This study’s participants are from a kindergarten in a tier-two city located in the Pearl River Delta area, a region known for its rapid urbanization and diverse cultural influences. A total of 205 preschoolers aged 4 to 5 were included in this study.

Among the 205 participants, 123 of their parents provided information about their family environment, including parent education level, household income level, and number of siblings. These 123 surveys are essential materials for this study.

In this study, the resilience level of preschoolers is measured by the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second Edition (DECA-P2). DECA-P2 is a behavior rating scale that can be completed by either parents or teachers and assesses protective factors central to resiliency and behavioral concerns for children aged 3 to 5 ( LeBuffe & Nagileri, 2013 ). Although DECA-P2 is designed and commonly used in a western context, multiple researches have demonstrated the validity of the Chinese version of DECA-P2 in practice ( Bai, 2021 ; Yang et al., 2021 ; Ding et al., 2022 ). Ji’s assessment ( Ji, 2015 ) on the Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Version of DECA-P2 and concluded that it has qualified psychometrics and could be applied to children raised in a Chinese cultural background.

DECA-P2 contains 38 measuring items, 27 of which assess children’s resiliency level through Total Protective Factors (TPF) and will be the focus of this study. The other 11 items assess children’s behaviors. The 27 TPF items are further divided into 3 categories of 9 items, each referring to a factor of the TPF: Initiative, Self-Regulation, and Attachment/Relationships. Initiative refers to the child’s ability to actively reach for their needs, Self-Regulation refers to the child’s ability to express themselves healthily, and Attachment/Relationships refers to the child’s ability to maintain positive connections with others.

According to the DECA-P2 scoring manual ( LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2013 ), each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4 (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always), and the sum of points reflects their category sub-score. If the sum of points passes 59, then the child’s specific ability is at a strong level; if the sum of points is below 41, the child’s specific ability is in need of improvement; if the sum of points is between 41 and 59, the child’s specific ability is at a typical level. Since only very few children can score past 59, this study combines the strong and typical levels during chi-square data analysis. The TPF score is based on the sum of item points and is also divided into three categories after transformation.

Parenting Style is commonly categorized by the four categories of Baumirnd, however, in this study, it is assessed with the Parenting Style Questionnaire designed by Lizhu Yang and Chunqing Yang. This questionnaire is one of China’s most widely applied parenting style divisions and is frequently used by scholars ( Yang, 2018 ; Dan, 2023 ; Zhao et al., 2023 ). Moreover, the two versions share a similar structure of dividing parenting styles. The Yangs’ questionnaire have five categories: democratic, authoritative, doting, unchecked, and inconsistent ( Yang & Yang, 1998 ). Aside from the inconsistent parenting which adds flexibility, the other four categories parallel with that of Baumirnd in general. Democratic parenting matches with authoritative parenting for reasonably supporting their children’s decision, authoritative parenting matches with authoritarian parenting for being strict and high demanding, doting parenting matches with permissive parenting for easily over-satisfying their children, and unchecked parenting matches with uninvolved parenting for neglection and indifference.

The Yangs’ Parenting Style Questionnaire uses 40 questions to assess the parenting style of participants. Questions 1 to 7 cover doting parenting, questions 8 to 17 cover democratic parenting, questions 18 to 26 cover unchecked parenting, questions 27 to 34 cover authoritarian parenting, and questions 35 to 40 cover inconsistent parenting. This questionnaire is also scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The more score one gets in a certain range, the higher tendency they have in that parenting style. The number of questions for each style varies based on the complexity of the parenting style. For example, inconsistent parenting only uses 6 questions, whereas democratic parenting uses 10. Nevertheless, this questionnaire proves to be very reliable, with a 0.711 internal consistency reliability, a 0.852 split-half reliability, and a 0.825 test-retest reliability ( Zhao et al., 2023 ).

To reach potential participants, a lecture about this study was presented during parent meetings at the selected kindergarten. A form was then distributed to collect the principal caregivers of preschoolers who would like to participate in this study. After providing more information about the study, the caregivers signed consent forms permitting the collection of their children’s information and ensuring their honest participation in the parenting style questionnaire.

Next, the scorers of DECA-P2 observation sheets were selected. Teachers who have worked with the preschoolers for more than three months were invited to join this study. They were also introduced to the study and asked to sign a consent form. The form indicates that teachers voluntarily participate in this study and promise to fill out the DECA-P2 observation sheet with authentic information. Then, after a workshop on DECA-P2 scoring rules and ethics, the teachers conducted their part and filled out the sheet.

Table 1 lists the demographic information of this study’s participants: 205 preschoolers aged 4 to 5. The participants are not evenly split according to age and gender. 64.3% of them are 5 years old, and 55.6% are male. This leaves 35.6% of them 4 years old and 44.4% of them female.

Table 2 presents the distribution of preschooler’s resilience level. Among the 205 participants, only 10.7 % of them developed a strong resilience. 45.8% of them developed a typical level of resilience, and another 43.4% of them are under-developed in resilience ( Table 2 ). This differs from past research as most of their participants developed a typical level of resilience ( Bai, 2021 ; Ji, 2015 ).

Table 3 illustrates the association between preschooler’s resilience level and gender. It contains the total protective factor, which reflects the total resilience level of preschoolers, and the three factors that compose it. According to the table, preschooler’s resilience level doesn’t show significant association with gender. None of the sections have a P-value smaller than 0.05. However, this is highly unlike previous research. Multiple researches show that female preschoolers generally score higher than male preschoolers in the self-regulation zone ( Jiao & Gai, 2011 ; Zhang, 2006 ; Bai, 2021 ). Chen et al. (2021)’s research even shows that female preschoolers perform better in all four sections of resilience.

Although chi-square analysis does not show a significant association between gender and resilience level, the two genders differ in the percentage of participants whose ability is in need of improvement. The average gap between the number of male preschoolers whose ability is in need and the number of female preschoolers whose ability is in need is 7.25%. 6.7% more male preschoolers’ initiative ability needs improvement, 7.6% more male preschoolers’ self-regulation ability needs improvement, 8.9% more male preschoolers’ attachment/relationships ability needs improvement, and 5.8% more male preschoolers’ total protective factors need improvement ( Table 3 ).

Note. Strength and typical level of resilience are combined as one section for the chi-square analysis.

Table 4 illustrates the association between preschooler’s resilience level and age. It also contains four sections on resilience. This study does not show a strong association between age and the total protective factor (p = 0.051), but there is a relationship found between age and self-regulation (p = 0.047) and attachment/relationships (p = 0.038). There is also a difference in the percentage of preschooler’s ability development. On average, there are 8% more 5-year-olds who developed a strong level of resilience ability and 11.75% less 5-year-olds who developed a low level ( Table 4 ).

This ambiguity of age’s influence on resilience level has been shown in previous research as well. LeBuffe & Naglieri (2013) , the authors of DECA-P2, concluded that age has few influences on preschooler’s resilience in their research, whereas Yoleri (2020)’s research on factors affecting the level of children’s resilience found age as a valid predictor of children’s resilience. Nasvytiene (2012)’s meta-analysis shows no increase in resilience scores as children’s ages increase, while Ji (2015)’s research shows a firm gap between the resilience level of 5-year-olds and 3 and 4-year-olds.

Note. Strength and typical level of resilience are combined as one section for the chi-square analysis *p < 0.05.

Family environmental factors include parent education level, household income level, parenting style, and number of siblings. This study collected information on family environmental factors through online surveys. A total of 123 surveys were collected ( Table 5 ).

According to Table 5 , 70.9% of the respondent’s household income is equal to or above the yearly average household income of Qingyuan City, 43.3% is above the yearly average household income of Qingyuan City, and 27.6% is equal to the yearly average income. This reflects the respondents’ general economic well-being.

Table 5 also shows that 68.29% of the respondents are not an only-child family. 59.3% of the respondents have two children, and 8.9% have three or more children. A possible explanation can be found in the change in Chinese family planning programs. In the 1980s, China fully implemented the one-child policy, shifting the total fertility rate from approximately six to below the replacement level in around two decades ( Zhai & Jin, 2023 ). It was not until 36 years later that China started implementing a two-child policy in 2015 ( Xinhua News Agency, 2016 ) and another 6 years more for an official permission to raise three children in 2021 ( The National People’s Congress of The People’s Republic of China, 2021 ). The fluctuation and decreased regulation in Chinese family policies encourage households to grasp the opportunity to bear more than one child. Thus, considering the particular circumstances in China, this study will combine sibling numbers into two categories based on whether the household is an only-child family in the following data analysis.

Another impressive statistic in Table 5 is the 94.3% of democratic parenting style. 116 of the 123 respondents are verified to have a democratic parenting style. Although democratic parenting has always been one of the popular parenting styles ( Dan, 2023 ; Yang, 2018 ), the high percentage in this survey makes the influence of parenting style upon preschoolers’ resilience hardly noticeable. As Table 5 shows, 70.9% of the respondent’s household income is equal to or above the yearly average household income of Qingyuan City. The high economic status of the families makes it easy to over-satisfy their children’s needs, such as buying toys and going to Disney. The abundant resources could reduce the opportunities for children to develop resiliency as they encounter fewer adversities and setbacks.

Among these 123 surveys, 6.5% of the respondent’s child developed a strong resilience, 49.6% of them developed a typical resilience, and 43.9% of them developed a resilience that is in need of improvement ( Table 6 ). In comparison with the 205 DECA-P2 sheets, the surveys show that 3.8% more preschoolers developed a typical resilience, creating a 5.7% gap between the number of preschoolers with a typical resilience level and low resilience level. The number of preschoolers that developed a strong resilience, however, dropped by 4.2%.

Table 7 illustrates the association between preschooler’s resilience level and their parent’s education. Although an association between the total protective factor and parent education level was not shown (p = 0.052), a relationship was found between parent education and self-regulation (p = 0.033) and attachment/relationships (p = 0.038). In addition, preschoolers whose parents’ education level is bachelor and above have developed, on average, 15.65% more typical level of resilience ability and 16.28% less low-level ability than preschoolers whose parents’ education level is high school and below ( Table 7 ).

The valid impact of parent’s education level on preschooler’s resilience aligns with previous researches. Zhang (2006)’s research on children’s self-regulation shows that a positive correlation between parent’s education level and their children’s self-regulation. Tai (2015) and Ding et al. (2022) also show a higher total protective factor for children whose parent’s education level are relatively higher.

Note. Strength and typical level of resilience are combined as one section for the chi-square analysis *p < 0.05.

Table 8 illustrates the association between preschooler’s resilience level and their household income. It shows no strong association between preschooler’s resilience level and their household income. This result remains the same even if the “other” category was deleted due to lack of relevant information, with the lowest p-value being 0.461 for self-regulation ( Table 9 ). Surprisingly, when just considering the percentage of ability development, preschoolers with a household income below average behaves the best. Out of the 4 categories, they have 3 of the highest strength level percentage, 2 of the highest typical level percentage, and 2 of the lowest level percentage ( Table 9 ).

Although this implies a hopeful message in which the development of children resilience can transcend economic disparity, this result is not commonly found in previous researches. In contrast, multiple researches have listed poverty, which is tightly related with household income, as one of the risk factors for early childhood development of resilience and other aspects ( Rioux, 2016 ; Newland, 2014 ). The relationship between preschooler’s resilience level and their household income ought to be explored more for certainty.

Note. Strength and typical level of resilience are combined as one section for the chi-square analysis.

Note. Strength and typical level of resilience are combined as one section for the chi-square analysis.

Table 10 illustrates the association between preschooler’s resilience level and their number of siblings. It shows that preschooler’s overall resilience level is associated with their number of siblings (p = 0.045). The percentage difference of ability development also shows a strong association. On average, 15.63% more preschoolers from an only-child family developed a typical level of resilience ability, and 13.48% less developed a low level ( Table 10 ). This result is consistent with previous researches. In Ding et al. (2022)’s research upon preschooler’s development of psychological resilience, preschoolers with no siblings are significantly more likely to display higher psychological resilience level.

What’s worth noticing is that Table 10 only has 2 categories, while the original survey offers multiple categories based on how many siblings the respondent’s preschooler children have ( Table 5 ). This is because this study takes the influence of China’s family planning programs into consideration and based the division on whether the respondent’s household is an only-child family. In addition, only 8.9% of the respondents have 2 or more children ( Table 5 ) and could not be used for meaningful analysis. Bai’s research (2015) uses the same division with this study and also confirmed the association between preschooler’s resilience level and their number of siblings. Children with no siblings tend to develop their attachment/relationship ability better than those who have siblings.

Note. Strength and typical level of resilience are combined as one section for the chi-square analysis *p < 0.05.