Abstract
This study presents a survey dataset describing families’ conditions during the COVID-19 isolation period obtained from individuals who serve as parents. A survey was conducted to measure the family's positive or negative emotional reactions and the degree of their resilience. The data were categorized into age, sex, type of family, family size, length of marriage, family's environment, and family COVID-19 status. The samples were gathered from 365 parents of Indonesian students who were willing to fill an online questionnaire. SPSS v.23.0 was used to carry out descriptive statistics and intercorrelations. Additional results from chi-square analyses are available as supplemental tables in the Mendeley repository.
Keywords: Family resilience, Emotion, COVID-19, Parents, Indonesia
Specifications table
| Subject | Psychology |
| Specific subject area | Communication Psychology, Family Communication and Resilience |
| Type of data | Table |
| How data were acquired | Survey questionnaire (questionnaire included in Mendeley repository) |
| Data format | Raw Data, Analyzed Statistical Data |
| Parameters for data collection | Respondents were parents. The data were categorized into several groups, based on their demographic information such as gender, age, sex, the types of family, family size, the length of the marriage, family space, and, and family's COVID-19 status. |
| Description of data collection | The data were collected from April to May 2020. The questionnaire was distributed online to 450 families in Bandung, West Java. 365 families filled out the questionnaires and were considered as valid responses |
| Data source location | West Java, Indonesia 7.0909° S, 107.6689° E |
| Data accessibility | Data which contained in this article are accesible in Mendeley Data: https://doi.org/10.17632/srzztj733v.4 |
Value of the data
-
•
The data are useful to depict families’ resilience (e.g. meaning-making, positive outlook, transcendence, flexibility, connectedness, social resources, communication, emotional disclosure, and problem-solving) and emotional problems that emerge during COVID-19 isolation period in Indonesia.
-
•
The data benefits social workers and local government in designing family procedures for fighting COVID-19 pandemic (for instance, developing a family communication strategy, enhancing family health, reducing family stress, strengthening family resilience during COVID-19), and controlling well-being index during the COVID-19 recovery period to strengthen family resilience.
-
•
This study can be replicated in other countries with different family cultures and analyzed further to find out other variables of family resilience based on other family demography.
1. Data description
The dataset provides insight into the family's resilience [1,2], and the family's emotional reaction during the COVID-19 isolation period [3]. This data mainly reports the questionnaire (questionnaire included in Mendeley repository) and raw data (for each subject, response toward items, and variable score; see Mendeley data). In addition, it also reveals demographic statistics of the sample (e.g. age, sex, types of family, family size, length of the marriage, family's environment, and family's COVID-19 status, see Table 1). The data describes positive emotion, negative emotion, and family resilience (Table 2), the relationship between positive and negative emotion (Table 3), family resilience and positive emotion (Table 4), and negative emotion (Table 5). The demographic data of the variable and SPSS syntax to calculate the mean of the variables are available (see Mendeley Data).
Table 1.
Family demographics: age, sex, family type, family size, length of marriage, family's environment, family COVID-19 status (N=365).
| Variables | Category | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | ||
| Age | less than 40 years old | 14 | 3.8 |
| 41–45 years old | 75 | 20.5 | |
| 46–50 years old | 89 | 24.4 | |
| 51–55 years old | 83 | 22.7 | |
| more than 56 years old | 104 | 28.5 | |
| Sex | Male | 174 | 47.7 |
| Female | 191 | 52.3 | |
| Family Type | Nuclear family | 329 | 90.1 |
| Joint family | 12 | 3.3 | |
| Extended family | 24 | 6.6 | |
| Family Size | One people | 0 | 0 |
| Two people | 16 | 4.4 | |
| Three people | 30 | 8.2 | |
| Four people | 132 | 36.2 | |
| Five people | 127 | 34.8 | |
| Six people | 33 | 9.0 | |
| Seven people | 16 | 4.4 | |
| Eight people | 5 | 1.4 | |
| More than eight people | 6 | 1.6 | |
| Length of marriage | Less than 5 years | 36 | 9.9 |
| 5–10 years | 64 | 17.5 | |
| 10–15 years | 64 | 17.5 | |
| 15–20 years | 32 | 8.8 | |
| 20–25 years | 79 | 21.6 | |
| More than 25 years | 90 | 24.7 | |
| Family living area | Rural | 55 | 15.1 |
| Suburban | 112 | 30.7 | |
| Urban | 198 | 54.2 | |
| Family COVID-19 status | Asymptomatic person | 305 | 83.6 |
| Persons under monitoring | 27 | 7.4 | |
| patients under supervision | 32 | 8.8 |
Note: The seven family demographic variables were coded in data as Age (1-less than 40 years old, 2–41–45 years old, 3–46–50 years old, 4–51–55 years old, 5-more than 56 years old), Sex (1-male, 2-female), Family type (1-Nuclear, 2-Joint, 3-Extended), Family size (1-one people, 2-two people, 3-three people, 4-four people, 5-five people, 6-six people, 7-seven people, 8-eight people, 9-more than eight people), Length of marriage (1-less than 5 years, 2-5-10 years, 3-10-15 years, 4-15-20 years, 5-20-25 years, 6-more than 25 years), Family living area (1-rural, 2-suburban, 3-urban), Family COVID-19 status (1-asymptomatic person, 2-persons under monitoring, 3-patients under supervision).
Table 2.
Descriptive statistic by positive emotion, negative emotion, and family resilience variables.
| Variables | Mean | SD | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive emotion | |||
| Love | 2.80 | .86 | 1.00–3.48 |
| Gratitude | 2.93 | .91 | 1.00–3.92 |
| Happiness | 3.34 | .88 | 1.00–4.08 |
| Entertainment | 3.07 | .91 | 1.00–3.96 |
| Satisfaction | 2.84 | .90 | 1.00–3.76 |
| Relief | 2.76 | .92 | 1.00–3.77 |
| Negative emotion | |||
| anxiety | 2.50 | .95 | 1.00–4.02 |
| Sadness | 2.25 | .95 | 1.00–3.91 |
| Anger | 2.26 | .95 | 1.00–3.95 |
| Fear | 2.22 | .94 | 1.00–4.09 |
| Boredom | 2.14 | .94 | 1.00–3.93 |
| Despair | 2.14 | .94 | 1.00–4.00 |
| Family resilience | |||
| Making meaning | 3.76 | .74 | 1.00–4.58 |
| Positive outlook | 3.84 | .73 | 1.00–4.70 |
| Transcendence | 3.57 | .73 | 1.53–4.41 |
| Flexibility | 3.66 | .77 | 1.00–4.56 |
| Connectedness | 3.49 | .83 | 1.00–4.38 |
| Social resources | 3.73 | .70 | 1.69–4.69 |
| Communication | 3.68 | .82 | 1.00–4.71 |
| Open emotional | 3.32 | .80 | 1.00–4.40 |
| Problem solving | 3.59 | .84 | 1.00–4.53 |
Table 3.
Correlation among positive and negative emotion during COVID-19.
| Negative emotion | Positive emotion |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Love | Gratitude | Happiness | Entertainment | Satisfaction | Relief | |
| Anxiety | -.066 | -.007 | -.167** | -.095 | -.028 | -.024 |
| Sadness | -.079 | .069 | .003 | -.046 | .071 | -.005 |
| Anger | -.091 | -.043 | -.094 | -.066 | .061 | -.052 |
| Fear | -.112* | -.077 | -.157 | -.064 | -.004 | -.043 |
| Boredom | .017 | -.019 | .088 | .012 | .023 | -.049 |
| Despair | -.013 | -.032 | .041 | -.013 | .042 | -.013 |
Notes: * p < .05 ** < p .01
Table 4.
Correlation among family resilience aspect and positive emotion during COVID-19.
| Family Resilience | Positive emotion |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Love | Gratitude | Happiness | Entertainment | Satisfaction | Relief | |
| Making meaning | .227** | .132* | .126* | .195** | .139** | .188** |
| Positive outlook | .156** | .156** | .089 | .175** | .144** | .193** |
| Transcendence | .269** | .163** | .188** | .306** | .220** | .303** |
| Flexibility | .175** | .150** | .116* | .259** | .159** | .226** |
| Connectedness | .246** | .092 | .145** | .273** | .117* | .218* |
| Social resources | .144** | .159** | .080 | .206** | .095 | .156** |
| Communication | .189** | .076 | .152** | .266** | .064 | .233** |
| Open emotional | .291** | .066 | .210** | .324** | .179** | .291** |
| Problem solving | .341** | .122* | .213** | .318** | .163** | .297** |
Notes: * p < .05 ** < p .01
Table 5.
Correlation among family resilience aspect and negative emotion during COVID-19.
| Family Resilience | Negative emotion |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| anxiety | sadness | anger | fear | boredom | despair | |
| making meaning | -.089 | -.063 | -.114* | -.074 | -.051 | -.053 |
| positive outlook | -.109* | -.036 | -.096 | -.058 | -.025 | -.016 |
| transcendence | -.137** | -.096 | -.157** | -.118* | -.055 | -.046 |
| flexibility | -.152** | -.087 | -.126* | -.078 | -.045 | -.038 |
| connectedness | -.125* | -.146** | -.145** | -.089 | -.007 | -.089 |
| social resources | -.112* | .000 | -.103* | -.029 | -.024 | -.086 |
| communication | -.128* | .103* | -.122* | -.028 | -.060 | -.053 |
| open emotional | -.122* | .077 | -.199** | -.115* | -.053 | -.072 |
| problem solving | -.134* | .045 | -.152** | -.079 | -.021 | -.055 |
Notes: * p < .05 ** < p .01
2. Experimental design, materials and methods
Participants were parents (father or mother) of students who were performing self-isolation at home. They were selected using a simple random sampling technique. Demographic data such as age, sex, type of family, family size, length of the marriage, family's environment, and family's COVID-19 status were employed. Out of 450 parents, 372 parents gave their responses, and 365 of them filled the questionnaire. During the survey, participants were well informed about the confidentiality of their responses. The data were collected in 21 days (April-May 2020) during the COVID-19 isolation period using questionnaires. The questionnaires were adapted from family resilience literature [4] (see file ‘questionnaire’ and ‘variable’ in Mendeley repository). To perform the survey, respondents were asked to answer all items. Also, informed consent was obtained from all participants. The data concerned with family demography, positive and negative emotional reaction, and family resilience during the COVID-19 isolation period. The questionnaires were designed by following a Likert scale system, requiring the participants to rate items from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). After that, SPSS v.23.0 was used to carry out descriptive statistics, a median test, Kruskal-Wallis, and a correlational test.
Family demography consisted of types of the family [5]. Family's COVID-19 status was categorized based on the Indonesian government's policy, namely ‘asymptomatic person’, ‘persons under monitoring’, and ‘patients under supervision’ [6]. Another category that was added was deceased family members. The family's environment was measured using the category of the residential area [7]. Family size and length of the marriage were shown by using numbers. Meanwhile, emotion represents condition [8], predicts reaction [9], and thought and action that emerges [10,11]. The emotion was distinguished using the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ category [12]. The former involved love [13], satisfaction [14], happiness [15], gratitude [16], entertainment [17], and relief [18]. Meanwhile, the latter included anger and fear [17], boredom [19], anxiety [20], sadness [21] and despair [22]. Positive and negative emotional reactions were measured using questionnaire items starting with the phrase “During COVID-19 isolation period,...”.
Family resilience in this data covered three aspects, namely the family belief system, patterns of family organization, and communication [4]. The belief system was assessed using three aspects, covering meaning-making (4 items; e.g., "We view distress with our situation as common, understandable", positive view (4 items, e.g.: "We encourage each other and build" on our strengths"), and transcendence (5 items, e.g., "We share important values and life goals that help us rise above difficulties "). Further, patterns of the family organization were assessed from three aspects such as flexibility (3 items; e.g. "We are flexible in adapting to new challenges"), connectedness (2 items, e.g., "We can count on family members to help each other in difficulty"), and social resources (4 items, e.g., "We can access community resources to help our families through difficult times"). Finally, communication was assessed in three aspects such as clarity (2 items; e.g., "We try to clarify information about our stressful situation and our options"), emotional disclosure (4 items, e.g., "We can express our opinions and be truthful with each other"), and collaborative problem-solving (4 items, e.g., " We plan and prepare for the future and try to prevent crises").
Ethics Statement
This data serves as information about students’ conditions during the COVID-19 isolation period. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships which have, or could be perceived to have, influenced the work reported in this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the parents who were willing to give a response to the data of this study.
Footnotes
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105946.
Appendix. Supplementary materials
References
- 1.Walsh F. Strengthening family resilience, Strength. Family Res., 2nd ed. 2006 2nd ed. xvi, 384-xvi, 384. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Walsh F. Traumatic loss and major disasters: strengthening family and community resilience. Fam. Process. 2007;46(2):207–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00205.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.WHO WHO press briefing on COVID-19. WHO Press Brief. COVID-19. 2020;1 no. physical distancing as one measure to stop COVID-19 transmission. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Walsh F. Family resilience: a developmental systems framework. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2016 [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sharma R. The family and family structure classification redefined for the current times. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care. 2013;2(4):306. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.123774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Djalante R. Review and analysis of current responses to COVID-19 in Indonesia: period of January to March 2020. Prog. Disaster Sci. Apr. 2020;6 doi: 10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Jansen S.J.T. Urban, suburban or rural? Understanding preferences for the residential environment. J. Urban. 2020 [Google Scholar]
- 8.Feldman Barrett L., Russell J.A. Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998;74(4):967–984. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Holmstrom A.J. Emotional appraisal/reappraisal in social support. Int. Encycl. Interpers. Commun. 2015:1–10. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Fredrickson B.L., Branigan C.A. Positive emotions broaden action urges and the scope of attention. Cogn. Emot. 2003;19(3):313–332. doi: 10.1080/02699930441000238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kok B.E., Fredrickson B.L. Positive emotion: how positive emotions broaden and build. Activ. Teach. Positive Psychol. 2012:61–63. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Tellegen A., Watson D., Clark L.A. On the dimensional and hierarchical structure of affect. Psychol. Sci. 1999;10(4):297–303. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lamy L. Beyond emotion: love as an encounter of myth and drive. Emotion Rev. 2014;8(2):97–107. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Campos B., Ullman J.B., Aguilera A., Dunkel Schetter C. Familism and psychological health: the intervening role of closeness and social support. Cultur. Divers. Ethnic Minor. Psychol. 2014;20(2):191–201. doi: 10.1037/a0034094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ekman P. Basic emotions. Handbook Cogn. Emotion. 2005:45–60. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Armenta C.N., Fritz M.M., Lyubomirsky S. Functions of positive emotions: gratitude as a motivator of self-improvement and positive change. Emot. Rev. 2017;9(3):183–190. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fredrickson B.L. The value of positive emotions. Am. Sci. 2003;91(4):330–335. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Schröder M. Experimental study of affect bursts. Speech Commun. 2003;40(1–2):99–116. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Pekrun R., Goetz T., Daniels L.M., Stupnisky R.H., Perry R.P. Boredom in achievement settings: exploring control-value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010;102(3):531–549. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Basso M.R., Schefft B.K., Ris M.D., Dember W.N. Mood and global-local visual processing. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 1996;2(3):249–255. doi: 10.1017/s1355617700001193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.W. G. Parrott, Emotions in social psychology: essential readings. 2001.
- 22.Pekrun R., Perry R.P. Control-value theory of achievement emotions. Int. Handbook Emotions Edu. 2014:120–141. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.