t Be QR yte Met pte bay get | oi feds CE ig Indexed, Listed, Double Blind Reviewed and Refereed Journal. N AP S The Official Organ of: PSS Te UT Cas) eC eae EY ayVolume-9 (1) Special Issue-September 20) ISSN-0976 9218 INDIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Sr. No.| Title Pages OL. | Predictors of Professional Quality of Life of 001-010 Nurses Working in Private Hospitals Anuradha Bhandari* Harguneet Kaur** 02. Aggression and Emotional maturity between Juvenile Delinquents O11-018 and Normal Adolescents: A comparative study PreetiMathur* Yamini Ambikar** 03. ‘Self-Efficacy, Health Complaints and Positive-Negative Affect in 019-026 patients with Epilepsy Anuradha Bhandari* Jaspreet Kaur** Shruti Singha*** 04. | Family Environment and Social Adjustment among Working 027-034 Women Vishnu Narayan Kucheria* L.N. Bunker** 05. Community Perception towards Tourism Development and 035-043, ig Process: A Study of Border region 06. Mary Gogoi* Rohtash Singh** 07. | Analysis of Financial Statement on Behavior of 048.057 Investment focus on Decision Making Seyed Younes Mohammadi* Hamzeh Taghizadeh** 08. Effect of Early Intervention on Pictorial Perception 058-066 of Deprived and Non Deprived Children Aparna Vajpayee‘nian Journal of Pychological Science, V9, No Ta) TSSN-OoT6oaT8] Family Environment and Social Adjustment among Working Women Vishnu Narayan Kucheria* LN, Bunker** Abstract Im modern ora where women are participating equally in all areas of life they share sumerous responsibilities. Their effective adjusimentin different ife situations greats depends upon their family environmen! and their social adjustment: The present work attempis to explore theroteof family environment and social adjustment of working women wika hail from rural and urben gon, 2 sa comparative study for which «Sample of 80 working wamen and 80 non-working women were selected among each group 40 hail from rural and 40 from urban areas. Family Environment rs measured using Family Environment Scale by Prof. M. C. Joshi and Dr. O.P. Was (1997) and social adjustment is measuredusing and Social Adjustment with Social Adjustment Inventory by Di. RC Deva (2010).Results shows that urban working women are more cohesive, expressive, conflicted and independent and have better overall family environment as compared to rural working women, Urban non-working women are more expressive, independentand have better family environment as compared to urban working women. Rural non-working higher emotional adjustment and social adjustment as compared to rural non-working women Independence of working women shows negative relationship emotional adjustment Keywords: Family environment, social adjustment, About Author: Introduction In the modem era women is no longer limited to house, theyare participatingequally with men in all areas of life.One of the significant changes witnessed in the labor markets in India is women has entered into teaching, engineering, medical, research and other professional sectors. As the women take on the role of working professional in addition to their traditional role of the homemaker, they are under great pressure to balance their work and personal lives, further explains that role of working women has changed due to economic conditions and social demands resulting in tremendous Pressure to develop a career while sustaining active engagement in personal life. This working women, urban-rural. ssistant Professor, AIBAS, Amity University, Rajasthan Jaipur, India **Professor: Department ofPsychology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, India. increasing work pressure is taking a toll on working women life leaving them with less time for themselves. These new roles demands more balance between family and work place. Effective family-work balanceamong working Women is not possible without proper family support and their adjustment in various life situations.examines the factors that contribute to the work life imbalance among women school teachers. Resultsshowthat working conditions is one of the factors that contribute to life imbalance at work place, while, marital relationship contributes to life imbalance at home. Mubasheer&Shivappa (2013) studied the relationship between occupational stress and family environment of undergraduate women ‘Impact Factor | 3.021 ‘Special Issue, Sept. 2017 027,ings revealed that two ES best predicted the occupational stress of the teachers, they are Conflict and achievement orientation Mangaleswaran (2012) studied the adjustment problems of married women police personne! nd their association with socio-economic Variables. Findings reveals that in all dimensions, the respondents have high level of adjustment problems which is atributed to the pown tel Uns%) — Reletierel/ Peover ‘Vishnu Narayan Kuchera and L.N. Bunker Statistical Analysis ttest was used to determine the significant difference between various groups and Pearson ‘e was used to find relationship between the TSSN-0976 9218, Result & Interpretation Table 1; Shows mean SD and t values of family environment among working women family environment and social adjustment. For of urban and rural areas. this purpose SPSS Version 22 was used, ‘Seales Area x Mean ‘SD 7 to Cha Rural w was co = Urban wo ae 1s a as Tapco rat @ was BU la, ites w as 3H Contr Raval wo a ae Ta Titan ap es va Trenance Barat wo a th Tian a tae a rpaiaaion Rural a vis eT fa 3 w 735 7 Family Enviroment | Rar a Tar > ‘Urban 0 336.43 1932 ™ — * Significant atthe 0.05 level; **. Significant at the O01 level @-taled), Table I shows mean SD and t-values of family environment scales and its subscales among working women of urban and rural areas, Scores of cohesion subscale reveals that cohesion among urban working women (mean = 59.48£11,99) is high as compared to rural ‘working women (mean = 48.05+6.92), similarly urban working women (mean = 52.53.45.33) are more expressive as compared to urban working women(mean = 41.85 + 4.85), Conflicts among urban working women (mean = 62,03 + 9,66) is higher with their family members as compared to rural working women (mean = 33.10 + 3.81) which may be because of the Independence, as urban working women (mean = 52.48 + 4.98) shows higher independence as compared to rural working women (mean= 41.834 7.10). No such difference is found among the scores of organization subscale. It can be said that over all family environment of urban working women (mean = 236.43 + 19.52) is significantly better than rural working women (mean = 173.98 & 128). Table 2: Shows mean SD and t values of family environment among urban working and non- working women, oa ‘Working Status N ‘Mean sD a ‘ Cohesion Working w Wie Ble Ton ‘Noo: Working o We zie Expresiveness Working See ee eT = Noa-Working a Sas 337 ee Coal Working @ Le Te = Now Working w Tw 7 | Impact Factor "3.021 9junker “Tichmu Narayan Kocher and LN. B ——TWeing a ~ 326 | a7 [independence Icom a we Noo Working Lee = w 795 Working 17 | 0 %, Now Working 5 TE Hy Enaroomenr | Working EL ae | Non Working * may 109 a +, Significant at the 0.05 level; Intable 2, mean, SD and t-values were obtained for family environment among urban working ‘and non-working women. Findings of the table reveal that nonworkingwomen (mean = 59.85 + 51) are more expressive as compared to working women (mean = 5259 + 5.39). Similarly, non-working women (mean = 56.68 + 4.06) shows more independence as compared toworking women(mean = 5236 + 4.99). ‘Significant atthe 0.01 level (2-tited), Whereas comparison of Cohesion, Conflict, and Organiza, ete shows no significant difference.Overal fat environment of non-working women nea” 247.43 + 10.92) significantly better thay working women (mean=236+ 19465), Table 3: Shows mean SD and ¢ values of family environment among rural working ong ‘non-working women. =) Working Sistas Nes 50 TT on Working eC ae "Non-Working wo “47.30 73s et 7 Wor as aE ma = a " a ow Woking ww) as a Con Working 40 Wo 3ar z y 670 Now Wore aps TH Wi aps 710 ate ting a ae Row Werk wo Bas Ta Cram Working @ 75 Bal «: Now Working w a Ts Feniy Enicament _] Werte wpe Pare |... ‘Non-Working 40 186.23, 1545 Table 3 shows mean SD and t-values of family ‘environment scores of rural working and non- working women. Results reveal that non- working (mean = 42,95 + 8.48) scored higher on Conflict subscale as compared to (mean 33.1043.81). Similarly, non-working women (mean = 45.33: 5.27) shows higher scores on Independence as compared to working women(mean= 41.8347.10). No. significant Impact Factor 3.021 * Significant at the 0.05 level; **. Significant atthe 0.01 level 2-ailed). difference was found among non-working and working women on measures of cohesion, expressiveness and organization, Whereas overall scoresshows that nonworking women (mean = 186.23415.45) significantly better family environment as compared to (mean = 173.98#12.81). 30.‘Vishnu Narayan Kucheria and CN. Bunker ISSN-0976 9218 Table 4: Shows mean SD and t values of social adjustment among working women of urban and rural areas. Seale ‘Area N] Men] SD] ar] ‘motional Adjustment} Rural WIS] THT Emotional Adjustnent | Rural arr. Urban [7968 | T6as Sopa Matar Rural | we] B73 Za s 78 | 156 Urban 9585] 13.05 Social Adjustment | Rural [nese 75 ‘Urban 40 | 17533 [19.12 5 “Significant atthe 0 05 level **, Significant atthe 0.01 level @-talled Table 4 shows mean, SD and t-values of Social adjustment among working women of rural and urban areas. The findings reveals that there is no significant difference found among the scores emotional adjustment, social maturity and overall social adjustment. Table 5: Shows mean SD and t values of social adjustment of urban working and non-working women, Seale Working Status | N [| Mean | sD | af | ¥ Emotional Adjustment | Working 4 | 7968] 1635 78 | 3.826 Non: Working 40 | 6400 2013 Social Maturity Working 40 [9585] 13.03 78 | 224° ‘Non- Working 40, 818) 347 Social Adjustment Working 40 [17533 | 19.12 78 | 4.00%* Non- Working 40] 14718] 4059 Significant at the 005 level: In table S mean SD and t-values of social adjustment are presented amongworking. and nonworking women. On emotional adjustment working women (mean = 79.68 + 16.35) shows significantly higher scores as compared to non- working women (mean = 64 + 20.13), Similar finding were present on the scores of social *. Significant atthe 00) level @-alld), maturity, working women (mean ~ 95.85 13.03)scores were significantly higher than Scores of non-working women (mean = 83.18 + 33.41). On overall social adjustment scores workin, 75 * 19.12) scores women (mean were Seyi higher than nonworking women (ean =147.18 40.59), Impact Factor "3.021 O31‘ble 6. Shows mean SD and t rural working and non-working women values of social adjustment of [sae Working Saws | N [| Mean [90 D-ar | motional Working a] 7575} oT | Adjustment Non- Working GO] x00 | ti7e] 78 | 22 | Sect Mater Working Fo] sais] a393 Now Working | 40] 7978] 2705] 78 | 6s Social Adjustment | Working 40 | 16493 | 3075 Non Working] 40 14778] seas] 7* | 227 7 Sigatcat ahs 005 level *. Significant atte 0°01 level @-ale ‘Tobie 6 shows means, SD and t-values of social "+ 11.78). No significant a adjustment among rural working and non- on the scores of social maturity subscale, Oy ‘working women. On emotional adjustment sub- scale working women scores (mean = 75.75 + 179) are significantly higher as compared to 68 non-working women scores (mean = all scores shows similar significant rel Social adjustment of working women (meay~ 164.93 £ 30.75) is significantly higher than nonworkingwomen (mean= 147.784 3645), Table 7: Shows Pearson 'r' Relationship between the family environment and social adjustment. | national Adjustment Social Maturity Soci Adjesment Cahaion "6 00 “oe ‘Expressivencss O14 Hn OL Coat 0 me Te Independence a i a) ‘Organization 7) 36 G Fanaly Enron “OAT 07 = * Comelaion i signitican atthe 005 level **. Co Table 7.shows correlation between family cavironment and social adjustment subscale, Results reveal significantly negative correlation (Pearson - r = -.197) between independence and emotional adjustment subscales. Correlation between other subscales and among over all scores were not found significant, Discussion The family environment and social ‘adjustment of working women from urban and Impact Factor 3031 relation i significant atthe 0.01 level Qaied. rural areas was accessed in this study. The frst ‘objective was to find the level of difference between the family environment of working ‘women from urban and rural areas. Findings of Table I shows that urban working women cored significantly higher on subscales cohesion, expressiveness, conflict and independence and overall family environment scores as compared to rural working women. No significant difference was found on organization subscale The above findings are different from = a)Vishow Narayan Kuchera and LN. Bunker findings of (Ratnottar, 2015) urban women have beter family adjustmentthan rural women. Second objective was to find level of difference between the family environment of urban working and non-working women. Results of table 2 shows that among urban women, non-working women scored higher as ‘compared working women on expressiveness, independence and overall family environment where as no significant difference was found on cohesion, conflict and organization subscale. Third objective was to find the level of difference between the family environment of rural working and non-working women. Finding of table 3 shows thatnon-working women shows significant difference on measures of subscale conflict, independence and overall family environment whereas no significant difference is found on the measures of subscale cohesion, expressiveness and organization. Fourth objective was to compare level of difference on the measures of social adjustment and its sub-scale among working women of urban and rural areas. No significant difference was found on social adjustment and its sub-scales. Fifth objective was to find the level of difference on the measures of social adjustment among urban working and non-working women. Asseen in table S, working women shows highly significant difference on the measures of emotional adjustment and over all social adjustment as compared to non-working women. Sixth objective was to determine the level of difference on the measures of social adjustment and its subscales among rural working and non-working women. Table 6 shows that working women shows significant difference on the measures of emotional adjustment and overall social adjustment. ‘Whereas no significant difference was found on the measures of subscale social maturity. The findings of fifth and sixth objective are in the line [impact Factor 3.021 0976 of previous finding of Kachchhi (2014) which states that working women shows more adjustment in terms of health, social and emotional adjustment as compared to non- working women Seventh objective was to find relationship between family environment and social adjustment and their subscales. Findings ‘of table 7 shows that there is. significant negative relationship between independence subscale of family environment and emotional adjustment of social adjustment. No other subseales and overall scores of family environment and social adjustment. shows significantrelationship, Conclusion Based on the findings of the study it can be concluded that urban working women are more cohesive, expressive, conflicted and independent and have better overall family environment as compared to rural working women. Urban non-working women are more expressive, independent and have better family environment as compared to urban working ‘women. Rural non-working women shows high conflict, independence and good family environment as compared to rural working ‘women. No such difference exist between social adjustment of working rural and urban working women. Urban working women shows high ‘emotional adjustment and social adjustment as compared to non-working women. Rural working women shows higher emotional adjustment and social adjustment as compared to rural non-working women. Independence of working women shows negative relationship emotional adjustment, Reference Delina, G., & Raya, R. P. (2013). A study on Work-Life Balance in Working Women. IRACST ~ International Journal of aKuchera and LN Bunker we, Business and Manage (CBM), 2(5),274- 282. Kachebhi, P. K. (2014). A study of Adjustment Problem among working women and nonworking women. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 13), 138-140. Madipelli, S., Sarma, V. S. V., & Chinnappaiah, Y. (2013). Factors Causing Work Life Imbalance among Working Women-A Study on SchoolTeachers. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(4), 621-634.\ Mangaleswaran, R. (2012). Adjustment Problems among the Married Women Police Personnel. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2), 10-16. Mubasheer, C.A. N. & Shivappa, R. 2013. Relationship between Occupational Stress and Family Environment among Under-Graduate Women Teachers. Intemational Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry 1(2), 93-96. Article DOI: 10.5958/j.2320-6233.1.2.014 Murugesan, R. (2013), Adjustment Problems of Working Women in Relation to their Emotional Intelligence, Family Environment and Self — Concept. (Doctoral Thesis, Vinayaka Missions University, 2013) Retrieved from: www. vinayakamission.convuserfiles/p hd/0746500002.pdf Ratnottar, N.A. (2015). Family Adjustment of Married Working Women. International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering, 2(6), 629-631. Tmpact Factor : 3.021