Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table 1 showed the means, standard deviations, and correlation matrices of each variable. As shown in Table 1, the depression symptoms were positively associated with maternal control (r = 0.28, p < 0.001), paternal control (r = 0.24, p < 0.001), and neuroticism (r = 0.69, p < 0.001). The depression symptoms were negatively associated with maternal care (r = -0.37, p < 0.001) and paternal care (r = -0.38, p < 0.001). Neuroticism was positively associated with maternal control (r = 0.30, p < 0.001), paternal control (r = 0.28, p < 0.001); and negatively associated with maternal care (r = -0.37, p < 0.001) and paternal care (r = -0.37, p < 0.001). The two parental bonding variables for maternal and paternal bonding were significantly correlated with each other.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
1. Mother care
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Mother control
|
-0.37***
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
3. Father care
|
0.58***
|
-0.26***
|
1
|
|
|
|
4. Father control
|
-0.32***
|
0.59***
|
-0.27***
|
1
|
|
|
5. Depression symptoms
|
-0.37***
|
0.28***
|
-0.38***
|
0.24***
|
1
|
|
6. Neuroticism
|
-0.37***
|
0.30***
|
-0.37***
|
0.28***
|
0.69***
|
1
|
M
|
31.99
|
5.69
|
28.38
|
4.28
|
7.89
|
48.05
|
SD
|
5.85
|
3.63
|
6.91
|
3.26
|
7.96
|
12.86
|
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 |
Testing of mediation effects
The proposed models showed a great fit (PBI-M: RMSEA = 0.075, SRMR = 0.025, CFI = 0.981, TLI = 0.931; PBI-F: RMSEA = 0.064, SRMR = 0.022, CFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.949). In the PBI-M model shown in Figure 2, maternal care negatively predicted neuroticism (β = -0.30, p < 0.001) and the depression symptoms (β = -0.10, p < 0.001). Maternal control positively predicted neuroticism (β = 0.19, p < 0.001) and the depression symptoms (β = 0.041, p < 0.05). The interaction between maternal care and maternal control negatively predicted the depression symptoms (β = -0.070, p < 0.01). Neuroticism had a significant and positive effect on the depression symptoms (β = 0.64, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the upper and lower bounds of the bootstrapped 95% CI for the mediating effects of neuroticism in the relationships between maternal care and depression symptoms (indirect effect = -0.19, SE = 0.013, 95% CI = [-0.21, -0.17]), and maternal control and depression symptoms (indirect effect = 0.12, SE = 0.013, 95% CI = [0.10, 0.14]) did not include 0, indicating that there were significant mediating effects.
The interaction effect is shown in Figure 3. For freshmen with low maternal control (Mmaternal control - SDmaternal control), the negative predictive effect of maternal care the on depression symptoms was not significant (β = 0.040, p > 0.05); while for freshmen with high maternal control (Mmaternal control + SDmaternal control), the negative predictive effect of maternal care was significant (β = -0.17, p < 0.001).
In the PBI-F model shown in Figure 4, paternal care negatively predicted neuroticism (β = -0.32, p < 0.001) and the depression symptoms (β = -0.13, p < 0.001). Paternal control positively predicted neuroticism (β = 0.20, p < 0.001), but not the depression symptoms (p > 0.05). The interaction between paternal care and paternal control negatively predicted the depression symptoms (β = -0.060, p < 0.01). Neuroticism had a significant and positive effect on the depression symptoms (β = 0.64, p < 0.001). Moreover, the upper and lower bounds of the bootstrapped 95% CI for the mediating effect of neuroticism in the relationships between paternal care and the depression symptoms (indirect effect = -0.20, SE = 0.013, 95% CI = [-0.23, -0.18]), and paternal control and the depression symptoms (indirect effect = 0.13, SE = 0.013, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.15]) did not include 0, indicating that there were significant mediating effects.
The interaction effect is shown in Figure 5. For freshmen with low paternal control (Mpaternal control - SDpaternal control), the negative predictive effect of paternal care was smaller (β = -0.074, p < 0.001; while for freshmen with high paternal control (Mpaternal control + SDpaternal control), the negative predictive effect of paternal care was bigger (β = -0.19, p < 0.001).