Family support and its relationship to the level of psychological immunity among female secondary school students

Abstract

Aim:

The study investigated family support and psychological immunity among 555 female high school students in Al-Kharj Governorate.

Methods:

A descriptive analytical method was used in this study. The study population consisted of all female secondary school students in Al-Kharj Governorate, totaling 10,981 students distributed across 79 girls’ secondary schools.

Results:

Results showed a high level of family support (mean 4.48) but only a medium level of psychological immunity (mean 3.23) among students. There was no correlation between family support and psychological immunity.

Conclusion:

Educational level and marital status of parents did not significantly affect family support levels. Similarly, academic achievement did not significantly impact psychological immunity. The study recommended organizing school events and promoting cooperation between societal institutions to boost psychological immunity among female students in secondary school.

Introduction

Students face many difficulties and problems within school, which can negatively affect their personality, hinder their academic progress, and affect the educational process within the classroom and school alike. Perhaps the most important of these difficulties and problems that a female student may be exposed to is bullying from her classmates, her feeling of rejection from them, her failure in exams or her poor academic performance. This may make her feel frustrated and isolated if she does not reach her expectations and goals towards academic excellence. The only way for the female student to overcome these difficulties and problems is the female student’s ability to face them, which will not be achieved unless the female student’s personality is characterized by a number of psychological traits and personal abilities that help her to face such difficulties and problems, and the most important of which is what is called “psychological immunity.” Psychological immunity, crucial for overcoming these hurdles, involves defending against crises, preventing disorders, fostering a balanced personality, and reducing future anxiety (Gupta and Nebhinani, 2020; Kaur and Som, 2020; Zidane, 2013; Rachman, 2016). Negative family behaviors impact academics and personal well-being (Lorenzo-Blanco et al., 2017; Marković et al., 2022; Moreno-Ruiz et al., 2019).

Family support is crucial for adolescent female students’ psychological well-being, aiding in immunity and problem-solving skills development (Nielsen et al., 2017; Al-Fuqara, 2019: 32). Badir (2013) found a correlation between support and coping skills. Kassas (2022) found family support boosts academic performance in students. Amer (2022) linked family support to immunity against pressures. Malkoç and Yalçın (2015) found that among university students, resilience, coping mechanisms, and social support from both family and friends significantly influenced psychological well-being.

Family support boosts students’ quality of life, aids in problem-solving (Al-Rifai, 2021). Also, Hamoud and Al-Mazloum (2021) indicated that family support for students enables them to think positively in solving their problems, which in turn contributes to raising the level of students’ psychological immunity to the problems they may encounter in their lives (Al-Sahli and Olhawas, 2021). Family support enhances students’ problem-solving skills and boosts their psychological immunity, helping them navigate life’s challenges effectively (Hamoud and Al-Mazloum, 2021). The tangible or economic resources provided by family positively impact students’ life satisfaction and food domain, while intangible or social resources are linked to happiness (Schnettler et al., 2015).

During adolescence, female students undergo multiple changes necessitating psychological immunity for balance, stability, and maximizing potential (Stumper et al., 2020). Family support, love, appreciation, and care are crucial for girls to navigate these changes effectively (Eime et al., 2013). It was reported that a supportive family climate boosts female students’ psychological immunity (Gupta and Nebhinani, 2020; Khoja and Al-Kashki, 2019). Al-Fuqara (2019) linked domestic violence to lower psychological immunity. Psychological immunity is vital for female students facing adolescence challenges and developmental changes transition. Research by Khoja and Al-Kashki (2019) shows that secondary school girls have lower psychological immunity compared to middle school girls due to the myriad changes experienced during this stage.

Hence, the current study seeks to explore the relationship between family support and the level of psychological immunity among female secondary school students in Saudi Arabia. This study attempts to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of family support among secondary school female students?

2. What is the level of psychological immunity among secondary school female students?

3. Is there a correlation between family support and the level of psychological immunity among female secondary school students?

4. Are there differences in the family support provided to secondary school female students due to the level of parental education?

5. Are there differences in the family support provided to secondary school female students due to the marital status of the parents?

6. Are there differences at the level of psychological immunity among female secondary school female students due to the academic achievement variable?

This study is significant in terms of scientific addition to building the research and knowledge accumulation on the relationship of family support to the level of psychological immunity among secondary school female students, knowing the relationship of family support to the level of psychological immunity among secondary school female students, providing some suggestions and recommendations that will benefit family counseling specialists, and providing access to researchers and those interested in the family to conduct further studies, research and studies related to this topic.

Literature review

There are not many studies that have examined the issue of the relationship between family support and psychological immunity for children in general and for female adolescents in particular, especially since, given the nature of Saudi society, there are no mixed schools that include female and male students together. Beginning in the late 1980s, there has been a progression in the family support and advocacy movement within children’s mental health in the United States, growing alongside the increase in community-based services for families and children (Hoagwood et al., 2010). Different researcher gave definitions of “family support,” Attia and Mansour (2021, p. 977) defined it as “the outcome of the interaction between parents to provide psychological, material, and cognitive support directed to teenage children to modify negative behaviors, enhance their positive behaviors, and overcome the problems they face”. Burgess et al. (2018, p.14) gave another definition such as “any intervention for parents aimed at reducing risks and enhancing protective factors for their children, in relation to their social, financial and emotional well-being”. Procedurally, the researcher defines “family support” as “the female student’s awareness of the positive relationships and interactions that take place between the student, her parents and her siblings, which represent emotional, social, cognitive, behavioral, guidance, academic, and material support”.

The Psychological Immunity Model has been developed by Oláh (2000, 2002). He had defined psychological immune system as “an integrated system of cognitive, motivational and behavioral personality dimensions that should provide immunity against stress, promote healthy development and serve as stress resistance resources or psychological antibodies” (Bhardwaj and Agrawal, 2015, p.8). Zidane (2013, p.820) defined psychological immunity as “a preventive protection device that strengthens the reasons and directions for avoiding targeting or exposure to psychological injury, and increases the individual’s ability to adapt”. The researcher defines the dimensions of psychological immunity as follows:

• Self-confidence: It is the student’s belief in her goals, decisions, abilities, and potential, her respect and appreciation for herself, her confidence in her ability to make the right decisions, and her awareness of her competencies and ability to achieve goals.

• Emotional control: It is the student’s ability to control her reactions and emotional stability in the most difficult circumstances and situations. This appears while dealing with stressful situations and crises.

• Psychological resilience: It is the student’s ability to adapt to and overcome difficult social life, represented by family, emotional, health, academic, and financial problems.

• Challenge: It is a struggle with oneself or with others to reach a specific and planned goal, provided that it is a positive challenge that does not harm others, such as success in exams.

• Optimism: It is the student’s tendency to look at the better side of events and expect the best results with a positive outlook on life.

A few previous studies have addressed the relationship between family support and the psychological immunity of their children as students at different academic levels. In KSA, Khoja and Al-Kashki (2019) studied 302 teenage girls in Jeddah to determine the link between psychological immunity and family climate. Using specific scales, they found a strong positive correlation between the two variables, particularly among middle school students regardless of parental marital status. Kareem et al. (2023) studied family support as a predictor of life satisfaction and happiness in Pakistani adolescents aged 12–19. The sample of 250 adolescents from schools and universities revealed that family support positively correlates with higher levels of life satisfaction and personal happiness among adolescents in Pakistan. Youssef’s (2022) research examined family support’s impact on psychological immunity in Damascus Governorate secondary education students. The study involved 710 third-year students, utilizing descriptive analytical methods and scales developed by the researcher. Findings showed a positive relationship between family support and psychological immunity, with no significant gender or academic specialization differences. The study conducted by Badir (2013) focused on the relationship between family support and coping mechanisms for stressful life events among university youth in Egypt. It examined how university students face academic, family, social, and personal stressors. The sample included 247 male and female students who completed questionnaires on family support and coping strategies. Stressful academic events were the most prevalent, followed by family, social, and personal life events. Males and females exhibit differences in coping with stress, with males utilizing more proactive strategies. Family support varies based on parents’ educational level. Gender and family income do not significantly affect family support. Coping strategies differ based on parents’ education and mother’s work, but not income. Family support shows a negative correlation with stress levels and a positive correlation with coping methods. These findings suggest nuanced relationships between gender, family dynamics, and stress management in the study sample.

These studies were characterized by diversity in their objectives. The aim of the study by Kareem et al. (2023) was to investigate the relationship between family support, life satisfaction, and happiness among Pakistani adolescents. The study of Youssef (2022) aimed to identify the level of family support and the level of psychological immunity among a sample of third year secondary school students in Damascus Governorate schools. As for the study by Khoja and Al-Kashki (2019), its aim was to identify the relationship between degrees of psychological immunity and degrees of family climate among the sample according to the two variables of the study (school stage, parents’ marital status). The study by Badir (2013) aimed to identify the relationship between family support and methods of coping with stressful life events among university youth.

Youssef (2022) and Khoja and Al-Kashki (2019) studies applied to schools. The study of Badir (2013) was applied at the university. The study of Kareem et al. (2023) was applied at school and university. The current study will focus on identifying the relationship between family support and the level of psychological immunity among secondary school female students.

As for the tool used, the study (Kareem et al., 2023) used a multidimensional scale of perceived social support, the life satisfaction scale, and the personal happiness scale. The study of Youssef (2022) used a scale of family support, and a scale of psychological immunity prepared by the researcher after reviewing the literature, and this is similar to the current study. As for the study of Khoja and Al-Kashki (2019), it used a psychological immunity scale and a family climate scale that were adapted from the literature. The study by Badir (2013) used the General Data Questionnaire, the Family Support Scale, stressful life events, and methods of coping with stressful life events.

Theoretical framework

This study is guided by four theories. First, social support theory suggests that access to social support—comfort, assistance, and information from others—reduces the chances of delinquency, crime, and adverse health outcomes by acting as a buffer against stress and promoting well-being. It asserts that strong, nurturing relationships and communities provide immediate benefits and serve as vital resources for people experiencing difficulties, impacting individual actions and overall societal well-being (Lakey and Cohen, 2000). Social support, particularly from the family, can manifest through various forms of assistance (emotional, cognitive, behavioral, guidance, academic, and financial) (Hupcey, 1998; Lakey and Cohen, 2000). The family often serves as a primary source of these forms of support, which can promote psychological immunity—the ability to endure and recover from stress and challenges (Cobb, 1976; House, 1987; House et al., 1988; Kaur and Som, 2020); second, attachment theory, formulated by Bowlby (1978), suggests that humans possess an inherent biological desire to form deep emotional bonds with primary caregivers for their survival and development. The quality of these primary attachments, whether stable or unstable, shapes a person’s mental frameworks and influences their emotional management, social abilities, and ability to form bonds throughout life. Secure attachment promotes confident exploration and positive relationships, whereas insecure attachment can lead to distrust and relationship challenges, affecting adult outcomes (Ainsworth, 1978; Fitton, 2012). People with secure attachments generally have greater psychological immunity due to inherent feelings of safety and support (Ehrlich, 2019; Guha and Beri, 2024); third, stress and coping theory, particularly the interactional model of stress and coping developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1987), suggests that stress represents a dynamic interaction between a person and their environment, rather than an isolated event. This model consists of two main appraisal stages: primary appraisal, during which the situation is assessed in terms of its potential severity, risk, or difficulty, and secondary appraisal, in which available coping strategies and resources are examined. According to these appraisals, people use coping mechanisms that can be problem-centered (confronting the stressor) or emotion-centered (coping with the emotional strain). Reappraisal, which involves reconsidering the situation or coping mechanism, can occur at any time, emphasizing the dynamic aspect of the stress experience (Krohne, 2002). Family support can act as a buffer during difficult life situations, enhancing psychological immunity by fostering effective coping mechanisms (Olff, 1999; Schwarzer and Knoll, 2007); and finally, resilience theory examines how individuals and systems adapt and thrive when faced with challenges by leveraging internal strengths and external support networks. This theory highlights a sophisticated strengths-centered approach, whereby overcoming challenges enables growth and the ability to manage future stressors. Key elements in this process are protective factors (such as strong social bonds) and supportive factors (such as self-confidence and positivity), which enable individuals and communities to recover from challenges (Greene et al., 2004; Masten, 2018). Supportive family environments are resilience-enhancing elements, strengthening psychological immunity (Huang et al., 2023; IJntema et al., 2023).

Methodology

A descriptive analytical method was used in this study. The study population consisted of all female secondary school students in Al-Kharj Governorate, totaling 10,981 students distributed across 79 girls’ secondary schools. Using random sampling, 555 responses were obtained from participating students, representing approximately 5% of the study population; that is, about 10,426 individuals did not participate in the study. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the study sample. As shown, 50.8% of the participating students have fathers with secondary education or below, 29.5% with university education, 8.1% with postgraduate education, and 11.5% with other educational levels. Meanwhile, 41.3% of the mothers have secondary education, 42.7% have university education, 5.4% have postgraduate education, and 10.6% have other educational levels. In addition,74.6% of students have married parents, 11.9% have divorced parents, 6.7% have separated parents, and 6.8% have widowed parents. Regarding the achievement levels of the sample members, 58.9% are excellent, 30.5% are very good, 7.0% are good and 2.7% are acceptable. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study, with the condition that they inform their parents of their participation and obtain written consent from them, as they are adolescents.

Figure 1

Two scales were used in this study, which are the family support scale and the psychological immunity scale. The family support scale was developed by reviewing the literature (Al-Tal et al., 2021; Hensarling, 2009; Uddin and Bhuiyan, 2019). It was divided into seven dimensions containing 28 statements that are distributed as follows: Emotional support (5), cognitive support (4), social support (5), behavioral support (3), counseling support (4), academic support (4), and material support (3). To assess the validity, wording, clarity, and cultural adaptation of this questionnaire to the Saudi context, it was presented to a group of experts who emphasized the importance of designing the scale to accurately measure the intended aspects. Furthermore, the scale was applied to a sample of (40) students to ensure its internal consistency and reliability, as given in Tables 1, 2, respectively. The validity of the internal consistency was checked using Pearson correlation coefficients to determine relationships between statement scores in dimensions, ensuring coherence and consistency within dimensions as given in Table 1.

The results indicate high, positive, statistically significant correlation coefficients between statement scores and total dimension scores at 0.01 level. This demonstrates consistency, homogeneity, and cohesion among the items within each dimension. Moreover, high, positive, and statistically significant at 0.01 level of the calculated correlation coefficients between dimension scores and total family support scale score confirmed consistency and homogeneity of items. The obtained correlation coefficients are 0.936, 0.920, 0.933, 0.934, 0.923, 0.884 and 0.704 for the dimensions of Emotional support, cognitive support, social support, behavioral support, counseling support, academic support and material support, respectively.

The researcher tested the measurement model, which consists of 28 measured variables representing the scores of the 28 items of the scale, along with 7 latent variables of the scale, using a structural equation model. The model tested is a seven-factor model. The following Table 3 shows the goodness-of-fit indices for the seven-factor model.

To verify the stability of the family support scale, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated for the seven dimensions of the scale and the scale as a whole. The results were shown in Table 2.

The reliability coefficients have a high degree of stability, and the results presented in Tables 1, 2 and confirmed the validity of the scale which was crucial for achieving the objectives of the current study. The respondents were requested to specify their agreement level with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = Always, 4 = often, 3 = sometimes, 2 = rarely, 1 = never). Based on the arithmetic means of the statements and the weighted means of the dimensions, the responses were classified into five levels of equal range (0.8 = (5–1)/5) as follows: Extra-large (more than 4.2), large (from 3.4 to 4.2), medium (from 2.6 to 3.4), a little (from 1.8 to 2.6), and none (less than 1.8).

The scale of psychological immunity was developed by reviewing several previous studies and reference (Al-Rifai, 2021; Al-Sahli and Olhawas, 2021; Shapan and Ahmed, 2020). It consists of five dimensions: Self-confidence, emotional control, psychological resilience, challenge, and optimism. The researcher created 20 statements that measure it, distributed among the five dimensions such as each dimension contains four statements.

As with the Family Support Scale, this scale was presented to a group of experts to assess its validity, wording, clarity, and cultural adaptation to the Saudi context. Furthermore, the scale was applied to a sample of (40) students to ensure its internal consistency and reliability, as given in Table 2 and Table 4, respectively. The internal consistency of the scale was checked using the Pearson correlation coefficient to determine relationships between statement scores in dimensions, ensuring coherence and consistency within dimensions as given in Table 4.

Results give high, positive, statistically significant correlation coefficients (at 0.01 level) between statement scores and total dimension scores, confirming consistency, homogeneity, and cohesion among items. Correlation coefficients were also calculated between the total score of the dimension and the total score of the scale, where obtained values were0.551, 0.504, 0.628, 0.730 and 0.631 for the dimensions of self-confidence, emotional control, psychological resilience, challenge, and optimism, respectively. These correlation coefficients between dimension scores and total scale score are high, positive, and statistically significant at 0.01 level, confirming item consistency and homogeneity (see Table 5).

The researcher tested the measurement model, which consists of 20 measured variables representing the scores of the 20 items of the scale, along with 5 latent variables of the scale, using a structural equation model. The model tested is a five-factor model. The following Table 6 shows the goodness-of-fit indices for the five-factor model (see Figures 2, 3).

Figure 2

Figure 3

To verify the stability of the psychological immunity scale, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated for the five dimensions of the scale and the scale as a whole. The results are shown in Table 4, where all correlation coefficients are acceptable to apply the scale for the sample members.

The statements of the scale were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree). Based on the arithmetic means of the statements and the weighted means of the dimensions, the responses were classified into five levels of equal range (0.8 = (5–1)/5) as follows: Extra-large, large, medium, a little, and none.

Descriptive data were analyzed using SPSS software. Different statistical approaches were used to answer the questions of the study, such as frequencies and percentages, arithmetic means and standard deviations, Pearson correlation coefficient, Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient and One-Way ANOVA analysis to verify differences according to the study variables.

Results

The first research question examined the level of family support among secondary school female students in Al-Kharj governorate, as shown in Table 7.

Results of Table 7 indicates that the arithmetic mean of the study sample members’ answers to the total of the family support scale reached (4.48), with a standard deviation of (0.77), and a level of (very large). Therefore, the level of family support provided to secondary school female students is very large.

The second research question investigated the level of psychological immunity among the sample members. The results are given in Table 8.

It is clear from Table 8 that the arithmetic mean of the answers of the study sample members to the total of the psychological immunity scale reached (3.23), with a standard deviation of (0.37), and a (medium) level. Therefore, the level of psychological immunity among secondary school female students is a medium level.

The third research question explored the correlation between family support dimensions and the dimensions of psychological immunity, using Pearson correlation coefficient, among secondary school female students. The correlation was also calculated between the total sum of both family support scale and psychological immunity scale according to the female students’ answers. The results revealed that all values of the correlation coefficients between the students’ scores on the family support scale and their scores on the psychological immunity scale were negative, and that all values of the significance level were greater than the significance level of 0.05 (Table 9), which indicates that there is no correlation between the level of family support and the level of psychological immunity among secondary school students, for the total score, and for each dimension separately.

The fourth research question explored statistically significant differences (at 0.05 significance level) in the family support provided to secondary school female students due to the level of parental education. To verify the significance of the differences in the level of family support according to both mother’s and father’s educational level, an analysis of One-Way ANOVA test was used. One-Way ANOVA has a set of conditions that must be met to ensure the validity of the statistical results. The following Table 10 shows the verification of the most important of these conditions.

It is evident from the previous table that the data for the research variables are approximately normally distributed based on the skewness and kurtosis coefficients, as the skewness and kurtosis coefficients for these variables fall within ±1 for most values. Additionally, it is clear that the values of Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance, most of which are non-significant, indicate homogeneity of the data among the comparison groups.

The results of the statistical analysis showed that the values of (F) are not statistically significant at the significance level (0.05) in all dimensions of family support and in the total score as well, which means that there are no statistically significant differences at the significance level (0.05) in the level of family support provided to secondary school female students attributable to the variables of the educational level of the mother and father.

The fifth research question investigated statistically significant differences (at 0.05 significance level) in the family support provided to secondary school female students due to the marital status of the parents. The results showed that the values of (F) are not statistically significant at the significance level (0.05) in all dimensions of family support, and in the total score as well, which means that there are no statistically significant differences at the significance level (0.05) in the level of family support provided to the individuals of the study sample attributable to the social status of the parents.

The sixth research question investigated statistically significant differences (at 0.05 significance level) in the psychological immunity provided to secondary school female students due to the academic achievement variable. Results are shown in Table 11.

It is noted from Table 11 that the (F) values are statistically significant values at the significance level (0.05) in two dimensions (challenge and optimism) of psychological immunity and in the overall total as well. This calls for the use of the Scheffé test to verify the direction of the differences and the reliability of their significance. The results are shown in Table 12.

The results presented in the Table above indicate that all significance values between the levels of academic achievement (two-two) are values that are not statistically significant. This indicates that there are no statistically significant differences at the significance level (0.05) at the level of psychological immunity among female secondary school students due to the academic achievement variable.

Discussion

This research was conducted with the main aim of exploring the relationship between family support and the level of psychological immunity among 255 female secondary school students in Al-Kharj Governorate in Saudi Arabia. The study met also other sub-objectives and effectively addressed the main research aim. The initial step was to estimate the levels of both family support and psychological immunity among the female students. The differences in the family support provided to secondary school female students due to demographic variables (level of parental education, marital status of the parents and marital status of the parents) were also investigated. Furthermore, this study explored differences at the level of psychological immunity among female secondary school female students due to the academic achievement variable.

The study findings suggest a very high level for all seven dimensions of family support scale, with close arithmetic means, the order of importance of these dimensions as reported by the sample member is as follows: The dimension (material support) came in the first place at a level of (very large) with a mean of (4.67) and a standard deviation of (0.685). The dimension (indicative support) ranked in the second place with a level of (very large) with a mean of (4.64) and a standard deviation of (0.742). The dimension (emotional support) came in the third place with a level of (very large) and an arithmetic mean of (4.54), and a standard deviation of (0.784). The dimension (academic support) ranked in the fourth place with a level of (very large) and arithmetic mean of (4.45) and a standard deviation of (0.915). In fifth place were the dimensions (cognitive support) and (behavioral support) at a level of (very large) with an arithmetic mean of (4.37) and a standard deviation of (1.022) for the cognitive dimension, and (1.022) for behavioral support. The dimension (social support) ranked at last with a level (very large) as well, with an arithmetic mean of (4.35) and a standard deviation of (0.896). The previous result can be explained according to the nature of Saudi society, and it is based on preserving the family and fulfilling all its duties towards its children. Therefore, the study sample items expressed the high level of family support for them, as it was very high in all its dimensions. This is due to their feeling that the family is supporting them in all different life situations, and providing all the support, care and attention they need. The previous result can also be interpreted in light of the functional theory, which emphasized the functions of interconnected relationships in the network of social relationships that surround the individual, and which work to support them in the difficult situations and circumstances that they are exposed to in their social environment. In the framework of the current study, the family represents the smallest social unit in society, whose members interact o perform the functions required of it to help each other in difficult situations and circumstances. This is consistent with Amer’s (2022) study which emphasized that perceived family support contributes positively to an individual’s ability to confront all life stresses.

An important consideration related to these results (Table 7) is the potential presence of a ceiling effect in the family support scale. The overall mean for family support across the sample was 4.48 out of 5, a level classified as “very high.” The means for all sub-dimensions ranged between 4.35 and 4.67, with relatively small standard deviations, indicating that the majority of students’ responses tended toward very high values, with limited variance in responses. The ceiling effect refers to the accumulation of individuals’ responses near the upper limit of the scale, leaving little room for differentiation between their actual levels (Wang et al., 2008). In light of the results of this study, the significant increase in means may mean that the scale was unable to capture subtle differences among students in their perceived levels of family support, as most of them scored close to the upper limit. This, in turn, may reduce the discriminatory power of the instrument and mask potential differences within the sample. Although these results can be interpreted positively—reflecting students’ perceptions of high levels of family support across all dimensions—they also raise some methodological concerns. Most notably, the presence of a ceiling effect may limit the ability to detect the strength of the correlation between family support and other psychological variables, such as psychological resilience, due to the low variance in family support scores.

The study revealed a medium level of psychological immunity among secondary school female students, where the dimension of (emotional control) ranked first at a level of (large) with a mean of (3.46) and a standard deviation of (0.56), the dimension of (psychological resilience) came in the second place at a level of (medium) with a mean of (3.34) and a standard deviation of (0.6) and the dimension of (challenge) came in the third place with a level of (medium) and an arithmetic mean of (3.187) and a standard deviation of (0.82). In fourth place came the dimension (optimism) with a level of (medium) and an arithmetic mean of (3.182) and a standard deviation of (0.6, 0.48). Finally, the dimension of (self-confidence) ranked at an (medium) level, with an arithmetic mean of (3.02) and a standard deviation of (0.57). This finding can be explained by the nature of the stage that the subjects of the study sample are going through, which is characterized by many physiological and social changes that occur to them, as well as the emergence of some problems as a result of thinking about the next stage, which is the university stage, as female students are confused about their future, which may cause some psychological problems. This is consistent with what Ramachandran (2012) indicated that this stage is noisy, emotional, and turbulent. Furthermore, our finding also agrees with the study of Khoja and Al-Kashki (2019), which proved that secondary school female students have a lower level of psychological immunity than middle school female students. This is due to the many changes that occur to them at this age.

The investigation of the relationship between family support dimensions and the dimensions of psychological immunity did not exhibit correlations between the level of family support and the level of psychological immunity among secondary school female students, for the total, and for each dimension separately. A result that can be explained by the difference between the level of family support among the subjects of the study sample and their level of psychological immunity, according to the results of the first and second questions, as the level of family support was very high while the level of psychological immunity was medium. This is attributable to the nature of the stage they are going through and the family feels its specialty. Therefore, it works to provide more support to female students, as a result of their going through a number of pressures and changes that accompany this age stage—especially since it is a transitional stage between school education and university education. Moreover, the previous result can also be interpreted in light of the attachment theory in which Bowlby et al. (1992) hypothesized that individuals who have natural bonds with others are more secure and self-reliant than those who lack these bonds, as the individual becomes vulnerable to many problems and crises that they face in the social environment surrounding them (Daoudi, 2018). Therefore, the reliance of female students on the very high level of support from their families makes them not depend much on themselves with regard to achieving the dimensions of their psychological immunity. Moreover, the present research suggests that psychological immunity may be shaped more by personal or social influences than by family dynamics per se. Cultural changes, developing independence during adolescence, or educational constraints may also play a role in this finding. However, our findings contradict other research (Khoja and Al-Kashki, 2019; Youssef, 2022) that has indicated a relationship between family support and students’ levels of psychological immunity. It worth noting that in contemporary Saudi society, particularly among youth, there appears to be a shift toward the influence of peers or social/digital media on psychological immunity rather than relying on family support. Students may also face psychological stressors stemming from academic or societal demands, which may be difficult to alleviate with family support alone. Despite the collectivist culture in Saudi Arabia that prioritizes family, the nature of the support provided may not align with students’ psychological needs (e.g., emotional understanding versus practical assistance or supervision).

This research showed that there are no statistically significant differences at the level of family support provided to the subjects of the study sample attributable to the variable of the educational level of the parents, which can be explained by the nature of Saudi society, which is based on parents’ commitment to their duties towards their children, regardless of their educational level. Therefore, the family works to take care of its children and provide everything they need. This differs from the result of the study of Badir (2013), which demonstrated the presence of statistically significant differences in the family support directed to members of the study sample depending on the variable of the educational level of the parents. The difference may be attributable to the results of the two studies to the difference in the stage that was addressed in each of them. That is the study of Badir (2013) dealt with family support for children in the university stage, as the children have begun the journey of independence from the family at this stage, while the current study dealt with female students in the secondary stage. Additionally, no statistically significant differences at the significance at the level of family support provided to the members of the study sample due to the marital status of the parents were obtained. This result can be explained by the fact that the parents’ feeling of the commitment of providing support to their children is not affected by the fact that they are married or separated. They may feel greater responsibility by providing greater support in the event of separation, or in the event of the loss of a parent. So the father or mother feels that he or she must compensate their children for what it was lost to the other party, whether through divorce, death, or separation. In addition, this result can also be interpreted in light of the attachment theory, which focused on guiding the individual and helping him use the sources of support and support available to him. This is in order to avoid the negative effects that they may be exposed to in the social environment surrounding them, and to provide him with positive methods to confront these effects. This is what parents try to do with their children, regardless of their marital status. Our finding is consistent with the result of the study of Khoja and Al-Kashki (2019), which found that there are no differences in the family climate attributable to the marital status of the parents.

The exploration of the statistically significant differences in the psychological immunity provided to secondary school female students due to the academic achievement variable revealed statistically significant differences in two dimensions (challenge and optimism) of psychological immunity and in the overall total as well. However, the use of the Scheffé did not indicate significance values between the levels of academic achievement (two-two) are values that are not statistically significant. This result can be explained by the fact that the subjects of the study sample at this stage are exposed to some social and psychological problems and difficulties as a result of the changes they are experiencing. This applies to all female students regardless of their level of achievement, and accordingly they may not differ in the psychological characteristics and personal abilities that help them to face these difficulties and problems. This indicates that the psychological immunity of female students does not differ according to their level of achievement.

Conclusion

This study aimed to examine the link between family support and psychological immunity among 555 secondary school female students in Al-Kharj governorate. Scales were created for data collection. The study found that secondary school female students receive high family support but have a medium level of psychological immunity. In addition, it was revealed that there are no statistical differences in family support based on parents’ education or marital status. Furthermore, academic achievement does not significantly impact psychological immunity levels.

Recommendations

In light of the previous results, the study recommends cooperation between different community institutions to enhance the level of psychological immunity among female students in secondary school. It is recommended also to organize school events and activities at the secondary level to develop the level of psychological immunity among secondary school students. There is also a need to design and prepare training programs for female student counselors at the secondary level to provide everything necessary to raise the level of psychological immunity among female students. Further, it is highly recommended to conduct a study to identify the techniques and methods used by secondary school female students in dealing with the problems they face at this stage. Furthermore, to overcome the observed ceiling effect in the family support scale, future studies could seek to develop the scale to include items that are more capable of discriminating at higher levels of family support. Qualitative methods or a mixed-methods approach could also be used to provide a deeper understanding of the subtle differences in family support that quantitative measurement tools alone may not be able to capture. As practical implications, resilience training, peer support programs, or family-school partnership activities are recommended.

Limitations

This study was limited in term of including only secondary school female students in Al-Kharj governorate. The survey was conducted during five months (from 12-20-2023 to 5-20-2024). The study used only scales as tools: a scale of family support and a scale of physiological immunity. In addition, the data is self-reported and therefore prone to social bias. Furthermore, the sample is limited to one region and only includes females. Additionally, a cross-sectional design cannot show causality.

References

• 1

  AinsworthM. D. S. (1978). The bowlby-Ainsworth attachment theory. Behav. Brain Sci.1, 436–438. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x00075828

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Al-FuqaraM. (2019). The predictive ability of domestic violence among a sample of visitors to family reform and conciliation offices based on their psychological immunity (unpublished master’s thesis). Jordan: Mu’tah University.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Al-RifaiT. (2021). The level of psychological immunity and its relationship to quality of life among a sample of young people. Irbid Res. Hum. Stud.3, 1–44.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Al-SahliR.OlhawasA. (2021). Common thinking styles and their relationship to psychological immunity among workers in guidance and counseling in technical colleges and industrial institutes at the general Organization for Technical and Vocational Training. Int. Acad. J. Educ. Psychol. Sci.2, 187–217.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Al-TalS. M.Al-JawaldehF. E.Al-TajH. M.AleidW. A. (2021). Family support provided to children with autism spectrum disorder during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Educ. Phsycol. Sci.5, 186–164. doi: 10.26389/AJSRP.R130920

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AmerN. (2022). The wife's perceived family support in light of midlife events and its relationship to her methods of coping with life pressures. J. Res. Fields Spec. Educ.39, 1145–1215. doi: 10.21608/jedu.2021.89329.143

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AttiaN.MansourR. (2021). Family support and its impact on adolescents' consumer behavioural imbalances. J. Res. Fields Spec. Educ.36, 965–1015. doi: 10.21608/jedu.2021.72568.1326

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BadirE. (2013). Family support and its relationship to methods of coping with stressful life events for university youth. J. Sci. Arts Stud. Res.1, 227–256.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BhardwajA. K.AgrawalG. (2015). Concept and applications of psycho-immunity (defense against mental illness): importance in mental health scenario. Online J. Multidiscipl. Res.1:6.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BowlbyJ. (1978). The origins of attachment theory: john bowlby and mary ainsworth. Dev. Psychol.28:327.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BowlbyJ.AinsworthM.BrethertonI. (1992). The origins of attachment theory. Dev. Psychol.28, 759–775. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BurgessC.McDonaldR.SweetenS. (2018). Effective family support: Responding to what parents tell us. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  CobbS. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosom. Med.38, 300–314. doi: 10.1097/00006842-197609000-00003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  DaoudiK. (2018). Social support and psychological stress and their relationship to success among students about to take the baccalaureate exam in the state of Djelfa (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Algeria: Abi Kacem Saadallah University.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  EhrlichK. B. (2019). Attachment and psychoneuroimmunology. Curr. Opin. Psychol.25, 96–100. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.03.012,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  EimeR. M.HarveyJ. T.CraikeM. J.SymonsC. M.PayneW. R. (2013). Family support and ease of access link socio-economic status and sports club membership in adolescent girls: a mediation study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.10, 1–12. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-50

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  FittonV. A. (2012). Attachment theory: history, research, and practice. Child Adolesc. Psych. Psychoanal.19, 121–143. doi: 10.1080/15228878.2012.666491

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  GreeneR. R.GalambosC.LeeY. (2004). Resilience theory: theoretical and professional conceptualizations. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ.8, 75–91. doi: 10.1300/J137v08n04_05

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  GuhaS.BeriN. (2024). Impact of mother attachment on the psychological immunity among girl students studying at senior secondary level. BIO Web Conf.86, 1–7. doi: 10.1051/bioconf/20248601023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  GuptaT.NebhinaniN. (2020). Building psychological immunity in children and adolescents, vol. 16. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications Sage India, 1–12.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  HamoudR.Al-MazloumH. (2021). Family motivation mechanisms as perceived by university youth and their reflection on their positive thinking. Egypt. J. Home Econ.2, 111–160. doi: 10.21608/jhe.2021.181155

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  HensarlingJ. (2009). Development and psychometric testing of Hensarling’s Diabetes Family Support Scale, Texas Woman’s University, Denton, Texas.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  HoagwoodK. E.CavaleriM. A.Serene OlinS.BurnsB. J.SlatonE.GruttadaroD.et al. (2010). Family support in children’s mental health: a review and synthesis. Clin. Child. Fam. Psychol. Rev.13, 1–45. doi: 10.1007/s10567-009-0060-5,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  HouseJ. S. (1987). Social support and social structure. Sociol. Forum2, 135–146. doi: 10.1007/bf01107897

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  HouseJ. S.UmbersonD.LandisK. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social support. Annu. Rev. Sociol.14, 293–318. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001453

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  HuangY.ChenM.ZhangY.ChenX.ZhangL.DongC. (2023). Finding family resilience in adversity: a grounded theory of families with children diagnosed with leukaemia. J. Clin. Nurs.32, 5160–5172. doi: 10.1111/jocn.16615,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HupceyJ. E. (1998). Clarifying the social support theory-research linkage. J. Adv. Nurs.27, 1231–1241. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.01231.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  IJntemaR. C.SchaufeliW. B.BurgerY. D. (2023). Resilience mechanisms at work: the psychological immunity-psychological elasticity (PI-PE) model of psychological resilience. Curr. Psychol.42, 4719–4731. doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01813-5,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  KareemA.KhawarR.MaryamR. (2023). Family support as predictor of life satisfaction and happiness in Pakistani adolescents. J. Dev. Soc. Sci.4, 539–546. doi: 10.47205/jdss.2023(4-II)48

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  KassasS. (2022). Family support and its impact on the academic excellence in language learning among the students of the higher teacher college (ENS) Bouzareah. Psychol. Educ. Stud.15, 28–44.

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  KaurT.SomR. R. (2020). The predictive role of resilience in psychological immunity: a theoretical review. Int. J. Curr. Res. Rev.12, 139–143. doi: 10.31782/ijcrr.2020.122231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  KhojaA.Al-KashkiM. (2019). Psychological immunity and its relationship to the family climate among a sample of teenage girls in Jeddah (In Arabic). King Abdulaziz Univ. J. Arts Human.6, 141–156. doi: 10.4197/Art.27-6.9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  KrohneH. W. (2002). Stress and coping theories. Int Encyclopedia of the Social Behavioral Sceinces. Available online at: https://poliklinika-harni.hr/images/uploads/440/teorije-nastanka-stresa.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  LakeyB.CohenS. (2000). “Social support theory and measurement” in Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. eds. CohenS.UnderwoodL. G.GottliebB. H. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 29–52.

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. Eur. J. Personal.1, 141–169. doi: 10.1002/per.2410010304

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Lorenzo-BlancoE. I.MecaA.UngerJ. B.RomeroA.SzapocznikJ.Piña-WatsonB.et al. (2017). Longitudinal effects of Latino parent cultural stress, depressive symptoms, and family functioning on youth emotional well-being and health risk behaviors. Fam. Process56, 981–996. doi: 10.1111/famp.12258,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  MalkoçA.Yalçınİ. (2015). Relationships among resilience, social support, coping, and psychological well-being among university studentss. Turk. Psychol. Couns. Guid. J.5, 35–43.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  MarkovićI. H.ŠarićK. J.Brajša-ŽganecA. (2022). Relationship between parental behaviors and affective well-being in primary school children. Stud. Psychol.64, 405–416. doi: 10.31577/sp.2022.04.862

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  MastenA. S. (2018). Resilience theory and research on children and families: past, present, and promise. J. Fam. Theory Rev.10, 12–31. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12255

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Moreno-RuizD.Martínez–FerrerB.García–BaceteF. (2019). Parenting styles, cyberaggression, and cybervictimization among adolescents. Comput. Hum. Behav.93, 252–259. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  NielsenI.NewmanA.SmythR.HirstG.HeilemannB. (2017). The influence of instructor support, family support and psychological capital on the well-being of postgraduate students: a moderated mediation model. Stud. High. Educ.42, 2099–2115. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1135116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  OláhA. (2000). Health protective and health promoting resources in personality: A framework for the measurement of the psychological immune system. Positive Psychology Meeting, Quality of Life Research Center. California, USA: Claremont Graduate University.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  OláhA. (2002). Positive traits: flow and psychological immunity. First International Positive Conference, Washington, DC.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  OlffM. (1999). Stress, depression and immunity: the role of defense and coping styles. Psychiatry Res.85, 7–15. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1781(98)00139-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  RachmanS. J. (2016). Invited essay: cognitive influences on the psychological immune system. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry53, 2–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.03.015,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  RamachandranV. S. (2012). Encyclopaedia of human behaviour. London: Elsevier/Academic Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  SchnettlerB.DenegriM.MirandaH.SepúlvedaJ.OrellanaL.PaivaG.et al. (2015). Family support and subjective well-being: an exploratory study of university students in southern Chile. Soc. Indic. Res.122, 833–864. doi: 10.1007/s11205-014-0718-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  SchwarzerR.KnollN. (2007). Functional roles of social support within the stress and coping process: a theoretical and empirical overview. Int. J. Psychol.42, 243–252. doi: 10.1080/00207590701396641

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  ShapanN. L.AhmedA. F. (2020). Rationing of psychological immunity scale on a sample of visually impaired adolescents. Int. J. Innov. Educ. Res.8, 345–356. doi: 10.31686/ijier.vol8.iss3.2236

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  StumperA.MoriarityD. P.CoeC. L.EllmanL. M.AbramsonL. Y.AlloyL. B. (2020). Pubertal status and age are differentially associated with inflammatory biomarkers in female and male adolescents. J. Youth Adolesc.49, 1379–1392. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01101-3,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  UddinM.BhuiyanA. (2019). Development of the family support scale (FSS) for elderly people. MOJ Gerontol. Geriatrics4, 17–20. doi: 10.15406/mojgg.2019.04.00170

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  WangL.ZhangZ.McArdleJ. J.SalthouseT. A. (2008). Investigating ceiling effects in longitudinal data analysis. Multivar. Behav. Res.43, 476–496. doi: 10.1080/00273170802285941,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  YoussefW. (2022). Family support and its relationship to the level of psychological immunity among a sample of general secondary education students in Damascus governorate schools. Damascus Univ. J. Arts Hum. Sci.3, 79–114.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  ZidaneI. (2013). Psychological immunity: its concept, dimensions and measurement. J. Faculty Educ. Tanta Univ.51, 811–882.

  • Google Scholar