The participants ranged from 18 to 22 (mean age, 18.63 ± 0.72 years). Most of the participants were female, single, from rural or township areas. Over half of the participants earned a moderate level of living expenses. For psychological variables, the average perceived stress, depression, and neuroticism scores were mild to moderate, whereas the perceived social support score was more over the mid-point. The details are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants
Variable | Value |
Age (Years), | M ± SD | 18.63 ± 0.72 |
Sex n (%) | Male | 144 (25.4) |
| Female | 424 (74.6) |
An only child n (%) | Yes | 44 (7.8) |
| No | 524 (92.2) |
Origin of student n (%) | Rural/Township | 451 (79.4) |
| County/City | 117 (20.6) |
Marital status n (%) | Single | 423 (74.5) |
| Non-Single | 145 (25.5) |
Family status n (%) | Core family | 309 (54.4) |
| Intergenerational family | 24 (4.2) |
| Stem family | 205 (36.1) |
| Single-parent family | 30 (5.3) |
Living expenses n (%) | > 2,000 | 38 (6.7) |
(CNY/Per month) | 2,000–1,001 | 414 (72.9) |
| ≤ 1,000 | 116 (20.4) |
Psychological measures | | M ± SD |
| Depression (range 0–27) | 6.22 ± 5.44 |
| Neuroticism (range 8–48) | 23.27 ± 8.33 |
| Perceived stress (range 0–40) | 16.59 ± 5.81 |
| Perceived social support-Total (range 12–48) | 36.28 ± 7.55 |
| - Perceived social support from significant others (range 4–16) | 11.25 ± 3.33 |
| - Perceived social support from family (range 4–16) | 12.38 ± 2.92 |
| - Perceived social support from friends (range 4–16) | 12.65 ± 2.88 |
Non-Single: married/domestic partnership, SD = standard deviation |
As shown in Table 2, sex and family status were significantly associated with perceived stress and neuroticism (p < .05). In contrast, sex, an only child, and height were related to perceived social support (p < .05).
Table 2
Mean and SD of psychological variables in Participant’s characteristics
VARIABLES | n | Depression | Neuroticism | Perceived stress | Perceived social support |
Age | | Mean ± SD | P-value | Mean ± SD | P-value | Mean ± SD | P-value | Mean ± SD | P-value |
18 | 273 (48.1) | 6.50 ± 5.76 | 0.264 | 24.13 ± 8.30 | 0.054 | 16.83 ± 5.84 | 0.605 | 36.70 ± 7.67 | 0.538 |
19 | 230 (40.5) | 6.20 ± 5.27 | | 22.80 ± 8.15 | | 16.35 ± 5.82 | | 35.86 ± 7.39 | |
20 | 57 (10.0) | 5.39 ± 4.64 | | 21.96 ± 8.91 | | 16.47 ± 5.65 | | 36.40 ± 7.56 | |
21 | 7 (1.2) | 2.57 ± 3.15 | | 17.00 ± 7.01 | | 14.86 ± 6.44 | | 32.71 ± 8.79 | |
22 | 1 (0.2) | 7.00 ± 0.00 | | 19.00 ± 0.00 | | 23.00 ± 0.00 | | 36.00 ± 0.00 | |
Sex | | | | | | | | | |
Male | 144 (25.4) | 5.51 ± 5.29 | 0.072 | 20.58 ± 7.35 | < 0.001 | 14.94 ± 5.13 | < 0.001 | 34.52 ± 7.92 | 0.001 |
Female | 424 (74.6) | 6.46 ± 5.48 | | 24.19 ± 8.45 | | 17.15 ± 5.93 | | 36.87 ± 7.34 | |
An only child | | | | | | | | | |
Yes | 44 (7.8) | 7.11 ± 6.30 | 0.257 | 24.66 ± 9.12 | 0.251 | 16.91 ± 6.81 | 0.702 | 33.95 ± 7.32 | 0.034 |
No | 524 (92.2) | 6.15 ± 5.36 | | 23.16 ± 8.26 | | 16.56 ± 5.73 | | 36.47 ± 7.54 | |
Residential area | | | | | | | | | |
Rural/Township | 451 (79.4) | 6.26 ± 5.29 | 0.735 | 23.34 ± 8.31 | 0.726 | 16.70 ± 5.74 | 0.348 | 36.24 ± 7.38 | 0.819 |
County/City | 117 (20.6) | 6.07 ± 6.01 | | 23.03 ± 8.42 | | 16.14 ± 6.06 | | 36.42 ± 8.21 | |
Marital status | | | | | | | | | |
Single | 423 (74.5) | 6.07 ± 5.22 | 0.281 | 23.08 ± 8.11 | 0.331 | 16.50 ± 5.65 | 0.552 | 36.22 ± 7.52 | 0.771 |
Non-Single | 145 (25.5) | 6.64 ± 6.03 | | 23.86 ± 8.94 | | 16.83 ± 6.26 | | 36.43 ± 7.66 | |
Family structure | | | | | | | | | |
Nuclear family | 309 (54.4) | 6.32 ± 5.70 | 0.183 | 22.86 ± 8.14 | 0.008 | 16.62 ± 6.00 | 0.016 | 36.57 ± 7.37 | 0.282 |
Intergenerational family | 24 (4.2) | 6.92 ± 5.09 | | 22.96 ± 7.92 | | 16.92 ± 6.46 | | 33.58 ± 8.63 | |
Stem family | 205 (36.1) | 5.75 ± 5.05 | | 23.20 ± 8.36 | | 16.05 ± 5.46 | | 36.25 ± 7.61 | |
Single-parent family | 30 (5.3) | 7.87 ± 5.39 | | 28.33 ± 9.08 | | 19.67 ± 4.85 | | 35.53 ± 7.98 | |
Living expenses (CNY /Per month) | | | | | | | | | |
> 2,000 | 38 (6.7) | 6.34 ± 5.24 | 0.708 | 22.66 ± 7.81 | 0.861 | 16.47 ± 6.05 | 0.048 | 36.50 ± 7.28 | 0.082 |
2,000–1,001 | 414 (72.9) | 6.11 ± 5.36 | | 23.37 ± 8.20 | | 16.27 ± 5.81 | | 36.65 ± 7.66 | |
≤ 1,000 | 116 (20.4) | 6.58 ± 5.83 | | 23.13 ± 8.96 | P-value | 17.77 ± 5.61 | | 34.88 ± 7.14 | |
Non-Single: married/domestic partnership. |
Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients among psychological variables. Significant positive correlation between perceived stress, neuroticism, and depression (all p < .001). Perceived social support and three sources of perceived social support were significantly negative correlations between perceived stress, neuroticism, and depression (all p < .001).
Table 3
Pearson’s correlation coefficients among psychological variables
VARIABLES | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
1. Depress | - | | | | | | |
2. Neuroticism | 0.682*** | - | | | | | |
3. Perceived stress | 0.563*** | 0.624*** | - | | | | |
4. Perceived social support-Total | -0.359*** | -0.294*** | -0.417*** | - | | | |
5. Perceived social support from family | -0.330*** | -0.300*** | -0.344*** | 0.762*** | - | | |
6. Perceived social support from significant others | -0.287*** | -0.206*** | -0.354*** | 0.858*** | 0.433*** | - | |
7. Perceived social support from friends | -0.275*** | -0.230*** | -0.335*** | 0.857*** | 0.485*** | 0.653*** | - |
***p < .001 |
Table 4 shows the summary of the mediation analysis of neuroticism and perceived stress predicting depression controlling for sex. Neuroticism, perceived stress and sex predicted depression (t = 14.378, p < .001, t = 6.045, p < .001, and t = -2.194, p = .029, respectively). By adding perceived stress, the model of the variance of depressive symptoms increased from 46.5–50.1%. Perceived stress has a significantly indirect effect via neuroticism to depression (β = 0.142, p < .001). Figure 3 for more details (Model A).
Table 4
Summary of mediation analysis of neuroticism and perceived stress predicting depression controlling for sex
Model A | M (Perceived Stress) | Y (Depression) |
Antecedent | Coeff. | SE | p-value | Coeff. | SE | p-value |
X (Neuroticism) | 0.615 | 0.033 | 0.000 | 0.551 | 0.038 | 0.000 |
M (Perceived Stress) | | | | 0.231 | 0.038 | 0.000 |
Sex | 0.113 | 0.077 | 0.140 | -0.153 | 0.070 | 0.029 |
Constant | -0.198 | 0.138 | 0.152 | 0.267 | 0.125 | 0.033 |
| R2 = 0.392 | R2 = 0.501 |
| F = 181.876, p < .001 | F = 188.496, p < .001 |
Table 5 shows the summary of moderated mediation analysis of perceived social support, neuroticism, and perceived stress predicting depression controlling for sex. In model B, neuroticism, perceived stress, and total score of perceived social support (being alone) predicted depression (t = 13.933, p < .001, t = 4.609, p < .001, and t = -3.739, p < .001, respectively), the total score of perceived social support showed a moderating effect only on neuroticism to depression (t = -2.161, p = .031) as Fig. 4. By adding interactions, the model explained the variance of depression more, from 46.6–51.6%. In model C, neuroticism, perceived stress, and perceived social support from family (being alone) predicted depression (t = 13.798, p < .001, t = 5.344, p < .001, and t = -2.952, p = .003, respectively). Perceived social support from family showed a moderating effect only on neuroticism and depression (t = -2.871, p = .004), as shown in Fig. 5. In model D, neuroticism, perceived stress, and perceived social support from significant others (being alone) predicted depression (t = 14.360, p < .001, t = 4.831, p < .001, and t = -3.116, p = .002, respectively). Perceived social support from significant others did not show a moderating effect on each part of the mediation model, as shown in Fig. 6. In model E, neuroticism, perceived stress, and perceived social support from a friend (being alone) predicted depression (t = 14.165, p < .001, t = 5.283, p < .001, and t = -2.028, p = .043, respectively). Perceived social support from friends did not show a moderating effect on each part of the mediation model, as shown in Fig. 7.
Table 5
The conditional indirect effect of neuroticism on depression at values of the moderator observance of perceived social support through perceived stress
Model B | M (Perceived Stress) | Y (Depression) |
Antecedent | Coeff. | SE | p-value | Coeff. | SE | p-value |
X (Neuroticism) | 0.525 | 0.034 | 0.000 | 0.532 | 0.038 | 0.000 |
M (Perceived Stress) | | | | 0.184 | 0.040 | 0.000 |
W (Overall Perceived social support) | -0.275 | 0.033 | 0.000 | -0.125 | 0.034 | 0.000 |
X * W | 0.025 | 0.031 | 0.417 | -0.078 | 0.037 | 0.031 |
M * W | | | | 0.032 | 0.037 | 0.381 |
Sex | 0.237 | 0.074 | 0.001 | -0.086 | 0.071 | 0.224 |
Constant | -0.407 | 0.134 | 0.002 | 0.141 | 0.128 | 0.271 |
| R2 = 0.459 | R2 = 0.516 |
| F = 119.648, p < .001 | F = 99.585, p < .001 |
Model C | M2 (Perceived Stress) | Y (Depression) |
Antecedent | Coeff. | SE | p-value | Coeff. | SE | p-value |
X (Neuroticism) | 0.561 | 0.034 | 0.000 | 0.528 | 0.038 | 0.000 |
M (Perceived Stress) | | | | 0.206 | 0.039 | 0.000 |
W (Perceived social support from family) | -0.179 | 0.034 | 0.000 | -0.094 | 0.032 | 0.003 |
X * W | 0.030 | 0.031 | 0.328 | -0.104 | 0.036 | 0.004 |
M * W | | | | 0.069 | 0.039 | 0.074 |
Sex | 0.145 | 0.075 | 0.054 | -0.133 | 0.069 | 0.055 |
Constant | -0.244 | 0.136 | 0.072 | 0.225 | 0.125 | 0.072 |
| R2 = 0.421 | R2 = 0.516 |
| F = 102.288, p < .001 | F = 99.684, p < .001 |
Model D | M2 (Perceived Stress) | Y (Depression) |
Antecedent | Coeff. | SE | p-value | Coeff. | SE | p-value |
X (Neuroticism) | 0.554 | 0.033 | 0.000 | 0.548 | 0.038 | 0.000 |
M (Perceived Stress) | | | | 0.193 | 0.04 | 0.000 |
W (Perceived social support from significant others) | -0.253 | 0.032 | 0.000 | -0.102 | 0.033 | 0.002 |
X * W | 0.044 | 0.031 | 0.162 | -0.041 | 0.037 | 0.269 |
M * W | | | | 0.021 | 0.036 | 0.553 |
Sex | 0.224 | 0.074 | 0.003 | -0.103 | 0.071 | 0.149 |
Constant | -0.382 | 0.134 | 0.004 | 0.179 | 0.128 | 0.162 |
| R2 = 0.453 | R2 = 0.510 |
| F = 116.669, p < .001 | F = 97.304, p < .001 |
Model E | M2 (Perceived Stress) | Y (Depression) |
Antecedent | Coeff. | SE | p-value | Coeff. | SE | p-value |
X (Neuroticism) | 0.556 | 0.033 | 0.000 | 0.544 | 0.038 | 0.000 |
M (Perceived Stress) | | | | 0.210 | 0.040 | 0.000 |
W (Perceived social support from friends) | -0.229 | 0.033 | 0.000 | -0.067 | 0.033 | 0.043 |
X * W | 0.058 | 0.030 | 0.057 | -0.016 | 0.036 | 0.656 |
M * W | | | | -0.011 | 0.037 | 0.758 |
Sex | 0.223 | 0.076 | 0.003 | -0.114 | 0.072 | 0.112 |
Constant | -0.376 | 0.136 | 0.006 | 0.192 | 0.129 | 0.137 |
| R2 = 0.441 | R2 = 0.506 |
| F = 110.949, p < .001 | F = 95.592, p < .001 |
The simple slope revealed that with the increase in the level of perceived social support from family, neuroticism prediction effect on depression gradually reduced as Fig. 8 (Low: b = 0.633, t = 12.417, p < .001, 95%CI: 0.533, 0.733; High: b = 0.424, t = 7.747, p < .001, 95%CI: 0.316, 0.531).