| Literature DB >> 35010716 |
Chenyu Shangguan1, Lihui Zhang2, Yali Wang3, Wei Wang4, Meixian Shan1, Feng Liu1.
Abstract
Recent research has emphasized the crucial role of expressive flexibility in mental health. This study extended prior studies by further exploring the mediating mechanism and possible gender differences underlying the association between expressive flexibility and mental health indexed by depression and life satisfaction based on the dual-factor model of mental health. Specifically, we explored whether social support mediated the association between expressive flexibility and depression as well as life satisfaction, and whether there were gender differences in these relationships. A total of 711 voluntary college students (mean age = 20.98 years, SD = 2.28; 55.70% women) completed a set of scales assessing expressive flexibility, perceived social support, depression, and life satisfaction. Results showed that expressive flexibility had a positive direct effect on life satisfaction and social support mediated this association. Social support also mediated the relationship between expressive flexibility and depression. The mediation effect of social support was robust and consistent in men and women whereas expressive flexibility had a stronger direct effect on depression in women compared to men. The present study contributes to clarifying the relationship between expressive flexibility and mental health from a more comprehensive perspective. Last, the strengths and limitations of this study were discussed.Entities:
Keywords: depression; expressive flexibility; gender differences; life satisfaction; social support
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35010716 PMCID: PMC8744810 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010456
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Hypothesized model.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables in the study (N = 711).
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Expressive Flexibility | 58.32(13.62) | (0.84) | |||
| 2. Social Support | 60.09(14.12) | 0.18 ** | (0.95) | ||
| 3. Depression | 11.34(10.17) | –0.13 ** | –0.44 ** | (0.93) | |
| 4. Life Satisfaction | 21.88(6.22) | 0.25 ** | 0.59 ** | –0.48 ** | (0.87) |
Note: Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients are presented in parentheses on the diagonal. ** p < 0.01.
Figure 2Mediation model of expressive flexibility, social support, depression, and life satisfaction (N = 711). Note: *** p < 0.001.
Results of measurement equivalence of all scales between genders.
| Model | χ2 | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expressive Flexibility | |||||
| M1 Configural Invariance | 2.47 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| M2 Metric Invariance | 2.39 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| M3 Scalar Invariance | 2.46 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| Social Support | |||||
| M1 Configural Invariance | 3.85 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.09 | 0.04 |
| M2 Metric Invariance | 3.55 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.09 | 0.04 |
| M3 Scalar Invariance | 3.43 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| Depression | |||||
| M1 Configural Invariance | 2.53 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| M2 Metric Invariance | 2.50 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
| M3 Scalar Invariance | 2.48 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
| Life Satisfaction | |||||
| M1 Configural Invariance | 1.22 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
| M2 Metric Invariance | 1.55 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
| M3 Scalar Invariance | 2.00 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.05 | 0.02 |
Figure 3Mediation model between men (N = 315, coefficients outside the brackets) and women (N = 396, coefficients inside the brackets). Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Mediation results of bias-corrected bootstrap analyses in men and women (controlling age).
| Path | Indirect Effect (SE) | Direct Effect (SE) | 95% CI for Indirect Effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Path_ED | Men | −0.10 ***(0.03) | 0.05(0.05) | [−0.17, −0.05] |
| Women | −0.06 *(0.03) | −0.16 ***(0.04) | [−0.12, −0.01] | |
| Path_EL | Men | 0.15 ***(0.04) | 0.14 **(0.04) | [0.08, 0.23] |
| Women | 0.08 *(0.03) | 0.12 **(0.03) | [0.02, 0.14] |
Note: Path_ED: Expressive flexibility → social support → depression (social support as the mediating variable), Path_EL: Expressive flexibility → social support → life satisfaction, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4Gender moderated the relationship between expressive flexibility and depression. EF = expressive flexibility.