Next Article in Journal
Numerical Solution for Fuzzy Time-Fractional Cancer Tumor Model with a Time-Dependent Net Killing Rate of Cancer Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Efficacy and Effectiveness of Universal School-Based Wellbeing Interventions in Australia: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Health Service Management and Patient Safety in Primary Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Kosovo
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Shifting Public Health Landscape and Virtual Learning Environment: The Effectiveness of Practice-Based Teaching Delivered In-Person, Virtual, and Hybrid
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 4
10.3390/ijerph20043769
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chinese Virtues and Resilience among Students in Hong Kong

by
Xiaoxue Kuang
1,
John Chi-Kin Lee
2,* and
Junjun Chen
3
1
Department of Education, School of Education (Normal School), Dongguan University of Technology, Dongguan 523808, China
2
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
3
Department of Education Policy and Leadership, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(4), 3769; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043769
Submission received: 14 January 2023 / Revised: 15 February 2023 / Accepted: 16 February 2023 / Published: 20 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Well-Being and Health in Education: Challenges, Chances, and Change)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Character strengths and training have a great impact on students’ whole-person development. This study examined the applicability of the Chinese virtues questionnaire (CVQ) and the relationships between students’ perceptions of virtues and resilience in Hong Kong, SAR, China. A total of 2468 pupils from primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong were recruited as the sample for this study. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a measurement model of Chinese virtues, and the results of structural equation modeling (SEM) suggested that Chinese virtues were positively related to positive resilience and succumbing. Significant relationships were found between gender and students’ positive resilience, and school grade level showed a significant impact on the Chinese virtues, which in turn affect resilience. Student resilience could be enhanced by nurturing virtues and related character strengths, keeping in mind the role of gender and grade level.

1. Introduction

Character strengths are positive traits that appear in people’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors [1]. As such, character development has a central role in the development of individual students and society as a whole [2]. Peterson and Seligman [1] categorized 24 character strengths into six virtues (e.g., courage, humanity, justice, temperance, transcendence, and wisdom), and these have been widely applied in educational contexts. These six virtues can be found in many cultures, including Buddhism in South Asia, Athenian philosophy and Christianity in the West, and Confucianism and Taoism in China [3]. Shek and Ma [4] found that nearly 70% of teacher respondents perceived a decline in morality among Hong Kong adolescents. More than half of respondents perceived their own students as friendly (84%), kind (80%), and empathetic (64%), but over 70% thought that their students still needed to improve in terms of sense of responsibility (73%), emotional competence (98%), and ability to cope with adversity (99%).
Despite the need to boost virtues among students, the predictors and outcomes of character strengths and virtues are relatively underexplored. Niemiec [5] revealed, both theoretically and empirically, six major functions of character strengths, a vital one of which was nurturing resilience. Resilience is also an important attribute in education and personal development [6]; to enable positive development and psychological resilience in children and adolescents, it is essential to understand the underlying concepts [7]. In line with these findings, demographic factors, such as gender or school grade level, influence how protective factors (i.e., virtue or character strength) are associated with resilience [8]. Some studies have shown that gender and age are important predictors of resilience [9,10,11], while the impact of gender is complex for different groups of children [9]. Most studies have focused on the adult group aged 18 or above [10,11]; few study has considered the potential effect of the different grades in primary or secondary school when youth develop their key personality.
Despite the acknowledgment that character strengths and virtues are important, current studies remain limited. First, based on functional equivalence and conceptual equivalence, Duan et al. [12] suggested that some items of the international measurement of virtue, values in action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS), might not be applicable in the Chinese context. Second, although subsequent studies revealed that character strengths relate positively to positive outcomes, including life satisfaction [13], well-being [14], and adaptability [15] in different contexts, there is a lack of scholarship on student virtues and resilience in Hong Kong. Third, despite the growing literature on student virtues, the potential impact of individual factors (i.e., both gender and school level) on virtue and resilience are not well understood. To fill in the research gaps and address the concerns mentioned above, this study was set in Hong Kong, an international Asian city, where there are influences from and interactions between Chinese cultural heritage and Western cultures. There is an increasing emphasis on life and values education [16,17,18] as well as Chinese cultural education, as revealed by the issuance of the values education curriculum framework by the Education Bureau [19]. There is also mention of the importance of enhancing student resilience [20]. This study examined the applicability of the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire (CVQ-96) for primary and secondary students in Hong Kong and the possible relationships between student perceptions of virtues and resilience in the Chinese context, as well as the role of gender and school grade level in this relation.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Character Strengths and Virtues

The inter-relationship between virtues and character strengths has been documented in the literature [1]. Character strengths are personality characteristics reflected in a person’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors [1]. These can be defined as positively valued and moral traits, which develop an individual’s growth, flourishing, and moral excellence [21]. In addition, the concept of virtue, according to Aristotle, is related to moral characteristics, such as honesty, temperance, courage, justice, and liberality [22] (p. 172). Some of these virtues have been employed by psychologists as elements or components of character strengths [23]. Peterson and Seligman [1] identified six virtues in 24 character strengths, including courage (e.g., bravery, industry, integrity, zest); humanity (e.g., kindness, love, social intelligence); justice (e.g., teamwork, fairness, leadership); temperance (e.g., forgiveness, modesty, prudence, self-control); transcendence (e.g., appreciation of beauty, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality); and wisdom (e.g., creativity, curiosity, judgment, love of learning, perspective). This study asserts that these six virtues have been relevant for at least three centuries in a wide variety of cultural, religious, and traditional settings [1].

2.2. Measurement of Virtues

It was anticipated by the Peterson and Seligman [1] study that their classification of the character strengths and virtues identified would be modified in the light of future further studies and this is indeed the case, with subsequent empirical research finding that character strengths may be better categorized into models with between five [24,25], four [26], and three [27] factors. Duan et al. [12] extended these studies in Mainland China by examining the factor structure and functional equivalence of a Simplified Chinese version of the VIA-IS (the six-virtue factor model by Peterson and Seligman [1]). However, they determined that the 24 strengths could be grouped under three virtues (interpersonal, vitality, and conscientiousness) in a Chinese context. Culturally appropriate measurements should be adopted, so this study used a three-factor CVQ-96 to assess Chinese virtues in a Hong Kong context.

2.3. Virtues and Resilience

Resilience is a multi-faceted [28] and unstable construct [29], which also has many interpretations and definitions, such as being able to bounce back or recover from stress [30], to remain in good form during adversity, to respond positively to challenging or adverse situations [31], and to use positive adaptation to reach beneficial outcomes of engagement, commitment, agency, enthusiasm, and well-being [32]. The concept of resilience has also been employed as an important attribute in education and personal development and has been related to positive well-being indicators [33,34,35].
It is stated that “strengths and virtues determine how an individual copes with adversity” [36] (p. 65). An examination of the literature reveals that although the important role of character strengths and virtues has been documented for students, prior studies have failed to examine the relationships between virtues and student resilience in the Hong Kong context. Previous studies have shown that virtues such as courage and temperance positively predicted psychological resilience [37] and that character strengths could predict resilience and other related factors [38]. Personality strengths and virtues can also serve as cushions against life stresses and challenges, which could be conducive to resilient outcomes [39] in different contexts. This study, therefore, assessed the relationships between students’ perceptions of virtues and resilience in the Chinese context.

2.4. The Role of Gender and School Level on Virtue and Resilience

Although the positive relationships between virtue and resilience have been examined in different contexts, how demographic factors, such as gender or school grade level, influence the ways in which protective factors (i.e., virtue or character strength) are associated with resilience [8] has received less attention. The following section examines these two demographic factors: gender and school stage.
Various studies have identified the relationships among gender, virtue, and resilience. For instance, male students tend to have slightly higher mean scores for hope than female students [40]. In contrast, Lee and Huang [38] found that female students tend to reveal greater strengths (higher scores) than male students. Female students also tend to attain higher scores for resilience [41,42].
From the perspective of grade level, mean scores for hope showed a declining trend from primary to junior secondary and senior secondary levels [40]. In contrast, Shoshani and Shwartz [43] found that differences were detected between children between 7 and 8–9 years old (junior primary) and those between 9 and 12 years old (around senior primary), which might be attributed to cognitive and emotional maturity, as well as the possible increase of interpersonal relationships with age. Furthermore, younger students in Year 3 had notably higher resilience scores than Years 5 and 7 students for communication, empathy, help-seeking; school support; prosocial peers; meaningful participation in school activities; and autonomy experiences [44].
As mentioned above, because both gender and school grade level affect the results in different contexts, this study examined their role in Chinese virtues and resilience in a Hong Kong context to answer the following three research questions.
  • RQ1: To what extent do Chinese virtues affect student resilience?
  • RQ2: What is the role of gender in Chinese virtues and student resilience?
  • RQ3: What is the role of school grade level in Chinese virtues and student resilience?

3. Method

3.1. Participants and Procedure

This study was part of a larger study investigating students’ perceptions of values and well-being in Hong Kong. The study adopted a convenience sampling method. Schools which agreed to participate have first be briefed with the project aims and requirements, then the school principals have returned their consent for participation. Once consents were sought, at least one class in each grade was selected to participate in the study. Students were accessed through their class teachers to fill out and return the questionnaire in classroom. An instruction guideline had been provided to school teachers, to ensure they guide the students to complete the survey with the same protocol. Every student who was aged below 18 was required to return a parental consent form before they completed the questionnaire; students without parental consent were not allowed to be one of the participants.
The total sample consisted of 2468 students from 40 primary and 30 secondary schools in Hong Kong, China, with 1143 males (46.6%) and 1309 females (53.4%). Among them, 660 (26.7%) students were from primary schools, including 247 students from Grade 4, 241 students from Grade 5, and 172 students from Grade 6; 1808 (73.3%) were from secondary schools, consisting of 324 students from Grade 7, 404 students from Grade 8, 286 students from Grade 9, 487 students from Grade 10, and 307 students from Grade 11. Grade 12 (Secondary 6) students were not included, as they were studying for public examinations. All the students were well informed about the purpose of the research and participated in this project voluntarily.

3.2. Measures

The 96-item CVQ-96 [12,45] consists of three factors or categories of virtues, namely relationship/interpersonal (32 items), vitality (40 items), and conscientiousness/caution (24 items). Students rated the CVQ-96 on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the three subscales in this study were 0.951, 0.950, and 0.901 for relationship, vitality, and conscientiousness, respectively. The brief resilience scale (BRS), developed by Fung [46], is a simplified resilience scale consisting of six items. Students were requested to rate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each statement on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.67.

3.3. Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS 27 and Mplus 8. The descriptive statistics, including mean (M) and standard deviation (SD), were calculated using SPSS 27. We also conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the participants’ responses to the CVQ-96 and BRS via Mplus 8. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to estimate the relationship between these two variables. The following indices were used to determine acceptable model fit: comparative fit index (CFI > 0.90), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI > 0.90) [47,48,49], and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < 0.08) [50]. The bootstrap method (bootstrap = 5000) was used to calculate the estimates of the SEM with a 95% confidence interval. If the confidence interval included 0, the coefficient was deemed insignificant.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

In the CVQ-96 sub-scales, students scored highest on relationship (M = 3.65, SD = 0.56), followed by vitality (M = 3.39, SD = 0.58), and scored the lowest on conscientiousness (M = 3.27, SD = 0.55) (Table 1). Fairness ranked the highest (M = 3.81, SD = 0.66) and gratitude (M = 3.44, SD = 0.74) ranked the lowest for relationships. Curiosity ranked the highest (M = 3.52, SD = 0.77), while belief (M = 3.20, SD = 0.84) ranked the lowest for vitality. Prudence ranked the highest (M = 3.37, SD = 0.71), while learning (M = 3.10, SD = 0.85) ranked the lowest for conscientiousness. Female students (M = 3.70, SD = 0.52) scored higher on the relationship sub-scale than male students (M = 3.59, SD = 0.60), and the differences were statistically significant (t = −4.480, p < 0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were found for vitality and conscientiousness with regard to gender. The values for each dimension of the CVQ-96 among primary school students (Mrelationship = 3.74, SDrelationship = 0.66; Mvitality = 3.54, SDvitality = 0.65; Mconscientiousness = 3.36, SDconscientiousness = 0.63) were higher than those among secondary school students (Mrelationship = 3.62, SDrelationship = 0.52; Mvitality = 3.33, SDvitality = 0.54; Mconscientiousness = 3.23, SDconscientiousness = 0.51), and the differences between school type were also significant (trelationship = 4.20, p < 0.001; tvitality = 7.40, p < 0.001; tconscientiousness = 4.74, p < 0.001).
On the BRS, participants reported adequate resilience (M = 3.19, SD = 0.57). Male students (Mmale = 3.22, SDmale = 0.59) scored higher than female students (Mfemale = 3.16, SDfemale = 0.56) with statistical significance (t = 2.26, p < 0.05). The scores from primary schools (Mprimary = 3.27, SDprimary = 0.64) were higher than those from secondary schools Msecondary = 3.16, SDsecondary = 0.54), and the differences were also statistically significant (t = 4.09, p < 0.001).
To further understand the impact of the school level, the role of grade level was also examined. The outcome showed students from Grade 4 scored the highest on all three sub-scales (i.e., relationship, vitality, and conscientiousness) in the CVQ-96, while students from Grade 9 scored the lowest on relationship, and students from Grade 11 scored the lowest on both vitality and conscientiousness (Table 2). In general, the mean values for the CVQ-96 scores indicated a decreasing trend by grade, which means that students from higher grades reported lower scores.
One-way ANOVA was used to test the differences in school grade levels on the three subscales of the CVQ-96. The results revealed statistical differences in relationship, vitality, and conscientiousness between at least two groups (relationship: F(7, 2460) = 6.92, p = < 0.001; vitality: F(7, 2460) = 17.80, p = < 0.001; conscientiousness: F(7, 2460) = 11.29, p < 0.001). For relationship, the results of Dunnett T3’s post hoc test indicated that the mean values were significantly different between Grade 4 and other grades except for Grade 6. As for vitality, the mean values were significantly different between Grade 4 and other grades. The differences in Grade 5, Grade 7, and Grade 11 were also significant. For conscientiousness, the mean values were significantly different between Grade 4 and other grades, as well as between Grade 11 and other grades, except for Grade 6 and Grade 9.

4.2. CVQ-96 Measurement Model

Poor model fit was identified when we conducted CFA for the original three-factor structure of the CVQ-96 (CFI = 0.785, TLI = 0.781, RMSEA = 0.058). Three alternative models were then derived using different methods, and the details of the model fit indexes are summarized in Table 3. Because the scale contains a large number of items, it is difficult to achieve good model fit, so item parceling was used to stabilize parameter estimates and to improve model fit [51,52]. Based on the item parceling method, the revised model was finally composed of second-order factors (Figure 1), which yielded an acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.893, and RMSEA = 0.083 with 90% CI [0.081, 0.085]). All the factor loadings in the proposed second-order model were significant and acceptable.

4.3. BRS Measurement Model

The original factor structure of the BRS did not show a good model fit in CFA. Therefore, a model with two factors, divided into positive resilience and succumbing based on Fung [46], was used to verify the factor structure (see the right side of Figure 2). The outcome was satisfactory (CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.975, RMSEA = 0.061, 90% CI [0.050, 0.074]).

4.4. SEM Results

4.4.1. Common Method Variance

The widely used Harman’s single-factor test was applied to address the issue of common method variance [53]. One factor explained 30.11% of the total variance, which was less than the recommended threshold of 0.5 [54], so it appears that common method bias was not a significant problem in this study.

4.4.2. SEM Results

This study examined the relationship between the CVQ-96 and BRS. The model fit was acceptable (CFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.896, RMSEA = 0.044 with 90% CI [0.042, 0.045]) (Figure 2). The results indicated that the items measured by the CVQ-96 positively affected both resilience (β = 0.658, 95% CI [0.614, 0.699]) and succumbing (β = 0.119, 95% CI [0.052, 0.185]), as measured by the BRS (Table 4).
The outcome also indicated that the participants’ gender did not show statistically significant differences for the CVQ-96, while gender (β = 0.092, 95% CI [0.045, 0.139]) significantly affected positive resilience. Boys appeared to be more resilient than girls. No statistically significant differences were found for the negative resilience factor, succumbing, by gender.
The difference in school grade level significantly affected scores measuring Chinese virtues (β = 0.135, 95% CI [0.089, 0.180]) and resilience (β = 0.054, 95% CI [0.011, 0.095]). Students from primary school scored higher on both Chinese virtues and positive resilience. No statistically significant differences in succumbing were found in terms of the school grade level.

5. Discussion

The current study identified the relationships among Chinese virtues, student resilience, gender, and school grade level using a sample of primary and secondary school students from Hong Kong, China. The rest of this section is organized based on the three research questions.
The impact of Chinese virtues on student resilience was confirmed, addressing the first research question. In the SEM model, the results established the relationship between Chinese virtues and student resilience and indicated that Chinese virtues positively affected students’ positive resilience, which is consistent with previous studies [37,38]. Surprisingly, this study identified a direct positive effect of Chinese virtues on students’ succumbing; this may not be consistent with previous studies [55] that found that character strengths (i.e., the different aspects of virtues), as a multidimensional construct, significantly and jointly predicted resilience. The opposite results in this study might be partly due to Chinese Confucian culture. For instance, in The Analects, Kongzi (Confucius), it was determined that ren (kindness) is a key component of harmony and good relationships [56], which is also consistent with the previous finding that kindness (i.e., one item from the CVQ-96) decreased resilience [7]. However, this potentially contradictory relationship between Chinese virtues and students’ succumbing requires further analysis in future research.
The role of gender in the relationship between Chinese virtues and student resilience was also demonstrated, addressing the second research question. A positive relationship was found between gender and students’ positive resilience in the SEM model. Male students scored higher than female students for resilience, which matches that of prior studies [57,58], which also found that resilience was significantly higher in males. The reason for this finding could be that girls are generally more emotional than boys so they could be affected more deeply after experiencing adversity or challenges. However, these results are inconsistent with numerous studies in different contexts [42,44], so the contradictory effects of gender in schooling need further investigation.
Surprisingly, there were no relationships between gender and students’ Chinese virtues, which is inconsistent with numerous studies [40,41]. However, when examined more closely, gender had a significant impact on the relationship sub-dimension of the CVQ-96, although gender did not show a significant influence on Chinese virtues as a whole. Consistent with this result, Zhang et al. [45] identified no significant gender differences in scores for vitality and conscientiousness (two sub-dimensions of the CVQ-96) among undergraduate students in Mainland China. This result may be extended to the primary and secondary school levels. Female students also showed higher scores than males in the relationship sub-dimension, and the differences were statistically significant, which is consistent with previous studies that found girls attained higher scores than boys in the character strengths of kindness [41], perhaps because, from an evolutionary perspective, female strengths are shown in the areas of kindness and love, which are linked to the traditional female role of the caregiver [59,60].
The role of school grade level on the relationship between Chinese virtues and student resilience was also verified, answering the third research question. According to our results, the direct effects of school level on Chinese virtues were significant, and the values for each dimension of the CVQ-96 were higher among primary school students than among secondary school students. This has been empirically demonstrated in previous studies [40,61] and agrees with the disruption hypothesis for personality development [62]. These results also indicate the direct influence of school level on student resilience, as prior evidence had demonstrated [44]. Interestingly, the CVQ-96 and resilience scores were both higher among primary school students than among secondary school students. A possible influencing factor for this may be that coping strategies are developed in younger primary school children, and resilience may be subject to fluctuation at the onset of adolescence [44]. To some degree, this shows that school influences students’ Chinese virtues and resilience, which seems to be broadly in line with a previous cross-cultural study of the perceptions of resilience-promoting factors among students, which found a relatively strong relationship between teachers, students, and parents in a Chinese sample [63] (p. 15). In another study in Hong Kong, it was found that, despite a small decrease in resilience during adolescence, the strengthening of family processes assists in promoting resilience in this age group [64]. In addition, this study was partly based on the assumption that Chinese virtues or individual strengths, as psychological suzhi (psychological quality), might serve as protective factors that could counteract, either positively or negatively, the adverse outcomes related to risk [65] (pp. 357, 366). However, some research findings suggest cautionary interpretations when applying resilience theory to a Chinese context [65] (p. 368). Thus, future research should more deeply consider the relationship between Chinese virtues and resilience during early adolescence.
In the SEM model, school grade level showed a significant impact on Chinese virtues, which in turn affected resilience. This is in line with the findings that grade differences affect the association with student virtues [40] and character strengths could predict resilience [38]. However, few studies have investigated the role of school level in the relationship between Chinese virtues and student resilience, so this study makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the role of Chinese virtues and the related influential factors and outcomes.

6. Theoretical Implications

This study had four major implications. First, the potential linkage between virtues and resilience contributed to the conceptual understanding that enhancing students’ resilience could be achieved through nurturing virtues and the related character strengths. This emphasized the importance of students’ virtues and resilience. Second, this study illustrated the role of gender and school level on the relationship between Chinese virtues and student resilience. Future studies could investigate the overall effect of the interaction of school level and gender on virtues and resilience. Third, the positive relationship between virtues and resilience supported further character education in schools. Based on successful interventions (e.g., strengths-based resilience programs by Rashid et al. [66]; the Bounce Back Well-being and Resilience program by McGrath and Noble [67]; and the “You Can Do it!” program by Noble and McGrath [68]), this study provided information for policymakers and schools to target policies, programs, and interventions to improve the virtues and resilience of their students.
Fourth, there was certain compatibility or overlap between the character and virtue approach [69] from the Western literature and the policy texts on Chinese moral education for primary and secondary schools under the influence of Confucian heritage. Some scholars have remarked that different Chinese philosophies, such as Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, tend to endorse the acceptance of adversity, and its processes tend to be related to relationships with others and with nature, instead of being individualistic [70]. Future studies could further examine the Hong Kong context, where there are the possibilities and prospects of learning from Chinese moral and life education [71] and positive character education from the West [72].

7. Practical Implications

The Ministry of Education, educators, and schools could work together to develop programs or curricula related to resilience and character education to help students learn how to respond to and cope with potential harms and adversity, thus enhancing students’ resilience and character strength [73,74,75]. For example, storytelling and drama could be incorporated into character or resilience education [76,77,78]. Students could absorb values by listening to or retelling stories. Storytelling can also develop students’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains, and drama could provide a meaningful, multisensory, hands-on learning experience [78] directly related to character or resilience education.
For teachers, hostile climates in the classroom should be avoided, as this might cause psychological, social, and epistemic harm to students instead of developing the necessary skills for dealing properly with challenging environments [75,79]. For parents, their warmth, monitoring, and school involvement benefit the development of their children’s character [80]. Teachers and parents should work together with the school to create situations for students to experience failure and success as well as teach them different strategies to protect themselves, such as “battle on through”, “believe in yourself”, “just don’t listen”, and “keep your head down” [75].

8. Limitations and Future Research

Despite this study’s contributions, this investigation had several limitations. Methodologically, the study adopted a convenience sampling method; because the sample was not randomly selected, caution should be used when generalizing the results to other fields. The study depended on cross-sectional and self-reported questionnaire data from students. Causal relationships among measures could not be inferred. Future studies could include cognitive interviews or use longitudinal data together with other measures to ascertain the relationships between virtues and resilience in the Chinese context. This study only examined the general effect of Chinese virtues on students’ resilience; thus, future studies could consider the influence of virtues from the different sub-dimensions, such as interpersonal, vitality, and conscientiousness.

9. Conclusions

This paper assessed the applicability of the CVQ-96 [9] and the BRS [27] on a sample of primary and secondary school students in Hong Kong and explored the possible relationships between the Chinese virtues and resilience as affected by school grade level and gender differences. The current study examined the relationships among Chinese virtues, student resilience, gender, and school grade level. Boys were more resilient than girls. Students from primary school were more resilient and scored higher on the CVQ-96 than students from secondary school. With the increment of Chinese virtues, students’ positive resilience and succumbing also increased. The results could be applied directly to guide the development of resilience and gender education.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C.-K.L.; methodology, X.K.; software, X.K.; validation, J.C.; formal analysis, X.K.; investigation, J.C.-K.L.; resources, J.C.-K.L.; data curation, X.K. and J.C.; writing (original draft preparation), J.C.-K.L., X.K. and J.C.; writing (review & editing), J.C.-K.L., X.K. and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is supported by two projects, namely “Life Education for Chinese Culture and Virtues” under the Centre for Classical Chinese Education and “Academic emotions, social-emotional health, self-regulated learning and sense of school membership: Teacher and student perspectives (Ref. no. 2017-2018-0338)” under the Centre for Religious and Spirituality Education at The Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK). The authors would like to thank Michelle Li and Coudy Yui of EdUHK for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of the Education University of Hong Kong (Ref. no. 2017-2018-0338).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data is unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michelle Li and Coudy Yui of EdUHK for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Peterson, C.; Seligman, M.E.P. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  2. Huo, Y.; Xie, J.; Moller, F.; Kristjánsson, K. Character strengths and virtues in Chinese moral education: Evidence from ‘the Code’ and from primary and secondary schools. J. Posit. Psychol. 2021, 17, 472–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dahlsgaard, K.; Peterson, C.; Seligman, M.E.P. Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2005, 9, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Shek, D.T.L.; Ma, C.M.S. Character Traits, Psychosocial Competences and Social Behavior: Teachers’ Perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University and Wofoo Social Enterprises. 2017. Available online: https://www.polyu.edu.hk/archive/en/media-releases/index_id_6491.html (accessed on 6 October 2022). (In Chinese).
  5. Niemiec, R.M. Six functions of character strengths for thriving at times of adversity and opportunity: A theoretical perspective. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2020, 15, 551–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mansfield, C.F.; Beltman, S.; Broadley, T.; Weatherby-Fell, N. Building resilience in teacher education: An evidenced informed framework. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2016, 54, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Demirci, I.; Ekşi, H.; Ekşi, F.; Kaya, Ç. Character strengths and psychological vulnerability: The mediating role of resilience. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 40, 5626–5636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wasonga, T.; Christman, D.E.; Kilmer, L. Ethnicity, gender and age: Predicting resilience and academic achievement among urban high school students. Am. Second. Educ. 2003, 32, 62–74. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fergusson, D.M.; Horwood, L.J. Resilience to childhood adversity: Results of a 21-year study. In Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the Context of Childhood Adversities; Luthar, S.S., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; pp. 130–181. [Google Scholar]
  10. Edwards, T.; Catling, J.C.; Parry, E. Identifying predictors of resilience in students. Psychol. Teach. Rev. 2016, 22, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hanfstingl, B. Ego and spiritual transcendence: Relevance to psychological resilience and the role of age. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2013, 2013, 949838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Duan, W.; Ho, S.M.Y.; Yu, B.; Tang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, T.; Yuen, T. Factor structure of the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire. Res. Soc. Work. Pract. 2012, 22, 680–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Datu, J.A.D.; Bernardo, A.B. The blessings of social-oriented virtues: Interpersonal character strengths are linked to increased life satisfaction and academic success among Filipino high school students. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2020, 11, 983–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huber, A.; Strecker, C.; Kachel, T.; Höge, T.; Höfer, S. Character strengths profiles in medical professionals and their impact on well-being. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 566–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Grinhauz, A.S.; Azzara, S.H.; Azzollini, S. Can Character Strengths Predict College Adjustment? A Study Carried Out in Nursing Students in the Argentine Republic. Trends Psychol. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, J.C.K. Children’s spirituality, life and values education: Cultural, spiritual and educational perspectives. Int. J. Child. Spiritual. 2020, 25, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lee, J.C.K.; Yip, S.Y.W.; Kong, R.H.M. (Eds.) Life and Moral Education in Greater China; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lee, J.C.K.; Wong, K.L.; Kong, R.H.M. Secondary school teachers’ self-efficacy for moral and character education and its predictors: A Hong Kong perspective. Teach. Teach. 2021, 27, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Education Bureau. Values Education Curriculum Framework (Pilot Version); EDB: Hong Kong, China, 2021. Available online: https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/4-key-tasks/moral-civic/ve_curriculum_framework2021.html (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  20. Curriculum Development Council (CDC). Ongoing Renewal of the School Curriculum: The Primary Education Curriculum Guide (Pilot Version)—Cultivate Values for Leaders of Tomorrow, Create Space to Foster Whole-Person Development; EDB: Hong Kong, China, 2022. Available online: https://applications.edb.gov.hk/circular/upload/EDBCM/EDBCM22154E.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  21. Seligman, M.E.P. Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  22. Carr, D. Values, virtues and professional development in education and teaching. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2011, 50, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baer, R. Ethics, values, virtues, and character strengths in mindfulness-based interventions: A psychological science perspective. Mindfulness 2015, 6, 956–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. McGrath, R.E. Scale-and item-level factor analyses of the VIA inventory of strengths. Assessment 2014, 21, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Ruch, W.; Proyer, R.T.; Harzer, C.; Park, N.; Peterson, C.; Seligman, M.E.P. Values in action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and validation of the German version and the development of a peer-rating form. J. Individ. Differ. 2010, 31, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Brdar, I.; Kashdan, T.B. Character strengths and well-being in Croatia: An empirical investigation of structure and correlates. J. Res. Pers. 2010, 44, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khumalo, I.P.; Wissing, M.P.; Temane, Q.M. Exploring the validity of the values-in-action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) in an African context. J. Psychol. Afr. 2008, 18, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Oswald, M.; Johnson, B.; Howard, S. Quantifying and evaluating resilience-promoting factors—Teachers’ beliefs and perceived roles. Res. Educ. 2003, 70, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gu, Q.; Day, C. Teachers resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2007, 23, 1302–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Smith, B.W.; Dalen, J.; Wiggins, K.; Tooley, E.; Christopher, P.; Bernard, J. The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2008, 15, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Mansfield, C.F.; Beltman, S.; Price, A.; McConney, A. “Don’t sweat the small stuff”: Understanding teacher resilience at the chalkface. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2012, 28, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Peixoto, F.; Wosnitza, M.; Pipa, J.; Morgan, M.; Cefai, C. A Multidimensional View on Pre-service Teacher Resilience in Germany, Ireland, Malta and Portugal. In Resilience in Education; Wosnitza, M., Peixoto, F., Beltman, S., Mansfield, C.F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 73–89. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sanders, J.; Munford, R.; Thimasarn-Anwar, T.; Liebenberg, L.; Ungar, M. The role of positive youth development practices in building resilience and enhancing wellbeing for at-risk youth. Child Abuse Negl. 2015, 42, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Steele, D. Higher education and urban migration for community resilience: Indigenous Amazonian youth promoting place-based identities in Peru. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 2018, 49, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bullock, A.R.L.; Stumpf, B.; Chang, K. Virtues, Resilience, and Well-Being of Indigenous Youth in Peru. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth 2021, 8, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Seligman, M.E.P.; Park, N.; Peterson, C. The Values in Action (VIA) classification of character strengths. Ric. Psicol. 2004, 27, 63–78. [Google Scholar]
  37. Deepak, K.; Annalakshmi, N. Virtues as predictors of resilience among single women. J. Posit. Psychol. 2021, 12, 288–298. [Google Scholar]
  38. Martínez-Martí, M.L.; Ruch, W. Character strengths predict resilience over and above positive affect, self-efficacy, optimism, social support, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. J. Posit. Psychol. 2017, 12, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Proctor, C.; Maltby, J.; Linley, P.A. Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related quality of life. J. Happiness Stud. 2011, 12, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lau, E.Y.Y.; Lam, S.; Lee, J.C.K. Well-slept children and teens are happier and more hopeful with fewer emotional problems. Child Indic. Res. 2021, 14, 1809–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, C.K.J.; Huang, J. The relations between students’ sense of school belonging, perceptions of school kindness and character strength of kindness. J. Sch. Psychol. 2021, 84, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ifdil, I.; Fadli, R.P.; Syahputra, Y.; Erwinda, L.; Zola, N.; Afdal, A. Rasch stacking analysis: Differences in student resilience in terms of gender. Konselor 2018, 7, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shoshani, A.; Shwartz, L. From Character Strengths to Children’s Well-Being: Development and Validation of the Character Strengths Inventory for Elementary School Children. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sun, J.; Stewart, D. Age and gender effects on resilience in children and adolescents. Int. J. Ment. Health 2007, 9, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Zhang, Y.; Duan, W.; Tang, X.; Gan, P.; Gan, F.; Guo, P. Psychometric properties of Chinese Virtues Questionnaire in Chinese adolescents. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2014, 22, 470–474. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  46. Fung, S. Validity of the Brief Resilience Scale and Brief Resilient Coping Scale in a Chinese Sample. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Bollen, K.A. Structural Equations with Latent Variables; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  48. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marsh, H.W.; Hau, K.T.; Wen, Z. In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct. Equ. Model. 2004, 11, 320–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Matsunaga, M. Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Commun. Methods Meas. 2008, 2, 260–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wu, Y.; Wen, Z.L. Item parceling strategies in structural equation modeling. Adv. Cogn. Sci. Psychol. 2011, 19, 1859–1867. [Google Scholar]
  53. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis, 3rd ed.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kock, N. Harman’s single factor test in PLS-SEM: Checking for common method bias. Data Anal. Perspect. 2020, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  55. De la Fuente, J.; De La Fuente, J.; Urien, B.; Luis, E.O.; González-Torres, M.C.; Artuch, R.; Balaguer, A. The Proactive-Reactive Resilience as a mediational variable between the Strength Character and the Flourishing in Undergraduate Students. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 856558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Confucius. The Analects of Confucius; Waley, A., Translator; George Allen: London, UK, 1938. [Google Scholar]
  57. Naseem, S.; Munaf, S. Resilience and aggression of adolescents, early and middle-aged adults: Analyzing gender differences. Pak. J. Gend. Stud. 2020, 20, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Stratta, P.; Capanna, C.; Patriarca, S.; de Cataldo, S.; Bonanni, R.L.; Riccardi, I.; Rossi, A. Resilience in adolescence: Gender differences two years after the earthquake of L’Aquila. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2013, 54, 27–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Brdar, I.; Anić, P.; Rijavec, M. Character strengths and well-being: Are there gender differences? In The Human Pursuit of Well-Being: A Cultural Approach; En, I.B., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 145–156. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhang, Y.; Chen, M. Character strengths, strengths use, future self-continuity and subjective well-being among Chinese university students. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brown, M.; Blanchard, T.; McGrath, R.E. Differences in self-reported character strengths across adolescence. J. Adolesc. 2020, 79, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Soto, C.J.; Tackett, J.L. Personality traits in childhood and adolescence: Structure, development, and outcomes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 24, 358–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Ni, H.; Li, C.; Wang, C. Students’ perceptions of resilience promoting factors in Chinese and American middle schools. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2016, 37, 435–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shek, D.T.L.; Chi, X.; Lin, L. Resilience in high school students in Hong Kong. In Positive Youth Development: Long Term Effects in a Chinese Program; Daniel, T.L.S., Cecilia, M.S.M., Janet, T.Y.L., Joav, M., Eds.; Nova Science: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 83–102. Available online: https://scholars.ln.edu.hk/en/publications/resilience-in-high-school-students-in-hong-kong (accessed on 20 October 2022).
  65. Wang, J.-L.; Zhang, D.-J.; Zimmerman, M.A. Resilience theory and its implications for Chinese adolescents. Psychol. Rep. 2015, 117, 354–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rashid, T.; Anjum, A.; Chu, R.; Stevanovski, S.; Zanjani, A.; Lennox, C. Strength based resilience: Integrating risk and resources towards holistic well-being. In Increasing Psychological Well-Being in Clinical and Educational Settings: Interventions and Cultural Contexts; Fava, G.A., Ruini, C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 153–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. McGrath, H.; Noble, T. Boune Back! A Wellbeing & Resilience Program (Lower Primary K-2; Middle Primary: Yrs 3–4; Upper Primary/Junior Secondary: Yrs 5–8); Pearson Education: Melbourne, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  68. Noble, T.; McGrath, H. Well-being and resilience in school settings. In Increasing Psychological Well-Being in Clinical and Educational Settings: Interventions and Cultural Contexts; Fava, G.A., Ruini, C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 135–152. [Google Scholar]
  69. McGrath, R.E.; Brown, M. Using the VIA classification to advance a psychological science of virtue. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 565953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Xie, Q.; Fung, D.F.K. Culturally sensitive conceptualization of resilience: A multidimensional model of Chinese resilience. Transcult. Psychiatr. 2020, 58, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tan, C.; Zhao, Z.; Lee, J.C.K. Understanding life education in mainland China: Views through the lens of moral-civic education. In Life and Moral Education in Greater China; Lee, J.C.K., Yip, S.Y.W., Kong, R.H.M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 118–130. [Google Scholar]
  72. Hue, M.T. Life education, positive education, and character education in Greater China: Theory, research, and practice. In Life and Moral Education in Greater China; Lee, J.C.K., Yip, S.Y.W., Kong, R.H.M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 235–250. [Google Scholar]
  73. Allen, A.N.; Kilgus, S.P.; Eklund, K. An initial investigation of the efficacy of the Resilience Education Program (REP). School Ment. Health 2019, 11, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Firman, A.J.; Ni’mah, U.; Asvio, N. Prototype curriculum: Concepts and its role in strengthening character education after the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. J. Innov. Publ. 2022, 1, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  75. Monypenny, A. Between vulnerability and resilience: A contextualist picture of protective epistemic character traits. J. Philos. Educ. 2021, 55, 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Halimah, L.; Arifin, R.R.; Yuliariatiningsih, M.S.; Abdillah, F.; Sutini, A. Storytelling through “Wayang Golek” puppet show: Practical ways in incorporating character education in early childhood. Cogent. Educ. 2020, 7, 1794495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bravo, F.A.; Hurtado, J.A.; González, E. Using robots with storytelling and drama activities in science education. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hidayati, N.N. Storytelling: One package learning in improving language skill and implanting character education on children. J. Pendidik. Islam. 2019, 7, 192–211. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ramsay, P. Is Prevent a safe space? Educ. Citizsh. Soc. Justice 2017, 12, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Paul, S.A.S.; Hart, P.; Augustin, L.; Clarke, P.J.; Pike, M. Parents’ perspectives on home-based character education activities. J. Fam. Stud. 2022, 28, 1158–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 03769 g001 550
Figure 1. Measurement Model for Chinese Virtues.
Figure 1. Measurement Model for Chinese Virtues.
Ijerph 20 03769 g001
Ijerph 20 03769 g002 550
Figure 2. SEM Model of Chinese Virtues and Resilience.
Figure 2. SEM Model of Chinese Virtues and Resilience.
Ijerph 20 03769 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire and Brief Resilience Scale.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire and Brief Resilience Scale.
Chinese Virtue
(and Its Sub-Scales)		Character Strength ItemsMEANSDFemaleMaleSecondaryPrimaryModel Fit
Second Order
Relationship/InterpersonalKindness3.560.663.63
(0.63) ***		3.48
(0.70)		3.54
(0.62) **		3.63
(0.77)		CFI = 0.905
TLI = 0.897
RMSEA = 0.079
90% CI:
0.077–0.080
Teamwork3.720.693.78
(0.65) ***		3.66
(0.73)		3.69
(0.65) ***		3.81
(0.78)
Fairness3.810.663.87
(0.62) ***		3.76
(0.7)		3.79
(0.62) **		3.89
(0.76)
Love3.650.723.73
(0.70) ***		3.55
(0.74)		3.62
(0.69) **		3.73
(0.81)
Authenticity3.630.643.67
(0.60) ***		3.58
(0.69)		3.61
(0.61)		3.66
(0.72)
Leadership3.700.683.75
(0.63) **		3.66
(0.72)		3.67
(0.63) ***		3.80
(0.78)
Forgiveness3.700.683.72
(0.65)		3.67
(0.71)		3.66
(0.63) ***		3.81
(0.79)
Gratitude3.440.743.46
(0.72)		3.42
(0.76)		3.39
(0.71) ***		3.58
(0.81)
Overall3.650.563.70
(0.52) ***		3.60
(0.60)		3.62
(0.52) ***		3.74
(0.66)
VitalityHumor3.420.803.37
(0.77) **		3.48
(0.82)		3.39
(0.76) ***		3.52
(0.88)		CFI = 0.843
TLI = 0.833
RMSEA = 0.082
90% CI
0.080–0.083
Curiosity3.520.773.51
(0.76)		3.53
(0.77)		3.42
(0.72) ***		3.77
(0.82)
Zest3.380.763.34
(0.75) **		3.44
(0.77)		3.28
(0.71) ***		3.66
(0.83)
Creativity3.410.733.37
(0.71) **		3.45
(0.75)		3.36
(0.69) ***		3.52
(0.82)
Perspective3.300.693.32
(0.66)		3.28
(0.72)		3.28
(0.65) *		3.35
(0.79)
Hope3.370.753.34
(0.75) *		3.42
(0.76)		3.31
(0.72) ***		3.55
(0.82)
Social3.450.683.49
(0.65) **		3.42
(0.7)		3.44
(0.64)		3.48
(0.77)
Beauty3.430.743.50
(0.71) ***		3.35
(0.76)		3.39
(0.70) ***		3.54
(0.83)
Bravery3.380.703.34
(0.68) **		3.43
(0.72)		3.33
(0.66) ***		3.52
(0.78)
Belief3.200.843.17
(0.82)		3.23
(0.86)		3.10
(0.81) ***		3.47
(0.85)
Overall3.390.583.37
(0.55)		3.40
(0.61)		3.33
(0.54) ***		3.54
(0.65)
Conscientiousness/CautionJudgment3.350.673.37
(0.62)		3.32
(0.73)		3.36
(0.63)		3.31
(0.79)		CFI = 0.881
TLI = 0.866
RMSEA = 0.084
90% CI
0.082–0.086
Prudence3.370.713.39
(0.68)		3.35
(0.75)		3.37
(0.67)		3.39
(0.81)
Regulation3.170.693.13
(0.69) **		3.22
(0.70)		3.11
(0.66) ***		3.32
(0.76)
Perseverance3.350.663.32
(0.64) *		3.38
(0.69)		3.31
(0.64) ***		3.45
(0.73)
Learning3.100.853.10
(0.84)		3.09
(0.85)		3.01
(0.81) ***		3.32
(0.91)
Modesty3.270.673.28
(0.63)		3.26
(0.72)		3.23
(0.62) ***		3.38
(0.78)
Overall3.270.553.26
(0.50)		3.27
(0.59)		3.23
(0.51) ***		3.36
(0.63)
Resilience 3.190.573.16
(0.56) *		3.22
(0.59)		3.16
(0.54) ***		3.27
(0.64)		CFI = 0.612
TLI = 0.354
RMSEA = 0.314
90% CI
0.303–0.325
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 2. Means and Standardization for Chinese Virtues Questionnaire by Grade.
Table 2. Means and Standardization for Chinese Virtues Questionnaire by Grade.
GradeNRelationshipVitalityConscientiousness
1 Primary 42473.85 (0.69)3.67 (0.69)3.51 (0.67)
2 Primary 52413.64 (0.65)3.47 (0.60)3.31 (0.59)
3 Primary 61723.72 (0.59)3.43 (0.60)3.23 (0.58)
4 Secondary 1 3243.65 (0.58)3.43 (0.58)3.30 (0.58)
5 Secondary 24043.67 (0.5)3.39 (0.53)3.27 (0.49)
6 Secondary 32863.58 (0.54)3.33 (0.54)3.20 (0.53)
7 Secondary 44873.59 (0.51)3.31 (0.51)3.24 (0.48)
8 Secondary 5 3073.59 (0.48)3.19 (0.50)3.13 (0.45)
Table
Table 3. Model Fit Indices for the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire and Brief Resilience Scale.
Table 3. Model Fit Indices for the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire and Brief Resilience Scale.
Chinese Virtues QuestionnaireBrief Resilience Scale
Model 1
First
Order		Model 2
Second Order		Model 3
Third Order		Model 41-Factor2-Factor
CFI0.7850.8200.8210.9050.610.987
TLI0.7810.8150.8160.8930.350.975
RMSEA0.058
(0.057–0.058)		0.053
(0.053–0.054)		0.053
(0.052–0.054)		0.083
(0.081–0.085)		0.314
(0.303–0.325)		0.061
(0.050–0.074)
Table
Table 4. Standardized Coefficients and 95% Confidence Intervals for SEM model of Resilience and Chinese Virtues (bootstrap = 5000).
Table 4. Standardized Coefficients and 95% Confidence Intervals for SEM model of Resilience and Chinese Virtues (bootstrap = 5000).
Resilience 1Resilience 2Chinese Virtues
Predictorβ95% CI β95% CIβ95% CI
School level0.054[0.011–0.095]0.022[−0.031–0.073]0.135[0.089–0.180]
Gender0.092[0.045–0.139]−0.021[−0.068–0.026]
Chinese virtue0.658[0.614–0.699]0.119[0.052–0.185]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kuang, X.; Lee, J.C.-K.; Chen, J. Chinese Virtues and Resilience among Students in Hong Kong. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3769. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043769

AMA Style

Kuang X, Lee JC-K, Chen J. Chinese Virtues and Resilience among Students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(4):3769. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043769

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kuang, Xiaoxue, John Chi-Kin Lee, and Junjun Chen. 2023. "Chinese Virtues and Resilience among Students in Hong Kong" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4: 3769. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043769

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop