Abstract

The objective of the study was to identify the relationship of different dimensions of perceived quality of home environment and self-concept of undergraduate university students. Correlational research was selected as the research design. The population of the study was university students of the education department of public and private universities of Lahore. The total population was 1760. A proportionate stratified random sampling technique was used to select the sample. The strata were formed on the basis of the nature of the universities. The total number of students selected as the sample was 528. The instrument consisted of three parts; the first part consisted of demographic information (gender, nature of institution). The second part consisted of the Home Environment Inventory, designed by Misra (1983) to measure the quality of the home environment and the third part consisted of the Self-Concept Scale by Rastogi (1979) to measure self-concept. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between the variables. The results indicated a significant relationship between the home environment and the self-concept of university students.

Key Words

Home Environment, Students, Undergraduate Level, University, 

Introduction

Family is a system of positive relationships (Eitzen, 2003). For an academic professional, this is the most important thing to remember that the idea of the toddler's self has changed with every life experience, both in and out of the classroom, at least through the stages of development. Their current concept of identity and connection with other toddlers and the teacher is profoundly influenced by factors such as their social-class participation, social structure, parenting styles, racial background, ethnicity, and home-spoken language (Ireson et al. 2001). The family is the most important primary group within society. It is the simplest and most basic form of society, the most fundamental of all social groupings, and the first social environment to which a child is exposed. It is an exceptional primary group because the child develops his basic attitude within the family through training and teaching. Every child is born into a family that is composed of parents and probably others, and the family atmosphere is the primary agent of socialization as the lives of children are initially focused within their communities. Family environments include the social group circumstances and situations within families (Rao, 2012).

Since each family in a different setting is composed of different individuals, each family environment is special (Potter, 2010). It poses various issues for parents, students, psychologists, and teachers. Studying university students is therefore vitally important to each of us. While there are numerous sources of friction among parents, two well-known causes of stress are virtually universal. The first derives from the coercive approaches used by parents and university students to condemn what they view as improper types of punishment and arbitrary behavioral constraints. The second common cause of stress is the students' conceited behavior towards their parents, siblings, and home life. There has been a growing interest in examining the level of parenting style on the personality of children as well as the nature of the home climate over the past few years. A child's or a student's life revolves around their home, as it is the first model of society and environment that affects their overall development. Many commonly observed causes of mental health problems in general family issues including family breakdown, parental separation, and poor parenting. Several types of researches have also focused on the impact of encounters with poor house environment that have been confirmed to have long-term effects on the lifestyle of adolescents (Albers et al., 1986; Olsson & et al., 1999). 

A secure and healthy family link leads to self-concept, early formative years of self-confidence, and more precisely, the stage of adolescence. Baumrind (1993) proposed that child development and adolescents' self-conceptions require an atmosphere that gives them the ability to experiment and discover and defend themselves against risks. Individuals with a strong sense of self prefer to believe in their decision-making capacity, aspirations for positive results, and relationships marked by trust and integrity (Turtle & Turtle, 2004).

 Stagner (1948) states that self-concept or self-structure is an organized self-perception system that is admissible to consciousness. It is the nuclear notion of identity, conceived as a consequence of the relationship between the person and his environment. The self-concept calculated by that scale corresponds to a collection of reasonably consistent self-attitudes, both descriptive and evaluative. The family is the primary unit by which the socialization cycle transmits traditions, attitudes, behaviors, values, and behavioral modes from one generation to the next.

Whitney (1999) found that in both current and future life, the family environment tends to be linked to the child's well-being. Bordoloi (2012) analyzed the outcome on the self-definition of Hostellers and Non-Hostellers, indicating that the hostellers often develop a simple and optimistic picture of themselves as they face several problems. Yet, there was a marked difference in different dimensions of self-concept between hostellers and non-hostellers (Ameerjan, 1994; Desai, 1998; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Relatives where family expects individuals to develop views and recognize their rights, to promote creativity, to express affection, to help foster attitudes such as freedom, high self-confidence, good sense of self and auto-estimate, strong personality, and self-esteem. While the new research also aims to investigate how the various aspects of home setting influence male and female university students' self-conceptions. The current study tried to explore the correlation between the perceived quality of the home environment and the self-concept of undergraduate university students.




Objectives

1) To identify the relationship between different dimensions of perceived quality of home environment and self-concept of undergraduate students.

2) To explore the differences in the perceptions of male and female students about the home environment.




Hypotheses 

Ho: There is no relationship between different components of perceived quality of home environment and self-concept of undergraduate students.

Ho: There is no difference in the perceptions of




Male and female students about home environment.

Literature Review

The term environment refers to the individual's environment, external powers, and sensations. These may be physical and social powers and circumstances as well as mental ones. That human environment has characteristics that in many ways affect people's behaviors. Moos (1974) have described it as. Some people are cooperative; some feel the need to dominate others and some cultures have a heavy impact on others. For many people, process and design matter, correspondingly, many conditions emphasize program and ordinary peace. Home is a residence location where a family member can relax and keep real assets. The house term is a much wider definition that goes beyond an inhabited denotation. Most people think of the house that is sometimes used to build a house like a rest home, a care home, a community home, a Montessori for infants, a care home for adults, a rehabilitation center or a mental institution, etc. Altman (1975) the psychologist of the environment made a distinction between five residential dimensions:

1. Permanent like temporary

2. Segregated like homogeneous

3. Group like non-community

4. Identity like community

5. Accessibility like proximity. 

Across societies, these divisions/distinctions are assumed; the psychological implications of these variations are still invisible. The home is the laboratory where the cohesions are nurtured and transformed into lasting personality traits within and between individuals. The family versions of the motivations of the child are the purposes for that the home seeks to build and maintain positive personalities. The Home Environment reflects, above all, on working conditions and cultural ties. A central human concept is akin. The notion of family is perhaps what separates us people from the human species. Family is every single individual's source of strength. The human social group exerts the best impact on the creation and continuation of the actions of real people.

Perhaps the most unique and important theory in psychology is the notion of the self. First, Rene Descartes spoke of the ontology that the self had been a topic of concern as a theoretical construct. Over the years, Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers were aimed at explaining human nature by questioning the individuals' thoughts and convictions about themselves.

The conception of self has a fundamental importance in that a therapist's analytical work who prefers conceptual analysis can define the perception of oneself as a unique, self-regulating, and unified existential entity.

In a study, Lau (1990) called himself the scientific person, the complete amount of everything that, unlike his mind, a person calls his features and skill his familial property, profession, interests, mates, attackers, and classes in society, etc. certain thinkers see themselves in terms of a mechanism, learn, do, perceive and act. Others see it as an internal thing that has feelings and behaviors, thoughts and valuations. Self-theorists' approach, like Rogers, the stimulus-response approach of psychology is frequently contrasted with attempts at peer-theory of interacting with the whole person as a whole, instead of on sensory-Action units. Sedikides and Skowronski (1997) say that life developed as a result of adaptation. The first form of emergence was subliminal self-consciousness, the second was accurate self-awareness, and visual self-awareness is the third stage of research.

The self-concept provides a basis for an explanation about how we perceive our intelligence, including our motivations, emotional behaviors, self-assessments, competencies, and much more (Klein et al, 1989; Van Hook & Higgins, 1988). The term self is used to be in similar forms in psychological discussions. Nevertheless, two primary concepts top the identity as a topic or as an individual, and the identity as an established being (Lau & Leung, 1992). 

Undergraduate education is regarded as a crucial stage that influences an individual's life as a consequence of which the student's future stems and disorder subsequently affect his character. Therefore, clam prevails to have a family atmosphere and psychological stability is a must to ensure that growth continues safely. The low self-conception of the uncertainty that you see clearly among university students; thus impacting their future as a result of the actions that cause them psychological and social incompatibility leading to disorder, stress, agitation, violence, and on-going irregularities, and reflecting on how to treat them with discipline, ostracism and exclusion affect their education. (Lau & Kwok, 2000). The home environment plays an important role in the growth of social, psychological, physical and psychological aspects of an individual. If the relationships with the family are healthy, not just during teenage years, but also in the early formative years of his life,

Methodology

Research Design

The study was quantitative in nature, and a correlational research design was utilized. Correlational research design circumscribes the collection of data to describe if and to what degree a relationship exists between the variables (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2012).

 

Population

The target population of the study was all the students of a 4-year degree program at the undergraduate level in education departments of all HEC recognized public and private universities in Lahore. Under the general category, there were 29 HEC recognized universities in Lahore, chartered by the government of Punjab, Pakistan, including 10 public and 19 private universities. 4 public and 7 private universities were selected to determine the accessible population. The total number of students of selected public sector universities was 1050, and students from the private sector were 710.

 

Sampling

The sample was selected using a proportionate stratified random sampling technique. Stratified random sampling is a method to make sure the required representation of related subgroups in the sample. The population is split into subgroups known as strata (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2012). Strata were made on the basis of the nature of universities (public and private).




 

Table 1. Sample size

Universities	Population (N)	Sample (n)
Private Universities	710	213
Public Universities	1050	315
Total	1760	528

 




Instrumentation

A questionnaire was utilized to gather data from the respondents. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of demographic information of the participants (name of institution, gender, nature of institution). The second part consisted of the home environment inventory, and the third part was comprised of a self-concept scale.

 

Home Environment Inventory

Home Environment Inventory (HEI) developed by

 Misra (1983) was utilized to evaluate the home environment. The HEI is a tool for measuring how children feel about their home's behavioral atmosphere. This provides an indicator of the quality and variety of mental, emotional, and social resources available to the child at home. The Home Environment Inventory contains 100 divided into ten categories: Control, punishment, protectiveness, conformity, and social isolation, and reward, nurturance, deprivation of privileges, rejection and permissiveness. The instrument requires respondents to indicate with which they have encountered a specific parent-child relationship activity in their homes, i.e. Items were scored on a 5 point Likert-type scale - mostly, often, sometimes, least and never.

 

Self-Concept Scale (1979)

Self-concept scale developed by Rastogi (1979) consisting of a collection of 51 items under ten factors. The ten factors of the scale were self-confidence, health and sex appropriateness, abilities, self-acceptance, present, past and future beliefs and convictions, worthiness, sociability, feeling of shame and guilt and emotional maturity. 

Research Design The study was quantitative in nature, and a correlational research design was utilized. Correlational research design circumscribes the collection of data to describe if and to what d

Data Analysis

Ho: There is no relation between different dimensions of perceived quality of home environment and self-concept of undergraduate students.




 

Table 2. Relationship between Perceived Quality of Home Environment with self-concept

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.866a	.751	.746	14.52781

a.     Predictors: (Constant), per, soc, pun, nur, rej, conf, con, rew, do, pro

 




Table 2 displays the variance of seventy-five percent in the dependent variable by the predictors (R square = .751*100= 75.1). For multiple regressions, the R square showed variance that can be added in the process of all the predictor. The R square provides explanatory power. The model description of the R Square value of 0.751 indicates the variation in the dependent variable (self-concept).

The aim of the study was to find out the relation between variables. The following forecasting variables were examined using multiple regressions: control, punishment, protectiveness, conformity, reward, social isolation, and deprivation of privileges, nurturance, rejection and permissiveness. By assigning a coefficient to each predictor variable, the analysis was performed to measure the distinctive contribution of each variable.




 

Table 3. Results for Coefficients

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	sig
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	84.301	6.814		12.372	.000
	Control	.901	.212	.188	4.246	.000
	Protectiveness	.143	.202	.243	3.707	.000
	Punishment	.440	.195	.196	4.259	.000
	Conformity	.146	.192	.335	3.760	.000
	Social Isolation	-.700	.201	-.249	-3.476	.000
	Reward	.292	.226	.073	2.995	.001
	Deprivation	-.172	.199	-.248	-3.865	.000
	Nurturance	-.063	.224	-.219	-4.281	.000
	Rejection	-.679	.198	-.195	-3.421	.000
	Permissiveness	1.557	.237	.299	6.561	.000

 




Table 3 shows that beta weight and statistical significance were evaluated and investigated. For ten predictive variables, beta weights were: control = -0.188 (p = .000), protectiveness = 0.243 (p = .000), punishment = 0.196 (p = .000), conformity = 0.335 (p = .000), social isolation = -0.249 (p = .000), reward = 0.73 (p = .001), deprivation of privileges = 0.248 (p = .000), nurturance = -0.219 (p = .000) , rejection = 0.195 (p = .000) and permissiveness = 0.299 (p = .000). The beta values indicate that four variables are negatively related to self-concept while the rest six are positively related to self-concept. The value of significance shows that control, protectiveness, punishment, reward, conformity and permissiveness are significantly related to self-concept while rejection, deprivation of privileges, social isolation and nurturance are significantly but negatively related to self-concept.




 

Table 4.  Model

Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	325832.597	10	32583.260	154.381	.000b
	Residual	108272.324	513	211.057
	Total	434104.922	523

The F ratio is used to determine how reliable the measurements are in forming a good model fit. The p-value is .000 < .05, indicating that the model fits well.

 

Ho: There is no difference in the perceptions of male and female students about the home environment.

 

Table 5. The difference in Perceptions of Male and Female Students about Home Environment

	Gender	N	Mean	SD	T	Df	Sig.(2 tailed)
Control	Male	185	31.9676	5.93617	3.989	526	.000
	Female	343	30.8251	6.02614		381.912
Protectiveness	Male	185	34.8486	8.23558	3.454	526	.000
	Female	343	32.1662	8.65984		393.589
Punishment	Male	185	33.2811	5.74616	3.123	526	.000
	Female	343	31.5160	6.42584		414.476
Conformity	Male	185	32.2216	7.03095	4.656	526	.000
	Female	343	30.5364	6.91284		371.550
Social Isolation	Male	185	24.0378	6.23312	-3.226	526	.000
	Female	343	24.7289	6.14917		372.632
Reward	Male	184	33.1957	7.73077	4.476	524	.000
	Female	342	32.2515	6.80830		336.174
Deprivation	Male	185	20.8703	7.79802	-2.870	526	.003
	Female	343	22.9650	8.10955		389.892
Nurturance	Male	185	28.7081	4.15870	-.4.440	526	.000
	Female	343	28.8746	4.43788		398.550
Rejection	Male	185	22.7459	6.54377	-2.989	526	.002
	Female	343	24.1778	6.58595		379.094
Permissiveness	Male	185	30.4054	6.01836	3.818	526	.000
	Female	343	29.8980	5.23300		334.714

 




Table 5 expresses the independent sample t-test result to test the hypothesis. The t-value is 3.989 for the control home environment. The p-value at the level of significance was .000 <.05, which shows a significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values showed that male students perceive more control in the home environment than female students.

The t = 3.454 and p = .000 <.0 for protectiveness in the home environment explain a significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values showed that male students perceive more protectiveness in-home environment than female students.

t-value 3.123 and p = .000 <.05 for punishment in the home environment expresses a significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values again showed that males perceive more punishment in the home environment than females.

The t-value is 4.656 for conformity in a home environment. The p-value at the level of significance was .000 <.05, which expresses a significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values showed that males perceive more conformity in-home environment than females.

The t-value is -3.226 and p = .000 <.05 for social isolation in a home environment, which explain the significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values showed that female students perceive more social isolation in the home environment than male students.

The t-value is 4.476 for reward in a home environment. The p-value at the level of significance was .000 <.05, which expresses a significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values showed that males perceive more reward in-home environment than females.

The t-value -2.870 and p = .003 <.05 for deprivation of privileges in-home environment explain a significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values showed that female students perceive more deprivation of privileges in the home environment than male students.

The t-value -4.440 and p = .000 <.05 for nurturance in-home environment expresses the significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values showed that females perceive more nurturance in the home environment than males.

The t-value -2.989 and p = .000 <.05 for rejection in the home environment explain a significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values showed that female students perceive more rejection in-home environment than male students.

The t-value is 3.188, and p = .000 <.05 for permissiveness in-home environment explain a significant difference between male and female perceptions. Mean values showed that males perceive more permissiveness in the home environment than females.

Discussion

This study was an attempt to find out the relation between the perceived quality of the home environment and the self-concept of university students. The results indicated a significant relationship between the home environment and the self-concept of university students. A study conducted by Jagpreet et al. (2009) revealed the same results. It showed a significantly positive relationship of protective, conformity reward and self-concept components of the family environment, indicating that benefits and good parenting may be used to help university students create a healthy self-concept. Studies conducted by Dusek (1985) and Lau and Kwok (2000) revealed similar results. They showed a positive relationship of home environment (security, compliance, nurturance and reward) with self-concept. Mohammed (1996) also indicated a significant relationship between the home environment and the notion of self-concept.

Research conducted by Song and Hattie (1984) also showed the significant relationship of social isolation, deprivation and privileges of a home environment with self-conception among adolescents. Studies conducted by Ameerjan (1994),  Desai (1998), Kukreja (1997), and Maccoby and Martin (1983)  revealed that families in which parents empower children to express their feelings, understand their rights, foster autonomy, and explain caring attitudes were found to help promote characteristics such as independence, high self-confidence, strong self and soul, and good individual and interpersonal adaptation. 

Results explained the difference in the perceptions of male and female students about home environment, where male students perceive more power, compliance, reward, permissiveness, security, and punishment in a home environment, while female students perceive more social isolation, exclusion, and deprivation of rights in a home environment. A study conducted by Mzobanzi (1994) revealed the same results. It showed males scored higher in global power, security and reward than females. Nishikwal et al. (2010) also found that males tend to perceive more reward and power in the home environment than females. Walter et al. (2006) also investigated the difference between genders in perceptions about the home environment. They revealed that males have a more favourable permissive and rewarding home environment as compared to females. Mboya (1996) also investigated the gender difference in the perceptions about the home environment. Results showed that males tend to perceive more permissiveness and compliance home environment than females.

Conclusion

This study was an effort to find out the relation between the perceived quality of home environment (HE) and self-concept (SC) of undergraduate students. Results demonstrated a significant relationship between the perceived home environment and the self-concept of undergraduate students. It was also shown that four factors of home environment (rejection, social isolation, deprivation of privileges and nurturance) were negatively related to self-concept while the rest six (control, protectiveness, punishment, reward, conformity and permissiveness) were positively related to self-concept. There was also a noteworthy difference in perception of home environment between male and female students. Male students perceive more control, conformity, reward, permissiveness, protectiveness and punishment in the home environment, whereas female students perceive more social isolation, rejection and deprivation of privileges in a home environment. 

Recommendations

There is a need to provide guidance and help to parents on how to communicate with their children and train them for proper social life both within and outside the home. Teachers and parents should assist children by introducing a variety of intervention approaches to promote positive self-concept among students. Positive self-concept is a key factor in effective learning, general patterns of behavior and high engagement in learning activities. Counselling programs and trainings should be provided to develop self-concept.

References

• Albers, L. J., Doane, J. A., & Mintz, J. (1986). Social competence and family environment: 15-year follow-up of disturbed adolescents. Family process, 25(3), 379- 389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545- 5300.1986.00379.x
• Altman, I. (1975). Perspectives on the study of man- environment phenomena. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 4(1), 109-126.
• Ammeerjan, M. S. (1994). Perceived parental behaviour and self-confidence. Journal of Psychological Researches, 38, 1-4.
• Banerjee, A., & Chaudhary, S. (2010). Statistics without tears: Populations and samples. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 19(1), 60-65.
• Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough: A response to Scar. Child development, 64(5), 1299-1317.
• Desai, N. B. (1998). Anxiety, depression and Self- concept among adolescents A study in relation to perceived parental attitudes. Unpublished M. Phil. Dissertation, Saurashtra, University, Rajkot.
• Dusek, J. B., & Flaherty, J. F. (1981). The development of the self-concept during the adolescent years. Monographs of the society for Research in Child Development, 46(4), 1- 67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166004
• Eitzen, D. S. (2003). The atrophy of social life. Society, 41(6), 12-16.
• Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational Research: Competencies for analysis and applications. New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. Bedford Way, London: Sage Publication.
• Kaur, J., Rana, J. S., & Kaur, R. (2009). Home environment and academic achievement as correlates of self-concept among adolescents. Studies on Home and Community Science, 3(1), 13-17. DOI:10.1080/09737189.2009.11885270
• Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., & Burton, H. A. (1989). Two self-reference effects: The importance of distinguishing between self-descriptiveness judgments and autobiographical retrieval in self-referent encoding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(6), 853-865. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.56.6.853
• Kukreja, B. (1997). Self-concept and emotional maturity as related to some child rearing attitudes. A paper presented in 2nd Asian and 33TD lAAP International Conference, Hardwar.
• Lau, S. (1990).Crisis and vulnerability in adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19(2), 111-131.
• Lau, S., & Leung, K. (1992). Relations with parents and school and Chinese adolescents ‘self concept, delinquency, and academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 193-202.
• Lawanu, B. (2012). A comparative study of self- concept of hostellers and nonhostellers, International Journal for Basic Science and Social Science, 1(2), 46-49.
• Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the Context of the Family: Parent-Child Interaction. In P. H. Mussen, & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
• Mboya, M. M. (1994). Cross-cultural study of the structure and level of Multidimensional self- concepts in secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology International, 15(2), 163-171.
• Mboya, M. M. (1996). Perceived family and school social environments and their relationships to African adolescents self-concept. Journal of School Psychology International, 17(2), 133- 148. https://doi.org/10.1177/014303439617 2003
• Moos, R. H., Insel, P. M., & Humphrey, B. (1974). The quality of social support: Measures of family and work relationships. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 157-162.
• Nishikawa, S., Sundbom, E., & Hägglöf, B. (2010). Influence of perceived parental rearing on adolescent self-concept and internalizing and externalizing problems in Japan. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(1), 57-66.
• Olsson, G. I., Nordström, M. L., Arinell, H., & Von Knorring, A. L. (1999). Adolescent depression: Social network and family climate' A case- control study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(2), 227-237.
• Potter, D. (2010). Psychosocial well-Being and the relationship between divorce and children's academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 933-946.
• Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. (2014). A concise guide to market research: The process, data, and methods using IBM SPSS statistics. London, England: Springer.
• Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1997).The symbolic self in evolutionary context. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1), 80-102.
• Song, I. S., & Hattie, J. (1984). Home environment, self-concept, and academic achievement: A causal modeling approach. Journal of Educational psychology, 76(6), 1269- 1281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.76.6.1269.
• Stagner, R. (1948). Psychology of personality, 2nd ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
• Tuttle, D. W., & Tuttle, N. R. (2004). Self-esteem and adjusting with blindness: The process of responding to life's demands. New York: Thomas Publisher.
• Van Hook, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-related problems beyond the self-concept: Motivational consequences of discrepant self- guides. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 625- 633. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.55.4.625
• Walter, J. L., & Burnaford, S. M. (2006). Developmental changes in adolescents' guilt and shame: The role of family climate and gender. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 2-21.
• Whitney, A. (1999). The effect of childhood sexual abuse and family environment on present and future possible selves (Self Concept). Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 60(4), 1875.