Understanding the Indirect Pathways from Adverse Childhood Experiences to Resilience in Taiwanese Adolescents: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

Background and Purpose: Understanding how early adversity shapes adolescent resilience is critical for designing effective prevention and intervention strategies. This study, which is grounded in resiliency theory and the challenge model of resilience, investigates the indirect associations between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and resilience among early adolescents in Taiwan. Specifically, it examines how emotion regulation, depressive symptoms, and peer conflict resolution strategies mediate this relationship while also exploring gender differences in these pathways.

Methods: Secondary data from a large-scale, longitudinal school-based study supported by the CTBC Charity Foundation. This research analyzed responses from 2,198 fifth-grade students across 39 Keelung City, Taiwan elementary schools. Participants completed validated, Chinese-translated measures of ACEs, emotion regulation (ERQ), peer conflict resolution (ROCI-II), depressive symptoms (CES-D), and resilience (CD-RISC). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized model and examine gender differences.

Results: Findings indicate that ACEs are not directly associated with resilience (β = –.002) but exert significant indirect effects via emotion regulation, Depression, and peer conflict resolution. Specifically, ACEs were associated with poorer emotion regulation (β = –.07，p<.01), linking to greater resilience (β = .11, p<.001). This finding highlights emotion regulation's potentially adaptive role under adversity. However, disrupted emotional development due to early adversity may impair the ability to modulate emotional responses effectively, ultimately compromising resilience.

ACEs were also linked to increased depressive symptoms (β = .38, p<.001), which were significantly associated with lower resilience (β = –.36, p<.001). Depression emerges as a key mechanism by which adversity undermines adaptive functioning in adolescents. Additionally, ACEs were associated with reduced engagement in constructive peer conflict resolution strategies (β = –.08, p<.01), which were the strongest predictor of resilience in the model (β = .53, p<.001). Adolescents exposed to chaotic or violent environments may lack opportunities to develop prosocial negotiation skills, limiting their capacity for positive peer interactions.

Gender differences appeared in only one path within the model that the associations of adolescent's adverse childhood experiences and their emotion regulation were significant for females (β = -.07, p<.001) but not for males (β = -.05). It is noteworthy that in the pathway of adolescent's adverse childhood experiences to resilience, the coefficient was negative for females but positive for males. Although this pathway had no statistical significance, it indicated that the effect of this pathway differs between female and male groups.

Conclusions and Implications: This study reveals that the impact of ACEs on early adolescent resilience operates entirely through psychological and social mechanisms—specifically emotion regulation, Depression, and peer conflict resolution. These findings reinforce the challenge model of resilience, highlighting that risk does not inherently diminish resilience unless it disrupts key developmental competencies. Interventions aiming to promote resilience in ACE-exposed youth should prioritize equipping adolescents with adaptive emotion regulation strategies, early screening and intervention of depressive symptoms, and structured opportunities to build prosocial peer negotiation skills. Gender-sensitive approaches are warranted, especially given the distinct emotion regulation challenges observed among girls. These findings inform tailored, developmentally-attuned prevention frameworks that build resilience from the inside out.