'r...u.....n-.

'VM-

 

 

 

 

 

I

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 

  

THESIS

l \_.

,‘\:

ac~vy

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
EVERYDAY RESILIENCE IN JAPANESE YOUTH:
INDIVIDUAL AND ECOLOGICAL
PROTECTIVE FACTORS AND RISK FACTORS
presented by

Julie Anne Laser Haddow

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Family & Child Ecology

I Major professor

Date /'//‘4”(L3/; £003

MSU i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

UBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

I ATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

; 1: ~
u' .i" LUV.)

 

Ann!”
N

In ﬂ
In. F :i {3 I
L:-9

 

, ﬁmﬁﬁwﬁ

U1

 

QCI _2 0 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRClDateDue.p65-p.15

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
EVERYDAY RESILIENCE IN JAPANESE YOUTH:
INDIVIDUAL AND ECOLOGICAL
PROTECTIVE FACTORS AND RISK FACTORS
presented by

Julie Anne Laser Haddow

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Family & Child Ecology

% _ [41' 24

Major professor

Date [44/54 34 £003

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-1277 1

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

BATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

11111 A
.Lﬁvlyj

”iv: \
Jl‘lti U L‘JVJ

 

 

 
   

6 AAA!-
' "i

, ﬁdiﬁw
0H 42 0 2085

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/Dateouepss-pJS

———-—‘ a “—_,_

EVERYDAY RESILIENCE IN JAPANESE YOUTH:
INDIVIDUAL AND ECOLOGICAL PROTECTIVE FACTORS AND RISK FACTORS
By

Julie Anne Laser Haddow

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2003

ABSTRACT

EVERYDAY RESILIENCE IN JAPANESE YOUTH:
INDIVIDUAL AND ECOLOGICAL PROTECTIVE FACTORS AND RISK FACTORS
By

Julie Anne Laser Haddow

This dissertation investigated if the protective factors that have been
theorized in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand as positive inﬂuences to
developmental adaptations in the face of risk are similar to the protective factors found in
Japan. Furthermore, risks that have been identiﬁed as particularly deleterious to Western
populations were assessed to determine if they were present in Japan and had a similar
negative impact on adolescent development. In addition, risks that had been viewed as a
particular concern in the Japanese popular press were also measured. An ecological
framework was used to assess the protective and risk factors. Finally, this study
examined the relationship between both protective factors and risk factors and six
outcome variables: internalizing behavior, delinquency, drug use, alcohol use, tobacco
use, and sexual behavior. Data were collected from 802 post-secondary students, in
Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan. Fourteen of the twenty-six protective factors investigated
were found to be predictive in the Japanese sample in at least one regression equation.
Furthermore, twenty-four of the twenty-ﬁve investigated risk factors were found to be

harmful to Japanese youth.

COPyﬁght by
Julie Anne Laser Haddow
2003

To Ariana, Orion, and Alan

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It has been said that it takes a village to raise a child. An analogous sentiment that
is equally cogent is that it takes a large support network to write a dissertation. There
have been many individuals that have guided my learning, given me insight, helped me to
grow, and showed great friendship, kindness, and support.

First of all I would like to thank my family for supporting me through the doctoral
process. I thank Ariana, Orion, Alan, and Bonita for their love, support, tolerance, and
good humor. I also wish to thank my parents, Carlyn and Bill Laser and my in-laws,
Margaret and Dr. Gilles Haddow for their support of me.

My committee was really wonderful and each brought different strengths and
insights to the dissertation process. I wish to thank Dr. Tom Luster for mentoring me
through the research process, and teaching me the art of research writing. I also wish to
thank Dr. Carl Taylor for bringing perspectives of the “grit” of the real world to the
research and for his forthright conversations. Likewise, I would like to thank Dr. Robert
Griffore for mentoring me through academic pedagogy and for his research and
theoretical expertise. I also wish to thank Dr. Robert Boger for his understandings of
social support and research, and his dedication to mentoring future academics.

The dissertation could not have been completed without the assistance of Toko
Oshio whose insights into Japanese social practices, translation skills, and valuable
contacts were crucial. It is through Oshio-san that academic and professional links were
forged. I would like to thank her and the Japanese team who included: Dr. Yasuo
Tanaka, Shinichi Ninomiya, Hidemi Shinbo, Narumi Tsukui, Dr. Murohashi Harumitsu,
Dr. Satoshi Miura, Dr. Norihiro Ito, Teruko Ikehata, Reiko Morimura, Dr. Akio Ishimoto,
Yoshimi Akino, Dr. Kazuo Suzuki, and Aoi Tamura. Furthermore, I would also like to
thank the Yasuda Foundation for the research grant.

I would also like to thank Dr. Anne Soderman, Dr. Barabara Ames, Dr. Joanne
Keith, and Dr. Donna Neumark for their insights, friendship, and support.

I also wish to acknowldege many friends who improved the quality of my life
through the dissertation process. I want to thank my triathalon buddies for their ongoing
encouragement, friendship, and ability to solve the world’s problems over the course of a
10k run: Betty Babs Johnson, Shelley Cichy, Janet Chappel, and Dr. Antje Joslin. I also
wish to thank Kathy Helma for her support and great kindness to my children. I want to
acknowledge Brandi Johnson for her kinesthetic knowledge and humor. I also wish to
thank Heather Lewis, co-founder of POPP, for her ability to dream and to persevere. I
also want to thank Father Bill Lugger for his spiritual guidance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................. xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ........................................................ 4
Conceptual Framework ..................................................... 4
Research Questions ......................................................... 5
Conceptual and Operational Deﬁnitions ................................. 6
Assumptions .................................................................. 10
Signiﬁcance of the Research .............................................. 10

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITRATURE ........................................................ 12
Overview of Resilience .................................................... 12
Protective Factors ........................................................... 17
Risk Factors .................................................................. 44

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................. 56
Sample ........................................................................ 56
Research Design ............................................................ 57
Independent and Dependent Variables ................................... 57
Instrumentation .............................................................. 59
Subscales ..................................................................... 6O
Reliability Analysis ......................................................... 74

vi

Data Collection Procedures ................................................ 77

Data Analysis ................................................................ 77

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS ................................................. 79
Sample ........................................................................ 79
Demographic Information ................................................. 80
Bivariate Analysis ........................................................... 83
Multivariate Regression Analysis ......................................... 96
Using the Data to Answer the Research Questions ..................... 97

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ......................................................................... 140
Summary Conclusions ...................................................... 140
Cultural Interpretation of the Findings ................................... 146
Instrument Development ................................................... 154
Limitations of the Research ................................................ 157
Directions for Future Research ............................................ 158

APPENDIX A

Haddow Ecological Protective Factors for Young Adults (HEPF YA) ....... 161

APPENDIX B

Life Events Survey of Japanese Youth (LESJY) ................................. 169

APPENDIX C

Demographic Information ........................................................... 175

APPENDIX D

Consent Form ........................................................................ 177

APPENDIX E

Tracking lnforrnation ................................................................ 178

vii

APPENDIX F

UCHRIS Approval .................................................................. 179
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References ............................................................................. 1 81

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Internal Consistency of Protective Factor Variables Using Cronbach’s Alpha...75
Table 2 Internal Consistency of Risk Factor Variables Using Cronbach’s Alpha. . . . . . 76

Table 3 Internal Consistency of Outcome Factor Variables Using Cronbach’s Alpha... 76

Table 4 Respondents Academic Afﬁliations ................................................... 81
Table 5A Pearson Correlation Matrix of Protective Factors ................................. 85
Table 5B Pearson Correlation Matrix of Protective Factors ................................. 86
Table 5C Pearson Correlation Matrix of Protective Factors ................................. 87
Table 5D Pearson Correlation Matrix of Protective Factors ................................. 88
Table 6A Pearson Correlation Matrix of Risk Factors ........................................ 89
Table 6B Pearson Correlation Matrix of Risk Factors ........................................ 90
Table 6C Pearson Correlation Matrix of Risk Factors ........................................ 91

Table 6D Pearson Correlation Matrix of Risk Factors ........................................ 92
Table 7 Pearson Correlation Matrix of Outcome Variables .................................. 93
Table 8 Pearson Correlations Between Protective Factors and Outcome Variables ...... 94
Table 9 Pearson Correlations Between Risk Factors and Outcome Variables ............. 95
Table 10 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Intemalizing Behavior ........................ 114

Table 11 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Delinquency .................................... 115
Table 12 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Drug Use ....................................... 116
Table 13 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Alcohol Use .................................... 117
Table 14 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Tobacco Use .................................... 118
Table 15 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Age of Sexual Activity ........................ 1 l9

ix

Table 16 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Intercourse Age ................................ 120

Table 17 Risk Factor Coefficients for Intemalizing Behavior ............................... 121
Table 18 Risk Factor Coefﬁcients for Delinquency .......................................... 122
Table 19 Risk Factor Coefﬁcients for Drug Use .............................................. 123
Table 20 Risk Factor Coefﬁcients for Alcohol Use ........................................... 124
Table 21 Risk Factor Coefﬁcients for Tobacco Use ........................................... 125
Table 22 Risk Factor Coefﬁcients for Sexual Activity ....................................... 126
Table 23 Risk Factor Coefﬁcients for Intercourse Age ....................................... 127

Table 24 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Related to Intemalizing Behavior. . ...128

Table 25 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Related to Delinquency ................. 129
Table 26 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Related to Drug Use ..................... 130
Table 27 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Related to Alcohol Use ................. 131
Table 28 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Related to Tobacco Use ................ 132
Table 29 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Related to Sexual Activity ............. 133
Table 30 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Related to Intercourse Age ............ 134

Table 31 Protective and Risk Factors that Relate to Outcome by Full, Female and Male
Sample .............................................................................................. 135

Table 32 Best Fitting Regression Equations for Each Variable by Full Sample and
Gender using Unstandardized Coefﬁcients .................................................... 137

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Resilience .................................... 2

xi

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

This dissertation centers on the protective and risk factors that contribute to
individual differences in youth. Historically, research focused primarily on issues of risk
and vulnerability. Risk factors were researched in much of the same way as is done in
the ﬁeld of epidemiology, cataloging conditions or variables that either compromised
health or social functioning for the developing individual (Jessor, Van Den Bos,
Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995). Many investigators created lists of risks factors and
then quantiﬁed the number of risks for any given individual or subset of the population.
The individual's composite number of risk factors indicated the likelihood of the
individual's attainment of a negative outcome. An abbreviated list of these risk factors
included: a history of physical or sexual abuse, marital discord, parental depression, lack
of parent-child relationship, and living in an unsafe neighborhood (Butler, 1997;
Garmezy, 1993; McMillan & Reed, 1994; Rutter, 1987; Seilhamer & Jacob, 1990;
Werner, 1989; Werner, 1985). Regardless of the myriad of risks that were found to
reduce positive developmental outcomes, the risk research was unable to explain the
small but signiﬁcant group of individuals that still ﬂourished under the yoke of these risk
factors. Continuing to look at risks did not shed light into why these individuals were
successful; it only made their ability to cope with risks more perplexing.

By focusing on individual and environmental protective factors, a shiﬁ in the ﬁeld

was made, and the subject of resilience was created. Rutter (1987) explains "not only has

there been a shiﬁ in focus from vulnerability to resilience, but also from risk variables to
the process of negotiating risks situations" (p.316). This shift allowed the investigator to
view resiliency as one of the outcomes that could result from stressful life events. It also
facilitated the study of the process of resiliency and not solely risks that increased
vulnerability.

The concept of stress to the individual is also important to resilience. “Resilience
refers to a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of
signiﬁcant adversity. Implicit to this notion are two critical conditions: (1) exposure to
signiﬁcant threat or severe adversity, and (2) the achievement of positive adapt ion
despite major assaults on the developmental process” (Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker, 2000,

p.543)

 

 

 

Protective Factors Resilience

\ /'

Individual

Risk Factors / ‘A
Vulnerability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig.1 Conceptual Model of Resilience

 

 

 

In ﬁgure 1, the individual is both the recipient of protective factors and risk
factors. These protective and risk factors may be internal or developmental
characteristics or may be in the individual’s environment. There are two possible

outcomes: resilience or vulnerability.

Current research has concentrated on assessing protective and risk factors that can
either promote or deter normal growth and development. There have been a large
number of scholars who have added a great deal to the ﬁeld of resilience. Among the
noteworthy resilience researchers are Werner (1994, 1989a, 1989b, 1986, 1985) and
Smith (Werner and Smith, 2001, 1998, 1992) who continue to conduct longitudinal
research that began in Hawaii in 1955. Werner and Smith’s ability to track this cohort,
that began with careful scrutiny of prenatal and birth records and then periodic interviews
and testing that continues into mid-life, has offered considerable insight into the subject
of resilience.

Through the work of Werner and Smith, and the contributions of many other
scholars, a large body of information has been gained regarding protective factors that the
individual may possess or factors that are present in the developing person’s environment
that promote healthy development. Researchers from the United States, Europe,
Australia, and New Zealand have identiﬁed similar protective factors in different
populations. However, neither the subject of resiliency nor protective and risk factors has
been investigated in Japan.

The Japanese are perceived as a very resilient people in their ability to revive their
nation into a world power after being decimated at the close of the Second World War.
Many researchers have investigated the educational systems, business practices,
advanced technology, and mechanized industrialization that gives Japan so much
notoriety. Within Japanese culture, there is high regard for individuals who persevere

through difﬁcult experiences. It is considered very noble to bear hardships with dignity.

However, there has been no systematic investigation of the individual and environmental
protective factors that have undergirded such a seemingly resilient people.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether or not the protective factors
that have been posited by researchers in North America, Europe, Australia, and New
Zealand as positive inﬂuences on adolescent developmental outcomes in the face of risk
are similar to the protective factors found in Japan. This investigation focuses on
whether these occidental protective factors identiﬁed in western studies exist in Japan,
and if they similarly have a positive effect on adolescent development. Furthermore,
risks that have been identiﬁed as particularly deleterious to Western populations are also
assessed to determine if they are present in Japan and have a similar negative impact on
adolescent development. In addition, risks that have been viewed as a particular concern
in Japan are also measured. Finally, this study examines the relation between both
protective factors and risk factors and six outcome variables: internalizing behavior,
delinquency, drug use, alcohol use, tobacco use, and sexual behavior.

Conceptual Framework

The research was guided by an ecological framework to evaluate the protective
factors and risk factors. An ecological orientation proposes that development is
inﬂuenced by characteristics of the individual interacting with characteristics of the
environment over time (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). The developing person continually
interacts with her environment and her environment continually interacts with her
(Barrows, 1995; Griffore & Phenice, 2001). Furthermore, this interaction is always

affected by the passage of time. Bronfenbrenner (1979) speaks of the developing person

“as a growing dynamic entity that progressively moves into and restructures the milieu in
which it resides” (p.21). There is a constant and reciprocal interplay between the person
and the environment throughout the life span (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, 1986, 1979).
Furthermore, the individual develops in a number of different contexts. The initial
structure where development occurs is called the microsystem. The microsystem has
been deﬁned “as a pattern of activities, roles and interpersonal relations experienced by
the developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical and material
features and containing other persons with distinctive characteristics of temperament,
personality, and systems of belief” (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p.227). The initial
microsystem that the child inhabits is the home where the primary interaction is most
often between the mother and the child. As the child grows, she develops in many other
rrricrosystems: the school, the neighborhood, and the peer network. In this research, the
protective factors in the microsystem of the family, the school, the neighborhood, and the
peer network are investigated. Likewise, the risk factors in the microsystem of the
family, the school, the neighborhood, and the peer network are investigated.
Research Questions
1. Do the protective factors that have been shown to be important to the
development of North American, European, New Zealand, and Australian youth
positively impact the development of Japanese youth?
A. To what extent are “Western” protective factors present in the lives of
Japanese youth?
B. Which of these western protective factors are particularly important for

predicting behavioral outcomes among Japanese youth?

2. Do the risk factors that have been shown to negatively impact the development
of North American, European, New Zealand, and Australian youth predict
behavioral outcomes among Japanese youth?
A. To what extent are the previously explored “western” risk factors present
in the lives of Japanese youth?
B. How prevalent are the risk factors that have been identiﬁed as a concern
by the Japanese, among Japanese youth?
3. Are there signiﬁcant relationships between the protective and risk factors
assessed and internalizing behavior among Japanese youth?
4. Are there signiﬁcant relationships between the protective and risk factors
assessed and delinquency among Japanese youth?
5. Are there signiﬁcant relationships between the protective and risk factors
assessed and drug, alcohol and tobacco use among Japanese youth?
6. Are there signiﬁcant relationships between the protective and risk factors
assessed and involvement in sexual activity among Japanese youth?
Conceptual and Operational Deﬁnitions
In this section, conceptual and operational deﬁnitions for key terms used in the
research are presented.
Protective Factors
Protective factors are individual characteristics and environmental inﬂuences that
exert a positive inﬂuence on the development of the individual particularly among

individuals exposed to signiﬁcant risk factors. For this study, the Haddow Ecological

Protective Factors for Young Adults (HEPF YA), was used to assess both individual and
environmental protective factors (See Appendix A).
Individual Protective Factors

Individual protective factors are personal strengths in the social, emotional,
cognitive, physical or moral domains that promote positive developmental outcomes.
The HEPFYA (see Appendix A) was used to assess the following factors: autonomy,
self-efﬁcacy, the creation of a personal myth, optimism, sense of humor, easy
temperament, physical beauty, moral development, mental ﬂexibility, emotional
intelligence, spirituality, and the ability to perceive social support.
Environmental Protective Factors

Environmental protective factors are the aspects of the people and the
environments in which the developing person spends time that are believed to promote
positive development among youth exposed to risk factors. The protective factors in the
peer microsystem, neighborhood rrricrosystem, school microsystem and family
microsystem were assessed with the HEPF YA (see Appendix A). This included the
following variables: partner relationship, social network, supportive friends, sense of
community, collective efficacy, social capital, a sense of school belonging, a relationship
with a school mentor, a sense of family belonging, a strong parental marriage, parents
who impart values to their offspring, familial economic stability, paternal relationship,
and maternal relationship.

Risk Factors
Risk factors are aspects of the environment or the person that are associated with

problem outcomes in individuals. Risk factors were assessed using the Life Events

Survey for Japanese Youth (LESJ Y) (See Appendix B) and the Demographic Information
(See appendix C). Examples of risk factors measured in this study include: history of
physical illness, feelings of being undervalued due to gender, history of physical abuse,
history of sexual abuse, confusion over sexual orientation, alcohol use, living in an unsafe
neighborhood, being bullied at school, parental depression, witnessing domestic violence,
personality differences with parents, parents who lack social support, parents who use
alcohol, parents who are not aware of youth’s activities, parents who are not available to
the youth, parental favoritism of a sibling, increased frequency of moving, and living in a
home that is too small.
Japanese Risk Factors

These risk factors have been identiﬁed in the Japanese popular press as topics of
social concern. These risk factors include involvement in Enjo Kosai (school girl
prostitution), having a mother who is involved in Terekura (telephone sex), having a
father who frequents Fuzoku (brothels), and gambling. These Japanese risks are often
sensationalized in Japanese newspapers; however, there are virtually no scientiﬁc studies
of these social problems. The Japanese risk factors were measured by the LESJY (See
Appendix B).
Media Inﬂuences

Media inﬂuences are macrosystemic inﬂuences that may be associated with
problem outcomes in individuals. They include involvement in Hip Hop culture and
increased television viewing of sex and violence. The media inﬂuences were assessed by

the LESJY (See Appendix B).

Outcomes

Intemalizing Behavior

Intemalizing behavior involves feeling of sadness, loneliness, suicidal ideation
and self-dislike. These problems may not be apparent to anyone but the individual who
experiences them, in contrast to externalizing problems. Intemalizing behavior was
measured by the LESJY (See Appendix B).
Delinquency

Delinquency outcomes include involvement with street gangs, the Japanese maﬁa
“Yakuza”, larceny, youth center placement or police involvement. Delinquency was
measured by the LESJ Y (See Appendix B).
Drug use, alcohol use and tobacco use

Drug, alcohol and tobacco use refers to the frequency that the individual
consumes each substance. Alcohol use is the frequency of drinking beer, wine, sake or
liquor. Drug use is measured by the frequency of using street drugs and prescription
drugs for non-prescription use. Tobacco use is assessed by the frequency of smoking
cigarettes. Drug, alcohol and tobacco use were measured by the LESJ Y (See Appendix
B).
Sexual Activity

Sexual activity refers to the number of sexual partners, age of ﬁrst oral sex, and
age of ﬁrst sexual intercourse. Sexual activity was measured by the LESJY (See
Appendix B).

Resilience

Resilience is the process of positive developmental adaptation in the face of risk
or stress. In this study, resilience refers to the absence of problem behaviors among
youth exposed to signiﬁcant risk factors. An assessment of resilience is based on
variables assessed in the HEPF YA (see Appendix A) and LESJY (See Appendix B).

Assumptions
1. The Japanese youth will be forthright when answering the
questions.
2. It is possible to explore Japanese resiliency using measures that
were based on western literature and research.
Signiﬁcance of the Research

Resiliency is an extremely important area of study. The ability to better
understand the protective mechanism at work that aid in resilient outcomes is
fundamental to improving functioning for all humans. F urthennore, the knowledge that
has been gained thus far on the subject of resilience may be beneﬁcial to better
understand the people of Japan. Likewise, the aspects of resilience that are particular to
Japan will be of interest both to the Japanese and to researchers and practitioners in other
parts of the world. The investigation of resiliency in Japan has never been undertaken;
this study represents an initial exploration into the protective and risk factors that are at
work in that culture. Furthermore, Japanese social science research is still in its infancy
due to insufﬁcient funding and limited knowledge of social science research methods.
Therefore, this study would also give the people of Japan some insight into the feelings

and the thoughts of their youth.

10

Overview of the Dissertation
In Chapter II, a review of literature on the subjects of resiliency, protective factors
and risk factors is discussed. In Chapter III, the research methodology is discussed,
which includes information about the sample, instrumentation, data collection procedures
and data analysis. The results of the analysis are discussed in Chapter IV. Finally,
Chapter V includes a discussion of the results, the limitations of this study and directions

for future research.

11

Chapter 11

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter begins with an overall review of the resilience literature. It then
proceeds to discuss protective and risk factors that are found in the research that have
been incorporated in either the HEPFYA protective factors instrument, the LESJY risk
factors instrument, or the demographic information questionnaire.

Overview of Resilience

Werner and Smith (1992), who have been aforementioned as some of the great
pioneers in the study of resilience, deﬁne the concept of resilience as, "Resilience and
protective factors are the positive counterparts to both vulnerability, which denotes an
individual's susceptibility to a disorder, and risk factors, which are biological or
psychosocial hazards that increase the likelihood of a negative developmental outcome in
a group of people" (p.3). Other resilience researchers have similar deﬁnitions; but each
adds a slightly different focus to better illuminate and conceptualize the subject.

Rutter (1989, 1987), who also has a long and signiﬁcant scholarship of resilience,
believes that resilience is a dynamic process that allows an individual to adapt to a
particular given situation. Rutter (1987) states, “It requires some form of intensiﬁcation
(vulnerability) or amelioration (protection) of the reaction to a factor that in ordinary
circumstances leads to a maladaptive outcome” (p. 317). Rutter (1987) acknowledges

that certain behaviors may be adaptive for a particular situation, but may put the

12

iii

individual at greater risk in other circumstances. Therefore, a certain behavior in a
particular context may afford survival at the present, but may be deleterious for future
development.

Sameroff, another resilience expert, explains resilience as simply a matter of
weighing the risk and the protective factors. Sameroff (2000) states, “the more the risk
factors the worse the outcomes; the more protective factors, the better the outcomes”
(p.20). Sameroff also discusses the contextual inﬂuences of the parents, family,
neighborhood, and the culture to either promote or inhibit child development.

Garmezy, a resilience researcher from Minnesota, believes that the ability to
“bounce back” by the individual is central to a conceptualization of resilience. Garmezy
(1993) states that the central element of resilience “lies in the power of recovery and in
the ability to return once again to those patterns of adaptation and competence that
characterized the individual prior to the pre-stress period” (p.129). Similarly, Cicchetti,
Toth and Rogosch (2000) discuss resilience as the process of “initiating their self-righting
tendencies” (p. 409). Furthermore, Wang, Haertel and Walberg (1994) discuss the
importance of resiliency to be an active event. It is the creation of strategies and the
initiating of self-righting mechanisms that is important for understanding resiliency.

Garmezy (1985) sees three primary types of protective factors: personality
factors, the nature of the early care giving environment, and supportive others. Richters
and Martinez (1993) quote Garmezy and Masten that“ positive outcomes in the face of
multiple adversities typically are not randomly distributed; they tend to be related

systematically to positive characteristics of families, communities and children

13

themselves” (p. 611). Garmezy has a strong belief in the inﬂuence of the context of the
developing person in either improving or impeding healthy development.

To conceptualize resilience, a model was developed by Henderson and Milstein
(1996), which was adapted from the earlier work of Richardson, Neiger, Jensen and
Kumpfer (1990) that discusses four possible outcomes in response to stressful life
experiences. The ﬁrst possible outcome was called “reintegration with resiliency”; the
child had survived and gained strength from the stressful life event. Through the
experience, the child developed healthy coping mechanisms to deal with the disruption.
These healthy coping mechanisms were then in the possession of the child to use in the
future. The second possible outcome Henderson and Milstein called "homeostasis"; the
child retreated to a safe place. The life disruption was not been a strengthening life
experience, neither has it been a detrimental experience. The third possible outcome was
reintegration with loss that was termed "maladaption". The child was negatively affected
by the disruption. The child has decreased self-esteem and reduced healthy coping skill.
The ﬁnal and the most deleterious outcome was called “dysfunctional reintegration”; the
child was severely affected by the disruption.

Henderson and Milstein posit that the child’s reaction to the event and the path of
reintegration for the child is determined by the child’s individual and environmental
protective factors. In that, an increased number of protective factors will create better
outcomes for the child. Henderson and Milstein also believe that the passage of time can
be ameliorative. The strength of these protective factors can determine the child's

reaction to the disruption, as well as, how that disruption is reintegrated into the child's

l4

View. The stressors, adversities or risks are buffered by individual and environmental
protective factors.

The environment is always a contributing factor in the success or the failure of an
individual. Scarr and McCarty (1983) remark that resilient youth are active participants
in their own environment. The resilient adolescents’ ability to make the most of the
environment that they currently inhabit increases their ability to withstand the negative
effects of the environment.

Kumpfer (1999), who also considers the environmental factors as important for
resilience, created a framework that is based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory. It
begins with the ﬂow of stressors and challenges that impact the environmental context of
the microsystem of the developing individual where there are both protective and risk
factors present. The microsystem then impacts the transaction of the person with her
environment. This in turn impacts internal resiliency factors that the individual possesses
which include: cognitive, emotional, physical, spiritual, and behavioral factors. Finally,
either adaptations that create resilient reintegration or maladaptive reintegration are
created.

Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker (2000) reviewed the resiliency research literature
and found that some researchers are now specifying resilience in a particular domain and
not across all areas of the individual’s life. This allows for the investigation of success in
a particular sphere, which they delineated as educational resilience, emotional resilience,
and behavioral resilience.

Interestingly, Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker’s review of the literature also

discussed that the criteria for labeling the adaptation as resilient was determined by the

15

magnitude of the traumatic experience. Depending on the incident, resilience can be
interpreted as mere survival, maintenance of average functioning, or superior functioning.
Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker strongly urge that future researchers operationalize speciﬁc
criteria for establishing “successful adaptation” within each sample.

Furthermore, Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker (2000) posit that the perception of risk
factors for the subject may be quite different than the perception of risk for the
investigator. In that, the life circumstances the researcher deﬁnes as a risk factor may not
be interpreted as a risk factor by the subject. Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker also state that
there is a great deal of variance in daily competence for any subject. Individuals at high
risk “rarely maintain consistent positive adjustments over a long period of time” (p.551).
Resilience is not static and even the most resilient are prone to upward and downward
adaptations.

Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker also advise that the generalizability of results can
never extend past the population under investigation. The risk factors, protective factors,
the interaction of those factors, along with the context and place in history are particular
to each population. Furthermore, the importance of the social and cultural context of the
protective factors needs to be taken into account (Gore & Eckenrode, 1996). The
individual is always imbedded in a community and a cultural context that both considers
some behaviors normative and important for development while trivializes other
behaviors.

Furthermore, Yule (1992) posits that different protective factors are more salient
at different stages of development. In infancy and childhood, Yule believes that personal

characteristics are more important. These characteristics include being active,

16

affectionate, good-natured, and alert. However, in adolescence interpersonal factors
seem to be more important. It is not only the possession of these particular protective
factors that are important, but that the individual possesses these protective factors at the
stage of development when they are needed.

Protective Factors

In Frankel’s (1963) seminal work, Man ’s Search for Meaning, he concludes that
“we can predict an individual’s future only within the large frame of a statistical survey
referring to a whole group; the individual personality, however, remains essentially
unpredictable. The basis for any predictions would be represented by biological,
psychological or sociological conditions. Yet one of the main features of human
existence is the capacity to rise above such conditions and transcend them” (p.207).
Protective factors are the characteristics of the individual and the individual’s
environment that enable the individual to transcend the negative experiences.

Gore and Eckenrode (1996), who studied resilience, found that individual
protective factors helped to account for individual differences to both environmental and
biological risks. However, protective factors were often related to each other.
Furthermore, the presence of certain protective factors determined the emergence of
future protective factors (Gore & Eckenrode, 1996). Likewise, the issues of time and
timing also are important to protective factors (Gore & Eckenrode, 1996). Like Yule
(1992), they found that the age and the level of development across the domains of
development were important in the ability for the protective factor to be salient for the

individual.

17

However, there seems to be some protective factors that are particularly important
and exert a major inﬂuence in edifying the individual in times of stress and difﬁculty.
Some of these factors are internal to the individual, while other protective factors are
characteristics of the microsystems that the individual inhabits.

Internal Protective Factors

Many of the protective factors are beliefs, perceptions and traits that help the
individual to right one self during times of turmoil or difﬁculty. The following internal
protective factors are discussed in the resilience literature.

Mental Flexibility and Cognitive Ability. Greater intelligence is a protective
factor that seems to increase adaptive outcomes. Higher IQ has been correlated to greater
resilience while lower I.Q. has been correlated to greater risk (Bogenschneider, 1998;
Emery & Forehand, 1996; Farrington, 1995; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo,
1992; Garmezy, 1993; Garber and Little, 1999; Gilvarry, 2000; Hawkins, Catalano and
Miller, 1992; Kumpfer, 1999; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Rende & Plomin, 1993;
Rutter, 1999, 1989; Skuse, 1984, Werner, 1994; Werner and Smith, 2001, 1982; White,
Mofﬁtt & Silva, 1989; Yule, 1993).

However, Luther and Ziegler (1992) found that cognitive ability alone did not
predict more resilient outcomes. Young inner-city adolescents with high IQs had varied
outcomes. The interaction of internal control with I.Q. was more predictive of resilient
outcomes. Adolescents with high I.Q.s and a strong internal control were educationally
resilient, while those youth with similar I.Q. levels but weak internal control were less
educationally resilient and more likely to use their intellectual abilities in nonacademic

pursuits, with sometimes negative repercussions. Similarly, Maugham, Pickles, Hagell,

18

Rutter and Yule (1996) found that although low cognitive ability put boys at risk for
reading difﬁculties, it was not signiﬁcantly related to later offending. Interestingly, it
was poor school attendance that was predictive of later offending.

Mental ﬂexibility, which involves creativity and the ability to make novel
adaptations as the situation unfolds, has been found to be an important factor. Flexibility
and originality to solve problems are important for resilient outcomes (Garbarino,
Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Garmezy, 1996; Kumpfer, 1999; Larson, 2000; Wang,
Haertel & Walberg, 1994). Ngo and Malz (1998) found that Asian families that
emphasized the individual’s ability to be malleable to new challenges were more likely to
believe that accomplishments could be achieved through effort and persistence.

Nevertheless, Samerofl’s (2000) longitudinal study found that each risk factor
that a child experienced reduced the child’s I.Q. by 4 points (p.13). Sameroff found that
24% of the children who had experienced multiple risk factors had IQs below 85 as
compared to 0% of children who had experienced no risk factors. However, Sameroff
does not discuss whether they are most at risk because their IQ is low due to genetic or
perinatal factors or that the accumulation of environmental risk factors decreases
cognitive performance. Sameroff found that these IQ scores did not change signiﬁcantly
over time; there was a .72 correlation between intelligence scores at age 4 and age 13.

In the follow-up study of the long term effects of severe deprivation of the
Romanian orphanage children (Morrison & Ellwood, 2000), it was found that intelligence
as measured by IQ was at a lower level in the children that had been in the orphanages in
comparison to those that lived in intact families. However, it was duration of stay in the

orphanages that had a profound affect on their cognitive ability over the long-term. The

19

investigators theorized that this reduction of intelligence could be due to nutritional
deprivation, affectional absence and genetic inﬂuences.

Gender. Many researchers have found girls to be more resilient than boys (Emery
& Forehand, 1996; Kumpfer, 1999; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Werner, 1994,
1985). Similarly, Rutter (1987) and Garcia-Coll, Lamberty, Jenkins, McAdoo, Crnic,
Wasik and Garcia (1996) discuss that males are oﬁen at greater risk. Rutter (1987)
believes that families protect female offspring by less punishment directed at females,
less exposure to family discord, and closer monitoring. Interestingly, Werner (1994)
ﬁnds that boys who were resilient were often the ﬁrst-born. In contrast, Sameroff (2000)
and Fergusson and Horwood (1999) found no difference between males and females
regarding resilience.

Physical Beauty. Being attractive contributes to more resilient outcomes (Cowen,
Wyman, Work, Kim, Fagen, & Magnus, 1997; Emery & Forehand, 1996; Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998; Rutter, 1989). Similarly, Hartup (1996) found that children who were
more attractive had more friends. Likewise, Garmezy (1996) posits that attractiveness to
both peers and adults is important for resilience. Freud and Dann (1952), in their study of
children of the Holocaust, believed that the children who were more successful were
more handsome and appealing to adults and would use these traits to get their needs met.

Research has also been found that beliefs about physical attractiveness have also
affected career paths. Ngo and Malz (1998) found that Asian students who believed
themselves to be more attractive chose career paths in law, government or social sciences

where they would interact more with the public and where they would have to have

20

greater verbal skills and social skills. Those who believed themselves to be less attractive
chose professions in the hard sciences or engineering.

Easy Temperament. Easy temperament seems to increase resilient outcomes.
Chess and Thomas (1996, 1992) articulate that the style in which children perform certain
behaviors are indicative of their temperament. These styles of behavior are visible
shortly aﬁer birth and are, at least in part, innate to the individual. However, certain
styles of behavior either elicit positive or negative responses from individuals in their
environment. Chess and Thomas discuss three particular types of temperamental style:
difﬁcult, Slow to warm up, and easy. Children with a difﬁcult temperament are
characterized by negative responses to new stimuli, difﬁculty in adapting to change,
prone to tantrums, eat and sleep in irregular patterns, and can not be easily soothed.
Chess and Thomas found that children with difficult temperaments constituted 10% of
their sample. Slow to warm up children were described as being withdrawn, having a
low activity level, and a general wariness of new stimuli or changes. Chess and Thomas
have found in their study that slow to warm up children comprise 15% of their sample.
Children who possess an easy temperament are very adaptable to new situations and
changes in foods, routines and people. Children with an easy temperament are
characterized by a general cheerfulness of personality and a sunny disposition. Chess and
Thomas found that 40% of the children that they investigated were children with an easy
temperament.

Garmezy (1985, 1993) discussed temperament as one of the three determinants of
resilient outcomes. For Garmezy, having an easy temperament is fundamental for

resilient outcomes. Much research agrees that an easy temperament creates more

21

resilient outcomes (Emery & Forehand, 1996; Garcia-Coll, Lamberty, Jenkins, McAdoo,
Crnic, Wasik & Garcia, 1996; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Gilvarry,
2000; Gore & Eckenrode, 1996; Henry, Caspi, Mofﬁtt & Silva, 1996; Kumpfer, 1999;
Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; McMillan & Reed, 1994; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994;
Werner, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001). Werner (1994) stated that children who were
“cuddly, affectionate and easy to deal with” were more resilient (p. 132). Rende and
Plomin (1993) believe that an easy temperament can moderate environmental stressors.

Sense of Humor. A sense of humor is important to resilience (Emery & Forehand,
1996; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Kumpfer, 1999; Masten, 1986;
McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998; Rutter, 1987; Wang, Haertel &
Walberg, 1994). The ability to reduce tension and stress for oneself and for others is very
important for resilience. Using humor as a way of coping is an important tool. Masten
(1986) posits that humor and competence are correlated; children with a sense of humor
were viewed by their peers as more popular, gregarious, happy, possessing leadership
skills and creative ideas than those with less ability to be humorous. Similarly, teachers
reported that children with a greater sense of humor were more attentive, cooperative,
responsive and productive (Masten, 1986). A sense of humor engendered a great deal of
positive regard from both peers and adults. Wang, Haertel and Walberg (1994) found a
sense of humor helped to protect children and gain affection and support from adults in
their environment. Interestingly, a sense of humor was not correlated with disruptive or
aggressive behavior (Masten, 1986).

Spirituality. Spirituality has often been discussed as an important protective

factor. Cole (1990) has found that many children, regardless of their exposure to

22

formalized religious education or a particular religious sect, have a spiritual sense that
they turn to in times of need or loneliness. Cole (1990) discusses that many children ﬁnd
solace, companionship, direction, and strength in their relationship with God. Cole
(1990) hypothesizes that this sense of spirituality is due to children’s being on the
quintessential pilgrimage. Children are on a great journey to adulthood where they are
continually asking themselves what the future holds, what life means, and what their
purpose is. The profundity of these questions and answers naturally also develops the
spiritual self.

Similarly, Fowler (1981), in his treatise on the development of faith, believes that
humans progress through stages of faith from infancy through adulthood. Fowler
believes that faith for the adolescent “synthesizes values and information and provides a
basis for identity and outlook” (p. 172).

Spirituality has been found to be a major predictor of resilience (Bogenschneider,
1998; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa & Turbin, 1995; Kumpfer, 1999; Masten
and Coatsworth, 1998; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998; Ngo &
Malz, 1998; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Werner, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001).
Kumpfer (1999) states that spirituality gives the individual an “anchor”. Wang, Haertel
and Walberg (1994) found that a sense of spirituality gave the children a sense of hope
for the future. Werner (1994) states that, “ resilient children acquired a faith that their
lives had meaning and that they had control over their fate” (p. 132).

It is a belief in many formalized religions, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and
Islam, that the burdens or the obstacles individuals face give an opportunity for the

individual to strengthen their relationship to God. Furthermore, it is believed that God

23

gives greater protection and solace in times of more intense difficulty. This proximity to
God strengthens the individual’s resolve to endure the hardship because they feel that
they are not alone and that their suﬁ‘ering has some purpose.

Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny and Pardo (1992) found that children who were
more successful at coping with the trauma of war had a spiritual belief. Likewise, Ngo
and Malz (1998) found that many Asian-American students felt that their academic
success was due to the importance that they placed on their spiritual beliefs, regardless of
which religion, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism or Taoism, they professed.

Optimism. A sense of optimism has often been posited as an important protective
factor. Seligman (1995, 1998) and Peterson (2000) see optimism as ﬁmdamental to
positive development. Seligman (1998) believes that the individual’s explanatory style is
extremely important to how the event is perceived and remembered. Furthermore, hope
determines one’s outlook for the future. Lastly, personalization of the event determines
one’s belief that the unfolding events were fabricated by her/his own actions. For
Seligman (1995, 1998) one’s understanding of her/his explanatory style, hope and
personalization of events creates either optimistic or pessimistic expectancies about the
world and the future.

Gillharn (2000), like Seligman (1995, 1998), believes that these expectancies
about the future can predict ﬁrture behavior. Expectations that the individual has power
and can gain control lead to “persistence, coping, and resilience from depression and
physical health problems” (p. 3). Peterson and Bishop (2000) discuss that the beneﬁts of
optimism may be a universal principle, but that in some environments, the message of

hope for the future is stated in religious terms and not in the secular terms of optimism.

24

Cicchetti, Toth and Rogosch (2000) discuss that “positive future expectations for
the self are a predictor of resilient functioning in highly stressed, disadvantaged
youngsters” (p.412). Wang, Haertel and Walberg (1994) believe that resilient children
operate with an optimistic attitude and value system. Furthermore, children who have
realistic goals and are optimistic about the future are more resilient (Garber & Little,
1999; McMillan & Reed, 1994;Werner, 1994).

Myers (1990, 2000), who studies happiness, posits that happiness and optimism
are highly correlated. Myers (2000) discusses that most individuals see themselves as
very happy and believe themselves to be happier than others who are famous or wealthy.
Kumpfer (1999) agrees that optimism and happiness about the future improve mental
functioning. Buss (2000) believes that happiness is an evolutionary adaptation that it is
always sought after, even though it may be ephemeral, because it makes the species
continue to strive for happiness.

Emotional Intelligence. Emotional intelligence has been found to be a protective
factor for resilient outcomes. Goleman (1995) has coined the term “emotional
intelligence”. He discusses emotional intelligence as the “ability to motivate oneself, and
persist in the face of frustrations, to control impulses and delay gratiﬁcation, to regulate
one’s mood and keep distress from distracting one’s ability to think, and to empathize
and to hope” (p. 34). Goleman posits that the successful individual is not the most
intelligent individual, but the individual with the greatest emotional intelligence. There
are ﬁve domains of emotional intelligence that Goleman has discussed: knowing one’s
emotion, managing emotions, motivating oneself, recognizing emotions in others, and

handling relationships. Knowing one’s emotions is a kin to self-awareness. Goleman

25

sees this as the keystone to emotional intelligence. The ability to monitor one’s own
feelings allows for greater insight and self-understanding, so that better decisions are
made. Managing emotions is the ability to manage and not be undermined by unpleasant
emotions. It is also the ability to self-soothe and to quickly regain composure after
setbacks. Motivating oneself allows for greater productivity by being able to delay
gratiﬁcation, stay on task and pay attention. Recognizing emotions in others is empathy,
the ability to recognize other’s feelings and to understand others. Handling relationships
is social competence, the ability to interact effectively with others.

Masten and Coatsworth (1998) discuss many of the protective characteristics that
could also be termed emotional intelligence which include: self-regulation, self-control,
socially appropriate conduct, and sociability. These similar characteristics are discussed
as predicting resilient functioning: strong interpersonal skills, a capacity to be responsive
to others, social competence and an internal locus of control orientation (Bogenschneider,
1998; Cicchetti, Toth & Rogosch, 2000; Cowen, Wyman, Work, Kim, F agen, & Magnus,
1997; Emery & Forehand, 1996; Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992; Novick, 1998;
Rutter, 1989; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Werner, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001).

Furthermore, social competence extends to the ability to be competent in two or
more cultures (Kumpfer, 1999). Resilience is also increased, especially in women, by
having bi-gender social competence (Kumpfer, 1999; Werner, 1994). Females who can
comfortably interact with both females and males are more resilient.

Creation of a Personal Myth. The creation of a personal myth has been
hypothesized to be a protective factor. McAdams (1993) proposes that the individual’s

identity is created through one’s construction of a unique personal myth. A personal

26

myth is developed through the compilation of memories of past events, the interpretation
of present events, and perceptions about the future. It also serves as a lens by which the
individual sees the world and her place in the world. The construction of the personal
myth takes a lifetime to complete. This combined sense of purpose and future aspirations
are important protective factors (Howard, Dryden, & Johnson, 1999; Wang, Haertel &
Walberg, 1994). Likewise, Kumpfer (1999) discusses the characteristic of resilient
children to create “plausible fantasies for themselves and to develop a mission or purpose
for their lives” (p.198). Both planfulness and aspirations are important for resilient
outcomes (Garmezy, I996). The creation of a personal myth allows the individual to have
a goal to strive for and a future that holds better possibilities. Werner and Smith (2001)
deﬁne this as “achievement motivation”. Resilient teens feel that success is really in their
grasp. Werner (1990) stated, “they retain the belief, even in the face of great adversity,
that they can exert considerable control over their fate” (p.104).

As part of the personal myth, a commitment to achievement is important. Garber
and Little (1999) found that adolescents who saw themselves as committed to
achievement were more competent especially when they were under increased academic
stress. The more competent adolescents who were more committed to achievement were
not signiﬁcantly different from the decreased competent adolescents in regards to IQ or
academic ability; it was solely their belief in themselves that they would persevere that
differentiated the two groups (Garber & Little, 1999).

Fowler (1981) believes that the adolescent’s ability to create a personal myth that

incorporates both the past and future possibilities is related to the individual’s

27

development of faith. He posits that both an emerging identity and a sense of faith create
a personal myth.

Perceived Social Support. The ability to perceive that there are resources
available and individuals that can help in times of need has been posited as an important
protective factor. Social support can be support in the form of instrumental goods and
services, emotional support, informational knowledge based support, or informal
socializing (Boger & Smith, 1986; Crockenburg, 1988). The supportive relationship is
bi-directional, with the supporter and the supportee both being enriched by the
interaction. It is important that a social support structure is available to the developing
individual. Furthermore, it is fundamental for social support to be effective that the
individual is able to both perceive and use the social support that is available in her
environment (Rohrle & Sommers, 1994). If the individual is not aware of the resources
of social support available to her, or how to access them, then the resources are
meaningless.

In the extreme case of children born and orphaned in the concentration camps
during the Second World War (Freud & Dann, 1952), the children that survived the
ordeal were able to create and maintain a strong social support system for their
sustenance. Though ﬁve of the six children had no experience of a mother ﬁgure, they
were able to create a caring, equal status, devoid of group competition. Freud and Dam
(1952) comment that the children were very aware of each other’s feelings and were very
responsive.

Likewise, Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny and Pardo’s (1992) investigation of

children in war zones found that children who were most successful had a great capacity

28

for reaching out and asking others for help in their moments of need and that requests
were returned with kindness and understanding. This skill of being able to perceive and
use social support was fundamental for their survival.

In less arduous environments, Werner (1994) found that resilient children had a
large informal network of neighbors, relatives, and elders who they could turn to for
support. Werner and Smith (2001) found that social support was an important protective
factor from childhood to adulthood. Furthermore, McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson and
Thompson (1998) consider the ability to access both resources and supports is important
for resilience. McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson and Thompson (1998) believe that
these social supports include both having the ability to access friends and relatives but
also the knowledge and the ability to access community resources and to take advantage
of government policies that may beneﬁt them.

Moral Development. It has been theorized that increased moral development leads
to more resilient outcomes. Kumpfer (1999) discusses the importance of “moral energy”
in resilient children. Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vandenyn, Costa and Turbin, (1995) believe
that the “perception of strong social controls or sanctions for transgressions” is an
important protective factor (p. 924). In fact, Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa and
Turbin, (1995) found it to be the most predictive protective variable. Likewise, Brooks
and Goldstein (2001) believe that understandings of empathy, compassion and self-
discipline are ﬁtndamental to raising resilient children.

Eisenberg (1992, 2000) posits that the growth of moral behaviors comes from the
interrelationship of emotionality and the regulation of those emotions. She has

determined that the moral emotions of guilt, shame, and empathy, when they are

29

combined with either internalizing or externalizing behavior, either positively or
negatively impact moral growth. Furthermore, Lickona (1991) sees that moral
development is triadic with the components of moral knowing, moral feeling and moral
action as all being pertinent to the formation of good character.

Self-Eﬂicacy. The importance of self-efﬁcacy as a protective factor has been
discussed by many researchers (Emery & Forehand, 1996; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny
& Pardo, 1992; Garmezy, 1996; Gore & Eckenrode, 1996; Kumpfer, 1999; Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998; Maughan, 1992; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson,
1998; McMillan & Reed, 1994; Larson, 2000; Rutter, 1999b; Rutter, 1989; Rutter, 1987;
Sameroff, 2000; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001). Bandura
(1997, 1995, 1989) deﬁnes self-efﬁcacy as the individual’s belief that s/he has the
necessary capabilities to organize and execute the task at hand. Self-efﬁcacy impacts
motivation, affect and actions. Bandura (1997, 1995) explains that self-efficacy beliefs
are heightened by particular individual and environmental inﬂuences. These inﬂuences
include: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion and physiological
or emotional states. Mastery experiences are the successful past accomplishments that
are remembered in the present. Vicarious experiences are the observations of the success
or failure of a task by a person that the individual believes s/he has commensurate
strengths and weaknesses. With a visual model of the execution of the task, the
individual either increases or decreases her/his conﬁdence in being able to complete the
task. Social persuasion is the verbal cajoling of the individual that s/he does possess the
requisite skills to complete the task. Bandura (1995) remarks that social persuasion is

oﬁen more temporal and rarely effective on its own for developing self-efﬁcacy if it not

30

based on realistic expectations. The evaluation of internal physiological and emotional
states is also employed by the individual to determine self-efﬁcacy. The individual’s
interpretation of her/his strength, stamina and mood inﬂuence the outcome. Increased
self-efﬁcacy inﬂuences an individual’s perseverance, optimism, and the selection and the
construction of her/Iris environment (Bandura, 1997, 1995, 1989). Bandura underscores
his discussion of self-efﬁcacy with the belief that an individual needs some set backs and
difﬁculties to realize that success requires an ongoing effort (1997, 1995, 1989).

Conversely, Rutter (1981) hypothesizes that the individual’s inability to gain self-
efﬁcacy in her environment in the city of London has caused greater deviant behavior.
Perseverance and determination are important to self-efﬁcacy. Believing in oneself that
one is capable to ﬁnish the task at hand, even though the task may be long and arduous, is
very important for resiliency.

Self—efﬁcacy can affect individual’s perceptions of the future. Seligman (1995)
sees that optimism about the future is inﬂuenced by prior mastery experiences. Bandura
(1982), in his discussion of positive chance encounters, discusses that even though certain
life experiences and consequences are not planned or predicted, individuals contribute to
their own future success by selecting, inﬂuencing and constructing their own
circumstances. Individuals with greater self-efﬁcacy have greater ability to create a
better future for them.

Interestingly, there is some evidence that protective factors are increased with
greater self-efficacy (Gore & Eckenrode, 1996). For example, prior success at perceiving
and using social support will improve the likelihood of perceiving and using social

support in the future.

31

Autonomy. The ability to cut ties to toxic family members or ﬁiends is important
to resiliency. Rutter (1987) discusses that children who are able by their own actions to
physically or emotionally distance themselves can reduce their exposure to risk. Chess
and Thomas (1992) call the coping mechanism for reducing the harmful poomess of ﬁt,
“emotional distancing”. Emotional distancing allows the youth to become disengaged
from the negative emotionality of the parent and to focus their energy on relationships
that are more positive. Kumpfer (1999) discusses the importance of the resilient child in
separating their own value system from their parent’s value system if their parent’s value
system is destructive for the youth’s development.

Autonomy is an important protective factor (Howard, Dryden and Johnson, 1999;
Wang, Haertel and Walberg, 1994; Werner, 1994). The ability to resist negative peer
pressure seems to effect resiliency (Kumpfer, 1999; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2000).

Being autonomous is also the power of not only emotionally distancing oneself
from negative individuals in her/his environment, but also moving oneself away
emotionally from a period of time that was detrimental to growth and development.
Rubin’s (1996) personal accounts of several resilient children highlights an adolescent
named Peter who stated, “If you decide you are a victim, you can sit around feeling sorry
for yourself and blaming the world for your troubles. I haven’t got time for that, I have a
life to live” (p. 228). Being responsible for oneself is important for resiliency.

Instead of allowing the negative experiences of the past to deﬁne who they are in
the present, the ability to autonomously redeﬁne who they are now is very important. In
Moskovitz (1985), the author of the longitudinal follow-up study of children of the

Holocaust from the earlier work of Freud and Dann (1952) discussed the “Chameleon-

32

like talents” these adult child survivors possess. In most cases, these adults did not dwell
on the past experiences; they were living full productive lives. McMillan and Reed
(1994) discuss that resilient children often acknowledge past hardships, but do not blame
their current performance on those factors.

Family Microsystem Protective Characteristics

Mother’s level of education. Mother’s level of education and school success have
been positively correlated with more resilient outcomes for their offspring (N go & Malz,
1998; Werner & Smith, 2001). In a cross-cultural study, Sandefur (1998) found that
mothers who were most educated had children who had attained higher levels of
education than their peers. Of the ﬁve cultural groups Sandefur (1998) researched,
American Indian, Asian-American, African-American, Latino, and White, he found that
Asian-American mothers had the highest level of education, which helped to explain the
academic success of their children.

Family Economic Stability and Social Economic Status (SES). Greater economic
stability seems to allow for greater resilience. In Samerost (2000) Rochester
Longitudinal Study, he found the best single predictor of children’s cognitive competence
was social economic status. Furthermore, an important predictor of social-emotional
functioning was also SES (Sameroff, 2000; Gore & Eckenrode, 1996). Likewise, Masten
and Coatsworth (1998) discuss the advantage that is given to children with greater
economic status. Garcia-Coll, Lamberty, Jenkins, McAdoo, Crnic, Wasik and Garcia
(1996) posit that social class affects child and adolescent self-esteem, the transmission of
parental values to children, and child-rearing practices. The many opportunities of

leisure activities and travel that are afforded high SES children also contribute to more

33

successful outcomes. A life enriched with stimulating and varied activities increases
greater cognitive functioning, which then gives a larger repertoire of options for the
individual.

Parental Marriage. A secure relationship between parenting ﬁgures has been
shown to be an enduring protective factor for the children (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993;
Emery & Forehand, 1996; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998; Rutter,
1999, 1989; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Werner, 1986). Conversely, Rutter (1987)
found that marital discord increased the disturbance in children, especially boys. Rutter
(1987) also found martial dyads that planned for the future was more successful.

Maternal and Paternal Relationship. A close relationship to caring parent ﬁgure
creates more successful outcomes for the child (Bogenschneider, 1998; Brazelton &
Greenspan, 2000; Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993; Cicchetti, Toth, & Rogosch, 2000; Cowen,
Wyman, Work, Kim, F agen, & Magnus, 1997; Emery & Forehand, 1996; Garbarino,
Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Garcia-Coll, Lamberty, Jenkins, McAdoo, Crnic,
Wasik & Garcia, 1996; Gilvarry, 2000; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa &
Turbin, 1995; Luthar, 1999; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; McLoyd, 1998; McMillan &
Reed, 1994; Osofsky, 1999; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Skuse, 1983; Wang, Haertel
and Walberg, 1994; Werner, 1994, 1986; Werner & Smith, 2001; Yule, 1992).
Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggests that every developing person needs one individual who
will love her/him unconditionally. Sokol-Katz, Dunham and Zimmerman (1997) posit
that the relationship between a child and parent has a more important impact on the

child’s development than does family structure.

34

Werner (1986) emphasizes the importance of a close relationship in the infant’s
ﬁrst two years of life. Rutter (1999, 1989, 1987,1981) discusses the importance of a
strong attachment for the developing person. Rutter (1987) states, “The experience of
secure early attachments makes it more likely that children will grow up with feelings of
high self-esteem and self-efﬁcacy” (p. 327). Rutter continues by noting that “secure and
harmonious parent-child relationships provide a degree of protection against later risk
environments” (p. 327). Hubbs-Tait, Osofosky, Hann and Culp (1994) have found that a
strong attachment in infancy predicts fewer behavior problems in preschool. This
relationship seems to be important throughout development in childhood. In
adolescence, a strong relationship seems to ease feelings of distress for the adolescent
(O’Koon, 1997). Likewise, it has been found that adolescents who report a strong
relationship to their mothers report greater career aspirations and a greater sense of well-
being (Field, Lang, & Yando, 1995). Furthermore, Taylor, Lerner and Von Eye (2001)
found that when they compared non-gang youth to gang youth, they found that non-gang
youth rated their relationships with their parents higher and also believed that their
parents would be more supportive of them. The relationship between parent and child is
a formidable protective factor.

Furthermore, Masten (1994) found that maternal and paternal relationships that
included high quality parenting improved outcomes for children exposed to high levels or
risk. Parenting that includes warmth, structure, and high expectations improve child
outcomes (Brazelton & Greenspan, 2000; Bogenschneider, 1998; Burton & Jarrett, 2000;
Cowen, Wyman, Work, Kim, Fagen, & Magnus, 1997; Garmezy, 1996; Luster& Small,

1997; Luthar, 1999; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; McLoyd, 1998; McMillan & Reed,

35

1994; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Rutter, 1999, 1989; Skuse, 1984). Furthermore,
Youniss (1994) discussed the importance of reciprocity and mutual responsibility in
parenting adolescents. Mothers who were able to transform their communication style
into a more reciprocal discourse were most successful at having a strong relationship with
their offspring into adulthood. Cicchetti and Lynch ( 1993) reported that a child parent
relationship that involved a history of good parenting is an enduring protective factor.

Family Belonging. Families that are warm and cohesive are very important for
positive outcomes (Brooks & Goldstein, 2001; Burton &Jarrett, 2000; Emery &
Forehand, 1996; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Garber & Little, 1999;
Garmezy, 1985, 1993; Gilvarry, 2000; Luthar, 1999; McLoyd, 1998; McCubbin,
McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998; McMillan & Reed, 1994; Roth & Brooks-
Gmrn, 2000; Rutter, 1999, 1989; Shek, 1997; Werner & Smith, 2001). Furthermore, a
family does not need to necessarily be the traditional organization of mother, father and
children to create that sense of belonging. The important ingredient is the caring,
responsive adult. In a retrospective study conducted by Hjelle, Busch and Warren
(1996), it was found that young adults who had been raised in a family that was
emotionally warm, accepting and nurturing had an optimistic view of the world.
Likewise, Hubbs-Tait, Osofosky, Hann and Culp (1994) found that high self-esteem on
the part of the mothers and more successful outcomes for their children were attributed to
stable high-quality parenting practices.

In times of great adversity, the physical proximity of the parent helps buffer the
effect of the adversity in the environment. The maintenance of the family to partake in

simple routines like meal times and household tasks has been found to contribute to

36

resilient outcomes in times of stress (Burton & Jarrett, 2000; Garbarino, Dubrow,
Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Howard, Dryden & Johnson, 1999; McCubbin & McCubbin,
1988; Seilhamer & Jacob, 1990; Shek, 1997; Rutter, 1999; Werner, 1994). Furthermore
the continuation of celebrating birthdays and other important life events helps buffer the
stress that is external to the family (Howard, Dryden & Johnson, 1999; McCubbin &
McCubbin, 1988; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998). Richters and
Martinez’s (1993) found that the children’s ability to be successful at school was related
to the family’s ability to maintain a safe and stable home environment especially in areas
that had greater community. Peterson and Bishop (2000), in their work on optimism, t
found that children who were considered healthy and happy in war torn Beirut had
mothers who were healthy and happy. This ability to buffer children during the most dire
experiences is fundamental not only to their survival but to their success.

Parents Transfer Positive Values to Children. Parents who have high
expectations for their children help their children achieve greater growth (Belsky &
MacKinnon, 1994; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Masten and
Coatsworth, 1998; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998; Ngo & Malz,
1998). Furthermore, parents who have high educational expectations for their children
have more educationally resilient children (Belsky & MacKinnon, 1994; Cowen,
Wyman, Work, Kim, Fagen, & Magnus, 1997; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, I994). Ngo
and Malz (1998) and Sandefur (1998) posit that Asian-American academic success is
attributed to the parental value put on educational success and the importance of

persistence.

37

Furthermore, optimistic beliefs can be imparted from parent to child. Seligman
(1995) explains that children not only listen to parents’ explanations of events but how
the message is delivered. He found a “strong correlation between a mother’s optimism or
pessimism and her children’s, whether boys or girls” (p.102). Peterson (2000) sees that
optimism is an interpersonal characteristic as well as an individual characteristic, which
can be transferred from parent to child. Parental child expectations that are optimistic
create expectations that are optimistic (Luthar, 1999; Peterson, 2000).

Parents who have strong, enduring beliefs that they have the ability to control
their life imparts this belief in their children (Howard, Dryden & Johnson, 1999;
McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998). Ngo and Malz (1998) found that
Asian-American parental value of a strong work ethic, persistence, and delaying
gratiﬁcation helps impart the value to their offspring that through hard work they can
become successful. Furthermore, Luster and Small (1997) found that adolescents who
had parents who disapproved of teenagers having sex had fewer sexual partners.

Parents who transfer the value to their children that they are unique and distinct
from their peers improve child outcomes (Burton & Jarrett, 2000). The belief that they
are the “diamond in the rough” is especially pertinent for children experiencing multiple
risks.

Jerome Kagan (1977) also discusses the concept of values transferred by parents.
He stated, “The young child awards extraordinary wisdom to her parents. If they behave
as if she were valuable, she takes these actions as evidence of her essential goodness”

(p.40). Kagan further discusses that this impacts her sense of self, where she ﬁts into the

38

world, and peer relations. If a child believes that her parents value her, she will believe
herself to be good and capable.
School Microsystem Protective Characteristics

Sense of Belonging. A sense of belonging reduces feelings of disengagement and
alienation (Bogenschneider, 1998; Garcia-Coll, Lamberty, Jenkins, McAdoo, Crnic,
Wasik & Garcia, 1996; Maughan, 1992; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Wang, Haertel &
Walberg, 1994). Students who feel that they are connected to their teachers, classmates,
school and instructional program and school functions are better equipped to handle
adverse circumstances (McMillan & Reed, 1994; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994).
Schools that were smaller had a greater need for all to participate, which then reinforced
the sense of belonging to the school (Gump, 1981).

Teaching techniques that facilitated group cohesion also impacted resilience
(Hawkins, Catalano and Miller, 1992; Novick, 1998). O’Donnell, Hawkins, Catalano,
Abbott and Day (1995) found that children who were at high risk for academic failure
who were taught in a cooperative team learning methods were signiﬁcantly more
academically successful than children who had not been taught in this manner. The
cooperative learning style was most signiﬁcant for at risk girls.

Rutter’s (1987) research of institutionally reared girls found that “The experience
of pleasure, success, and accomplishment at school had helped the girls to acquire a sense
of their own worth and of their ability to control what happened to them” ( p. 324).
Furthermore, Rutter’s earlier work (1981) found that the use of rewards, praise and
appreciation were associated with better pupil outcomes. O’Donnell, Hawkins, Catalano,

Abbott and Day (1995) similarly found that opportunities for rewards was an important

39

factor contributing to at risk girls staying in school. Maughan (1992) found that a sense of
accomplishment at school compensated for the lack of opportunities for positive growth
in their home environment. Furthermore, Werner and Smith (2001) found that positive
attitudes about school at age 18 predicted satisfaction with interpersonal relationships at
age 40.

Seligman (1995) found that children’s success or failure at school was
“enormously inﬂuenced” by the explanatory style that teachers and coaches used with
children at school that began at an early grade level. Those students who were criticized
for effort being insufficient were less adversely inﬂuenced than those that were criticized
for ability. Seligman (1995) hypothesized that effort is a temporary issue and can be
easily remedied; however, ability is a more permanent and therefore more detrimental to
the individual if it continues over time.

Attending effective schools increased resilience (Emery & Forehand, 1996;
Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, I992; Garmezy, 1993; Hawkins, Catalano and
Miller, 1992; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa & Turbin, 1995; Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998; Maughan, 1992; Novick, 1998; Sandefur, 1998; Wang, Haertel &
Walberg, 1994). Howard, Dryden and Johnson (1999) and Maughan (1992) found that
schools that encouraged caring relationships, high expectations and opportunities for
participation had students who succeeded.

For some resilient students, the school became a home away from home (Wang,
Haertel & Walberg, 1994). If positive growth and development was not occurring in the
microsystem of the home, it could ﬂourish at the school. Some resilient students have

seen the school as an oasis or a refuge (Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994).

40

A positive atmosphere for growth is not merely limited to the ambiance of the
school. The actual physical environment of the school is also associated with improved
student outcomes (Garmezy, 1993; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994). A school that is
physically attractive and well cared for improved student’s behaviors and attainment.

School Mentor. Garmezy (1985, 1993) believes that the presence of an external
support person is fundamental to resilient outcomes. This individual can act as a parent
substitute for the adolescent. Gottlieb and Sylvestre (1994) discuss that acceptance,
sustained interaction, and a willingness to ease authority and age disparities created
strong healthy relationships between adolescents and adults. Luthar, Cicchetti and
Becker (2000), in their review of resilience research, discuss the recurring theme of the
importance of “connections with competent, pro-social adults in the wider community”
(p.545). The identiﬁcation with a competent role model is important to resilience
(Garmezy, 1996). A supportive teacher can play a major role in reducing stress (Larson,
2000; McLoyd, 1998; McMillan & Reed, 1994; Nettles & Pleck, 1996; Roth and Brooks-
Gunn, 2000; Wang, Haertel and Walberg, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001).

Howard, Dryden and Johnson (1999) reported that the most frequently
encountered individual outside of the family system that had a positive effect on a
resilient child was teachers who took a personal interest in the child. These teachers were
able to transcend their role as an academic and become a positive model for personal
identiﬁcation Howard, Dryden & Johnson, 1999). Rutter (1981), Wang, Haertel and
Walberg (1994), and McMillan and Reed, (1994) found that the models of behavior their

teachers exhibited inﬂuenced students.

41

Neighborhood Microsystem Protective Characteristics

Sense of Community. The bonds of children and adolescents to pro-social adults
in the community and community organizations are important for resilience (Brazelton &
Greenspan, 2000; Bogenschneider, 1998; Garcia-Coll, Lamberty, Jenkins, McAdoo,
Crnic, Wasik & Garcia, 1996; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Osofsky, 1999; Roth &
Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Burton and Jarrett (2000) discuss the importance of having a
“collective socialization”. This includes perceptions that each individual envisions
her/himself as a member of the community. Community membership includes both
status and responsibility for the individual.

Collective Efficacy. Collective efﬁcacy has been deﬁned by Burton and Jarrett
(2000) as the “extent to which social ties among residents facilitate the collective
monitoring of children relative to shared neighborhood norms and practices” (p.1118).
Neighborhoods that emphasize “collective efﬁcacy” are more vibrant and achieve greater
cohesion (Burton & Jarrett, 2000; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Increased collective
efﬁcacy has been found to improve outcomes. Conversely, Cicchetti, Toth and Rogosch
(2000) reported that neighborhoods with high rates of violence are associated with high
rates of physical abuse and severe neglect and low levels of cohesion.

Social Capital. Increased social capital has been linked to improved outcomes for
at-risk youth. Social support is a psycho-dynamic process, and social capital is a frequent
outcome of that process. Connections that are made through a supportive relationship
can create social capital. Individuals and groups demonstrated preferential treatment and
received beneﬁts when they had a relationship with another individual or group

(Bourdieu, 1983; Coleman, 1988; Fukuyarna, 1998, 1995; Lin, 1999; Portes, 1993, 1996;

42

Putrnan, 1995, 1994, 1993). These positive attitudes toward their relationships created
social capital. The preferential treatment and beneﬁts increased when the individual or
group had feelings of sympathy and obligation to another individual or group (Schmidt &
Robison, 1995). Opportunities, information, access, sharing, formation of organizations,
validations, expressions of caring, economic goods and services are all expressions of
social capital.

Masten (1998) states that children with higher social capital do best at school.
Roth and Brooks-Gunn, (2000) discussed the importance of community social capital for
facilitating cooperation and mutual support between members and resilient functioning.

Peer Microsystem Protective Factors

Social Network Friends, neighbors, and friends’ parents all play an important
role for the child in establishing friendships, encouragement, and increasing self-esteem
and functioning (Burton & Jarrett, 2000; Emery & Forehand, I996; Garbarino, Dubrow,
Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Garcia-Coll, Lamberty, Jenkins, McAdoo, Crnic, Wasik &
Garcia, 1996; Garmezy, 1993; Hawkins, Catalano and Miller, 1992; McMillan & Reed,
1994; Osofsky, 1999; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Werner, 1994; Werner & Smith,
2001). Werner and Smith (2001) found that an increased social network was predictive
of positive outcomes for at risk children and youth. Myers (2000), who studies
happiness, discussed the increased well-being of individuals who had larger social
networks even when there is a signiﬁcant amount of stress. Gore and Eckenrode (1996)
however, believe that a social network has little impact at buffering stress if abject

poverty, difﬁcult temperament or severe mental health is present.

43

Partner Relationship. The creation of a strong partner dyad is very important for
resilient outcomes in adolescence and adulthood. Individuals, who as children had
experienced major risks, reported that the involvement in a secure committed relationship
was an important protective factor (Higgins, 1994; Moskovitz, 1985; Quinton, Rutter &
Liddle, 1984; Werner, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001).

Supportive Friends. Social support from peers in the form of friendship has had
equivocal results in terms of predicting improved adolescent functioning. In some
studies a strong social peer network has actually decreased academic success (Fordharn &
Ogbu, 1986; Taylor, Lerner, Von Eye, 2001). Other studies, in contrast, have found that
support from friends were negatively related to distress and positively related to social
competence, self-worth and school competence (Cauce, Mason, Gonzalez, Hiraga & Liu,
1994)

Risk Factors

The connotation of risk, which was borrowed from epidemiology, is to discover
which variables increase the probability of negative outcomes for the population.
However, the mere absence of a risk does not necessarily equate to the presence of a
protective factor.

Risks do not affect all people in the same manner. Sameroff (2000) sees that
some risks affect all children in the family; however other risks only affect certain
children in the family children. Furthermore, even when the age and the stage of
development are controlled, children are not equally affected by the same risk (Gore &

Eckenrode, 1996; Sameroff, 2000).

Rutter (1987) believes that the particular risk is not as pertinent as the
accumulation of risk factors. Risks are similar to the proverbial straw that broke the
carnel’s back. Rutter (1999b) remarks that children, even in the same family, vary in
their vulnerability to risks. Rutter (1987) has found that there is generally a positively
correlated relationship between childhood behaviors and adult behaviors; however the
correlation generally is extremely low. It is only when an individual with multiple risks
in childhood is later evaluated in adulthood where there is a greater correlation. Hence, it
is the accumulation of risks over time that is more deleterious for development.

Rutter (1989) also believes that these risks act as a causal chain in which one
negative event impacts the individual so that they become more susceptible to further
risks. He describes both the school and the family microsystem as venues where the
emergence of particularly deleterious risks can then create other future risks. In the
school system he emphasizes the role of poor schooling and in the family rrricrosystem
the role of poor parenting. Both these occurrences create a variety of negative
repercussions.

Risks seem to have a cumulative effect (Bogenschneider, 1998; Werner, 1994).
Werner (1994) reports that two thirds of the children in her study with four or more risk
factors developed serious learning or behavioral problems by age 10. Similarly, Garmezy
(1993) found a relation between the number of stressors and psychiatric disorder in
children. He found that a single risk factor increased the probability of childhood
psychiatric disorder by 1%; two stressors increased the probability of mental disorder by

another 5% for a total of 6%; three stressors increased the rate by another 6% for a total

45

of 12%, and ﬁnally four or more stressors increased the probability of psychiatric
disorder by an increment of 21% for a total of 33% (Garmezy, 1993).

Risks, however, may have some beneﬁcial affects. Some level of risk may be
necessary for growth (Gore & Eckenrode, 1996). In Elder’s (1974) seminal research, he
found that some risk actually improved social independence and greater ﬁmctioning.
Bandura (1997) believes that it is only through life’s challenges that there is achievement.
Likewise, Garmezy (1993) believes that Some emotional distress does not nullify the
presence of resilient behavior. It is the awareness that the world is an imperfect place
that may in fact improve functioning.

Many risk factors have been evaluated by researchers as having a particularly
deleterious impact on development. Included are some of the risk factors that are the
most frequently cited.

Developmental Risk Factors

Gender. Rutter (1987) states that boys are at greater risk for emotional and
behavioral problems due to family instability. Trickett (1977) likewise found that boys
are more likely to be vulnerable to family maltreatment. Werner (1986) reported that
70% of the Kauai cohort that is experiencing problems is male. Emery and Forehand,
(1996) posit that boys are more at risk for negative outcomes following the divorce of
their parents than girls. However, Luthar, Cushing, Merikangas and Rounsaville (1998)
found no significant differences by gender on psychiatric functioning. In contrast, some
research has posited that adolescent girls are at greater risk for negative emotional

outcomes (Gore & Eckenrode, 1996).

46

Age. Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny and Pardo (1992) found that younger children
experiencing violence were more adversely impacted. Similarly, Nagata, Trierweiler,
and Talbot (1999) found that younger Japanese-American children interned during the
Second World War were more negatively affected by the internment.

In contrast, Luthar, Cushing, Merikangas and Rounsaville (1998) found that older
children who had been more negatively affected by their mother’s drug addiction. They
hypothesized that a longer duration of facing daily adversity had negatively impacted
their psychiatric functioning (Luthar, Cushing, Merikangas & Rounsaville, 1998). Age,
as a construct reﬂecting the duration of severe privation, has also been a signiﬁcant factor
in the Romanian orphan children’s ability to make substantial cognitive gains (O'Connor,
Rutter, Beckett, Keaveney & Kreppner, 2000).

Diﬂicult Temperament. Children with a difﬁcult temperament were more at risk
for negative outcomes (Rende & Plomin, 1993). Rutter (1999b, 1987) found that
children with difficult temperaments were more differentially targeted by parents and
were more likely scapegoated. Rutter (1999) hypothesized that the hostility and negative
feelings directed at a child, due to scapegoating because of difﬁcult temperament, may
put the child at much greater risk than living in a family that is just dysfunctional.
Furthermore, children with a difﬁcult temperament may put the family system in greater
stress, especially if it is trying to right itself (Emery & Forehand, 1996; Downey &
Coyne, 1990; Rutter, 1999b). A difficult temperament was also predictive of adolescent
deviant peer afﬁliations (F ergusson & Horwood, 1999), adolescent drug and alcohol
abuse (Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992), and later criminality (Henry, Caspi, Mofﬁtt &

Silva, 1996).

47

Similarly, Caspi, Elder, and Bern (1987) found that ill-tempered boys became ill-
tempered men, which created downward economic mobility for them. Ill-tempered girls
became women who had trouble in social relationships and predicted ill-tempered
parenting.

History of Physical Abuse. Parents who are exceedingly rigid in their discipline
put children at risk. Parents who are physically abusive to their children put their
children at risk for both physical and emotional trauma, which can have long lasting
effects (Emery & Laumann-Billings, 1998). Furthermore, parents who vacillate from
rigid, punitive discipline to laissez-faire parenting make it especially difficult for children
to understand how to respond and behave and therefore put the children at risk
(F arrington, 1995). These inconsistent parenting practices have been found to be a risk
factor (Emery & Forehand, 1996; F ergusson & Horwood, 1999; F ergusson, Horwood &
Lynskey, 1994; Garmezy, 1993; Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992; Henry, Caspi,
Moffitt & Silva, 1996; Sameroff, 1990).

Law Social Economic Status (SES). Low social economic status has been found
to be a predictor of childhood cognitive competence (Garmezy, 1993; Gore & Eckenrode,
1996; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; McLoyd, 1998; Rutter, 1987; Sameroff, 2000).
O’Donnell, Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott, and Day (1995) consider poverty a risk for
school failure. McLoyd (1998) reported that children who experience poverty in the ﬁrst
ﬁve years of their life had signiﬁcantly fewer years of total education than children
experiencing poverty during middle childhood or adolescence. Furthermore, during
summers, low SES children lost academic skills while high SES children continue to

improve academic skills while on summer vacations (McLoyd, 1998).

48

Fergusson and Horwood (1999) and Farrington (1995) posit that low SES predicts
later deviant peer afﬁliations. Sameroff (2000) posits that low SES is an umbrella
variable that affects parenting, parental attitudes, beliefs, family interactions, and access
to organizations. Garmezy (1993) stated, “Chronic poverty provides a longitudinal
account of cumulative stressors” (p. 128). These stressors begin before birth with
substandard maternal health and poor nutrition, poor medical care, and aﬁer birth with
school failure, lack of occupational choice, inadequate salaries and chronic under or
unemployment (Burton &Jarrett, 2000; Garmezy, 1993). Cicchetti, Rogosch, Lynch and
Holt (1993) found that lower social economic status increased the possibility for child
maltreatment. Hawkins, Catalano and Miller (1992) believe that extreme economic
deprivation is a risk for adolescent and adult alcohol and drug dependency. Henry,
Caspi, Mofﬁtt and Silva, 1996, found that lower SES at the birth of the child was related
to later criminality. F urtherrnore, low SES has also been associated with discrimination
(Nettles & Pleck, 1996).

Severe Illness. A child who had a severe illness as an infant or a child is at
greater risk for developmental delays and decreased school performance (Werner, 1994,
1990, 1989, 1986, 1985; Werner & Smith, 2001, 1998, 1992). Furthermore, prolonged
illness can impact the parent-child relationship.

Family Microsystem Risk Factors

Parental Depression or Mental Illness. Parental depression, mental illness or
anxiety has a negative affect on parenting which impacts children’s development.
(Downey and Coyne, 1990; Fergusson & Horwood, 1999; F ergusson, Horwood &

Lynskey, 1994; Garber and Little, 1999; Garmezy, 1993; Gore & Eckenrode, 1996;

49

Luthar, 1999; Luthar, Cushing, Merikangas & Rounsaville, 1998; Rende & Plomin, 1993;
Rutter, 1987; Sameroff, 2000). Yule (1992) found that parents, who had more difﬁculty
processing their own emotions, were less successful in helping their children cope with
adverse events. However, it has been postulated that maternal depression alone is not
predictive of negative outcomes; it is the combination of maternal depression with
negative interpersonal factors low social support, marital discord, or isolation that creates
more deleterious outcomes (Downey & Coyne, 1990; Garber & Little, 1999). Similarly,
Luthar, Cushing, Merikangas and Rounsaville (1998) found that maternal mental illness
when combined with drug addiction and high sensation seeking behavior increased the
likelihood of disruptive problems for their children.

Rutter (1987) found that parents who were depressed did not administer
punishment equitably. Therefore, the combination of parental depression and a child
with a difﬁcult temperament increased child maltreatment.

Personality Diﬂerences with Parents. Chess and Thomas (1992) and Chess and
Alexander (1987) concluded that individual differences in children and parents create
goodness or poomess of ﬁt between them. Chess and Alexander (1987) discuss that there
is a goodness of ﬁt when the expectations that the parents have for the child and the
child’s temperament, abilities and characteristics are compatible. A poomess of ﬁt
occurs when there is not the compatibility between parent and child and stress and
friction can be found. Lerner (1991) and Lerner and Lerner (1984) posit that this
goodness or poomess of ﬁt have a contextual dimension as well.

Yule (1992) found that the goodness of ﬁt between parenting style and gender

was also important for more resilient outcomes. He found that more resilient girls came

50

from families where they were not overprotected and independence was emphasized.
Resilient boys, however, came from homes where there was structure, rules, parental
monitoring and an emphasis on emotional expression.

Maternal Level of Education. Mothers with little education are a risk factor for
their children’s optimal development (Gore & Eckenrode, 1996; Werner & Smith, 2001 ).
Children who have parents who had negative school experiences were at greater risk for
school problems as well (Fergusson and Horwood, 1999; Rutter, 1987; Sameroff, 1990).
Those mothers that had poor school experiences had lower levels of self-esteem, self-
conﬁdence and self-efﬁcacy, which impact their general outlook. Furthermore, Cicchetti,
Rogosch, Lynch and Holt (1993) found that children who had been maltreated had
parents with fewer years of education than non-maltreated children.

Consequently, lack of prior maternal school success impacts her current ability to
provide for her family (Sameroff, 2000). Mothers who have minimal levels of education
are less likely to have well paid occupations. Henry, Caspi, Moffitt and Silva (1996)
found that mothers with low reading scores were correlated with their children’s later
criminality.

Parents Not Around. The lack of the parent being physically present was found to
be a risk factor. In the extreme cases, the loss of being parented may have an
intergenerational effect; Quinton, Rutter and Liddle’s longitudinal study of institutionally
raised females (1984) found that the women who were institutionally raised throughout
childhood, in adulthood were 35% more likely to experience a temporary or permanent

parenting breakdown of their own children. Furthermore, Werner and Smith (2001)

51

found a strong correlation between children who had been separated from their mother
for a signiﬁcant period and coping problems at age 40.

The lack of father ﬁgure present in the life of the child was a risk factor
(Fergusson & Horwood, 1999; Fergusson, Horwood & Lynskey, 1994; Henry, Caspi,
Moffitt & Silva, 1996; Sameroff, 2000). Additionally, children who were raised in
homes where there were constant changes in the conﬁguration of the parental unit were at
risk for later criminality (Henry, Caspi, Mofﬁtt & Silva, 1996).

Parents Not Aware. Neglectful or laissez faire parenting has been found to put
children at risk (Fanington, 1995; Fergusson, Horwood & Lynskey, 1994; Garmezy,
1993). Children who were not given basic care, or received too little supervision were at
risk for both injury and becoming involved in risky or harmful activities. Furthermore,
Rutter (1987) discussed the importance of “efficient parental monitoring of children’s
play and ﬁiendships” (p. 326). This need for parental monitoring extends throughout
adolescence. Small and Luster (1994) reported that there was a relationship between the
amount of parental monitoring of adolescents and the adolescents’ level of sexual
activity.

Severe Marital Discord. Severe marital discord had a negative effect on the
development of children (Downey & Coyne, 1990; Emery & Forehand, 1996; F arrington,
1995; F ergusson & Horwood, 1999; Fergusson, Horwood & Lynskey, 1994; Garmezy,
1993; Rutter, 1999b, 1987; Werner, 1986).

Witnessing Domestic Violence. Marital discord that included domestic violence is
particularly devastating to developing children. F antuzzo and Mohr (1999) found that

children who witnessed or heard domestic violence were more likely to have lower self-

52

esteem, aggression problems at school, depression, anxiety, phobias, bed-wetting and
insomnia.

Family Size and Sibling Spacing. A family with over four children in the family
has been found to be a risk factor (Farrington, 1995; Garmezy, 1993; Hawkins, Catalano
& Miller, 1992; Rutter, 1987; Sameroff, 1990). Closely spaced siblings of less than two
years are also a risk factor (Werner, 1986; Werner & Smith, 2001).

Home Too Small. Living in housing that is overcrowded has been found to be a
risk factor (Fanington, 1995; Fergusson & Horwood, 1999; Garmezy, 1993). The stress
of living in overcrowded housing effects family functioning. Rutter (1974) found that
children who lived in cramped inner city London tenement houses had higher rates of
deviant behavior.

Parental Drug and Alcohol Abuse. Parental drug or alcohol abuse is a risk factor
(Fergusson & Horwood, 1999; Fergusson, Horwood & Lynskey, 1994; Gore &
Eckenrode, 1996; Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992; Luthar, Cushing, Merikangas &
Rounsaville, 1998; Seilhamer & Jacob, 1990; Werner, 1986; Werner & Smith, 2001).
Parents who are abusing substances are often unable to satisfactorily perform their role as
a protective parent.

Frequency of Moving. The frequency of moving has been found to be a risk
factor. Cicchetti, Toth and Rogosch (2000) found that children who were changing
schools several times a year were more likely to be maltreated by their parents and more
likely to be isolated from peers. This sense of isolation and lack of belonging has been
found to be very deleterious for positive development.

School Microsystem Risk Factors

53

Being Bullied. Having been bullied as a child, impacts the self-esteem of the
adolescent, which may impact social interactions and optimal functioning in adults
(Cleary, 2000; Duncan, 1999; Olweus, 2001a; Olweus, 2001b). Bullying harassment by
peers has a continuing effect on the victim. Duncan (1999) reports that 46% of young
adults who were bullied as children still think about having been bullied. In addition,
Olweus (2001) found that several years after the bullying incidents, adolescents who had
been bullied in late elementary school were still being affected by higher levels of
physical and mental distress than their non-bullied peers.

In the extreme cases, negative feelings due to bullying victimization may manifest
itself in suicidal or aggressive behavior. Cleary (2000) found that “violent or suicidal
behavior occurred 1.4 to 2.6 times more frequently among victimized students as
compared to non-victimized students” (p.674). Similarly, Olweus (2001a) found that
there was a relationship between victimization and suicidal ideation.

Neighborhood Microsystem Risk Factors

Neighborhood Not Safe. Living in a neighborhood that is not safe has been found
to be a risk factor. Hawkins, Catalano and Miller (1992) found that population density,
high mobility, physical deterioration of the neighborhood, and high levels of crime put
the adolescents and young adults who live in those neighborhoods at risk for drug and
alcohol dependency. Osofsky (1999) posits that high levels of neighborhood violence
can affect children with symptoms ranging from temporary upset to post-traumatic stress
disorder.

Furthermore, living in a neighborhood that is unsafe often undermines the ability

to create neighborhood networks and social support, which has been associated with child

54

maltreatment (Cicchetti, Toth & Rogosch 2000; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo,
1992)

Each of these protective and risk factors that have been discussed may be more or
less pertinent to a particular individual in a particular situation at a particular time.

For this study, an attempt was made to measure each of the protective and risk

factors discussed in this chapter. These measures are discussed in the following chapter.

55

Chapter III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter is divided into eight sections. First information is provided about the
sample. Second, the research design is discussed, followed by information regarding the
independent and dependent variables. Fourth, the instruments are presented, followed by
a discussion of the ,subscales. The sixth section presents reliability analysis. Information
regarding data collection is discussed in the seventh section, and in the eighth section
information regarding data analysis is provided.

Sample

The sample for this study was from the Sapporo area, on the northern island of
Hokkaido, Japan. Sapporo is the ﬁfth largest city in Japan with a population of
approximately 1.79 million. The individuals who took part in the investigation ranged in
age from 18 to 22. To obtain a diverse and representative sample, students from different
types of academic institutions were surveyed. Data were collected at nine different
academic institutions. The respondents came from four four-year universities, two two-
year universities, and three vocational colleges. Further discussion of the actual sample is
presented in Chapter IV.

The total student population of the nine institutions is 27,135. It was calculated

that the sample size that was needed for this study was 655 participants to assure

56

sufﬁcient power (Fink & Kosecoff, 1998; Rea & Parker, 1997). The ﬁnal working
sample size was 802, which surpassed the needed sample size.
Research Design

This exploratory study was carried out at the particular colleges where the
students attended. The design was non-experimental. The associations among the
variables of interest were examined with data collected at one point in time. The unit of
analysis was the individual college student. The investigator collected the data.

The students who wished to participate in the study and had discussed, read and
signed the consent form were given three written measures: an instrument created to
measure protective factors (HEPF YA), a questionnaire on risks and stresses (LESJ Y),
and demographic information questionnaires. All measures were translated into Japanese
by a native speaker and then translated by another individual back into English to ensure
proper translation. More information is provided on the instruments later in the chapter.

Independent and Dependent Variables

There were 25 protective factor variables and 26 risk factor variables that
constituted the independent variables. The protective factor variables include internal
factors, peer microsystem factors, neighborhood microsystem factors, school
microsystem factors, and family microsystem factors. The internal protective factors
assessed were: autonomy, self-efﬁcacy, creation of a personal myth, optimism, sense of
humor, easy temperament, physical beauty, moral development, mental ﬂexibility,
emotional intelligence, spirituality, and perceptions of social support. The peer
microsystem protective factors assessed were: partner relationship, social network, and

supportive friends. The neighborhood microsystem protective factors investigated were:

57

sense of community, collective efﬁcacy, and social capital. The school microsystem
protective factors assessed were: sense of belonging at school, and mentor relationship.
The family microsystem protective factors assessed were: sense of family belonging,
strength of parental marriage, familial economic stability, parental values imparted,
paternal relationship, and maternal relationship.

The risk factor variables included developmental factors, neighborhood
microsystem factors, school microsystem factors, family microsystem factors and media
inﬂuences. The developmental risk factors that were assessed were: a history of physical
illness, feeling undervalued due to gender, a history of physical abuse, a history of sexual
abuse, involvement in Enjo Kosai (school girl prostitution), confusion over sexual
orientation, and alcohol use. The neighborhood microsystem risk factor of living in an
unsafe neighborhood was assessed. The school microsystem risk factor investigated was
being bullied. The family microsystem risk factors that were measured were: parental
depression, witnessing domestic violence, personality differences with parents, lack of
parental social support, parental use of alcohol, lack of parental awareness of
respondent’s activities, physical absence of parents, parental favoritism of sibling,
believing the respondent’s mother was involved in Terekura (telephone sex), believing
the respondent’s father visited F uzoku (brothels), parental gambling, frequency of
moving, and living in a home that is too small. The media risk factors assessed were
embracing Hip Hop culture, and viewing sex and violence on television.

The dependent or outcome variables were internalizing behavior, delinquency,

drug use, alcohol use, tobacco use, sexual activity and intercourse age.

58

Instrumentation
There were three instruments that were used in the investigation. They included:
The Haddow Ecological Protective F actors for Young Adults (HEPF YA)

Tire HEPFYA has 151 items with responses given in a ﬁve-point Likert scale
format. Questions are asked regarding individual protective factors, family microsystem
protective factors, school microsystem protective factors, neighborhood protective
factors, and peer microsystem factors that a college student may possess or have in her
environment. The questions are based on a careful review of the literature on protective
factors that have been linked to positive individual outcomes for at-risk youth in North
America, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia. The investigator created the HEPFYA
instrument.

The Life Events Survey for Japanese Youth (LES/IO

The LESJY has 114 items and responses are given on a ﬁve-point Likert scale.
The LESJY combines items from Stephen Small’s (2000) Teen Assessment Project
(TAP) Survey, with items found in the National Longitudinal Study (NLSY) (2000) and
items created by the investigator based on the risk literature in North America, Europe,
New Zealand, and Australia. Also included in the LESJY are items that are of particular
concern in Japan. The investigator compiled the LES] Y instrument.

Demographic Information

Basic demographic information was collected regarding the age of the
respondents, the sex of the respondents, the family organization of the respondents, and
the academic background of the respondents’ parents. The demographic information

questionnaire was developed by the investigator.

59

Subscales

All items were scored on a ﬁve-point Likert scale. A total score for each subscale
was constructed by averaging the item scores for each subscale. Cronbach’s Alpha was
calculated for each subscale. Some items were removed fro the subscales due to low
scores. Each protective factor, risk factor and outcome measure will be discussed in
greater detail in the following section.

Protective Factors Subscales
Individual Protective Factors

Autonomy. Autonomy is the ability of the individual to differentiate between her
own needs and her relational identity with others in her life. Three items were included
in this subscale: If family members are treating me poorly, I have the right to get away
from them; If friends are treating me poorly, I have the right to get away from them; and
If my boyfriend/ girlfriend is treating me poorly, I have the right to get away from
him/her. Responses ranged from strongly agree (4) to disagree strongly (0). High scores
indicated greater autonomy. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .78.

Self-Eﬂicacy. Self-efﬁcacy is the individual’s belief that she has the capacity to
complete the task at hand. Three items were included in the self-efﬁcacy subscale: When
I see others I know complete a task, I feel like I can complete the task too; If I have been
successful in the past, I am usually successful again; and If I put my mind to it I can be
successful. Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0). High scores indicated higher
levels of self-efficacy. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .63.

Creation of a Personal Myth. This subscale evaluates the existence of an internal

blueprint or script that the individual follows through life. There were three items that

60

were included in the subscale: I believe that I will have a happy life; I believe that if I
work hard I will be successful; and I believe that I can make my plans a reality.
Responses ranged from strongly agree (4) to disagree strongly (0). High scores indicated
a more substantial personal myth. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .70.

Optimism. Optimism is a hopeful outlook for the future. Three items were
included in the subscale: In uncertain times, I usually expect the best; I am always
optimistic about my future; and I believe that even when I have problems, things will turn
out OK. Responses ranged from strongly agree (4) to disagree strongly (0). High scores
indicated greater optimism. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .53.

Sense of Humor. This subscale included three items. The questions were: I am
able to make people laugh when they are feeling down or stressed; I feel that having a
sense of humor helps me out; and I can ﬁnd something to chuckle about even when
things look bleak. Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0). High scores indicated
a greater sense of humor. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .64.

Easy Temperament. Individuals with an easy temperament are adaptable to new
situations and new stimuli, and are cheerful. There were four items included in this
subscale. The questions were: I am easily distracted; It is hard for me to adapt to change;
I have a short attention span; and I am uncomfortable meeting new people. Responses
ranged from always (0) to never (4). High scores indicated easier temperaments.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .64.

Physically Beauty. Physical attractiveness is the level of comeliness the
individual possesses. This subscale included three items. They were: My ﬁiends

consider me to be attractive; 1 consider myself to be attractive; and I have received

61

positive attention because I am attractive. Responses ranged from always (4) to never
(0). High scores indicated higher levels of self-professed physical beauty. Cronbach’s
alpha was calculated at .80.

Moral Development. Moral development involves moral feeling, moral thought
and moral action. Four items constituted the moral development subscale. These items
included: I have a strong sense of shame ifI do something wrong; I think I should do
what is right even if it will make me unpopular; I consider others feelings when I make
decisions; and I feel guilty if I do not do what I know is right. Responses ranged from
always (4) to never (0). High scores indicated higher levels of moral development.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .55.

Mental Flexibility. Mental ﬂexibility is the ability to think “out of the box”. Two
items were included in the subscale. They were: I think about ideas from different points
of view; and I am open to new ideas. Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0).
High scores indicated higher levels of mental ﬂexibility. Cronbach’s alpha was
calculated at .54.

Emotional Intelligence. Emotional intelligence involves knowing one’s own
emotions, controlling one’s own emotions, recognizing the emotions in others, and
managing relationships. Five items were included in the emotional intelligence subscale.
These items were: I know my own feelings and emotions; I can wait to get what I want; I
know how to motivate myself so that I will ﬁnish what I started; I am good at
understanding how others are feeling; and I have friends of both sexes. Responses
ranged from always (4) to never (0). High scores indicated higher levels of emotional

intelligence. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .54.

62

IL1
11 '1

Spirituality. Spirituality is the belief in a higher power. There were four items in
the subscale for spirituality. They were: My spiritual beliefs help guide my decisions; I
feel like God has a plan for me; My sense of spirituality gives me hope for the future; and
I feel that with God I am not alone. Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0).

High scores indicated higher levels of spirituality. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at
.76.

Perceived Social Support. Knowing that resources are available and that there are
people that can help is to perceive social support. There were two items that were
included in this subscale: I feel that I should not ask for help from others, and I do not ask
people for help because I am afraid of being turned down. Responses ranged from
always (0) to never (4). High scores indicated higher levels of perceived social support.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .60.

Peer Microsystem

Partner Relationship. There were two items that were incorporated in this
subscale. They were: Regarding your partner, how often does she/he express affection or
love for you, and Regarding your partner, how often does she/he encourage or help you
to do things that are important to you. Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0).
High scores indicated a stronger partner relationship. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at
.89.

Social Network. Social network involves both the number of contacts to other
individuals in the respondent’s life, but also the ability to gain the help ﬁ'om these
individuals when needed. There were six items in this subscale: I know people I

can count on to help me out if I need money; I have gone to people to ask for

63

money; I know people I can go to if I need advice; I have gone to __
people for good advice in the past; I know people I can count on to listen to me
if I feel sad; and I have gone to people before when I needed to talk. How many
people do know or have you approached. The responses ranged from no one (0) to four
or more people (4). High scores indicated a larger social network. Cronbach’s alpha was
calculated at .81.

Supportive Friends. Four items were included in this subscale: I have a friend
that I can trust to give me good advice; I have no friends that really know me (recoded); I
feel that my friend(s) would do anything to help me out; and I feel that my friends are
only interested in what I can do for them (recoded). Responses ranged from strongly
agree (4) to disagree strongly (0). High Scores indicated more supportive friends.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .54.
Neighborhood Protective Factors

Sense of Community. Three items were included in the subscale: In the
neighborhood I grew up, I knew my neighbors names; Where I grew up, I visited my
neighbors to talk to them; and In my neighborhood where I grew up, I considered myself
to be part of a community. Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0). High scores
indicated a greater sense of neighborhood community. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated
at .73.

Collective Eﬂicacy. Collective efﬁcacy is the collective monitoring of the
physical neighborhood and the children that reside within the neighborhood. This
subscale included three items: People in the neighborhood where I grew up watched out

for each other; My neighborhood where I grew up was well maintained; and In my

64

neighborhood where I grew up, if someone saw me do something wrong they would tell
my parent(s). Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0). High scores indicated
higher levels of collective efficacy. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .56.

Social Capital. Social capital refers to the linkages between people to other
individuals, information or resources. There were four items in the subscale: I know
__ people that can help connect me to new groups of people; I know _ people
that can help connect me to future jobs or careers; I know __ people that can help me
make connections to important people; and I know _ people that can help me get
important information. The responses ranged from no one (0) to four or more people (4).
High scores indicated greater social capital. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .84.
School Microsystem Protective Factors

School Belonging. The subscale school belonging measures the positive
atmosphere for growth at college. There were four items in the subscale: At college, I
can forget about my problems; I have the’opportunity to share my own thoughts in
classes; I feel like I am learning things at my college that will be helpful in the future; and
The style of teaching that is presented in my classes is interesting to me. Responses
ranged from always (4) to never (0). High scores indicated a greater sense of school
belonging. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at.56.

School Mentor. There were three items that were included in the subscale: At
college, there is an instructor that I like to talk to about my studies; At college, there is an
instructor that I would like to be like when I am an adult; and At college, there is an

instructor that has taken a particular interest in me. Responses ranged ﬁ'om strongly

65

agree (4) to disagree strongly (0). High scores indicated a greater relationship with a
school mentor. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at. 74.
Family Microsystem Protective Factors

Family Belonging. Family belonging is the sense that the family unit is cohesive,
supportive, and congratulatory. There were two items that constituted the subscale: We
celebrated birthdays and holidays together as a family, and Growing up, I felt that my
parent(s) could protect me from some of the bad things happening in the world.
Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0). High scores indicated a greater sense of
belonging in the family. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .61.

Parental Marriage. This subscale assesses the strength of the parental dyad.
Two items were included in the subscale. They were: My parents (OR parent and step-
parent OR parent and signiﬁcant other) are committed to each other, and I consider that
my parents (OR parent and step-parent OR parent and signiﬁcant other) have a
vibrant/healthy relationship. Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0). High
scores indicated a stronger marital relationship. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .65.

Parental Values. Parental values is the transference of values from parent to
child. There were two items in the subscale: My parent(s) have taught me right from
wrong, and My parent(s) believe that hard work will guarantee future success. Responses
ranged from always (4) to never (0). High scores indicated that parental values were
imparted to their offspring. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .63.

Family Economic Stability. Family economic stability is the economic security
that the family is afforded. There were two items included in this subscale. They were:

My family has money to purchase things we do not need but want, and I consider my

66

family to be well off ﬁnancially. Responses ranged from always (4) to never (0). High
scores indicated higher levels of family economic stability. Cronbach’s alpha was
calculated at .69.

Paternal Relationship. Paternal relationship is the strength of the relationship
between the respondent and her/his father. Three items were included in this subscale.
They were: I think highly of my father; My father is a person I would like to be like; and
I really enjoy spending time with my father. Responses ranged from strongly agree (4) to
disagree strongly (0). High scores indicated a more positive paternal relationship.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .83.

Maternal Relationship. Maternal relationship is the strength of the relationship
between the respondent and her/his mother There were three items that comprised this
subscale. They were: I think highly of my mother; My mother is a person I would like to
be like; and I really enjoy spending time with my mother. Responses ranged from
strongly agree (4) to disagree strongly (0). High scores indicated a more positive
maternal relationship. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .77.

Risk Factors Subscales
Developmental Risk Factors

History of Sexual Abuse. There were three items in this subscale. They included:
I was touched inappropriately by a stranger (chikan) on a train or a bus; I was pressured
to have sex when I did not want to; and I was sexually abused by an adult. Responses
ranged from never (0) to four or more times (4). High scores indicated a greater

frequency of sexual abuse. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .66.

67

Enjo Kasai. Enjo Kosai is school-girl prostitution. This was a single item. The
question was: I had sex or performed sexual acts to obtain things I wanted (Enjo Kosai).
Responses ranged from never (0) to four or more times (4). High scores indicated a
greater frequency of Enjo Kosai.

Physical Illness. This was a single item. The question was: Growing up, I had a
severe physical illness. Responses ranged from never (0) to always (4). High scores
indicated a greater period of time the respondent was affected by a severe physical
illness.

Undervalued due to Gender. This was a single item: I was undervalued due to my
gender. Responses ranged from never (0) to four or more times (4). High scores
indicated greater frequency of being undervalued due to gender.

History of Physical Abuse. This subscale had three items: Growing up, I was hit
when I did poorly in school; Growing up, I was hit when I did not give my parents
respect; and Growing up, I was hit when I embarrassed my family. Responses ranged
from never (0) to always (4). High scores indicated a greater history of physical abuse.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .82.

Conﬁtsion over Sexual Orientation. This was a single item: Growing up, I was
confused about my sexual orientation. Responses ranged from never (0) to always (4).
High scores indicated more confusion over sexual orientation.

Alcohol use. This was a single item: How often have you used alcohol (beer,
wine, whiskey, sake) in the last year. Responses ranged from never (0) to daily (4). High

scores indicated greater alcohol consumption.

68

Neighborhood Microsystem Risk Factors

Neighborhood Not Safe. This subscale had ﬁve items. They were: Growing up,
my neighborhood was not safe after dark; Growing up, street gangs operated in my
neighborhood; Growing up, I knew people who were involved in street gangs; Grong
up, Yakuza (maﬁa) operated in my neighborhood; and Growing up, I knew people who
were involved in Yakuza (maﬁa). Response ranged from never (0) to always (4). High
scores indicated living in a less safe neighborhood. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at
.80.
School Microsystem Risk Factors

Bullied. This was a single item: I was bullied at school. Responses ranged from
never (0) to four or more times (4). High scores indicated a greater frequency of being
bullied in school.
Family Microsystem Risk Factors

Parental Depression. This subscale included four items. They were: Growing
up, my mom was very sad or depressed; Growing up, my dad was very sad or depressed;
Growing up, my mom was stressed out; and Growing up, my dad was stressed out.
Responses ranged from never (0) to always (4). High scores indicated greater parental
depression. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .82.

Domestic Violence Witnessed. This subscale included four items. They were: I
heard my father be verbally abusive to my mother; I saw my father hit my mother; I
heard my mother be verbally abusive to my father; and I saw my mother hit my father.
Responses ranged from never (0) to four or more times (4). High scores indicated greater

domestic violence witnessed. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .82.

69

Personality Differences with Parents. Two items comprised this subscale. They
were: I feel like my parents and I never really connected, and My parent(s) and I have
trouble finding common ground with each other. Responses ranged from always (4) to
never (0). High scores indicated greater personality differences with their parents.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .75.

Parents ’ Lack of Social Support. This subscale included four items: Growing up,
my mom had friends to help her out; Growing up, my dad had ﬁiends to help him out;
Growing up, my mom had family to help her out; and Growing up, my dad had family to
help him out. Responses ranged from never (4) to always (0). High scores indicated a
lack of parental social support. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .84.

Parents Use of Alcohol. This subscale had two items: Growing up, my mom
drank alcohol to get drunk, and Growing up, my dad drank alcohol to get drunk.
Responses ranged from never (0) to always (4). High scores indicated greater parental
alcohol consumption. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .63.

Parents Not Aware. This subscale included two items: Growing up, my mom was
not aware of what I was doing, and Growing up, my dad was not aware of what I was
doing. Responses ranged from never (0) to always (4). High scores indicated greater
parental lack of awareness of respondent’s activities. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at
.80.

Parents Not Around. In this subscale, the lack of physical presence of the parents
throughout childhood is assessed. This subscale had four items. They were: Growing up,
my dad ate dinner with me; Growing up, my mom ate dinner with me; Growing up, my

dad was at home when I went to bed; and Growing up, my mom was at home when l

70

went to bed. Responses ranged from always (0) to never (4). High scores indicated
frequent parental absence. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .84.

Parental Favoritism of Sibling. There were two items in this subscale. They
were: Growing up, my mom favored my sibling(s) over me, and Growing up, my dad
favored my sibling(s) over me. If the respondent had no siblings, they were asked to
leave the question blank. Responses ranged from never (0) to always (4). High scores
indicated greater parental favoritism of a sibling. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .85.

Believe Mom is involved in T erekura (telephone sex). There were two items in
this subscale: I believe that my mom was involved with Terekura to meet people, and I
believe that my mom was involved with Terekura to make money. Responses ranged
from never (0) to four or more times (4). High scores indicated presumed maternal
involvement in Terekura. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .88.

Believe Dad visits F uzuko (brothels). This was a single item: I believe that my
father has gone to fuzuko. Responses ranged from never (0) to four or more times (4).
High scores indicated presumed paternal involvement in Fuzuko.

Parent Gambles. There were four items included in this subscale. They were:
Growing up, my dad gambled; Growing up, my mom gambled; Growing up, my dad’s
gambling caused debts; and Growing up, my mom’s gambling caused debts. Responses
ranged from never (0) to always (4). High scores indicated greater parental gambling.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .79.

Frequency of Moving. This was a single item. The question was: Growing up my
family moved_ times. Responses ranged from never (0) to four or more times (4). High

scores indicated greater frequency of moving.

71

Home T 00 Small. This was a single item. The item was: Growing up, my home
was too small for my family. Responses ranged from never (0) to always (4). High
scores indicated more cramped living quarters.

Media Influence Risk Factors

Hip Hop Culture. Three items were included in this subscale. Items were:
Growing up, I listened to Hip hop music or watched Hip Hop videos; Growing up, I wore
Hip Hop clothes; and I consider myself to be a part of Hip Hop culture. Response ranged
from never (0) to always (4). High scores indicated greater involvement in Hip Hop
culture. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .77.

View Violence/Sex on TV. There were two items included in this subscale. They
were: Growing up, I watched sexually explicit television shows or movies, and Growing
up, I watched violent television shows or movies. Response ranged from never (0) to
always (4). High scores indicated greater viewing of sex and violence. Cronbach’s alpha
was calculated at .80.

Outcome Subscales
Intemalizing Behavior

The Intemalizing Behavior outcome subscale included seven items. They were: I
felt lonely; I did not feel like eating, my appetite was poor; I had trouble keeping my
mind on what I was doing; I felt depressed; I felt sad; I did not like myself; and I thought
about killing myself. Responses ranged from never (0) to always (4). High scores
indicated more internalizing behavior. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .84.

Delinquency

72

The Delinquency subscale included eight items. They were: I was involved with
street gangs; 1 was involved with the Yakuza (maﬁa); I shoplifted; I took money from my
parents without asking them; I vandalized public or private property; I had problems with
the police; and I spent time at a youth center (iidosodanjo). Responses ranged from never
(0) to four or more times (4). High scores indicated greater delinquent behavior.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .79.

Drug Use

The Drug Use subscale included six items. Each item asked about the
consumption of certain drugs over the last year. The items were: I use marijuana; I use
inhalants (paint thinner, lighter ﬂuid); I use prescription drugs for non-prescription
purposes; I use cocaine/crack; I use steroids; and I use ecstasy or other designer drugs.
Responses ranged from never (0) to daily (4). High scores indicated more drug use.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .92.

Alcohol Use

The Alcohol Use outcome variable was a single item. The item asked the
frequency that the respondent had used alcohol in the last year. The question was: I use
alcohol (beer, wine, whiskey, sake). Responses ranged from never (0) to daily (4). High
scores indicated greater alcohol use.

Tobacco Use

The Tobacco Use outcome variable was a single item. The item asked the
frequency that the respondent had used tobacco in the last year. The question was : I use
tobacco. Responses ranged from never (0) to daily (4). High scores indicated greater

tobacco use.

73

Intercourse Age

The Intercourse Age outcome variable is a single item. The item asked the age of
ﬁrst sexual intercourse. Responses ranged from it never occurred (0) to at thirteen years
old or younger (4). High scores indicated an earlier age at ﬁrst intercourse.
Sexual Activity

Originally, one outcome variable was considered to measure sexual behavior,
intercourse age. However, it was discovered that the combination of the item regarding
age of ﬁrst intercourse with the item regarding age of oral sex allowed a different picture
to emerge in the data analyses. Therefore, both outcomes are provided. Responses
ranged from it never occurred (0) to at thirteen years old or younger (4). High scores
indicated increased sexual activity at a younger age. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at
.80.

Reliability Analysis

As previously discussed, the intemal consistency was computed using Cronbach’s
Alpha. The subscale scores with a .5 or greater Alpha were included in the tables. To
view the Alpha coefﬁcients separately, three tables were created: the protective factor
Alpha coefﬁcients (table 1), risk factor Alpha coefﬁcients (table 2) and outcome subscale
Alpha coefﬁcients (table 3). All of these coefﬁcients were in the acceptable range;
however, some of the coefﬁcients were not as large as would be ideal. In general, the
risk factor and outcome coefficients were more robust than the protective factor
coefﬁcients. The protective factor coefﬁcients ranged from .53 to .89. The risk factor

coefﬁcients ranged from .63 to .89, and the outcome coefﬁcients ranged from .79 to .92.

74

”7*

‘17

Table 1 Internal Consistency of Protective Factor Variables Using Cronbach’s
Alpha

 

 

Internal Factors Protective Factors Alpha
Autonomy .7802
Self-Efﬁcacy .6334
Personal Myth .7026
Optimism .5265
Sense of Humor .6419
Temperament .6374
Physically Beauty .8031
Moral Development .5538
Mental Flexibility .5362
Emotional Intelligence .5384
Spirituality .7634
Perceive Social Support .6022
Peer Microsystem Protective Factors

Partner Relationship .8881
Social Network .8076
Supportive Friends .5366
Neighborhood Microsystem Protective Factors

Sense of Community .7261
Collective Efﬁcacy .5627
Social Capital .8379
School Microsystem Protective Factors

School Belonging .5643
School Mentor .7437
Family Microsystem Protective Factors

Family Belonging .6097
Parental Maniage .6487
Parental Values .6339
Family Economic Stability .6855
Paternal Relationship .8260
Maternal Relationship .7728

 

75

 

IF.

Table 2 Internal Consistency of Risk Factor Variables Using Cronbach’s Alpha

 

 

Developmental Risk Factors
Physical Illness

Undervalued due to Gender

History of Physical Abuse

History of Sexual Abuse

Enjo Kosai (school girl prostitution)
Confusion over Sexual Orientation
Alcohol use

Neighborhood Microsystem Risk Factors
Neighborhood Not Safe

School Microsystem Risk Factors
Bullied

Family Microsystem Risk Factors
Parental Depression

Domestic Violence Witnessed
Personality Difference with Parents
Parents Lack Social Support
Parents Use Alcohol

Parents Not Aware

Parents Not Around

Parental Favoritism of Sibling
Believe Mom is involved in Terekura (telephone sex)
Believe Dad visits Fuzuko (brothel)
Parent Gambles

Frequency of Moving

Home Too Small

Media Inﬂuence Risk Factors

Hip Hop Culture

View Violence/Sex on TV

single item
single item
.8242

.6640

single item
single item
single item

.8019

single item

.8226
.81 91
.745 1
.841 0
.6306
.7993
.8380
.8478
.8839
single item
.7935
single item
single item

.7687
.7999

 

Table 3 Internal Consistency of Outcome Variables Using Cronbach’s Alpha

 

 

Intemalizing Behavior
Delinquency

Drug Use

Alcohol Use

Tobacco Use

Age of Sexual Activity
Intercourse Age

.8368
.7890
.9226
single item
single item
.7949
single item

 

76

 

 

Data Collection Procedures

Faculty members from the institutions where data were being collected were
asked to announce the study to their students. Those students who were interested in
participating in the study were advised of their rights as a participant and signed the
consent form that had been approved by UCHRIS. The instruments were all self-
administered paper and pencil surveys that took approximately 45 minutes to one hour
and a half to complete. All answers were recorded on a computer bubble sheet to achieve
more efﬁcient and accurate data entry. At the completion of the questionnaire, they were
asked if they would be willing to be tracked for possible future inquiries. All respondents
were given postcards that showed scenes of Michigan State University as a “thank you”
gift. All Japanese faculty who assisted with the research were given Michigan State
University Spartan key chains.

Data Analysis

Both descriptive and inferential statistics were computed. Regression analyses
were conducted to identify the protective factors and risk factors that were predictive of
the youth’s drug, tobacco and alcohol usage, sexual activity, internalizing behavior and
delinquency. Frequencies were computed on all data for the total sample and then
separately by gender. Correlations were computed among the protective variables, risk
variables, and outcome variables; the correlations between the independent variables and
outcome variables were also computed. Regression analyses were run for each outcome
variable for the full sample and by gender. In the ﬁrst analysis, all of the protective

factors were used as predictor variables. Next, all of the risk factors were entered

77

together. Finally, protective factors and risk factors that were signiﬁcantly related to the
outcome in the preliminary regression analyses were entered together to determine the
best set of predictors for the outcome.

In the next chapter, the results of the data analysis will be discussed. In the ﬁfth
chapter, the results will be discussed from a cultural perspective; in addition limitations
of the study, implications of the research, and directions for future research are presented

in the ﬁnal chapter.

78

Chapter IV

RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS

In this chapter, the results of the data are reported. First, characteristics of the
sample population are described and then demographic data are highlighted. Then, the
bivariate analysis is reported, followed by the method of analysis used for the
multivariate regression. Finally, using the results of the multivariate regression analysis,
the data are discussed in the context of answering the research questions.

Sample

The data were collected in the summer of 2002 in the greater Sapporo area of
Hokkaido Japan. Sapporo is the ﬁfth largest city in Japan. Sapporo is a thriving urban
center surrounded by rural villages. The island of Hokkaido is the most recent area of
Japan to be populated with the arrival of the ﬁrst immigrants from central Japan
approximately 150 years ago. Before that time, the Japanese believed Hokkaido to be
uninhabitable in the winter. However, there is a small indigenous population native to
Hokkaido called the Ainu, who survive today by selling handicrafts and ﬁshing. Because
their culture is so new in comparison to central Japan, they have created many festivals
that reﬂect both the pioneer spirit of Hokkaido and the ancient customs of central Japan.
Hokkaido’s climate is similar to Michigan. It is known for its snowy winters, expansive
breathtaking mountainous areas, and large ﬁshing industry. Sapporo was host to the

Winter Olympics in 1972, a fact that still ﬁlls the inhabitants with pride.

79

The total sample size was 816. However, during one survey session 14 surveys
had been quickly completed and had been randomly answered in geometric patterns.
Upon inquiring about their speed of completion, these respondents explained that they
were keen on playing basketball together and did not want to spend the required time
ﬁlling out the questionnaires. With the invalid surveys removed, the working sample size
is 802.

Demographic Information

To obtain a diverse and representative sample of post-secondary students in the
Sapporo area, academic colleagues were asked to inquire if their colleagues who worked
at area universities and colleges would be willing to allow us to come to their campuses
to request that their students complete the surveys. Nine different post-secondary
institutions invited us to their campuses (see Table 4). Many of these institutions were
not accustomed to research being done at their campuses. Often lengthy discussions with
school administrators were held prior to meeting with faculty and students, but eventually
all the institutions consented. The institutions that agreed to our request for surveying
their students were three vocational colleges (23.9% of the total respondents), two two-
year colleges (41.8% of the total respondents) and four four-year universities (34.3% of
the total respondents). Even though we were able to obtain high levels of completed
surveys from vocational students, their institutions were often very small. Therefore,
parity between the different types of institutions was not obtained.

The nine different institutions that agreed to participate were: Hokkaido
University (a prestigious four-year university), two campuses of Hokkaido University of

Education (a four-year teacher’s university), Hokkaido Technical University (a four-year

80

science and engineering university), Hokkaido Asai Gakuen (a two-year public service

university), Hokkaido Automotive Engineering College (a two-year technical college),

Hokkaido YMCA Vocational College (a public service vocational college), Bigei Gakuen

(a women’s home economics vocational college),and Okhotsu Professional School of

Social Welfare (a public service vocational college). Most respondents (73.6%) replied

that the institution that they were attending was their ﬁrst choice. Slightly fewer of those

surveyed (66.4%) believed that their college or university was their parents’ ﬁrst choice

for them.

Table 4 Respondents Academic Afﬁliation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

University/College Type of Total Number Number Percent of
Institution of Students Surveyed Sample
Enrolled (Female/Male)

Hokkaido University 4 year 17,433 88 total 11.1
(40 F/ 48 M)

Hokkaido University 4-year 1,200 20 total 2.5
of Education-Sapporo (17 F/ 3 M)

Hokkaido University 4-year 700 53 total 6.6
of Education— (40 F/ 13 M)

Asahikawa

Hokkaido Technical 4-year 3800 113 total 14.1
University (24 F/ 89 M)

Hokkaido Asai 2-year 3000 101 total 12.7
Gakuen (67 F/ 33M)

Hokkaido Automotive 2-year 687 233 total 29.1
Engineering College (7 F/ 226 M)

Hokkaido YMCA Vocational 70 59 total 7.4
Vocational College (27 F/ 32 M)

Bigei Gakuen Vocational 180 100 total 12.5
(100 F/ 0 M)

Okhotsu Professional Vocational 65 32 total 4.0
School of Social (17 F/ 15 M)

Welfare

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

The gender of the respondents was 42.5% female and 57.5% male. There were a
greater number of male respondents due to the fact that there were fewer females enrolled
in the schools that had the larger numbers of respondents. The age of those surveyed was
from 18 to 22 years old. However, most respondents (90.6%) were between 18 and 20
years of age. The largest age group (43.4%) of respondents was 19.

Slightly over half (54.3%) of the respondents lived with their families. Less than
ten percent (9.6%) lived in dormitories with the remainder living in apartments (35.7%)
or with another family (.4%).

Nearly half (49.3%) of the respondents saw their mothers daily, though only 1.5%
saw their fathers daily. The majority of the mothers of the respondents (52.3%) highest
degree was a high school diploma. However 11.1% of mothers had post-secondary
vocational education, 26.6% had obtained a college degree and .8% of the mothers had
completed graduate work. The largest number (41.5%) of respondents’ fathers’ highest
degree was a high school diploma. However, 7% of fathers had completed post-
secondary vocational school, 34.9% had completed a college degree and 2.3% had
obtained a graduate degree.

Most respondents (92.4%) had at least one sibling. Slightly over half of the
respondents (50.9%) had only one sibling. The majority of those who had siblings
(77.6%) had always lived with their siblings throughout childhood. Over two-thirds
(70.1%) of the respondents had siblings who were within three years of their age and
10.9% had siblings within a year of their own age.

Under a tenth (7.8%) of the respondents acknowledged that their family has

received public assistance and 4.8% are currently receiving public assistance.

82

Bivariate Analysis

Pearson correlation matrices were created to determine the relationship among the
protective factors (Table 5), risk factors (Table 6), outcome variables (Table 7) and
ﬁnally between protective and outcome variables (Table 8) and risk factors and outcome
variables (Table 9). Due to the large sample size, many of the variables were
signiﬁcantly correlated with each other. Using Cohen’s (1988) interpretation of
correlational power; a correlation greater than .5 is considered large, a correlation that
ranges from .5 to .3 is considered moderate and a correlation of .3 to .1 is considered
small; most variables had a small to moderate correlation. However, there were some
notable relationships.

It was originally thought that collinearity might be a problem in the data due to
the fact that all information is from the same respondents and that some of the variables
are conceptually related to each other. However, a collinearity diagnostic was run that
showed that the variables had a high tolerance and no foreseeable problems.
Correlations Among Protective Factor Variables

Among the internal protective factors, the only large correlation was that the
respondents who had a stronger personal myth were also more optimistic (.50). Within
the peer microsystem, youth who had a larger social network also had greater social
capital (.64). Within the neighborhood microsystem, respondents who experienced a
greater sense of community also were more likely to experience collective efﬁcacy in
their neighborhood (.64). Among the family microsystem variables, youth who had a
stronger sense of family belonging were more likely to feel that their parents imparted

values to them (.55). Furthermore, youth who had a strong sense of family belonging

83

reported a stronger maternal relationship (.46). Respondents who had a stronger maternal
relationship also felt that their parents had imparted more values to them (.45).
Furthermore, youth who had a stronger maternal relationship also had a stronger paternal
relationship (.47).
Correlations Among Risk Factor Variables

Respondents who had a history of physical illness were also more likely to have a
history of physical abuse (.45). Furthermore, youth who had a history of physical illness
were more likely to express confusion over their sexual orientation (.46). Youth who had
a history of physical abuse were also more likely to communicate confusion regarding
sexual orientation (.48). Respondents who had a history of sexual abuse were also more
likely to be involved in Enjo Kosai (.54). Furthermore, youth who had a history of sexual
abuse were more likely to believe that their mothers were involved in Terekura (.56).
Respondents who had a stronger belief that the neighborhood was not safe were more
likely to embrace Hip Hop culture (.46).
Correlations Among Outcome Variables

There were no large correlations between the outcome variables with the
exception of age of sexual activity and age of sexual intercourse (.92). It was originally
planned to use two different measures of sexual activity, one that includes oral sex and
other sexual behaviors and one that only measures sexual intercourse. However, these
seem to be very similar. The removal of one of these variables was discussed, but after
analyzing the regression equations there were some subtle but very interesting differences
between these outcome variables. Therefore, both outcomes are included in subsequent

analyses.

84

£3333.

38m

852:8...

Ease:

.55.—org bacon

Go=£62v . .25. 3, o... .- Ewen—=5: a. 8.5250

icon

if .895

 

sahg‘ﬁI—‘iugaidh

85

.252

9.38.5 1:90

 

385m

Assisi . .26. 3. 2.. _. 2.85. a 532.8

bis—5.80 E382

:83..— o§~o urn-E coal—2.80 I038.— Im «3a.!

86

A3382. . .26. 3. 2. .- .533. ._ Efﬁe
33.3: ...22 s. 2.. a .533. a 8.323...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

minivan—ox
c._ oohv. ooN_. oonv. :3. :8. ooh _. ooMN. ooNN. oo _ N oonN. oocn. oo _ N. .0583:
9:28:23—
oohv. A: :2. oonN. oomv. oomn. ooz. ooVN. oot. ooNN. ooVN. :2. :2. EL
55%
359.com
oo~_. oon_. 0.. oo— _. ooON. oon—. no.1 ooo. oo— _. :2. ooN_. no. ooz. 2.5.“.
82.3
- .oumv. oouN. oo: o._ ooan. :9... :2. ooVN. oo~_. oouN. oo-n. oomN. ooNN. 3:2!—
I - oust-2
oovM. oomv. oocm. :2... A: :3. :2. ooomm. :3. ooON. oo. .N. - :2. :2. 3:3:
I. ..I: .ll ,l 3.5
ooov. oonm. - IIIohIn_. ..oomn. ooz. c._ oo2. ooON. :2 :3. oomm. oo2. ooeN. 3.3:.”—
oo:. :3. m9. :2. :2. :2. A: :3... :2. :2. oovt. 8c. :2. 5.52 Begum
.I. ill -I 9.. ll . usage—om
oonN. ooVN. o8. ooVN. ooMN. ooON. :3... A: :3. oonn. ooth. :33. :3. .60.-um
ooN~. out. :2. :2. :2. :2. :2. oonN. o.— :2. oo—N. oohN. :3. 3. .0 38m
Mudﬂacm
oo_N. ooNN. :2. :wN. ooeN. oo_m. :2. oonm. :2. A: :3. oo:. :2. 0250.25
.5555
oonN. oovN. :2. :3. :3. oonm. :2. :2. oo-N. :3. A: :2. :3. ..o 030m
n 3.8:..—
:S. :2. 8. :2. :2. :2. 8. :2. :2. :2. :2. 3 :2. 3.555
:5. :2. :2. ooNN. :2. oocN. :2. :2. :3. :2. oonN. oo—nm. ¢.— 4.53.92 38m
9.7.6330“
:2. :2. oho. oo_N. :2. :8. so. :2. oocN. ooNN. oonN. oo_N. ooNN. g
@5305
3.3.33.3. 3.3.3.3 asSBm 825 0352 2.35.8 .952 .583 336 FEM. Egan-So 88E .3382
.3332 .28.... 5...... 3:2... .26.! 2.5: .83 .83 .38 2.3.6 .323. 3885 38m

 

 

5.8.. 2.3.3.5155: 332...... .38.. 8.3.:

87

.3362. . .2... 8. o... a 2.8.5.. .. 8.323
.3362. ...25. 8. 2.. .. 3.8.5.. a 8.3.250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:25.83:
:2. ooV..- ouo. oohN. :2. oonN. :2. no. :2. oonN. ooun. :3. :2. 3:03:
min—.3371
ooN_. ooov oo_. :2. ooo. :3. co. :2. oo- _. oooN. oohN. :2. no. 3 ,
HEASW
. 359.com
oho. 0o. no. :2. :2. :2. oohN. no; oonN. ho. so. :2. No. A25...—
ﬂaw;
oo _ N. oooc ono. oonm. oohN. ooov. no. no. :2. oo _ N. :2”. ooNn. ooNN. 3.53.2
o?
ooM....-- .. u 3.- no. -ohwwlw :2. ”Howl- cowo. oho. ooZ. ooVN. oova. 3:. co. 28:31.2
- 1 «35....
oooN. moi :2. TI ooNn ooMN. oomm. :2. _o.. ooNN. oonN. ooNM. oonN. :2. 2.53...
- . -- i- 1.... - -.7 - If! .- i i -..... ---.i--..-lii:.-...-... - Ma»...
No. 3.. :2. .oon... . oog. :2. :2. no; :2. ooNN. ooVN. oo2. oom... 39.0w
- i..- u . - I: . {5.4.1.3 --. .IJT. .. .1»: . 1 .--I...I as
w - .omm...-l.. . - ooot_... I- uIluuWNI.’ . -Iohom..-lrua .oomN. ooNN. ooom. _o.. ooNn. ooON. oohN. ooNM. ooo. 39.0%
:ow.’ . ooN. .. ooo. oooN. :2. no. :2. :2. ooqN. :2. oonN. ooMN. ho. 73.7.0 .125
I . ll- . .Iloll'l. ..Il {"T u E“
ooNN. no. :2. oonN. ooNN. oonN. :2. no; :3: oooN. oo-N. ooon. :2. 2:60:90
. . £36590
ooMN. not :2. ooNn. ooVN. oooN. :2. Nov ooon. oo—N. oomN. oonn. ooo. ..o 35%
max—0t..—
oo _ N. ooNnr vo; oohN. :2. :3 . oo. ooNN. ooz. oomN. oo-M. ooI. vo. gouggm
{0382
ooNN. oo2 .. vo. oohN. oon. owo. oom_. no. oonN. :2. ooVN. ooVN. ooo. 38m
. 9:30.523—
o._ no.. ouo. .oVN. :3. ooz. :2. 0o. :2. :2. oooN. oo_N. ooo_. 85:
ﬂaw 8:5:
2.2.33.3. 38.. 882...... 3.3.5... .5938 98.. .o a... 3.9.5.
55.3.— 038qu 2:52.}; 16029—5 3:02 1.5: 393.. £81th 3.8% 525:8 Eva bow E9§=<

 

 

as... 38...: .. 5...... 1.3950 8...... an .3...

88

.3562. . .25. 3. o... .- 3858: a. 832.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3 5.2... ...25. . .. 2.. a 2.8.5.: a 8.3.2.8
3.384..
6.. Her noun. :5. :ON. on? oonN. gown. :ON. :0— :Nm. ON. ON. 33 82.—
8.- o _ :ON. .06. .06.. 8. nor 8.. no; no: no. a. NO. a9..— ﬂan—un—
3g
:uN. :ON. c.— ..2. :_N. :2 :MN. oohN. ooNN. :3. :3. oo_~. :On. pal—096m
$3355»
00:39)
:5 _. 00°. :0— o._ :2. :nm. :2. :2. I :0” 32.: :ON. .oQN. :2. 9338.8
552130
3.»..ON. .09. “ENE; :3. Q. .9. :nN :MN. :2. :3. :nm. :2. :3, =32...
owo. IMO. - § ‘ ADMIN 1 ..le ohmw.l . .O_. o._ ma. ooN_. o0?” oonN. :2. anON. :2. 3:39
03 52
:na. n.0,- :MN :3. :nN. no. 6.. comm. comm :NM. :3. 3:. :ON. ESQ—902
7|! . . I; .V I4I . . it!!! .. 5.55:0
1...me
.02.. .81.. I i .. ooh”! :2. :MN. :2. :NM. 6.. :aN, :nN. 0.”... con... :3. .95 Elna—SQ
ixmﬂow...|r . mar on“. '1 :ON. :2. :vm. :2... :3... o._ :3. :MM. oonn. :MN. so! 0.5m
33.7.
:2. nor :2. :3... .00.. nonN. oonn. comm. 3%. o._ nonN. conn. :3. 35 mo >55:
8.5 3.2....
:9... ho. ..Ov. :ON. .35. :2. 00mm. cone. oomn. ooww. c.— ..NN. com... .3 Sn:
£00 3
:aN. a. 3:. anon. :2. :ON. :a. :2. gown. comm. :NN. o._ :5. RA..— Quilting—D
.03. NO. :2... :2 . :NN. :2. osoN. :9. :MN. cumN. :nv. not. a... 38:. Enhf.
toga §n< as;
.282 1.8.». ace: 5.; 385.3 8.35.6 .35» 3...... :36
on: sun‘— uB—P—oba ous23> 623295 Gum .02 Exam .90 an ..o S 0:0 36...:
2:2... 25.... £385.. 2.8.80 .55.... 3.2. 83.3302 8.8.89 is. 85. has: 5...: 32.52: 3......

338.— alluo lac: lily-Lou g 4.0.3:.

89

.8362. . .26. 8. 2.. a 38.5.. a. 8350
.8362. ...2». 8. «a a .553... a 83260

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_O:Oo_<
.inN. «com. a. :NV. .56 — . :am. uomn. ooc— . a uVN. 33 35.-an—
gm 330m
u be .. owor nor ho. _o. NO. _O. 9 9 _v. 8.- Jun.— mega
388..
.23 00620me
o§m_. QanN. No. 53:... 3:. cuwﬁ ooON. .o—N. noun. hum—SEA
3305;»
con—22>
3. Inc. .52. .umN. «inn. QoNV. u¢:. .MO. ’90—. 058800
8.3500
«tom. .n—N. u..— _. «'ON. naaﬁ «90—. ..mm. NOV .LM. agn—
oo. MGR 2.0— . a8. .8. .9 ~ N. 0.2 . No... 8. 355m
0.3m .02
yawn. 2.3. we. noun. a .oN. «cam. .3 — m. 9.6— . n ..NN. 305—3532
nova—BIO
338m
...vm. ...aN. —o. ...MQ. o .2 . aucm. yawn. no. 0 ..VN. ”>0 comm—#80
990—. .imm. 99:. 01h. ..wN. oLm. ..QWN. 0.2. nnNN. gov— Omam
33¢. 335m
9¢N_. ¢5a_. .52. ..imm. .3GN. «gem. aqMN. 1L _. ..NN. .«0 Em:—
83< Ema.
oicN. .39”. No. :3. oiﬂ . 0.3”. 2.3. o.@—. gin»: .«0 foam:
.0050 o. 0:0
no— _. ¢c©—. cwo. §§o_. ouhN. oamn. QQON. no. .32. 331%:
.52. town. _o. 1.3. 55:. «&N. E'Nm. .92. .83. «35: 30ng
503,—.
E
E 8 5m 35.... .322... 9.35 ..o .353. 2%
BOB—ctr 95:50 E02 .«0 35:30 8mm? van.— mm 802 552595.; .02 «02
ES 8: A5. 33.2... .83.. 25:8 03.3 .28.... 88.... 385.

 

 

as»: .3.— .e :32 8.39:5 .85.. 8 9...:

90

ri

.3132. . .25. 3. a... .. _..-2.5... a 5:35.
.3562. ...oB. E. u... .- .=§..=n.n a. 5.32.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>h .5 xom
comm. lumen... 00“.. 3. ooON. 8. gown. coVN. .no.. ..N., oooﬂ. so. .. 90”.. \§0_2> 33>
95:39
oneN. one: nonN. on... ...N. no; «00¢. .23, :2. 30.. :OM. 30.. :3. A3. A5..
2:32
I we. . . Mel“. ! .Nc. ‘! . cum... I I ...wmlq . 5 ac. ! .o. :3. 0...... we. on... .c. ..0 Eon—72h.
«cw? he. 2::2 . ”Maw. .13. 02.... . noun. . 9.3., A ..2... gown. .03.. .90.. 00:. moi-=10 EOE...
‘ Ali IEI. ll. .I I ll . n 4 . . . . I ‘ ' . .5 III. loll. OJq—Nﬂn— n=2>
.1... . . S. | 90:. L helm». 0%. I1? oIoON.’ . . :2. oowN. . .00N. .92. oaNN. 0-9.. van— 95:0».
. II A . I . . v. . . '11 ‘ v II. a gaunt—-
E 9029:...
nooN. No. :2. :Nv. .60.. :_~. :ON. .13. :5. :00 :3... 32... :GN. So: 0:023
USE;
.o Em..to>-...
.own. .0, :QN. 3:. :2. :N.. ...m. noun. :2. :3. oovv. :ON. :Nm. .555...
E
F :2. o..v. :_N. omo. No... , Ike... :2. no. :2. o... :2. no. :2. .02 EB...
-1 2.34.
:VN. .or :2... 0.0.. :2: 8. ooNN. :VN. :NN. :NN. scan. 30.. :2. 32 Each
gm 8.5. as...
.23.< 300m 5:93... 5.3 $3.35.? coma-E08 Exam .33).: guO
8: x01. 8:80:3— ou§.o.> 5.3230 0.5 .02 iii .26 ..o ..o 2 25 80:...
85.... 3:2... 9.385.. 9:85.... .55.... 3...... 82.35.92 8.389 :2... 0.2m .33.. .33: 3.1.52: 3...:

 

 

can... .35. 1...: 3.52.6 1!... 8 .3:

91

.3562. . .95. 8. 2.. a .933... .w. 8338
.3362. ...3». 8. 2.. u again... a 8.388

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 8
5m Bozo—o?»
A... 50VN. No. ..ON. gig. 9.0.. ...om. .06.- ...N. 33>
Pad—:0
aoVN. 6.. .cr iaon. vat. 0L... aunm. MC. .I¢.. no... 9.:
was:
:8. 8.- 3 8.- :2. :. .. 8. 8. n... .o .9532...
33:80
.EON. 2.0m. NOV A... unnm. oiNV. 99$. :6. . o.” . . 28.5.
9.3:... 9.m.>
..N.. .36.. qua. ...mN. Q. onnm. ...o.. 9.2. 2.5.. van—96:8
83.0.6...
a. @0295.
c¢©.. 3R... .9... .iNv. .pmm. 6.. .ion. .90.. ..M.. 802 95:00
ménmm
no 8.9.3.595.”—
agoN. iamn. NO. uucv. on¢.. Scan. 6.. ..N.. QQVN. agn—
v.53
90.... me. n... :2. ..m.. 9.0.. v.2. O.— 8. «OZ 88.3..
§<
9...” .omﬁ mc. cog. a9... .32. ung. 00. A... «OZ agn—
23.08...
i 8 9.3.: a 829... 3.35 2.3
xom W28.O_> 9.3.50 MEGS. 8.950 3mmm> can. 502 ..0 Samar—95... 655.3. 32
33> no: a... .1293". .83.. 32.3. 05.3 .583. .oz 385.. .85.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:88... .3: 3 5.5.2 son-1:5 .38.. e «_...F

92

Table 7 Pearson Correlation Matrix of Outcome Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alcohol Tobacco Drug Use Age of Age of Delinquency Intemalizing
Use Use Sexual Sexual Behaviors
Intercourse Activity
Alcohol Use 1.0 .28" .12“ .26" .29” .28” .06
Tobacco .28" 1.0 .15” .32” .37” .43” .12”
Use
Drug Use .12“ .15” 1.0 .16" .18" .41" .32"
Age of .26" .32" .16” 1.0 .92” .39" .08‘
Sexual
Intercourse
Age of .29" .37" .18" .92“ 1.0 .44" .10"
Sexual
Activity
Delinquency .28" .43” .41" .39" .44" 1.0 .25"
Intemalizing .07 .12” .32” .08“ .10” .25” 1.0
Behaviors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level“ (two-tai led)
Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level “ (two-tailed)

Correlations Between Protective and Risk Variables and the Outcome Variables

There were three outcome variables, internalizing behavior, delinquency and drug
use that had strong correlations to particular variables. Each of these will be discussed
separately. The other outcome variables were not strongly correlated with any of the risk
or protective factors.

Intemalizing Behavior. Youth who had high internalizing behaviors problem
scores were more likely to have a history of physical abuse (.55). Respondents who
reported more internalizing behavior problems were also more likely to express
confusion over sexual orientation (.49). Youth who experienced internalizing behavior
problems more oﬁen articulated parental depression (.49). Furthermore, respondents who
had high internalizing behaviors problem scores also perceived parental favoritism of a

sibling (.49).

93

 

Table 8 Pearson Correlations Between Protective Factors and Outcome Variables

Intemalizing Delinquency Tobacco Alcohol Drug Age of
Behavior Use Use Use Sexual

.l l” . - .02 - -.04
.. a o o
-.06 -.02 .02 -.05 -.07
.03 . .04 .07 .02 -.01
.07 .l7” .20“ .IO‘ .18”

. 0 . . -05 . 7ee
.09‘ . .06 .13” .18“

Moral -.06 -.04 -.0 I
Mental . . -.01 .07 .01
Emotional . -.10‘ .07 -.03

.07
Perceive .07 .05

Peer
Partner
Social
Supportive
Neighborhood
Sense of

Collective

School
School

09.
Family

Family .02 -.07 -.0l .00

Parental -.06 -.05 -.06 -.00 -.01

Parental -.08‘ -.09' -.06 -.04 -.07

Values

Family -.01 .04 -.05 .07 .01 .05
Economic

Paternal -.O3 -.04 .02 .03 .05 -.04

Maternal -.07 -. 14" -.08‘ .03 -.05 -.09‘

 

Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level“ (two-tailed), Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level ' (two-tailed)

94

Table 9 Pearson Correlations betwun Risk Factors and Outcome Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intemalizing Delinquency Tobacco Alcohol Drug Age of Intercourse
Behavior Use Use Use Sexual Age
Activity
mama:
Physigllllness .43” .20" .10” .07 .37“ .13“ .11"
Undervalued Due .25” .25“ .01 .09' .28" .12" .l2"
to grader
History of .55” .34" .19“ .15” .40“ .20" .17“
Physical Abuse
History of Sexual .28” .36“ .14“ .I I” .49” .30" .23“
Abuse
gijo Kosai .32“ .35” .10‘ .09‘ .53” .19” .14”
Confusion over .49” .24" u 10” .12" .38“ .08‘ .05
Sexual
Orientation
Neighborhood
Mic tent
Not Safe .33“ .55” .34" .28“ .41” .34“ .28“
School
Microsystem
Bullied .26” .09' -.07 -.04 .16” -.(_l_2: -.00
Family
Microﬁlm-r
Parental .49" .19” .08‘ .1 l” .19” .05 .06
Deggsion
Domestic .18” .32” .07 .04 .34” .13” .12”
Violence
Witnessed
Personality .40" .18“ .13” .09‘ .2l” .15” .14”
Differences with
Parents
Parents Lack .02 .04 .05 -.05 .01 .06 .07
Social Support
Parents Use .38“ .19" .12" .14” .27" .10” .11”
Alcohol
Parents Not .44“ .19” .13“ .10” .21” .14“ .10”
Aware
Parents Not .07 .15” .11” -.01 .19“ .22” .19“
Around
Parental .49" .26” .l2“ .11“ .30“ .IZ“ .10“
Favoritism of
Sibling
Believe Mom .30” .40" .10” .03 .64" .19” .18”
involved in
Terekura
Believe Dad .19” .39" .14” .08‘ .31" .23“ .22“
Visits F uzulto
Parent Gambles .41” .30” .19“ .15” .46” .15“ .15“
Frequency of .08‘ .10“ -.06 .03 .11“ -.00 .01
Moving
Home is Small .39“ .19” .10" .06 .27” .07 .06
‘ Media Inﬂuences
Hip Hop Cul_turi .29" .33” .22” .23” .25" .23“ .l8”
View Violence/ .33“ .35” .25“ .20" .20” .18” .18”
Sex on TV

 

Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level“ (two-tailed), Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level ‘ (two-tailed)

95

 

Delinquency. Respondents who had high delinquency scores were more likely to
live in neighborhoods that were not safe (.55). High levels of delinquency were
associated with the belief that their mothers were involved in Terekura (.40). Drug Use.
Respondents who had increased drug use were more likely to have a history of sexual
abuse (.49). Youth who had heightened levels of drug use were also more likely to be
involved in Enjo Kosai (.53). Furthermore, respondents who were using more drugs were
also more likely to believe that their mothers were involved in Terekura (.64). Youth
who used drugs were also more likely to have parents who gambled (.46).

Multivariate Regression Analysis
Method of A nalysis

Having examined the bivariate relationships, the multivariate relationships were
the next to be scrutinized. The multivariate regression analysis was done in stages. First,
the protective factor variables were regressed upon each outcome variable for the entire
sample and then separately by each gender (Tables 10- 16). Then the risk factor variables
were regressed upon each“ outcome variable for the entire sample and then separately by
each gender (Tables 17- 23). Upon reviewing the output of the preliminary regression
analyses, those risk and protective factors that that were predictive of each outcome (beta
coefﬁcients with a p value of .05 or less) were entered together to determine which
factors were related to the outcome when other factors were controlled. These equations
were again run for the full sample and then by gender (Tables 24-30). A table (31) was
created that highlighted the protective and risk factors that had a signiﬁcant relation with
each outcome variable by full sample and gender. Finally, a table (32) was created to

show the best regression equation for each outcome variable by full sample and gender.

96

Each of the best ﬁtting regression equations will be discussed by responding to the
speciﬁc research questions. The tables presenting the results of the regression analyses
are included at the end of this chapter.
Using the Data to Answer the Research Questions
Research Question #1 - Protective Factors

Do the protective factors that have been shown to be important to the
development of North American, European, and Australian youth positively impact the
development of Japanese youth?

There seem to be many “western” protective factors that support positive
development in Japanese youth. In general, the internal protective factors seem to be of
greater inﬂuence than the environmental factors. However, there are some notable
exceptions.

The internal protective variables of autonomy, self-efﬁcacy, personal myth, sense
of humor, easy temperament, moral development and emotional intelligence were
signiﬁcantly related to at least one outcome variable. A low level of autonomy was
associated with female sexual activity and younger age of ﬁrst intercourse. Interestingly,
for males, a high level of autonomy wasrelated to sexual activity. High self-efﬁcacy was
linked to internalizing behavior problems. A lack of a personal myth was related to
female sexual activity and a younger age of ﬁrst intercourse. A greater sense of humor
was associated with tobacco use in males, alcohol use in the ﬁll] sample, sexual activity
in females and younger age of ﬁrst intercourse for females. A low score on the variable
easy temperament was related to both internalizing behaviors and drug use. Low moral

development was linked to delinquent behavior and sexual activity in the full sample and

97

male sample. However, high moral development was related to internalizing behaviors in
the full sample and the male sample. Low emotional intelligence was linked to
internalizing behaviors and tobacco use in the full and male sample.

The peer microsystem protective factor variables of partner relationship, social
network and supportive friends were related to some of the outcome variables. A
supportive partner relationship was related to an increased risk for sexual activity and
earlier ﬁrst intercourse age in the full, female and male sample. A larger social network
was associated with alcohol use in the full, female and male sample. These ﬁndings are
similar to those reported in western studies. A lack of supportive friendships was related
to internalizing behavior problems in males and tobacco use in females. There were no
neighborhood protective variables that were signiﬁcantly related to the outcome
variables. There was only one school microsystem protective variable that was
signiﬁcant in any model; a lack of a school mentor was associated with female alcohol
use.

The family microsystem protective factor variables of parental values, familial
economic stability and maternal relationship were related to at least one outcome
variable. A low score on parent imparting values was associated with internalizing
behaviors in females and alcohol use in the full, female and male sample. Perhaps the
insight that one’s parents did not model or promote values was troubling. The lack of
family economic stability was related to tobacco usage. A relatively unsupportive
maternal relationship was linked to delinquency in males, which is similar to US.
ﬁndings.

Research Question #2- Risk Factors

98

Do the risk factors that have been shown to negatively impact the development of
North American, European, and Australian youth impact the development of Japanese
youth?

Several western risk factors are strongly related to the outcomes of interest. All
of the developmental risk factors had a signiﬁcant impact on at least one outcome
variable. An unsafe neighborhood was signiﬁcantly related to six of the seven outcome
variables, with the exception being internalizing behavior. The school risk of being
bullied predicted internalizing behavior. All of the family microsystem risk factors were
related to at least one outcome variable with the exception of personality differences with
parents.

Even more surprising was the prevalence of some of the Japanese risk factors. It
was originally considered that these risk factors may not be very prevalent but were
sensationalized due to the Japanese media’s penchant for reporting titillating, but not very
factual information. However, regarding Enjo Kosai, schoolgirl prostitution, it was found
that not only schoolgirls, but also schoolboys had been involved. Nearly ten percent
(9.5%) of the male sample reported having had at least one Enjo kosai experience, as well
as, 4.3% of the female sample. Furthermore, 28.3% of the male sample and 18.6% of
female sample believed that their father had been to a Fuzoku (brothel). Over ten percent
(10.9%) of the male sample and 1.8% of the female sample believed that their mother
was involved with Terekura (telephone sex). Even if these sexual behaviors were over-
reported in the male sample and underreported in the female sample, which is oﬁen the
case in US. surveys of adolescent sexual behaviOr, these numbers are sizeable.

Interestingly, the only question that was not uniformly answered was the question

99

regarding the number of sexual partners; 51.8% of females and 39.1% of males chose not
to answer this question. It may be attributed to the fact that the largest possible response
was ten or more partners. Perhaps if the largest possible response was increased, then the
respondents would not feel that the number of partners that they had had was outside of
the normal range; this seems to be in keeping with Japanese sensibilities.

The majority of the respondents also reported that their parents gambled (60.8%
of males and 53.5% of females). Gambling is often discussed in the popular press as a
social problem, though it is available in almost every neighborhood. Pachinko parlors are
open 24 hours and are continually modernizing and updating the games, sounds, lights
and atmosphere of the establishment. It is often reported in the popular press that
individuals have entered Pachinko parlors and have not reemerged for hours or even
days, neglecting family, work and appointments.

These Japanese risk factors also were predictive of the outcome variables.
Involvement in Enjo Kosai was associated with drug use in the full, female and male
sample and with female internalizing behavior. Having a father that patronized brothels
was related to delinquency in the male sample and full sample, and to sexual activity and
early intercourse age in the full sample and female sample. Having a mother that was
involved in Terekura was associated with female internalizing behavior. Furthermore, a
high score on the Terekura variable was related to delinquency and drug use in the full
sample, and female and male samples. However, a low score on the Terekura variable
was related to alcohol use in the full and female sample. Parental gambling was linked to
drug use in the female sample.

Research Question #3- Intemalizing Behavior

100

Is there a relationship between the protective and risk factors that the Japanese
youth possess individually or in their environment and internalizing behavior?

The risk and protective factors were very useful for predicting internalizing
behaviors in Japanese youth. The total variation explained by the model (r square) was
.62 for the ﬁll] sample, .57 for the female sample and .65 for the male sample. The F
value to test the null hypothesis was 71.10 for the full sample, 26.29 for the female
sample and 60.90 for the male sample. All were signiﬁcant at the .001 level.

The protective factor variables that were predictive of internalizing behavior in
the full sample were a low score on the variable easy temperament, low emotional
intelligence, high self-efﬁcacy, and high moral development. The protective factor
variables that were associated wiih internalizing behaviors in the female sample were
high self-efficacy, a low score on the variable easy temperament, and a lack of values
imparted by parents. The protective factors that were predictive of internalizing behavior
in the male sample were moral development, low emotidnal intelligence, and a lack of
supportive ﬁ'iends. It is somewhat surprising that high levels of self-efﬁcacy and moral
development were associated with internalizing behaviOrs. Perhaps it is the frequent
contemplation of these issues as an adolescent that contributes to internalizing behavior.

The risk factor variables that were signiﬁcant predictors of internalizing behaviors
in the full sample were physical illness, a history of physical abuse, confusion over sexual
orientation, infrequent alcohol use, being bullied,'p'arental depression, Witnessing
domestic violence, parents not aware of the respondents’ actions, parental favoritism of a
sibling, moving frequently and having a home that is too small. The risk factor variables

that were predictive of internalizing behaviors in the female sample were physical illness,

101

involvement in Enjo Kosai, confusion over sexual orientation, being bullied, parental
depressiom’parents not aware of respondent’s actions, parental favoritism of sibling,
having a mother who is involved in Terekura, and moving frequently. The risk factor
variables that were predictive of internalizing behavior in the male sample were
experiencing physical illness, a history of physical abuse, confusion over sexual
orientation, being bullied, parental depression, witnessing domestic violence, parents not
aware of respondent’s actions, living in a home that is too small, and viewing sex and
violence on television.

Many of these risk factors also inﬂuence the individual’s sense of acceptance,
importance and worth. Fundamental to adolescent development is a sense of self-identity
and group identity with a strong family base from which‘to launch. Many of these risks
undermine the ability to create an authentic identity especially when the familial structure
has not nurtured the individual’s development and the peer microsystem has bullied them
or rebuffed their friendship. It seems logical then that with the presence of this
constellation of risk and protective factors that internalizing behavior may occur.

Research Question #4- Delinquency

Is there a relationship between the protective and risk factors that the Japanese
youth possess individually or in their environment and delinquency?

The risk and protective factors were very useful for predicting delinquency in
Japanese youth. The total variation eXplained by the model (r square) was .46 for the full
sample, .38 for the female sample and .51 for the male'sample. The F value to test the
null hypothesis for the full sample was 71.02, 40.92 for the female sample and 36.11 for

the male sample. All were signiﬁcant at the .001 level.

102

The protective factor variables that were the predictors of delinquency for the full
sample and the male sample were low moral development and lacking a strong maternal
relationship. There were no protective factor variables that predicted this outcome in the
female sample.

The risk factor variables that were signiﬁcant predictors of delinquency for the
full sample were alcohol use, living in a neighborhood that was not safe, witnessing
domestic violence, a lack of parental social support, infrequent parental use of alcohol,
having a mother who was involved in Terekura, having a father who visited Fuzoku, and
viewing violence and sex on television. The risk factors that were predictive of
delinquency in the female sample were living in an unsafe neighborhood, witnessing
domestic violence, having a mother who was involved in Terekura, and viewing violence
and sex on television. The risk factors that were predictive of delinquency for the male
sample were alcohol use, living in an unsafe neighborhood, witnessing domestic
violence, having parents who did not use alcohol, having a mother who was involved in
Terekura, having a father who visited Fuzoku, moving frequently, embracing Hip Hop
culture and viewing violence and sex on television.

The absence of a strong maternal relationship combined with the awareness of
deviant sexual behaviors of their parents seemed to contribute to delinquent behavior in
the full and male sample. The lack of neighborhood safety was a predictor for
delinquency in all samples. Becoming socialized to the idea that violence is a normative
behavior might also predict delinquency; the respondents who had witnessed domestic
violence, viewed a large amount of violence and sex on television and had low levels of

moral development engaged in more delinquent behavior. The modeling of Hip Hop

103

Culture is related to delinquency as well. Hip Hop culture has been meticulously copied
from U.S. prototypes by many male Japanese youth. The lack of inhibition that results
from alcohol usage that may inﬂuence delinquent behaviors concurs with expectations.
However the association between a lack of parental drinking and delinquent behavior is
an unexpected ﬁnding that is not easily explained.
Research Question #5-Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco Use

Is there a relationship between the protective and risk factors that the Japanese
youth possess individually or in their environment and drug, alcohol and tobacco use?
This question will be answered by particular substance.
Drug Use

Particular risk and protective factors were useful for predicting drug use in
Japanese youth. The total variation explained by the model (r square) was .53 for the full
sample, .38 for the female sample and .53 for the male sample. The F value to test the
null hypothesis for the full sample was 110.53, 40.64 for the female sample and 113.73
for the male sample. All were signiﬁcant at the .001 level.

In Japan, drug use is illegal and even a small quantity of drugs is punishable with
a lengthy incarceration. However, 8.4% of the female sample and 20.67% of the male
sample reported that they had experimented with drugs.

There was only one protective factor variable that helped to predict drug use. A
low score on the variable of easy temperament for the full and male sample was
associated with drug use. There were no protective factor variables that were signiﬁcant

predictors of drug use in the female sample.

104

The risk factor variables that were predictors of drug use for the full sample were
experiencing physical illness, involvement in Enjo Kosai, confusion over sexual
orientation, living in an unsafe neighborhood, having a mother who was involved in
Terekura, and having parents who gamble. The risk factor variables that were predictive
of drug use in the female sample were involvement in Enjo Kosai, living in an unsafe
neighborhood, having a mother who was involved in Terekura, and having parents who
gamble. The risk factor variables that were predictors of drug use in the male sample
were involvement in Enjo Kosai, living in an unsafe neighborhood, and having a mother
who was involved in Terekura.

Perhaps drug use has been a solution found for some Japanese youth to self-
medicate as a means of coping with issues of temperament. The involvement with Enjo
Kosai was related to drug use in the full, female and male sample. In this instance it
could be postulated that drugs are used as panacea to forget or minimize the Enjo Kosai
events or to dull the pain before the next encounter. The belief that the respondent’s
mother is involved in Terekura also was predictive of drug use in the full and both sub-
samples, perhaps the knowledge of knowing that their mother is involved in Terekura or
overbearing their mothers talk erotically was deeply troubling. The lack of safety of the
neighborhood was also a predictor in all samples. Finally, for both the full and female
sample parents gambling predicted drug use.

Alcohol Use

As opposed to drug use, which is seen in Japan as an illicit activity by the

mainstream, alcohol is readily available and socially acceptable. However, alcohol

overuse is derided. Japanese “salarymen” (businessmen) do much of their work with

105

clients in bars at night. It is not uncommon to see large groups of men in suits inebriated
shufﬂing home late at night after extended business meetings. Alcohol is sold in vending
machines on city streets. Though the Japanese do have laws regulating the age of alcohol
consumption, these regulations are considered to need only self-enforcement by the
individual. As would be expected, these laws are generally overlooked. Eighty nine
percent of the female and 82.69% of the male sample drink alcohol occasionally and
27.7% of the female and 12.2% of the male sample drink daily. It is interesting that the
rates are higher for women than men.

There were some protective and risk factor variables that had some ability to
predict alcohol use. The total variation explained by the model (r square) was .14 for the
full sample, .14 for the female sample and .13 for the male sample. The F value to test
the null hypothesis for the full sample was 22.63, 10.75 for the female sample and 21.04
for the male sample. All were signiﬁcant at the .001 level.

The protective factor variables that were predictive of alcohol use for the full
sample were a greater sense of humor, a larger social network, and a lack of parental
values imparted. The protective factor variables that were predictive of alcohol use for
the female sample were a larger social network, a lack of a school mentor, and a lack of
parental values imparted. The protective factors that were predictive of alcohol use for
the male sample were a greater social network and a lack of parental values imparted.

There were only two risk factor variables that were predictive of alcohol use.
Living in an unsafe neighborhood was predictive of alcohol use for the full, female and
male sample. Interestingly, the lack of mother being involved in Terekura was predictive

of alcohol use for the full and female sample.

106

A greater sense of humor and a larger social network give rise to the image of the
“life of the party” and are not surprising predictors of alcohol use. The lack of a school
mentor as a predictor for alcohol use for the female sub-sample is an interesting ﬁnding.
Perhaps these young women do not have a role model to help them negotiate a post
secondary education and a future career due to the fact that the majority of their mothers’
highest degree was high school. Perhaps without such a model they then follow the
norms of the youth culture. Once again the neighborhood microsystem variable of living
in an unsafe neighborhood was predictive. An unusual ﬁnding is that for the female
sample, having a mother who was not involved with Terekura increased alcohol use. It
should also be noted that for females, mothers involvement in Terekura was associated
with both drug and alcohol use. Having a mother who was involved with Terekura was
associated with drug use, but having a mother who was not involved in Terekura was
associated with alcohol use for females. It is not clear why this is he case.
Tobacco Use

Tobacco use is at almost epidemic proportions in Japan. People seem to smoke
everywhere and all the time. No smoking sections of restaurants are a very recent
phenomenon and not yet available at all venues. It is commonplace to see men in jogging
suits practicing F eng Shui in the park with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths. It is
normal to see parents billow smoke in the faces of their children, even well-educated
faculty members. There are no public service announcements on the dangers of smoking
or the effects of second-hand smoke. Therefore, it is not remarkable that the sample

reports a high frequency of tobacco use. In the sample, 40.7% of the females and 65.3%

107

of the males smoke occasionally and 22.4% of the female and 37.8% of the male sample
smoke daily.

There were some protective and risk factors that were able to shed some insight
into tobacco usage. The total variation explained by the model (r square) was .17 for the
hill sample, .20 for the female sample and .18 for the male sample. The F value to test
the null hypothesis for the full sample was 27.96, 11.24 for the female sample and 22.45
for the male sample. All were signiﬁcant at the .001 level.

The protective factor variables that were predictive of tobacco use for the full
sample were a greater sense of humor, low emotional intelligence, and a lack of family
economic stability. The protective factor variables that were predictive of smoking for
the female sample were not feeling undervalued due to gender and a lack of supportive
friends. For males, the protective factors that predicted tobacco use were a greater sense
of humor, and low emotional intelligence.

The risk factor variables that were predictive of tobacco use for the full sample
were living in an unsafe neighborhood, and viewing violence and sex on television. The
risk factor variables that were predictive of tobacco use for the female sample were a
living in an unsafe neighborhood and viewing violence and sex on television, having
parents who were not aware of the respondents activities and moving frequently. The risk
factor variables that were predictive of tobacco use by the male sample were living in an
unsafe neighborhood and alcohol use.

It is interesting that females who were not feeling undervalued due to their gender
chose to smoke. It could be interpreted that young women who have asserted their

female equality have chosen smoking as their medium to convey their sentiments. This is

108

similar to the Virginia Slims advertisements and rumored to be the case in Japan. The
connection between greater sense of humor and tobacco use may be attributed to the fact
that most Japanese comics perform with a cigarette in their hand while they are on stage
or on television. Cigarettes may be perceived as part of the attire one needs to
communicate their sense of humor. It is also worthy of note that males with low
emotional intelligence were more likely to smoke; this could conceivably be due to
tobacco’s calming effect and perhaps is used to overcome feelings of social ineptness.
Females who reported fewer supportive friends also used tobacco. It is feasible that
tobacco ﬁlls the void for women who do not have supportive friendships by calming
frayed nerves. Once again living in an unsafe neighborhood is an important predictor.
Intriguingly, tobacco use is the only outcome variable where family economic stability is
a predictor. It is generally known that after W.W.II, many individuals smoked to stave
off the effects of hunger; perhaps it is still a technique.

It also must be stated that this outcome variable probably would not be considered
deleterious ﬁ'om a mainstream Japanese viewpoint. As a Westemer, tobacco use is of
great concern. We have been continually bombarded with information of tobacco’s
deleterious effects, and our society has created laws and social edicts regarding exposing
individuals to the dangers of tobacco-ﬁlled air especially for our most vulnerable,
children and pregnant women. However, at this period in time, I believe it is of very little
concern to the people of Japan.

Research Question #6- Sexual Activity and Intercourse Age

109

Is there a relationship between the protective factors and risk factors that the
Japanese youth possess individually or in their environment and their involvement with
sexual activity?

This question has been separated into two components. The ﬁrst is sexual activity
and the second is intercourse age. Though both outcomes are highly correlated to each
other, there were some interesting differences between the models. It is for this reason
that they remain distinct outcomes.

Sexual Activity

The total variation explained by the model (r square) was .24 for the ﬁll] sample,
.44 for the female sample and .23 for the male sample. The F value to test the null
hypothesis for the full sample was 24.95, 19.12 for the female sample and 14.54 for the
male sample. All were signiﬁcant at the .001 level.

The protective factor variables that predicted sexual activity for the full sample
were low moral development and a supportive partner. For the female sample, the
protective factor variables that predicted sexual activity was a greater sense of humor, a
lack of autonomy, a lack of a personal myth, and a supportive partner. Low moral
development and a high level of autonomy were the protective factor variables that
predicted sexual activity for the male sample.

The risk factor variables that predicted sexual activity for the full sample were a
history of sexual abuse, a lack of sexual orientation confusion, living in an unsafe
neighborhood, having parents who were not around, viewing sex and violence on
television, and having a father who visits Fuzoku. For the female sample, the risk factor

variables that predicted sexual activity were a history of sexual abuse, alcohol use, living

”0

in an unsafe neighborhood, having parents who were not around, viewing sex and
violence on television, and having a father who visits Fuzoku. For the male sample, a
history of sexual abuse, a lack of sexual orientation confusion, alcohol use, living in an
unsafe neighborhood, and having parents who were not around predicted sexual activity.

A history of sexual abuse often predicts sexually acting out behaviors. This
ﬁnding has been frequently reported in western research. The lack of sexual orientation
confusion for the full sample and the male sample seemed to allow for sexual activity.
The involvement with a supportive partner increased sexual activity, as one would
expect. It is worthy of note that a lack of autonomy in the female sample and greater
autonomy in the male sample predicted sexual activity. Therefore, those females who
were more dependent were more likely to be involved in sexual activity; this seems
similar to female adolescent behavior in the U.S. Furthermore, males who are more
independent are more sexually active. It is also interesting that the lack of a personal
myth predicted sexual activity in the female sample. It would seem that without a
personal plan for the future, females are more likely to be involved in sexual activity.
This is similar to U.S. ﬁndings that report that females with greater future expectations
are less likely to be sexually active. The viewing of sex and violence on television
predicted sexual activity for the full and female sample; perhaps it is viewed as
instructive as has been found to be the case in the investigation of adolescents of
Rockdale County, Georgia (PBS, 2000). Both male and female respondents who
reported that their parents were less frequently physically present were also more likely
to be sexually active, this is similar to ﬁndings that have been published in the West.

Also similar to ﬁndings regarding sexual behavior in the U.S., alcohol use predicted

111

sexual activity for both the female and the male sample. Low moral development as a
predictor of sexual activity for the male and full sample is an interesting ﬁnding; perhaps
reduced levels of internal control and personal principles allow for fewer qualms over
sexual activity. Having a father who visits F uzoku predicted sexual activity in the full
and the female sample; perhaps the knowledge that their father is involved in sexual
behavior disinhibited their behavior. Once again living in an unsafe neighborhood was a
predictor.

Age at First Intercourse

The total variation explained by the model (r square) was .16 for the full sample,
.37 for the female sample and .14 for the male sample. The F value to test the null
hypothesis for the full sample was 17.84, 16.06 for the female sample and 13.21 for the
male sample. All were signiﬁcant at the .001 level.

The model of age at ﬁrst intercourse was less robust than the model for sexual
activity. The two models were identical with the exception being some of the variables
that predicted sexual activity were absent in the model for age at ﬁrst intercourse. For the
model of age at ﬁrst intercourse for the full and male sample, the protective factor
variable of moral development was not a signiﬁcant predictor. Also regarding the model
of age at ﬁrst intercourse for the male sample, the variables autonomy and unsafe
neighborhood were not predictive. Finally, the model age at ﬁrst intercourse for the
female sample excluded the risk factor variable parents who were not physically around.
Other than these differences, the two models were identical.

The more parsimonious model for age at ﬁrst intercourse seems to miss some of

the complexity of adolescent sexual behavior. It is for this reason that both models were

112

included. It also illustrates that there were some differences between individuals who
were sexually active and the age of ﬁrst intercourse.

In the ﬁfth chapter, the results from a cultural perspective will be discussed, as
well as, limitations of the study, implications for research and directions for future

research.

113

Table 10 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Internals“; Ichavlor
Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized
Beta Full Sample Beta Full Beta Female

.04
-.l . -.l
- - l
.113‘“

.061
-.167‘” -

.l .135‘”
Perceive .1 . .05366

Peer

_ 6oo
-.0l616

.04201

Maternal -.03830

"p<.10 . ”p<.05. "‘p< .01

Full SampleR squareJlJ: 11.48 sig. < .001
Fermle Sample R square .32, F 4.46 sig. < .001
Male Sample R squl'e .33. F 7.50 sig < .001

114

.230‘”
.I

-.08255"

.09024

 

Table 11 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Delloqoeocy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male Beta Male
Sgnﬁ Sample Sample Orly Samp|e_0m Sample Only Sample Only
Constant 1.224’” 1.912‘" .551"
Internal
Factors
Autonomy .001956 .00 -.06284 -.08 .06049 .06
Self Efﬁcacy .07640" .08 .02138 .03 .142" .15
PermaiMyth -.02336 -.02 -.08135 -.08 -.002141 -.00
Optimism -.03816 -.04 -.07703 -.08 -.0691 1 -.06
Sense of Humor .153‘" .16 .190’” .23 .06059 .06
Temperament -.02324 -.02 -.045 15 -.04 -.0 l 686 -.02
Lhysical Beauty .07297’ ‘ .09 .002973 .00 .08315" .10
Moral -.l37‘” -.|2 -.l3l" -.12 -.116’“ -.10
Development
Mental .02974 .03 .09208 .1 l -.03 148 -.04
Flexibiligl
Emotional -.128“ -.1 1 -.224“‘ -.21 -.005404 -.00
Intelligence
Spirituality .106‘“ .12 -.002138 -.00 .158‘” .18
Perceive Social .01668 .02 -.03676 -.05 -.003625 -.01
Support
Peer
Microsystﬂ
Partner .02639 .04 .01676 .03 .05995" .09
Relationship
Social Network .04473 .05 .02594 .03 .07533 .09
Supportive -.03294 -.03 -.140‘ ‘ -. l 4 .143" .l 1
Friends
Neighborhood
Microsystem
Sense of -.007322 ~.01 -.03155 -.05 .006598 .01
Community
Collective .02884 .03 .03728 .05 .02423 .02
Efﬁcacy
Social Capital .02807 .04 .01188 .02 -.0007284 -.00
School
_ﬁiemsyﬂen
School -.06051 -.06 -.05282 -.06 -.02016 -.02
‘ Belonging
School Mentor -.02593 -.03 .01424 .02 -.03547 -.04
F ally
MlerosLstern
Family -.01960 -.03 .04354 .06 -.02159 -.03
‘ Belonging
Parental -.0009339 -.00 .03057 .05 -.009606 -.01
Martins»;
Parental Lalucs .01427 .02 .04679 .06 -.02707 -.03
Familial -.006148 -.01 -.03613 -.06 .03701 .05
Economic
Stability
Paternal .03136 .04 -.07321 -.10 .06477 .07
RelationshL
Maternal -. 132’” -.13 -.02135 -.03 -.189‘” -. l8
_Lelationrﬂip

 

"p<. 10, ”p<. 05. ”‘p< .0!
Full Sample R Square .13, F 3.86 sig. < .001
Female Sample R Square .16, F 1.76 sig. < .016
Male Sample R Square .16. F 2.89 sig. < .001

115

 

 

Table 12 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Drug Use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male Beta Male
Sample Sample Samﬂ Only Sample Only Sample Only Sample Only
Constant .287" .46‘” .05465
Internal
Factors
Autonomy_ .01833 .03 .008641 .03 .02379 .03
Self Efﬁcacy .004149 .01 -.01567 -.04 .03190 .04
Personal Myth -.04369 -.06 -.02009 -.05 -.05273 -.06
Optimism .0001073 .00 .02366 .06 -.0283 -.03
Sense of Humor .006229 .01 .04297 . 12 -.03855 -.05
Temperament -.0747” -. l 0 -.02704 -.06 -.09730" -.I 1
Physical Beauty .0685‘” . 12 .04983" .15 .05774 .09
Moral -.02639 -.03 -.01 173 -.03 -.01 778 -.02
Development
Mental .01027 .02 -.001799 -.01 .005521 .01
Flexibility_
Emotional -.03967 -05 -.04412 -.10 -.01 I77 -.01
Intelliggnce
Spirituality .07790’" .13 .007249 .02 .1 12‘“ .16
Perceive Social .04279" .08 -.02283 -.07 .05978" .09
Support
Peer
Mlerogstesn
Partner .01475 .03 -.005334 -.02 .03785 .07
Relationship_
Social Network .01552 .03 .002094 .01 .01456 .02
Supportive -.04284 -.05 -.1 12‘" -.27 .04127 .04
Friends
Neighborhood
Microsystem
Sense of -.009786 -.02 -.00061 18 .00 -.02357 -.04
Communip;
Collective -.02383 -.04 -.008397 -.03 -.01467 -.02
Eﬂ‘icacy
Social Capital .01552 .03 .003992 .02 .0 I 492 .03
School
Microsystem
School .06001" .09 .09632 .03 .l 1 1“ . 14
. Belon 'n
School Mentor .04022 .07 -.01602 -.05 .07308" .10
Famlly
Microsystem
Family .0001 836 .00 .02939 . 10 -.0315 l -.05
Belonging
Parental -.001894 -.01 .001399 .01 -.004741 -.01
Marriage
Parental Values -.02525 -.05 .02805 .09 -.06662 o.10
Familial -.01863 -.04 -.03025 -. 12 -.004192 -.01
Economic
Stability
Paternal .05324" .05 002626 .01 .08464” .12
Relationshl
Maternal -.0474 1 -.07 -.02156 -.06 -.05908 -.07
Relationship _

 

"p<. 10, “p<. 05. “'p< .01
Full Sample R Square .12, F 3.39 sig. < .001
Female Sample R Square .13. F 1.39 sig. < .106
Male Sample R Square .15. F 2.54 sig. < .001

116

 

I11 '—
‘l

 

 

Table 13 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Alcohol Use

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male

.0. 9 ..

. 44
of Humor .203‘” . .271‘”

17 . -.04274
Moral -.104 -. 143
Mental .04510 . . 125

Emotional .0 I 255 . -. 149

Perceive Social .05170 . -.03989
Peer
Partner
Supportive
Friends
Neighborhood
Sense of

Collective

School
School -.03

-.04

Family

Family -.09579" -.09

Parental -.01005 -.01

Familial .007466 .01
Economic

Paternal .04974 .04

Maternal .02064 .02

 

"p<. 10. ”p<. 05, "‘p< .01

Full Sample R Square .10, F 2.98 sig. < .001
Female Sample R Square .19. F 2.82 sig. < .001
Male Sample R Square .12. F 2.05 sig. < .003

117

Table 14 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Tobacco Use

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Unstandardized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female Beta Male

.214‘” 2.649’” 1.257”

- 7 .
.0003 708 . l"
- . -.03249

t 1 ..334m

' . i. 167 . -.
Moral -.03604 .04493 . -.03436

Mental -.02856 . .03553 . -.09676
Emotional -.349”' . -.324" . -.256

.0.

. 60“ . -
Perceive Social .04323 . -.152 . .06203

Peer

Partner . .152"

O.

Supportive . -.463""
Neighborhood
Sense of

Collective

School
School -.08

.02

-.l 16 -.07
-.07220 -.04
l
-.129“ -.08
Paternal .163“ .09

Maternal -. l 33 -.06

 

"p<. 10, "p<. 05, ”‘p< .01

Full Sample R Square .10, F 2.87 sig. < .001
Female Sample R Square .15, F 1.54 sig. < .05
Male Sample R Square .10, F 1.54 sig. < .05

118

1,!5,

Table 15 Protective Factor Coefﬁcients for Age of Sexual Activity

Predictor

of Humor

Moral

Mental

Emotional

Perceive Social

Peer

Partner

Supportive

Neighborhood
Sense of

Collective

School

School

Family
Family
Parental
Familial
Economic
Paternal

Maternal

Unstandardized
Beta Full

.0.

.215’”

1
-.187"”

-.05832

-.08087

.05176

.183‘”

-.07352

-.07625

.07789"

.01619

-.02914

-.03755

"p<. 10, "p<. 05, ”‘p< .01
Full Sample R Square .14, F 4.13 sig. < .001
Female Sample R Square .30. F 3.83 sig. < .001
Male Sample R Square .15, F 2.515ig.<.001

Standardized Unstandardized

Beta Full

-.08

.08

.02

-.03

-.03

Standardized
Beta Female Beta Female

0..

.245m

-.07815

119

.165‘”

-.007
.04790

 

Table 16 Protective Factor Coefficients for Intercourse A35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male Beta Male
Sample Sample Sample Only Sample Only Sample Only Saran Only
Constant 1.489’“ 2.116‘“ .746
Internal
Factors
Autonm -.004226 -.00 -. 173” -. 14 .1 14 .08
Self Efﬁcacy .05390 .04 .201“ .15 -.02379 -.02
Personal Myth -.08114 -.05 -.391”‘ -.24 .02827 .02
Optimism -.04236 ~.03 -.07468 -.05 -.08291 -.05
Sense ofHumor .219‘" .16 .482‘” .37 .01411 .01
‘ Tern ent .03215 .02 -.09458 -.06 .05127 .03
Physical Beauty .133“ .11 .01375 .01 .184“ .15
Moral -.126" -.08 .04637 .03 -. 161 -.10
Development
Mental -.03869 -.03 .04573 .04 -.05859 -.04
Flexibiliy
Emotional -.109 -.06 -.320‘ “ -. l 9 .05645 .03
Intelligence
SMtuality -.02140 -.02 -.120 -.10 .009820 .01
Perceive Social .08418 .07 .0008330 00 .09252 .08
Sgpport
Poor
Microgstenr
Partner .144‘" .15 .184‘" .21 .151‘“ .15
Relationship
Social Network .01301 .01 .216” .15 -.06420 -.05
Supportive -. 100 c.06 -. l 30 -.08 .06412 .03
Friends
Neighborhood
Microsystem
Sense of .05062 .04 .02379 .02 .08645 .07
Commlnity
Collective -.08132 -.06 -.151 -.125 -.09710 -.06
Efﬁcacy
Social Capital .03193 .03 -.08032 -.09 .08653 .08
School
Microsystemr
School -.02715 -.02 -.131 -.09 .05703 .04
Belonging
School Mentor .02637 .02 .l 13 .09 -.002651 -.00
Family
Microsystem
Family -.08581 -.07 .05650 .05 -.09528 -.08
Belo_nging
Parental .08476 .07 .04003 .04 .1 17 .10
Mariagc
Parental Values -.03618 -.03 -.l 11 -.09 -.03239 -.03
Familial -.004440 -.00 -.1 13" -. 12 .08693 .07
Economic
Stability
Paternal -.02563 -.02 .008907 .01 -.08046 -.06
Relationshi
Maternal -.03 747 -.03 .07127 .05 -.05607 -.04
Relationship

 

"p<. 10, ”p<. 05. ”‘p< .01
Full Sample R Square .10. F 2.76 sig. < .001
Female Sample R Square .27, F 3.21 sig. < .001
Male Sample R Square .10, F 1.60 sig. < .05

120

 

Table 17 Risk Factor Coefficients for lntcrnalizing Behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Full Sample Beta Full Sample Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male Sample Beta Male
Sample Only Sample Only Only Sample Onl
Constant .206‘" .09248 .195"
Developmental
Factors
Physical Illness .06857’“ .09 .06444" .10 .07479" .10
Undervalued due .01628 .03 .06731" .12 -.009764 -.01
to Gender
History of .151‘" .19 .07447 .09 .202‘” .25
Physical Abuse
History of Sexual .04327 .04 . 07324 .07 -.06221 -.06
Abuse
Enjo Kosai .02964 .03 .148” .12 .01474 .01
Confusion over .103‘” .15 .103‘” .15 .119‘"
Sexual
Orientation
Alcohol Use -.05129“‘ -.08 -.03930 -.06 -.04967” -.07
Neighborhood
Microsystem
Not Safe -.006167 -.01 -.05456 -.06 .01974 .02
School
Microsystem
Bullied .09405’" .15 .05396" .10 .119‘" .17
Family
Microsystem
Parental .202‘” .21 .191‘” .21 .171‘“ .18
Depression
Domestic -.05039" -.06 -.01830 -.03 -.06758" -.08
Violence
Witnessed
Personality .03852" .06 .02977 .04 .06017" .08
Difference with
Parents
Parents Lack .005127 .01 .08911" .12 -.01934 -.03
Social Support
Parents Use .03378 .05 .01097 .02 .04568 .06
Alcohol
Parents Not .127‘” .17 .123‘” .19 .104‘" .13
Aware
Parents Not -.01436 -.02 .004981 .01 -.006103 -.01
Around
Parental .07309‘” .1 1 .123‘" .20 .03658 .05
Favoritism of
Sibling
Believe Mom is -.07675" -.06 -.256”‘ -.14 .004056 .00
involved in
Terekura
Believe Dad .009354 .02 .007300 .01 .01513 .02
visits Fuzuko
Parent Gambles .0001644 .00 -.05366 -.05 .01472 .02
Frequency of .02781" .05 .04627" .10 .02104 .03
Moviﬂ
Home Too Small .07630"" .12 .02855 .05 .09346‘” .14
Media
Influences
Hip Hop Culture .004530 .01 .06—109 .09 -.02731 -.04
View Violence/ .04626" .06 .06442" .09 .06560" .08
Sex on TV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"p<. 10, "p<. 05, "'p< .01
Full Sample R Square .61, F 39.57 sig. < .001
Female Sample R Square .56. F 11.95 sig. < .001
Male Sample R Square .67, F 29.32 sig. < .001

121

 

Table 18 RH Factor Coefﬁcients for Delinquency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Full Sample R square .49. F 24.34 sig. < .001
Female Sample R square .46. F 7.92 sig. < .001
Male Seismic R square .51. F 15.12 sig. < .001

122

Predictor Unstandardized [ Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Full Sample Beta Full Sample Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male Beta Male
Sample Only SJample OnlL Sample Only Sgnplc Onh/
. Constant -.160" -.207 .07567
Developmental
Factors
Physical Illness -.01992 -.03 .01726 .02 -.04341 -.06
Undervalued due .009376 .01 -.03535 -.06 .04168 .06
to Gender
History of .06569" .08 .05028 .06 .06884 .09
Physical Abuse
History of Sexual .02735 .02 .102 .09 .08478 .08
Abuse
Enjo Kosai .01702 02 .01059 .01 -.03421 - 03
Confusion over -.01877 -.03 -.07403" -.10 .0055203 .00
Sexual
Orientation
Alcohol Use .09880‘” .14 .05014 .07 .114." .17
Neghborhood
Micmtem
Not Safe .274‘“ .30 .323‘" .35 .257‘“ .29
School
M
Bullied .004671 .01 .02180 .04 .01012 .01
Family
Mi
Parental -.06642" «.07 -.03 193 -.03 -.03882 -.04
..m‘m—
Domestic .106'“ .13 .101‘” .14 .109‘” .13
Violence
Witnessed
Personality -.03839 -.05 -.07362 -. 10 -.03504 -.05
Difference with
Parents
Parents Lock .04151 .05 .02975 .04 .03547 .05
Social Smurf
Parents Use -.05364" -.07 .004371 .01 -.101"° -. 13
Alcohol
Parents Not .02384 .03 .03952 .06 .01186 .01
AW?!“
Parents Not .04114 .05 .04202 .05 -.009330 -.01
Around
Parental .02619 .04 -.01403 -.02 .03404 .05
Favoritism of
‘ Sibling
Believe Mom is .207'” .16 .284” .15 .161” .14
involved in
Terekura
Believe Dad visits .109‘“ .16 .06783" .11 .113‘“ .17
‘ Fuzuko
Parent Gambles -.007433 -.01 .04822 .04 -.03819 -.04
Frequency of .01908 .03 -.03094 -.06 05767" .09
Moving
Home Too Small -.OIsg -.03 .006791 .01 -.01666 -.02
in Inﬂuences
H‘ Hop Culture .06136” .08 .03906 .05 08977“ .12
View Violence! .152“. .19 .155‘“ .20 .07739" .09
Sex on TV
"p<. 10, ”p<. 05. "’p< .01

 

Table 19 RBI: Factor Coefﬁcients forDrog Use

 

Predictor

Unstandardized
Beta Full Sample

Standardized
Beta Full Sunple

Unstmrrhrdind
Beta Female
Sumac Only

Standardized
Beta Female
Sample OnL

Unstandardized
Beta Male
Sample Only

Standardized
Beta Male

 

Constant

~.162“

~.153”

ml94"

 

‘ Developmental

F actors

 

Physical Illness

03823”

.07

01341

05202A

08

 

Undervalued due
to Gender

-.006774

~01

01579

'8'?

~.02795

~05

 

History of
Physical Abuse

02049

.03

~.02824

~07

.02520

 

“History of Sexual
Abuse

04372

.05

.00221

07180

 

Enjo Kosai

.147.”

.17

.09093‘”

154...

 

Confusion over
Sexual
Orientation

.05057‘”

.10

02940

05301"

 

Alcohol Use

.008579

.02

.0007374

.01117

 

Neighborhood
Mic tem

 

Not SLfc

.08999‘”

.0681 1‘”

.IOl‘”

 

School
Mum-

 

Bullied

~003587

~01

~01790

~07

.01191

.02

 

Family
Micmm

 

Paternal
Mica

~02465

~03

.03342

-.05674

-.07

 

Domestic
Violence

03425"

.006843

.02

06098"

 

Witnessed
Persormlity
Difference with
Past-ts

-.01920

.01055

.03

~.02883

~05

 

Parents Lack
Social Smrt

~01230

~02

03098

-.023 I9

-.04

 

Parents Use
Alcohol

-.010|8

~02

~.00|810

~.01

~006464

~01

 

Parents Nor
Aware

 

01713

.03

~.01215

.02796

 

Parents Not
Around

.03800"

~.0074l6

~02

05808"

 

Parental
Favoritism of

‘ Sibling

.003089

.01

01198

.01053

.02

 

Believe Mom is
involved in
Tere_kura

.338‘”

.35

.314‘“

.38

.317‘“

.33

 

Believe Dad
visits Fuzuko

004071

.01

-01541

~06

.01002

.02

 

Parent Gambles
_—

06760”

.09

.09764’”

.21

04386

 

Frequency of
Movin

.01251

.03

02285”

.11

008194

.02

 

Home Too Small

004793

.02

-.01050

~04

-.007020

~01

 

Media
Inﬂuences

 

Hip Hop Culture

~007292

~01

~00385|

~01

-.001279

~00

 

View Violencc/
Sex on TV

 

 

0022900

 

.01

 

~.01370

 

~04

 

01619

 

.02

 

"p<. IO, ”p<. 05. °°°p< .01
Full Sample R square .55. F 30.24 sig. < .001
Female Sample R sqrmre .43. F 7.06 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square .57. F 19.02 sig. < .001

123

 

Table 20 RBI: Factor Coefﬁcients for Alcohol Use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardiud
Beta Full Sample Beta Full Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male Sample Beta Male
Sample Mew w OnL Mk0"
Constant 1.424‘” 1.467‘” 1.529‘”
Developmental
Factors
Physical Illness ~004903 ~01 -.112 ~.1 1 06414 .06
Undervalued due 05054 .05 ~03639 ~04 .106A .10
to Gender
History of Physical 04630 04 .112 .09 ~01816 ~02
A628;
History of Sexual 07425 .05 .139 .09 01509 .01
Abuse
Enjo Kosai ~02225 ~01 ~.220" ~.12 07102 .05
Confusion over ~0|264 ~01 ~002648 ~00 ~04192 ~04
Sexual Orgiation
Neighborhood
Mlcrosntcm
Not Safe .225'” .18 301‘“ .24 .166” .13
School
Mlcmaa
Bullied ~04280 ~05 02977 .04 ~.101" ~.10
Family
Microsystem
Parental ~02259 ~02 ~.134 ~.10 .03802 .03
Mien
Domestic Violence 004431 .00 ~007717 ~01 ~03150 ~03
Witnessed
Personality ~006018 ~01 ~05545 ~05 ~001863 ~00
Difference with
Parents
Parents Lack ~0001030 .00 .123 .11 ~05980 ~05
Socialirmort
Parents Use 06479 .06 .216‘“ .20 .01469 .01
Alcohol
Parents Not Aware ~.001042 ~00 ~03745 ~04 01923 .02
Parents Not ~02987 ~02 ~0007428 ~00 -.01793 ~01
Around
Parental ~02079 ~02 ~.03008 ~03 01303 .01
Favoritism of
SiblinL
Believe Mom is ~23?“ ~.l3 ~.365" ~.14 ~.229" -.14
involved in
Terekura
Believe Dad visits 02337 .03 ~.Ol846 ~02 06922 .07
F uzu_lto
Parent Gambles 06468 .05 ~02507 ~02 .121 .09
Frequency of 02359 .03 ~02823 ~04 04575 .05
Movil
Home Too Small ~03988 ~04 ~009370 ~01 ~05179 ~05
Media
Inﬂuences
Hip Hop Culture .155‘” .14 .108 .10 .161” .14
View Violence! 07803 .07 .118 .11 02391 .02
Sex on TV

 

 

 

 

Ap<. 10. "p<. 05. ”‘p< .01
Full Sample R square .12. F 3.48 sig. < .001
Female Sample R square .18. F 2.22 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square .15. F 2.63 sig. < .001

124

Table 21 Risk Factor Coeﬂlclcats I’or Tohaceo Use

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized
Full Sample Full Sample

Developmental

Undervalued due
History of

of Sexual

Confusion over
Sexual

Neighborhood
School

Family

Parental
Domestic . I75
Violence
Personality ~.133
Difference with
Parents Lack 02933

Parents Use .01497

Parents Not 06664 . .363‘"

Parents N01 .143" ~.08073

Parental ~.02532 ~.0074 l 7

Favoritism of

Believe Mom is ~.098l7 ~.l70

involved in

Dad visits .06783 .122

Frequency of ~.0893 l" ~.156”

T

View Violence/ .261 ‘”

 

”p<. 10. ”p<. 05. “‘p< 01

Full Sample R square .22. F 7.10 sig. < .001
Fermle Sample R square .29. F 3.76 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square 22, F 4.05 sig. < .001

125

Table 22 Risk Factor Coefﬁcients for Age of Sennal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex on TV

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unaaridardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Full Sample Beta Full Sample Beta Female Beta Fermle Beta Male Beta Male
cod meaty eomy Sunpre Only
Constant .248 ~.l 15 .723'”
Developmental
Factors
Physical Illness 02829 .03 .02579 .03 05539 .06
Undervalued due ~01 177 ~01 ~06270 ~07 .03801 04
to Gender
History of 04336 .04 .152" .19 ~01034 ~01
Physical Abuse
History ofSexual .232‘” .16 .310‘” .19 .271” .19
Abuse
Enjo Kosai ~03659 ~02 ~ “1045 ~01 ~04867 ~04
Confusion over ~.08867" ~09 ~01775 ~02 ~.128" ~. 14
Sexual
Orientation
Alcohol UL .191‘” .20 .249‘“ .24 .168‘” .19
Neighborhood
Micros tem
Not 531‘; .202‘” .17 .277‘” .22 .161 “ .14
School
Microsyste:
Bullied ~.03838 ~04 ~06101 ~07 ~05044 ~06
Family
Mlcmatem
Parental ~.106” ~08 ~.115 ~08 ~.03345 ~03
M10“
Domestic .06140 .06 05846 .06 03870 .04
Violence
Witnessed
Personality 02848 .03 01635 .02 005930 .01
Difference with
Parents
Parents Lack .03746 .04 ~03281 ~03 01309 .01
Social Support
Parents Use ~0|8l8 ~02 ~.08082 ~07 ~007372 ~01
Alcohol
Parents Not 05674 .05 09561 .10 06677 .06
AWES—
Parents Not .189‘” .16 .148" .11 .151“ .14
MOM
Parental 001226 .00 006487 .01 ~06058 ~01
Favoritism of
Sibling
Believe Mom is 01028 .01 03511 .01 01978 .01
involved in
Terekura
Believe Dad 08837” .10 .171 ”‘ .19 04518 05
visits Fuﬂo
Parent Gambles ~06444 ~05 ~.05130 ~03 ~07159 ~06
Frequency of ~04899" ~06 ~.05293 ~07 ~.04136 ~05
Mm
Home Too Small ~04897 ~05 ~.008265 ~01 ~03790 ~04
Media
Inﬂuences
Hip 1102 Culture 09168“ .09 002644 .00 .128” .13
View Violence/ 08258“ 08 .204'“ .19 ~0579l ~05

 

Ap<. 10. "p<. 05, ”‘p< .01
Full Sample R square .27, F 9.04 sig. < .001
Female Sample R square .42. F 6.73 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square .21. F 3.83 sig. < .001

126

 

Table 23 Rislt Factor Coeﬂlelents for Intercourse Age

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex on TV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Full Sample Beta Full Sample Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male Beta Male
Sample Only Sample Onh/ Sample Only Sangle Only
Const_ant 06421 ~.555“ .776‘”
Developmental
Factors
PhySlcal Illness 008344 01 ~004832 ~00 .07387 .06
Undervalued due 01250 .01 ~01 335 ~01 05669 .05
to Gender
History of 04488 .04 .153 .1 l ~02295 ~02
Physical Abuse
History ofSexual .263‘" .15 .273“ .15 .427‘” .26
Abu_se
Enlo Kosai ~.l 17 ~07 ~08772 ~04 ~.152 ~. 10
Confusion over ~.l 15" ~.11 ~0467l ~04 ~.185‘” ~. 17
Sexual
Orientation
Alcohol Use .207‘“ .19 285‘” .25 178‘" .17
Neighborhood
Microsystem
Not Safe .164‘" .12 .268‘“ .19 .111 .09
School
Mic tem
Bullied ~02078 ~02 ~04056 ~04 ~.03553 ~03
Family
Mlcmstem
Parental ~06773 ~05 ~05677 ~04 .02157 .02
M10"
Domestic 04622 .04 02900 .03 04047 .03
Violence
Witnessed
Personality 04260 .04 02007 02 01220 .01
Difference with
Parents
Parents Lack 06625 .06 00002653 .00 03109 .03
Social Support
Parents Use 006618 .01 ~04640 ~04 005387 .01
Alcohol
Parents Not 01870 .02 09861 .09 002858 .00
Aware
ParentsNot .174‘” .13 .146“ .10 .104 .08
Aroma
Parental ~01576 ~01 ~.06933 ~07 008606 .01
Favoritism of
‘ Sibling
Believe Mom is 03730 .02 007369 .00 ~01025 ~01
involved in
Terejgn
Believe Dad .I 14‘” .12 .211'" .22 06508 .07
visits Fuzuko
Parent Gamﬂei ~0376| ~03 ~09943 ~06 ~.01485 ~01
Frequency of ~04672 ~05 ~02497 ~03 ~05496 ~06
Moving
Home Too Small ~.05736 ~06 02106 .02 ~07882 ~08
Media
Inﬂuences
Hij Hop Culture 06961 .06 04433 04 .081 17 .07
View Violence/ .134‘” .11 .255‘” .21 ~03067 ~02

 

 

Ap<. 10. ”p<. 05, ”‘p< .01
Full Sample R square 21. F650 sig. < .001
Female Sample R square .33, F 5.65 sig. < .00:
Male Sarwle quuare .15. F262 sig. < .001

127

Table 24 Combined Protective and Rik Factors Related to Intemalizing Behavior

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female Beta Female

Internal/Developmental

Risk Factors

of Abuse
Confusion over Sexual

Undervalued due to

Alcohol

Risk Factors

F
V
Risk Factors

Witnessed Domestic
V

Parental Favoritism of

Home Small
Parents Lack Social

Believe Mom is involved
T

Personality Difference

View Violence /Sex on
TV

Sample

.0.

I ..
.143°°'
.08414“’

.02022

~.03871”

97sec
a05039“

1
.06935‘“

.06242’”
~.01350
~.04078

002637

03724"

Sample Sample Only

0.

~.152‘”

54

.108‘"

.04514

0..

~.02031

148“'
.0005747

.0.

.138'"

.01745
.04862

~.248‘”

~.01325

.02451

Sample

a
m08408"‘
ones

04063

~.02564

.02137
02812

.0757 I ”

 

Ap<. 10, "p<. 05. ”‘p< .01
Full Sample R square .63. F 39.66 sig. < .001

Female Sample R square .59. F 12.63 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square .68. F 29.34 sig. < .001

128

Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male Beta Male
Sample Sample Sample Only Sample Sample Only Sample

0 s 444A
Internal/Developmental

Sense of

Moral

Self
F

'- ~ 105"
F
Domestic Violence .09856‘” . 09652“ . .121‘”
Witnessed
Believe Mom is involved .237‘” . .324‘” . .191’"
in
visits F 02‘” _ 1
Parents Use Alcohol ” . .0131 . ~.102‘”
~ 7

Culture .04 01490 .071 “
View Violence/ Sex on .138‘” . .154‘” 07355“
TV

“p<. 10. “p<. 05. ”‘p< .01

Full Sample R square .49. F 36.88 sig. < .001
Female Sample R square .43. F 11.07 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square .52. F 24.40 sig. < .001

 

129

Table26ComblaedProtectiveandR'nanctorsRelatedtoDrngUse

Predictor Unstandadized Standa'dized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized
Beta F ull Beta Full Beta Female Beta Female Beta Male
Sample Sample Sample Only Sample Sample Only

Internal/Developmental

F
~.084 ‘

.or I . -002158
.0003743 . . ~007620

.03799" . .
l as . 74sec

Confusion over Sexual 04318" . . 04872"

Orientation
F
Neighborhood

Risk Factors

~.034l4"

F

Risk Factors

Believe Mom is involved .383’" . .294’"
T
05949" . . 3‘"
of 01325 . 01692

“p<. 10. ”p<. 05. ”‘p< .01

Full Sample R square .53. F 55.23 sig. < .001

Female Sample R square .42. F 14.10 sig. < .001

Male Sample R square .54. F 33.54 sig. < .001

 

130

..-

Table 27 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Related to Alcohol Use

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female
Sample Sample Sample Only

.0. .0.

Internal/Developmental

F

Neighborhood
Not

School Mentor

F
F
Parental Alcohol Use 07042"
Believe Mom is involved ~.144“
in

"p<. 10, ”p<. 05. ”‘p< .01

Full Sample R square .16. F 12.36 sig. < .001
Female Sample R square .17. F 5.55 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square .16, F 7.57 sig. < .001

131

Unstandardized
Beta Male
Sample Only

40.0

 

Table 28 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Rchted to Tobacco Use

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female
Sample Sample Sample Only

.4 1 .479
Internal/Developmental

Risk Factors

Feel Undervalued due to
Gender
Use

Protective Factors

Neighborhood

Risk Factors
Not

Protective Factors

Familial Economic

of
Media Inﬂuences

View Violence! Sex on

l‘p<. 10, "p<. 05. "‘p< .01

Full Sample R square .21. F 12.61 sig. < .001
Female Sample R square .24. F 5.82 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square .21, F 7.16 sig. < .001

132

Unstandardized Standardized
Beta Male Beta Male
Sample Only Sample

0..

~4590"
.04415

~.03586

 

Table 29 Combined Protective and Rik Factors Related to Sexual Activity

 

Predictor

Unstandardized
Beta Full
Sample

Standardized
Beta Full
Sample

Unstandardized

Beta Female
Sample Only

Standardized
Beta Female
Sample
Only

Unstandardized
Beta Male
Sample Only

Standardized
Beta Male
Sample
Only ‘

 

Constant

.461"

.687"

.385

 

lnternal/
Developmental
Factors

 

Protective
Factors

 

Sense of Humor

08764"

.07

.229‘”

~.01132

~.01

 

Ph sical Beauty

06237

~.02197

.100"

.10

 

Moral
Development

~.136”

~09

~.01874

~.164”

~.12

 

Autonomy

04438

~.163‘”

.160‘“

.13

 

Personal Myth

~.06504

~05

~.252‘”

~.02508

~02

 

Emotional
Intelligence

~.06743

~04

~.137

.05436

.03

 

Risk Factors

 

History of
Sexual Abuse

.197‘"

.275‘”

.238‘“

.17

 

Confusion over
Sexual
Orientation

~.07743”

~08

.04956

~.130‘“

 

Alcohol Use

.158‘”

.17

.195‘“

.138‘”

.16

 

Peer
Microsystem

 

Protective
Factors

 

Partner
Relationship

.140m

.208000

.26

.129‘”

.15

 

 

Social Network

~.02146

.04505

~.03348

~03

 

Neighborhood
Micros/ate;

 

Risk Factors

 

Not Safe

.206...

.259‘”

.20

.171‘”

.15

 

Family
Microsystem

 

Risk Factors

 

Parental
Depression

~.08958"

~07

~.09309

~07

~.04832

~04

 

Parents Not
Around

.201‘”

.136“

.165‘”

 

Believe Dad
visits Fuzuko

.07053‘ ‘

.08

.128‘”

.14

04382

.05

 

Media
Inﬂuences

 

Hip Hop Culture

02571

.03

~.09619

~09

08126

.08

 

View Violence
lSex on TV

 

 

08107“

 

.07

 

.145“

 

.13

 

~.02949

 

~03

 

"p<. 10, “p<. 05. "'p< .01
Full Sample R square .28. F 14.61 sig. < .001
Female Sample R square .46. F 11.80 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square .25. F 7.48 sig. < .001

133

 

Table 30 Combined Protective and Risk Factors Related to Intercourse Age

Predictor Unstandardized Standardized Unstandadized
Beta Full Beta Full Beta Female
Sample Sample Sample Only

4
Internal/Developmental

F
Sense of

of Sexual .228’" . . .348‘”
. ~.192‘"

Confusion over Sexual ~. 126‘”
0 0 t

F

Social Network
Neighborhood

Risk Factors

F

View Violence/ Sex on .110”

TV
"p<. 10, “p<. 05, "‘p< .01
Full Sample R square .20, F 10.71 sig. < .001
Female Sample R square .39. F 10.25 sig. < .001
Male Sample R square .17, F 5.15 sig. < .001

 

134

Table 31 Protective and Risk Factors that Relate to Outcomes by Full (8), Female (F). and Male (M) Sample

Predictor

lnternal/
Develop-eat

F

Emotional

Perceive Social
F
Undervalued due to
Gender
History of Physical

History of Sexual

Confusion over

Neighborhood

Protective F
of

Family

Parental
Parental Values

internalizing Delinquency Drag

135

Alcohol

Tobacco

Sexual

Intercourse

 

 

Predictor

Intemalizing
Behavior

Delinquency

Drug

Use

Tobacco
Use

Sexual
Actlan

Intercourse

 

Familial Economic
Stability

~S

 

Paternal Relationship

 

Maternal
Relationshig

 

Risk Factors

 

Parental Depression

SFM

 

Domestic Violence
Witnessed

SM

SFM

 

Personality
Differences with
Parents

 

Parents Lack Social
Support

 

Parents Use
Alcohol

-5 -M

 

Parents Not Aware

SFM

 

Parents Not Around

SFM

SM

 

Parental Favoritism
of Sibling

SF

 

Believe Mom is
Involved in
Terekura

SFM

SFM

-s -r

 

Believe Dad visits
Fuzuko

SM

SF

SF

 

Parent Gambles

SF

 

Frequency of
Moving

SF

-F

 

Home Too Small

SM

 

Media Inﬂuences

 

Hip Hg) Culture

 

 

View Violence! Sex
on TV

 

M

 

SFM

 

 

 

SF

 

SF

 

SF

 

BetavaluesarepsDStobegivenaletter

136

 

‘I’abIeJZDestl'IttiagRegremlanquatlousferEacbVariablebyFullSampleaudGeuderuslugUustaudardlaed

CocIIIcleuts

 

Outcome Variable

5'39”

Equation

R
8122_

 

Intemalizing
Behavior

Full Sample

lnternalizing= .45

+ .07 Self Efﬁcacy

.12 Temperament

.08 Moral Development

.12 Emotional Intelligence

.07 Physical lllnes

.16 History ofPhysical Abuse
.10 Sexual Orientation Confusion
.10 Bullied

.21 Parental Depression

.05 Domestic Violence Witnessed
.14 Parents Not Aware

+ .08 Parental Favoritism of Sibling
+ .06 Home Small

+ .03 Frequency of Moving

'+++++'+'

+

.62

FValueaud
71.10
sig. <.001

 

Intemalizing
Behavior

Female Sample

1nterna1izing= .90

+ .II Self Efﬁcacy

- . 18 Temperament

+ .08 Physical Illness

.14 Sexual Orientation Confusion
.17 Enjo Kasai

.08 Bullied

.14 Parental Values

.18 Parental Depression

.l l Pmts Not Aware

.15 Parental Favoritism of Sibling
.21 Mom involved in Terekura
.05 Frequency of Moving

+

+++++'++

.57

26.29
sig. <.001

 

internalizing
Behavior

Male Sample

lnternalizing= .51

+ .13 Moral Developnent

.17 Emotional Intelligence

.06 Physical Illness

.18 history of Physical Abuse
.lZSexual Orientation Confusion
.10 View Violence/Sex on TV
.12 Supportive Friends

.11 Bullied

+ .18 Parental Depression

- .06 Domestic Violence Witnessed
+ .14 Parents Not Aware

+ .10 Home Small

~++++'

+

.65

60.90
sig. <.00l

 

Delinquency

Full Sample

DelinquencF .51

- .12 Mm'al Development

+ .16 View Violence! Sex on TV

+ .34 Neighborhood Not Safe

- .05 Maternal Relationship

+ .10 Domestic Violence Wimeased
+ .23 Mom involved in Terekura

+ .1] Dad visits Fuzuko

- .03 Parents Use Alcohol

.46

71.02
sig. <.w1

 

 

Delinquency

 

Female Sample

 

Delinquency= -.54

+ .15 View Violence! Sex on TV

+ .38 Neighborhood Not Safe

+ .1 I Domestic Violence Witnessed
+ .36 Mom involved in Terekura

 

.38

40.92
sig. <.001

 

 

 

137

 

Delinquency

Male Sample

Delinquency= .41

- .06 Moral Development

+ .09 Hip Hop Culture

+ .08 View Violencd Sex on TV
+ .11 Alcohol Use

4» .27 Neighborhood Not Safe

- .07 Maternal Relationship

+ .12 Domestic Violence Witnessed
+ . 19 Mom involved inTereltura
+ .12 Dad visists Fuzuko

. .09 Parents Use Alcohol

+ .06 FrequencLof Moﬂ

.51

36.1 1
sig. <.001

 

Drug Use

Full Sample

Drug Use= .02

- .06 Temperament

+ .04 Physical Illness

+ .17 Enjo Kosai

+ .04 Sexual Orientation Confusion
+ .09 Neighborhood Not Safe

+ .39 Mom involved in Terekura

+ .06 Parent Gambles

.53

1 10.53
sig. <.001

 

Drug Use

Female Sample

Drug Use= -.05

+ .08 Enjo Kosai

+ .06 Neighborhood Not Safe

+ .33 Mom involved in Terekura
+ .10 Parent Gambles

.38

40.64
sig. <.001

 

DrugUse

Male Sample

Drug Use= .18

- .10 Temperament

+ .22 Enjo Kosai

+ .14 Neighborhood Not Safe

+ .43 Mom involved in Terekura

.53

1 13.73
sig. <.001

 

Alcohol Use

Full Sample

Alcohol Use= 1.2

+ .14 Sense of Humor

+ .24 Social Network

+ .32 Neighborhood Not Safe

- .12 Parental Values

- .12 Mom involved inTereltura

22.63
sig <.001

 

Alcohol Use

Female Sunple

Alcohol Use= 1.3

+ .26 Social Network

+ .32 Neighborhood Not Safe

- .12 Parental Values

- .28 Mom involved inTereltura
- .15 School Mentor

10.75
sig <.001

 

Alcohol Use

Male Sample

Alcohol Use= 1.4

+ .29 Social Network

+ .32 Neighborhood Not Safe
- .12 Parental Values

.13

21 .04
sig. <.001

 

Tobacco Use

Full Sample

Tobacco Use= 1.4

+ .31 Sense of Humor

- .40 Emotional Intelligence

+ .21 View Violence! Sex on TV
+ .53 Neighborhood Not Safe

- .11 Family Economrc Stability

.17

27.96
sig. <.001

 

 

Tobacco Use

 

Female Sample

 

Tobacco Use= 1.06

- .19 Undervalued Due toGuider
- .32 Supportive Friends

+ .31 View Violence! Sex on TV
+ .51 Neighborhood Not Safe

+ .30 Parents Not Aware

. .15 Frequency of Moving

 

.20

 

l 1.24
sig. <.001

 

138

 

 

Tobacco Use

Male Sample

Tobacco Use= 1.21

+ .29 Sense of Humor

- .34 Emotional Intelligence
+ .30 Alcohol Use

+ .45 Neighborhood Not Safe

22.45
sig. <.(Xll

 

Sexual Activity

Full Sample

Sexual Activity= .56

- . 16 Moral Development

+ .20 History of Sexual Abuse

- .07 Sexual Orientation Confusion
+ .15 Supportive Partner

+ .10 View Violence/ Sex on TV

+ .26 Neighborhood Not Safe

+ .22 Parents Not Around

+ .07 Dad Visits Fuzuko

.24

24.95
sig. <.001

 

Sexual Activity

Female Sample

Sexual Activity-= .37

+ .17 Sense of Humor

- .19 Autonomy

- .25 Personal Myth

+ .28 History of Sexual Abuse
+ .19 Supportive Partner

+ .15 View Violence/Sex on TV
+ .22 Alcohol Use

+ .23 Neighborhood Not Safe
+ .14 Parents Not Around

+ .11 Dad visits Fuzuko

19.12
sig. <.001

 

Sexual Activity

Male Sample

Sexual Activity= .35

- .15 Moral Development

+ .14 Autonomy

+ .27 History of Sexual Abuse

- .13 Sexual Orientation Confusion
+ .15 Supportive Partner

+ .15 Alcohol Use

+ .21 Neighborhood Not Safe

+ .21 Parents Not Around

.23

14.54
sig. <.001

 

Intercourse Age

Full Sample

Intercourse Age= .18

+ .23 History of Sexual Abuse

- .12 Sexual Orientation Confusion
+ .09 Supportive Partner

+ .14 View Violence/Sex on TV

+ .22 Neighborhood Not Safe

+ .25 Parents Not Around

+ .10 Dad visits Fuzuko

17.84
sig. <.001

 

intercourse Age

Female Sample

Sexual Activity= .57

+ .20 Sense of Humor

- .20 Autonomy

- .33 Personal Myth

+ .24 History of Sexual Abuse
+ .12 Supportive Partner

+ .19 View Violence/Sex on TV
+ .27 Alcohol Use

+ .23 Neighborhood Not Safe

+ .15 Dad visits Fuzjukg

.37

16.06
sig. <.001

 

 

Intercourse Age

 

Male Sample

 

Sexual Intercourse Age= .54

+ .42 History of Sexual Abme

- .16 Sexual Orientation Confusion
+ .14 Supportive Partner

+ .18 Alcohol Use

+ .21 Parents Not Around

 

 

 

13.21
sig. <.001

 

 

139

 

Chapter V

DISCUSSION

Summary Conclusions

This is the ﬁrst study that has investigated the protective and risk factors that are
associated with resilient outcomes in Japan. Though there are many aspects of Japanese
culture that are unique; there are many protective and risk factors that seem to be similar
to western protective factors. Of the 26 western protective factor variables investigated,
14 were found to be predictive in the Japanese sample in at least one regression equation.
The internal protective factor variables that were signiﬁcant predictors were: autonomy,
self-efﬁcacy, the creation of a personal myth, having a sense of humor, easy
temperament, moral development, and emotional intelligence. All the peer microsystem
protective factor variables were predictive of at least one outcome; they include: partner
relationship, social network, and supportive friends. There were no neighborhood
microsystem protective factor variables that were signiﬁcant predictors of the outcomes.
The sole school microsystem protective factor variable that was predictive was a
relationship with a school mentor. The family microsystem protective factor variables
that had predictive ability were having parents who imparted values, family economic
stability, and having a strong maternal relationship.

The presence of these protective factor variables found in the Japanese sample
relate to a large body of prior research found in occidental research. Being an

autonomous, independent individual was found to be a protective factor for many

140

rml

researchers (Howard, Dryden & Johnson, 1999; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994:
Werner, 1994). Likewise, the possession of self-efﬁcacy beliefs contributed to improved
outcomes for many individuals (Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Garmezy,
1996; Gore & Eckenrode, 1996; Emery & Forehand, 1996; Kumpfer, 1999; Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998; Maughan, 1992; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson,
1998; McMillan & Reed, 1994; Larson, 2000; Rutter, 1999b; Rutter, 1989; Rutter, 1987;
Sameroff, 2000; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001). The creation
of a personal myth that acted as a guide and a plan for the individual was found to be
important for resilient outcomes in various studies (Garbarino, 1992; Garmezy, 1996;
Howard, Dryden, & Johnson, 1999; Kumpfer, 1999; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994).
Having a sense of humor that alleviated stress for the individual and others in her
environment was also an important protective factor (Emery & Forehand, 1996;
Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Kumpfer, 1999; Masten, 1986; McCubbin,
McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998; Rutter, 1987; Wang, Haertel & Walberg,
1994). Furthermore, many researchers agreed that an easy temperament contributed to
more resilient outcomes (Emery & Forehand, 1996; Garcia-Coll, Lamberty, Jenkins,
McAdoo, Crnic, Wasik & Garcia, 1996; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992;
Gilvarry, 2000; Gore & Eckenrode, 1996; Henry, Caspi, Moﬁitt & Silva, 1996; Kumpfer,
1999; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; McMillan & Reed, 1994; Wang, Haertel & Walberg,
1994; Werner, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001). Likewise, individuals who had greater
moral development had improved outcomes in some studies (Brooks & Goldstein, 2001;
Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa & Turbin, 1995; Kumpfer, 1999). Emotional

intelligence that includes self-regulation, self-control, socially appropriate conduct, and

141

sociability has been found to be an important protective factor in prior research with
western samples (Bogenschneider, 1998; Cicchetti, Toth & Rogosch, 2000; Cowen,
Wyman, Work, Kim, Emery & Forehand, 1996; Fagen, & Magnus, 1997; Hawkins,
Catalano & Miller, 1992; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Novick, 1998; Rutter, 1989;
Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Werner, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001).

Within the peer microsystem, a strong partner relationship predicted more
resilient outcomes (Higgins, 1994; Moskovitz, 1985; Quinton, Rutter & Liddle, 1984;
Werner, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001). A wider social network was found to be
important for the child’s optimal development (Burton & Jarrett, 2000; Emery &
Forehand, 1996; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Garcia-Coll, Lamberty,
Jenkins, McAdoo, Crnic, Wasik & Garcia, 1996; Garmezy, 1993; Hawkins, Catalano and
Miller, 1992; McMillan & Reed, 1994; Osofsky, 1999; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994;
Werner, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001). Likewise, supportive friends who were both a
support and a refuge for adolescents was a protective factor (Cauce, Mason, Gonzalez,
Hiraga &Liu, 1994). The presence of a school mentor in the life of a student
experiencing stress was found to be an important protective factor in several studies
(Garmezy, 1996, 1993,1985; Gottlieb and Sylvestre, 1994; Howard, Dryden and Johnson,
1999; Larson, 2000; Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker, 2000; McLoyd, 1998; McMillan &
Reed, 1994; Nettles & Pleck, 1996; Roth and Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Wang, Haertel and
Walberg, 1994; Werner & Smith, 2001).

Parents, who impart values of optimism, hope, educational achievement and high
expectations to their children had adolescents who were more resilient (Garbarino,

Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Masten & Coatsworth,

142

1998; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998; Ngo & Malz, 1998;
Sandefur, 1998; Wang, Cowen, Wyman, Work, Kim, F agen, & Magnus, 1997).

The ability of families to be able to offer their offspring greater economic stability
was an important protective factor (Garcia-Coll, Lamberty, Jenkins, McAdoo, Crnic,
Wasik & Garcia, 1996; Gore & Eckenrode, 1996; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Sameroff,
2000). Likewise, a secure loving relationship between parenting ﬁgures has been shown
to be an enduring protective factor for their children (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993; Emery &
Forehand, 1996; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson & Thompson, 1998; Rutter,
1999,1989; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994; Werner, 1986).

Regarding the 25 risk factor variables, all were signiﬁcant in at least one
regression equation with the exception of the variable personality differences with
parents. It was interesting that the western as well as the Japanese risk factors had such
deleterious effects. There seems to be many risks that are harmful to both western and
Japanese youth.

The risk factors that have been discussed in the Japanese press, involvement in
Enjo Kosai, having a mother who is involved in Terekura, having a father who visits
F uzoku and parental gambling, were present and had a harmful effect on the youth of the
nation. It is hoped that this research will initiate the discussion of these unprecedented
ﬁndings in Japan.

This study employed an ecological framework to both conceptually and
operationally organize the protective and risk factor variables. The ecological structure
guided the creation of the protective and risk factors instruments and the evaluation of the

data. In both the protective and risk factor instruments, variables were identiﬁed as either

143

being internal or developmental variables or variables that were apparent in the context of
the family microsystem, school microsystem, neighborhood microsystem or peer
microsystem. Using an ecological framework in the evaluation of the data allowed the
multi-contextual appraisal of the respondents to emerge. Furthermore, the macrosystemic
inﬂuences of Hip Hop Culture and television viewing were also investigated. Thus, the
study beneﬁted from the exploration of the multi-faceted dimensions of the respondents
through the use of an ecological perspective.

Furthermore, splitting the sample by gender was an important process to better
illuminate the inﬂuence of the protective and risk factors. Three protective factors were
important for both sexes for the same outcome. They were social network, partner
relationship, and parents who impart values. Therefore, the other eleven predictive
protective factors were not apparent for both sexes for the same outcome. Associations
would have been masked if they had not been evaluated by gender. This is an important
contribution to better understand that protective factors may be more important to one
gender for a speciﬁc outcome rather than as a protective factor to both sexes for a
particular outcome. This insight could be used to create prevention programs that target
gender speciﬁc interventions.

More of the risk factor variables were predictive for both the female and the male
sample for a particular outcome. The variables that were predictive were having a history
of physical illness, a history of sexual abuse, involvement in Enjo Kosai, confusion over
sexual orientation, alcohol use, living in a neighborhood that was not safe, being bullied,
having a parent who was depressed, having a parent who was not aware, having a parent

who was not around, having a mother that was involved in Terekura, and increased

144

viewing of violence or sex on television were predictive for both sexes for particular
outcomes. However, the majority of the risk factor variables (13/25) were predictive by
gender for particular outcomes. This is an important new ﬁnding to consider, in that for
particular outcomes speciﬁc risks were more deleterious by gender. This seems to concur
with recently published research by the National Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse at Columbia University (Califano, 2003) that posits the risks that were predictive
of females drug, alcohol and tobacco use were different than the risks associated with
male drug, alcohol and tobacco use. This also may have ramiﬁcations for intervention
programs to focus on the prevention of risks by particular gender and not general risks.

Interestingly, there was not a particular protective or risk factor variable that was
a signiﬁcant predictor for every outcome. Certain risk or protective factor variables were
associated with speciﬁc outcomes, but no protective or risk factor variable was a
signiﬁcant predictor for all outcomes. However, one risk variable, living in a
neighborhood that was not safe, was predictive in all the equations except for the
outcome internalizing behavior. Different protective and risk factors were more or less
salient for various outcomes.

Furthermore, the constellation of risk and protective factors variables for each
outcome by gender was unique. Not only was there not a particular protective or risk
factor variable that was predictive for all outcomes, the combination of protective factor
variables and risk factor variables was distinct for each outcome by gender. Thereby,
there was not a “one size ﬁts all” grouping of variables. This coincides with Luthar,
Cicchetti and Becker (2000) review of resilience literature that resilience is often limited

to a particular domain and not across all areas of an individual’s life.

145

To further understand the ﬁndings, they will be discussed in a cultural context.
Cultural Interpretation of the Findings

There is an old Japanese saying, “The nail that sticks out gets pounded down.”
This saying reﬂects many Japanese social rules and morays. Japanese corporations,
businesses, universities, and public schools all promote the idea of interdependence
where harmony and common good are valued over personal gain (Crocker et al., 1994;
Kitayama & Markus, 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Reid & Deaux, 1996; Morling et
al., 2002; Sugimura, 2001). The difference between a culture that encourages
individuality and a culture that encourages interdependence is highlighted in the recent
studies by Kitayama (2001, 2000) that compared U.S. and Japanese college students. He
found that European-American students believed that they were unique, and separate
from any particular context. However, Japanese students believed that they were
relational and embedded in the context. Furthermore, the American respondents were
motivated to inﬂuence their surrounding and be a source of action, whereas, their
Japanese counterparts were motivated to ﬁt-in and adjust to their surroundings. This
ability to adjust is very important to resiliency. However, being too malleable may be a
risk in itself. As noted in the study, a lack of autonomy and personal myth in women was
associated with sexual activity.

Japanese ethnographers have often discussed the Japanese personality as a
mixture of an outside persona and an inner self of feelings and motivations. It has been
said, “Every Japanese wears a mask” (Smith, 1997, p. 35). This mask is used to conceal
one’s true feelings in order to become better integrated in the group and more similar to

other group members.

146

The desire for harmony or sameness within the Japanese culture can also mean
intolerance of differences. Sakamaki (1996) states, “In a society where conformity is
everything, no stigma weighs heavier than the curse of being different” (p. 291). Shame
becomes an integral part of the culture. Ruth Benedict (1946) also discussed Japan as a
shame culture; she stated, “True shame cultures rely on external sanctions for good
behavior, not as true guilt cultures do on internalized convictions of sin” (p. 8).
However, it has been postulated that shame for the Japanese is not entirely a negative
emotion, but may be, in fact, a powerful motivator (Kitayama & Markus, 1994). It has
been reported that when failure occurred and shame was felt by Japanese students, they
were more persistent at the follow-up task (Heine et al., 2002).

The Japanese are shamed when they have committed a transgression of behavior
or decorum, especially when it involves someone of higher status. “Enryo” is a Japanese
term that it used to discuss the dynamic of wearing the mask in status relationships
(Amault, 2002). It has been postulated that Japanese children by the age of 12 are well
aware of the social hierarchy that permeates all social interactions and their place in that
hierarchy (Van Wolfren, 1990). It is a grave social offense to disclose one’s true feelings
in relationships of unequal status. Being servile and agreeable is all-important, and
negative repercussions for oneself and for one’s family would result if the social edict of
enryo was not followed. Therefore, wearing the mask is not only important for self-
preservation as a member of a larger group, but also for the preservation of the family
group.

This desire for servitude, agreeableness, and personal sacriﬁce for the greater

good has been used in the Japanese work world with great effect on productivity and

147

loyalty. However, for the developing child, the work world is an exosystem
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). A study has been conducted since the 1960’s in the Japanese
press to determine how “salarymen” rank the importance of their company and their
family; it has been found that when the two microsystems are in conﬂict, it is the family
microsystem that must adapt to the changes (Van Wolfren, 1990). Therefore, it is not
surprising that the paternal relationship was never a signiﬁcant protective factor in the
study. Nearly ﬁfty percent (49.5%) of the post-secondary students reported still seeing
their mothers daily, but only 1.5 percent see their fathers daily. Likewise, it is for this
reason that the lack of the maternal relationship had such negative repercussions for the
respondents, especially in the case of delinquency.

It is, however, under the mask, that so much is felt. It is believed that this study
has tapped into many of the feelings that are beneath the mask. Prior to receiving the
survey, there was usually a great deal of discussion of privacy. Once the respondents had
been assured that this information would not be able to be traced back to them, they were
very eager to participate. Many respondents were amazed that people wanted to know
what they really thought. Others found the task difficult because they had never been
asked many of the questions about their inner feelings. This is particularly interesting
because the Japanese students are the quintessential test takers. Many respondents have
taken a battery of tests on a weekly basis since elementary school. But none had ever
been asked to take a survey that asked them what they truly thought and were told that
any answer would be correct. Some questions were met with mild shock or giggling.
The high rate of participation can also be interpreted as the desire to lift the mask and to

share their feelings, motivations and personal history under the safety of anonymity.

148

Some of the research results will be further discussed in the context of culture by
outcome variable.
Intemalizing Behavior

This pounding of the societal “nail” for compliance and uniformity can also be
viewed in the school setting in the form of bullying. It is widely reported that bullying is
a large problem in the Japanese schools (Van Wolfren, 1990). The respondents in this
survey reported that over half (54.1 %) had been bullied in school. Furthermore, in Japan
bullying is often seen as the fault of the individual who has been bullied because she had
not effectively learned how to ﬁt in. It has also been documented that bullying is not just
perpetrated by students, but by teachers as well (Kerr, 2001, Van Wolfren, 1990). With
the pressure to conform and the self-knowledge of being different, it seems
understandable that the connection between being bullied and internalizing behavior was
signiﬁcant.

Furthermore, the association between high levels of self-efﬁcacy, moral
development and internalizing behavior at ﬁrst seems to be contrary to expectations.
However, it may be viewed as more understandable in regard to the Japanese educational
system. The Japanese Ministry of Education’s mission is to create students who are
loyal, competent and diligent (Dower, 1999). Furthermore, the Japanese student is told
what to do and how to think throughout their entire tenure in the educational system; this
begins in kindergarten and continues to the conclusion of university education (F ukuda,
1996). The Japanese have neglected to teach students to be analytical, creative, to see
connectivity or to take personal responsibility (Kerr, 2001). So that, those students who

are using greater connectivity and personal responsibility, which are behaviors that have

149

not been nurtured and extolled in Japan would be outside the mainstream of Japanese
society. However, these behaviors would engender both increased self-efﬁcacy and
moral development. Because of that undesirable societal position of being outside
mainstream Japanese society, the individuals that have high self-efﬁcacy and moral
development scores may be at greater risk for internalizing behavior.

Delinquency

In Japan, if behavior cannot be contained through following the rules or by
coercision, then more rules need to be created. Therefore, if the current “hammer” is not
working to control undesirable behavior, then one needs to ﬁnd a hammer that is bigger
and can be wielded with greater force. In fact, it has been stated that the number of
school rules and regulations today are even greater than when Japan was at the pinnacle
of military fanaticism in the 1930’s and 1940’s (Kerr, 2001). Japanese students’
behaviors that do not conform to proper conduct are continually held to an even more
stringent set of rules. It was recently reported that as Japanese schools try to combat
more deﬁant teenage behavior, they have become even more punitive (Kerr, 2001). In
the extreme, it has been suggested that incarceration or labor camps should be used as a
means of dealing with delinquent youth (Van Wolfren, 1990; Shukan, 2002).

A recent phenomenon called “kireru” or snapping is on the rise; after years of
following rules, the adolescent snaps and no longer follows or responds to the dictates of
Japanese society (Greenﬁeld, 1995, 2002). It is this growing kireru group that dresses
outside of cultural norms, colors their hair vivid shades, writes grafﬁti on public
buildings, races their motorbikes through crowded streets, and is in school to have fun,

not to better themselves. They no longer believe that working hard will improve their

150

future earnings or station in life. They did not excel in school early in their life, so they
did not get into the “good” junior high schools or the “good” high schools or the “good”
universities, and will not get the “good” jobs. They are destined to be second-class
citizens, and they know it. They are the face of Japanese disenfranchised youth. Instead
of being subservient and accepting their lot in life as has been traditionally prescribed by
enryo, they have instead completely opted out. It is suspected that the regression
equations for delinquency were so robust because they were tapping into some of the
kireru phenomenon.

Mainstream Japanese society is perplexed about how to control this unruly and
unorganized loose network of kireru youth. However, the kireru are not a single uniﬁed
group or movement. Most are content to scoﬂ‘ at mainstream society, but not to change
it. It may also be that the kireru youth lack the knowledge of how to make changes or to
even imagine that they have power to make changes in society.

However, these kireru are at risk for becoming hardened criminals. The
recruitment of these delinquent youth by organized crime (Yakuza) has been documented
in Japan for some time (Mugushima, 1985; Saga, 1991; Van Wolfren, 1990). Therefore,
it would seem that it would be in society’s best interest to redirect these youth when they
may still have an opportunity to do so.

Drugs

It is also the kireru group that is more likely to experiment with drugs.
Furthermore, drugs have become a big and proﬁtable business for the Yakuza (Saga,
1991). Even with an increased number of laws trying to combat drug use and increased

penalties and lengthy incarceration for possession of even small quantities of drugs, the

151

number of drug users is suspected to be on the rise in Japan. This study found that 8.4%
of the female sample and 20.7% of the male sample had experimented with drugs. These
numbers were much higher than was expected.
Sexual Activity

It is probably the Japanese sexual behaviors that are the most difﬁcult to
understand and seem the most contrary to the perception of the Japanese. However,
Japanese sexual behaviors have recently come to the attention of UNICEF. End Child
Prostitution in Asian Tourism (ECPAT), a non-govemmental organization that works in
collaboration with UNICEF and the European Union World Conference Against
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children has been compiling records of child
prostitution in Japan. Japan’s Enjo Kosai is a very unusual phenomenon. It is the only
country in Asia where child prostitution is not related to poverty (EPCAT, 2003).
However, it seems to be widespread. In a recent study of college women in Tokyo, 70%
of the women acknowledged that in their childhood they had experienced older men
trying to solicit them for sexual activity (Kakuchi, 2001). Nothing is known about the
male Enjo Kosai. This study is the ﬁrst that has results about this phenomenon.

Amazingly, until 1999, the age of consent in Japan was 13. Perhaps by having the
age of majority so young, Japanese men did not feel any qualms about propositioning
junior high school girls. However, child pornography and prostitution laws were enacted
in 1999 to redeﬁne a child as a person less than 18 years of age (EPCAT, 2003).

In Japan, there is a continuum of aberrant sexual behavior involving children; it
moves from active participant involved in Enjo Kosai to voyeur involved in purchasing

child pornography. EPCAT (2003) reported that 80% of the available world market of

152

child pornography is produced in Japan. Some of these children are trafficked from other
countries to be ﬁlmed in Japan. A study in 1996 by Kyofukai, a Japanese human rights
organization, found that child pornography was openly available in 97% of Japanese
mainstream bookstores. Though laws on child pornography were created in 1999, the
child pornography industry in Japan has not been dismantled, but has become more
secretive and is now using the Internet to transmit their material.

This fascination with sex with children has also spawned a travel industry that
caters to Japanese men who go on sex holidays. Japanese men constitute the largest
group of sex tourists in Asia (EPCAT, 2003). It has been documented that they travel to
Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, and Hong Kong as sex
tourists (EPCAT, 2003). Until 1999, these holidays were all openly advertised in
mainstream Japanese newspapers. The new laws on child prostitution also apply to
Japanese nationals who engage in child prostitution outside of the country.

This fascination with children as sexual beings is extremely disturbing. Until
recently, Japanese society has showed tacit approval of sexualizing children. The 1999
laws regarding child prostitution and pornography are an important ﬁrst step. However,
there still are no comprehensive sexual education programs or activities that discuss
children’s rights in Japan for adults or children.

In this study, it was found that sexual behaviors on the part of the parent
contributed to the respondents’ internalizing behavior, delinquency, drug use, alcohol
use, greater sexual activity, and younger intercourse age. Furthermore, the sexual
victimization of the respondents seem to be a factor in predicting internalizing behavior,

drug use, greater sexual activity and younger intercourse age. It is hoped that this study

153

will illuminate the destructive effect that these sexual activities have on many young
Japanese men and women.

This is one of the ﬁrst Japanese studies that has posed so many difﬁcult questions.
It is also interesting that an outsider, a “gaijin”, asked these questions. A certain amount
of latitude seems to have been given to discuss issues with a stranger that they have not
discussed with their fellow countrymen and women. Perhaps the rules of enryo are not so
strictly self-enforced with a foreigner, or perhaps many feel that it is time to talk about
these issues.

Instrument Development

After investigating many standardized instruments, it was concluded that none
effectively assessed the many protective factors found in the resilience literature. It was
decided to create an instrument that consolidated the research ﬁndings into one measure.
The HEPFYA instrument was created to assess both internal and environmental
protective factors. The environmental protective factors were divided by the
microsystems that youth inhabit: family microsystem, peer microsystem, school
microsystem, and neighborhood microsystem. Face and content validity was achieved by
the instrument’s adherence to protective factors found in the research literature.

In the best situation, the instrument would have been piloted prior to its use in a
large sample, but due to time constraints, the initial testing was with the Japanese sample.
In the beginning, there were 31 subscales. After reorganizing some of the subscales
through factor analysis and preserving some of the subscales that closely matched prior
research literature and made logical sense, 26 subscales remained. Cronbach’s alpha was

computed to assure that the remaining 26 subscales had adequate reliability. The

154

subscales that were omitted due to low reliability scores were cognitive ability, trust, and
the physical environment of the school. Cognitive ability is a protective factor that has
been extensively discussed in the research literature (Bogenschneider, 1998; Emery &
Forehand, 1996; Farrington, 1995; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny & Pardo, 1992; Garber
and Little, 1999; Garmezy, 1993; Gilvarry, 2000; Hawkins, Catalano and Miller, 1992;
Kumpfer, 1999; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Rende & Plomin, 1993; Rutter, 1999,
1989; Skuse, 1984; Werner, 1994;Wemer and Smith, 2001, 1982; White, Moﬂitt & Silva,
1989; Yule, 1993) but it was not reliable in this study. Perhaps cognitive ability needs to
be assessed as a performance test and not as self-report items, or perhaps what the
research literature is assessing is “street smarts” and not merely cognitive ability. Other
subscales were removed because they were too similar to subscales that had stronger
reliability scores; these were attachment to mother and attachment to father.

It was hoped that some of the subscales would have higher alpha scores, but they
were generally in the acceptable range. Some of the subscales that had alpha scores from
.5-.6 actually were signiﬁcant predictors of the outcomes; these included the variables
emotional intelligence (.54), mental ﬂexibility (.54), moral development (.55), and
supportive friends (.54). These subscales may need to be reﬁned but seem to measure
important concepts. Other subscales that had high alpha scores were not predictive of the
outcomes; these included physical beauty (.80), spirituality (.76), paternal relationship
(.83), and social capital (.84). Perhaps these subscales are not relevant for a Japanese
sample and would have predictive ability if used with a different population.

Before the HEPFYA instrument is used again, some revisions need to take place.

It would be an easier instrument to complete if it was shorter. For some individuals, the

155

protective and risk instruments took nearly one hour and a half to complete. In its present
long format, it could be problematic to give the instrument to a population that is not as
diligent and task oriented. Though test fatigue was not apparent with this sample, it
could be a problem with other populations.

The risk factor instrument LESJY was compiled from four different sources.
Items from the Teen Assessment Project Survey, TAP, (Small, 2000) were combined
with items found in the National Longitudinal Study, NLSY, (2000) with items that were
found in the risk literature in North America, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia. In
addition, items that were of particular concern in Japan were also included. Multiple
versions were reviewed in Japan to assure that the risks would be understood by Japanese
youth. This was important, because without risk, there cannot be resilience (Garmezy,
1993, 1985; Henderson & Milstein, 1996; Rutter, 1989, 1987; Wang, Haertel, &
Walberg, 1994).

In general, the LESJY instrument subscales had higher Cronbach’s Alpha scores
than the subscales from the HEPFYA instrument. It may be surmised that because the
measure incorporated two instruments, the TAP and the NLSY, that have been used and
revised for a long time that it is inherently a more reliable instrument. Furthermore, the
LESJY subscales were all predictive in at least one outcome in the regression equations
with the exception of the variable personality differences with parents.

In the future, if the LESJY is to be used in Japan again, it should be further
revised to include the most current risks affecting the Japanese public. One risk that was
not included in the initial survey, but would have been interesting, is the “gaming” trend.

It has been reported that Japanese youth lock themselves in their rooms for days to play

156

video games; this seems to be the adolescent version of the Pachinko gambling.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to ask questions that would better illuminate the
kireru (snapping) phenomenon.

If the risk instrument is to be used with a non-Japanese population then the
content that is pertinent to the Japanese population would undoubtedly need to be
removed, and risks that are considered deleterious to that population included. It is very
important that the risks assessed are actually considered risks to members of the
population and not merely the researcher (Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker, 2000). As was
done in this instance, it would be beneﬁcial to have a knowledgeable member of the
population reﬁne the risk instrument prior to its use. It would also be beneﬁcial if the
risk instrument did not take as long to complete, and therefore, was quicker to administer.
It, however, may be difficult to reduce the size; the LESJY risk instrument actually grew
every time the Japanese collaborators reviewed the instrument due to their desire to add
further items.

Limitations of the Research

There were some limitations of this study. All of the information came from one
source, the respondents. This allows for only the respondent’s perception of the events.
Events are always interpreted through the individual’s lens and may not be a factual
account of the events. Selective remembering or forgetting, especially if the memory is
unpleasant, may affect the recall of events. With the added viewpoint of another
individual, perhaps greater understanding could have been achieved. However, by using
a large college sample, it was not practical to include parents or teachers as a

corroborating source.

157

Furthermore, shared method variance can be a problem because the same
individual completed both instruments. Relations among variables tend to be larger when
the same individual completes questionnaires on the predictor variables and the outcome
variables.

Another limitation was that the surveys were not well-established instruments, but
created by the investigator. This was necessitated by the fact that there were no
standardized measures of protective factors nor were there surveys that included the
constellation of risk factors that were pertinent to the Japanese population. However,
using measures that are not known and generally accepted may produce less convincing
results.

Although the sample is fairly representative of college students in one area,
generalizability can always be a concern. The sample came from the northern island of
Hokkaido and not mainland Japan or the southern islands; thus, the sample may not be
representative of all Japanese youth. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to generalize
the results to youth from other Asian countries. Likewise, J apanese-Americans are not
embedded in the same social and cultural context, and therefore it should not be assumed
that similar ﬁndings would be obtained with a sample of Japanese-American youth. It is
important to remember that the results came from a particular time and a particular
culture.

Directions for Future Research
At the conclusion of the survey, respondents were given the option to provide

separate tracking information. More than half of the respondents gave information of

158

where they could be contacted in the future. It is hoped that in four years these
respondents can be resurveyed to assess their acclimation to adult roles.

The respondents were also asked to answer four qualitative questions that
included: “If you could describe yourself in a sentence or two who would you say that
you are?” “What about you matters most?” “What makes you the person you are?” and
“Who do you want to be in the future?” These questions are adapted from questions that
Robert Coles (1990) asked in his interviews with children and adolescents. These
qualitative questions were removed from the original dissertation due to the amount of
the data to be reviewed. However, it is hoped that these qualitative questions will be
analyzed in the future and then compared to the quantitative results.

It is also hoped that the protective factor and risk factor instruments can be reﬁned
and used again. Neither instrument has ever been used with a U.S. sample. Furthermore,
it would also be very informative to use the instruments with a U.S. minority sample.
Equally interesting would be completing the evaluation of protective and risk factors in
another part of the world. In each of these possible venues, it would be useful to know if
the relations among risk factors, protective factors and outcomes vary as a function of

gender of the respondents.

159

I‘ll

Appendices

160

Appendix A

Haddow Ecological Protective Factors for Young Adults (HEPFYA)
Julie Haddow

Please respond to each question by how often it describes you or your situation:
4=Always, 3=Most of the Time, 2=Sometimes, l=0ccasionally, 0=Never

I do not consider myself to be smart.

I have trouble remembering things.

I can ﬁgure out how things work.

People think that I have a lot of common sense.

My friends consider me to be attractive.

I consider myself to be attractive.

I am less attractive than my friends.

I have received positive attention because I am attractive.

I have a high activity level.

I have regular sleeping and eating patterns.

I am easily distracted.

It is hard for me to adapt to change.

I have a short attention span.

I am uncomfortable meeting new people.

I am in a good mood.

My family was unable to take care of my needs for food, shelter and clothing.
My family has money to purchase things we do not need but want.

My family used its money to take us out to see interesting events and places.

161

ﬁr

I consider my family to be well off ﬁnancially.
I am able to make people laugh when they are feeling down or stressed.
My friends don’t think that I am funny.

I feel that having a sense of humor helps me out.

I can ﬁnd something to chuckle about even when things look bleak.
My spiritual beliefs help guide my decisions.

I feel like God has a plan for me.

I feel that my prayers are not heard.

My sense of spirituality gives me hope for the future.

I feel that with God I am not alone.

I believe that in general I will be treated fairly.

If you trust people you will likely get hurt.

In general, I believe that I can trust most people.

I know my own feelings and emotions.

I have trouble handling my own emotions appropriately.

I can wait to get what I want.

I know how to motivate myself so that I will ﬁnish what I started.

I am impatient.

I am good at understanding how others are feeling.

I have trouble making and keeping friends.

I have friends of both sexes.

I feel that I should not ask for help from others.

I do not know how to use community resources.

162

I do not ask people for help because I am aﬁ'aid of being turned down.
I feel that I know how to “ work the system” to get my needs met.

It is hard for me to change my position on a topic.

I think about ideas from different points of view.

I am open to new ideas.

I am uncomfortable around people who think differently than me.

I have a strong sense of shame if I do something wrong.

I think my needs should be taken care of before I worry about others’ needs.
I think I should do what is right even if it will make me unpopular.

I consider others feelings when I make decisions.

I make excuses for my failures.

I feel guilty if I do not do what I know is right.

When I see others I know able to complete a task, I feel that I can complete a similar task
too.

When other people tell me I have the ability to do something, I do not believe them.
If I have been successful in the past, I am usually successful again.

I tend to give up easily.

If I put my mind to it I can be successful.

My parents (OR parent and step-parent OR parent and signiﬁcant other) argue a lot.

My parents (OR parent and step-parent OR parent and signiﬁcant other) are committed to
each other.

My parents (OR parent and step-parent OR parent and signiﬁcant other) do not seem to
be in love anymore.

I consider that my parents (OR parent and step-parent OR parent and signiﬁcant other)
have a vibrant/healthy relationship.

163

I feel that my relationship with my mother makes becoming an adult easier.
I feel that if I make mistakes my mother will no longer love me.

I feel that my mother will always be behind me, no matter where I am.

I feel my mother will love me only if I do what she wants me to do.

I feel that my relationship with my father makes becoming an adult easier.
I feel that if I make mistakes my father will no longer love me.

I feel that my father will always be behind me, no matter where I am.

I feel my father will love me only if I do what he wants me to do.

My mother praises me for doing well.

My mother criticizes me or my ideas.

My mother helps me do things that are important to me

My mother blames me for her problems.

My mother makes plans with me and then cancels for no good reason.

My father praises me for doing well.

My father criticizes me or my ideas.

My father helps me do things that are important to me.

My father blames me for his problems.

My father makes plans with me and then cancels for no good reason.

We celebrate birthdays and holidays together as a family.

While I was growing up, I felt that my parent(s) could protect me from some of the bad
things happening in the world.

My parent(s) have taught me right from wrong.

My parent(s) gave me spiritual instruction.

164

My parent(s) believe that hard work will guarantee ﬁrture success.

My parent(s) believe that I am special.

My personality ﬁts well with my parent(s) personality.

I feel like my parent(s) and I never really connected.

My parent(s) and I have trouble ﬁnding common ground with each other.

My parent(s) and I have different expectations for my future.

I feel like I do not ﬁt in at my college.

At college, I can forget about my problems.

I have the opportunity to share my own thoughts in my classes.

At my college good work is not rewarded.

I feel like I am learning things at my college that will be helpful in the future.
The style of teaching that is presented in my classes is interesting to me.

My college is not well maintained.

I feel safe at my college.

In the neighborhood I grew up, I knew my neighbors names.

My neighbors where I grew up had different values than I did.

Where I grew up, I visited my neighbors to talk to them.

In my neighborhood where I grew up, I considered myself to be part of a community.
People in the neighborhood where I grew up watched out for each other.

My neighborhood where I grew up was well maintained.

In my neighborhood where I grew up, if someone saw me do something wrong they
would tell my parent(s).

Regarding your partner, how often is she/he fair and willing to compromise when you
have had a disagreement?

165

Regarding your partner, how often does she/he insult or criticize you or your ideas?
Regarding your partner, how often does she/he express affection or love for you?

Regarding your partner, how often does she/he encourage or help you to do things that
are important to you?

Regarding your partner, how often does she/he blame you for his/her problems?
What is your opinion regarding each of these statements?

4=strongly agree, 3=agree, 2=neither disagree or agree, l=disagree, 0=disagree
strongly '

I think highly of my mother.

My mother is a person I would like to be like.

I really enjoy spending time with my mother.

I think highly of my father.

My father is a person I would like to be like.

I really enjoy spending time with my father.

I have a friend that I can trust to give me good advice.

I have no friends that really know me.

I feel that my ﬁiend(s) would do anything to help me out.

I feel that my friends are only interested in what I can do for them.

In uncertain times, I usually expect the best.

I rarely count on good things happening to me.

I am always optimistic about my future.

I hardly expect things to go my way.

I believe that even when I have problems, things will turn out OK.

I believe that I will have a happy life.

I believe that if I work hard I will be successful.

166

I do not have a plan for my ﬁrture.
I daydream about what I will be doing in the future.

I do not believe the things that I am doing now will have any inﬂuence on my future
success.

I believe that I can make my plans a reality.

At college, there is no instructor that I would feel comfortable to go to for advice.
At college, there is an instructor that I like to talk to about my studies.

At college, there is an instructor that I would like to be like when I am an adult.
At college, there is an instructor that has taken a particular interest in me.

If family members are treating me poorly, I have the right to get away from them.
If friends are treating me poorly, I have the right to get away ﬁ'om them.

If my boyfriend/girlﬁiend is treating me poorly, I have the right to get away from
him/her.

I believe if something bad happened to me in the past it does deﬁne who I am now.
I allow myself to be taken advantage of.
If ﬁiends want to do something that might get me in trouble, I stay away from them.

How many people do know or have you approached:
0=no one,l=1 person, 2=2 people, 3=3 people, 4=4 or more people

I know people I can count on to help me out if I need money.
I have gone to people to ask for money.

I know people I can go to if I need advice.

I have gone to people for good advice in the past.
I know people I can count on to listen to me if I feel sad.
I have gone to people before when I needed to talk.

167

I know people that can help connect me to new groups of people.

I know people that can help connect me to future jobs or careers.
I know people that can help me make connections to important people.
I know people that can help me get important information.

168

F...

Appendix B

Life Events Survey for Japanese Youth (LESJY)
Julie Haddow
With material adapted from the Teen Assessment Project (TAP) Survey
written by Steven Small, 2000 and the NLSY 79, 2000
How often did these things happen while you were growing up?
4=Always, 3=Most of the Time, 2=Sometimes, l=0ccasionally, 0=Never
My mom was very sad or depressed
My dad was very sad or depressed.
My mom was stressed out
My dad was stressed out.
My mom had friends to help her out.
My dad had ﬁiends to help him out.
My mom had family to help her out
My dad had family to help him out.
My mom was not aware of what I was doing.
My dad was not aware of what I was doing.
I was hit when I misbehaved.
I was hit when I did poorly in school.
I was hit when I did not give my parents respect.
I was hit when I embarrassed my family.
I felt lonely.

I did not feel like eating, my appetite was poor.

I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing.

169

I felt depressed.

I felt that everything was an effort.

My sleep was restless.

I felt sad.

I could not get “going”.

I watched sexually explicit television shows or movies.
I watched violent television shows or movies.

I did not like myself.

I had a severe physical illness.

I thought about killing myself.

I was confused about my sexual orientation.

My dad ate dinner with me.

My mom ate dinner with me.

My dad was at home when I went to bed.

My mom was at home when I went to bed.

My dad met clients for business meetings after 5:00.
My dad was away ﬁom home ovemight for business.
My mom drank alcohol to get drunk.

My father drank alcohol to get drunk

My mom favored my sibling(s) over me. (If you have no siblings do not answer.)
My dad favored my sibling(s) over me. (If you have no siblings do not answer.)
My dad gambled.

My mom gambled.

170

My dad’s gambling caused debts.

My mom’s gambling caused debts.

My home was too small for our family.

I listened to Hip Hop music or watched Hip Hop music videos.
I wore Hip Hop clothes.

I considered myself to be part of the Hip Hop culture.

My neighborhood was not safe aﬁer dark.

Street gangs operated in my neighborhood.

I knew people who were involved with street gangs.

I was involved with street gangs.

Maﬁa (Yakuza) operated in my neighborhood.

I knew people who were involved with the maﬁa (Yakuza).
I was involved with the maﬁa (Yakuza).

How often have you used the following during the past year?
4=Daily, 3=weekly, 2=l-3 times per month, l=once or twice this year, 0=never

I use tobacco.

I use alcohol (beer, wine, whiskey, sake).

I use marijuana.

I use inhalants (paint thinner, lighter ﬂuid).

I use prescription drugs for non-prescription purposes.
I use cocaine/crack.

I use steroids.

1 use ecstasy or other designer drugs.

171

How old were you the first time this occurred?
0=never occurred, l=l3 or younger, 2= 14-15 years old, 3=16-17 years old,
4=18+years old

The ﬁrst time I had sexual intercourse I was_ years old.
The ﬁrst time I had oral sex I was_— years old.

The ﬁrst time I smoked cigarettes I was_ years old.

The ﬁrst time I got drunk I was_— years old.

The ﬁrst time I used drugs I was___ years old.

The ﬁrst time I stole something I was_ years old.

How often has the following occurred:
1= 1 time, 2=2 times, 3=3 times, 4=40r more times, 0=Never

I was touched inappropriately by a stranger (chikan) on a train or a bus.
I was pressured to have sex when I did not want to.

I was sexually abused by an adult.

I had sex or performed sexual acts to obtain things I wanted (onjukosai).
I was bullied at school.

I was undervalued because of my gender.

I shoplifted.

I took money from my parents without asking them.

I vandalized public or private property.

I saw my father hit my mother.

I heard my father be verbally abusive to my mother.

I saw my mother hit my father.

I heard my mother be verbally abusive to my father.

I believe that my father has gone to fuzuko.

172

I believe that my mother was involved with phone sex (terekura) to meet people.
I believe that my mother was involved with phone sex (terekura) to make money.
I had problems with the police.

My dad was incarcerated.

My mom was incarcerated.

My family moved.

I spent time at a youth center (jidosodanjo).

I have had sexual partners.
0=none, l=l-2, 2=3-5, 3=6-9, 4=10 or more

What type of birth control do you use:

0=None, l=condom, 2=Foam, jelly, sponge, suppository, 3=Birth control pills, 4=pulling
out, not ejaculating inside

What percentage of your peers do you believe does the following things:

1=Almost none (less than 10%), 2=About 25%, 3=About half (50%), 4=About 75%,
5=Almost all (more than 90%)

Smoke cigarettes.

Get drunk at least once a month.

Belong to a gang.

Have been in trouble with the police.

Have used marijuana, inhalants or other drugs.

Go to rave parties.

Are involved in Hip Hop culture.

Have had sexual intercourse.

Have had more than 10 sexual partners.

Were involved in onjukosai.

173

Are unsure what they want to do with their lives.
Have thought about different careers.

Have trouble with their parents.

Have trouble with their boyfriend/girlfriend.
Are lonely.

Are depressed.

Have thought about killing themselves.
Have attempted suicide.

Use birth control.

Are happy.

Enjoy life.

Look forward to the future.

Have a plan for the future.

Have religious beliefs.

Thank you for your truthfulness and your time!

174

Appendix C
Demographic Information
Julie Haddow
Please answer the following:
l-My age is 1=18, 2= 19, 3:20, 4=21, 5:22,
2-My gender is 1=female, 2=male

3-My college/university name is

 

4-There are students at my college/university. 1= 1-1000, 2= 1001-5000, 3=5001-
10,000, 4= 10,001-20,000, 5=20,001+

S-My major is: 1= Social Science, 2=Science, Engineering or Medicine, 3=Business,
4=Humanities or Art, 5=Vocational

6-This college/university was my 1=ls',2= 2"d, 3=3“, 4=4’h,5= 5th choice.
7-This college/university was my parent’s 1=1",2= 2nd, 3=3”, 4=4’h,5= 5th choice.

8-My high school name was

 

9-There were l=1-50, 2=51-150, 3=152-300, 4=301-600, 5= 601+ in my high school
graduating class.

10-I currently: 1= live in a dormitory, 2=live by myself in a apartment, 3=live with
friends in an apartment, 4=live with my family, 5= live with another family

ll-The highest education my mother graduated from: l=8th grade, 2= high school,
3=vocational program, 4=college, 5=graduate school

12-I believe that my mother enjoyed school. 1=always, 2=most of the time,
3=sometimes, 4=occasionally, 5=never

l3-I see my mother: l=daily, 2=weekly, 3=occasionally, 4=I do not have contact with my
mother, 5=my mother is deceased.

14-The highest education my father graduated from: l=8th grade, 2= high school,
3=vocational program, 4=college, 5=graduate school

15-I believe that my father enjoyed school. 1=always, 2=most of the time, 3=sometimes,
4=occasionally, 5=never

175

11E]

16-My parents are divorced. 1=Currently in progress, 2=1 year ago, 3=3 years ago, 4= 5
years ago or more, 5= never

17-I see my father: l=daily, 2=weekly, 3=occasionally, 4=I do not have contact with my
father, 5=my father is deceased.

l8-I have, 1=1 sibling, 2= 2 siblings, 3= 3 siblings, 4:4 or more siblings, 5=No siblings

l9-Growing up, I lived with all my siblings. 1= Always, 2=most of the time,
3=sometimes, 4: never, 5= No siblings

20-The sibling that is closest in age to me is: 1=l year or less older/younger than I am, 2=
years older/younger than I am, 3=3 years older/younger than I am, 4 or more years
older/younger than I am, 5=no siblings.

21-I believe that my family receives social service money from the government.
1=Currently, 2=1 year ago, 3=5 years ago, 4=10 years ago or more, 5= never

22-The adults in the family where I grew up consisted of (for this answer only, mark all
that apply):

1=biological mother, 2=biological father, 3: Grandparent(s), 4=other relatives, 5=other
non-relatives

176

Appendix D

Consent Form
This study is being conducted to better understand the experiences that Japanese youth have
had as they have grown up and how these experiences have impacted their transition to
adulthood. The information gained will give insight into the experiences currently affecting
Japanese youth and the attitudes, opinions and strengths of Japanese youth.

1. You are freely consenting to take part in this study being conducted by Julie Haddow, a
doctoral student at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of
America under the supervision of Dr. Tom Luster and Dr. Carl Taylor from the
Department of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University.

2. You will be asked to answer written questions regarding your childhood, your family,
your educational experiences, your friendships, and your beliefs.

3. You are being asked to answer written questions that will take approximately 45 minutes
to 1 hour 30 minutes to complete.

4. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

5. If you have any questions about the study, please contact:

Julie Haddow, email: haddowju@msu.edu. regular mail: 13 Human Ecology, Michigan
State University, East Lansing MI, 48824, USA, phone: (517) 381-0641

Dr. Tom Luster, email: luster@msu.edu, regular mail: 13 Human Ecology, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA , phone: (517) 432-3323

Dr. Carl Taylor, email: taylor36@msu.edu. regular mail: Suite 27 Kellogg Center, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824 USA, phone: (517) 353-6617

6. If at any time you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisﬁed with any aspect of this study, you may contact-
anonymously, if you wish- Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)355-2180, fax:
(517)432-4503, email: ucrihs@msu.edu or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing,
MI, 48824, USA

7. You can stop participating in the study at any time.

8. You have the opportunity to request the results of this study.

9. Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

Signed

 

Date

 

177

Appendix E
Participant #

Tracking Information
We would like to contact you in the future to ask you more questions.
Would you be willing to answer questions in the future? Yes No

If you are willing to be contacted in the future can you please print in romanji your
name and your complete address:

Name

 

Address

 

 

 

Your Date of Birth

 

Your College Name

 

If we can not locate you at this address would you be willing to allow us to contact
your mother? Yes No

If you are willing to allow us to contact your mother in the future can you please print
in romanji your mother’s name and her complete address:

Your Mother’s Name

 

Address

 

 

 

If we can not contact your mother at the above address is there someone else that you
would be willing to allow us to contact? Yes No

Name

 

Address

 

 

178

 

once or
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

University Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
202 Olds Hall

East tansing, MI

48824

517/355-2180

FAX 517/432-4503

Neb: mmsuedu/user/ucrihs
E-Mail: ucrihsOmsuem

mummswww
WW " Dimrty' '.

EwellenceinActim
MSUBmaﬂinnariwadion.

 

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R s I T Y

March 29, 2002

TO: Tom LUSTER
13 G Human Ecology

RE: IRB# 02.240 CATEGORY: EXPEDITED 2-7 '
APPROVAL DATE: March 27, 2002

TITLE: EVERYDAY RESILIENCE IN JAPANESE USE

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obmin informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal
form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a
project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB#
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments.
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints. etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved. -

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http:/Iwww.msu.eduluserlucrihs

Sincerely,

ﬂat/WW

Ashir Kumar, M.D.
UCRIHS Chair

AK: bd

003 Julie Anne Laser Haddow

4350 Greenwood
Okemos, Ml 48864

179

References

180

References

Adams, G., Gullotta, T. & Montemayor, R. (1992). Adolescent Identity Formation.
Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Allen, J. (2001). Human Development : An Interactional Perspective. New York:
Academic Press.

Arnault, D. (2002). Help-seeking and Social Support in Japanese Sojourners.
Unpublished Manuscript. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Baharudin, R. & Luster, T. (1998). Factors Related to the Quality of the Home
Environment and Children’s Achievement. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 4,
375-403.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Eﬂicacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Eﬂicacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44 (9), 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1982). The psychology of chance encounters and life paths. American
Psychologist, 37 (7), 747-755.

Barrows, A. (1995). The ecopsychology of child development. In T. Roszak, M.
Gomes & A. Kanner (Eds), Ecopsychology. (pp. 101-110). San Francisco,
CA: Sierra Club Books.

Belsky, J. & MacKinnon, C. (1994). Transition to school: developmental trajectories
and school experiences. Early Education and Development, 5, (2), 106-119.

Benedict, R. (1946). The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Rutland: Charles e.
Turtle.

Bix, H. (2000). Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. New York: Harper
Collins.

Bogenschneider, K. (1998). What youth need to succeed: The roots of resiliency. In
K. Bogenschneider and J. Olson (eds.), Building resiliency and reducing risk:
What youth need from families and communities to succeed. Wisconsin

Family Impacts Seminars Brieﬁng Report. University of Wisconsin, Madison,
WI.

181

Boger, R. & Smith, A. (1986). Developing Parental Skills: An Holistic, Longitudinal
Process. Infant Mental Health Journal, vol. 7, (2), summer 103-1 1 1.

Bornstein, M., Davidson, L., Keyes, C. & Moore, K. (2003). Well-Being, Positve
Development Across the Life Course. Mahwah, NJ. :Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.

Bourdieu, P. (1983). The Forms of Capital. In R. Nice (Ed), Transmission and
Reproduction, p. 241 -258.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: parent child attachment and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books.

Brazelton, T. & Greenspan, S. (2000). The Irreducible Needs of Children.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary
Ainsworth. Developmental Psychologyyol.28, (5), 759-775.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological Systems Theory. Annals of Child
Development, 6, 723-742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22:6, 723-
742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Brooks, R. & Goldstein, S. (2001). Raising Resilient Children. Chicago, IL:
Contempoary Books.

Bubolz, M. & Sontag, S. (1993). Human Ecology Theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty,
R. LaRossa, W. Schumm & S. Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebook of Family
Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. (pp.419-448). New York:
Plenum Press.

Burton, L. & Jarrett, R. (2000). In the mix, yet on the margins: The place of families
in urban neighborhood and child development research. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 1114-1135.

Buss, D. (2000). The evolution of happiness. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 15-23.

Butler, K. (1997). The Anatomy of Resilience. Networker, 2, 22-31.

182

Califano, J. (2003). The Formative Years: Pathways to Substance Abuse among
Girls and Young Women Ages 8-22. National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse (CASA). New York: Columbia University.

Caspi, A., Elder, G. & Bem, D. ( 1987). Moving against the world: Life course
patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308-313.

Cauce, A., Mason, C., Gonzalez, N., Hiragi, Y. & Liu, G. (1994). Social support
during adolescence: methodological and theoretical considerations. In F.
Nestmann and K. Hurrlemann, (Eds), Social Support Networks and Social
Support in Childhood and Adolescence. (p. 89-108). New York: Walter de
Gruyter.

Chess, S. & Alexander, T. (1987). Know your child. New York: Basic Books.

Chess, S. & Thomas, A. (1996). Temperament: theory and practice, New York:
Brunner/Mazel.

Chess, S. & Thomas, A. (1992). Interactions between offspring and parents in
development. In B. Tizard & V. Varma (Eds), Vulnerability and resilience in
human development (pp. 72-87). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Cicchetti, D., Toth, S. & Rogosch, F. (2000). The development of psychological
wellness in maltreated children. In D. Cicchetti et al. (eds.), The promotion of
wellness in children and adolescents (pp. 395-426). Washington, DC: Child
Welfare League of America Press.

Cicchetti, D. & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of
community violence and child maltreatment: Consequences for children's
development. Psychiatry, 56, 96—118.

Cicchetti, D., Rogosh, F., Lynch, M. & Holt, K. (1993). Development of children:
Process leading to adaptive outcome. Development and Psychopathology, 5,
629-647.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2” ed. ).
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cleary, S. (2000). Adolescent victimization and associated suicidal and violent
behaviors. Adolescence, 35, (140), 671-682.

Coleman, J. , (1988). Social Capital In the Creation of Human Capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, 895-8120.

Coles, R. (1990). The Spiritual Life of Children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifﬂin.

183

Cowen, E., Wyman, P., Work, W., Kim, J., Fagen, D. & Magnus, K. (1997).
F ollow-up study of young stress-affected and stress-resistant urban children.
Development and Psychopathology, 9, 565-5 77.

Crockenberg, S. (1988). Social Support and Parenting. In H. Fitzgerald, B. Lester &
M. Yugman (Eds), Theory and Research in Behavioral Pediatrics (4). (pp.
141-174) New York: Plenum.

Crocker, J ., Loutanen, R., Blaine, B. & Broadnax, S. Collective Self-Esteem and
Psychological Well-Being Among White, Black and Asian College Students.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 5, 503-515.

Dilworth-Anderson P. & Marshall, S. (1996). Social Support in its Cultural Context.
In Pierce, J ., Saranson, B., & Saranson, I. (Eds), Handbook of Social Support
and the Family. New York: Plenum.

Dower, J. (1999). Embracing Defeat, Japan in the Wake of World War II. New
York: Norton.

Downey, G. & Coyne, J. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 50-76.

Duncan, R. (1999). Maltreatment by parents and peers: the relationship between
child abuse, bully victimization, and psychological distress. Child
Maltreatment, 4, (1), 45-55.

Eccles, J. & Barber, B. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or
marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of
Adolescent Research, 14 (I), 10-43.

ECPAT. (2003). End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism Online Data Base.
www.ccpat.net.

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, Regulation, and Moral Development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 51, 665-697.

Eisenberg, N & Fabes, R. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of
social competence. In M. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social
Psychology: Vol. 14. Emotion and Social Behavior. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Elder, G. (1974). Children of the Great Depression. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Emery, R. & Forehand, R. (1996). Parental divorce and children’s well-being: a
focus on resilience. In R. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy & M. Rutter

184

(Eds) Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents (pp. 64-99).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Emery, R. & Laumann-Billings, L. (1998). An overview of nature, causes and
consequences of abusive family relationships. American Psychologist, 53,
(2), 121-135.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity .' Youth and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton and
Company.

Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: W. W. Norton and
Company.

Erikson, J. (1997). The Life Cycle Completed. New York: W.W. Norton and
Company.

F antuzzo, J. & Mohr, W. (1999). Prevalence and effects of child exposure to
domestic violence. The Future of Children, 9, (3), 21-32.

F arrington, D. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behaviour from
childhood: Key ﬁndings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 360 (6), 929-964.

Fergusson D. & Horwood, L. (1999). Prospective childhood predictors of deviant
peer afﬁliations in adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
40(4), 581-592.

Fergusson, D., Horwood, L. & Lynskey, M. (1994). The childhoods of multiple
problem adolescents: A 15-year longitudinal study. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1123-1140.

Field, T., Lang, C. & Yando, R. (1995). Adolescents’ intimacy with parents and
friends. Adolescence, 30, 133-140.

Fink, A. & Kosecoff, J. (1998). How to Conduct Surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Fordharn, S. & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students’ success: coping with the “burden of
acting white”. Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of Faith. New York: Harper and Row.
Frankel, V. (1963). Man ’3 Search for Meaning. New York: Pocket Books.

Freud, A. & Dann, S. (1952). An experiment in group upbringing. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 6, 127-168.

185

Fukuda, F. (1996). Why Have the Japanese Become Such Infants. Tokyo: Haruki.
Fukuyama, F. (1998). Falling Tides. Harvard International Review, 20, (1), 60-64.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Social Capital and the Global Economy. Foreign Aﬂairs, 74,
(5), 89-99.

Fuller, M. & Olsen. G. (1998). Home School Relations: Working Success/idly with
Parents and Families, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Garbarino, J ., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K. & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in danger:
Coping with the consequences of community violence. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.

Garber, J. & Little, S. (1999). Predictors of competence among offspring of
depressed mothers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14 (1), 44-71.

Garcia-Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. &
Garcia, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental
competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914.

Garmezy, N. (1996). Reﬂections and commentary on risk, resilience and
development. In R. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds)
Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents (pp. 1-18). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Garmezy, N. (1993). Children in poverty: Resilience despite risk. Psychiatry, 56,
127-136.

Garmezy, N. (1987). Stress, competence, and development: Continuities in the study
of schizophrenic adults, children vulnerable to psychopathology, and the
search for stress-resistant children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57
(2), 159-174.

Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress- Resistant Children: The search for Protective Factors.
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Gillharn, J. (2000). The Science of Optimism and Hope, Philadelphia, PA:
Templeton Foundation Press.

Gilvarry, E. (2000). Substance abuse in young people. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 41 (1), 55-80.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New
York: Bantam Books.

186

Gore, S. & Eckenrode, J. (1996). Context and process in research on risk and
resilience. In R. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds),
Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents (pp. 19-63).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gottlieb, H. & Sylvestre, S. (1994). Social support relationships between older
adolescents and adults. In F. Nestrnann and K. Hurrlemann, (Eds), Social
Support Networks and Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence. (p. 53-
73). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Greenﬁeld, K. (1995). Speed Tribes: Days and Nights with Japan’s Next
Generation. New York: Harper.

Greenﬁeld, K. (2002). Standard Deviations: Growing Up and Coming Down in the
New Asia. New York: Villard.

Griffore, R. & Phenice, L. (2001). The Language of Human Ecology. Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt.

Gump, P. (1981). Big school, small school. In E. Hetherington & R. Parke (Eds),
Contemporary readings in child psychology, 2’“I Edition (pp. 315-320). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Hartup, W. (1996). The company that they keep: friendships and their
developmental signiﬁcance. Child Development, 67, 1-13.

Hawkins, J ., Catalano, R. & Miller, J. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol
and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for
substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.

Henderson, N. & Milstein, M. (1996). Resiliency in Schools: Making it Happen for
Children and Educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Henry, B., Caspi, A., Mofﬁtt, T. & Silva, P. (1996). Temperarnental and familial
predictors of violent and nonviolent convictions: Age 3 to 18. Developmental
Psychology, 32, (4), 614-623.

Heine, S., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C. & Matsumoto, H.
(2002). Divergent Consequences of Success and Failure in Japan and North
America: An Investigation of Self-Improving Motivations and Malleable
Selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Higgins, G. (1994). Resilient adults: Overcoming a cruel past. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

187

Hjelle, L., Busch, E. & Warren, J. (1996). Explanatory style, dispositional optimism,
and reported parental behavior. 'Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 489-499.

Hodges, J. & Tizard, B. (1989). IQ and Behavioral Adjustment of Ex-institutional
adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, (1), 53-75.

Hodges, J. & Tizard, B. (1989). Social and family relationships of ex-institutional
adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, (1), 77-97.

Howard, S., Dryden, J. & Johnson, B. (1999). Childhood resilience: Review and
critique of literature. Oxford Review of Education, 25 (3), 307-324.

Hoyle, R. & Leff, S. (1997). The role of parental involvement in youth sport
participation and performance. Adolescence, 32, 233-243.

Hubbs-Tait, L., Osofsky, J ., Harm, D. & Culp, A. (1994). Predicting behavior
problems and social competence in children of adolescent mothers. Family
Relations, 43, 439-446.

Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J ., Vanderryn, J ., Costa, F. & Turbin, M. (1995). Protective
factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects in developmental
change. Developmental Psychology, 31 (6), 923-933.

Kagan, J. (1974). The Child in the Family. In A. Rossi et al. (Eds), The Family. (pp. 33-
56). New York: Norton.

Kakuchi, S. (2001). Japanese Youth Challenge Sexual Exploitation Head-On. Interpress
Service Asia-Pacific.

Kerr, A. (2001). Dogs and Demons, Tales from the Dark Side of Japan, New York:
Hill and Wang.

Kitayama, S. (2001). Culture and Basic Psychological Practice: Toward a System
View of Culture. Psychological Bulletin.

Kitayama, S. (2000). Cultural Psychology of the Self: a Renewed Look at
Independence and Interdependence. (Keynote Address) XXVII International
Congress of Psychology: Stochholm, Sweden.

Kitayama, S. & Markus, H. Emotion and Culture. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Kohlberg, L. (1963). The Development of Children’s Orientation to Moral Order. 1:
Sequence in the Development of Moral Thought. Vita Humana, vol. 6,
p.13-35.

188

Kumpfer, K. (1999). Factors and processes contributing to resilience: The resilience
framework. In M. Glantz & J. Johnson (Eds), Resilience and development:
Positive life adaptations (pp. 179-224). New York: Kluwer.

Larson, R. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American
Psychologist, 55 (1), 170-183.

Lerner, R. (1991). Changing organisms-context relations as the basic process of
development: a developmental contextual perspective. Developmental
Psychology, 27 (1), 27-32.

Lerner, R. & Lerner, J. (1984). Children in their Contexts: A Goodness of Fit
Model. In J. Lancaster (Ed.), Parenting Across the Life Span; Biosocial
Dimensions. (pp.377-404). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Leventhal, T. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects
of neighbrhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological
Bulletin, 26, (2), 309-337.

Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for Character: How our schools can teach respect
and responsibility. New York: Bantam Books.

Liem, J ., James, J ., O'Toole, J. & Boudewyn, A. (1997). Assessing resilience in
adults with histories of childhood sexual abuse. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 67(4), 594-606.

Lin, N. (1999). Social Networks and Status Attainment. Annual Review of
Sociology, 25, 467-487.

Luster, T. & Small, S. (1997). Sexual abuse history and number of sex partners
among female adolescents. Family Planning Perspectives, 29 (5), 204-211.

Luthar, S. (1999). Poverty and children’s adjustment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Luthar, S., Cicchetti, D. & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guideline for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562.

Luthar, S., Cushing, G., Merikangas, K. & Rounsaville, B. (1998). Multiple
jeopardy: Risk and protective factors among addicted mothers' offspring.
Development and Psychopathology, 10, 117-136.

Luthar, S. & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research

on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61 (l), 6-
22.

189

Mahoney, J. & Cairns, R. (1999). Do extracurricular activities protect against early
school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241-253.

Marcia, J. (1993). Ego Identity: A Handbook for Psychosocial Research. New
York: Springer Verlag.

Marcia, J. (1991). Identity and self-development. In R. Lerner, A. Peterson & J.
Brooks-Gunn (Eds), Encylopedia of Adolescence (vol. I). New York:
Garland.

Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.

Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition,
Emotion and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 2, 224-253.

Masten, A. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation
despite risk and adversity. In M. Wang & E. Gordon (Eds), Educational
resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 3-25).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Masten, A. (1986). Humor and competence in school-aged children. Child
Development, 57, 461-473.

Masten, A. & Coatsworth, J. (1998). The development of competence in favorable
and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children.
American Psychologist, 53 (5), 205-200.

Maughan, B., Pickles, A., Hagell, A., Rutter, M. & Yule, W. (1996). Reading
problems and antisocial behaviour: Developmental trends and comorbidity.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37 (4), 405-418.

Maughan, B. (1992). School experiences as risk/protective factors. In B. Tizard and
V. Varma (Eds) Vulnerability and resilience in human development:
festschrift for Ann and Alan Clarke (pp.201-220). London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.

McAdams, D. (1993). The stories we live by: personal myths and the making of the
self New York: Guilford Press, 1993

McCubbin, H. & McCubbin, M. (1988). Typologies of Resilient Families: Emerging
Roles of Social Class and Ethnicity. Family Relations, 37 (3), 247-254.

McCubbin, H., McCubbin, M., Thompson, A. & Thompson, E. (1998). Resiliency in

ethnic families: a conceptual model for predicting family adjustment and
adaptation. In H. McCubbin, E. Thompson, A. Thompson & J. F romer (Eds),

190

Resiliency in Native American and Immigrant Families (pp. 3-48). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLoyd, V. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American
Psychologist, 53 (2), 185-204.

McMillan, J. & Reed, D. (January/February, 1994). At-risk students and resiliency:
Factors contributing to academic success. The Clearing House, 137-140.

Morling, B., Kitayama, S. & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural Practices Emphasize

Inﬂuence in the United States and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 3, 311-323.

Morrison, S. & Ellwood. A. (2000). Resiliency in the aftermath of deprivation: a
second look at the development of Romanian orphanage children. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 46 (4), 717-737.

Moskovitz, S. (1985). Longitudinal follow-up of child survivors of the Holocaust.
Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24 (4), 401-407.

Mugishirna, F. (1985). Why Do Gangs Still Exist? Asahi Shimbun, 2-25.

Myers, D. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American
Psychologist, 55 (1), 56-67.

Myers, D. (1990). The Pursuit of Happiness. New York: Avon Books.

Nagata, D., Trierweiler, S. & Talbot, R. (1999). Long-term effects of internment

during early childhood on third-generation Japanese Americans. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69 (1), 19-29.

Nettles, S. & Pleck, J. (1996). Risk, resilience, and development: the multiple
ecologies of Black adolescents in the United States. In R. Haggerty, L.
Sherrod, N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds) Stress, risk, and resilience in
children and adolescents (pp. 147-181). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Ngo, P. & Malz, T. (1998). Cross-cultural and cross generational differences in
Asian Americans’ cultural and familial systems and their impact on academic
striving. In H. McCubbin, E. Thompson, A. Thompson & J. F romer (Eds),
Resiliency in Native American and Immigrant Families (pp. 265-276).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Novick, R. (1998). The comfort comer: fostering resiliency and emotional
intelligence. Childhood Education. 74, (4), 200-204.

191

O'Connor, T., Rutter, M., Beckett, C., Keaveney, L. & Kreppner, J. (2000). The
effects of severe privation on cognitive competence: Extension and
longitudinal follow-up. Child Development, 71, (2), 376-390.

O'Donnell, J ., Hawkins, J ., Catalano, R., Abbott, R. & Day, L. (1995). Preventing
school failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-income children: Long-
term intervention in elementary schools. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 65, 87-100.

O’Koon, J. ( 1997). Attachment to parents and peers in late adolescence and their
relationship with self-irnage. Adolescence,32, 471-482.

Olweus, D. (2001). Health Consequences of Bullying and Its Prevention in Schools.
In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds), Peer Harassment in School: the Plight of
the Vulnerable and Victimized. (pp. 3-12). New York: Guilford Press.

Olweus, D. (2001). Peer Harassment: a Critical Analysis and Some Important

Issues. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds), Peer Harassment in School: the
Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized. (pp. 310-331). New York: Guilford
Press.

Osofsky, J. (1999). The impact of violence on children. The Future of Children, 9,
(3), 33-49.

Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 44-55.

Peterson, C. & Bishop, M. (2000). Comments: Optimism and the law of life, history
and culture. In J. Gillham, (Ed.), The Science of Optimism and Hope, (pp.
379-385). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International
Universities Press.

Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6, (1), 65-78.

Putnam, R. (1994). What makes democracy work? Institute of Public Aﬂairs
Review, 47, (1), 31-35.

Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The
American Prospect, 13, 1-6.

Portes, A. & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on

the Social Determinants of Economic Action. American Journal of Sociology,
vol. 98, no.6, p.1320-1350.

192

Portes, A. & Landolt, P. (1996). The Downside of Social Capital. The American
Prospect, 26, 18-21.

Quinton, D., Rutter, M. & Liddle, C. (1984). Institutional rearing, parenting
difﬁculties, and marital support. Psychological Medicine, 14, 107-124.

Rea, L. & Parker, R. (1997). Designing and Conducting Survey Research. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Reid, A. & Deaux, K. (1996). Relationship Between Social and Personal Identities:
Segregation or Integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 ,
6, 1084-1091.

Rende, R. & Plomin, R. (1993). Families at risk for psychopatholgy: Who becomes
affected and why? Development and Psychopathology, 5 (4), 529-540.

Richers, J. & Martinez, P. (1993). Violent communities, family choices, and
children's chances: An algorithm for improving the odds. Development and
Psychopathology, 5, 609-627.

Rohrle, B. & Sommers, G. (1994). Social Support and Social Competencies: Some
Theoretical and Empirical Concepts, In F. Nestrnann and K. Hurrlemann,
(Eds), Social Support Networks and Social Support in Childhood and
Adolescence. (p. 111-130). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Rolf, J ., Masten, A., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K. & Weintraub, S. (1990). Risk
and Protective Factors in the Development of Psychopathology. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.

Roth, J. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). What do adolescents need for healthy
development? Implications for youth policy. Society for Research in Child
Development Policy Report, 14 (1), 1-19.

Rubin, L. (1996). The Transcendent Child: Tales of Triumph Over the Past. New
York: Harper.

Rutter, M. (1999). Psychosocial adversity and child psychopathology. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 174, 480-493.

Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and ﬁndings: implications for family therapy.
Journal of Family Therapy, 21, (2), 119-144.

Rutter, M. (1989). Pathways from childhood to adult life. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry,_ 30, (1), 23-51.

193

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

Rutter, M. (1981). The city and the child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51
(4), 610-625.

Rutter, M., Cox, A., Tupling, C., Berger, M. & Yule, W. (1975). Attainment and
adjustment in two geographical areas: I --The prevalence of psychiatric
disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 493-509.

Rutter, M., Yule, B., Quinton, D., Rowlands, O., Yule, W. & Berger, M. (1974).
Attainment and adjustment in two geographical areas: 111 -- Some factors
accounting for area differences. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 493-509.

Saga, J. (1991). Confessions of a Yakuza. Tokyo: Kodansha.

Sakamaki, S. (1996). Fates Worse than Death. Far Eastern Economic Review, 29,
291-292.

Sameroff, A. (2000). Ecological perspectives on developmental risk. In J. Osofsky
& H. F itgerald (Eds), WAIMH Handbook of Infant Mental Health (V 01. 4;
pp. 1-33). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sameroff, A. Seifer, R., Barocas, R., Zax, M. & Greenspan, S. (1987). Intelligence
quotient scores of 4-year-old children: Social-environmental risk factors.
Pediatrics, 79(3), 343-350.

Sandefur, G. (1998). Race, Ethnicity, Families and Education. In H. McCubbin, E.
Thompson, A. Thompson & J. Fromer (Eds), Resiliency in Native American
and Immigrant Families (pp. 49-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scales, P., Benson, P., Leffert, N. & Blyth, (2000). Contribution of developmental
assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied
Developmental Science, 4 (1), 27-46.

Schmid, A. & Robison, L. (1995). Applications of Social Capital Theory. Journal
of Agriculture and Applied Economics, 27, (1), 59-66.

Schweinhart, L. & Weikert, D. (1993). Success by Empowerment: the High/ Scope
Perry Preschool Study through age 27. Young Children, 11, 54-58.

Seilhamer, R. & Jacob, T. (1990). Family factors and adjustment of children of

alcoholics. In M. Windle and J. Searles (Eds), Children of Alcoholics:
critical perspectives, (pp. 168-186). New York: Guilford Press.

194

Seligman, M. (1998). Learned Optimism: How to change you mind and your life.
New York: Pocket Books.

Seligman, M. (1995). The Optimistic Child. New York: Houghton Mifﬂin.

Shek, D. (1997). The relation of family functioning to adolescent psychological
well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 158, 467-479.

Shoda, Y., Mischel, W. & Peake, P. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and
self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratiﬁcation: identifying
diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26 (6), 978-986.

Shukan, S. (2002). Cleaning Up Grafﬁti. Okayama Shimbun, 4-18.

Skuse, D. (1984). Extreme deprivation in early childhood-- 11. Theoretical issues and
a comparative review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25 (4),
543-572.

Small, S. & Luster, T. (1994). Adolescent Sexual Activity: An ecological risk factor
approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56,181-192.

Small, S. & Supple, A. (1998). Communities as Systems: Is a Community More
Than the Sum of Its Parts? (Conference Presentation), Does It Take A
Village? Community Effects on Children, Adolescents and Families: Penn
State University.

Smith, P. (1997). Japan, A Reinterpretation. New York: Vintage.

Sokol-Katz, J ., Dunham, R. & Zimmerman, R. (1997). Family structure versus
parental attachment in controlling adolescent deviant behavior: a social
control model. Adolescence, 32, 199-215.

Sroufe, L. (1996). Emotional Development and Individual Adaptation. New York:
Cambridge Press.

Sugirnura, K. (2001). A Preliminary Study of Proposed Levels of Relatedness in
Identity Exploration Among Female Late Adolescents in Japan.
Psychological Reports, 88, 749-758.

Taylor, C., Lerner, R. & von Eye, A. (2001). Developmental assets and positive
youth development: 2001 annual report for phase II of the “Overcoming the
Odds” Project: understanding successful development among African
American and Latino male adolescents. William T. Grant Foundation.

195

Trickett, P. (1997). Sexual and physical abuse and the development of social
competence. In S. Luthar (ed.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives
on adjustment, risk, and disorder (pp. 390-415). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Van Wolfren, K. (1990). The Enigma of Japanese Power. New York: Vintage
Books.

Vaux, A. (1988). Social Support, Theory, Research and Intervention. New York:
Praeger.

Von Aken, M. (1994). The Transactional Relation Between Social Support and
Children’s Competence. In F. Nestrnann, and K. Hrrelmann, (Eds), Social
Networks and Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence. New York:
Walter de Gruyter, pp. 130-148

Wang, M. , Haertel, G. & Walberg, H. (1994). Educational resilience in inner cities.
In M. Wang & E. Gordon (Eds), Educational resilience in inner-city
America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 45-72).

Werner, E. & Smith, R. (2001). Journeys from Childhood to Midlife. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.

Werner, E. & Smith, R. (1998). Vulnerable But Invincible. New York, NY: Adams,
Bannister and Cox.

Werner, E. (1994). Overcoming the Odds. Journal of Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics, 15, (2), 131-136.

Werner, E. & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth
to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Werner, E. (1990). Protective Factors and Individual Resilience. In S.J. Meisels
& J .P. Shonkoff (Eds), Handbook of Early Intervention: Theory, Practice
and Analysis (pp. 97-116). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.

Werner, E. (1989). Children of the Garden Island. Scientiﬁc American, 4, 106-111.

Werner, E. (1989). High Risk Children in Young Adulthood: A Longitudinal
Study from Birth to 32 Years American Orthopsychiatric Association, 59,
(1), 372-81.

Werner, E. (1986). Resilient Offspring of Alcoholics: A Longitudinal Study from
Birth to Age 18. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47, 34-40.

196

Werner, E. (1985). Stress and Protective Factors in Children’s Lives. In A. R. Nicol
(Ed.), Longitudinal Studies in Child Psychology and Psychiatry (pp. 335-
355). New York NY: John Wiley and Sons

White, J ., Mofﬁtt, T. & Silva, P. (1989). A prospective replication of the protective
effects of IQ in subjects at high risk for juvenile delinquency. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, (6), 719-724.

Youniss, J. (1994). Children’s ﬁiendships and peer culture: implications for theories
of networks and support In F. Nestmann and K. Hurrlemann, (Eds), Social
Support Networks and Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence. (p. 75-
88). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Yule, W. (1992). Resilience and vulnerability in child survivors of disasters. In B.
Tizard & V. Varma (Eds), Vulnerability and resilience in human development
(pp. 182-197). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

197

 

 

"‘0-