The objectives of the study were: (1) To study the effectiveness of Stress Reduction Model (SRM) on the basis of stress, anxiety, frustration, self-confidence, self-esteem, immediate memory span and creativity. (2) To compare adjusted mean scores of stress, anxiety, frustration, self-confidence, self-esteem, immediate memory span and creativity separately of students belonging to SRM and traditional approach groups by taking respective variables at pre-stage as covariate. (3) To compare mean scores of abstract reasoning of students belonging to SRM and traditional approach groups. (4) To study the effect of Treatment, SES, Sex and their various interactions on stress, anxiety, frustration, self-confidence, self-esteem, immediate memory span and creativity by taking respective variables at pre-stage as covariate. (5) To study the effect of Treatment, SES, Sex and their various interactions on abstract reasoning of students. (6) To study the change in reaction towards SRM of experimental group. 

The hypotheses of the study were: (1) There is no significant difference in mean scores of  (a) achievement stress before and after the treatment through SRM, (b) academic stress before and after the treatment through SRM, (c) self-concept stress before and after the treatment through SRM, (d) self-actualization stress before and after the treatment through SRM, (e) social stress before and after treatment through SRM, (f) institutional stress before and after treatment through SRM, (g) family stress before and after treatment through SRM, and (h) vocational stress before and after treatment through SRM. (2) There is no significant difference in mean scores of anxiety before and after the treatment. (3) There is no significant difference in mean scores of frustration before and after treatment through SRM. (4) There is no significant difference in mean scores of self-confidence before and after treatment through SRM. (5) There is no significant difference in mean scores of self-esteem, personally perceived self and socially perceived self separately before and after treatment through SRM. (6) There is no significant difference in mean scores of immediate memory span before and after treatment through SRM. (7) There is no significant difference in mean scores of fluency, flexibility, originality, and creativity separately before and after treatment through SRM. (8) The adjusted mean score of achievement stress of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-achievement stress as covariate. (9) The adjusted mean score of academic stress of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-academic stress as covariate. (10) The adjustment mean score of self-concept stress of SRM group is not significantly different form traditional approach group by taking pre-self-concept stress as covariate. (11) The adjusted mean score of self-actualization stress of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-self-actualization stress as covariate. (12) The adjusted mean scores of social stress of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-social stress as covariate. (13) The adjusted mean score of institutional stress of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-institutional stress as covariate. (14) The adjusted mean score of family stress of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-family stress as covariate. (15) The adjusted mean score of vocational stress of SRM group is not significantly different. (16) The adjustment mean score of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-anxiety as covariate. (17) The adjusted mean scores of frustration of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-self-confidence as covariate. (18) The adjusted mean scores of self-esteem, personally perceived self and socially perceived self of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-test scores as covariate respectively and separately. (19) The adjusted mean scores of immediate memory span of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking pre-immediate memory span as covariate. (20) The adjusted mean scores of creativity and its various dimensions of SRM group is not significantly different from traditional approach group by taking respective pre-test scores as covariate. (21) The mean score of abstract reasoning of SRM group is not significantly different from that of tradition approach group. (22) There is no significant effect of Treatment, SES, Sex and their various interactions separately on various dimensions of stress by taking pre-stress scores as covariate. (23) There is no significant effect of Treatment, SES, Sex and their various interactions separately on anxiety, frustration, immediate memory span and self-confidence by taking pre-test scores as covariate. (24) There is no significant effect of Treatment, SES, Sex and their various interactions separately on self–esteem, personally perceived self and socially perceived self by taking pre-test scores as covariates. (25) There is no significant effect of Treatment, SES, Sex and their various interactions separately on creativity and its dimensions by taking pre-test scores as covariates. (26) There is no significant effect of Treatment, SES, Sex and their various interactions separately on abstract reasoning of students. (27) There is no significant change in reaction towards SRM of students. 

For data collection Singh’s Comprehensive Anxiety Test, Frustration Test by Chouhan and Tiwari, Verbal measure of self-confidence by Bhawalkar, Self-Esteem Inventory by Thakur and Prasad, Immediate Memory Span Test by psychological research cell and Verbal Test of Creative Thinking by Baquer Mehadi, Abstract Reasoning by Ojha, Socio-economic Status Scale by Kapoor and Singh were used. Apart from these, investigator developed a reaction scale for assessing reaction towards Stress Reduction Model.

The data analyses were performed with the help of t-test, correlated t-test, ANCOVA, and ANOVA statistical techniques.

The findings of the study were: (1) SRM has the potentiality in reducing Stress, Anxiety and Frustration of students significantly. (2) SRM has the potentiality in improving self-confidence, self-esteem, personally perceived self, socially perceived self, immediate memory span, fluency, flexibility, originality and creativity of students. (3) In comparison to traditional approach, Stress Reduction Model was found significantly superior (a) in reducing stress, anxiety and frustration in students, (b) in improving self-confidence, self-esteem, personally perceived self, socially perceived self, immediate memory span, fluency, flexibility, originality and creativity of students, and (c) in improving abstract seasoning of students. (4) Socio-economic status, sex and interaction between Treatment and SES did not affect significantly various dimensions of stress, anxiety, frustration, self-confidence, self-esteem, personally perceived self, immediate memory span, creativity and its three dimensions, separately, when respective variable at pre-stage was taken as covariate. (5) The interaction between treatment and sex did not influence significantly to achievement stress, self-concept stress, social stress, institutional stress, family stress, vocational stress, anxiety, frustration, self-confidence, self-esteem, personally perceived self, Immediate memory span, creativity and its two dimensions flexibility and fluency and abstract reasoning separately, when respective variable at pre-stage was taken as covariate. (6) The interaction between SES and Sex did not influence measured dimensions of stress, anxiety, frustration, self-confidence, self-esteem, socially perceived self, creativity and its’ three dimensions, abstract reasoning separately, when respective variable at pre-stage was taken as covariate. (7) The interaction among treatment, SES and Sex did not influence significantly all measured dimension of stress, creativity and its dimensions, anxiety, frustration, self- confidence, self-esteem, personally perceived self, socially perceived self, immediate memory span and also abstract reasoning. (8) Male students were found to possess significantly low academic stress than females when groups were matched in respect of pre-academic stress. (9) Academic stress of males above average SES can be managed significantly better through Stress Reduction Model than traditional approach when pre-academic stress was taken as covariate. (10) SRM was found more beneficial to males rather than females in terms of reducing the academic and self-actualization stress. (11) The students from above average SES were found to possess higher self-concept stress in comparison to below average SES. (12) Females from above average SES were found to possess higher personally perceived self in comparison to males and females from below average SES and males from above average SES. (13) SRM was found more beneficial to females then males in promoting socially perceived self when pre socially perceived self was taken as covariate. (14) Females from above average SES possessed higher degree of immediate memory span than females from below average SES. On the other hand SES did not affect immediate memory span of males. (15) SRM was found to promote originality in males and females in comparison to traditional approach but females were benefited more than males from SRM when pre-originality was considered as covariate. (16) SRM was best suited to males from above average SES and females from any level of SES in promoting abstract reasoning. (17) The duration of treatment significantly improved the reaction towards SRM of students.