Family Resilience: Traits, Positivity, and Close Relationship

in Adolescents

O. Irene Prameswari Edwina

, Tessalonika Sembiring

, Cindy Maria

and Jean Esparanci

Department of Psychology, Maranatha Christian University, Jl. Surya Sumantri No.65, Bandung, Indonesia

Jean.esparanci@psy.maranatha.edu

Keywords: Family Resilience, Traits, Close Relationship, Positivity, Adolescents.

Abstract: High stress can be experienced by all family members, including adolescents. This can cause the family to

function less optimally and interfere with the adaptation of each family member. A family that has resilience

is one solution for the family to be able to still adapt well when experiencing strong pressure. The purpose of

this study is to determine the role of traits in family resilience with the mediators of close relationship and

positivity. Data were collected using reliable instruments. The research participants consisted of 312

adolescents aged 15-18 years old. The data were processed by using the mediation analysis technique using

Model 4 from Hayes PROCESS. The results showed that there was a significant relationship between traits

and family resilience through close relationship and positivity. The role of the five traits in family resilience

can occur if they are mediated by the mediator variables. From the three mediators, namely close relationship,

positive emotions, and negative emotions, it was found that positive emotions had the strongest role as a

mediator of the five traits in family resilience. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

Mental health is an asset that is needed by individuals

to work and face challenges, problems, and pressure

in life. A quick change in all aspects of life can make

an individual feel nervous. If a person does not

quickly, deftly, and effectively adapt to the changes,

then it can lead to a state of confusion that will erode

his/her mental state.

These days, the number of individuals with severe

mental disorders keep increasing. Riset Kesehatan

Dasar 2018 stated that 7 of 1000 households in

Indonesia had members with schizophrenia, which

meant that if there were 69 households, then 480,000

people were suffering from schizophrenia (Kompas,

October 7, 2019). The increase in the number of

people with severe mental illness is something that

needs to be paid attention to in terms of human

resources. Significant losses in economic, social,

political, and educational areas as well as individual

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7337-3938

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5412-0452

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9984-0904

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2606-5972

performances will be borne by the state if it is not

handled well.

Family is the first and foremost agent of

individuals. Families that can overcome problems and

conflicts that arise and can also adapt to the

environment are the kind of families expected by each

individual. A family is a system with individuals who

are members of the family (Anderson & Sabatelli,

2011). Each member is connected and influences one

another. If a member of a family is facing a problem

and pressure, then the rest of the family members will

also be affected. In system theory, the basic premise

is that serious and persistent crises in life affect all

family members (Walsh, 2016a).

Adolescents are family members who are in

transition from childhood to adulthood. Educational

demands, association with peers, desire to be

accepted, conflict with parents because of differences

in opinion or differences in value instilled by parents

and by friends often cause great pressure on

adolescents. Furthermore, adolescents tend to be

Edwina, O., Sembiring, T., Maria, C. and Esparanci, J.

Family Resilience: Traits, Positivity, and Close Relationship in Adolescents.

DOI: 10.5220/0010742700003112

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences (ICE-HUMS 2021), pages 25-32

ISBN: 978-989-758-604-0

moody and emotionally unstable (Rosenblum &

Lewis, 2003, in Santrock, 2016). This situation can

make adolescents experience great stress which often

hinders their adaptation process. Adolescents who

experience stress put their families in stressful

conditions too.

A resilient family is one of the solutions for family

members to remain adaptive amid stressful situations

and even to develop themselves and improve their

self-quality. As stated by Rajeev & Kunjachan (2014)

that empowerment in a family and a community can

be assisted by building resilience inside them. Walsh

(2003, in Simon, 2005) argued that by having family

resilience, families as a system could provide a

process that could reduce stress and vulnerability in

high-risk situations, speed up the process of healing

and getting out of a crisis, and empower families to

cope with prolonged hardship.

According to Walsh (2003, in Walsh, 2016b),

family resilience is the ability of a family as a system

to recover after experiencing adversity/obstacles in

life. Lee (2004) stated that family resilience could

change the dynamics of family function in order to

solve problems associated with stress.

There are three key processes in family resilience,

namely family belief systems, organizational

patterns, and communication (Walsh, 2016b). First,

family belief systems have a strong influence on

family members in viewing crises, adversities, and

choices. Families need challenges in order to develop

their members. There are three aspects in belief

systems; making meaning of adversity experienced

by the family, hope/positive outlook, and

transcendence and spirituality.

Second, families as a system carry out

organizational patterns. There are also three aspects

in organizational patterns. The first one is flexibility

in facing challenges in terms of adapting to changes

and having leadership in directing and working

together between family members in facing

challenges. The second aspect is about the

connectedness, bonds between family members to

support each other, respecting the needs and

uniqueness of each family member, and the

commitment to overcome problem together. Then,

the third aspect is the ability to mobilize social and

economic resources by asking for help from

appropriate and significant people to solve problems

together.

Third, in the process of communication and

problem solving, there are three aspects. The first

aspect is the clarity of communication, which is

getting clear and reliable information to make

ambiguous situations understandable. The second

aspect is building positive interactions with love,

appreciation, humor, gratefulness, relaxation, and

happiness. Family members share their suffering,

sadness, fear, anger, disappointment, and regret with

each other. The third aspect is the ability of family

members to solve problems together with

constructive and creative discussions by focusing on

goals, resolving conflicts through negotiation, being

honest and fair, and developing plans for solutions.

There are efforts to prevent the emergence of stressful

problems/situations, although in reality, not all

problems can be prevented, but at least they can be

reduced.

Based on earlier research (Edwina, 2019), it is

found that 37.10% of family resilience is determined

by mindset. This shows that there are 62.90% of other

factors or variables that become predictors in family

resilience. Mindset is a cognitive variable of

individuals. Individuals have other dimensions, such

as trait, emotional, and social variables. In this

follow-up research, other factors/variables that can

play a role in adolescents’ family resilience will be

examined. Walsh (2016) stated that many previous

studies of resilience had focused on individual traits

and dispositions, but subsequent studies have shown

that resilience involves dynamic interactions of risk

and protection factors, which include individuals,

interpersonal, socio-economic, and cultural

influences (Cicchetti, 2010; Garmezy, 1991; Rutter,

1987, in Walsh, 2016). Each individual has a variety

of traits that tend to be inherited. Traits will determine

the way individuals think, feel, and behave (Cervone

& Pervin, 2019). McCrae & Costa (2006) revealed

that the theory of trait could best predict a person’s

behavior. Trait is the basic tendency of individuals

who interact with the social and physical environment

to form characteristics in adaptation. In this study,

adolescents with their traits interact with their

families and form close relationships within family

members. They also interact with the society in

everyday life and produce a certain emotional

appreciation, which in turn will play a role in their

family resilience.

There are five types of traits, which are

neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness,

and conscientiousness. Traits are seen as a cause that

influences an individual's psychological development

(McCrae & Costa, 2006). The traits that are owned by

adolescents will affect other psychic dimensions,

such as emotion, social relation, and other kinds of

abilities.

Neuroticism identifies an individual’s tendency to

experience psychological distress, unrealistic ideas,

excessive desires, and maladaptive responses.

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

Extraversion refers to the quantity and intensity of

personal interactions, level of activity, need for

stimulation, and capacity for pleasure. Openness

means being proactive in seeking and appreciating

experiences because of their own will, being tolerant,

and exploring things that are not yet known.

Agreeableness refers to the personal orientation

quality of an individual who is trusting, believing the

best of others and rarely suspecting hidden intents,

meek, deferring, and humble. Conscientiousness

shows the degree of individual regularity,

perseverance, and goal-oriented motivation. Sadati,

Honarmand, and Soodani (2015), Watson and Clark

(1984 ; White et al., 2004. in Saeed Abbasi et al.,

2018) stated that neuroticism and negative emotions

had a very close relationship. Letzring (2015) showed

that extraverts experienced more positive emotions

and fewer negative emotions. Neurotics experienced

more negative emotions and fewer positive emotions.

Individuals with a high agreeableness level

experienced fewer negative emotions, but they did

not experience more positive emotions either.

Individuals with higher conscientious levels

experienced more positive emotions, but they also

experienced a high amount of negative emotions.

Last, individuals with openness experienced more

positive emotions. Zanon (2013) also stated that

openness had no correlation with negative emotions

and conscientiousness had a good correlation with

positive emotions.

Frederickson (2009) argued that individuals who

experienced positive emotions more frequently had a

more open heart and mind. They would be more

responsive and creative, skilled in managing

relationships, and physically healthier. Individuals

need to experience more positive emotions than

negative emotions. Positivity is overall positive

emotions, such as appreciation, love, joy, gratitude,

serenity, interest, hope, pleasure, inspiration, self-

worth, etc. The positivity ratio between positive

emotions and negative emotions is expected to be at

least 3:1. This comparison shows that negative

emotions is necessary in human life. No one can

thrive without negative emotions, such as anger,

shame, humiliation, disgust, guilt, hate, sadness, fear,

stress, insult, etc.

Liu’s research (2012) shows that neuroticism and

resilience are mediated by positive and negative

emotions, and resilience is consistently associated

with positive emotions. Moreover, Sahar (2017)

stated that positive emotions and resilience had a

positive relationship. Ruswahyuningsih (2015)

argued that positive emotions in adolescents were a

positive aspect that supports and facilitates the

formation of their resilience. Chou’s research (2016)

on kindergarten teachers obtained a result that if their

positive emotions increased, their resilience would

also increase, job stress would decrease, and they

could handle the impact of negative emotions.

The relationship between adolescents and their

families affects their way of overcoming the problems

and pressures that they face. During adolescence,

adolescents' relationships, especially with their

parents, will undergo some changes. With the

increasing need for independence and their peers’

becoming the center of their attention, adolescents

often experience conflicts with their parents which

can cause certain stress to them. There is a mutual

influence between adolescents and their parents, and

in a broader context, between adolescents and their

families.

Branje (2004) examined the relationship between

the big five traits and the perceived relational support

received by adolescents in the family, and the results

show that agreeableness and interpersonal

relationships in a family have the strongest

relationship. Winterheld (2018) revealed that the

success of a relationship between individuals

depended on their traits and dispositions, and

neuroticism is the strongest and most consistent

predictor of relationships compared to other traits.

In families, there will be an intense relationship

between each member. The close relationship in

families is seen as a relationship that involves

interdependent strengths and frequencies from many

different areas of life (Smith et al., 2015). Rajeev

(2014), who examined families in India, stated that

interpersonal relations and collective responsibility

were the core strength of families. Thomas (2017)

stated that family relationships were a source that

could help individuals cope with stress, exhibit

healthier behavior, and promote a sense of self-worth

as well as well-being.

Close relationship is a connection involving

strong and frequent interdependence in many

different areas of life. Interdependence shows that a

person’s mind, emotion, and behavior influence one

another. There are three main aspects of

interdependence, namely cognitive, behavioral, and

affective interdependences (Smith et al., 2015).

The first one, cognitive interdependence, is a

tendency of individuals to think of themselves and

their partners as parts that influence one another as

attached individuals rather than as separate

individuals. The second one, behavioral

interdependence, shows that each individual has an

impact on his/her partner in every decision, activity,

and plan that he/she makes. Group/family members

Family Resilience: Traits, Positivity, and Close Relationship in Adolescents

spend a lot of time together and they do a variety of

different activities. Affective interdependence, the

third type of interdependence, refers to affective

attachments that connect close relationships of family

members. There are two points in affective

interdependence: intimacy and commitment.

Cognitive, behavioral, and affective

interdependencies reflect a unique way of relating.

Relationships help individuals to meet their basic

needs, such as connection with others and mastery of

skills and rewards. The close relationship includes

these three basic aspects.

In this research, the target population is

adolescents in the range of age 15-18 years old. At

this stage of adolescence, adolescents already develop

several characteristics, for example, hypothetical

thinking, thinking of the possibilities, and a greater

inclination to think their thoughts as they arise

(Santrock, 2016). In addition, adolescents experience

changes in their relationship with their parents and

their emotions tend to be moodier than before. The

traits in adolescents appear to be more colorful and

steady.

This study hypothesizes that close relationship

and positivity mediate the relationship between traits

and family resilience in adolescents aged 15-18 years

old.

Figure 1: Hypothetical model.

2 METHODS AND MATERIALS

The population of this research is adolescents aged

15-18 years old who live in the City of Bandung with

one or both of their parents. The data were collected

through questionnaires. The Trait questionnaire was

adapted by researchers from the Big Five Inventory

(BFI) that is based on A Five-Factor Theory concept

from Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa, Jr (2006),

which is made up of 45 items with 6 answer choices

and has reliability values of 0.698 for Neuroticism,

0.762 for Extraversion, 0.795 for Openness, 0.645 for

Agreeableness, and 0.789 for Conscientiousness. The

positivity questionnaire was translated by the

researcher based on the positivity measurement tool

compiled by Barbara Fredrickson (2009), which

includes 20 items, with 10 items measuring positive

emotions and 10 items measuring negative emotions.

Each item has 5 answer options. This measuring

instrument has reliability values of 0.885 for positive

emotions and 0.874 for negative emotions. The

family resilience questionnaire was modified by

researchers based on Walsh Family Resilience

Questionnaire (WFRQ) theory, contains 35 items

with 5 answer choices, and has a reliability value of

0.876. The close relationship questionnaire was

structured based on theoretical concept of Close

Relationship from Rusbult and Lange (1996, in Smith

et al., 2015) which measures cognitive

interdependence, behavioral interdependence, and

affective interdependence. Confirmatory Factor

Analysis (CFA) was conducted to measure the

suitability of each aspect of the Close Relationship

Questionnaire. The CFA test shows that the 15 items

of the close relationship questionnaire have a score of

λ between 0.028 to 0.931. The reliability of

Cronbach's Alpha is 0.765.

This data analysis used a regression model

between each trait variable and family resilience.

Furthermore, mediation analysis techniques will also

be used, especially Model 4 from Hayes PROCESS

(Hayes, 2018), so that the relationship between each

trait and family resilience through the mediation of

close relationships and positivity (positive emotions

and negative emotions) will be known.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Results

3.1.1 Respondents Overview

The number of respondents who are willing to

become participants in this research are 312

adolescents. The age range is 15-18 years old (M =

16.41, SD = 1,052) and 63.5% of the participants are

female. The majority of the participants are Muslims

(35.6%). Almost half of the participants are

Sundanese (49.7%). Most of the participants are at a

high school education level (61.9%). Most of the

participants are the oldest child (35.9%) followed

closely by the youngest child (34.6%), and almost all

of the participants are siblings of two (48.7%). Most

of the participants live with both parents (76.6%) and

almost all participants have parents with married

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

Table 1: Mediation test results of trait and family resilience through close relationship and positivity.

Variable Effect SE t P 95% CI

Neuroticism Trait

T1→FR .0080 .0495 .1611 .8721 [-.0895; .1054]

T1→M1→FR -.0125 .0091 [-.0349; .0001]

T1→M2→FR -.1305 .0342 [-.1974 ; -.0637]

T1→M3→FR -.0982 .0294 [-.1579; -.0434]

Extraversion Trait

T2→FR .0319 .0502 .6355 .5256 [-.0669; .1308]

T2→M1→FR .0186 .0117 [.0008; .0460]

T2→M2→FR .3145 .0357 [.2435; .3862]

T2→M3→FR .0360 .0138 [.0121; .0662]

Openness Trait

T3→FR -.0219 .0569 -.3842 .7011 [-.1338; .0901]

T3→M1→FR .0038 .0067 [-.0073; .0201]

T3→M2→FR .3002 .0337 [.2350; .3680]

T3→M3→FR -.0005 .0107 [-.0222; .0213]

Agreeableness Trait

T4→FR .1022 .0536 1.9069 .0575 [-.0033; .2077]

T4→M1→FR .0169 .0107 [.0002; .0423]

T4→M2→FR .2318 .0320 [.1726; .2973]

T4→M3→FR .0308 .0142 [.0078; .0644]

Conscientiousness Trait

T5→FR .0679 .0452 1.5024 .1340 [-.0210; .1569]

T5→M1→FR -.0002 .0063 [-.0123; .0141]

T5→M2→FR .2135 .0308 [.1546; .2724]

T5→M3→FR .0213 .0122 [.0012; .0481]

Note: CI = Confidence Interval; T1 = Neuroticism Trait; T2 = Extraversion Trait; T3 = Openness Trait; T4

= Agreeableness Trait; T5= Conscientiousness Trait; M1= Close Relationship; M2 = Positive Emotions;

M3 = Negative Emotions; FR = Family Resilience; N = 312

status (88.5%). Most participants come from the

upper-middle economic class (76.9%) and many

participants come from the working-class (37.8%)

and the lower economic class (33.3%).

3.1.2 Hypothesis Test Results

Based on the results of hypothesis testing on each trait

(table 1), it is found that neuroticism trait does not

have a direct impact on family resilience (Direct

effect = .0080, SE = .0495, 95% CI [-.0895; .1054]).

There is a role of meditation of positive emotions

(Indirect effect = .1305, SE = 0342, 95% CI [-.1974;

-.0637]) and negative emotions (Indirect effect = -

.0982, SE = .0294, 95% CI [-.1579; -.0434]) on the

relationship between neuroticism trait and family

resilience. However, a close relationship in a family

does not mediate the relationship between

neuroticism trait and family resilience. A close

relationship's role is more of an independent variable

on family resilience.

Table 1 also shows that the extraversion trait does

not have a direct impact on family resilience (Direct

effect = .0319, SE = .0502, 95% CI [-.0669; .1308]

Meanwhile, the three mediators that are close

relationship (Indirect effect = .0186, SE = .0117, 95%

CI [.0008; .0460]), positive emotions (Indirect effect

Family Resilience: Traits, Positivity, and Close Relationship in Adolescents

= .3145, SE = .0357, 95% CI [ .2435; .3862]), and

negative emotions (Indirect effect = .0360, SE =

.0138, 95% CI [.0121; .0662]) mediate the

relationship between extraversion trait and family

resilience.

Openness trait does not have a direct impact on

family resilience (Direct effect = -.0219, SE = .0569,

95% CI [-.1338; .0901]), while positive emotions

mediate the relationship between openness trait and

family resilience (Indirect effect = .3002, SE = .0337,

95% CI [.2350; .3680]). The two other mediators,

namely close relationship and negative emotions play

a bigger role as an independent variable on family

resilience in adolescents who have openness trait.

In Table 1, it appears that agreeableness trait does

not have a direct impact on family resilience (Direct

effect = .1022, SE = .0536, 95% CI [-.0033; .2077]).

There are indirect roles of the three mediators, namely

close relationship (Indirect effect = .0169, SE =

.0107, 95% CI [.0002; .0423]), positive emotions

(Indirect effect = .2318, SE = .0320, 95% CI [.1726;

.2973]), and negative emotions (Indirect effect =

.0308, SE = .0142, 95% CI [.0078; .0644).

The conscientiousness trait does not have a direct

impact on family resilience (Direct effect = .0679, SE

= .0452, 95% CI [-.0210; .1569]). Positive emotions

(Indirect effect = .2135, SE = .0308, 95% CI [.1546;

.2724]) and negative emotions (Indirect effect =

.0213, SE = .0122, 95% CI [.0012; .0481]) mediate

the relationship between conscientiousness trait and

family resilience. However, close relationship plays a

bigger role as an independent variable for family

resilience.

3.2 Discussion

Based on the research results, it is known that traits

(neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness,

and conscientiousness) have no direct role in family

resilience in adolescents aged 15-18 years old. The

role of the five traits on family resilience can occur

when they are mediated by the mediator variables,

close relationship in a family, positive emotions, and

negative emotions. These three mediating variables

have a variety of roles in mediating the relationship

between traits and family resilience.

This provides an opportunity for family resilience

to be increased through the role of nurture (close

relationship in a family, positive emotions, and

negative emotions) instead of nature (trait) which

tends to be inherited and has less chance to modify

compared to nurture variable. This condition gives

optimism that family resilience is more flexible to be

increased.

For adolescents who have extraversion and

agreeableness traits, close relationship in their

families acts as a mediator for family resilience in

addition to positive and negative emotions. However,

for the other three traits that are neuroticism,

openness, and conscientiousness, a close relationship

in a family does not mediate these traits' role in family

resilience.

Extraversion and agreeableness are traits that are

closely related to relationships with other people.

Individuals with high extraversion trait levels prefer

quantity and intensity of personal interactions, level

of activity, warmth, and likes to live in groups

(McCrae & Costa, 2006). Likewise with

agreeableness, individuals with agreeableness trait

trust people, believe the best of people, rarely suspect

hidden goals from people's actions, want to help

others, are humble, obedient, and polite (McCrae &

Costa, 2006). With this trait, it is easier for

adolescents to have close relationships with their

families. The combination of traits and close

relationship within family members can increase the

strength of their family resilience (Sagita, 2020).

The other three traits are more self-oriented.

According to McCrae & Costa (2006), individuals

with high neuroticism levels more easily experience

psychological distress and have unrealistic ideas,

excessive desires, and maladaptive coping responses.

Individuals with high openness levels will proactively

seek and appreciate experiences because of their own

will and like to explore things that are not yet known.

Individuals with high conscientiousness levels show

a degree of regularity, persistence, and goal-oriented

motivation. For adolescents, these three traits play a

very weak role in close relationship with their

families. Therefore, other variables are needed to

increase family resilience. In this study, positive

emotions are one of the strongest factors to increase

family resilience in adolescents.

Not only the three traits that have been mentioned,

but also all of the five traits have a significant effect

on family resilience when mediated by positive

emotions. Positive emotions can appear in the form of

love, humour, optimism, and having positive

solutions and suggestions. Positive emotions can

influence each other between family members and

will build a stronger family (Sagita, 2020).

Adolescents with their traits, when interacting with

the society in everyday life, can produce certain

emotions. Not only positive emotions, but also

negative emotions play a role in adolescents'

resilience (McCrae, 2006). However, from the results

of this study, negative emotions do not mediate the

role of the openness trait in family resilience.

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

As stated by Zanon (2013), openness does not

correlate with negative emotions. According to

McCrae (2006), individuals with high openness trait

tend to seek and value experiences because of their

own desires. The existence of their initiative to

explore the environment does not make them

experience negative emotions if they do not do that

exploration. Negative emotions contribute

significantly to a person's social adjustment (Sahar,

2017). The way adolescents adjust into the family will

have an impact on their family system.

The large number of negative emotions

experienced by family members have the effect of

weakening family resilience. Fredrickson (2009)

stated that negative emotions caused individuals to

think negatively. Individuals who think negatively

about something will be easily disappointed, worried,

hopeless, and embarrassed when they are

experiencing big enough problems. In these

conditions, it is difficult for adolescents to have

positive beliefs to overcome difficulties. They also

find it difficult to find alternative solutions if they fail

to deal with a problem and it is difficult to build

positive relationships with family members or other

people. This shows the low family resilience (Walsh,

2016).

When compared to negative emotions as

mediators, positive emotions have a stronger impact

on family resilience in the sense that positive

emotions have a stronger effect in mediating the

relationship between adolescents’ traits with family

resilience. Adolescents who experience strong

positive emotions, even though they experience

negative emotions, are likely to have high family

resilience. As stated by Frederickson (in Donaldson,

2011), positive emotions can erase the trace of

negative emotions.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the discussion above, it can be

concluded that:

1. There is a significant relationship between traits

and family resilience through close relationship

and positivity.

2. For extraversion and agreeableness traits, the

close relationship in family acts as a mediator of

family resilience, while for neuroticism,

openness, and conscientiousness traits, a close

relationship in a family does not mediate the

relationship of the three traits to family resilience.

3. The five traits have a significant impact on family

resilience when mediated by positive emotions.

For adolescents who have openness trait, positive

emotions are the only mediator that can mediate

the trait's relationship with family resilience.

4. Neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and

conscientiousness traits have a significant impact

on family resilience when mediated by negative

emotions, while for openness trait, negative

emotions do not mediate the impact of this trait on

family resilience.

5. Positive emotions are the most powerful mediator

compared to the other two mediators in terms of

mediating traits with family resilience.

Suggestions that can be made based on this research

are:

1. Parents and every member of the family can each

play a role in creating positive emotions within

the family.

2. Negative emotions cannot be avoided and are also

needed in family life; however, families need to

strive, so that every member of the family,

especially adolescents, experiences more positive

emotions than negative emotions.

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. A. & Sabatelli, R. M. (2011). Family

Interaction: A Multigenerational Developmental

Perspective, Pearson. Boston, 5

edition.

Branje, S. J. T., Van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Van Aken, M. A.

G., (2004). Relations between big five personality

characteristics and perceived support in adolescents’

families. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

(4), 615–

628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.86.

4.615

Cervone, D., Pervin, L. A., (2019). Personality Theory and

Research,. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. United States , 14

edition.

Chou, M.-J., Lee, H.-M., & Wu, H.-T., (2016).

Emotion, psychological resilience and work stress: a

study among preschool teachers. European Journal of

Psychological Research, 3(1), 8–15.

Donaldson, S.I., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Nakamura, J.,

(2011). Applied Positive Psychology, Improving

Everyday Life, Health, Schools, Work, and Society,

Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group. New York.

Edwina, O.I.P., & Sembiring T., (2019). Peran mindset

terhadap resiliensi keluarga pada dewasa awal di

bandung. Internal Funding Research, Faculty of

Psychology, Maranatha Christian University.

Fredrickson, N., (2009). Positivity: groundbreaking

research reveals how to embrace the hidden strength of

positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive.

Crown Publishing Group. United States, 1

edition.

Hayes, A. F., (2018). Introduction to Mediation,

Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis : A

Family Resilience: Traits, Positivity, and Close Relationship in Adolescents

Regression-Based Approach, The Guilford Press.

Country? , 2

edition.

Kompas. (2019, October 7). Ribuan penderita skizofrenia

terpasung, https://www.kompas.id/baca/utama/2019/

10/07/skizofrenia-kurang-terperhatikan/

Lee, I., Lee, E. O., Kim, H. S., Park, Y. S., Song, M., & Park,

Y. H., (2004). Concept development of family resilience:

A study of Korean families with a chronically ill child.

Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13(5), 636–645.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00845.x.

Letzring, T. D., & Adamcik, L. A.,

(2015). Personality

traits

and affective states: Relationships with and without

affect induction. Personality and Individual Differences,

75, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.011

Liu, Y., Wang, Z. H., & Li, Z. G., (2012). Affective

mediators of the influence of neuroticism and resilience

on life satisfaction. Personality and Individual

Differences, 52(7), 833–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.paid.2012.01.017

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., (1997). Personality trait

structure as a human universal. American Psychologist,

52(5), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.

52.5.509

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., (2006). Personality in

adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective. In

Transactional Analysis Journal 36,(3), https://

doi.org/10.1177/036215370603600310

Rajeev, S. P., & Kunjachan, D., (2014). Building family

resilience- a social work approach. International Journal

of Social Work and Human Services Practice, 2(6), 250–

255. https://doi.org/10.13189/ijrh.2014.020608

Ruswahyuningsih, M. C., Afiatin, T., (2015). Resiliensi

pada remaja Jawa. J u r n a l P s i k o l o g i U G M , 1(2), 96–

105.https://doi.org/10.22146/gamajop.7347

Saeed Abbasi, I., Rattan, N., Kousar, T., & Khalifa Elsayed,

F., (2018). Neuroticism and close relationships: How

negative affect is linked with relationship disaffection

in couples. American Journal of Family Therapy, 46(2),

139–152.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2018.14610

Sahar, N., & Muzaffar, N. M., (2017). Role of family

system, positive emotions and resilience in social

adjustment among Pakistani adolescents. Journal of

Educational, Health and Community Psychology, 6(2),

46. https://doi.org/10.12928/jehcp.v6i2.6944

Sagita, D. D., Amsal, M. F., & Fairuz, S. U. N., (2020).

Analysis of family resilience: The effects of the covid-

19. Sawwa: Jurnal Studi Gender, 15(2), 275–294.

https://doi.org/10.21580/sa.v15i2.6542

Santrock, J. W., (2016). Adolescence, McGraw-Hill. New

York , 16

edition.

Simon, J. B., Murphy, J. J., & Smith, S. M., (2005).

Understanding and fostering family resilience. The

Family Journal, 13(4), 427- 436. https://doi.org/

10.1177/1066480705278724

Smith, E. R., Mackie, D. M., & Claypool, H. M., (2015).

Social Psychology, Psychology Press. . New York, 4

edition.

Thomas, P. A., Liu, H., & Umberson, D., (2017). Family

relationships and well-being. Innovation in Aging, 1(3),

1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx025

Walsh, F., (2016a). Family resilience: A developmental

systems framework. European Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 313–324.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1154035

Walsh, F., (2016b). Strengthening Family Resilience, The

Guilford Press. New York, 3

edition.

Winterheld, H. A., & Simpson, J. A., (2018). Personality in

close relationships. In The Cambridge Handbook of

Personal Relationships (pp. 163–174).

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.014

Zanon, C., Bastianello, M. R., Pacico, J. C., & Hutz, C. S.,

(2013). Relationships between positive and negative

affect and the five factors of personality in a Brazilian

sample. Paideia, 23(56), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.

1590/1982-43272356201302

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences