Effect of social support on the subjective well-being among Chinese college athletes: a chain mediation model

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4892678/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Effect of social support on the subjective well-being among Chinese college athletes: a chain mediation model

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4892678/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

College athletes in higher education experience unique challenges due to dual pressures from their academic and athletic commitments, which may negatively affect their mental well-being. Social support is acknowledged as a protective factor that contributes to the mental well-being of college athletes. However, the mechanisms mediating this relationship remain largely unexplored. The Person-Environment (P-E) Fit Theory and Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) provide theoretical insights into the mediating mechanisms that explain how contextual factors influence individual well-being. This study examines the independent and sequential mediating roles of P-E fit and basic needs satisfaction in the relationship between social support and subjective well-being among college athletes. Data were collected through cluster random sampling from 822 college athletes across Jiangsu and Yunnan Provinces, China, averaging 20.33 years of age, with 70.44% being male. Structural equation modeling was adopted to examine the hypothetical model. The results indicate that social support directly enhances subjective well-being. Both P-E fit and needs satisfaction partially mediate this relationship, with adjustments for demographic and sports-related variables. The results showed that college athletes’ subjective well-being was interpreted as 47.2% by the overall mode. This study advances the understanding of how social support impacts college athletes’ well-being through specific mechanisms and suggests methods to strengthen support systems in higher education.

college athlete

social support

subjective well-being

Peron-Environment fit

basic psychological needs

College athletes represent a unique subgroup within higher education, consisting of students supported to participate in elite sports competitions [1]. College athletes serve dual roles as students and athletes, facing the challenge of completing their education while pursuing their athletic careers. They are required to uphold academic standards, such as completing coursework and maintaining a specified GPA [2], while managing demanding training and competition schedules [3]. Additionally, college athletes may undergo rigorous training and competition phases characterized by stress, competitive tension, increased injury risk, and significant physical exhaustion [3, 4]. The dual challenges of academics and training put college athletes under significant pressure, negatively impacting their mental health outcomes [5]. Prevalent mental health concerns among collegiate athletes encompass depression, anxiety, mood disorders, and sleep disturbances [6–9].

Enhancing protective factors for mental health is crucial for promoting psychological well-being in college students, with social support from significant others being a key factor [10]. Previous research has found that support from coaches, teammates, and family members positively impacts the mental well-being of college athletes. High levels of social support enhance positive emotions and subjective well-being in college athletes [11], and reduce the risk of psychological problems such as depression and anxiety [12, 13].

As research deepens into the relationship between social support and college athletes' well-being, the focus has shifted toward the mediating pathways through which social support influences their subjective well-being. Person-Environment Fit Theory (P-E fit) and Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) may provide theoretical frameworks for explaining how social support affects college athletes' subjective well-being. In recent years, P-E fit and BPNT have been increasingly used in studies exploring well-being within sports contexts, explaining how social system factors affect individual mental health from the perspectives of individual-environment interaction, and sociopsychological processes, respectively [14, 15]. P-E fit theory focuses on the positive impact of the alignment between the environment and the individual on outcomes [16], while BPNT focuses on how social contexts fulfill basic psychological needs to promote individual well-being [17]. As key interpersonal factors within the proximal social systems of college athletes, support from family, coaches, and teammates are likely to influence their mental well-being through both aforementioned processes [18, 19].

This study examines the link between social support and subjective well-being in Chinese college athletes, focusing on the mediating roles of P-E fit and basic needs satisfaction. The research aim is to deepen the understanding of how social support influences the subjective well-being of college athletes and to offer guidance for mental health interventions in this group.

2.1. Effects of Social Support on the Subjective Well-being of College Athletes

Social support is defined as the assistance and resources provided by an individual’s social network [10, 20], with sources and content that vary across different contexts. Within the realm of sports research, coaches and teammates are recognized as crucial supporters of athletes. Furthermore, for college students transitioning to adulthood, family support remains instrumental in their development. Consequently, this study conceptualizes social support for collegiate athletes as deriving from family, coaches, and teammates.

Social support is widely considered a crucial resource for mental well-being among athletes [13, 21]. Its positive effects can be explained by the main and buffering effect models of social support proposed by Cohen and Wills [22]. The main effect model suggests that social support directly contributes to well-being since it enhances an individual’s predictability and positive affect [22]. The buffering model posits that social support expands an individual's resource pool when stress arises, which aids in coping with stressful events [22, 23]. In the context of college sports, the model indicates that support from family, teammates, and coaches positively impacts athletes’ well-being, regardless of whether they experience stressful events.

Several studies on youth athletes have demonstrated the positive effects of social support on subjective well-being outcomes. Research in non-stressful and chronic stress contexts consistently shows a positive correlation between social support and mental health outcomes in college athletes, including positive emotions and life satisfaction [11, 24]. Additionally, researchers have focused on the buffering role of social support in stressful situations, finding that it can reduce stress during training interruptions (e.g., during pandemics) and competitions, thereby enhancing the subjective well-being of young athletes [13, 25–26]. These studies suggested that social support mitigates mental health risks across various stressor severities and types. For instance, Mitchell et al. found that social support significantly alleviated negative psychological responses, irrespective of the type of injury, highlighting its universal benefits [27]. Additionally, Sullivan et al. reported that, after controlling for injury severity, high-quality social support significantly reduced depression and anxiety symptoms in injured athletes, improving their post-injury mental health [13].

Although many studies have examined the link between social support and psychological well-being in young athletes, they primarily focus on developed countries, leaving a significant gap concerning developing regions. Compared to developed countries, developing regions lack formal support from sports associations and organizations for the well-being and health of young athletes [28, 29]. This indicates that in developing countries, social support is crucial for promoting the psychological well-being of young athletes. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this gap by investigating Chinese college athletes to provide empirical evidence within a developing country context. Based on prior research on social support and young athletes' mental health, we propose the following research hypotheses:

H1: Social support is positively associated with subjective well-being among Chinese college athletes.

2.2. P-E Fit as a Mediator between Social Support and Subjective Well-being

P-E fit encapsulates an individual's compatibility with their organizational environment [30, 31], suggesting a harmonious alignment between the individual's and the organization's characteristics [32]. P-E fit theory is predominantly explored in workplace studies to examine the impact of the work environment on employee well-being [33]. Given the employer-employee dynamics of the university-athlete relationship [34], P-E fit theory has increasingly been applied to studies concerning the well-being of young athletes [35, 36]. In this study, P-E fit is defined as the alignment between the characteristics of college athletes and their respective sports teams, encompassing person-organization fit, person-group fit, person-job fit, and person-supervisor fit [32]. Specifically, person-organization (P-O) fit represents the congruence between the training team's values and those of the athlete; person-job (P-J) fit assesses the alignment of the athlete's skills and abilities with the team's needs; person-group (P-G) fit reflects the harmony among team members; and person-supervisor (P-S) fit examines the compatibility between the coach's and athlete's personalities, values, and goals.

P-E fit theory suggests that individuals have a natural tendency to blend in with their environment or contextual affiliations [37, 38], and a supportive environment can enhance this tendency [39]. The support college athletes receive is closely linked to their P-E fit with sports teams. Social support provides essential emotional and professional resources that facilitate integration into groups and adaptation to team roles. With adequate social support, college athletes are more likely to adapt to their training environment and integrate well with their team. However, the impact of social support on athletes' P-E fit remains underexplored, with only a few studies addressing its aspects [40, 41]. For example, Worley et al. found that servant leadership in team leaders boosts athletes’ team cohesion and social identification [41]. Unlike traditional leaders focused on organizational goals, servant leaders prioritize addressing team members’ needs and offering support [42]. Team cohesion signifies harmonious interpersonal relationships, while team member identification denotes loyalty to the team. These elements correspond to the person-group fit and person-organization fit aspects of P-E fit, respectively. This evidence underscores the positive relationship between social support and athletes' perceived P-E fit.

Enhancing subjective well-being is recognized as a positive outcome of high levels of P-E fit, as evidenced by previous studies in youth sports. For example, a study on young soccer players found that perceived alignment with their team, including similarity with teammates, correlates with improved subjective well-being [43]. Beattie and Turner found that P-E fit positively correlates with academic satisfaction among collegiate athletes, highlighting the statistical significance of the fit between individuals and their teammates, which is the core content of person-group (P-G) fit [44]. In another study, they explored how P-E fit affects collegiate athletes' satisfaction, emphasizing the critical role of person-supervisor (P-S) fit [45]. Given the importance of sports and academic satisfaction to the subjective well-being of college athletes, these findings collectively affirm the positive relationship between P-E fit and subjective well-being in this population.

In summary, P-E fit may mediate the relationship between social support and the subjective well-being of college athletes. However, empirical studies supporting this framework primarily examine variables similar to social support and P-E fit. More direct research is needed to confirm P-E fit's mediating role in this relationship. Consequently, we propose the second hypothesis of this study:

H2: P-E fit positively mediates the relationship between social support and the subjective well-being of college athletes.

2.3. Basic Psychological Needs as a Mediator between Social Support and Subjective Well-being

Basic Psychological Needs Theory is a widely used motivational framework for examining relationship quality and athlete well-being in sports contexts [17–18, 46]. This theory suggests that human beings inherently pursue three fundamental psychological needs: relatedness, competence, and autonomy. The need for relatedness stems from the desire to feel valued and accepted. The need for competence arises from the desire to engage effectively and succeed in one's environment, reflecting a quest for self-assurance in personal abilities. Finally, autonomy involves the need for meaningful choices and active participation in decision-making, reflecting the ability to align actions with personal values and take responsibility for them. BPNT also posits that social-contextual factors influence the extent to which psychological needs are satisfied, and a supportive social environment enhances the fulfillment of these needs [17, 47].

Social support can be viewed as a social-contextual factor that promotes the satisfaction of three basic needs among college athletes. The substantial social support observed in athletes likely reflects robust sports social networks, such as strong teammate relationships. This enhances their sense of social belonging within the sports group, thereby fostering the satisfaction of relatedness needs [48]. Effective social support, exemplified by autonomy support, involves teammates expressing confidence in an athlete's capabilities, parents demonstrating understanding, and coaches offering information and choices. Such support promotes self-initiative and self-esteem, thus satisfying the need for autonomy [49]. Effective social support, often exemplified by autonomy support, may manifest as teammates' confidence in an athlete's abilities, parents demonstrating understanding, and coaches offering information and choices [18, 46]. Such support enhances self-initiative and self-esteem, thereby fulfilling the need for autonomy [49]. Furthermore, as social support enhances athletes' abilities, it boosts their sense of control over their sporting environment, thereby satisfying their need for competence [49].

In the context of youth sports, prior studies have demonstrated that coaches and teammates play a pivotal role in fulfilling collegiate athletes' three basic psychological needs [46, 50]. For example, Fransen et al. found that competency support from team leaders increased levels of competency satisfaction in athletes [51]. In this study, researchers examined social support from coaches and teammates for high school student-athletes, finding that the greatest amount of variability in autonomy and relatedness was predicted by coach support and peer support, respectively [52]. The existing literature on youth sports predominantly highlights the importance of support from coaches and teammates, with comparatively less emphasis on parental support. This oversight likely arises from the presumption that families primarily support athletes during their adolescent years [50]. However, as emerging adults transition from adolescence, college athletes predominantly depend on parental support for economic and emotional needs, which is likely crucial for satisfying their basic psychological needs [53]. Despite limited research, a positive correlation has been found between parental support and the satisfaction of athletes’ psychological needs [54, 55].

Numerous studies have examined the mediating role of needs satisfaction between social support and the well-being of athletes. For example, Jowett et al. analyzed cross-sectional data from five countries, showing that athletes who perceived higher levels of coach support experienced greater satisfaction of basic needs, which was associated with enhanced well-being [56]. Similarly, Balaguer et al. found in a longitudinal study that football players' perception of coaching autonomy support at the beginning of the season could predict their subjective well-being at the end of the season through need satisfaction [57]. To summarize, both cross-sectional and longitudinal research suggested that the fulfillment of athletes' psychological needs is closely linked to external support, which positively correlates with their subjective well-being. Consequently, we propose the following third research hypothesis for this study:

H3: Basic psychological need satisfaction positively mediates the relationship between social support and the subjective well-being of college athletes.

2.4. Chain Mediation of P-E Fit and Basic Psychological Needs

Recently, researchers have shown interest in the link between P-E fit and BPNT, suggesting that satisfaction of basic psychological needs may mediate the relationship between P-E fit and subjective well-being [58–60]. According to BPNT, individuals seek environments that fulfill their psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence. P-E fit may be a precursor influencing the satisfaction of basic needs. Some researchers have proposed developing an extended model of basic psychological needs that integrates the P-E fit framework, providing a theoretical rationale for this integration [60].

Firstly, alignment with the surrounding environment facilitates the self-validation of individual beliefs, attitudes, and preferences. When an individual's goals and values align with the organization, they are more likely to feel their actions are voluntary and self-chosen, thereby enhancing the satisfaction of autonomy, even when their work activities are guided by organizational policies and procedures [61]. Secondly, the match between an individual's surrounding environment and their characteristics can diminish feelings of uncertainty while augmenting a sense of security and belonging [62]. Alignment with others in specific contexts can fulfill an individual’s need for interpersonal attachment [62], thus satisfying their need for relevance [38]. Finally, P-E fit can potentially enhance the satisfaction of competence needs. For example, in workplace settings, high person-job fit suggests an individual can meet the organization’s demands, thereby fostering a sense of competence. Additionally, alignment of an individual's values and goals with their colleagues' may further augment satisfaction with competence needs during the pursuit of shared objective [60].

Research on the relationship between P-E fit and basic needs satisfaction is limited and mainly focuses on workplace settings [59, 63]. For example, Greguras and Diefendorff demonstrated that P-E fit positively influences the fulfillment of basic psychological needs. Additional evidence comes from studies on related P-E fit conceptualizations [59]. For instance, Wang et al. found that higher consistency in P-E fit correlates with increased psychological security [64]. Psychological security, similar to the concepts of competence and autonomy, refers to the feeling of being safe to express one's true self in the workplace, supported by managerial and collegial trust and friendliness. Other research has examined the relationship between P-E adaptation dimensions and the satisfaction of basic needs [65, 66]. For example, Sharom found that person-organization (P-O) fit enhances employees' satisfaction of basic psychological needs [66]. Given the validated positive correlation between P-E fit and psychological need satisfaction in various work environments, it is reasonable to assume that this relationship extends to college sports teams, as they share workplace attributes.

In summary, existing research indicates that P-E fit enhances individuals' perceptions of social support from their surrounding environment, thereby satisfying their basic psychological needs. These insights could potentially extend to sports research, particularly considering that collegiate athletes share commonalities, such as the obligation to fulfill organizational tasks. Therefore, we propose the following research hypothesis:

H4: P-E fit and basic psychological needs may function as sequential mediators between social support and subjective well-being among college students.

2.5. The Present Study

Previous research has extensively investigated the effects of social support on the mental well-being of college athletes. However, significant gaps remain in this research domain, particularly regarding the mediating mechanisms through which social support influences college athletes' subjective well-being.

Firstly, the P-E fit theory elucidates the congruence between individuals and their environments, highlighting its impact on various well-being outcomes. While P-E fit is commonly applied in sports research to investigate athlete development, its application in studying athletes' mental well-being is less common.

Secondly, recent research suggests that P-E fit positively affects an individual's mental well-being by satisfying fundamental psychological needs, particularly in workplace settings. Due to the similarities in organizational oversight and responsibilities between college athletes and employees, this framework may also be applicable to university sports. Employing the extended model that integrates P-E fit and BPNT within a sports context offers a detailed framework for exploring the impact of social support on student-athlete's well-being and bolsters empirical support for the model's applicability.

Finally, existing research on college athletes primarily focuses on Western contexts. There is a critical need for empirical evidence from developing countries to guide the enhancement of social support as an informal mental health resource for college athletes, especially in regions where formal support systems are underdeveloped.

To address these research gaps, this study synthesizes the main effect model and buffering model of social support, P-E fit theory, and BPNT into a comprehensive research framework (See S1 Fig). It aims to examine the impact of social support on the subjective well-being of Chinese college athletes. It explores the mediating roles of P-E fit and need satisfaction within this relationship.

-------------------------------------

Insert Fig. 1

--------------------------------------

3.1. Sampling and Participants

Using cluster random sampling, a cross-sectional survey was conducted on college athletes in Jiangsu and Yunnan Province, located in the eastern and western regions of China respectively. Three universities were selected in each province based on university rankings, and 200 college athletes were then selected randomly from each university based on the student roster and ID. The researchers informed participants about the study’s objective and nature and obtained their consent before conducting the survey. Participants were requested to attend a classroom and subsequently complete the questionnaire by scanning the QR code with their mobile phones. 836 college athletes participated in the survey with a response rate of 69.7%. After undergoing quality control procedures, 14 responses (1.67%) were excluded due to obvious errors in completing the questionnaires (such as selecting identical response options for all items on each scale). Finally, we received 822 valid responses. The present study adheres to the principles of voluntary participation and anonymity. Participants were informed that their responses would be treated confidentially, and they had the option to withdraw from the study without any negative consequences. The research protocol has received approval from the ethics review committee of the university where the authors are affiliated. A power analysis using Gpower showed that a sample size of 220 participants would be necessary for Goodness-of-fit tests with a medium effect size (0.30) to achieve 0.95 power at the .05 alpha level [67]. Although the sample size of this study was larger than recommended for a medium effect size, it was considerably smaller than the sample size of 1979 for a small effect size. Additionally, a large sample size can enhance precision and result in generalization.

The sample was 70.44% male (N = 579), and the mean age was 20.33 (SD = 1.77) years, and 53.77% of them were from rural areas (N = 422). College athletes were recruited for participation from a variety of both individual sports (56.08%) and team sports (43.92%), and they had been involved with their sport for an average of 7.17 years (s = 4.02). Furthermore, the sample of college athletes represented their sports at various levels of performance, including unauthenticated (38.68%), National second-level athlete (35.16%), National first-level athlete (23.48%), and National top athlete (2.68%). The demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in S1 Table.

-------------------------------------

Insert Table 1

--------------------------------------

3.2. Measurement

3.2.1. Independent Variable

The dependent variable of this study is mental health, which was measured using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) [68]. The MSPSS is a 12-item instrument with three subscales (family support subscale, friend support subscale, and coach support subscale), each consisting of 4 items (e.g., “I can get emotional help and support from my family when needed”). Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The MSPSS demonstrated a good internal reliability scale: Cronbach's alpha values were 0. 956 for the family support subscale, 0. 968 for the friend support sub-scale, and 0. 968 for the coach support subscale.

3.2.2. Mediating Variables

In this study, mediating variables were P-E fit and basic psychological needs. The person-environment fit scale (PEFSC) was modified by scales created by Cable and DeRue [69], and Vogel and Feldman [70], including 16 items which are divided into four subscales: the person-organization fit scale (POFS; 3 items), the person-job fit scale (PJFS; 3 items), the person-supervisor fit scale (PSFS; 3 items), and the person-group fit scale (PGFS; 5 items). One example from POFS is “My personal values match my organization's values and culture”. The PJFS asks “My abilities and training are a good fit with the requirements of my job”. One of the PSFS questions reads, “My personal values match my supervisor's values”. The PGFS sample question reads, “There is not much conflict among my group members”. Each item was measured by a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistency in this study showed a Cronbach alpha of 0.953 for POFS, 0.942 for PGFS, 0.944 for PSFS, and 0.937 for PJFS.

College athletes’ perceptions of three basic psychological needs were measured using the 20-item Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS) developed by Ng et al. [71]. The need for competence was measured with five items (e.g., “I am skilled at my sport”). The autonomy construct is divided into three subcomponents, including choice (four items, e.g., “In my sport, I have a say in how things are done”), internal perceived locus of causality (three items, e.g., “In my sport, I feel I am doing what I want to be doing”), and volition (three items, e.g., “I feel I participate in my sport willingly”). The need for relatedness was measured with five items (e.g., “I show concern for others in my sport”). Items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (very true). In this study, the internal consistency reliability of scores ranged from 0.884 to 0.975. The Coefficient alpha for the overall measure of basic need satisfaction was 0.971.

3.2.3. Dependent Variable

Well-being is the independent variable of this study, and it was measured with the WHO-5 questionnaire developed by Lucas-Carrasco [72], which has good psychometric properties and has been widely used in research studies worldwide. Sample items of the WHO-5 questionnaire are: “I feel happy and happy” and “I feel quiet and relaxed”. Each of the five items is rated on a 5-point scale from 0 (never) to 5 (all the time). In this study, Cronbach's alpha for WHO-5 was α = 0.973.

3.2.4. Control Variables

The following control variables were considered: gender (male = 0 and female = 1), age, grade (freshmen = 0, sophomores = 1, juniors = 2, seniors = 3, postgraduate = 4), household register (hukou; rural = 0, urban = 1, resident accounts = 2), sports career (year), sports category (individual sports = 0, collective sports = 1), and sports level (Unauthenticated = 0, National second-level athlete = 1, National first-level athlete = 2, National top athlete = 3).

3.3. Data Analysis

SPSS 24.0 was used for preliminary analysis, including mean, bivariate correlations, and standard deviation of the key variables. Mplus 8.0 was used to carry out structural equation modelling, including the measurement model and the structural model. Confirmatory factor analysis was first employed to conduct the measurement model, and then the structural model was employed to examine both the direct and indirect effects on the subjective well-being of collegiate athletes. To test indirect effects, we performed a bootstrapping analysis using 5,000 bootstrap resamples and a 95% confidence interval [73]. Covariates of subjective well-being, including gender, age, grade, hukou, sports career (year), sports category, and sports level, were used as control variables. Several indices were employed to evaluate model fit, such as the Chi-square value (χ2), the comparative fit index (CFI) with a threshold of ≥ 0.90 [74], and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with a threshold of ≤ 0.08 [75].

4.1. Preliminary Analysis

S2 Table provides descriptive statistics in the study, including means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among key variables. All of the correlation coefficients reached a significant level (p < 0.01). Social support was positively correlated with P-E fit and needs satisfaction, and positively related to subjective well-being. There was a positive correlation between P-E fit and needs satisfaction, and they were both positively related to subjective well-being.

-------------------------------------

Insert Table 2

--------------------------------------

4.2. Measurement Model

The results showed that the measurement model fitted data well: χ2 = 575.897, df = 110, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.971, RMESA = 0.072, and SRMR = 0.039. The measurement model in this study comprised three latent constructs (social support, basic psychological needs satisfaction, and P-E fit), which were well represented by observed variables, with all factor loadings > 0.50 (shown in S3 Table). Specifically, the latent construct of social support included three observed variables, and their factor loadings ranged between 0.730 and 0.870. P-E fit was constructed by four observed variables, with factor loadings ranging between 0.715 and 0.926. Both need satisfaction and subjective well-being was constructed by five items, of which factor loadings ranged from 0.549 to 0.968 and from 0.918 to 0.964, respectively.

-------------------------------------

Insert Table 3

--------------------------------------

4.3. Structural model

The structural model showed good model fit indices: χ2 = 1099.282, df = 211, p < .001, CFI = 0.946, RMESA = 0.072, and SRMR = 0.049. The results of the structural model and the results of the bootstrap are presented in S4 Table 4, S5 Table, and S2 Fig. As can be seen, social support was directly and positively associated with subjective well-being (β = 0.244, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.128, 0.366]).

-------------------------------------

Insert Fig. 2

--------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

Insert Table 4

--------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

Insert Table 5

--------------------------------------

The results revealed significant indirect effects of social support on subjective well-being via PE fit (β = 0.143, p < 0.01, 95% CI = [0.049, 0.233]). Specifically, social support positively affected P-E fit (β = 0.712, p < 0.001), which further increased the subjective well-being (β = 0.200, p < 0.01). Social support also had a significant indirect effect via needs satisfaction on subjective well-being (β = 0.100, p < 0.01, 95% CI = [0.049, 0.164]). Social support was positively associated with needs satisfaction (β = 0.323, p < 0.001), and needs satisfaction was positively associated with college athletes’ subjective well-being (β = 0.309, p < 0.01).

In terms of the serial mediating effects from P-E fit to needs satisfaction, we found that the chain mediating path (social support → P-E fit →needs satisfaction →subjective well-being) was significant (β = 0.115, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.065, 0.179]). This result indicates that social support has a positive effect on P-E fit, increasing levels of needs satisfaction, and ultimately increasing the levels of college athletes’ subjective well-being. These results showed that college athletes’ subjective well-being was interpreted as 47.2% by the overall model.

This study examined the relationships between social support and subjective well-being among Chinese college athletes by integrating the frameworks of P-E fit and BPNT to examine mediating mechanisms. The research findings largely supported the proposed hypotheses, which are detailed subsequently.

This study first confirmed Hypothesis 1, demonstrating a positive correlation between social support and college athletes' well-being. This finding aligns with prior research, demonstrating that greater social support predicts higher subjective well-being among college athletes [11, 76]. Social support from family, coaches, and teammates is multifaceted, including emotional support, appraisal support, and technical support [77]. Different significant others may offer various types of support, influencing college athletes' subjective well-being through different mechanisms. Family and teammates primarily provide emotional support, motivating athletes to overcome obstacles through close communication, unconditional trust, and encouragement during emotional difficulties [77]. Coaches, with their expertise in the athlete's sport, are the primary source of appraisal and technical support. Appraisal support represents effective feedback and appropriate encouragement of the athlete's performance, while technical support provides effective information and instructions for the athlete's development, such as offering advice and role clarification [77]. Coaching support positively influences athletes' psychological capital and psychological needs, which in turn contribute to their mental well-being [48, 78].

Theoretically, the effect of social support on positive well-being outcomes can be understood through the main effects model and the buffering model of social support [19]. These models suggest that an individual's subjective well-being will always benefit from social support, whether or not they experience a stressful event, and regardless of the level of stress [79]. The research sample consists of Chinese collegiate athletes from various sports, competitive levels, and academic years, experiencing different types and degrees of stress. Our findings revealed that despite the different stress profiles of college athletes, their subjective well-being benefited from social support, which is consistent with both social support models.

The research findings validated Hypothesis 2, indicating that P-E fit mediates the relationship between social support and the subjective well-being of college athletes. This finding corroborates prior research indicating that social support is positively associated with P-E fit among young athletes [80, 81]. For example, Jõesaar et al. found that perceived autonomy support from coaches could positively predict a task-involving teammate climate [81]. Additionally, the study found a positive association between P-E fit and the subjective well-being of college athletes. This finding can be interpreted through the internal working model, one of the central concepts of attachment theory. According to this theory, individuals develop a secure attachment style through positive interactions with significant others, such as having access to social support. Secure individuals generally adopt a positive working model of themselves and others, trusting significant others and boldly exploring environments created by significant others [82]. In sum, our study provides novel insight into how social support influences the mental well-being of college athletes. While prior research has focused on the mediating role of psychosocial factors, such as self-compassion and resilience [83, 84], our findings suggest that objective factors, such as person-environment fit, may account for the impact of social support on well-being outcomes.

The third finding of this study validated Hypothesis 3, revealing that social support indirectly influences the subjective well-being of college athletes through need satisfaction, corroborating previous research in sports contexts where need satisfaction significantly predict various outcomes, including life satisfaction, mental health, and vitality [56, 85]. However, prior research on BPNT has been conducted primarily with professional athletes, and the degree of association between basic needs, social support, and well-being found in this population may differ from that observed in student-athletes. Our study focused on college athletes and modified the operationalization of social support according to their life stage characteristics, incorporating parental support as one of the sources of social support. The findings of this study provide empirical evidence supporting BPNT in youth sports research.

Hypothesis 4

of this study confirms that P-E fit and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs sequentially mediate the relationship between social support and subjective well-being. The association between fit and positive outcomes is based on the reasoning that when fit exists, the environment provides people with the chance to fulfill their needs [86]. In other words, this theoretical assumption indicates that need satisfaction mediates the link between fit and well-being-related outcomes, but few studies have tested this theoretical assumption. As a theoretical framework emphasizing basic psychological needs, BPNT is likely to explain the process by which fit affects favorable outcomes for individuals [59]. The close connection between P-E fit and BPNT propositions has been noted by Greguras et al. [60], assuming that these two theories complement each other in explaining the impact of contextual factors on individual flourishing. Specifically, P-E fit acts as a proximal contextual factor for need satisfaction, while BPNT explains the beneficial outcomes of achieving P-E fit. The results of this study supported Greguras' assumption, as well as previous studies examining this integrated model in organizational contexts. Additionally, prior researchers suggested that social networks provide opportunities for individuals to achieve P-E fit and need satisfaction [59]. Considering that social network is a complex concept, it is essential to identify specific positive factors existing in the social networks. Our study identified social support as a contextual factor that affects P-E fit, advancing the development of the BPNT extension model proposed by Greguras and his colleagues. Moreover, our study extended the application of this integrated model to the field of mental health research. Previous empirical studies utilizing this model mainly focused on workplace outcomes. For example, Baloch et al. used the P-E fit perspective and BPNT to establish the link between organizational environment and organizational performance [58]. Our findings demonstrate the value of this BPNT extension model in understanding how contextual factors influence individuals' well-being.

Theoretically, the present study provides several important theoretical implications. Firstly, this study's main contribution is the establishment of an integrated model to examine the interactive effects of social support, P-E fit, and basic psychological needs on the subjective well-being of college athletes. The findings extend beyond merely proving the applicability of P-E fit in understanding the influence of contextual factors on well-being in sporting settings. More importantly, it contributes to the development of the BPNT-extended model by integrating the theoretical frameworks of P-E fit and basic psychological needs, explaining the sequential socio-psychological processes through which environmental support factors influence athletes' well-being. Secondly, analyzing data from a representative sample of Chinese college athletes, our study provides evidence of a positive relationship between social support and subjective well-being, indicating that social support is a crucial resource for young adult athletes.

Our findings also contribute to relevant practices. Firstly, our study found a positive relationship between social support and positive well-being outcomes, indicating the necessity of enhancing social support for college athletes in practical settings. Given the challenge of integrating key sources of social support, such as coaches and parents, into the program, encouraging their participation based on the original peer support framework could be effective. For instance, enhancing coach education can foster stronger parent-coach relationships, thereby reinforcing the support framework for young athletes. Secondly, our research demonstrated that P-E fit directly affects basic needs and positive well-being outcomes, emphasizing the importance of college athletes proactively adapting to their sports teams. College athletes are encouraged to seek career-related information from coaches and teammates, and to communicate with their coaches about their roles and expected performance. Additionally, they are encouraged to familiarize themselves with team values and the responsibilities associated with their membership [45].

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, since this is a cross-sectional study, causality cannot be established. The causal relationships among social support, P-E fit, need satisfaction, and the subjective well-being of college athletes should be further explored through longitudinal studies. Secondly, social support was measured as a latent variable, preventing the comparison of the effects of its three types. Future research should separately measure different types of social support to identify their mechanisms of impact on college athletes. Finally, this study only focuses on subjective well-being, a positive dimension of mental health, without measuring negative psychological outcomes. Future research should investigate the effects of P-E fit and basic need satisfaction on both positive and negative mental health outcomes in college athletes for a more comprehensive understanding.

This study investigates the relationships and interaction mechanisms among social support, P-E fit, basic needs satisfaction, and the subjective well-being of college athletes in Mainland China. The results indicate that social support is positively associated with the subjective well-being of college athletes. Additionally, P-E fit and needs satisfaction independently and sequentially mediate the relationship between social support and subjective well-being. This study highlights the correlation between the P-E fit model and the BPNT model, suggesting that P-E fit is an antecedent environmental factor for basic needs satisfaction. For interventions aimed at improving the subjective well-being of college athletes, practitioners should focus on enhancing social support and improving their match with training teams, while also involving coaches and parents in the intervention process.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Before the data collection, the study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of The Zhejiang Gongshang University (Protocol Code 23‐178; approved on 7 March 2023). A written informed consent was taken from the college athlete. They were also informed about the purpose of the study, their voluntariness in participation and no any foreseeable risk and harm in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly because they contain non-public data obtained with the support of the Fund, but they are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Funding

The present study was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Funding Title: Study on the Measurement indicators and Enhancement Mechanisms of the Spiritual Prosperity among Contemporary College Students). The Grant number is 22BKS138. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis or in the interpretation and writing of the manuscript

Authors' contributions

WYH conceived the study's idea and conducted the data analysis. All authors collaborated in designing the study. SLT drafted the initial version of the manuscript. JWY contributed revisions and editing. WYH commented on the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors participated in the critical revision of the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors' information

Shilin Tan is a research assistant at the Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University. She received her Master’s degree in social work from Sun Yat-sen University, China. Her research interests include child welfare, child and adolescent development, in particular, prosocial and antisocial behavior in children, and mental well-being of children.

Wenyan Hu is a lecturer in the school of Marxism at Zhejiang Gongshang University. She received her PhD in human care science from the University of Tsukuba, Japan. Her main research interests concern child and adolescent subjective well-being, mental health, behavior health and particularly the psychological intervention study on improving resilience and mental health.

Jiawen Yao is a graduate student at the School of Marxism, Zhejiang Gongshang University. Her research interests include childhood trauma, resilience of college students, and in particular, the spiritual affluence of college students.

Gomez J, Bradley J, Conway P. The challenges of a high-performance student athlete. Irish Educational Studies. 2018;37(3):329-49. doi:10.1080/03323315.2018.1484299
Peng X, Wang J. Experience and enlightenment of academic learning management of American college student-athletes from the perspective of integration of sports & education. J Wuhan Inst Phys Educ. 2022:79-84.
Lopes Dos Santos M, Uftring M, Stahl CA, Lockie RG, Alvar B, Mann JB, et al. Stress in academic and athletic performance in collegiate athletes: A narrative review of sources and monitoring strategies. Front Sports Active Living. 2020;2:42. doi:10.3389/fspor.2020.00042
Lu LD, Heinze KL, Soderstrom S. Playing multiple positions: Student-athlete identity salience and conflict. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport. 2018;11(2):214-41. doi:10.1123/jis.2018-0034
Ryan H, Gayles JG, Bell L. Student‐athletes and Mental Health Experiences. New Directions for Student Services. 2018;2018(163):67-79. doi:10.1002/ss.20271
Egan KP. Supporting mental health and well-being among student-athletes. Clinical Sports Medicine. 2019;38(4):537-44. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2019.05.003
Lin CH, Lu FJ, Chen TW, Hsu Y. Relationship between athlete stress and Burnout: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2021;20(5):1295-315. doi:10.1080/1612197x.2021.1987503
Martin CL, Shanley E, Harnish C, Knab A, Christopher S, Vallabhajosula S, et al. The relationship between flourishing, injury status, and resilience in collegiate athletes. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 2021;16(4):925-33. doi:10.1177/1747954121994559
Petrie KA, Messman BA, Slavish DC, Moore EW, Petrie TA. Sleep disturbances and depression are bidirectionally associated among college student athletes across COVID-19 pandemic exposure classes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2023;66:102393. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102393
Wolanin A, Gross M, Hong E. Depression in athletes. Current Sports Medicine Reports. 2015;14(1):56-60. doi:10.1249/JSR.0000000000000123
Cho H, Tan HY, Lee E. Importance of perceived teammate support as a predictor of student-athletes’ positive emotions and subjective well-being. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2020;15(2-3):364-374. doi:10.1177/1747954120919720
Crutcher B, Moran RN, Covassin T. Examining the relationship between social support satisfaction and perceived stress and depression in athletic training students. Athl Train Educ J. 2018;13(2):168-174. doi:10.4085/1302168
Sullivan L, Ding K, Tattersall H, Brown S, Yang J. Social Support and post-injury depressive and anxiety symptoms among college-student athletes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(11):6458. doi:10.3390/ijerph19116458
Matsumoto H, Takenaka K. Relationship between basic psychological needs and exercise motivation in Japanese adults: An application of self‐determination theory. Jpn Psychol Res. 2022;64(4):385-396. doi:10.1111/jpr.12336
Wu TJ, Gao JY, Wang LY, Yuan KS. Exploring links between polychronicity and job performance from the person–environment fit perspective—The mediating role of well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3711. doi:10.3390/ijerph17103711
De Cooman R, Vleugels W. Person–Environment Fit: Theoretical Perspectives, Conceptualizations, and Outcomes. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Oxford Research Encyclopedias; 2022. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.377
Deci EL, Ryan RM. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):269–318. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_02
Chu TL, Zhang T. The roles of coaches, peers, and parents in athletes' basic psychological needs: A mixed-studies review. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2019;14(4):569-588. doi:10.1177/1747954119858458
Sheridan D, Coffee P, Lavallee D. A systematic review of social support in youth sport. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2014;7(1):198–228. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2014.931999
Rao AL, Hong ES. Understanding depression and suicide in college athletes: Emerging concepts and future directions. Br J Sports Med. 2015;50(3):136–137. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095658
Fernandes HM, Machado Reis V, Vilaça-Alves J, Saavedra F, Aidar FJ, Brustad R. Social support and sport injury recovery: An overview of empirical findings and practical implications. Rev Psicol Deporte. 2014;23(2):445-449.
Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98(2):310-357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310.
Thoits PA. Social support as coping assistance. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986;54(4):416-423. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.54.4.416.
Chuang HY, Wang FJ, Chi LK. Mechanisms of mindfulness for professional golfers: The mediating role of basic psychological needs. Curr Psychol. 2021;42:5462-5469. doi:10.1007/s12144-021-01877-3.
DeFreese JD, Smith AL. Teammate social support, burnout, and self-determined motivation in collegiate athletes. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2013;14(3):258-265. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.009.
Zhao L, Liu Z, Zhang L. The effect of the perceived social support on mental health of Chinese college soccer players during the COVID-19 lockdown: The chain mediating role of athlete burnout and hopelessness. Front Psychol. 2022;13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1001020.
Mitchell I, Evans L, Rees T, Hardy L. Stressors, social support, and tests of the buffering hypothesis: Effects on psychological responses of injured athletes. Br J Health Psychol. 2014;19(3):486-508. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12046.
Wang D, Nie DF, Li WD. A Comparison of School Sports and Physical Education Between China and USA from the Perspectives of Education for Life, Culture, and Training Systems. J Xi An Phys Educ Univ. 2019;36(6):748-752. doi:10.16063/j.cnki.issn1001-747x.2019.06.019.
Xu JH, Xie ZY. Research on the Core Concepts and Enlightenment of American Intercollegiate Sports. J Sports Sci. 2016;37(4):97-106. doi:10.13598/j.issn1004-4590.2016.04.015.
Edwards BD, Bell ST, Arthur W Jr, Decuir AD. Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Appl Psychol. 2008;57(3):441-465. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00328.x.
Kristof AL. Person‐organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology. 1996;49(1):1-49. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
Kristof-Brown AL, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC. Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology. 2005;58(2):281-342. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Duffy RD, Autin KL, Bott EM. Work volition and job satisfaction: Examining the role of work meaning and person–environment fit. Career Development Quarterly. 2015;63(2):126-140. doi:10.1002/cdq.12009
Edelman M, McCann MA, Holden JT. The collegiate employee-athlete. University of Illinois Law Review. 2024. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4360802
Krikorian M. A critical review and synthesis of student-athlete college choice factors: Recruiting effectiveness in NCAA sports. Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2014;9(6):1289-1290. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.9.6.1289
van Leeuwen L, Annink A, Visser K, Jambroes M. Facilitating Children’s Club-organized sports participation: Person–environment misfits experienced by parents from low-income families. Children. 2022;9(11):1746. doi:10.3390/children9111746
Edwards JR, Caplan RD, Harrison RV. Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In: Theories of Organizational Stress. 1998:28-67. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198522799.003.0003
Jiang Z, Jiang X. Core self-evaluation and life satisfaction: The person-environment fit perspective. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;75:68-73. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.013
Van den Broeck A, Schreurs B, Guenter H, van Emmerik IH. Skill utilization and well-being: A cross-level story of day-to-day fluctuations and personal intrinsic values. Work & Stress. 2015;29(3):306-323. doi:10.1080/02678373.2015.1074955
Cronin LD, Allen J. Examining the relationships among the coaching climate, life skills development and well-being in sport. Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2018;13(6):815-827. doi:10.1177/1747954118787949
Worley JT, Harenberg S, Vosloo J. The relationship between peer servant leadership, social identity, and team cohesion in intercollegiate athletics. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2020;49:101712. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101712
Bragger JD, Alonso NA, D’Ambrosio K, Williams N. Developing leaders to serve and servants to lead. Human Resource Development Review. 2021;20(1):9-45. doi:10.1177/15344843209811
Zepp C, Kleinert J. Symmetric and complementary fit based on prototypical attributes of soccer teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2015;18(4):557-72. doi:10.1177/1368430214556701
Beattie M, Turner BA. The impact of person-environment fit on the academic satisfaction of Division II student-athletes. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics. 2021;14(1):32. doi:10.5555/20219828724
Beattie MA, Turner BA. The impact of athlete-coach fit on the athletic satisfaction of NCAA Division II college athletes. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education. 2022;1-17. doi:10.1080/19357397.2022.2084324
Mossman LH, Slemp GR, Lewis KJ, Colla RH, O’Halloran P. Autonomy support in sport and exercise settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2024;17(1):540-63. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2022.2031252
Ryan R. Self-determination theory and well-being. Social Psychology. 2009;84(822):848.
Stenling A, Lindwall M, Hassmén P. Changes in perceived autonomy support, need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in young elite athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology. 2015;4(1):50-61. doi:10.1037/spy0000027
Ryan RM, Solky JA. What is supportive about social support? Handbook of Social Support and the Family. 1996;249–67. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-1388-3_11
Raabe J, Zakrajsek RA. Coaches and teammates as social agents for collegiate athletes’ basic psychological need satisfaction. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport. 2017;10(1):67–82. doi:10.1123/jis.2016-0033
Fransen K, Vansteenkiste M, Vande Broek G, Boen F. The competence-supportive and competence-thwarting role of athlete leaders: An experimental test in a soccer context. PLoS One. 2018;13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200480
Fraina M, Pastore D, Anderson-Butcher D, Newman T. Examination of social influence toward need satisfaction of high school student-athletes. Phys Educator. 2020;77(4):708-730. doi:10.18666/tpe-2020-v77-i4-9154
Yesu L, Harwood EA. The effects of parental involvement, support, and pressure on athletic participation. InSight Rivier Acad J. 2015;11(1):1-12.
Felton L, Jowett S. Attachment and well-being: The mediating effects of psychological needs satisfaction within the coach–athlete and parent–athlete relational contexts. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2013;14(1):57-65. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.006
Kaye MP, Lowe K, Dorsch TE. Dyadic examination of parental support, basic needs satisfaction, and student–athlete development during emerging adulthood. J Fam Issues. 2019;40(2):240-263. doi:10.1177/0192513X18806557
Jowett S, Adie JW, Bartholomew KJ, Yang SX, Gustafsson H, Lopez-Jiménez A. Motivational processes in the coach-athlete relationship: A multi-cultural self-determination approach. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2017;32:143–152. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.06.004
Balaguer I, Castillo I, Cuevas R, Atienza F. The importance of coaches’ autonomy support in the leisure experience and well-being of young footballers. Front Psychol. 2018;9:840. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00840
Baloch QB, Maher S, Iqbal N, Shah SN, Sheeraz M, Raheem F, Khan KI. Role of organizational environment in sustained organizational economic performance. Bus Process Manag J. 2021;28(1):131–149. doi:10.1108/bpmj-02-2021-008
Greguras GJ, Diefendorff JM. Different fits satisfy different needs: linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(2):465. doi:10.1037/a0014068
Greguras GJ, Diefendorff JM, Carpenter J, Tröster C. Person-environment fit and self-determination theory. In: The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory. 2014:143-161.
Van den Broeck A, Ferris DL, Chang CH, Rosen CC. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J Manag. 2016;42(5):1195-229. doi:10.1177/01492063166320
Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull. 1995;117(3):497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Chou SY, Chang T, Han B. Feeling the fit and self-determination? A PLS-SEM approach for self-initiated expatriates' self-determination, person-environment fit and turnover intention. Eur J Int Manag. 2023;19(3):467-89. doi:10.1504/EJIM.2023.128810
Wang D, Zong Z, Mao W, Wang L, Maguire P, Hu Y. Investigating the relationship between person–environment fit and safety behavior: A Social Cognition Perspective. J Saf Res. 2021;79:100–9. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2021.08.010
Hicklenton C, Hine DW, Loi NM. Does green-person-organization fit predict intrinsic need satisfaction and workplace engagement?. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2285. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02285
Sharom NQ. The relationship between person-organization fit and employee outcomes: the mediating role of psychological need satisfaction and employee attitudes [dissertation]. Salford (UK): University of Salford; 2017.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149–60. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess. 1988;52(1):30–41. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2
Cable DM, DeRue DS. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(5):875–84. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.875
Vogel RM, Feldman DC. Integrating the levels of person-environment fit: The roles of vocational fit and group fit. J Vocat Behav. 2009;75(1):68-81. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.03.007.
Ng JYY, Lonsdale C, Hodge K. The basic needs satisfaction in sport scale (BNSSS): Instrument development and initial validity evidence. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12(3):257-64. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.006.
Lucas-Carrasco R. The Who Quality of Life (WHOQOL) questionnaire: Spanish development and validation studies. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):161-5. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9926-3.
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(3):879-91. doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879.
Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-46. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238.
Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Lu FJ, Hsu Y. Injured athletes’ rehabilitation beliefs and subjective well-being: The contribution of hope and social support. J Athl Train. 2013;48(1):92-8. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-48.1.03.
Rosenfeld LB, Richman JM, Hardy CJ. Examining social support networks among athletes: Description and relationship to stress. Sport Psychol. 1989;3(1):23-33. doi:10.1123/tsp.3.1.23.
Kim M, Do Kim Y, Lee HW. It is time to consider athletes’ well-being and performance satisfaction: The roles of authentic leadership and psychological capital. Sport Manag Rev. 2020;23(5):964-77. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2019.12.008.
Demaray MK, Malecki CK. Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. Sch Psychol Rev. 2003;32(3):471-89. doi:10.1080/02796015.2003.12086213.
Hampson R, Jowett S. Effects of coach leadership and coach–athlete relationship on collective efficacy. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(2):454-60. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01527.x.
Jõesaar H, Hein V, Hagger MS. Youth athletes’ perception of autonomy support from the coach, peer motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in sport setting: One-year effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2012;13(3):257–262. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.001
Bowlby J. Mütterliche Zuwendung und geistige Gesundheit. Kindler; 1973.
Jeon H, Lee K, Kwon S. Investigation of the structural relationships between social support, self-compassion, and subjective well-being in Korean elite student athletes. Psychological Reports. 2016;119(1):39-54. doi:10.1177/00332941166582
Mira T, Jacinto M, Costa AM, Monteiro D, Diz S, Matos R, et al. Exploring the relationship between social support, resilience, and subjective well-being in athletes of adapted sport. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023;14:1266654. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1266654
Liu J, Bartholomew K, Chung P-K. Perceptions of teachers’ interpersonal styles and well-being and ill-being in secondary school physical education students: The role of need satisfaction and need frustration. School Mental Health. 2017;9(4):360–371. doi:10.1007/s12310-017-9223-6
Arthur W, Bell ST, Villado AJ, Doverspike D. The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006;91(4):786–801. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.786

Table 1 Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 822).

Sociodemographic characteristics	N	Percentage
Gender
Male	579	70.44
Female	243	29.56
Age	Mean = 20.33	SD = 1.77
Grade
Freshman	246	29.93
Sophomore	228	27.74
Junior	172	20.92
Senior	176	21.41
Household registration
Rural	442	53.77
Urban	380	46.23
Sports career (year)	Mean = 7.17	SD = 4.02
Sports category
Individual sports	461	56.08
Collective sports	361	43.92
Sports level
Unauthenticated	318	38.68
National second-level athlete	289	35.16
National first-level athlete	193	23.48
National top athlete	22	2.68

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables.

Mean

1. Family support

3.965

0.772

1.000

2. Peer support

3.951

0.770

.744**

1.000

3. Coach support

3.763

0.854

.575**

.619**

1.000

4.Person-organization fit

3.882

0.779

.515**

.530**

.551**

1.000

5. Person-job fit

3.805

0.770

.497**

.525**

.573**

.836**

1.000

6. Person–supervisor fit

3.809

0.790

.501**

.499**

.653**

.784**

.850**

1.000

7. Person–group fit

3.703

0.562

.510**

.565**

.451**

.683**

.613**

.621**

1.000

8. Competence

3.952

0.707

.534**

.530**

.565**

.638**

.682**

.653**

.537**

1.000

9. Choice

3.922

0.735

.533**

.525**

.563**

.630**

.667**

.637**

.525**

.911**

1.000

Internal perceived locus of causality

3.966

0.722

.546**

.541**

.556**

.641**

.653**

.634**

.564**

.893**

.929**

1.000

11. Volition

3.499

0.476

.367**

.392**

.331**

.433**

.354**

.346**

.507**

.517**

.504**

.554**

1.000

12. Relatedness

4.016

0.699

.569**

.596**

.519**

.649**

.625**

.603**

.640**

.815**

.799**

.840**

.579**

1.000

Subjective well-being

3.866

0.775

.489**

.504**

.435**

.554**

.537**

.531**

.485**

.595**

.580**

.581**

.381**

.649**

1.000

Note. ***p <0.001, **p<0.001,*p<0.05

Table 3

Results of Measurement Model.

Latent Variable	Observed Variable	Factor Loading
Social support	Family support	0.830
	Peer support	0.870
	Coach support	0.730
Personal-environment fit	Person-organization fit	0.895
	Person-job fit	0.926
	Person–supervisor fit	0.888
	Person–group fit	0.715
Psychological need satisfaction	Competence	0.935
	Choice	0.968
	Internal perceived locus of causality	0.956
	Volition	0.549
	Relatedness	0.886
Subjective well-being	F3_5	0.940
	F3_6	0.950
	F3_7	0.964
	F3_8	0.918
	F3_9	0.921

Table 4

Estimates of the Structural Model. This is the S2 Table legend.

Variables	Model 1: Personal-environment fit				Model 2: Psychological need satisfaction				Model 3: Subjective well-being
Variables	B	β	SE	P	B	β	SE	P	B	β	SE	P
Gender	-0.130	-0.085	0.043	0.002	-0.044	-0.030	0.040	0.271	-0.078	-0.048	0.054	0.145
Age	-0.004	-0.011	0.015	0.777	0.010	0.027	0.013	0.415	-0.007	-0.017	0.016	0.677
Grade	0.015	0.026	0.024	0.528	p<0.001	p<0.001	0.020	0.999	0.003	0.004	0.028	0.926
Household registration	-0.006	-0.006	0.027	0.819	-0.041	-0.044	0.023	0.075	-0.015	-0.014	0.034	0.670
Sports career	0.002	0.011	0.006	0.732	0.005	0.032	0.005	0.308	0.005	0.025	0.006	0.413
Sports category	-0.020	-0.014	0.039	0.614	-0.015	-0.011	0.032	0.640	-0.002	-0.001	0.042	0.965
Sports level	0.048	0.059	0.025	0.049	0.019	0.024	0.022	0.392	-0.056	-0.064	0.026	0.033
Social support	0.771	0.712	0.054	p<0.001	0.333	0.323	0.054	p<0.001	0.280	0.244	0.074	p<0.001
Personal-environment fit					0.496	0.521	0.051	p<0.001	0.212	0.200	0.068	0.002
Psychological need satisfaction									0.344	0.309	0.080	p<0.001
R²	0.515				0.623				0.472

Note. ***p <0.001, **p<0.001,*p<0.05

Table 5

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects.

	β	SE	P	95% CI
	β	SE	P	Lower	Upper
Total effect	0.601	0.040	p<0.001	0.520	0.670
Direct effect	0.244	0.062	p<0.001	0.128	0.366
Total indirect effect	0.357	0.048	p<0.001	0.270	0.458
Specific indirect effect
Social support→ Personal-environment fit→ Subjective well-being	0.143	0.046	0.002	0.049	0.233
Social support→ Psychological need satisfaction→ Subjective well-being	0.100	0.029	0.001	0.049	0.164
Social support→ Personal-environment fit→ Psychological need satisfaction→ Subjective well-being	0.115	0.029	p<0.001	0.065	0.179

Note. ***p <0.001, **p<0.001,*p<0.05

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
16 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
12 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
12 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
10 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Effect of social support on the subjective well-being among Chinese college athletes: a chain mediation model

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

2.1. Effects of Social Support on the Subjective Well-being of College Athletes

2.2. P-E Fit as a Mediator between Social Support and Subjective Well-being

2.3. Basic Psychological Needs as a Mediator between Social Support and Subjective Well-being

2.4. Chain Mediation of P-E Fit and Basic Psychological Needs

2.5. The Present Study

3. Methods

3.1. Sampling and Participants

3.2. Measurement

3.2.1. Independent Variable

3.2.2. Mediating Variables

3.2.3. Dependent Variable

3.2.4. Control Variables

3.3. Data Analysis

4. Results

4.1. Preliminary Analysis

4.2. Measurement Model

4.3. Structural model

5. Discussion

6. Contributions

7. Limitations

8. Conclusion

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly because they contain non-public data obtained with the support of the Fund, but they are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Funding

Authors' contributions

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors' information

Jiawen Yao is a graduate student at the School of Marxism, Zhejiang Gongshang University. Her research interests include childhood trauma, resilience of college students, and in particular, the spiritual affluence of college students.

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1