| Literature DB >> 36248556 |
Baocheng Pan1, Shiyi Fan1, Youli Wang1, You Li2.
Abstract
This study explored the relationship between emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in trait mindfulness and subjective wellbeing. In this study, 323 Chinese kindergarten teachers were measured using the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, Emotional Intelligence Scale, General Self-efficacy Scale, and Subjective Wellbeing Scale. The study found that subjective wellbeing can be predicted directly from trait mindfulness (β = 0.257, p < 0.001). Emotional intelligence could mediate the relationship between trait mindfulness and subjective wellbeing (β = 0.165, p = 0.006). Self-efficacy could mediate the relationship between trait mindfulness and subjective wellbeing (β = 0.078, p = 0.032). In addition, emotional intelligence and self-efficacy played a sequential mediating role between trait mindfulness and subjective wellbeing (β = 0.072, p = 0.005). This study revealed the relationship between kindergarten teachers' trait mindfulness and subjective wellbeing through structural equation modeling and understood its role path, enriching the research on the Chinese preschool teachers in the field, and providing a literature reference for the international community to understand the Chinese kindergarten teachers. At the same time, the study also has some limitations, such as the use of a cross-sectional design method, a relatively single method, and the impact of COVID-19. However, we believe that this study will further enrich the research literature on the relationship between trait mindfulness and subjective wellbeing of Chinese kindergarten teachers.Entities:
Keywords: emotional intelligence; kindergarten teachers; self-efficacy; subjective wellbeing; trait mindfulness
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248556 PMCID: PMC9553996 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.973103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Theoretical hypothesis.
Social demographic features of participants (N = 323).
| Variables | Percentages | |
| Gender | Male | 2.20% |
| Female | 97.80% | |
| Age | 25–27 | 84.80% |
| 28–30 | 6.20% | |
| 31–33 | 5.60% | |
| 34–36 | 3.40% | |
| Educational background | Junior college | 72.80% |
| Undergraduate course | 27.20% |
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the major study variables.
| Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 1. Gender | 0.98 | 0.15 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 2. Age | 27.05 | 2.35 | −0.015 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 3. Educational background | 1.27 | 0.45 | 0.091 | −0.06 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 4. Observe | 3.18 | 0.80 | 0.09 | 0.046 | −0.032 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 5. Describe | 3.43 | 0.73 | 0.058 | 0.056 | −0.012 | 0.532 | 1 | |||||||||
| 6. ActAware | 3.42 | 0.92 | 0.077 | 0.051 | −0.001 | 0.532 | 0.586 | 1 | ||||||||
| 7. Non-judge | 3.24 | 0.67 | 0.096 | 0.049 | 0.104 | 0.590 | 0.510 | 0.430 | 1 | |||||||
| 8. Non-react | 3.35 | 0.84 | 0.131 | 0.067 | −0.004 | 0.509 | 0.509 | 0.668 | 0.498 | 1 | ||||||
| 9. SEA | 4.39 | 1.28 | −0.03 | 0.042 | 0.022 | 0.110 | 0.278 | 0.196 | 0.248 | 0.214 | 1 | |||||
| 10. OEA | 4.26 | 1.38 | −0.003 | 0.053 | 0.140 | 0.262 | 0.324 | 0.238 | 0.298 | 0.284 | 0.497 | 1 | ||||
| 11. UOE | 4.56 | 1.34 | −0.009 | −0.01 | 0.056 | 0.278 | 0.214 | 0.297 | 0.122 | 0.133 | 0.538 | 0.420 | 1 | |||
| 12. ROE | 4.53 | 1.27 | −0.056 | −0.032 | 0.047 | 0.248 | 0.231 | 0.190 | 0.300 | 0.219 | 0.480 | 0.454 | 0.359 | 1 | ||
| 13. SE | 2.59 | 0.51 | 0.03 | 0.084 | −0.003 | 0.263 | 0.234 | 0.206 | 0.248 | 0.158 | 0.314 | 0.208 | 0.267 | 0.209 | 1 | |
| 14. SWB | 3.90 | 0.94 | 0.034 | 0.118 | 0.017 | 0.300 | 0.413 | 0.313 | 0.313 | 0.280 | 0.364 | 0.316 | 0.288 | 0.251 | 0.439 | 1 |
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05. SEA, Self-emotion appraisal; OEA, Others’ emotion appraisal; UOE, Use of emotion; ROE, Regulation of emotion; SE, Self-efficacy; SWB, Subjective wellbeing. Gender is the dummy variable (0 = male, 1 = female).
Fit indices of the model.
| Fit indices | Recommended threshold | Scores | Remarks |
| ML χ2 | – | 462.058 | – |
| Df | – | 309 | – |
| χ2/df | 1 < χ2/df < 3 | 1.495 | Acceptable |
| CFI | >0.9 | 0.946 | Acceptable |
| TLI | >0.9 | 0.940 | Acceptable |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.039 | Acceptable |
| SRMR | <0.08 | 0.043 | Acceptable |
The direct effect of the research paths and research model hypothesis analysis.
| DV | IV | Std. est. | S.E. | Est./S.E. | R2 | Hypo and path | Remarks | |
| SWB | TM | 0.257 | 0.069 | 3.752 |
| 0.429 | H1: TM → SWB | Support |
| EI | 0.250 | 0.074 | 3.361 | 0.001 | H2b: EI → SWB | Support | ||
| SE | 0.333 | 0.070 | 4.766 |
| H3b: SE → SWB | Support | ||
| EI | TM | 0.461 | 0.065 | 7.038 |
| 0.228 | H2a: TM → EI | Support |
| SE | TM | 0.163 | 0.070 | 2.326 | 0.020 | 0.187 | H3a: TM → SE | Support |
| EI | 0.328 | 0.072 | 4.568 |
| H4: EI → SE | Support |
***p < 0.001. TM, Trait mindfulness; EI, Emotional intelligence.
The indirect effect of the research paths.
| Path | Std. est. | S.E. | Est./S.E. | Boot LLCI | Boot ULCI | The proportion of the effect | |
| H2: TM → EI → SWB | 0.165 | 0.060 | 2.767 | 0.006 | 0.069 | 0.311 | 24.09% |
| H3: TM → SE → SWB | 0.078 | 0.036 | 2.145 | 0.032 | 0.015 | 0.163 | 11.39% |
| H5: TM → EI → SE → SWB | 0.072 | 0.026 | 2.813 | 0.005 | 0.035 | 0.142 | 10.51% |
| TOTALIND | 0.316 | 0.071 | 4.467 |
| 0.194 | 0.474 | 46.13% |
| TOTAL | 0.685 | 0.104 | 6.581 |
| 0.49 | 0.895 | 100.00% |
***p < 0.001.
FIGURE 2Structural equation model.