of family environment and self -esteem makes the
difference in the hostility dimension such as self -criticism, cynicism for family environment and
guilt, acting out and projection hostility with respect to self -esteem, and the results are presented
in tables 2 and 3.
TABLE 2
MEAN, SD, N AND ‘T’ VALUE OF SELF -CRITICISM AND CYNICISM BY FAMILY
ENVIRONMENT
Variables Groups N Mean SD „t‟ value
Self- Criticism Unhealthy Family
Environment 189 17.13 3.21
2.99**
Healthy Family Environment 211 16.27 2.50
Cynicism Unhealthy Family
Environment 189 19.36 5.39
3.39**
Healthy Family Environment 211 17.57 4.34
**p < 0.01
Table 2 gives the mean, SD and „t‟ value of self -criticism and cynicism by family
environment. While observing the table it can be seen that the variables self -criticism (t= 0.99,
p<.01) and cynicism (t=3.39, p<.01) were found to have a significant influence on the groups of
family environment. By examining the table it can be seen that self -criticism and cynicism were
found to be high among members of unhealthy family environment.
The transition from childhood to adolescence marked a rapid maturation in all aspects of
adolescence. In addition to this transition there is an elevated focus on pee r group relationship,
sense of belonging and acceptance. It is a period in which adolescents move from dependency to
independency and create one‟s own self identity. So the family environment must be cohesive

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

95 and supportive as it creates healthy mind among adolescents. If the family environment is non –
supportive and neglectful it creates a negative impact on adolescent behaviour that leads to
hostile type of behaviour such as self -criticism and cynicism.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF GUILT, ACTING OU T AND PROJECTION
HOSTILITY (SCHEFFE’S PROCEDURE) BY SELF -ESTEEM
Self-esteem Groups Variables Scheffe‟s F
Low
Vs
Average Guilt 38.71**
Acting out 8.71*
Projection
Hostility 12.24**
Low
Vs
High Guilt 16.37**
Acting out 18.29**
Projection
Hostility 22.04**
High
Vs
Average Guilt 4.34
Acting out 2.46
Projection
Hostility 2.11
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01
Table 3 reveals that there exists a significant mean difference in the dimension of
hostility such as guilt, acting out and projection hostility between low -average and low -High
groups of self -esteem. The Scheffe‟s F value of the variable guilt, acting out and projection
hostility in comparison with low and average self -esteem were 38.71(p < 0.01), 8.71(p < 0.05),
and 12.24 (p < 0.01) respectively. In the case of low vs. high self -esteem the Scheffe‟s F for the
variables guilt, acting out and projection ho stility were 16.37(p < 0.01), 18.29(p < 0.01), and
22.04 (p < 0.01) respectively. Table 3 also reveals that high and average self -esteem group has
no significant influence on guilt, acting out and projection hostility of adolescents.

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

96 CONCLUSION
The emo tional atmosphere in the family creates a positive energy among children. It is
very important for parents to be able to communicate openly and effectively with adolescents as
it is a period of stress and strain. Positive communication between parents and their children can
help adolescents to establish individual values and improve self -esteem and thereby reduces
hostility. So a striking balance should be maintained between adolescent and the parent, as it
helps the adolescents to share their emotional fe eling in a friendly way.
The basic strength of the family depends on children. The parents as well as significant
others play a major role in creating positive mental health among adolescents. Family
environment is a protective as well as supportive agent for children. If the family environment is
encouraging, supportive and cohesive it often leads to all -round development of adolescents
thereby contributing to the society. The future research should take notice or give importance to
understanding how the family environment increases the likelihood of hostility.
REFERENCES
Barber, J. G., & Delfabbro, P. (2000). Predictors of Adolescent Adjustment Parent Peer
Relationship and Parent -Child Conflict. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 27, 275 -288.
Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Self -esteem: The Puzzle of Low Self Regard. New York: Plenum
Press.
Bennett, W. J. (1994). The Index of Heading Cultural Indicators: Facts and Figures on the State
of American Society. New York: Simon and Schuster
Bhatt, L. J., & Advani , K. R. (1970). Conformity and Deviation among Adolescents. New Delhi,
NCERT.
Billings, A. G., & Moss, R. H. (1982). Family Environment and Adaptation: A Clinically
Applicable Typology. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 26 -28.
Boden, J. M., Ferg usson, D. M., & Horwood, J. L. (2007). Self -esteem and Violence: Testing
Links between Adolescent Self -esteem and Later Hostility and Violent Behaviour. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42, 881 -891.
Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Compariso n between Self concept and self efficacy in
academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34, 139 -153.
Bradley, R. H., & Crowyn, R. F. (2000). Moderating Effect of Perceived among of Family
Conflict on the Relation between Home Environmental Proc esses and the Adolescents. Journal
of Family Psychology, 14, 394 -396.
Brofenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and
Design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Burn, R. B. (1982). Self Concept Development and Edu cation. London.: Holt Rinehart &
Winston.

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

97 Coppersmith, S. (1967). The Antecedents of Self -esteem, New York : W. H. Freeman.
Corey, G. (1994). Self -esteem. In R. J. Crosini (Ed.). Encyclopaedia of Psychology. 3, New York
: John Wiley & Sons.
Cremer, D. D. E., Knippenberg, D.V., Mullenders, D., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). Rewarding
Leadership and Fair Procedures as Determinants of Self -esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 3 -12.
Dinkmeyer, D. C. (1965). Child Development: The Emerging Self. Bombay: Pre ntice Hall of
India.
Divya, T. V., & Manikandan, K. (2010). Family Environment Scale. Department of Psychology,
Calicut, University of Calicut.
Fleming, J. S., & Courthey, B. E. (1984). The Dimensionality of Self -esteem II: Hierarchical
Facet Model for Rev ised Measurement Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
404-421.
Good, C. V. (1973). Dictionary of Education. New York. Mc Graw Hill Book Company.
Hicke, I. B. (2001). Choosing antidepressant drugs in General Practice. Australian Family
Physician, 30, 663 -7.
Jayan, C., & Babyshari, P. A. (2005). Multiphasic Hostility Inventory. Department of
Psychology, Calicut, University of Calicut.
Jackson, P. B., & Finney, Finney, F., (2002). Negative Life Events and Psychological Distress
among Youn g Adults. Social Psychology, 65,186 -201.
Kagan, J. (1971). Personality Development. New York: Harcount Bruce.
Kay, K., & Duerksen, C., Pike, P., & Anderson, T. (2003). The effects of Gender and Ethnicity
on the Over Controlled –Hostility Scale of the MMPI -2. Journal Articles Support Null
Hypothesis, 2, 86 -96.
Mabey, J., & Sorensen, B. (1995). Counselling for Young people. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Marmorstein, N. R., & Lacono, W. G. (2004). Major Depression and Conduct Disorder in
Youth: Associations with Parental Psycho Pathology and Parent Child Conflict. Journal of Child
Psychology &Psychiatry, 45, 377 -86.
Miller, T. Q., Smith, T. W., Turner, C. W., Guijarro, M. L. & Hallet, A. J. (1996). A Met
analytic view of Research on Hostility an d Physical Health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 322 –
348.
Mitrofan, N., & Ciuluvica, C. (2012). Anger and Hostility as Indicators of Emotion Regulation
and Life Satisfaction at the Beginning and the ending. Procedia – Social Behavioral Sciences, 33,
65-69.

ACADEMICIA Volume 2, Issue 1 1 (November , 2012) ISSN 2249 -7137

The South Asian Academic Research Journals

HOME

98 Moss, R. H. (1989). Family Environment Scale Form R: Interpretative Report form Consulting
Psychologist Press. California: Palo Alto.
Murris, P., Meesters, C., Morren, M., & Moorman, L. (2004). Anger and Hostility in
adolescents: Relationship with self rep orted attachment style and perceived parental rearing
styles. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 57, 257 -264.
Pakiz, B., Reinherz, H. Z., Giaconia, P. M. (1997). Early Risk Factors of Serious Antisocial
Behaviour at age 21: A Longitudinal Community Study. A merican Journal of OrthoPsychiatry,
67, 92 -101.
Renouf, A. G., Kovacs, M., Mukerji, P. (1997). Relationship of Depressive, Conduct and
Comorbid Disorders and Social Functioning in Childhood. Journal of American Academy of
Child, 36, 998 -1004.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Adolescent self image, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ross, R. J. (1988). Genetic and Environmental Variance in Content Dimensions of the MMPI.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 302 -311.
Smith, T. W. (1994). Concepts and Methods in the study of Anger, Hostility and Health. In A.
W. Siegman., & T. W. Smith (Eds.), Anger and the Heart 23 -24. Hillsdale, New Jersey : Elbaum.
Smith, T. W., McGonigle, M., Turner, F. & Slattery, M. L. (1991). Cynical Hostility in Adult
Male Twins . Psychosomatic Medicine, 53, 684 -692.
Smith, T. W., Pope, M. K., Sanders, J. D., Allerd, K. D., & Keeffe, J. L. (1988). Cynicial
hostility at home and work: Psycho social vulnerability across domains. Journal of Research in
Personality, 22, 525 -548.
Suraez, B. C., & Williams, R. B. (1990). Situational Determinants of Cardiovascular and
Emotional Reactivity in High and Low hostile men. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51, 36 -45.
Swick, K. J., & Williams, R. D. (2000). An Analysis of Brofenbrenners Bioecological
Perspective for Early Childhood Educators: Implications for working with Families experiencing
Stress. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 371 -378.
Thomas, I., & Sananda, S. R. ( 1985). Self -Esteem Inventory. Department of Psychology,
Trivandrum, Universit y of Kerala.

View publication statsView publication stats