INTRODUCTION:

When students enter university after a safe school environment, they feel directionless. Graduate-level students are ready to take on their responsibilities. Today's world has become a challenging world in which students face stress, anxiety, and daily challenges as a result of which the well-being of students is affected negatively (Gall, Evans et.al 2000). Students of graduate level in the university have to face many difficulties for which adjustment is very necessary.

Psychological problems are seen in undergraduate students in university education institutions. The problem of psychological well-being is found more in graduate-level students than in the other population. (Sarokhani et.al 2013). Various types of stress are associated with the life of students.

As a result, the student fails to get employment, and problems like academic stress and uncertainty in life remain in the student's life. (Ibrahim et.al 2013). A survey conducted on anxiety in the USA found that 7 out of 10 adults experience stress and anxiety. (Blanco et.al 2008) The problem of mental health of university students exacerbates the public problem of Western societies. (Stanley and misanthrope 2001). The educational achievement of graduate-level students is an integral part. Educational achievement cannot be achieved without removing the stress on the students. Stress negatively affects students' mental health.

Stress is necessary for personal development but if the level of stress increases in the students then it affects the students negatively. Students face many problems in university like- fear of failure, educational achievement, self-identity, etc. Due to this psychological problems arise in the students, such as inferiority complex in the students, they are unable to think properly or worry too much, etc.

There can be many reasons for students to have psychological problems such as high stress, loneliness, physical inactivity, drinking, discrimination, poor body image, etc. (Scholied et.al 2016).

A study of the psychological problems of medical students in the US found that 23% had clinical depression and 57% had psychological stress. (Mosely et.al 1994)

One study found that anxiety was found in only 27.5% of adolescents while 42.4% were identified with mental health-related problems. (Olsson & Kennedy 2010).

Thus it is clear that many types of psychological problems have been found in the life of graduate-level students. In this situation, the students need to have good mental health. Well-being involves not only individual, physical, and psychological well-being but also health-related well-being. If students have a sense of psychological well-being then they can take their life in a good direction.

Gender differences are due to biological and psychological reasons. Life satisfaction is also different for men and women due to their social situations. Sometimes there are multiple perceptions about women in different workplaces. Such as effective communication skills, lower expectations than men, better facilities for women, etc.

Gender is an important factor in health (Manadhar, M, Hawkes et.al 2018), and to improve the health of men and women, it is very important to do gender-based studies. Some researchers have studied the facts related to the health of women and men. The research found that women have a higher life expectancy than men (WHO 2018). Women have more internal disorders than men, for example, anxiety, depression, and stress are more common in women than in men. (Eaton, N.H et.al 2012) Whereas men are more prone to external disorders than women such as substance abuse and high antisocial etc. it was found that men have a higher suicide rate than women all over the world. (WHO 2018) Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi believed that the relevance of Psychological Well Being has been getting more attention for a few decades. (Linley. P.2013) Psychological well-being means self-development and life satisfaction with life. (Ryff 1989)

Dr Corl Ryff developed a Model to Measure Psychological Well Being. This model is based on six dimensions. 1-Self-acceptance 2-positive relation with others 3-autonomy 4-Environmental mastery 5-purpose in life 6-personal growth. Ryff, after researching the well-being model for two decades, revealed that psychological well-being not only develops psychological well-being but is also related to physical health. Longitudinal research also revealed that a person who had better physical health was found to have higher psychological well-being and it was found that poor psychological well-being has a positive and significant relationship with mortality. (Bechetti.L.et.al2019). It is currently believed that well-being is dynamic; it is influenced by cultural and personal factors. (King M.F et.al 2014) Well-being increases a person's education and job opportunities. (Ahrens CJ.C 2006)

Although many researchers have clarified research that women and men are similar in psychological symptoms (Hyde, J.S Gender similarities and difference). Most societies believe that women and men have different principles. The results of women and men were not obtained in the study related to Well-being.38 One study found that women experienced more positive and negative emotions with intensity than men.39. Some research has shown the difference between men and women. (Lin.C, cheng et.at 2014)) Consistent studies show that women received a higher score in positive relationships than men. (Gomez-Baya, D,2018) scores for Autonomy and self-acceptance were higher in men than women. Karasawa et.al found in a study that the difference in autonomy scores between men and women was seen more in adult age.

Psychological well-being is studied based on six dimensions- six dimensions name is-Autonomy, Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, Purpose in Life, positive relationships with others, and self-acceptance.

OBJECTIVE:

To study the psychological well-being of male and female university students.

HYPOTHESIS:

1. There is no significant difference in Autonomy between male and female students.

2. There is no significant difference in Environmental Mastery between male and female students.

3. There is no significant difference in Personal Growth, between male and female students.

4. There is no significant difference in a positive relationship with others between male and female students.

5. There is no significant difference in purpose in life between male and female students.

6. There is no significant difference in self-acceptance between male and female students.

METHODOLOGY:

Sample and sampling technique:

Banaras city was selected for sample selection in this study. Two sampling techniques were used for the selection of the sample. The selection of the university was done by purposive sampling techniques and the students were selected by random sampling method. 200 students were selected of which 100 were from Central University and 100 from State University.

Tools:

In this research, the Psychological Well-Being Scale developed by Ryff has been used for data collection. Ryff's scale had 42 items. The respondent rated the statement on a 1 to 7. Where ‘1’ represents Strongly Agree and ‘7’ represents Strongly Disagree.

Statistical Analysis:

In this study, a T-test is used for statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis-

It is clear from Table 1- that there is a significant difference between male and female students in 5 out of 6 dimensions of Psychological Well Being, namely, Autonomy, Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, positive relation, and Purpose in Life, Whereas, in self-acceptance, a significant difference was found between male and female students.

Descriptive statistics and ‘T-Test of the sample on PWB scale (N=200)

Variable	Male Students		Female students		‘T’ Value
Variable	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Autonomy	42.15	3.68	37.56	3.37	9.18*
Environmental Mastery	43.67	3.27	40.66	4.26	5.59*
Personal Growth	43.55	2.75	41.45	4.60	3.91*
Positive Relation	40.19	4.69	41.49	3.84	2.14*
Purpose in life	43.09	3.26	40.74	4.21	4.40*
Self- Acceptance	40.35	5.01	41.02	4.25	1.01*

Note* at the significant 0.05 level (2-tailed test)

Male students have been found to have better psychological well-being than female students in Environmental Master with a 'T' value of 5.59 and Male student's mean score (43.55) in personal growth with a T-value of 3.91 is found to be better than female student's male score(41.45), hence male's psychological well-being is good. In Positive Relation with Others and Purpose in Life, a Male's mean score is found to be more than the Female's Mean score, hence Male's Psychological well-being is found to be higher than a Female student's. T-value 1.01with a mean score of males in self-acceptance is less than the mean score of females, hence psychological well-being of females is better than that of a male student.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this research was to study the psychological well-being of students based on gender. In this research, the age and educational level of male and female students were similar. Statistically found a difference between male and female students based on dimensions of psychological well-being. Male students scored higher in Autonomy, Personal Growth, Purpose in Life, Environmental Mastery, and positive relationships with others than female students and No significant difference was found in male and female students in Self- Acceptance. The reason for not having a significant difference could be the same age group and the same educational level.

In this study, the autonomy of male students was found to be higher than the score of female students. Whereas the score of female students recording self-acceptance was found to be higher than that of a male student.

Research from the USA found that female students scored lower in autonomy and self-acceptance than male students. This Same Finding Has Also Been Found In Japan Research.

In this study, a Male's mean score in a positive relationship with others and personal growth is better than a female's mean score, hence Male's psychological well-being is good.

Japan and the USA found from a study by Ryff and his colleagues that Females have received more scores than males in positive relationships with others and women have got higher scores in personal growth than men Ryﬀ, C.D et al (1995).

The result of this research has a lot of implications for behaviour life in the present context. This research will make a significant contribution to promoting women's psychological well-being and gender equality. And will also positively influence policies on gender equality and this will help break stereotypes because the result shows that males and females are equally linked to self-acceptance. Although according to the conservative ideology, women are related to their family while men are related to their business, women also make constant efforts for personal growth, that is, the spirit of personal growth is very much in women.

This study also has some limitations- firstly The Psychological Well-Being Scale Developed by Rape was used to measure the psychological well-being of male and female students. The scale was designed keeping foreign individuals in mind while the Indian sample size is included in this study. The sample is selected by random sampling techniques but the sample size is very small and the cause and effect relationship has not been clarified in this research. Future studies are required to examine the causal relationship between the factors covered in this study.

CONCLUSION:

Based on this study, it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference in psychological well-being between male and female students. Male and female students go through the same situation in university although male students have better psychological well-being. Thus it may be suggested that appropriate environments and tasks may be given to improve the psychological well-being of the male student so that the female is equal to the male. This Research Will Promote Psychological Well-Being.

REFERENCES:

1. Ahrens, C.J.C.; Ryﬀ, C.D. Multiple roles and well-being: Sociodemographic and psychological moderators. An introduction. Soc. Indic. Res. 2006,77, 1–10. [CrossRef]

2. An invariant dimensional liability model of gender diﬀerences in mental disorder prevalence: Evidence Bechetti, L.; Bachelet, M.; Pisani, F. Poor eudaimonic subjective wellbeing as a mortality risk factor. Econ. Politica 2019,36, 245–272. [CrossRef]

3. Blanco C, Okuda M, Wright C, Hasin DS, Grant BF, Liu SM, Olfson M. Mental health of college students and their non-college-attending peers: results from the National Epidemiologic Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Dec;65(12):1429-37. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.65.12.1429. PMID: 19047530; PMCID: PMC2734947.

4. Cohen, R.; Bavishi, C.; Rozanski, A. Purpose in life and its relationship to all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events: A meta-analysis. Psychosom. Med. 2016,78, 122–133. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5. de Girolamo, G.; Haro, J.M.; Jin, R.; et al. Cross-national associations between gender and mental disorders

6. Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

7. Diana Sarokhani, Ali Delpisheh, Yousef Veisani, Mohamad Taher Sarokhani, Rohollah Esmaeli Manesh, Kourosh Sayehmiri, "Prevalence of Depression among University Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study", Depression Research and Treatment, vol. 2013, Article ID 373857, 7 pages, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/373857

8. Eaton, N.R.; Keyes, K.M.; Krueger, R.F.; Balsis, S.; Skofol, A.E.; Markon, K.E.; Grant, B.F.; Hasin, D.S.from a national sample. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2012,121, 282–288. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9. Gómez-Baya, D.; Lucia-Casademunt, A.M.; Salinas-Pérez, J.A. Gender diﬀerences in psychological well-beingand health problems among European health professionals: Analysis of psychological basic needs and jobsatisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1474

10. Hyde, J.S. Gender similarities and diﬀerences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014,65, 373–398. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11. Hyde, J.S. Gender similarities. In APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women: History, Theory, and Battlegrounds; Cook, S.L., Rutherford, A., Travis, C.B., White, J.W., Williams, J.W., Wyche, K.F., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 129–143.

12. Ibrahim AK, Kelly SJ, Adams CE, Glazebrook C. A systematic review of studies of depression prevalence in university students. J Psychiatr Res. 2013 Mar; 47(3):391-400. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.11.015. Epub 2012 Dec 20. PMID: 23260171in the WHO World mental health surveys. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2009,66, 785–795. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. Keyes, C.L.M. Subjective well-being in mental health and human development research worldwide:

14. King, M.F.; RenLi, R.; Kao, C.; Wu, Y. Gender diﬀerences in psychological well-being: Tests of factorial invariance.

15. Lin, C.; Cheng, T.; Wan, S. Measuring subjective well-being in Taiwan. Soc. Indic. Res.

16. Linley, P.A. Human strengths and well-being: Finding the best within us at the intersection of eudaimonic philosophy, humanistic psychology, and positive psychology. In The Best within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudaimonia; Waterman, A.S., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA,2013; pp. 269–28

17. Maji, S. Society and ‘good woman’: A critical review of gender diﬀerence in depression. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry Manandhar, M.; Hawkes, S.; Buse, K.; Nosratid, E.; Magar, V. Gender, health and the 2030 agenda forMargot J Schofield, Paul O'halloran, Siân A Mclean, Christine Forrester‐knauss and Susan J Paxton (2016) Depressive Symptoms Among Australian University Students: Who Is at Risk?, Australian Psychologist, 51:2, 135-144, DOI: 10.1111/ap.12129 men than for women. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014,115, 23–44.

18. Mosley TH Jr, Perrin SG, Neral SM, Dubbert PM, Grothues CA, Pinto BM. Stress, coping, and well-being among third-year medical students. Acad Med. 1994 Sep;69(9):765-7. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199409000-00024. PMID: 8074778.

19. Olsson DP, Kennedy MG. Mental health literacy among young people in a small US town: recognition of disorders and hypothetical helping responses. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2010 Nov;4(4):291-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7893.2010.00196.x. Epub 2010 Aug 12. PMID: 20977685.

20. Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University Belonging, Friendship Quality, and Psychological Adjustment during the Transition to College. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 343–361. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20157493Qual. Life Res. 2015,24, 2577–2581. [CrossRef]

21. Ryﬀ, C.D. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Schütte, S.; Chastang, J.; Parent-Thirion, A.; Vermeylen, G.; Niedhammer, I. Social inequalities in psychologicalSeedat, S.; Scott, K.M.; Angermeyer, M.C.; Berglund, P.; Bromet, E.J.; Brugha, T.S.; Demyttenaere, K.; Sex Roles 2006,55, 801–815. [CrossRef]

22. Stanley, N., and Manthorpe, J. (2001). Responding to students’ mental health needs: Impermeable systems and diverse users. Journal of Mental Health, 10, 41-52.

23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638230020023606

24. sustainable development. Bull. World Health Organ. 2018,96, 644–653.

25. V.F.; Novo, E.M. The concept, dimensions and methods of assessment of human well-being

26. Van der Meer, P.H. Gender, unemployment and subjective well-being: Why being unemployed is worse for well-being: A European comparison. Community Ment. Health J. 2014,50, 987–990. [CrossRef]

27. within a socioecological context: A literature review. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014,116, 681–698

28. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2018: Monitoring Health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.

29. Yang, J., Benyamin, B., McEvoy, B. et al. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat Genet 42, 565–569 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.608

Received on 19.09.2022 Modified on 01.10.2022

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2022; 13(4):257-260.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2022.00040