International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Attachment Styles and Well-Being in Adolescents:
How Does Emotional Development Affect
This Relationship?
Estefanía Mónaco, Konstanze Schoeps and Inmaculada Montoya-Castilla *
Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatment, Faculty of Psychology,
University of Valencia, 46010 València, Spain
* Correspondence: inmaculada.montoya@uv.es; Tel.: +34-963983433




Received: 15 May 2019; Accepted: 11 July 2019; Published: 17 July 2019


Abstract: Attachment relationships with parents, as well as emotional competencies, are protective
factors against stress and other physical, mental, and relational health symptoms in adolescence.
In this paper, we will examine the mediating role of emotional competencies in the relationship
between attachment to parents and the well-being of adolescents, taking into account the influence of
gender. There were 1276 Spanish adolescents between 12 and 15 years old (M = 13.48; SD = 1.09).
We measured mother and father attachment relationships (trust, communication and alienation),
emotional competencies (perceive and understand emotions, label and express emotions, manage
and regulate emotions), and adolescent well-being using the indicators: somatic complaints, stress,
satisfaction with life and affectivity. Descriptive analyses, Pearson correlations, and a multi-group
path analysis were performed. The results indicated that emotional competencies partially mediate
the relationship between attachment to parents and well-being variables. Attachment to one’s mother
and father, along with emotional competencies, are relevant variables in adolescent well-being. This
highlights the importance of understanding the protective factors of well-being in adolescence, a time
when levels of well-being are reduced compared to childhood.

Keywords: attachment to parents; emotional competencies; well-being; adolescence

1. Introduction
Over the last few decades, the study of human well-being has become a field of growing interest
in different disciplines [1]. Subjective well-being refers to how people evaluate their lives. These
evaluations involve people’s emotional reactions and moods, and judgment about their life satisfaction
and fulfillment in certain domains such as social relationships and professional environment [2]. In a
systematic review, Diener & Chan [3] conclude that subjective well-being predicts health and longevity.
Considering that a happy person enjoys life longer and experiences better health, it seems even more
important to studying the concept of subjective well-being and its relationship with other variables.
One of the great challenges of the social sciences of XXI century has been the promotion of
children’s and adolescents’ well-being, stressing the protection of their human rights [4]. However, the
study of adolescent well-being is still a research field in progress [5] compared to the large number of
studies conducted in adult population [1,6]. Stressing that levels of well-being change throughout
the life cycle [7] with adolescents reporting lower levels of life satisfaction than other developmental
stages [8], the present study focuses on social and emotional predictors of well-being in adolescence.
It is well-known that adolescent well-being is more than only the mere absence of behavioural
disorders such as drug-use [9]. In this sense, the need to study what, more specifically, makes
adolescents improve their levels of well-being and which factors could positively influence these levels

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554; doi:10.3390/ijerph16142554 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 2 of 17

has arisen [10]. The study of family and emotional variables, which will be handled in the present
research, helps us to understand how adolescent well-being develops [11–13].
Adolescence is a vital stage and is especially sensitive to the appearance of symptoms of emotional
discomfort and instability, given the need to face new challenges and vital changes that generate
stress [14]. At the same time, it is a period of flexibility in which the adolescent is open and permeable
to new learning, from global knowledge to concrete skills and competencies, such as the ability to
manage one’s own emotions [15].
From early studies, parenting literature have analyzed the relation between parent–infant
relationships and children’s outcomes [16,17]. Among the social-emotional factors associated
with adolescent well-being, parental attachment relationships stand out [18,19]. In addition,
a parent–infant relationship is built on trust, communication and lack of alienation, which indicates
secure attachment. Such dimensions are conceptually related to the classic parenting factors: warmth
and communication [20,21]. Thus, the emotional bonds established between a baby and its primary
caregivers during early childhood might be influencing the future mental scheme teenagers form about
themselves and the world around them [22,23]. Children whose primary caregivers, usually the mother
and the father, were sensitive and responded appropriately to their needs, establish a bond of secure
parental attachment and, as a consequence, foster a basic attitude of trust towards others [24]. From
adolescence to mid-life, this could translate into more fluid and positive interpersonal relationships,
thanks to more effective emotional and interpersonal skills [23,25].
Adolescents with insecure attachment to parents are more likely to engage in risky behaviours,
present behavioural problems, and experience difficulties with emotional regulation, such as
impulsivity [26–28]. Conversely, adolescents who develop a secure attachment relationship with
both their parents report greater satisfaction with life and greater positive affect, less stress, stronger
self-esteem, and more interpersonal skills [18,27,29,30]. In addition, attachment security is also
associated with emotional competence, i.e., a greater ability to perceive, label, express and regulate their
emotions [28]. Most previous studies examined only attachment to the mother [31], or did not separate
maternal and paternal attachment [32], neglecting the important role of the fathers [33]. Therefore, in
this study, we explored attachment to the mother and the father separately, considering that they are
equally and strongly related to adolescents’ mental health and well-being [27].
Emotional competencies are defined as the abilities that the individual develops to manage his or
her own and other people’s emotions to function properly in a given social context [34]. The ability to
understand one’s own emotional states, to express them adequately and to regulate their intensity
has been consistently associated with different indicators of subjective well-being [35] and physical
well-being, for instance less somatic complaints and lower levels of perceived stress [36,37]. More
specifically, somatic complaints are unpleasant body-related perceptions such as stomachache and
headache, which are related to emotional dysfunction [38]. Perceived stress relates to a person’s feeling
that the demands in their life exceed their capacity to cope effectively [39].
Some research suggests that emotional competencies may function as a mediating variable
between attachment to parents and well-being in adulthood [30,40]. This mediation assumes that
the development of emotional competencies may buffer the negative effects of maintaining insecure
attachment relationships. Furthermore, adolescents who are able to establish secure attachment bonds
based on trust and communication, feel more comfortable to talk about their feelings, and therefore
understand and know how to cope with them [41]. Thus, emotional abilities could be a protective
factor of well-being, although further study is needed, especially in the adolescent population [42].
Lastly, it is important to consider the influence of sociodemographic variables, such as age and
sex, when examining the relationship among attachment, emotional competencies and well-being in
adolescence [43,44]. In terms of age, the relationship with parents seems to lose relevance in adolescence
compared to childhood, with relationships with a peer group being a priority [25,45]. At the same time,
as previously mentioned, levels of well-being are reduced with respect to children [46,47]. In terms of
sex, there seem to be differences between girls and boys in the understanding, expression and managing
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 3 of 17

of their emotions [48]. Although there is no consensus, the literature suggests that girls are more
likely to perceive and express their emotions accurately, while boys develop strategies to regulate their
negative emotions more efficiently [49].
Based on existing research [3,6,42], subjective well-being was studied through satisfaction with life
and both positive and negative affect, and physical well-being was studied through stress and somatic
complaints. Following the procedure recommended by Baron and Kenny [50], the preconditions for
mediation analysis are available in the literature: previous studies provide empirical evidence that the
predictor variable (parental attachment) appears to be significantly related to the outcome variable
(well-being) [22,26]; at the same time, the mediator variable (emotional competence) is significantly
related to the predictor [23,24] and outcome variables [29,31]. Furthermore, this study is focused on sex
and age-specific differences due to the fact that subjective well-being decreases from early to middle
adolescence, with girls presenting lower levels than boys [51]. It is also important to consider that
some authors suggest different levels of vulnerability depending on the age of adolescents, being
greater in late adolescence than in early adolescence [44]. Maintaining secure attachment bonds and
the development of emotional skills and competence at this increasingly vulnerable age is generally
hypothesized to be a good predictor of one’s sense of well-being and health [52–57].
Given the above, the objective of the present study was to provide additional evidence of the
relationship between parental attachment and the well-being of adolescents, considering the mediating
role of emotional competencies and taking into account age and gender differences. Based on existing
research, the following hypotheses were tested for whether (1) emotional competencies play a mediating
role in the relationship between attachment to the father and mother and well-being, and (2) whether
there are possible differences in sex and age in this interaction.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
The study involved 1276 students from the 1st to the 4th grade of compulsory secondary
education at 10 public, private and subsidized high schools located in the Valencian Community
(Spain). Participants’ age ranged from 12 to 15 years (M = 13.48; SD = 1.09), which is 1st to 4th
grade of compulsory high school. Subsamples were distinguished in order to examine potential sex
and age-specific differences: girls (N = 689, M = 12.76, SD = 0.76) versus boys (N = 587, M = 12.83,
SD = 0.84); early adolescents between 12 and 13 years (N = 649, Mage = 12.53, SD = 0.50) versus
late adolescents between 14 and 15 years (N = 627, M = 14.46, SD = 0.50), considering differences in
vulnerability according to age.
Regarding parents’ educational level, the distribution was as follows: university degree (31%),
high school (32%), primary studies (32%) and no studies (5%). Most of the adolescents lived with both
parents at home (78%). Otherwise, in the case where teenagers did not live together with both of them,
the reasons varied: 87% divorce, 6% father’s death, 4% mother’s death, and 3% other causes, such as
work outside the home or migration of one of the parents. With regard to siblings, 24% were an only
child, 63% had two siblings, 16% three siblings and 4% four or more siblings.

2.2. Instruments
The instruments used in this study are well-established self-report measures that have been
adapted and validated for the Spanish adolescent population.
Parental attachment. Parental attachment was measured with the Inventory of Parents and Peers
Attachment (IPPA) [58,59]. This instrument, based on Bowlby’s [60] attachment theory, assesses
adolescents’ perceptions of relationships with their parents and peers at the affective and cognitive
dimension. The instrument assesses attachment to mother, attachment to father and attachment to
peers separately. Each measure comprises 25 items with a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1= Never or almost
never; 5= Always or almost always). In the present work, only the scales of attachment to the mother
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 4 of 17

and father were used. Depending on the factor structure of this instrument [61], each attachment
scale comprises three dimensions: trust (perception of mutual trust and respect of desires and needs
by the parent towards the adolescent; e.g., “My mother/father respects my feelings”; α = 0.87 for
mother and α = 0.90 for father), communication (response capacity and verbal communication of the
parent regarding the emotional states of the adolescent; e.g., “My mother/father encourages me to talk
about my difficulties”; α = 0.84 for mother and α = 0.82 for father) and alienation (feelings of social
isolation, anger and detachment towards the parents, even though there is a need to approach them;
e.g., “I get easily angry with my mother/father”; α = 0.66 for mother and α = 0.65 for father). The total
scale was calculated combining these three dimensions with higher scores indicating more security
in the attachment relationship (Total score = Trust + Communication − Alienation). The total scales
showed good reliability in the sample of this study (α = 0.90 for attachment to mother and α = 0.91 for
attachment to father).
Emotional competencies. Emotional competencies were measured using the Emotional Skills and
Competence Questionnaire. The Spanish version was reduced to 21 items (ESCQ-21) [62], with a Likert
scale of 6 points (1 = Never; 6 = Always). This questionnaire evaluates emotional intelligence from a
competency or ability perspective and has three scales: Perception and Understanding (α = 0.84; e.g.,
“I can differentiate whether my friends are sad or disappointed”), Labelling and Expression (α = 0.90;
e.g., “I get to express my feelings in words”) and Management and Regulation (α = 0.78; e.g., “I manage
to stay in a good mood, even if something bad happens”). The questionnaire has shown good validity
and reliability [50].
Somatic complaints. Somatic complaints were assessed using the List of Somatic Complaints
(SCL) [63]. The instrument comprises 11 items with a three-point Likert scale (1= Never; 3= Often; e.g.,
“I have a stomach ache”). Participants indicate how often they experience somatic symptoms such as
stomach pain, tiredness, or back pain. The list has shown to be valid and reliable [32], which was also
the case in this study (α = 0.80).
Stress. Stress was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4) [64,65], evaluating the degree
to which situations in the last month are assessed as unpredictable and out of control. The scale
comprises four items structured on a Likert scale from 0 to 4 (0 = Never; 4 = Always; e.g., “I felt
the difficulties piled up without being able to solve them”). The scale has shown to be reliable and
valid [53]. In this study, reliability was also acceptable (α = 0.67).
Satisfaction with life. Satisfaction with life was assessed using the Life Satisfaction Scale (SWLS) [66,67].
This short scale assesses people’s satisfaction with their living conditions; it comprises five items, with a
Likert scale from 1 to 7 (1 = Completely disagree; 7 = Completely agree; e.g., “Conditions of my life are
excellent”). This scale shows good psychometric properties [55]; also in this study (α = 0.85).
Affectivity. Affectivity was measured using the Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences
(SPANE) [68]. The instrument comprises 12 items, six of which refer to positive experiences and
feelings (e.g. “In the last 4 weeks I’ve had happy feelings”) and six of which refer to negative or
worrying experiences (e.g. “In the last four weeks I’ve had sad feelings”). Participants are asked
to rate how often they have experienced positive and negative feelings over the past 4 weeks on a
five-point scale (1 = Never, 5 = Always). Both scales obtained good reliability indices: Positive Affect
scale (α = 0.87) and the Negative Affect scale (α = 0.81).

2.3. Procedure
First, the evaluation survey for adolescents was drawn up and approved, together with the list of
schools, by the Department of Education of the Valencian Community and by the ethical committee
of the University of Valencia (H1385330676977). Second, those schools that were interested in taking
part in the study were contacted. Prior to the data collection, parents were asked to sign a written
and informed consent for their children’s participation in the research. If the parents did not sign the
consent form, students were excluded from the study. Lastly, student assessments were conducted in a
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 5 of 17

50-minute session during school hours and in the presence of teachers. In carrying out this work, the
World Medical Assembly ethical standards were respected in the Helsinki Declaration.

2.4. Data Analysis

Basic descriptive statistics and Pearson bivariate correlations were carried out to estimate the
relationship between variables.
To test our hypotheses regarding gender and age-specific mediation, we conducted a multi-group
path analysis (MGPA) to express the relationship between variables in the path model using regression
equations and assessing mediation within two subgroups (age and gender) with the causal step
procedure [50,68,69]. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis with observed variables was
conducted to predict the pathways from father and mother attachment, which are estimated through
trust, communication and alienation, to somatic complaints, perceived stress, life satisfaction, positive
affect, and negative affect, acting emotional competence as a mediator, which is estimated through
perceiving and understanding emotions, expressing and labelling emotions, and managing and
regulating emotions. Total effects, direct effects and indirect effects were estimated, constructing
bootstrap confidence intervals (CI) around the estimates to assess the effects of mediators [45,62].
We conducted a stepwise multigroup analysis to evaluate potential differences among two
subgroups, girls and boys and students aged 12–13 years old (first cycle of secondary school) and
14–15 years old (second cycle of secondary school). In the first step, we applied the unrestricted model,
with all parameters estimated freely (baseline model). In the second step, a semi-restricted model
assuming equal factor loadings, free thresholds, and free regression coefficients was tested for both
subgroups. In a third step, we applied the fully restricted model, assuming equal factor loadings, equal
thresholds, and equal regression coefficients across gender and age groups. The semi-restricted and
fully restricted models were compared using the χ2 difference test [70].
All analyses were conducted using the statistical software Mplus version 7.0 [71] and maximum
likelihood estimation (MLR) with robust standard errors and chi-square values. In addition, confidence
intervals around the estimates have been constructed to assess the effects of mediators [72,73], which
diminish bias caused by the non-normality in the sampling distribution of indirect effects [74].
Model fit was estimated in Mplus using four main fit indices for the model fit as recommended
by Hu and Bentler [75]: chi-square test of model fit (χ2 ), root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR). To account
for missing data, the models were estimated with full information maximum likelihood (FIML).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Relationships among Variables

Descriptive statistics (range, means, standard deviation, skewness and curtosis) are presented in
Table 1. Skewness values below 2 and Kurtosis values below 7 indicate normal distribution, thus the
variables of this study can be handled as normal distribution [76].
Bivariate correlations have been performed to study the relationship between variables. Regarding
the relationship between attachment and emotional competencies (Table 2), it has been shown that
the total score of attachment security to mother and father is significantly and positively related to
emotional competencies. Similarly, all dimensions of parental attachment (trust, communication,
alienation) are significantly related to welfare variables. Specifically, attachment to both parents is
positively and meaningfully related to life satisfaction and positive affect, and meaningfully and
negatively to somatic complaints, stress and negative affect. The highest correlations are with life
satisfaction and stress.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 6 of 17

Table 1. Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), Range, Skewness and Kurtosis.

Measures Rank M (SD) Skewness Kurtosis

1. Mother attachment 83 62.34 (14.83) −0.70 0.15
1.1. Trust mother 48 41.99 (6.30) −1.55 3.63
1.2. Communication mother 41 34.26 (6.87) −0.63 0.12
1.3. Alienation mother 28 14.03 (4.55) 0.25 −0.39
2. Father attachment 84 57.73 (16.51) −0.83 0.62
2.1. Trust Father 48 40.20 (7.79) −1.51 2.68
2.2. Communication father 88 31.38 (8.10) −0.19 1.94
2.3. Alienation father 28 14.31 (4.91) 0.41 −0.13
3. Perceive and understand emotions 68 67.08 (10.84) −0.54 0.74
4. Express and label emotions 65 59.03 (11.62) −0.48 0.18
5. Manage and regulate emotions 67 73.54 (10.41) −0.68 0.67
6. Somatic complaints 2 1.47 (0.32) 1.18 1.80
7. Stress 14 8.27 (2.18) 0.36 0.19
8. Life satisfaction 30 25.71 (6.44) −0.68 −0.12
9. Positive affect 25 22.40 (4.88) −0.46 −0.24
10. Negative affect 2 12.93 (4.58) 0.40 0.04

In terms of emotional competencies, it has been shown that the perception and understanding
of emotions is significantly negatively related to stress and significantly positively related to life
satisfaction and positive affect. It does not correlate significantly with somatic complaints or negative
affect. The scales of expression and labeling, along with handling and regulation, correlate significantly
negatively with somatic complaints, stress and negative affect, and positively with life satisfaction and
positive affect. The strongest correlations are observed between emotional management and regulation,
and satisfaction with life and positive affect.

3.2. Mediating Role of Emotional Competence

We conducted a multi-group path analysis (MGPA) expressing mediation in terms of direct,
indirect, and total effects and estimated how paths that constitute these effects vary across gender
and age groups. The model included direct paths (1) from mother and father attachment (trust,
communication and alienation) to perceived emotional competence (perceive, express and manage
emotions) and self-report measures of well-being (life satisfaction, positive and negative affect, somatic
complains and perceived stress), along with (2) emotional competence to well-being. In addition, the
model comprised an indirect path from parent attachment to well-being through emotional competence
(Figure 1). Model fit indices indicated a good fit of the data: χ2 (49) = 305.26, p < 0.001, χ2 /gl = 6.23,
RMSEA = 0.06 [0.05–0.07], CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.05.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 7 of 17

Table 2. Intercorrelations among variables studied.

Measures 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Mother attachment 0.71 ** 0.55 ** 0.63 ** −0.40 ** 0.21 ** 0.36 ** 0.38 ** −0.29 ** −0.46 ** 0.52 ** 0.38 ** −0.29 **
1.1. Trust mother 0.60 ** 0.57 ** 0.49 ** −0.30 ** 0.18 ** 0.27 ** 0.32 ** −0.21 ** −0.38 ** 0.45 ** 0.31 ** −0.21 **
1.2. Communication mother 0.66 ** 0.45 ** 0.67 ** −0.33 ** 0.24 ** 0.37 ** 0.39 ** −0.20 ** −0.35 ** 0.44 ** 0.33 ** −0.19 **
1.3. Alienation mother −0.50 ** −0.37 ** −0.39 ** 0.41 ** -0.07 * −0.27 ** −0.26 ** 0.35 ** 0.48 ** −0.43 ** −0.32 ** 0.35 **
2. Attachment father 0.90 ** 0.90 ** −0.69 ** 0.18 ** 0.32 ** 0.36 ** −0.31 ** −0.45 ** 0.57 ** 0.35 ** −0.28 **
2.1. Trust father 0.76 −0.46 ** 0.14 ** 0.21 ** 0.27 ** −0.27 ** −0.36 ** 0.43 ** 0.27 ** −0.22 **
2.2. Communication father −0.43 ** 0.22 ** 0.32 ** 0.33 ** −0.25 ** −0.35 ** 0.44 ** 0.28 ** −0.20 **
2.3. Alienation father −0.07 −0.20 ** −0.23 ** 0.27 ** 0.39 ** −0.40 ** −0.27 ** 0.29 **
3. Perceive and understand emotions 0.59 ** 0.66 ** −0.02 −0.22 ** 0.27 ** 0.25 ** −0.02
4. Express and label emotions 0.69 ** −0.26 ** −0.39 ** 0.42 ** 0.41 ** −0.20 **
5. Manage and regulation emotions −0.26 ** −0.41 ** 0.48 ** 0.49 ** −0.19 **
6. Somatic complaints 0.43 ** −0.37 ** −0.37 ** 0.41 **
7. Stress −0.55 ** −0.43 ** 0.41 **
8. Life satisfaction 0.49 ** −0.33 **
9. Positive affect −0.36 **
10. Negative affect
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
somatic complains and perceived stress), along with (2) emotional competence to well-being. In
addition, the model comprised an indirect path from parent attachment to well-being through
emotional competence (Figure 1). Model fit indices indicated a good fit of the data: χ² (49) =
305.26, p < .001, χ²/gl = 6.23, RMSEA = 0.06 [0.05–0.07], CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.05.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 8 of 17

.24
.13
-.10
-.04
-.20
Trust .87 Life Satisfaction
Express Perceive Manage
.84 emotions emotions emotions .34
Communication
Attachment Positive affect
-.58
Mother .79 .46 .90
Alienation .41 .46

-.15 Negative affect

.63 Emotional
Trust .88 Competence
.12
-.26 Somatic
.87 complains
Attachment
Communication
-.55 Father
-.31
.22
Alienation Perceived stress
.08
-.14
-.20
-.19

Figure 1. Path model: Interplay of mother and father attachment with self-reported measures
Figure 1. Path mediated
of well-being model: Interplay of mother
by perceived and father
emotional attachment
competence. with
Note: self-reported
Significant measures
effects shown ofas
well-being
standardized mediated by (β);
coefficients perceived emotional
continuous pathwayscompetence.
are significant at p <
Note: Significant
0.01, dottedeffects shown
pathways as
are not
standardized coefficients
significant; factor loadings(β);
arecontinuous pathways are significant at p < 0.01, dotted pathways are
standardized.
not significant; factor loadings are standardized.
Total, direct and indirect effects. In this mediation model, the associations between the emotional
Total, direct
competence and indirectexpressing
of perceiving, effects. In this
andmediation
managingmodel,
emotionsthe and
associations
measuresbetween the emotional
of well-being (such as
life satisfaction,
competence positive and
of perceiving, negativeand
expressing affect, somaticemotions
managing complains andand perceived
measures stress) were
of well-being highly
(such as
life satisfaction,
significant (Tablepositive and negative
3). In addition, affect,
the direct somatic
effects complains
of mother and perceived
and father attachmentstress)
on suchwere highly
emotional
significant
competence(Table 3). In addition,
were significant, and the the direct
direct effects
paths of mother
of parent and and
attachment father lifeattachment
satisfaction,on such
positive
emotional
and negative competence were significant,
affect, and perceived stress were and the direct
significant, paths partial
indicating of parent attachment
mediation, and life
even though the
satisfaction,
direct effect ofpositive
motherand negativeonaffect,
attachment somaticandcomplains
perceivedwas stress were significant,
not significant, indicating
indicating partial
full mediation.
mediation,
The indirecteven though
effects the and
of mother direct effect
father of mother
attachment attachment
mediated on somatic
by emotional complains
competence was
were not
found
significant, indicating
to be significant. full mediation.
Overall, 41% of the The indirect
variance effects
of life of mother
satisfaction 2 = 0.41),
(Rand father33% attachment mediated
of the variance of
by emotional
positive (R2 = 0.33), 10%
affect competence wereof found to be ofsignificant.
the variance negative affect (R2 =41%
Overall, 0.10),of16%the ofvariance of life
the variance of
satisfaction
somatic complaints (R2 =33%
(R2 = 0.41), ofand
0.16) the32%
variance
of theof positive
variance of affect (R2 =stress
perceived 0.33), 2 = 0.32)
(R10% of the variance
were explainedof
negative
through theaffect (R2 = 0.10),
combined 16%
effects ofof themediation
this variance model,
of somatic
takingcomplaints
into account(R2 =shared
0.16) variance
and 32% among
of the
variance
variables of perceived stress (R2 = 0.32) were explained through the combined effects of this
(63).
mediation model, taking into account shared variance among variables (63).
3.3. Gender and Age Differences
For the previously estimated model, three multi-group path analyses for each subgroup
(unrestricted model, semi-restricted model and fully-restricted model) were carried out to identify
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x; doi: www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
potential sex and age-specific differences in the association between parent attachment and self-report
measures of well-being mediated by perceived emotional competence among adolescents (Table 4).
 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 9 of 17
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 9 of 17
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 9 of 17
Table 3. Coefficients of total, direct, and indirect effects.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 9 of 17
Table 3. Coefficients of total, direct, and indirect effects.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 9 of 17
Total effect Direct effect Indirect effect
Paths Table 3. Coefficients of total, direct, and indirect effects. Indirect effect
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16,Total x effect Direct effect 9 of 17
Paths Table 3. Coefficients Table c 3. of SE Coefficients
total, 95% CI and indirect
direct, ofc’ total, SE direct,
effects. 95% CI and ab indirect SE effects.95% CI
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x 9 of 17
Attachment Father  Emotional c SE Total 95%effectCI c’ SE Direct 95% CI effect ab SE Indirect 95% effect
CI
Paths Table 3.Total .26 ***
Coefficients .04 of(.17, total,.34)direct,.22and*** indirect
.04 (.14, 29)
effects. .04 ** .01 (.01, .07)
Competence
Attachment Father Emotional
Life Satisfaction Total Effect .04 **Direct
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,***16, x .04effect Direct effect IndirectEffect effect 9 of 17 Indirect Effect
Competence Res.
Attachment Paths
Life Mother Paths
Satisfaction Table 3. .26
 Emotional Coefficients c of(.17, SE.34)direct,
total, 95%.22 *** indirect
CIand .04
c’ (.14,
SE 29) 95% CI
effects. .01
ab (.01,
SE .07) 95% CI
Int. J. Environ. Public Health 2019, 16, x .37SE ***cTotal .04effect (.29, .46)c’ 95% .24SE ***Direct.04 effect (.15, .32) ab SE .14 SE ***Indirect .02 9 of 17 .18)
(.10,
Attachment
Mother  Life
Competence
Attachment Father  Emotional
Satisfaction
Emotional c 95% SE
CI CI 95% CI c’ 95% 95%CI
effect CI ab SE 95% CI
Paths Table
.37 ***3. .26.04***
Coefficients .04.46)
(.29, of(.17,
total,.34)direct,
.24 .22
***Direct *** (.15,
and
.04 .04.32) (.14,
indirect 29)
effects.
.14 ***Indirect.04.02** effect .01 .18)(.01, .07)
(.10,
AttachmentCompetence
Int.
Competence J.Father
 Life
Environ.  Res.Life
Emotional
Public
Satisfaction Satisfaction
Health 2019, 16,Total
x .04 effect effect 9 of 17
Attachment
Attachment Father
Paths Father  Emotional
Emotional .26
Table 3. Coefficients *** c 0.26 (.17,
SE .34) 95% .22
CI *** .04
c’ (.14,
SE 29) 95% CI .04 ** ab .01 (.01,
SE .07) 95% CI
Competence Res.
Attachment
Int. J. Environ. Life Mother
Satisfaction
Public Health  Emotional
2019, 16, x .14 *** of .04 total, 0.04 direct,
(.06, .21)and
(0.17,indirect
.080.34)
** effects.
.03 0.22
(.01,***
.15) 0.04
.05 ** .02(0.14, 1729).09)
9 of (.02, 0.04 ** 0.01 (0.01, 0.07)
Competence
Attachment Father 
Competence
Attachment
Attachment MotherFather
Competence
Life
 
Positive
Emotional
Life Satisfaction
Emotional
Affect
Emotional
Satisfaction c .37SE***Total .04effect
95% CI (.29, .46) c’ .24
SE***Direct .04 CI
95% (.15, .32)ab
effect .14SE ***Indirect .02
95% CI (.10, .18)
effect
Paths .14 *** .26.04 *** (.29, (.06,
.04 .46).21)(.17, .08 ** .22.03
.34) (.01,
*** indirect .15)
.04 .32) (.14, 29) .05 ** .04.02 ** (.02, .09)
.01 .18) (.01, .07)
   Table.37 3.
*** Coefficients
.04 of total, .24direct,
*** and
.04 (.15, effects. .14 *** .02 (.10,
Life
Attachment
Competence
Competence
Attachment Father Mother
Positive Affect
Life
Emotional Emotional
Satisfaction Total effect Direct
CompetenceInt. J.
Attachment Environ.
Attachment Mother
Paths
Res. Public
Satisfaction
Father  Emotional
Health 2019,
Emotional .26 ***16,.32x .04
***
c0.37 .04
(.17,
SE.34) (.24,
95% .40)
.22 *** .13
CIand ***effect
.04
c’ .04
SE 29)(.05,
(.14, 95% .21)CI
Indirect
.04 ** .19ab *** effect
.01 .02
(.01,
SE .07) (.14,
95%
9.23)
of 17 0.14
CI
Res.
Competence
Attachment Mother  Positive
Emotional Table
Affect 3. Coefficients
 Emotional ***of(.24,total,
.040.04 direct, (0.29,indirect
0.46) effects.
0.24 ***.15)
.19ab***0.04 (0.15, 0.32) 0.02 (0.10, 0.18)
Attachment
Competence
Int. J. Environ. Life Mother
Satisfaction
Public Health 2019, 16, .32 x *** .37 .14 (.06, .13
.21) .08 ** (.05,.03.21) (.01, .05 ** (.14, .02
9 .23) (.02,
of (.10,
17 .09)
Competence
AttachmentCompetence
Father
Attachment   Life
Father  Emotional
Positive
EmotionalSatisfactionAffect c .04
***
SE ***Total 95% .40)
.04effectCI(.29, .46) c’*** .24.04
SE***Direct.04 effect
95% CI(.15, .32) .14 .02***Indirect
SE .02
95%effect
CI .18) ***
Competence  Positive
Competence
Attachment Mother  Affect
Life Satisfaction
Emotional .14 *** .26 .04*** (.06, .21)(.17, .34)
.08 ** .22 .03*** (.01, .15) (.14, 29) .05 ** .04 .02** (.02, .09)(.01, .07)
Attachment Father 
Paths Emotional
 Emotional Table
.37 *** 3. Coefficients
.04 .04.46)
(.29, of total,
.24 direct,
*** and
.04 .04.32)
indirect
(.15, effects.
.14 *** .02 .01 .18)
(.10,
Competence
Attachment 
Attachment
Competence
Father 
Positive 
Mother Affect
Life
Emotional Satisfaction −.16
Total ***
effect .04 (−.24, −.08) −.14
Direct *** .04
effect (−.22, −.07) −.02
Indirect ** effect.01 (−.03, −.01)
Int.
Competence J. 
Environ.
Life Res. Public
Satisfaction Health 2019, 16, x
*** .32 *** (.17, .04.34)95% (.24,CI.40)*** .13 9 of 17
Competence
Attachment
AttachmentFather
Attachment 
Father
Paths Father  Emotional
Negative
Emotional Affect3. .26
Emotional
Table Coefficients c.040.14 SE .22 c’ *** (.14,
.04 SE.04 29)95% (.05,CI .21)
.04 ** .19 ab .01*** (.01, SE.02 .07)95%
(.14,CI.23)
Attachment
Competence
Int. J. Environ. Res.
Competence
Mother
Attachment Life 
Mother Positive
Emotional
Satisfaction
Public Health  Emotional
Affect
2019, 16,−.16 x *** .14 *** of
.04 total,
(−.24,
.04 0.04 direct,
−.08)
(.06, −.14and
.21) *** indirect
(0.06,.08 0.21)
.04** (−.22,effects.
.03 0.08
−.07)(.01,**.15)−.02 **0.03 .01
.05.02 ** (−.03, (0.01,
.02 −.01) 0.15)
of (.02,
9 .23) 17 .09) 0.05 ** 0.02 (0.02, 0.09)

Attachment
Competence Positive
Mother Affect .32c*** −.16
Emotional
Emotional .37.04 *** (.24, .04.40) (.29, .13c’*** −.10
.46) .04
.24
SE*** (.05,
.04.21) .19ab***
(.15, .32) .14SE *** (.14, .02 (.10, .18)
Competence
Attachment
Attachment  Negative
Competence
Father
Attachment
CompetenceCompetence
Mother Father
Positive 
Affect

Positive
Emotional
Affect
Life
Emotional
Affect
Satisfaction .14 ***
SE
.04 *** Total 95%
(.06,
CI
.07 effect(−.24,
.21) −.08)
.08 ** .03
95%
* Direct CI
.04 .15)
(.01, effect
(−.18,−.01) .05 ** −.06 ***Indirect
.02
95%
.02
(.02,
CI
effect
(−.10,−.03)
.09)
Attachment Father
EmotionalPaths
 Emotional
AffectTable .37 *** .26
3.Total ***
Coefficients
.04effect .04
(.29, (.17,
of(−.24,
.46) .34)
total,.24 direct,.22
***Direct ***
and
.04 .04
indirect
(.15, .32) (.14, 29)
effects. .04
.14 ***Indirect **
.02**effect .01
(.10, .18)(.01, .07)
Attachment
Attachment 
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence
Competence
Father 
Mother
Positive Negative
Emotional
Affect
Life Emotional
Satisfaction −.16 *** .04 −.08) −.14 ***
effect .04 (−.22, −.07) −.02 .01 (−.03, −.01)
CompetenceInt. J.Environ.
Life Res.
Satisfaction Public AffectHealth 2019,−.16 16,.32
*** x .04
.07 9.23)
of 17 0.19
AttachmentCompetence
AttachmentFather
Attachment
 Life 
Mother
Paths Father  Emotional
Negative
Emotional Emotional
Table
Affect 3.−.16
.26 ***
Coefficients c0.32(−.24,
*** SE−.08)
.04
(.17, .34)(.24,
95% −.10
.40)
.22
CIand* .13.04
*** .04
*** (−.18,−.01)
c’ .04
SE 29)(.05,
(.14, 95% −.06
.21) *** .19ab
.04 **
CI .02
*** (−.10,−.03)
.01 .02
(.01,
SE .07) (.14,
95% CI
Competence 
Competence
Attachment Mother
Attachment
Competence
Attachment
Int. J. Environ.
Negative
Mother Affect
Positive
Satisfaction
Father
Res. Public  Emotional
Emotional
Health Emotional
2019, 16, .32 x *** *** .14 .04***of total,
(−.24,.040.04 direct,
−.08) (.06,−.14
.21) *** indirect
(0.24, 0.40)
.04
.08 effects.
** (−.22, 0.13
−.07)
.03.21) ***.15)
(.01, −.02 **0.04 .05.01** (−.03, (0.05,
.02 −.01)
9 .23) 0.21)
(.02,
of (.10,
17 .09) 0.02 (0.14, 0.23)
Competence 
Attachment  
Mother Emotional
Emotional .37.04******Total (.24,
.04 .40) .13
(.29, −.14)
.46)c’*** −.20
.24.04*** (.05,
.04 (.15, .32) .19ab*** .14 .02*** (.14,
.02 .18) ***
Competence
Attachment
Competence  Negative
Competence
Father
Attachment
Competence
Attachment MotherPositive


Father Affect
Positive
Emotional
Affect
Life 
Positive Affect
Affect
Satisfaction
Emotional .14
c −.23
*** −.16SE
.04
****** .04
95%
.07
(.06,
(−.32,
CI
effect
.21)(−.24, −.08)
.08 **
SE
−.10
.03
***Direct
* .04
95%
.04
(.01,
CI(−.28,
effect
.15)
−.11)
(−.18,−.01) .05 **
−.03
−.06 SE
.02
*****
Indirect .01
95%
.02
(.02,
(−.05,
CI
effect
.09)
−.01)
(−.10,−.03)
Competence
Attachment Father
Attachment Father
 
Somatic
Emotional
Paths Complaints
Emotional Table
.37 *** 3. .26 *** (.29,
Coefficients
.04 .04.46) of (.17,
total,.34)direct,
.24 *** .22 *** (.15,
and
.04 .04.32) (.14,
indirect 29)
effects.
.14 *** .04.02 ** (.10, .01 .18)(.01, .07)
Attachment 
Competence
Mother  Negative
Emotional Affect
Life
Competence
AttachmentAttachment
Competence
J.FatherPositive Mother Affect
Life
Emotional Emotional
Satisfaction −.23 *** −.16 .04 *** (−.32,
.04 −.14)
(−.24, −.20 *** .04 (−.28, −.11) −.03 ** .01 (−.05, −.01)
Int.
Competence 
Environ.

Attachment
Competence  Res. Public
Satisfaction
Mother Emotional Health 2019,
Emotional −.16******Total
16, x.32 .07 effect
*** (−.24,.04−.08) (.24,−.08)
−.10***
.40) −.14
*Direct.04***effect
.04
c’ *** (−.18,−.01)
.13 .04 29)(−.22,
(.05,−.07)
−.06
.21) *** −.02
Indirect
.19 .02**
***effect .01
(−.10,−.03)(−.03,
.02 .07) 9 −.01)
(.14,of.23)
17 −0.02
Attachment
Attachment
Competence
Attachment  Somatic
Competence
Father
Attachment

Competence
Mother Father
Paths Father
Negative 
Complaints

Negative
Emotional
Affect
Positive
Emotional
Affect
Emotional
Table
Emotional
Affect 3. .26
Coefficients
***−.14
−0.16
c.04 *** of
(.17,
SE
total,
.04
.34)direct,
95%
(−.23,
.22
CI
(.06, −.06) and .04
*** indirect
−.04
(.14,
SE
effects.
.05
−0.14
95%
(−.13, CI
.05)
.04 **
−.11ab .01
*** (−.03,
(.01,
SE
.02 95% CI
CompetenceAttachment
Attachment
Int. J. Environ. Res.
Competence
Attachment Mother
Life

Mother
Satisfaction
Father
Public 
Health
Somatic 
Emotional
Emotional
2019, 16,−.16
Complaints x ***
.32 .37
.04
.14.04***
***
(−.24,
.04
(.24,
.04
0.04
−.08)
.40) (−0.24,
−.14
.21)
(.29, .13
.46)*** .08 −0.08)
.04
.04
.24
** (−.22,
***
.03
(.05,
.04
−.07)
.21) (.01, .15)
***
−.02 **0.04
.19ab***
(.15, .32)
.01
.05.02
.14SE
**
***
(−0.22,
.02
(.14, of(−.14,
−.01)
9 .23)
.02
(.02,
17 −.07)
−0.07)
.09)
(.10, .18) **
0.01 (−0.03, −0.01)
Attachment
Competence
Competence
Competence
Attachment Father
Attachment
 
Negative
Mother
Father Affect

Negative
Positive
Emotional Emotional
Affect −.14
Affect
Emotional −.23
c ***−.16 SE *** .04
95%
Total CI
effect(−.32, −.14)
c’ −.20
SE *** .04
95%
Direct CI (−.28,
effect −.11) −.03 **
Indirect .01
95% CI (−.05,
effect −.01)
Competence
Attachment
AttachmentCompetence
Mother
Competence
Father
Attachment
Positive
 
 Affect
Life
Emotional
Somatic
Emotional
Father Satisfaction
 EmotionalComplaints
Emotional .14 *** .26.04 .04
*** (−.23,
*** (.06, .07 .21)
.04 −.06)
(−.24,
(.17, −.04
−.08)
.08 ** .22
.34) .05
−.10
.03
*** (−.13,
* (.01,.04 .05)
.04 .15) (−.18,−.01)
(.14, 29)−.11 ***
.05 ** −.06 .02
.04.02 *** (.02,
.02
** (−.14, −.07)
.02 .09)
.01 (−.10,−.03)
(.01, .07)
Competence
Attachment  Somatic

Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence 

Mother
Positive Complaints
Paths
Negative 
Emotional
Affect AffectTable .37 ***
−.23 3.Total
*** Coefficients
.04
.04 (.29,
(−.32, of(−.24,
.46)
−.14)total, .24direct,
−.20 ***
*** and
.04
.04 indirect
(.15,
(−.28, .32)
−.11) effects. .14 ***
−.03 **Indirect .01 (.10,
(−.05, .18)
−.01)
Competence
Attachment
CompetenceInt. Father
Attachment

J. Environ.
Life Father Life
Res. 
Emotional
Satisfaction Satisfaction
Emotional
Public
EmotionalHealth 2019,
−.16 16,
*** −.16
x .07 ***
effect
(−.24,.04 −.08) −.08)
−.10 * −.14
Direct
.04 ***
effect .04
(−.18,−.01) (−.22, −.07)
−.06 *** −.02.02 ** effect .01
(−.10,−.03) (−.03,9 −.01)
of 17
Competence
Attachment 
Attachment
 Somatic
Competence
AttachmentFather
Attachment  
Mother
Mother
Paths Father Complaints

Negative
Emotional Emotional
Affect3. .26
Emotional
Table
.32.04
*** −.23
Coefficients
***
−0.16
c*** .04
(.17,
SE.34)
.04 (.24,
(−.31,
95% .40)
.22
−.15)
CIand .13.04
*** −.19 ***
c’ .04
*** (.14, SE 29)
.04 (.05,
(−.26,
95% .21)
−.11).04 ** −.04
CI .19ab ***
.01***** (.01,.02
SE .07)
.01 (.14,
(−.06,
95% .23)
−.01)
CI −0.06
Competence
Attachment
Competence 
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence
Attachment Father
Attachment
Int. J. Environ.
Negative
Life
Res. 

Mother Affect
Positive
Satisfaction
Father
Public 
Perceived
Emotional Emotional
Emotional
Health
Affect
Emotional
Stress
2019, 16,−.16
x *** *** −.14
.14.04*** ***of total,
(−.24,.04
.04 0.07 direct,
(−.23,
−.08) −.06)
(.06,−.14
.21) *** indirect
(−0.24, −.04
−0.08)
.04
.08 effects.
.05
** (−.22,
.03 −.07) (−.13,
−0.10 .05)
(.01,*.15)
−.02 **0.04−.11
.05.01** .02
(−.03,
.02 of (−.14,
(−0.18,−0.01)
−.01)
9 .23) −.07)
(.02, .09)
17 0.02 (−0.10,−0.03)
Attachment
Competence 
Competence
Mother
Attachment  

Mother Somatic
Emotional Emotional
Complaints
Emotional .32 .37.04******Total (.24,
.04 .40) .13
(.29, −.14)
.46)c’*** .24.04*** (.05,
.04 .21) (.15, .32) .19ab*** .14 .02*** (.14,
.02 (.10, .18) ***
Competence
Attachment
Competence
Attachment  Negative
Competence
Father
Attachment

Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence Positive


Father
Mother
Perceived
Affect
Negative
Affect
Life 
Positive
Emotional

Satisfaction
Emotional
Stress
Affect −.23
Affect
Emotional −.14
.14
c ***
***−.23
*** −.16
.04
SE
.04
.04
*** (−.31,
.04
95%
***(−.23, .07
(.06,
−.15)
(−.32,
CI
effect
−.06)
.21)(−.24,
−.19
−.04
−.08)
.08
***−.20
**
.04
SE
.05
−.10
.03
(−.26,
***Direct
.04
95%
* (−.13,
(.01,
−.11)
CI(−.28,
.04effect
.05)
.15)
−.04
−.11)
−.11
(−.18,−.01) .05
** −.03
***
** −.06
.01
SE
.02
.02
***** (−.06,
Indirect .01
95%
(−.14,
(.02,
−.01)
(−.05,
CI
.02effect
−.07)
.09)
−.01)
(−.10,−.03)
Competence
Attachment
Competence Father
Attachment
 Somatic Father
 
Somatic
Emotional
Complaints
Paths Complaints
Emotional
EmotionalAffectTable .37 *** 3. .26 ***
Coefficients
.04 .04
(.29, of
.46) (.17,
total,.34)
.24 direct,
*** .22 ***
and
.04 .04
indirect
(.15, .32) (.14, 29)
effects.
.14 *** .04.02 ** .01
(.10, .18) (.01, .07)
Attachment
Competence
Attachment 
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence
Father
Attachment 
Positive 
Mother
Father Negative
Emotional
Affect
Life
Emotional  Emotional
Satisfaction −.23 *** −.32
−.16 .04 ***
*** .04
(−.32,
.04 (−.40,
−.14)
(−.24, −.25)
−.20
−.08) *** −.20
−.14.04***
*** .04
(−.28,
.04 (−.28,
−.11)
(−.22, −.11)
−.03
−.07) ** −.13
−.02 ***
.01** .02
(−.05,
.01 (−.17,
−.01)
(−.03, −.09)
−.01)
Competence 

Competence
Attachment Mother
Attachment
Competence Life 
Satisfaction
Mother PerceivedEmotional
Emotional Stress −.16
Emotional ***Total
.32.07 effect
*** (−.24,.04−.08)
.04 (.24,CI.40) *Direct
−.10*** .04
.13
c’ ***
effect
(−.18,−.01)
.04 (.05,CI −.06
.21) Indirect
*** .19 .02***effect
(−.10,−.03)
.02 (.14,CI.23)
Attachment
Attachment
Competence  Somatic
Competence
Attachment Father
Attachment
Competence 
Competence
Mother
Attachment Father
Paths Father
Negative
Life  

Mother
Complaints

Negative
Emotional
Affect
Positive
Emotional
Satisfaction
Affect
Emotional
Table
Emotional
Affect
Emotional
.26
3.−.16
−.32 ***
Coefficients−.23
***−.14
***
−0.23
c.04
.04
.04 ******of (.17,
SE
total,
(−.40,
.04
(−.24,
.34)(−.31,
−.25)95%
direct,
(−.23,
0.04
−.08)
.22
−.15)
−.20
−.06)and
(−0.32,
−.14 ***
.04
−.19
*** indirect
.04
−.04
−0.14)
.04
(.14,
***(−.28,
SE
.05
** (−.22,
29)
.04−.11)
effects. −0.20
(−.26,
95%
(−.13,
−.07)
.04 **
−.11)
−.13
.05)
−.02 *** −.04
−.11
**0.04
ab .01
.02
.01
(.01,
***** (−.03,SE.01 .07)
(−.17,
.02
(−0.28,
(−.06,
−.09)95%
(−.14,
−.01)
−.01) −0.03
−.07)
−0.11) 0.01 (−0.05, −0.01)
Attachment
CompetenceCompetence
Father
Attachment
 
Perceived Emotional
Father 
Perceived
Stress Stress .14.04*** .04 (.06, .21) .08 .03 (.01, .15) .05.02 ** .02 (.02, .09)
Attachment
Competence 
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence Note:
Competence
Attachment Father
Attachment
 
Negative
c,
Mother
c’,
Father Somatic
ab
Somatic
Positive
Emotional=Estimators
Emotional
Affect Complaints
Emotional
Complaints
Affect
Emotional .32total,
−.23
of c***
*** .37.04
direct
−.23SE *** and(.24,
(−.31,
***Total .04 .40)
−.15)
.04indirect
95% CI
effect(−.32, .13
(.29,−.19c’***
.46) *** SE
effects.
−.14) .04
.24
SE=***
.04
−.20 (.05,
.04.21)
.04
(−.26,
Standard
*** 95%
Direct −.11)
CI ***
Error.
(−.28,
effect
.19
(.15, .32) ab***
−.04
95
−.11) % .14=.01
** CI−.03 SE ***
95% (.14,
.01 .23)
.02
(−.06,
**Indirect
95% −.01)
bootstraps
CI (.10, .18)
(−.05,
effect −.01) **
Competence
Attachment
Competence
Attachment 
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence
Father
Attachment
Positive

Perceived

Mother
Father
Affect
Life
Emotional
Stress
Somatic
Emotional 
Satisfaction
Emotional
 EmotionalComplaints
Emotional −.14
.14 ***
*** −.16
.26 .04
.04 *** (−.23,
****** (.29, .07
(.06,
.04 −.06)
(−.24,
.21) −.04
−.08)
.08
(.17, .34) ** .22 .05
−.10
.03 * (−.13,
.04
(.01,
****** (.15,
.04 .05)
.15)(−.18,−.01)
(.14, 29) −.11
.05 ***
** −.06
.04 .02
***
.02 (−.14,
***** (.10, .02
(.02,
.01 −.07)
(−.10,−.03)
.09)(.01, .07)
Competence
Attachment 

Competence
MotherSomatic 
 Complaints
Paths
Negative 
Emotional Affect .37 *** −.32.04 .04 .46)(−.40, .24 ***
−.25) .04
−.20 .04 .32) (−.28, .14
−.11) *** −.13 .02 .02 .18)(−.17, −.09)
Life
Note:
Competence c,
Attachment
Competence
Attachment c’,
Father
Attachment ab
Positive
Confidence =
Mother
FatherEstimators
Affect
Life 
Emotional Satisfaction
Emotional
Intervals; of total,
***p <−.16 direct
−.23
0.001.*** and
−.16
**p .04
<*** indirect
(−.32,
***(−.24,
0.01. *p.04 effects.
−.14)
< 0.05. (−.24, SE
−.20
−.08)=
***Standard
.04
−.14 *** Error.
(−.28, −.11)
.04 (−.22,95 % CI
−.03
−.07)= 95%
** bootstraps
−.02.01 (−.05,
**effect −.01)
.01 (−.03, −.01)
Competence
Attachment
Competence 

Competence
Mother
Attachment  
Satisfaction

Mother Perceived
Emotional  Stress
Emotional ***Total
.32 .07 effect
SE−.08)
.04 (.24, −.10
.40) *Direct
.13 .04
*** effect
(−.18,−.01)
.04 (.05, −.06
.21) Indirect
*** .19 .02
*** (−.10,−.03)
.02 (.14, .23)
Attachment
Attachment
Competence  Somatic
Competence
Father
Attachment

Competence
Attachment Mother
Attachment
Competence Life Mother
Paths
Negative


Father
Mother
Complaints
Positive
Satisfaction

Negative
Emotional
Affect

Emotional
Affect
Emotional
Emotional
Affect
Emotional
.26 ***
−.32
−.16 ***
< ***
−.23
−.14
−0.14
.04
c***
.04
.04
(.17,
.04
(−.40,
<***0.05.
(−.24,.04
.34)
(−.31,
−.25)
0.04 95%
(−.23,
−.08)
.22
CI ***
−.15)
−.20
−.06)***−.19
(−0.23,
(.06,−.14 ***
.04
.04
−.04
−0.06)
.04
(.14,
*** (−.28,
c’ .04
.05
** (−.22,
29)
SE−.11)(−.26,
95%
(−.13,
−0.04
−.07)
−.11).04 **
CI
−.13
.05)
−.02 *** −.04
**0.05−.11
.01
ab
.02
.01 ** (−.03,
(.01,
***** (−.17, SE .07)
.01
.02 (−.06,
−.09)
(−0.13, 95%
(−.14,
−.01)
−.01)
0.05) CI
−.07)
−0.11
0.02 (−0.14, −0.07)
Competence
Attachment Father
Confidence
Attachment
Competence Note: Intervals;
Father
Perceived 
Perceived
Emotional ***p
Stress <Stress
Emotional 0.001. **p 0.01. *p
.14 *** .04 .21) .08 .03 (.01, .15) .05 .02 (.02, .09)
Attachment
Competence
Competence
Attachment 
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence
Father
Attachment
 
Negative 
Mother
c, Somatic
Emotional
c’, Affect
ab
Somatic
Emotional
Father 
Positive =Estimators
Complaints
Emotional
Affect −.23
Complaints
Emotional .32
ofc***
***
total,
−.23 .04
.37direct
***
.04
SE *** (−.31,
*** (.24,
.04
and
.04
95% .40)
indirect
(−.32,
CI .13
(.29, −.14)
−.15) .46)
−.19 ***
effects.
c’ .24
***−.20 .04
***
.04
SE
SE (.05,
.04
= (−.26,
*** Standard
.04
95% .21)
−.11)
CI (.15, .32)
Error.
(−.28, .19ab
95***
−.04
−.11) **%−.03CI.02
.14 ***
.01
SE=**95% (.14,
.02
(−.06,
.01
95% .23)(.10, .18)
−.01)
bootstraps
(−.05,
CI −.01) ***
Competence
Attachment 
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence
Competence
Attachment FatherPositive


Mother
Perceived Affect
Life Emotional
Satisfaction
Emotional
Stress

Somatic
Emotional Emotional
Complaints −.14 ***
.14 *** −.16 .04
.04*** (−.23,
*** (.06, −.06)
.07.21) (−.24, −.04
−.08)
.08 ** .22 .05
−.10
.03*** (−.13,
* (.01, .05)
.04.15)(−.18,−.01) −.11 ***
.05 ** −.06 .02 (−.14,
*** (.02,
.02** −.07)
.02 .09)(−.10,−.03)
3.3.
Attachment
Note:
Competence
Attachment
Gender
Attachment
Competence c,
c’,
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence
Father
Attachment
Somatic
ab
Positive
Confidence
and
Father
=
 Age
Complaints
Negative
Emotional
Estimators
Mother
Father Affect
Life
Emotional 
Differences
EmotionalAffect
of
Emotional
Satisfaction
Intervals; .37
total,−.23
***p < ***
direct
***
0.001.
.26
−.32
and
−.16
**p .04
.04<***0.01.
*** indirect
(−.32,
.04
(.29,
.04
.04
*p < .46) (.17,
(−.40,
effects.
−.14)
(−.24,
0.05.
.34)
.24
SE ***
−.25)
−.20
−.08) −.20.04
= Standard
*** −.14.04***
.04
(.15,
*** (−.28,
.04
Error.
.04 .32)
−.11)
(.14,
(−.28,
95 %−.07)
(−.22,
29)
.14 =***
−.11)
CI
−.03 95%
** −.13.04
−.02 .02
***
bootstraps
.01**
.01
(.10,
.02 .18)
(−.05,
.01 −.01)
(.01,
(−.03,
.07)
(−.17, −.01)
−.09)
Competence 

Competence
Attachment Mother
Attachment
Competence Life
SomaticEmotional
Satisfaction
Mother PerceivedEmotional
Emotional
Complaints Stress −.16
Emotional *** −.23
.32.07 ***(−.24,
***
−0.23 .04−.08)
.04 −.10***
(.24, .22
.40) * −.19 .04***
.13 (−.18,−.01)
.04 −.06
(.05, .21)
−0.19 *** −.04 .02
.19.01 *** (−.10,−.03)
.02 (.14, .23)
−.01) −0.04
3.3. Attachment
Gender
Competence
Attachment and
Competence
Attachment Father
Attachment

Competence
Mother Age
Father
Father
Negative  
Differences
Negative
Affect
Positive
Emotional
Affect
Emotional
Emotional
Affect
.26 ***
−.32 *** −.14
.04
.04 ***
(.17,
(−.40,
.04
.34)(−.31,
−.25)
(−.23, −.15)
−.20 *** .08 .04
.04 (.14,
***(−.28, 29)
.04−.11) (−.26, .04 **
−.11)
−.13 *** .02 (.01,
***** (−.03, .01 .07)
(−.17, (−.06,
−.09)
Competence
AttachmentAttachment
Competence
Father
Confidence
Attachment
For Life  
Mother
Satisfaction
Intervals;
Father
the
 
Perceived
Emotional ***p
previously Emotional
Stress **p
< 0.001. −.16 ***
<***
0.01.
.14*p.04
*** (−.24,
<model,
0.05..04 0.04 (.06, −.06)
−.08) (−0.31,
−.14
.21) *** −.04
−0.15)
.04 .05
** (−.22,
.03 (−.13,
−.07) .05)
−.02
(.01,analyses
.15) −.11
**0.04.05 .01
** .02
(−0.26,
.02 (−.14,
−.01)
(.02, −.07)
−0.11)
.09) 0.01 (−0.06, −0.01)
Competence
Attachment
Competence
Attachment
Competence
Attachment

Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence

Perceived
Note:
Competence
Father

Competence
Mother

Negative
c,
Positive
Mother

c’, ab Stress
Somatic
Perceived
Positive
Emotional=Estimators
Emotional
Affect
Affect
Life
Emotional 
Stressestimated
Complaints
Emotional
Affect
Satisfaction
.32total,
−.23
of
−.14 ***
***−.16
.37.04
.04
direct
−.23.04
***
***
and(.24,
***(−.31,
(−.23,
.04 three
.40)
−.15)
.04indirect
.07 (−.32,
−.06)
(−.24,
.13
(.29,−.19multi-group
.46)***
*** SE
effects.
−.14)
−.04
−.08)
.04
.24
.04
.05=****
−.20
−.10
(.05,
***Standardpath
.04
(−.26,
.04
(−.13,
.04
.21)
−.11)
.05)
***
Error.
(−.28,
(−.18,−.01)
.19
(.15, .32) 95 ***
−.04
−.11)
−.11 %
*** −.06
for
.14
** CI−.03 =.02
.01
.02 ** each
***
95%
***
(.14,
.02
(−.06, subgroup
.01 .23)
−.01)
bootstraps
(−.14,
.02
(.10, .18)
(−.05,
−.07)
(−.10,−.03)−.01) **
Competence
AttachmentAttachment
Competence
Father
3.3.c,the
Gender
Attachment
For  
Perceived 
Mother
Father
previously Stress
Somatic
Emotional
and 
Age Emotional
Complaints
Differences
Emotional
estimated .14 ***model, .04 (.06,
three .21) .08
multi-group ** .03 path (.01, .15) .05 ** .02 (.02, .09)
Competence
Attachment
Competence 
Competence
Attachmentc’,Somatic
Mother
(unrestricted
Note:
Attachment ab
Positive
Confidence 
= Estimators
Mother
Father
Complaints
Negative
Affect
 Emotional
Emotional
model,
Intervals; Affect
of
Emotional total,
***p < .37
semi-restricted ***
direct
−.23
0.001.*** −.32
and
−.16
**p .04
.04
< model
*** (.29,
indirect
***
0.01. (−.32,
*p.04
.04
< .46)
and
effects.
−.14)
(−.24,
0.05. .24
SE ***
fully-restricted
(−.40, −.25)
−.20
−.08) .04
−.20
= Standard
*** .04
−.14 *** .04analyses
(.15,
Error.
.04 .32)
model)
***(−.28, −.11) 95 %were
(−.28,
(−.22, .14for
−.11)
CI
−.03
−.07)=***95%
** each
carried
−.13 .02 ***
bootstraps
−.02.01 ** subgroup
out(.10,
(−.05,
.01 .18)
.02to
−.01)identify
(−.17,
(−.03, −.09)
−.01)
Competence
Attachment
Competence 

Competence
Mother
Attachment Life
Somatic 
Satisfaction

Mother Perceived
Emotional Emotional
Complaints Stress −.16 ***−.23
Emotional .32.07***
−0 (−.24,
32 .04 −.08) −.10 * −.19
(.24, −.15)
.40) .13.04*** (−.18,−.01)
.04 (.05,
−0 20.21)−.06 *** −.04.19 .02*** (−.10,−.03)
.02 (.14, .23) −0 13
3.3. Gender
Attachment
Attachment
Competence and
Competence
Father
Attachment
(unrestricted Age
Mother
Negative
model, Emotional
Father 
Differences
Negative
Affect Affect
Emotional
semi-restricted model ***
and .04 (−.31,
.04fully-restricted *** (−.28,
model) .04
.05were(−.26, −.11)
carried out ***** (−.17,
.01 (−.06, −.01)
Competence
Attachment Mother
potential
Competence
Attachment Father
Confidence
Attachment
Competence Note:
For 
sex
Father
Perceivedthe

Positive
Emotional
and 
Perceived
Emotional
Intervals; Affect
age-specific
***p <Stress
Emotional
previously
Stress 0.001. **p −.32<differences
−.16 ***
***
0.01.
estimated
−.14.04
.04
*p
.14 <***
*** (−.40,
(−.24,
0.05.
model, in
.04 −.25)
the (−.23,
0−.08)
04 −.20
−.06)
−0
−.14
association
(.06,
three .21) ***40 .08
*** .04
−.04
−0
.04
multi-group **25
(−.22,
between .03 −.11)
−.07)
path
(−.13,
parent −.13
.05)
−.02 ***
**0 −.11
attachment
(.01,analyses
.15) 04
.05.02
.01
for **to(−.03,
andidentify
each .02 −.09)
.0228
−0 (−.14,
−.01) −0 11
self-report
(.02,
subgroup
−.07)
.09) 0 02 −0 17 −0 09
Attachment
Competence
Competence
Attachment
Competence 
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Competence
Father
 
Negative
Positive 
Mother
c, Pe Somatic
Emotional
c’, Affect
abe
Positive
Emotional
Affect =ved Complaints
Emotional
S e −.23
Estimators
Affect .32
of ***
−.14 ***
total,
*** −.23 .04
.04
direct
.04 *** (.24,
(−.31,
and
.04
(−.23,
.40)
−.15)
indirect
(−.32,
−.06)
.13
−.19 ***
***−.20
effects.
−.14)
−.04
.04
.04
SE
.05*** (.05,
= (−.26,
Standard
.04
(−.13,
.21)
−.11) Error.
(−.28,
.05)
.19
−.11)
−.1195***
−.04 **%−.03
*** CI.02
.01
=**95%
.02
(.14,
(−.06, .23)
−.01)
bootstraps
.01
(−.14, (−.05,
−.07) −.01)
potential
Competence 
Attachment
sex
Competence
Attachment
3.3. Father
Gender
Attachment
measures and 
Mother
Perceived and
Father
of age-specific
Stress

Somatic
Emotional
Age
well-being Emotional
Complaints
Differences
Emotional differences
mediated .14 *** by−.16in
.04 ***
the
perceived .07
(.06, .21)(−.24,
association
emotional −.08)
.08 between
** −.10
.03
competence* .04
parent
(.01, .15) (−.18,−.01)
attachment
among .05 ** −.06
adolescents and.02 *** .02
self-report
(.02,
(Table .09)(−.10,−.03)
4).
For
Competence
Attachment
Note:
Competence the
c,

Competence
Mother
(unrestricted
c’,
Attachment previously
Somatic
ab
Positive= Complaints
Negative
Emotional
model,
Estimators
Mother Affect estimated
Affect
ofsemi-restricted
Emotionaltotal,
***p −.23 directmodel,
*** −.32
and.04 *** three
model .04
indirect
(−.32, andmulti-group
(−.40,
effects.
<−.14) fully-restricted
−.25)
SE
−.20 = −.20
Standard path
*** .04 analyses
model)
Error. (−.28,
95 % were
−.11)
CI for
= 95% each
** carried
−.13 ***
bootstraps subgroup
out
.02 to(−.03,
identify
(−.17, −.09)
AttachmentAttachment
No 
CompetenceConfidence
Mother 
ewell-being
cAge
Father
Perceived
cEmotional
ab
 Emotional

Emotional Emotional
Intervals;
= Affect
Stress
Es ma −.16 ***−.16
< 0.001. **p
.32.07<***
***0.01. .04
(−.24,*p
.04 (−.24,
0.05.
−.08) −.10***
(.24,−.08)
.40) * −.14 .04
.04***
.13 ***
(−.28,
.04 −.11)
(−.18,−.01)
.04 (−.22,
(.05,
−.03 ***
−.07)
−.06
.21) −.02
= S−.04.19
.01
.02** (−.05,
.01
*** (−.10,−.03)
.02
−.01)
(.14,−.01)
95 % C = 95% boo s raps
.23)
measures Attachment
Competence
3.3. Gender
Attachment
Competence
(unrestricted and
Competence
Father
of Somatic
Negative
model,
Mother

Complaints
Differences
Negative
Affect mediatedAffect
semi-restricted by <ors model o
−.23
perceived oand
*** aemotional
.04d rec
(−.31, and
−.15)*** nd
competence −.19 rec
*** effec
.04
among s carried
(−.26, SE***
−.11)
adolescents andard
*****to(−.03,
(Table Error
.01 −.09)
4). (−.06, −.01)
Attachment
Attachment
Competence
Competence
Mother
potential
Competence
Father
Confidence
Attachment
For  
sex
PerceivedFather
the

Positive
Emotional
and 
Perceived
Emotional
Intervals; ***p
previously
Stress age-specific
Stress **p
< 0.001.
Emotional −.32
−.16 ***
*** −.14 .04
.04
differences
estimated0.01. *p *** (−.40,
<model,
0.05. infully-restricted
.04
(−.24, −.25)
(−.23,
−.08)
the
three
−.20
−.06)
−.14 ***
association −.04
multi-group
model)
.04
.04 (−.28,
between.05
(−.22, were
−.11)
path
(−.13,
−.07)parent −.13
.05)
−.02
analyses ** −.11
attachmentout .02
.01
for each
identify
(−.17,
.02
and (−.14,
−.01) −.07)
self-report
subgroup
Attachment
Competence
Competence
potential
Competence
Attachment

Competence
Mother
Attachment
Confidence


Attachment
sex
Competence
Father
Negative
Note: c,
Positive
and 
Perceived 
c’,Somatic
Mother
Mother
ab
Affect

Emotional
Affect
=n
age-specific
Stress
Somatic
Emotional 
Complaints
Emotional
erva
Estimators
Table
Emotional s
4.
.32total,
−.23
***
of
−.14
differences
Complaints
***
p***
***
Fit Indices < 0
−.23
−.16in
.04
.04
direct
.04001
for ***
***the
and(.24,
(−.31,
**
(−.23,.04
Multigroup
.07 p.40)
<
−.15)
indirect 0
(−.32,
−.06)
association
.13
−.19
01 ***
−.14)
−.04
SEM
(−.24, −.08)
***
*
effects. pSE<.04
.04
−.20
and .05=0*** (.05,
(−.26,
05
Standard
.04
(−.13,
−.10χ²-Difference
between * parent
.21)
−.11)
.05) Error.
(−.28,
.04 (−.18,−.01)
.19
95 ***
−.04
−.11)
−.11
Test for
attachment
%** CI−.03
***
Results.
−.06
=.02
and
.01
.02 95%
** (.14,
(−.06, .23)
−.01)
bootstraps
.01
(−.14,
*** self-report (−.05,
−.07)
.02 (−.10,−.03) −.01)
Competence3.3.
measures
For
Note: c, Gender
Attachment
the

Competence
Attachment Mother
(unrestricted previously
Somatic 
c’, ab Father and
Father
of
= Estimators
Age
well-being
Complaints
Negative
Emotional
model, Differences
Emotional
Affect
of mediated
estimated
semi-restricted
total,<−.23direct
*** by
model,
−.32
and
−.16.04 perceived
model
*** three
indirect
*** (−.32,.04 and emotional
multi-group
(−.40,
effects.
< −.14)
*p.04 (−.24, −.25)
SE ***
−.20
−.08) competence
fully-restricted
−.20
= Standard
.04 path
***(−.28,
.04−.11)
Error. among
analyses
model) 95 %were
(−.28, −.11)
CI adolescents
−.03=***95%
** each
carried
−.13 ** out
***
bootstraps
.01 (Table
subgroup
.02to
(−.05, −.01) 4).
identify
(−.17, −.09)
Attachment
Attachment
Competence
3.3. Confidence
Competence
Mother
Attachment
Gender Somatic 
 Table
Mother Perceived
Emotional
Complaints
Emotional
Intervals; ***p
4.Emotional
Fit Indices
Stress 0.001.
−.16 *****p
for < 0.01.
Multigroup
.07 (−.24, 0.05.
SEM
−.08) and * −.14
−.10χ²-Difference ***
.04*** .04Test
(−.18,−.01) (−.22, −.07)
Results.
−.06 −.02.02 .01
(−.10,−.03) (−.03, −.01)
Attachment
measures
Competence
(unrestricted and
Competence
Father
of Model Age
well-being
Negative
model,

Differences
Negative
Emotional
Affect mediated
semi-restrictedAffect by
−.32 *** −.23
perceived
model−.14
df <differences
−.16 *** .04
χ²*p
.04
***
<***and .04
emotional
(−.40,
(−.24,
(−.31,
−.25)
p(−.23,
−.08)
−.15)
.04fully-restricted
−.20
−.06)
CFI
−.14 ***−.19
competence
*** model)
.04
−.04
.04
.04
among
.05were
(−.28,
RMSEA
(−.22,
(−.26,
−.11)
−.07) (−.13,−.11)
adolescents
carried
−.13
90%.05)
−.02 ***
CI
−.04
** −.11out .02
.01
***** (−.17,
(Table toSRMR .01
4).
identify
(−.03,
(−.06,
(−.14,−.01)
−.09)
.02 self-report
−.01) −.07)
potential
Competence
Attachment Father
Confidence
Attachment
Competence Note:
For sex
Father
Perceivedthe
 and 
Perceived
Emotional
Intervals; Stressage-specific
***p <Stress
Emotional
previously 0.001. **p 0.01.
estimated 0.05.
model, in the association
three multi-groupbetween pathparent attachment
analyses for and
each subgroup
Attachment
Competence 
Competence
Mother
Attachment Negative Mother
c, Somatic
Emotional
c’, Affect
ab = Complaints
Emotional
Estimators −.23
of ***
total,
−.23 .04
direct
*** (−.31,
and
.04 −.15)
indirect
(−.32, −.19 ***
effects.
−.14) .04
SE
−.20 =
*** (−.26,
Standard
.04 −.11) Error.
(−.28, −.04
−.11) 95 **
% CI
−.03 .01
=** 95% (−.06, −.01)
bootstraps
.01 (−.05, −.01)
potential Model 
Attachment
Competence sex
Competence
Attachment
3.3. Gender
Father
Gender and 
Mother
Perceived and  Emotional
subgroup:
age-specific
Stress
Somatic
Emotional
Age Table
Complaints
Differences 4. −.14
Fit
df differences *** −.16
χ²Indices .04
in for
*** (−.23,
the Multigroup
p .07 −.06)
associationCFI −.08)
(−.24, −.04
SEM and
RMSEA
between .05χ²-Difference
−.10 (−.13,
.04 .05)
* parent 90% −.11Results.
CITest
(−.18,−.01)
attachment *** SRMR
−.06
and.02***self-report
(−.14,
.02 −.07)
(−.10,−.03)
measures
For
Competence
Attachment the
Competence
Mother
(unrestricted of
previously
c’,Somatic = well-being
Complaints
Negative
Emotional
model, mediated
estimated
Affect
semi-restricted by
model, perceived three
model emotional
andmulti-group competence
fully-restricted path among
analyses
model) wereadolescents
for each (Table
*** subgroup 4).
***carried out to(−.17,
identify
Note: c,
Attachment ab
Confidence Estimators
Father  4. of
Emotional
Intervals; total,−.23
***p direct
***
<510.001. −.32
and.04<***0.01. .04
indirect
(−.32, (−.40,
effects.
*p <−.14) −.25)
SE ***
−.20 −.20
= Standard
.04*** .04
Error.
(−.28, (−.28,
−.11) 95 %−.11) CI
−.03= **95%−.13 bootstraps
.01 .02 −.01)
(−.05, −.09)
Attachment
Competence
3.3. Gender
Gender 
Competence Girls
Mother
Attachment 
subgroup:
SomaticMother Table
Perceived
Emotional
Complaints Fit Indices
Stress
Emotional −.16 *** **p
for Multigroup
.07
192.970 ***(−.24, .04−.08)
0.05.
SEM(−.31,and
.00 −.10
.95χ²-Difference
* −.19 .04.06 .04Test
(−.18,−.01) Results.
−.06
(.05–.07) .02** .05 (−.10,−.03)
measures
Competence
(unrestricted and
of Age
well-being
Negative
model,
Model 
Differences
Affect mediatedTab
semi-restricted e by 4
−.32
df F
model
*** −.23
perceived
−.14 Ind
.04
χ² *** andemotional
ces
(−.40,
.04 or Mu
fully-restricted
−.25)
(−.23,
p
−.15)
competence
−.20
−.06) ***
CFI group
−.04 ***(−.28,
model)
.04 among
RMSEA.05SEMwere
−.11)(−.26,
(−.13,and −.11)
adolescents
carried
−.13
.05)
90% χ***
CI
−.04
2−.11D(Table
out .02
***fference
to .01 −.09)
4).
identify
(−.17,
.02
SRMR
(−.06,−.07)
Tes−.01)
(−.14, Resu s
Attachment
Competencepotential
Competence
Girls Father
Confidence
Attachment
For
Competence
Attachment Boys
Mother sex
the

Perceived and
Emotional
Intervals;
Father  Emotional
Perceived
***p
previously
Stress
Somatic
Emotional age-specific
< Stress
0.001.
51
Complaints **p < differences
estimated0.01.
51192.970 *p
205.728 < 0.05.
model,.00 inindirect
the
three
.00
.95 association
multi-group
.95 .06 between
.07 path parent
(.05–.07) analyses attachment
(.06–.08) .05for each
.06 and self-report
subgroup
Note: c, c’, ab = Estimators −.23
of ***
total,
*** −.23 .04
direct (−.31,
and
***Multigroup −.15)
.04−.06) (−.32, −.19 ***
effects.
−.14) SE .04
−.20 = (−.26,
Standard
***(−.13, −.11)
.04 .05) Error.
(−.28, −.04
95
−.11) %** CI =
−.03.01 95% (−.06, −.01)
bootstraps
.02**self-report.01 −.07)
(−.05, −.01)
potential
Competence
AttachmentModel 
Attachment
sex
Competence
3.3. Father Gender
and of
Perceived
Gender 
Mother
age-specific
Stress
Somatic
Emotional
and AgeTable
subgroup: df
Emotional 4. −.14
Fit Indices
χ²
differences
Complaints
Differences .04
infor (−.23,
the p associationCFI −.04
SEM and
RMSEA
between .05
χ²-Difference
parent 90% Test
CI −.11Results.
attachment *** SRMR and (−.14,
Competencemeasures
For
Boys
Note: the
c,
Attachment
Model
(unrestricted
c’, previously
Somatic
ab
Confidence =
Father
Awell-being
Complaints
model,
Estimators
 Emotional
Intervals;
51
of mediated
estimated
total,
***p
102
semi-restricted
<−.23
205.728
direct
0.001.*****pby
398.647
model,
−.32
and.04 perceived
model
< 0.01.*** three
.00
indirect
(−.32,.04 and
*p < −.14)
emotional
.00
.95
(−.40,
effects.
0.05.
.95
multi-group
−.25)
SE =.07 competence
fully-restricted
−.20
Standard
−.20 χ²-Difference
.06
path
***
*** .04 (−.28, .04
Error. among
analyses
model)(.06–.08)
(−.28,
95 % were
−.11)Results. −.11)
CI adolescents
(.06–.07)
for
= 95% each
.06
−.03 **carried
−.13 .01 out
***
bootstraps.05 (Table
subgroup
(−.05,to
.02 4).
identify
(−.17,
−.01) −.09)
Attachment
Competence
3.3. 
Competence
Gender
Gender Mother
Attachment
and Girls Table
subgroup:
Somatic
AgeMother Perceived
BEmotional
Complaints
Differences 4.Emotional
Fit Indices
Stress 51 for Multigroup
192.970 SEM .95 and
.00 .95 .06 .04 Test (.05–.07) .05
measures Model
(unrestricted of Model
well-being
A
model,
Model  Mode mediated
semi-restricted 102 114
by 398.647
−.32
df51
−.23
model
*** 488.325
perceived
d<differences
−.14.04 ***
χ²205.728<***and .04
emotional
.00
(−.40, χthe (−.31,
.00 −.15)
.04fully-restricted
−.25)
p(−.23,
.94
−.20
−.06)
CFI
.06−.19
competence
*** p ***
.07
model)
.04
−.04RMSEAamong
.05were
(−.28, (−.26,
(.06–.07)
CF
−.11) (−.13,−.11)
(.06–.07)
adolescents
carried
−.13
90%.05) ***
CI
−.04
RMSEA.05
out
−.11 .02*****.08
(Table toSRMR .01
4).
identify
(−.17, (−.06,
(−.14,−.01)
90%
−.09)
.02 self-report C−.07) SRMR
potential
Competence
Attachment
Competence
AttachmentGirls Father
Confidence
Note:
For
Competence
Model Mother
Model
B
sex
Boys
Perceivedthe

c, B2
and
Perceived
Emotional
Intervals; Stress
Somatic
Emotional
c’, ab =
age-specific
***p
previously <Stress
0.001. **p
51
Complaints
114 −.23
Estimators 112
of
0.01.
estimated
192.970
***
488.325
total,
*p
437.250
.04
direct
0.05.
model,
.00in
(−.31,
.00
and .00
−.15)
association
three
.00
.95
.94 −.19
indirect multi-group
.95
.95 .06
***
.07 SE
effects.
between
.04 .07
.06
= (−.26,
Standard pathparent
(.05–.07)
−.11)
(.06–.07)
Error.
attachment
analyses
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
−.04
95 **% .05
.08
CI for
.01
= 95%
and
each
.06
.07
(−.06, subgroup
−.01)
bootstraps
potential Model 
Attachment
Competence
3.3. sex Gender
Gender and Mother
Perceived and  Emotional
subgroup:
age-specific
Stress
Age Table df
Differences −.14
4. Fit χ²
differences ***
Indices .04
in for (−.23,
the Multigroup
p −.06)
associationCFI −.04
SEM RMSEA
between .05
and path (−.13,
χ²-Difference
parent .05)
90% −.11
CITest
attachment ***
Results.SRMR
and self-report
measures
For
CompetenceBoys
Model
Note: the

c, c’,
Attachment
Model
Model of
previously
Somatic
(unrestricted
B2ab =Father
Confidence
well-being
A Gende
Complaints
C model,
Estimators 4.
mediated
estimated
51
112
of
Emotional
Intervals; total,<143
***p
102
semi-restricted by
model,
205.728
direct−.32
437.250
0.001. and perceived
398.647
<***0.01.
546.697 three
model.00
.04
.00
indirect emotional
and.00
multi-group
.95
(−.40,
effects. .95
.07competence
fully-restricted
.95 −.25)
.00 SE.93=.06−.20 ***
Standard .06
.06 .04 model)
Error. among
analyses
(.06–.08)
(−.28,
95 %−.11)
(.06–.07) wereadolescents
(.06–.07)
for
(.06–.07)
CI = 95% each
.06
carried
−.13 *** .09out
.07bootstraps (Table
.05
subgroup
.02 to 4).
identify
(−.17, −.09)
3.3. Competence
AttachmentGender
Gender
measures Girls
Mother
of and  Table
subgroup:
Age
well-being Perceived
Emotional
BDifferences Fit Indices
Stress 51 for **p
Multigroup
192.970 *p <SEM 0.05.
.00 and .95χ²-Difference
.06 .04Test Results.
(.05–.07) .05
A hm
Model
(unrestricted
Model
potential
Competence
n F
Confidence CModel
A
Model
h model,
Model 
sex C2
Emo
Intervals; subg
and
Perceived
on
mediated
semi-restricted
***p
102
<oup
143
age-specific
Stress **p
0.001.
by 114
398.647
131
−.32 model
< ***
546.697
df
−.23
perceived .04<***
488.325
457.751
χ²
differences
0.01. *p and.00.04
emotional
.00
(−.40,
0.05.
(−.31,
−.25)
the
.00
.95
.00
infully-restricted
−.15)
.95
−.20 .06−.19
.94
competence
.06
***
.93association
p CFI .04 ***
.07
.06
model) among
(−.28,
RMSEA
between −.11)(−.26,
(.06–.07)
were
(.06–.07)
parent
−.11)
(.06–.07)
adolescents
(.06–.07)
carried
−.13
90% ***
CI .05
attachment
−.04
.05
out
.09 .02**to
(Table .08
.08 .01 −.09)
4).
identify
(−.17,
SRMR
and
(−.06, −.01)
self-report
CompetenceGirls
Model
Model
ForBoys
B
Note:
Model
C2
the
Perceived
Model
c, c’, B2previously
ab Stress
compared= Estimators
to
51
114
each
131
estimated
51
of 192.970
112
488.325
total,
other
457.751
205.728
437.250
direct model,.00
.00
and three
.00
indirect
.00 192CFI
.95
.00
.94
.95
multi-group
.95 .06
.95
.07
effects.
.06 SE =.07
.06
Standard
Δ χ²
path
(.05–.07)
(.06–.07)analyses
Error.
(.06–.07)
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
95 %
p Results. .08
CI
.08
for
= 95% each
.06
.07
Δ df
subgroup
bootstraps
potential Model 
Attachment
n sex Gender
Pand Mother G
dsubgroup:
vage-specific sEmotional
Table df 4. Fit 51 model,
Indices
χ²
differences infor Multigroup
the p association 970SEM and
RMSEA
between 0 χ²-Difference
00 parent 0among
90% 95CITest
attachment 0 06 SRMR
and 0 4).
05–0 07 0 05
***self-report
Comp 3.3.
measuresGender and SAge Differences
For
Boys
Model
Note: the
c, Model
(unrestricted
B2 Model
c’,compared
ab
Model =ofEstimators
previouslyAwell-being
model,
C 51
112
of mediated
estimated
total, 102
semi-restricted205.728
143
437.250
direct by
398.647
−.32 perceived
model
546.697
and *** three
.00
< and
*p.04
.00
indirect emotional
.00
.95
(−.40,
.00
effects. SE.95
multi-group
−.25) .07
.95fully-restricted
.93
.06
=Δ competence
−.20
Standard .06
path
***
.06 .04analyses
model)
Error. (.06–.08)
95 %were
(−.28,
p(.06–.07) −.11)adolescents
(.06–.07)
for
(.06–.07)
CI = 95% each
.06
carried
−.13
.07 bootstraps.05
.09(Table
subgroup
out .02to (−.17,
identify−.09)
A Model Confidence
hmCompetence
Gender
n Mo hGirls B
subgroup: compared
Intervals;
Table to each
Perceived
BEmo Boys on4. Fit to
***p
other
StressModel
< 0.001.
Indices 51
51 A **p
for < 0.01.
Multigroup
192.970 2050.05.
SEM .00
728and χ² 86.44
χ²-Difference
.95 0 00 .06 Test .00
Results.
0 adolescents
95 (.05–.07)
0 07 Δ df 12.05
3.3. Gender
measures Model
(unrestricted
Model ofandModel
A
C Age
well-being
Model
model,
Model Differences
C2 mediated
semi-restricted 102
143 114
by
df
398.647
131 model
546.697 488.325
perceived
χ²457.751 andemotional
.00
.00 .00
p
.95
.00
fully-restricted
.93 .94
competence
.06
.95
CFI .06 .07
.06among
model)
RMSEA
(.06–.07)
were
(.06–.07) (.06–.07)
90%(.06–.07)
carried CI
.05(Table
out
.09 to.08
.08
SRMR 4). 0 06–0 08
identify
0 06
Comp potential
Model
Confidence
n For
Girls
Model
Model
BPBoys
Model
B
sex
compared
Intervals;
the B2
vc’,
B2
and
dabS =age-specific
compared
Mode
to
***p
previouslyModel
< 51 to
0.001.A
Atoeach
114
Model
**p 51<differences
A
0.01.
estimated
192.970
112102
*p
205.728
total,437.250
488.325
< 0.05.
model,
.00in the
and398
.00
association
three
.00
.95
.00 647
.94
86.44
.95
.95 .06
.07 SE 0 between
multi-group 34.59
00 .07
.06 0parent
.00
path
(.05–.07)
95
(.06–.07)
.08 attachment
analyses
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07) 0 06
12
CI for
.05
.08
24and
each
.06
.07
self-report
subgroup
0 06–0 07 0 05
ModelNote:
Model C2 Model
Gender
c, compared
subgroup:
Estimators
Table to
131
df 4.
of
other
Fit457.751
χ² Indices
direct
for .00
Multigroup
p indirect
.95
CFI effects.
SEM .06and
RMSEA =Δ Standard
χ²
χ²-Difference
Error.
(.06–.07)
90% CITestp 95Results.
% .08
SRMR = 95% Δ df bootstraps
potential Model
3.3. sex B2
Gender
measures and
Model compared
ofand age-specific
C compared
Age
Ewell-being
to Model
o Differences
differences
Model
A
mediated B2 by in the
perceived association
emotional between
34.59
Scompetence
parent
109.93 .08 attachment
.00 24and self-report
31
0among adolescents (Table
p to04).
For Model
thecompared
previously Am estimated 102 model, 398.647 ndthree .00
multi-group .95 .06
path analyses (.06–.07) .05
.00for0carried
each subgroup
Boys
(unrestricted model, 51 205.728 .00 .95 .07 o p(.06–.08) .06
N Model
Gender
Model
B2 Model
ModelConfidence
Girls
Model
subgroup:
CB
TableMode
compared
Intervals;
to each
4.Model
FitBsemi-restricted
112
oother
too Model
***p
Indices
143
<51437.250
d114
0.001.A
B2**p
for
546.697
nd model
< 0.01.
Multigroup
192.970
.00*p 488
<SEMand
.00
.95
0.05.
.00 325 fully-restricted
and
SE.93
.95
.06
Δ χ²0 nd00.06
χ²-Difference
d E model)
86.44
.06
(.06–.07)
Test 94 were
%(.06–.07)
Results.
C
(.05–.07)
%.07
07
Δ boo .09
df out
12
.05
identify
06–0 07 0 08
3.3. Model
Gender
measures Model
(unrestricted
Model ofandC
A
Model AgeC2
compared
Model
well-being
model,
CModel
Model C2
compared
to
BDifferences
mediated
semi-restricted 102
143
toB2Model
by 114
131 perceived
398.647
model
546.697
df
488.325emotional
457.751
χ² and
.00 .00
.95
.00
.00infully-restricted .95
.93association
p
109.93
.94
competence
.06
.06
CFI
24.36
.07among
.06
86.440model) RMSEA
.00
(.06–.07)
were
(.06–.07)
.14
(.06–.07)31
adolescents
(.06–.07)
carried
90% CI
.05(Table
out
.09
19.08
.08
to.06 4).
identify
SRMR
potential
Model
Con
Girls
Modeld For
Model Model
B
nC2
Boys
BModel
sex
compared
nthe
compared vB2
B2
andcompared
Mode toto
previously age-specific
Model
ModelB2
51
114
to
AB2 Model112differences
estimated
51192.970
112
488.325
A 205.728 model,
437.250.00 .00 437 the 250
three
.00
.95
.00
.94 multi-group
.95 .06
24.36
.95
.07
between
00 34.59 path
.07
.06
.00
0 parent
95
(.05–.07)
.14
(.06–.07)
.08attachment
analyses
(.06–.08) 0
(.06–.07).08
12
06
.05
19
.08for 24
eachand
.07
self-report
0 06–0 07
subgroup 0 07
Model Age
C2 subgroup:
compared Table to each
131 4. Fitother
457.751
Indices for .00
Multigroup .95 SEM .06 Δ χ²
and0 χ²-Difference (.06–.07) p
Test Δ df
potential Model
Model
3.3. sex B2
GenderGender
and
Model
compared Csubgroup:
age-specific
and compared
ModeAge to Model df
Ctoto
DifferencesModel
A χ²
differences
143 B2 by in the p associationCFI RMSEA
between
34.59 parent
109.93 90%
.08 93CI
attachment.00Results. SRMR
24and self-report
31(Table0 4).
measures
For
Boys
Model
Age
Model
the Model
(unrestricted
B2 Model
12–13
subgroup:
Model
compared
ofyears
previouslyAwell-being
B model,
Ccompared
to each 112 mediated
estimated
51
other Model
102
semi-restricted
51143
437.250
A
398.647
model,
205.728 perceived
model
546.697
167.380 .00 546
three
.00 and 697
emotional
.00
.00
.95
.00
.95
multi-group
.95 .07
fully-restricted
.93
.96 Δ
00
.06χ²competence
.06
path
.06
.06
86.44 model)
p
0among
analyses
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07) were for 0carried
(.06–.07)
(.05–.07)
.00
06
adolescents
(.06–.07) each
.06
.07
Δ df
.05
subgroup
out
.09 to identify
.05
12
06–0 07 0 09
3 3 G nd
measures Gender
Model ofandC Girls
Model
subgroup:
Modelcompared
Agyears
well-being Table
BC2DMode to 4.Model
compared nFit
mediated Indices
to
B2Model 51
114
by forB2Multigroup
192.970.00 SEM
488.325
perceived emotional .00
.00 and .94χ²-Difference
.95
109.93 .07
competence 24.36 Test
.06 .00 Results.(.05–.07)
.14 31 .05
19
Model
(unrestricted
Model
12–13
A
CModel
model,
14–15
years
Model C2 semi-restricted 102
C2
143
51 51
df
398.647
131
131 model
546.697
167.380 457.751
283.610
χ² and.00 457 .95
751
.00
fully-restricted
p .93
.00
.96 .93
CFI
.06
.95
.06 0 00 .06among
model)
.08
RMSEA
(.06–.07)
0
were 95
(.06–.07)
(.05–.07)
(.06–.07)
adolescents
carried
(.07–.09)
90% CI 0
(.06–.07) .05
06 (Table
out
.09
.05 to.08
.08
.07
SRMR 4). 0 06–0 07
identify 0 08
potential
Model
Girls
Model
Model
Model
B
For
BBoys
C2
Model
sex
compared
the
compared B2
B2
andcompared
to age-specific
previouslyModel
to Model 51
114
to A Model 51 differences
B2estimated A
192.970
112
488.325 205.728
437.250 model,
.00
.00
in the association
three
.00
.95
.00
.94
86.44
multi-group
.95
.95 .06
24.36 .06
.07
between
34.59
.07 parent
.00
path
(.05–.07)
.14
(.06–.07)
.08 attachment
analyses
(.06–.08)19
(.06–.07)
12
.08for .07
.05 24and self-report
each subgroup
.06
Age subgroup: ∆d
potential
Fo
Model
14–15
Model
Modelsex
measures
Boys he
C2
yearsModel
Gender
and
Model
B2 pcompared
Modelof ev
Acompared
C Mode
subgroup:
age-specific
compared
well-being
Aous toTable
y Model
es
to
131
51
df
51toeach
compa
ma 4.AFit
Model
mediated
other
457.751
102
χ²
differences
102
ed ed
Indices
283.610
B2 by
mode
205.728 o453.482
each
in for
perceived
398.647 oassociation
h he
Multigroup
.00
thep.00 ee
.95 SEM
.00
.93
CFI
emotional
.00
mu
.95
.94
g
.06
.08and pa
RMSEA
between
34.59
.95
oup
.07competence
Δ χ²
.07
χ²-Difference
parent
109.93
.06 h ana
(.06–.07)
90%
.08 (.06–.08)
CITest
(.07–.09)
attachment
among
yses
(.06–.08) .00
(.06–.07)
o ∆ SRMR
p Results. .08
.07
24
adolescents
each
.06 31Δ df
.06
χand self-report(Table
.05
subg p4).
oup
(unrestricted
Model
Age
Model C Model
B2 12–13
subgroup:
AModel
compared C model,
years
BB compared
to to each semi-restricted
112to
other 143
Model 437.250
51 A 546.697
167.380 model.00 and
.00
.95
.00 fully-restricted
.93 .06
.96
Δ χ² .06 .06
.06 model)
86.44 Test (.06–.07)
p.00 were
(.06–.07)
(.05–.07)
.00 carried
.07 .09out
.05
12 to identify
measures Gender
Model
Model
un es potential
c
Model
12–13 of
ed
Girls
Model
A subgroup:
Model
compared
Model
well-being
mode
CModel
years14–15
Model
Table
C2
C2
years
compared
B Mode
sem
4.Model
mediatedFit102
BIndices
102
es
143
51
toB2
compa
c
112
51
Model
by
ed
453.482
114 for
B2
398.647
131 mode
546.697
51
167.380
df
484.214
edMultigroup
192.970
perceived o Mode
488.325
457.751
283.610
χ² and
.00 SEM
emotional
.00
.00 u A.00.94 and.95
.00
.95
.00
y
.93
.00
.96
p es
.94
.95c
.07
109.93
.94
competence
.06
.93 ed
.06
CFI
.07
χ²-Difference
24.36
.07among
.06
mode.08
RMSEA we
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
e
(.06–.07)
(.05–.07) ca
(.06–.08)
Results.
(.05–.07)
.14
(.06–.07)
ed 86Δ
(.06–.07)
adolescents
(.07–.09)
90% CI
.06
3144
.05
ou
.09
.05
df 19
(Table o
.06
.05
.08
.08
.074).
SRMRden 0y 00 12
Model
Girls C2
Model B
Boys sexB2B2
compared
Model compared B2and toage-specific
compared
to Model
Model to
A
112 B251
51 Model
123 differences
484.214
192.970A 486.275
205.728 .00 in the .94association
.00
.95 .94
.95 24.36 between
86.44
.07
.06 34.59
.07 .00parent
(.06–.08)
(.05–.07)
.14 .08 attachment
(.06–.07)
(.06–.08) 12
.06
.05
19 24
.06 and self-report
Model BModel
Age
Model subgroup: Mode
compared toB2
114 compa 112
488.325 ed o Mode
437.250 .00 A.00
.00
.94 .95
.07 .06 (.06–.07) 34SRMR
(.06–.07) 59 Δ
.08 .07 0 08 24
Model
14–15
a sexyears
Model
po en measures
Model
Boys
Model
C2
B2 Gender
and
Model
Model
B2
compared
Model age
A Asubgroup:
C spec
compared
Cwell-being
ofyearsCcompared
Table
to Model ceach
131
51
df
123
51
112
4.
dA
to Fitother
Model
mediated
457.751
102
145
102Indices
283.610
χ²
e143ences
B2 by
486.275
205.728
437.250
453.482
for
n
563.674
398.647 Multigroup
he
perceived
546.697
.00assoc
p
.00
.00 B2
.95 SEM
.93
CFI
a on.95
.94
emotional
.00
.95
.00
.95
be
.93
.06
.94 and
.08
RMSEA
ween
34.59
.07
.93
Δ.07χ²
χ²-Difference
pa en90%
109.93
.06χ²competence
.06
.06
(.06–.07)
(.07–.09)
a CI
.08among
(.06–.07)
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
p.00
Test (.06–.08)
achmen Results.
(.06–.07)
(.06–.07)
.08
.07
24
adolescentsand se
.06
.07df93 .05
df
.06
31
.07
.05
.09 epo 4).
(Table
Model 12–13
Age subgroup:
Model
compared
A Girls B B
TableMode
to each
4. FitC
102 compa
toIndices
other Model 51112 A ed
453.482
51 for 167.380
o
484.214
Multigroup
192.970 Mode .00 .00
SEM .94
.00 and .96 Δ
.94
.07 .06
86.44
χ²-Difference
.95 .07
.06 p.00
(.06–.08)
Test (.05–.07)
.00
Results. 109
(.06–.08)
(.05–.07) Δ
.06 12.06
.05 0 00 31
Gender
Model C Model
subgroup:
compared C2C2 compared
to Model 145 to
B2 Model
141
563.674B2 510.458 .93 compe 109.93 24.36
.06 .14
(.06–.07) 31
.07Tab.07 19
measu Modeles
Model
Model o
12–13 years
Model
we
A
C Model
14–15
Model be BC2
years ng med a
102
143
51 ed 114
by
51
df131pe
398.647
546.697
167.380 ce488.325
ved
457.751
283.610
χ² emo
.00
.00 .00
ona
.95
.00
.93
.00
p .96
.94 .06
.95
.93
CFI .06 ence
86.44 .08
.07
.06
RMSEAamong ado
(.06–.07)
(.06–.07)
(.05–.07) escen
(.06–.07)
(.07–.09)
90% CI24.05s.05
.09
.05
.08
e.08
.07 4
Girls
Model
Model
Model
B
C2 compared
Model
BBoys
Model
Agecompared B2 compared
B2Mode
compared
B2
subgroup:
totoModel
Model
toC2
112
51 toAcompa
each
141
114
Model 123 A ed
484.214
51
192.970
B2other
510.458
112
488.325 437.250 o Mode
486.275
205.728 .00
.00 B2
.94
.00
.95
.00
.94
.94
.95 .07
.95
.06
24.36
.07
34.59
Δ .07
.06 χ²χ²
.00
(.06–.08)
(.05–.07)
.14
(.06–.07)
.08
(.06–.07)
(.06–.08)
p(.06–.07)
12
1936 SRMR
.06
.07
.08
24
Δ .06
.07dfdf 0 14 19
Model C2 Model AAcompared toTable to
131 each other
457.751
102
4.AFit B2 453.482
Indices for p.00.00
Multigroup .95
.00 .94 .06 Δ
.07 (.06–.07) p
(.06–.08) .08 Δ
.06
14–15 years
Model
Model
Boys
Model
Gender
Model
B2
Model
compared
Model
compared
Model
B2
C
C
subgroup:
C
BB
compared
Age
compared
to each
Model
each other
51
df
51to Model
123
to
other
112 Model
283.610
χ²
145
486.275
102
205.728
143 A
437.250
563.674
398.647
546.697 .00 .94 SEM
.93
CFI
.00
.95
.00
.95
.08
.95
.93 .07
Δ
and χ²-Difference
RMSEA
34.59
.93 χ² 57.36
.06χ²
109.93
.06
.06
.08 CITest
(.07–.09)
90%
(.06–.07)
p(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
.00
.00
Results.
(.06–.07)
(.06–.07)
.07
SRMR
24
.06
Δ df 12
.07df
31.07
.05
.09
Age
Model 12–13
subgroup:
Model
compared
Model
AModel Byears
Tab compared
to eto4Model to
102to
F 145 nd Model 51
112 A
453.482
e114 oB2Mu 167.380
484.214 .00
g .00
oup SEM .00
.00
.94 .96
.94 Δ
.07 .06
86.44
.07 p(.06–.08) (.05–.07)
.00
(.06–.08) Δ
.06 .05
12
.06
Gender
Model
Model
Model
Girls
C
A subgroup:
compared
BModel
compared
C2B compared
C2 toModel
Model 102 B2 51
Model 141
563.674
398.647 192.970
510.458
488.325 .93 and.95
.00
.95 χ.06
.94 D e.06
109.93 en e Te.00
24.36
.06
.07 Re (.05–.07)
(.06–.07) u(.06–.07)31
.14 .07
.05 .05
19.07
.08
Model
12–13
Girls years
Model Model
C
B 14–15
Model
compared
Model
Boys
C2
B2B2subg
years compared
to oup143
51
112 AA
to 131
546.697
51
167.380
df
Model
123
51484.214A 457.751
283.610.00
χ²
486.275 .00
.00
.93
.00
.96
p
.00
.94
.95
.94
57.36
86.44 .06
.93
.06
CFI
.07 34.59 .00
.08
RMSEA
.07
(.06–.07)
(.05–.07)
.00
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
(.07–.09)
.08 CI .05
90%
(.06–.07)
12
.09
12
.06
.08
.07
SRMR
24
.06
Model
Model
Model
C2
BModel
Age
Model
C2
compared B2 to Model
compared
subgroup:
compared to
51
toeach
141
114
131
eachB2 510.458205.728
192.970
other
112
488.325
other
457.751 437.250.00 .95
.00
.94
.95
.95 .06
24.36
.95
.07
.06 ΔΔ χ²χ²
.06 (.05–.07)
.14
(.06–.07)
(.06–.07)
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)19
pp.00
.05
.07
.08
.08 ΔΔ dfdf
.07
14–15
Mod
Model
Boys years
B2 Gender
Model
Model compared
Model C
ACA
C
B
12–13
subgroup:
compared
compared
to Model 51
d
123
51 to
to
Model
A 102
283.610
χ
145 B2
486.275
102
Model205.728A
453.482
563.674
398.647 .00
p
.00 .00
.93
CF
.00
.94
.95
.94
.93
.95 .08
RMSEA
34.59
.07 .07
109.93
.06
57.36
(.07–.09)
.08 % C
(.06–.07)
(.06–.08)
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
.00
.07
SRMR
24
.06 .06
31
.07
.05
12
Model
Int.
Age J.
Model compared
B2 Model
Environ.
12–13
subgroup:
Model
compared
A Res.
years
B B
to
Public
compared
to each
each other
112
Health
to to
other
102 2019,
Model 51 51
143
437.250
112 16,
453.482 x; 546.697
doi:
167.380
A B2 192.970
484.214
.00
.00
167 .00 380
.00
.95
.94 .96 Δ
.93
.06
Δ
.94
.07
χ² 0 00
χ² 86.44 .06
.06
.07
p 0
p.00 96
(.06–.07)
(.06–.08) .00 0
(.06–.07) 06
Δ
.07 df .09
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.05–.07)
(.06–.08) Δ
.06 df 12 .05
.06 0 05–0 07 0 05
G nd
Model
ModelRes.
Model
C
A Girls
Model
Modelubg
compared
BModel
compared C2C2
oup yeacompared
BC2Health to s
Model
toModel
Model 145 B2
102 16, 51
Model
141
563.674
114
398.647 510.458
488.325 .00 .00
.00
.93
.95 .95
.94 109.93
.06 .06
24.36
.06
.07 (.06–.07) (.05–.07)
.14
(.06–.07) 31
.07
.05 .05
19
.07
.08
Model
Int. J. Environ.
12–13
Model
G
Model
C
14–15
years
Model
B
C2
Public
compared
Model
Boys years
compared B2 compared
B214–15 to to
2019,
Model
143
51
112toAA x;131
51
Model
B2
546.697
doi:
123
484.214
51
457.751.00
A 283.610
167.380 486.275.00
205.728
.00
.93
.00
.96
.94
.00 .93 57.36
.95
86.44 .08
.06
.94
.07
.95
24.36
.06
34.59
.07
.00
(.06–.07)
.00
(.06–.08)
.14
(.06–.07).05
.08
(.06–.07)19
(.06–.08)
12
.09
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.05–.07) (.07–.09) 12
.06 24.08
.07
.06
Model Model
B compared
B2
Age subgroup:
Model to each
141
114 other
510.458
112
488.325 437.250 .00 .00
.94 .95 .06
.07 Δ
.06 χ² (.06–.07) p(.06–.07) .07
.08 Δ
.07df
Model
14–15 years
Model C2
Model
B2 compared
Model Acompared
C Ccompared
A to Model totoeach
131
51
123 A 102
Model other
457.751
283.610
51B2
145
486.275
102 453.482
563.674
398.647 .00
.00 283
.95
.00 610 .94
.93
.94
.00
.06
.08
34.590 00
.93
.07
.95
Δ χ²
.07
109.93
.06
(.06–.07)
(.07–.09)
0 93 .00
.08
(.06–.07)
p
(.06–.08)
.00 0 08
(.06–.07)
.08
.07
24
.06 31Δ df
.06
.07
.05 0 07–0 09 0 07
Boy Model
compared BB compared
toPublic
each to Model
other A Δ χ² 57.36 df 12
Model
Int.
Model Model
B2
AgeJ.subgroup:12–13 C
Environ.
AModel
compared Res.
B yea
years
compared
to each 112
s Health
102to
other 143
Model 437.250
2019,
51
112 A
453.482
546.697
doi: .00
16, 484.214
x;167.380 .00
.95
.00
.00
.93 .06
.96
.94 Δ χ² 86.44 pp.00
.06
.06
.07
(.06–.07) (.06–.07)
(.05–.07)
(.06–.08)
Δ
.07
Δ df .09
.00 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
.05
12
.06
Model
Mod
Model
Model
C
AB
compared
Model
Modelcompared
C2
C2C2
B compared
to
to
Model
Model 145 toB2
A
Model 141
563.674
114
131 510.458.00
B2 488.325
457.751 .00 .94
.93
.00
.00 .95
.07
109.93
.06
.94
57.36
24.36
.06
.07
.06
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
.00
.14
(.06–.07)12
(.06–.07)
.06
31
.07 19.07
.08
.08
Model
Int. J. Environ.
12–13 Res.
Model C
years
B Public
14–15
Model
compared Health
years
B2Mode
compared 2019,
totoModel 143
51
A 16,Model
to
A 546.697
x;51doi:A 486.275
167.380
102 283.610.00 453.00 .93
.00
.96
482 .06
.93
86.440 00 .08 (.06–.07)
34.59 (.05–.07)
0
.00 94 .08 0 07 .09
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.07–.09) .05
12 .07
24 0 06–0 08 0 06
Model Model
C2 compared B2compared Model112
toeach B2 123
eachother 484.214
other .00
.94 .94 .07
24.36 .07 (.06–.08)
.14 (.06–.07) .06
19 .06
Mod Model
Model
14–15 years
BModel
Age
C2 Model
B2
subgroup:
compared
AMode to141
131
51
510.458 437.250.00
112
457.751
102
283.610 453.482.00 484
.00 .94
.00
.95
.00
.93
.06
.95
.06
.94
.08 ΔΔ χ²χ²
.06
.07
(.06–.07)
(.06–.07)
(.07–.09) pp.00
(.06–.07).08
(.06–.08)
.07
.07 ΔΔ dfdf
.07
.06
Model
Model
B2
Model compared
Model
compared CC compared
Bcompared
compared
to each
to Model
eachHealth B to
123 Model
A
toModel
other 145
Model 112 B2 563.674
486.275Ax;167.380 .00 214 .96
.94 .93 34.590 00
.07
Δ χ² .06
109.93
.06
57.36
.08
0 94 (.05–.07)
p(.06–.07) (.06–.07)
.00 0 07 24
.06
Δ df .05
31
.07
12 0 06–0 08 0 06
Mod
Int.
Age
Model BModel
J. Environ.
12–13
subgroup:
Model
compared Res.
B C
years Public
to to
other 2019,
51143 16,
A 546.697
doi: .00
.00 .93
Δ χ² .06
86.44 p (.06–.07)
.00 Δ df 12.09
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Model C AModel
Modelcompared C2B compared
C2 to Model 102 to
145 B2Model 112
453.482
141
563.674 484.214.00
B2510.458 .00 486 .00
.94
.00
.93 .94
.94 .07
109.93 .06
.06 .07
24.36 .00 (.06–.08)
(.06–.07) (.06–.08)31
.14
(.06–.07) .06
.07 .06
19
.07
ModelRes.
Mod
Int. J. Environ.
12–13
Model CBModel
14–15
years
Model
B compared
Public
compared C2Mode
years
B2 Health toModel
compared
to Model
2019,B2toA
51 A
16, 51
Model 123
x;131
doi:
167.380
A 457.751.00
283.610 .00 275 .93
.00
.96 57.36
.95
.06
86.44 0 00 .06
.08
34.59 0 94
.00 0 07
(.06–.07) 12
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.05–.07)
.00 (.07–.09)
.08 .05
12 .08
.07
24 0 06–0 07 0 06
Model C2 Model
Model compared B2
compared to Model
to112
each 123
484.214
B2other 486.275 .00 .00
.94 .94
.07
24.36 Δ χ² .07 (.06–.08)
.14 (.06–.07) .06
19 .06
Mod
14–15 years
Model CAge
Model
Model
B2
subgroup:
compared
Model C Mode
Acompared
Ccompared to Model
141
Cto
to
51
123
eachA 102
Model
510.458
145
otherB2 453.482
283.610
145
486.275 563.674.00
.00
.00 563
.94
.00 674 .94
.93
.00
.94
.06
34.590 00
.08
.93
.07
Δ χ²
.07
109.93
.06 0 93 p.00
(.06–.07)
(.07–.09)
.08
(.06–.07)
p
(.06–.08) 0 06
(.06–.07)
.07
.07
24
.06
ΔΔdfdf
.06
31.07 0 06–0 07 0 07
Model
Int.
Age J. Model
compared
Environ.
12–13
subgroup:
Model B
Res.compared
yearsto each
Public to
other
Health Model
2019,
51 A16, x; doi:
167.380 .00 Δ
.96 χ² 57.36
.06 p .00 Δ df 12
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.05–.07) .05
Mod C
Model Aomp
Modelcompared
Model BB
C2 dcompared
o to Model
C2Mode
compared h o102
C2hto
145 toB2Model
112
Model 141 A
B2 484.214
453.482
141
563.674 510.458.00 .00 510 .00 458 .94
.94
.00
.93
Δ
.07χ 0 00
109.93
.94
.06
86.44 .00
.07
24.36
.06 0 94 .14
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
.00 0 06
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)12
Δ
.06
31
.07 1912
.06
.07 0 06–0 07 0 07
Model
Int. J. Environ.
12–13
Mod C2 B
Res.
years
B compared
Public
14–15
Model
omp Health
years to
B2dcompared Model
2019,
otoMod 51 toA
16,
AB2 x;51doi:
167.380
Model A 283.610 .00 .00
.96 57.36
.93
.06 .08
34.59 .14 .00 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.05–.07) (.07–.09)
.08 .05 .07
24
Model
14–15
Model
Age
years
compared
Model B2
subgroup:
A
Mode
compared Model112
compa
to
141
51
each 123 ed o486.275
484.214
other
510.458
102
283.610
each.00
453.482
o he .00
.00
.00 .94
.94
.00
.93
.94.06
24.36 .07
.07
.94
.08
Δ χ²
.07
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
(.07–.09)
(.06–.07)
p
(.06–.08)
∆ 19.06
χ
.07
.07
.06
Δ df
.06
p ∆d
Mod B Model
Model
Model compared
B2 omp C compared
d o Mod
CB compared to
123to A Model
145 B2
486.275 563.674 .00 .00
.94 .93Δ.07χ² .06 109.93 .00
(.06–.07) .06df .07 31
Model
Int.
Age Model
J. Environ.
12–13
subgroup: Res.
years to eachHealth
Mode
Public other
B Model
compa
2019,
51 16,A
ed o
x;167.380
doi: Mode A
.00 .96 57.36 p(.06–.07)
.06 .00 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.05–.07) 57 Δ 36 12
.05 0 00 12
Model
Mod
Model ModelA
C Model
omp B
C2 dcompared
C2 to Model o Mod 102 to
B
145 A 141 112
453.482
Model B2 484.214
563.674510.458 .00 .00 .00
.94
.00
.93 .94
.07
.9457.36
.06 .07
24.36
.06 (.06–.08)
(.06–.07) (.06–.08)
.14
(.06–.07) 12 .06
.07 .06
19
.07
Model
Int. J. Environ.
12–13 B compared
Res.
14–15
years Publicyears Health 2019, 51 16, x;123
51 doi: 283.610
167.380 .00 .00
.96 .93 .06 .08 .00 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.05–.07) (.07–.09) .07
Model
Mod
Model C BModel B2Mode B2
112 compa 510.458ed
484.214 486.275 o Mode.00 A
.00
.94 .94
.07 Δ.07 (.06–.08) p(.06–.07) 32.05 29 Δ
.06 .06 0 06 21
14–15
C2 Ageomp
Model
Model
years
compared
subgroup:
AC
d o Mod to
51
each
141 B other
102
283.610 453.482
.00
.00
.94
.00
.93 .94
.06
.08 .07
χ² (.06–.07)
(.07–.09) (.06–.08)
.07
.07 .06
df
Model
Model B2 Model
Model
compared Mode
B compared
toPublic
each Health C
123 compa
to Model
other 145
486.275
A ed 563.674
o Mode.00 B2.00
.94 .93
.07
Δ χ² 57.36 .06 p(.06–.07) .00(.06–.07)
81 93
.06
Δ df 12 .07 0 00 31
Int.
Ag J. Environ.
ubg 12–13
oup Res.
years 2019,
51 16, x; doi:
167.380 .00 .96 .06 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.05–.07) .05
Model Model
Model
Model
A
CBModel
compared
BC2
Mode to Model
102
145
C2 A
112
compa
453.482484.214
141
563.674 ed 510.458 o
.00
.00
Mode
.00
.94
.00
.93
B2
.94 .07
.94
.06
57.36
.07
.06 (.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
.00
(.06–.08)
(.06–.07)
32
.06
.07
1278
.06
.07 0 23 27
Int. J. Environ.
Model Res.
y Model Public
14–15 B2
BModel compared 112 Health
years 2019, 16, x;51
123 doi:
484.214 283.610
486.275 .00 .00
.00
.94 .93
.94 .07 .08
.07 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.06–.08)p (.07–.09)
(.06–.07) .06 .07
.06
Model C2 to each other
141 510.458 .00 .94 .06 Δ χ² (.06–.07) .07 Δ df
ModelCA
yModel 102 453.482.00 .00 .94 .07 (.06–.08).06 .06
Model
No
Model
Int.
Mod J. e B2
A
Mode
Model
compared
Environ.
ModelC2 Res. toAeach
B compared
B Public = 123to Model
unres
other
Health
145
r
2019,
486.275
c
112 16,Ax;563.674
ed base
doi:
484.214.00
ne .00
mode .94
.00
.93
a Δ
.94
χ² .06
.07parame 57.36ers
.07
p(.06–.07)
ree (.06–.07)
Mode
.00 Δ dfB = .07sem
12
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
(.06–.08).07 .06
res r c ed mode ree regress on
Model ModelC 145 A 141 563.674510.458 .00
.93 .94 .06 .06 (.06–.07) (.06–.07) 12ree .07
Model
coeffic
Int. J. Environ.
Mod
Model Model
B compared
Res.
BModel
C2
encompared
Public s Health
B2 acrossto Model
2019,
to
sex16, x;123
each other
141
Mode
doi:
510.458 486.275.00
B2 = ad .00 us ed .94
.94
57.36
sem
.06
res
Δ.07χ²
r c .00 edwww.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
mode
(.06–.07) p(.06–.07).07
ndfercep s Mode C = u y res r c ed
Δ.06
mode
Mod
Model
Int.
BModel
Model
compared
J. Environ.
equa BCcompared
Res. toPublicy oHealth
each regress
to Model
other 145 on coeffic
2019, A
563.674 en s.00 Mode
16, x; doi: Δ χ²C257.36
.93 =
.06ad us p ed .00 u y
(.06–.07) res
Δ dfr c12 ed mode ree regress on coeffic en s
.07
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
d =Res.
Mod
Model
Int. J. Environ.
C Model
Bdegrees
compared C2 oto Model
Public Health reedom
2019, A x;141
16, χ =510.458
doi: ch square .00 es .94 o57.36
mode .06 fi .00 p= p(.06–.07)
va ue12 CF .07
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph = Compara ve F ndex RMSEA =
Mod CModel compared to each other Δ χ² p Δ df
Roo Mean Square Error O Approx ma on 90% C = 90% Confidence n erva SRMR S andard zed Roo Mean
Mod
Int. Model
omp
J. Environ. Res.Bd compared
o
Public o hto 2019,
hHealth Model 16,Ax; doi: Δχ 57.36 .00 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Δ 12
Square
Mod B omp Res dua
d o Mod ∆ χA = Sa orra Ben er Sca ed Ch Square
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x; doi: www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x; doi: www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x; doi: www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
 Note. Model A = unrestricted baseline model (all parameters free); Model B = semi-restricted model (free
regression coefficients across sex); Model B2 = adjusted semi-restricted model (free intercepts); Model C = fully
restricted model (equality of regression coefficients); Model C2 = adjusted fully restricted model (free regression
coefficients). df = degrees of freedom. χ² = chi-square test of model fit. p = p-value. CFI = Comparative Fit Index.
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation. 90% CI = 90% Confidence Interval. SRMR (Standardized
Root Mean Square Residual). Δ χ² = Satorra-Bentler Scaled Chi Square.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 10 of 17

Differences between gender groups. To evaluate gender differences, in the first step, an
unrestricted
Differences baseline
between model
genderwas established
groups. estimating
To evaluate genderalldifferences,
parametersinfreely. In step,
the first a second step, a less
an unrestricted
restricted
baseline modelmodelwas with factor loadings
established held all
estimating equal between freely.
parameters the two In groups
a second was used,
step, whereas
a less the
restricted
thresholds
model with and factorregression coefficients
loadings held were allowed
equal between to be free
the two groups and were
was used, whereascomputed. This less-
the thresholds and
restricted
regressionmodel showed
coefficients werea favourable
allowed to be fit.free
In aandthird step,
were a more restricted
computed. model wasmodel
This less-restricted computed,
showedin
which the factor
a favourable fit. Inloadings, thresholds
a third step, and regression
a more restricted model coefficients
was computed, between the the
in which groups
factorwere held
loadings,
equal. The indices
thresholds showedcoefficients
and regression an adequatebetween
fit for thisthemore-restricted
groups were held model.
equal.Using
The aindices
χ²-difference
showedtest,an
the more-restricted
adequate model was compared
fit for this more-restricted model. Usingto the 2 -difference test,
a χless-restricted model. At first, the model
the more-restricted chi-square
was
differences
compared totest thebetween the two
less-restricted models
model. Atwas
first,significant,
the chi-squareSatorra-Bentler
differences testχ² (31) = 109.93,
between p < 0.001.
the two modelsA
second
was fully-restricted
significant, Satorra-Bentler χ (31) = 109.93,
2
model, assuming different p <regression coefficients
0.001. A second for five ofmodel,
fully-restricted the direct paths
assuming
from parental
different attachment
regression to emotional
coefficients for five competence
of the directand to from
paths the different
parentalwell-being
attachment outcomes, was
to emotional
compared
competence to and
the semi-restricted
to the differentmodel (Figure
well-being 2). The test
outcomes, wasdid not reachtosignificance
compared (χ² (19) =model
the semi-restricted 24.36,
p = 0.14),2).which
(Figure The testimplies thatreach
did not the more restricted
significance (19) = 24.36, model
(χ2 multi-group p = 0.14),
fitswhich
the data no worse
implies than
that the the
more
less restricted
restricted model. Thus,
multi-group modelfemale
fits theand
datamale adolescents
no worse than the didlessnotrestricted
differ considerably
model. Thus, in female
the impact
and
of theadolescents
male examined interplay.
did not differ considerably in the impact of the examined interplay.

.12
.32
.13
-.10
-.06
-.13
-.20
Trust .87 Life Satisfaction
Express Perceive Manage
.84 emotions emotions emotions .34
Communication
Attachment Positive affect
-.58 .46
Mother .79 .46 .90
Alienation .41
.41
-.15 Negative affect
.63 Emotional
Trust .88 Competence
.14
-.26 Somatic
.87 complains
Attachment .12
Communication
-.55 Father
-.31
.22
Alienation .09 Perceived stress
.05
-.14
-.20
-.24
-.09
girls
boys

Figure 2. Multi-group path model:

Figure Sex differences.
2. Multi-group Note: Significant
path model: effects shown as standardized
Sex differences.
coefficients (β); continuous pathways are significant at p < 0.01; dotted pathways are not significant;
factorSignificant
Note: loadings are standardized.
effects shown as standardized coefficients (β); continuous pathways are significant
at p < 0.01; dotted pathways are not significant; factor loadings are standardized.
Differences between age groups. The same stepwise analysis was used to evaluate age differences.
Thus,Differences
after establishing
between agea freely-estimated
groups. The same baseline model,
stepwise a semi-restricted
analysis model with
was used to evaluate age equal factor
differences.
loadings
Thus, afterwas computed.a freely-estimated
establishing This less-restricted modelmodel,
baseline showed a favourable fit.
a semi-restricted Subsequently,
model with equala factor
more
constrained model was estimated, in which the factor loadings, thresholds and regression
loadings was computed. This less-restricted model showed a favourable fit. Subsequently, a more coefficients
between the groups were held equal. The indices showed an adequate fit for this fully-restricted model.
TheJ.initial
Int. Environ.chi-square
Res. Public Health 2019, 16,test
differences x; doi: Satorra- Bentler χ2 (31) =
between the two models was significant,www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
81.93, p < 0.001. In a second attempt, a fully-restricted model assuming different regression coefficients
for two of the direct paths from parental attachment to emotional competence and to the different
well-being outcomes, was compared to the semi-restricted model. The test did not reach significance
this time (χ2 (27) = 32.78, p = 0.23), which implies that the more-restricted multi-group model fits the
data better than the less-restricted model (Figure 3). Thus, adolescents aged 12–13 and 14–15 years
fairly resembled each other in the examined interplay.
Satorra- Bentler χ² (31) = 81.93, p < 0.001. In a second attempt, a fully-restricted model assuming
different regression coefficients for two of the direct paths from parental attachment to emotional
competence and to the different well-being outcomes, was compared to the semi-restricted model.
The test did not reach significance this time (χ² (27) = 32.78, p = 0.23), which implies that the more-
restricted multi-group model fits the data better than the less-restricted model (Figure 3). Thus,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 11 of 17
adolescents aged 12–13 and 14–15 years fairly resembled each other in the examined interplay.

.24
.13
-.10
-.04
-.20
Trust .87 Life Satisfaction
Express Perceive Manage
.84 emotions emotions emotions .34
Communication
Attachment Positive affect
-.58
Mother .79 .46 .90
Alienation .40 .46

.35 Negative affect

-.15
.63 Emotional
Trust .88 Competence
.12
-.26 Somatic
.87 complains
Attachment
Communication
-.55 Father
-.31
.22
Alienation .09 Perceived stress
.08
-.14
-.20
-.19

12-13 years
14-15 years

Figure 3. Multi-group path model: Age differences. Note: Significant effects shown as standardized
Figure 3. Multi-group path model: Age differences. Note: Significant effects shown as standardized
coefficients (β); bold pathways are significant at p < 0.01; dotted pathways are not significant; factor
coefficients (β); bold pathways are significant at p < 0.01; dotted pathways are not significant; factor
loadings are standardized.
loadings are standardized.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
Research has shown that the quality of adolescents’ social relationships plays a significant role
Research
in their has shown
well-being [18,29]. that the quality
Although of adolescents'
in adolescence thesocial relationships
relationship with theplays
peer a significant
group acquires role
in their relevance
greater well-beingthan [18,29]. Although in
in childhood, adolescence
parent-child the relationship
relationships withtothe
continue bepeer group source
a primary acquires of
greater relevance than in childhood, parent-child relationships continue to
well-being for the adolescent [25]. One of the variables which influences the development of emotional be a primary source of
well-being
competencies foristhe adolescent
parental [25]. One
attachment, of adolescents
in fact, the variables whowhich influences
maintain a secure the development
attachment of
to their
emotional
parents arecompetencies
more capable to is perceive,
parental name,
attachment,
expressinand fact, adolescents
regulate who maintain
their emotions [77]. With a all
secure
this,
attachment to their parents are more capable to perceive, name, express
the objective of this study was to understand the influence of attachment to mother and father onand regulate their emotions
[77]. With all this,
the well-being the objective
of adolescents, of this studythe
contemplating was to understand
mediating role of the influence
emotional of attachment
competencies to
in this
mother and father
relationship, givenon thatthe well-being
these could beofa adolescents,
damping factor contemplating the mediating
in the development role of emotional
of discomfort in the face
competencies in this relationship, given
of unhealthy paternal-filial attachment bonds [30]. that these could be a damping factor in the development of
discomfort in theobtained
The results face of unhealthy
indicate, on paternal-filial
one hand, that attachment
having a bondbondsof[30].
secure attachment to the mother
The results obtained indicate, on one hand, that having
and to the father is positively related to satisfaction in the different vital areas a bond of secure
of the attachment to the
adolescent. Secure
mother and to the father is positively related to satisfaction in the different
attachment also relates to increased positive affectivity, i.e., positive experiences, vitality, interest, andvital areas of the
adolescent.
positive mood. Secure
On attachment
the other hand, alsosecure
relatesparental
to increased positive
attachment affectivity, related
is negatively i.e., positive experiences,
to negative moods,
vitality, interest, and positive mood. On the other hand, secure parental attachment
i.e., negative experiences and unpleasant moods (e.g., anger, disgust, guilt, fear, or nervousness); it is is negatively
related to negative
also associated withmoods, i.e., negative
lower perception experiences
of stress and fewer and unpleasant
somatic moodssuch
complaints, (e.g.,
as anger, disgust,
tiredness, body
guilt, fear, or nervousness); it is also associated with lower perception of
discomfort or nonspecific pain. Likewise, adolescents with secure parental attachment relationships stress and fewer somatic
complaints, such as tiredness,
are more emotionally competentbody discomfort
and have or ability
a greater nonspecific pain. Likewise,
to perceive, express, name adolescents
and managewith
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, x; doi: www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
their own emotions, as well as those of others. These findings are in line with what has been proposed
in the previous literature in the adult and adolescent population [18,29,36,40].
Well-developed emotional competencies consist of perceiving and understanding one’s own and
other people’s emotions, naming and adequately expressing what we are feeling, and managing and
regulating both positive and negative emotions [34]. Emotional competencies relate positively to life
satisfaction, positive experiences and moods, and relate negatively to the perception of stress, e.g., [78].
The ability to label, express, manage and regulate emotions is negatively related to somatic complaints
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 12 of 17

and negative experiences and moods [14,36,37]. However, the ability to perceive and understand
emotions is not related to a lower level of somatic complaints or negative affect; this relation could
be due to the fact that excessive attention and an understanding of negative emotions, if it is not
accompanied by a strong capacity for emotional regulation, does not benefit well-being and health [78].
In line with the first hypothesis, the results obtained confirm that emotional competencies have
a mediating role between parental attachment and the well-being of adolescents. This result means
that parental attachment indirectly influences the well-being of the adolescent through emotional
competencies. However, we consider it important to point out that attachment to parents is a variable
that continues to have a direct influence on the well-being of adolescents.
As an exception, attachment to the mother ceases to be an influential factor in the development of
somatic complaints when the role of emotional competencies is taken into account. In other words, if the
adolescent knows how to manage his or her emotions properly, having an unsatisfactory relationship
with the mother is no longer a relevant factor in the presence of physical discomfort. These results
provide previous studies [30,41,79] with a better understanding of the mediating relationship between
the variables worked on.
According to the second hypothesis, differences would be expected depending on the age and sex
of the adolescents. In the age results, few differences were found between the younger (12–13 years)
and older (14–15 years) age groups. It was only observed that, in the case of younger adolescents,
attachment to the father does not significantly influence positive affect when considering the mediating
role of emotional competencies. This means that the level of positive experiences and emotions of
12-to-13-year-old adolescents depends on their ability to manage emotions, regardless of the quality of
their parental bonding. However, in 14-to-15-year-olds, this parental bonding is just as important as
their emotional competencies. These results run counter to the literature review, which states that the
importance of parental bonding decreases progressively as the age of adolescents increases [45].
Lastly, two significant changes were observed when taking into account the influence of sex in the
proposed mediation. First, attachment to the mother ceased to directly influence somatic complaints in
the case of males, while it continued to influence the case of females. Second, attachment to the father
ceased to have a direct influence on positive affect in the case of men, but not in the case of women.
Furthermore, we note that the association between parental attachment and emotional
competencies is weaker in males than in females. These results would indicate that in the case
of women, attachment to both fathers and mothers is more relevant than in the case of men, since they
continue to be influential factors in the well-being of girls, even though girls have a good capacity to
manage their emotions [43,49].
In conclusion, the novelty that our results bring to the existing literature is the mediating function
of emotional competencies between attachment to parents and the well-being of adolescents and how
this interaction varies according to sex and age. Our study suggests that adequate training in emotional
competencies may increase life satisfaction and positive affect in adolescents [67]; it may also reduce
stress, somatic complaints, and negative affect, even in those teens with a weak attachment to their
parents [52].
Even when considering the importance of emphasizing the development of the emotional
competencies of adolescents, the results obtained lead us to emphasize the importance of satisfactory
family relationships in adolescence. Although at this stage young people become more autonomous
and focus on their peer group [14], attachment to parents remains an equally important factor in
well-being, especially for girls.
This research makes an important contribution to well-being in the adolescent stage, since it is a
population with particular characteristics and needs, different from those existing in other evolutionary
stages such as childhood or adulthood [15]. Moreover, we consider a strength of our work to be that it
was carried out with Spanish adolescents, since in addition to the fact that there are few studies using a
Spanish-speaking population, the results obtained in other countries should not be generalized due to
possible cultural and contextual differences in the psychological variables studied [80].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 13 of 17

It is important to recognize that our study is not without limitations. One of our main limitations is
in having used self-report questionnaires to evaluate the variables studied. Thus, we keep in mind, that
at all times, we are working with the subjective perception that adolescents have of their attachment
relationships, their emotional competencies and their well-being. This subjective perception may not
necessarily coincide with objective behaviour, especially in the case of emotional competencies [42].
In addition, in future investigations, it would be interesting to enlarge and diversify the sample used,
including longitudinal measurements taken at different times. This would make it possible to conduct
causality studies and to more safely locate the variables that influence adolescent well-being [24].
To conclude, two future lines of work for professionals in psychology, education and health can
be deduced from the present work. First, it is important to promote emotional education programmes
that develop the emotional competencies of adolescents, and the introduction of this type of training
either in formal education or extracurricular education [66]. Second, the need to provide parents with a
variety of parenting resources, i.e., the knowledge and skills needed to bond safely with their children
from early childhood and to adequately address the challenges that arise in their developmental
maturation through adolescence [45]. In line with other authors [27], we consider that these strategies
would be an efficient means of promoting well-being and preventing emotional and behavioural
problems in adolescents.

5. Conclusions
One of the great challenges of the social sciences of XXI century has been the promotion of
children’s and adolescents’ well-being, considering its impact on health [3,4]. However, the study of
adolescent well-being is still in progress [5]. Stressing that levels of well-being change throughout
the life cycle [7] with adolescents reporting lower levels of life satisfaction than other developmental
stages [8], the present study focuses on social and emotional predictors of well-being in adolescence.
The findings of the present study confirm that emotional competencies (ability to label, express,
manage and regulate emotions) have a mediating role in the relationship between parental attachment
and well-being of adolescents, measured by somatic complaints, perceived stress, life satisfaction and
affectivity. In early adolescence (12–13 years), attachment to the father does not significantly influence
positive affect when considering the mediating role of emotional competencies, compared to older
adolescents (14–15 years). Furthermore, the association between parental attachment and emotional
competencies is weaker in males than in females.
These findings suggest that the development of emotional competencies may increase life
satisfaction and positive affect in adolescents; it may also reduce perceived stress, somatic complaints,
and negative affect, even in those teenagers with a weak attachment to their parents.

Author Contributions: All authors have been contributed equally to this research. I.M.-C. conceived and designed
the research, providing supervision and guidance to the writing of the manuscript. E.M. and K.S. participated in
the data collection and performed the data analyses. E.M. and K.S. drafted the first version of the manuscript and
I.M.-C., reviewed, edited and modified the manuscript critically for important intellectual content.
Funding: This research was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
(PSI2013-43943-R; PSI2017-84005-R).
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the participating schools for their
cooperation and support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Jaime, A.; Ferran, C.; López, V. Well-being in childhood and adolescence. Psicoperspectivas 2015, 14, 1–5.
2. Diener, E.; Oishi, S.; Lucas, R.E. Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive
evaluations of life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003, 54, 403–425. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Diener, E.; Chan, M.Y. Happy People Live Longer: Subjective Well-Being Contributes to Health and Longevity.
Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being. 2011, 3, 1–43. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 14 of 17

4. Casas, F. Children’s rights and children’s quality of life: Conceptual and practical issues. Soc. Indic. Res.
1997, 42, 283–298. [CrossRef]
5. Proctor, C.C.; Linley, P.P.; Maltby, J. Youth life satisfaction: A review of the literature. J. Happiness Stud. 2009,
10, 583–630. [CrossRef]
6. Casas, F. Subjective social indicators and child and adolescent well-being. Child Indic. Res. 2011, 4, 555–575.
[CrossRef]
7. Blanchflower, D.D.; Oswald, A.J. Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Soc. Sci. Med. 2008, 66,
1733–1749. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Patalay, P.; Fitzsimons, E. Development and predictors of mental ill-health and wellbeing from childhood to
adolescence. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatry Epidemiol. 2018, 53, 1311–1323. [CrossRef]
9. Garcia, F.; Serra, E.; Garcia, O.O.; Martinez, I.; Cruise, E. A Third Emerging Stage for the Current Digital
Society? Optimal Parenting Styles in Spain, the United States, Germany, and Brazil. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health. 2019, 16, 2333. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Moreira, H.; Gouveia, M.M.; Canavarro, M.C. Is Mindful Parenting Associated with Adolescents’ Well-being
in Early and Middle/Late Adolescence? The Mediating Role of Adolescents’ Attachment Representations,
Self-Compassion and Mindfulness. J. Youth Adolesc. 2018, 47, 1771–1788. [CrossRef]
11. Huebner, E.E.; Suldo, S.S.; Smith, L.L.; McKnight, C.G. Life satisfaction in children and youth: Empirical
foundations and implications for school psychologists. Psychol. Sch. 2004, 41, 81–93. [CrossRef]
12. Burger, K.; Samuel, R. The Role of Perceived Stress and Self-Efficacy in Young People’s Life Satisfaction: A
Longitudinal Study. J. Youth Adolesc. 2017, 46, 78–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Pérez-Fuentes, M.D.C.; Molero-Jurado, M.D.M.; Barragán-Martín, A.A.; Gázquez-Linares, J.J.G. Family
functioning, emotional intelligence, and values: Analysis of the relationship with aggressive behavior in
adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Smith, E.E.; Reynolds, S.; Orchard, F.; Whalley, H.H.; Chan, S.W. Cognitive biases predict symptoms of
depression, anxiety and wellbeing above and beyond neuroticism in adolescence. J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 241,
446–453. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. González-Carrasco, M.; Casas, F.; Malo, S.; Viñas, F.; Dinisman, T. Changes with Age in Subjective Well-Being
Through the Adolescent Years: Differences by Gender. J. Happiness Stud. 2017, 18, 63–88. [CrossRef]
16. Pedersen, G.A.; Smallegange, E.; Coetzee, A.; Hartog, K.; Turner, J.; Jordans, M.J.D.; Brown, F.L. A Systematic
Review of the Evidence for Family and Parenting Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries:
Child and Youth Mental Health Outcomes. J. Child. Fam. Stud. 2019, 1–20. [CrossRef]
17. Garcia, O.O.; Serra, E. Raising children with poor school performance: parenting styles and short-and
long-term consequences for adolescent and adult development. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16,
1–24. [CrossRef]
18. Acun-Kapikiran, N.; Körukcü, Ö.; Kapikiran, Ş. The Relation of Parental Attitudes to Life Satisfaction and
Depression in Early Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Self-esteem. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2014, 14,
1246–1253. [CrossRef]
19. Herrera-López, M.; Romera, E.; Ortega-Ruiz, R. Bullying and cyberbullying in Colombia, co-occurrence in
schooled adolescents. Rev. Latinoam Psicol. 2017, 49, 163–172. [CrossRef]
20. Koehn, A.A.; Kerns, K.A. Parent-child attachment: Meta-analysis of associations with parenting behaviors in
middle childhood and adolescence. Attach Hum. Dev. 2018, 20, 378–405. [CrossRef]
21. Axpe, I.; Rodríguez-Fernández, A.; Goñi, E.; Antonio-Agirre, I. Parental Socialization Styles: The Contribution
of Paternal and Maternal Affect/Communication and Strictness to Family Socialization Style. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2240. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss: Retrospect and Prospect. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 1982, 52, 664–678. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
23. Groh, A.A.; Roisman, G.G.; Booth-LaForce, C.; Fraley, R.R.; Owen, M.M.; Cox, M.M.; Burchinal, M.R. IV.
Stability of Attachment Security from Infancy to Late Adolescence. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child. Dev. 2014, 79,
51–66. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. O’Connor, T.T.; Woolgar, M.; Humayun, S.; Briskman, J.J.; Scott, S. Early caregiving predicts attachment
representations in adolescence: Findings from two longitudinal studies. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2018.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 15 of 17

25. Allen, J.J.; Grande, L.; Tan, J.; Loeb, E. Parent and Peer Predictors of Change in Attachment Security from
Adolescence to Adulthood. Child Dev. 2018, 89, 1120–1132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Holt, L.L.; Mattanah, J.J.; Long, M.W. Change in parental and peer relationship quality during emerging
adulthood: Implications for academic, social, and emotional functioning. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2018, 35, 743–769.
[CrossRef]
27. Keresteš, G.; Rezo, I.; Ajduković, M. Links between attachment to parents and internalizing problems in
adolescence: The mediating role of adolescents’ personality. Curr. Psychol. 2019. [CrossRef]
28. Rawatlal, N.; Pillay, B.J.; Kliewer, W. The role of insecure attachment on emotion dysregulation in a South
African adolescent cohort. Int. J. Psychol. 2016, 51, 114–125.
29. Jiang, X.X.; Huebner, E.E.; Hills, K.J. Parent attachment and early adolescents’ life satisfaction: The mediating
role of hope. Psychol. Sch. 2013, 50, 340–352. [CrossRef]
30. Sabri, M.; Khoshbakht, F.; Golzar, H. Relationship between attachment styles and social adjustment: The
mediator role of emotional intelligence. Dev. Psychol. J. Iran. Psychol. 2015, 11, 181–194.
31. Brumariu, L.L.; Kerns, K.A. Pathways to anxiety: Contributions of attachment history, temperament, peer
competence, and ability to manage intense emotions. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2013, 44, 504–515. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
32. Oldfield, J.; Humphrey, N.; Hebron, J. The role of parental and peer attachment relationships and school
connectedness in predicting adolescent mental health outcomes. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2016, 21, 21–29.
[CrossRef]
33. Andreas, A.; White, L.L.; Sierau, S.; Perren, S.; von Klitzing, K.; Klein, A.M. Like mother like daughter, like
father like son? Intergenerational transmission of internalizing symptoms at early school age: A longitudinal
study. Eur. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 2018, 27, 985–995. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Petrides, K.V.; Mikolajczak, M.; Mavroveli, S.; Sanchez-Ruiz, M.-J.; Furnham, A.; Pérez-González, J.-C.
Developments in Trait Emotional Intelligence. Emot. Rev. 2016, 1–7. [CrossRef]
35. Di Fabio, A.; Kenny, M.E. Promoting Well-Being: The Contribution of Emotional Intelligence. Front Psychol.
2016, 17, 1182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Jellesma, F.F.; Rieffe, C.; Terwogt, M.M.; Westenberg, P.M. Children’s sense of coherence and trait emotional
intelligence: A longitudinal study exploring the development of somatic complaints. Psychol. Health 2011,
26, 307–320. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Matthews, G.; Zeidner, M.; Roberts, R.D. Emotional intelligence, health, and stress. In The Handbook of Stress
and Health: A Guide to Research and Practice; John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2017.
38. Górriz, A.A.; Prado-Gascó, V.V.; Villanueva, L.; González-Barrón, R. Psychometric properties of the Somatic
Complaints Scale in Spanish children and adults. Psicothema 2015, 27, 269–276.
39. Cohen, S.; Gianaros, P.P.; Manuck, S.B. A Stage Model of Stress and Disease. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2016, 11,
456–463. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Li, X.; Zheng, X. Well-Being: Emotional Intelligence and Self-Esteem As Moderators. Soc. Behav. Personal.
Int. J. 2014, 42, 1257–1266. [CrossRef]
41. Keaten, J.; Kelly, L. Emotional intelligence as a mediator of family communication patterns and reticence.
Commun. Rep. 2008, 21, 104–116. [CrossRef]
42. Balluerka, N.; Gorostiaga, A.; Alonso-Arbiol, I.; Aritzeta, A. Peer attachment and class emotional intelligence
as predictors of adolescents’ psychological well-being: A multilevel approach. J. Adolesc. 2016, 53, 1–9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Levin, K.K.; Dallago, L.; Currie, C. The Association Between Adolescent Life Satisfaction, Family Structure,
Family Affluence and Gender Differences in Parent-Child Communication. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 106, 287–305.
[CrossRef]
44. Ronen, T.; Hamama, L.; Rosenbaum, M.; Mishely-Yarlap, A. Subjective Well-Being in Adolescence: The
Role of Self-Control, Social Support, Age, Gender, and Familial Crisis. J. Happiness Stud. 2016, 17, 81–104.
[CrossRef]
45. Theisen, J.J.; Fraley, R.R.; Hankin, B.B.; Young, J.J.; Chopik, W.J. How do attachment styles change from
childhood through adolescence? Findings from an accelerated longitudinal Cohort study. J. Res. Pers. 2018,
74, 141–146. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 16 of 17

46. Liu, W.; Mei, J.; Tian, L.; Huebner, E.S. Age and Gender Differences in the Relation between School-Related
Social Support and Subjective Well-Being in School Among Students. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 125, 1065–1083.
[CrossRef]
47. Singh, K.; Ruch, W.; Junnarkar, M. Effect of the Demographic Variables and Psychometric Properties of the
Personal Well-Being Index for School Children in India. Child Indic. Res. 2015, 8, 571–585. [CrossRef]
48. Mayer, J.J.; Caruso, D.D.; Salovey, P. The Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence: Principles and Updates.
Emot. Rev. 2016, 8, 290–300. [CrossRef]
49. Martínez-Marín, M.M.; Martínez, C. Subjective well-being and gender-typed attributes in adolescents: The
relevance of emotional intelligence. Aust. J. Psychol. 2019, 1–9. [CrossRef]
50. Baron, R.R.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [CrossRef]
51. Moksnes, U.U.; Espnes, G.A. Self-esteem and life satisfaction in adolescents-gender and age as potential
moderators. Qual. Life Res. 2013, 22, 2921–2928. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Zhang, X.; Chen, X.; Ran, G.; Ma, Y. Adult children’s support and self-esteem as mediators in the relationship
between attachment and subjective well-being in older adults. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 97, 229–233.
[CrossRef]
53. Gascó, V.V.; Villanueva, L.L.; Plumed, A.G. Trait emotional intelligence and subjective well-being in
adolescents: The moderating role of feelings. Psicothema 2018, 30, 310–315.
54. Riquelme, M.; Garcia, O.O.; Serra, E. Psychosocial disadjustment in adolescence: parental socialization,
self-esteem and substance use. An. Psicol. 2018, 34, 536–544. [CrossRef]
55. Tur-Porcar, A.A.; Jiménez-Martínez, J.; Mestre-Escrivá, V. Substance Use in Early and Middle Adolescence.
The Role of Academic Efficacy and Parenting. Psychosoc. Interv. 2019. [CrossRef]
56. Koydemir, S.; Schütz, A. Emotional intelligence predicts components of subjective well-being beyond
personality: A two-country study using self- and informant reports. J. Posit. Psychol. 2012, 7, 107–118.
[CrossRef]
57. Cooke, J.J.; Kochendorfer, L.L.; Stuart-Parrigon, K.K.; Koehn, A.A.; Kerns, K.A. Parent–child attachment
and children’s experience and regulation of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Emotion 2018. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
58. Armsden, G.; Greenberg, M. The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their
relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 1987, 16, 427–454. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
59. Delgado, L.; Penelo, E.; Fornieles, A.; Brun-Gasca, C.; Olle, M. Factorial Structure and Internal Consistency of
the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment for Adolescents (IPPA) Spanish version. Univ. Psychol. 2016,
15, 327–338.
60. Bowlby, J. The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds; Routledge: London, UK, 1979.
61. Pace, C.C.; San Martini, P.; Zavattini, G.C. The factor structure of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
(IPPA): A survey of Italian adolescents. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011, 51, 83–88. [CrossRef]
62. Schoeps, K.; Tamarit, A.; Montoya-Castilla, I.; Takšić, V. Factorial structure and validity of the Emotional
Skills and Competences Questionnaire (ESCQ) in Spanish adolescents. Behav. Psychol. 2019, in press.
63. Rieffe, C.; Oosterveld, P.; Terwogt, M.M. An alexithymia questionnaire for children: Factorial and concurrent
validation results. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2006, 40, 123–133. [CrossRef]
64. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24,
385–396. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Herrero, J.; Meneses, J. Short Web-based versions of the perceived stress (PSS) and Center for Epidemiological
Studies-Depression (CESD) Scales: A comparison to pencil and paper responses among Internet users.
Comput. Human Behav. 2006, 22, 830–846. [CrossRef]
66. Diener, E.; Emmons, R.R.; Larsen, R.R.; Griffin, S. The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personal. Assess. 1985, 49,
71–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Atienza, F.F.; Pons, D.; Balaguer, I.; García-Merita, M. Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life
Scale in adolescents. Psicothema 2000, 12, 314–319.
68. Diener, E.; Wirtz, D.; Tov, W.; Kim-Prieto, C.; Choi, D.D.; Oishi, S.; Biswas-Diener, R. New well-being
measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 97,
143–156. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2554 17 of 17

69. Edwards, J.J.; Lambert, L.S. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical
framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol. Methods 2007, 12, 1–22. [CrossRef]
70. Wegener, D.T.; Fabrigar, L.R. Analysis and design for nonexperimental data: Addressing causal and noncausal
hypotheses. In Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology; Reis, H.T., Judd, C.M., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 412–450.
71. Yuan, K.E.H.; Bentler, P.M. On chi-square difference and z. tests in mean and covariance structure analysis
when the base model is misspecified. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2004, 64, 737–757. [CrossRef]
72. Muthén, L.L.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus User’s Guide, 7th ed.; Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012.
73. Schlüter, E.; Christ, O. How national identification enhances anti-immigrant prejudice: Development and
empirical test of individual-, contextual-, and cross-level explanations. In Methods, Theories, and Empirical
Applications in the Social Sciences; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 291–299.
74. Preacher, K.K.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [CrossRef]
75. Shrout, P.P.; Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and
recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 422–445. [CrossRef]
76. Hu, L.L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [CrossRef]
77. West, S.S.; Finch, J.J.; Curran, P.J. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and
remedies. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 1995; pp. 56–75.
78. Ortuño-Sierra, J.; Chocarro, E.; Fonseca-Pedrero, E.; Riba, S.S.I.; Muñiz, J. The assessment of emotional and
Behavioural problems: Internal structure of The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Int. J. Clin. Health
Psychol. 2015, 15, 265–273. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Serrano, C.; Andreu, Y. Perceived Emotional Intelligence, Subjective Well-Being, Perceived Stress, Engagement
and Academic Achievement of Adolescents. Rev. Psicodidáctica 2016, 21, 357–374. [CrossRef]
80. Yu, M.V.B.; Deutsch, N.N.; Futch Ehrlich, V.V.; Arbeit, M.M.; Johnson, H.H.; Melton, T.N. “It’s like all of his
attention is on you”: A mixed methods examination of attachment, supportive nonparental youth–adult
relationships, and self-esteem during adolescence. J. Community Psychol. 2019, 47, 414–434. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).