Social Support for Subjective well-being of Prisoners

Social Support for inhering well-being of PrisonersTHE DIFFERENT ROLES OF SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR SUBJECTIVE WELL beingness PRISONERS MEN AND WOMEN IN THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS CLAS II.A YOGYAKARTAAbstractIn order to find a pattern solve of guidance for prisoners, men and women, as mandate by republic Act 1995, Article 14, split up 1 12 on the rights of prisoners, and alike in amity with the principles of the UN General Assembly Resolution 43/173 on dated December 9, 1988, for the protection of all persons, including those in the Correctional foot, then the coaching program at the Correctional Institution in men and women inmates to be distinguished. It is substantial to know how much the role of cordial leap out on the level of Subjective Well Being (SWB) men and women inmates. Subjects of this study amounted to 93 inmates from the Correctional Institution Class II.A Yogyakarta, which consisted of 70 men and 23 women. Measuring tool used to uncover SWB, that uses Satisfact ion With Life Scale (SWLS) of Dieneret al. (1985), and Social Support Scale were aspects of it refers to the perspicacity of Safiro (2000). The method of data analysis, this question using t-test analysis techniques and product moment correlation. From the results of research can be cogitate that (1) the role of sociable harbor on SWB level of 8.82% to the overall male and egg-producing(prenominal) subjects, 12.96% in male subjects, and by 2.1% in female subjects (2) On the unhurt subject of men and women, there be three factors that affect the level of affectionate support SWB of importly, ie emotional support, Informational Support and Support Social Network (3) There is no release in the level of mixer support and SWB in male and female subjects.Keywords Subjective Well Being (SWB), Social Support, Men and Women InmatesIntroductionThe law No. 12 1995 Article 1, paragraph 2, about the rights of prisoners, and the principles of the UN General Assembly Resolution 43/173 on December 9, 1988, mandated to protect all plenty, including those in Correctional Institution, and required their efforts to reform the tone of voice of manner of the inmates in the correctional system, so that when they are back to mingle with the public, they will be able to show the characteristics of individuals who apply senior high school quality of life. According to Cummings (1997), individuals who have a high quality of life will feel their subjective well- being (Subjective Well-being is abbreviated as SWB). SWB is ones taste about his life, that he is more satisfied and happier, although he still has a bit of unhappiness, so that this condition is indicated by higher persuasion of happiness compared to the feeling of unhappiness, and expressed by the satisfaction of his life (Diener in Philips, 2008). As an effort to achieve criminal implementation that is effective and efficient so the inmates can have high quality of life, The Penitentiary can divide its deve lopment by category, based on age or sex (Harsono 1995). It is also in accordance with the set in Constitution no12 in 1995 about Correctional article(12) paragraph (1), that in order to provide guidance to inmates in prisons, classification is conducted based on age, sex, length of punishment, type of crime, and another criteria which suits the call for and development. Although women is realized to have psychological needs which are different than men, prisons class IIA in Yogyakarta do not fix them as prisons for certain sex, so men and women are all in the prison environment, although they are put in a separate place. Because of the special needs of women and men are different, it is necessary to know whether there are SWB dissimilitudes between the two sexes, as the basis for the design of male and female inmates development program.From research of Sahrah et al., (2011, 2013) to the inmates in prisons of class IIA Yogyakarta, stated that the factors of religiosity, self-con fidence, the meaningfulness of life, emotional maturity, social support, perception of the physical condition of the environment, and the coping strategies are the factors that affect SWB inmates. It is also concluded that among the seven factors, meaningfulness of life, self-esteem, and social support are the factors that are very significant to inmatesSWB. Factors of meaningfulness of life and self-confidence are individual factors, while social support factors are contextual factors that more often than not can be manipulated structurally by the prisons as the institution responsible for training during the serving time. Hence, it is needed to know how big the role of social support on the level of subjective well-being of the men and women prisoners.Subjective Well Being Men and Women PrisonersInmates are convicts serving the criminal who lost independence in Prisons (Law No 12 Th. 1995 ps.1 paragraph 7). Convicted person is a person convicted by a court decision that has perma nent legal power (Indonesian Lawyear. 1995 Ps 1, paragraph 6). According to Rahardjo (1996) to treat inmates, necessary foundation of the correctional system that guarantees the rights of prisoners is certainly needed. To view the success or failure of the development patterns conducted by the officers (walinapi) to inmates, it can be seen whether the officers actually pay attention to the rights of prisoners or not, though, in this case prisoners should also be aware of the obligations that must be fulfilled.Associated with SWB, various studies that have been done by UMBY (University of MercuBuana Yogyakarta) show that there are problems related to subjective well-being of prisoners. This is reinforced by the results of research Indiyah (2001) that there are seven unfulfilled needs in inmates, they are, the need to get a sense of security, the need of conform, the need to deepen the religion, the need to make life more meaningful, needs to boost confidence, the need to maintain ad ditional knowledge, and need to be received by the community and the family after the completion of the criminal. Research conducted by Iswandari and Indiyah (2007) showed that inmates have problems with social adjustment. Further research and Lailatushifah Lestari (2008) also found that inmates susceptible to depression.From the research findings, it shows an indication towards a low Subjective Welfare on inmates. Subjective well-being is an individual evaluation of a daub or a longer period of his life, including his past. The evaluation covers the emotional reaction to a situation, mood and assessment of the inmates life, fulfillment, and satisfaction with marriage and work (Diener, et al., 2003). Moreover, Philips (2008) states that SWB is more Gordian than just happiness.Factors that influence SWB are the factor of religiosity, confidence, emotional maturity, the meaningfulness of life, social support, physical environment (Kin Nesselroade, 2003), coping strategies (Philips 2008), destination image (Sahrah, 2014b), the strategy of collaborative conflict final result (Sahrah, 2014a). The social support factor is a factor that is proven to be directly related and positively related and significantly associated with SWB in addition to the meaningfulness of life (Sahrah, et al., 2011, 2013). In this study, it is realized that there are possible differences of the inmate needs of men and women, therefore, this study is focused on the SWB of the inmates in terms of gender and their perceptions of social support given by the walinapi as prisons officer who is responsible to provide guidance to inmates.Social Support of theWalinapiJohnson Johnson (2000) suggest that social support is the exchange of resources with a view to improve the welfare and exisence of others who can be asked for help, encouragement, acceptance, and attention, and when experiencing difficulties. Social support can be defined as a sense of acceptance, care, appreciation or assistance r eceived by a person from another person or group (Sarafino, 2004).Cohen and Mc Kay Wills (1984) distinguishes five types of social support, namely (1) Emotional Support. In this aspect, it includes the expression of empathy, concern, and attention to the person concerned. This support requires the provision of a sense of comfort, peace of heart, and feeling loved for someone who has it. (2) Support of award. This aspect is going done a positive appreciation for the individuals concerned, encouragement or approval with ideas or feelings of the individual and the individual positive comparison with others. (3) Instrumentalsupport. These aspects include direct assistance to the form of services, time, and money. (4) Support for information. This aspect includes giving advice, instructions, advice, information, and feedback. (5) Support for social networks. These aspects include the feeling of social station in a group. Social networking support is a sense of membership in a group, sh aring the fun and social activities.Research MethodsThe independent variables are the Social Support and sex while the dependent variable is Subjective Well Being (SWB). The subjects of this study are 93 prisoners, consisting of 70 men and 23 women. The Selection of the research subject is done by using nonrandom random sampling method. The characteristics of the study subjects are (1) Convict Prison Class IIA Yogyakarta (2) Minimum term punishment of three years (3) Minimum education of primary school, and can read and write well.The methods of data collection is using a get over, which includes the Scale to reveal SWB Prisoners and Social Support Scale. The scale to reveal SWB of the inmates using SWLS scale of life satisfaction from Diener et al. (1985), based on the scale of the life satisfaction measured by the cognitive component of life satisfaction, and the scale is expected to raise a statement that is integrated on how a persons life runs. The rials can shows that the validity of the total valid item (with a range between a coefficient of 0494-0688) is reliable (coefficient Alpha Conbrach of 0819). The Social Support Scale consists of 50 items. After the trial, it shows that the total item os the coefficient which is corrected is ranged between 0.275 to 0.713 and Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0,959.The method of data analysis used in this research is the analysis of independent samples t-test, and the product moment correlation.Table Model SummaryMode lRR square(p)Adjusted R SquareStd. Error of the Estimate1,340a,116,0965,75628a. Predictors (Constant), SS_TOT, sexResults and ConclusionsThe study subjects was as many as 93 people consisting of 70 people (75.3%) males and 23 (24.7%) were females when viewed from the education level owned by inmates, the majority of inmates have a junior high school education (29%) and high school (45.2%), other elementary educational level, Diplomas, undergraduate and master degree. Each education le vel is still no more than 10%.Table 1 CoefficientaSubjectNCoeffCoeff SquareSig.Male70.360.1296.001Female23.145.0210.254MaleFem ale93.297.0882.002a. Dependent Variable SWBb. Predictors (Constant), Social Support (SS_TOT)From Table 1, it can be concluded that the role of the Social Support SWB level of 8.82% to the overall male and female subjects, whereas in male subjects alone amounted to 12.96%, and the female subjects only by 2.1%. However, the character difference in the role of social support to SWB in men and women when they are examined again can not be proven significantly. This can be seen by the gender variable in predicting SWB social support, as shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. In the third table, it can be seen that the role of gender and Social Support together in predicting SWB amounted to 11.6% (on a regression coefficient of .340, p 0.05) in predicting SWB.Table 3ANOVAaModelSum of Squaresdf cerebrate SquareFSig.Regression389,4892194,7455,877,004b1Residual2982 ,1249033,135Total3371,61392Dependent Variable SWBPredictors (Constant), SS_TOT, SEXThe insignificant sexedifference in predicting SWB, is also the say from calculations using independent sample t-test, that there is no difference in men and women in terms of their perceptions of social acceptance of support from the walinapi, and no difference of SWB in male and female subjects ( see table 5).Table 4 CoefficientsaModelUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstSig.BStd. ErrorBeta(Constant)6,8064,0831,667,0991SEX 2,3001,383-,165 1,663,100SS_TOT,050,017,2983,005,003a. Dependent Variable SWBTable 5 Social support difference SWBbased on SEXSEXNMeanStd.DeviationStd. Error Meant-testpSS_TOT1,0070220,214334,919324,17366-,040. ,9682,0023220,565240,415828,42728SWB1,007015,50006,03552,721381,582.1172,002313,21745,908061,23192If the views of the role of each factor of the social support component of the SWB on the entire male and female subjects, it can be concluded that there are three factors that affect the level of social support SWB significantly (p CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSConclusionFrom the results of research, it can be concluded that (1) the role of social support on SWB level of 8.82% to the overall male and female subjects, 12.96% in male subjects, and by 2.1% in female subjects (2) On the wholeTable 6 The correlation of social support components withSWBSSS_EmoS_ExpS_InfoS_InstS_NetSWLSPearson Correlation,297**,267**,173,193,321**,346**Sig. (2-tailed),004,010,097,064,002,001N939393939393**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). SS Social Support S_Emo Emotional Support S_Exp Expectation Support S_Info Information Support S_Inst Instrumental Support S_Net SocialNetwork Support.subject of men and women, there are three factors that affect the level of social support SWB significantly, ie emotional support, Informational Support and Support Social Network (3) There is no difference in the level of social support and SWB in mal e and female subjects.SuggestionAlthough this study can not prove the existence of differences in social support and SWB by sex inmates, the Correctional Institution Class II A Wirogunan is expected to keep increasing the levels of walinapis ability to perform basic social support for prisoners, because it proves that the provision of social support can improve SWB of the inmates. In this case the expected social support of the inmates is the kind of emotional support, information support and social networking support.REFERENCESCohen. S. Mc Kay. 1984. Social support, stress, and the buffering hypothesis an empirical review in a Baum. JE Singer, se Taylor (Eds). Handbook of Psychology and Health (Vol 4, pp 253-267) Hillsdale. NJ Erlbaum.Cummings. R.A. 1997. Comprehensive smell of Life Scale-Adult (Manual). Fift Ed. Published by The School of Psychology Deakin University.Diener. E. Emmons. R. A. Larsen. R. J. Griffin. S. 1985. The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personalit y Assessment. 49. 71-75.Diener. E. Oishi. S. Lucas. R. E. 2003. Personality, culture, and subjective well-being. Annual Review of Psycholgy. 54. 403-425.Harsono. H.S.CI. 1995. Sistem Baru Pembinaan Narapidana. Jakarta Jembatan.Indiyah. 2001. Kebutuhan-kebutuhan Psikologis Narapidana. Psikonomi, 3 (1), 1-23.Iswandari. T Indiyah. 2007. Perbedaan Penyesuaian Sosial pada Narapidana yang Tinggal di Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Terbuka dan Tertutup. Skripsi. Yogyakarta Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Wangsa Manggala.Johnson. D.W. Johnson. F. P. 2000. Joining Together Group Theory Group Skill. sore Jersey Prentice Hall, Inc.Kin. J.E. Nesselroade. J. R. 2003. Relationships Among Social Support, Self- Concept Well Being of Older Results A engage of Process Using Dynamic Factor Models. International Journal of Behavior Development. Jan. 1. 27(1) 49-65.Lestari. L.P. Lailatushifah. S.N.F. 2008. Hubungan antara Berpikir Positif dengan Depresi pada Narapidana di Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Klas II A Yogyakarta. Skripsi. Yogyakarta Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Mercu Buana.Phillips. D. 2008. Quality of Life Concepts, Policy Practice. London New. PP No 28 Tahun 2006. Peraturan Pemerintah tentang Perubahan AtasPeraturan Pemerintah Nomor 32 Tahun 1999 Tentang Syarat dan Tata Cara Pelaksanaan Hak Warga Binaan Pemasyarakatan.Rahardjo. Satjipto. 1996. Ilmu Hukum. Bandung Citra Aditya Bakti.Sahrah. A. 2014. Colaborative conflict resolution stategy, emotional maturity and subjective well-being of the nurse. Proceeding of Asean Conference Psychology and Behavior Science, 27-30 Maret 2014. Jepang IAFOR (The International Academic Forum).Sahrah. A. 2014. Destination ambit and Subjective Well-Being of Students from outside Yogyakarta. Seminar Proceeding International Seminar on Tourism. 25-26 Februari 2014. Yogyakarta STIPRAM.Sahrah. A. Lailatushifah. S.N.F. Indiyah Susilaningsih. KT. Astuti. TA. 2011. Faktor faktor yang mempengaruhi Kesejahteraan Subjektif (Subjective Well-Being) nara pidana Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Klas IIA Yogyakarta. Laporan Penelitian Lembaga Pemasyarakatan-Universitas Mercu Buana Yogyakarta.Sahrah. A. Lailatushifah. S.N.F. Indiyah Susilaningsih. KT. Astuti. TA. 2013. Structural model of the influencing factors of the subjective well-being of the prisoners. Prosiding of 5th international conference national shop class improving employee relations for a better organizational climate. 4 5 October 2013. Jakarta Universitas Mercu Buana.Sarafino. E. P. 2004. Health Psychology Biopsychology Interaction. Third Edition. New York John Willey and Sans.Sarafino.E.P. 2000. Health Psychology. New York John Willey and Sans.Undang-UndangRINo.12tahun1995tentangLembaga Pemasyarakatan.