The Effect of Trait Mindfulness on Subjective Well-Being of Kindergarten Teachers: The Sequential Mediating Roles of Emotional Intelligence and Work–Family Balance

Figures & data

Figure 1 Conceptual framework.

Table 1 Social Demographic Features of Participants (N = 321)

Variables		Percentages
Gender	Male	2.20%
	Female	97.80%
Age	25–27	85.10%
	28–30	6.20%
	31–33	5.60%
	34–36	3.10%
Educational Background	Junior college	72.60%
	Undergraduate course	27.40%

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Major Study Variables

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Gender	0.980	0.146	1
2. Age	27.020	2.299	−0.017	1
3. Educational Background	1.270	0.447	0.092	−0.055	1
4. Observe	3.183	0.800	0.091	0.052	−0.034	1
5. Describe	3.431	0.725	0.059	0.067	−0.017	0.530**	1
6. ActAware	3.427	0.913	0.079	0.061	−0.007	0.530**	0.581**	1
7. NonJudge	3.245	0.670	0.098	0.069	0.099	0.589**	0.505**	0.421**	1
8. NonReact	3.360	0.842	0.133*	0.078	−0.009	0.507**	0.504**	0.663**	0.492**	1
9. SEA	4.386	1.281	−0.03	0.039	0.022	0.110*	0.278**	0.195**	0.249**	0.213**	1
10. OEA	4.258	1.379	−0.003	0.043	0.141*	0.263**	0.327**	0.239**	0.303**	0.285**	0.497**	1
11. UOE	4.559	1.346	−0.009	−0.016	0.057	0.280**	0.217**	0.303**	0.126*	0.136*	0.539**	0.420**	1
12. ROE	4.527	1.269	−0.056	−0.033	0.046	0.248**	0.231**	0.189**	0.301**	0.218**	0.480**	0.455**	0.360**	1
13. WFB	3.421	0.670	0.041	0.121*	0.002	0.251**	0.231**	0.195**	0.280**	0.229**	0.254**	0.242**	0.230**	0.242**	1
14. SWB	3.911	0.940	0.036	0.136*	0.012	0.296**	0.408**	0.305**	0.304**	0.272**	0.365**	0.320**	0.292**	0.251**	0.492**	1

Note: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. Gender is the dummy variable (0 = male, 1 = female).

Abbreviations: SEA, self-emotion appraisal; OEA, others’ emotion appraisal; UOE, use of emotion; ROE, regulation of emotion; WFB, work–family balance; SWB, subjective well-being.

Table 3 Fit Indices of the Model

Fit Indices	Recommended Threshold	Scores	Remarks
ML χ^2	–	324.585	–
Df	–	215	–
χ^2/df	1 < χ^2/df < 3	1.510	Acceptable
CFI	> 0.9	0.953	Acceptable
TLI	> 0.9	0.945	Acceptable
RMSEA	< 0.08	0.040	Acceptable
SRMR	< 0.08	0.041	Acceptable

Abbreviations: CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean squared error of approximation; SRMR, standardised root mean squared residual.

Table 4 The Direct Effect of the Research Paths and Research Model Hypothesis Analysis

DV	IV	Std.Est.	S.E.	Est./S.E.	P-value	R^2	Hypo and Path	Remarks
SWB	TM	0.211	0.072	2.923	0.003	0.476	H1: TM → SWB	Support
	EI	0.248	0.076	3.269	0.001		H2b: EI → SWB	Support
	WFB	0.413	0.074	5.561	***		H3b: WFB → SWB	Support
EI	TM	0.470	0.066	7.146	***	0.238	H2a: TM → EI	Support
WFB	TM	0.199	0.076	2.607	0.009	0.195	H3a: TM → WFB	Support
	EI	0.300	0.076	3.918	***		H4: EI → WFB	Support

Note: ***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: SWB, subjective well-being; TM, trait mindfulness; EI, emotional intelligence; WFB, work–family balance.

Table 5 The Indirect Effect of the Research Paths

Path	Std.Est.	S.E.	Est./S.E.	P-value	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	The Proportion of the Effect
H2: TM → EI → SWB	0.164	0.061	2.690	0.007	0.067	0.314	24.92%
H3: TM → WFB → SWB	0.115	0.050	2.329	0.020	0.034	0.238	17.48%
H5: TM → EI → WFB → SWB	0.082	0.029	2.818	0.005	0.040	0.164	12.46%
TOTALIND	0.361	0.083	4.354	***	0.225	0.553	54.86%
TOTAL	0.658	0.106	6.218	***	0.460	0.876	100.00%

Note: ***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: SWB, subjective well-being; TM, trait mindfulness; EI, emotional intelligence; WFB, work–family balance.

Figure 2 Structural equation model.

Abbreviations: TM, trait mindfulness; SWB, subjective well-being; EI, emotional intelligence; WFB, work–family Balance; SEA, self-emotion appraisal; OEA, others’ emotion appraisal; UOE, use of emotion; ROE, regulation of emotion.