DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Investigating protective factors in young people enrolled on undergraduate programmes in

Indonesia

Karolina, Venny

Award date:
2022

Awarding institution:
Queen's University Belfast

Link to publication

Terms of use
All those accessing thesis content in Queen’s University Belfast Research Portal are subject to the following terms and conditions of use

• Copyright is subject to the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, or as modified by any successor legislation
• Copyright and moral rights for thesis content are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners
• A copy of a thesis may be downloaded for personal non-commercial research/study without the need for permission or charge
• Distribution or reproduction of thesis content in any format is not permitted without the permission of the copyright holder
• When citing this work, full bibliographic details should be supplied, including the author, title, awarding institution and date of thesis

Take down policy

A thesis can be removed from the Research Portal if there has been a breach of copyright, or a similarly robust reason.
If you believe this document breaches copyright, or there is sufficient cause to take down, please contact us, citing details. Email:
openaccess@qub.ac.uk

Supplementary materials
Where possible, we endeavour to provide supplementary materials to theses. This may include video, audio and other types of files. We
endeavour to capture all content and upload as part of the Pure record for each thesis.
Note, it may not be possible in all instances to convert analogue formats to usable digital formats for some supplementary materials. We
exercise best efforts on our behalf and, in such instances, encourage the individual to consult the physical thesis for further information.

Download date: 07. Mar. 2022

Investigating protective factors in young people enrolled on
undergraduate programmes in Indonesia

by

Venny Karolina

Supervisor 1: Dr. Aisling O’Boyle

Supervisor 2: Professor Tess Maginess

A thesis submitted as part of the requirements for

the Degree of Doctor of Education in the
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work

Queen’s University Belfast

December 2021
 Abstract

Young people enrolled on undergraduate programmes in Indonesia might face

multiple stressors during their course. Besides facing common stressors like other
undergraduates, the Indonesians might experience other additional stressors, such
as lack of internet connection (The Jakarta Post, 2020), unstable electricity and
low finance capabilities that might negatively affect their study performance and
mental health. Moreover, the Covid-19 outbreak where many Indonesians lost
jobs might cause more challenges for Indonesian undergraduate students. They
might experience fewer facilities than before the outbreak as their parents or
guardians lost their jobs and consequently could not afford them during the
undergraduate program. The condition might get worse in economically
disadvantaged provinces. West Kalimantan is one of the underdeveloped
provinces with low income and low levels of human resources (Kurniawan, de
Groot & Mulder, 2019). The students might face more stressors compared to
other undergraduates in other Indonesian provinces with more resources. There
might be protective factors mitigating stressors during their undergraduate
programs. Protective factors are the capacity of individuals and their environment
to reduce the effect of risk on the outcome (Rutter, 1999). Ungar (2011)
introduced a socio-demographic approach to understanding protective factors.
The researcher suggested that culture and context might contribute to individuals’
protective factors. Individuals’ protective factors might relate to their socio-
demographic backgrounds. Certain socio-demographic characteristics might have
specific values in certain societies. This might create differences for people on
their perception of their protective factors. There was a lack of empirical research
about protective factors using the socio-demographic approach in West
Kalimantan. Therefore, this study adopted the approach to understanding
differences in perceived protective factors of young people enrolled on the
undergraduate programs in West Kalimantan. This researcher specifically had
research questions related to whether young undergraduate students in West
Kalimantan differed in their protective factors by their gender (male and female),
socio-economic status (low and middle/high SES) and geographical area (city of

2
province and rural area). This study also probed the association between
resilience and academic achievement. The researcher used the Scale of Protective
Factors (Ponce-Garcia, Madewell, and Kennison, 2015) to assess protective
factors based on individual and social dimensions. The cohort sample group of
this study was undergraduate students in West Kalimantan registered in the
academic year of 2020 (PPDIKTI, 2020) by the Indonesian Ministry of Education
(n=98,225, n= 47,964 (49%) for males and n= 50,291 (51%) for females). The
socio-demographic characteristics of the sample of the study consisted of 250
females (50%) and 250 males (50%), 241 (48.20%) participants from a provincial
city and 259 (51.80%) participants from rural areas, and 265 (53%) and 235
(47%) participants from low SES and middle/high SES background respectively.
The repeated Mann- Whitney U-Tests results showed that male Indonesian
undergraduate students exhibited more protective factors for resilience than
females (U=26535, p<.01, η2=.01). Rural Indonesian undergraduate students had
significantly higher total scores for protective factors than provincial city students
(U=27820.50, p=.03, η2=.00). Moreover, the total scores for protective factors
for resilience between the low-SES and the middle/high-SES group were not
statistically significantly different (U=29184, p=.22, η2=.00). The Spearman’s
rho correlation test suggested a significant negative correlation between total
scores for protective factors for resilience and students’ academic achievement
(rs(500)=-.11, p<.00), but the value of correlation was weak (rs=-.11). This study
contributed to understanding the differences in protective factors among
undergraduate students in Indonesia by their socio-demographic factors. The
information might support universities, lecturers and educational practices in
developing programmes or interventions that nurtured protective factors among
Indonesian undergraduate learners and focused attention on specific groups that
reported fewer protective factors.

3
 Table of contents

Abstract _________________________________________________________ 2
Table of contents __________________________________________________ 4
Acknowledgement _________________________________________________ 7
Chapter 1: Introduction _____________________________________________ 8
1. 1. Introduction ________________________________________________ 8
1. 2. Background to the context _____________________________________ 9
1. 3. Rationale to the context ______________________________________ 12
1. 4. Statement of the problem _____________________________________ 14
1. 5. Purpose of the study _________________________________________ 15
1. 6. Significance of the study _____________________________________ 16
1. 7. The definition of terms _______________________________________ 16
1. 8. Theoretical framework _______________________________________ 17
1. 9. Research questions __________________________________________ 19
1. 10. Organisation of the thesis ___________________________________ 20
1. 11. Conclusion ______________________________________________ 21
Chapter 2: Literature review ________________________________________ 22
2. 1. Introduction _______________________________________________ 22
2. 2. Background on Indonesia and West Kalimantan ___________________ 23
2. 3. Resilience research __________________________________________ 28
2. 4. Resilience among young undergraduate learners ___________________ 31
2. 5. Stressors in emerging adulthood and university life ________________ 35
2. 6. Undergraduates’ stressors and socio-demographic factors ___________ 41
2. 6. a Gender differences in undergraduate stressors _________________ 42
2. 6. b SES differences in undergraduate stressors ___________________ 45
2. 6. c Place of origin differences in undergraduate stressors ___________ 46
2. 7. Protective factors ___________________________________________ 48
2. 7. a Personal protective factors ________________________________ 50
2. 7. b External protective factors ________________________________ 55
2. 8. Socio-demographic framework for resilience _____________________ 59
2. 9. Socio-demographic differences in resilience ______________________ 62

4
 2. 9. a Gender differences in undergraduate learners’ resilience _________ 64
2. 9. b Place-of-origin differences in undergraduate learners’ resilience __ 70
2. 9. c SES differences in undergraduate learners’ resilience ___________ 74
2. 10. Relationship between resilience and academic achievement ________ 79
2. 11. Conclusion ______________________________________________ 82
Chapter 3: Methodology ___________________________________________ 84
3. 1. Introduction _______________________________________________ 84
3. 2. Ontological and epistemological perspectives _____________________ 85
3. 3. Research Methodology _______________________________________ 89
3. 4. Methodology of this current study ______________________________ 91
3. 5. Research questions __________________________________________ 95
3. 6. Survey method _____________________________________________ 96
3. 7. Validity and reliability of the SPF Indonesian version ______________ 99
3. 8. Participants _______________________________________________ 101
3. 8. a Sample size ___________________________________________ 102
3. 8. b Participation selection and procedure for data collection ________ 104
3. 9. Procedure for data analysis ___________________________________ 108
3. 10. Ethics of this study _______________________________________ 109
3. 11 . Conclusion ______________________________________________ 111
Chapter 4: Findings ______________________________________________ 112
4. 1. Introduction ______________________________________________ 112
4. 2. Data collection ____________________________________________ 112
4. 3. Sample characteristics ______________________________________ 115
4. 4. Data analysis______________________________________________ 117
4. 4. a Preliminary data analysis ________________________________ 120
4. 4. b Research question (RQ) 1 ________________________________ 121
4. 4. c RQ 2 ________________________________________________ 126
4. 5. Conclusion _______________________________________________ 127
Chapter 5: Discussion ____________________________________________ 128
5. 1. Introduction ______________________________________________ 128
5. 2. Discussion of the findings ___________________________________ 128
5. 2. a RQ 1: Gender differences in protective factors________________ 130

5
 5. 2. b RQ 1: Place-of-origin differences in protective factors _________ 139
5. 2. c RQ 1: SES differences in protective factors __________________ 143
5. 2. d RQ 2: Association between protective factors and GPA ________ 145
5. 3. Conclusion _______________________________________________ 147
Chapter 6: Conclusion ____________________________________________ 148
6. 1. Summary of the study_______________________________________ 148
6. 2. Practical implication ________________________________________ 149
6. 3. Recommendations for further research _________________________ 150
6. 4. Conclusion _______________________________________________ 151
References _____________________________________________________ 155
Appendices ____________________________________________________ 223
Appendix A: Recruitment letter for participants ______________________ 223
Appendix B: Consent form ______________________________________ 226
Appendix C: Information sheet for research participants _______________ 231
Appendix D: Demographic questionnaire ___________________________ 239
Appendix E: Protective factors for resilience questionnaire _____________ 241
Appendix F: Information letter ___________________________________ 243
Appendix G: Histograms ________________________________________ 247
Appendix H: SPSS Output_______________________________________ 255
Appendix I: Ethical approval _____________________________________ 282
Appendix J: Tables ____________________________________________ 283

6
 Acknowledgement

I would like to deliver my sincere gratitude to my first supervisor, Dr.

Aisling O'Boyle and my second supervisor, Professor Tess Maginess, for their
kindness and great support in the process of conducting this study. I
acknowledged that it was tough to complete the thesis. The doctorate period was
very challenging and hard. However, my supervisors shared their guidance and
constructive feedback so that I could develop my writing. In the beginning, I
thought that I would never complete this thesis. Although I was exposed to
numerous reading materials related to resilience, I still found it hard to practice
strategies to regulate my cognitive behaviours and positive emotions amidst
difficult conditions during my doctorate. Finally, I was aware that I still had a
chance to rectify the situations. This awareness was influenced by both
supervisors who had a positive belief about my capacity. I acknowledged that my
supervisors had provided precious social support to me, which strengthened my
self-efficacy, confidence that I might finish this thesis. I realized that human
development was influenced by the interaction between a person and the context;
I was lucky to be exposed to a conducive environment that facilitated me to
mitigate hardships during this doctorate.
Furthermore, I wanted to give my acknowledgement to my parents and my
sons. Their love had helped me mitigate stressors during my doctorate life.
Finally, I would like to deliver my gratitude to the sponsor, the LPDP scholarship
from the Indonesian Ministry of Finance that provided generous funding to
support my study and my family during our stay in Belfast. LPDP had also given
extra support during the pandemic, which helped me maintain positive mental
health without experiencing financial strain. I highly appreciated what the
Indonesian government had done to support Indonesian students who studied
abroad during the challenging situation of the Covid-19 pandemic.

7
 Chapter 1: Introduction

1. 1. Introduction

This study was designed to examine protective factors among

undergraduate learners in Indonesia. The research questions of this study were
whether there were differences in protective factor scores across Indonesian
undergraduate students’ demographic characteristics – gender, SES, and
geographical area – and whether there was a relationship between protective
factor scores for resilience and students’ academic achievement. This chapter
offered some context for the research. Undergraduates studying in one of the low-
income provinces in Indonesia, such as West Kalimantan, might experience
limited access to facilities supporting education, for example, insufficient internet
access (The Jakarta Post, 2020), lack of funding (Kurniawan et al., 2019) and low
supply of electricity (Lefevre, 2019). Students, despite their stressors, might
survive handling their academic tasks during their course and not dropping out.
They might use their capacities, strategies, and conditions to thrive while working
on their degree. There might be protective factors that mitigate their stressors.
The protective factors might differ by undergraduates’ socio-demographic
characteristics influenced by their culture and context, as suggested by Ungar
(2011) through his socio-demographic resilience approach.
An investigation into protective factors had been carried out in Indonesia
by Sugiarti et al. (2018). Still, the study did not use a socio-demographic
approach to understanding differences in Indonesian undergraduate learners’
protective factors. The researcher would argue that the socio-demographic
approach is necessary to uncover the possibility of differences in resilience due to
culture and context (Hart et al., 2016; Ungar, 2012), including in the Indonesian
context. Therefore, this researcher attempted to understand the phenomenon of
resilience through a socio-demographic framework (particularly gender, SES, and
geographical area) not employed by past resilience researchers in Indonesia. This
chapter also presented the need to conduct this current research. It was aimed at
responding to the problem of scarcity of resilience research in an Indonesian
context, to provide information for government, institutions, and policymakers to

8
design appropriate interventions or programmes to improve students’ capacity to
succeed and to clarify earlier contradictory findings about the correlation of
protective factors with students’ academic achievement.

1. 2. Background to the context

Young people enrolled to undergraduate program were exposed to stressors

or pressures during their college life – higher demands or workloads than
experienced in secondary school, dissatisfaction at low academic performance
(Buchanan, 2012; Oswalt, 2019; Lyubomirsky et al., 2003; Yusoff, 2013),
financial problems (Andrews and Wilding, 2004; Zeng et al., 2019), housing
issues (Hartley, 2012), feelings of loneliness and homesickness (Leahy et al.,
2010). According to Fourie (2020), the experience of stressors during college life
for university students in general was inevitable and might lead to students
intending to drop out of their degree course. The HESA (Higher Education
Statistics Agency), cited in Marsh (2017), reported that 1,180 university students
in the UK who reported mental health issues left university early in the academic
year 2014-2015. In Indonesia, a study involving medical undergraduate students
reported that students rated academic-related pressures and interpersonal and
intrapersonal-related pressures as high stressors (Isnayanti and Harahap, 2018).
This meant that young undergraduate students might experience various stresses
and adversities while they were working on their degree.
Besides common stressors that undergraduate students faced, Indonesian
young undergraduate learners might suffer from additional stressors, such as
uneven internet facilities, low electricity supply, limited books and journal
articles, and poor economic conditions. The condition might worsen during the
closures of all universities across Indonesia amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
Students faced distance learning involving digital intervention; internet
connection and electricity were crucial during the pandemic. At the same time,
Indonesian undergraduates might lack access to the internet and electricity
supply. A report claimed that around 61 million Indonesians had no internet
network (Devanesan, 2020). Due to the fragmented island landscape, some
regions in Indonesia faced infrastructural restraints, which impacted poor internet

9
connectivity (The Jakarta Post, 2020). The inequalities in access to the internet
might also occur due to low economic status. Data from the Indonesian Central
Bureau of Statistics or called Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia (BPS), as cited in
UNICEF (2021), showed that 21 per cent of people in the low-income region and
93 per cent of people in the high-income area had internet access.
Concerning West Kalimantan, a province with an economically
disadvantaged background, 38.8 per cent of its residents used the internet; this
area belonged to one of the lowest internet users across 34 regions in Indonesia
(SUSENAS, 2019). Therefore, this little usage of the internet might correlate to
the low income of the province, as reported by Kurniawan et al. (2019). This
condition might also apply to young undergraduate learners in West Kalimantan;
students with limited funding might not have internet networks to support their
undergraduate courses during the pandemic.
Besides limited access to the internet, people in West Kalimantan were
familiar with the scheduled power cut. Lefevre (2019) reported that West
Kalimantan faced a lack of electricity due to the growth of industries, such as
rubber and palm oil production requiring enormous energy, while local power
companies could not provide the additional energy supply. Based on these data, it
could be inferred that young undergraduate learners in West Kalimantan might
face potential problems during their course. Limited access to the internet and
electricity might hamper the study development of undergraduate learners in
West Kalimantan, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic as they relied on
internet access and electricity to join online learning. Besides hampering study
improvement, having limited access to the internet and electricity might also
restrain the undergraduates in West Kalimantan to positive mental health as they
might not access information needed to accomplish their study tasks, which might
lead to frustration. Pressures affecting academic achievement during the course
can threaten undergraduates' mental health (Abraham et al., 2021).
However, some young undergraduate students in West Kalimantan
survived; they did not drop out and kept maintaining accomplishing university
tasks despite the abovementioned stressors. Individuals who faced difficulties and
pressures but could cope with them might have applied adaptation, management,

10
and strategies (Bennion, Olpin and DeBeliso, 2018). In psychology, individuals'
adaptation process to bounce back from adversity and produce better outcomes
than expected was called resilience (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2007). The
concept of resilience referred to two conditions (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker,
2007). The first condition was the presence of stressors or adversities. Individuals
were not considered to demonstrate resilience if they did not experience stressors
or hardships that could threaten their normal development (Goldstein & Brooks,
2005). In other words, one must experience stressors or adversities to
demonstrate resilience. The second one was having a better outcome than
expected (Luthar et al., 2007). Resilience referred to individuals who had better
adaptation than expected despite stressful experiences (Masten, 2007). The ability
to adapt to challenging situations or resilience was a dynamic process; in other
words, resilience was not a fixed trait (Rutter (2012). Protection that one had in
the process of positive adaptation might not be working in all circumstances.
Also, the positive transformation might vary. There might be differences among
people in the responses to similar adversity (Rutter, 2012). Differences in the
process of adaptation might also occur within individuals based on their context,
age, time, and culture (Herrman et al., 2011).
Ungar (2008) was a resilience researcher who initially introduced socio-
ecological approach in resilience research. He claimed that resilience was the
capacity of individuals to navigate the available resources and the capacity of
individuals and community to negotiate in relation to the provision and
experience of protective factors. Socio-demographic approach offered by Ungar
(2008) contributed to knowledge that individuals were not regarded as the ones
who were responsible for their adaptation in adversity; yet, society with certain
culture might limit or liberate individuals to access the protective factors based on
their characteristics embedded on them which might have certain meaning to the
culture where they lived in.
In the context of undergraduate learners, protective factors might be
influenced by individuals’ socio-demographics such as gender, geographical area,
and SES. The socio-demographic profiles might have a particular meaning in the
culture undergraduates lived in, as Ungar (2012) suggested with the socio-

11
demographic approach to understanding resilience and Bronfenbrenner (1979)
with human development theory. Therefore, the availability of protective factors
might differ by individuals’ socio-demographic types (such as gender, place of
origin and SES) embedded in them.

1. 3. Rationale to the context

There was a lack of empirical research about protective factors using

socio-demographic approach in the Indonesian context. There was only one study
had investigated resilience in Indonesia (Sugiarti et al., 2018). Sugiarti et al.
(2018), however, did not investigate the differences in protective factors among
undergraduate students by their socio-demographic profiles, while
Bronfenbrenner (1979), Ungar (2008; 2012) and Rutter (2006) suggested that
socio-demographic background might have meanings in certain culture and
contexts and this might influence individuals’ development, including their
development during adversity. Therefore, this researcher might uncover the
effects of context and culture on Indonesian undergraduate students in regard to
the availability of personal and external protective factors during their
undergraduate course through the socio-demographic framework, as
Bronfenbrenner (1979), Ungar (2012) and Rutter (2006) suggested.
Furthermore, this current study took place in West Kalimantan. This
province was one of the less developed regions in Indonesia, based on the
indicators income per capita, income inequality, school enrolment rate and
fertility rate (Kurniawan et al., 2019). Young undergraduate students in West
Kalimantan might experience higher stressors in terms of limited facilities related
to internet connection (SUSENAS, 2019; The Jakarta Post, 2020) and electricity
(Lefevre, 2019) that might hinder their capacity to succeed, compared to
Indonesian young undergraduate students from more developed provinces.
Therefore, it was vital to carry out this study in the West Kalimantan population,
as the young undergraduate learners in this province might experience
vulnerability, considering the status of the province where they come from. It was
a priority to conduct protective factor research among participants exposed to

12
high adversity (Rutter, 2006). In short, this study’s findings might contribute
practical implications for policymakers, institutions, and educational practitioners
in terms of providing intervention, treatment, or programmes to undergraduate
students at universities in West Kalimantan, one of the provinces in Indonesia
described as having a disadvantaged background. The plans, interventions or
treatment might focus on students with certain socio-demographic factors that
exhibited fewer protective elements than those of other groups, based on this
study’s result.
Besides investigating protective factors, this study also examined the
correlation between the total score for protective factors and students' academic
achievement. This researcher used GPA as a predictor of academic achievement
because GPA might capture the quality of students' academic work during their
undergraduate course. Also, using GPA, the researcher might compare students'
academic achievement from various classes. In other words, GPA is a linear
combination of grades assigned in multiple courses. Therefore, as this study
involved undergraduate learners from different courses, it would be efficient or
feasible to indicate academic achievement through GPA, not courses'
examination, which might have a different standard across the classes.
This researcher investigated the association between protective factors and
academic achievement because protective factors were considered to increase the
likelihood of academic achievement besides the presence of stressful conditions
(Gizir & Aydin, 2009). By examining the relationship between protective factors
and academic achievement, this research might find certain protective factors
relevant to students’ academic achievement. The findings might contribute to the
protective factors that university students in West Kalimantan had experienced
and were pertinent to their academic success.
The association of protective factors and academic success had been
investigated by previous researchers. Beavuvais et al. (2014) and Van Breda
(2018) showed evidence that resilience was associated with American and South
African undergraduates’ academic achievement. Similarly, Dass-Brailsford
(2005) tried to understand how Black students in South Africa coped, despite the
high risk of economic adversity. The students shared how they used goal

13
orientation strategies, coping strategies, high motivation, initiatives and had
strong religious orientation. However, other researchers found the opposite:
Elizondo‐Omaña et al. (2010) and Sarwar et al. (2010) claimed that protective
factors did not predict academic accomplishment. This contradiction addressed
the need for further research on whether or not resilience was associated with
academic achievement.

1. 4. Statement of the problem

This study aimed to explore the protective factors among Indonesia’s

undergraduate learners across students’ socio-demographic characteristics –
gender, geographical area, and socio-economic status. This study also examined
the relationship between protective factors and undergraduate students’ academic
achievement. Resilience research among undergraduate students in the
Indonesian context was still scarce. Only one study by Sugiarti et al. (2018)
examined protective factors among Indonesian undergraduate students; yet, the
study did not investigate the differences in protective factors by students’ context
and culture. It was essential to gain information concerning the reciprocal
interaction between individuals and their environment, because this connection
might shape the responses of humans to their stressors (Rutter, 2006); the
availability of protective factors might vary based on individuals’ context and
culture (Ungar, 2008; 2011). Environment and culture might provide specific
values, ideologies, or norms passed from one generation to another
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 1995; 2005). Culture that existed in the community may
facilitate or challenge inequality and power in people (Kane and Kyyrö, 2001).
Specific socio-demographic characteristics, such as gender, geographical area and
SES, might have certain meanings in certain cultures and contexts, and this might
influence individuals, including undergraduate students, in navigating their
personal and external protective factors (Rutter, 2006; Ungar 2011).
Therefore, it was crucial to understand the availability of protective
factors by using the socio-demographic approach. Through this framework, this
resilience researcher might uncover which group of undergraduate students had
less or more access to protective factors in an Indonesian context. This study
14
might provide information about differences in protective factors among
Indonesia’s undergraduate students, particularly in West Kalimantan. Hart et al.
(2016) suggested that culture and context might create an injustice system that
influenced individuals’ resilience. In other words, individuals were no longer
considered entirely responsible for their positive outcomes; the interaction of
individuals with their social and ecological system, including family, school,
culture and community, might play a part in individuals’ resilience (Hart et al.,
2016). For example, people who lived at the bottom of the social hierarchy might
have to bear the direct consequences of poverty – of living in a society that made
them aware that they could not have goods or privilege. This meant that deprived
families might suffer from an inability to fulfil their needs and lack a sense of
pride in themselves as they struggled to meet those needs, knowing how others
judged them in terms of their poverty (Davidson, Kitzinger and Hunt, 2006).
Davidson et al.’s example (2006) showed how society might shape individuals’
differences to access their self-confidence. Therefore, context and culture might
shape individuals’ resilience.
Moreover, this study aimed to investigate the correlation between
protective factors among undergraduate learners and their academic achievement.
Some previous research had examined this correlation (Beavais et al., 2013 Dass-
Brailsford, 2005; Elizondo‐Omaña et al., 2010; Sarwar et al., 2010; Van Breda,
2018). However, their findings were contradictory; some claimed that protective
factors were associated with academic achievement while others did not. The
findings of this research, then, could clarify previous inconsistent research
results. It would also analyse the correlation between each sub-protective factor
and academic achievement. No such detailed analysis had been conducted in
prior research in the Indonesian context, and the current study would fill that gap.

1. 5. Purpose of the study

This current study was aimed at investigating the protective factors in

undergraduate learners in Indonesia. The objectives of this study were to explore
the differences in protective factor scores across Indonesian undergraduate
students’ demographic characteristics of gender, geographical area and student

15
economic status (SES), and to examine the correlation between these protective
factor scores and academic achievement.

1. 6. Significance of the study

The research findings would contribute to the theoretical discussion on

protective factors, based on the ecological (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and bio-
ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) for human development, the social
and ecological resilience theory (Ungar, 2012) and the protective factors for
resilience theory (Rutter, 2006; 2012). The research findings would also inform
the Indonesian government, policy makers and universities in relation to the
effects of gender, geographical area and SES on Indonesian young undergraduate
students. In other words, this study might inform whether undergraduates’ socio-
demographic profiles might cause differences in their protective factors;
therefore, governments and universities could formulate the appropriate
prevention and intervention measures to increase protective factors among young
students in higher education.

1. 7. The definition of terms

Protective factors: In this study, protective factors were defined as personal

characteristics – mental features and strategies – and external supports that
mediated risk or adversity (Rutter, 2012).

Resilience: In this study, resilience was defined as the process of adaptation to

bounce back from adversity and produce better outcomes than expected (Luthar,
Cicchetti, & Becker, 2007). The outcomes were gained through the process of
individuals navigating their psychological, social, cultural, and physical resources
or protective factors in order to support positive functioning (Ungar, 2012).

16
Young undergraduate learner: In this study, a young undergraduate learner was
defined as a young student (between 18 and 25 years old) working toward a
bachelor’s degree.

Academic achievement: In this study, academic achievement was measured

through students’ GPA (Grade Point Average).

Socio-economic status (SES): In this study, SES was measured through a

combination of parents’ monthly income and parents’ educational background
(primary school, secondary school and university/college).

Geographical area: In this study, the geographical area was divided into two
regions: provincial city and rural areas. Rural areas were defined as remote areas.

1. 8. Theoretical framework

The concept of resilience referred to a process of adaptation of individuals

to bounce back from adversity (Luthar et al, 2007; Masten, 2014; Rutter, 2006).
In the resilience process, protective factors served as mechanisms that facilitated
personal growth amid adversity (Rutter, 2012). The protective factors consisted
of individual characteristics – psychological features and strategies – and external
support or social supports (Rutter, 2012). In line with the concept that resilience
was a process, as suggested by Masten (2014) and Rutter (2006) respectively, and
the concept of the role of personal and external protective factors, as offered by
Rutter (2012), resilience from a socio-ecological perspective was defined as a
process by which individuals are capable of navigating their psychological,
social, cultural, and physical protective factors in order to support positive
functioning under adversity (Ungar, 2012). This theory emphasised how
individuals as agencies took advantage of the opportunities or availability of
protective factors, and it remained the role of families, government, and
communities to make available those protective factors (Ungar, 2012).

17
 Individuals between 18 and 25 were characterised as emerging adults in
the transition to adulthood; these ages were the times when cognitive and social
skills contributed to their development (Arnett, 2000), although they still
experienced some stressors. For undergraduate students, the common stressful
events that they experienced during their degree studies were new educational
environments requiring independent learning (Christie et al., 2008) along with
non-academic-related issues such as financial problems, housing issues,
loneliness, homesickness, limited internet connection and, pandemic, and so forth
(Andrews and Wilding, 2004; Hartley, 2012; Leahy et al., 2010; Zeng et al.,
2019). Personal and external protective factors helped individuals mitigate the
stressors they experienced (Rutter, 2012). Individuals made use of personal and
external protective factors to achieve under adversity. In relation to personal
protective factors in young adults, prior studies had found that some
characteristics are coping strategies – problem-focused coping and emotion-
focused coping (De la Fuente et al., 2017; Masten et al., 2006); planning
strategies – sequencing, timing and achieving goals (Nota et al., 2004); goal
efficacy – confidence, goal setting and mastery (Di Sipio et al., 2012; Janssen,
Van Regenmortel and Abma, 2011), and social skills – the ability to relate to
others (Ewart et al., 2002; Reich et al., 2010). Prior studies showed that the
external support that enabled young adults to resist stressors came from family
and friends (Cohen et al., 2011; Hinton and Meyer, 2014; Howard and Hughes,
2012). To conclude, the combination of internal and external protective factors
(Rutter, 2012; Ungar, 2012) was associated with the ecological (Bronfenbrenner,
1979; 1995) and bio-ecological (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) system theories,
suggesting that the qualities of individuals and their environment interact, and
this influenced the quality of individuals’ development. The ecological and bio-
ecological theories suggested that the immediate environment (family, friends
and teachers) interacted with the individuals, and that interaction influenced their
development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Furthermore, the availability of personal and external protective factors
might differ based on socio-demographic profiles embedded in individuals.
Values and beliefs in particular cultures and contexts might set a certain standard

18
for individuals’ behaviours based on their socio-demographic profiles. For
example, silence in men, in place of expressing their sadness, might relate to
social expectations about masculinity (Oliffe and Phillips, 2008) – men should
not show that they were weak. This might influence males in hiding their
negative emotions and in being reluctant to ask for help from mental health
services (Addis, 2008). It was reported that although women were more likely to
be diagnosed with depression and suicide ideation, men were three times more
likely to die by suicide in Australia, the US and Russia (Schumacher, 2019). This
meant that men might be influenced by culture in being reluctant to express their
negative feelings. Limited access to expressing their negative emotions might
lead to men’s unawareness of depression, and this might cause low protective
factors. Ungar (2011) suggested that how people reacted to adversity might be
shaped by culture and context. Similarly, Rutter (2006) contended that resilience
could be understood by examining individual differences embedded in subjects’
culture and context in their responses to stressors. Certain socio-demographic
factors embedded in individuals, such as wealth, ethnicity, gender, SES and so
forth, might affect individuals’ development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 2005).
For the purposes of this study – investigating differences in protective
factors by gender, geographical area, and SES among undergraduate learners in
Indonesia, and the correlation between protective factors and academic
achievement – this researcher adopted the theoretical framework of internal and
external protective factors that mitigated stressors, as offered by Rutter (2012),
the concept of resilience from a socio-demographic perspective, as offered by
Ungar (2012) and Rutter (2006), and the theory of an ecological system and bio-
ecological system for human development, as suggested by Bronfenbrenner
(1979; 1995; 2005).

1. 9. Research questions

This was cross-sectional research investigating protective factors among

Indonesian young undergraduate learners. This study used SPF (Scale Protective
Factors) designed by Ponce-Garcia et al. (2015) as the main instrument for
collecting data. The scale consisted of internal and external protective factors, in
19
line with the socio-demographic approach used in this study to investigate
resilience, as Ungar suggested (2012). Furthermore, the SPF scale assessed
protective factors concerning social/interpersonal factors (social support and
social skills) and cognitive/individual factors (planning behaviour and goal
efficacy). The sub-constructs of the SPF scale significantly positively correlated
with four other resilience scales: the RS-25 (Wagnild and Young, 1993), RS-14
(Wagnild and Quinn, 2011), CD-RISC-25 (Connor and Davidson, 2003), and
CD-RISC-10 (Cambell-Sills and Stein, 2007), as Madewell and Ponce-Garcia
reported (2016). Moreover, past researchers used the SPF scale to assess the
emerging adult population amid traumatic or difficult situations (Madewell and
Ponce-Garcia, 2016); this was in line with the population’s characteristics in this
current study. Emerging adults taking undergraduate degrees faced stressors in
their multiple transitions: from adolescence to adulthood, and from high school to
higher education, plus the potential stressors that occur in West Kalimantan, such
as having lack of educational supports: internet network, stable power supply and
adequate funding during the problematic current Covid-19 pandemic.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, this researcher had decided to use
the SPF to assess the protective factors among Indonesian, specifically West
Kalimantan young learners enrolled on the undergraduate course. The followings
were the main research questions guiding this research.
1. Were there any gender (male and female), geographical area (city of province
and rural area) and SES (low SES and middle/high SES) differences among
Indonesian young undergraduate students in relation to total scores and subscale
scores for protective factors, as measured by the SPF?
2. Was there any association between total scores and subscale scores for
protective factors, as measured by the SPF and students’ academic achievement,
as measured by GPA?

1. 10. Organisation of the thesis

This thesis comprised six chapters. Chapter one, or the introductory

chapter, described the purpose of this study: to investigate protective factors
among undergraduate learners in Indonesia, particularly in West Kalimantan.

20
This study specifically explored the differences in protective factor scores across
Indonesian undergraduate students’ socio-demographic characteristics – gender,
geographical area and SES – and to examine the correlation between these
protective factor scores and academic achievement. This chapter also introduced
the socio-demographic framework that this current study used to understand the
differences of protective factors by gender, geographical area and SES among
Indonesian undergraduate learners. Chapter two presented an overview of
Indonesia and West Kalimantan as context for this study, the history of resilience
research, the components of resilience, the socio-demographic framework
underpinning this recent study, and the gap in knowledge in terms of differences
in Indonesian undergraduate learners’ protective factors by their socio-
demographic profiles. The chapter also explored the inconsistency of past
research about the relationship between resilience and academic achievement.
Chapter three described the methodology of this study. To investigate protective
factors, this researcher used the 24-SPF questionnaire. Chapter four presented the
findings of this research. Chapter five discussed and analysed the findings.
Lastly, chapter six reported summary and practical implications of this study and
recommendations for further research.

1. 11. Conclusion

This introductory chapter had provided specific information related to this

current research. It included background of the study, rationale of conducting the
study in West Kalimantan, a problem statement, the purpose of this current
research, the importance of this study, definitions of certain terms used in this
study, the theoretical framework and research questions that underpinned this
study, and its organisation. The following chapter presented a literature review
that provided relevant information from past research regarding protective
factors.

21
 Chapter 2: Literature review

2. 1. Introduction

This literature review chapter was organised into the following main
sections: background on Indonesia and West Kalimantan, resilience research,
resilience research among undergraduate learners, stressors in emerging
adulthood and university life, undergraduates’ stressors and socio-demographic
characteristics, socio-demographic framework for resilience, socio-demographic
differences in resilience, and the relationship between resilience and academic
achievement. This chapter began with an overview of Indonesia and West
Kalimantan as the context of this study. Furthermore, the literature review
chapter presented the history of resilience research and resilience concepts in
psychology and education. Recent resilience researchers had shifted their focus
from individuals to the effects of culture on differences in resilience among
individuals (Bahadir-Yilmaz and Rn, 2015; Bitz, 2011; Onturk et al., 2020;
Pasha-Zaidi et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2020; Sundar and Archana, 2020). They
used the socio-demographic framework to understand differences in protective
factors, based on individuals’ socio-demographics (gender, SES, and place of
origin) in several contexts; this was grounded in the idea that cultures, values,
beliefs and norms applied and practised in society might extend or limit access to
protective factors in individuals. This research drew upon past researchers’
studies, using the socio-demographic approach in order to compare protective
factors among young undergraduates in West Kalimantan, one of Indonesia’s
less-developed provinces (Kurniawan et al., 2019), based on their social
demographics (gender, place of origin and SES). This research might indicate
system level factors among young people enrolled in Indonesia, particularly in
West Kalimantan, where no previous researcher had conducted similar research
in this context.
Lastly, this chapter presented past research about the relationship between
resilience and academic achievement. Educational researchers contended that
resilience was important for young undergraduate students in managing their
stress during university life, so that they could engage in academic activities,

22
eventually achieving their goals, despite exposure to stressors. Past researchers
investigating whether undergraduate students’ resilience was associated with their
academic achievement reported contradictory results; some found evidence of an
association between resilience and academic achievement (Beauvais et al., 2013;
Dass-Brailsford, 2005; Van Breda, 2018), while others did not (Elizondo-Omaña
et al., 2010; Novotný and Křeménková, 2016; Sarwar et al., 2010). This study
sought to clarify past researchers’ findings.

2. 2. Background on Indonesia and West Kalimantan

Indonesia is located in the south-eastern part of Asia. It has the world’s

fourth largest population (United Nations Development Programme, 2016), with
more than 1,300 ethnic groups (Haslam et al., 2020) residing in 34 provinces.
West Kalimantan is one of the Kalimantan Island provinces. The provincial city
is Pontianak. The region consists of 14 counties. The province is occupied with
Dayaks (41%) and Malays (39.57%) comprising the two largest ethnic groups
(Setiadi, 2006 as cited in Alfath, 2015), followed by Chinese (12%) and three
others: Bugis (5%), Javanese (3%), and Madurese (2.5%) (Tanasaldy, 2009;
(Klinken and Berenschot, 2014). The majority of the Indonesian population
(more than 85%) are Muslim. According to the Department of Population and
Civil Registration of West Kalimantan (2021), there was a total population of
5,461,993 in the province, 3,284,816 (60%) of whom are Muslim, 1.209.881
people are Catholic, 631.788 are Protestant, 316.565 are Buddhists, 2.822 are
Hinduists, 14.743 are Confucianists, and 1.378 are other believers. Based on data
from the Indonesian Ministry of Education, the total number of undergraduates in
West Kalimantan in 2020 was n=98,255 (n=47,964 males and n=50,291 females)
(PPDIKTI, 2020). Educational background of the whole population of West
Kalimantan people (n=5,461,993) in the first semester of 2021 was as follows
152.837 people with bachelor’s degree (n= 77,308 males and n=75.529),
817.545 people with senior high school degree ( n=450.858 males and n=366.687
females), 720.467 people with junior high school degree (n=375.019 males and

23
n=345.448 females), 1.439.654 people with primary school degree (n=724.252
males, and n=715,402 females).
In terms of employment, 2,369,015 adult residents were working; 50.38%
were primary education graduates, 34.66% were secondary education graduates,
and 6.03% were university graduates (Indonesian Central Statistics Agency,
2019). From this data, most adult workers were graduates of primary schools,
indicating that adult workers in West Kalimantan had predominantly low
educational backgrounds, which implied a low level of income. The increase in
unemployment among undergraduate alumni happened in Indonesia as there was
a mismatch between the curriculum and the employment market. The former
Indonesian Manpower Minister criticized that universities targeted to produce as
many as graduates without providing the alumni with working skills
(Priyambodo, 2012). University students were not prepared to compete in gaining
employment. It was suggested that the curriculum should be reviewed to make
university graduates ready to work (Priyambodo, 2012).
The following outlined the educational system in Indonesia. According to
law No. 2/1989 and Government Regulation No. 28/1990 (as cited by the
Indonesian Education and Culture Attaché in London, 2020), there are three main
education levels in Indonesia: basic education, secondary education, and higher
education. Basic education consists of two levels: six years in primary school
(aged 6.5/7 to 12) and three years in lower secondary school (aged 13 to 15).
Secondary education covers three years (aged 16 to 18). Students’ minimum age
for attending primary school is 6.5 or seven years old. Students’ ages may range
from 6.5/7 to 12 in primary school, 13 to 15 in lower secondary school, and 16 to
18 in upper secondary school. However, these age ranges may not apply to
students repeating grades (Parinduri, 2014).
Types of degree in higher education are as follows: Diploma 1 (one-year
completion or two years maximum), Diploma 2 (two-year completion or three
years maximum), Diploma 3 (three-year completion or five years maximum),
Diploma 4 (four-year completion or seven years maximum) or the equivalent of
an undergraduate degree, Sarjana 1/S1 (four-year completion or seven years
maximum) also equivalent to an undergraduate degree, Sarjana 2/S2 (two-year

24
completion or four years maximum) equal to a Master’s degree, and Sarjana 3/S3
(three years, seven years maximum) equivalent to a doctorate. Each university
may decide shorter timescales for the maximum completion year the (Indonesian
Education and Culture Attaché in London, 2020). Students accepted for higher
education are those who pass the university entry examination.
Regarding values adopted in Indonesia, the country is dominated by
patriarchal values (Nilan and Demartoto, 2012), but a few regions embrace
matriarchal values (Putra et al., 2019). The domination of patriarchal values in
Indonesia’s regions is related to religion in this majority Muslim country
(Alexander and Welzel, 2011; Putra et al., 2019). However, in West Kalimantan,
patriarchal values are not necessarily due to religion, but might also be effects of
ethnicity. Dayak is a non-Muslim ethnic group (Britannica, 2019), while Malay is
a Muslim ethnic group (Ahyat, 2014). The two ethnic groups have different
religious backgrounds but adopt patriarchal values. A study in West Kalimantan
indicated how Dayak and Malay men are considered breadwinners, so they were
encouraged to earn for the household, as practised by patriarchal societies
(Minza, 2012). The patriarchal norms had specific features, such as giving men
responsibility for decision making, for being the breadwinner in the family, and
being the head of the household (Afkar et al., 2020). A patriarchal society was
identified with the tendency to prefer having sons and residential arrangements in
which the married couple lived with or near husband’s family (Levine and
Kevane, 2003; Putra et al., 2019).
In some societies in Indonesia, patriarchal values might result in unequal
education opportunities, particularly among low-income families (USAID, 2013).
Daughters might be perceived as less valuable, as they would become members
of their husband’s family, while sons were potential future breadwinners for
families (Afkar, 2020). Therefore, families in a patriarchal society who were
impoverished prefer to send sons to school rather than daughters (Ihromi, 1995).
However, this might not apply to families with middle to high SES backgrounds.
Family with sufficient funding might send their children to university regardless
the gender. Data showed that there were more females (n=50,291) than males
(n=45,964) registered in undergraduate programs in West Kalimantan (PPDIKTI,

25
2020). The data implied that families might give equal opportunity to their sons
and daughters to university programs. The Indonesian government supported
primary and secondary (lower and upper) schools with school operational funding
called BOS (Bantuan Operational Sekolah), in which the government provided a
certain amount of funding (Law 16, 2016). However, the Indonesian government
did not cover university fees. Only families with a sufficient budget more likely
could enrol their children on the university. Therefore, the nearly equal
percentage related to the number of males (n=45,964, 48%) and females
(n=50,291, 52%) in West Kalimantan reported by PPDIKTI (2020) might show
that families from middle/high SES gave equal opportunity to their children to
university regardless their gender. A family with a minimal budget might not
apply this as Ihromi (1995) explained that low SES families in Indonesia prefer to
send their sons, not daughters, to higher education.
There was an example of how females, compared to males, might have a
lesser opportunity for education, particularly from low-income family
backgrounds. In Pontianak, the Madurese, a Muslim ethnic group, traditionally
arranged marriages for their daughters soon after finishing primary school
(Suryadarma et al., 2006). Madurese in West Kalimantan in the majority work in
informal sectors. They were primarily low-skilled workers such as farmers, taxi
drivers, and the transportation sector (Klinken and Berenschot, 2014) and might
earn low wages. Early marriage for girls by Madurese in West Kalimantan might
be related to what Ihroni (1995) explained that families with low earning might
set early marriage plans for their daughters instead of education. Early marriages
in Indonesia happened because the government did not detect these as they were
not registered (Abubakar, 2019). However, the lower age limit for marriage was
16 years for females and 19 years for males (Law No 1, 1974 as cited in
Abubakar, 2019). The Indonesian government had lately reformed the law,
setting an equal age limit of 19 years for males and females to prevent child
marriage, particularly for girls (Law No 16, 2019 as cited in Abubakar, 2019).
Gender disparity might also occur in employment. The Indonesian male
labour participation rate, at 83.3%, was higher than the 51% for females (Afkar et
al., 2020). Low female participation might be due to patriarchal norms and lack

26
of childcare options (Afkar et al., 2020; Schaner and Das, 2016). The inequality
might also occur in terms of payment; male wages were 20% to 25% higher than
those of females (Akar et al., 2020). All of this information revealed that females
in Indonesia, including in West Kalimantan, might belong to the more vulnerable
group due to norms adopted in the local culture.
In terms of geographical area, rurality might also be associated in with
disadvantage in the Indonesian context. Statistics for the country (as cited in
Hadna and Kartika, 2017) showed that there were more poor people living in
rural areas (14.17%) than in urban areas (8.34%). The proportion graduating from
high school was higher in urban (34.20%) than rural areas (13.36%). Remote
rural areas suffered from lower educational attainment than urban areas
(Indrahadi and Wardana, 2020; Suryadarma et al., 2006). A study found that 60%
of Grade 1 (age 7 years old), 34% of Grade 2 (age 8 years old), and 20% of Grade
3 (age 9 years old) primary students in Ketapang (one of the West Kalimantan
counties) were illiterate (Hadna and Kartika, 2017). Low levels of student
attendance and teacher absenteeism had become issues in remote areas in
Indonesia. Remote rural area teachers got a particular incentive from the
Indonesian government, but this stimulus did not improve their attendance
(Hadna and Kartika, 2017, Usman and Suryadarma, 2007, as cited in Tobias,
2014). Furthermore, compared to urban areas, the teacher-student ratio in remote
rural locations was high because of the difficulty of recruiting teachers for such
areas (Chang et al., 2014). Tobias (2014) reported that there were too many
teachers in the same location, so teacher distribution was uneven between urban
and rural areas in Indonesia.
In terms of SES, more educated people with good incomes provided a
higher education level than did low-income families (Pohan, 2013). A study
conducted in West Kalimantan revealed that some undergraduate students from
low-income and rural families migrated to Pontianak to continue their higher
education (Minza, 2012). Although the pay was low, they worked to buy foods
and other needs, and tried to minimise expenses by staying in relatives’ homes, or
by staying behind at school to help clean the premises in return for free
accommodation during their college life (Minza, 2012). A study on

27
empowerment and inclusion in Asia and the Pacific declared four factors as
sources of disadvantage in Asia: being located in a rural area, being female,
having a lower education level, and having minor ethnicity (Tadjoeddin, 2019).
Tadjoeddin’s report (2019) was in line with conditions in Indonesia. Although the
researcher did not mention low SES as a source of disadvantage in Asia, people
from low SES backgrounds might also be at a disadvantage. This was because
groups with low education might be from low-income families (Pohan, 2013).
Therefore, low SES individuals in Indonesia, including West Kalimantan, might
belong to a vulnerable group.

2. 3. Resilience research

The word resilience derived from the Latin resilire, which meant to
rebound (Laprie, 2008). The term ‘resilience’ was borrowed from the ecological
discipline suggested by Holling (1973), in which resilience referred to the ability
of an ecosystem to recover from disaster. In psychology, the term resilience
covered a broad and complex concept. The complexity of resilience phenomena
led past researchers to take various approaches to understanding the concept of
resilience. Past researchers used the term ‘wave’ to refer to the period of
resilience research (Allan, McKenna and Dominey, 2014; Prince-Embury and
Saklofske, 2013). Past researchers classified resilience research into four waves
(Hart et al., 2016; Wright, Masten, Narayan, 2013).
The first wave of resilience research focused on identification of key
concept of resilience and investigation of the characteristics of resilient
individuals. Early resilience researchers judged resilience based on two
conditions. First, there was a significant threat to development. This meant that
an individual was identified to demonstrate resilience if one faced a significant
adversity that threatened the development (Wright et al., 2013). Second, despite
the significant threat, individual adjustment or adaptation was satisfactory. In
other words, resilient individuals had better success or outcome than predicted
despite exposure of adversities (Wright et al., 2013). Besides the identification of
resilience concept, initial resilience research was also dominated by the

28
investigation of factors that mediate adversities. Rutter (1985) introduced the
term protective factors referred as factors that helped individuals maintain their
positive development despite under hazardous conditions. The first wave of
resilience research mainly focused on personal protective factors or person-
focused approach that determined how individuals differed from others facing
similar severe circumstances.
Some examples of early resilience research that applied person-focused
approach were as follows. Anthony (1974) studied children from families with a
background of psychiatric disorders; some were tough and did not suffer under
pressure, despite adverse conditions. Garmezy, Masten, and Tellegen (1984)
investigated vulnerable children of schizophrenic mothers and found that those
who resisted stress and deprivation had certain qualities that protected them, such
as engaged classroom behaviour and good intellectual ability. Therefore, first
wave resilience research produced a list of unique qualities, for examples social
skills, cognitive abilities or self-regulation skills, possessed by individuals to have
positive outcome within adversity (Masten, 2007).
The second wave of resilience research focussed on the understanding of
the process leading to resilience. If the first wave of resilience research focused
on “what” questions to describe personal protective factors that influence
resilience, the second wave focused on “how” questions triggering processes that
influence positive adaptation within adversities (Luthar et al., 2000). Therefore,
resilience research was dominated by identification of risk and protective factors
as moderators for individuals to adapt adversity and eventually have desirable
results. The researchers of wave two had led to greater emphasis on the role of
systems surrounding individuals, such as family, school and local community.
The way individuals adapted to stressors might change, based on various contexts
(Chmitorz et al., 2018), which meant that capability for resilience might not come
solely from within individuals, but might also originate from, and be influenced
by environment. In other words, individuals were no longer considered fully
responsible to their positive development, but external protective factors might
play role in influencing individuals’ resilience (Hart et al., 2016). The availability
of external resources or protective factors might contribute to how individuals

29
respond to their stressors; for example, attachment and help from family, peers
and a community network might mitigate adversity and eventually positively
affected individuals’ resilience (Luthar, 2003; Masten, 2001; Ungar, 2008).
Meanwhile, the third wave of resilience research focused on the idea that
resilience might not come naturally, but could be nurtured (Wright and Masten,
2005; Wright et al., 2013). Resilience studies in wave three were dominated by
intervention programmes to enhance protective factors to support the resilience of
individuals. Experimental studies had been designed to test where resilience
occurred (Wright and Masten, 2005). For example, Peng et al. (2014) explored
the effect of a resilience training programme on Chinese medical students’
emotions, their style of regulating emotion, and resilience. Using resilience
theory, the programme provided training to improve skills/strategies of thinking,
communication, coping, problem solving, and emotional regulation. After 10
training sessions, the study found that the scores for resilience, positive emotion
and cognitive judgement among a low-resilience experimental group increased
significantly (Peng et al., 2014). In short, resilience works of wave three were
dominated by intervention programmes aimed at understanding the process of
resilience through the promotion of protective factors in experiments.
Lastly, the fourth wave of resilience research focussed on the linkages
among individual characteristics and environments characteristics that might
contribute to positive development under adversity. People’s interaction with the
environment was complex and bidirectional; they might navigate the availability
of protective factors, and the environment might also influence them to be
resilient. The fourth waves of resilience work put greater emphasis on the
interaction among individual behaviour and development as well as external
characteristics, such as family, community and cultural characteristics that might
contribute to positive development under adversity (Wright et al., 2013). Using
ecological approach, resilience researchers considered individuals as active
agents interacting with the environment in which they adapted to adversity by
using the availability of protective factors (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Culture,
norms, and belief embedded in certain communities might shape how individuals
respond to their stressors and develop resilience (Ungar, 2008; 2011). Strategies

30
and behaviours that individuals used as personal protective factors might be
influenced by ideologies, beliefs, values and norms embedded in the context of
where individuals lived (Ungar, 2008; 2012). Social and ecological factors might
limit access to – or liberate individuals’ choices of – coping strategies under
stressors (Ungar, 2004). Exposure to freedom of choice from the environment
might trigger individuals to activate their coping skills, while exposure to an
environment that limited access to choices may constrain individuals’ behaviour
and strategies to cope with the stressors (Schoon, 2006). This meant that
environmental triggers might influence an individual’s development of functions
to adapt stressors (Ungar, 2013). In other words, the interaction of individuals
and their social ecologies might either limit or liberate individuals in coping with
stress factors (Ungar, 2008). Therefore, protective factors of individuals might
vary based on individuals’ demographic features that might have certain meaning
in certain context and culture.
This study adopted the fourth wave of resilience research by comparing
protective factors based on the socio-demographic characteristics within samples
of young undergraduate students in Indonesia, particularly in West Kalimantan.
This researcher used Ungar’s socio-demographic approach (2012) to understand
whether there were differences in the protective factors by gender, SES and
geographical area among young learners enrolled on undergraduate programs.
The following was a description of resilience research in the scope of young
undergraduate learners.

2. 4. Resilience among young undergraduate learners

Young undergraduate students, including Indonesian young

undergraduates, who did not drop out have adapted themselves to multiple
stressors in multiple transitions: the transition from adolescence to adulthood, and
from secondary to higher education. This meant that young adults who survived
attending university, who maintained positive functioning, and who carry out
their academic tasks during their degrees, had experienced positive outcomes or
positive adaptation under the stressors of college life. A positive outcome in
resilience research was not interpreted as an outstanding achievement; rather, it

31
referred to behaviour approximately within or above the average range (Masten
and Powell, 2003). Similarly, those who exhibited normal development and
avoided maladaptation while facing difficult conditions were also characterised
as having positive outcomes (Fonagy et al., 1994). In other words, the indicator
of resilience was not necessarily an exceptional outcome. Rather it was the
ordinary and positive adjustment of individuals using their positive protective
factors to overcome the stressors they faced during their lives. Masten (2001;
2014) referred to the human’s ordinary adaptation in coping with stress or
challenges as an “ordinary magic”, which meant that humans commonly had
fundamental capabilities to adapt to challenges, and their capabilities were
developed and influenced by the nature of the context. Successful adaptation to
adversity might rely on how individuals managed their emotions, regulated
behaviour and strategies, controlled motivation and made use of their
environment to reduce stress (Compass et al., 2001). However, the transfer to
adapt to new challenges in university life might not be an easy process.
A longitudinal study with university students in Scotland explored
dynamic emotional changes to positively adjust to university (Christie et al.,
2008). The informant students said that early semester gave a sense of excitement
about going to university. Still, they realised that the university environment
provided learning shocks, leading them to lose confidence in themselves,
notwithstanding their being competent learners. The students then developed new
strategies of learning to engage academic demands. Once they got familiar with
the difficulties, created new ways of learning, sought help, and received feedback
and good marks, they began to develop a sense of being competent learners
(Christie et al., 2008). Christie et al.’s (2008) study supported Masten’s (2001)
contention that people have a capacity to adapt to challenges influenced by their
environment; university students could adjust themselves to new learning
environments and made strategies familiar and usable for them; however, not all
students were aware of their capacity to adjust to university life (Christie et al.,
2008). In short, if successful adaptation was translated to an educational context,
the resilient undergraduate students were those who could regulate, manage and
control the available protective factors: personal and external ones to adapt their

32
stressors during their tertiary education, so that they could continue to maintain
positive mental health and apply positive behaviour, in order to meet academic
demands and avoid maladaptation.
Past researchers examined in various ways the positive adaptation of
undergraduate students to their college degrees. Some of them aimed to identify
levels of stress and protective factors for resilience and assess the relationship
between them. For example, McGillivray and Pidgeon (2015) carried out
resilience research among Australian undergraduates. Some of their
investigations concerned the relationship between resilience and psychological
distress, and the differences between high- and low-resilience groups in terms of
their psychological distress. The researchers used a list of protective factors to
assess resilience and lists of negative emotions to assess psychological distress.
Another study conducted by Hernández et al. (2019) investigated whether
academic stress, academic efficacy, and academic performance were related to
Mexican undergraduate learners’ resilience. These two studies were similar in
their research: exploring the relationship between resilience and distress levels.
Both studies revealed evidence that protective factors negatively correlated with
psychological distress, suggesting that students with high scores for protective
factors returned low scores for stress.
Other resilience studies compared protective factors among undergraduate
learners across students’ characteristics. For example, Stanley and Bhuvaneswari
(2016) examined the differences in Indian undergraduate students’ resilience,
stress and anxiety by place of origin (rural or urban), medium of instruction
(English or Tamil), and residential status (hostel resident or day-scholar). Smith
et al. (2020) also examined the differences in resilience across students’
characteristics. However, unlike the Stanley’s and Bhuvaneswari’s (2016) study,
Smith et al. (2020) focused on differences in resilience by demographic factor,
such as gender, parents’ income, race, self-reported health, and parents’
educational level. Both studies found evidence that resilience might vary
according to students’ socio-demographic characteristics.
Derived from researchers mentioned earlier, this researcher drew upon
Stanley’s and Bhuvaneswari’s (2016) study investigating differences in

33
undergraduate resilience by place of origin, and the Smith et al. study (2020)
examining the relationship between SES and gender on resilience. Garmezy et al.
(1984) suggested that socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, SES, IQ
and parents’ qualities might modify individuals’ competence in resilience.
Furthermore, personal socio-demographic elements might contain particular
meanings embedded in certain cultures (Ungar, 2011). Therefore, protective
factors among undergraduates might differ, based on the profile attached to them.
Bronfenbrenner (2005), through his bio-ecological model of development,
suggested that human development involved a bidirectional interaction between
what individuals had and where individuals resided; this meant that individuals
might contribute to and get support from their environment. The interaction
between individuals and their environment might shape the availability of
protective factors. Therefore, certain people might be resilient in particular
adversity, but not others (Rutter, 2006), and this could be an effect of their
interaction with their environment, as suggested by Bronfenbrenner (2005) and
Ungar (2011).
Furthermore, Smith et al. (2020) did not assess stress levels in their
resilience research. They claimed that medical students might face stressful
experiences during their training and might encounter a lack of stress
management programmes to protect medical students’ physical and mental health
(Smith et al., 2020). Thus, this study replicated Smith et al.’s (2020) study about
assessing protective factors without evaluating the stress level in sample students
in West Kalimantan. This was based on the rationale that young undergraduate
students have experienced multiple transitions and stressors in college life,
including the new challenge they faced from the pandemic during data collection
for this study. Moreover, young undergraduate learners in West Kalimantan
might experience additional stressors due to limited access to internet, stable
power supply, and funding.
Therefore, this researcher had concentrated on the objective of comparing
the protective factors among Indonesian young undergraduate learners across
students’ demographic characteristics: gender, place of origin and SES, without
assessing the level of stress. Masten (2001) and Rutter (1987) suggested that to

34
know the adaptation of undergraduate students facing adversity, a researcher
could investigate personal and external protective factors (Masten, 2001; Rutter,
1987). This study also drew upon Hernández et al.’s (2019) research concerning
the relationship between resilience and academic achievement. Resilience might
help undergraduate students cope with college challenges and have positive
mental health, enabling them to concentrate on their efforts to meet the related
academic burdens (Bennion et al., 2018; Liew et al., 2008). Therefore, this study
adopted Hernández et al.’s (2019) objective as one of its research objectives.
Although this research did not include stressors as elements to examine in
this current study, this researcher provided stressor-related information. This was
because resilience was negatively associated with psychological distress, as
suggested by McGillivray and Pidgeon (2015) and Hernández et al. (2019), and
resilience occurred alongside the disclosure of stressors and positive adaptation
while facing stressors (Luthar et al., 2000; Masten et al., 1990; Rutter, 1987;
1990). Therefore, the following information on stressors in emerging adulthood
and college life was essential in order to understand this study’s findings
concerning the availability of protective factors among Indonesian undergraduate
students.

2. 5. Stressors in emerging adulthood and university life

This study did not measure the young undergraduate learners’ perception
of stress; however, the description of differences in undergraduates’ perception of
stressors according to socio-demographic profiles – gender, place of origin, and
SES – might be useful in supporting evidence for differences in protective factors
among undergraduate learners based on those profiles, because protective factors
were negatively associated with the perceived presence of stressors (Chui, Hay,
and Diehl, 2012). Therefore, to understand the differences of protective factors by
using socio-demographic approach, this researcher discussed stressors based on
students’ socio-demographic backgrounds. The following was the description of
stress in undergraduate college and the effect of socio-demographic on students’
well-being during the course.
35
 Exposure to adversity and stress might act as a significant assault on the
developmental process (Luthar et al., 2000). Resilient individuals experienced
positive outcomes in the face of adversity, challenging or meaningful situations,
or stress (Rutter, 1990). Resilience did not mean avoiding stress; it was the ability
to adapt to, face and cope with difficult situations or stress and keep functioning
(Perry, 2002). Stress was defined as emotional tension due to highly demanding
situations that exceeded individuals’ ability to cope (Hashim, 2003). Factors that
caused stress were then called stressors. College was a stressful time, due to the
new educational and social environment (Arnett, 2004; Misra, 2004), and
multiple new roles for undergraduates who were also emerging as adults. As
such, the transition from adolescence to adulthood might cause major life
changes, such as self-direction in life, romantic involvement, and negotiating a
new social role, as well as coping with moving away from home, personal
interactions, independent decision-making, and heightened personal
responsibility (Schulenberg et al., 2004). These major changes might act as
stressors that affected undergraduates’ mental health negatively or caused them
stress. Furthermore, undergraduate students faced the academic transition from
high school to university which might provide challenging situations, such as
tight timing of exams or a heavy workload (Abraham et al., 2020; Allgower et al.,
2001), receiving lower grades than expected, and time management challenges
(Ainscough et al., 2017) – these were all pressures that threatened their wellbeing
or physical and mental health during their undergraduate degree (Abraham et al.,
2020; Turner and Simmons, 2019). Besides these pressures, evidence showed that
non-academic-related stressors might also affect undergraduates negatively.
These might include financial strains (Andrews and Wilding, 2004; Zeng et al.,
2019), uncomfortable relationships (Allgower, Wardle and Steptoe, 2001;
Isnayanti and Harahap, 2018), accommodation issues (Hartley, 2012),
homesickness (Buchanan, 2012), and the pandemic (Sundarasen et al., 2020).
These various stressors during the transition to adulthood, and during the new
ecological transition to the academic and living context of university life, might
increase risk and vulnerability (Rutter 1996; Seidman and Frech, 2004).

36
 However, some studies reported that undergraduate students perceived
that university life, despite its challenges, presented an exciting new chapter in
their lives, opening opportunities to achieve their goals and meet career
aspirations (Grellier, 2014). Past studies reported undergraduates’ mixed feelings
during their programmes. The early years of the programme might be described
with excitement, but this could be followed by anxiety and confusion as the
students fear failure, feeling that they might not meet the demands of higher
education (Christie et al., 2008; Liversage, Naudé and Botha, 2018). However,
once they got familiar with higher education demands, they could take control,
gain confidence and develop skills to meet the course requirements (e.g.
planning, prioritising and perseverance) (Liversage et al., 2018). Students
acknowledged that university provided them with opportunities to experience
social interactions that embraced diversity; for example, exposure to intercultural
events made them more open-minded. Nevertheless, some realised that they still
experienced segregation based on ethnic and racial identity in their social
interactions with peers (Liversage et al., 2018). Furthermore, undergraduates
claimed that university life provided them with networking opportunities that
might improve their employability; students hoped that they could take this
chance to improve their economic condition (Grellier, 2014).
Some undergraduate students also claimed that the university environment
gave them confidence in their ability to act independently. Although they claimed
initially to be shocked and confused by independent learning, they acknowledged
that independence gave them a sense of freedom and empowerment (Christie et
al., 2008; Liversage et al., 2018). Moreover, young undergraduate students
described how, despite difficulties in making early adjustments to academic
demands, they developed their competence at university; they reflected on
mistakes made through unpreparedness, adjusted their work to educational needs,
and developed their management skills (Liversage et al., 2018). These studies
showed that undergraduate learners experienced an ‘up and down’ situation on
their courses, but university life contributed positive feelings (e.g. excitement, a
sense of competence and independence) and opportunities (e.g. future career,
social network, knowledge exposure) that helped them persevere. Therefore,

37
despite the existence of stressors, undergraduates might have positive feelings
during their course, particularly once they got familiar with, and were able to
cope with the stressors.
Multiple stressors required university students to regulate themselves in
order to achieve goals, to manage emotions and feelings, and to adjust to the
stimulating emotional and cognitive challenges or stressors of college life (Ramli
et al., 2018). However, some university students might lack emotional self-
regulation strategies such as calming and cheering themselves to face feelings of
discomfort or motivating themselves to focus on achievement-related behaviour
or goal-oriented actions (Zenner, Herrnleben-Kurz and Walach, 2014).
Furthermore, university students might lack cognitive self-regulation strategies,
such as setting goals, selecting strategies, organisation, time management and
self-monitoring of their actions (Zimmerman, 2008) that might help them sort out
their academic- and non-academic-related stressors. A lack of self-regulation
made them prone to negative emotions, such as depression, anxiety, anger,
hopelessness, boredom, and shame (Webster and Hadwin, 2015), and could lead
to emotional venting and isolation (De la Fuente et al., 2020). Students with a low
level of coping strategies might adopt maladaptive coping actions, such as
blaming others, or ignoring and escaping the stressors through dreamy thoughts
(Freire et al., 2019). Furthermore, they might find it difficult to concentrate, and
would suffer a loss of interest in their studies (Ul Haq et al., 2018), lower goal
attainment (Webster and Hadwin, 2015), loss of appetite, headaches, and lack of
energy (Winkleman, 1994). They would also have emotional problems, such as
sleep disorder, feelings of inferiority, unstable analytical capacity
(Kumaraswamy, 2013), stress, anxiety, and depression (Chiu et al., 2019). These
negative mental health issues might cause loneliness (Daniel, 2013) and suicide
ideation (Yang et al., 2015). Heightened stress during college life might link to
reduced academic performance; for example, anxiety and poor time management
might be associated with academic frustration (Misra and McKean, 2000), and
multiple stressors might lead to low GPA and higher rates of drop-out (Dusselier
et al., 2005; Keyes et al., 2012).

38
 Overall, the numerous stressors experienced by undergraduates through
their multiple transitions might influence them in being individuals with higher
levels of perceived stress than the general population, as reported across countries
including Australia (Stallman, 2010), Canada (Adlaf, Demers and Gliksman
2005), the United States (Beiter et al., 2014; Blanco et al., 2008), and Indonesia
(El-Matury and Lestari, 2018). In line with this, the United Kingdom government
declared that young adults of 16-25 years old belong to a vulnerable group
(Martin and Atkinson, 2020), indicating that individuals emerging as adults,
including emerging adults attending college, might be exposed to severe stressors
(Yang et al., 2015).
In relation to this study, this researcher did not assess stressors of
undergraduate students in West Kalimantan. This was because stressors were not
included in the research questions of this study. This study focused on the
investigation of the comparison among West Kalimantan undergraduates’
protective factors based on their social demographics. Therefore, the aim of this
study was to use socio-demographic approach to understand the differences of
availability of protective factors by students’ social demographics, particularly
gender, place of origin and SES. However, although the stressors were not
investigated, this researcher depicted some following potential stressors of West
Kalimantan undergraduates during their courses.
Data from past research, news article and Indonesian government’s report
described disadvantaged condition that might lead to potential adversities for
young university students in West Kalimantan. Firstly, based on socio-economic
indicators (income per capita, income inequality, school enrolment and fertility
rate), West Kalimantan belonged to one of the less developed regions in
Indonesia (Kurniawan et al., 2019). Based on data from Indonesian Central
Bureau of Statistics or called Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia (2021), poverty rate
in West Kalimantan in 2020 was 7.2 %. Although this poverty rate was lower
than Indonesian poverty rate of all provinces (9.9%), West Kalimantan poverty
level was higher than average scores of poverty among five provinces in
Kalimantan island (6 %). This meant that undergraduate students in West
Kalimantan might be exposed to poverty during their study that might undermine

39
their educational outcome. Poverty was linked to inability providing resources
that supported student success in education (Lacour and Tissington, 2011).
One of educational resources that was limited in West Kalimantan was
internet connection. Access to internet, which was very crucial for undergraduate
students, particularly for remote learning during the pandemic Covid 19 might be
very limited in West Kalimantan. It was reported that there were only 38.8 per
cent of residents in this region using internet and this number marked West
Kalimantan as one of provinces with the lowest internet users in Indonesia
(SUSENAS, 2019). Low access to internet in West Kalimantan was due to
topography of Indonesia that was large and surrounded with rivers so that internet
could not be accessed by all spots in the province. Besides, low income caused
incapability of residents to buy internet data (The Jakarta Post, 2020). It was
reported that due to limited access to internet, teachers and schools in Sanggau,
one of counties in West Kalimantan, cooperated with Indonesian radio station and
state broadcasting company TVRI broadcasting lesson to students. It was as an
alternative way to deliver their teaching during the pandemic; this was aimed to
give access to students without internet connection as students had limited or no
access to internet (The Jakarta Post, 2020). Moreover, West Kalimantan faced
unstable electricity; therefore, they had the scheduled power cut. This condition
happened as West Kalimantan had a limited power supply (Lefevre, 2019)
Therefore, the aforementioned data described that West Kalimantan
undergraduate students were potentially exposed to stressors due to economically
disadvantaged condition leading to limited educational facilities, such as internet
access and stable electricity that were urgently needed for undergraduate learners
to support their undergraduate course. Having inadequate facilities might lead to
low academic achievement and negative mental health issues. Research showed
evidence that success rate of low income students in certain subjects was lower
than that of students from higher income groups (Doerschuk, Bahrim, and
Daniel, 2016). Furthermore, compared with students without financial strain,
students with financial stress were reported two times higher reporting mental
illness, such as depression and anxiety symptoms (Eisenberg et al., 2007;
Stallman, 2010). The existence of stressors, and young undergraduate students’

40
perceptions of them, might differ according to socio-demographic factors, as
explained in the following section.

2. 6. Undergraduates’ stressors and socio-demographic factors

The ecological framework suggested that individuals’ vulnerability to

negative experiences might vary (Rutter, 1987), affected by the interaction
between individuals and their socio-ecology, because individuals were embedded
in the home community where they lived (Portnoy, 2018). Culture within a
community might generate certain values, norms and beliefs that influenced the
way individuals perceived and responded to the stress they experienced (Halphen,
2014; Ungar, 2004, 2011). In other words, culture might make demands that gave
effect to the appraisal of stress around an event, and it might also provide
resources that could affect which coping options or resources individuals might
utilise (Aldwin, 2007).
Rubel (1969, cited in Aldwin, 2007) provided an example of how culture
might affect certain reactions to certain stress. In Mexican-American culture, it
was believed that children’s illnesses might be caused by the praise or admiration
of people from outside the family; therefore, the culture perceived admiration by
outsiders as a stressful event, contradicting those cultures that valued such
attention. This suggested that socio-demographic background might affect how
individuals perceived the challenges they faced, including how students perceived
the demands of university life. For example, a study investigating sources of
stress and varieties of coping strategies in a college setting found that Chinese
undergraduates experienced higher levels of stress than Japanese or South Korean
students, while with regard to coping with stressful events, South Korean
university students reported themselves the most active compared to their peers
from Japan and China (Kim and Won, 1997). Peltzer and Pengpid (2017)
compared suicidal ideation by gender in six ASEAN countries, and the
researchers claimed that Indonesia had the lowest rate of suicidal ideation (6.9%)
while Myanmar reported the highest (16.3%).
This indicated that certain cultures might shape how people, including
undergraduates, perceived stress and gained knowledge to cope with it. This was

41
in line with bio “interconnected systems” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 1) –
interactive processes that humans experienced within their environment over
time, which might generate knowledge, abilities, motivation and skills; in other
words, personal qualities might combine with the kind of environment that
individuals experienced to shape their development, including their response to
stress. The following was past research concerning the effect of gender on
undergraduate stressors.

2. 6. a Gender differences in undergraduate stressors

Evidence showed that socio-demographic factors affected undergraduate

students’ responses towards their stress. For instance, levels of perceived
frustration, pressure, and emotional reactions to academic- and self-esteem-
related stressors might be associated with gender. American and Jordanian
females scored their stress levels as higher than those of their male peers (Beiter
et al., 2015; Calvarese, 2015; Hamaideh, 2012). Female students reported that
their reactions to stress were associated with anxiety, crying and self-blaming,
while male students scored themselves higher than females in terms of anger,
smoking, and finding the solution to a problem as their reactions toward stress
(Calvarese, 2015; Hamaideh, 2012). In line with this, women in Spain scored
significantly higher than men on emotional responses and avoidance of coping
strategies, while men scored higher on rational coping strategies (Matud, 2004).
Supporting previous research, female university students in Southern California
reported higher levels of stress and greater use of emotion-focused coping and
self-punishment approaches than did males (Brougham et al., 2009), while female
Canadian medical undergraduates reported higher perceived stress than did their
male medical peers (Rahimi et al., 2014). These empirical studies presented
evidence that female students might be prone to feeling stressed during their
tertiary education. Feeling overwhelmed with stress might lead to suicide
ideation, in line with the findings of a meta-analysis study in the Chinese
undergraduate context; of 14 studies, eight found that female college students
reported significantly higher numbers of suicide attempts than their male
counterparts, while six reported the opposite (Yang et al., 2015).
42
 By contrast, Indian male undergraduates were reportedly more depressed
than their female counterparts (Ul Haq et al., 2018), while other researchers
reported few gender differences between males and females in their depression
and stress levels during the transition period in university settings (Bewick et al.,
2010; Nelson and Padilla-walker, 2013; Tao et al., 2000). Meanwhile, studies of
Indonesian undergraduate students reported no gender differences around stress
and anxiety (El-Matury and Lestari, 2018; Kaloeti et al., 2019) or suicidal
ideation (Peltzer and Pengpid, 2017). Still, one study claimed that Indonesian
female undergraduates returned higher scores than their male counterparts
concerning anxiety and stress (Astutik, et al., 2020).
Furthermore, gender differences might affect relationship issues
experienced by university students, reported as one of their stressors. Conflict and
arguments with friends, partners and family members were reported as stressful
conditions during students’ undergraduate degrees (Day and Livingstone, 2003)
and interpersonal conflict might negatively affect university students’ academic
efforts (Morgan, Foster, and Ayres, 2019). A study of Canadian university
students revealed that gender played a role in perceptions of stress in social
relationships, reporting that, compared to males, female students tended to view
relationship issues with family and friends as more stressful (Day and
Livingstone, 2003). Furthermore, a study in relation to interpersonal conflict
among university students reported that 70% claim female-female conflicts, while
7.5% and 22.5% respectively reported male-male and female-male interpersonal
problems (Bedel, 2015).
This suggested that, compared to male university students, females were
more likely to admit that they had interpersonal conflicts. Also, female
undergraduates were found to see financial strain as a greater stress, compared to
male students (Brougham et al., 2009). Moreover, compared to males, females
were reported to have higher scores on negative emotions (depression and
anxiety) in their response to the Covid-19 pandemic in Malaysia (Sundarasen et
al., 2020), Spain (Ausín et al., 2021), the U. K (Etheridge and Spantig, 2020), and
Indonesia (Megatsari et al., 2020). More females than males had experienced
stress during the pandemic as they juggled with childcare, housework and jobs

43
(Etheridge and Spantig, 2020; Kowal et al., 2020; Minnelo, 2020). Furthermore,
females felt more lonely than males during the Covid-19 outbreak due to the
increased social isolation (Etheridge and Spantig, 2020).
The aforementioned studies involving various stressors provided evidence
that gender might have an impact on the experience of stress during college life;
female students might be more likely than male students to suffer from negative
emotions during the programmes. Other studies, however, challenged whether
males had more positive mental health than females in academic life. One study
on gender effects on university students’ stress levels claimed that male
undergraduates were reported to have higher rates of dropping out, which
indicated that males might struggle with their cognitive resources, such as
internal regulation and coping skills (Dwyer, Hodson and McCloud, 2013). In
line with this, past studies evidenced how females outperformed males in terms
of cognitive achievement in college (Balkis and Erdinç, 2017; Dayioğlu and
Türüt-Aşik, 2007; Khwaileh and Zaza, 2011). This meant that males might
struggle during their undergraduate courses, contributing to their stress,
depression and anxiety, but they might not acknowledge or express their distress.
Past studies uncovered what might influence the silence of males in
expressing their mental health. A survey of 1,000 men in the UK revealed that
40% admitted that they did not want to talk about their mental health (Priory,
2015). However, 77% of males in polling confessed that they had suffered from
anxiety, stress, and depression (Priory, 2015). Similarly, a narrative study
described that men did not feel comfortable expressing their issues (McKenzie et
al., 2018); therefore, compared to women, men were less likely to use mental
health services to address their depression, stress and anxiety (Addis, 2008). Past
researchers claimed that men’s silence about their depression might be affected
by social expectations, with specific socio-culturally prescribed behaviour for
their masculine gender (Oliffe and Phillips, 2008). The phrase ‘big boys don’t
cry’ represented how society shaped male identity, and this might prevent males
from expressing visible signs of their sadness (Ogrodniczuk and Oliffe, 2011).
Therefore, the lower rate of stressors that male undergraduates described in past

44
studies might not represent their true feelings, as they might be reluctant to
express their stress.
This meant that males likely got the similar experience of being stressed
and depressed during the undergraduate programs like what female students did.
However, males concealed their negative feelings and might perceive that they
could handle their stressors during their learning. Therefore, they set lower scores
than their female counterparts in terms of their adverse mental health. Some
studies confirmed that female undergraduates indicated higher lever stress than
their male counterparts. Graves et al. (2021) involved 448 undergraduate students
in Florida in examining gender differences in perceived stress. The researchers
used the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (Cohen et al., 2016). An Independent T-
test was used to evaluate the total scores of the PSS. Female students reported a
higher level of stress than their male counterparts. Specifically, the number of
female students (n= 140) who wrote a moderate level of anxiety were
significantly higher than those of male students (n=208), t(346)= -4.80, p<0.05.
Similarly, a longitudinal study among 1892 undergraduates in China (Wenjuan,
Siqing, and Xinqiao, 2020) reported that female undergraduates scored
significantly higher than male students in anxiety in the first year (M=3.86, for
females and M=3.52, for males, p<0.01) and second-year (M=3.83, for females
and M=3.46, for males, p<0.01). Therefore, this study hypothesized that being
female was an indicator of having high stress. The next session explored past
research about the effect of Socio-economic Status (SES) on undergraduate
stressors.

2. 6. b SES differences in undergraduate stressors

Past research found that undergraduate stressors might differ by students'

SES background. Indian university students with illiterate parents reported higher
levels of depression, anxiety and stress, while students with educated parents
reported lower levels of stress, anxiety and depression (Ul Haq et al., 2018). Ul
Haq et al. (2018) did not intensely discuss why an undergraduate student with
illiterate parents reported high stress levels. However, a low education level was
associated with a difficult economic situation, resulting in socio-economic stress

45
(Mistry et al., 2002). Furthermore, students with financial stress were twice as
likely to report mental illness, compared with students under no financial strain
(Stallman, 2010); they showed higher levels of depression and anxiety symptoms
than their peers who were not exposed to financial issues (Eisenberg et al., 2007).
Students with financial problems reported that they were burdened with the rising
costs of tuition fees, worked many hours, had less time to study, and ended up
with lower grades in college (Bennett, McCarty and Carter, 2015). Also, although
student loans might help to lower students’ financial stress, an empirical study
showed that students with student loan debts showed an increased likelihood of
dropping out of their university degree courses (Britt et al., 2017).
Financial stress might also have an impact on amounts of social and
campus engagement, which might eventually contribute to low retention rates
(Engle and Tinto, 2008). Moreover, a study reported that 78% of college students
reported financial pressures leading to their suicide ideation (Westefeld et
al., 2005). However, a study conducted in East Java, Indonesia, reported no
significant SES differences with undergraduates’ depression (Astutik et al.,
2020). The evidence showed that SES differences might or might not be
associated with perceived stress levels during undergraduate degrees.
Despite the debates of past studies on whether SES background might
affect undergraduates’ stress levels, financial distress might make university life
more challenging. Young undergraduates had been exposed to related academic
stressors, and the exposure to economic strain might give them multiple
challenges during their course. Therefore, this researcher hypothesized that being
undergraduates with low SES background could indicate high stress. After
exploring past studies about the effect of gender and SES on stressors, this study
also presented related research on the impact of place of origin on undergraduate
stressors.

2. 6. c Place of origin differences in undergraduate stressors

Undergraduates’ place of origin might affect their levels of stress. Polish

and Australian university students from rural areas experienced higher financial
stress than their urban peers (Durkin et al., 2003; Masiak et al., 2014). This might

46
explain why, in a study among medical students in Australia, rural students
reported feeling under more stress than did their urban counterparts (Durkin et al.,
2003). The reason might relate to financial concerns; compared to urban medical
students (40.7%) in Australia, their rural peers significantly (60.9 %) reported
financial problems (Durkin et al., 2003). In line with previous research, a meta-
analysis study reported that Chinese college students from rural areas were found
to be at higher risk of suicide attempts than were their urban peers (Yang et al.,
2015). It was argued that their higher numbers of suicide attempts were due to
lower education among parents, and lower family incomes than their urban peers
(Yang et al., 2015). This was in line with reports from Poland (Masiak et al.,
2014) and Australia (Durkin et al., 2003) stating that rural students felt depressed
during their studies due to financial disadvantage. In Indonesia, a narrative study
conducted in the West Kalimantan province described migrant students from
rural areas as feeling inferior in terms of social status compared to upper-class
youth in the city (Minza, 2012). Students described feeling down on realising that
their urban peers used transportation, such as cars or motorcycles, while rural
students walked to campus from their accommodation. Besides, rural students
perceived that their urban peers were better off in terms of dressing (Minza,
2012). These studies explained that being rural students with their limitations,
particularly in low socio-economic status, might negatively impact their mental
health.
By contrast, a study among Indian undergraduates claimed that students
from urban areas scored themselves higher than their rural peers in terms of their
perceived stress, while students of rural origin returned higher scores than their
urban peers in terms of coping skills (Kaur, 2017). In line with this, a study in
China revealed that significantly more urban residents than rural residents
accepted suicide as a response to stressful situations (Li and Phillips, 2010).
Similarly, in Indonesia, undergraduate students from the capital, Jakarta, and the
nearby cities of Tangerang, Bekasi and Bogor, reported a risk of depression 6.8
times greater than that of undergraduate students from other provinces (El-
Matury and Lestari, 2018). This meant that the area of origin might influence an
undergraduate’s stressors and perceptions of stressors. However, two studies in

47
America reported no significant differences between rural and urban adolescents
with regard to suicide ideation (Albers and Evans, 1994; Murphy, 2014).
Therefore, place of origin might or might not affect stressors and perceptions of
stressors. Considering that rural students might face multiple challenges
compared to their urban counterparts, such as economic disadvantage, inferiority
due to cultural clash, and having families from low educational backgrounds, this
researcher hypothesized that being rural undergraduates might indicate high
stress.
After elaborating on stressors, this researcher intended to explore another
resilience component, protective factors. Past resilience researchers assessed
protective factors as indicators in determining resilience (Smith et al., 2020). The
following elaborated on protective factors: internal and external protective
factors. These two kinds of protective factors were in line with those that would
be assessed in this current research, as suggested by Ungar (2011), Garmezy
(1983, as cited in Rutter 1987) and Rutter (2012).

2. 7. Protective factors

‘Protective factors’ referred to the capacity of individuals and their

environment to mitigate the effect of risk on outcome (Rutter, 1999). Protective
factors might lead to protection against stress or hardship (Garmezy, 1991;
Rutter, 1987). How individuals utilised the availability of protective factors
might derive from their own various unique opportunities. Firstly, prior negative
experiences might strengthen individuals in coping with future stressors or
challenges (Rutter, 1985). Rutter (1985, p. 600) referred to this as the “steeling
effect”, suggesting that unpleasant experiences provided lessons for individuals to
anticipate and overcome difficulties so that they were more prepared and more
resilient. Corroborating Rutter’s idea (1985), Carver (1998) used the term
“thriving” to represent the way that previous stressful experiences might
contribute to the acquisition of new skills and enhanced knowledge, confidence –
in terms of sense of mastery – and strengthened interrelationships or attachments.
In the latter aspect, based on individuals’ previous interrelationship experience,
they might understand to whom they might go for help with future problems. All
48
of the aforementioned experiences of thriving events from stressors offered
potential protection from forthcoming adversity. Simply put, thriving referred to
individuals’ growth in response to adversity (Carver, 1998). Secondly, protective
factors could be acquired through previous positive, as well as negative,
experiences (Rutter, 1985). Positive experience in terms of coping with difficult
situations might provide a strategy for individuals to mitigate and prevent future
stressors. Thirdly, protective factors might also arise from personal qualities that
give individuals the strength to overcome difficulties, such as gender, positive
traits, and positive and flexible relationships (Rutter, 1985). It can be concluded
that the process of gaining protective factors might be through either positive or
negative experiences, or might be embedded in personal qualities that developed
over time through experience.
Rutter (1985) and Carver (1998) explained the process of gaining
protective factors for resilience, while Ungar (2012), through a socio-
demographic framework, claimed that the source of protective factors was related
to the socio-demographic condition of individuals. He further suggested (2012)
that protective factors originated from both internal and external factors in that
individuals had a personal capacity to make use of the availability of external
protective factors in order to develop their capacity to cope with problems. This
meant that personal capacity could be developed through the influence of external
factors, and it might also give effect to external factors as they interacted with
external resources (Ungar, 2012). Rutter (1987; 1990) offered terms in line with
such development through the interaction between personal and external factors.
He used the words “nature” and “nurture” in his resilience research to suggest
how individuals’ vulnerability and competence could be mediated over time by
the interactive process of personal characteristics and external factors, such as
family and the larger scope of socio-demographic influences. Genetics and
behaviour did not function independently (Rutter, 1990). Instead, there was a
developmental interplay between genetics and environment; biological factors or
personal competence might be moderated by their context (Rutter, 1990). To
nurture personal protective factors, it was necessary to understand the pattern of
availability of protective factors in a specific context; this would enable future

49
intervention to promote and nurture resilience (Wachs, 1999). To conclude,
employing a socio-demographic framework might be useful as a comprehensive
approach to understanding protective factors, as this framework considered not
only personal but also external protective factors that supported individuals’
resilience (Ungar, 2011). This meant that the context – or nature –in which
individuals were embedded might nurture their resilience, as suggested by Rutter
(1990) and Ungar (2008; 2011). Therefore, this current resilience researcher
included internal and external protective factors to be assessed in this study. The
following was the elaboration that covered internal protective factors, particularly
in the context of undergraduate learners.

2. 7. a Personal protective factors

Personal protective factors for resilience related to the competence of

individuals to: (1) interpret and predict potentially dangerous situations that might
occur in their own context; (2) develop a set of goals and apply self-regulatory
behaviour to achieve goals; and (3) promote positive self-belief in their own
capacity for regulating skills and problem-solving ability, and putting those
attributes into practice (Dias and Cadime, 2017; Dillon et al., 2007; Gardner et
al., 2008). Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) added that self-belief in one’s own
competence, dubbed “self-efficacy”, functioned as a positive emotional buffer
against negative emotional experiences that harmed individuals’ resilience.
Individuals with positive emotions –pride and belief in being able to achieve
goals – could focus and concentrate on finding appropriate coping strategies for
solving problems (Folkman and Moskowitz, 2000). Furthermore, interpersonal
skills and competencies might facilitate individuals to interact with others to
overcome problems and enhance positive feelings (Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015;
Reich, Zautra, and Hall, 2010). The aforementioned theories stated that personal
protective factors generally covered three major characteristics: the ability to
regulate behaviours or strategies to achieve goals, described as self-regulation,
confidence in self-ability to achieve goals, described as self-efficacy and
competences or skills to interact with others, described as interpersonal
competences and skills.
50
 Self-regulation was defined as a personal plan generated periodically in the
form of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours in order to reach goals (Zimmerman,
2000). Self-regulatory behaviours covered planning or setting realistic goals,
selecting tactics to achieve those goals (Zenner, Herrnleben and Walach, 2014),
monitoring and evaluating the process, and maintaining positive self-esteem
(Carver, 2004; Winne and Hadwin, 2008; Zimmerman, 2000). Self-regulatory
behaviours in college life might consist of setting learning goals and adjusting
learning style, evaluating learning, managing time in learning, and not easily
giving up on assignments (Virtanen and Nevgi, 2010). Self-regulation also
covered the abilities and skills of individuals to manage feelings (Ramli et al.,
2018; Zimmerman, 2000). Individuals regulated their positive emotions in order
to maintain stable mental health, for example remaining calm and cheering
themselves up when they experienced anxiety, depression or other discomfort
(McClelland et al., 2018). With positive, stable mental health, undergraduates
might adopt positive behaviour towards academic-related matters, despite being
under stress on their course (Ramli et al., 2018). Self-regulation was essential for
resilience as it had a strongly significant effect on determining positive emotions
such as enjoyment, hope, pride, and power; it could also negatively determine
individuals’ adverse feelings and emotions, such as boredom, anger, anxiety,
shame, and hopelessness (De la Fuente et al., 2020). In short, self-regulation in
behaviours and feelings might help undergraduates to manage challenges and
regulate positive emotions during college life.
Besides self-regulation, confidence in relation to the ability to accomplish
the goal or self-efficacy was regarded as personal protective factor to support
undergraduates in coping with adversity. Self-efficacy was one’s positive belief
on one’s ability to accomplish tasks (Bandura, 1977). Past studies had explored
the benefit of self-efficacy on goal commitment and academic performance
(Bandura, 1997). Bandura and Locke (2003) claimed that self-efficacy functioned
to promote one’s capacity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to cope
with and manage challenges. One’s high level of self-efficacy might predict one’s
self efficacy in learning (Bandura and Locke, 2003). Bandura (1997) claimed that
people with self-doubt might not execute well-established skills, while those with

51
a high level of self-efficacy or strong beliefs might be able to mobilise and
maintain the necessary efforts to succeed. Therefore, high levels of self-efficacy
might facilitate an individual in focusing on the opportunities that were worth
pursuing (Krueger and Dickson, 1993).
In an academic context, strong self-efficacy functioned as a protective
factor, bolstering students’ commitment to achieving goals, and this commitment
led to positive behaviour and educational attainment (Yong, 2010). In other
words, self-efficacy might provide a sense of mastery and develop awareness of
one’s capacity (Bandura, 1997). Sense of mastery in educational context was to
increase students’ motivation and help them focus on taking control of
challenging or difficult situations (Farchi, Cohen and Mosek, 2014). Therefore, as
strong self-efficacy could facilitate students to control challenges during course,
some studies claimed that students’ self-efficacy predicted their grades (Choi,
2005; Yip, 2019). Besides, self-efficacy might facilitate individuals in minimising
stress and elevating their mood when facing challenging tasks (Bandura, 1997). A
study among South African undergraduates revealed that higher scores in self-
efficacy predicted higher scores for satisfaction with life and happiness (Van Zyl
and Dhurup, 2018). Meanwhile, a study among Indonesian undergraduate
learners showed that optimism was associated with lower stress, indicating that
optimism might enhance undergraduate learners’ positive feelings (Sugiarti et al.,
2018). Students’ awareness of their mental health might influence their personal
belief in their ability to perform well and succeed in their studies (Beasley et al.,
2020). Therefore, there was a significant association between self-efficacy and
mental health knowledge (Hoffman, 2020).
If some previous researchers emphasised self-regulation and self-efficacy
as protective factors buffering stressors, Reich et al. (2010) claimed that
individuals’ connectedness to others could help them manage their difficult
situations. Interpersonal capabilities and skills might help individuals connect
with others and develop their resilience under adversity (Ponce-Garcia et al.,
2015). Feeling empathy might be an essential interpersonal competence to act as
a buffer against stressors (Brooks and Goldstein, 2003). When individuals
understood others’ emotional feelings, they might be prepared to tackle the

52
situation if they met similar conditions (Vinayak and Judge, 2018). A study
among American medical undergraduates reported that empathy scores were
significantly associated with student burnout; when their empathy scores
increased, their burnout scores decreased (Von Harscher et al., 2018). Burnout
was related to a declined sense of personal accomplishment and emotional
exhaustion (Maslach et al., 1996, as cited in Von Harscher et al., 2018).
Similarly, a study among adolescents in Turkey confirmed that empathetic
understanding correlated with other internal protective factors: problem-solving,
self-efficacy, communication and cooperation (Gizir and Aydin, 2009).
Therefore, the ability to feel empathy might function as a personal protective
factor buffering undergraduates’ stressors.
Furthermore, another interpersonal skill that might help build resilience
was social skill. Social skill was defined as one’s ability to articulate ideas and
needs, to cooperate and negotiate with others, to express emotion, initiate and
maintain friendships, and adjust behaviour to meet the demands of the context
(Kostelnik et al., 2002). Through social skills, individuals might be able to
communicate with others to ask for and receive help, so that they could pass on
information regarding their difficult situation and understand any solution that
might be provided by others; therefore, social skill was relevant to resilience
(Masten, 1994). In an academic context, through social skill students might be
able to communicate their difficulties, ask for help, express their knowledge and
make social adjustment to teachers, peers or families (Morreale and Pearson,
2008; Reich et al., 2010). Past researchers found that people who were depressed
might lack social skill or social competence; they might not be able to obtain
positive support from others due to a lack of skill in communicating or asking for
help from people around them (Jaureguizar, Garaigordobil, and Bernaras, 2018).
A study among American freshman students revealed that undergraduates’ lower
social skills predicted the increased depressive symptoms (Segrin and Flora,
2000). Furthermore, lower social skills may also contribute to psychosocial
problems, such as loneliness and anxiety (Wenzel et al., 2005). Meanwhile, a
study at a university in Arizona confirmed that the ability to communicate with
others was related to positive mental health for undergraduates (Segrin et al.,

53
2007); social skill was associated with a lower appraisal of life stress and better
overall mental health or wellbeing, manifested in better life satisfaction and fewer
depressive symptoms (Segrin et al., 2007). A study among Brazilian
undergraduate students also correlated social skills to resilience (Santos and
Soares, 2018).
However, although interaction within a friendship network might
contribute positively to GPA (Li et al., 2019), other studies claimed that high-
achieving students might adapt positively to academic demand but had limited
social skills. High achievers might perceive themselves as less competent in
social interactions with their peers, so they perceived it as difficult for them to
maintain friendships (Muayama and Elliot, 2012). High-achieving students might
extend their friendship to other high-achievers (Flashman, 2012), while avoiding
friendship with low-achieving students (Gremmen et al., 2017). Similarly, low-
achieving students who maintained friendships with high-achievers might
evaluate themselves less positively (Altermatt and Pomerantz, 2005). This might
lead to intelligent people being considered less likeable (Fossum, 2011). This
meant that although interpersonal skills might contribute to university adjustment
and stress relief, some students who might academically adjust to university
demands might have low interpersonal skills. Despite contradictory results,
interpersonal skills during undergraduate years are vital in supporting students
facing academic and non-academic stressors to maintain positive mental health
and to succeed in their course.
The studies mentioned earlier about self-regulation, self-efficacy and
interpersonal competencies and skills implied that resilience could be learned and
nurtured. In other words, internal protective factors were not personality traits but
strategies, competences and skills that could be developed through intervention
(Luthar et al., 2000; Rutter 1990). During the process of adapting to a difficult
situation, individuals could practise the strategies as routine activities to cope
with problems (Turner, Holdsworth, and Scott-Young, 2017). In other words,
resilience could be improved through learning and training (Jakovljevic, 2018).
For example, students practise managing their stress to focus on their academic
needs; students needed to do this, as academic stress was related to lower course

54
scores, motivation and coping (Struthers et al., 2000). A report described how
universities in the UK provided areas for students to relax, for example, a quiet
place, or comfortable sofas (ECU, 2016). The universities also offered a series of
activities to help students to relieve stress, such as mental health training, a
petting zoo, crafts, art, meditation, and picnics. They displayed signage and
mental health tips around the campus (ECU, 2016). Furthermore, universities
might provide educational sessions introducing students to self-regulatory
behaviours, such as planning, time management and evaluation in an academic
context (Virtanen and Nevgi, 2010), so that students had strategies to meet
deadlines (ECU, 2016).
To conclude, personal protective factors among undergraduates might
consist of: self-regulatory strategies that facilitated students in planning, coping
with problems and evaluating their strategies; self-efficacy, which related to
confidence in their ability to achieve goals and interpersonal competences and
skills, such as empathetic understanding, which associated with sensitivity on
others and social skills. This might, in turn, help students express their difficulties
and articulate requests for help from others. Personal protective factors were not
static capacities, but they were skills, competencies and strategies that could be
nurtured. Personal protective factors alone did not support individuals’ resilience,
but they might enhance a conducive environment in which to develop. Ungar
(2013) claimed that resilience might relate to the quality of the environment to
facilitate individual growth. In other words, external protective factors were
essential components for individuals to cope with stressors. Therefore, this
current study also assessed the external protective factors of Indonesian
undergraduate learners. The following information was related to the theory of
external protective factors and relevant past resilience research.

2. 7. b External protective factors

Bronfenbrenner, through his ecological (1979; 1995) and bio-ecological

theory (2005) of human development, claimed that environment played a part in
shaping the development of individuals. He particularly explained that the
immediate environment – parents, friends, relatives, teachers, co-workers and so

55
forth – played a part in the life development of individuals on a regular basis over
time (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Weiss (1974) used the term “social support” to
refer to support from the immediate environment that might affect a human
being. Weiss (1974) further conceptualised social support into several functions
of relationships: (i) attachment − feelings of intimacy, peace and security; (ii)
social integration – a sense of belonging to a community or group, sharing
common activities and interests; (iii) a sense of reliable reliance – knowing that
someone will assist in times of need; (iv) guidance − having a relationship with
someone who can provide suggestions, knowledge and expertise; (v) potential for
nurturance – opportunities to take care of others; and (vi) reassurance of worth –
a sense of having competence acknowledged by others, for example colleagues or
peers. Meanwhile, Gottlieb and Bergen (2010) defined social support in a specific
scope covering supporting relationships. They defined social support as a mutual
affection and relationship that provided specialised support, such as bonding
through listening, caring, affection and caregiving, and bridging, such as practical
assistance, information and advice (Gottlieb and Bergen, 2010).
Weis (1974) and Gottlieb and Bergen (2010) had commonality in defining
social support as psychological support. Similarly, Lin et al. (1986) defined social
support as psychological support that an individual receives or perceives in his or
her environment. However, Cohen et al. (2000) added that social support was not
merely psychological support; besides esteem and emotional support, they
included tangible support as one of the factors in social support. In line with this,
the early psychotherapist, Dr Joseph Pratt (1905, cited in Wong et al., 2014), also
included instrumental support, which was similar to tangible support, in his
definition of social support. Pratt (1905, cited in Almeida, 2008) defined social
support as having important people giving individuals emotional support
(affection, caring and so forth), instrumental support (money, accommodation,
food and so forth) and informational support (guidance, suggestions, information
and so forth). Therefore, it could be concluded that social support meant social
resources from others – comprising emotional support, instrumental or tangible
support, and informational support – that acted as buffers to adversity in life and
help individuals to develop their capacity to cope.

56
 In the context of education, researchers had investigated students’
perceptions in relation to the availability of social support as a factor that
protected them during the challenging time of their college degree. For example,
a qualitative study at the University of Brighton analysed through interview 22
undergraduates who had completed their first year, and 12 who had withdrawn
from their first-year undergraduate programme (Wilcox, Winn and Fyvie‐Gauld,
2005). Some students who withdrew reported that the decision to leave was due
to issues relating to social support: difficulties in making compatible friends,
friends’ withdrawal from university, and failure to connect with tutors. In line
with their counterparts, students who completed their first year reported that
emotional support from family and friends provided a buffering influence against
their difficulties in the new situation at university. Students further claimed that
emotional support from friends provided them with a sense of belonging and
helped them to face their problems (Wilcox et al., 2005). This meant that social
support, particularly from family and friends, might function as a protective
factor that helped students, particularly undergraduates, to survive a challenging
time at university.
Similarly, a qualitative study conducted at a university in South Africa
(McMillan, 2016) found that parental attachment helped a sample of dental
undergraduates to adjust to college life. The participants indicated that parents’
emotional support provided comfort and a sense of security and wellbeing during
their transition from school to university. The participants further explained that
emotional support was related to reassurance of worth, mutual support, support of
autonomy, and advice on adjustment to university and academic focus. Besides
parental attachment, participants claimed that friends gave special support that
parents were not able to provide, particularly when students were away from
family. Students further stated that peer support came in the form of academic
support, motivation and encouragement. The sample students acknowledged that
the quality of friends was important for their mental health and in supporting their
academic integration (McMillan, 2016). Both of these qualitative studies
highlighted how family and peers provided social support to mitigate stressful
situations in an undergraduate context.

57
 A quantitative study at a U.S. university supported Wilcox et al.’s (2005)
and McMillan’s (2016) findings that, compared to students with low levels of
friend support, students with more friend support reported themselves as 28 times
more likely to experience higher resilience. Meanwhile, students with support
from family were 2.9 times more likely to report higher resilience (Wilks and
Spivey, 2010). It was concluded that in the context of undergraduates, family and
peer support were beneficial buffers against difficult situations (Wilks and
Spivey, 2010). Moreover, a study conducted among Indonesian undergraduate
students reported that two subscales of family functioning – affective
involvement and communication – revealed a significant negative association
with psychological distress (Sugiarti et al., 2018). The researchers concluded that
Indonesian undergraduate students with proper family support, experiencing
effective communication and feeling loved, might encounter less psychological
distress than those who lacked such support (Sugiarti et al., 2018).
Furthermore, other past research suggested numerous functions of social
support from family and friends in the context of undergraduates. Family and
peer support might help undergraduates cope with stress (Denovan and
Macaskill, 2017), mitigate college-related stressors (Solberg and Villarreal, 1997;
Zhang, 2017), develop a sense of integration and belonging (Denovan and
Macaskill, 2017), be associated with higher levels of wellbeing or happiness
(Iwasaki, 2003), link to positive adjustment among undergraduates. Family and
peer support might also provide a comfort zone of emotional stability during the
transition period to university life (Duchesne et al., 2007). On the other hand, a
lack of friendship support might result in poor adjustment to university (Lamothe
et al., 1995), and a low level of parental support might lead to increased levels of
stress in adjusting to university life (Crockett et al., 2007; Hinderlie and Kenny,
2002; Kenny and Perez, 1996). However, high-achieving students who made
positive academic adjustment to university might have a limited scope for
friendship, due to low perceived competence in social interaction (Muayana and
Elliot, 2012), selection of friends (Flashman, 2012) and low likeableness or
avoidance by others (Altermatt and Pomerantz, 2005; Fossum, 2011).

58
 In short, availability of personal and external protective factors for
resilience might differ by individuals’ socio-demographic characteristics. Ungar
(2011) and Rutter (2006) suggested understanding the variation of protective
factors for resilience through a socio-demographic framework because culture
and context might influence the way individuals responded to stressors.
Therefore, this researcher embraced the following socio-demographic framework
underpinning this current resilience research.

2. 8. Socio-demographic framework for resilience

Each period of resilience research had a particular focus: wave one was
linked with the identification of key concept of resilience and personal qualities;
wave two associated with the process of how resilience was acquired; wave three
correlated with intervention to nurture resilience; and wave four was about the
linkages among personal and environment characteristics that might contribute to
positive development under difficult conditions. This research belonged to wave
four of resilience research. This study derived from the socio-demographic
approach to understanding the variation in young undergraduate learners’
protective factors, as suggested by the following resilience and human
development researchers.
Ungar (2011) suggested that resilience was less about personal qualities
and more about the quality of individuals’ social and ecological factors. The
qualities of environment embedded in individuals contributed to their wellbeing
or physical and emotional health (Hudziak and Bartels, 2008). Ungar (2011)
therefore included culture and context in an approach to understanding resilience;
variations in how people reacted to and coped with adversity may be influenced
by the culture that existed in the surrounding community. This meant that the
level of individuals’ resilience might be influenced and shaped by their socio-
demographic characteristics. The socio-demographic framework for resilience
was derived from the ecological and bio-ecological model of human development
suggested by Bronfenbrenner (1979; 1995; 2005), in which human development
relied on the interaction between individuals and their environment.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) classified the human environment into several

59
ecosystems: first, microsystem interaction consisted of individuals’ interaction
with their immediate environment, such as family, peers and teachers; second,
mesosystem interaction included interaction among individuals’ microsystems,
such as communication between an individual’s parents and his/her teacher; third,
exosystem interaction comprised interaction among formal and non-formal social
structures that might indirectly influence individuals’ development, such as,
parents’ workplace, parents’ friends, and so forth; fourth, macrosystem
interaction comprised components that focused on how cultural elements affected
individuals’ development, such as socio-economic status, poverty, wealth, or
ethnicity; and fifth, chronosystem interaction included the environmental changes
that might occur over a lifetime that might influence an individual’s development,
such as life transitions like divorce and marriage, and dead of loved ones.
Bronfenbrenner, then, through his ecological model, emphasised that
human development was influenced by the condition of individuals’ environment
(1979). However, a few years later he revised his ecological theory; he
formulated a bio-ecological theory which moved his previous focus on the
influence of ecological factors on human development into a more holistic
approach. This included reciprocal interaction between individuals – as active
and evolving agency – and people, objects and symbols, within their environment
(Bronfenbrenner, 1995; 2005). In this way, his new theory of human development
valued individuals not as passive agents who received influence from external
factors, but rather as individuals interacting and negotiating with their
environment, an interaction that might develop over time (Bronfenbrenner, 1995;
2005). Through this new model, Bronfenbrenner (1995; 2005) further suggested
that to understand the development process of individuals, researchers might
focus on the person, time, context and development outcomes, because the
process of development among people might vary and affect people differently
(Bronfenbrenner and Evans, 2000).
Ungar (2011) adopted Bronfenbrenner’s (1979; 1995; 2005) ecological
theory and his revised version of the human development model as an approach
to understanding individuals’ resilience. Ungar (2008) claimed that culture might
affect individuals in their beliefs, thoughts and ideologies. Therefore, variations

60
in how humans positively adapted to adversity might be influenced by how
humans nurtured certain behaviours that were acceptable, in line with ideology,
values and norms embedded in the culture of the society in which they lived.
Ideology, values and norms might be passed from one generation to another and
might shape certain patterns to react to and cope with adversity (Kane and Kyyrö,
2001). In other words, the environment might mediate human development
(Rutter, 1990).
The theory of human development by Bronfenbrenner (1979; 2005)
focussed on the interaction of individuals and the environment contributing to
human development. Meanwhile, Ungar’s (2011) social ecology concept on
resilience had a more specific scope: the interaction between individuals and
environment led to positive adaptation or better outcomes than expected,
although the individuals were amid challenging situations. In other words, the
social ecology resilience concept offered by Ungar was more specific than the
human development theory offered by Bronfenbrenner. That resilience was
demonstrated by individuals who were within challenging circumstances was a
part of positive human development. This researcher pictorially displayed the
relationship between Bronfenbrenner’s theory and Ungar’s social and ecological
resilience concept through the following figure.

Positive human development

Positive development without Positive development amid

exposure to adversity exposure to adversity
(resilience)

Person and environment

Person and environment

61
 Derived from Ungar’s (2008; 2011) socio-demographic approach of
resilience and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979; 1995; 2005) theory of human
development, it could be concluded that process of positive adaptation to
challenges – otherwise known as resilience – was influenced by personal and
external protective factors, and the way individuals navigated their personal and
external protective factors might vary, influenced by the culture, beliefs, values
and norms embedded within the community in which they lived.
This researcher used the socio-demographic framework to develop a
hypothesis about the variation of protective factors by students’ socio-
demographic characteristics. In other words, the framework helped this
researcher to cluster this current resilience research by focus, examining
variations in internal and protective factors among Indonesian young
undergraduate learners by their socio-demographic factors. This meant that this
researcher adopted the wave four of resilience research as explored in the section
of 2.3. (Page 30). This researcher hypothesised that protective factors might differ
by students’ socio-demographic characteristics, and the findings of this study
might have meaning in the Indonesian context. The socio-demographic
framework also helped this researcher to link this study’s results to a more
general aspect of the phenomenon of resilience experienced but not explained in
the world in which we lived. This researcher contended that variation in
protective factors might explain the differences of social level system that
Indonesian undergraduate students experienced, as suggested by Hart et al.
(2016). Therefore, the socio-demographic framework for resilience helped this
researcher to understand the phenomenon of variation in protective factors among
undergraduate students in the social system of Indonesia.

2. 9. Socio-demographic differences in resilience

Values, beliefs and norms embedded in a culture might function as

standards of what was good and what was bad in society. Schwartz and Bilsky
(1987) claimed that values were beliefs about appropriate ways, actions or
behaviours. For example, boys might get priority over girls in being sent to
school in the context of a patriarchal community where the male role was

62
considered – and labelled – as the head of the family, controlling decisions in the
household context, and regarded as having more responsibilities than women
(Kevane and Levine, 2000). The division of roles and duties by gender might be
passed on through generations, due to the society having a culture where such
attitudes were regarded as standards to follow. This meant that individuals’
behaviours were shaped based on what was permitted in their community. There
was an interaction between individuals and their environment in the process of
their development (Bronfenbrenner 1979; 1995; 2005), and this interaction was
described in the five categories outlined in the previous section: microsystem,
mesosystem, ecosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner 1979;
1995).
Of these five interaction models by Bronfenbrenner (1979;1995), this
study adopted microsystem interaction to analyse protective factors, including not
only personal but also external protective factors from the immediate
environment, particularly from family and peers. This study compared the
protective factors among young people enrolled in undergraduate program by
their socio-demographic characteristics (gender, area of origin and SES) in West
Kalimantan. The socio-demographic factors might moderate the macro level
impact on young people enrolled in university.
These were in line with Ungar’s (2008; 2011) socio-demographic
framework for resilience, assessing both internal and external protective factors,
and assessing the effects of culture and context on protective factors. To
investigate these latter effects on individuals’ resilience, this research limited the
analysis to gender, geographical area of origin and SES differences, in order to
understand the protective factors among Indonesian young undergraduate
learners. Through these specific socio-demographic profile analyses, this
researcher might be able to provide information regarding system level in
protective factors among young undergraduate students in Indonesia. This
researcher started with exploring the existing research and the debates relevant to
the effect of gender on resilience among undergraduate learners.

63
2. 9. a Gender differences in undergraduate learners’ resilience

Individuals might respond to the same stressors differently. Variations in

response might be influenced by gene-environment interactions (Rutter, 2003;
2006). Gender, a biological characteristic attached to a human since he/she was
born, might affect men and women’s variations in stress and adjustment to – and
coping with – difficulties. Variations in response might be caused by
psychological, biological or environmental/cultural factors (Halphen, 2014).
Hampel and Petermann (2006) investigated gender effects on perceived
interpersonal stress, coping with interpersonal stressors, and psychological
adjustment to stressors in the context of adolescence. They found that adolescents
differed by gender in their perception of stress and their adjustment to stressors
(Hampel and Peterman, 2006); compared to boys, girls reported higher scores in
maladaptive coping strategies and perceived stress, and these were related to
adjustment problems. Hampel and Peterman (2006) reported that the relation of
adjustment problems was stronger in females than in males – so Hampel and
Peterman (2006) found evidence that males and females might differ in these
psychological factors. Supporting Hampel and Peterman (2006), Levine (2003)
claimed that humans had psychological limitations and breaking points,
suggesting that individuals might have different levels of protective factors and
tolerance to stress. A series of other studies revealed gender differences in
psychological functioning: women had been shown to have lower confidence
(Costa et al., 2001; Weisberg et al., 2011), lower self-esteem (Kingree, 1995),
and lower self-efficacy (Fallan and Opstad, 2016) than men. Individuals might
differ by gender in resilience, and the difference might be caused by
psychological factors embedded in males and females, as shown in the research
cited; however, the differences might also be caused by external factors – culture,
for example (Ungar, 2008; 2011).
Culture in society might nurture the development of divisions in roles
between men and women (Sarwono, 2012). These differences in duties, roles and
positions might be passed on over generations, and this might persist as an
ideology (Sarwono, 2012). Ideology and belief within a community might

64
legitimate or challenge inequality and power (Kane and Kyyrö, 2001). Equality
by gender was achieved when males and females had equal status in their access
to resources, ability to contribute and gain benefit from social, cultural and
political economic activity (Policy Brief, 2014). When the ideology within a
community created disparity between genders, there might be limited or
enhanced access to protective factors for certain genders in an educational
context. For example, Indonesian culture adopted patriarchal values in which men
might have higher social power in decision-making, and were considered to be
family breadwinners (Priyatna, 2013); these values might provide less access to
women but greater access to men wanting to enter higher education (Priyatna,
2013; Kevane and Levine, 2000).
One narrative study described how patriarchal value was applied in the
Indonesian community, and how this impacted education (Priyatna, 2013). It
revealed that where an Indonesian married woman had a doctorate degree while
her husband had attained a lower educational level, this might be considered as
threatening to the husband or husband’s family. Unmarried Indonesian women
with a high level of education might be considered to be limiting their access to
marriage, as less-educated males might not approach women at higher
educational levels than themselves (Priyatna, 2013). Another study found that
where an Indonesian family was on a limited budget for education, boys were
prioritised, as they were considered potential family breadwinners (Kevane and
Levine, 2000). These two studies reflected how a particular ideology attached to a
community might affect individuals’ access to protective factors in an educational
context, such as giving more priority to males than females in education due to
males’ potential role as head of the family. In line with the ideas of Ungar (2004;
2008; 2011), Bronfenbrenner (1979; 1995; 2005), and Rutter (2006), individuals’
ability to cope with problems or adversity might be shaped by the existing culture
or influenced by the context that surrounded them. This meant that individuals
embedded in certain cultures might have certain vulnerabilities, or protective
factors to adapt to hardship. Therefore, it was possible that gender affected
differences in protective factors for resilience. The following past studies related
to gender differences among undergraduate students in various contexts.

65
 A U.S. cross-sectional study analysed gender differences in medical
undergraduates’ resilience (Smith et al., 2020). The researchers used the 33-item
Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) (Friborg et al., 2003; Hjemdal et al., 2001)
consisting of constructs of personal and external protective factors: (1)
confidence in personal strength; (2) planning behaviour and goal orientation; (3)
social competence; (4) structured style or organisation; (5) family cohesion; and
(6) social resources (availability of social support from family, friends and
significant others) (Hjemdal et al., 2011). There were 151 undergraduate students
responding to the cross-sectional survey. In the process of data analysis, the
researchers averaged responses to all 33 items, and averaged the total score for
each subscale. All data in this study was analysed using SAS software. The
researchers compared the regression coefficients between male and female
students in total scores and subscales of resilience. The findings revealed that
total scores of resilience associated with gender showed females to be
significantly more resilient than their male peers (mean=5.4 vs 5.2, p=.03). In
relation to subscale levels, female students reported significantly higher scores
than males in structured style or organisation (mean=5.57 vs 5.22, p=.04) and
social resources (mean=6.15 vs 5.86, p<.01), indicating that females were more
organised and had more social support than male students. By contrast, males
scored themselves higher than females (Mean=5.24 vs 4.48, p<.01) in self-
perception, suggesting that male students reflected higher self-confidence levels
than did their female peers. Meanwhile, no gender differences were detected in
planning behaviour and goal orientation, or on the social competence subscale.
Ponce-Garcia et al. (2016) also studied gender differences in protective
factors among American undergraduates. The researchers involved students who
reported traumatic or difficult situations at three universities in the U.S. (n=205).
They used the 24-item SPF scale (Scale of Protective Factors), assessing internal
and external protective factors under four primary subscales: social support,
social skill, planning behaviour and goal efficacy. The researchers found
evidence that female students returned significantly higher scores than males in
social support (mean=3.86 vs mean=3.57, p<.01), social skills (mean=4.02 vs
mean=3.54, p<.01), planning behaviour (mean=3.87 vs mean=3.58, p<.01) and

66
goal efficacy (mean=4.22 vs mean=3.96, p<=.01). To conclude, Smith et al.
(2019) and Ponce-Garcia et al. (2016) reported a similar finding that female
students in the U.S. returned higher scores for protective factors for resilience
than did their male peers.
In India, Sundar and Archana (2020) investigated gender differences in
undergraduates’ resilience. They involved 282 first- and second-year medical
students in a cross-sectional survey, using a resilience questionnaire designed by
Wagnild and Young (1993). They converted the responses into scores and input
the data into SPSS for analysis. They used the independent t-test to compare
significant differences in resilience between male and female students. This
research found evidence that a majority (53%) of male students had significant
lower resilience scores (mean=95.30) than 49% of female students (mean=99.42).
This meant that Indian female medical students reported more resilience than
their male peers. This study corroborated resilience research by Smith et al.
(2020) and Ponce-Garcia et al. (2016) in a U.S. context.
By contrast, three studies conducted in Turkey found that male
undergraduate students were more resilient than females (Bahadir-Yilmaz and
Rn, 2015; Erdogan et al., 2015; Pasha-Zaidi et al., 2020). Bahadir-Yilmaz and Rn
(2015), using a cross-sectional survey involving 429 health science students at a
university in Ankara, investigated Turkish students’ resilience. The researchers
used a resilience scale by Gurgan (2006) consisting of 50 items. Responses were
converted into numbers and analysed through SPSS. As the data was not
normally distributed, the researchers used a nonparametric test, the Mann-
Whitney U Test, to assess gender differences in resilience. The study found that
compared to females (median=142), male students (median=146) scored
significantly higher in the average of totals for resilience (p<.05). This finding
was supported by two other studies conducted in Turkey, by Erdogan et al.
(2015) and Pasha-Zaidi et al. (2020).
Erdogan et al. (2015) also carried out a cross-sectional survey, involving
596 Turkish students from various disciplines. The researchers also used
Gurgan’s resilience scale (2006). They employed SPSS with two-way ANOVA
to investigate the interaction effect of two variables: faculty and gender. In

67
relation to gender, male students (mean=192.69) reported significantly higher
total scores for resilience (p<.05) than females (mean=183.22). The third study in
a Turkish context was conducted by Pasha-Zaidi et al. (2020). The researchers
investigated resilience among 124 Turkish undergraduates with adverse
childhood experiences. The Brief Resilience scale by Smith et al. (2008),
consisting of six items, was employed to assess general resilience. The data was
analysed by SPSS with MANOVA to investigate the interaction effects of gender,
resilience and adverse childhood experience. The mean scores for resilience were
above the mid-point of 3.00, with scores ranging from 3.06 to 3.98, indicating
positive response to the items in the survey. The study found that male students
(mean=3.42) reported significant higher scores than females (mean=3.04) for
resilience (p<.05). In the subscale analysis, this study found evidence that male
students scored significantly higher (p<.05) than females for self-regulation
(mean=3.35 vs. mean=3.25) and for self-efficacy (mean=4.02 vs. mean=3.96).
These three studies conducted in Turkey found that gender influenced students’
resilience, with male undergraduate students reporting higher levels of resilience
than females.
These studies were conducted in several contexts and provided evidence
that protective factors might vary based on gender: female students were more
resilient than male students in the U.S. (Smith, et al., 2020) and India (Sundar and
Archana, 2020), while male students scored more for protective factors than did
female students in Turkey (Bahadir-Yilmaz and Rn, 2015; Erdogan et al., 2015;
Pasha-Zaidi et al., 2020). However, of these five studies, only Pasha-Zaidi et al.,
2020 and Bahadir-Yilmaz and Rn (2015) used Ungar’s (2008) socio-demographic
framework to approach the evaluation and discussion of their findings. That
Turkish male students were reported to be more resilient than female students
might be linked to the patriarchal ideology with male domination adopted in the
community in Turkey, and this might influence greater availability of protective
factors for male than female undergraduate students (Pasha-Zaidi et al., 2020;
Bahadir-Yilmaz and Rn, 2015).
Meanwhile, the findings by Smith et al. (2020), in a U.S. context, that
females were more resilient than males might reflect egalitarian treatment or

68
equality in gender practised in American society, including equality in
educational aspects (Goldin, 1999). Also, females showed higher scores for
resilience than males in an Indian context (Sundar and Archana, 2020), which
might reflect values of equality in education applied in the society where the
study took place. The Sundar and Archana (2020) study involved undergraduate
students in Tamilnadu, a southern part of India. Another study in India showed
that the country’s southern region had better equality in education by gender than
did the north (Rammohan and Vu, 2018). Furthermore, kinship norms in north
India, with the patriarchal values in which a daughter would leave the household
after marriage, might have the effect to lower investment in education for
daughters in northern India (Rammohan and Vu, 2018). By contrast, in India’s
southern region, the kinship structure was characterised by greater gender
equality, contributing to a higher level of autonomy than the north (Basu, 1992).
It seemed that values adopted in society might affect gender differences
concerning protective factors for resilience in a U.S. and south Indian context;
however, Smith et al. (2020) and Sundar and Archana (2020) did not take a socio-
demographic approach in their analysis.
The studies mentioned earlier showed that only a few analysed the effects
of culture and context on variations of protective factors by gender for resilience,
even though culture might play a crucial role in supporting gender disparity
(Sarwono, 2012). An ideology that parents held might shape their support for,
and investment in, education for their children (Kane and Kyyrö, 2001); this was
in line with Ungar’s (2008; 2011) and Bronfenbrenner’s socio-demographic
approach (2005) to understanding human development based on what was
valued, adopted and practised within a specific context. Considering this,
understanding resilience through a socio-demographic perspective became a
critical approach to include in this study.
However, gender differences in protective factor had not been explored in
the Indonesian context. Therefore, this study followed Pasha-Zaidi et al. (2020)
and Bahadir-Yilmaz and Rn (2015) in using the socio-demographic framework to
understand differences in protective factors by gender. Moreover, this researcher
followed the instrument used by Garcia et al. (2016), the SPF (Scale of Protective

69
Factors). The SPF comprised internal and external protective factors in line with
the combination of internal and external protective factors to face adversity, as
suggested by Ungar (2012). Taking into consideration the effects of culture and
context on division roles of males and females in Indonesia, which might impact
variations in protective factors by gender, this study hypothesised that there were
gender differences among Indonesian undergraduate students concerning their
protective factors. Besides gender effects, this researcher also investigated the
variations of protective factors among young undergraduate learners based on
their place of origin.

2. 9. b Place-of-origin differences in undergraduate learners’ resilience

The background of where individuals, including university students, were

raised might have an effect on how they were resilient to stressors. Urban and
non-urban areas had distinctive characteristics, ranging from the typical nature of
an area to the elements of culture valued by the community; context and culture
might influence human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995; Ungar, 2008,
2011). There was an innate tendency for human beings to affiliate with natural
settings, and when humans encountered living things, they might experience
various emotions, ranging from attraction to aversion, or from peacefulness to
fear (Kahn and Kellert, 2002). The emotion would relate to adaptive learning
behaviour – what individuals understood about and from nature (Wilson, 1993).
Dadvand et al. (2015) investigated the association between exposure to green
space and the cognitive development of schoolchildren. They found that exposure
to greenness was associated with students’ mental health, enhanced working
memory, and better cognitive test scores.
Supporting Dadvand et al. (2015), Bowler et al. (2010) carried out meta-
analysis data regarding evidence of the benefits of exposure to the environment
for health, and the researchers reported that, compared to being exposed to a
man-made environment, being exposed to a natural environment lowered
negative emotions, for example anger and sadness. In line with previous findings,
a study of three adults described as having learning difficulties showed that
outdoor activities indicated improvements in behaviour compared to indoor

70
activities (Cuvo, May and Post, 2001). Moreover, a large-scale study in Australia
found that levels of distress among individuals living in remote regions was the
lowest compared to other regions (Kelly et al., 2010). Therefore, based on the
aforementioned studies, the natural environment might influence human physical
and mental health, as well as human cognitive development.
Besides the uniqueness of geography, the characteristics, values and
beliefs of communities in urban and non-urban areas might also shape or
influence individuals’ mental health and cognitive development. In terms of SES
characteristics, poverty might occur more widely in rural than in urban areas
(Pateman, 2011). Alongside poverty, rural areas might face a lack of facilities
that triggered individuals’ cognitive development; therefore, limited opportunities
for promoting achievement in less urbanised areas might be a barrier to rural
students’ achievement (Miller et al., 2012). Furthermore, a study in Indonesia
showed how low SES might negatively affected protective factors among
students from rural areas. Compared to urban parents, rural parents had less
involvement in their children’s education, and parents claimed that this was
caused by low perceived capability, due to their own low educational
background, inflexibility in work hours, and financial strain (Yulianti, Denessen
and Droop, 2018).
Moreover, urban and rural inhabitants adopted different values.
Collectivism was related to people in society who regarded themselves as having
strong group cohesion, and this value was adopted by poor, rural communities
linked to traditional society (Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, 1995; 2015). Meanwhile,
individualism pertained to a society that valued autonomy, where the ties between
individuals were looser, and society linked to modernisation and urbanised
people (Allik and Realo, 2004; Triandis, 2015).
Values held by society might influence the characteristics and experiences
of students. Learners from a collectivist background might value
interdependence, group success, respect for others, cooperation rather than
competition, integration with other people (Shkodriani and Gibbons, 1995) and
strong feelings of connectedness (Du et al., 2014; Esterman and Halfacree, 1995;
Wang et al., 2017). Moreover, individuals from collectivist cultures did not ask a

71
lot of questions in family interactions (Black et al., 2003). Therefore, such
students might be passive, maintained harmony and avoided direct confrontation
in the classroom (Black et al., 2003). By contrast, students from individualist
cultures valued openness in communication, accomplishment, critical thinking,
high self-determination in achieving goals, self-reliance, competition, equal rights
of individuals, opportunities (Black et al., 2003) and an active learning
environment (Wahyudi, 2004). Therefore, as rural and urban backgrounds had
differences in terms of context and culture, protective factors among
undergraduates might differ, as Ungar (2008; 2011) and Bronfenbrenner (1979;
1994; 2005) suggested in their ecological framework for resilience and human
development.
Bitz (2011) examined rural and urban differences in several domains
related to protective factors for resilience through a cross-sectional survey. The
researcher involved 240 freshman students majoring in agricultural science and
educational psychology at a U.S. university. The researcher conducted a series of
independent t-tests using SPSS to test the hypothesis that rural and urban
undergraduate students differ in social support, social self-efficacy, help-seeking
and mental health. The researcher found that rural and urban students respectively
did not report significant differences in social support (mean=69.17 vs
mean=67.77, p=.35), social self-efficacy (mean=87.40 vs mean=83.83, p=.15),
mental health (mean=53.22 vs mean=50.86, p=.10). This meant that rural and
urban students were statistically equal in terms of their social support, social self-
efficacy and mental health. However, it was found that students from rural areas
reported significantly more negative help-seeking attitudes than did their urban
peers (mean=11.63 vs mean=14.23, t=-3.73 p<.01). This finding was in line with
the features of individualism adopted by urban inhabitants. A positive attitude
towards help-seeking among urban undergraduates, as explained by Bitz (2011),
represented individualist learners’ features: active learning styles, equality in
communication and accomplishment orientation (Black et al., 2003; Wahyudi,
2004). Urban students made use of their autonomy in learning and freedom to
express their enquiries in order to search for assistance to improve their
conditions.

72
 Meanwhile, in Turkey, Onturk, Efek, and Yildiz (2020) investigated
whether undergraduates of sport science were affected by where they lived. This
cross-sectional study showed evidence that place of living affected students’
resilience. There was a significant difference (p<.05) in relation to psychological
resilience of students who lived in a province (mean=18.92), in a county
(mean=20.26), and in a village (mean=22.33). The post hoc test after ANOVA
revealed that the only statistically significant finding in this analysis was the
difference between students living in villages and those in the province, with
village students reporting significantly higher scores for resilience than those
living in a province. Onturk et al.’s (2020) study might be in line with past
studies claiming that rural area, with its natural settings, and strong kinship and
bonds with values of collectivism might have a positive impact on the
inhabitants’ robust, positive mental health (Esterman and Hedlund, 1994;
Halfacree, 1995; Wang et al., 2017).
However, some past researchers found that locality did not affect
resilience in university students in several contexts. Tang and Dai (2018)
investigated whether locality affected coping style and social support for Chinese
university students. This cross-sectional study involved 2,563 freshman students
from three universities in the metropolitan city of Chengdu. The researchers used
one-way ANOVA to investigate whether social support and coping styles varied
by urban and rural origin, and other variables. The study revealed that students
from rural and urban areas did not report significant differences in social support
(mean=28.38 vs mean=29.32, p>.05). It also found that rural and urban
undergraduates did not significantly differ in problem-solving (mean=0.78 vs
mean=0.80, p>.05).
Furthermore, Stanley and Mettilda (2016) researched social work
undergraduates in India to assess the effects of urban and rural backgrounds on
students’ resilience and coping styles. They used the Connor-Davidson Resilience
Scale (Connor and Davidson, 2003) to assess resilience, and the Brief Cope Scale
by Carver (1997) to assess coping strategies in their cross-sectional study. The
researchers used the independent t-test to compare differences in participants’
resilience by locality (urban and rural background). They revealed no differences

73
between rural and urban students in resilience (mean=68.38 vs mean=69.47,
p>.05), or in coping strategies (mean=69.80 vs mean=67.78, p>.05). Similar
findings were reported in two other studies in India. Kaur (2017) found that
undergraduates from urban and rural areas did not report significant differences
in self-efficacy, coping strategies or social support, and Sathiskumar et al. (2019)
found no significant difference in social competence protective factors for rural
and urban undergraduates.
As mentioned above, the studies returned inconsistent results regarding
the effect of geographical area on protective factors for resilience among
undergraduate learners; therefore, a similar investigation in a different context
might be needed to clarify the impact of locality on resilience. This research,
then, replicated studies of Onturk et al. (2020), Stanley and Mettilda (2016), Tang
and Dai (2018) and Bitz (2011) in terms of comparing the variations in protective
factors between young undergraduate students from urban and rural areas.
Examining the variations of protective factors based on locality was essential in
order to minimise the gap among young undergraduate students. The disparity
concerning the availability of protective factors in Indonesian young
undergraduates might occur when considering the gaps between urban and rural
areas, ranging from environment, economic conditions to culture. The
characteristics embedded in urban and rural areas might contribute to the
development of undergraduate students’ resilience during their college course;
this might apply in an Indonesian context, particularly in West Kalimantan.
Therefore, this study hypothesised that there were significant differences between
Indonesian young undergraduate students from urban and rural areas in regard to
protective factors. After exploring gender and differences in areas of origin, this
study also provided pertinent past research about SES differences in protective
factors among undergraduate learners.

2. 9. c SES differences in undergraduate learners’ resilience

SES consisted of three components: financial capital (financial resources),

human capital (knowledge and skills) and social network (social capital) (Oakes
and Rossi, 2003). Low SES might impact negatively on human cognitive
74
development and mental health. Financial strain led to an inability to fulfil
necessities, and this could lead to mental health problems. Lower social class
individuals experienced greater levels of distress (Reiss et al., 2019). University
students with financial difficulties were reported as being at higher risk of mental
health problems (Eisenberg et al., 2007); they scored higher in depressive
symptoms and anxiety disorders than did their counterparts without financial
issues. Poverty also harmed the parents’ emotions (Conger and Conger, 2002). In
short, low SES was associated with stress and depression (Huure et al., 2007),
which might lead to low resilience (Rutter, 1999).
Evidence showed that stress and depression about financial issues might
create conflict and negative interaction with others (e.g., arguments, physical
violence, etc.) (Taylor and Seeman, 1999). For parents, low SES was associated
with adverse effects on emotions, behaviour and relationships, and might
eventually lead to negative parenting strategies (Conger and Conger, 2002).
These included physical punishment, inconsistency, lack of warmth, and
authoritarian, harsh or neglectful behaviour (Hoffman, 2003). These practices
might then lead children to emotional, mental and other disruptive behaviours,
such as physical aggression (hitting), yelling, threatening, and a lack of positive
involvement (Knopf, 2015). A study showed that the association of low SES
family background and children with lower cognitive development was mediated
with a chaotic home environment (Seidler and Ritchie, 2018). The researchers
further explained that low SES parents might lack the educational and social
resources to create a calm atmosphere in the house. A chaotic environment might
increase a heightened level of stress, and this might impair children’s cognitive
development (Seidler and Ritchie, 2018). Consequent delays in social and
cognitive development from childhood might continue into adulthood (Bradley
and Corwyn, 2002).
However, some sociologists challenged the idea that low SES parents
were deficient in their parenting. Lareau (2003) identified that SES might cause
differences in parenting, but this did not mean that low-income parents exhibited
poor parenting. The researcher claimed that middle-class parents might develop
activities that cultivated skills to prepare children as successful adults. By

75
contrast, working-class parents might focus on meeting children’s needs and
looking after them so that they were healthy and happy, through activities such as
child-initiated play, long periods of play, and interaction with other family
members. The researcher further claimed that although society might regard
middle-class childrearing as superior, emphasis on activities to prepare children
to be successful adults might have negative consequences.
Cooper (2020) quantitatively examined the differences in the parenting of
low, middle, and high-income mothers in the U.K. He found that compared to
middle-income mothers, mothers in the lowest income group were more likely to
report never or rarely smacking and never or rarely shouting at their children
when they were naughty. Dermott and Pomati (2016) analysed the 2012 U.K.
Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE) survey and claimed no significant
differences by SES in terms of frequency of good parenting activities. These
studies suggested that being poor did not mean practising bad parenting. The
groups simply differed in what they thought was best for their children. A
middle-class family might get an advantage based on their experience that
education was a way to succeed; therefore, they provided activities to support the
cognitive development of their children. By contrast, low-income families tended
to favour activities emphasising natural growth, such as long-playing times and
interaction with kin. They might have limited capacity to provide extra activities
as provided in middle-income families, such as additional learning activities,
music classes and sports, which might be costly for them (Lareau, 2003).
Despite the debates over parenting practices by SES, middle-income
families related to educated parents, who might expose their offspring to the
knowledge and skills to develop their critical thinking to control and solve
problems, based on the understanding they learned in higher education. This
allowed them to apply effective strategies for parenting or childrearing (Cox,
1997). For example, compared to lower-income parents, those in the middle-
income bracket tended to use richer vocabularies, gave more advice, and engaged
their children with cognitively stimulating strategies (Conger and Donnellan,
2007; Zhang et al., 2013). Furthermore, high SES parents might expose children
to books, computers and other facilities to stimulate cognitive development. A

76
study in China suggested that a high SES level contributed to children’s high
reading ability (Chen et al., 2018). Furthermore, parents with adequate financial
capital were more able to afford access to health and social resources to support
children’s physical and mental health (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002). A study
among children and adolescents with a high parental educational background in
German suggested that the children were exposed to fewer stressful life situations
than were their low-SES peers (Reiss et al., 2019). Thus, it could be concluded
that activities related to cognitive development might prepare children to be ready
for academic challenges and to experience less stress relating to their economic
condition.
Therefore, SES might affect how children were raised, and their treatment
eventually shaped their mental health and social and cognitive development.
Behaviours were acquired through observing and copying surrounding people
(Bandura, 1977). Children’s mental health and development were associated with
what they were exposed to in their surrounding environment, such as parents,
friends or significant others. Children observed behaviours they were exposed to,
and they might imitate those behaviours (Bandura, 1977). This meant that
individuals’ development might be associated with external factors around them.
Parents with low SES might experience a high level of stress, and eventually
employed negative parenting strategies (Hoffman, 2003; Knopf, 2015; Reiss et
al., 2019). Children observed their parents’ behaviour and developed similar
behavioural problems, as Bandura suggested in his social learning theory (1977).
This theory was in line with the bio-ecological theory of development formulated
by Bronfenbrenner (2005), that human development resulted from reciprocal
interaction between individuals and their environment. Ungar (2012) suggested
that resilience was the ability of individuals to use personal capabilities and
environment to develop despite adversity. These three theories corroborated a
similar principle, that environment affected human development. Hence,
grounded from these theories, SES as an external factor might contribute to
individuals’ resilience.
Onturk, Efek, and Yildiz (2020) examined the differences in psychological
resilience by sport science students’ income background in Turkey. This cross-

77
sectional study used the Short Psychological Resilience scale by Smith et al.
(2008). The study classified students’ self-report income into seven categories,
ranging from 0-1000 TL to 5001 TL (Turkish Lira) and more. The researchers
analysed data by using SPSS 17. Based on the normality test, this study’s data
showed normal distribution. This study used the parametric test of ANOVA to
compare means of resilience by several income groups. The results revealed no
significant differences concerning psychological resilience by income (p>.308).
Nevertheless, low socio-economic status was associated with low
psychological resilience among adolescents. A cross-sectional study in Turkey
recruited 1,025 students from the 10th and 11th grades of high school (Bulut et
al., 2019). The researchers investigated the association between parental
education and youth psychological resilience, as well as adverse life events. They
used the Chi-square test to examine two qualitative (categorical) variables of
parental education and youth resilience without normal distribution. The
researchers found evidence that resilience scores of young people showed a
significant relationship with economic status (p=.01). It was noted that students
with an excellent financial situation reported an increased level of resilience,
while students with more modest parental economic circumstances reported
lower resilience. The study also revealed that as external, internal, and general
protective factors increased, the proportion of economic strain decreased
(X2=15.191, p<.01; X2=19.231, p<.01; X2=18.868, p<.01, respectively). In
short, reduction in parental income was related to lower resilience. In line with
Bulut et al.’s findings (2019), Bachaus (2009) reported that U.S. undergraduate
students from lower SES had lower scores in protective factors for resilience than
did their peers from higher SES backgrounds.
These three studies had contradictory findings. Onturk et al. (2020) found
no evidence regarding the relationship between economic status and Turkish
undergraduate students’ resilience. By contrast, Bulut et al.’s study (2019)
revealed an association between financial condition and resilience; adolescent
students with high economic levels reported high resilience. Bulut et al.’s (2019)
further findings showed that adverse life events, such as financial loss, were
associated with lower resilience among Turkish adolescents. Similarly, Bachaus

78
(2009) reported that a high SES background was a predictor of higher social and
personal-emotional attachment scores among U.S. undergraduate students. The
inconsistencies in the findings highlighted the need for clarification from other
research to investigate whether there were differences in resilience based on
undergraduates’ socio-economic status.
Therefore, understanding the variations of protective factors among
undergraduate students by their SES was crucial, as a lack of funding might harm
their mental health. Students might not focus on their undergraduate courses, and
this might also negatively impact their studies. Universities might provide
programmes and activities to help students improve their resilience, in order to
foster positive mental health so that they could concentrate on their
undergraduate courses. Economic conditions might affect undergraduate students,
but there was a lack of research concerning this matter among undergraduate
students, including those in Indonesia. Therefore, this study included SES,
replicated from studies of Onturk et al. (2020), Bulut et al. (2019) and Bachaus
(2009), as variables to be analysed in this resilience research. Furthermore,
considering the effect of SES on human development, based on past research
(Bulut et al., 2019; Bachaus, 2009), this study hypothesised that there were
differences by SES (low SES and middle/high SES) in protective factors for
resilience among Indonesian undergraduate learners. SES was the last socio-
demographic characteristic to investigate in this study of protective factors for
resilience. The following was relevant past research regarding the association
between resilience and academic achievement; the association between these two
was one of this study’s research questions.

2. 10. Relationship between resilience and academic achievement

Stressors, such as limited access to educational facilities (internet access,

electricity, and funding) experienced by young adults during university life might
lead to disengagement from learning (Yorke and Longden, 2008). Feeling
stressed might also cause student attrition (Timmins and Kaliszer, 2002). By
contrast, students with high resilience were expected to adapt to challenges in
academic life, use problem-solving skills, perceive difficulties as challenges, and

79
maintain positive efforts to meet academic demands (Bennion et al., 2018; Liew
et al., 2008; Kwok et al., 2007). This meant that feeling stressed due to the
existing stressors during the undergraduate course, such as lack of internet access,
unstable electricity, and lack of funding in West Kalimantan, as explained in
Section 1.2. (Page 9) might lead to low resilience that might cause detachment
from learning and low academic achievement. By contrast, high levels of
resilience might be associated with the ability to cope with academic challenges
and might eventually lead to academic achievement. Past studies had explored
whether resilience was related to academic achievement in the university student
context.
For example, Beauvais et al. (2013) investigated the relationship between
resilience and academic achievement among 124 nursing students, using a
convenience sampling strategy at a U.S. Catholic university (59% undergraduate
and 41% graduate students). Through a cross-sectional survey, the researchers
assessed nursing students’ resilience by using the Wagnild and Young Resilience
Scale (Wagnild and Young, 1993). The scale comprised 14 ratings around five
constructs: self-reliance, perseverance, meaning, self-control, and loneliness
(Wagnild and Young, 1993). Higher scores on the scale indicated increased
resilience. Academic attainment was assessed through students’ self-report of
their GPA. Higher scores were interpreted as greater academic success. The
online survey responses were transferred into an Excel document, then
transferred into PASW Statistics 18. The PASW Statistics 18 with Pearson’s
correlation statistical testing was employed to assess the correlation between
resilience and academic achievement – and the study found a strong correlational
relationship, r(47)=.46, p<.01.
Similarly, Van Breda (2018) investigated the resilience of vulnerable
students transitioning to a university in the South African context. One of the
research questions explored the relationship between students’ resilience and
academic achievement. The researcher recruited 500 students and assessed
academic achievement through three items: the number of modules failed, the
number of modules completed with distinction, and self-reported satisfaction with
academic progress. The researchers used the YERS (Youth Ecological Resilience

80
Scale) by Van Breda (2017) to assess resilience. The study used IBM SPSS v23
to analyse the data, with the researcher basing resilience data on students’
vulnerability index. Students who scored higher from the median on the
vulnerability index were included in the analysis; therefore, 232 of the original
500 students were included in the remaining study. The researcher used a
Spearman correlation test reflecting the non-normal distribution of the data on the
preliminary analysis. Of 21 variables representing resilience, 19 correlated to
academic progress; this meant that most resilience variables related to academic
progress. The highest significant correlation between resilience variables and
academic progress was learning orientation, rs=.30, p<.01.
Elizondo-Omaña et al. (2010), however, produced contradictory findings.
They investigated two groups of medical students to gauge resilience in a cross-
sectional survey. The study took place at a university in Mexico, with the first
group enrolled in a regular anatomy course, and the second group in a remedial
anatomy course. The Connor-Davidson resilience scale was used, with a
maximum score of 100. Meanwhile, anatomy course grades were used to assess
students’ academic performance. The scores ranged from 0 to 100, with 70 or
above considered a pass. The researchers gathered the responses into Microsoft
Excel. The Pearson correlation test was employed to examine the relationship
between resilience and anatomy grades between the two groups. The Pearson test
showed no correlation between resilience and the final anatomy score (r=0.10,
n=113, p>.05); this suggested that resilience was not related to academic
performance.
These three studies had contradictory findings: Beauvais et al. (2013) and
Van Breda (2018) revealed evidence that resilience was associated with students’
attainment, while Elizondo-Omaña et al. (2010) found the opposite. Although
there was inconsistency in past studies’ findings, some other studies described
that stressors might lead to disengagement in learning and attrition (Timmins and
Kaliszer; 2002; Yorke and Longden 2008). Meanwhile, resilience might
contribute to positive mental health and enhance students’ motivation and
concentration in learning (O’Connor, et al., 2019). In other words, resilience
might be associated with students’ performance. Therefore, this study

81
hypothesised that there was a relationship between resilience indicated with
protective factors and student academic achievement.
This researcher examined the association between protective factors and
academic achievement because protective factors could increase the likelihood of
academic achievement although students experienced difficult situations (Gizir &
Aydin, 2009). By examining the relationship between protective factors and
academic achievement, this research might find certain protective factors relevant
to students’ academic achievement, particularly in the context of young learners
in the undergraduate program in West Kalimantan, which past researchers did not
explore. The finding with regard the relationship among total scores of protective
factors, each subscale of protective factors, and academic achievement might give
information on what protective factors affected Indonesian undergraduate
learners’ academic success. This information might be essential for policymakers
to design programmes or activities that enhanced protective factors and prevent
undergraduate students’ maladaptation during their college degree studies.
Support programmes and activities in education might help students to cope with
stress and develop their resilience amid adversity in college life (Masten, 1994).
Resilience eventually might improve students’ academic success (Allan et al.,
2014).

2. 11. Conclusion

This chapter presented the existing research and debates related to

protective factors. Resilience research had shifted from examining personal
capabilities to mitigate adversity to exploring the effect of culture and context on
individuals' resilience, including resilience among undergraduates. Past resilience
researchers found that undergraduate learners' socio-demographic characteristics
might have meanings in certain cultures and contexts, which might influence
undergraduates' resilience during their college life. This study followed past
resilience researchers, using a socio-demographic framework to understand the
differences in protective factors among Indonesian undergraduates through an
assessment of their socio-demographic characteristics: gender, geographical area,
82
and SES. This study attempted to reveal whether there were variations in
protective factors among undergraduates in Indonesia due to their socio-
demographic characteristics. This chapter also presented debates on the
relationship between students’ resilience and their academic achievement. This
study attempted to clarify contradictory findings of past research about the
association between protective factors and undergraduate students’ academic
achievement.

83
 Chapter 3: Methodology

3. 1. Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate protective factors among

undergraduate learners in Indonesia. Specifically, the research questions were
whether there were differences in protective factor scores across Indonesian
undergraduate students’ socio-demographic characteristics – gender, place of
origin and socio-economic status (SES) – and to examine the correlation between
these protective factor scores and academic achievement. Several procedures had
been carried out in order to address these research questions. The section
‘ontological and epistemological perspective’ was to decide the ontological and
epistemological positions. In this section, this researcher evaluated the debates on
positivism and constructivism as philosophical assumptions in social research.
The next section, ‘research methodology’, provided information on various
methods of conducting research, quantitatively and qualitatively. The
‘methodology of this current research’ section evaluated the strengths and
drawbacks of quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigating resilience
based on past resilience research and provided information regarding the decision
of this researcher to apply a quantitative approach for this current resilience
research. The succeeding section, ‘research questions’, outlined the research
questions, that guided this research. The ‘survey method’ section elaborated the
method used in this study – cross-sectional survey – and the instrument employed
to collect data – the SPF (Scale of Protective Factors). The section ‘participants’
presented detailed information on participants, sample size and data collection
procedures. The next section, ‘data analysis’, covered variables within this study,
and the way data was analysed for each research question. The final section,
‘ethics of this study’, highlighted respect, privacy and confidentiality, and
maximising benefits while minimising harm to participants in this study.

84
3. 2. Ontological and epistemological perspectives

All scientific research was based on philosophical foundations or

assumptions. Researchers aware of the philosophical assumptions behind
research might better understand what underlie research choices (Neuman,
2006). Ontological and epistemological positions were two areas of philosophy
that provided a framework for thinking about the meant of acquiring knowledge
about social phenomena (Couch, 1987). Ontology was “the study of being”
(Crotty, 1998, p. 18), and was concerned with the nature of existence or reality
(Crotty, 1998). Ontological assumptions in social science concerned the nature of
the social phenomena under investigation. For example, social researchers might
ask whether social reality had an objective nature or was a result of human
construction; whether reality was something that existed independently or was
created in individuals’ minds (Pring, 2015, cited in Cohen, Manion and Morrison,
2018). These questions sprang from debates over two ontological positions within
social science: positivism and constructivism (Burrel and Morgan, 1979; Cohen
et al., 2018; Neuman, 2006).
Positivism was based on the ontological assumption that the world existed
as an objective reality that was value-free (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006), or
existed independently of individuals (Cohen et al., 2018). Positivism was used in
social science, based on the belief that the social world could be studied in the
same way as the natural world, where the social world was also value-free, and
the nature of causal explanation could be elucidated by way of scientific
description (Mertens, 2019). Therefore, positivism applied in social science took
the stance that social scientists were observers of social reality (Cohen et al.,
2018). As observers, positivists in social science examined social reality based on
assumptions held by scientists: first, the assumption of determinism, which meant
that events were determined by external circumstances, or it could be interpreted
that there were causal links that could be uncovered or understood; second, the
assumption of empiricism; this referred to the collection of verifiable empirical
evidence to support theories or hypotheses; the third assumption, parsimony,
posited that phenomena should be explained in efficient and simple ways; and the

85
fourth assumption, generality, allowed that social researchers might generalise
the findings of their observations to the world at large (Cohen et al., 2018).
Meanwhile, constructivism/interpretivism referred to reality’s “socially
constructed” nature (Merten, 2005, p. 12). Reality was socially constructed by
people who were in the process of research, and researchers were regarded as
active agents who understood themselves or interpreted the world in which they
lived (Barr Greenfield, 1975; Schwandt, 2000). This meant that the ontological
assumption of constructivism/interpretivism was that the reality or phenomenon
was attached to the views of individuals being studied (Creswell, 2003), as they
had their own reasons for their actions (Neuman, 2006). In other words,
constructivist and interpretivist researchers tried to understand reality through the
eyes of participants (Cohen et al., 2018). Some assumptions of
constructivists/interpretivists were that: first, people acted intentionally and made
meaning through their actions (Blumer, 1969); second, reality was complex, and
dense description was employed to represent the complexity of a situation
(Geertz, 1973); third, the social world was studied in a natural setting
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007); fourth, events and individuals were unique
and not generalisable (Cohen et al., 2018); and last, situations changed over time,
and were not static or fixed, which indicated that people’s behaviour evolved
over time and was influenced by context (Cohen et al., 2018). In short, the
ontological position of constructivism/interpretivism was that reality was a result
of individuals’ construction, and was created in individuals’ minds (Pring, 2015).
Therefore, reality was not assumed to exist independently, as had been suggested
by positivists; instead, reality existed because people experienced it and attached
meaning to it (Neuman, 2006), so that it could not be separated from individuals’
opinions.
In relation to this study, the decision on which the ontological position of
this study was based derived from the research questions of this research. This
study aimed to probe the differences in protective factors (social support, social
skills, planning behaviour and goal efficacy) across Indonesian young
undergraduate students’ socio-demographic characteristics – gender (male or
female), geographical area (provincial city or rural), and socio-economic status

86
(low or middle/high SES – and examine the correlation between protective
factors and academic achievement (GPA). Drawing from these research
questions, this researcher claimed that the phenomena of differences in protective
factors and the relationship between protective factors and academic achievement
had an objective nature and existed independently from the individual’s mind
(Cohen et al., 2018). The differences in protective factors across young
undergraduate students’ socio-demographic factors and the relationship between
protective factors and academic achievement were not interpreted by participants
or socially constructed, but existed independently and the explanation of
differences could be provided using scientific description without involving
people’s opinions (Cohen et al., 2018; Merten, 2019). Therefore, it could be
concluded that positivism was the ontological position of this study.
Another area of philosophical foundation was epistemology, which was
concerned with how to reveal reality (Burrel and Morgan, 1979). Researchers’
decisions on how to reveal reality might be affected by their own ontological
positions – positivism or constructivism (Cohen et al., 2018). Positivists valued
the nature of knowledge as objective reality that existed apart from subjective
reasoning (Neuman, 2006). They learnt about knowledge or reality by making
careful and neutral observation (Cohen et al., 2018; Neuman, 2006). Empirical
evidence was gathered and verified using reliable methods and procedures in
order to be objective, obtain accurate representation, and eliminate personal bias
that might lead to inaccuracy (Blaike, 2007; Merten, 2019). The main aim of a
quantitative study was to discover causal laws or principles to understand and
predict general patterns of human behaviour (Neuman, 2006). In line with the
ontological position, reality existed independently and was separate from inner
thought and perceptions; therefore, empirical evidence produced in positivist
research into reality could be verified as consistent with evidence, and the results
of verification could be used as generalisation for predicting human behaviour.
By contrast, constructivists claimed that social reality was constructed
through individuals’ lived experience, so that social researchers could gather
information about experience from individuals in a specific context (Creswell,
2009). These social researchers discovered an experience based on individuals’

87
inner thoughts, subjective views and interpretations, because they were the ones
who lived the experience, or who engaged with that experience in their daily lives
(Schwandt, 2000). Furthermore, because the experience occurred within a
specific context, social researchers included the effects of time and place in their
interpretation. In this way, constructivist researchers interpreted reasons for
people’s behaviour in specific settings (Neuman, 2006). It was clear that
constructivists produced knowledge through careful interpretation of individuals’
opinions or activities, which meant that the researcher and reality could not
remain separate (Lapan et al., 2012). This was in line with the constructivist
ontological position that reality or knowledge was socially constructed by people
in the research process, and researchers should try to understand the complexity
of the reality of experience from the point of view of individuals who lived the
experience (Schwandt, 2000). As this was based on the understanding of
researchers, constructivists emphasised that research was a product of the values
of researchers and could not be independent from them (Mertens, 2019).
In relation to this study, the epistemology depended on the ontology. As
explained earlier, this study was underpinned by positivism as its ontological
position, and this researcher revealed that the reality of differences of protective
factors across students socio-demographic factors (gender, geographical area and
SES) and the association between protective factors and academic achievement
could be understood through careful and neutral observation, using measurement
and reliable procedures or method (Carson et al., 2001; Cohen et al., 2018; Huson
and Ozanne, 1998; Neuman, 2006). This researcher eliminated bias that might
cause inaccuracy in explaining description in differences or relationships by
disregarding individuals’ thoughts, opinions or interpretation (Blaike, 2007;
Merten, 2009). Therefore, the epistemological position of this study – the way to
described differences in protective factors by students’ socio-demographic
characteristics and correlation principles between protective factors and academic
achievement – was to use rational and logical approaches and reliable methods
apart from subjective reasoning, based on positivist philosophical assumptions
(Carson et al., 2001; Huson and Ozanne, 1998). This epistemological position
was aimed at obtaining empirical evidence that could be verified to support the

88
hypothesis of this study (Cohen et al., 2018), and could be used for generalisation
in predicting patterns (Neuman, 2006) in protective factors.

3. 3. Research Methodology

Research methodology referred to the collection of methods for

implementing research, and the principles that underpinned the approach to be
used (Creswell, 2009; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006; Punch, 2009). The
development of research methodology was based on ontological and
epistemological positions (Walter, 2006). The quantitative approach was
associated with positivism (Punch, 2009). This approach consisted of organised
methods using deductive strategies (taking as starting points established patterns
or theories) to gather precise empirical observation regarding individuals’
behaviour. The objective was to identify probabilistic interacting elements:
relationships or causal effect laws that could be used to predict general patterns of
human behaviour (Neuman, 2006). The core components of design and analysis
of the quantitative approach consisted of two major fields: (1) comparison
between groups based on experiments, with the t-test and analysis of variance as
the main statistical features; and (2) relationships between variables based on
non-experiments – also called causal comparative between variables that did not
involve the experiment of treatment variables (Merten, 2019), with analysis of
correlation and regression as the main features (Punch, 2009). The instruments
used to collect data for the quantitative approach might include
questionnaires/surveys, tests or checklists (Black, 1999).
In relation to this study, this research methodology was influenced by the
ontological position of this study – positivism – and the epistemological position
– revealing the reality of differences of protective factors across students’ socio-
demographic characteristics through careful and neutral observation. These two
philosophical assumptions underpinned quantitative study as the approach to
investigate the phenomena of protective factors in this research. The design of the
quantitative approach that this study adopted was descriptive research, without
involving treatments or experiments. This was in line with one of the designs for
using a quantitative approach suggested by Merten (2019) and Punch (2009).

89
Non-experimental descriptive research in this research was employed to
investigate how the protective factors among Indonesian young undergraduate
students might or might not vary across their socio-demographic characteristics –
gender, geographical area, and SES. This study also examined differences in
subfactors of protective factors– social support, social skills, planning behaviour
and goal efficacy – across students’ demographic characteristics. Finally, the
correlational analysis was conducted between two non-treatment variables – the
total scores for protective factors, and students’ academic achievement. The
correlational analysis between each subfactor – social support, social skills,
planning behaviour and goal efficacy – and academic achievement was also
carefully examined. All these investigations were evaluated through statistical
measurement as an objective method, without involving inner thoughts that might
lead to inaccuracy or bias in correlational analysis (Creswell, 2003).
If positivism was related to the quantitative approach in research
methodology, constructivism was associated with the qualitative approach
(Punch, 2009). This approach included inductive strategies (having starting points
with descriptions of the phenomena being studied) to generate meaning from data
collected in the field, addressing the process of interaction among individuals,
and relying on participants’ views in the specific context being studied (Creswell,
2003). In this way, the qualitative approach allowed researchers to examine social
processes in context, and to gather data by documenting real events or
documents, for example recording participants’ actual opinions, observing
people’s behaviour, and examining written documents (Neuman, 2006). Research
designs associated with the qualitative approach included narrative research,
phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory study and case study (Creswell,
2003). The core component of data analysis in qualitative study covered
analysing data to form themes and categories, looking for broad patterns and
positing generalisations or theories from past experiences and literatures
(Creswell, 2003). Instruments that could be used to collect data are observation,
interviews, documents, and audio-visual materials, such as photographs, videos,
or art objects (Creswell, 2003).

90
 This researcher rejected the application of a qualitative approach in this
study because it would not be in line with the research questions of this study –
investigating whether there were differences in protective factors by Indonesian
young undergraduate learners’ social demographic factors and correlational
element between protective factors and academic achievement. Quantitative
study was useful in describing differences and identifying correlation while a
qualitative approach was useful in determining how the correlational process
works (Cohen et al., 2018). This meant that a qualitative approach might describe
how the reality of differences in protective factors by students’ socio-
demographic characteristics occurred because this approach involved reasons,
understanding, and perceptions among individuals as the actors who felt and lived
in the situation (Cohen et al., 2018). Such information was not uncovered through
a quantitative approach, which might provide materials for correlational analysis,
but not for a process explanation of how the correlation happened. Since this
study was aimed not at examining the process of the availability of protective
factors, but at describing the differences in protective factors by young
undergraduate students’ socio-demographic factors and the relationship between
protective factors and academic achievement, this researcher adopted a
quantitative approach through statistical analysis in order to examine differences
and correlation. The details of the methodology of this current research were
explored in the following section.

3. 4. Methodology of this current study

This current study was aimed at investigating protective factors among

young undergraduate learners in Indonesia. Resilience was the dynamic process
that produced positive adaptation under adversity (Masten, 2014). In this dynamic
process, protective factors – both individual characteristics and external
conditions – might serve as methods or mechanisms to help individuals resist
hardships they were exposed to (Rutter, 2012); therefore, protective factors
functioned as stress-mitigators among individuals experiencing the resilience
process (Kaplan, 2013). It was said that protective factors were not only internal,
personally related, but also external, socially related (Rutter, 2012). This was in
91
line with the socio-demographic approach of resilience (as discussed in chapter
2), which emphasised the importance of individuals’ capacity to use the
protective factors around them – such as family, school, peers and community –
as opportunities to increase their psychological functioning in order to develop
resilience under adversity (Ungar, 2012). Social ecological resilience theory was
initially derived from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological (1979) and bio-ecological
framework for human development (2005). This theory of ecological systems
was based on the concept that to understand human development, the entire
ecological system where growth occurred should be taken into account
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 2005). In other words, humans developed according to
their environment. Therefore, understanding resilience as an ecological construct
should involve the study of the environment around the individuals that
influenced them in developing their ability to function in adversity. Drawing on
Ungar’s social ecological theory for resilience (2012), and Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological (1979) and bio-ecological system theory for human development
(2005), the availability of personally related and socially related protective
factors might differ, based on students’ socio-demographic profiles, including
gender, geographical area, socio-economic status, and academic achievement, as
discussed in this study.
The investigation of the protective factors across individuals’ socio-
demographic contexts had been conducted in past studies qualitatively and
quantitatively. For example, by using a qualitative approach, William et al.
(2017) explored perceptions of economically disadvantaged students in the
District of Columbia in relation to protective factors that contributed to their
learning achievement; Abukari (2018) investigated external protective factors that
contributed to resilience among 30 freshman college students in Ghana, a context
in which students faced academic and socio-economic adversities; and Kim, Kim
and Kim (2018) examined the components (protective factors and risk factors)
that influenced the resilience of EFL learners in primary and secondary schools in
South Korea. These researchers used semi-structured interview to collect data
regarding protective factors for resilience.

92
 These qualitative studies (Abukari, et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2018; William
et al., 2017) reported detailed information in relation to the protective factors at
students’ disposal, and how they used them to cope with their problems. For
example, Abukari (2018) discovered that supportive families helped students
through their educational experiences. Based on students’ experience, the
researcher grouped family-related protective factors into four categories: esteem
support, informational support, instrumental support, and companionship support,
and elaborated on each category with examples. The researcher also quoted
students’ testimony in support of the findings. Such studies showed how a
qualitative approach facilitated researchers in obtaining rich or detailed
descriptions revealing a picture of what was going on, uncovering the process of
developing resilience (Becker, 1970; Maxwell, 1992; Ungar, 2003). Furthermore,
direct testimony or natural language allowed researchers to examine the process
involving protective factors in context (Neuman, 2006), and allowed the reader to
understand protective factors as a whole, rather than in part (Gerdes and Conn,
2001). It also helped readers to use the research report to reflect on their own
experiences (Tracy, 2007).
Meanwhile, Ponce‐Garcia et al. (2016) quantitatively investigated gender
differences in the availability of protective factors among those who reported
sexual assault (n=173) and other forms of traumatic stress (n=132). The
participants in the research were emerging adults attending three universities in
the US. The researchers used the SPF (Scale of Protective Factors) (Ponce‐Garcia
et al., 2015) consisting of 24 items assessing four subscale protective factors:
social support, social skill, planning behaviour and goal efficacy. The researchers
revealed evidence that gender significantly affected protective factors for
resilience. Female students reported significantly higher protective factors than
male students in each subscale of protective factors assessed (mean=3.86 vs
mean=3.57, p<.01 for social support, mean=4.02 vs mean=3.54, p<.01 for social
skills, mean=3.87 vs mean=3.58, p<.01 for planning behaviour, mean=4.22 vs
mean=3.96, p<.01 goal efficacy).
Ponce‐Garcia et al. (2016) showed that the quantitative approach
performed strongly in identifying determinants and correlations in resilience

93
research. It allowed these researchers to reduce the complexities of variables that
might affect resilience by controlling independent variables like gender, race, and
so forth. Furthermore, relationship evaluation was through tight statistical
analysis; the researchers used statistics software packages and applied appropriate
statistical testing to measure relationships in these studies. All of this information
showed that the quantitative approach could achieve objectivity in seeking
causality and relationships in protective factors for resilience through tight
control in the research design and statistical analysis (Creswell, 2003). This
suggested that the quantitative approach offered reliable and valid measurements
so that data quality could be ensured, and mechanisms of risk factors and
protective factors were explored, so that specific interventions and prevention
could be designed based on study findings.
These studies showed that both qualitative and quantitative approaches had
contributed benefits to investigating protective factors for resilience. However,
they might also have limitations. For example, the qualitative approach might be
very useful for investigating protective factors for resilience in depth, as it might
reveal the process of resilience – how and why participants survived or developed
in adversity (Becker, 1970; Maxwell, 1992; Ungar, 2003). Nevertheless, the
qualitative approach might not be relevant in meeting the purpose of this study,
which was to investigate the differences in protective factors by socio-
demographic characteristics of students – gender, geographical location, socio-
economic status– and the relationship between protective factor scores and
academic achievement. This was because differences and relationships could not
be observed directly, due to their complexity. This researcher, therefore, chose
the quantitative approach because it could reduce the complexity of description of
differences and relationship within a limited number of highly controlled
variables and observe the relationship in an objective manner (Mertens, 2019).
Understanding a value-free description of differences among groups and
relationship could be achieved through the test of hypothesis; the independent
variable was presumed as a cause, and the dependent variable was assumed as a
potential effect (Bachman, Schutt, and Plass, 2015).

94
 In relation to this study, this researcher assumed there were differences in
the independent variable–protective factor scores– for two independent groups in
gender– male-female–, geographical area– city of province and rural area– and
SES –low SES and middle/high SES. Meanwhile, the protective factor scores and
academic achievement were independent variables and are assumed to have a
relationship effect. The quantitative approach could attain a quality of objectivity
in seeking comparison and relationships among protective factors. It achieved
this through tight control in design and statistical analysis, obtaining objective
data resulting from empirical observation and measurement, and valid, reliable
instruments that led to a meaningful interpretation of data (Creswell, 2003). This
approach was conceived to obtain accurate findings so as to generate comparison
in protective factors among Indonesian young undergraduate learners across their
varied backgrounds (Neuman, 2006) and relationship between protective factors
and academic achievement. This study would measure students’ protective
factors for resilience by using the SPF designed by Ponce‐Garcia et al. (2015);
the rationale for using this scale would be described in the section ‘survey
method’ later in this chapter.

3. 5. Research questions

This study consisted of two research questions:

RQ1:
Were there any gender differences (male or female), place of origin differences
(provincial city or rural area), or SES differences (low SES or middle/high SES)
among Indonesian undergraduate learners in relation to total scores and subscale
scores for protective factors, as measured by the SPF (Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015)?

RQ2:
Was there any correlation between Indonesian undergraduate students’ total
scores and sub-scale scores for protective factors, as measured by the SPF
(Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015), and their academic achievement, as measured by
GPA?

95
3. 6. Survey method

The aforementioned research questions required a description or an

exploration of relationships in relation to the protective factors for resilience;
therefore, this study used a survey design, because a survey could provide
information on comparison and correlation in an objective way. A survey was a
research design that provided numeric descriptions in relation to trends, opinions,
or attitudes in a population sample (Creswell, 2003). Survey research could cover
cross-sectional or longitudinal studies (Creswell, 2003). A cross-sectional study
collected data at a particular point in time, while a longitudinal study gathered
data over a period of time (Cohen, 2018). This cross-sectional survey compared
the predictor variables – gender, geographical area, and SES – on a criterion
variable, the scores for protective factors among Indonesian undergraduate
students at a single point in time.
A cross-sectional survey was suitable for, and efficient in, estimating the
prevalence of behaviours or phenomena through a representative sample of a
population at a single point in time (Sedgwick, 2014). This cross-sectional survey
allowed this researcher to compare protective factors between two groups in
gender (male and female), geographical area (city of province and rural area) and
SES (low SES and middle/high SES) and to investigate the association between
protective factors and academic achievement through a representative sample of
Indonesian young undergraduate learners within a single time in the academic
year of 2020. It contributed to time and cost efficiency, and to ease of use and
process in measuring the association, because it was a zero- to long-term
procedure, giving this study better control over the ascertainment process.
Furthermore, a cross-sectional study could be used repeatedly at different times to
assess trends over time, and repeated cross-sectional study data could contribute
to the longitudinal study of parallel groups (Cohen, 2019). This research data
related to the protective factors among Indonesian undergraduate learners in the
academic year of 2020, and the data could be used for future research as a part of
a longitudinal study into changes in protective factors for resilience. Nonetheless,
despite its advantages, a cross-sectional study might be ineffective for studying

96
change (Cohen, et al., 2019), except where the cross-sectional study was carried
out repeatedly, with samples drawn from similar populations. This current
research could not be used to assess changes in protective factors among
Indonesian undergraduate learners; it generated data only on protective factors
and their differences across Indonesian undergraduate students’ characteristics in
the academic year of 2020.
To collect data in a cross-sectional survey, researchers might use
questionnaires, structured interviews, observation and content analysis (De Vaus,
2013). This current cross-sectional survey used closed-ended questionnaires to
collect data on protective factors for resilience. A closed-ended questionnaire was
quick and easy for participants to respond to, because it provided a list of possible
alternatives from which they may choose. Answers were easier to tabulate and
analyse than those from an open-ended questionnaire. On the other hand, a
closed-ended survey might have disadvantages, as the options or alternatives
provided might lead participants into certain directions and not allow them to
express their opinions (Hulley, 2007). However, the questionnaire in this research
offered the option of ‘neither agree nor disagree’ which meant that participants
were not forced to show certain directions of agreement in this research (Hulley,
2007).
This researcher used the Scale of Protective Factors offered by Ponce-
Garcia et al. (2015). This was a 24-item scale measuring factors of (1) social
support that consisted of family and peer support (six items), (2) social skills (six
items), (3) prioritising or planning behaviour that related to organising, planning
and goal setting (six items) and (4) goal efficacy that reflected sub-factors of
confidence, goal-setting and mastery (six items). The example items assessed
social supports were “My friends/family keep me up to speed on important
events” and “My friends/family see things the same way”, social skills were “ I
am good at socializing at new people” and “I am good at Interacting with
others”, planning behaviour were “ When working on something, I can see the
order in which to do things” and “When working on something, I plan things
out” and self-efficacy are “I am confident in my ability to achieve goals” and “I

97
am confident in my ability to think out and plan”. The complete version of the
SPF-24 was displayed in Appendix E.
Ponce-Garcia et al. (2015) validated the SPF scale in three batch studies. In
one of the batches, using a sample of 338 university students, the researchers
assessed the concurrent validity of the SPF-24 by analysing the relationship
between the SPF-24 and two previous resilience measures: the CD-RISC and the
RS. The correlational result found that the SPF-24 positively correlated with the
CD-RISC (r=.63, p< .01) and the RS (r=.61, p<.01). Ponce-Garcia et al. (2015)
also found evidence that the internal consistency of the SPF was .91. This meant
that the SPF assessed the same construct of resilience. However, the SPF
accounted for unique variance in social support, so it identified external
protective factors contributing resilience not covered in the CD-RISC or the RS.
The researchers also ran Model 1-respecification (Model 1 R) to identify the
confirmatory analysis testing how well the SPF represented the construct of
resilience. The evidence showed that the SPF had a significant X2; the CFI, IFI,
and TLI were higher than .93; and there was an RSMEA of .59 with a 90%
confidence interval of .052-.066, indicating good model fit. To conclude, as the
researchers had validated the SPF-24 questionnaire in several studies, it was
confirmed that the SPF-24 appeared to be a valid and reliable measure to assess
personally and socially related protective factors in order to determine
individuals’ resilience.
This researcher used the SPF-24 to assess protective factors among young
undergraduate students in Indonesia because the SPF offered a wider scope to
assess resilience embracing individual and social dimensions, as suggested by the
ecological framework for human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and socio-
demographic resilience concept (Ungar, 2012). The SPF-24 questionnaire used
responses indicating levels of agreement with each item using a seven-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree completely) to 7 (completely agree). The
SPF-24 consisted of 24 items, described in appendix E.

98
3. 7. Validity and reliability of the SPF Indonesian version

Validity referred to the degree to which the measurement evaluated what

it was supposed to measure (Bolarinwa, 2015). The SPF had been assessed for its
validity and reliability in the previous research, as explained in section 3.6.
However, this research used the Indonesian version of the SPF, which had not
been validated yet. Therefore, this researcher assessed the validation of the SPF
Indonesian version using Pearson’s r correlation coefficient (Odom and Morrow,
2006) with SPSS v25. This researcher made a composite of 24 analysed items.
This researcher labelled it as the total SPF. This researcher then used bivariate
correlation analysis for all items of the SPF and the total items to find the Pearson
Correlation of the SPF as Odom and Morrow (2006) suggested. The result
presented the total SPF’s Pearson Correlation and the significant level at the
following table of validity test of SPF.

99
100
 Results showed that the Pearson's Correlation scores ranged from
r(500)=.43 to .68, p<.01. After that, his researcher used the critical values for
Pearson's correlation coefficient and found that the value of correlation at the
level of 0.01(2-tailed) for 500 participants was r(500)=.114. The table of validity
test of the Indonesian SPF showed that the Pearson's Correlation scores for each
analysed item ranged from r=.439 to r=.689, which were higher than the
Pearson's correlation coefficient r(500)=.114 with the significant level p<.01; this
meant that the analysed items of the SPF Indonesian version were valid.
This researcher also analysed the reliability of the Indonesian SPF
questionnaire. Reliability referred to the consistency of the questionnaire to
produce similar results on the repeated trials (Deniz & Alsaffar, 2013). Internal
consistency indicated a correlation of different items to measure the same
attribute (Parmenter, Waller, and Wardle, 2000). As Deniz and Alsaffar (2013)
suggested, this researcher used Cronbach's alpha to assess whether the Indonesian
SPF questionnaire consisting of 24 items were correlated to measure protective
factors. The alpha value for the Indonesian SPF version was .90. The acceptable
alpha value ranged from .70 to .95 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Moreover,
alpha values that were higher than .90 were described as strong (Taber, 2018).
Therefore, as the reliability test of the Indonesian SPF version showed that its
Cronbach's alpha value was .90, the items of the Indonesian SPF were reliable to
assess protective factors in the Indonesian context.

3. 8. Participants

The participants in this current study were young undergraduates studying

in the province of West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Based on data from the
Indonesian Ministry of Education, the total number of undergraduate students
who studied in West Kalimantan in the academic year 2020 were n=98,255
(n=47,964 males and n=50,291 females) (PPDIKTI, 2020). The following
information related to the calculation of sample size and participant selection, and
procedures of data collection.

101
3. 8. a Sample size

The process of determining the sample size of this study was based on the
following steps: (1) calculating the sample size for an infinite population, and (2)
adjusting the sample size to this study population (Cochran, 1977). To determine
sample size for an infinite population, the researcher used the following formula
(Cochran, 1977; Cohen et al., 2019):

S = Z2*p* (1-p)/M2
S = sample size for infinite population
Z = Z score (95 % confidence level or 1.96)
P = population proportion (assumed to be 50% or 0.5)
M = margin of error (5% or 0.05)

The sample size for infinitive population is as follows:

S = (Z-score)2*p*/(margin of error)2
S = (1.96)2*0.5*(1-0.5)/(0.05)2
S = 3.8416*0.25/0.0025
S = 384.16

So, the sample size for an infinite population was 384.16. This researcher
then continued the calculation by adjusting for the population of this current
study (N=98,255)
Adjusted S = (S)/1+ [(384.16-1)/population]
Adjusted S = 384.16/1+ [(384.16-1)/98,255]
Adjusted S= 384.16/1.00389964
Adjusted S= 382.667733

This researcher thus determined the minimum sample size for the 98,255
population to be 383 students. Therefore, based on a confidence level of 95%, as
suggested by Cochran (1977) and Cohen et al. (2019), and the population of
undergraduate students in West Kalimantan province (n=98,255), this researcher

102
proposed to the ethics committee of Queen’s University Belfast recruiting 384
undergraduate students as a minimum number of participants.
The potential respondents were asked to fill out the demographic
characteristics about gender, geographical area and SES. Participants’ SES was
assessed through parents’ educational background and monthly income. The pre-
survey questionnaire also consisted of academic-related questions, such as year of
enrolment, study program, and GPA score. Appendix D displayed the full version
of the demographic questionnaire. These socio-demographic questions were
designed to select participants based on the criteria that this study sought.
Therefore, this researcher could get a nearly equal number of participants to make
comparison and relationship analysis based on this study’s research questions
related to gender, geographical area, SES and academic achievement. After the
socio-demographic questionnaire was launched, there were 617 young
undergraduate learners interested in joining the research.
The followings were the description of socio-demographic characteristics
of potential respondents. In terms of gender, the potential participants consisted
of 50.70% (n=313) females, 48.80% (n=301) males, and 0.50% (n=3) prefer not
to say. There were 39% and 61% of participants from the provincial city and rural
areas, respectively. Meanwhile, concerning SES, this researcher categorized
parents’ income into three groups: having income less than IDR 2.5 million per
month (n=373, 60.40%), between IDR 2.5 million (n=207, 34%) and 5 million,
and more than IDR 5 million (n=37, 6%). Father’s educational level comprised
three categories: primary school (n=167, 27%), secondary school (n=323, 52%)
and university (n=127, 21%). Similarly, mother’s educational background
consisted of three groups: primary school (n=204, 33%), secondary school
(n=329, 53%), and university (n=84, 14%).
This researcher then selected a certain number of participants to achieve a
nearly equal number by gender, place of origin and SES. The participant selection
was described in the following section (Part 3.8.b). There were 500 participants
selected to continue to the main survey. The demographics of the study were as
follows. In terms of gender, there were 50% of female (n=250) and 50% male
(n=250) taking part in this research; this number nearly approached an equal ratio

103
between male and female students in West Kalimantan in the academic year 2020
based on PPDIKTI are (n=47,964, 48.80% males and n=50,291, 51.20% females,
n=98,255 in total). This research also had nearly proportional ratio in SES
(n=265, 53% low SES, n=235, 47% middle/high SES) and place of origin
(n=241, 48.20% provincial city and n=259, 52.80% rural area).
When this researcher distributed a demographic questionnaire, she
informed potential respondents that the demographic questionnaire would be used
to select participants based on their demographic background; therefore, some
potential participants would not continue to the primary survey. In this way, the
researcher had set the rules and informed the rules to potential participants.
Therefore, this researcher had followed broad approaches to make ethical
decisions in the research: establishing a set of rules and following the rules (de
Vaus, 2013).
The effort of getting an equal number of participants for each sub-group of
gender, SES, and place of origin was to carry out contrastive analysis (Teddlie
and Tashakkori, 2009). Equal sample size might affect statistical power (Rusticus
& Lovato, 2014). A two-sample group test might fail to maintain its significance
level and cause type 1 error when the sample sizes were unequal (Zimmerman,
2004). However, selecting and removing potential respondents in this study might
lead to bias. Although this purposive sampling might lead to bias results, this
sampling method might maintain the significance level and avoid the type 1 error
for this research. Therefore, this researcher selected potential participants based
on their demographic background (Appendix: D) to compare groups with an
equal number of participants to avoid the type 1 error. The followings were the
details related to the process of this researcher recruiting the participants and
collecting data for this study.

3. 8. b Participation selection and procedure for data collection

The population of this research comprised undergraduate students from

West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. As mentioned earlier, there were 98,255
undergraduate students (n=47,964 males and n=50,291 females) in the province
104
in the academic year 2020 (PPDIKTI, 2020). This large population was widely
spread over several counties in the province; this would make it costly to select as
a wider population a random sample from each region as representative of
undergraduate students in West Kalimantan. Therefore, this researcher did not
use probability/random sampling – a sampling technique in which the sample was
taken from a wider population using the theory of probability or random selection
(Cohen et al., 2018). Besides, this researcher had no access to this population’s
sampling frame, a list of names of undergraduate students in West Kalimantan.
Probability sampling required a population list to establish that every member
had a chance of being selected (Cohen et al., 2018). Therefore, in this situation,
where the sampling frame was unavailable and the population was so widely
dispersed, it was unnecessary or impractical to use probability sampling (De
Vaus, 2013). This researcher had taken up the suggestion that she used non-
probability sampling (De Vaus, 2013), a strategy in which the researcher targeted
a particular group as a sample (Cohen et al., 2018).
The specific type of non-probability sampling used for this study was
purposive sampling, a sampling strategy in which the researcher selected the
sample based on typical or characteristics being sought (Cohen et al., 2018). This
purposive sampling was employed to achieve representativeness, so that in
relation to this current study, this researcher could compare (Teddlie and Yu,
2007) protective factor scores for resilience among Indonesian undergraduate
students across their demographic characteristics of gender, geographical area
and SES. The type of purposive sampling used in this study was homogeneous
sampling – samples were chosen because of their similarities, allowing the
researcher to carry out contrastive analysis (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009). By
using homogeneous sampling, this researcher picked samples by their typical
characteristics. For example, this researcher approached old-established
universities as these universities had larger numbers of students. In this way, this
researcher recruited participants from varied backgrounds, in line with the
demographic characteristic that this researcher sought. In this way, this sampling
strategy was efficient in terms of cost and time and included enough participants
to ensure representation in the sample, avoiding over-presentation of any

105
individual group in the final results (Gorard, 2003). However, while this sampling
strategy satisfied the researcher’s need to select potential participants, deliberate
selection of samples could lead to bias. The sample might not be representative of
the population because of the lack of random selection (De Vaus, 2013); in other
words, the result might not be generalisable.
The procedures for data collection in this study were as follows. Firstly,
the instrument used to collect data was translated into Indonesian. This researcher
translated the questionnaire into her native and participants’ native language,
Indonesian. The researcher also contacted two lecturers, as additional translators,
whose educational background was English language linguistics and whose first
language was Indonesian. It was suggested that the translation from the original
language to the target language was carried out by at least two translators (Tsang,
Royse & Terkawi, 2017). One translator was the one who understood the concept
of the questionnaire and what it was intended to measure. Another translator was
a naïve translator. This translator was unaware of the objective of the
questionnaire. Therefore, this study had involved several translators in keeping
the questionnaire concept the same across the languages. After translating the
questionnaire into Indonesian, the researcher and the two translators discussed the
discrepancies and resolved them by consensus among translators, as Beaton et al.
(2007) suggested.
During the preparation of translating questionnaire, the researcher received
ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committees of the School of Social
Science, Education and Social Works (SSESW) at Queen’s University Belfast
(reference number 145_1920), to collect data. This researcher approached three
universities. The criteria for selecting the universities were based on the
following: (1) universities located in West Kalimantan, (2) universities with older
traditions in provision of services (more than 20 years of existence), and (3)
universities located in areas where students were from diverse backgrounds. This
researcher then decided to select three universities in Pontianak, based on the
criteria. The researcher sent emails and information letter to the deans, heads of
study programmes, and class instructors. This researcher did not post the letter,

106
because all campuses in West Kalimantan were temporarily closed on local
government instructions due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
This researcher received approval from 11 class instructors from three
designated universities. This researcher then made appointments with the class
instructors to attend their online classroom sessions. At the end of class, this
researcher introduced her study by referring to information stated in the
information sheet for participants. Students were offered opportunities to ask for
any information in relation to this study during their online classes, and this
researcher answered their questions. The participants were informed that they
could contact this researcher via email or her WhatsApp number if they were
interested in joining this research. After classroom sessions, some students
contacted the researcher, who replied to potential participants’ messages, sending
out demographic forms for them to complete. Potential respondents who met the
study’s demographic representativeness criteria were contacted by this researcher
and asked to read the online information sheet, sign a consent form, and fill out
the questionnaire online.
All participants were rigorously informed that they could withdraw their
participation before 31 July 2020. After this date, all data was be coded, and the
responses no longer identifiable; this meant that withdrawal after 31 July 2020
was not be feasible. All information was treated confidentially on university
premises and handled in accordance with the provisions of the General Data
Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. The electronic data was
processed and stored on a designated SharePoint site, a secure and encrypted
network drive provided by Queen’s University Belfast. At the end of five years,
data would be securely destroyed. Each respondent/participant received an
electronic top-up telephone voucher, worth IDR 25,000 (equivalent to GBP
£1.25-£1.45). The incentive was given to participants as compensation for their
time and the internet cost of completing the questionnaire. This incentive was
funded by the LPDP (Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education), the sponsor of
this research.

107
3. 9. Procedure for data analysis

To analyse the data, this researcher initially carried out a normality test
using SPSS to check whether data was normally distributed among gender,
geographical area, SES and academic achievement; a normality test was
employed to determine whether sample data had been drawn from a normally
distributed population (Black, 1999). A normally distributed population showed
how the sample data conformed to a Gaussian shape, or the ideal mathematical
model (Black, 1999). One of the normality tests that could be used was the
Shapiro-Wilk test (Ghasemi and Zahediasl, 2012). This study used the Shapiro-
Wilk test to carry out a normality test for this research sample. The normality test
was needed to validate whether the correct statistical tests have been used, based
on the data presented (Ghasemi and Zahediasl, 2012).
The steps to check normality for this study were as follows. The researcher
calculated a mean across four protective factors for resilience: social support (six
items), social skills (six items), planning behaviour (six items), and goal efficacy
(six items). Therefore, this researcher had one mean for each participant,
representing the mean of total scores for protective factors for resilience. This
researcher then investigated (1) skewness and kurtosis z values (it should be
somewhere in the span of -1.96 to +1.96), (2) the Shapiro-Wilk test p-value (this
should be above .05), and (3) histogram (the visual outputs should indicate that
the data was approximately normally distributed). After carrying out the
normality test, this researcher reported sample characteristics – whether data was
normally distributed by gender, geographical area, SES and academic
achievement. The data of this study was not normally distributed in all categories
(gender, geographical location, SES, and academic achievement). Therefore, non-
parametric testing was employed to analyse data.
Research question 1 related to the investigation of gender, place of origin,
and SES differences respectively among Indonesian undergraduate learners in
relation to their total scores and subscale scores for protective factors, as
measured by the SPF. To compare two observed means of independent samples
for each category in gender – male and females; place of origin: provincial city

108
and rural area; and SES: low and middle/high SES – the researcher used the
Mann-Whitney U test. This non-parametric test was used because the data for
protective factors for resilience did not show normal distribution in all categories
(gender, place of origin and SES). After conducting the Mann-Whitney U test,
the researcher identified the p value in order to check the significant difference in
protective factors by gender, place of origin and SES. This researcher also
reported Eta squared η2 as effect size to measure the strength of the relationship
between two variables (Gignac, 2019; Lakens, 2013). The benchmarks to define
the degree of relationship were as follows: small (η2=0.01), medium (η2=0.06)
and large (η2=0.14) effects (Cohen, 1988).
RQ2 was to examine whether there was correlation between Indonesian
undergraduate students’ academic achievement, as measured by GPA, and total
and subscale scores of protective factors, as measured by the SPF (Ponce-Garcia
et al., 2015). The normality test showed that the data of total scores, subscale
scores for protective factors, and GPA was not normally distributed. Therefore,
this researcher used Spearman’s correlation test (a non-parametric test). The
strength of relationship of Spearman’s correlation coefficient was denoted by rs.
The closer rs is to +1, the stronger the monotonic relationship (Muijs, 2010). The
p value was obtained also to describe the significance of correlation.

3. 10. Ethics of this study

Some points were highlighted in relation to involving human participants

in a study. This researcher avoided any risks of harm or discomfort – physical or
psychological – to research participants (Bryman, 2015). This researcher
highlighted specific points – respect, privacy and confidentiality, and maximising
benefits and minimising harms – to ensure that no individual in this research
suffered any adverse consequences as result of this study; these points were based
on the guidelines of the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and
Conduct (2018).
To meet the principle of respect in the ethical conduct of research, this
researcher did the following. This survey research was based on voluntary
cooperation. The researcher visited potential respondents’ classes online after

109
getting approval from the lecturers. The researcher shared the link to potential
respondents in their online classrooms; those who wanted to join the research
filled out the demographic questionnaire. After selecting potential respondents
based on the demographic that this study sought, this researcher shared the link to
the potential respondents to continue the main survey.
The respondents who participated in this study had signed the informed
consent form. The respondents were also informed of what they were
volunteering for. The researcher provided brief description of (1) the purpose of
this current study, what topic it covered, and what questions the survey
addressed; (2) a statement in relation to protection of confidentiality for the
respondents’ responses; (3) a statement of assurance that cooperation was
voluntary and had no negative consequences for those who decided not to
participate; and (4) an assurance that respondents could skip any question they
did not want to answer. This researcher applied voluntary cooperation and got
consent from potential respondents; this meant that this researcher ensured that
the potential respondents had autonomous action to express their will to
participate or not in this research (Pieper and Thomson, 2014). Thus, this
researcher had adhered to the ethical principle of respect in research.
In terms of protecting the privacy of participants, this researcher had
following procedures. First, respondents’ email address list from Google form
was removed from the responses; therefore, the responses could not be
identifiable. This researcher used study codes to protect the confidentiality of
research participants. The codes identified information in the data collection
instruments in order to protect participants’ responses when the data documents
were stored. In other words, the data was treated anonymously (Convery and
Cox, 2012).
Second, the completed survey was not accessible to other people. The data
was stored in a private, password-protected computer that the researcher could
assess. Moreover, all the digital data was stored strictly on Queen’s University
Belfast premises and handled under the Data Protection Regulation Act 2018.
The data was stored in a locked room in the School of Social Sciences, Education
and Social Work. This meant that the stored location was a high-security data

110
centre, with fire and intrusion alarms, using relevant sensors monitored by
security personnel. This was in line with handling data and security policy for the
School of Social Sciences, Education & Social Work (SSESW), Queen’s
University Belfast. The electronic data was processed and stored on a designated
SharePoint site, a secure and encrypted network drive provided by the Queen’s
University of Belfast. At the end of five years, data would be securely destroyed.
In relation to maximising benefit and minimising harm, this researcher
had undertaken the following actions: (1) the 24-item questionnaire took
approximately 10 to 15 minutes, and the survey did not include any repetitive or
prolonged time; a short questionnaire and data collection over a single period of
time minimised potential pain to, or burden on, research participants; (2) the
questionnaire had been used widely in resilience research and did not contain any
information that leaded to labelling of the participants (e. g. “I am not normal”);
(3) participants were ensured that they were free to withdraw or modify their
consent; and (4) this researcher ensured anonymised and non-sensitive data in
this research, in order to minimise harm to participants.

3.11 . Conclusion

This chapter included the procedures that this researcher took to

investigate the differences in protective factors among undergraduate learners
based on their socio-demographic profiles and the relationship between protective
factors for resilience and students’ academic achievement. The chapter included
pertinent information about the paradigm and methodology that the researcher
used, based on these research objectives’ alignment. This researcher also
presented participants’ information to collect data and ethics to protect
participants’ rights and confidentiality in this research.

111
 Chapter 4: Findings

4. 1. Introduction

This chapter presented data collected through a questionnaire SPF (Ponce-

Garcia et al., 2015) examining protective factors among Indonesian young
undergraduate students in West Kalimantan, with statistical analysis of that data.
It began with the description of data collection, followed by analysis based on the
IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. The statistical
analysis comprised two main sections: descriptive analysis and inferential
analysis for each research question. The data and the analysis were aimed at
answering the following research questions and sub research question (Table: 1).

4. 2. Data collection

112
 The data in this cross-sectional study was collected online through an
anonymous electronic survey (Google Forms) from 4 June to 29 July 2020 to
measure protective factors among young undergraduate learners in Indonesia,
particularly in the province of West Kalimantan. The survey was conducted only
online, as this was the sole way to collect data while access to participants was
limited because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Traditional classes during the
pandemic period were replaced with distance learning, allowing no access to
collect data at on-campus classes in Indonesia. Therefore, all data collection
processes in this study, ranging from seeking approval from the institutions and
the class instructors to collecting data from participants, were conducted online.
To start the process of data collection, this researcher sent information
letters via e-mail to the deans, the heads of study programmes and the class
instructors at the three selected universities in West Kalimantan province:
University A (a private university), University B (a public university), and
University C (a public university). This researcher received approval from 11
class instructors to join their online class sessions and invite their students to take
part in this study. This was carried out via Google Classroom and Zoom. This
researcher introduced her research, opened question-and-answer sessions in
relation to the study, and asked the students to contact her by e-mail or WhatsApp
if they were interested in participating; 617 students contacted this researcher
expressing an interest in being questionnaire respondents. This researcher then
sent these potential participants a short demographic form (Appendix: D) seeking
information on gender (male or female), geographical areas (provincial city or
rural area) and SES (low, middle or high SES). The demographic characteristics
of potential respondents were shown in Table 2.

113
 Finally, after the initial screening, this researcher selected 500
undergraduates to continue to the main survey, as their demographic
characteristics met the categories this study sought. Meanwhile, 117 students
were informed that their characteristics did not match the study, and
consequently, they did not continue to the main survey. This purposive sampling
strategy was used in order to allow this researcher to work with a proportional
number of participants in relation to gender (male or female), geographical area
(provincial city or rural area) and SES (low, middle or high SES). The total
number of 500 participants in this study was in line with the sample size formula
achieving a 95% confidence level suggested by Cochran (1977) and Cohen et al.
(2018); the suggested sample size to provide a 95% confidence level for a
population of undergraduate students in West Kalimantan in the academic year of
2020 (n=98,255) (PPDIKTI, 2020) ranges from 384 to 659 participants.
This researcher gave participants the opportunity to withdraw their
participation by 31 July 2020. No participant withdrew their participation in this
study. After completing the online SPF questionnaire, participants received an
incentive as compensation for their time and internet costs. This researcher sent
each participant an electronic top-up telephone voucher, worth IDR 25,000
(equivalent to GBP £1.25-£1.45). This incentive was funded by the LPDP
(Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education), the sponsor of this research.
Starting from 1 August 2020, this researcher began the analysis process for the

114
data. This researcher coded the responses on 1 August 2020; this meant that at
this stage, all responses were unidentifiable so that withdrawal was no longer
feasible. The data was converted from Excel format to SPSS version 25.

4. 3. Sample characteristics

The population of this study comprised undergraduate students in West

Kalimantan in Indonesia. The province was chosen based on convenience of data
collection, as this researcher worked in this province and had network
connections to get access to the selected universities. Selection of the three
universities in West Kalimantan province for this study was based on the
following criteria: (1) the universities were located in West Kalimantan; (2) the
universities followed older traditions of providing services (more than 20 years of
existence); and (3) the university locations resulted in students coming from
diverse backgrounds. Based on these criteria, this researcher selected three
universities in the capital province of West Kalimantan, Pontianak. This
researcher used pseudonyms for the three universities in this study in order to
maintain confidentiality and protect their privacy. This researcher used certain
characteristics to identify the selected universities. University A was a private
university and had been providing higher education in Pontianak for
approximately 30 years; University B was a public university in Pontianak and
had been in operation for at least 60 years; and University C was also a public
university, in service for nearly 35 years. Participants were selected based on the
following criteria: (1) undergraduate students enrolled in the selected universities;
and (2) undergraduates in West Kalimantan province meeting the demographic
characteristics of this study by gender, geographical area and SES.
The demographic characteristics of this study (Table: 3) showed that this
research involved a nearly proportional number or participants by gender,
geographical area and SES in order to achieve representativeness so that this
researcher could compare across students on these three categories, as suggested
by Cohen et al. (2018) and Teddlie and Yu (2007). In relation to gender, with 250
females (50%) and 250 males (50%), this sample nearly achieved the percentage
of population of undergraduate students in West Kalimantan province in 2020

115
(PPDIKTI, 2020) by gender (n=98,255 in total, comprising n=47,964 (49%)
males and n=50,291 (51%) females). With regard to numbers of sample students
by geographical area, 241 participants reported that they were from a provincial
city (48.20%), and 259 reported they were from rural areas (51.80%).

This meant that in terms of geographical area, the sample students of this
current study also almost achieved balanced number. Meanwhile, the
classification of SES was based on a combination of participants’ self-reporting
regarding parents’ monthly income and educational background. Initially, in
terms of SES, this researcher planned to classify the group into low, middle, and
high SES. However, since only a few students had a background of parents’
income of more than IDR 5 million (n=37, 6%), and with a university
background as father’s and mother’s education level (n=127, 21%, n=84, 14%
respectively), this researcher decided to group SES into two groups, low SES and
middle/high SES. The merged group of middle and high SES enabled the sample

116
to reach an equal ratio in SES so that this researcher could carry out a
comparative analysis, as suggested by Teddlie and Yu (2007).
This researcher grouped SES based on the following steps. She coded 1 for
‘income less than IDR 2.5 million’ (equivalent to less than GBP £125), 2 for
‘income between IDR 2.5 and 5 million’ (equivalent to between GBP £125 and
250), and 3 for ‘more than IDR 5 million’ (equivalent to GBP £250). She also
coded education levels into 1 for primary school, 2 for secondary school and 3 for
university. Then, she added up the scores for parents’ income, and father’s and
mother’s education level, into composite SES points. Finally, she put a range of
raw scores of 3 to 5.9 into the ‘low SES’ group, as this group covered family
backgrounds with monthly income lower than the local government standard (less
than IDR 2.5 million), and parents’ primary education level. Meanwhile, the
range score 6 to 9 was labelled ‘middle to high SES’, as this score represented
IDR 2.5 million – minimum local wage in West Kalimantan. The graded score of
6 also represented at least one parent with a secondary education. Therefore,
based on the composite SES points, this study had two groups of SES: low SES
(n=265, 53%) and middle/high SES (n=235, 47%). This portion nearly reached
an equal ratio in SES, so that this researcher could carry out comparative
analysis, while avoiding over-presentation of either SES group in the final result,
as suggested by Gorard (2003). Meanwhile, in relation to academic achievement,
participants reported their most current GPA, ranging from 1 to 4.

4. 4. Data analysis

The steps of data analysis for this study started from coding the responses
to the SPF. The responses for social support (six items), social skills (six items),
planning behaviour (six items) and goal efficacy (six items) were coded into
scales ranging from 0=neither agree nor disagree, 1=strongly disagree,
2=disagree, 3=somewhat disagree, 4=somewhat agree, 5=agree to 6=strongly
agree (Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015). The total score for protective factors for
resilience was calculated by averaging all the responses. The total score for each
sub-factor was also calculated by averaging the responses. A score of 6
represented the highest index of protective factors in this study. Averages of total
117
scores for protective factors and total scores for each sub-factor of protective
factors for resilience were displayed as follows (Table: 4).

The average scores of the SPF were classified into three categories:
average scores of 3.24 or lower indicated low protective factors, 3.25 to 4.24
indicated moderate protective factors, and scores of 4.25 or higher indicated high
protective factors (Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015). As the mean score of protective
factors in this study was 4.86, the sample study's protective factor belonged to the
high category. This researcher conducted crosstabulation analysis using SPPS.
The crosstabulation was aimed to compare the average scores of young
undergraduate learners' protective factors by their gender, SES and place of
origin. The results were displayed as follows.

118
Cross-tabulation data

119
 Furthermore, this researcher carried out a normality test using SPSS to
establish whether or not the total scores for protective factors, and for each sub-
factor of protective factors for resilience, were normally distributed. The result of
the normality test informed whether a parametric or non-parametric test was used
by this researcher. After the normality test, this researcher carried out statistical
testing in relation to differences in total scores and subscale scores for protective
factors (social support, social skills, planning behaviour, and goal efficacy) for
resilience (RQ1) by gender (male or female), by geographical area (provincial
city or rural area), and by SES (low SES or middle/high SES). This researcher
also carried out statistical testing with regard to examining the relationship
between the total scores for protective factors (RQ2) and students’ academic
achievement, as well as the relationship between each subscale score for
protective factors and students’ GPA.

4. 4. a Preliminary data analysis

Before conducting statistical testing to answer the research questions of

this study, this researcher initially carried out a series of normality tests, as
suggested by Doane and Seward (2011), to assess the distribution of total scores
and sub scale scores of protective factors for resilience by gender, geographical
area, SES, and academic achievement. The Shapiro-Wilk test suggested that the
data of total scores and subscale scores of protective factors were not normally
distributed among both females and males, among students from both city of
province and rural area, and among students from low SES and middle/high SES
family (Appendix: G and J). Therefore, because data was not normally
distributed, the non-parametric test was used. This researcher used the Mann-
Whitney U-Test because the test was considered a powerful non-parametric test
to compare differences of two independent samples (Muijs, 2016).
A series of the Mann-Whitney U test were applied to assess the differences
of total scores and subscale scores of protective factors for resilience of two
independent variables in gender (female and male), in geographical area (city of
province and rural area) and in SES (low and middle/ high SES). Furthermore,
the Shapiro-Wilk test also suggested non-normal distribution of total scores and

120
subscale scores of protective factors for resilience and students’ GPA (Appendix
G and J). Therefore, based on the non-normal distribution data suggested by the
Shapiro-Wilk test results, a non-parametric correlation test through the
Spearman’s rho was conducted, as suggested by Muijs (2016).

4. 4. b Research question (RQ) 1

Research question (RQ) 1 related to gender analysis explored whether

there were any differences between male and female Indonesian undergraduate
students in relation to their total scores for protective factors for resilience, as
measured by the SPF (Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015). The Mann-Whitney U-Test
(Table: 7) revealed that the total scores for protective factors among male
Indonesian undergraduate students were statistically significantly higher than
those among females (U=26535, p=.004, η2=.017). The effect size of relationship
was small (η2=.017) (Cohen, 1988). The median of total scores for protective
factors was 4.80 for female students compared to 4.96 for male students,
suggesting that male Indonesian undergraduate students exhibited more
protective factors for resilience than did females. In other words, it could be
interpreted that Indonesian undergraduate male learners were more resilient than
their female counterparts.
The followings were the exploration of gender differences in relation to
the subscales score social support, social skill, planning behaviour and goal
efficacy, as measured by the SPF. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test were
shown in Table 5. In relation to social support this study revealed that there was a
significant difference (U= 26598.50, p<.01, η2=.01) between the social support
score for females and that for males (Table: 5 and Appendix: H). However, the
effect size for difference was small (η2=.01). The median social support – 4.75
for females compared to 4.92 for males – suggested that compared to females,
male Indonesian undergraduate students gained more social support from family
and friends as protective factors.

121
122
 In relation to gender differences in social skill protective factors among
young undergraduate learners in Indonesia, the results showed a significant
difference (U=26111.50, p<.01, η2=.02) between social skill for females, with
median score 4.52, compared to males, with a median score of 4.77.
Nevertheless, the effect size for difference was small (η2=.02). This suggested
that compared to females, Indonesian male undergraduate students reported that
they were more sociable. Meanwhile, in terms of planning behaviour protective
factor scores, the Mann-Whitney U-test (Table: 5) results suggested no
significant difference (U =30673 p=.72, η2=.02) between females (median=4.91)
and males (median=5.00) (Table: 5 and Appendix: H). This means that the
planning behaviour characteristics between the two groups – female and male
Indonesian undergraduate students – were similar. With regard to goal efficacy
protective factors, the Mann-Whitney U-test (Table: 5 and Appendix: H) results
showed no statistically significant difference by gender in the medians of 5.16 for
females and 5.33 for males (U=29605.50, p=.30, η2=.00), suggesting that goal
efficacy protective factors were not associated by gender.
Research question (RQ) 1 related to geographical area analysis focused on
the exploration of differences between undergraduate students from provincial
cities and those from rural areas in relation to their total scores and sub scale
scores for protective factors, as measured by the SPF. The Mann-Whitney U-Test
(Table: 5 and Appendix: H) revealed that the total scores for protective factors for
resilience among Indonesian undergraduate students from rural areas were
statistically significantly higher than those for the city-based students
(U=27820.50, p=.03, η2=.00). However, the effect size of the difference was
small (η2=.009). The median score for protective factors was 4.83 for provincial
cities and 4.93 for rural areas, suggesting that, compared to urban students, rural
Indonesian undergraduate students are more resilient, as reflected by their higher
scores for protective factors.
The followings were the analysis of geographical area (provincial city or
rural area) differences on each subscale of protective factors. The results of the
Mann-Whitney U-Test (Table: 5 and Appendix: H) suggested that the differences
in scores for social support between students from provincial cities, with a

123
median score of 4.83, and students from the rural areas, with a median score of
4.91, were not statistically significant (U= 28527.50, p=.09, η2=.00). This
suggested that students from provincial cities and from rural areas experienced
similar levels of social support from their families or friends.
Furthermore, results of the Mann-Whitney U-Test (Table: 5 and Appendix:
H) revealed that the differences in scores for social skill between students from
provincial cities, with a median score of 4.66, and from rural areas, with a median
score of 4.83, were not statistically significant (U=29407, p=.26, η2=.00). This
means that these two groups – undergraduate students from provincial cities and
from rural areas – had similar capabilities in social skills as protective factors for
resilience. Therefore, the researcher fails to reject the null hypothesis.
Moreover, there were no statistically significant difference (U=28919.50,
p=.155, η2=.004) (Table: 5 and Appendix: H) between students from provincial
cities (median=4.83) and those from the rural areas (median=5.00) in relation to
planning behaviour scores (Table: 5 and Appendix: H). This means that students
from provincial cities and rural areas had similar planning behaviour
characteristics.
Also, the results of the Mann-Whitney U-Test showed that the differences
were not statistically significant in relation to goal efficacy scores between
students from a provincial city, with median score 5.16, and students from the
rural areas, with median score 5.33 (U=28082.50, p=.05, η2=.00) (Table: 5 and
Appendix: H). This means that goal efficacy protective factors were not
associated with geographical area.
Research question (RQ) 1 related to SES analysis focused on the
differences in total scores and sub scale scores for protective factors, as measured
by the SPF around socio-economic status (SES), based on a combination of self-
reported parents’ monthly income, and parents’ level of education. The Mann-
Whitney U-Test result (Table: 5 and Appendix: H) revealed that the total scores
for protective factors between the low-SES group (median score=4.90) and the
middle/high-SES group (median score=4.86) were not statistically significantly
different (U=29184, p=.22, η2=.00). This meant that students from low-SES
families had similar protective factors to those from middle/high SES families.

124
 This section was related to the examination of the relationship of SES on
each subscale of protective factors. The result of the Mann-Whitney U-Test
(Table: 5 and Appendix: H) showed that the scores for social support between the
low-SES (median=4.90) and the middle/high-SES (median=4.83) groups were
not statistically significantly different (U=29058.50, p=.19, η2=.00) (Table: 5 and
Appendix: H). This means that students in both groups experienced similar social
support from their families or friends.
Furthermore, this researcher found evidence that there was no significant
difference in relation to the scores for social skill between students from low-SES
families, with median score 4.83, and students from middle/high-SES families,
with median score 4.66 (U=28785, p=.14, η2=.00) (Table: 5 and Appendix: H).
This meant that both groups – Indonesian undergraduate students from low-SES
families and those from middle/high-SES families – had similar characteristics in
terms of social skills protective factors for resilience.
Moreover, through the Mann-Whitney U-Test, this researcher found
evidence that the scores for planning behaviour protective factors between
Indonesian undergraduate students from low-SES families (median=5.00) and
from middle/high-SES families (median=5.00) were not statistically significantly
different (U= 31102, p=.98, η2=.00) (Table: 5 and Appendix: H). This meant that
planning behaviour was not associated with SES; students from low-income and
middle/high-income families have similar characteristics in planning behaviour.
In addition, the Mann-Whitney U-Test revealed that the scores for goal
efficacy were not statistically significantly different between the low-income and
middle/high-income Indonesian undergraduate student groups (U=29893.50,
p=.43, η2=.00) (Table: 5 and Appendix: H). Both groups had similar median
scores of 5.16. Therefore, it could be concluded that goal efficacy score had no
association with the SES of Indonesian young undergraduate students. In other
words, this study found evidence that students from low- and middle/high-income
families had similar characteristics in relation to goal efficacy protective factors.

125
4. 4. c RQ 2

RQ2 examined the correlation between Indonesian undergraduate

students’ academic achievement, as measured by GPA, and total scores and
subscale scores for protective factors, as measured by the SPF. The Spearman’s
rho result suggested a significant negative correlation between total scores for
protective factors for resilience and students’ academic achievement (rs(500)=-
.11, p=.00) (Table: 6 and Appendix: H). This negative correlation provided the
evidence that the variable of total scores for protective factors increased, while
the variable for GPA decreased. However, as could be seen, the sign of
correlation coefficient showed a weak negative correlation value of rs=-.11.

Table 6.
Spearman’s correlation coefficients between protective factors and GPA
Spearman’s coefficient p
Total protective factors -.11** .00
Social Support -.07 .08
Social Skill -.16** .00
Planning Behaviour -.04 .27
Goal Efficacy -.06 .18
**Correlation is significant at the level .001 (two tailed).

RQ 2 related to correlational analysis between Indonesian undergraduate

students’ academic achievement, as measured by GPA and subscale scores for
protective factors, as measured by the SPF, was as follows. The Spearman’s rho
test (Table: 6 and Appendix: H) showed no linear relationship between social
support scores and students’ academic achievement (rs (500)=-.07, p=.08). It
could be seen from Table 6 that the value of correlation was weak – rs=-.07 – and
had negative correlation, which meant that when the variable for academic
achievement increased, the variable for social support protective factors
decreased. However, the correlation was not significant.
Moreover, the Spearman’s rho test (Table: 6 and Appendix: H) showed a
significant negative relationship between social skill protective factors for
resilience and students’ academic achievement (rs(500)=-.16, p<.01). This meant
126
that when the variable for academic achievement increased, the variable for social
skill protective factors decreased. However, the value of correlation was weak, at
rs=-.165.
Furthermore, the Spearman’s rho test (Table: 6 and Appendix: H) showed
no linear relationship between planning behaviour scores and students’ academic
achievement (rs(500)=-.04, p=.27). The value of correlation was very weak, at
rs=-.04, and negative, which could be interpreted to indicate that when the
variable for planning behaviour increased, the academic variable decreased.
However, the correlation was not significant.
Last, the Spearman’s rho test results showed no linear relationship between
goal efficacy scores and students’ academic achievement (rs(500)=-.06, p=.18)
(Table: 6 and Appendix: H). The value of the relationship was very weak, at rs=-
.06. The negative relationship could be interpreted as indicating that when the
academic achievement variable increased, the goal efficacy protective factor
decreased. Nevertheless, the correlation was not significant.

4. 5. Conclusion

This chapter presented this study’s findings about gender, place of origin,
and SES differences concerning protective factors for resilience among
Indonesian undergraduate students and the association between students’
academic achievement and protective factors. This study found that there were
significant differences in Indonesian young protective factors by gender and
geographical area. Male undergraduate students were more resilient than their
female peers, and rural students were more resilient than their provincial city
peers. This study found a negative relationship between academic achievement
and total scores of protective factors for resilience. This researcher would discuss
these findings in the following chapter.

127
 Chapter 5: Discussion

5. 1. Introduction

Chapter 5 provided discussion of this study. This chapter was intended to

evaluate the results of this research in relation to gender, geographical area and
SES differences in Indonesian undergraduate learners’ protective factors. It did
this by linking the findings of this and previous studies to the effects of socio-
ecology on resilience, as suggested by Rutter (2006), Ungar (2011) and
Bronfenbrenner (2005). This chapter also used past pertinent research to evaluate
the findings of this study about the association between resilience and students’
academic achievement. The following discussion of the findings was organized
based on the order of research questions and sub research questions presented in
chapter 4.

5. 2. Discussion of the findings

Previous researchers (Al-Naser and Sandman, 2000; Bahadir-Yilmaz and

Oz, 2015; Bitz, 2011; Connor and Davidson, 2003; Elizondo‐Omaña et al., 2010)
had examined extensively the differences in university students’ protective
factors for resilience by gender, place of origin, and SES in various contexts, but
not in Indonesia. One study investigated the protective factors for resilience
among Indonesian undergraduate learners (Sugiarti et al., 2018), but that study
did not include the effect of socio-demographic factors on students’ resilience in
its analysis. Rutter (2006) claimed that resilience could be understood by
examining individual differences embedded in subjects’ culture and context in
their response to their stressors. This meant that individual resilience was a
reciprocal interaction between a person and his or her context to cope with and
survive adversity, as suggested by Ungar (2011) through his social ecology
resilience approach; culture and context might shape individual resilience.
Moreover, human development was based on bio-ecological bidirectional
interaction, as suggested by Bronfenbrenner in his ecological (1979) and bio-
ecological (2005) model of human development; a person’s characteristics played
128
a role in the process of navigating available resources surrounding him/her, and
environment also played a role in shaping human development.
Derived from Rutter’s (2006), Ungar’s (2011) and Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979; 2005) ideas, the resilience of individuals might be influenced by their
environment. This researcher, therefore, intended to examine the differences in
resilience by students’ socio-ecology factors – by gender (male or female),
geographical area (provincial city or rural area) and SES (low or middle/high
SES). These characteristics might have certain effects in the availability of
protective factors to undergraduate students, including to Indonesian
undergraduate students. Moreover, previous researchers (Allan et al., 2014; Dass-
Brailsford, 2005; Elizondo‐Omaña et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2015; Reyes et al.,
2015; Sarwar et al., 2010; Solomon, 2013) had explored the relationship between
protective factors for resilience and academic achievement, but they reported
contradictory findings. Therefore, the purpose of this study was also to examine
the relationship between protective factor scores and academic achievement. This
study might also explain inconsistencies in previous research results.
This study had been based on the socio-demographic framework in order
to understand resilience and the relationship between resilience and academic
achievement. It hypothesised that there were significant differences by gender,
geographical area, and SES in protective factors for resilience, and that there was
a linear relationship between protective factors for resilience and students’
academic achievement. This study’s results were consistent with what it
expected: that gender and geographical area were associated with students’
protective factors. However, the results failed to find evidence the relationship
between SES and undergraduate students’ protective factors. This area of the
study found a negative relationship between resilience and academic
achievement. The summary of the findings of this study was displayed in the
following table.

129
 The findings of this study might corroborate or contradict past similar
research. These findings might also be in line with experts have suggested in
relation to the effects of socio-demographic factors for resilience (Ungar, 2011;
Rutter 2006) and human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 2005) in total
scores for protective factors. To link these current research findings to existing
literature concerning differences in protective factors for resilience by
undergraduates’ socio-demographic characteristics, and the relationship between
resilience and students’ academic achievement, this researcher would present an
evaluation of findings of this current research in the following section.

5. 2. a RQ 1: Gender differences in protective factors

Were there any gender differences among Indonesian undergraduate

students in relation to total scores for protective factors and subscale scores for
social support, social skill, planning behaviour and goal efficacy, as measured by
the SPF?

This study found that total scores for protective factors were related to
gender; Indonesian undergraduate male students significantly had more protective
130
factors than their female peers. Among four subscale protective factors, male
Indonesian undergraduate learners returned significant higher scores in social
support and social skills than their female peers. No significant gender
differences were detected in planning behaviour or goal efficacy, but male
students’ mean scores were higher than females’ in these two subscales. Previous
studies supported this research finding. Male undergraduate students were
reported to have significantly higher resilience scores than females in Turkey
(Bahadir-Yilmaz and Oz, 2015; Erdogan et al., 2015; Pasha-Zaidi et al., 2020), in
the United Kingdom with EU and non-EU international college students
(McIntosh and Shaw, 2017), and in Kuwait (Al-Naser and Sandman, 2000). As
resilience was negatively associated with stress levels (Cheng et al., 2019), some
previous researchers revealed that females felt more stressed than do males,
supporting this research finding.
Some past studies reported that female undergraduates scored themselves
higher on average depression, anxiety, suicide attempts and avoidance coping
levels than did their male peers in the US (Beiter et al., 2015; Calvarese, 2015;
Misra et al., 2000), Jordan (Hamaideh, 2012), Canada (Rahimi et al., 2014),
China (Yang et al., 20150) and Indonesia (Marthoenis, et al., 2018). In line with
this, Malaysian female undergraduates (Sundarasen et al., 2020) reported higher
levels of negative feelings than did their male counterparts in response to the
Covid-19 pandemic. Females in the UK and some other countries reported that
they felt stressed and lonely during the Covid-19 pandemic due to childcare,
exhausting housework and their jobs, and social isolation (Etheridge and Spantig,
2020; Kowal et al., 2020; Minnelo, 2020). This meant that female undergraduate
students might be prone to suffer more than males in difficult situations during
their degree studies.
By contrast, some studies reported that female students were more
resilient compared to male counterparts, for instance, among United States
undergraduates (Ponce‐Garcia et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2020) and Indian
undergraduate medical students (Sundar and Archana, 2020). In line with this,
Indian male undergraduates reported that they felt more depressed than their
female counterparts (Ul Haq et al., 2018). Meanwhile, no significant gender

131
differences appeared in other research about depression and stress levels, for
example, among undergraduates at one UK university (Bewick et al., 2010) and
in the United States (Nelson and Padilla-Walker, 2013).
Contradictory findings regarding variations in resilience by gender in
specific contexts might be affected by the culture adopted in the society where
the study took place (Bahadir-Yilmaz and Oz, 2015). In the context of Indonesia,
where the majority of people are Muslim, including in West Kalimantan,
patriarchal values are commonly adopted (Alexander and Welzel, 2011; Inglehart
and Norris, 2003; Sateemae et al., 2017; Priyatna, 2013). These values might
ascribe a higher social status to men than to women. Men were considered heads
of their families or breadwinners, and have decision-making responsibilities
(Priyatna, 2013; Kevane and Levine, 2000; Minza, 2012).
Values adopted over generations might divide roles between males and
females in the Indonesian context, which might affect educational settings. It was
reported that although Indonesia had made progress on gender parity in
education, there were still variations in the regions, including the under-
representation of women in access to and support in education (Afkar et al.,
2020). The patriarchal values adopted in West Kalimantan might shape the
sample male students’ perception that family and community fully supported
them. Therefore, they might have high confidence during their undergraduate
courses and scored higher than female undergraduate students for protective
factors for resilience.
Similarly, female undergraduate students who scored themselves below
male students might be reflecting how they lacked confidence in their capabilities
and found a shortage of support during their undergraduate degree. Female
students in Indonesia might be exposed to values that dictated that Indonesian
women’s main tasks were related to domestic work, such as raising children,
cooking, maintaining a household, and taking care of the elderly, in line with the
ideology of the patriarchal community (Eddyono et al., 2016). Therefore,
although females studied in higher education, they might think that they were not
equal to males; regardless of their educational background, females might end up
in domestic work routines when they were married. This was in line with Afkar et

132
al.’s report (2020) about females’ lower payment and lower rates of labour
participation than men in Indonesia. Females might think that they were not as
fully supported as their male peers, which might also shape their confidence
levels in their undergraduate degree. Against a similar background of a
patriarchal society, three studies conducted among Turkish undergraduates
(Bahadir-Yilmazand Rn, 2015; Erdogan et al., 2015; Pasha-Zaidi et al., 2020)
produced similar finding to this study’s results, with male students reporting
higher scores for protective factors. By contrast, studies in cultures with
egalitarian values, and described as having equality in access to education, such
as in the US (Ponce-Garcia et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2020) and northern India
(Sundar and Archana, 2020), suggested that female students were more resilient
than males.
A similar pattern of protective factors by gender in communities with
similar characteristics was in line with Ungar’s idea regarding individuals’
interaction and their social ecologies (Ungar, 2008; 2012). Individuals’ context
and culture might develop their resilience. If the community gave more value to a
specific gender, it provided that gender with more access to resilience.
Conversely, ascribing less value to a particular gender might impact resilience
negatively. Female undergraduates in a patriarchal community might be less
resilient than their male peers. They might perceive that males got higher priority
and were more powerful in a patriarchal society; therefore, females might lack
confidence and perceive themselves as inferior, as they were in a community that
valued perceived male superiority. This low confidence might develop over
years, enduring during degree studies.
In line with this, Bronfenbrenner (2005) suggested through his person-
context-time model for human development that individual capacity, context and
historical time mutually influenced the process of human development. Family as
the individuals' immediate environment might provide policy and treatment that
might limit or liberate protective factors for their children. Values and beliefs
within the patriarchal community might influence parents to provide particular
policies or treatments in line with male superiority, which might develop over the
years. This was in line with what Bronfenbrenner (1979) said about the influence

133
of macrosystem on other ecological settings, family for example. Ideology and
beliefs within the community might influence families to prescribe policy and
treatments to their children based on what was shared within a society. As a
result, children's daily experiences in certain societal communities tended to be
similar (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which would influence their future.
Bronfenbrenner and Evans (2000) claimed that those that operate today might
influence what human beings may become tomorrow. Therefore, low perceived
protective factors by female students within the patriarchal community in this
study might reflect previous treatment and policy by family and society that gave
more priority to males than females (Priyatna, 2013; Kevane and Levine, 2000;
Minza, 2012).
Based on data, female undergraduate students were reported to have better
cognitive ability than males, including in this recent study. This study showed
that female students had higher GPA than male students (mean=3.65 vs
mean=3.35). Similar findings were reported by past research; female
undergraduate students were described with better cognitive ability than males
(Balkis and Erdinç, 2017; Dayioğlu and Türüt-Aşik, 2007; Khwaileh and Zaza,
2011). Nevertheless, despite their advanced cognitive skills, female students
scored themselves lower than their male peers in protective factors in this study.
Having low mean GPA scores implied that male students might struggle and feel
stressed during the course; however, they scored themselves higher than their
female peers with regard to protective factors. Male students might not express
their true feelings in this study.
Based on past research findings, men confessed that they were reluctant to
express their true negative feelings (Priory, 2015). This might be influenced by
social expectations that men exhibited socially prescribed behaviours in line with
masculine characteristics (Ogrodniczuk and Oliffe, 2011; Oliffe and Phillips,
2008). A man might be socially described as someone strong, so that crying or
showing his sadness might threaten his masculinity. This might influence males
to hide their true feelings, because they might be considered weak if they showed
their negative feelings. This was in line with a narrative study that reported men
as feeling uncomfortable expressing their negative emotions (McKenzie et al.,

134
2018). Therefore, not telling the truth about their feelings might be the reason
why male students in this study, despite their lower academic achievement than
females, set higher scores in their protective factors. Meanwhile, women might be
viewed as having sensitive characteristics; therefore, it might be socially
acceptable for women to express their negative feelings (Sharman et al., 2019).
Females returning lower scores for protective factors in this study might imply
their perceived freedom to express negative emotions.
To conclude, there might be gender differences in West Kalimantan with
regard to access to protective factors among young undergraduates. Female
undergraduates exhibited stronger cognitive resources than males through their
higher GPA; they might, however, have lower access to confidence to achieve, to
regulate their emotions and cognitive skills, and to feel supported by significant
people, such as family and friends, during their undergraduate degree. The
region’s patriarchal values might influence this. Data suggested that, compared to
men (83%), women (51%) had a lower rate of labour participation in Indonesia
(Afkar et al., 2020; Schaner and Das, 2016). Their undergraduate qualifications
might not be used in their future career, in line with socially prescribed main
tasks for women in a patriarchal society – taking care of families and housework,
rather than developing their careers with undergraduate qualifications. Therefore,
female undergraduates in a patriarchal community might experience inequality in
gaining access to protective factors during their course. This in in line with the
theory of human development that individual capacity, context, and historical
time mutually interacted to influence individuals’ development (Bronfenbrenner,
2005).
Furthermore, there might be an injustice in a social system concerning
individuals’ ability to express negative emotions. Male students in this study
returned lower GPA scores than did females, but they outscored females on
protective factors. Lower GPA implied that male undergraduates might struggle
and feel stressed during their degree, but they did not admit to low resilience;
their silence might reflect their limited access to expressing negative emotions.
This might be influenced by socially prescribed behaviours related to masculinity
– so they might have low protective factors, but social expectation prevented

135
them from confessing their vulnerabilities. Therefore, male students might
experience inequality in access to seeking help, which might damage their
resilience. A survey in the UK among 1,000 men revealed that 77% admitted to
suffering from depression and stress, but 40% reported that they did not want to
share information about their mental health (Priory, 2015).
In short, people might face social inequalities or discrimination in access
to protective factors due to embedded socio-demographic factors, including
gender (Hart et al., 2016). Therefore, individuals were not entirely responsible for
their resilience; instead, their culture and context played roles in providing access
to individuals’ resilience (Hart et al., 2016; Ungar, 2011). This was in line with
the ecological and bio-ecological framework for human development
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 2005), which contended that people and environment
interacted in human development. People, as active agents, operated their internal
and external protective factors within their environment in order to develop.
Environment played a role in providing protective factors to enable human
development, and in providing humans access to those protective factors.
Moreover, examining more specifically the subscale findings, male
students scored significantly higher in only two categories: social support and
social skill. However, albeit an insignificant result in the other two subscale
scores – planning behaviour and goal efficacy – male students still returned
higher scores than female students in these protective factors. With regard to
social support, male undergraduate students in Indonesia might get better support
from their families during their degree, as they were considered potential
breadwinners, as dictated by their patriarchal society, in line with past studies in
an Indonesian context (Priyatna, 2013; Kevane and Levine, 2000). In relation to
social skills, female students scored themselves lower than did male students,
reflecting past research that suggested female undergraduates were more likely
than males to acknowledge interpersonal problems (Bedel, 2015), and to report
higher perceived relational stress, particularly that caused by malicious gossip
and by arguments with parents and friends (Hampel and Peterman, 2006).
Similarly, in other contexts, Russian and Pakistani male undergraduate
students reported better peer relationships than did female undergraduates

136
(Zubair, Kamal, and Artemeva, 2018), and more Canadian female undergraduates
than their male peers saw relationship issues with friends and parents as stressful
(Day and Livingstone, 2003). Furthermore, females’ appraisal of stress was
associated with emotional responses and avoidance of coping strategies (Matud,
2004); therefore, if they perceived that they experienced a relationship
malfunction, they might report a low score for their social skill, as occurred in
this study. Moreover, two studies in the US reported that male undergraduates
claimed to have better social adjustment to, and social integration into, the
campus community than did their female peers (Jeffry, 2013; Sax et al., 2002).
The aforementioned past studies in relation to the division of roles, differences in
appraising interpersonal problems, and social integration in university life by
gender supported the finding of this current research that male undergraduates
might have better social skills. However, females claimed that their social skills
were at higher level than those of males among Turkish university students
(Deniz, Hamarta and Ari, 2005). Further exploration involving a larger sample of
students might clarify the effect of gender on social support and social skills
among university students.
In terms of planning behaviour, this current study found no evidence of
significant differences between male and female Indonesian undergraduates.
Some past researchers supported this research finding. Gender was not associated
with Finnish undergraduate students’ self-management and planning (Virtanen
and Nevgi, 2010). Nevertheless, Iranian female students reported better scores
than males for organisation and time planning (Abdi Zarrin and Gracia, 2020),
American female undergraduate students claimed themselves more self-regulated,
more self-managed and more organised than their male peers (Bidjerano, 2005).
Among Irish accounting students, females were reportedly more organised and
better at time management than were their Irish male peers (Byrne et al., 2002),
and among students who studied in the UK, females were more confident than
their male peers about time management (Pulford, Woodward and Taylor, 2018).
It was not clear why there were inconsistencies in gender differences in planning
behaviour in some contexts; further research with larger samples might clarify
these findings.

137
 Concerning goal efficacy, past studies supported this current study’s
finding of an absence of gender difference in confidence in achieving goals,
detected among Indonesian (Sutantoputri and Watt, 2012), American (Choi,
2005; Shepherd, 2016), Turkish (Iskender, 2009) and Iranian (Arabzadeh et al.,
2012; Moghadari-Koosha et al., 2020) undergraduates. However, undergraduate
students in Turkey (Zaidi et al., 2020), China (Wang et al., 2014) and Spain
(Freire et al., 2020) reported male students as having significantly higher scores
than their female counterparts for confidence in achieving goals.
The aforementioned studies supported this study’s result that, compared to
females, male Indonesian undergraduates scored higher in goal efficacy, albeit by
an insignificant margin. Higher scores for goal efficacy among Indonesian males
in this study showed that they were more confident than their female peers.
Although, Indonesian female students outperformed males in their GPA (Table
3), they set lower scores for confidence in their ability to achieve goals. This
meant that despite their good cognitive capabilities, female students might lack
confidence during their degree. Past research had recorded female undergraduate
students experiencing crises in their self-confidence. Compared to their male
peers, female UK students felt less confident in IT and numeracy (Pulford,
Woodward and Taylor, 2018) and female US students reported lower self-
efficacy in their introductory physics class (Nissen and Shemwell, 2016).
Similarly, female Norwegian biology students scored themselves higher in tests
of anxiety, while males’ lower anxiety scores did not predict their academic
achievement (Cotner et al., 2020).
Based on these findings, female students might be less confident than
their male peers, although their academic attainment was higher or similar to
males’ (Cotner et al., 2020; Nissen and Shemwell, 2016). By contrast, male
undergraduate students reported a high level of confidence, although the studies
were conducted across different cultures. Some past studies suggested that the
confidence gap between males and females might be linked to hormonal
differences by gender. Booth, Johnson and Granger (1999) reported that men
produced seven times more testosterone than females. Medical research
suggested that a high level of testosterone positively impacted mood and reduced

138
depression (Booth 1999), which might link to a higher level of self-confidence in
men than in women (Cotner et al., 2020). This was in line with Halphen’s (2014)
and Hampel’s and Peterman’s (2006) idea that males and females might differ in
their psychological adjustment to stress. The variation might be influenced by
psychological, biological or environmental/cultural factors. Bronfenbrenner
(2005), through his bio-ecological framework, suggested that there was gene-
environment interaction in human development. Therefore, gender differences in
goal efficacy might be caused by genetic factors, and differences might develop
in specific communities.

5. 2. b RQ 1: Place-of-origin differences in protective factors

Were there any place-of-origin differences among Indonesian

undergraduate students in relation to total scores for protective factors and
subscale scores for social support, social skill, planning behaviour, and goal
efficacy, as measured by the SPF?

Total scores for protective factors among rural Indonesian undergraduate

students were significantly higher than those for students from the city. However,
no significant differences were detected between each subscale protective factor
and students’ geographical area; therefore, this researcher would not discuss the
area’s effect on each subscale protective factor in this section. Similar findings
were reported among undergraduate students in America (Bitz, 2011) and
Palestine (Abualkibash and Lera, 2015), as well as among Nepalese secondary
school students (Singh et al., 2019), where rural students were more resilient than
their urban peers. In line with this finding, urban college students showed
significantly higher levels of stress than did rural students in India (Kaur, 2017)
and in Mongolia (Davaasambuu et al., 2017). These findings revealed that non-
urban areas might play a positive role in the resilience of university students
during their degree studies. A large-scale Australian survey revealed that living in
rural areas might contribute a positive effect on young people’s subjective
wellbeing, and this benefited them in adjusting to their college (Kelly et al.,

139
2010). Furthermore, there was evidence that being surrounded by natural settings
and green space, characteristic of village areas, could improve cognitive abilities
(Dadvand et al., 2015; Wells, 2000).
Nevertheless, some studies showed that rural students were prone to stress
in their college life, and this might lead to low resilience. Students who
previously lived in rural areas might experience higher levels of stress than did
their urban counterparts in relation to adjusting to university life (Li, 2013).
Students from rural areas or suburbs might find shockingly unfamiliar social
signs in urban campus settings (Bitz, 2011). They moved to a faraway place,
albeit in the same country; they might experience a state of loss in which they
were not surrounded with the strong family bonds and family trust that existed in
rural cultures (Esterman and Hedlund, 1995). Besides, according to Bourdieu
(1990), cultures, values, habits and manners or behaviours in urban universities
were based on middle-class beliefs and values. The behaviours or beliefs of
students from rural or suburban areas might clash with the culture and values of
middle-class institutions or universities in urban settings (Yan and Wu, 2020).
Therefore, undergraduate students from rural areas might find social and cultural
adaptation to be their biggest challenge at university (Xie and Reay, 2020).
During the process of adaptation to a new culture in university life in an
urban setting, rural and suburban undergraduate students might feel depressed or
over-sensitive (Li, 2018). Studies reported that rural students who studied at a
university in an urban setting might experience culture shock which might result
in systemic stressors for them, such as a perception of rudeness, inappropriate
salutations (Pheko et al., 2014), issues of styles of dress (Minza, 2012),
communications deficiencies with university staff, withdrawal from social
interaction (Dustan and Jaeger, 2016; Heinisch, 2016; Yan and Wu, 2020),
language deficiency and academic concern (Yan and Wu, 2020), social
integration issues – for example, making friends – pressures of family
expectation, financial issues, perceived low capability (Morton et al., 2018), and
losing family connections or homesickness (Buchanan, 2012; McWhirter et al.,
2007). This meant that, compared to urban college students, suburban or rural

140
college students might have more difficulties in the process of adapting to a
college setting (Maltzan, 2006).
Nevertheless, drawing from the psychological theory of resilience in
relation to steeling (Rutter, 2006) and thriving (Carver, 1998), the more stressors
the village students faced in an urban-based university, the more resilient they
might become. The experience of stress might strengthen individuals’ resistance
to stressors (Rutter, 2006); this was known as the steeling effect. Similarly, the
experience of adversity might promote the emergence of improved quality,
making individuals better than before, and this was known as thriving (Carver,
1998). Students from non-urban areas, although exposed to higher levels of stress
in adjusting to university life, might find that the stressors train them to be more
resilient. Therefore, Indonesian suburban undergraduate students’ higher
resilience than that of their urban counterparts might be caused by the cumulative
adversities they faced. Because non-urban students were exposed to stressors
during their migration to the city to study at a university, they might become
more ready for stressors to follow, as has been suggested by Carver (1998) and
Rutter (2006).
A study of migrant youth in tertiary education in Pontianak, the provincial
city of West Kalimantan, described in depth various scenarios (e.g., staying with
relatives, helping businesses without payment in return for free accommodation,
or staying in an office). Migrant youths from suburban and rural areas had to
survive during their tertiary education in Pontianak, despite their various
disadvantaged backgrounds (Minza, 2012). This information might strengthen the
research finding that, compared to urban students, non-urban college students
exhibited higher levels of protective factors for resilience. Also, their resilience
might reflect the benefits of their previous experience surrounded by natural
settings and green space. Such a conducive environment might contribute to their
positive emotions and cognitive abilities, as suggested by Dadvand et al. (2015)
and Wells (2000).
Moreover, rural students might have strong family bonds and strong
community kinship in their home rural society, living with the values of
collectivism, as explained by Esterman and Hedlund (1994), Halfacree (1995)

141
and Wang et al. (2017). A sense of connectedness among rural students might
positively affect their mental health and positive feelings; therefore, they scored
higher than their urban peers for protective factors for resilience in this current
study. By contrast, urban students known to foster values of individualism might
link to a lack of connectedness (Allik and Realo, 2004; Triandis, 2005). This
might increase stress levels among urban undergraduates (Kaur, 2017; Philips,
2010). In Indonesia, urban undergraduate students in Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital,
and nearby cities, reported higher stress levels than did their peers in other
provinces (El-Matury and Lestari, 2018). Thus, a strong sense of connectedness
to undergraduate students’ home society, experiencing collectivist values, might
contribute to rural undergraduate learners’ resilience in urban settings.
Strong connectedness, positive attachment with family and significant
others, and the exposure to green environments that rural students experienced
over days, weeks, and years in the rural community might activate rural students'
capacity and develop positive mental health. In other words, rural students' high
perceived protective factors might be shaped by conditions and events that
occurred during the historical period through their lives in their rural community
(Bronfenbrenner, 1999). This was in line with the process-person-context-time
model for human development as suggested by Bronfenbrenner and Evans
(2000). The process of human development was called the proximal process.
Bronfenbrenner and Evans (2000) referred to the proximal process as a driving
process of human development where individuals and the environment mutually
interacted over time (Bronfenbrenner and Evans, 2000); individuals’
development was based on the use of genetic potentials interacting with the
environment to enhance positive functioning and decrease dysfunction. To
conclude, human development was a result of interaction between the human and
his/her environment (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) and Ungar (2012). Rural students
might be more resilient, and got stressed less easily, because they might have
activated their personal potentials supported by the exposure to natural areas and
strong kinship in their home society and exercised with multiple stressors over
years that might enhance their positive functioning despite their hardships during
their undergraduate degree in urban settings.

142
5. 2. c RQ 1: SES differences in protective factors

Were there any SES differences among Indonesian undergraduate

students in relation to total scores for protective factors and subscale scores for
social support, social skill, planning behaviour, and goal efficacy, as measured
by the SPF?

This study found no significant SES differences in relation to total scores

of protective factors among Indonesian young undergraduate students. This
meant that SES did not affect total scores of protective factors. Furthermore, this
study revealed that SES was not associated with any of the protective factor
subscales – social support, social skills, planning behaviour and goal efficacy.
The absence of a detectable association between SES and protective factors was
also suggested in past studies among Turkish undergraduate students (Onturk,
Efek, and Yildiz, 2020). However, this was contradictory to Bachaus’ finding
(2009) that higher parents’ income predicted higher social and personal-
emotional attachment scores among American undergraduate students. Similarly,
it was reported that low SES was a predictor for depression and anxiety
symptoms (Einsberg et al., 2007). This showed a correlation between SES and
resilience.
The absence of SES effect on total scores and subscale scores for
protective factors among undergraduate students in this research might reflect
how emerging adults start to become financially independent. Arnett (2014)
surveyed undergraduate students about the criteria they ascribed to their own
emerging adulthood. Their responses were related to accepting responsibility for
their actions, making decisions independently, and earning for themselves.
Therefore, parental SES background might not significantly affect undergraduate
learners, as they were at an independent stage where they might have their own
income. A narrative study by Minza (2012) reported that students from low-SES
backgrounds in rural regions in West Kalimantan minimised their spending by
staying in relatives’ homes, or they worked for the minimum income required to
provide their food and other necessities during their degree. However, younger
143
people, such as children or adolescents, might significantly rely on parents, so
that their resilience might differ according to parental SES background. For
example, Turkish adolescents reported that when their parents avoided economic
loss, they scored themselves lower for adverse life events, and higher for internal
and external protective factors (Bulut et al., 2019).
This study’s, Minza’s (2012), and Bulut et al.’s (2019) findings were in
line with Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological theory (2005) of human development
and Ungar’s (2012) social ecology for resilience. They suggested that as active
agents, individuals navigate their protective factors and interact with their
environment, and the interaction may develop over time (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).
Emerging adults, with their ecological resources, experience, knowledge and
skills, might develop positive functioning despite a disadvantaged economic
background. They might negotiate with their adversity, adjust to financial
stressors and develop specific strategies to use the internal and external protective
factors available to them, such as staying in a relative’s house during college life,
or earning independently and persistently, as explored in Minza’s study (2012).
Their actions in coping with their problems might affect their mental health
positively, and result in no significant differences in protective factors for
resilience, in this current study, between undergraduate students from lower and
higher SES backgrounds.
Moreover, this study’s finding corroborated past study that the predictors
for resilience among university students were more about self-factors than SES
factor (Argyros and Johnson, 2019). SES predictor variable did not demonstrate
any significant contribution for resilience scores (Argyros and Johnson, 2019);
therefore, the approach of SES to understand resilience might not be appropriate
for undergraduate students. However, the SES approach might be relevant to
understanding resilience in children. Younger people, such as children or
adolescents with limited capacity, might depend entirely on their parents as
primary providers. So, worse economic conditions might negatively impact
younger people on the availability of internal and external protective factors for
resilience, as explained in Bulut et al.’s research (2019) but might not have a

144
significant impact on emerging adults, as suggested by this study’ findings and by
Onturk et al. (2020).

5. 2. d RQ 2: Association between protective factors and GPA

Was there any association between total scores for protective factors, as
measured by the SPF, and students’ academic achievement, as measured by
GPA, and was there any association between subscale scores for social support,
social skill, planning behaviour, and goal efficacy, as measured by the SPF and
students’ academic achievement, as measured by GPA?

This study had produced evidence that there was a significant negative
correlation between total scores for protective factors for resilience and students’
academic achievement. However, the correlation value was weak. Concerning
subscale protective factors, a negative correlation was noted between students’
achievement and social skill. Meanwhile, no correlation was apparent between
students’ achievement and the subscales social support, planning behaviour and
goal efficacy. It was not clear why this current study found a negative significant
relationship between resilience and academic achievement. By contrast, past
studies suggested that resilience was associated with American nursing students’
academic achievement (Beauvais et al., 2013) and among South African
undergraduate students (Van Breda, 2018).
Meanwhile, one previous study among medical students in Mexico
reported, that there was no linear relationship between resilience and students’
academic achievement (Elizondo-Omaña et al., 2010). Elizondo-Omaña et al.
(2010) and Johnson et al. (2015) claimed that examining resilience alone might
not predict academic achievement. They further explained that high resilience
might influence students in being persistent with a challenging task. However,
that persistence might not be adequate for academic achievement. Therefore, an
exploration was suggested, in order to discover an alternative psychological
construct that might mediate the relationship between resilience and academic
achievement (Johnson et al., 2015). This means that resilience, despite its benefits
in an educational context, might be a poor predictor for academic achievement
145
(Elizondo-Omaña et al., 2010; Elizondo-Omaña, García-Rodriguez and López,
2007). This might clarify why some past researchers could not find evidence of a
relationship between resilience and students’ academic achievement (Elizondo-
Omaña et al., 2010) and why this researcher found a weak value of the negative
relationship between protective factors and academic achievement.
This study found a negative relationship between the subscale for social
skill scores and students’ academic achievement. Some past researchers analysed
the relationship between intelligence and social skills, and their findings
supported those of this current research. Intelligent individuals might set a high
standard in making friends, which might lead them to lower scores for
likeableness; Fossum’s (2011) study suggested that people perceived as highly
intelligent were considered less likeable. It was also assumed that intelligent
people tended to become experts in their fields, and their conversation might be
confusing. Arbuckle et al. (2004) suggested that people who spoke beyond usual
elaboration on a topic might find it hard to make friends. By contrast, ease of
communication might relate to friendship (Fossum, 2011).
However, other studies reported that social skills contributed positively to
students’ achievement. A large-scale study involving Iranian university students
presented evidence that their social skill was associated significantly with
academic achievement (Tabassum, Akhter and Iqbal, 2020). Similarly, a two-year
longitudinal survey reported a strong correlation between social skills and reading
competence among sample schoolchildren in the south-eastern US (Algozzine,
Wang and Violette, 2011). Although there were contradictory findings as to
whether social skill contributes to academic resilience, communicating with
others might positively impact students’ success in education. Morreale, Osborn
and Pearson (2000) highlighted how communication skills helped students to
articulate what they knew – and did not know – in the course of their education.
Social skills enabled students to express knowledge and to ask for assistance with
educational activities. Social skill was related to Ungar’s idea (2012) that
individuals may foster resilience by navigating the availability of external
resources, including parents, relatives and teachers, to mitigate their hardship; by
using effective communication, individuals could seek help and understand

146
recommended solutions to their problems. Through effective communication,
students might express their difficulties in lessons, asking for help in order to
enrich and express their knowledge; the capacity to do this was important for
students’ academic success (Moreale et al., 2000). The significant negative
correlation between resilience and students’ academic achievement in this study
might need further investigation using a larger scale sample. Furthermore, as
Elizondo-Omaña et al. (2010) and Elizondo-Omaña et al. (2007) suggested,
resilience as a construct might be too broad to predict academic achievement.
Using an academic resilience scale, rather than a general resilience scale, might
reveal the relationship between resilience and students’ achievement (Cassidy,
2016; Johnson et al., 2015).

5. 3. Conclusion

This discussion chapter presented the review and the evaluation of this
research's findings. That Indonesian male undergraduates exhibited higher
protective factor scores might relate to the Indonesian community's patriarchal
value. Furthermore, rural students reported higher protective factor scores than
provincial city students, indicating that students from rural areas might benefit
from connectedness adopted in a collectivist society or benefit from exposure to
natural settings that might relieve their stress. In short, culture and context might
influence resilience. Furthermore, this study presented that academic resilience
was negatively correlated with academic resilience; however, the correlation
value was weak. This might reflect that the resilience construct might not predict
academic achievement. Specific resilience questionnaire related to academic
resilience might be more applicable to detect the association between students'
resilience and their academic achievement. The following chapter presented the
practical implication of this research findings and suggestions for further
research.

147
 Chapter 6: Conclusion

6. 1. Summary of the study

This study was aimed at examining the protective factors for resilience
among undergraduate students in Indonesia. The specific objectives were to
investigate the differences in Indonesian undergraduate students’ protective
factors for resilience by their socio-demographic profiles – gender (male or
female), geographical area (provincial city or rural area) and SES (low or
middle/high SES), and to examine the association between academic achievement
and protective factors for resilience. This study adopted a cross-sectional survey
approach, in which this researcher collected data conducted at a single point in
time, using an online questionnaire distributed to a representative sample of
undergraduate students in West Kalimantan. The questionnaire used was SPF-24
(Scale of Protective Factor), designed and validated by Ponce-Garcia, et al.
(2015). This study involved 500 undergraduate students, 250 (50%) female and
250 (50%) male; 241(48.20%) from provincial cities and 259 (51.80%) from
rural areas; 265 (53%) from lower SES families and 235 (47%) from higher SES
families; so, a nearly equal number of participants represented each demographic
characteristic.
The findings showed that, with regard to protective factors for resilience,
male Indonesian undergraduate students returned significantly higher scores than
their female counterparts, rural students informed significantly higher scores than
the provincial city students, and no significant differences were reported between
low and middle/high SES groups’ scores. Meanwhile, there was a significant
negative correlation between total scores for protective factors for resilience and
students’ academic achievement. The finding of this research presented the
following practical implications.

148
6. 2. Practical implication

This present resilience research found that male and non-urban students
were more resilient than their peers in other gender and geographical area groups.
It provided information so that universities in Indonesia, particularly in West
Kalimantan, could identify which groups were resilient to, and which were
vulnerable to, stressors in college life. This study could not generalise its
findings, due to the limited sample size; however, the findings carried practical
implications for Indonesian universities helping Indonesian young
undergraduates to improve their protective factors as they were exposed to
academic or non-academic stressors. Also, universities could pay attention to
specific groups that exhibited fewer protective factors, based on this study’s
findings to minimize stressors.
Universities might provide academic or non-academic related intervention
and prevention programmes or extracurricular activities to enhance undergraduate
learners’ resilience. Academic-related activities, such as academic skills, learning
supports, and life-skills training, might help young undergraduate learners
accomplish academic demands required by universities. Also, the academic-
related extracurricular activities might expose undergraduate students to access to
confidence to be able to achieve the goal. In other words, undergraduate students
might gain a sense of self-efficacy as they were familiar with and practice
academic skills to complete their academic tasks. Bandura and Locke (2003)
suggested that self-efficacy promoted an individual’s capacity to gain knowledge
and skills needed to overcome challenges. Self-efficacy related to strong beliefs,
which might help individuals mobilise efforts or strategies to succeed (Bandura,
1997). Universities might also provide non-academic related programmes or
intervention to expose undergraduates to a pleasant and conducive environment
to support their positive mental health. Non-academic associated activities, such
as picnic, craft, art classes, entrepreneurship, well-being supports, anxiety and
depression awareness workshops, and food and drink vouchers, might help
students relieve stress (ECU, 2016). Non-academic related programmes
conducive to promoting positive emotions might contribute to students’

149
engagement in academic task completion; positive mental health might help
students concentrate and focus on solving academic tasks and not easily giving up
on assignments (Virtanen and Nevgi, 2010). These programmes might also create
a good relationship between students and university; students became aware that
universities valued their hard effort, understood their pain during their
independent learning in higher education, and attempted to minimise their stress.
Furthermore, universities could set policies related to the enhanced
managerial skills and practices for lecturers that might improve disciplinary
climate and conducive learning environment for the undergraduate students. For
example, the university might involve lecturers to join the training, collaboration
among lecturers, and mentorship programmes where the most experienced
lecturers can support the new ones. These programmes might promote lecturers'
commitment to ensuring a conducive learning environment and orderly classroom
atmosphere (Agasisti et al., 2018). The enhanced quality of learning environment
might eventually develop undergraduate learners' confidence to achieve their
goals, provide them with high academic results and keep them in positive mental
health during their undergraduate course.
These resilience research findings might not stipulate specific types of
intervention or prevention measures to increase students’ resilience, but they
could provide information on factors that affected student resilience. This was
associated with Rutter’s idea (2013) that resilience research findings might not be
translated into clear intervention or prevention programmes but could provide
numerous alternatives or possibilities that might be invoked in order to overcome
adversity.

6. 3. Recommendations for further research

This study recruited a sample of 500 undergraduate students in West

Kalimantan, with nearly equal numbers of participants representing demographic
characteristics – gender, geographical area and SES – so that this researcher
obtained proportional numbers to enable contrastive analysis. The limitation of
this study was that the study design used was a cross-sectional study. This
research design did not capture patterns, or a process of development over time,

150
of protective factors among the undergraduate learners; this could be achieved
through a longitudinal study. The process of development also could be captured
through a qualitative approach. Therefore, this approach might be a direction for
future research as the approach might describe how the reality of differences in
protective factors occurred among young undergraduate learners’ socio-
demographic profiles. The qualitative approach might contribute to a deeper
understanding because the approach included reasons, experience, and
perceptions among young undergraduate students as the actors who felt and lived
in the situation. Moreover, this researcher did not do a pilot project for the
Indonesian version of SPF-24 due to time constraints. However, this researcher
had assessed the validity and reliability of the Indonesian version of SPF-24 with
Pearson's Correlation. The results were that the analysed items were valid and
reliable to assess protective factors in the Indonesian context.
Furthermore, this study did not analyse the protective factors for emerging
adults in general. This research only involved university students as the sample of
this study; therefore, this finding might not be relevant for the emerging adults’
population who did not attend university. Lastly, this study did not investigate
protective factors in young undergraduate students from specific majors, where
they might have particular difficulties influencing their levels of resilience;
therefore, it was recommended to build upon the study by adding the major or
discipline as an independent variable for future research. To conclude, future
qualitative research was recommended to gain detailed information on how
certain groups of students cope with stressors during their university lives.
Moreover, it was recommended that future researchers can include a systematic
review of past evidence. Also, a longitudinal study was recommended in order to
capture the process whereby Indonesian undergraduate students develop
resilience. Lastly, a larger sample conducted in other provinces in Indonesia may
clarify the findings of this research.

6. 4. Conclusion

This study's findings expanded previous researchers' work in examining

protective factors among Indonesian undergraduate learners. This research

151
revealed that there were differences in protective factors among young
undergraduates in West Kalimantan by gender and geographical area of origin;
male students were more resilient than their female peers, while rural students
were more resilient than their peers from the provincial city. This study also
found that resilience was significantly negatively correlated with academic
achievement, but the relationship value was weak. This meant that resilience
construct might not predict academic achievement.
This research's findings supported the socio-demographic perspective of
resilience; culture and context might relate to individuals' resilience,
undergraduates included. This study suggested that gender may influence system
level on protective factors; Indonesian male students reported higher protective
factor scores than their female peers. Values adopted in society might divide roles
between males and females. A patriarchal community might afford men
privileged access to higher education as they were considered the future head of
families. Indonesian women had socially prescribed primary duties related to
family matters, and the responsibilities do not require a specific formal
educational background. This implied that within the society’s cultural and social
narratives, Indonesian women were not perceived as having to require formal
higher education experience or qualifications. Priority of one gender over another
gender in education contexts created segregation and discrimination; society had
dictated specific roles for individuals based on gender and provided or limited
access to their protective factors.
Furthermore, although male students in this study reported higher scores in
protective factors for resilience, they had lower GPA than their female peers. This
implied that academic achievement might not be correlated with the construct of
protective factors for resilience. This finding supported another finding of this
research; a significant negative correlation was found between academic
achievement and protective factors for resilience, but with a weak correlation
value. This research finding also implied that male undergraduates might struggle
with their cognitive vulnerabilities; however, they did not confess their negative
emotions through low protective factor scores. Males were generally described
with masculine characteristics related to strength. Therefore, they might perceive

152
that it was socially unacceptable for men to express their negative emotions
(sadness, anxiety and depression). The routines of hiding negative feelings might
lead them to be unaware of their vulnerabilities or to be reluctant to seek help to
cope with problems. This discussion found support in the socio-demographic
approach to understand resilience. Social expectation might shape resilience. Men
were exposed to practices and perception which might limit access to their
expression of negative thoughts, which in turn, created limitation for men in
accessing external protective factors to support their resilience.
Furthermore, this study presented evidence that rural students returned
higher protective factor scores than urban students. Collectivism adopted in rural
areas dealing with solid connections among rural residents might contribute to
resilience. However, provincial city students might be exposed to individualism
that valued independence and might have limited connection to people. This
might have an influence on urban students’ lower scores in protective factors for
resilience compared to their rural peers. Ecological factors such as exposure to
natural settings might shape rural students' positive mental health despite their
stressors. Urban students were exposed to high density or crowded human-made
buildings and a lack exposure to natural surroundings, which might lead them to
be more vulnerable to stressors and lower resilience than their rural peers.
To conclude, this researcher had provided evidence that might uncover
discrepancies in society to accessing protective factors through the socio-
demographic framework. Socio-demographic characteristics embedded in
individuals might have a specific meaning in certain cultures and particular
places. The findings of this study confirmed the socio-demographic resilience
concept (Ungar, 2011) and bio-ecological theory for human development
(Bronfenbrenner’s (2005). Culture and context might influence individuals’
differences in their protective factors by their socio-demographic characteristics
because these characteristics have a particular meaning in ideology and beliefs in
a specific culture. Therefore, individuals might not entirely be responsible for
their development; society also played a role in providing conducive
environments for young undergraduate learners to access protective factors
during their course. Undergraduate students deserve have equal treatment, equal

153
rights to accomplish and equal opportunities to develop. As an immediate
environment for undergraduates, universities can function as a society that
facilitates protective factors for resilience. Universities might provide access to
protective factors for undergraduate learners and pay attention to certain social
disadvantage groups.
Although this researcher claimed that the socio-demographic framework
had uncovered the discrepancies in protective factors by students' gender and
geographical area among young undergraduate students in Indonesia, these
arguments needed further clarification. This study used a quantitative approach to
compare protective factor among young people in undergraduate programs by
their gender, geographical area, SES and students' academic achievement. Still,
this approach did not examine why and how these discrepancies existed. This
researcher's interpretation of this research finding was based on the specific
characteristics embedded in Indonesia and West Kalimantan as the background of
this study, for example, patriarchal society, collectivism, and individualism. The
interpretation required further investigation; qualitative inquiry might help gain
information relevant to individuals' lived experience, including undergraduates, in
the process of getting positive outcomes under adversity (Ungar, 2003). Also, the
wider population involving undergraduates from other provinces in Indonesia
might clarify these research findings.

154
 References

Abdi Zarrin, S., Gracia, E., & Paixão, M. P. (2020). Prediction of academic
procrastination by fear of failure and self-regulation. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, 20(3), 34–43.
https://doi.org/10.12738/jestp.2020.3.003

Abraham, O., Babal, J. C., Brasel, K. V., Gay, S., & Hoernke, M. (2020).
Strategies first year Doctor of Pharmacy Students use to promote well-
being. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 29-35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2020.08.005

Abualkibash, A., & Lera, M. J. (2015). Psychological resilience among

Palestinian school students: an exploratory study in the. International
Humanities Studies, 2(3).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281592084_Psychological_resilie
nce_among_Palestinian_school_students_an_exploratory_study_in_the_W
est_Bank

Abubakar, F. (2019). Islamic family law reform: Early marriage and

criminalization (A comparative study of legal law in Indonesia and
Pakistan). Al-Ahkam Jurnal Ilmu Syari’ah dan Hukum, 4(2).
http://ejournal.iainsurakarta.ac.id/index.php/al-ahkam/article/view/1667

Abukari, Z. (2018). “Not Giving Up”: Ghanaian Students’ Perspectives on

Resilience, Risk, and Academic Achievement. SAGE Open, 8(4).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018820378

Addis, M. E. (2008). Gender and depression in men. Clinical Psychology: Science

and Practice, 15(3), 153-168.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2008.00125.x

155
Adlaf, E.M., Demers A., and Gliksman L. 2005. Canadian campus survey 2004.
Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f753/e5cda465928106ecab1e26298c1ab9f
24aab.pdf

Afkar, R., Yarrow, N., Surbakti, S., & Cooper, R. (2020). Inclusion in Indonesia’s
Education Sector: A Subnational Review of Gender Gaps and Children
with Disabilities. Educational Global Practice. http://www.worldbank.org/

Ahyat, I. S. (2014). The dynamics of Malay culture in West Kalimantan in the

20th Century. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(3), 273-280.
http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/EduLearn/article/view/268

Ainscough, L., Stewart, E., Colthorpe, K., & Zimbardi, K. (2017). Learning
hindrances and self-regulated learning strategies reported by undergraduate
students: Identifying characteristics of resilient students. Studies in Higher
Education, 8(21), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1315085

Albers, E. and Evans, W. (1994). Suicide ideation among a stratified sample of

rural and urban adolescents. Child Adolesc Soc Work J, 11, 379–389.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01876588

Aldwin, C. M. (2004). Culture, coping and resilience to stress. In Gross National

Happiness and Development-Proceedings of the first international
conference on operationalization of gross national happiness. Centre for
Bhutan studies, Thimphu, pp.563-573.
https://doi.org/10.11588/xarep.00001333

Aldwin, C. M. (2007). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative

perspective (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

156
Alfath, E. D. (2015). Potential Conflict between the Malay and the Dayak Ethnic
Groups in the Hinterland Region of West Kalimantan. Makara Human
Behavior Studies in Asia, 19(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.7454/mssh.v19i1.3475

Alexander, A. C., & Welzel, C. (2011). Islam and patriarchy: How robust is
Muslim support for patriarchal values? International Review of Sociology,
21(2), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2011.581801

Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011). Re-examining the relationship
between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 13(1), 3–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709359084

Allan, J. F., McKenna, J., & Dominey, S. (2014). Degrees of resilience: profiling
psychological resilience and prospective academic achievement in
university inductees. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 42(1), 9-
25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2013.793784

Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2004). Individualism-collectivism and social

capital. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 35(1), 29-49.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022022103260381

Allgöwer, A., Wardle, J., & Steptoe, A. (2001). Depressive symptoms, social
support, and personal health behaviors in young men and women. Health
psychology, 20(3), 223. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-
6133.20.3.223

Almeida, F. A. (2008). The relationship between social networks, social eupport,

physical activity and self-rated health: An exploratory study (Order No.
3297592) [Doctoral Disertation, University of Denver]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.

157
Al-Naser, F., & Sandman M. (2000). Evaluating resilience factors in the face of
traumatic events in Kuwait. Medical Sciences. 2, 111-116.
https://journals.squ.edu.om/index.php/squmj/article/view/1205/1160

Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The implications of having

high‐achieving versus low‐achieving friends: A longitudinal
analysis. Social Development, 14(1), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2005.00291.x

Andrews, B., Wilding, J. M. 2004.The relation of depression and anxiety to life-

stress and achievement in students. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 509–
521. https://doi 10.1348/0007126042369802

Anthony, E. J. (1974). The syndrome of the psychologically invulnerable child. In

E. J. Anthony, & C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: Children at
psychiatric risk. New York: Wiley.

Arabzadeh, M., Kadivar, P., Nikdel, F., Kavousian, J., & Hashemi, K. (2012) The
relationship of self-regulation and self-efficacy with academic stress in
university students. International Journal of Education and Psychology in
the Community, 2(2), 102-113.
http://www.marianjournals.com/files/IJEPC_articles/Vol_2_no_2_2012/Ar
abzadeh_et_al_2_2_2012.pdf

Arbuckle, T. Y., Pushkar, D., Bourgeois, S., & Bonneville, L. (2004). Off-target
verbosity, everyday competence, and subjective well-
being. Gerontology, 50(5), 291-297. https://doi.org/10.1159/000079126

Argyros, G. & Johnson (2019). Psychological resilience in higher education

students: A systematic investigation of predictive factors. Journal of
Psychology, 09(1–2), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566292.2019/09.1-

158
 2.194

Arnett, J. (2004). Emerging adulthood. New York: Oxford University Press.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late

teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469– 480.
https://content.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Astutik, E., Sebayang, S. K., Puspikawati, S. I., Tama, T. D., Sintha, D. M., &
Dewi, K. (2020). Depression, anxiety, and stress among students in newly
established remote university campus in Indonesia. Malaysian Journal of
Medicine and Health Sciences, 16(1), 270-277.
https://medic.upm.edu.my/upload/dokumen/2020011612245840_MJMHS_
0229.pdf

Ausín, B., González-Sanguino, C., Castellanos, M. Á., & Muñoz, M. (2021).

Gender-related differences in the psychological impact of confinement as a
consequence of COVID-19 in Spain. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(1), 29-
38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891876

Bachman, R. D., Schutt, R. K., & Plass, P. S. (2015). Fundamentals of research

in criminology and criminal justice: With selected readings. Singapore:
Sage Publications.

Backhaus, A. L. (2009). The college experience: Exploring the relationships

among student socioeconomic background, experiences of classism, and
adjustment to college. University of Nebraska. Dissertation.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/56

Bahadir-Yilmaz, E., & Oz, F. (2015). The resilience levels of first-year medical,
dentistry, pharmacy and health sciences students. International Journal of

159
 Caring Sciences, 8(2), 385.
https://internationaljournalofcaringsciences.org/docs/16_yilmaz.pdf

Balkis, M., & Duru, E. (2017). Gender differences in the relationship between
academic procrastination, satisfaction with academic life and academic
performance. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,
15(1), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.41.16042

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University

Press.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87

Basu, A. (1992). Culture, the status of women and demographic behaviour.

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Beasley, L., Kiser, R., & Hoffman, S. (2020). Mental health literacy, self-
efficacy, and stigma among college students. Social Work in Mental
Health, 18(6), 634-650. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2020.1832643

Beauvais, A. M., Stewart, J. G., De Nisco, S., & Beauvais, J. E. (2014). Factors
related to academic success among nursing students: A descriptive
correlational research study. Nurse Education Today, 34(6), 918-923.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.12.005

Becker, (1970). Fieldwork evidence. In H. S. Becker (Ed.), Sociological work:

Method and substance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books

160
Bedel, A. (2015). Analysis of the peer mediation process’ effect on interpersonal
problems of university students. The Anthropologist, 22(2), 257-264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891876

Beiter, R., Nash, R., McCrady, M., Rhoades, D., Linscomb, M., Clarahan, M., &
Sammut, S. (2015). The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety,
and stress in a sample of college students. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 173, 90-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054

Bennett, D., McCarty, C., & Carter, S. (2015). The impact of financial stress on
academic performance in college economic courses. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 19(3),25.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1768629346?pq-
origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

Bennion, E., Olpin, M. N., & DeBeliso, M. (2018). A comparison of four stress
reduction modalities on measures of stress among university students.
International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 11(1), 45–55.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-11-2017-0090

Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2011). The contribution of the
developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and
practice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41,197-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386492-5.00008-7

Bewick, B., Koutsopoulou, G., Miles, J., Slaa, E., & Barkham, M. (2010).
Changes in undergraduate students’ psychological well‐being as they
progress through university. Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 633-645.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903216643

161
Bidjerano, T. (2005). Gender Differences in Self-Regulated Learning [Paper
presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research
Association, Kerhonkson, New York. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED490777

Bitz, A. L. (2011). Does being rural matter?: The roles of rurality, social
support, and social self-efficacy in first-year college student adjustment.
University of Nebraska. Dissertation.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/188084004.pdf

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An

integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics.
London: Sage Publication

Black, R. S., Mrasek, K. D., & Ballinger, R. (2003). Individualist and Collectivist
Values in Transition Planning for Culturally Diverse Students with Special
Needs. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 25, 20-29.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854903.pdf

Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to social enquiry: advancing knowledge.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Blanco, C., M. Okuda, C. Wright, D. S. Hasin, B. F. Grant, S. Liu, and M. Olfson.

(2008). Mental health of college students and their non-college attending
peers. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65 (12), 1429–37.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.65.12.1429

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., & Granger, D. A. (1999). Testosterone and men's
depression: the role of social behavior. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 130-140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2676369.pdf

162
Botha, A., & van der Merwe, L. J. (2019). “I am still here!” Undergraduate
medical students’ perceptions of resilience. Journal of Psychology in
Africa, 29(6), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2019.1689463

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A

systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure
to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 456.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/456

Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child

development. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 371-399.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.
135233

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2019, February

19). Dayak. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dayak

British Psychological Society. (2014). Code of human research ethics. British

Psychological Society. https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-code-
human-research-ethics-2nd-edition-2014

Britt, S. L., Ammerman, D. A., Barrett, S. F., & Jones, S. (2017). Student loans,
financial stress, and college student retention. Journal of Student Financial
Aid, 47(1), 25-37. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141137

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

163
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A
future perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Lüscher (Eds.),
Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human
development (pp. 619–647). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/10176-018

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st

century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and
empirical findings. Social Development, 9(1), 115-125.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/1467-9507.00114

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological

perspectives on human development. Sage.

Brooks, R. & Goldstein, S. (2003). Nurturing resilience in our children: Answers

to the most important parenting questions. New York: Contemporary
Books

Brougham, R. R., Zail, C. M., Mendoza, C. M., & Miller, J. R. (2009). Stress, sex
differences, and coping strategies among college students. Current
Psychology, 28(2), 85-97. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-
009-9047-0

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buchanan, J. L. (2012). Prevention of depression in the college student

population: a review of the literature. Archives of Psychiatric
Nursing, 26(1), 21-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2011.03.003

Bulut, N. S., Çarkaxhiu Bulut, G., Yorguner Küpeli, N., Genç, H. A., Aktaş, İ.,
Yaşar, V., ... & Topçuoğlu, V. (2019). Living in difficult conditions: an
analysis of the factors associated with resilience in youth of a

164
 disadvantaged city. Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 29(4),
587-596. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750573.2018.1505281

Burrel, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological paradigms and organizational

analysis. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Businelle, M. S., Mills, B. A., Chartier, K. G., Kendzor, D. E., Reingle, J. M., &
Shuval, K. (2014). Do stressful events account for the link between
socioeconomic status and mental health?. Journal of Public Health, 36(2),
205-212. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdt060

Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2002). The relationship between learning
approaches and learning outcomes: A study of Irish accounting students.
Accounting Education, 11(1), 27–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280210153254

Calvarese, M. (2015). The effect of gender on stress factors: An exploratory study

among university students. Social Sciences, 4(4), 1177-1184.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci4041177

Campbell‐Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement

of the Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC): Validation of a
10‐item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress: Official
Publication of the International Society for Traumatic Stress
Studies, 20(6), 1019-1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271

Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., and Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative
marketing research. London: Sage Publication.

Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol is too long:
Consider the brief cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4,
92–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6

165
Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages.
Journal of Social Issues, 54(2), 245-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1998.tb01217.x

Carver, C. S. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In Baumeister, R. F. &

Vohs, K. D. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
applications (pp. 13–39). The Guilford Press.

Cassidy, S. (2016). The academic resilience scale (ARS-30): A new

multidimensional construct measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1787.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01787

Chang, M. C., Shaeffer, S., Al-Samarrai, S., Ragatz, A. B., De Ree, J., &
Stevenson, R. (2014). Teacher reform in Indonesia: The role of politics
and evidence in policy making (Report No. 83152). The World Bank.
http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/726801468269436434/pdf/Ma
in-report.pdf

Chen, Q., Kong, Y., Gao, W., & Mo, L. (2018). Effects of socioeconomic status,
parent–child relationship, and learning motivation on reading ability.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1297.
https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2018.01297

Cheng, J., Zhao, Y. Y., Wang, J., & Sun, Y. H. (2019). Academic burnout and
depression of Chinese medical students in the pre-clinical years: the
buffering hypothesis of resilience and social support. Psychology, Health
and Medicine. 25(9), 1094-1105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2019.1709651

Chmitorz, A., Kunzler, A., Helmreich, I., Tüscher, O., Kalisch, R., Kubiak, T., ...
& Lieb, K. (2018). Intervention studies to foster resilience–A systematic
review and proposal for a resilience framework in future intervention

166
 studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 59, 78-100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002

Chiu, C. H., Ma, H. W., Boddez, Y., Raes, F., & Barry, T. J. (2019). Social
support from friends predicts changes in memory specificity following a
stressful life event. Memory, 27(9), 1263-1272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1648687

Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’

academic performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42(2), 197–205.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20048

Christie, H., Tett, L., Cree, V. E., Hounsell, J., & McCune, V. (2008). ‘A real
rollercoaster of confidence and emotions’: Learning to be a university
student. Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 567-581.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802373040

Chui, H., Hay, E. L., & Diehl, M. (2012). Personal risk and resilience factors in
the context of daily stress. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics,
32(1), 251-274. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462024/

Clark, C., Head, J., & Stansfeld, S. A. (2013). Longitudinal effects of aircraft
noise exposure on children's health and cognition: A six-year follow-up of
the UK RANCH cohort. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.03.002

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Cohen, L., Ferguson, C., Harms, C., Pooley, J. A., & Tomlinson, S. (2011).
Family systems and mental health issues: A resilience approach. Journal of

167
 Social Work Practice, 25(1), 109-125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2010.533754

Cohen, J., Gottlieb, B. H., & Underwood, L. G. (2000). Social relationships and
health. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social
support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social
scientists (p. 4). Oxford University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). 8th ed. Research methods in
education. Oxon: Routledge.

Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., &

Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and
adolescence: problems, progress, and potential in theory and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87

Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families:

Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 361-373.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3600110?seq=1&cid=pdf-

Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., Sun, Y., Simons, R. L., McLoyd, V. C., & Brody,
G. H. (2002). Economic pressure in African American families: a
replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental
psychology, 38(2), 179. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-
1649.38.2.179

Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the

socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 175–199.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551

168
Conley, C. S., Kirsch, A. C., Dickson, D. A., & Bryant, F. B. (2014). Negotiating
the transition to college: Developmental trajectories and gender differences
in psychological functioning, cognitive-affective strategies, and social
well-being. Emerging Adulthood, 2(3), 195-210.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2167696814521808

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new Resilience

scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and
Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113

Cooper, K. (2020). Are poor parents poor parents? The relationship between
poverty and parenting among mothers in the UK. Sociology, 1-35.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0038038520939397

Costa Jr, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in
personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Cotner, S., Jeno, L. M., Walker, J. D., Jørgensen, C., & Vandvik, V. (2020).
Gender gaps in the performance of Norwegian biology students: the roles
of test anxiety and science confidence. International Journal of STEM
Education, 7(1), 1-10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40594-
020-00252-1

Couch, C. J. (1987). Objectivity: A crutch and club for bureaucrats/subjectivity:

A haven for lost souls. Sociological Quarterly, 28(1), 105-118.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1987.tb00285.x

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Family as systems. Annu. Rev. Psychol, 48, 243-
267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243

169
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative and mixed methods
approaches. London and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative research. Pearson Education Limited.

Crockett, L. J., Iturbide, M. I., Torres Stone, R. A., McGinley, M., Raffaelli, M.,
& Carlo, G. (2007). Acculturative stress, social support, and coping:
relations to psychological adjustment among Mexican American college
students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(4), 347.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context
=psychfacpub

Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research methods; meaning and

perspective in the research process. Sage Publications.

Cuvo, A. J., May, M. E., & Post, T. M. (2001). Effects of living room, Snoezelen
room, and outdoor activities on stereotypic behaviour and engagement by
adults with profound mental retardation. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 22(3), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891-
4222(01)00067-1

Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Russell, D. W.
(1994). Perceived parental social support and academic achievement: An
attachment theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66(2), 369. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.66.2.369

170
Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X.,
Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., Rivas, I., López-Vicente, M., de Pascual, M. C., Su,
J., Jerrett, M., Querol, X., & Sunyer, J. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive
development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/26/7937.full.pdf

Daniel, K. (2013). Loneliness and depression among university students in

Kenya. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 13(4), 11-18.
https://globaljournals.org/GJHSS_Volume13/2-Loneliness-and-
Depression-among-University.pdf

Dass-Brailsford, P. (2005). Exploring resiliency: Academic achievement among

disadvantaged black youth in South Africa. South African Journal of
Psychology, 35(3), 574-591. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630503500311

Davaasambuu, S., Aira, T., Hamid, P., Wainberg, M., & Witte, S. (2017). Risk
and resilience factors for depression and suicidal ideation in Mongolian
college students. Mental Health and Prevention, 5, 33–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2017.01.002

Davidson, R., Kitzinger, J., & Hunt, K. (2006). The wealthy get healthy, the poor
get poorly? Lay perceptions of health inequalities. Social science &
medicine, 62(9), 2171-2182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.010

Day, A. L., & Livingstone, H. A. (2003). Gender differences in perceptions of

stressors and utilization of social support among university students.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 35(2), 73-83.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-02886-002

171
Dayioglu, M. & Turut-Asik, S. (2007). Gender differences in academic
performance in a large public university in Turkey. Higher Education,
53(2), 255-277.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-005-2464-6

De la Fuente, J., Amate, J., González-Torres, M. C., Artuch, R., García-

Torrecillas, J. M., & Fadda, S. (2020). Effects of levels of self-regulation
and regulatory teaching on strategies for coping with academic stress in
undergraduate students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 22.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00022

De la Fuente, J., Fernández-Cabezas, M., Cambil, M., Vera, M. M., González-

Torres, M. C., & Artuch-Garde, R. (2017). Linear relationship between
resilience, learning approaches, and coping strategies to predict
achievement in undergraduate students. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1039.
https://doi.org/0.3389/fpsyg.2017.01039

De Vaus, D. (2013). Surveys in social research. Oxon: Routledge.

Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation,
parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic
minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(3), 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0023

Denovan, A., & Macaskill, A. (2017). Stress and subjective well-being among
first year UK undergraduate students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(2),
505-525. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/12114/

Department of Population and Civil Registration of West Kalimantan Province.

(2020) https://dukcapil.kalbarprov.go.id/

172
Dermott, E., & Pomati, M. (2016). ‘Good’ parenting practices: How important are
poverty, education and time pressure?. Sociology, 50(1), 125-142.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0038038514560260

Devanesan, J. (2020). Can open RAN help conquer Indonesia’s connectivity

issues? Retrieved from https://techwireasia.com/2020/07/can-open-ran-help-
conquer-indonesias-connectivity-issues/

Di Sipio, A., Falco, A., Kravina, L., & de Carlo, N. A. (2012). Positive personal
resources and organizational well-being: Resilience, hope, optimism, and
self-efficacy in an Italian health care setting. TPM - Testing,
Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 19(2), 81–95.
https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM19.2.2

Dias, P. C., & Cadime, I. (2017). Protective factors and resilience in adolescents:
The mediating role of self-regulation. Psicología Educativa, 23(1), 37-43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.09.003

Dillon, L., Chivite-Matthews, N., Grewal, I., Brown, R., Webster, S., Weddell, E.
& Smith, N. (2007). Risk, protective factors and resilience to drug use:
identifying resilient young people and learning from their experiences.
London: Home Office. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8471/1/rdsolr0407.pdf

Doane, D. P., & Seward, L. E. (2011). Measuring skewness: a forgotten statistic?.

Journal of statistics education, 19(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ945954

Doerschuk, P; Bahrim, C; Daniel, J. (2016). Closing teh gaps and filling the
STEM pipeline: A multidiscipllinary. Journal Science Education
Technology, 25, 682–695. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-
016-9622-8

173
Donnon, T., & Hammond, W. (2007). A psychometric assessment of the self-
reported youth resiliency: Assessing developmental strengths
questionnaire. Psychological reports, 100(3), 963-978.
https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.100.3.963-978

Du, H., Li, X., Lin, D., & Tam, C. C. (2014). Hopelessness, individualism,
collectivism, and substance use among young rural-to-urban migrants in
China. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 2(1), 211–220.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2014.888656
Duchesne, S., Ratelle, C. F., Larose, S., & Guay, F. (2007). Adjustment
trajectories in college science programs: Perceptions of qualities of parents'
and college teachers' relationships. Journal of Counselling Psychology,
54(1), 62. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0167.54.1.62

Dunstan, S. B., & Jaeger, A. J. (2015). Dialect and Influences on the Academic
Experiences of College Students. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(5),
777–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2015.11777383

Durkin, S. R., Bascomb, A., Turnbull, D., & Marley, J. (2003). Rural origin
medical students: how do they cope with the medical school environment?
Australian Journal of Rural Health, 11(2), 89-95.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1584.2003.00512.x

Dusselier, L., Dunn, B., Wang, Y., Shelley iI, M. C., & Whalen, D. F. (2005).
Personal, health, academic, and environmental predictors of stress for
residence hall students. Journal of American college health, 54(1), 15-24.
https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.54.1.15-24

Dwyer, R. E., Hodson, R., & McCloud, L. (2013). Gender, debt, and dropping
out of college. Gender & Society, 27(1), 30-55.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0891243212464906

174
ECU. (2016). Understanding adjustments: supporting staff and students who are
experiencing. mental health difficulties. Equality Challenge Unit.
https://www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ECU_Understanding-
adjustments.pdf

Eddyono, S. W., Fanani, E., Sabaniah, D. A., Maurice, Y., Ghazali, H., Warlif, J.,
... & Ciciek, F. (2016). When and why the State responds to women’s
demands: understanding gender equality policy change in Indonesia.
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
https://unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpAuxPages)/695474BA6D066
870C1257FF60053961A/$file/Indonesia%20claims%20making%20report.
pdf

Eisenberg, D., Gollust, S. E., Golberstein, E., & Hefner, J. L. (2007). Prevalence
and correlates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among university
students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4), 534–542.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.534

Elizondo-Omaña, R. E., de Los Angeles García-Rodríguez, M., Hinojosa-Amaya,

J. M., Villarreal-Silva, E. E., Avilan, R. I. G., Cruz, B. J. J., & Guzmán-
López, S. (2010). Resilience does not predict academic performance in
gross anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 3(4), 168–173.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.158

Elizondo-Omaña, R., García-Rodriguez, M., & López, S. (2007). Resilience in

medical students. FASEB Journal, 21(5), A214.
https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.21.5.A214-b

El-Matury, H. J., & Lestari, F. (2018). Depression, anxiety and stress among
undergraduate students in Jakarta: Examining scores of the depression
anxiety and stress scale according to origin and residency. Indian Journal
of Public Health Research & Development, 9(2).

175
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-
income, first-generation students. Pell Institute for the Study of
Opportunity in Higher Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504448

Erdogan, E., Ozdogan, O., & Erdogan, M. (2015). University students’ Resilience
Level: The Effect of Gender and Faculty. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 186, 1262–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.047

Esterman, K., & Hedlund, D. (1995). Comparing rural adolescents from farm and
nonfarm families. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 11(2), 84-91.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED384483

Etheridge, B., & Spantig, L. (2020). The gender gap in mental well-being during
the Covid-19 outbreak: Evidence from the UK (No. 2020-08). ISER
Working Paper Series.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/227789/1/1703718909.pdf

Ewart, C. K., Jorgensen, R. S., Suchday, S., Chen, E., & Matthews, K. A. (2002).
Measuring stress resilience and coping in vulnerable youth: The social
competence interview. Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 339.
https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.14.3.339

Fallan, L., & Opstad, L. (2016). Student Self-Efficacy and Gender-Personality

Interactions. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 32-44.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1106351.pdf

Farchi, M., Cohen, A., & Mosek, A. (2014). Developing specific self-efficacy and
resilience as first responders among students of social work and stress and
trauma studies. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34(2), 129-146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.894602

176
Finkelstein-Fox, L., Park, C. L., & Riley, K. E. (2018). Mindfulness and emotion
regulation: promoting well-being during the transition to college. Anxiety,
Stress, & Coping, 31(6), 639-653.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1518635

Fischer, E. H., & Farina, A. (1995). Attitudes toward seeking professional

psychological help: A shortened form and considerations for research.
Journal of College Student Development, 36(4), 368–373.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00547

Flashman, J. (2012). Academic achievement and its impact on friend

dynamics. Sociology of Education, 85(1), 61-80.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711417014

Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A., & Target, M. (1994). The Emanuel
Miller memorial lecture 1992 the theory and practice of resilience. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(2), 231-257.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01160.x

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of
coping. American Psychologist, 55(6), 647. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-
066x.55.6.647

Fossum, R. J. (2011). The social perceptions of the highly intelligent [Master

thesis, Fort Hays State University]. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses/143

Fourie, C. M. (2020). Risk factors associated with first-year students’ intention to

drop out from a university in South Africa. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 44(2), 201–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1527023

177
Freire, C., Ferradás, M. D. M., Núñez, J. C., Valle, A., & Vallejo, G. (2019).
Well-being and coping with stress in university students: The
mediating/moderating role of self-efficacy. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 16(1), 48.
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/1/48/pdf

Freire, C., Ferradás, M. del M., Regueiro, B., Rodríguez, S., Valle, A., & Núñez,
J. C. (2020). Coping strategies and self-efficacy in university students: A
person-centered approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00841

Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new
rating scale for adult resilience: what are the central protective resources
behind healthy adjustment?. International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research, 12(2), 65-76.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mpr.143

Gardner, T. W., Dishion, T. J., & Connell, A. M. (2008). Adolescent self-

regulation as resilience: Resistance to antisocial behaviour within the
deviant peer context. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(2), 273-
284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9176-6

Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. S. (1991). The protective role of competence

indicators in children at risk: Perspectives on stress and coping. In E. M.
Cummings, A. L. Greene, & K. H. Karraker (Eds.), Life-span
developmental psychology: Perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 151-
174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and
competence in children: A building block for developmental
psychopathology. Child Development, 97-111.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1129837

178
Gerdes, D., & Conn, J. (2001). A use-friendly look at qualitative research
methods. Physical Educator, 58(4), 183-190.
https://search.proquest.com/openview/d36242e8d00192eed8b6be555bed4
591/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=35035

Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: a
guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and
Metabolism, 10(2). 486.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693611/

Gignac, G. E. (2019). How2statsbook (1st online edition). Perth, Australia.

http://www.how2statsbook.com/p/chapters.html

Gizir, C. A., & Aydin, G. (2009). Protective factors contributing to the academic
resilience of students living in poverty in Turkey. Professional School
Counseling, 13(1), 38-49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42732918

Goldin, C. (1999). Egalitarianism and the returns to education during the great
transformation of American education. Journal of Political
Economy, 107(S6), S65-S94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/250104

Gorard, S. (2003) Quantitative methods in social science. London: Continuum.

Gottlieb, B. H., & Bergen, A. E. (2010). Social support concepts and measures.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69 (5), 511–520.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.001

Graves, B. S., Hall, M. E., Dias-Karch, C., Haischer, M. H., & Apter, C. (2021).
Gender differences in perceived stress and coping among college students.
PLoS ONE, 16(8 August), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255634

179
Greenfield, T. B. (1974, July). Theory in the study of organizations and
administrative structures: A new perspective [Paper presentation]. The
International Intervisitation Programme, Bristol.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED091828.pdf

Grellier, J. (2014). First-year student aspirations: a multinodal

analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(4),
527-545. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.775376

Gremmen, M. C., Jan K. D., Christian S., and René V. (2017) First selection, then
influence: Developmental differences in friendship dynamics regarding
academic achievement. Developmental Psychology, 53(7 (2017): 1356.

Gürgan, U. (2006). Resiliency scale (RS): scale development, reliability and

validity study. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi,
39(2), 45-74. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/509097

Halfacree, K. (1995). Talking about rurality: Social representations of the rural as

expressed by residents of six English parishes. Journal of Rural Studies,11,
1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(94)00039-C

Halphen, J. (2014). Culture, Spirituality, Depression, and its relationship to

resiliency: A college student (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3637127)

Hamaideh, S. H. (2012). Gender differences in stressors and reactions to stressors

among Jordanian university students. International Journal of Social
Psychiatry, 58(1), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020764010382692

Hamersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007) Ethnography: principles in practice.

London: Routledge.

180
Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2006). Perceived stress, coping, and adjustment in
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(4), 409–415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.02.014

Hadna, A. H., & Kartika, D. (2017). Evaluation of poverty alleviation policy: Can
conditional cash transfers improve the academic performance of poor
students in Indonesia?. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1295548.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1295548

Hart, A., Gagnon, E., Eryigit-Madzwamuse, S., Cameron, J., Aranda, K.,
Rathbone, A., & Heaver, B. (2016). Uniting resilience research and
practice with an inequalities approach. Sage Open, 6(4).
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244016682477

Hartley, M. T. (2012). Assessing and promoting resilience: An additional tool to

address the increasing number of college students with psychological
problems. Journal of College Counseling, 15(1), 37-51.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2012.00004.x

Hashim, I. H. (2003). Cultural and gender differences in perceptions of stressors

and coping skills: A study of western and African college students in
China. School Psychology International, 24(2), 182-203.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0143034303024002004

Haslam, D., Poniman, C., Filus, A., Sumargi, A., & Boediman, L. (2020).
Parenting style, child emotion regulation and behavioral problems: The
moderating role of cultural values in Australia and Indonesia. Marriage &
Family Review, 56(4), 320-342.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2020.1712573

181
Heinisch, B. P. (2017). Small fish out of water: Rural first-generation student
experience at a large university. Journal of College Orientation.
Transition, and Retention, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.24926/jcotr.v24i1.2904

Herrman, H., Stewart, D. E., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E. L., Jackson, B., &
Yuen, T. (2011). What is resilience? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(5),
258–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371105600504

Hernández, A. L., Escobar, S. G., Fuentes, N. I. G. A. L., & Eguiarte, B. E. B.

(2019). Stress, self-efficacy, academic achievement and resilience in
emerging adults. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology, 17(47), 129-148.
http://ojs.ual.es/ojs/index.php/EJREP/article/view/2226/2809

Hjemdal, O., Friborg, O., Martinussen, M., & Rosenvinge, J. H. (2001).

Preliminary results from the development and validation of a Norwegian
scale for measuring adult resilience. Journal of the Norwegian
Psychological Association, 38, 310–317.

Hinderlie, H. H., & Kenny, M. (2002). Attachment, social support, and college
adjustment among Black students at predominantly White universities.
Journal of College Student Development, 43(3), 327–340.

Hinton, V., & Meyer, J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: Resilience and support.
Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 28(3), 143-157.
https://doi: 10.1891/2168-6653.28.3.143

Hoffman, L. W. (2003). Methodological issues in studies of SES, parenting, and

child development. In M. Bornstein & R. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic
Status, Parenting, and Child Development (pp. 125-143). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

182
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.

Holdsworth, S., Turner, M., & Scott-Young, C. M. (2018). … Not drowning,

waving. Resilience and university: a student perspective. Studies in Higher
Education, 43(11), 1837–1853.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1284193

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2096802

Howard, S., & Hughes, B. M. (2012). Benefit of social support for resilience-
building is contingent on social context: examining cardiovascular
adaptation to recurrent stress in women. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 25(4),
411-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.640933

Hudziak, J. J., & Bartels, M. (2008). Genetic and environmental influences on

wellness, resilience, and psychopathology: A family-based approach for
promotion, prevention, and intervention. In J. J. Hudziak (Ed.),
Developmental psychopathology and wellness: Genetic and environmental
influences (pp. 267–286). Washington, DC:American Psychiatric
Publishing.

Hulley, S. B. (Ed.). (2007). Designing clinical research. Lippincott Williams &

Wilkins.

Ihromi. (1995). Kajian wanita dalam pembangunan. [Studies of women in

development]. Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

183
Indonesian Central Statistics Agency. (2019). Labor Force Participation Rate
2019. https://agamkab.bps.go.id/indicator/6/67/1/tingkat-partisipasi-
angkatan-kerja-tpak-.html

Indonesian Education and Culture Attaché in London. (2019).

https://atdikbudlondon.com/

Indrahadi, D., & Wardana, A. (2020). The Impact of Sociodemographic Factors

on Academic Achievements among High School Students in
Indonesia. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in
Education, 9(4), 1114-1120.
http://ijere.iaescore.com/index.php/IJERE/article/view/20572

Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). The true clash of civilizations. Foreign Policy.
(135), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3183594

Iskender, M. (2009). The relationship between self-compassion, self-efficacy, and

control belief about learning in Turkish university students. Social
Behavior and Personality, 37(5), 711–720.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.5.711

Isnayanti, D., & Harahap, N. (2018, November). Stress levels and stressors of
first year students in faculty of medicine, University of Muhammadiyah
Sumatera Utara. Proceedings International Conference BKSPTIS,
Semarang, Indonesia.
http://jurnal.unissula.ac.id/index.php/bksptis/article/view/3567

Iwasaki, Y. (2003). Examining rival models of leisure coping mechanisms.

Leisure Sciences, 25(2-3), 183-206.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400306560

184
Janssen, B. M., Van Regenmortel, T., & Abma, T. A. (2011). Identifying sources
of strength: resilience from the perspective of older people receiving long-
term community care. European Journal of Ageing, 8(3), 145-156.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-011-0190-8

Jakovljevic, M. (2018). Empathy, sense of coherence and resilience: Bridging

personal, public and global mental health and conceptual
synthesis. Psychiatria Danubina, 30(4), 380-384.

Jaureguizar, J., Garaigordobil, M., & Bernaras, E. (2018). Self-concept, social

skills, and resilience as moderators of the relationship between stress and
childhood depression. School Mental Health, 10(4), 488-499.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9268-1

Jeffery, J. A. (2013). Effect of differences in sense of competence related to

academic and social adjustment for first year college students at Saint
Joseph’s University (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertation & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 10062470).

Johnson, M. L., Taasoobshirazi, G., Kestler, J. L., & Cordova, J. R. (2015).

Models and messengers of resilience: a theoretical model of college
students’ resilience, regulatory strategy use, and academic achievement.
Educational Psychology, 35(7), 869–885.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.89356

Kahn Jr, P. H., & Kellert, S. R. (Eds.). (2002). Children and nature:
Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT press.

Kaloeti, D. V. S., Rahmandani, A., Sakti, H., Salma, S., Suparno, S., & Hanafi, S.
(2019). Effect of childhood adversity experiences, psychological distress,
and resilience on depressive symptoms among Indonesian university

185
 students. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 24(2), 177-184.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2018.1485584

Kane, E. W., & Kyyrö, E. K. (2001). For whom does education enlighten? Race,
gender, education, and beliefs about social inequality. Gender &
Society, 15(5), 710-733. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F089124301015005005

Kaplan, H. B. (2013). Reconceputalizing resilience. In S. Goldstein & R. B.

Brooks. (Eds.) Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 39-55). Springer,
Boston, MA.

Kaur, A. P. (2017). Stress, coping, self-efficacy, resilience and social support in

university students. International Journal of Scientific Research, 6(4), 662-
665. https://www.worldwidejournals.com/international-journal-of-
scientific-research-(IJSR)/article/stress-coping-self-efficacy-resilience-and-
social-support-in-university-students/MTA2OTM=/?is=1

Kelly, B. J., Stain, H. J., Coleman, C., Perkins, D., Fragar, L., Fuller, J., Lewin.,
T.J., Lyle, D., Carr., V. J., Wilson, J. M., and Beard, J. R. (2010). Mental
health and well-being within rural communities: The Australian rural
mental health study. Aust. J. Rural Health, 18(16-24).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1584.2009.01118.x

Kenny, M. E., & Perez, V. (1996). Attachment and psychological well-being

among racially and ethnically diverse first-year college students. Journal of
College Student Development, 37(5),527-535.

Kevane, M. & Levine, D. (2000). The changing status of daughter in Indonesia

(Working Paper. Institute for Research on Labor and Employment UC
Berkeley. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/09m817c0

186
Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). Atlanta: Brief description of the Mental Health
Continuum short form (MHC-SF).
https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/MHC-SFEnglish.pdf

Keyes, K. M., Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., McLaughlin, K. A., Wall, M. M.,
Grant, B. F., & Hasin, D. S. (2012). Childhood maltreatment and the
structure of common psychiatric disorders. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 200(2), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.093062

Khwaileh, F. M. & Zaza, H. (2011). Gender differences in academic performance

among undergraduates at the University of Jordan: Are they real or
stereotyping. College Student Journal, 45(3), 633-648.

Kim, T. Y., Kim, Y., & Kim, J. Y. (2017). Structural relationship between L2
learning (de) motivation, resilience, and L2 proficiency among Korean
college students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26(6), 397-406.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40299-017-0358-x

Kim, T. Y., Kim, Y., & Kim, J. Y. (2018). A Qualitative Inquiry on EFL Learning
Demotivation and Resilience: A Study of Primary and Secondary EFL
Students in South Korea. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(1), 55–64.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-017-0365-y

Kim, K. I., Won, H., Liu, X., Liu, P., & Kitanishi, K. (1997). Students' stress in
China, Japan and Korea: A transcultural study. International Journal of
Social Psychiatry, 43(2), 87-94.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002076409704300202

Kingree, J. B. (1995). Understanding gender differences in psychosocial

functioning and treatment retention. The American Journal of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse, 21(2), 267-281.
https://doi.org/10.3109/00952999509002694

187
Knof, A. (2015). Negative parenting: A guide for parents. The Brown University
Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 31(S2), 1-2.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cbl.30021

Kostelnik, M. J., Whiren, A. P., Soderman, A. K., Stein, L. C., &Gregory, K.

(2002). Guiding children social development: Theory to practice (4th ed.).
New York: Delmar

Kowal, M., Coll‐Martín, T., Ikizer, G., Rasmussen, J., Eichel, K., Studzińska, A.,
... & Ahmed, O. (2020). Who is the most stressed during the covid‐19
pandemic? Data from 26 countries and areas. Applied Psychology: Health
and Well‐Being, 12(4), 946-966.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Faphw.12234

Krueger, N. F., Jr., & Dickson, P. R. (1993). Self-efficacy and perceptions of

opportunities and threats. Psychological Reports, 72,1235–1240.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.72.3c.1235

Kumaraswamy, N. (2013). Academic stress, anxiety and depression among

college students: A brief review. International review of social sciences
and humanities, 5(1), 135-143.

Kurniawan, H., de Groot, H. L., & Mulder, P. (2019). Are poor provinces
catching‐up the rich provinces in Indonesia?. Regional Science Policy &
Practice, 11(1), 89-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12160

Kwok, O., Hughes, J. N., & Luo, W. (2007). The role of resilient personality on
lower achieving first grade students’ current and future achievement.
Journal of School Psychology, 45, 61–82.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jsp.2006.07.002

188
Lacour, M.; Tissington, L. D. (2011). Educational research and ppraisal. Journal
of Research and Reviews, 6(7), 522–527.
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative

science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in
Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

Lamothe, D., Currie, F., Alisat, S., Sullivan, T., et al. (1995). Impact on a social
support intervention on the transition to university. Canadian Journal of
Community Mental Health, 14(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-
1995-0023

Lapan, S. D., Quartaroli, M. T., & Riemer, F. J. (2012). Qualitative research: An

introduction to methods and designs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Laprie, J. C. (2008, June). From dependability to resilience. 38th IEEE/IFIP

International conference on dependable systems and networks (pp. G8-
G9).
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.331.8948&rep=r
ep1&type=pdf

Lareau A (2003) Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.

Leahy, C.M. Peterson, R. F., Wilson, I.G., Newbury, J.W., Tonkin, A.L.,
Turnbull, D. 2010. Distress levels and self-reported treatment rates for
medicine, law, psychology and mechanical engineering tertiary students:
Cross-sectional study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,
44,608–615. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048671003649052

189
Lerner, R. M. (2006). Resilience as an attribute of the developmental system:
Comments on the papers of Professors Masten & Wachs. In B. M. Lester,
A. S. Masten, & B. McEwen (Eds.), Resilience in children. (pp. 40–51).
Boston, MA: Blackwell.

Levine, S. (2003). Psychological and social aspects of resilience: A synthesis of

risks and resources. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 5(3), 273-280.
https://dx.doi.org/10.31887%2FDCNS.2003.5.3%2Fslevine

Levine, D., & Kevane, M. (2003). Are investments in daughters lower when
daughters move away? Evidence from Indonesia. World Development,
31(6), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00050-0

Li, H. (2013) Rural students’ experiences in a Chinese elite university: Capital,

habitus and practices. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(5-6),
829-847, https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.821940

Li, Jie, Han, X., Wang, W., Sun, G., & Cheng, Z. (2018). How social support
influences university students’ academic achievement and emotional
exhaustion: The mediating role of self-esteem. Learning and Individual
Differences, 61, 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.016

Li, Y., Li, S., Wei, C., & Liu, J. (2019). How students’ friendship network affects
their GPA ranking. Information Technology & People, 33(2), 535-553.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-03-2018-0148

Li, X., & Phillips, M. R. (2010). Cross-sectional survey on the acceptability of

suicide among rural residents, urban residents and college students from
three locations in China. Crisis, 31(4), 183-193.
https://doi.org/10.1027/0027-5910/a000024

190
Liew, J., McTigue, E., Barrois, L., & Hughes, J. N. (2008). Adaptive and effortful
control and academic self-efficacy beliefs on literacy and math
achievement: A longitudinal study on 1st through 3rd graders. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 515–526.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ecresq.2008.07.003

Lin N., Dean, A., & Ensel, W. (1986). Social support, life events and depression.
Academic Press.

Liversage, L., Naudé, L., & Botha, A. (2018). Vectors of identity development
during the first year: black first-generation students’ reflections. Teaching
in Higher Education, 23(1), 63-83.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1359159

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2007). The Construct of

Resilience(CD2000).pdf. NIH Public Access, 71(3), 543–562.

Luthar, S & Cichetti (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for

interventions and social policies. Development and
Psychopathology, 12(4), 857–885.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579400004156

Luthar, S. S. (Ed.). (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context

of childhood adversities. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615788

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The Construct of Resilience: A
Critical Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work. Child
Development, 71(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164

191
Lyubomirsky, S., Kasri, F., Zehm, K. (2003). Dysphoric rumination impairs
concentration on academic tasks. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
27,309–330. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023918517378

Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and
methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205.
http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

Madewell, A. N., & Ponce-Garcia, E. (2016). Assessing resilience in emerging

adulthood: The resilience scale (RS), Connor–Davidson resilience scale
(CD-RISC), and scale of protective factors (SPF). Personality and
Individual Differences, 97, 249-255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.036

Maltzan, T. L. (2006). Rurality and higher education: Implications for identity

and persistence. (Doctoral Thesis, The Ohio State University). Columbus:
The Ohio State University.
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu11
49275308&disposition=inline

Mandal J., Acharya S., Parija S.C. (2011) Ethics in human research. Trop.
Parasitol. 1, 2–57.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3593469/

Mansfield, C. F., Beltman, S., Price, A., & McConney, A. (2012). “Don’t sweat
the small stuff”: Understanding teacher resilience at the chalkface.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 357-367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.001

Marsh, S. (2017, May 23). Number of university dropouts due to mental health
problems trebles. The Guardian.

192
 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/23/number-university-
dropouts-due-to-mental-health-problems-trebles

Marthoenis, Meutia, I., Fathiariani, L., & Sofyan, H. (2018). Prevalence of

depression and anxiety among college students living in a disaster-prone
region. Alexandria Journal of Medicine, 54(4), 337–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajme.2018.07.002

Martin, D., & Atkinson, C. (2020). University students’ accounts of living with
depression. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 25(2), 127-148.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2020.1742976

Masiak, J., Kuspit, M., Surtel, W., & Jarosz, M. J. (2014). Stress, coping styles
and personality tendencies of medical students of urban and rural origin.
Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 21(1).
http://agro.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-1d86b1d3-
bd25-4c6c-8178-99f0aa752a6f/c/20.pdf

Masten, A. S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful

adaptation despite risk and adversity. In M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordon
(Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and
prospects. (pp. 3-25). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in

development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.227

Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as

teh fourth wave rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19(3), 921–930.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579407000442

193
Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A Resilience Framework for Research,
Policy and Practice. In S. S. Luthar (Eds.), Resilience and vulnerability:
Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. (pp. 1-26). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Masten, A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and

youth. Child Development, 85(1), 6-20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12205

Masten, A.S. (2014). Invited commentary: Resilience and positive youth

development frameworks in developmental science. J Youth Adolescence
43, 1018–1024 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0118-7

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development:
Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity.
Development and Psychopathology, 2(4), 425-444.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400005812

Masten, A. S., Obradović, J., & Burt, K. B. (2006). Resilience in Emerging

Adulthood: Developmental Perspectives on Continuity and
Transformation. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in
America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 173–190). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11381-007

Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality

and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1401–1415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.010

Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research.

Harvard Educational Review.

194
McClelland M., Geldhof J., Morrison F., Gestsdóttir S., Cameron C., Bowers E.,
Duckworth A., Little T., Grammer J. Self-Regulation. (2018). In N.
Halfon, C.B. Forrest, R.M. Lerner, & E.M. Faustman (Eds.) Handbook of
Life Course Health Development (pp. 275–298). Springer International
Publishing.

McGillivray, C. J., & Pidgeon, A. M. (2015). Resilience attributes among

university students: a comparative study of psychological distress, sleep
disturbances and mindfulness. European Scientific Journal, 11(5).
http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/5174

Mcintosh, E., & Shaw, J. (2017). Student Resilience Exploring the positive case
for resilience. Unite Group. https://www.unite-
group.co.uk/sites/default/files/2017-05/student-resilience.pdf

McKenzie, S. K., Collings, S., Jenkin, G., & River, J. (2018). Masculinity, social
connectedness, and mental health: Men’s diverse patterns of
practice. American Journal of Men's Health, 12(5), 1247-1261.

McMillan, W. (2016). ‘People form their own support systems–like forming their
own families’: The role of parents and friends in the first year at dental
school. European Journal of Dental Education, 20(2), 112-119.
https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12150

McWhirter, B. T., McWhirter, E. H., McWhirter, J. J., & McWhirter, R. J. (2007).

At-risk youth: A comprehensive response. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Brooks/Cole.

Megatsari, H., Laksono, A. D., Ibad, M., Herwanto, Y. T., Sarweni, K. P., Geno,
R. A. P., & Nugraheni, E. (2020). The community psychosocial burden
during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Heliyon, 6(10), e05136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05136

195
Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology:
Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd
ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Mertens, D.M. (2019). Research methods in education and psychology:

Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (5nd
ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Miller, P., Votruba-Drzal, E., & Setodji, C. M. (2013). Family income and early
achievement across the urban–rural continuum. Developmental
Psychology, 49(8), 1452. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030244

Minello, A. (2020). The pandemic and the female academic. Nature, 17, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01135-9

Minza, W. M. (2012). Young migrants and education-to-work transitions in

Pontianak, West Kalimantan. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 13(1),
64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2011.636066

Misra, R., & Castillo, L. G. (2004). Academic stress among college students:
Comparison of American and international students. International Journal
of Stress Management, 11(2), 132.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1072-5245.11.2.132

Misra, R., & McKean, M. (2000). College students' academic stress and its
relation to their anxiety, time management, and leisure satisfaction.
American journal of Health studies, 16(1), 41.
https://search.proquest.com/openview/c2c1309ac42c1cc4b74e146f6b0e260
c/1?cbl=30166&pq-origsite=gscholar

196
Mistry, R. S., Vandewater, E. A., Huston, A. C., & McLoyd, V. C. (2002).
Economic well‐being and children's social adjustment: The role of family
process in an ethnically diverse low‐income sample. Child Development,
73(3), 935-951. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00448

Moghadari-Koosha M, Moghadasi-Amiri M, Cheraghi F, Mozafari H, Imani B,

Zandieh M. (2020). Self-efficacy, self-regulated learning, and motivation
as factors influencing academic achievement among paramedical students:
A correlation study. J Allied Health, 49(3), 145-152.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32877483/

Morgan, P., Foster, H., & Ayres, B. (2019). Interpersonal conflict and academic
success: A campus survey with practical applications for academic
ombuds. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association. 1-22.
https://ioa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/JIOA_Articles/IOA_06-
2019_JIOA_Interpersonal_Conflicts_and_Academic_Success.pdf6

Morreale, S. P., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is

important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st
century. Communication Education, 57(2), 224-240.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701861713

Morton, T. R., Ramirez, N. A., Meece, J. L., Demetriou, C., & Panter, A. T.
(2018). Perceived barriers, anxieties, and fears in prospective college
students from rural high schools. The High School Journal, 101(3), 155–
176. https://doi.org/10.2307/90024241

Muijs, D. (2010). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Sage

Publications.

Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2012). The competition–performance relation: A

meta-analytic review and test of the opposing processes model of

197
 competition and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1035.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0028324

Murphy, S. M. (2014). Determinants of adolescent suicidal ideation: Rural versus

urban. The Journal of Rural Health, 30(2), 175-185.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12042

Nelson, L. J., & Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2013). Flourishing and floundering in

emerging adult college students. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 67-78.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2167696812470938

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Workbook for Social research methods: qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Allyn & Bacon.

Nilan, P., & Demartoto, A. (2012). Patriarchal residues in Indonesia: Respect

accorded senior men by junior men. European Journal of Social
Sciences, 31(2), 279-293.
https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository?view=null
&f0=sm_relation%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.europeanjournalofsocial
sciences.com%2Fissues%2FEJSS_31_2.html%22&sort=null

Nissen, J. M., & Shemwell, J. T. (2016). Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in

introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2),
020105. https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020105

Nota, L., Soresi, S., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation and academic
achievement and resilience: A longitudinal study. International journal of
educational research, 41(3), 198-215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.07.001

198
Novotný, J. S., & Křeménková, L. (2016). The relationship between resilience
and academic performance at youth placed at risk. Československá
psychologie, 60(6). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313602814

Oakes, J. M., & Rossi, P. H. (2003). The measurement of SES in health research:
current practice and steps toward a new approach. Social Science &
Medicine, 56(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00073-4
O’Brien, D., P. Sharkey Scott, 2012, “Correlation and Regression”. in H. Chen
(Ed.), Approaches to quantitative research –A guide for dissertation
Students. (pp. 1 -15). Oak Tree Press.
https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=busch
manbk

O’Connor, M., Cloney, D., Kvalsvig, A., & Goldfeld, S. (2019). Positive mental
health and academic achievement in elementary school: New evidence
from a matching analysis. Educational Researcher, 48(4), 205-216.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X19848724

Agasisti, T., Avvisati, F., Borgonovi, F. Longobardi, S, (2018). Academic

resilience: What schools and countries do to help disadvantaged students
succeed in PISA. (Working Paper No. 167).
https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=
EDU/WKP(2018)3&docLanguage=En

Ogrodniczuk, J. S., & Oliffe, J. L. (2011). Men and depression. Canadian Family
Physician, 57(2), 153-155.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3038800/

Oliffe, J. L., & Phillips, M. J. (2008). Men, depression and masculinities: A

review and recommendations. Journal of Men's Health, 5(3), 194-202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jomh.2008.03.016

199
Onturk, Y., Efek, E., & Yildiz, M. (2020). Investigating the psychological
resilience of students in sports sciences faculty. International Journal of
Educational Methodology, 6(2), 393-403.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1254791

Oswalt, S. B., Lederer, A. M., Chestnut-Steich, K., Day, C., Halbritter, A., &
Ortiz, D. (2019). Trends in college students’ mental health diagnoses and
utilization of services, 2009-2015. J. Am. Coll. Health, 68(1), 41-51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1515748

Parinduri, R. A. (2014). Do children spend too much time in schools? Evidence

from a longer school year in Indonesia. Economics of Education Review,
41, 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.05.001

Pashak, T. J., Handal, P. J., & Scales, P. C. (2018). Protective factors for the
college years: Establishing the appropriateness of the developmental assets
model for emerging adults. Current Psychology, 37(1), 45-57.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-016-9488-1

Pasha-Zaidi, N., Afari, E., Urganci, B., Sevi, B., & Durham, J. (2020).
Investigating the relationship between adverse childhood experiences
(ACEs) and resilience: A study of undergraduate students in Turkey.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 29(10), 1204-1221.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1725212

Pateman, T. (2011). Rural and urban areas: comparing lives using rural/urban
classifications. Regional Trends, 43(1), 11-86.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/rt.2011.2

Peltzer, K., Yi, S., & Pengpid, S. (2017). Suicidal behaviors and associated
factors among university students in six countries in the Association of

200
 Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 26, 32-
38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2017.01.019

Peng, L., Li, M., Zuo, X., Miao, Y., Chen, L., Yu, Y., ... & Wang, T. (2014).
Application of the Pennsylvania resilience training program on medical
students. Personality and Individual Differences, 61, 47-51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.006

Perry, B. D. (2002). Childhood experience and the expression of genetic

potential: What childhood neglect tells us about nature and nurture. Brain
and Mind, 3(1), 79-100.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016557824657

Pheko, M. M., Monteiro, N., Tlhabano, K. N., & Mphele, S. B. M. (2014). Rural-
to-urban migrations: Acculturation experiences among university students
in Botswana. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 19(3), 306–
317. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2014.928782

Pohan, M. (2013). How education breaks the cycle of poverty: An inter-regional

study of Indonesian households (Doctoral thesis, Oklahoma State
University). Proquest LLC.
https://search.proquest.com/education/docview/1428172291/4425516FF22
C4976PQ/1?accountid=13374

Policy brief. (2014). Gender, equality, and corruption: what are the linkages?.
Transparency International: the global coalition against corruption.
https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/2014_Policybrief1_GenderEqu
alityCorruption_EN.pdf

Ponce‐Garcia, E., Madewell, A. N., & Brown, M. E. (2016). Resilience in men

and women experiencing sexual assault or traumatic stress: Validation and

201
 replication of the scale of protective factors. Journal of Traumatic Stress,
29(6), 537-545. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22148

Ponce-Garcia, E., Madewell, A. N., & Kennison, S. M. (2015). The development

of the scale of protective factors: Resilience in a violent trauma sample.
Violence and Victims, 30(5), 735–755. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-
6708.VV-D-14-00163

Pooley, J. A., & Cohen, L. (2010). Resilience: A definition in context. Australian

Community Psychologist, 22(1), 30-37.
https://groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/ACP-1-2010.pdf

Portnoy, G. A., Relyea, M. R., Decker, S., Shamaskin‐Garroway, A., Driscoll, M.,
Brandt, C. A., & Haskell, S. G. (2018). Understanding gender differences
in resilience among veterans: Trauma history and social ecology. Journal
of Traumatic Stress, 31(6), 845-855. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22341

PPDIKTI, 2020. Pangkalan data pendidikan tinggi Indonesia (Indonesian higher

education database). https://pddikti.kemdikbud.go.id/

Prince-Embury, S., & Saklofske, D. H. (2013). Translating resilience theory for

application: Introduction. In S. Prince-Embury, D. Saklofske (Eds.).
Resilience in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 3-7). Springer, New
York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4939-3_1

Pring, R. (2015). Philosophy of educational research. India: Bloomsbury

Academic.
Priory (2015). Why 40% of men won't talk about their own mental health.
https://www.priorygroup.com/blog/40-of-men-wont-talk-to-anyone-about-
their-mental-health

202
Priyatna, A. (2013). Negotiating and rethinking local culture: The narratives of
Indonesian women juggling higher education, work, and domestic roles.
Asian Journal of Women's Studies, 19(4), 95-123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2013.11666167

Pulford, B. D., Woodward, B., & Taylor, E. (2018). Do social comparisons in

academic settings relate to gender and academic self-confidence?. Social
Psychology of Education, 21(3), 677-690.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11218-018-9434-1

Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London:

Sage Publication.

Putra, I. G. N. E., Pradnyani, P. E., & Parwangsa, N. W. P. L. (2019).

Vulnerability to domestic physical violence among married women in
Indonesia. Journal of Health Research, 33(2)90-105.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JHR-06-2018-0018

Rahimi, B., Baetz, M., Bowen, R., & Balbuena, L. (2014). Resilience, stress, and
coping among Canadian medical students. Canadian Medical Education
Journal, 5(1), e5-e12.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4563614/

Rammohan, A., & Vu, P. (2018). Gender inequality in education and kinship
norms in India. Feminist Economics, 24(1), 142-167.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2017.1364399

Ramli, N. H., Alavi, M., Mehrinezhad, S. A., & Ahmadi, A. (2018). Academic
stress and self-regulation among university students in Malaysia: Mediator
role of mindfulness. Behavioral Sciences, 8(1), 12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8010012

203
Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J., & Hall, J. (2010). Handbook of adult resilience. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.

Reiss, F., Meyrose, A. K., Otto, C., Lampert, T., Klasen, F., & Ravens-Sieberer,
U. (2019). Socioeconomic status, stressful life situations and mental health
problems in children and adolescents: Results of the German BELLA
cohort-study. PloS One, 14(3), e0213700.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0213700

Reyes, A. T., Andrusyszyn, M. A., Iwasiw, C., Forchuk, C., & Babenko-Mould,
Y. (2015). Resilience in nursing education: An integrative review. Journal
of Nursing Education, 54(8), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-
20150717-03

Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10020

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and

resistance to psychiatric disorder. The British journal of psychiatry, 147(6),
598-611. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
core/content/view/5DFD1650463B8F834D2C9E4239BCD5CB/S0007125
000208775a.pdf/resilience-in-the-face-of-adversity-protective-factors-and-
resistance-to-psychiatric-disorder.pdf

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. Amer. J.

Orthopsychiat, 57(3), 316-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-
0025.1987.tb03541.x
Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf,
A. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub, (Eds.), Risk and
protective factors in the development of psychopathology, (pp. 181-214).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

204
Rutter, M. (1996). Transitions and turning points in developmental
psychopathology: As applied to the age span between childhood and mid-
adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19(3), 603-
626. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/016502596385712

Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family

therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21(2), 119-144.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00108

Rutter M. (2003). Genetic influences on risk and protection: Implications for

understanding resilience. In S.S. Luthar, (Ed.), Resilience and
vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities, (pp. 489–
509). Cambridge University Press.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/CBO9780511615788.022

Rutter, M. (2006). Implications of resilience concepts for scientific

understanding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1376.002

Rutter, M. (2012). Resilience as a dynamic concept. Development and

Psychopathology, 24(2), 335-
344.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412000028

Rutter, M. (2013). Annual research review: Resilience - clinical implications.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 54(4),
474–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02615.x

Sameroff, A. (2000). Ecological perspectives on developmental risk. In J. D.

Osofsky & H.E. Fitzgerald (Eds.), WAIMH handbook of infant mental
health: Infant mental health in groups at high risk, vol. 4 (pp. 1–33). New
York: Wiley.

205
Sammons, P., Day, C., Kington, A., Gu, Q., Stobart, G., & Smees, R. (2007).
Exploring variations in teachers' work, lives and their effects on pupils: key
findings and implications from a longitudinal mixed‐method study. British
Educational Research Journal, 33(5), 681-701.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701582264

Santos, Z. A., & Soares, A. B (2018). Social skills, coping, resilience and
problem-solving in psychology university students. Liberabit, 24, 265-276.
https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/686/68656777009/html/index.html#redal
yc_68656777009_ref2

Sarwar, M., Inamullah, H., Khan, N., & Anwar, N. (2010). Resilience and
academic achievement of male and female secondary level students in
Pakistan. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 7(8).
https://doi:10.19030/tlc.v7i8.140

Sarwono, B. K. (2012). Gender bias in a patriarchal society: A media analysis on

virginity and reproductive health. Wacana, 14(1), 37-60.
https://brill.com/view/journals/waca/14/1/article-p37_4.xml

Sateemae, M., Abdel-Monem, T., & Sateemae, S. (2017). Investigating

preferences for patriarchal values among Muslim university students in
southern Thailand. Contemporary Islam, 11(1), 81–101.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11562-017-0386-6

Sathiskumar, N., Seenivasan, C., Anandakumar, K., Umamaheswari, P. & Bobin,

A (2017). Social competence among college students in Cuddalore district.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies
(IJIMS), 4(2), 149-151.
http://www.ijims.com/process/downloadPDF.php?id=693

206
Sax, L., Bryant, A., & Gilmartin, S. (2004). A longitudinal investigation of
emotional health among male and female first-year college students.
Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition,16(2),39-
65.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/fyesit/fyesit/2004/00000016/0
0000002/art00003

Schaner, S., & Das, S. (2016). Female labor force participation in Asia: Indonesia
country study. Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series,
(474). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/78045775.pdf

Schoon, I. (2006). Risk and resilience: Adaptations in changing times. Cambridge

University Press.

Schulenberg, J. E., Sameroff, A. J., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). The transition to

adulthood as a critical juncture in the course of psychopathology and
mental health. Development and Psychopathology, 16(4), 799-806.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404040015

Schumacher, H. (2019, March 18). Why more men than women die by suicide.
BBC, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190313-why-more-men-kill-
themselves-than-women

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure

of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3),
550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550

Sedgwick, P. (2014). Cross sectional studies: advantages and

disadvantages. BMJ, 348, g2276.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2276

207
Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2000). Poor social skills are a vulnerability factor in the
development of psychosocial problems. Human Communication
Research, 26(3), 489-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2958.2000.tb00766.x

Segrin, C., Hanzal, A., Donnerstein, C., Taylor, M., & Domschke, T. J. (2007).
Social skills, psychological well-being, and the mediating role of perceived
stress. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(3), 321-329.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800701282252

Seidler, A. L., & Ritchie, S. J. (2018). The association between socioeconomic

status and cognitive development in children is partly mediated by a
chaotic home atmosphere. Journal of Cognition and Development, 19(5),
486-508. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2018.1515077

Seidman, E., & French, S. E. (2004). Developmental trajectories and ecological

transitions: A two-step procedure to aid in the choice of prevention and
promotion interventions. Development and Psychopathology, 16(4), 1141-
1159. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579404040179

Sharman, L. S., Dingle, G. A., Baker, M., Fischer, A., Gračanin, A., Kardum, I.,
... & Vanman, E. J. (2019). The relationship of gender roles and beliefs to
crying in an international sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2288.
https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2019.02288

Shepherd, J. M. (2016). Self-efficacy score differences between first-year, male

and female first-generation and non-first-generation college students as
measured by the college self-efficacy inventory (CSEI) (Doctoral thesis,
Liberty University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/75897962.pdf

208
Shkodriani, G. M., & Gibbons, J. L. (1995). Individualism and collectivism
among university students in Mexico and the United States. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 135(6), 765-772.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1995.9713979

Singh, R., Mahato, S., Singh, B., Thapa, J., & Gartland, D. (2019). Resilience in
Nepalese adolescents: Socio- demographic factors associated with low
resilience. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 12, 893–902.
https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S226011

Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J.
(2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine,15(3), 194–200.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972

Smith, C. S., Carrico, C. K., Goolsby, S., & Hampton, A. C. (2020). An analysis
of resilience in dental students using the Resilience Scale for
Adults. Journal of Dental Education, 84(5), 566-577.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12041

Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and validation of a Scale of

Perceived Social Self-Efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8(3), 283–
301. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907270000800306

Smith, K. J., Haight, T. D., Emerson, D. J., Mauldin, S., & Wood, B. G. (2020).
Resilience as a coping strategy for reducing departure intentions of
accounting students. Accounting Education, 29(1), 77–108.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2019.1700140

Solberg, V. S., & Viliarreal, P. (1997). Examination of self-efficacy, social

support, and stress as predictors of psychological and physical distress
among Hispanic college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

209
 Sciences, 19(2), 182-201.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/07399863970192006

Solomon, O. (2013) Exploring the relationship between resilience, perceived

stress and academic achievement. Manchester Metropolitan University.
(Unpublished). https://e-
space.mmu.ac.uk/576570/1/Olivia%20SOLOMON%20(MMU).pdf

Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., and Williams (1999). Validation and utility of a self-
report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care
Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA,
282(18), 1737-1744. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.18.1737

Statistics, I(2021). Percentage of poor population by province in Indonesia.

https://www.bps.go.id/indicator/23/192/1/persentase-penduduk-miskin-
menurut-provinsi.html

Stallman, H. M. (2010). Psychological distress in university students: A

comparison with general population data. Australian Psychologist, 45(4),
249-257. http://dx.doi.org/0.1080/00050067.2010.482109

Stanley, S., & Mettilda Bhuvaneswari, G. (2016). Stress, anxiety, resilience and
coping in social work students (A study from India). Social Work
Education, 35(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1118451

Struthers, C. W., Perry, R. P., & Menec, V. H. (2000). An examination of the

relationship among academic stress, coping, motivation, and performance
in college. Research in Higher Education, 41(5), 581-592.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40196403

Sugiarti, Geshica, L., Prabowo, D. A., Rachmawati, A., Alkarisya, A., &
Mulyaningrum, V. A. (2018). Ups and downs as Indonesian college

210
 students: Risk and protective factors for psychological distress. In M-T.
Leung & L-M. Tan (Eds.), Applied Psychology Readings (pp. 281-293).
Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-981-10-
8034-0.pdf

Sundar, M., & Archana, R. (2020). Gender difference in resilience among the
undergraduate medical students – a cross sectional study. International
Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences, 11(2), 21–24.
https://doi.org/10.26452/ijrps.v11iSPL2.2057

Sundarasen, S., Chinna, K., Kamaludin, K., Nurunnabi, M., Baloch, G. M.,
Khoshaim, H. B., ... & Sukayt, A. (2020). Psychological impact of Covid-
19 and lockdown among university students in Malaysia: Implications and
policy recommendations. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(17), 1-13. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-
4601/17/17/6206

Suryadarma, D., Widyanti, W., Suryahadi, A., & Sumarto, S. (2006). From
access to income: Regional and ethnic inequality in Indonesia. SMERU
Research Institute. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/51092-EN-
from-access-to-income-regional-and-ethnic-inequality-in-indonesia.pdf

SUSENAS. (2019). Survey of social and economy in Indonesia.

https://www.bps.go.id/indicator/27/1225/1/proporsi-individu-yang-
menggunakan-internet-menurut-provinsi.html

Sutantoputri, N. W., & Watt, H. M. (2012). Attribution and Motivation: A

Cultural Study among Indonesian University Students. International
Journal of Higher Education, 1(2), 118-129.
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v1n2p118

211
Tabassum, R., Akhter, N., & Iqbal, Z. (2020). Relationship between social
competence and academic performance of university students. Journal of
Educational Research, 23(1), 1-14.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/2435558709?pq-
origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

Tadjoeddin, M. Z. (2019). Inequality and Exclusion in Indonesia. Journal of

Southeast Asian Economies, 36(3), 284-303.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26842377

Tanasaldy, T. (2009). Ethnic geography in conflicts: the case of West

Kalimantan, Indonesia. RIMA: Review of Indonesian and Malaysian
Affairs, 43(2), 105.
https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=117481865396971;r
es=IELAPA

Tang, W., & Dai, Q. (2018). Depressive symptoms among first-year Chinese
undergraduates: The roles of socio-demographics, coping style, and social
support. Psychiatry Research, 270, 89–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.09.027

Tao, A., Zhou, Q., & Wang, Y. (2010). Parental reactions to children’s negative
emotions: prospective relations to Chinese children’s psychological
adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology : JFP : Journal of the Division
of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division
43), 24(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018974

Taylor S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (1999). Psychosocial resources and the SES-health
relationship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896(1). 210-
225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08117.x

212
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research:
Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and
behavioral sciences. Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with
examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689806292430

The Jakarta Post. (2020). Life without internet: Bornean students learn by radio
during pandemic. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/05/02/life-
without-internet-bornean-students-learn-by-radio-during-pandemic.html

Timmins, F., & Kaliszer, M. (2002). Aspects of nurse education programmes that
frequently cause stress to nursing students–fact-finding sample survey.
Nurse Education Today, 22(3), 203-211.
https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0698

Tobias, J. (2014). Towards better education quality: Indonesia's promising path.

Overseas Development Institute.
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-
files/9065.pdf

Tracy, S. J. (2007). Taking the plunge: A contextual approach to problem-

based research. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 106-111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196862

Triandis , H. C. ( 1995 ). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO : Westbiew

Press.

Triandis, H. C. (2015). Collectivism and individualism: Cultural and

psychological concerns. In D. J. Wright (Ed.). International encyclopaedia

213
 of the social & behavioural sciences (pp. 206-210). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24008-7

Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive

emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.86.2.320
Turner, M., Holdsworth, S., & Scott-Young, C. M. (2017). Resilience at
university: The development and testing of a new measure. Higher
Education Research & Development, 36(2), 386-400.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1185398

Turner, M., & Simmons, D. R. (2019). Taking a partnered approach to managing

academic stress: An undergraduate study. International Journal of
Construction Education and Research,16(4) 251-269.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2019.1619637

Ul Haq, M. A., Dar, I. S., Aslam, M., & Mahmood, Q. K. (2018). Psychometric
study of depression, anxiety and stress among university students. Journal
of Public Health, 26(2), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-017-
0856-6

Ungar, M. (2003). Qualitative contributions to resilience research. Qualitative

Social Work, 2(1), 85-102.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1473325003002001123

Ungar, M. (2004). A Constructionist discourse on resilience: Multiple contexts,

multiple realities among at-risk children and youth. Youth and Society,
35(3), 341–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X03257030

Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work,

38(2), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl343

214
Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and
cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 81(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-
0025.2010.01067.x

Ungar, M. (2012). Social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and

practice. Springer Science & Business Media.

Ungar, M. (2013). Resilience, trauma, context, and culture. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 14(3), 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1524838013487805

United Nation Development Program. (2016). Human Development Report 2016.

Human Development for Everyone. New York.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2016

UNICEF (2021). Situational analysis on digital learning landscape in Indonesia.

https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/media/9956/file/Situation%20Analysis%
20on%20Digital%20Learning%20in%20Indonesia.pdf

USAID (2013). Prioritizing Reform, Innovation and Opportunities for Reaching

Indonesia’s Teachers, Administrators, and Students (USAID PRIORITAS):
Report on Gender Situation Analysis Related to Student Learning and
Achievement. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00KKPN.pdf

Van Breda, A. D. (2017). The Youth Ecological-Resilience Scale: a partial

validation. Research Social Work Practice, 27(2), 248–257.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049731516651731

Van Breda, A. D. (2018). Resilience of vulnerable students transitioning into a

South African university. Higher Education, 75(6), 1109-1124.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-017-0188-z

215
Van Kempen, E., Van Kamp, I., Lebret, E., Lammers, J., Emmen, H., &
Stansfeld, S. (2010). Neurobehavioral effects of transportation noise in
primary schoolchildren: A cross-sectional study. Environmental
Health, 9(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-25

Van Zyl, Y., & Dhurup, M. (2018). Self-efficacy and its relationship with
satisfaction with life and happiness among university students. Journal of
Psychology in Africa, 28(5), 389-393.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2018.1528760

Vinayak, S., & Judge, J. (2018). Resilience and empathy as predictors of

psychological wellbeing among adolescents. International Journal of
Health Sciences and Research, 8(4), 192-200.

Virtanen, P., & Nevgi, A. (2010). Disciplinary and gender differences among
higher education students in self-regulated learning strategies. Educational
Psychology, 30(3), 323–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443411003606391

Von Harscher, H., Desmarais, N., Dollinger, R., Grossman, S., & Aldana, S.
(2018). The impact of empathy on burnout in medical students: new
findings. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 23(3), 295-303.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.1374545

Wachs, T. D. (1999). The nature and nurture of child development. Food and
Nutrition Bulletin, 20(1), 7-22.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/156482659902000103

Wagnild, G. M., & Quinn, P. (2010). The Resilience scale user's guide. Resilience
Centre.

216
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. (1993). Development and psychometric. Journal of
Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165-178.

Wahyudi (2004). Educational practices and learning environments in rural and

urban lower secondary science classrooms in Kalimantan Selatan
Indonesia (Doctoral thesis, Curtin University).
https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/1739

Walter, M. (2006). Social science methods: An Australian perspective. Oxford,

New York: Oxford University Press.

Wang, D., Hu, M., & Yin, X. (2017). Positive academic emotions and
psychological resilience among rural-to-urban migrant adolescents in
China. Social Behaviour and Personality, 45(10), 1665–1674.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6382

Wang, D., Hu, M., & Yin, X. (2017). Positive academic emotions and
psychological resilience among rural-to-urban migrant adolescents in
China. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(10), 1665–1674.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6382

Wang, J., Zhao, J., & Wang, Y. (2014). Self-efficacy mediates the association
between shyness and subjective well-being: The case of Chinese college
students. Social Indicators Research, 119(1), 341–351.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0487-4

Webster, E. A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015). Emotions and emotion regulation in

undergraduate studying: Examining students’ reports from a self-regulated
learning perspective. Educational Psychology, 35(7), 794-818.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895292

217
Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in
personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology,
2, 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

Wells, N. M. (2000). At home with nature effects of “greenness” on children’s

cognitive functioning. Environment and Behaviour, 32(6), 775-795.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00139160021972793

Wenzel, A., Graff-Dolezal, J., Macho, M., & Brendle, J. R. (2005).

Communication and social skills in socially anxious and non-anxious
individuals in the context of romantic relationships. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 43(4), 505-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.03.010

Weiss, R. (1974) The provisions of social relationships. In: Rubin, Z., (Ed.),
Doing unto others (pp. 17-26). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Westefeld, J. S., Homaifar, B., Spotts, J., Furr, S., Range, L., & Werth, J. L.
(2005). Perceptions concerning college student suicide: Data from four
universities. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour, 35(6), 640-645.
https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.2005.35.6.640

Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie‐Gauld, M. (2005). ‘It was nothing to do with the
university, it was just the people’: The role of social support in the
first‐year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education,
30(6), 707-722. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500340036

Wilks, S. E., & Spivey, C. A. (2010). Resilience in undergraduate social work

students: Social support and adjustment to academic stress. Social Work
Education, 29(3), 276-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470902912243

218
Williams, J. M., Bryan, J., Morrison, S., & Scott, T. R. (2017). Protective factors
and processes contributing to the academic success of students living in
poverty: Implications for counselors. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 45(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12073

Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E.

O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis. (pp. 9). Washington, DC:
Island Press.

Winkelman, M. (1994). Cultural shock and adaptation. Journal of Counselling &

Development, 73(2), 121-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6676.1994.tb01723.x

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-
regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation
and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–
314). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum

Wong, S. T., Wu, A., Gregorich, S., & Pérez-Stable, E. J. (2014). What type of
social support influences self-reported physical and mental health among
older women?. Journal of Aging and Health, 26(4), 663-678.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0898264314527478

World Bank (2017). Improving education quality in Indonesia’s poor rural and
remote areas.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2017/12/22/improving-education-
quality-in-indonesia-poor-rural-and-remote-areas

Wright, M. O., & Masten, A. S. (2005). Resilience processes in development:

Fostering positive adaptation in the context of adversity. In S. Goldstein &
R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (p. 17–37). Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48572-9_2

219
Wright, Margaret O’Dougherty; Masten, Ann S.; Narayan, A. J. (2013).
Resilience processes in development: Four waves of research on positive
adaptation in the context of adversity. In Handbook of Resilience in
Children: Second Edition (pp. 15–38).

Yan, K., & Wu, L. (2020). The adjustment Xie, A., & Reay, D. (2020).
Successful rural students in China’s elite universities: habitus
transformation and inevitable hidden injuries? Higher Education, 80(1),
21-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00462-9

Yang, L. S., Zhang, Z. H., Sun, L., Sun, Y. H., & Ye, D. Q. (2015). Prevalence of
suicide attempts among college students in China: a meta-analysis. PLoS
One, 10(2), e0116303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116303

Yip, M. C. (2019). The linkage among academic performance, learning strategies

and self-efficacy of Japanese university students: a mixed-method
approach. Studies in Higher Education, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1695111

Yong, F. L. (2010). A study on the self-efficacy and expectancy for success of

preuniversity students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 514–
524. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/88223

Yorke, M., and B. Longden. 2008. The First-Year Experience of Higher

Education in the UK: Final Report. The Higher Education Academy.
https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/first-year-experience-
higher-education-uk-final-report

Yulianti, K., Denessen, E. J. P. G., & Droop, W. (2019). Indonesian parents'

involvement in their children's education: A study in elementary schools in

220
 urban and rural Java, Indonesia. School Community Journal, 29(1), 253-
278.
https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/204353/204353.pdf

Yusoff, M. S. B., Rahim, A. F. A., Baba, A. A., Ismail, S. B., Pa, M. N. M., &
Esa, A. R. (2013). Prevalence and associated factors of stress, anxiety and
depression among prospective medical students. Asian Journal of
Psychiatry, 6, 129-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2012.09.012

Zeng, Y., Wang, G., Xie, C., Hu, X., & Reinhardt, J. D. (2019). Prevalence and
correlates of depression, anxiety and symptoms of stress in vocational
college nursing students from Sichuan, China: a cross-sectional study.
Psychology, Health and Medicine, 24(7), 798–811.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2019.1574358

Zenner, C., Herrnleben-Kurz, S., & Walach, H. (2014). Mindfulness-based

interventions in schools—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers
in Psychology, 5, 603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00603

Zhang, R. (2017). The stress-buffering effect of self-disclosure on Facebook: An

examination of stressful life events, social support, and mental health
among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 527-537.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.043

Zhang, Y., Tardif, T., Shu, H., Li, H., Liu, H., McBride-Chang, C., ... & Zhang,
Z. (2013). Phonological skills and vocabulary knowledge mediate
socioeconomic status effects in predicting reading outcomes for Chinese
children. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 665.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0028612

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of

221
 Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive

perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.

Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical

background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0002831207312909

Zubair, A., Kamal, A., & Artemeva, V. (2018). Mindfulness and resilience as
predictors of subjective well-being among university students: A cross
cultural perspective. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 28(2).
https://search.proquest.com/openview/3cd72db6c60af9942c4a8399608291
4e/1?cbl=136244&pq-origsite=gscholar

222
 Appendices

Appendix A: Recruitment letter for participants

Research title:
Investigating protective factors for resilience in undergraduate learners in
Indonesia

Dear student,

I am conducting a survey as part of a research study to increase understanding of

resilience in undergraduate students in Indonesia. The main purpose is to
understand protective factors for resilience in undergraduate students facing
academic pressure.
As a student you are in ideal position to give us valuable first-hand information
from your own perspective.

The survey will take approximately 10 - 15 minutes. The intention is to capture

your thoughts and perspectives based on your experience as an undergraduate
student under academic pressure. There are no known risk in you taking part in
this research. Your responses to the questions will be kept confidential and no
individuals or institutions will be identified directly or indirectly in any report on
the results. Your participation will be a valuable addition to our research and
findings could lead to greater public understanding and policy making related to
protective factors for resilience among undergraduate students in Indonesia.

This study adopts purposive sampling strategy, particularly selecting participants

based on students’ demographic characteristics in gender, geographical area and
SES. Therefore, I will send to you the demographic questionnaire (asking the
information of gender, geographical area and SES) if you are willing to
participate. Please send me email expressing your interest to join this research. If
your demographic characteristics meet the criteria that this research needs, I will
contact you back and will send the consent form and a link to the online survey.
However, if your demographic characteristics do not meet the criteria that this
research seeks, you will be informed that you will not go on to the main survey.
Your demographic data will be removed or deleted from my email and the
Google Form.

223
You are free to withdraw your participation in this research by 31st July 2020 by
contacting directly this researcher through email or telephone number provided in
the information sheet and this recruitment letter. After 31st July the participants
cannot withdraw the participation because the responses will be unidentifiable. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or
telephone number below.

Thank you.

The researcher and contact details:

Venny Karolina
Email address: vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk
Telephone number : +44 7307964609
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

224
(Indonesian translation for recruitment letter for participants)

Surat undangan untuk perekrutan peserta survei

Judul Penelitian:
Investigasi faktor-faktor pelindung untuk ketangguhan bagi mahasiswa S1 di
Indonesia

Kepada Yth. Mahasiswa/i

Saya saat ini melakukan penelitian tentang ketangguhan mahasiswa Strata 1

Indonesia. Tujuan utama penelitian ini adalah untuk memahami factor-faktor
pelindung untuk ketahanan pada mahasiswa dalam menghadapi tekanan akademik.

Sebagai mahasiswa, anda adalah responden yang ideal untuk memberikan kami
informasi tentang pengalaman anda. Survei ini membutuhkan waktu sekitar 10 – 15
menit. Tujuannya adalah untuk menggali informasi dari anda tentang pengalaman
anda sebagai mahasiswa yang merasakan tekanan akademis dalam perkuliahan.

Jawaban anda akan dijaga kerahasiannya dan tidak ada jawaban dari survei ini dapat
diidentifikasi secara langsung atau tidak langsung dalam laporan. Partisipasi anda
sangat berarti dalam penelitian ini untuk meningkatkan pemahaman dan untuk
sebagai bahan saran bagi para pembuat kebijakan terkait sehingga agar dapat
meningkatkan ketangguhan mahasiswa S1 di Indonesia. Jika anda bersedia untuk
berpartisipasi, silahkan hubungi saya melalui email atau melalui telpon. Saya akan
mengirimkan formulir untuk mengetahui karakteristik anda. Jika karakteristik yg
anda miliki memenuhi kriteria yang dibutuhkan dalam penelitian ini, saya akan
menghubungi anda kembali dan akan mengirimkan formulir persetujuan dalam
penelitian ini beserta tautan survey online Google Form.

Anda berhak mengundurkan diri dari penelitian ini dan batas waktu pemberitahuan
pengunduran diri yaitu tanggal 31 Juli 2020 dengan menghubungi saya melalui
telpon atau email. Setelah tanggal 31 Juli 2020, pengunduran diri tidak dapat
dilakukan lagi karena data pribadi sudah dihapus sehingga jawaban anda sudah tidak
dapat diidentifikasi. Jika anda memiliki pertanyaan, mohon hubungi saya melalui
email di bawah ini.

Terima kasih,

Peneliti dan alamat:

Venny Karolina
Email address: vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk
Telephone number: +44 7307964609
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

225
 Appendix B: Consent form

Project title: Investigating protective factors for resilience in undergraduate learners

in Indonesia

Researcher: Venny Karolina

Contact details:
Email address: vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

Please initial box

1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information letter dated
dd/mm/yyyy, for the above study. I have been given opportunities to
ask questions and these have been answered fully. I understand that the
participants are chosen based on the characteristics of gender,
geographical area and SES and if I am informed that my characteristics
do not meet the criteria this research seeks, my demographic data will
be removed or deleted from the researcher’s email and Google form and
I will not go on to the main survey.

2. I understand that the information letter is asking me to participate in

the survey. I understand that there are no known risk in participating in
this research.

3. I understand that my name and the name of university will not be

included in any reports, that the data will not be submitted
anonymously by 31st July 2020 and will be kept strictly confidential on
Queen’s University Belfast premises and handled in accordance with
the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation Act 2018 and
that the data will be coded and anonymous after 31st July 2020 as the
personal information will be removed from the responses.

226
4. I understand that participation is voluntary, that I am free to
withdraw my participation by 31st July 2020 by contacting the
researcher through email or telephone number as stated in the
information sheet for participants and recruitment letter, and that I
cannot withdraw my participation after 31st July 2020 as the personally
identifiable information will have been removed so that the withdrawal
after 31st July 2020 will not be feasible.

5. I understand that this research will be published in form of doctoral

dissertation.

6. Please sign/initial within which of the following boxes indicate your

response:
I AGREE to taking part in the above research.

I DO NOT AGREE to taking part in the above research.

I AGREE to taking part in the survey.

I AGREE to for my data to be archived at Queen’s

University of Belfast.

I AGREE to for my data to be used for secondary analysis

and publication.

Name of Participant Signature Date

227
Supervisors and contact details:

Dr. Aisling O’Boyle

Email address: a.oboyle@qub.ac.uk
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

Dr. Tess Maginess

Email address: t.maginess@qub.ac.uk
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

Researcher and contact details:

Venny Karolina
Email address: vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk
Telephone number : +44 7307964609
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

228
(Indonesian translation for consent form)
Lembar persetujuan
Judul penelitian: Investigasi faktor-faktor pelindung untuk ketangguhan bagi
mahasiswa S1 di Indonesia

Peneliti: Venny Karolina

1. Saya mengkonfirmasi bahwa saya telah membaca dan

memahami surat pemberitahuan tentang penelitian di atas pada
tgl/bln/thn. Saya juga mengkonfirmasi jika saya sudah diberi
kesempatan untuk mengajukan pertanyan dan telah dijawab
sepenuhnya.
2. Saya mengerti bahwa surat informasi meminta saya untuk
berpartisipasi dalam survei.

3. Saya mengerti bahwa nama saya dan nama universitas tidak

akan dimasukkan dalam laporan apa pun dan bahwa informasi
yang dikumpulkan akan dijaga kerahasiaannya di Queen's
University Belfast dan ditangani sesuai dengan ketentuan Undang-
Undang Peraturan Perlindungan Data Umum 2018.

4. Saya memahami bahwa partisipasi bersifat sukarela, saya bebas

untuk menarik keikutsertaan saya paling lambat pada tanggal 31
Juli 2020 dan saya tidak dapat menarik partisipasi lewat dari
waktu yang ditentukan tersebut karena kuesioner sudah dipisahkan
dari surat persetujuan sehingga kuesionner tidak bisa diidentifikasi

5. Saya mengerti bahwa penelitian ini akan dipublikasikan dalam

bentuk disertasi doktoral.

6. Silakan tanda tangan / inisial dengan kotak mana di bawah ini

yang menunjukkan respons anda:

- Saya SETUJU untuk ikut serta dalam penelitian di atas.

229
 - Saya TIDAK SETUJU ikut serta dalam penelitian di atas.

- Saya SETUJU mengambil bagian dalam survei.

- Saya SETUJU jika data saya diarsipkan di Queen's

University of Belfast.

- Saya SETUJU jika data saya yang akan digunakan

untuk analisis sekunder dan publikasi

_____________ __________________
Nama Tanggal Tanda Tangan Peserta

Pembimbing and alamat korespondensi:

Dr. Aisling O’Boyle
Alamat email: a.oboyle@qub.ac.uk
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

Dr. Tess Maginess

Alamat email: t.maginess@qub.ac.uk
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

Peneliti dan alamat korespondensi:

Venny Karolina
Alamat email: vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk
Telephone number : +44 7307964609
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN
Appendix C: Information sheet for research participants

230
 Appendix C: Information sheet for research participants

Ed. D. Research Dissertation

Title of the study:
Investigating protective factors for resilience in undergraduate learners in Indonesia
Researcher: Venny Karolina
Email address: vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

Why the research is conducted

This research is conducted as part of my final dissertation research of doctoral program in
education. I am undertaking a cross-sectional survey to investigate protective factors for
resilience in undergraduate learners in Indonesia. This study is important to reveal
information in relation to protective factors for resilience in undergraduate learners in
Indonesia.

Why you have been asked to participate in this research

You are invited to participate in this study because you are an undergraduate student in
Indonesia and your experience during your study at university is relevant to address the
purpose of this study for investigating protective factors for resilience in undergraduate
learners in Indonesia.

Voluntary nature of this research and withdrawal

Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary and you are under no obligation to
participate. You are free to withdraw your participation by 31st July 2020 by contacting this
researcher through email or telephone number as stated in the recruitment letter and
participant information sheet. After 31st July 2020 the data will be processed, and the
responses will be coded so that the withdrawal will not be feasible as the responses are not
identifiable. Your decision to participate or not participate will not influence your
relationship with the researcher, the institution, or Queen’s University Belfast.

Your participation in this research

I will employ electronic and printed questionnaire in this research. I will introduce my
research at the end of classroom sessions (offline or online classrooms) and inform my
contact details. This study adopts purposive sampling strategy —a strategy in which the
researcher selects the sample based on their being typical, or on characteristics sought. This
researcher selects three universities with the following criteria: (1) the universities located in
West Kalimantan Province, (2) the universities with older tradition in provision of services
(more than 20 years of existence), and (3) the universities located in areas where students
are from diverse background.

The participants in this research will be selected based on the following criteria: (1)
undergraduate students enrolled in the selected universities and (2) undergraduate students
in West Kalimantan Province meeting the demographic characteristics of this study in
gender, geographical area and SES. If you are interested to join the research, you may
contact me through email or telephone and fill out the demographic questionnaires. If your
specific demographic characteristics meet the criteria that this study seeks, you will be
contacted back through email or you will be informed in the following classroom session. I
will send you the link to online questionnaire or distribute the printed questionnaire to you.
The survey will take no longer than approximately 10 - 15 minutes. You will complete the

231
questionnaire at the end of session of your class time. If you do online questionnaire you
may submit your responses within a week. You will also be asked to fill out the consent
form in relation to your agreement to participate in this research. If your specific
demographic characteristics do not meet the criteria that this researcher seeks, you will be
informed that you may not go on to the main survey. The demographic data that you have
provided will be removed or deleted from my email and Google form.

Benefit of participation in this research

All participants will be given an electronic top-up telephone voucher, worth IDR 25,000 (+
GBP 1.25 – 1.45). This incentive is as compensation for your contribution and the internet
costs in participating in this research.

Confidentiality and anonymity

I would like to assure you that the study is conducted by a researcher from Queen’s
University Belfast and that all information will be treated confidentially on University
premises and handled in accordance with the provisions of the General Data Protection
Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. Your name and your institution will not be
mentioned and will be unidentifiable in the final dissertation. Initially, the data will not be
submitted anonymously. This is intended to give time for you who might intend to withdraw
the participation by 31st July 2020. After 31st July 2020, the personally identifiable
information will be removed from the data and the data will be coded. This means that the
data after 31st July 2020 will be anonymous or unidentifiable. There are no known risks
from participating this research.

Data after the end of the research

Data can only be accessed by the researcher and her supervisors. Data of this research will be
stored in a private, password-protected computer and all survey papers will be destroyed
after the completion of the dissertation. All the digital data will be stored by the School of
Social Sciences, Education and Social Work at Queen’s University Belfast for a period of 5
years and a copy of a final dissertation will also be stored at Queen’s University Belfast
Library.

Ethical Approval of this research

This research design has already been granted approval by the Ethical Standard set by
Queen’s University Belfast and the institution has also agreed that this research can be
carried out.

I greatly appreciate your involvement in this research. Please see the attached consent form.

Finally, if any aspects of the intended research seem unclear and you wish to clarify the
expectation of your involvement, please do not hesitate to contact me at:

karolina01@qub.ac.uk or my supervisor Dr. Aisling O’Boyle at a.oboyle@qub.ac.uk. and

Dr. Tess Maginess at t.maginess@qub.ac.uk
Thank you for your attention and cooperation being involved in this research.

232
 PRIVACY NOTICE FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

Queen’s University Belfast (“we”, “us” and “our”) is committed to protecting

your personal data. The notice is addressed to research participants (“you” and
“your”). This Privacy Notice tells you why we need to collect personal information
about you, what we will do with it, and how we will look after it. It also tells you
about your legal rights in relation to your Personal Data. If you have any questions
about this privacy notice, please contact us. Contact details are provided below.

WHO WE ARE

We are Queen’s University Belfast, a university with a reputation for

excellence in education and research and a member of the Russell Group. Founded
in 1845 as Queen's College Belfast, we became an independent university in 1908.
We conduct research to the highest standards of research integrity within a research
culture that values knowledge-creation for its own sake; for the potential benefits it
promises humankind; and for the ways it enriches higher learning.
As a consequence, and as stated in our University Charter our research
outcomes are in the public interest. All our research is underpinned by policies and
procedures that ensure we comply with regulations and legislation that govern the
conduct of research. This includes data protection legislation: The General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). In the
case of health and social care research, which should serve the public interest, where
we have to demonstrate that our research serves the interests of society as a whole.

HOW YOUR PERSONAL DATA IS COLLECTED

The type of personal information collected and used will depend on the
particular research objectives of the project you are taking part in. Information
collected will be proportionate to achieving those objectives and details that are not
necessary will not be asked for or collected. The Participant Information Sheet will
inform you of what information will be collected about you.
The University may process some information about you that is considered to
be “sensitive”, this is called “special category” personal data and includes
information concerning ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious
beliefs, or details about your health. These types of information have additional
protections.
Some specific research projects may collect information about past criminal
convictions.
Access to, and sharing of, special category and sensitive personal data is
controlled very carefully and you will be specifically informed about this in your
Participant Information Sheet.

HOW WE USE YOUR PERSONAL DATA

We use your Personal Data and Sensitive Personal Data collected for the
research purposes as set out in the Participant Information Sheet.

233
 In order to protect your rights and freedoms when using your personal
information for research and to process special category information the University
special safeguards in
place to protect your information, and all information is kept in line with our
policies and regulatory requirements.
9. In addition to the above University safeguards the GDPR and the DPA also
require us to meet the following standards when we conduct research with your
personal information:

the research will not cause damage or distress to someone (e.g., physical
harm, financial loss or psychological pain).
the research is not carried out in order to do or decide something in relation to
an individual person, unless the processing is for medical research approved by a
research ethics committee.
the Data Controller has technical and organisational safeguards in place (e.g.
appropriate staff training and security measures).
if processing a special category of data, this must be subject to a further
public interest test to make sure this particularly sensitive information is required to
meet the research objectives.

LEGAL BASIS FOR COLLECTING AND USING YOUR PERSONAL

DATA
We will only use your Personal Data if we have valid reasons for doing so.
These reasons are known as our “legal basis for processing”.
In the context of research, the lawful basis upon which we will process your
personal information is usually where “Processing is necessary for the performance
of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested
in the controller”
(Article 6 of GDPR).

Where we also collect and use more sensitive personal information (Special
Category data) we only do so where “the processing is necessary for archiving
purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical
purposes… which shall be proportionate to the aim pursued, respect the essence of
the right to data protection and provide for suitable and specific measures to
safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject”. (Article 9 of
GDPR).

Personal information relating to criminal convictions must also be treated

with extra care just like special category information and Schedule 1 of the Data
Protection Act 2018 provides a specific condition to allow it to be collected for
research purposes if the special safeguards are in place.
Where we need to rely on a different legal condition, such as consent, we will
inform you of this in the Participant Information Sheet provided to you. In clinical
trials or medical studies, for example, we may use the following condition: •
“Processing is necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine,
for the assessment of the working capacity of the employee, medical diagnosis, the
provision of health or social care or treatment or the management of health or social

234
care systems and services on the basis of Union or Member State law or pursuant to
contract with a health professional and subject to the conditions and safeguards”.

WHO WE SHARE YOUR DATA WITH

Your information will usually be shared within the research team conducting the
project you are participating in. This may include collaborators who are not
employed by the University. Where this is the case you will be informed about this
in your Participant Information Sheet.

It may sometimes be necessary to share your personal information with other

researchers for the purpose of achieving the research outcomes. If this is relevant to
the research you are involved with, you will be provided with information about this
in your Participant Information Sheet. Information shared will be on a need to know
basis, not excessive and with all appropriate safeguards in place to ensure the
security of your information.

We also sometimes use products or services provided by third parties who carry out
a task on our behalf, such as a transcribing service. These third parties are known as
data processors and when we use them we have contractual terms, policies and
procedures to ensure confidentiality is respected. This does not always mean that
they access your information. The University remains responsible for your personal
information as the Data controller and should researchers use another third party
service to process your personal information they will provide you with details
about the relationship they have with the service provider/supplier/collaborator on
the Participant Information Sheet.

DATA PROCESSING OUTSIDE EUROPE

We will not transfer your Personal Data and Sensitive Personal Data outside of the
European Economic Area without first advising you within the Participant
Information Sheet and we will ensure that they have adequate data protection
provision or are part of privacy and security schemes such as the privacy shield in
the US.

HOW LONG YOUR INFORMATION WILL BE KEPT

Information where you can be identified will be kept for a minimum amount of time
and in accordance with research objectives. Researchers will de-identify information,
i.e. anonymise or pseudonymise, as soon as possible.
Some information, such as signed records of consent, will be kept for the minimum
amount of time as required by funders or our policies and procedures. The
Participant Information Sheet will details how long your personal information will
be kept for.
We place great importance on the security of the Personal Data that we hold,
including the use of physical, technological and organisational measures to ensure
your information is protected from unauthorised access and against unlawful
processing, accidental loss, alteration, disclosure, destruction and damage

235
YOUR RIGHTS

The DPA provides you with a number of legal rights in relation to your Personal
Data, including the right:

to request access to your Personal Data;

to request correction of your Personal Data that is wrong or incomplete; to request
erasure or the restriction of processing of your Personal Data;
to request the transfer of your Personal Data in a structured; commonly used
machine-readable format; not to be subject to automated decision making; and to
withdraw your consent.

If you wish to exercise any of the rights set out above, or require further information
about any of the rights, please contact us.
There may also be times where we cannot stop using your Personal Data when you
ask us to, but we will tell you about this if you make a request.

CONTACTING US

If you have any questions or comments about this privacy notice, the University’s
Data

Protection Officer can be contacted at:

Data Protection Officer Information Compliance Unit Lanyon South
Queen’s University Belfast University Road
BT7 1NN
info.compliance@qub.ac.uk

COMPLAINTS

You have the right to complain about how we treat your Personal Data and Sensitive
Personal Data to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO can be
contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office Wycliffe House
Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF

CHANGES TO THIS NOTICE

We may update this Privacy Notice from time to time. We will notify you of the
changes where we are required by law to do so.

236
(Indonesian translation for Information sheet for participants)

Ed. D. Disertasi
Judul penelitian: Investigasi factor-faktor pelindung ketangguhan mahasiswa
di Indonesia

Peneliti: Venny Karolina

Alamat email : vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

Alasan mengapa penelitian dilakukan

Penelitian ini dilakukan sebagai bagian dari penellitian disertasi akhir saya untuk
program doktoral jurusna Pendidikan. Saya melakukan survey cross-sectional untuk
menyelidikifaktor factor perlindungan untuk ketagguhan mahasiswa/I di Indonesia.

Alasan mengapa anda diminta untuk berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini

Anda diundang untuk berpartisipasi dalam studi ini karena anda seorang mahasiswa
di Indonesia dan pengalaman anda selama menjadi mahasiswa relevan untuk
membahas tujuan penelitian ini untuk menyelidiki faktor-faktor pelindung untuk
ketangguhan mahasiswa/I di Indonesia.

Sifat sukarela dari penelitian dan penarikan ini

Partisipasi Anda dalam penelitian ini sepenuhnya bersifat sukarela dan Anda tidak
berkewajiban untuk ikut serta dalam penelitan ini. Anda bebas untuk menarik
partisipasi anda kapan saja sampai tanggal 31 Juli 2020. Lewat dari tanggal tersebut
penarikan diri dari penelitian ini tidak dapat dilakukan karena kuesioner sudah
dipisahkan dari formulir persetujuan sehingga lembar kuesioner sudah tidak dapat
diidentifikasi. Keputusan anda untuk berpartisipasi atau tidak, tidak akan
memengaruhi hubungan Anda dengan peneliti, institusi, atau Queen's University
Belfast.

Partisipasi Anda dalam penelitian ini

Anda akan diminta mengisi formulir persetujuan sehubungan dengan persetujuan
Anda untuk berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Dalam penelitian ini, Anda akan
diminta mengisi formulir demografis. Peneliti ini akan menghubungi Anda kembali
bahwa Anda direkrut atau tidak dalam studi ini berdasarkan pada formulir
demografis. Jika Anda direkrut, Anda akan diminta untuk menandatangani formulir
persetujuan dan mengisi kuesioner terkait dengan faktor perlindungan untuk
ketangguhan. Survei akan memakan waktu tidak lebih dari sekitar 10 - 15 menit.
Anda dapat mengisi kuesioner di akhir sesi waktu kelas Anda. Jika Anda melakukan
kuesioner online, Anda dapat mengirimkan tanggapan Anda dalam waktu seminggu.

237
Manfaat partisipasi dalam penelitian ini

Semua peserta akan diberikan voucher telepon isi ulang elektronik, senilai Rp25.000
(+ GBP 1,25 - 1,45). Insentif ini sebagai kompensasi atas kontribusi Anda dan biaya
internet dalam partisipasi penelitian ini.

Kerahasiaan dan anonimitas

Saya ingin meyakinkan Anda bahwa penelitian ini dilakukan oleh seorang peneliti
dari Queen's University Belfast dan bahwa semua informasi akan diperlakukan
secara rahasia di lingkungan.

Universitas dan ditangani sesuai dengan ketentuan Peraturan Perlindungan Data

Umum dan Undang- Undang Perlindungan Data 2018. Nama Anda dan lembaga
Anda tidak akan disebutkan dan tidak dapat diidentifikasi dalam disertasi akhir.
Rekaman data akan disimpan menggunakan kode anonim dan pengkodean ini akan
disimpan dengan aman. Semua salinan jawaban survei akan disimpan secara rahasia.

Data setelah penelitian berakhir

Data hanya dapat diakses oleh peneliti. Data penelitian ini akan disimpan di
komputer pribadi yang dilindungi kata sandi dan semua makalah survei akan
dimusnahkan setelah selesainya disertasi. Semua data digital akan disimpan oleh
Sekolah Ilmu Sosial, Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan Sosial di Queen's University Belfast
untuk jangka waktu 5 tahun dan salinan disertasi akhir juga akan disimpan di
Queen's University Belfast Library.

Persetujuan kode etik dari penelitian

Desain penelitian ini telah disetujui oleh Standar Etika penelitian yang ditetapkan
oleh Queen's University Belfast dan lembaga tersebut juga telah menyetujui bahwa
penelitian ini dapat dilakukan.

Saya sangat menghargai keterlibatan Anda dalam penelitian ini. Silakan lihat
formulir persetujuan terlampir. Akhirnya, jika ada aspek penelitian yang
dimaksudkan tidak jelas dan jika mengkonfirmasi partisipasi anda dalam penelitian
ini silahkan hubungi saya di vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk atau pembimbing saya Dr.
Aisling O'Boyle di a. oboyle@qub.ac.uk. dan Dr. Tess Maginess di
t.maginess@qub.ac.uk

Terima kasih atas perhatian dan kerja sama Anda dalam penelitian ini.

238
 Appendix D: Demographic questionnaire

Researcher: Venny Karolina

Email address: vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

This survey is about protective factors for resilience in undergraduate learners

in Indonesia. The survey is a part of research of doctoral study at the School of
Social Sciences, Education and Social Work at Queen’s University Belfast. All your
answers on this survey will be kept confidential.
Please fill out the following form and you will be contacted soon regarding your
participation in this research.

1. Faculty ______________________

2. Study Program

3. GPA score
4. Year of enrolment
5. Geographical area/Place of origin: City of province ____________
Rural area _______________
6. Parents’ monthly income Less than 2,500,000 IDR ___________
2,500,000 IDR to 5, 000,000 IDR
___________
More than 5,000,000 IDR
________________

7. Fathers’ educational Background Primary school ________________

Secondary school _______________
University _____________________

8. Mother’s educational background Primary school ________________

Secondary school ______________
University ____________________

239
(Indonesian translation for demographic questionnaire)
Survei bidotada calon peserta penelitian

Peneliti : Venny Karolina

Alamat email: vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk
School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work Queen’ University Belfast
20 College Green Belfast, BT7 1LN

Survei ini adalah tentang faktor-faktor perlindungan untuk ketangguhan mahasiswa/i

di Indonesia. Survei ini adalah bagian dari penelitian studi doktoral Jurusan Ilmu
Sosial, Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan Sosial di Queen's University Belfast. Semua
jawaban Anda pada survei ini akan dirahasiakan. Silahkan isi biodata berikut ini dan
anda akan kami hubungi segera.

Silakan isi bagian yang kosong atau beri tanda centang (√) di kotak jawaban
yang sesuai dengan respon Anda.

1. Fakultas ______________________

2. Program studi

3. Nilai IPK
4. Tahun pendaftaran
5. Tempat asal Kota Provinsi ____________
Daerah lainnya/kabupaten/desa _______________
6. Pendapatan orang tua per Kurang dari Rp 2,500,000 ___________
bulan
Rp 2,500,000 – Rp 5, 000,000 ___________
Lebih dari Rp 5,000,000 ________________
7. Latar belakang pendidikan Sekolah Dasar (SD) ________________
ayah
Sekolah menengah (SMP/SMA) _______________
Universitas _____________________
8. Latar belakang pendidikan Sekolah Dasar (SD) ________________
ibu
Sekolah menengah (SMP/SMA) _______________
Universitas _____________________

240
 Appendix E: Protective factors for resilience questionnaire
Scale of Protective Factors (SPF) for Resilience (Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015).
Please give a tick (√ ) in the answer box that correspond to your response

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly
disagree disagree disagree or agree agree
agree
My friends/family
1. Keep me up to speed on important
events
2. See things the same way
3. Are seen as united
4. Are supportive of one another
5. Are optimistic
6. Spend free time together
I am good at
7. Socializing with new people
8. Interacting with others
9. Making new friends
10. Being with other people
11. Working with others as part of a
team
12. Starting new conversations
When working on something, I
13. Can see the order in which to do
things
14. Plan things out
15. Organise my time well
16. Set priorities before I start
17. Do better if I set a goal
18. Make a list of things to do in
order of importance
I am confident in my ability to
19. Achieve goals
20. Think out and plan
21. Make good decisions/choices
22. Think on my feet
23. Succeed
24. Solve problems

241
(Indonesian translation for Protective factors for resilience questionnaire)
Survei tentang faktor-faktor pelindung untuk ketangguhan (Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015).
Berilah tanda centang (√) di kotak jawaban yang sesuai dengan respons Anda.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sangat tidak Tidak setuju Agak tidak Tidak Agak Setuju Sangat
setuju setuju tahu setuju tidak
setuju

1.selalu memberikan informasi

terbaru/terkini kepada saya
2. sepahaman dengan saya
3. kompak dengan saya
4. saling mendukung satu sama lain
5. optimis
6. kami menghabiskan waktu bersama
Saya bagus/pandai dalam hal….
7. bergaul dengan orang yang baru dikenal

8. berinteraksi dengan orang lain

9. mudah bergaul dengan teman

10. ramah dengan orang

11. bekerja sama dalam team

12. inisiatif/ memulai komunikasi

Ketika saya mengerjakan sesuatu, saya…

13. dapat memperkirakan tahap demi tahap

pekerjaan/tugas saya
14. merencanakan semua hal
15. mengatur waktu dengan baik
16. menyusun prioritas yang penting
terdahulu sebelum memulai sesuatu
17. akan mengerjakan sesuatu lebih baik jika
saya menetapkan target
18. membuat daftar kegiatan/tugas
berdasarkan urutan yg paling penting
Saya percaya diri akan kemampuan
saya dalam
19. mencapai target/tujuan
20. berpikir dan membuat rencana secara
matang
21. memanfaatkan kesempatan dengan baik
22. mengambil keputusan dalam waktu cepat

23. mencapai kesuksesan

24. memecahkan masalah

242
 Appendix F: Information letter
Ed. D. Research Dissertation
Research Title: Investigating protective factors for resilience in undergraduate
learners in Indonesia Queen’s University Belfast,
University Road, Belfast, BT9 1NN,
Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

I am currently undertaking a Doctorate in Education (EdD.) within the School of

Social Sciences, Education and Social Work (SSESW) at Queen’s University
Belfast, United Kingdom. As part of my final dissertation research, I am undertaking
a cross-sectional survey to investigate protective factors for resilience in
undergraduate learners in Indonesia. This research design has already been granted
approval by the Ethical Standard set by Queen’s University Belfast and the
institution has also agreed that this research can be carried out.

The participants in this research will be selected based on the following criteria: (1)
the undergraduate students enrolled in the selected universities and (2) the
undergraduate student in West Kalimantan Province meeting the demographic
characteristics of this study in gender, geographical area and SES. Your institution is
chosen as it meets the following criteria: (1) the university located in West
Kalimantan Province, (2) the university with older tradition in provision of services
(more than 20 years of existence), and (3) the university located in areas where
students are from diverse background.
I am writing this letter to obtain your permission for the class in your institution and
students to be involved in my research project. Before you agree to grant a
permission for conducting my project in your faculty or study program or class, it is
important that you understand what the research process entails. Please take time to
read the following information. I intend to ask students fill out the questionnaire in
relation to their protective factors for resilience. To achieve this objective, I will meet
students in the class time at the convenience of the class instructor and students. The
survey will take no longer than approximately about 10 - 15 minutes.

The survey will only be undertaken with those who have provided written consent.
The participants will be fully informed of what to expect during survey in the
classroom as well as receiving written form of consent and information sheet. It will
be explained very clear that they are under no obligation from the institution to
participate and that any involvement is entirely voluntary. Students will be informed
that the participations are chosen based on the criteria of gender, geographical area
and SES. If students do not meet the criteria, they will be informed that they will not
go on to the main survey and their demographic data will be removed or deleted
from my email and the Google form. All the participants will be given an electronic
top-up telephone voucher, worth IDR 25,000 (+ GBP 1.25 – 1.45). This incentive is
as compensation for participants’ contribution and the internet costs in participating
in this research.

I would like to assure that all information will be treated confidentially and will never
be used for any other purpose than the remit of this particular research study. The

243
data will not be submitted anonymously by 31st July 2020, but after 31st July 2020,
all the personally identifiable information will be removed from the responses. This
means that the responses will be coded and anonymous. No participants’ names will
be mentioned in the final dissertation. Your institution and the participants in this
study will not be named and will be unidentifiable in the final dissertation. Records
of data will be kept using an anonymous code and this coding will be stored
securely. All the hard copies of the survey responses will be saved confidentially.
Data will be stored in a private, password-protected computer and all survey papers
will be destroyed after the completion of the dissertation. All the digital data will be
stored by the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work at Queen’s
University Belfast for a period of 5 years and a copy of a final dissertation will also
be stored at Queen’s Library. There are no known risks from participating this
research.

Moreover, it is important to reiterate that participation in this survey is entirely

voluntary and under no obligation. The students in your institution have the right to
withdraw for any or no reason from this study by 31st July 2020 by contacting this
researcher through email or telephone number as stated in the recruitment letter and
participation information sheet. The withdrawal after 31st July will not be feasible as
after 31st July, the personally identifiable information will be removed and the data
will be coded. If the student withdraws, your institution and the student
himself/herself will not suffer any sanctions or adverse consequences.

I would greatly appreciate the involvement of your faculty or study program or class
in this research. Please see the attached consent form.

Finally, if any aspects of the intended research seem unclear and you wish to clarify
the expectation of your involvement, please do not hesitate to contact me at:
karolina01@qub.ac.uk or my supervisors Dr. Aisling O’Boyle at
a.oboyle@qub.ac.uk and Dr. Tess Maginess at t.maginess@qub.ac.uk.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation with this research.

244
 (Indonesian translation for information sheet for deans and/or head of study
program and/or class instructors)
Surat informasi untuk dekan dan / atau ketua program studi, dan / atau
instruktur kelas

Ed. D. Disertasi Penelitian

Judul Penelitian:
Investigasi faktor-faktor pelindung untuk ketangguhan bagi mahasiswa S1 di
Indonesia
Queen's University Belfast,
University Road, Belfast, BT9 1NN, Irlandia Utara, Kerajaan Inggris

Saat ini saya sedang mengambil gelar Doktor jurusan Pendidikan (EdD.) di
Fakultas Ilmu Sosial, Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan Sosial di Queen's University
Belfast, Inggris Raya. Sebagai bagian dari penelitian disertasi saya, saya melakukan
survei cross-sectional untuk menyelidiki faktor-faktor perlindungan untuk
ketangguhan pada mahasiswa/i di Indonesia. Desain penelitian ini telah disetujui
oleh standar kode etik penelitian yang ditetapkan oleh Queen's University Belfast
dan lembaga tersebut juga telah menyetujui bahwa penelitian ini dapat dilakukan.

Saya menulis surat ini untuk mendapatkan izin Bapak/Ibu untuk mengambil
data di kelas/institusi Bapak/Ibu. Berikut ini saya sampaikan keterangan mengenai
penelitian ini. Saya bermaksud mengundang para mahasiswa Bapak/Ibu untuk
mengisi kuesioner tentang faktor perlindungan untuk ketahanan mahasiswa S1 di
Indonesia. Untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut, saya akan bertemu siswa di waktu kelas
dengan nyaman dari instruktur kelas dan siswa. Survei akan memakan waktu tidak
lebih dari sekitar 10 - 15 menit.

Survei hanya akan dilakukan dengan mereka yang telah memberikan

persetujuan tertulis. Para peserta akan diberi informasi sepenuhnya tentang survey ini
dan mereka juga akan menerima formulir persetujuan dan lembar informasi tertulis.
Mereka akan mendapatkan penjelasan bahwa mereka tidak memiliki kewajiban
untuk berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Keikutsertaan dalam penelitian ini
sepenuhnya bersifat sukarela. Semua peserta akan diberikan voucher telepon isi
ulang elektronik, senilai Rp25.000 (+ GBP 1,25 - 1,45). Insentif ini sebagai
kompensasi atas kontribusi peserta dan biaya internet untuk berpartisipasi dalam
penelitian ini.

Saya ingin memastikan bahwa semua informasi akan diperlakukan secara

rahasia dan tidak akan pernah digunakan untuk tujuan lain selain dari penelitian studi
khusus ini. Tidak ada nama peserta

245
yang akan disebutkan dalam disertasi akhir. Lembaga Anda dan peserta dalam
penelitian ini tidak akan disebutkan namanya dan tidak akan dapat diidentifikasi
dalam disertasi akhir.
Rekaman data akan disimpan menggunakan kode anonim dan pengkodean ini
akan disimpan dengan aman. Semua salinan jawaban survei akan disimpan secara
rahasia. Data akan disimpan di komputer pribadi yang dilindungi kata sandi dan
semua survei akan dimusnahkan setelah selesainya disertasi. Semua data digital akan
disimpan oleh Fakultas Sosial Ilmu Pengetahuan, Pendidikan dan Pekerjaan Sosial di
Queen's University Belfast untuk periode 5 tahun dan salinan disertasi akhir juga akan
disimpan di Perpustakaan Queen’s University Belfast.

Selain itu, penting untuk ditegaskan kembali bahwa partisipasi dalam survei
ini sepenuhnya sukarela dan tidak ada kewajiban. Mahasiswa di institusi Anda
memiliki hak untuk menarik diri dalam penelitian ini tanpa ditanya alasannya dan
data akan data peserta akan dianonimkan pada akhir penyelesaian fase analisis pada
tanggal 31 Juli 2020. Artinya, jika siswa menarik diri, lembaga anda dan siswa itu
sendiri tidak akan mendapat sanksi atau konsekuensi yang merugikan.

Saya akan sangat menghargai keterlibatan fakultas atau program studi atau
kelas yang Bapak/Ibu ampu dalam penelitian ini. Berikut kami lampirkan formulir
persetujuan.

Akhirnya, jika ada aspek penelitian ini yang tidak jelas dan anda ingin
bertanya, mohon menghubungi saya di: vkarolina01@qub.ac.uk atau dosen
pembimbing saya Dr. Aisling O'Boyle di a. oboyle@qub.ac.uk dan Dr. Tess
Maginess di t.maginess@qub.ac.uk.

Terima kasih atas perhatian dan kerjasamanya dalam penelitian ini.

246
 Appendix G: Histograms

Figure G2. Histogram of distribution of

Figure G1. Histogram of distribution of
Protective Factor mean scores among male
Protective Factor mean scores among female
undergraduates.
undergraduates.

Figure G3. Histogram of distribution of social Figure G4. Histogram of distribution of social
support mean scores among female support mean scores among male
undergraduates. undergraduates.
Figure G5. Histogram of distribution of Figure G6. Histogram of distribution
social skill mean scores among female of social skill mean scores among male
undergraduates. undergraduates.

Figure G8. Histogram of distribution

Figure G7. Histogram of distribution of of planning behaviour mean scores
planning behavior mean scores among among male undergraduates.
female undergraduates.

248
Figure G9. Histogram of distribution of
Figure G10. Histogram of distribution
goal efficacy mean scores among female
of goal efficacy mean scores among
undergraduates.
male undergraduates.

Figure G11. Histogram of distribution of

protective factor mean scores among
undergraduates from city of province. Figure G12. Histogram of distribution
of protective factor mean scores among
undergraduates from rural area.

249
Figure G13. Histogram of distribution of Figure G14. Histogram of distribution
social support mean scores among of social support mean scores among
undergraduates from city of province. undergraduates from rural area.

Figure G15. Histogram of distribution of Figure G16. Histogram of distribution

social skill mean scores among of social skill mean scores among
undergraduates from city of province. undergraduates from rural area.

250
 Figure G18. Histogram of distribution
Figure G17. Histogram of distribution of
of planning behaviour mean scores
planning behaviour mean scores among
among undergraduates from rural area.
undergraduates from city of province.

Figure G19. Histogram of distribution of

goal efficacy mean scores among Figure G20. Histogram of distribution
undergraduates from city of province. of goal efficacy mean scores among
undergraduates from rural area.

251
 Figure G22. Histogram of distribution
Figure G21. Histogram of distribution of
of protective factor mean scores among
protective factor mean scores among
undergraduates from middle/high SES
undergraduates from low SES family.
family.

Figure G23. Histogram of distribution of

Figure G24. Histogram of distribution
social support mean scores among
of social support mean scores among
undergraduates from low SES family.
undergraduates from middle/high SES
family.

252
 Figure G26. Histogram of distribution of
Figure G25. Histogram of distribution of
social skill mean scores among undergraduates
social skill mean scores among
from middle/high SES family.
undergraduates from low SES family.

Figure G27. Histogram of distribution of

Figure G28. Histogram of distribution of
protective mean scores and GPA
social support mean scores and GPA

253
Figure G29. Histogram of distribution
of social skill mean scores and GPA Figure G30. Histogram of distribution
of planning behavior mean scores and
GPA

Figure G31. Histogram of distribution of

goal efficacy and GPA

254
 Appendix H: SPSS Output
Appendix H1. SPSS output of normality test of protective factor mean scores and
subscale mean scores (gender)

Descriptives

Gender Statistic Std. Error

MeanPF female Mean 4.8035 .03175

95% Confidence Lower Bound 4.7409

Interval for Mean Upper Bound 4.8660

5% Trimmed Mean 4.8168

Median 4.8000

Variance .252

Std. Deviation .50208

Minimum 3.12

Maximum 6.00

Range 2.88

Interquartile Range .62

Skewness -.437 .154

Kurtosis .488 .307

male Mean 4.9165 .03343

95% Confidence Lower Bound 4.8507

Interval for Mean Upper Bound 4.9824

5% Trimmed Mean 4.9428

Median 4.9667

Variance .279

Std. Deviation .52865

Minimum 2.29

Maximum 5.93

Range 3.64

Interquartile Range .60

Skewness -1.081 .154

Kurtosis 3.074 .307

MeanSocialS female Mean 4.7261 .03626
upport 95% Confidence Lower Bound 4.6547
Interval for Mean Upper Bound 4.7976
5% Trimmed Mean 4.7503
Median 4.7500

255
 Variance .329
Std. Deviation .57330
Minimum 2.78
Maximum 6.00
Range 3.22
Interquartile Range .75
Skewness -.712 .154
Kurtosis 1.064 .307
male Mean 4.8443 .03954
95% Confidence Lower Bound 4.7665
Interval for Mean Upper Bound 4.9222
5% Trimmed Mean 4.8798
Median 4.9167
Variance .391
Std. Deviation .62517
Minimum 2.50
Maximum 6.00
Range 3.50
Interquartile Range .67
Skewness -.980 .154
Kurtosis 1.493 .307
MeanSocialS female Mean 4.5263 .05646
kill 95% Confidence Lower Bound 4.4151
Interval for Mean Upper Bound 4.6375
5% Trimmed Mean 4.5644
Median 4.6667
Variance .797
Std. Deviation .89278
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 6.00
Range 5.00
Interquartile Range 1.17
Skewness -.703 .154
Kurtosis .864 .307
male Mean 4.7751 .05595
95% Confidence Lower Bound 4.6649
Interval for Mean Upper Bound 4.8853
5% Trimmed Mean 4.8193
Median 4.9167

256
 Variance .783
Std. Deviation .88461
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 6.00
Range 5.00
Interquartile Range 1.33
Skewness -.698 .154
Kurtosis .623 .307
MeanPlanBeh female Mean 4.8117 .04836
aviour 95% Confidence Lower Bound 4.7165
Interval for Mean Upper Bound 4.9070
5% Trimmed Mean 4.8562
Median 4.9167
Variance .585
Std. Deviation .76459
Minimum 2.17
Maximum 6.00
Range 3.83
Interquartile Range 1.00
Skewness -.870 .154
Kurtosis .830 .307
male Mean 4.8543 .04583
95% Confidence Lower Bound 4.7640
Interval for Mean Upper Bound 4.9445
5% Trimmed Mean 4.8984
Median 5.0000
Variance .525
Std. Deviation .72471
Minimum 1.67
Maximum 6.00
Range 4.33
Interquartile Range .83
Skewness -.970 .154
Kurtosis 1.785 .307
MeanGoalEffi female Mean 5.1949 .03623
cacy 95% Confidence Lower Bound 5.1236
Interval for Mean Upper Bound 5.2663

5% Trimmed Mean 5.2356

Median 5.1667

257
 Variance .328

Std. Deviation .57289

Minimum 3.00

Maximum 6.00

Range 3.00

Interquartile Range .83

Skewness -.947 .154

Kurtosis 1.514 .307

male Mean 5.2329 .03927

95% Confidence Lower Bound 5.1555

Interval for Mean Upper Bound 5.3102

5% Trimmed Mean 5.2858

Median 5.3333

Variance .386

Std. Deviation .62091

Minimum 1.00

Maximum 6.00

Range 5.00

Interquartile Range .67

Skewness -2.009 .154

Kurtosis 9.575 .307

258
 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Gender Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MeanPF female .051 250 .200* .986 250 .014

male .072 250 .003 .946 250 .000

MeanSocialSuppor female .087 250 .000 .967 250 .000
t male .108 250 .000 .944 250 .000
MeanSocialSkill female .090 250 .000 .965 250 .000
male .100 250 .000 .949 250 .000
MeanPlanBehavio female .115 250 .000 .948 250 .000
ur male .112 250 .000 .941 250 .000
MeanGoalEfficacy female .092 250 .000 .932 250 .000

male .150 250 .000 .855 250 .000

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Appendix H2. SPSS output of normality test of protective factor mean scores and
subscale mean score (geographical area).

Descriptives

Geographical area Statistic Std. Error

MeanPF City of province Mean 4.8177 .03176

95% Confidence Interval Lower

4.7551
for Mean Bound
Upper
4.8803
Bound

5% Trimmed Mean 4.8312

Median 4.8333

Variance .243

Std. Deviation .49302

Minimum 3.23

Maximum 5.87

Range 2.63

259
 Interquartile Range .63

Skewness -.432 .157

Kurtosis .110 .312

Rural area Mean 4.8994 .03345

95% Confidence Interval Lower

4.8335
for Mean Bound

Upper
4.9652
Bound

5% Trimmed Mean 4.9245

Median 4.9333

Variance .290

Std. Deviation .53839

Minimum 2.29

Maximum 6.00

Range 3.71

Interquartile Range .60

Skewness -1.028 .151

Kurtosis 2.946 .302

MeanSoci City of province Mean 4.7524 .03675
alSupport 95% Confidence Interval Lower
4.6800
for Mean Bound
Upper
4.8248
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.7709
Median 4.8333
Variance .325
Std. Deviation .57052
Minimum 2.83
Maximum 5.92
Range 3.08
Interquartile Range .75
Skewness -.617 .157
Kurtosis .614 .312
Rural area Mean 4.8158 .03912
95% Confidence Interval Lower
4.7387
for Mean Bound
Upper
4.8928
Bound

260
 5% Trimmed Mean 4.8516
Median 4.9167
Variance .396
Std. Deviation .62965
Minimum 2.50
Maximum 6.00
Range 3.50
Interquartile Range .58
Skewness -1.001 .151
Kurtosis 1.662 .302
MeanSoci City of province Mean 4.5945 .05803
alSkill 95% Confidence Interval Lower
4.4802
for Mean Bound
Upper
4.7088
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.6374
Median 4.6667
Variance .812
Std. Deviation .90084
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 6.00
Range 5.00
Interquartile Range 1.08
Skewness -.783 .157
Kurtosis .847 .312
Rural area Mean 4.7030 .05536
95% Confidence Interval Lower
4.5940
for Mean Bound
Upper
4.8120
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.7447
Median 4.8333
Variance .794
Std. Deviation .89099
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 6.00
Range 5.00
Interquartile Range 1.17
Skewness -.593 .151

261
 Kurtosis .563 .302
MeanPlan City of province Mean 4.7848 .04914
Behaviour 95% Confidence Interval Lower
4.6880
for Mean Bound
Upper
4.8816
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.8264
Median 4.8333
Variance .582
Std. Deviation .76282
Minimum 2.17
Maximum 6.00
Range 3.83
Interquartile Range 1.00
Skewness -.783 .157
Kurtosis .630 .312
Rural area Mean 4.8779 .04509
95% Confidence Interval Lower
4.7891
for Mean Bound
Upper
4.9666
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.9240
Median 5.0000
Variance .526
Std. Deviation .72559
Minimum 1.67
Maximum 6.00
Range 4.33
Interquartile Range .83
Skewness -1.059 .151
Kurtosis 2.031 .302
MeanGoal City of province Mean 5.1721 .03687
Efficacy 95% Confidence Interval Lower
5.0994
for Mean Bound

Upper
5.2447
Bound

5% Trimmed Mean 5.2143

Median 5.1667

Variance .328

262
 Std. Deviation .57241

Minimum 2.67

Maximum 6.00

Range 3.33

Interquartile Range .83

Skewness -1.109 .157

Kurtosis 2.449 .312

Rural area Mean 5.2528 .03838

95% Confidence Interval Lower

5.1772
for Mean Bound

Upper
5.3284
Bound

5% Trimmed Mean 5.3046

Median 5.3333
Variance .382

Std. Deviation .61772

Minimum 1.00

Maximum 6.00

Range 5.00

Interquartile Range .67

Skewness -1.890 .151

Kurtosis 8.936 .302

Tests of Normality

Geographic Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

al area Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MeanPF City of
.051 241 .200* .984 241 .009
province

Rural area .073 259 .002 .948 259 .000

MeanSocialSupp City of
.071 241 .005 .973 241 .000
ort province
Rural area .124 259 .000 .939 259 .000
MeanSocialSkill City of
.097 241 .000 .957 241 .000
province
Rural area .082 259 .000 .958 259 .000
MeanPlanBehavi City of
.094 241 .000 .955 241 .000
our province

263
 Rural area .115 259 .000 .935 259 .000
MeanGoalEfficac City of
.111 241 .000 .922 241 .000
y province

Rural area .129 259 .000 .867 259 .000

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

264
Appendix H3. SPSS output of normality test of protective factor mean scores and
subscale mean sore by SES.

Descriptives

SESgroup Statistic Std. Error

MeanPF low SES Mean 4.8880 .03176

95% Confidence Lower

4.8255
Interval for Mean Bound

Upper
4.9506
Bound

5% Trimmed Mean 4.9051

Median 4.9000

Variance .267

Std. Deviation .51694

Minimum 2.29

Maximum 6.00

Range 3.71

Interquartile Range .63

Skewness -.771 .150

Kurtosis 2.172 .298

middle to high Mean 4.8284 .03384

SES 95% Confidence Lower
4.7617
Interval for Mean Bound

Upper
4.8950
Bound

5% Trimmed Mean 4.8503

Median 4.8667

Variance .269

Std. Deviation .51873

Minimum 2.73

Maximum 5.87

Range 3.13

Interquartile Range .63

Skewness -.742 .159

Kurtosis 1.235 .316

265
MeanSocial low SES Mean 4.8240 .03557
Support 95% Confidence Lower
4.7540
Interval for Mean Bound
Upper
4.8940
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.8432
Median 4.9000
Variance .335
Std. Deviation .57902
Minimum 2.83
Maximum 6.00
Range 3.17
Interquartile Range .67
Skewness -.633 .150
Kurtosis .790 .298
middle to high Mean 4.7415 .04080
SES 95% Confidence Lower
4.6611
Interval for Mean Bound
Upper
4.8219
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.7795
Median 4.8333
Variance .391
Std. Deviation .62549
Minimum 2.50
Maximum 5.92
Range 3.42
Interquartile Range .67
Skewness -.980 .159
Kurtosis 1.429 .316
MeanSocial low SES Mean 4.6912 .05686
Skill 95% Confidence Lower
4.5792
Interval for Mean Bound
Upper
4.8031
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.7375
Median 4.8333
Variance .857
Std. Deviation .92555

266
 Minimum 1.00
Maximum 6.00
Range 5.00
Interquartile Range 1.17
Skewness -.749 .150
Kurtosis .569 .298
middle to high Mean 4.6050 .05625
SES 95% Confidence Lower
4.4942
Interval for Mean Bound
Upper
4.7159
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.6423
Median 4.6667
Variance .743
Std. Deviation .86225
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 6.00
Range 5.00
Interquartile Range 1.17
Skewness -.621 .159
Kurtosis .985 .316
MeanPlanB low SES Mean 4.8372 .04552
ehaviour 95% Confidence Lower
4.7476
Interval for Mean Bound
Upper
4.9269
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.8827
Median 5.0000
Variance .549
Std. Deviation .74093
Minimum 1.67
Maximum 6.00
Range 4.33
Interquartile Range .83
Skewness -.984 .150
Kurtosis 1.792 .298
middle to high Mean 4.8282 .04893
SES 95% Confidence Lower
4.7318
Interval for Mean Bound

267
 Upper
4.9246
Bound
5% Trimmed Mean 4.8704
Median 5.0000
Variance .563
Std. Deviation .75001
Minimum 2.33
Maximum 6.00
Range 3.67
Interquartile Range .83
Skewness -.851 .159
Kurtosis .707 .316
MeanGoalE low SES Mean 5.2338 .03671
fficacy 95% Confidence Lower
5.1616
Interval for Mean Bound

Upper
5.3061
Bound

5% Trimmed Mean 5.2818

Median 5.1667

Variance .357

Std. Deviation .59762

Minimum 1.00

Maximum 6.00

Range 5.00

Interquartile Range .67

Skewness -1.889 .150

Kurtosis 9.609 .298

middle to high Mean 5.1914 .03894

SES 95% Confidence Lower
5.1147
Interval for Mean Bound

Upper
5.2681
Bound

5% Trimmed Mean 5.2373

Median 5.1667

Variance .356

Std. Deviation .59696

Minimum 2.67

Maximum 6.00

268
 Range 3.33

Interquartile Range .83

Skewness -1.142 .159

Kurtosis 2.354 .316

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

SESgroup Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MeanPF low SES .058 265 .030 .968 265 .000

middle to high
.064 235 .020 .969 235 .000
SES
MeanSocialSupport low SES .087 265 .000 .971 265 .000
middle to high
.107 235 .000 .944 235 .000
SES
MeanSocialSkill low SES .101 265 .000 .949 265 .000
middle to high
.072 235 .005 .966 235 .000
SES
MeanPlanBehaviour low SES .108 265 .000 .943 265 .000
middle to high
.134 235 .000 .944 235 .000
SES
MeanGoalEfficacy low SES .129 265 .000 .870 265 .000

middle to high
.106 235 .000 .919 235 .000
SES

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

269
Appendix H4. SPSS output of normality test of protective factor mean scores, subscale
protective factor mean score and GPA.

Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

MeanPF Mean 4.8600 .02317

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 4.8145

Mean Upper Bound 4.9055

5% Trimmed Mean 4.8796

Median 4.8667

Variance .268

Std. Deviation .51812

Minimum 2.29
Maximum 6.00

Range 3.71

Interquartile Range .61

Skewness -.752 .109

Kurtosis 1.686 .218

GPA Mean 3.5004 .01709

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 3.4668

Mean Upper Bound 3.5340

5% Trimmed Mean 3.5238

Median 3.5700

Variance .146

Std. Deviation .38208

Minimum .00

Maximum 4.00

Range 4.00

Interquartile Range .49

Skewness -2.056 .109

Kurtosis 13.239 .218

270
 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MeanPF .061 500 .000 .970 500 .000

GPA .096 500 .000 .876 500 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

MeanSocialSupport Mean 4.7852 .02693

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 4.7323

Mean Upper Bound 4.8381

5% Trimmed Mean 4.8140

Median 4.8333

Variance .363

Std. Deviation .60211

Minimum 2.50

Maximum 6.00

Range 3.50

Interquartile Range .67

Skewness -.826 .109

Kurtosis 1.202 .218

GPA Mean 3.5004 .01709

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 3.4668

Mean Upper Bound 3.5340

5% Trimmed Mean 3.5238

Median 3.5700

Variance .146

Std. Deviation .38208

Minimum .00

Maximum 4.00

Range 4.00

Interquartile Range .49

Skewness -2.056 .109

Kurtosis 13.239 .218

271
 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MeanSocialSupport .088 500 .000 .960 500 .000

GPA .096 500 .000 .876 500 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

MeanSocialSkill Mean 4.6507 .04009

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 4.5719

Mean Upper Bound 4.7295

5% Trimmed Mean 4.6930

Median 4.8167

Variance .804

Std. Deviation .89650

Minimum 1.00

Maximum 6.00

Range 5.00

Interquartile Range 1.17

Skewness -.682 .109

Kurtosis .705 .218

GPA Mean 3.5004 .01709

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 3.4668

Mean Upper Bound 3.5340

5% Trimmed Mean 3.5238

Median 3.5700

Variance .146

Std. Deviation .38208

Minimum .00

Maximum 4.00

Range 4.00

Interquartile Range .49

Skewness -2.056 .109

Kurtosis 13.239 .218

272
 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MeanSocialSkill .081 500 .000 .960 500 .000

GPA .096 500 .000 .876 500 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

MeanPlanBehaviour Mean 4.8330 .03329

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 4.7676

Mean Upper Bound 4.8984

5% Trimmed Mean 4.8774

Median 5.0000

Variance .554

Std. Deviation .74448

Minimum 1.67

Maximum 6.00

Range 4.33

Interquartile Range .83

Skewness -.918 .109

Kurtosis 1.245 .218

GPA Mean 3.5004 .01709

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 3.4668

Mean Upper Bound 3.5340

5% Trimmed Mean 3.5238

Median 3.5700

Variance .146

Std. Deviation .38208

Minimum .00

Maximum 4.00

Range 4.00

Interquartile Range .49

Skewness -2.056 .109

273
 Kurtosis 13.239 .218

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MeanPlanBehaviour .105 500 .000 .946 500 .000

GPA .096 500 .000 .876 500 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

MeanGoalEfficacy Mean 5.2139 .02670

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 5.1614
Mean Upper Bound 5.2664

5% Trimmed Mean 5.2611

Median 5.1667

Variance .357

Std. Deviation .59709

Minimum 1.00

Maximum 6.00

Range 5.00

Interquartile Range .67

Skewness -1.531 .109

Kurtosis 6.070 .218

GPA Mean 3.5004 .01709

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 3.4668

Mean Upper Bound 3.5340

5% Trimmed Mean 3.5238

Median 3.5700

Variance .146

Std. Deviation .38208

Minimum .00

Maximum 4.00

Range 4.00

Interquartile Range .49

274
 Skewness -2.056 .109

Kurtosis 13.239 .218

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MeanGoalEfficacy .118 500 .000 .896 500 .000

GPA .096 500 .000 .876 500 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Appendix H5. SPSS output of Mann Whitney Test (gender)

NPar Tests

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

MeanPF 500 4.8600 .51812 2.29 6.00

MeanSocialSupport 500 4.7852 .60211 2.50 6.00
MeanSocialSkill 500 4.6507 .89650 1.00 6.00
MeanPlanBehaviour 500 4.8330 .74448 1.67 6.00
MeanGoalEfficacy 500 5.2139 .59709 1.00 6.00
Gender 500 1.50 .501 1 2

Mann-Whitney Test

Ranks

Gender N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

MeanPF female 250 231.64 57910.00

male 250 269.36 67340.00

Total 500
MeanSocialSupport female 250 231.89 57973.50
male 250 269.11 67276.50
Total 500

275
MeanSocialSkill female 250 229.95 57486.50
male 250 271.05 67763.50
Total 500
MeanPlanBehaviour female 250 248.19 62048.00
male 250 252.81 63202.00
Total 500
MeanGoalEfficacy female 250 243.92 60980.50

male 250 257.08 64269.50

Total 500

Test Statisticsa

MeanSocial MeanSocial MeanPlan MeanGoal

MeanPF Support Skill Behaviour Efficacy

Mann-Whitney U 29605.50
26535.000 26598.500 26111.500 30673.000
0
Wilcoxon W 60980.50
57910.000 57973.500 57486.500 62048.000
0
Z -2.919 -2.882 -3.187 -.358 -1.023
Asymp. Sig. (2-
.004 .004 .001 .720 .306
tailed)

a. Grouping Variable: Gender

Appendix H5. SPSS output of Mann Whitney Test (geographical area)

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

MeanPF 500 4.8600 .51812 2.29 6.00

MeanSocialSupport 500 4.7852 .60211 2.50 6.00
MeanSocialSkill 500 4.6507 .89650 1.00 6.00
MeanPlanBehaviour 500 4.8330 .74448 1.67 6.00
MeanGoalEfficacy 500 5.2139 .59709 1.00 6.00
Geographical area 500 1.52 .500 1 2

276
Mann-Whitney Test

Ranks

Geographical area N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

MeanPF City of province 241 236.44 56981.50

Rural area 259 263.58 68268.50

Total 500
MeanSocialSupport City of province 241 239.37 57688.50
Rural area 259 260.86 67561.50
Total 500
MeanSocialSkill City of province 241 243.02 58568.00
Rural area 259 257.46 66682.00
Total 500
MeanPlanBehaviour City of province 241 241.00 58080.50
Rural area 259 259.34 67169.50
Total 500
MeanGoalEfficacy City of province 241 237.52 57243.50

Rural area 259 262.57 68006.50

Total 500

Test Statisticsa

MeanSocial MeanSocial MeanPlan MeanGoal

MeanPF Support Skill Behaviour Efficacy

Mann-Whitney U 28082.50
27820.500 28527.500 29407.000 28919.500
0
Wilcoxon W 57243.50
56981.500 57688.500 58568.000 58080.500
0
Z -2.100 -1.663 -1.119 -1.423 -1.947
Asymp. Sig. (2-
.036 .096 .263 .155 .052
tailed)

a. Grouping Variable: Geographical area

277
Appendix H6. SPSS output of Mann Whitney Test (SES)

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

MeanPF 500 4.8600 .51812 2.29 6.00

MeanSocialSupport 500 4.7852 .60211 2.50 6.00
MeanSocialSkill 500 4.6507 .89650 1.00 6.00
MeanPlanBehaviour 500 4.8330 .74448 1.67 6.00
MeanGoalEfficacy 500 5.2139 .59709 1.00 6.00
SESgroup 500 1.4700 .49960 1.00 2.00

Mann-Whitney Test

Ranks

SESgroup N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

MeanPF low SES 265 257.87 68336.00

middle to high SES 235 242.19 56914.00

Total 500
MeanSocialSupport low SES 265 258.35 68461.50
middle to high SES 235 241.65 56788.50
Total 500
MeanSocialSkill low SES 265 259.38 68735.00
middle to high SES 235 240.49 56515.00
Total 500
MeanPlanBehaviour low SES 265 250.37 66347.00
middle to high SES 235 250.65 58903.00
Total 500
MeanGoalEfficacy low SES 265 255.19 67626.50

middle to high SES 235 245.21 57623.50

Total 500

278
 Test Statisticsa

MeanSocial MeanSocial MeanPlan MeanGoal

MeanPF Support Skill Behaviour Efficacy

Mann-Whitney U 29893.50
29184.000 29058.500 28785.000 31102.000
0
Wilcoxon W 57623.50
56914.000 56788.500 56515.000 66347.000
0
Z -1.212 -1.291 -1.462 -.022 -.775
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .226 .197 .144 .982 .438

a. Grouping Variable: SESgroup

Appendix H6. SPSS output correlation of Protective factors and GPA

Correlations

GPA MeanPF

Spearman's rho GPA Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.117**

Sig. (2-tailed) . .009

N 500 500

MeanPF Correlation Coefficient -.117** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .

N 500 500

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

279
Appendix H7. SPSS output correlation of each subscale (social support, social skill,
planning behaviour and goal efficacy) and GPA

Correlations

MeanSocial
GPA Support

Spearman's rho GPA Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.077

Sig. (2-tailed) . .085

N 500 500

MeanSocialSupport Correlation Coefficient -.077 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .085 .

N 500 500

Correlations

GPA SocialSkill

Spearman's rho GPA Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.156**

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

N 500 500

SocialSkill Correlation Coefficient -.156** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 500 500

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations

MeanPlan
GPA Behaviour

Spearman's rho GPA Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.049

Sig. (2-tailed) . .276

N 500 500

MeanPlanBehav Correlation Coefficient -.049 1.000

iour Sig. (2-tailed) .276 .

N 500 500

280
 Correlations

MeanGoalEffica
GPA cy

Spearman's rho GPA Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.060

Sig. (2-tailed) . .182

N 500 500

MeanGoalEfficacy Correlation Coefficient -.060 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .182 .

N 500 500

281
Appendix I: Ethical approval

282
Appendix J: Tables

283
284