Exploring The Influence Of Interpersonal Relationship On Well-Being: Case Study Of Jakun

Abstract

This study is focusing on the influence of interpersonal relationship on the aboriginal well-being. Interpersonal relationship is an essential part of human life particularly for egalitarian society like aborigines. Most of framework in measuring aboriginal well-being has consistently included interpersonal relationship. It shows the importance of human relationship in determining and evaluating their life. Using qualitative study, we aim to understand Orang Asli perspectives on interpersonal relationship and the way it brings impact to their well-being. Participants were purposively selected from the largest tribe of Orang Asli in Malaysia. Based on the discussion, interpersonal relationship is needed for social support and affection. However, to give and gain these needs, people have to strengthen their relationship ties with other and participate in social activity which both relies on the frequency of communication and conflict management. By doing so, good interpersonal relationship will provide satisfaction which lead to the improvement of well-being.

Keywords: Orang Asliinterpersonal relationshipwell-being

Introduction

Recently, many countries adapted subjective evaluation of citizens’ life in assessing national policy impact along with overall output of economy or societal indicators (Diener & Seligman, 2004). Moreover, many world indexes ranked countries based on various component of well-being. The comparison allows countries to evaluate their policies and government effectiveness in improving nation and society well-being. However, these indexes had generalized definition and components of well-being across geographical traits, cultures, economic condition, government administration along with others internal and external factors. Words like evaluation, feelings, experience, and assessment in defining well-being shows that well-being is uniquely different based on individual perspectives. Some definition of well-being relates to the way people view their life and evaluate their satisfaction or contentment (Maggino, 2015; van der Deijl, 2017). Meanwhile, other definitions of well-being based on their assessment of external factors like life events, life condition and environment circumstances, as well as assessments of internal factors such as mind condition, body condition, and behavioural response and subjective consequences of the process (Beddington et al., 2008; Diener, 2006; Michaelson et al. 2012; McClintock et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2001; World Health Organization, 2001).

Interpersonal relationship found to be one of the determinants that has been consistently used in aborigines’ well-being framework (see Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2010; Durie, 1985; Nguyen & Cairney, 2013; Richmond & Ross, 2009). Interpersonal relationship involves situation that refer to a real interaction unfolding between two individuals or a mental representation of the relationship between self and others (Wilde & Dozois, 2019). It is largely governed by the principles of complementary where the two key components of interpersonal relationship are mutual dependence and relationship satisfaction (Cartwright, 2019; Wilde & Dozois, 2019). Satisfaction in relationship is when people feel content with the status and condition of their relationship dynamics where they feel that their needs are perpetually being gratified sufficiently (Cartwright, 2019). It indicates achievement of the innate human need to belong to good and satisfied relationship. The extent of relationship satisfaction is an important well-being indicator which moderated by interaction and relationship perceptions and behaviours (Murray et al., 2003).

This paper focuses on the influence of interpersonal relationship on well-being and examines the way interpersonal relationship affected aborigines’ well-being. In Malaysia, aborigines are called ‘Orang Asli’ or ‘Orang Asal’ which can be directly translated as ‘original people’. By the Malaysia Constitution, Orang Asli can be defined as any person whose father was a member, speak an aboriginal language, and follow the way of life and beliefs (Aboriginal Peoples Act, 1954). There are 213, 725 Orang Asli and officially divided into 18 groups which categorized to; Negrito (3%), Proto Malay (42%) and Senoi (55%) (JAKOA, 2014). Each group is characteristically different in term of their outward physical traits, language, culture and economic activity (Manickam, 2014).

Problem Statement

As the concept of well-being is subjective, it is essential to reach common ground where intuitions are the basic judgment (van der Deijl, 2017) and marker or determinants used in measuring well-being (Taylor, 2015). Defining well-being from subjective perspectives is more complicated, more individualized, directed by many different directions of factors and impacts and can be based upon profound philosophical, ethical, moral and psychological principles than objective perspective that are more material, clearly tangible, and quantitative (Alatartseva & Barysheva, 2015). Consequently, measuring well-being that based on subjective view provides more challenge and prone to lack of reliability, validity as well credibility. Thus, it is essential to focus on specific context such as based on certain culture and worldview of unique society.

In Malaysia, Malaysia Well-Being Index has been developed to measure benefits of economic growth to the improvement in the quality of life and satisfaction by comparing several indicators with Gross Domestic Products (Malaysia Wellbeing Report, 2013). However, this is based on objective indicators where the components of the index focused on the objective statistical indicators aimed to measure outcomes of socioeconomic policies towards citizen disregard the cultural affect and citizens' perception (Malaysia Wellbeing Report, 2013). In addition, Malaysia is a multi-races nation that need which each race has their unique culture. Accordingly, the total population in Malaysia was 28.3 million with 67.4% are Bumiputera, 24.6% of Chinese, 7.3% of Indians and 0.7% of others ethnic (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2010). Meanwhile, Orang Asli constitutes 0.6% of the total population and show 166% increment compared with the population of Malaysia which increased by 106% within 30 years, 1980 to 2010 (SyedHussain et al., 2017). If this trend continues, Orang Asli society will represent bigger portion in Malaysia population and their society inclusion on nation growth become more critical. Furthermore, as the direct descendants of the earlier inhibitors of peninsular Malaysia, Orang Asli has a special place in Malaysia diverse community. Even the term ‘Orang Asli’ is directly translated to ‘original people’ in Malay language.

Most of study on Orang Asli focus on the deprivation on socioeconomic, health, living conditions, political and human rights that point outs their low level of well-being (see Abdullah et al., 2013; Howell et al., 2006; Mohd Harun & Idris, 2012; Shah et al., 2015; Zal et al., 2013). There is lack of study that explores their social condition particularly their interpersonal relationship within the community. Previously, they were known as egalitarian society that has close relationship with one another which shares their resources in the community and channelled all kinds of support in their social network (Speth, 1990). However, globalization and modernization has brought changes in their life and surrounding environment (Phua, 2015). These changes whether positive or negative requires exploration and understanding especially on the mechanism of relationship and well-being.

Research Question

This study aims to address the following critical research questions:

• How does interpersonal relationship affect the well-being of Orang Asli?

• What are the indicators of interpersonal relationship that influence the well-being of Orang Asli?

• What is the level of influence of each indicator on Orang Asli well-being?

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to understand the importance of interpersonal relationship on the well-being of Orang Asli. Through this study, we aim to investigate related indicators of interpersonal relationship and its level of influence on Orang Asli well-being.

Research Methods

As we aim to understand, qualitative study was chosen as our research method. This study employed semi-structured interviews as data collection method as it allows interviewer to probe necessary questions to gain in-depth data. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews, lasting between 30 minutes to 45 minutes were conducted in participants’ homes by pairs of trained interviewer. For each interview, conversations were digitally recorded with consent and written notes are taken. We seek for a naturalistic setting while investigating a social phenomenon in order to increase reliability of our data and to minimize data loss due to different in first language of interviewer and participants (Heppner et al., 1999).

Findings

Our analysis revealed insightful view of interpersonal relationship and the way it impacted participant well-being. Through explaining the identified core findings for each indicator, we are able to highlight this impact. Table 2 shows the results of our analysis. It depicts the correlation between one indicators to another that emphasise dynamics in relationships. Firstly, findings on the need of relationship remark the importance of relationship in acquiring supports in social systems and getting satisfied affection. This result aligned with the theory of interdependence theory which stated two key components in relationship; mutual dependence and relationship satisfaction (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). For both villages, the need of relationship is high indicating the high value they put in the importance of relationship in influencing their well-being. Secondly, the findings show that in order to gain social support and affection, strength of ties and social participation is two dominance factors. Both social participation and strength of ties become a catalyst in fulfilling the need of relationship in getting social support as well as affection. For these factors, both kampong shows high level of influences for their well-being. Finally, further probes into the mechanisms of relationship show that the frequency of communication and interpersonal conflict are two main components in determining strength of ties and social participation. Consequently, it will influence their fulfilment of the need in relationship and well-being. In term of the level of these influences, there is a contradictory result from two settlements. Participants in Kampong Gadak are more likely to be influenced by communication and conflict in their well-being compared to RPS Serok. This is due to the differences in opinion in regards to the intensity of communication frequency and interpersonal conflict in strengthening their ties as well as determining their level of involvement in social activities.

Conclusion

Based on the discussion, interpersonal relationship is needed for social support and affection. However, to give and gain these needs, people have to strengthen their relationship ties with other and participate in social activity which both relies on the frequency of communication and conflict management. By doing so, good interpersonal relationship will provide satisfaction which lead to the improvement of well-being. Through the result of level of influence, we can see that the positive sides of interpersonal relationship are remarked expressively by participants while dissatisfaction on relationship is justified accordingly.

It is believed that this study has succeeded in making several contributions on the study of Orang Asli as well as on the study of well-being. Firstly, it can contribute to the field of well-being as it looks into another angle or perspective thus adding richness to the subject of well-being. Well-being especially from subjective perspective is a multifaceted construct that focus on individual value which it determinants can varied across human life spectrum. Thus, even it has been studied intensively from various cultures and fields; it still requires huge data in order for future research to come out with more comprehensive framework of well-being. Most importantly, this study emphasises the importance of interpersonal relationship in influencing well-being as well the interplay dynamics that infatuates level of well-being. The inclusion of interpersonal relationship in the framework of well-being is highly suggested as it has great impact on human life.

The results of this study also contribute to some practical implications that beneficial for government especially JAKOA. For many years, the government had spent millions of ringgit on the improvement of Orang Asli life and to ensure that they are able to enjoy Malaysia economic growth. However, many research had reported negative responses from Orang Asli and despite many changes, some are negatively affected Orang Asli well-being. In the context of interpersonal relationship, there are many areas that can be implored in assisting them in the future especially in adapting to changes they are facing nowadays. JAKOA and any related agencies may use the collectivity of Orang Asli community and their strong values in interpersonal relationship in executing policies or programs. Furthermore, this research also contributed to another study on aborigines in the world. As it is based on the indigenous assessment tool and use aboriginal worldview exclusively, it is useful for another research on aborigines. Aboriginal study does not only inspire by their unique culture but also valuable in understanding human core nature since aborigines are the closest to our ancestor. For hundreds of years they stay true to their ancestor despite many changes in the world. Hence, to study on their humanity is part of studying human core nature before progression of human race which can be seen today.

Even though this study contributed to the understanding of well-being and its interpersonal relationship on Orang Asli, there are several limitations that need to be addressed. Through this limitation, future direction of the research can be discovered. Firstly, samples used in this study come from the same ethnics even though located in different areas and have different surrounding environment. Orang Asli have many ethnics that practice disparate culture and way of life, and focusing on one ethnic may provide bias results. As it is a qualitative study with the intention to understand Orang Asli well-being rather than for generalization, initially, there is no guarantee of any invariant across different settings. In order to discover the invariant properties, study need to find fundamental commonalities or appearance of singularity (Garfinkel, 2002). Unfortunately, limited samples from various ethnics and settings may distort the findings of invariant properties. In contrary, collecting data from various ethnics and settings may provide more comprehensive data for discovering the fundamental issues. However, it is not possible due to time and budget constraints. In the future, further study can be done across different location or across other ethnic groups. The findings from different ethnics may displays effects of culture in well-being. Furthermore, different ethnic also related to other location that is very crucial in the study of environment that found to be determinants well-being. If the results are similar, the data can be used for generalization and universal indicators for Orang Asli well-being. Thus, either the findings are similar or not, it will still give comprehensive understanding on well-being of Orang Asli.

Furthermore, data collection method like interview are risky and heavily influenced by researcher preconceived ideas or perspectives. This biasness caused by researcher personal lens is common and can happen either intentionally or unintentionally (Fields & Kafai, 2009). Hence, the transfer of information from researcher questions to participant answer may loss its richness of context and substance of meanings (Punch, 2001). The loss may also cause by potential bias especially since the variables discussed in the study is very subjective like feelings and emotions. For instance, some participants may exaggerate certain emotions or view that works for them. Besides that, participant may only recall certain memory and discuss certain events that they deem more desirable compared to one that may accurately respond to the question. However, the distortion caused by bias is covered by proper measures taken in the process of data collection and analysis, enables study to achieve good validity, reliability and credibility. In the future, other method can be used such as longitudinal study that allows further examination on the dynamics of interpersonal relationship and its influences on well-being over time. It also allows researcher to build good rapport and trust during data collection thus limiting potential bias such as exaggeration and selective memory. Other method like observation also beneficial as it let researcher to assess and judge participants life accordingly with less changes of dishonesty. Thus, it shows that variety of methods created more data from various aspects and perspectives. As the study of well-being is very subjective and sensitive to human nature as well as culture, more data is needed before any generalization can be made.

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by the Malaysia Ministry of Education for the fund granted through the Fundamental Research Grant (FRGS). The authors are grateful to Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli (JAKOA) for their relentless support.

References

1. Abdullah, R. B., & Mamat, W. H. W., Amirzal, W. A., & Ibrahim, A. M. B. (2013). Teaching and learning problems of the Orang Asli education: Students’ perspective. Asian Social Science, 9(12), 118-124.
2. Aboriginal Peoples Act. (1954). Laws of Malaysia. Malaysia: The Commissioner of Law Revision.
3. Ackard, D. M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Perry, C. (2006). Parent-child connectedness and behavioural and emotional health among adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(1), 59–66.
4. Ahnquist, J., Wamala, S. P., & Lindstrom, M. (2012). Social determinants of health – A question of social or economic capital? Interaction effects of socioeconomic factors on health outcomes. Social Science Medicine, 74, 930–939.
5. Alatartseva, E., & Barysheva, G. (2015). Well-being: Subjective and Objective Aspects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 166, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.479
6. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2010). Health of Australia’s Prisoners 2009.
7. Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F. A., Jenkins, R., Jones, H. S., Kirkwood, T. B. L., Sahakian, B. J., & & Thomas, S. M. (2008). The mental wealth of nations. Nature, 455(7216), 1057–1060. https://doi.org/10.1038/4551057a
8. Berdibayeva, S., Garber, A., Ivanov, D., Massalimova, A., Kukubayeva, A., & Berdibayev, S. (2016). Psychological prevention of older adolescents’ interpersonal relationships, who are prone to internet addiction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 984-989.
9. Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the Development of Close Relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social Exchange in Developing Relationships (pp. 135-168). Academic Press.
10. Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E., & King, N. (2015). The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(2), 202-222.
11. Carpentier, N., & White, D. (2002). Cohesion of the primary social network and sustained service use before the first psychiatric hospitalization. The Journal of Behavioural Health Services and Research, 29, 404e418. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287347
12. Cartwright, R. R. S. (2019). Communication breakdown: differing relationship well-being effects of positive and negative spin in communication behaviour. Victoria University of Wellington.
13. Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. http://www.qualres.org/index.html
14. Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.). (1999). Doing qualitative research. Sage publications.
15. De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309–328.
16. Denissen, J. J., Penke, L., Schmitt, D. P., & van Aken, M. A. (2008). Self-esteem reactions to social interactions: Evidence for sociometer mechanisms across days, people, and nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 181–196.
17. Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2010). Population distribution and basic demographic characteristic report 2010. Putrajaya: Department of Statistics Malaysia.
18. Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-006-9007-x
19. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of personality assessment, 49(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
20. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond Money: Toward an Economy of Well-Being’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x
21. Durie, M. (1985). A Maori perspectives of health: te whare tapa wha: Maori Health Model. Social Science & Medicine, 20(5), 438–486.
22. Ettema, D., & Schekkerman, M. (2016). How do spatial characteristics influence well-being and mental health? Comparing the effect of objective and subjective characteristics at different spatial scales’, Travel Behaviour and Society. Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies, 5, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2015.11.001
23. Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2009). A connective ethnography of peer knowledge sharing and diffusion in a tween virtual world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 47-68.
24. Fingerman, K. L., Hay, E. L., & Birditt, K. S. (2004). The best of ties, the worst of ties: Close, problematic, and ambivalent social relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 792-808.
25. Fiori, K. L., Smith, J., & Antonucci, T. C. (2007). Social network types among older adults: A multidimensional approach. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, 322-330.
26. Floyd, K. (2014). Empathic Listening as an Expression of Interpersonal Affection. International Journal of Listening, 28(1),1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2014.861293
27. Floyd, K., Pauley, P. M., & Hesse, C. (2010). State and trait affectionate communication buffer adults’ stress reactions. Communication Monographs, 77, 618–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.498792
28. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
29. Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography? Routledge.
30. Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., & Wampold, B. E. (1999). Research design in counseling (2nd ed.). Wadsworth.
31. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000316.
32. House, J. S. (1981). Work, stress and social support. Addison- Wesley.
33. Howell, C. J., Howell, R. T., & Schwabe, K. A. (2006). Does wealth enhance life satisfaction for people who are materially deprived? Exploring the association among the Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia. Social Indicators Research, 76(3), 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-3107-0
34. JAKOA. (2014). 2014 Annual Report of Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli. http://www.jakoa.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/complete-4.0.pdf
35. Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 189–244.
36. Kahneman, D., Kreuger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwartz, N., & Stone, A. (2004). Towards National Well-Being Accounts. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 429-434.
37. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. Wiley.
38. King, N. (2012). Doing template analysis. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds). Qualitative organizational research. (pp. 426–50). SAGE.
39. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. SAGE Publications.
40. Lather, P. (2017). (Post)Critical Methodologies: The Science Possible After the Critiques: The Selected Works of Patti Lather. Routledge.
41. Liu, Y., Zhang, F., Wu, F., Liu, Y., & Li, Z. (2017). The subjective wellbeing of migrants in Guangzhou, China: The impacts of the social and physical environment. Cities, 60, 333-342.
42. Maggino, F. (2015). Subjective wellbeing and subjective aspects of wellbeing: Methodology and theory. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 1, 89–121.
43. Malaysia Wellbeing Report. (2013). The Malaysian Wellbeing Index 2013. Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Department.
44. Manickam, S. (2014). Bridging the race barrier: Between “Sakai” and “Malay” in the Census categorisations of British Malaya. Asian Studies Review, 38(3), 367-384.
45. McClintock, M. K., Dale, W., & Laumann, E. O., & Waite, L. (2016). Empirical redefinition of comprehensive health and well-being in the older adults of the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(22), E3071-E3080.
46. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: examples for discussion and analysis. Jossey-Bass.
47. Michaelson, J., Mahoney, S., & Schifferes, J. (2012). Measuring Well-being: A guide for practitioners. Nef, 1–33.
48. Miritello, G., Moro, E., Lara, R., Martínez-López, R., Belchamber, J., Roberts, S. G., & Dunbar, R. I. (2013). Time as a limited resource: Communication strategy in mobile phone networks. Social Networks, 35(1), 89-95.
49. Missotten, L. C., Luyckx, K., Branje, S. J., Hale III, W. W., & Meeus, W. H. (2017). Examining the longitudinal relations among adolescents' conflict management with parents and conflict frequency. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 37-41.
50. Mohd Harun, M. F., & Idris, N. A. (2012). Kualiti hidup Orang Asli: Pengukuran melalui indeks kualiti hidup Orang Asli berwajaran. Akademika, 82(1), 75–81.
51. Murray, S. L., Bellavia, G. M., Rose, P., & Griffin, D. W. (2003). Once hurt, twice hurtful: How perceived regard regulates daily marital interactions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(1), 126.
52. Nguyen, O. J., & Cairney, S. (2013). Literature review of the interplay between education, employment, health and wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote areas Working towards an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing framework.
53. O'campo, P., Salmon, C., & Burke, J. (2009). Neighbourhoods and mental well-being: What are the pathways?’ Health & Place, 15(1), 56–68.
54. Phua, K. L. (2015). The health of Malaysia’s “Orang Asli” peoples: A review of the scientific evidence on nutritional outcome, parasite infestations, and discussion on implications for clinical practice. Malaysian Journal of Public Health Medicine, 15(1), 83–90. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84930060889&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
55. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-analysis.’ Psychology and Aging, 15, 187–224.
56. Plickert, G., Côte, R. R., & Wellman, B. (2007). It’s not who you know, it’s how you know them: who exchanges what with whom? Social Network, 29, 405–429, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.01.007
57. Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145.
58. Punch, S. (2001). Negotiating autonomy: childhoods in rural Bolivia. Conceptualizing child-adult relations, 23-36.
59. Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 67-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.001
60. Richmond, C. A. M., & Ross, N. A. (2009). The determinants of First Nation and Inuit health: A critical population health approach. Health and Place, 15(2), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.07.004
61. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
62. Schutz, W. (2012). Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation. 24–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02314-000
63. Schwanen, T., & Wang, D. G. (2014). Well-being, context, and everyday activities in space and time. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4), 833–851.
64. Shah, A. K., Shafir, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2015). Scarcity Frames Value. Psychological Science, 26(4), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563958
65. Speth, J. D. (1990). Seasonality, Resource Stress, and Food Sharing in So-Called “Egalitarian” Foraging Societies. Journal of anthropological Archaeology, 9, 148–188.
66. SyedHussain, T., Krishnasamy, D., & Hassan, A. (2017). Distribution and demography of the orang asli in Malaysia. Int J Soc Sci Humanit Invent, 6(1), 40-45. http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v6(1)/Version-2/F601024045.pdf
67. Taylor, T. E. (2015). The markers of wellbeing: A basis for a theory-neutral approach. International Journal of wellbeing, 5(2).
68. Tyler, K. A., & Melander, L. A. (2012). Individual and social network sexual behavior norms of homeless youth at high risk for HIV infection. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2481-2486. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.012
69. van der Deijl, W. (2017). Are Measures of Well-Being Philosophically Adequate?’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 47(3), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393116683249.
70. Wellman, B., & Frank, K. (2001). Network capital in a multilevel world: getting support from personal communities. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social Capital: Theory and Research (pp. 233-275). Aldine Transaction.
71. Wilde, J. L., & Dozois, D. J. A. (2019). A dyadic partner-schema model of relationship distress and depression: Conceptual integration of interpersonal theory and cognitive-behavioral models. Clinical Psychology Review, 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.03.003
72. World Health Organization. (2001). Strengthening mental health promotion, Fact Sheet No 220. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/
73. Wrzus, C., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2012). The interdependence of horizontal family relationships and friendships relates to higher well-being. Personal Relationships, 19, 465–482.
74. Zal, W. A., Ma’Rof Redzuan, A. A. S., & Hamsan, H. H. (2013). The exploration of social capital and its relation with economic empowerment of Orang Kuala in Johor, Malaysia. Pertanika Journal Social Sciences and Humanities, 21(4), 1275-1295.