Family Resilience: Traits, Positivity, and Close Relationship
in Adolescents
O. Irene Prameswari Edwina
a
, Tessalonika Sembiring
b
, Cindy Maria
c
and Jean Esparanci
d
Department of Psychology, Maranatha Christian University, Jl. Surya Sumantri No.65, Bandung, Indonesia
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
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7337-3938
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5412-0452
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9984-0904
d
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
Copyright
c
 2022 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
25

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
26

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
27

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
28

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
29

= .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
30

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
th
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 ,
86 (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
th
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
st
edition.
Hayes, A. F., (2018). Introduction to Mediation,
Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis : A
Family Resilience: Traits, Positivity, and Close Relationship in Adolescents
31

Regression-Based Approach, The Guilford Press.
Country? , 2
nd
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 30
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
th
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
th
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
rd
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
32