Moral Judgment, Self-Esteem and Psychological Well-Being Among Rural and Urban

Adolescents from Different Socioeconomic Level

Introduction
According to the census 2011 approximately 50.1% of the population of our country is aged 24 years
or below aged under 24 years. Most of the youth fall under this aged group. One of the most
important age group called adolescence is also under this aged group. And adolescence is the most
important age group according to the development. WHO defines adolescents as individuals in the
10-19-year age group and “youth” as the 15-24- year age group. These two overlapping age groups
are combined together and known as young people in the group “young people”, covering the age
range 10-24 years. Adolescent experiences changes in social expectations and perceptions. Physical
growth and development are accompanied by sexual maturation, often leading to intimate
relationships. The individual’s capacity for abstract and critical thought also develops, along with a
sense of self-awareness when social expectations require emotional maturity. Adolescents are
future subjects of our country. Adolescents are not a homogenous group. Their needs vary with their
sex, moral judgment, self-esteem, psychological well-being and the social-economic conditions of
their environment. Their needs are an essential base for the social, economic, moral and industrial
development of a nation. Moral judgment, self-esteem, psychological well-being are the prime
needs of the nation.
Moral Judgment
Adolescents become increasingly independent, they also develop more nuanced thinking about
morality, or what is right or wrong. We all make moral judgments on a daily basis. As
adolescents’ cognitive, emotional, and social development continue to develop, their understanding
of morality expands and their behavior becomes more closely aligned with their values and beliefs.
Therefore, moral development describes the evolution of these guiding principles and is
demonstrated by the ability to apply these guidelines in daily life. Presently, our society is deeply
fragmented into caste, creed and religion. There is constant conflict among different sections. It
makes it clear that we are pursuing wrong values, considering them to be right. Adolescents don’t
behave properly with their relations and neighbours, do not respect other parents but still proclaim
themselves to be good, civilized and morally handsome. Moral handsomeness comes from the
deeds, and not from the outward appearance.
Self-Esteem
We can achieve anything if we believe in ourselves of course, we knew that to be incorrect, we can’t
achieve anything in the world simply through belief. However, we know that believing in yourself
and accepting yourself for who you are some important factors are success, relationships, happiness
and that self-esteem plays an important role in living a flourished life. According to self-esteem
expert Morris Rosenberg (1965) “self-esteem is favourable or unfavourable attitude towards the
self” in other words self-esteem is one’s attitude towards his/her own self.
Psychological Well-Being
Positive psychology defines psychological well-being from Aristotle’s perspective of eudemonia. i.e
living life according to one’s true self. To tap this construct of eudemonic happiness, Ryff developed
a multidimensional model of positive functioning, which includes 6 independent constructs i.e. self-
acceptance, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, autonomy and positive
relationship with others. According to Ryff psychological well-being is “an active engagement in a
number of existential challenges''. It is a reflection of one’s perception about self in dealing with
existential challenges, and the degree to which individuals perceive themselves as functioning well
on these 6 major areas of life (Ryff, 1989). The variation on this such as, diminished positive
psychological well-being indicates, difficulties in coping with major transitions in life (Abbot, et.al
2008, Kwan, Love & Ryff 2003), while enhanced psychological well-being indicates successful
formation of identity (Vleioras & Bosma 2005).
SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS
Socio comes from the word ‘social’ and refers to people and the ways (level) they fit into the
community in which they live. It reflects how well they are educated etc. Stawarski and Boesel
(1988) stated “SES is considered as an indicator of economic and social position. Socio-economic
status (SES) is a monetary and sociological consolidated aggregate measure of a man's work
involvement and of a person or families monetary and social position in connection to others, in
context of pay, training, and occupation. While breaking down a family's SES, the family pay,
workers' training, and occupation are inspected, and additionally, joined pay, though for a person's
SES just their own particular properties are evaluated. Nonetheless, SES is all the more ordinarily
used to portray a monetary contrast in the public area all in all.
Socio-economic status is regularly broken into three levels (high, middle, and low) to portray the
three places a family or an individual may fall into. While putting a family or individual into one of
these classes, any or the greater part of the three factors (wage, training, and occupation) can be
surveyed.
Furthermore, low pay and training have appeared to be solid indicators of the scope of physical and
emotional wellness issues, including respiratory infections, joint inflammation, coronary illness, and
schizophrenia. These issues might be because of ecological conditions in their working environment,
or, on account of inabilities or dysfunctional behaviors, might be the whole reason for that
individual's social issue regardless. Training in higher financial families is normally worried as
significantly more critical, both inside the family and additionally the neighbourhood group. In
poorer territories, where nourishment and wellbeing are needed, training can assume a lower
priority. SES affects overall human functioning including our physical and mental health. Low SES and
its correlates, such as lower education achievement, poverty and poor health, ultimately affect our
society.
Need of the study
1. I am trying to assess, with the help of this study, the effect of socio-economic status on the
moral judgment performance of adolescents. This study will be great use for the teachers,
students, guardian and curriculum designers for maintaining mental health of the children.
2. I am trying to assess, with the help of this study, the effect of socio-economic status on self-
esteem performance of adolescents. This study will be great use for adolescents to improve
their self-esteem and can give them confidence, strength and resilience to face and
overcome many obstacles.
3. I am trying to assess, with the help of this study, the effect of socio-economic status on
psychological well-being performance of adolescents. This study will be focuses on exploring
how different socio-economic status groups vary on psychological well-being.
Objectives
1. To compare the moral judgement performance of the adolescents of different SES groups for
rural and urban backgrounds.
2. To compare the self-esteem performance of the adolescents of different SES groups for rural
and urban backgrounds.
3. To compare the psychological well-being performance of the adolescents of different SES
groups for rural and urban backgrounds.
Hypothesis
1. There will be a significant difference in mean moral judgment scores of adolescents of
different SES groups for rural and urban backgrounds.
2. There will be a significant difference between the mean scores of adolescents on self-esteem
of different SES groups for rural and urban backgrounds.
3. There will be a significant difference between the mean scores of adolescents on
psychological well-being of different SES groups for rural and urban backgrounds.
Methodology
Sample: The proposed study will be conducted on a sample of 300 adolescents. The sampling of
subjects will be accomplished through 2 X 3 factorial between subject design and purposive random
sampling. The upper age limit of the sample would be kept around 19 years.

Tools:
1. Moral Judgment Test by Meera Verma & Durganand Sinha (1967)
2. The Rosenberg self-esteem scale
3. Ryff psychological well-being scale.
Statistical Analysis: The data will be treated statistically for descriptive statistics, two-way ANOVA
and any other as per nature of the data.