| Literature DB >> 30071086 |
Ricardo Sanmartín1, Cándido J Inglés2, María Vicent1, Carolina Gonzálvez1, Ángela Díaz-Herrero3, José Manuel García-Fernández1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between affect in its two commonly used theoretical categories, positive affect (Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30071086 PMCID: PMC6072041 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201698
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Sociocultural and economic context of participants: Academic level of the family, family structure, and number of children.
| Sociocultural and economic context | Percentage of the sample |
|---|---|
| Primary studies (school graduate) | 10.34% |
| Secondary studies (mid- and upper-level vocational training cycles or Baccalaureate) | 66.77% |
| University studies | 12.27% |
| Did not provide information | 10.62% |
| Married parents | 71% |
| Divorced or separated couples | 14.6% |
| Other family situations | 14.4% |
| | 9% |
| | 3.4% |
| | 2% |
| Only child | 13.7% |
| Having one sibling | 55.7% |
| Having two siblings | 18.6% |
| Having three or more siblings | 12% |
Means, standard deviations and effect sizes obtained from the two categories of affect for groups of high and low social functioning in all its dimensions.
| Levene’s test | Group High | Group Low | Statistical significance and magnitude of differences | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF dimensions | Affect categories | |||||||||
| SP | PA | 29.15 | < .001 | 22.13 | 2.78 | 18.25 | 4.43 | -6.75 | 102.31 | 1.05 |
| NA | 27.88 | < .001 | 7.31 | 3.46 | 9.08 | 4.90 | 2.70 | 110.54 | .42 | |
| PR | PA | 37.71 | < .001 | 21.09 | 3.17 | 18.95 | 4.35 | -4.83 | 221.25 | .56 |
| NA | 34.43 | < .001 | 7.00 | 3.09 | 10.50 | 4.03 | 8.44 | 230.04 | .97 | |
| FR | PA | 16.67 | < .001 | 21.00 | 3.31 | 17.74 | 4.00 | -6.89 | 136.04 | .89 |
| NA | 19.38 | < .001 | 7.63 | 3.33 | 10.00 | 4.25 | 4.76 | 131.12 | .62 | |
| HD | PA | 142.24 | < .001 | 21.97 | 2.24 | 17.11 | 4.61 | -10.27 | 136.95 | 1.34 |
| NA | 19.28 | < .001 | 7.03 | 2.66 | 9.50 | 3.25 | 6.69 | 189.50 | .83 | |
Note: SF = Social Functioning; PA = Positive Affect; NA = Negative Affect; SP = School Performance; PR = Peer Relationships; FR = Family Relationships; HD = Home Duties/Self-Care
* = p < .05
** = p < .001.
Binary logistic regression for the probability of presenting high social functioning in terms of the two subscales of the PANAS.
| SF | Affect | χ2 | B | SE | Wald | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PA | 47.95 | .29 | .05 | 35.11 | < .001 | 1.34 | 1.22–1.47 | |
| NA | - | - | - | - | - | |||
| Constant | -5.40 | 1.03 | 27.61 | < .001 | .005 | |||
| PA | 76.77 | .10 | .03 | 8.93 | .003 | 1.11 | 1.04–1.18 | |
| NA | -.24 | .04 | 41.89 | < .001 | .79 | .73-.85 | ||
| Constant | .40 | .81 | .25 | .621 | 1.49 | |||
| PA | 60.55 | .20 | .04 | 32.72 | < .001 | 1.22 | 1.14–1.31 | |
| NA | -.12 | .03 | 13.79 | < .001 | .88 | .83-.94 | ||
| Constant | -1.80 | .78 | 5.41 | .020 | .16 | |||
| PA | 121.93 | .35 | .05 | 51.21 | < .001 | 1.42 | 1.29–1.56 | |
| NA | -.21 | .06 | 14.03 | < .001 | .82 | .73-.91 | ||
| Constant | -4.79 | 1.09 | 19.27 | < .001 | .01 |
Note: SF = Social Functioning; PA = Positive Affect; NA = Negative Affect; SP = School Performance; PR = Peer Relationships; FR = Family Relationships; HD = Home Duties/Self-Care.