Abstract:
The presents study purported to examine the impact of adverse life experiences on
adolescents’ emotional and behavioral problems. It further aimed to explore the
moderating role of verbal (vocabulary, verbal reasoning, numerical ability, and general
knowledge) and nonverbal cognitive abilities, self-debasing (catastrophizing,
personalizing, selective abstraction, and over generalization) and self -serving (selfcenteredness,
blaming others, mislabeling, and assuming the worst) cognitive errors, and
personality traits in relationship between experience of adverse life events and problem
behaviors. A purposive convenient sample of 663 adolescents (aged 11 to 19 years) was
administered with Adverse Life Event Scale (ALES; devised in the present study), School
Children problem Scale (SCPS; Saleem & Mehmood, 2011), Sajjad Verbal Intelligence
Test Urdu (SVITU; Hussain, 2000), Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM;
Raven, 2000), Children Negative Cognitive Errors Questionnaire (CNCEQ; Leitenberg,
Yost, & Carroll-Wilson, 1986), How I Think Questionnaire (HIT-Q; Barriga, Gibbs, &
Potter, 2001), and NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) to meet
the objectives of the study. Comprising on three Phases, ALES was developed and HIT-Q
was translated At Phase I. At Phase II pilot study (N = 303; Boys = 139, Girls = 164) was
conducted to establish the psychometrics (reliability estimates, validity coefficients,
internal consistencies etc.) of the scales and to explore the relationship between the study
variables. Findings provided support for good validity and reliability coefficients for the
study scales. Exploratory analyses at Phase II suggested family related adverse events as
the most stressful events and showed that most of the problem behaviors, self-debasing
cognitive errors, and neuroticism were higher among adolescents who had experienced
family, personal, or school related adverse event. While the ratio of self-serving cognitive
errors and other personality traits was higher among those with residence related or health
34
related adverse experiences. Main study (N = 663; Boys = 428, Girls = 235) was then
conducted at Phase III for hypothesis testing. Results of the main study revealed that
adverse life events, self-debasing cognitive errors, and neuroticism positively and
significantly (p<.01, .05) predicted emotional and behavioral problems among adolescents
whereas self-serving cognitive errors, verbal cognitive abilities, extraversion,
agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness were strong and significant (p<.01, .05)
negative predictors of emotional and behavioral problems among adolescents. However,
nonverbal cognitive ability remained a non-significant predictor. For moderation effect,
self-debasing cognitive errors and neuroticism significantly boosted the effect of adverse
life experiences (p<.01, .05) whereas verbal cognitive abilities, self-serving cognitive
errors, extraversion, agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness buffered the effect of
adverse life experiences on emotional and behavioral problems of adolescents. One way
multivariate analyses revealed significant (p<.01, .05) age differences suggesting that
middle adolescence group had highest levels of emotional and behavioral problems and
self-debasing cognitive errors whereas late adolescence group showed the highest levels of
verbal cognitive abilities, self-serving cognitive errors (self-centeredness and blaming
others), extraversion, and conscientiousness (p<.01, .05). For income wise comparison,
middle income group showed the highest level (p<.01, .05) of problem behaviors and selfdebasing
cognitive errors whereas high income group showed highest levels of verbal
cognitive abilities (vocabulary and numerical ability), extraversion, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness. Neuroticism was highest among low income group. One way ANOVA
revealed that the impact of adverse events was highest among middle age and low income
groups whereas nonverbal cognitive ability was highest among late age and high income
groups of adolescents. Significant group differences (p<.001, .01, .05) on family system
and gender were also observed for the study variables. The study holds theoretical
35
(contributing into the existing literature by developing indigenous scale) as well as
practical (by highlighting the need for appropriate prevention and interventions measures
to deal with problem behaviors of troubled youth) implications.