Gender Differences in Relationship Between Resilience and Big Five Personality Traits in Japanese Adolescents

Abstract

Prior work has indicated that female adolescents mature more quickly than males with regard to the various personality dimensions. From the developmental perspectives, this study aimed to explore gender differences in the relationships between resilience and the Big Five personality traits in Japanese adolescents. Middle school students (N = 310, 155 females, age range = 14–15 years) participated in an online survey. The results demonstrated that females had higher Conscientiousness than males. Stepwise regression analyses indicated that Neuroticism was the most influential predictor of resilience in females, whereas Extraversion was the most important predictor in males. Multigroup path analysis demonstrated that the effect of Neuroticism on resilience was greater for females; however, the effects of all other variables did not differ across genders. Considering gender differences is important to understand the relationship between resilience and the Big Five dimensions among adolescents.

Keywords

Resilience Five-Factor model adolescence Brief Resilience Scale Ten Item Personality Inventory

Introduction

Adolescence has been represented as a developmental and transitional period that is characterized as “storm and stress” (Arnett, 1999, p. 317; Hall, 1904, pp. 555–589). In this period, adolescents experience various developmental changes physically, psychosocially, and biologically, but they also experience other life events such as changes in family structure and school transitions (Dumont & Provost, 1999). Usually, these experiences become stressful and they affect adolescents’ mental health and well-being. Adolescents therefore are required to adapt successfully to these difficulties. The present study focuses on the relationships between resilience and the Big Five personality traits, which are thought to develop during adolescence. However, these relationships remain understudied.

Resilience in adolescence

Resilience refers to the personal attribute or ability to “bounce back” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 194). This concept constitutes the ability to maintain a relatively stable, healthy level of psychological functioning, despite experiencing serious adversity during adaptation or in the developmental processes (Bonanno, 2004; Masten, 2001). Thus, resilience may serve as a protective factor that leads to good outcomes even when adolescents are exposed to high-risk situations. Many studies have supported this view of resilience as a protective factor. For example, resilient adolescents who were highly exposed to family adversity during childhood and yet did not evidence any behavioral problems such as substance abuse or school problems showed higher IQ, lower affiliations with delinquent peers, and lower rates of novelty seeking than did adolescents with lower levels of resiliency (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996). Moreover, resilient adolescents who are characterized by low depression with a high level of stress had higher self-esteem than did vulnerable peers who show high depression under high stress levels (Dumont & Provost, 1999). In summary, studies have confirmed that resilience serves as a protective factor during adolescent development.

Resilience and the Big Five personality dimensions

Resilience correlates with self-esteem (Lee et al., 2013) and depression (Hu, Zhang, & Wang, 2015) but also with personality traits. The Five-Factor approach (see Block, 2010, for a review) to personality, which refers conjointly to the lexical Big Five traits (Goldberg, 1990) and the Five-Factor Model questionnaire approach (Costa & McCrae, 1992), has been widely used and provides a framework to further understand personality during adolescence. In this framework, individual differences are described using five broad personality trait dimensions—Neuroticism (i.e., absence of Emotional Stability), Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.

Generally, resilience positively relates to Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and negatively relates to Neuroticism in adults (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006; Friborg, Barlaug, Martinussen, Rosenvinge, & Hjemdal, 2005). However, relatively few studies have examined such relationships among adolescents, despite the possibility that such relationships could inform our understanding of individual differences in adolescent resilience. Available research, although limited, has revealed that highly resilient late adolescents are characterized by high Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, although for this population there was no relationship between resilience and Neuroticism (Shi, Liu, Wang, & Wang, 2015). Furthermore, another investigation found that middle-to-late highly resilient adolescents were characterized by high Emotional Stability (i.e., Neuroticism), Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, but not by high Extraversion (Fayombo, 2010). These studies suggest that the relationships between resilience and the Big Five personality traits may be inconsistent between adolescents and adults.

The present research

One possible reason for these inconsistent findings may be due to the role of gender in development. There are adolescence-specific gender differences. Because females mature earlier and more quickly than do males in adolescence, some gender differences have been reported in the Big Five personality traits during adolescence (Klimstra, Hale, Raaijmakers, Branje, & Meeus, 2009; Weisberg, DeYoung, & Hirsh, 2011). Females show higher levels of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience during adolescence. From the developmental perspectives, gender differences may contribute to resilience–personality associations. Some studies have reported that females have a lower level of resilience than males (Rodríguez-Rey, Alonso-Tapia, & Hernansaiz-Garrido, 2016; Smith et al., 2008; Stratta, et al., 2013); this may be explained by gender differences in personality traits. For example, given that females have a higher level of Neuroticism than males in adolescence (Klimstra et al., 2009), could we consider gender differences to contribute to females’ low resilience?

However, little research (Fayombo, 2010; Shi et al., 2015, reviewed above) has considered gender differences when examining the relationships between resilience and the Big Five personality traits. In addition, resilience–personality associations have been mainly examined using the data from Western countries (e.g., Campbell-Sills et al., 2006; Fayombo, 2010; Friborg et al., 2005), and evidence regarding the associations in Eastern countries were somewhat limited. Studies conducted in China (Shi et al., 2015), for example, showed that Emotional Stability (i.e., lower Neuroticism), Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were positively correlated with resilience among Chinese adolescents, although gender differences were not examined. From the cross-cultural perspectives, reporting knowledge in Eastern culture not only China but Japan would have strength to better understand the relationship between resilience and personality.

The present study explored whether the effects of personality on resilience would differ between females and males among a sample of Japanese middle adolescents. We could not make a specific hypothesis about the gender differences in the relationships because no studies have tested the relationships while controlling for gender. However, we hypothesized that females would have higher Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness than males, similar to previous findings (Klimstra et al., 2009; Weisberg et al., 2011).

Method

Procedure and participants

This research was conducted in March 2016. Informed consent was obtained from both adolescents and their caregivers (Mother = 132, Father = 178, mean age = 46.11 years, SD = 4.53 years, 5% unmarried). A total of 310 students—155 females, with an age range from 14 to 15 years, ninth grade in middle schools, and attending the schools throughout Japan—participated in and completed an online survey anonymously. Caregivers received points from the investigation company which they could change into money after participating in the survey; Students did not receive any compensation for participation. There were no missing data in the sample, and therefore, all data were used for statistical analyses.

Statistical analyses

Data were analyzed using R, version 3.3.1, and its interface R Studio, version 0.99.893. After calculating descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation coefficients, stepwise regression analysis was conducted to examine influential predictors of resilience. Gender differences in these path coefficients were then tested using multigroup path analysis.

Measures

Resilience

The Japanese version of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS-J; Smith et al., 2008; Tokuyoshi & Moriya, 2014) was used to measure resilience. The BRS is one of the most frequent measures used for assessing resilience in adolescents in Western cultures (Pangallo, Zibarras, Lewis, & Flaxman, 2015). The BRS-J consists of six items (e.g., “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”), with items two, four, and six being negatively worded. Items are rated on a five-point scale from 1 (strong disagree) to 5 (strong agree), such that BRS scores range from 6 to 30. The internal consistency of the scale was α = .75.

Big Five personality traits

The Japanese translation of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003; Oshio, Abe, & Cutrone, 2012) was used. The TIPI is one of the most widely used brief indicators of the Big Five personality dimensions (Hofmans, Kuppens, & Allik, 2008). It consists of 10 items (e.g., “I see myself as: Extraverted, enthusiastic”) and includes two items for each dimension, with one positive and one negative item for each of the five traits. Items are rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). As values for internal consistency, facets of each factor showed positive correlations ranging from .53 to .75. These values were not high; however, a scale with a few items, such as the TIPI, is generally developed emphasizing validity and thus lower internal consistency did not become critical problems (e.g., Kawamoto et al., 2015; Oshio et al., 2012).

Results

Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for resilience and the Big Five dimensions. Welch’s t-test (Welch, 1938)¹ showed that no gender differences were observed in resilience, t(299.88) = 0.57, n.s. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to assess gender differences in the Big Five. A main effect of gender was significant (Wilks λ = 0.98, p < .05) for Conscientiousness, which was higher in females, t(303.81) = −2.10, p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.24. No significant gender differences were observed for the other four personality dimensions.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistic of resilience and the Big Five personality dimensions.

	Gender	M	SD	Kurtosis	Skewness	Min	Max
Resilience	Female	18.82	3.58	−0.19	1.91	6.00	30.00
Resilience	Male	18.61	3.03	−0.18	1.80	7.00	29.00
Neuroticism	Female	7.84	1.79	−0.08	−0.25	3.00	12.00
Neuroticism	Male	7.93	1.82	0.47	1.67	2.00	14.00
Extraversion	Female	8.32	2.49	0.06	−0.21	2.00	14.00
Extraversion	Male	8.08	2.56	0.23	−0.30	2.00	14.00
Openness	Female	8.36	1.77	0.01	0.51	4.00	14.00
Openness	Male	8.01	1.71	−0.08	1.60	2.00	13.00
Agreeableness	Female	9.62	1.83	0.14	−0.16	5.00	14.00
Agreeableness	Male	9.47	1.74	0.05	0.03	4.00	14.00
Conscientiousness	Female	7.63	1.93	−0.29	1.18	2.00	14.00
Conscientiousness	Male	7.14	2.17	−0.20	0.15	2.00	12.00

M: mean; Max: maximum value; Min: minimum value; SD: standard deviation.

Table 2 shows bivariate correlation coefficients between resilience and the Big Five dimensions for each gender. Resilience was positively correlated with Emotional Stability (i.e., lower Neuroticism), Extraversion, and Agreeableness in both genders. Resilience was also correlated with Openness to Experience, but only in males. No correlations were observed between resilience and Conscientiousness.

Table 2.

Correlation coefficients between resilience and personality traits.

		Gender	1	2	3	4	5
1	Resilience	Female	−
1	Resilience	Male	−
2	Neuroticism	Female	−.48***	−
2	Neuroticism	Male	−.39***	−
3	Extraversion	Female	.20*	−.01	−
3	Extraversion	Male	.48***	−.32***	−
4	Openness to Experience	Female	.09	.06	.39***	−
4	Openness to Experience	Male	.32***	−.32***	.35***	−
5	Agreeableness	Female	.16*	−.21**	−.06	−.02	−
5	Agreeableness	Male	.18*	−.21**	.02	.07	−
6	Conscientiousness	Female	.13	−.19*	−.07	.10	.08
6	Conscientiousness	Male	.14	−.34***	.12	.17*	.27**

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

In order to explore the predictors of resilience, stepwise regressions were conducted separately for each gender. Final models were significant for both females, F(2, 152) = 27.55, p < .001, and males, F(2, 152) = 31.87, p < .001. Table 3 presents results predicting resilience in two steps. Neuroticism was selected for females, whereas Extraversion was selected for males as the most influential predictor of resilience in the first step. In the second step, Extraversion was selected for females, whereas Neuroticism was selected as a significant predictor for males. Finally, multigroup path analysis using Neuroticism and Extraversion as predictors and resilience as an outcome variable was conducted to examine whether these path coefficients differed according to gender (Figure 1). The path coefficient for Neuroticism predicting resilience was significantly higher in females (Z = 2.81, p < .001).

Table 3.

Stepwise regression analysis predicting resilience.

	Step	B	B SE	95% CI		β	t	p
	Predictor variable	B	B SE	LL	UL	β	t	p
Female	Step 1 (R²= .23)
	Neuroticism	−0.96	0.14	−1.24	−0.67	−.48	−6.71	<.001
	Step 2 (R²= .27)
	Neuroticism	−0.95	0.14	−1.23	−0.68	−.47	−6.83	<.001
	Extraversion	0.28	0.10	0.09	0.48	.20	2.83	.005
Male	Step 1 (R²= .23)
	Extraversion	0.57	0.08	0.41	0.74	.48	6.82	<.001
	Step 2 (R²= .30)
	Extraversion	0.47	0.09	0.30	0.64	.40	5.53	<.001
	Neuroticism	−0.44	0.12	−0.68	−0.20	−.26	−3.67	<.001

B: unstandardized coefficients; B SE: standardized errors; CI: confidence interval; LL: lower limit; UL: upper limit; β: standardized coefficients; t = t-value.

Figure 1.

Gender differences of path coefficients in Neuroticism and Extraversion. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The present study was the first to examine gender differences in the relationships between resilience and the Big Five personality traits in Japanese adolescents. Females displayed higher levels of Conscientiousness than males but the other four personality traits (as well as resilience) did not show any gender differences. Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Agreeableness were positively correlated with resilience in females and males, whereas positive correlation between Openness to Experience and resilience was found only in males. Neuroticism was more influential in resilience for females than males, whereas for males it was Extraversion that showed this pattern.

The gender difference in Conscientiousness is consistent with previous findings for adults (Klimstra et al., 2009). As Klimstra et al. (2009) discussed, Conscientiousness seems important to maintain positive interpersonal relationships, and thus it may be more evolutionally emphasized in females than in males. The present study has provided new evidence that gender differences are likely to emerge even in middle adolescence. Surprisingly, other personality traits such as Neuroticism did not show gender differences in the present study. This may be because some dimensions of personality (e.g., Conscientiousness) are more likely to be explained from evolutionary perspectives, with other dimensions (e.g., Neuroticism) being more explained by enculturation and socialization processes.

Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were positively correlated with resilience, whereas Neuroticism was negatively correlated with resilience, regardless of gender. These results are consistent with the findings of Fayombo (2010). Agreeable adolescents may be better able to access social support, which in turn may lead to resilience. More Conscientious adolescents should be able to organize and make a plan, and thus they may be able to be more mindful, which may lead to resilience. Adolescents with a high level of Neuroticism tend to see life difficulties as insurmountable problems, which makes the development of resilience challenging.

The present study found that Neuroticism had a greater impact on resilience in females than males, even though the mean level of Neuroticism was not different between the genders. Adolescents with a high level of Neuroticism tend to be anxious and easily upset, experiencing greater stress responses and taking more time to recover when faced with adversity than adolescents with low Neuroticism. One possible reason why the impact of Neuroticism on resilience was higher in females is that there may be other factors that should predict male resilience, such as masculinity.

Extraversion was also a significant predictor of resilience. Adolescents who have high Extraversion are characterized as enthusiastic and outgoing; thus, they are likely to obtain social support (Swickert, Rosentreter, Hittner, & Mushrush, 2002) to overcome adversity. Our findings are consistent with a study of Chinese adolescents (Shi et al., 2015) but not Caribbean adolescents (Fayombo, 2010). Given that Japanese culture is similar to Chinese in many ways, such a replication makes sense. However, seeking construct equivalence is difficult when studying resilience, given that different individual and cultural meanings can be involved when defining this construct (Ungar, 2008).

Because only a few studies have examined the relationships between resilience and personality in adolescents, it is difficult to conclude why there were gender differences in relationships between resilience and only some of the personality traits. Perhaps, gender differences are explained not only from the perspectives of maturation or biological development but also from the perspective of culture. There is great variation across cultures and contexts in what resilience (or even personality) means. “Through the iterative process of the research design, implementation and analysis, resilience has been shown to be a culturally and contextually sensitive construct” (Ungar, 2008, p. 234). Considering not only developmental maturation but also cultural background may be required to further interpret the relationship between resilience and personality during adolescence.

Finally, the present study has several limitations: First, the obtained findings were based on a cross-sectional design. Although we conducted regression analysis to determine the predictors of resilience, causal relationships should not be overestimated. Future studies should use a longitudinal design to assess personality traits in childhood in order to see how they predict resilience in adolescence. Second, although resilience–personality relationships were directly examined from the perspective of gender, the relationships could be affected by other variables including life stressor (Stratta et al., 2013). Examinations that controlled other variables will be needed. Third, because this study focused on resilience as ability and provided knowledge regarding relationships with personality, the findings cannot be generalized when defining resiliency as other forms (e.g., traits, process, or outcomes). Finally, homogenous sample may limit generalizability of our findings because gender differences in Neuroticism are moderated by both age and ethnicity (Weisberg et al., 2011).

Despite several limitations, this study adds empirical evidence to the area of adolescence research from the perspective of gender differences. In this regard, this report strengthened the existing knowledge by providing findings from non-Western culture. It will help to further understand individual differences regarding the ability to bounce back from adversity among adolescents during the developmentally transition period.

Footnotes

Article Notes

References

Arnett

J. J.

(1999) Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist 54: 317–326. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.54.5.317.

Block

(2010) The Five-Factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry 21: 2–25. doi: 10.1080/10478401003596626.

Bonanno

G. A.

(2004) Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist 59: 20–28. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20.

Campbell-Sills

Cohan

S. L.

Stein

M. B.

(2006) Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy 44: 585–599. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001.

Costa

McCrae

(1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Delacre

Lakens

Leys

(2017) Why psychologists should by default use Welch’s t-test instead of Student’s t-test. International Review of Social Psychology 30: 92–101. doi: 10.5334/irsp.82.

Dumont

Provost

M. A.

(1999) Resilience in adolescents: Protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on experience of stress and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 28: 343–363. doi: 10.1023/A:1021637011732.

Fayombo

G. A.

(2010) The relationship between personality traits and psychological resilience among the Caribbean adolescents. International Journal of Psychological Studies 2: 105–117. doi: 10.5539/ijps.v2n2p105.

Fergusson

D. M.

Lynskey

M. T.

(1996) Adolescent resiliency to family adversity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 37: 281–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01405.x.

10.

Friborg

Barlaug

Martinussen

Rosenvinge

J. H.

Hjemdal

(2005) Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 14: 29–42. doi: 10.1002/mpr.15.

11.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990) An alternative “description of personality”: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 1216–1229. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.

12.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality 37: 504–528. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.

13.

Hall

G. S.

(1904) Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion and education Vol. 1, New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company.

14.

Hofmans

Kuppens

Allik

(2008) Is short in length short in content? An examination of the domain representation of the Ten Item Personality Inventory scales in Dutch language. Personality and Individual Differences 45: 750–755. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.004.

15.

Zhang

Wang

(2015) A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences 76: 18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039.

16.

Kawamoto

Oshio

Abe

Tsubota

Hirashima

Ito

Tani

(2015) Age and gender differences of Big Five personality traits in a cross-sectional Japanese sample. Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology 26: 107–122. doi: 10.11201/jjdp.26.107.

17.

Klimstra

T. A.

Hale

W. W.

Raaijmakers

Q. A.

Branje

S. J.

Meeus

W. H.

(2009) Maturation of personality in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96: 898–912. doi: 10.1037/a0014746.

18.

Lee

J. H.

Nam

S. K.

Kim

Lee

M. Y.

Lee

S. M.

(2013) Resilience: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Counseling & Development 91: 269–279. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00095.x.

19.

Masten

A. S.

(2001) Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist 56: 227–238. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227.

20.

Oshio

Abe

Cutrone

(2012) Development, reliability, and validity of the Japanese version of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J). The Japanese Journal of Personality 21: 40–52. doi: 10.2132/personality.21.40.

21.

Pangallo

Zibarras

Lewis

Flaxman

(2015) Resilience through the lens of interactionism: A systematic review. Psychological Assessment 27: 1–20. doi: 10.1037/pas0000024.

22.

Rodríguez-Rey

Alonso-Tapia

Hernansaiz-Garrido

(2016) Reliability and validity of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) Spanish Version. Psychological Assessment 28: e101–e110. doi: 10.1037/pas0000191.

23.

Shi

Liu

Wang

Z. Y.

Wang

(2015) The mediating role of resilience in the relationship between Big Five personality and anxiety among Chinese medical students: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One 10: 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119916.

24.

Smith

B. W.

Dalen

Wiggins

Tooley

Christopher

Bernard

(2008) The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 15: 194–200. doi: 10.1080/10705500802222972.

25.

Stratta

Capanna

Patriarca

de Cataldo

Bonanni

R. L.

Riccardi

Rossi

(2013) Resilience in adolescence: Gender differences two years after the earthquake of L’Aquila. Personality and Individual Differences 54: 327–331. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.016.

26.

Swickert

R. J.

Rosentreter

C. J.

Hittner

J. B.

Mushrush

J. E.

(2002) Extraversion, social support processes, and stress. Personality and Individual Differences 32: 877–891. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00093-9.

27.

Tokuyoshi, Y., & Moriya, M. (2014, September). Development and validation of the Brief Resilience Scale Japanese version (BRS-J). Poster session presented at the annual convention of the Japanese Psychological Association, Nagoya Congress Center, Nagoya, Japan.

28.

Ungar

(2008) Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work 38: 218–235. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl343.

29.

Weisberg

Y. J.

DeYoung

C. G.

Hirsh

J. B.

(2011) Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology 2: 178. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178.

30.

Welch

B. L.

(1938) The significance of the difference between two means when the population variances are unequal. Biometrika 29: 350–362. doi: 10.2307/2332010.