Introduction The concept of well-being is very vast and varies from place to place.

It has been
divided into different categories i.e. physical well-being, psychological well-being, social well being,
economic well-being, and spiritual well-being. This study focuses on psychological well-being (PWB)
based on Ryff's definition; it will be elaborated in the following pages. This approach emphasizes full
growth of an individual, purpose in life, positive relation ships, and psychological functioning.
Investigating PWB in adolescence is a field of study has increased drastically (e.g. Rathi and Rastagi
2007; Shek 2002). The current study addresses PWB of college students. According to Erikson's
psychosocial development theory (cited in Hurlock 2004), this period of life is classified in early
adulthood. It is a period of adjustment to new social expectations such as, spouse, parent, and
breadwinner. In this period, people develop new interests and values in order to keep up with new
roles. One of the features of early adulthood is a settling down age, when a boy or a girl reaches this
age, it is the time of settling down, and assuming the responsibility of an adult life. It is a productive
age and age of facing problems also in this period of life, individuals turn to concern over intimacy.
Having higher education for Indians is a crucial task, because they might have access to a better job
opportunity. On the other hand, for admitting in a university, Indian students have to pass an
entrance exam; hence, they experience a lot of tensions due to a tough competition. It is well-
documented that stressful life affects physical and PWB (e.g. Cohen et al. 2007; Pearlin et al. 2005;
Thoits 2006). The study of Mukhopadhyay and Kumar (1999) in India shows that the experience of
stress can have a negative impact on the PWB of students, especially girls. Their study reveals that
academic pressure is associated with suicidal thoughts and hopelessness among Indian adolescent
girls. Deepening our knowledge on different aspects of PWB can help to design prevention programs
for students in order to drag up their psychological and social functioning. A large body of research
has found that PWB is affected by physical health, personality, life experiences, socioeconomic
status, and culture; for instance, contrast between individu alistic and collectivistic cultures reveals
that the Western culture values self-oriented aspects of PWB i.e. self-acceptance and autonomy;
whereas the Eastern values other dimensions of PWB such as positive relationship with others (Ryff
1995). Moreover, she demonstrates that life experiences and how the people interpret those events
provide useful avenue for understanding human differences in PWB. The study indicates that the
chronic (long-term) physical conditions are associated with significant reductions in PWB levels, for
both males and females (Shieds and Wheatley Price 2001). Furthermore, the study of Ryff and
Schmutte (1997) reveal the association between types of personality and dimensions of PWB. Along
with the noted factors, socioeconomic status (SES) is an influential factor in an individual well-being
which usually defines in terms of occupation, income, and education. Pearlin (1989) argues that
social structure and arrangements of people's lives and their repeated experiences from these social
factors can deeply affect one's well-being. Education as one of the social factors impacts physical
and PWB; people with higher levels of education experience lower levels of psycho- physio logical
distress (Kessler 1982; Pearlin et al. 1981; Ross and Huber 1985). Often, stressful situations and
social environment that surround people's lives influence their well-being. For instance, low
economic status could contribute to development of psychological problems in individuals. Most
likely, they are unable to cope with stressful conditions such as, the loss of parents, diseases,
unemployment, and scholastic failure. Lynch et al. (1997) show that the parent's socioeconomic

Instruments A structured questionnaire (see "Appendix 1") designed in order to gather socio-demo
graphic information regarding to the topic of the current study. Some of the questions were in
relation to age of students, types of religion, education and occupation of parents, family income,
and number of persons living in home, types of housing (rental house or owned house). As part of
this questionnaire, 6 questions were asked to define the students' family relationships. These
questions had likert format with four response options (always, sometimes, seldom, and not at all)
or (very good, good, a little good, not at all) Participants circled a number ranging from 4 (always or
very good) to 1 (not at all). In order to measure PWB, this study used Psychological Well-Being Scale
(Ryff, 1989) (see "Appendix 2"). This instrument is based on the idea of eudaimonic well-being. The
Ryff inventory consists of either 84 questions (long form) or 54 questions (medium form). This study
used long form consists of 84 questions grouped in the following 6 dimensions. Each dimension has
14 questions. These dimensions are as following: 1. Self-Acceptance: measures a positive and
accepting view of the self. The high score in this dimension means an individual accepts multiple
aspects of self and feels positive about her/ his past life. The Low score indicates dissatisfied with
self, she/he is disappointed with what has happened in past life, she/he likes to be different from
what she/he is. 2. Positive relations with others: measures positive relationships, empathy, and
intimacy. The characteristics of high score in this dimension are, an individual has warm and
satisfying relationships with others, is able to show empathy, affection, and intimacy, and is enable
to understand give and take of human relationship. The low score relates to having few trusting and
close relationships, having difficulty in establishing warm and open relationships, she/he is isolated
and frustrated in interpersonal relationships. 5 The information on number of colleges and students
was obtained from College Developm
Social Correlates of Psychological 573 Autonomy: measures independence and self-regulation of
behavior. The high score in this dimension means an individual is dependent and self determined,
she/he is able to resist social pressures to think and act in certain ways and evaluate self on the basis
of personal standards. The low score indicates she/he is concerned about evaluations and
expectations of others, for making a decision she/he relies on others' judgments. Environmental
mastery: measures perceptions of competence in life. The characteristics of high score in this
dimension are, one has capacity of managing and mastering the environment and makes effectively
use of the surrounding opportunities. Whereas, the low score refers to having difficulty in managing
everyday affairs, one is unaware of surrounding opportunities and feels unable to change or improve
surrounding context. Purpose in life: measures a sense of direction and meaning in life. The high
score in this dimension indicates one has goals in life, feels there is meaning to present and past life
and holds belief that has aims and objectives for living. The low score relates to having lack of
meaning in life, lack of sense of direction, and there are no objectives or purposes in life. Personal
growth: measures feelings of perceptions of growth, realizing potential and being open to new
experiences. The high score means one has feeling of continued development, is open to new
experiences, sees improvement in her/his self and behavior over time. The low score indicates one
lacks the sense of self improvement over time; feels bored and uninteresting, and unable to develop
new attitudes or behaviors (Ryff 1995, p.101). Each dimension noted above has 14 questions is
based on a Likert- type response scale with six response options (strongly disagree, moderately
disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree). Participants circled a
number ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). To compute the overall score, I
summed the scores across all items on an interval scale. Possible scores for each subset ranged from
14 to 84, and possible scores for the entire dimensions (total PWB) ranged from 84(the lowest) to
504(the highest). For this study, a high score indicated high PWB, and a low score indicated low
PWB. In all, each of the 6 dimensions has high levels of internal

570 M. Daraei addresses human potentiality and functioning in life (eudaimonic well-being). The pre
dominant view among hedonic psychologist is that well-being can be assessed by sub jective well-
being (Diener and Lucas 1999). Subjective well-being (SWB) has been assessed by measuring positive
aspects like satisfaction in life and self esteem or by measuring negative outcomes such as,
depression, anxiety, and substance abuse (Diener et al. 1985). Whereas eudaimonic approach of
well-being emphasizes the self growth and psychological functioning. Waterman (cited in Snyder and
Lopez 2008 p. 137) argues that eudemonia means when people fully and historically engage
themselves in activities. Ryff (1989) has explored the question of well-being and synthesized views of
self-actualization, maturity; life span development; the fully functioning person; positive mental
health and introduced a self report instrument to measure six dimensions of psychological well-
being (PWB). Since this study uses Ryff s scale of PWB, its six dimensions will be explained in the
methodology section. Ryff highlights well-being as growth and human fulfillment because it is deeply
influenced by the surrounding context of people's lives. This study focuses on social factors such as,
gender, education, occupation, income, and family relationships and their impacts on PWB; thus, the
studies related to noted factors will be reviewed. Ryff and Keyes (1995) conducted a national survey
on PWB and they found that age, gender, education, and occupation had association with the
degree of PWB. In the case of gender, UK studies typically found that men reported higher PWB
scores than women (e.g. Clark and Oswald 1994; Clark et al. 1996). Theodossiou (1998) argues that
this is because women are typically more self-critical and assign a lower value to themselves than do
men (Lowenthal et al. 1975). However, studies using life satisfaction measures in other countries did
not agree (e.g. Frey and Stutzer 2000, identified no gender difference using Swiss data, whilst
Gerdtham and Johannesson 1997, found the higher life satisfaction amongst females in Sweden).
Regarding socioeconomic aspects of PWB, Reynolds and Ross (1998, p. 224) argues that "education
often functions to pass on high status jobs and good incomes to adult children of high status
parents." The importance of education lies in the fact that apart from educational requirements, the
most rewarding jobs are given to those with advan tageous backgrounds. In other words, education
is meaningful not only because of its relationship with advantageous family backgrounds, but also
since education provides individuals with abilities, skills and resources that eventually impact their
well-being. With respect to the relationship between income and individual well-being, the studies
show two different effects. Easterlin (1974, 1995) found that income is a poor predictor of many
measures of individual well-being. Clark and Oswald (1994) did not find a strong relationship
between income and PWB, whereas Clark et al. (2001) found a small positive effect.
Csikszentmilhalyi (cited in Palomer Lever 2004, p. 4) in his study among 1000 adolescents found that
wealth does not make a person happier. Palomer Lever (2004) conducted a study among three
groups extremely poor, moderately poor, and not poor in Mexico in order to find relationship
between poverty and subjective well-being. The results reveal that the extremely poor are the least
satisfied followed by moderately poor. Also study of Biswas-Diener and Diener (2001) in the city of
Calcutta, India, show that income is strongly associated with life satisfaction. In general,
socioeconomic factors are good predicators of subjective well-being (e.g. Easterlin 2001; Biswas-
Diener and Diener 2001) as well as PWB (e.g. Ryff and Singer 2008). It is important to emphasize that
along with socioeconomic factors, another social factor i.e. family and social relationships play an
influential role in PWB. Gencoz and Ozalal (2004)

undergraduate students in Turkey; their results reveal that social support is associated to PWB. Shek
(2002) studied family functioning and PWB in Chinese adolescents with different economic
backgrounds, the results indicate that family functioning is associated with adolescent positive
mental health. Studies of Baumeister and Leary (1995); La Guardia et al. (cited in Ryan and Deci
2001, p. 155) show that security in attachment and satisfying relationships have extensive influence
on PWB. Family connectedness means a sense of tie and closeness among family members, and it is
one of the most important social factors that contribute to positive effects on PWB. In search of a
relevant theoretical background in order to justify roles of social factors on PWB, the capability
approach of the economist Amartya Sen has a good potential. Capability approach is a broad
framework is used most prominently in development thinking, social policy and political philosophy;
it can also used to evaluate individual well-being, inequality, and poverty. The core characteristic of
the approach is its focus on what people are effectively able to do and to be, that is, on their
capabilities (Sen 1993). In other words, these being and doing, which Sen calls it achieved
functionings, together make a life valuable. The major components of the capability approach are
functionings and capabilities. Functionings are the beings and doings or is an achievement, whereas
capability is the ability to achieve (Sen 1995). Thus, regarding the topic of the current study,
socioeconomic status of parents and strong family relationships enable the students of this study to
achieve the functioning of being PWB. In sum, regarding the existing review of literature, studies
conducted on well-being in India prominently are based on hedonic approach or subjective well-
being (e.g. Sree Kumar 2008; Jethwani-Keyser 2008; Mukhopadhyay and kumar 1999; Biswas-Diener
and Diener 2001). Thus, there is a lack of literature on Ryff s PWB or eudaimonic approach. I felt
exploring the impact of social factors on PWB based on this approach might be promising.

adult children's socioeconomic status as well as their health and social behavior. Indi viduals from
wealthy families with a higher education are more likely to possess their own homes, excessive
material possessions with lower level of job insecurity or unemployment (Pearlin 1989). The first
objective of this study relates to whether differences exist on various educa tional levels,
occupations, and incomes of families in relation to PWB of students. It can be argued that disparities
in socioeconomic status affect PWB. For example, Ryff and Singer (2008) argue that PWB varies by
age and socioeconomic status. But regarding the income and its relationship with PWB, it is
controversial it seems that the impact of wealth on well-being in a poor country is not the same in a
wealthy country (Diener and Biswas Diener 2002). My aim is to investigate the effect of income
whether it receives support in findings from this study. The second objective is that to investigate
the differences of students' PWB in relation to their family relationships. It means if a group of
students have very good relationships with their families, they also have greater levels of PWB.
Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that people seem to have a fundamental need for close
relationships. Family bond in India is strong even joint family is practicing among some of the
Indians. Thus, I assume family relationships might be one of the social factors which impacts PWB of
the students. The final purpose of this study is that whether the differences exist among males and
females. Prior empirical studies found that there were differences among men and women only in
two dimensions of PWB, the remaining aspects were the same for both genders (Ryff and Singer
1998; Ryff 1995). The paper is organized as follows. First, I review the contribution of previous
studies, predominantly from the two approaches to well-being literature and capability approach, to
my understanding of social aspects of PWB. Then, I introduce my data source and the measures I
employed. Finally, I outline the main contributions in relation to the existing literature and I
summarize my main findings and present my conclusion. As this study conducted in Mysore, I briefly
describe the geographical context of my study. Karnataka is one of the states in India which is
located in the southwest. Mysore is one of the cities of this state. It is a small city with 2,994,744.
population, 58.65 % of this population live in rural areas.' Most of them are Hindu and their local
language is Kannada, most of the governmental colleges are Kannada medium but most of the
private colleges are English medium. 2 Review of Literature Research on positive aspects of human
being such as, positive thought, optimism, physical, psychological, and social well-being have
expanded enormously during the last two dec ades. After positive psychology movement (Seligman
and Csikszentmihalyi 2000), studies on the importance of positive thought, optimism, and well-being
receive more attention than ever before and the definition of human health has changed from
absence of illness to presence of wellness, that is, to focus on flourishing positive relationship with
others, opportunities to realize one's potentiality and having sense of purpose in life (Ryff and Singer
1998). Ryan and Deci (2001)