Content uploaded by Whisnu Yudiana
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Whisnu Yudiana on Apr 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
1
UNDANG-UNDANG REPUBLIK INDONESIA
NOMOR 19 TAHUN 2002
TENTANG HAK CIPTA
LINGKUP HAK CIPTA
Pasal 2:
(1) Hak Cipta merupakan hak eksklusif bagi Pencipta atau Pemegang Hak Cipta untuk
mengumumkan atau memperbanyak ciptaannya, yang timbul secara otomatis setelah
suatu ciptaan dilahirkan tanpa mengurangi pembatasan menurut peraturan perundang-
undangan yang berlaku.
KETENTUAN PIDANA
(1) Barangsiapa dengan sengaja atau tanpa hak melakukan perbuatan sebagaimana
dimaksud dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) atau Pasal 49 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) dipidana penjara
masing-masing paling singkat 1 (satu) bulan dan/atau denda paling sedikit Rp.
1.000.000,00 (satu juta rupiah), atau pidana penjara paling lama 7 (tujuh) tahun
dan/atau denda paling banyak Rp. 5.000.000.000,00 (lima milyar rupiah).
(2) Barangsiapa dengan sengaja menyiarkan, memamerkan, mengedarkan, atau menjual
kepada umum suatu ciptaan atau barang hasil pelanggaran Hak Cipta atau Hak
Terkait sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling
lama 5 tahun dan/atau denda paling banyak Rp. 500.000.000,00 (lima rratus juta
rupiah).
2
7
PROCEEDING OF
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
PSYCHOLOGY AND MULTICULTURALISM
URBAN LIVING & MULTICULTURAN CITIES IN ASIA:
FROM COLONIAL PAST TO GLOBAL FUTURE
Important Note:
Scientific Committee did not edit or correct the paper accepted for proceeding. It was assume
the paper’s grammar, spelling error, and writing style according to APA was the author’s
responsibility.
8
3
7
8
Proceeding of The International Conference on Psychology and Multiculturalism
Editor : Bernadette N. Setiadi
Cover Design : Eric Geraldy
Layout : Henrico Torkis Lamhot
Published by Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta
Jl. Jenderal Sudirman No. 51, Jakarta 12930
Telephone/Fax : (021) 5719558/ 57088390
Copyright@ 2017 by Faculty of Psychology of Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia,
Jakarta
No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or
stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of Faculty of
Psychology of Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, including, but not limited to, in
any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distant learning.
Jakarta, November 2017
4
9
Greetings From the Dean
Welcome to the first International Conference on Psychology and Multiculturalism,
In 2017, Faculty of Psychology, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia celebrates its 25th
anniversary. On the 8th of June 1992, the faculty was opened with a bachelor degree program and
started the academic activities with only about 70 students. Twenty five years passing by, currently
we have four study programs at bachelor, master (professional and science), and doctoral level
serving about 1500 students. It is a great achievement that this year we finally have a complete level
of study program!
As a commemoration of our gratitude and celebration for this achievement, we are convening
academicians, students, and practitioners to discuss and learn from each other in an international
conference, namely “Urban Living and Multicultural Cities in Asia: From Colonial Past to Global
Future”. This is our first international conference and it is a reflection of our academic themes,
namely to understand and develop urban dwellers, multicultural, and disadvantaged people. It is
relevant with Jakarta, where our campus is located, that the conference covers behaviors and
psychological aspects of people within the history of the city, its economic and industrial growth,
health, education, and information technology innovations.
Our keynote speaker and panelists are experts in their field. I hope we can learn a lot from them. For
presenters and guests, welcome and thank you for joining our conference, I hope you can have
wonderful discussions in this conference.
Dr. Angela Oktavia Suryani, M. Si
Dean of Faculty of Psychology, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia
:
""
5
9
:
""
Steering Committe : Angela Oktavia Suryani
Scientific Committe :
Bernadette N. Setiadi
Agustina Hendriati
Hana Panggabean
Nani Nurrachman
Lidia Laksana Hidajat
International Scientific Committe :
Amina Abubakar Ali
(The KEMRI - Welcome Trust Research Program, Kenya)
Annemiek Richters
(Leiden University, The Netherlands)
Monika Eigenstetter
(University of Applied Science Niederrhein Krefeld, Germany)
Steffan Kammhuber
(University of Applied Sciences Rapperswill)
6
;
Organizing Committe :
Rayini Dahesihsari, Clara R., Pudji Yogyanti (Chair)
Mohammad Adi Ganjar Priadi (Sekretariat)
Puji Tania Ronauli (Treasurer)
Dhevy Setya Wibawa (Conference Program)
Theresia Indira Shanti (Papers and Proceedings)
Penny Handayani (Food and Refreshment)
Ignatius Darma Juwono (Publication and Documentation)
Ferdinand Prawiro (Facility, Accommodation, Transportation)
<
:
>
%!&%-""!&"" 65
/".%$""%&!&&+0 ! !&"#'%#!& ! !&"$!
$&-&%" !!%& 66
($%&+ ! !&! '&'&'$"!&*&-%%"!$!$" !"!%!)&,$! 67
"&( "$+!$!%!$&"!$!% %%"!"$' !!"!% 68
"$+"+-$!,&"!!",&"!!!&!%%*#$!!"($+ 69
""!%%-%%%% !&&"!&$(!&"!!!"!% 6:
6;
6<
7>
8>
9<
9=
:;
;7
;8
;=
<9
<:
=6
>8
>9
657
666
667
66;
67:
689
69;
69<
7
;
<
Table of Contents
:
Keynote & Invited Speakers’ Abstract >
%!&%-""!&"" 65
/".%$""%&!&&+0 ! !&"#'%#!& ! !&"$!
$&-&%" !!%& 66
($%&+ ! !&! '&'&'$"!&*&-%%"!$!$" !"!%!)&,$! 67
"&( "$+!$!%!$&"!$!% %%"!"$' !!"!% 68
"$+"+-$!,&"!!",&"!!!&!%%*#$!!"($+ 69
""!%%-%%%% !&&"!&$(!&"!!!"!% 6:
Biopsychosocial Approach for Healthy Living 6;
Measuring Love Languages and Relationship Quality 6<
The Prevention of Depression among Indonesian Migrant Workers 7>
Subjective Well-Being of PKK Volunteer Reviewed from Hours of Participation 8>
City as Memory Sites 9<
Urban Nostalgia: Memories of Living in Jakarta among Former Menteng Residents 9=
A Social Representation about Cultural Heritage among Youth in Kauman Semarang :;
Diversity in Organization ;7
Contribution to the Community in Seminary Wacana Bhakti ;8
Online Buying Decision Process among Gen Y Instagram Users ;=
Indonesian Psycho-cultural Consortium (Konsorsium Psikokultural Indonesia/KPI) <9
Budaya Batobo Dan Ketahanan Sosial Keluarga <:
Woman Resistance against Poverty:Case of Women’s Lubuk Raya Group Tebing Tinggi =6
Families in Global Upbringing >8
The Influence Of The Socialization Of Gender Roles On Patriarchal Culture and Masculine Ideology On
The Emergence Of Gender Role Conflict In Men Of Karo Tribe >9
The Role of Positive Family Behavior in Children’s Wellbeing 657
Education Challenges in Multicultural Cities 666
The Effect of Conflict Self- Efficacy on Work-Study Conflict in Working College students 667
Emotion Coaching by Preschool Teachers in Jakarta 66;
Integrating MLE Training in Pos PAUD: An Attempt to Enhance Parent-Child Quality of Interaction 67:
Exploring Parental Mediation of Elementary School-Aged Children’s Gadget Use 689
Modern City and Digital Lifestyle 69;
Convenient for Positive Expression: Role of Expressivity and Internet Use Motives to Online Self-
disclosure 69<
8
=
Abstract of Posters 6:=
Psychological Well Being of Girls Who Married Early Because of Poverty 6:>
Occupational Stress and Coping Strategy Harmony Between Scientific Theory and Islamic Teachings And
Practice 6;5
Entrepreneurship Characteristics of Mr. Idris as the Pioneer of Living Statue at Kota Tua, Jakarta 6;6
Criminality of The Elderly 6;7
>
>
102
657
The Role of Positive Family Behavior in Children’s Wellbeing
1Laila Qodariah and 2Whisnu Yudiana
1 laila.qodariah@unpad.ac.id
2 whisnu.yudiana@unpad.ac.id
Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran
ABSTRACT
Family is the basic aspect in the development of child’s well-being. A positive parent
behavior in daily routines and social support will lead to a better and safe environment for the
family. This study aimed to investigate how this positive behavior in a family have a role in
children’s well-being. Children’s Subjective Well-Being and Family Positive Behavior
questionnaire were administered in two cities, Bandung and Sumedang, with proportionate
stratified sampling on a school based sample of children and adolescence aged 9 to 13 years
in 2017. Data from 367 children was analyzed with Partial Least Square using Smart PLS 2.0,
with subjective well-being was employed in order to control the effect of positive family
behavior (eat, connection, movement, play, learn, give, and religious). Findings showed that
the amount of time spent with the child during mealtime, play, learn, sport, or worship, had
no direct effect on children subjective well-being. We should be considered about the role of
environmental experiences that affect wellbeing, not only about the quantities but the
qualities. Children should take the meaning of positive family behavior such as safety, love,
care and support to improve their self-esteem, self-confidence, aspiration and sense of secure,
as the construct of children subjective wellbeing.
Keywords: subjective well-being, positive family behavior, parent-child relationship.
Each member of the family has an important role in building the welfare of the family.
The Family provides physical and emotional support to children and also in charge of
meeting their physical needs, nurturance, safety, and compassion. Family becomes the basis
that forms child's well-being until he grows up. If the family is not properly functioning, then
the lives of children and individuals in their units become disadvantaged. Thus, the well-
being of the family becomes important both for individuals and society in general (Family
Commision, 2013).
The issue of 'well-being', including physical and psychological well-being in the family
context or referred to 'family wellbeing' has been studied in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand
along with other several countries. Families Australia Inc. (2006), has conducted researches
on family well-being, includes physical safe and mental health, supportive intra-family
relationship, social connection, and economic security. The study of family wellbeing was
also undertaken in Ireland in 2003 of 250 families and showed that there are several factors
that affect the wellbeing of a family, including family type, family relationship, and
individual attributes of each family member (McKeown, Pratschke, & Haase, 2003).
A safe environment in a family created by positive parent behavior such as positive
daily routine and social support. Family connection, close relationships, healthy open
communication, and perceived parental support related to healthy youth development and a
reduced risk for emotional distress, substance use, violence involvement, unhealthy weight
control, and sexual behaviors. Parental support also has been shown to be positively related to
higher adolescent self-esteem, higher GPAs in school, and greater academic success
(Eisenberg, Olson, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2004).
On the other hand, researches about well-being in Indonesia have mainly focused on
adult’s well-being. Based on the observations of researchers in the 3 largest universities in
Indonesia, the study of psychological wellbeing has been conducted 42 times in UI
658
103
657
658
(Universitas Indonesia, 2016), 46 in UGM (Universitas Gajah Mada, 2017) and 41 in
UNPAD (Universitas Padjadjaran, 2017), referring none to seeing the relationship between
family functioning and children well-being.
Thus, the family context is a central determinant of subjective well-being throughout
the lifespan, including the childhood and adolescent years (Suldo & Fefer, 2013). Based on
Yaxley et al (2012) study about Family Wellbeing: Measuring What Matters, the wellbeing
domains included on the Family Wellbeing Index needed to all relate to a tangible aspect of
behavior that families can have direct control over. The focus of the Index is on positive
behaviors to adopt and ca be measure the behaviors thought to influence wellbeing, such as
meal time routine, connection, doing exercise, learn and play, and giving back to community
(Yaxley, Gill, & McManus, 2012).
It is important to examine children well-being from the perspective of positive family
behavior. This study describes the role of positive family behavior in children well-being.
Specifically, we aimed to focus on 1) how children perceived their well-being in specific
domain area of their life; 2) to explore how often their family doing positive behavior in daily
life; and 3) to investigated on how is the role of positive behavior in family context in
children’s well-being.
Method
Participants
Respondents were elementary school students (N=367), from two different regions in
West Java: Bandung (n = 127 students) and Jatinangor (n =240 students). The gender
proportion of students were almost similar, 184 (50.1%) respondents were male and 183
(49.9%) respondents were female. The aged of participants ranged from 8 to 13 years (M=
9.94 years, SD=0.77). Based on the grade, more than half of the students were from four
years grade students (n=194) and the rest were from five years grade students (n=173).
According to a family background, majority of participants were living with father and
mother (n=317, 86.4%), mother only (n=24, 6.5%), mother and step father (n=10, 2.7%),
father only (n=8, 2.2%) and father and step mother (n=3, 0.8%).
This research used asset-based measures to describe the social-economic status (SES)
of the students. The participants were asked the ownership associated with current resources
available at home, such as car, motorcycles, television and refrigerator. Then the data were
analyzed with principal components analysis to get the index of SES (Vyas &
Kumaranayake, 2006). Hence, the students classified as lowest SES were 141 (38.4%)
respondents, lower middle SES were 94 (25.9%) respondents upper middle were 79 (21.5%)
respondents and highest SES were 52 (14.2%) respondents.
Measures
Children Subjective Well-Being (CSWB) was explored by Brief Multidimensional
Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS). The BMSLSS is a five-items self-report
measure developed to assess children and adolescent’s satisfaction with respect to the areas
of life most pertinent during youth development. Specifically, students are instructed to rate
their satisfaction with their family life, friendships, school experiences, self, and then living
environment. Response options are on a 7-point scale that ranges from 1 = terrible to 7 =
delighted. An additional item, measuring students’ satisfaction with their overall life, was
included in initial data collection opportunities to provide preliminary validation information
about the BMSLSS’ relationship to global life satisfaction (Huebner, Suldo, & Valois, 2003).
High score indicates that the children feels happy in various areas of their lives. In the present
study, reliability analysis of the variables-components of CSWB was performed using
Cronbach’s coefficient and was found to be acceptable ( = .83).
Positive Family Behavior (PFB) was measured by PFB Questionnaire developed based
104
659
on Yaxley et al (2012) studies about family well-being. It includes 6 domains: 1) Eat - the
nutritional and social context of what we eat and drink; 2) Move – from sport and games
through to being active in everyday life; 3) Connect – with family, friends and the wider
world around us; 4) Learn – having projects, setting challenges and developing new skills; 5)
Play – activities that are fun, stimulating and playful; 6) Give – doing something good for
someone else (Yaxley, Gill, & McManus, 2012). In this study one variable was added namely
Religious– praying, worship, or reading prophet stories. High score show that children
perceive their families as having high frequency in positive behavior. In the present study,
reliability analysis of the variables-components of PFB was performed using Cronbach’s
coefficient and was found to be acceptable ( = .90).
Data Analysis
In this study Children Subjective Well-Being (CSWB) was the dependent variable
which determined by reporting the mean (SD) of the six items and the sum scores of the six
items from BMSLSS. While Positive Family Behavior as the independent variable, also
reported by the mean (SD) of each seven constructs (eat, connection, movement, play, learn,
give, and religious). The computation for descriptive statistic was performed using SPSS
version 20.
The research model advanced in this study reflects a positivist notion as its formulates
an empirical unverifiable theory in relation to the direct effects among in the seven constructs
in family positive behavior (eat, connection, movement, play, learn, give, and religious) with
children subjective well-being as the criterion variable. The quantitative cross-sectional
survey was used in this study. The research model is tested with Partial Least Square path
modelling using Smart PLS Version 2.0. Following the recommended procedures by Hair,
Sarstedt, Hopkins, & G. Kuppelwieser (2014). The research model question represents in the
Figure 1.
Figure 1 Research model
65:
105
659
65:
Results
Descriptive of Children Subjective Well Being and Family Positive Behavior
Table 1 present the mean values and standard deviations for the CSWB and FPB. As
mentioned before the children well-being measured with five items related to family,
friendship, school experience, home and overall life satisfaction. Meanwhile family positive
behavior is related to seven behaviors of the family: eat, connect, play, give, learn, religious,
and move.
In the children well-being variable, students showed higher satisfaction in family life
followed by area they lived and felt positive through themselves. However, they felt least
satisfaction in friendship. In the family positive behavior, even though the mean between
dimensions were relatively similar, the play activities with family was higher than other
dimensions. Although activities relate to meal with family had the lowest than other
dimensions.
Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges and Reliability of Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life
Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS) and Family Positive Behavior questionnaire for All Participants
(N = 367)
Variable
M
SD
Reliability
BMSLSS (Ranged 1 - 7)
0.83
1. Your family life
5.97
1.46
2. Your friendships
5.13
1.46
3. Your school experience
5.32
1.50
4. Yourself
5.43
1.60
5. Where you live
5.66
1.58
6. Your life overall
5.57
1.65
Total
5.50
1.16
Family Positive Behavior (Ranges 1 - 4)
0.90
1. Eat
2.29
0.64
2. Connect
2.30
0.68
3. Play
2.38
0.75
4. Give
2.31
0.78
5. Learn
2.30
0.65
6. Religious
2.33
0.68
7. Move
2.39
0.51
Note: BMSLSS was assessed using seven points scales from terrible (1) to delight (7). Family
Positive Behavior was evaluated using four points scales with 1 = “never” to 4 = “always”.
M= Mean, SD=Standard Deviation, Reliability used Alpha Cronbach
Table 2 present the mean values and standard deviation of detailed behavior for each FPB’s
aspect, where the mean value ranged from 2.19 up to 2.47 on a scale of 1 to 4. There is no
significance difference observable on the mean value for each behavior in the FPB, therefore
it is identified that the lowest mean value behavior appears in Do sport with family and Go to
a museum or movie theater.
Table 2.
106
65;
Family Positive Behaviour (FPB) in Details
Activities
Mean
SD
EAT
Breakfast
2.21
1.17
Eat vegetables and fruits
2.24
0.86
Drink milk and Juice
2.33
0.86
Eating together as a family
2.38
0.98
MOVE
Do sport excluding activities at school
2.34
0.91
Do sport with family
2.47
0.89
Watching television and playing games
2.44
0.80
Walking or cycling to the school or other
places
2.34 0.86
CONNECT
Share your experience with parents
2.40
0.94
Make time for friends and family
2.29
0.95
Arrange a meet-up with friends
2.33
1.13
The parents ask what happen at school
2.25
1.05
PLAY
Park games and activities
2.38
0.83
Go to a museum or movie theatre
2.47
1.13
Play card or board games with families
2.35
1.17
Go vacation together with family
2.40
1.08
SHARE
Support each other
2.42
1.10
Help peoples with disaster
2.36
0.94
Help parents to do some chores
2.19
0.93
Give things to other
2.30
1.12
LEARN
Learn to do homework
2.31
0.89
Learn to play an instrument, cook, ride a bike,
swim
2.32 1.14
Learn new things
2.27
0.87
Read books together with family
2.35
0.91
RELIGIOUS
Do pray together
2.25
0.95
Go to mosque, church and others
2.35
0.96
Learn and talk about religion with family
2.38
0.95
Do religious services
2.36
0.95
Note: Family Positive Behavior was evaluated using four points
scales with 1 = “never” to 4 = “always”. SD=Standard Deviation.
As presented in Table 3, the estimated time consumption which are spent to chat with
friends, mother, father, and siblings ranged from 0.1 up to less than 3 hours a day. Mostly, the
participant spent a very little amount of time spent (0.1 up to 1 hour) each day to chat with
others, such as friends and family. They spent more time for formal education and playing
alone or with friend, which took about 6 hours for each day, rather than spending the time to
65<
107
65;
Mean
2.21 1.17
2.24 0.86
2.33 0.86
2.38 0.98
2.34 0.91
2.47 0.89
2.44 0.80
school or other
2.40 0.94
2.29 0.95
2.33 1.13
2.25 1.05
2.38 0.83
2.47 1.13
2.35 1.17
2.40 1.08
2.42 1.10
2.36 0.94
2.19 0.93
2.30 1.12
2.31 0.89
Learn to play an instrument, cook, ride a bike,
2.27 0.87
2.35 0.91
2.25 0.95
2.35 0.96
2.38 0.95
2.36 0.95
65<
chat with the family. Identified that only 9% of the participant generally spent often (> 3
hours) times to chat with their mother and father, and only 8% spent often (> 3 hours) times
to chat with the siblings.
Table 3.
Duration time participants spend with others
Time duration for
0.1 to 1 hours
1 to 3 Hours
> 3 Hours
Talking with Friend
70%
16%
14%
Talking with Mother
68%
17%
9%
Talking with Father
63%
12%
9%
Talking with Sibling
53%
17%
8%
The Structural Relationship
In answering the third research question, the structural relationships between FPB and
CSWB were examined. Figure 2 and Table 2 present the results. The results show that the
family behaviors in Eat (ß= -0.06), Give (ß= -0.07), Religious (ß= -0.36) and Move (ß= -
0.09) were negatively related. While, the family behavior in Connect (ß= 0.08), Play (ß=
0.31), and Learn (ß= 0.33) were positively related. However, all the relationship was not
significant, as we can see on figure 2 below:
Figure 2. Results of Path Analysis
The R2 value was 0.186 suggesting that 18.6 % of the variance in extent of children
well-being can be explained by family positive behaviors in Eat, Connect, Play, Give, Learn,
Religious and Move as we can see on table 4 below:
108
65=
Table 4.
Significance Testing Results of the Structural Model Path Coefficients
Latent
Variable
Predictor
Path
Coefficient
T Value
Conclusio
n
R2
Children
Subjective
Well-Being
Eat
-0.06
0.47
ns
0.186
Connect
0.08
0.23
ns
Play
0.31
0.65
ns
Give
-0.07
0.16
ns
Learn
0.33
0.84
ns
Religious
-0.36
0.85
ns
Move
-0.09
0.52
ns
Discussion
Subjective well-being (SWB) is a broad category that includes positive emotional
responses, such as joy, elation, happiness, and contentment, as well as long-term moods and
cognitive dimensions (Diener & Diener McGavran, 2008). In the present study, Table 1
summarizes the overall picture of young people’s happiness across 5 domains of live. It can
be seen that, whilst young people are predominantly happy in all areas, on average they tend
to be happier with some aspects of their lives than others. The highest domain is Family with
average score 5.97 out of 7. The lowest domain is friendship, with average score 5.13 out of
7. High life satisfaction was much more tied to positive relationships with parent than with
friends. The family context is a central determinant of subjective well-being throughout the
lifespan, including the childhood and adolescent years. Strong relationship with parent have
significant impact for children, while peer relationships take on signicant meaning during
adolescent (Ma and Huebner, 2008; Suldo & Fefer, 2013).
Many areas of life influence the health and wellbeing of families. The focus is on
positive behaviors, that six domains (or themes) are the key. These are: eat, move, connect,
learn, play, and give, and in the present study we added religious as one of positive family
behavior in Indonesia. As we can see on table 1, of all six family behavior domains are in the
overall range of 2.29 to 2.39 out of 4. This indicates that in this study, the children in West
Java measure the positive family behavior are done once in a while or occasionally in their
family. The least activity that they usually done together is meal time, which involve
breakfast, healthy snack time such as eating fruits and vegetables, and also lunch and dinner.
On the other hand, several studies shown that daily meal time in family has been
demonstrated to benefit young people. Eating meals together create general sense of
connection to family members and serve as an important time for children to communicate
with and spend time with their parents (Eisenberg, Olson, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2004;
Yaxley, Gill, & McManus, 2012; Cook & Dunifon, 2012).
The needs of the children to connect with their families measured less according to
table 2, activities such as sharing the children experience in their daily activites, like school,
to their parents are done occasionally. On the contrary, warm relationship between parents
and children can be developed by sharing and discussing the daily routines. For the families
in West Java, such activities are ocassionally done which descibed in table 3, a small amount
of the participant spent more time to chat with their mother, father and their relatives. A
warm and positive relation in fact will support the children’s SWB because it is able to
reduce the level of stress among the children (Suldo & Fefer, 2013; Aufseeser, Jekielek, &
Brown, 2006). To perform activites with the family could be one of the protective factor in
65>
109
65=
Conclusio
65>
the development of children wellbeing. This such activites could be carried out through
playing, learning, or praying together. In contrast, it is something rarely done by the families
in West Java. The activites done by childern and families plays a role in the increasing of
childs mental health development which will lead into children wellbeing (Moore, et al.,
2016).
On this research, confirmed that the positive family behavior has not been done
consistently, albeit the importance of the activity. Among the children in West Java, PFB was
not related with the achievement of children subjective wellbeing which achieve the category
of moderate satisfaction on their living aspects. The presence of PFB, neither frequent or not,
does not have a significance impact to the SWB results reported by the children. All the
family behaviors in Eat, Religious, Move, Connect, Play, and Learn were not significant
correlate with CSWB as we can see on figure 2. The result showed that the frequencies of
positive family activities contributed only 18.6% to the variance in children well-being. It is
confirmed that PFB could be one the protective factor in the development of CSWB,
although it would not be the factor that determine the values of CSWB. By the mean that
81.4% is determined by other factors not measured in this study.
According to the study which conducted by Moore et al. (2016) in the United States of
America, it is found that there are six domains that will determine the child wellbeing, that
are cognitive and academic development, socio-emotional development, social behaviors,
physical health and safety, and relationship. Family is one of the promotive and protective
factor that could reduce the risk factor to optimize the development of the six domains. The
outcome of the optimized domain development is the better children wellbeing condition.
Family support, responsiveness, warmth, shared family activities, control, family routines,
and religious involvement could support the optimization of the domain that mentioned
before are examined from the family context, but will not be a direct factor that determine the
quality of CSWB. A responsive and positive parent-child relationship, will helps the children
to develop a positive relation with their friend and peoples around them (Ma & Huebner,
2008: Diener & Diener McGavran, 2008), therefore the domain relationship and socio-
emotional development will be better developed. Parents that involved in the child’s
academic achievement would be supporting for the development of children cognitif, with the
result that the children will have a better contentment in their school life. Parents that do
more sports and playing with their children would help to stimulate the children physical and
health development, that could benefited on the child self-esteem.
This study reeled that even though the family is not the main factor that determine the
value of the CSWB’s score, but the family-children activities are important as the promotive
and protective factor on the children development. As the children development optimized,
the result would be the life satisfaction of the child for their living aspect, including
themselves, the surrounding, family, friends and the school life.
The limitations of this study need to be addressed. First, all measures were self-report.
The use of multiple methods of assessment would enhance the meaningfulness of the
ndings. Second, the sample, although large and relatively diverse, was not representative of
the West Java Indonesia population. Additional research is needed to assess the intervening
variable between positive family behavior and children subjective well-being. For examples,
it will be especially important to examine parent-child relationship, parent and peer
attachment, also family stability and dynamic to see the effect for children well-being.
Despites its limitation, this study underscore the importance of family activities as a
promotive and protective factor for child development. Thus, developing a sense of
connection to family members, safety, love, care and support, improving their self-esteem,
and developing their positive sense of self as the basis that forms the children subjective well-
being. This study also shows that families in West Java need to increase quality activities
110
665
with their children, so as to develop a positive parent-child relationship that will support the
development of the children.
References
Aufseeser, D., Jekielek, S., & Brown, B. (2006). The Family Environment and Adolescent
Well-being: Exposure to Positive and Negative Family Influences. Washington DC:
Child Trends.
Cook, E., & Dunifon, R. (2012). Do Family Meals Really Make a Difference? New York:
Cornell Cooperative Extension .
Diener, M. L., & Diener McGavran, M. B. (2008). What Makes People Happy?: A
Developmental Approach To The Literature On Family Relationships And Well-Being.
Dalam R. J. Larsen (Eds.), & M. Eid, The Science of Subjective Well-Being (hal. 347-
375). New York: Guilford.
Eisenberg, M. E., Olson, R. E., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2004). Correlations Between
Family Meals and Psychosocial Well-being Among Adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med, 792-796.
Hair Jr, F., Sarstedt, J., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, G. (2014). Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Family Commision. (2013). Families and Whänau Status Report : Towards Measuring The
Wellbeing Of Families And Whänau. Wellington: Families Commision.
Huebner, E. S., Suldo, S. M., & Valois, R. F. (2003). Psychometric Properties of Two Brief
Measures of Children’s Life Satisfaction: The Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS)
and the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS). Indicators
of Positive Development Conference (hal. 1-34). New York: Child Trends.
Ma, C. Q., & Huebner, E. S. (2008). Attachment Relationships And Adolescents’ Life
Satisfaction: Some Relationships Matter More To Girls Than Boys. Psychology in the
Schools, 17, 177–190.
McKeown, K., Pratschke, J., & Haase, T. (2003). Family Well-Being: What Makes A
Difference? Study Based on a Representative Sample of Parents & Children in Ireland.
Dublin: Kieran McKeown Limited Social and Economic Research Consultant.
Moore, K. A., Murphey, D., Beltz, M., Martin, M. C., Bartlett, J., & Caal, S. (2016). Child
Well-Being: Constructs to Measure Child Well-Being and Risk and Protective Factors
that Affect the Development of Young Children. Maryland: Child Trends.
Rask, K., Astedt-Kurki, P., Paavilainen, E., & Laippala, P. (. (2003). Adolescent Subjective
Well-¬Being And Family Dynamics. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 17,
129–138.
Suldo, S. M., & Fefer, S. A. (2013). Parent-Child Relationships and Well-Being. Dalam
Proctor C., & Linley P., Research, Applications, and Interventions for Children and
Adolescents (hal. 131-147). Dordrecht: Springer.
UGM. (2017, Februari 1). Discovery Search : Perpustakaan UGM. Diambil kembali dari
Perpustakaan Universitas Gadjah Mada: lib.ugm.ac.id
Universitas Indonesia. (2016, February 1). Browse Collection : UI Library. Diambil kembali
dari Universitas Indonesia Library: www.lib.ui.ac.id
UNPAD. (2017, September 23). Kandaga . Diambil kembali dari UNPAD:
http://kandaga.unpad.ac.id/
Vyas, S., & Kumaranayake, L. (2006). Constructing Socio-Economic Status Indices: How To
Use Principal Components Analysis . Health Policy and Planning, 459-468.
Yaxley, V., Gill, V., & McManus, S. (2012). Family wellbeing: Measuring what Matters.
Identifying and validating domains. NatCen Social Research : London.
666
666
