| Literature DB >> 31354568 |
Esther Lopez-Zafra1, Manuel Miguel Ramos-Álvarez2, Karima El Ghoudani1, Octavio Luque-Reca3, José María Augusto-Landa1, Benaissa Zarhbouch4, Smail Alaoui4, Daniel Cortés-Denia1, Manuel Pulido-Martos1.
Abstract
This study aimed to test a structural model to examine the protective role of psychosocial variables, such as social support, emotional intelligence and their interaction, on the cognitive dimension of subjective positive well-being (life satisfaction) and negative well-being (depression) in Moroccan adolescents. The participants consisted of 1277 students (571 men, 694 women and 12 missing values) with a mean age of 16.15 years (SD = 2.22; range = 9 to 23) who attended 26 public schools in different territories of Morocco. These students were in secondary education (n = 893) and high school (n = 378) (6 missing values). The scales for measuring the variables of interest had to be adapted and validated as a previous step for the further proposal of a model of relations. Statistical analyses were conducted using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the proposed model. The model that optimally adjusted the data confirmed the protective role of social support in the well-being of Moroccan adolescents. Consistent with previous studies, social support was directly related to well-being. However, it also modulated levels of satisfaction with life. Likewise, the inclusion of emotional intelligence as an additional protective factor contributed to the explanation of the well-being mechanisms in adolescents. In addition to direct associations with the levels of social support, satisfaction with life and depression (negative in the latter case), emotional intelligence participated in a complex chain affecting life satisfaction and life satisfaction affecting depression. Moreover, the interaction of emotional intelligence with social support was confirmed to determine levels of life satisfaction in adolescents. Specifically, social support multiplied the effects of the relationship between satisfaction with life and emotional intelligence in cases of moderate and high levels in Moroccan adolescents. This study fills a gap in the literature by adapting and further analyzing several scales with Moroccan samples of adolescents and by proposing and verifying a relational model that can help researchers and teachers to more precisely clarify these relations according to their context. The enhancement of protective factors, such as social support and emotional intelligence, will promote healthy youth development, thus creating healthier societies in the future.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; depression; emotional intelligence; life satisfaction; social support
Year: 2019 PMID: 31354568 PMCID: PMC6635474 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01529
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Hypothesized Model.
Goodness of fit indices for the measurement models.
| χ2 (df) | Ratio (<2) | Hoelter CN (>200) | CFI, IFI (>=0.95) | TLI, NNFI (>=0.95) | SRMR (<=0.08) | RMSEA [95% CI of RMSEA] (<=0.06) | Baseline RMSEA (>0.158) | AIC | Adj BIC | γ-Hat (>=0.95) | Adj γ-Hat (>=0.95) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSPSS-3-Factor model | 77.59 (32) | <0.001 | 2.42 | 758+ | 0.96+ | 0.95+ | 0.03+ | 0.03 [0.02–0.04]∗ | 0.1471 | 12510 | 12575 | 0.99+ | 0.99+ |
| WLEIS-4-Factor model | 304.62 (86) | <0.001 | 3.54 | 455+ | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.04+ | 0.045 [0.04–0.05]∗ | 0.1719+ | 44189 | 44286 | 0.98+ | 0.97+ |
| SWLS- Unidimensional | 42.43 (5) | <0.001 | 8.49 | 332+ | 0.98+ | 0.96+ | 0.02+ | 0.08 [0.06–0.10] | 0.3910+ | 20355 | 20384 | 0.99+ | 0.96+ |
| BDI-II-2-Factor model | 304.62 (86) | <0.001 | 3.54 | 455+ | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.04+ | 0.045 [0.04–0.05]∗ | 0.1719+ | 44189 | 44286 | 0.98+ | 0.97+ |
| General model | 298.15 (85) | <0.001 | 3.51 | 461+ | 0.95+ | 0.95+ | 0.04+ | 0.045 [0.04–0.05]∗ | 0.1987+ | 64091 | 64158 | 0.98+ | 0.97+ |
Goodness of fit indices for the measurements for the structural model.
| χ2 (df) | Ratio (<2) | Hoelter CN (>200) | CFI, IFI, TLI, NNFI (>=0.95) | SRMR (<=0.08) | RMSEA [95% CI of RMSEA] (<=0.06) | Baseline RMSEA (>0.158) | AIC | Adj BIC | γ-Hat (>=0.95) | Adj γ-Hat (>=0.95) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Starting model | 328.87 (143) | 0.001 | 2.30 | 667+ | 0.96+ | 0.03+ | 0.035 [0.03–0.04]∗ | 0.1598+ | 86326 | 86417 | 0.98+ | 0.98+ |
| Final model | 329.36 (144) | 0.001 | 2.29 | 671+ | 0.96+ | 0.03+ | 0.035 [0.03–0.04]∗ | 0.1598+ | 86325 | 86414 | 0.98+ | 0.98+ |
Descriptive statistics and reliability for all the instruments (N = 1277).
| Scale | Range | %NA | Cronbach’s α | OmegaT | OmegaH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSPSS.F1 Family | 7.16 (1.05) | 4–8 | 2.3 | 0.61 | 0.62 | 0.62 |
| MSPSS.F2 Friends | 3.54 (0.68) | 2–4 | 1.6 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.58 |
| MSPSS.F3 School | 5.66 (1.28) | 4–8 | 3.7 | 0.61 | 0.62 | 0.62 |
| MSPSS.TT | 16.35 (2.03) | 10–20 | 5.6 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 0.68 |
| WLEIS.F1 Self | 9.53 (1.79) | 3–12 | 2.7 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.62 |
| WLEIS.F2 Others | 12.26 (2.41) | 4–16 | 1.8 | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.68 |
| WLEIS.F3 Regulation | 13.34 (2.20) | 4–16 | 3.2 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.69 |
| WLEIS.F4 Use | 11.52 (2.91) | 4–16 | 1.2 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.71 |
| WLEIS.TT | 46.64 (6.57) | 18–60 | 6.8 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.83 |
| BDI.F1 Cognitive | 25.04 (7.52) | 15–57 | 13.4 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.88 |
| BDI.F2 Somatic | 7.98 (2.68) | 5–20 | 6.3 | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.65 |
| BDI.Total | 32.85 (9.42) | 20–77 | 15.8 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.90 |
| SWLS | 21.62 (5.36) | 5–30 | 2.7 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
Correlations among dimensions/items.
| Dimensions/items | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) MSPSS.F1 Family | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| (2) MSPSS.F2 Friends | 0.09** | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| (3) MSPSS.F3 School | 0.22** | 0.06* | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| (4) MSPSS.TT | 0.70** | 0.42** | 0.77** | 1 | |||||||||||||
| (5) WLEIS.F1 Self | 0.25** | 0.09** | 0.17** | 0.27** | 1 | ||||||||||||
| (6) WLEIS.F2 Others | 0.00 | 0.13** | 0.08** | 0.09** | 0.26** | 1 | |||||||||||
| (7) WLEIS.F3 Regulation | 0.31** | 0.06 | 0.17** | 0.29** | 0.46** | 0.26** | 1 | ||||||||||
| (8) WLEIS.F4 Use | 0.28** | 0.02 | 0.16** | 0.25** | 0.46** | 0.12** | 0.41** | 1 | |||||||||
| (9) WLEIS.TT | 0.30** | 0.11** | 0.20** | 0.32** | 0.73** | 0.58** | 0.74** | 0.76** | 1 | ||||||||
| (10) BDIF1 Cognitive | -0.41** | -0.08** | -0.17** | -0.34** | -0.31** | -0.02 | -0.33** | -0.31** | -0.35** | 1 | |||||||
| (11) BDI.F2 Somatic | -0.26** | -0.05 | -0.17** | -0.26** | -0.24** | 0.01 | -0.25** | -0.22** | -0.25** | 0.64** | 1 | ||||||
| (12) BDI.TT | -0.40** | -0.07* | -0.19** | -0.35** | -0.30** | -0.01 | -0.32** | -0.30** | -0.34** | 0.98** | 0.79** | 1 | |||||
| (13) SWLS.1 | 0.25** | 0.01 | 0.18** | 0.24** | 0.27** | 0.01 | 0.19** | 0.22** | 0.24** | -0.29** | -0.20** | -0.28** | 1 | ||||
| (14) SWLS.2 | 0.47** | 0.07* | 0.19** | 0.39** | 0.29** | 0.04 | 0.29** | 0.28** | 0.32** | -0.43** | -0.30** | -0.42** | 0.44** | 1 | |||
| (15) SWLS.3 | 0.38** | 0.07* | 0.15** | 0.32** | 0.34** | 0.08** | 0.35** | 0.30** | 0.37** | -0.43** | -0.30** | -0.42** | 0.38** | 0.62** | 1 | ||
| (16) SWLS.4 | 0.35** | 0.04 | 0.22** | 0.34** | 0.22** | 0.09** | 0.26** | 0.23** | 0.28** | -0.34** | -0.23** | -0.33** | 0.37** | 0.54** | 0.55** | 1 | |
| (17) SWLS.5 | 0.25** | 0.02 | 0.22** | 0.28** | 0.17** | -0.01 | 0.16** | 0.21** | 0.19** | -0.27** | -0.17** | -0.26** | 0.32** | 0.41** | 0.43** | 0.48** | 1 |
| (18) SWLS.TT | 0.45** | 0.05 | 0.26** | 0.42** | 0.33** | 0.06* | 0.33** | 0.32** | 0.36** | -0.47** | -0.32** | -0.45** | 0.64** | 0.79** | 0.78** | 0.79** | 0.74** |
FIGURE 2General structural model of hypothesized effects of emotional intelligence on well-being measures. The diagram includes the definition of the set of measurement (latent), structural (regressions), and Residual. Each of the paths includes the most relevant estimates: The Standardized regression weights, the standard errors (in brackets), and the signaling of those that are statistically significant (asterisks) at p < 0.05.
FIGURE 3Effect of Latent interaction on Life Satisfaction. Representation of latent interactions from Products of Indicators using residual centering strategy.
FIGURE 4Effect of Latent interaction on Depression. As in Figure 3, the interaction corresponds to products of indicators using residual centering strategy.
FIGURE 5Final Model of structural relations. See notes in Figure 2.