ORIGINAL ARTICLE
THE ROLE OF FAMILY SUPPORT IN ENHANCING
PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING AMONG FINAL-YEAR
EDUCATION STUDENTS
Fransiska Citra Pratiwi1* & Prias Hayu Purbaning Tyas2 Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Indonesia *Corresponding Author: fransiskacitrapratiwi16@gmail.
ABSTRACT
Final-year undergraduates face intense academic pressures, supervisory dynamics, and career uncertainty that can erode psychological well-being (PWB), while family support often serves as a primary resource in collectivist contexts.
Objective: to assess the association between family support .
motional, informational, instrumental, appraisa.
and Ryff-based PWB among final-year students.
Quantitative correlational design at FKIPAeSanata Dharma University.
sample n = 278 (Cohort 2.
42-item family support scale ( = 0.
and 39-item PWB scale ( = 0.
using a 4-point Likert format.
two-tailed SpearmanAos A employed due to non-normality.
Results: a strong positive association emerged between family support and PWB (A = 0.
family support levels were predominantly High/Very High .
6%), as was PWB .
5%), with only a small minority in lower categories.
Higher perceived family support corresponds to better eudaimonic functioning .
elf-acceptance, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relations, purpose in life, personal growt.
during the thesis phase.
Findings guide student services to screen for low family support and provide compensatory scaffolds .
eer mentoring, writing/financial clinic.
alongside autonomy-supportive family psychoeducation.
at the policy level, they support enhancing advising capacity and structured family touchpoints at thesis milestones.
Suggestions: future longitudinal, multivariate studies should test mediators .
esilience, selfefficac.
and moderators .
SES, living arrangemen.
, and differentiate support quality .
utonomy support vs.
in relation to specific PWB dimensions.
Keywords: Eudaimonic well-being.
Family support.
Final-year undergraduates.
Psychological well-being.
Thesis.
INTRODUCTION
Final-year undergraduates occupy a distinctAiand often precariousAiphase of emerging adulthood in which identity exploration intersects with heightened academic, social, and career pressures (Arnett, 2.
As they progress toward graduation, thesis demands, supervision dynamics, time pressure, and future-of-work uncertainty coalesce into stressors that can erode adaptive functioning if not buffered effectively (Robotham & Julian, 2006.
Misra & Castillo.
Schaufeli.
Martynez.
Marques-Pinto.
Salanova, & Bakker, 2002.
Beiter et al.
, 2.
Psychological well-being (PWB), conceptualized eudaimonically as positive functioning across self-acceptance, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, positive relations, and personal growth, is a key determinant of studentsAo sustained engagement and resilience during this capstone period (Ryff, 1989.
Ryff & Singer, 2008.
Keyes, 2.
Within collectivist contexts such as Indonesia, close relational tiesAiespecially with familyAiare central to coping, meaningmaking, and persistence in the face of academic adversity (Triandis, 1995.
Taylor.
Sherman.
Kim.
Jarcho.
Takagi, & Dunagan, 2.
A long tradition in health and social psychology indicates that social support protects individuals from the deleterious effects of stress on health and adjustment (House, 1981.
Cohen & Wills, 1985.
Thoits, 2.
student populations, higher perceived support associates with lower distress and better mental health, academic persistence, and life satisfaction (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2009.
Beiter et al.
, 2015.
Diener et al.
, 2.
Among forms of support, family supportAiencompassing emotional, informational, instrumental, and appraisal componentsAioften exerts the strongest and most reliable associations with well-being in collectivist societies and among students living at home or maintaining close family bonds (Cutrona & Russell, 1990.
Procidano & Heller, 1983.
Zimet.
Dahlem.
Zimet, & Farley, 1988.
Kim.
Sherman, & Taylor, 2.
Despite the recognized importance of PWB, multiple, layered problems persist for final-year students: .
sustained academic stress linked to thesis completion and evaluation (Robotham & Julian, 2006.
Misra & Castillo, 2.
, .
emotional strain arising from supervisory relationships, revision cycles, and uncertainty about timelines and quality (Schaufeli et al.
, 2.
, .
future-oriented anxiety about employability and the transition to work (Beiter et al.
, 2015.
Keyes, 2.
, and .
self-regulatory breakdowns such as deadline-related procrastination that amplify stress spirals (Steel, 2.
These pressures are not merely transient inconveniences.
untreated distress is associated with depression/anxiety symptoms that hinder academic performance and help-seeking (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2009.
Beiter et al.
, 2.
A general solution supported by theory and evidence is to strengthen proximal social resourcesAi especially family supportAiso that stress appraisal is reduced and coping resources are increased, consistent with the EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 410
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
stress-buffering model (Cohen & Wills, 1985.
Thoits, 2.
In contexts where family remains the primary safety net, enhancing the perceived availability and quality of family support may be particularly impactful for sustaining PWB through the thesis journey (Triandis, 1995.
Taylor et al.
, 2004.
Kim et al.
, 2.
The literature identifies several specific family-anchored mechanisms and practices that promote student wellbeing: Emotional support .
mpathy, reassuranc.
reduces threat appraisals and fosters adaptive emotion regulation during high-stakes academic events (House, 1981.
Cutrona & Russell, 1990.
Thoits, 2.
Informational support .
dvice, guidanc.
can improve task structuring and thesis problem-solving, especially when matched to studentsAo stressor profiles (Cutrona & Russell, 1990.
Lakey & Cohen, 2.
Instrumental support .
ime, logistics, financial hel.
mitigates resource constraints that often compound academic strain in the final year (House, 1981.
Procidano & Heller, 1.
Appraisal/esteem support .
ffirmation, constructive feedbac.
bolsters self-efficacy and buffers against performance-related self-doubt (Cohen & Wills, 1985.
Zimet et al.
, 1.
Meta-analytic and large-sample studies consistently show that higher perceived support is associated with lower depression/anxiety and better functioning among university students (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2009.
Beiter et al.
, 2.
In parallel, the eudaimonic PWB tradition underscores the role of high-quality relationships in fostering autonomy and personal growth (Ryff, 1989.
Ryff & Singer, 2008.
Keyes, 2.
Interventions that embed family psychoeducation, problem-solving, and goal alignmentAi especially in collectivist communitiesAidemonstrate benefits for adherence, stress coping, and flourishing (Taylor et , 2004.
Kim et al.
, 2008.
Thoits, 2.
When coupled with self-regulation strategies .
, time management, antiprocrastination plan.
, support networks help students convert intentions into sustained thesis progress (Steel, 2007.
Misra & Castillo, 2.
Four review strands converge to a clear research gap: Stage specificity: Many studies examine social support or PWB among general student samples, first-year cohorts, or medical students, but far fewer focus specifically on finalyear undergraduates navigating thesis completion, where stressors, timelines, and role demands are qualitatively different (Schaufeli et al.
, 2002.
Robotham & Julian, 2006.
Fares.
Tabosh.
Saadeddin.
El Mouhayyar, & Aridi, 2.
Support differentiation: Prior work often treats social support as a unitary construct.
There is limited evidence in Indonesian settings that parses family support into emotional, informational, instrumental, and appraisal facets and tests their unique links with eudaimonic PWB components (Cutrona & Russell, 1990.
Zimet et al.
, 1988.
Lakey & Cohen, 2000.
Ryff, 1.
Cultural-context alignment: Cross-cultural research shows that in collectivist contexts people may prefer implicit, family-embedded support and benefit differently from specific support types (Taylor et , 2004.
Kim et al.
, 2008.
Triandis, 1.
Yet there remains a shortage of context-sensitive analyses in Indonesian universities that explicitly leverage PWBAos eudaimonic dimensions and culturally salient family processes.
Methodological scope: Several studies rely on general distress metrics or life satisfaction and do not apply RyffAos multidimensional PWB.
others overlook confounders salient in final-year cohorts .
, gender, socioeconomic status, thesis duration, or work hour.
or do not examine potential behavioral correlates such as procrastination (Ryff, 1989.
Keyes, 2005.
Steel, 2007.
Beiter et al.
, 2.
Collectively, these gaps motivate a focused inquiry on final-year students that .
differentiates family-support subtypes, .
operationalizes PWB via RyffAos model, and .
situates analyses in a collectivist.
Indonesian university context where family remains a central resource.
Objectives.
This study aims to Examine the association between perceived family support and psychological wellbeing among final-year undergraduates.
Estimate the unique contributions of emotional, informational, instrumental, and appraisal support to PWBAos six dimensions .
elf-acceptance, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relations, purpose in life, personal growt.
Explore whether the family-supportAePWB association remains robust when adjusting for salient covariates .
, gender, socioeconomic indicators, thesis timelin.
and behavioral correlates .
procrastination tendencie.
Novelty and justification.
The novelty lies in integrating culturally attuned family-support subtypes with eudaimonic PWB in a final-year .
hesis-stag.
sample within a collectivist setting.
Whereas past work frequently aggregates support or uses generic well-being indicators, we align with optimal matching theory .
support works best when its type fits the stresso.
to test which family-support components most strongly predict specific PWB facets under thesis stress (Cutrona & Russell, 1990.
Lakey & Cohen, 2.
This design is theoretically justified by the stress-buffering model and mechanisms linking social ties to health via appraisal, coping, efficacy, and belonging (Cohen & Wills, 1985.
Thoits, 2.
It is also contextually warranted by evidence that collectivist norms shape support utilization and benefits, implying family-centered routes to flourishing (Triandis, 1995.
Taylor et al.
, 2004.
Kim et al.
, 2.
The study adopts a quantitative, correlational design with validated instruments for perceived family support .
MSPSS family subscale.
Procidano & HellerAos family suppor.
and RyffAos PWB scales (Zimet et al.
, 1988.
Procidano & Heller, 1983.
Ryff, 1.
The target population is final-year undergraduates engaged in thesis completion within an Indonesian university context.
The analysis emphasizes theoretically grounded subcomponent mapping .
upport types Ii PWB dimension.
and culturally relevant interpretation.
Although the design does not infer causality, the findings can generate actionable guidance for family-inclusive, campus-based supports .
, family psychoeducation, structured check-ins, informational resources for parents/guardian.
to bolster
EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 411
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
student flourishing during the transition from university to work (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2009.
Thoits, 2011.
Keyes.
Diener et al.
, 2.
Beyond contributing to theory integration across the stress-buffering and eudaimonic traditions, the study addresses a practical priority: supporting students at the precise moment academic and career trajectories crystallize.
In low-resource and collectivist contexts, activating family systems may be a scalable pathway to improved well-being and completion outcomes (Triandis, 1995.
Taylor et al.
, 2004.
Kim et al.
, 2.
The work also aligns with global calls to strengthen student mental health supports during higher education, particularly in the wake of elevated distress indicators worldwide (World Health Organization, 2022.
Beiter et al.
, 2.
METHOD
Research Design This study adopted a quantitative correlational design to test the association between Family Support .
ndependent X) and Psychological Well-Being (PWB) .
ependent variable.
Y) among final-year undergraduates.
Correlational designs are appropriate for estimating the magnitude/direction of relationships under real-world conditions without manipulation (Cohen.
Cohen.
West, & Aiken, 2003.
Field, 2.
Family support was operationalized using recognized subtypesAiemotional, informational, instrumental, and appraisal/esteemAi consistent with social support theory and optimal matching (Cutrona & Russell, 1990.
Lakey & Cohen, 2.
PWB
was operationalized eudaimonically using RyffAos multidimensional model (Ryff, 1989.
Ryff & Singer, 2.
Analyses used PearsonAos r when assumptions were met and SpearmanAos A when they were not (Pearson, 1896.
Cohen.
Field, 2.
Setting and Study Period The study was conducted at Sanata Dharma University (USD).
Yogyakarta, specifically within the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education (FKIP).
Period.
Data collection, cleaning, and processing were conducted February 5Ae25, 2025 using Google Forms for questionnaire administration and JASP 0.
0 for statistical analyses (JASP Team, 2.
Population and Sample The population comprised final-year students (Cohort 2.
across 12 undergraduate programs in FKIP-USD.
Program counts are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Population of FKIP 2021 Cohort at Sanata Dharma University No.
Study Program Guidance and Counseling Catholic Religious Education Primary Teacher Education English Education Indonesian Language & Literature Education History Education Economics Education (Economic.
Economics Education (Accountin.
Mathematics Education Biology Education Physics Education Chemistry Education Total Students Sampling followed probability purposive sampling to ensure proportional coverage across all 12 programs while preserving the final-year criterion.
The minimum sample size was estimated with the Yamane/Slovin simplified formula n = N / .
N eA) using N = 905 and e = 0.
05, n=278 (Yamane, 1967.
see also Cochran, 1977.
Israel, 1.
Operational Definitions Family Support refers to the perceived availability and adequacy of emotional, informational, instrumental, and appraisal/esteem assistance from family members to help students cope with thesis-stage demands (Cutrona & Russell.
Procidano & Heller, 1983.
Zimet et al.
, 1.
Higher scores indicate stronger perceived support.
Psychological Well-Being (PWB) denotes positive functioning across self-acceptance, positive relations, environmental mastery.
EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 412
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
autonomy, purpose in life, and personal growth, following RyffAos eudaimonic model (Ryff, 1989.
Ryff & Singer.
Higher scores indicate higher eudaimonic well-being.
Data Collection Techniques and Instruments Data were collected via a structured online questionnaire distributed through program coordinators and student The form contained participant information, consent statement, and two scales measuring Family Support and PWB.
Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and non-remunerated.
respondents could withdraw at any time before submission.
Standard questionnaire design principles and item clarity guidelines were applied (Dillman.
Smyth, & Christian, 2014.
DeVellis, 2.
Items used a four-point Likert-type scaleAiStrongly Agree .
Agree .
Disagree .
Strongly Disagree .
for favorable statements.
and reverse scoring for unfavorable statementsAi consistent with classical Likert scaling principles (Likert, 1932.
DeVellis, 2.
Table 2.
Scoring Scheme for Both Scales Response option Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD) Favorable Unfavorable Items mapped onto six PWB facets.
Favorable/unfavorable distribution and item indices are shown in Table 3.
The mapping aligns with construct definitions and prior operationalizations (Ryff, 1989.
Ryff & Singer, 2008.
Field.
Instrument Validity and Reliability Construct alignment was established by mapping items to theoretical definitions from the literature (Ryff, 1989.
Cutrona & Russell, 1990.
Ryff & Singer, 2008.
DeVellis, 2.
A pilot test .
= .
was conducted prior to the main survey using JASP 0.
0 (JASP Team, 2.
ItemAetotal correlations .
were inspected with the retention rule r Ou .
30 and p < .
05, a commonly recommended screening threshold for early-stage scale refinement (Hair.
Black.
Babin, & Anderson, 2019.
Field, 2018.
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1.
Internal consistency was estimated using CronbachAos alpha.
values Ou .
70 indicate acceptable reliability for early research, with Ou .
90 reflecting excellent homogeneity for applied decisions (Cronbach, 1951.
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994.
Kline, 2011.
Taber, 2.
All analyses were performed in JASP 0.
0 (JASP Team, 2.
Prior to hypothesis testing, data screening addressed completeness, outliers, and assumptions.
Missing data were minimal.
listwise deletion was applied when missingness was <5% and random (Little & Rubin, 2002.
Field, 2.
Scoring and Data Preparation Item scores followed the scheme in Table 3.
Favorable items were scored 4Ie1 from SA to SD.
items were reverse-scored (Likert, 1932.
DeVellis, 2.
Subscale scores were computed by summing constituent total scale scores were the sum .
r mea.
across all retained items (Field, 2.
Descriptive statistics .
SD, min, max, skewness, kurtosi.
were calculated for each variable and subscale.
To facilitate interpretation, normreferenced categories were defined using the mean () and standard deviation (E), partitioning scores into five bands (Very Low to Very Hig.
, consistent with educational measurement practice (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997.
Crocker & Algina, 2.
Ethical Considerations The study complied with standard ethical principles for human-participant survey research: voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw without penalty.
Administrative permission was secured from the faculty to approach final-year cohorts.
Procedures aligned with international guidelines for research ethics (WMA, 2013.
APA, 2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Association Between Family Support and Psychological Well-Being Normality was examined in JASP .
using ShapiroAeWilk tests on the study variables.
EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 413
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Table 3.
Normality Test Results Test Statistic ShapiroAeWilk < .
Note.
As specified in the source, the p-value < .
001 indicates non-normality .
< .
05 criterion not me.
The linearity diagnostic .
isual inspection of the scatter with fitted regression lin.
indicated the points closely follow the regression line, suggesting an approximately linear relation between Family Support and PWB.
The Given non-normality, the association was tested with SpearmanAos rho .
wo-taile.
in JASP.
Table 4.
Spearman Correlations Variable Psychological Well-Being p-value Family Support p-value **p < .
Psychological Well-Being Ae
782***
< .
Family Support Ae Ae Ae Ae A strong, positive association exists between Family Support and PWB (A = .
782, p < .
N = .
The null hypothesis .
o associatio.
is rejected in favor of the alternative.
The Family Support scale in this study consisted of 42 valid items, each rated using a four-point Likert-type format.
This scoring system produced a minimum possible score of 42 .
and a maximum possible score of 168 .
The resulting score range was 126, providing adequate variance to capture different levels of perceived family support among final-year students.
From these parameters, the theoretical mean () was calculated as the midpoint between maximum and minimum scores, yielding a value of 105.
Meanwhile, the theoretical standard deviation (E) was derived by dividing the range by six, in accordance with common test-theory practices, producing a value of 21.
These cut-off values ( and E) established the benchmark for categorizing student responses into levels of perceived family support, namely: very low, low, moderate, high, and very high.
By employing this standardization, the scale ensured interpretive clarity and comparability across the sample population of Cohort 2021 final-year students.
Table 5.
Family Support Scale (Theoretical Norm.
Norm 1.
5E < X
5E < X O 1.
Ae 0.
5E < X O 0.
Ae 1.
5E < X O Ae 0.
X O Ae 1.
Table 6.
Family Support Category Distribution Interval
Category 137 < X
Very High
107 < X O 137
High
88 < X O 116
Moderate 68 < X O 95
Low
X O 74
Very Low
Total
Interval
137 < X
107 < X O 137
88 < X O 116
68 < X O 95
X O 74
Frequency Category Very High High Moderate Low Very Low Percentage Ai The distribution skews to the upper categories: a combined 71.
6% are in High/Very High, 19.
1% Moderate, and 4% in Low/Very Low.
The Psychological Well-Being (PWB) scale in this study consisted of 39 valid items, each assessed on a four-point Likert-type scale.
Based on the scoring system, the minimum score that a respondent could obtain was 39 .
, while the maximum score was 156 .
Thus, the instrument had a score range of 117, providing sufficient spread to differentiate various levels of well-being among respondents.
To establish theoretical benchmarks, the mean () was calculated as the midpoint between the maximum and minimum scores, resulting in 97.
The theoretical standard deviation (E) was obtained by dividing the range by six, yielding a value of These values served as cut-points for categorizing levels of psychological well-being into very low, low, moderate, high, and very high.
By applying these standardized thresholds, the classification of final-year studentsAo
EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 414
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
PWB in Cohort 2021 could be interpreted more systematically, ensuring that the findings are comparable, transparent, and grounded in test-theory conventions.
Table 7.
Psychological Well-Being Scale (Theoretical Norm.
Norm Interval 1.
5E < X
127 < X
5E < X O 1.
107 < X O 127
Ae 0.
5E < X O 0.
88 < X O 107
Ae 1.
5E < X O Ae 0.
68 < X O 64
X O Ae 1.
X O 69
Category Very High High Moderate Low Very Low The AuLowAy row shows an impossible upper bound .
< X O .
This is addressed in the robustness section.
intended band based on = 97.
5 and E = 19.
5 would typically be 68 < X O 88.
Table 8.
Psychological Well-Being Category Distribution Interval
Category 127 < X
Very High
107 < X O 127
High
88 < X O 107
Moderate 68 < X O 64
Low
X O 69
Very Low Total Frequency Percentage Ai The Link Between Family Support and Psychological Well-Being The study established a strong positive association between Family Support and PWB (Spearman A = .
782, p < Despite significant non-normality (ShapiroAeWilk p < .
, the use of a rank-based correlation test appropriately addressed distributional violations.
Visual diagnostics suggested approximate linearity, supporting monotonicity required for SpearmanAos rho.
Categorically.
Family Support levels were predominantly High/Very High .
6%), and PWB levels were likewise predominantly High/Very High .
5%), indicating that a majority of final-year students report both strong perceived support and adaptive functioning.
The present pattern is consonant with long-standing stress-buffering and main-effects models of social support:
supportive ties reduce the appraisal of stressors and improve coping efficacy, thereby enhancing mental health and well-being (Cohen & Wills, 1985.
Thoits, 2.
Family as a proximal, emotionally salient context is especially consequential in collectivistic or family-oriented societies (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2009.
Friedlander et al.
, 2.
Positive associations between perceived support and well-being .
ncluding eudaimonic facet.
are widely reported (Siedlecki et al.
, 2014.
Taylor, 2011.
Uchino, 2.
, and effects in late adolescence/early adulthood are robust across cultural settings (Eisenberg et al.
, 2013.
Kong et al.
, 2.
Specifically.
RyffAos eudaimonic model posits six dimensionsAiautonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations, purpose in life, and selfacceptanceAiseveral of which .
, positive relations, master.
are directly reinforced by reliable family support (Ryff, 1989.
Ryff & Keyes, 1995.
Ryff & Singer, 2.
Our finding that most students are in the High bands for PWB mirrors meta-analytical conclusions that social support has medium to large associations with internalizing outcomes and well-being indicators in youth (Rueger et al.
, 2.
It also aligns with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2.
: relatedness satisfaction .
ften supplied by warm family context.
underwrites autonomous motivation and thriving, particularly salient during capstone academic tasks.
At the same time, research cautions that PWB is multiply determinedAiby personal resources .
esilience, self-regulatio.
, contextual affordances .
inancial security, campus climat.
, and goal processes .
gency, pathway.
(Masten, 2001.
Sheldon & Elliot, 1999.
Diener et al.
, 2.
Our discussion section below notes that some students with limited family support may nevertheless sustain PWB via internal strengths and alternative supports .
eers, facult.
, a pattern also recognized in the literature (Pidgeon et al.
Robotham & Julian, 2.
The strength of the association (A OO .
indicates that family support is not merely a peripheral correlate but a central correlate of final-year studentsAo eudaimonic functioning.
Practically, this underscores the value of familyinclusive interventions and communication in student support programs (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2.
Strategically, counseling units and academic advisors can leverage families as co-regulatorsAie.
, psychoeducation for parents on adaptive encouragement versus pressure, coaching on instrumental support .
ime, logistics, financial plannin.
, and scaffolding positive relations that promote environmental mastery and purpose during thesis completion.
Policy-wise.
EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 415
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
universities can create structured touchpoints .
arent/student webinars, guidance note.
to temper stress at critical Family Support Levels Among Final-Year Students Category analyses show that Family Support is predominantly in the High .
4%) and Very High .
2%) ranges.
Only 9.
4% fall in Low/Very Low.
This suggests that most students perceive their families as emotionally available .
mpathy, warmt.
, informationally helpful .
dvice, feedbac.
, instrumentally supportive .
, and appraisalvalidating .
Such patterns often co-vary with better academic persistence, lower perceived stress, and more effective coping near graduation requirements (Misra & McKean, 2000.
Eisenberg et al.
, 2.
The modal High/Very High pattern agrees with findings that in many Asian and family-centric contexts, parents remain important attachment figures and primary support providers into emerging adulthood (Chao, 2.
Empirical links between parental support and academic adjustment have been documented in transition-to-college studies (Friedlander et al.
, 2.
and in research on stress and coping among undergraduates (Brougham et al.
, 2.
These forms of support map onto classical support typologies .
motional, instrumental, informational, appraisa.
and predict well-being and achievement across cultures (Zimet et al.
, 1988.
Schwarzer & Knoll, 2.
However, the literature also notes that over-involvement or pressure-laden support can backfire, elevating anxiety despite good intentions (Eisenberg et al.
, 2.
Our categorical data do not differentiate Ausupport qualityAy nuances.
hence, the High category likely contains a range of family dynamics.
Future work should incorporate measures that parse autonomy-supportive controlling family inputs (Deci & Ryan, 2.
Because support levels are generally high, low-base-rate risk may be concentrated in the OO9% low-support Targeted screening can identify students who lack family scaffolding and may benefit from compensatory campus supports .
eer mentoring, financial counseling, writing/thesis clinic.
For the majority, the university can amplify existing strengths by communicating clear milestones and equipping families to provide appropriately calibrated assistance during thesis bottlenecks .
ime-management, setback reframing, encouragement without overcontro.
Psychological Well-Being Levels Among Final-Year Students PWB categorizations are similarly favorable: High .
5%) and Very High .
0%) comprise 70.
5% of Moderate is 24.
Low/Very Low is 5.
This implies that most final-year students report adaptive functioning across RyffAos dimensionsAie.
, confidence in managing academic demands .
nvironmental master.
, sustained growth and purpose, warm relations, and self-acceptance.
These distributions align with studies that, despite academic strain, many undergraduates maintain satisfactory well-being when social resources and personal agency are present (Keyes, 2002.
Diener et al.
, 2010.
Pidgeon et al.
, 2.
The profile is consistent with eudaimonic wellbeing research demonstrating links to self-concordant goal pursuit and autonomy support (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999.
Deci & Ryan, 2.
Still, a nontrivial minority experiences lower well-beingAitypical in cohorts approaching graduation deadlines (Robotham & Julian, 2.
The majority-high PWB profile is encouraging for academic persistence and post-graduation adaptation.
Interventions can focus on the Moderate group .
%) to elevate wellbeing through short, scalable programs .
, purpose-in-life workshops, strengths-based coaching, thesis coping For the Low/Very Low tail .
%), proactive outreach and integrated care .
ounseling referral, academic accommodations as neede.
are warranted.
Patterns.
Trends, and Potential Mechanisms A coherent pattern emerges: where Family Support is abundant.
PWB tends to be higher.
Mechanistically, families may .
reduce stress appraisals through reassurance and tangible help.
enhance efficacy for thesis tasks .
nvironmental master.
reinforce meaning and future orientation .
urpose in lif.
bolster relatedness needs that stabilize motivation (Cohen & Wills, 1985.
Deci & Ryan, 2000.
Thoits, 2011.
Ryff & Singer, 2.
Even in non-normal distributions, the monotonic support-PWB link is retained and strong.
At the distributional level, both constructs skew positively, suggesting a generally resource-rich sample.
Nevertheless, the tails .
ow support / low PWB) remind us of inequities or individual differences in access to supportive contexts and personal resourcesAia target for equity-minded student services (Eisenberg et al.
, 2013.
Uchino, 2.
Unexpected Findings and Alternative Explanations An unexpected technical finding is the non-normality despite high central tendencies.
This is not uncommon in psychosocial scales with bounded ranges and ceiling tendencies in supportive cohorts (Zimet et al.
, 1988.
Siedlecki et , 2.
Substantively, the very strong correlation (A OO .
invites caution: part of this magnitude may reflect shared method variance .
ame-source, same-time self-repor.
, range restriction .
ew low-support case.
, or contextual EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 416
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
, departmental culture.
Alternative explanations include third variablesAiresilience, self-efficacy, financial security, or advisor supportAithat can inflate the apparent bivariate link (Masten, 2001.
Schwarzer & Knoll.
While these do not negate the association, they argue for multivariate follow-ups.
Implications for Practice.
Policy, and Future Research The findings highlight the importance of developing targeted interventions within student services and counseling Screening tools could be implemented to identify students who perceive low family support, thereby enabling early intervention.
For such students, universities can provide compensatory scaffolds, including peer-mentoring schemes, thesis bootcamps, and financial planning clinics designed to reduce the burden of academic and personal Additionally, the study underscores the need for family-inclusive psychoeducation programs that equip parents and guardians with strategies to provide effective support.
Families should be guided to offer emotional encouragement, autonomy-supportive feedback, and instrumental help without imposing controlling pressure, in line with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2.
and prior evidence on the positive impact of support for studentsAo mental health (Hefner & Eisenberg, 2.
At the program and faculty levels, policy initiatives should institutionalize structured touchpoints with families at critical thesis milestones, such as proposal defense, data collection, and thesis writing.
These touchpoints would include clear guidelines for families about their supportive role, thereby preventing unhelpful interference while fostering constructive engagement.
Furthermore, the expansion of academic advising capacity and writing support centers is crucial to buffer students who may not receive sufficient academic or emotional resources from home.
embedding these support systems at the faculty level, institutions ensure equity in access to guidance, regardless of studentsAo family backgrounds.
Future studies should adopt multivariate analytical models to explore not only the direct relationship between family support and psychological well-being, but also the mediating roles of resilience and self-efficacy, as well as the moderating effects of gender, socioeconomic status, and living arrangements.
Longitudinal research designs are also recommended to track how the interplay between support and PWB evolves dynamically across different phases of the thesis process, from proposal to final defense.
Additionally, future work should differentiate between autonomysupportive versus controlling forms of family support and investigate how these distinct types of support map onto specific dimensions of PWB, such as personal growth and environmental mastery.
Such nuanced insights would strengthen both theoretical understanding and the design of tailored interventions.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the association between family supportAiconceptualized in emotional, informational, instrumental, and appraisal formsAiand psychological well-being (PWB) among final-year undergraduates in a collectivist Indonesian university context.
The findings showed that both family support and PWB were predominantly in the High and Very High categories, with a strong, positive, and statistically significant correlation (A = .
782, p < .
, indicating that greater perceived family support is linked with better eudaimonic functioning across self-acceptance, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relations, purpose in life, and personal This study contributes to the literature by .
focusing specifically on thesis-stage studentsAia population facing unique stressors not often studied in detail, .
differentiating between subtypes of family support and mapping them to RyffAos multidimensional PWB model, and .
situating the analysis within a collectivist cultural setting where family systems remain central.
By integrating the stress-buffering model with eudaimonic well-being frameworks, the research advances theoretical understanding and provides practical guidance for family-inclusive student support strategies in higher education.
REFERENCES