4.1 Article

Depressive Symptoms and Loneliness in Early Adolescence: The Role of Empathy and Emotional Self-Efficacy

期刊

JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 369-393

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0272431620919156

关键词

depressive symptoms; loneliness; empathy; emotional self-efficacy; gender differences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that high empathy and low emotional self-efficacy were associated with greater loneliness and depressive symptoms in early adolescents. Emotional self-efficacy moderated the relationship between empathy and loneliness, and for girls, between empathy and depressive symptoms. Loneliness did not mediate the relationship between emotional predictors (empathy and emotional self-efficacy) and depressive symptoms.
Knowledge about the role of empathy, emotional self-efficacy, and loneliness on early adolescents' depressive symptoms is scarce. The main aims of the study were to investigate the following: (a) the role of empathy and emotional self-efficacy (additive and interactive) on loneliness and depressive symptoms, taking into account gender differences and (b) the possible mediating role of loneliness in the relationship between emotional predictors and depressive symptoms. Three hundred forty-eight Italian early adolescents (48% girls; mean age, 13; SD = 0.3) completed an anonymous self-report questionnaire at two time points (1 year apart). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze data. Results indicated the following: (a) high empathy and low emotional self-efficacy were related to higher subsequent loneliness and depressive symptoms; (b) emotional self-efficacy moderated the relationship between empathy and loneliness and, only for girls, between empathy and depressive symptoms; (c) no mediation role of loneliness between emotional predictors (empathy and emotional self-efficacy) and depressive symptoms was found. Results are discussed in relation to preventive interventions targeting early adolescents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据