| Literature DB >> 36186879 |
Yue Qiu1, Yumeng Zhang1, Meihang Liu1.
Abstract
Mindful awareness of our interconnection with the natural environment could help to redeem our lost environmentally entrenched identity and help us to act more sustainably, concluding the predictable gaps between mindfulness and sustainable behavior. We propose more precisely that mindful attentiveness may be essential to establishing sustainable economic behavior through understanding emotional labor and enhanced mental health. Likewise, with an ever-rising concern related to mental health and emotional labor, recent industrialization and commoditization of agricultural products have stressed the need for mindfulness, and causing sustainable economic behavior of farmers that is imminent. Hence, the study will not only explore the connection between mindfulness and sustainable economic behavior, but there is a need to examine the mediating role of emotional labor and the mental health of farmers in China. The study selected the farmers because mindful awareness, emotional labor, and mental health of a farmer can significantly contribute to sustainable economic behavior and bring a connection with the natural environment. The data of 358 responses were analyzed using SPSS-AMOS. The results revealed that mindfulness, mental health, and emotional labor have a significant connection with the sustainable economic behavior of farmers in China. The results also indicated that mental health and emotional labor mediate between mindfulness and sustainable economic behavior. The results set the tone for the policy-makers to create awareness among all the stakeholders about the importance of mindfulness to help farmers manage their emotional labor and mental health for better, sustainable performance outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: emotional labor; farmers health stigma; mental health; mindfulness; sustainable economic behavior
Year: 2022 PMID: 36186879 PMCID: PMC9521486 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.979979
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 5.435
Variables and measurements.
| Items | Statements | Sources |
|
| ||
| MFN1 | “I am aware that my emotions during harvesting can influence my thinking and behavior.” | ( |
| MFN2 | “When something unexpected happens during harvesting, I am aware of my emotional state.” | |
| MFN3 | “When something during harvesting doesn’t go well, I am aware of my inner frustration and restlessness.” | |
| MFN4 | “When the situation changes during the harvesting, I am aware of the thoughts and ideas that flashed across my mind.” | |
| MFN5 | “When the harvesting process is beyond my expectations, I am aware of my physical reactions and changes. | |
| MFN6 | “During harvesting, I can be immediately aware of my emotional changes.” | |
|
| ||
| EL1 | “I always know my athletes’ emotions.” | ( |
| EL2 | “I am a good observer of athletes’ emotions.” | |
| EL3 | “I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of athletes. | |
| EL4 | “I always know whether or not I am happy.” | |
|
| ||
| MH1 | “Have you been a very nervous person?” | ( |
| MH2 | “Have you felt calm and peaceful? | |
| MH3 | “Have you felt downhearted and blue? | |
| MH4 | “Have you been a happy person? | |
| MH5 | “Have you felt so down in the dumps that nothing could cheer you up?” | |
|
| ||
| SEB1 | “Adopting sustainable practices is a good idea.” | ( |
| SEB2 | “Adopting sustainable practices is not a wise idea.” | |
| SEB3 | “I like knowing that a farmer adopts sustainable practices.” | |
| SEB4 | Farmers that pursue sustainability adopt appropriate behavior. | |
FIGURE 1Theoretical framework.
FIGURE 2Measurement model assessment.
Convergent validity.
| Constructs | Items | Loadings | CR | AVE | MSV | ASV |
| Mindfulness | MFN6 | 0.749 | 0.845 | 0.543 | 0.158 | 0.105 |
| MFN5 | 0.963 | |||||
| MFN4 | 0.999 | |||||
| MFN3 | 0.757 | |||||
| MFN2 | 0.404 | |||||
| Emotional labor | EL4 | 0.974 | 0.893 | 0.643 | 0.211 | 0.139 |
| EL3 | 0.993 | |||||
| EL2 | 0.830 | |||||
| EL1 | 0.874 | |||||
| Mental health | MH5 | 0.438 | 0.957 | 0.847 | 0.321 | 0.174 |
| MH4 | 0.920 | |||||
| MH3 | 0.983 | |||||
| MH2 | 0.539 | |||||
| MH1 | 0.647 | |||||
| Sustainable economic behavior | SEB4 | 0.933 | 0.824 | 0.635 | 0.321 | 0.230 |
| SEB3 | 0.941 | |||||
| SEB2 | 0.394 |
MNF, mindfulness; EL, emotional labor; MH, mental health; SEB, sustainable economic behavior.
Discriminant validity.
| MH | MFN | EL | SEB | |
| MH | 0.737 | |||
| MFN | 0.284 | 0.802 | ||
| EL | 0.275 | 0.354 | 0.920 | |
| SEB | 0.398 | 0.459 | 0.567 | 0.797 |
MNF, mindfulness; EL, emotional labor; MH, mental health; SEB, sustainable economic behavior.
Model fit indices.
| Selected indices | Result | Acceptable level of fit |
| TLI | 0.987 | TLI > 0.90 |
| CFI | 0.965 | CFI > 0.90 |
| RMSEA | 0.010 | RMSEA < 0.05 good; 0.05 to 0.10 acceptable |
| GFI | 0.971 | GFI > 0.95 |
| SRMR | 0.022 | SRMR < 0.09 |
| AGFI | 0.869 | AGFI > 0.80 |
TLI, Tucker–Lewis coefficient; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; GFI, goodness fix index; SRMR, standardized root mean squared residual; AGFI, adjusted goodness of FFIT index.
FIGURE 3Structural model assessment.
Path analysis.
| Relationships | Std. Beta | Beta | SE. | CR. |
| ||
| EL | < — | MFN | 0.380 | 0.461 | 0.059 | 7.747 |
|
| MH | < — | MFN | 0.366 | 0.334 | 0.045 | 7.422 |
|
| SEB | < — | MFN | 0.323 | 0.310 | 0.037 | 8.427 |
|
| SEB | < — | MH | 0.383 | 0.402 | 0.038 | 10.691 |
|
| SEB | < — | EL | 0.366 | 0.290 | 0.028 | 10.170 |
|
MNF, mindfulness; EL, emotional labor; MH, mental health; SEB, sustainable economic behavior. ***Represent relationship and significance between variables.
Indirect effects.
| Relationships | Beta | Lower limit | Upper limit |
| MFN > MH > SEB | 0.141 | 0.302 | 1.992 |
| MFN > EL > SEB | 0.141 | 0.187 | 1.726 |
| Total indirect effect | 0.282 | 0.982 | 2.776 |
MNF, mindfulness; EL, emotional labor; MH, mental health; SEB, sustainable economic behavior.