Effect of Perceived Parent–Child Relationship in Childhood on Resilience in Japanese Youth

Abstract

The present study examined the effect of the perceived parent–child relationship in childhood on resilience in youth. It recruited 268 university students majoring in education and college students majoring in welfare science to investigate the relationship between their perception of parent–child relationship in their childhood and their current resilience by their responses on the Adolescent Resilience Scale and the Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale. The results indicated that female's positive perception of their relationship with their mothers in childhood had a positive influence on their resilience. On the other hand, the positive influence was inconspicuous and limited with regard to the perception of female's relationship with their fathers in childhood. In contrast, this positive influence was not confirmed in male participants regardless of the perception of their relationship with mothers and fathers in childhood. Although limited to females, these results suggest that youth's perception of their parent–child relationships in childhood significantly affected the development of resilience. In addition, sex difference was observed in this effect. The findings have been discussed with respect to the process of the development of resilience.

Keywords

Youth resilience development parent–child relationship

Introduction

The importance of resilience as an essential factor for overcoming adversity and suffering and for recovering from a depressed state has been discussed substantially. Resilience is defined as the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1991). In previous studies on resilience, researchers have focused on the psychological processes of children's adaptation in adversity (Cowen, Wyman, Work, & Iker, 1995; Gamezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984; Rutter, 1985, 1987). In such studies, researchers have clarified various factors leading to and supporting resilience, factors related to individual cognitive ability such as insight (Flach, 1988) and intelligence (Luthar & Ziegler, 1992), and those related to interpersonal relationships such as social support (Dumont & Provost, 1999) and parent–child relationship (Masten et al., 1991; Wyman et al., 1999). Recent studies have focused on strengths, well-being, and health as factors contributing to the development of resilience (Pearce, 2011; Windle, 2011; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012). This has encouraged the examination of resilience as a developmental phenomenon in normative people and not mere in those in adversity. In recent years, it has been pointed out that resilience could be developed and strengthened in all people (Nolan, Taket, & Stagnitti, 2014). These studies suggest that resilience should be better understood as a dynamic process, also linked to adaptive coping behaviors related to everyday adaptive behaviors. If so, it would be important to identify the factors in our daily life that are involved in the development of resilience.

Luthar (2013) claimed that resilience is not an individual characteristic; rather, it is an inherent trait that is used to avoid adversity. In addition, he pointed out the importance of adults providing supportive, positive, and consistent relationships to support the development of resilience in young children. In fact, studies on children in adversity have revealed that the parent–child relationship is an important factor promoting resilience (Baldwin, Baldwin, & Cole, 1990; Werner & Smith, 1982; Wyman et al., 1999). Recent studies have shown that the parent–child relationship plays an important role in the development of resilience in children in general, and not only in adversity. For example, Hill, Stafford, Seaman, Ross, and Daniel (2007) reviewed works showing that warm and responsive parenting developed the resilient capacities of children. Boughton and Lumley (2011) showed that parental responsiveness was a strong predictor of children's emotional resilience. Johnson, Liu, and Cohen (2011) revealed that specific parenting practices, such as the benevolent use of praise and encouragement, speaking kindly, and demonstration of considerable affection, contributed to the emergence of adaptive traits suggestive of resilience among children. Miller-Lewis, Searle, Sawyer, Baghurst, and Hadley (2013) suggested that positive child–adult relationships in early childhood promoted resilience. Maximo and Carranza (2016) found that secure attachment and receiving love from parents reinforced the development of high resilience in young adults and its underlying mechanisms. These studies suggest that a positive parent–child relationship strongly supports the development of resilience in children. Furthermore, these recent research findings suggest that it is necessary to focus on the qualitative aspects of the parent–child relationship in order to examine the development of resilience. While doing so, it will be important to clarify specifically what kind of parent–child relationship is affecting it.

In the above-mentioned recent studies, the researchers pointed out that positive parental involvement (i.e., warm and responsive parenting, parental responsiveness, secure attachment, parent's use of praise, speaking kindly, etc.) supported the development of resilience in children. It is thought that these findings suggest the existence of a mechanism by which positive parent–child relationship fosters various traits constituting resilience. Oshio, Kaneko, Nagamine, and Nakaya (2003) have confirmed that traits such as novelty seeking, emotional regulation, and positive future orientation constitute resilience. Based on these results, it is presumed that there is a mechanism by which each of these traits is developed by a positive parent–child relationship. It is thought that facilitation of children's novelty seeking and positive future orientation will be promoted from the words and behavior of parents who have an affinity for their children, respect their children's autonomy, and affirm the way of children's life. Further, parents are positively involved with their children, so the children will not be exposed to stress and their emotional regulation will be good. However, it is thought that children's perception of the parent–child relationship itself affects the development of resilience in children, through the actual parent–child relationship. We emphasized on the children's own perception of parent–child relationship because it is thought that even the same positive parental involvement would be differently accepted by individual children, and that the difference might directly affect the development of children's resilience. In other words, the children's own perception of the parent–child relationship would have a direct influence on the development of their resilience than would the perception of the parents themselves or the objective perceptions of third parties. Although it is not scientifically related to resilience, it has been clarified that the children's own perception of parents' involvement is more likely to influence their psychological characteristics (i.e., self-perception and intrinsic motivation) than would the parent's own perception of their involvement in the parent–child relationship (Babkes & Weiss, 1999). In addition, with regard to the perception of the classroom environment along the autonomy versus external control dimensions, it has been revealed that the child's own perception affects his/her psychological characteristics (i.e., self-worth, cognitive competence, internal control, mastery motivation, etc.) more than the teacher's perception of the relationship between the teacher and the child would (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). These studies suggest that children's own perception related to interpersonal relationships has a direct influence on their psychological characteristics than does the perception of others. Therefore, regarding resilience, it is expected that the children's own perception of their parent–child relationship would directly affect its development. Indeed, Zakeri, Jowkar, and Razmjoee (2010) pointed out that if children perceive warmth, affection, and emotional support in their family context, they are more likely to develop resilience. Thus, it is suggested that children's own perception of the parent–child relationship plays an important role in the development of resilience.

When focusing on the children's perception of the parent–child relationship, it is unclear at which stage of their development should the same be examined. Along children's developmental course, the parent–child relationship has the most influence during childhood. In fact, it has been pointed out that positive parent–child relationships in early childhood are important in the development of resilience (Archdoll & Kilderry, 2016; Miller-Lewis et al., 2013). Therefore, in this study, we focused on the children's own perception of parent–child relationship in their childhood. Furthermore, it is necessary to thoroughly examine the development stage of the participants who report their perceptions of the parent–child relationship in childhood. If the participants were young children, it would be difficult for them to calmly and meaningfully perceive their parents' affection, intentions, and feelings toward them during parenting care because they are just being raised as children. Therefore, we decided to focus on youth's current perception of the parent–child relationship they experienced in childhood. It is speculated that youth can perceive their parent–child relationship in their childhood calmly and meaningfully because they are not currently being cared for completely by their parents. Rather, it might be thought that the youth's current perception of the parent–child relationship they experienced in childhood influences the development of resilience more strongly than does the actual parent–child relationship perceived objectively by third parties.

One more matter that needs to be considered when examining the influence of the perception of the parent–child relationship in childhood is the sex difference between each parent and the child. The influence of the perception of the parent–child relationship with the mother and the father would differ. Furthermore, the influence would differ between the perception of parents of same sex and parents of different sex. Several researchers actually have clarified the effects of sex difference on mental development. For instance, in their longitudinal study on high-risk children, Werner and Smith (1992) showed that factors such as high self-esteem, efficacy, and sense of personal control were more predictive of successful adaptation among woman than among men. Bernard (1995) revealed that girls are likely to facilitate their resilience by building strong and caring relationships, while boys are likely to facilitate their resilience by learning how to use active problem-solving. These studies suggest that children's sex difference have a great influence on their mental development, including resilience. Furthermore, some studies also showed the effect of parents' sex differences on children's mental development. For instance, Steele and Steele (2005) revealed that the influence of parents' sex difference depends on the mental state of the children, such as presence or absence of emotional conflicts. Sart, Börkan, Erkman, and Serbest (2016) found that women's resilience was vulnerable to relationships with both mothers and fathers. On the other hand, while men's resilience was susceptible to relationships with mothers, it was hardly affected by their relationships with fathers. These studies suggest that parental sex difference affects children's mental development. In particular, Sart et al. (2016) showed that influence on the development of children's resilience was different between parents of same sex and parents of different sex. In their results, the various factors of resilience in the female participants presented a higher correlation with their relationship with fathers than that with mothers. On the other hand, various factors of resilience in the male participants showed more correlation with their relationship with mothers than that with fathers. Considering these results that showed the influence of parents' and children's sex difference on children's mental development, it is suggested that it is necessary to clarify the influence of parents' and children's sex difference on children's resilience while examining the effect of children's perception of the parent–child relationship on the development of children's resilience. Therefore, in this study, we focused on the sex difference between parents and children as an important factor.

Further, in this study, we focused on youth's current perceptions of the parent–child relationship they experienced in childhood. Thus, we dealt with the participants' retrospective memories. However, the validity of youth's childhood memories is often questioned. Hardt and Rutter (2004) examined the validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences through reviews of results of many previous studies dealing with this kind of data. As a result, they claimed that several studies had shown some bias in the retrospective reports, but such bias was not sufficiently great to invalidate retrospective case–control studies of adversities. Thus, they concluded that retrospective studies had a worthwhile place in research. Judging from their report, it seems that there is some validity in youth's retrospective perception of the parent–child relationship in their childhood. In addition, they confirmed the presence of false-negative reports to some extent, whereas false-positive reports were rare. In this study, because we focused on youth's perception of positive rather than negative parent–child relationships in childhood, it is considered that the validity of this method would increase further.

In this study, we also encountered the question as to what specific aspect to measure concretely while focusing on the qualitative aspects of a positive parent–child relationship. Noller and Patton (1990) suggested that many adolescents identify the value and importance of maintaining positive, respectful, and loving relationships with parents, and this closeness with parents can override the effects of poor peer relationships. In addition, Fuller, McGraw, and Goodyear (1999) mentioned that a sense of belonging and connectedness to the family, and feeling loved and respected in the family, is a protective factor for a number of risk behaviors. Based on these findings, it can be thought that the factors of affiliation, such as closeness, respect, and trust in the parent–child relationship, are important as the qualitative aspects of the parent–child relationship. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to measure the youth's perception of affiliation with their parents as one of the qualitative aspects of the parent–child relationships in childhood.

We hypothesized that if youth's resilience is affected by their perception of the parent–child relationships in their childhood, their resilience would be stronger if they perceived positive aspects of the parent–child relationships, such as affiliation with their parents in childhood, rather than otherwise.

Methods

Participants

Participants included 268 university and college students (110 female, 158 male; mean age: 19 years 5 months, age range: 18 years 5 months to 20 years 8 months, SD: 8.28) studying education or welfare science in Japan. Of the participants, 92 were university students (62 females, 30 males) and 176 were college students (48 females, 128 males). University students majored in education, and college students majored in welfare studies. When participants were selected, both university and college students were included to avoid bias toward specific academic achievements and majors. All participants belonged to middle-class families and lived with their parents in their childhood.

Measures

Adolescent Resilience Scale

The Adolescent Resilience Scale (Oshio, Nakaya, Kaneko, & Nagamine, 2002; Oshio et al., 2003) was used to assess youth's resilience. This scale was created by extracting question items based on the findings of the studies by Jew, Green, and Kroger (1999) and Wagnild and Young (1993) and conducting a factor analysis on Japanese data. This 21-item questionnaire contains three subscales: novelty seeking (seven items), emotional regulation (nine items), and positive future orientation (five items). This questionnaire included items such as “I like to challenge a lot of things (novelty seeking),” “I am a person who can control my emotions (emotional regulation),” and “I have hope for my future (positive future orientation).” Participants are asked to judge whether the contents of the item are applicable to them or not, and to respond on a 5-point scale; not true (1), rather not true (2), neither not true nor true (3), rather true (4), and true (5). Items from each subscale are summed to form subscale score, and then the three subscales scores are summed to compute a total score on resilience.

Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale

The Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale (Morishita, 1981) was used to assess youth's perceived affiliation with parents in their childhood. This 17-item questionnaire contains three subscales: closeness with parents (seven items), identity desire toward parents (six items), and reliability of parents (four items). All question items explored the participants' perception of their parent–child relationship for each of their parents (mother and father). This questionnaire included items such as “Did you think that your mother (or father) understands you well?” (closeness), “Did you want to be like your father (or mother) when you grow up?” (identity desire toward parents), and “Did you think your mother (or father) was a fine person?” (reliability of parents). Participants are asked to remember the parent–child relationship when they were children (from the early childhood to the lower grades of elementary school), and to respond on a 3-point scale; no (1), neither no nor yes (2), and yes (3). Items from each subscale are summed to form a subscale score. The strength of this tool is that it assesses children's rather than parents' perceptions of the parent–child relationship. Therefore, this tool was used in the present study.

Procedure

The duration of the survey was from May to June 2014. Participants were asked for their cooperation with this survey in groups in their classroom. They were distributed questionnaires comprising items on sex and age and the two study measures, and they were asked to enter their answers on the sheets. They were instructed that participation was voluntary. In addition, we followed the ethical principles of the Japanese Association of Educational Psychology for developing and implementing the contents and methods of this investigation. This study was not approved by the institutional ethics committee because we consolidated the standardized data of the two questionnaires non-anonymously. However, three teachers from the participating institutions and two university students who did not participate in the study expressed that there was no ethical problem related to the survey contents. In this survey, the participants were asked to answer only when they acknowledged that the obtained data will be used for research purposes only; the results will be processed statistically, and the research results will be presented at academic conferences and/or published in publications. Regarding debriefing after survey, we returned each participant's respondent sheet and explained the meaning of the values of each scale. In addition, we reported the results of the overall analysis and asked them to inform their parents about their result. Correlation analysis was done to examine the relationship between participants' perceived affiliation with parents in childhood and their current resilience. We confirmed the normality of the data on the two questionnaires by Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to find out if the participants' perceived affiliation with their parents in childhood affected their current resilience. Findings were interpreted and discussed at significance level of 0.05. Regarding the interpretation of the R² value, we interpret it as having some effect if it is over 0.4, having low effect if it is more than 0.2 and less than 0.4, and having little effect if it is less than 0.2. Data were analyzed using HAD 16.0 statistic packet program by Shimizu (2016).

Results

Validation of the Adolescent Resilience Scale and Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale

In order to investigate the validity of Adolescent Resilience Scale and Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale, the Cronbach's coefficient alpha was calculated for each subscale. The results for the Adolescent Resilience Scale indicated a sufficient internal consistency in each subcategory (resilience: α = .857; novelty seeking: α = .782; emotional regulation: α = .767, positive future orientation: α = .788). Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the data obtained on the Adolescent Resilience Scale. As a result, the range of factor load of each item on the three subscales was .544 to .932 (novelty seeking; AVE (average variance extracted) = .523, CR (composite reliability) = .752, emotional regulation; AVE = .503, CR = .682, positive future orientation: AVE = .515, CR = .727). Correlation coefficients between novelty seeking and emotional regulation, between novelty seeking and positive future orientation, and between novelty seeking and positive future orientation were .261, .512, and .435, respectively. The squares of these correlation coefficients were all less than the AVE of each factor. Therefore, the validity of this scale was confirmed in this study.

Regarding the Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale, sufficient internal consistency was shown for each subcategory except for the subscale of reliability of parents (closeness with parents: α = .781 (with mother), α = .842 (with father); identity desire toward parents: α = .760 (toward mother), α = .805 (toward father); reliability of parents: α = .446 (of mother), α = .523 (of father)). Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the data obtained on the Adolescent Resilience Scale. As a result, the range of factor load of the scale was .511 to .734 for closeness with mother or father and identity desire toward mother or father (closeness with parents: AVE = .511, CR = .721 (with mother), AVE = .503, CR=.690 (with father); identity desire toward parents: AVE = .502, CR = .675 (toward mother), AVE = .503, CR = .684 (toward father)), but was .25 to .55 for reliability of mother or father (reliability of parents: AVE = .227, CR = 0.453 (of mother), AVE = .209, CR = .426 (of father)). In other words, a low factor load, low AVE and CR were found in the items related to the factor of reliability of parents. Correlation coefficients between closeness with parents and identity desire toward parents, between closeness with parents and reliability of parents, and between identity desire toward parents and reliability of parents were .587, .451, and .471, respectively, for mother, and .689, .412, and .535 for father. The squares of these correlation coefficients were all less than the AVE of each factor except for the factor of reliability of parents. Therefore, the validity of the subscales of closeness with parents and identity desire toward parents were confirmed in this study. However, the validity of the subscale of reliability of parents was not confirmed. For this reason, this subscale was excluded from the analysis in this study.

Results in female participants

Tables 1 and 2 show the correlation coefficients for variables included in Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale and Adolescent Resilience Scale on responses related to the mother and father in female participants. In both tables, it was confirmed that there was a significant correlation between all the variables. For female participants, a multiple regression analysis was performed with youth resilience as the dependent variables and children's perceived affinity for mother or father as the independent variables. Tables 3 and 4 show the results when the relationships with the mothers or fathers was taken as independent variables.

Table 1.

Correlation coefficients for variables included in Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale and Adolescent Resilience Scale on responses related to mother in female participants.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Closeness	1.000
2. Identity desire	.681**	1.000
3. Novelty Seek.	.336**	.422**	1.000
4. Emotional Reg.	.494**	.463**	.371**	1.000
5. Positive Future	.568**	.557**	.484**	.590**	1.000
6. Resilience	.577**	.588**	.717**	.866**	.830**	1.000

Note. Closeness: closeness with mother; Identity desire: identity desire toward mother; Novelty Seek.: novelty seeking; Emotional Reg.: emotional regulation; Positive Future: positive future orientation.

p < .01.

Table 2.

Correlation coefficients for variables included in Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale and Adolescent Resilience Scale on responses related to father in female participants.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Closeness	1.000
2. Identity desire	.787**	1.000
3. Novelty Seek.	.244*	.262**	1.000
4. Emotional Reg.	.449**	.351**	.388**	1.000
5. Positive Future	.406**	.349**	.468**	.610**	1.000
6. Resilience	.465**	.398**	.712**	.877**	.828**	1.000

Note. Closeness: closeness with father; Identity desire: identity desire toward father; Novelty Seek.: novelty seeking; Emotional Reg.: emotional regulation; Positive Future: positive future orientation.

**p< .01, *p< .05

Table 3.

Results of multiple regression analysis showing the correlation between mother–child relationship and resilience and its subcategories in female participants.

	Resilience	Novelty Seeking	Emotional Regulation	Positive Future Orientation
β: Closeness	.331**	.090	.333**	.351**
β: Identity desire	.362**	.360**	.236**	.318**
R	.636	.427	.523	.614
R²	.404**	.182**	.274**	.377**
F	36.233**	11.942**	20.157**	32.306**
df	2	2	2	2
n	110	110	110	110

Note. Closeness: closeness with mother; Identity desire: identity desire toward mother.

p < .01.

Table 4.

Results of multiple regression analysis showing correlation between father–child relationship and resilience, and its subcategories in female participants.

	Resilience	Novelty Seeking	Emotional Regulation	Positive Future Orientation
β: Closeness	.397**	.100	.454**	.346**
β: Identity desire	.086	.183	−.006	.077
R	.468	.270	.448	.409
R²	.219**	.073*	.201**	.167**
F	14.149**	3.952*	12.740**	10.131**
df	2	2	2	2
n	104	104	104	104

Note. Closeness: closeness with father; Identity desire: identity desire toward father.

**p < .01, *p < .05.

From the results shown in Table 1, closeness with mother (β = .331, p = .002) and identity desire toward mother (β = .362, p = .001) had a relationship with resilience. That is, closeness with mother and identity desire toward mother independently predicted the overall resilience performance, accounting for 40.4% of the variance, R² = .404, F(2.107) = 36.233, p < .001.

Regarding the results of each subcategory of resilience, for novelty seeking and emotional regulation, there was a partially significant positive relationship to some extent (novelty seeking, with closeness with mother: β = .090, p = .451, identity desire toward mother: β = .360, p = .003; emotional regulation, closeness with mother: β = .333, p = .004, identity desire toward mother: β = .236, p = .038). Although a significant positive relation was observed between each subcategory of resilience and closeness with mother, or identity desire toward mother, their contribution rates were not very high; novelty seeking : R² = .182, F(2, 107) = 11.942, p < .001; emotional regulation: R² = .274, F(2, 107) = 20.157, p < .001. Regarding positive future orientation, a significant positive relationship was seen with closeness with mother (β = .351, p = .001) and identity desire toward mother (β = .318, p = .003), which accounted for 37.7%, and the contribution rate was high to some extent, R² = .377, F(2, 107) = 32.306, p < .001.

From the results shown in Table 2, regarding resilience and its subcategories, there was a positive significant relationship with respect to closeness with father, except for novelty seeking (resilience: β = .397, p = .006, novelty seeking: β = .100, p = .520, emotional regulation: β = .454, p = .002, positive future orientation: β = .346, p = .021). These results suggest that closeness with father has a positive relationship with resilience and two subfactors (emotional regulation and positive future orientation) in female participants. However, it should be noted that their contribution rates were relatively low in either case; resilience: R² = .219, F(2, 101) = 14.149, p < .001, R² = .073; novelty seeking: F(2, 101) = 3.952, p = .022; emotional regulation: R² = .201, F(2, 101) = 12.740, p < .001; positive future orientation: R² = .167, F(2, 101) = 10.131, p < .001. On the other hand, there was not a positive significant relationship with respect to identity desire toward fathers (resilience: β = .086, p = .548, novelty seeking: β = .183, p = .240, emotional regulation: β = −.006, p = .967, positive future orientation: β = .007, p = .603). Results regarding novelty seeking show that the β values of the two independent variables were not significant, even when the R² value was significant. Although it is difficult to interpret this result at the moment, it could not be concluded that closeness with father and identity desire toward father factors predict novelty seeking since the value of R² was very low (.073).

Results in male participants

Tables 5 and 6 show the correlation coefficients for variables included in Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale and Adolescent Resilience Scale on responses related to the mother and father in male participants. From these results, there was no significant correlation between the two independent variables and resilience and its subordinate variables except for some. These results suggest that the quality of parent–child relationships in childhood has no significant effect on resilience in male participants. However, we will perform the same analysis that was performed with the female participants to ensure accuracy of results. Regarding male participants, a multiple regression analysis was performed just as for female participants. Tables 7 and 8 show the results when the relationship with mothers or fathers are considered as the independent variables.

Table 5.

Correlation coefficients for variables included in Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale and Adolescent Resilience Scale on responses related to mother in male participants.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Closeness	1.000
2. Identity desire	.558**	1.000
3. Novelty Seek.	.122	.194*	1.000
4. Emotional Reg.	.186*	.102	.125	1.000
5. Positive Future	.004	.223**	.522**	.276**	1.000
6. Resilience	.159	.225**	.690**	.731**	.762**	1.000

**p < .01, *p < .05.

Table 6.

Correlation Coefficients for Variables included in Children's Perceived Affiliation for Parents Scale and Adolescent Resilience Scale on responses related to father in male participants.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Closeness	1.000
2. Identity desire	.597**	1.000
3. Novelty Seek.	.056	.125*	1.000
4. Emotional Reg.	.107	.000	.161*	1.000
5. Positive Future	−.007	.133*	.520**	.293**	1.000
6. Resilience	.081	.102	.697**	.747**	.761**	1.000

Note. Closeness: closeness with father; Identity desire: identity desire toward father; Novelty Seek.: novelty seeking; Emotional Reg.: emotional regulation; Positive Future: positive future orientation.

**p < .01, *p < .05.

Table 7.

Results of multiple regression analysis showing the correlation between mother–child relationship and resilience and its subcategories in male participants.

	Resilience	Novelty Seeking	Emotional Regulation	Positive Future Orientation
β: Closeness	.048	.020	.187	−.174
β: Identity desire	.198	.183	−.003	.320**
R	.228	.020	.187	.266
R²	.052*	.038	.035	.071*
F	3.616*	2.581	2.346	4.970**
df	2	2	2	2
n	134	134	134	134

Note. Closeness: closeness with mother; Identity desire: Identity desire toward mother.

**p < .01, *p < .05.

Table 8.

Results of multiple regression analysis showing the correlation between father–child relationship and resilience, and its subcategories in male participants.

	Resilience	Novelty Seeking	Emotional Regulation	Positive Future Orientation
β: Closeness	.067	−.019	.190	−.086
β: Identity desire	.097	.143	−.084	.227*
R	.148	.134	.155	.187
R²	.022	.018	.024	.035
F	1.671	1.347	1.845	2.752
df	2	2	2	2
n	154	154	154	154

Note. Closeness: closeness with father; Identity desire: identity desire toward father.

p < .05.

From the results shown in Tables 7 and 8, regarding resilience and its subcategories, although a positive significant relation was found only between identity desires toward mother or father, and positive future orientation (mother: β = .320, p = .002, father; β = .227, p = .026), we could not confirm that perceived affiliation with mother and father had a positive relationship with resilience and other subfactors (novelty seeking and emotional regulation). In addition, the contribution rates on a relationship between identity desire toward mother or father and positive future orientation are too low (mother: R² = .071, father: R² = .035). According to these results, it could not be concluded that the affiliation of male participants with their mother or father has a strong positive relationship with resilience. Results regarding resilience (Table 7) show that β values of the two independent variables were not significant, even when the R² value was significant. Although it is difficult to interpret this result at the moment, it could not be concluded that closeness with mother and identity desire toward mother factors predict resilience since the value of R² was very low (.052).

Discussion

According to the results of this study, it was revealed that closeness with mother and identity desire toward mother independently predicted the overall resilience performance in female participants. This suggests that perceived mother–child relationship in childhood affects resilience in women. Results also showed that closeness with father independently predicted the overall resilience performance in female participants. Although partial and limited, this result suggests that father–child relationship affects resilience in women. Previous studies have pointed out that positive parent–child relationships in early childhood are important in the development of resilience (Archdoll & Kilderry, 2016; Miller-Lewis et al., 2013). Although it is limited to female participants and relationships with their mother, this result is consistent with the findings of these studies. In addition, it became clear that youth's current perception of the parent–child relationship they experienced in childhood influenced their resilience.

The results in each resilience subcategory suggest that perceived affiliation with mothers in childhood affects positive future orientation and emotional regulation to some extent in female participants. These results suggest that female participants are fostered especially a positive future orientation and emotional regulation with a perceived positive mother–child relationship with mother in their childhood, and thus their resilience is facilitated eventually. On the other hand, it was confirmed that perceived affiliation with fathers in childhood affected positive future orientation and emotional regulation partially and slightly in female participants. These results suggest that the positive effect of perceived affiliation with fathers on resilience is partial and limited, in comparison to that with mothers, in female youth. In Japan, fathers usually work outside their home and mothers are the main caregivers for their children. Therefore, fathers have a relatively lesser time to be in contact with their children and are not as closely related to their children as the mothers. This might be the reason why father's influence was limited. In addition, there are factors that can be considered regarding identity desire, one of which is affinity with parents. That is, the female participants finding it unnatural to have identity desires toward fathers may have affected this result. In any case, it was revealed that the influence of perceived parent–child relationship on youth's resilience is different between the relationship with mothers and that with fathers.

These results revealed that female participants' perceived positive relationships with mothers had a great influence on their resilience. Sart et al. (2016) suggested that the relationship with the mother affects resilience in females more conspicuously than it does with the father. The results of this study are consistent with those of Sart et al.'s study (2016). It was suggested that mother's influence was extremely high for women's resilience development.

The results found in male participants suggest that perceived relationship with the mother or father has little influence on male youth's resilience. Comparing this result with one of the female participants, in females, the relationship with mother confirmed a positive relationship with resilience. Moreover, the relationship of females with their fathers showed a significant positive relationship with resilience to some extent, the contribution ratio being about 20%. On the other hand, in men, for the relationship with both mother and father, parent–child relationship could not be considered a predictor of resilience. In other words, it is suggested that in female participants, the perceived positive parent–child relationship in early childhood had an influence on resilience, whereas in male participants, there was little influence on resilience.

General discussion

In this study, we examined how perceived parent–child relationships in childhood affect youth's resilience. The results showed that the perceived positive parent–child relationships with mothers had a positive influence on youth resilience in female participants. Furthermore, it was revealed that positive future orientation, in particular, is greatly affected among the subcategories that constitute resilience. Results suggest that a positive relationship between female youth and their mothers leads to a positive future orientation, which eventually facilitates resilience. For women, mothers may act as a model figure for their future. In contrast, results also showed that the perceived relationship with the father was partially and limitedly related to resilience in young women. Steele and Steele (2005) revealed that the influence of the relationship with mother is greater than that with father with respect to understanding and resolving children's emotional conflicts. This influence may be closely related to the development of resilience in women.

One of the most interesting results of this study was that for men, there seems to be little relationship between perceived parent–child relationship and resilience. Bernard (1995) revealed that girls were likely to facilitate their resilience by building strong and caring relationships, while boys were likely to facilitate their resilience by learning how to use active problem-solving. This suggests that women are more susceptible to positive interpersonal relationships in the development of resilience than men are. In this respect, the present findings corroborate to the research findings of Bernard (1995).

Based on these findings, can we draw conclusions on the differences in the influence of perceived parent–child relationship with mother and father on resilience? In the results of this study, female participants were generally susceptible to perceived parent–child relationships of mothers, while male participants were not so susceptible to either. Sart et al. (2016) found that women's resilience was vulnerable to relationships with both mothers and fathers, and while men's resilience was susceptible to relationships with mothers, it was hardly affected by relationships with fathers. Our results on female participants are consistent with Sart et al.'s (2016) findings on the relationship with mother, but the relationship with mother and father among male participants are not consistent with the previous findings. In other words, contrary to Sart et al.'s study (2016), our results revealed that men are not so significantly affected by parent–child relationships with mothers. Why did this discrepancy arise with respect to the results on men? In the study by Sart et al. (2016), the perception of the current parent–child relationship of university students was assessed, whereas, in the present study, the perception of parent–child relationship in early childhood was assessed retrospectively. This difference may have affected the discrepancies in the results for males between Sart et al.'s (2016) study and the present study. The current perception of parent–child relationship was not the same as the retrospective perception of parent–child relationship in their childhood. The differences of these perceptions may have affected the discrepancies. In this study, it was hypothesized that the retrospective perception of parent–child relationship in childhood might have a more direct influence on youth's resilience. That is, it seems that the retrospective perception of parent–child relationship in adults was not similar to the perception in childhood, and adults' perception has a more direct influence on resilience. However, the effects confirmed in this study are more limited than those in studies that examined the influence of current perception of parent–child relationship in youth (Maximo & Carrenza, 2016; Sart et al., 2016). This may suggest that the current perception of parent–child relationship in youth has more direct effect on youth's resilience than the retrospective perception of parent–child relationship in childhood. The retrospective perception of parent–child relationship in childhood would be affected by the current perceived parent–child relationship. It is necessary to examine the difference of influence of the retrospective and current perception of parent–child relationship on resilience, including the examination of the relationship between the retrospective and current perception.

Based on the results of this study, it can be considered how young people can enhance their resilience. For women, it is important to establish a relationship–that can be perceived as positive in their adulthood–with their mother during childhood. Further, a positive relationship with mothers is especially important to foster a positive future orientation to enhance resilience in youth. Therefore, it might be important for mothers to establish a clear, intimate relationship with their daughters and become a model by which their daughters can have an identity desire, and it might be necessary for mothers to discuss a positive future with their daughters from their early childhood. According to the findings of this study, for men, there was no significant positive correlation between perceived parent–child relationship and their resilience. Bernard (1995) revealed that boys were likely to facilitate their resilience by learning how to use active problem-solving. From this point of view, it is also possible that male resilience may be supported by factors other than parent–child relationship. It seems that our results might reflect this fact. In future, it is necessary to study the difference between the influence of the perceived relationship with the mother or father in women or men in detail, including the factors related to this difference.

In this study, we examined the influence of youth's current perception of parent–child relationship they experienced in childhood on their resilience. In other words, it can be said that the influence of the youth's subjective perception of parent–child relationship they experienced in childhood was examined in this study. In considering the influence of the parent–child relationship on children's development, it is thought that it is important to consider their subjective perception of the parent–child relationship in their childhood. Furthermore, it is considered that their subjective perception of their parent–child relationship greatly affects various areas of their development. It seems that the results of this study reflect the importance of children's subjective perception of their parent–child relationship on their psychological development.

In this study, we focused on youth participants' subjective perception of parent–child relationship in early childhood, and confirmed the effect of the perception on resilience partially. However, it is impossible to clarify from the present results as to how the subjective perception of parent–child relationship in childhood was shaped. As mentioned above, the subjective perception of parent–child relationship in childhood would be affected by the current perceived parent–child relationship in youth. In order to clarify the development process of resilience in detail, it is necessary to clarify how this subjective perception of parent–child relationship in childhood was shaped in relation to the current parent–child relationship in youth. In future, it is necessary to consider what kind of factors influence the subjective perception of parent–child relationship in childhood, while comparing the same to the current parent–child relationship. This would also help clarify the process of development of resilience in detail.

Furthermore, we can point out the possibility that cultural differences may have affected the results of this study. Satterwhite and Luchner (2016) compared American and Indian participants, and pointed out that cultural differences exist in resilience. Parent–child relationships of Japanese youth, who were the participants in this study, may be qualitatively different from those of participants from other culture. In future, it is necessary to examine whether the difference in the quality of parent–child relationship is affected by comparing data from participants with diverse cultural backgrounds.

Finally, we describe the limitation of this study. Since participants were university and college students, there is a possibility that the quality of parent–child relationship was somewhat similar. In order to examine the quality of the perceived parent–child relationship in childhood and its effect on youth's resilience in more detail, it will be necessary to target youth from various backgrounds. Furthermore, the quality of the parent–child relationship in this study was only focused on the affiliation for parents. However, the quality of the parent–child relationship presents various other dimensions, such as attachment relationship and parenting attitude, among others. Future research will also need to focus on these factors.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the students who participated in this study. In addition I would like to thank Dr. Naoko Kimura and Mr. Kenshiro Yamamoto of Naruto University of Education for valuable advice. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on a previous draft.

Article Notes

References

Archdoll

Kilderry

(2016) Supporting children's resilience: Early childhood educator understanding. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 41(3): 58–65. doi:10.1080/13540602.2014.937955.

Babkes

M. L.

Weiss

M. R.

(1999) Parental influence on children's cognitive and affective responses to competitive soccer participation. Pediatric Exercise Science 11: 44–62. doi:10.1123/pes.11.1.44.

Baldwin

A. L.

Baldwin

Cole

R. E.

(1990) Stress-resistant families and stress-resistant children. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Neuchterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 257–280. .

Bernard

(1995) Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school and community, San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

Boughton

Lumley

(2011) Parent prediction of child mood and emotional resilience: The role parental responsiveness and psychological control. Depression Research and Treatment 2011: 1–9. doi:10.1155/2011/375398.

Cowen

Wyman

Work

Iker

(1995) A preventive intervention for enhancing resilience among highly stressed urban children. The Journal of Primary Prevention 15: 247–260. doi:10.1007/BF02197474.

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.

Flach

F. F.

(1988) Resilience: Discovering a new strength at times of stress, New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Fuller

McGraw

Goodyear

(1999) Bungy jumping through life: What young people say promotes well-being and resilience. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling 9: 159–168. doi:10.1017/S1037291100003071.

10.

Gamezy

Masten

A. S.

Tellgen

(1984) The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development 55: 97–111. doi:10.2307/1129837.

11.

Hardt

Rutter

(2004) Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood experience: Review of the evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45(2): 260–273. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00218.x.

12.

Hill

Stafford

Seaman

Ross

Daniel

(2007) Parenting and resilience, York, England: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

13.

Jew

C. L.

Green

K. E.

Kroger

(1999) Development and validation of a measure of resiliency. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development 32: 75–89.

14.

Johnson

J. G.

Liu

Cohen

(2011) Parenting behaviors associated with the development of adaptive and maladaptive offspring personality traits. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 56(8): 447–456. doi:10.1177/070674371105600802.

15.

Luthar

S. S.

(2013) Resilience at an early age and its impact on child psychosocial development. In: Tremblay

R. E.

Boivin

Peters

(eds) Encyclopedia on early childhood development, 2nd. Montreal, Canada: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development, pp. 1–5.

16.

Luthar

S. S.

Zigler

(1992) Intelligence and social competence among high-risk adolescents. Development and Psychopathology 4: 287–299. doi:10.1017/S0954579400000158.

17.

Masten

A. S.

Best

Garmezy

(1991) Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology 2: 425–444. doi:10.1017/S0954579400005812.

18.

Maximo

S. I.

Carrenza

J. S.

(2016) Parental attachment and love language as determinants of resilience among graduating university students. Sage Open 6: 1–11. doi:10.1177/2158244015622800.

19.

Miller-Lewis

Searle

Sawyer

M. G.

Baghurst

P. A.

Hadley

(2013) Recourses for mental health resilience in early childhood: An analysis with multiple methodologies. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health 6: 1–23. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-7-6.

20.

Morishita, M. (1981). Jido no oya ni taisuru sinwasei no inshikozo to syakudo no sakusei [The factor structure of children's affiliation with their parents and the development of the scale to assess children's affiliation with their parents]. Fujita Shoken sensei taikan kinen shi [Professor Shoken Fujita's retirement commemorative theses]. Wakayama sinrigaku kenkyu kai (hensyu), 57–72 [Wakayama Psychology Meeting for Study (Eds.), 57-72]. [in Japanese].

21.

Nolan

Taket

Stagnitti

(2014) Supporting resilience in early years classrooms: The role of the teacher. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 20(5): 595–608. doi:10.1080/13540602.2014.937955.

22.

Noller

Paton

(1990) Maintaining family relationships at adolescence. In: Heaven

Callan

(eds) Adolescence: An Australian perspective, Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.

23.

Oshio

Kaneko

Nagamine

Nakaya

(2003) Construct validity of the Adolescent Resilience Scale. Psychological Reports 93: 1217–1222. doi:10.2466/pr0.2003.93.3f.1217.

24.

Oshio

Nakaya

Kaneko

Nagamine

(2002) Development validation of an Adolescent Resilience Scale. Japanese Journal of Counseling Science 35: 57–65. [in Japanese with English abstract].

25.

Pearce

(2011) A short introduction to promoting resilience in children, London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

26.

Ryan

R. M.

Grolnick

W. S.

(1986) Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessment of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(3): 550–558. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.550.

27.

Rutter

(1985) Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry 147: 598–611. doi:10.1192/bjp.147.6.598.

28.

Rutter

(1987) Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 57: 316–331. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x.

29.

Sart

Z. H.

Börkan

Erkman

Serbest

(2016) Resilience as a mediator between parental acceptance-rejection and depressive symptoms among university students in Turkey. Journal of Counseling & Development 94: 195–209. doi:10.1002/jcad.12076.

30.

Satterwhite

A. K.

Luchner

A. F.

(2016) Exploring the relationship among perceived resilience, dependency, and self-criticism: The role of culture social support. North American Journal of Psychology 18(1): 71–74.

31.

Shimizu

(2016) An introduction to the statistical free software HAD: Suggestions to improve teaching, learning and practice data analysis. Journal of Media, Information and Communication 1: 59–73. [in Japanese with English abstract].

32.

Steele

(2005) Understanding and resolving emotional conflict. In: Grossman

Waters

(eds) Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 137–164.

33.

Wagnild

Young

H. M.

(1993) Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement 1: 165–178.

34.

Werner

E. E.

Smith

R. S.

(1982) Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

35.

Werner

Smith

R. S.

(1992) Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood, New York, NY: Cornell University Press.

36.

Windle

(2011) What is resilience? A review and concept analysis. Review of Clinical Gerontology 21: 152–169. doi:10.1017/S0959259810000420.

37.

Wyman

P. A.

Cowen

E. L.

Work

W. C.

Hoyt-Meyers

Magnus

K. B.

Fagen

D. B.

(1999) Caregiving and developmental factors differentiating young at-risk urban children showing resilient versus stress-affected outcomes: A replication and extension. Child Development 70: 645–659. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00047.

38.

Zakeri

Jowkar

Razmjoee

(2010) Parenting styles and resilience. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 5: 1067–1070. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.236.

39.

Zolkoski

S. M.

Bullock

L. M.

(2012) Resilience in children and youth: A review. Children and Youth Service Review 34: 2295–2303. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.009.