Investigating the Relationship between Perceived Social Support and Psychological Distress in Students and the Mediating Role of Emotional Incompetence among Students of Tabriz University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Perceived social support and alexithymia are among the most important factors associated with psychological distress in students. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between perceived social support and psychological distress in students and the mediating role of alexithymia in Tabriz University students. Methods: The research method was fundamental and descriptive-correlational path analysis. The statistical population included students of both genders, all majors, and all levels of education at Tabriz University in 2023, from which 203 individuals were randomly selected. Data collection tools included the Toronto Alexithymia Scale(1994), the Lovibond and Lovibond Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Scale(1995), and the Zimet Perceived Social Support Questionnaire(1998). For data analysis in the descriptive section, central tendency and dispersion indices were examined using SPSS version 26 software, and path analysis with Amos software was employed to test the hypotheses. Findings: The direct effect of perceived social support on emotional alexithymia was negative(P<0/001), and the direct effect of emotional alexithymia on psychological distress was positive and significant(P<0/001). However, the direct effect of perceived social support on psychological distress was not significant(P>0/190). Additionally, the indirect effect of perceived social support on psychological distress through emotional alexithymia was negative and significant(P<0/001). Conclusion: The results of this study show that emotional alexithymia acts as an important mediator with a negative effect between perceived social support and psychological distress in students. It is suggested that strengthening support networks and providing training in communication skills should be carried out to reduce emotional alexithymia in students. Furthermore, holding training courses in university environments can help improve mental health and reduce psychological distress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".