| Literature DB >> 34671587 |
Pan Yun1, Han Xiaohong1, Yang Zhongping1, Zhao Zhujun2.
Abstract
This study explored family function as a key factor of loneliness, hope, and emotion related to secondary vocational school students during the novel coronavirus pandemic. Chinese versions of the Olson Family Function Scale, Russell Loneliness Scale, Snyder Hope Scale, and Gross Emotion Regulation Scale were completed by 5,138 participants. Guardian type significantly predicted family function and loneliness. Family function significantly and positively correlated with loneliness. The relationship between family function and loneliness was mediated by hope, and expressive suppression concurrently moderated the relationship between hope and loneliness. Our study offers meaningful insights into the family function of Chinese secondary vocational school students. The findings supported a moderated mediation model that exemplifies the relationship between family function, loneliness, expressive suppression, and hope. Although the results showed that high hope mediated lower family functioning and loneliness, low expressive suppression led to intense loneliness immediately. This study confirms that emotional strategy is important and associated with mental health. It also suggests that schools should pay more attention to students' emotion regulation and help them rebuild hope or appropriate cognition to relieve loneliness during crisis events.Entities:
Keywords: emotion regulation; expressive suppression; family function; hope; loneliness
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34671587 PMCID: PMC8520988 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.722276
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1The proposed theoretical model between the interest variables.
Demographic characteristics (N = 5,138).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | Grade 1 | 2,920 | 56.83 |
| Grade 2 | 2,112 | 41.11 | |
| Grade 3 | 106 | 2.06 | |
| Sex | Female | 2,056 | 40.02 |
| Male | 3,082 | 59.98 | |
| Guardians | Parents | 4,311 | 83.90 |
| Non-parents | 827 | 16.10 |
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 1.40 ± 0.49 | 1 | |||||||
| Guardian | 1.16 ± 0.37 | 0.029 | 1 | ||||||
| Emotion regulation | 4.49 ± 0.81 | −0.161 | −0.007 | 1 | |||||
| Cognitive reappraisal | 4.98 ± 0.98 | −0.095 | −0.030 | 0.818 | 1 | ||||
| Expressive suppression | 4.00 ± 0.99 | −0.168 | 0.019 | 0.821 | 0.343 | 1 | |||
| Hope | 22.58 ± 5.35 | −0.011 | −0.015 | 0.138 | 0.234 | −0.007 | 1 | ||
| Loneliness | 42.61 ± 8.80 | 0.066 | 0.045 | −0.001 | −0.221 | 0.217 | −0.249 | 1 | |
| Family function | 10.96 ± 13.35 | 0.108 | 0.061 | −0.009 | −0.049 | 0.034 | −0.043 | 0.176 | 1 |
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001,
all two-tailed; the same notation is used in the subsequent tables.
Results of the mediation model.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Sex | −0.012 | 0.029 | −0.433 | 0.092 | 0.027 | 3.386 |
| Guardian | 0.039 | 0.073 | 0.536 | 0.084 | 0.036 | 2.309 |
| Family function | −0.042 | 0.014 | −2.998 | 0.159 | 0.013 | 11.832 |
| Hope | −0.241 | 0.013 | −18.127 | |||
|
| 0.002 | 0.092 | ||||
|
| 3.564 | 130.667 | ||||
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001.
Results of the moderated mediation model analysis.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Sex | −0.012 | 0.029 | −0.432 | 0.174 | 0.027 | 6.443 |
| Guardian | −0.032 | 0.038 | −0.852 | 0.071 | 0.035 | 2.024 |
| Family function | −0.042 | 0.014 | −2.998 | 0.147 | 0.013 | 11.242 |
| Hope | −0.238 | 0.013 | −18.356 | |||
| Expressive suppression | 0.226 | 0.013 | 17.145 | |||
| Hope × expressive suppression | 0.029 | 0.012 | 2.495 | |||
|
| 0.002 | 0.142 | ||||
|
| 3.555 | 141.396 | ||||
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001.
Figure 2Predictions for the Interaction between loneliness and hope by expressive suppression values.
Conditional indirect effects of expressive suppression on hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M + SD | −0.210 | 0.018 | −11.724 | −0.244 | −0.174 |
| M | −0.238 | 0.013 | −18.356 | −0.263 | −0.213 |
| M – SD | −0.267 | 0.017 | −15.817 | −0.300 | −0.234 |
LLCI, Lower Level Confidence Interval; ULCI, Upper Level Confidence Interval;
p < 0.001.