Introduction
Adolescence is commonly acknowledged as a crucial phase in an individual’s life, characterized by notable physical and psychological changes (Santrock, 2004). At this stage of life, an individual starts searching for and forming an identity for the present and future. Studies exhibit that youth is struggling through a lot of psychological problems and mental illnesses and these problems are becoming more severe day by day (Biddle, Mutrie, 2008; Srinata et al., 2005).
Thus, it is high time to induce a sense of psychological well-being (PWB) among adolescents. One thing that can affect the well-being of an individual is personality. Research has suggested that some personality traits like extraversion, agreeableness create feelings of high well-being (Deneve, Cooper, 1998) while other personality traits like neuroticism generate a sense of low PWB among individuals. The other factor that can be crucial for the PWB of an adolescent is environment of the family. Sharma et al. (2015) have advocated that family environment plays a very critical role in the development of a human being. Family is the primary social unit of an individual, and its effect remains on an individual throughout his/her whole life (Stewart, Dunn, 2006). The lenses through which an individual sees and interprets the events of life are formed by the family environment (Steinberg, 2001). Positive environment of the family leads to positive behaviors among individuals (Lau, Kwok, 2000) while negative family environment results in negative behaviors among adolescents (Matherne, Thomas, 2001; Wissink et al., 2006).
Although, a lot of work has been done in the world to understand the contributors of PWB, but in India, much work has not been done in this context. Furthermore, the research has advocated that family environment and personality factors play effective role in psychological well-being of adolescents, but what aspects of personality and family environment are more crucial is still unclear. The present study is an endeavor to contribute to literature on PWB by examining the role of personality and family environment factors in developing PWB.
One important factor which plays a critical role in PWB of an individual is family environment. Family plays a crucial role in affecting the psychological states of an individual. Cohesion refers to the bond among family members that connects them closely with each other. From birth to their phases of adolescents and adulthood, family plays a critical role in shaping the lives of children (Roostin, 2018). The association between family environment and PWB has been reflected by several studies. Study of Shek (1997) in Chinese context has revealed that adolescents having positive perceptions about the family environment tend to have high PWB. Study of Maheshwari et al. (2020) of adolescent girls has also revealed that family environment is positively associated with mental well-being.
Rapheal and Paul’s (2015) study in Indian context has also revealed the importance of home environment in generating a sense of PWB among adolescents. In another study of male and female adolescents of rural areas in India, Kaur et al. (2021) have demonstrated that most of the aspects of family environment have positive correlation with mental health of adolescents. While positive family environment is helpful in generating positive feelings (Aufseeser et al., 2006), environment of family conflicts generates the feelings of insecurity and distress among adolescents (Wissink et al., 2006). Lau and Kwok (2000) have revealed that orderly and cohesive environment of the family is very helpful in developing positive self-concept and lowering depression among adolescents. Hair et al. (2005) have suggested that perceptions of well-being remain high among adolescents when they have positive relationships with their families.
It is personality which makes people different from each other and determines their interpretation of life events in unique way (Pollak et al., 2020). People with high neuroticism tend to evaluate the normal life events in more threatening ways and fail to manage stressful situation in their life (Moreira et al., 2015). Studies have advocated that high level of neuroticism is negatively related to PWB while low level of neuroticism is positively related with PWB (Okpako et al., 2021). Lampropoulou (2018) study of Greek adolescents has reported significant association of personality dimensions with subjective well-being. Meta-analysis of Anglim et al. (2020) has also revealed that personality plays a critical role in well-being of an individual.
Abbott et al. (2008) have revealed in their longitudinal study that personality measured at the age of 16 and 26 is a significant predictor of well-being at age 52. Cloninger and Zohar (2011) have revealed that a large part of variance in happiness and well-being can be explained by personality. Burns and Machin (2010) have reported that various dimensions of personality are moderately correlated with PWB.
Although existing research acknowledges the role of personality traits and family environment in adolescents’ psychological well-being, these factors are often examined in isolation, with limited attention to the relative contribution of specific dimensions. Moreover, evidence on their combined influence remains scarce, particularly in the Indian context. The present study addresses this gap by examining how distinct personality and family environment dimensions contribute to adolescents’ psychological well-being.
Objectives of the study
•The study endeavors to fulfill the following objectives:
To study the difference between males and female adolescents on the variables of PWB, family environment and personality type.
To study the relationship of PWB with family environment and personality type among adolescents.
To explore whether family environment and personality type would predict PWB among adolescents.
Hypotheses
Following are the hypotheses of the study:
Males and females would differ significantly on the variable of personality type.
Males and females would differ significantly on the variable of family environment.
Males and females would differ significantly on the variable of PWB.
There would be a significant correlation between family environment and PWB of adolescents.
There would be significant correlation between personality type and PWB of adolescents.
Family environment and personality type would be the significant predictors of PWB.
Methodology
Study participants
To gather the data from respondents, non-probability convenience sample approached was adopted. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed among adolescents, both male and female, residing in Haryana, India. Ultimately, 320 complete questionnaires were collected. Upon examination, it was found that 20 of these questionnaires contained incomplete information and were consequently excluded from further analysis. Thus, a total of 300 questionnaires were utilized for the final analysis. The study comprised equal number of male and female respondents i.e., 150 males and 150 females. Age of the respondents ranged from 13 to 18 years.
Measures
Family environment
To measure the perceptions of adolescents regarding family environment, scale of Bhatia and Chadha (1993) was adapted in the study. Four dimensions of family environment were assessed, namely cohesion, acceptance and caring, independence, and expressiveness. Adolescents provided their responses using a five-point scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Higher score indicates more positive perceptions of the adolescents on the taken aspects of family environment.
Personality
Three dimensions of personality – extraversion, psychoticism, and neuroticism – were evaluated using the Hindi version of the Eysenck personality questionnaire, as adapted from the study conducted by Tiwaru et al. (2009). Respondents had to give their agreement or disagreement with the statements by choosing yes or no options, respectively.
PWB
Ryff’s (1989) psychological well-being scale was employed to assess the well-being of adolescents. Participants rated their perceptions of well-being using a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” A higher score indicates a higher level of psychological well-being among adolescents.
Procedure
The researcher directly contacted the head of the institution and provided a detailed explanation of the study’s objectives. The research commenced after obtaining formal permission from the institution’s head. With the guidance of class mentors, the researcher conducted presentations in multiple classrooms. Prior to data collection, participants were provided with detailed explanations of the study’s objectives and procedures, and their voluntary participation was requested. Subsequently, the research instruments were collected and examined for accuracy. Manual scoring methods were utilized, and the resulting data were recorded in a spreadsheet for further analysis.
Results
Perceptual differences between males and females
Prior to examining the predictive role of personality and family environment variables, gender differences were analyzed across study variables using independent samples t-tests. Significant differences were observed between male and female adolescents on certain personality dimensions. Specifically, neuroticism (t = 2.846, p<0.01) and psychoticism (t = 3.607, p<0.01) differed significantly across gender. Female adolescents reported higher mean scores on neuroticism (M = 6.65) compared to males (M = 5.68), whereas male adolescents scored higher on psychoticism (M = 4.41) than females (M = 3.67). No statistically significant gender difference was found for extraversion, although females reported slightly higher mean scores (M = 8.45) than males (M = 7.92).
With respect to family environment dimensions, significant gender differences were found for cohesion (t = 2.158, p < 0.05), expressiveness (t = 2.784, p < 0.01), and acceptance and caring (t = 3.960, p < 0.01). Female adolescents reported higher mean scores on cohesion (M = 52.33), expressiveness (M = 31.17), and acceptance and caring (M = 43.40) than male adolescents. No significant gender difference was observed for independence, although female adolescents reported marginally higher mean scores (M = 30.35) compared to males (M = 28.35).
No significant gender difference was observed in psychological well-being (PWB) scores. However, mean scores indicated slightly higher PWB among female adolescents (M = 90.79) than males (M = 88.51).
Table 1 presents detailed descriptive statistics and t-test results.
Table 1
Results of t test
Correlation analysis
Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between personality dimensions, family environment variables, and psychological well-being. Results indicated that all three personality dimensions were significantly associated with PWB. Extraversion showed a positive correlation with PWB (r = 0.192, p<0.01), whereas neuroticism (r = -0.144, p<0.05) and psychoticism (r = -0.153, p<0.01) were negatively correlated with PWB.
Similarly, all dimensions of family environment demonstrated significant positive correlations with PWB, including cohesion (r = 0.241, p<0.01), expressiveness (r = 0.144, p<0.05), independence (r = 0.234, p<0.01), and acceptance and caring (r = 0.133, p<0.05).
Intercorrelations among study variables are presented in table 2.
Table 2
Correlations among study variables
Regression analysis
To check the effect of independent variables on PWB, stepwise regression method was applied. Three factors related to personality and four factors related to family environment were put as independent variables in multiple regressions and PWB was taken as dependent variable. Details of the stepwise regression can be seen through table 3. Out of seven independent variables, three factors emerged as significant predictors of PWB.
Table 3
Results of stepwise regression
| Predictors | R | R2 | R2 Change | F | Sig. | P | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cohesion | 0.241 | 0.058 | 0.058 | 18.321 | 0.000 | 0.241 | 0.000 |
| Independence | 0.284 | 0.081 | 0.023 | 13.049 | 0.000 | 0.165 | 0.007 |
| Extraversion | 0.318 | 0.101 | 0.020 | 11.065 | 0.000 | 0.146 | 0.011 |
In model 1, cohesion emerged as a strongest predictor of PWB (F = 18.321, p<0.01). The R-squared value (R2 = 0.058) indicated that cohesion accounts for 5.8 percent of the variance in PWB. Additionally, the regression coefficient (β = 0.241, p<0.01) demonstrated that family cohesion has a positive influence on the psychological well-being of adolescents
In model 2, along with family cohesion, independence emerged as a second predictor of PWB (F = 13.049, p<0.01). Both cohesion and independence explained 8.1 percent (R2 = 0.81) variance in PWB. Value of R2 change exhibited that 2.3 percent of variance in PWB was explained by independence alone. Further, regressions coefficient (β = 0.165, p<0.01) exhibited that independence makes positive contribution in PWB.
The next variable that emerged as a significant predictor of PWB was the extraversion dimension of personality (F = 11.065, p<0.01). Along with cohesion and independence, extraversion explained 10.1 percent variance in PWB. But the individual contribution of extraversion in PSW was 2 percent (R2 change = 0.020). Value of regression coefficient (β = 0.146, p<0.05) revealed that extraversion was also a positive contributor to PWB of adolescents.
Discussion
The present study aimed to examine the role of personality traits and family environment in shaping psychological well-being among adolescents. Gender differences observed in neuroticism and psychoticism are consistent with earlier research suggesting that females tend to report higher levels of emotional sensitivity, whereas males exhibit higher levels of psychoticism-related traits. Similar gender-based patterns have been reported by Horstmanshof et al. (2008) and Schmitt et al. (2008), who found higher neuroticism scores among females, and by Lynn and Martin (1997), whose cross-cultural study across 37 countries revealed higher psychoticism scores among males. Although extraversion did not show a statistically significant gender difference, higher mean scores among females align with the findings of Weisberg et al. (2011), indicating greater extraversion among females.
Regarding family environment, female adolescents reported significantly higher levels of cohesion, expressiveness, and acceptance and caring. These findings support earlier Indian studies by Balda et al. (2019) and Ninaniya et al. (2019), which also reported gender-based differences in adolescents’ perceptions of family environment. Such differences may reflect variations in emotional socialization and family interaction patterns within the Indian socio-cultural context. Despite these differences in personality and family environment dimensions, psychological well-being did not differ significantly between males and females. This finding is consistent with previous research suggesting that overall psychological well-being may not be strongly determined by gender alone (Visani et al., 2011; Poudel et al., 2020).
The positive association between extraversion and psychological well-being observed in the present study is in line with existing literature emphasizing the adaptive role of extraversion. Meta-analytic evidence by Anglim et al. (2020) supports the positive link between extraversion and well-being, while Mazzucchelli and Purcell (2015) similarly reported that extraverted adolescents experience higher levels of well-being. These findings suggest that sociability, positive emotionality, and active engagement with the social environment may enhance adolescents’ psychological well-being.
In contrast, neuroticism and psychoticism were found to be negatively associated with psychological well-being. This result corroborates earlier studies indicating that neuroticism is linked with lower happiness, reduced positive effects, and diminished life satisfaction (Steel et al., 2008). Similarly, the negative association of psychoticism with well-being aligns with findings reported by Uzenoff et al. (2010), who observed reduced well-being among individuals exhibiting psychotic tendencies. The present findings further reinforce the notion that emotional instability and maladaptive personality characteristics can undermine adolescents’ psychological well-being.
Family environment dimensions also emerged as significant correlations of psychological well-being. Consistent with previous findings, cohesion, expressiveness, independence, and acceptance and caring were positively associated with psychological well-being. Earlier studies by Thanakwanga et al. (2012) and Crespo et al. (2011) similarly demonstrated that supportive and cohesive family environments contribute positively to adolescents’ well-being. These results highlight the importance of emotionally supportive family relationships in fostering psychological adjustment during adolescence.
Regression analysis revealed that family cohesion was the strongest predictor of psychological well-being, followed by independence and extraversion. This finding is supported by Herman et al. (2007), who emphasized the role of family cohesion in promoting psychological adaptation among adolescents. Leto et al. (2019) also reported that cohesive family environments enhance life satisfaction among children. Longitudinal evidence provided by Flouri (2002) further suggests that closeness with parents during adolescence predicts well-being later in life. The positive contribution of independence to psychological well-being aligns with findings by Ratelle et al. (2013) and Ng (2015), both of whom highlighted the importance of autonomy support in enhancing happiness and life satisfaction. Additionally, the predictive role of extraversion supports earlier evidence reported by Lampropoulou (2018) and Abbott et al. (2008), indicating that extraversion plays a significant role in influencing psychological well-being across developmental stages.
Overall, the findings of the present study emphasize that while personality traits contribute to adolescents’ psychological well-being, family environment – particularly cohesion and autonomy-supportive practices – plays a more substantial role. These results underscore the need for family-focused interventions aimed at strengthening emotional bonds and promoting healthy independence to enhance adolescents’ psychological well-being.
Implications of the study
The study has several implications for families, individuals, psychologists, and social activists. Elders of the families should try to create an environment of cohesion in the family. Furthermore, independence of adolescents must be respected by the family members by providing them individual space. Parents shouldn’t interfere in day-to-day life of adolescents until its necessary for them to interfere. Adolescents can also enhance their PWB by being extroverts in their dealings. They should try to interact and mix with others rather than avoiding contact with them.
Conclusion
The primary focus of the present study was to investigate the psychological well-being (PWB) of both males and females and to identify the factors contributing to PWB. The data were gathered from 300 male and female respondents of Haryana. The gathered data was then analysed using t-test, correlations, and stepwise regression. No significant difference was found among males and females in respect of PWB.
Out of eight predictors taken in the study, only three were found to have positive effect on PWB. The study findings revealed that factors of family environment are more crucial in developing PWB among adolescents than personality traits. Family cohesion was found the most significant contributor to PWB followed by independence and extraversion. Therefore, fostering a cohesive family environment and encouraging independence, rather than exerting control, can facilitate the promotion of psychological well-being (PWB) among individuals. Individuals can also promote their own PWB by being extrovert in their human dealing rather than being introverts.
Limitations
Like any study, the present research is not without its limitations. One such limitation is the relatively small sample size, which may restrict the generalizability of the study findings to a larger population. A larger sample size would have enhanced the potential for generalizing the findings more effectively. Future study can try to replicate the study findings by taking a much bigger sample. Future studies can consider more factors like age and social support to check their association with PWB. Cross sectional data is another limitation of study because it’s hard to establish causal relationships among variables with this type of data. Future studies should try to establish the relationship among study variables with longitudinal research design by taking the data at different time intervals.
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
The research was conducted according to the ethical standards of psychological research and adhered to the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The “Personal Information Questionnaire” (PIQ) did not require disclosure of information that could compromise the identity and security of the participating defines personnel. The authors provided adequate information about the study to the participants, who were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and informed that the results would be published in aggregate form.
Participants were reminded of the anonymous and voluntary nature of the research, with the freedom to withdraw at any time. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before administering the questionnaires. No human images or data that could compromise the confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents have been presented in the study. This study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Department of Applied Psychology of Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology.
