Table 4 Analysis of the impact pathways of social support on the improvement of positive coping styles for “breadwinner mothers”.

	Positive coping style	General social trust	Positive coping style	Positive coping style
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Predictor variables: social support
Perception of social support services	0.181***	0.123**	0.166***	0.161**
Utilization of social support services	− 0.01	0.036**	− 0.014	− 0.152**
Evaluation of social support service	0.256****	0.302****	0.218****	0.183***
Control variables
Age	0.093	0.062	0.085	0.008
Nature of household registration	0.147	− 0.002	0.147	0.168
Educational level	0.178***	0.04	0.173***	0.175***
Professional skill level	0.225**	0.076	0.215**	0.171**
Perceived stress	0.034	− 0.100**	0.047	0.044
Social support	0.279***	0.310***	0.240**	0.253***
General social trust			0.126**	0.089
Social support utilization and social support evaluation				0.03***
Social support utilization and social support evaluation				0.017
Social support utilization and social support evaluation				− 0.027
Constant(math.)	− 1.556****	2.659****	− 1.891****	− 0.165***
Adjusted R²	9.941(P = 0)	15.115(P = 0)	9.451(P = 0)	7.610(P = 0)
F-value	− 1.556****	2.659****	− 1.891****	− 0.165***

(1) Significance levels: *P ≤ 0.1, **P ≤ 0.05, ***P ≤ 0.01, ****P ≤ 0.001.
(2) Col-linearity diagnostics show that the tolerance of each variable is greater than 0.1, and the VIF is less than 2, indicating no significant col-linearity problems among the variables.
(3) The variable "nature of household registration" was included in the model as a dummy variable(0 = rural household, 1 = urban household) as follows, the same applies to other variables.
(4) The variable “social support” is represented by whether the respondent has friends who can provide basic help in daily life and was included in the model as a dummy variable (0 = no friends, 1 = has friends).

Quick links

Search