The differences between majors in overall psychological independence and differences in scores on each subscale are shown in Table 4 . We found significant differences between majors in overall psychological independence, future orientation, appropriate human relations, and responsibility. Scores for overall psychological independence were higher for nursing majors than for cultural and policy studies majors (P < 0.01). Scores for future orientation were higher for nursing and childcare majors than for policy studies, cultural studies, and other majors (P < 0.01) and were higher for nutrition majors than for policy studies and other majors (P < 0.05). Scores for appropriate human relations were higher for cultural studies and nursing majors than for economics majors (P < 0.01) and higher for nursing and childcare majors than for policy studies and economics majors (P < 0.05). Scores for responsibility were higher for nursing majors than for policy studies majors (P < 0.05). Scores for social perspective were significantly different in 1-way analysis of variance but not in multiple comparisons.
Values indicate mean (SD). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. †28 participants did not provide responses and were excluded from the analysis. ANOVA, analysis of variance; Chi, childcare; Cul, cultural studies; Eco, economics; Nur, nursing; Nut, nutrition; Oth, other; Pol, policy studies; n.s., not significant.
The results of the comparison of the mean overall psychological independence scores and the scores of each subscale by current living situation and birth order are shown in Table 5 . We found a significant difference in social perspective between current living situation and birth order. In terms of living situation, students who lived alone had higher scores for social perspective than students who lived with their parents (P < 0.05). In terms of birth order, students who were an only child had higher scores for social perspective than students who were the eldest child (P < 0.05).
The standard coefficients (?) of the test outcomes are given when you look at the Table six . VIFs varied from 1.006 to 1.067, no complications with multicollinearity.
†28 participants were excluded from the analysis due to missing data. ‡For Gender, 1 was scored as male and 2 as female. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Factors affecting overall psychological matchocean independence were current living situation (? = –0.086, P < 0.01), Gender (? = 0.070, P < 0 .05), and major (? = 0.069, P < 0.05). Factors influencing future orientation were major (? = 0 .127, P < 0.01), Gender (? = 0.113, P < 0.01), factors influencing appropriate human relations were Gender (? = 0.112, P < 0.01), factors influencing value judgment Genderecution were current living situation (? = –0.100, P < 0 .01), factors influencing responsibility were Gender (? = 0.093, P < 0.01) and current living situation (? = –0.082, P < 0 .01), and factors affecting social perspective were Gender (? = –0.097, P < 0.01), current living situation (? = –0.085, P < 0 .01) and grade (? = –0.065, P < 0.05). There were no factors affecting self-control.
Desk six means that overall emotional independence, future direction, appropriate person relationships, and you will obligation was basically notably large to have females than for men. At the same time, personal direction was somewhat highest having male than for female.
Relationship ranging from thinking-value, other regions of classes-created assistance from significant someone else, and you may bits of emotional liberty
We calculated Pearson’s effective correlation coefficients to examine the relationship between the fresh new students’ thoughts of coaching-built help away from significant someone else, self-esteem, and you can emotional versatility. I analyzed the outcome individually for male ( Table eight ) and lady ( Desk 8 ) teens due to the fact we receive Sex variations in the results out-of psychological freedom.