Cognition malleability belief, emotion regulation and adolescent well-being: examining a mediation model among migrant youth

Figures & data

Table 1. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for the Main Variables of Study 1.

	Mean or %	SD	Sex	Age	Cognition malleability belief	Cognitive reappraisal	Expressive suppression	Well-being
Sex (male%)	52%	–	–
Age(in years)	13.89	1.23	−.07	–
Cognition malleability belief	2.94	1.04	.03	.01	–
Cognitive reappraisal	4.74	1.04	.08*	.01	.38**	–
Expressive suppression	4.21	1.05	-.08*	.07	.17**	.49**	–
Well-being	6.18	2.24	.02	.00	.16**	.15**	−.03	–

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01;

Male = 1, Female = 2. The scores of Cognition malleability belief scale, cognitive reappraisal, and expressive suppression range from 1 to 7 with high scores respectively mean stronger beliefs of cognition malleability, more use of cognitive reappraisal and more use of expressive suppression as emotion regulation. Well-being was measured by Holistic Well-being Scale, ranged from 1 to 9. Higher score means more self-perceived well-being.

Figure 1. Model coefficient results of the bootstrapping analysis.

Note. Coefficients are unstandardized. *** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05. Statistics in parentheses are results from Study 2.

Table 2. Regression coefficients, standard errors, and model summary information for the conceptual model of study 1.

Predictors	Consequent
	M1 (Cognitive reappraisal)					M2 (Expressive suppression)					Y (Well-being^a)
		Coeff.	SE	P			Coeff.	SE	p			Coeff.	SE	p
Constant	iM1	3.43	.50	<.001		iM2	3.32	.54	<.001		iY	5.72	1.20	<.001
X	a1	.37	.04	<.001		a2	.16	.04	<.001		c’	.17	.09	<.05
M1											b1	.38	.11	<.001
M2											b2	−.25	.10	<.05
Sex		.17	.08	> .05			−.16	.09	> .05			−.13	.19	> .05
Age		-.002	.03	> .05			.05	.04	> .05			−.04	.08	> .05
		R^2= .14					R^2= .03					R^2= .04
		F(3,567) = 30.74, p < .001					F(3,567) = 6.36, p < .001					F(5,565) = 4.75, p < .001

Note: X = Cognition malleability belief, M1 = Cognitive reappraisal, M2 = Expressive suppression.

^aWellbeing was measured using the Holistic Well-being scale, scored on a 9-point scale.

Table 3. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for the Main Variables of Study 2.

	Mean or %	SD	Sex	Age	Cognition malleability belief	Cognitive reappraisal	Expressive suppression	Well-being
Sex ^a (male%)	55%	–	–
Age (in years)	15.09	2.75	−.08	–
Cognition malleability belief	4.90	1.03	.002	−.16**	–
Cognitive reappraisal	4.57	.94	.04	−.16**	.49**	–
Expressive suppression	4.21	.92	−.11	−.06	.17**	.48**	–
Well-being	4.13	.99	.05	−.21**	.39**	.36**	.01	–

Note: **p < .01.

^aMale = 1, Female = 2. The scores of Cognition malleability belief scale, cognitive reappraisal, and expressive suppression range from 1 to 7 with high scores respectively mean stronger beliefs of cognition malleability, more use of cognitive reappraisal and more use of expressive suppression as emotion regulation. Well-being was measured by Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), ranged from 1 to 7. Higher score means more self-perceived satisfactory with life.

Table 4. Regression coefficients, standard errors, and model summary information for the conceptual model of study 2.

Antecedent	Consequent
	M1 (Cognitive reappraisal)				M2 (Expressive suppression)				Y (Satisfaction in life)^a
		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p
Constant	iM1	2.93	.44	<.001	iM2	4.20	.48	<.001	iY	3.07	.54	<.001
X	a1	.43	.05	<.001	a2	.14	.06	<.05	c’	.22	.06	<.001
M1									b1	.33	.07	<.001
M2									b2	−.22	.06	<.001
Sex		.04	.10	>.05		−.23	.11	<.05		.01	.11	> .05
Age		−.04	.02	>.05		−.02	.02	> .05		−.04	.02	> .05
		R^2 = 0.23				R^2 = 0.04				R^2 = 0.22
		F(3,261) = 25.50, p < 0.001				F(3,261) = 3.89, p < 0.05				F(5,259) = 14.21 p < 0.001

Notes: X = Cognition malleability belief, M₁ = Cognitive reappraisal, M₂ = Expressive suppression.

^aWell-being was measured using the Satisfaction with Life Scale, scored on a 7-point scale.