Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Geriatrics

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Parenting style, resilience, and mental health of community-dwelling elderly adults in China

  • Xue Zhong1,
  • Daxing Wu1Email author,
  • Xueqing Nie1,
  • Jie Xia1,
  • Mulei Li1,
  • Feng Lei2,
  • Haikel A. Lim2,
  • Ee-Heok Kua2 and
  • Rathi Mahendran2
BMC GeriatricsBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:135

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-016-0308-0

Received: 16 December 2015

Accepted: 27 June 2016

Published: 8 July 2016

Abstract

Background

Given the increasing elderly population worldwide, the identification of potential determinants of successful ageing is important. Many studies have shown that parenting style and mental resilience may influence mental health; however, little is known about the psychological mechanisms that underpin this relationship. The current study sought to explore the relationships among mental resilience, perceptions of parents’ parenting style, and depression and anxiety among community-dwelling elderly adults in China.

Methods

In total, 439 community-dwelling elderly Chinese adults aged 60–91 years completed the Personal and Parents’ Parenting Style Scale, Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale, Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale, and Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale.

Results

Elderly adults whose parents preferred positive and authoritative parenting styles had higher levels of mental resilience and lower levels of depression and anxiety. Elderly adults parented in the authoritarian style were found to have higher levels of depression and anxiety, with lower mental resilience.

Conclusions

The findings of this study provide evidence related to successful ageing and coping with life pressures, and highlight the important effects of parenting on mental health. The results suggest that examination of the proximal determinants of successful ageing is not sufficient—distal factors may also contribute to the ‘success’ of ageing by modifying key psychological dispositions that promote adaptation to adversity.

Keywords

AnxietyDepressionElderlyParenting styleResilience

Background

China has a rapidly ageing population: in 2010, one in 10, or more than 185 million, persons were aged ≥ 60 years; in 2050, this proportion will have increased to one in three [1]. In 2012, almost two in five elderly persons in China reported subclinical levels of depression [2]. Alleviating this potential burden may thus depend on uncovering the determinants of successful ageing [3]. Young and colleagues [4] described three domains of successful ageing: physiological (e.g. diseases and functional impairments), psychological (e.g. emotional vitality), and social (e.g. spirituality and adaptation through social support mechanisms). Ng and colleagues [5] defined successful ageing as good or excellent self-reported health status, independence in performing instrumental activities of daily life, Geriatric Depression Scale score ≤ 5, engagement in at least one social and one productive activity, and high reported level of life satisfaction. Previous research on successful ageing has focused heavily on biological and socio-demographic contributors to narrowly defined aspects of physical health [6], without giving much attention to the importance of psycho-social resources for mental and holistic well-being [5]. Mental resilience is a key psychosocial resource that has been shown to promote successful ageing [7].

Mental resilience is a positive personality characteristic that moderates the negative effects of stress and promotes adaptation, allowing individuals to thrive in the face of adversity [8]. It is enhanced by environmental factors, such as family and support systems [9]. Resilience is commonly perceived to be a good outcome despite adversity, or the ability to bounce back following adversity [10]. Windle [11] defined resilience as the process of effectively negotiating, adapting to, or managing significant sources of stress or trauma. Assets and resources of individuals, their lives, and the environment facilitate this capacity for adaptation, or ‘bouncing back’, in the face of adversity. Resilient individuals have lower levels of depressive symptomatology [12], and often feel that they have aged successfully [13]. Resilient elderly people often view their lives and health as satisfactory despite age-related disease and disability, and greater resilience, as assessed by the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), has been related positively to key components of successful ageing [14]. These studies indicated that resilience may influence the development of human being in whole life.

Current models of mental resilience suggest that factors can be classified as internal (e.g. genetic) and external (e.g. environmental). Internal factors are generated from within an individual and include biological and psychological factors. External factors are extrinsic, and are reflected in the nature and quality of relationships established within and outside the family group [15]. For example, early experiences with parents have been shown to impact the well-being of elderly persons [16]. Based on parenting styles constructs developed by Baumrind [1719], parenting styles are generally categorised along two axes (responsiveness to the child and demanding nature of the parent): authoritative parenting, where parents are demanding, but also responsive; authoritarian parenting, where parents are demanding and non-responsive; and permissive parenting, where parents are not demanding, but are extremely responsive. Contemporaneous research has brought to light the positive parenting style [20], in which parents focus on different strategies to create a positive environment based on mutual trust and respect. Study indicated that authoritative parenting has been shown to produce more successful adults in Western culture, with children experiencing authoritarian parenting showing more externalising behaviours and downstream psychiatric sequelae [21]. Among Chinese children, however, the authoritarian parenting style has been shown to produce the best outcomes (e.g. good school performance) [22, 23]. Regardless, greater parental care and lesser parental overprotection have been shown to contribute to increasing resilience, for example, in protecting adolescents from post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms [24]. Research has strongly suggested that such parenting styles are related to higher levels of mental resilience in children, even in late adolescence and young adulthood [15]. Zhang et al. [25] suggested that resilience has a significant negative predictive effect on depression in older adults. In addition, social support can enhance resilience in this population. Rothrauff et al. [26] conducted a telephoto-interview study to assess the associations of parenting behaviours remembered from childhood (classified as authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and uninvolved) with psychological well-being and depressive symptoms in mid- and later-life adults. They found that adults who remembered authoritative parents reported greater psychological well-being and fewer depressive symptoms than did those who remembered having authoritarian or uninvolved parents [26]. These means parenting style plays an important role in family relationships and it may influence individuals’ later development.

Previous study suggested that remembered parenting styles continue to be related to functioning across the lifespan [26] and resilience also influence human development and mental health [12, 13]. These indicated that parenting style and resilience may be correlated to mental health in whole life. However, little is known about the psychological mechanisms underpinning the relationships among these three factors. The purpose of our study was to examine the relationships among parenting style, mental resilience, and mental health in an elderly Asian population. We hypothesised that individuals with authoritarian parents would be less resilient and would report more depression and anxiety than would those whose parents used other styles and that mental resilience would mediate the relationship between perceived parents’ parenting style and mental health. The current study provides a unique perspective on the possible mediating role of mental resilience in the relationship between parents’ parenting style and mental health in community-dwelling elderly adults.

Methods

Participants and procedure

The study data were collected from a convenience sample of community-dwelling elderly adults in Hunan Province, China. The participants were mainly recruited from three senior activity centers (Wang Yue lake community, Ying Chun community and Xuan Feng community) located in different parts of Hunan province to increase the representativeness of the samples. We included only old adults aged ≥ 60 years who were able to understand and complete the questionnaire and provide voluntary consent. The old adults had raised offspring. Exclusion criteria were a diagnosis of mental illness and insufficient cognitive function for study participation (e.g. severe dementia). In consideration of potential literacy and visual limitations of elderly adults, the survey was conducted using the face-to-face interview method and a structured questionnaire. A sample of 439 (214 men, 225 women) elderly adults aged 60–91 (mean = 69.08, standard deviation = 7.25) years participated voluntarily in face-to-face interviews conducted by trained research assistants to assess parents’ parenting style, mental resilience, and anxious and depressive symptomatology. Table 1 provides demographic details of the study sample. All participants provided informed consent, and the Ethics Committee of the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University approved the study.
Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the study sample

 

Total (N = 439)

Men (n = 214)

Women (n = 225)

Age, years (M ± SD)

69.08 ± 7.25

69.94 ± 7.35

68.26 ± 7.07

Education

   

No formal schooling

40 (9.1)

5 (2.3)

35 (15.6)

Primary school

112 (25.5)

50 (23.4)

62 (27.6)

Middle school

120 (27.3)

56 (26.2)

64 (28.4)

High school

122 (27.8)

69 (32.2)

53 (23.6)

University

45 (10.3)

34 (15.9)

11 (4.9)

Current work status

   

Retired

303 (69.0)

177 (82.7)

126 (56.0)

Casual labourer

15 (3.4)

13 (6.1)

2 (0.9)

Self-employed

13 (3.0)

11 (5.1)

2 (0.9)

Housewife

94 (21.4)

4 (1.9)

90 (40.0)

Full-time employee

14 (3.2)

9 (4.2)

5 (2.2)

Marital status

   

Single or unmarried

3 (0.7)

1 (0.5)

2 (0.9)

Married

363 (82.7)

190 (88.8)

173 (76.9)

Divorced or separated

4 (0.9)

3 (1.4)

1 (0.4)

Widowed

69 (15.7)

20 (9.3)

49 (21.8)

Living arrangement

   

Alone

26 (5.9)

9 (4.2)

17 (7.6)

With spouse

322 (73.3)

171 (79.9)

151 (67.1)

With son

60 (13.7)

23 (10.7)

37 (16.4)

With daughter

22 (5.0)

9 (4.2)

13 (5.8)

With grandchildren

3 (0.7)

1 (0.5)

2 (0.9)

With other relatives

2 (0.5)

1 (0.5)

1 (0.4)

With friends

2 (0.5)

1 (0.5)

2 (0.9)

In institution

2 (0.5)

0 (0)

2 (0.9)

Data are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated. M, mean; SD, standard deviation

Measures

Parenting style was assessed using the Chinese version of the Personal and Parents’ Parenting Style Scale (PaPPS). This 13-item scale was developed in Singapore to examine the relationship between parents’ child-rearing strategies and how they were parented as children (see Appendix). It comprises four subscales (positive, authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles), each of which has shown acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha values) [27]. Respondents are asked to indicate the frequency with which their mothers and fathers engaged in specific behaviours, and the frequency with which they engaged in these behaviours toward their children. Responses are structured by a five-point scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). For the present study, mean subscale scores for both parents (when applicable) were used, with higher scores representing greater perceived frequency of a given parents’ parenting style. Cronbach’s alpha values for the subscales ranged from 0.78 to 0.90, indicating good reliability.

Mental resilience was measured with the Chinese version of the CD-RISC [28]. Responses to the instrument’s 25 items are structured by a five-point Likert-type scale (0–4). Examples of items are: ‘able to adapt to change’ and ‘tend to bounce back after illness or hardship’. Higher scores reflect greater resilience. The CD-RISC has demonstrated good internal consistency and test–retest reliability [9, 28]; the Cronbach’s alpha value for the present sample was 0.93.

Participants also completed the Chinese versions [29] of the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) [30] and the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) [31]. Responses to the 20 items of each scale are structured by a four-point Likert-type scale (1–4) that quantifies the levels of depressive and anxious symptomatology. Cronbach’s alpha values for both scales ranged from 0.83 to 0.84 in the present sample.

Data analysis

Analyses were conducted with the SPSS software (version 19.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess bivariate relationships. To determine mediation effects, we employed Wen and colleagues’ [32] procedure, as it best balances the sum of types 1 and 2 error rates and enables testing for partial and full mediation. To test our hypotheses, we controlled for confounding factors such as gender, age and living arrangement (e.g., alone, with spouse, with son, with daughter, with grandchildren, with other relatives, with friends, or in institution). First, the dependent variables (depression and anxiety) were regressed on the independent variables (four parenting styles); second, the hypothesised mediator (resilience) was regressed on the independent variables; and third, the dependent variable was regressed on the independent variables and hypothesised mediators in a single equation.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations of variables

T-tests showed no gender difference in participants’ or their parents’ parenting style (all p > 0.05). Significant gender differences were observed for depression (SDS score, t = 3.26, p < 0.01) and anxiety (SAS score, t = 3.37, p < 0.01); scores were higher among women than among men (Table 2). Table 3 presents the correlation matrix of the variables of interest. The positive parenting style was related to greater resilience (CD-RISC score, r = 0.36, p < 0.05), but not to anxiety or depression. The authoritative parenting style was related to greater resilience (r = 0.25, p < 0.01) and a lower level of depression (r = −0.10, p < 0.05), but not to anxiety. The authoritarian parenting style was related to lesser resilience (r = −0.17, p < 0.05), and higher levels of depression (r = 0.21, p < 0.01) and anxiety (r = 0.30, p < 0.01). The permissive parenting style was not related to resilience, anxiety, or depression. More resilient individuals were found have lower levels of depression (r = −0.31, p < 0.01) and anxiety (r = −0.23, p < 0.01).
Table 2

Descriptive statistics for depression, anxiety, and resilience in elderly adults

 

Men

Women

t

p

Depression

45.78 ± 10.82

48.94 ± 10.15

−3.264

0.001

Anxiety

39.66 ± 9.67

42.90 ± 10.41

−3.374

0.001

Resilience

64.85 ± 13.77

62.33 ± 15.03

1.823

0.069

Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation

Table 3

Correlations between PaPPS subscale, CD-RISC, SDS, and SAS scores

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Positive parenting style

1

     

2. Authoritative parenting style

0.752**

1

    

3. Authoritarian parenting style

−0.073

−0.029

1

   

4. Permissive parenting style

0.102*

0.290**

0.029

1

  

5. Resilience

0.360**

0.245**

−0.173**

0.007

1

 

6. Depression

−0.077

−0.095*

0.212**

−0.086

−0.309**

1

7. Anxiety

−0.020

−0.021

0.296**

−0.051

−0.229**

0.623**

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Mediating effects

The hierarchical regression analysis showed that the authoritarian parenting style was the only significant predictor of both depression and anxiety (β SDS  = 0.21, β SAS  = 0.29, p < 0.001), and a significant predictor of low resilience (β = −0.12, p < 0.001; Table 4). Low mental resilience predicted depression and anxiety, and partially mediated the relationships between authoritarian parenting style and depression (16 % of the total effect) and anxiety (7.36 % of the total effect). Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the path model of the relationships among authoritarian parenting style, resilience, and depression/anxiety.
Table 4

Mediating effects of resilience on relationships with authoritarian parenting style

Measure

Step

Standardised regression equation

SE

t

Depression

1

y = 0.210x

0.266

4.499**

 

2

m = 0.173x

0.366

−3.681**

 

3

y = −0.278 m

0.033

−6.087**

  

+0.162x

0.070

3.479**

Anxiety

1

y = 0.295x

0.250

6.454**

 

2

m = −0.173x

0.366

−3.681**

 

3

y = −0.183 m

0.032

−4.006**

  

+0.263x

0.250

5.770**

**p < 0.01

SE, standard error of the mean

In depression: mediating effect of resilience between authoritarian parenting style and depression

y: authoritarian parenting style; m: resilience; x: depression

Step 1: The dependent variable (depression) was regressed on the independent variables (authoritarian parenting style)

Step 2: the hypothesized mediator (resilience) was regressed on the independent variables (authoritarian parenting style)

Step 3: the dependent variable (depression) was regressed on both the independent variable (authoritarian parenting style) and mediators (resilience) in one equation

In anxiety: mediating effect of resilience between authoritarian parenting style and anxiety

y: authoritarian parenting style; m: resilience; x: anxiety

Step 1: The dependent variable (anxiety) was regressed on the independent variables (authoritarian parenting style)

Step 2: the hypothesized mediator (resilience) was regressed on the independent variables (authoritarian parenting style)

Step 3: the dependent variable (anxiety) was regressed on both the independent variable (authoritarian parenting style) and mediators (resilience) in one equation

Fig. 1

Path model of the relationships among authoritarian parenting style, resilience, and depression. Values presented are standardised regression coefficients

Fig. 2

Path model of the relationships among authoritarian parenting style, resilience, and anxiety. Values presented are standardised regression coefficients

Discussion

The results of the present study demonstrate that mental resilience may mediate the relationships between certain parenting styles and mental health in later life in a sample of community-dwelling elderly Chinese adults. The family setting is the initial context for individuals’ development, and parenting styles may mould mental resilience. The authoritative parenting style, which involves warmth and responsiveness, has been related consistently to positive developmental outcomes, including fewer behavioural problems and psychological symptoms. Similar to studies conducted in other populations [21], our results suggest that warm, supportive, and loving parenting, encapsulated by the positive and authoritative parenting styles, is associated with the development of mental resilience, and perhaps even the maintenance of resilience in later life [15]. The authoritarian parenting style, in contrast, involves a low degree of responsiveness and high level of demandingness. Authoritarian parents are often cold, unsupportive, insensitive to their children’s needs, and demanding in their control. In our study, this parenting style was related to less resilience and more depression and anxiety in comparison with other parenting styles. Although other studies conducted with Chinese samples have shown that the authoritarian parenting style results in better mental health outcomes [22, 23], they involved first- and second-generation immigrants to America, and may not be representative of the cultural norms in China.

Our results also showed that participants who reported more depressive and anxiety symptoms has less mental resilience, in line with findings from other contemporary studies [12, 13]. Mental resilience may thus be regarded as a protective factor that may increase the ability to overcome negative life events and crises, and increase individuals’ willingness to seek mental health care [33, 34]. Resilience increases the likelihood that a person will talk with health professionals about depressive symptoms and seek care to relieve those symptoms. Resilience can impact health and well-being and is an important aspect of older individuals’ physical and psychological adjustment and adaptation to the ageing process [11, 35]. The present findings thus also contribute to the growing literature recognising the importance of mental resilience in improving well-being in later years [14].

In line with our hypotheses, our results suggest that mental resilience mediates the relationships between some parenting styles and anxious and depressive symptomatology. The lack of warmth in the authoritarian parenting style may result in low mental resilience and subsequent psychiatric sequelae. Consistent with previous studies, we found that mental resilience as an important protective psychological resource shaped by the style of the parent–child relationship. Acceptance–involvement (positive and authoritative) parenting styles have been found to be positive predictors of mental resilience [15], whereas the authoritarian style has frequently been associated with low resilience [36]. Social cohesion, belonging, and changes therein were found to predict the social and physical well-being of community-dwelling older people in the Netherlands over time [37]. Collaborations between health care professionals and community workers in the health and social sectors would extend community outreach and support [38]. Stronger ties among families and a sense of belonging are thus needed.

Finally, the results of this study suggest that examination of the proximal determinants of successful ageing is not sufficient—distal determinants, such as how individuals were parented, seem to contribute on some level to the ‘success’ of older adults’ ageing by modifying key psychological dispositions that promote adaptation to adversity. Recognition of the limitations of this study is, however, important. Although participants had completed their ‘parental duties’ and constitute a significant proportion of the population of interest (elderly adults), their responses about their parents’ parenting style may be subject to recall bias or romanticisation based on their own parenting experiences. These practical limitations, however, do not detract from the study findings, which may generate hypotheses for future research. In addition, the sample was relatively small. Moreover, differences among research assistants conducting interviews, in terms of personality and language used, may have served as confounding factors that influenced participants’ responses. Finally, the cross-sectional survey used in the study did not enable examination of the causality of the effects of psychosocial factors on geriatric depression. Thus, longitudinal studies would help to clarify the predictive effects of these risk factors on late-life mental health.

Conclusion

The findings of the present study suggest that resilience mediates the relationship between parenting style and mental health in community-dwelling elderly Chinese adults. As expected, adults who remembered more authoritarian parenting reported lower resilience, and more depressive and anxious symptoms. Resilience is a coping style applied in relation to stress and depression, and it plays an important role in human development. Parenting styles continue to be related to functionality throughout the life span. The findings of this study provide additional evidence highlighting the important effects of parenting on mental health.

Abbreviations

CD-RISC, Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale; PaPPS, Personal and Parents’ Parenting Style Scale; SAS, Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale; SDS, Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale

Declarations

Funding

This study was funded by the 225 High-Level Health Talents Training Project of Hunan Province, China.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included with in the article and its additional file 1: Table S1.

Authors’ contributions

Xue Zhong conducted the data collection, statistical analyses, and literature search and drafted the manuscript; Daxing Wu designed the study and wrote the protocol, contributed to sampling, measure development, and interpretation of results, and incorporated all revisions from co-authors into the final version of the manuscript; Lei Feng, Haikel A Lim, and Ee-Heok Kua gave direction to and contributed to modification of the manuscript; Xueqing Nie, Jie Xia, and Mulei Li contributed to data collection. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The interview participants received written and oral information about the study before data collection, and written informed consent was obtained.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Medical Psychological Institute, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University
(2)
Department of Psychological Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore

References

  1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World population prospects: The 2012 revision. Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm. Accessed 12 Feb 2015.
  2. Lei X, Sun X, Strauss J, Zhang P, Zhao Y. Depressive symptoms and SES among the mid-aged and elderly in China: Evidence from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study national baseline. Soc Sci Med. 2014;120:224–32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Li C, Wu W, Jin H, Zhang X, Xue H, He Y, et al. Successful aging in Shanghai, China: definition, distribution and related factors. Int Psychogeriatr. 2006;18:551–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Young Y, Frick KD, Phelan EA. Can successful aging and chronic illness coexist in the same individual? A multidimensional concept of successful aging. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2009;10(2):87–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ng TP, Broekman BF, Niti M, Gwee X, Kua EH. Determinants of successful aging using a multidimensional definition among Chinese elderly in Singapore. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;17(5):407–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Li CI, Lin CH, Lin WY, Liu CS, Chang CK, Meng NH, et al. Successful aging defined by health-related quality of life and its determinants in community-dwelling elders. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1013.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Wagnild G. Resilience and successful aging: Comparison among low and high income older adults. J Gerontol Nurs. 2003;29:42–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Wagnild G, Young HM. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. J Nurs Meas. 1993;1(2):165–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Connor KM, Davidson JR. Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18:76–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Masten AS. Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. Am Psychol. 2001;56:227–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Windle G. What is resilience? A review and concept analysis. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2011;21:152–69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Wells M, Avers D, Brooks G. Resilience, Physical Performance Measures, and Self-Perceived Physical and Mental Health in Older Catholic Nuns. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2012;3:126–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeste DV, Savla GN, Thompson WK, Vahia IV, Glorioso DK, Martin AS, et al. Association between older age and more successful aging: critical role of resilience and depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(2):188–96.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamond AJ, Depp CA, Allison M, Langer R, Reichstadt J, Moore DJ, et al. Measurement and predictor of resilience among community-dwelling older women. J Psychiatr Res. 2008;43(2):148–54.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Zakeri H, Jowkar B, Razmjoee M. Parenting styles and resilience. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2010;5:1067–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Anderson L, Stevens N. Associations between early experience with parents and well-being in old age. J Gerontol. 1993;48(3):109–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Baumrind D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genet Psychol Monogr. 1967;75(1):43–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Baumrind D. Current patterns of parental authority. Dev Psychol. 1971;4:1–103.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Baumrind D. Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth Soc. 1978;9:239–76.Google Scholar
  20. Schofield TJ, Conger RD, Neppl TK. Positive parenting, beliefs about parental efficacy, and active coping: three sources of intergenerational resilience. J Fam Psychol. 2014;28(6):973–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Steinberg L. We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. J Res Adolesc. 2001;11(1):1–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Chao RK. Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Dev. 1994;65(4):1111–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Chao RK. Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Dev. 2001;72(6):1832–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Shixiu S, Fang F, Zheng Y, Zhu Q, Shijian C, Lu Z, et al. Mediating effect of resilience between parenting styles and PTSD symptoms in adolescents. Chinese J Clin Psychol. 2012;4(20):502–5.Google Scholar
  25. Zhang K, Zhang BN, Wu J. The structural equation model of resilience, received social support and depression in old adults. Chin J Gerontol. 2013;7(33):3383–5.Google Scholar
  26. Rothrauff TC, Cooney TM, An JS. Remembered parenting styles and adjustment in middle and late adulthood. J Gerontol Soc Sci. 2009;64B(1):137–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Lim HA, Mahendran R, Lei F, Kayanoth RK, Wong JCM, Kua EH. Intergenerational transmission of parenting styles in elderly Chinese living in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2014;43:17–8.Google Scholar
  28. Yu X, Jianxin Z. Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with Chinese people. Soc Behav Personal. 2007;35(1):19–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Guo Nianfeng. Psychological consultant. Minorities Press,2005; 194–198.Google Scholar
  30. Zung W. A self-rating depression scale. Arch Gen Psychiat. 1965;12:63–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Zung W. A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics. 1971;12(6):371–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhonglin W, Lei C, Kit-Tai H, Hongyun L. Testing and application of the mediating effects. Acta Psychol Sin. 2004;36(5):614–20.Google Scholar
  33. Edward KL. Resilience: a protector from depression. JAPNA. 2005;11:241–3.Google Scholar
  34. Smith PR. Resilience: resistance factor for depressive symptom. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2009;16:829–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Harris PB. Another wrinkle in the debate about successful aging: the undervalued concept of resilience and the lived experience of dementia. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2008;67(1):43–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ritter EN. Parenting styles: their impact on the development of adolescent resiliency. Doctoral dissertation. Capella University. AAT. 2005; 3161747.Google Scholar
  37. Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. Social cohesion and belonging predict the well-being of community-dwelling older people. BMC Geriatrics. 2015;15:30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu DX, Feng L, Yao SQ, Tian XF, Mahendran R, Kua EH. The early dementia prevention programme in Singapore. Lancet Psychiatry, 2014;1(1):9–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement