The Relationship Between Social Avoidance and Loneliness: The Indirect Effects of Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, and Interpersonal Trust

The Relationship Between Social Avoidance and Loneliness: The Indirect Effects of Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, and Interpersonal Trust | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Relationship Between Social Avoidance and Loneliness: The Indirect Effects of Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, and Interpersonal Trust Jun ZHANG, Shungui XIANG, Jimyeong Hong, Lei ZHAO, Dongming JIA This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8505519/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objective This study aimed to explore the mechanisms through which social avoidance influences loneliness. Methods Longitudinal data were collected using the Interpersonal Trust Scale, Depression Scale, Loneliness Questionnaire, Social Avoidance Scale, and Core Self-Evaluation Scale to conduct correlational analyses. Results Social avoidance directly predicted loneliness and also indirectly influenced it through dual or triple mediation paths involving interpersonal trust, core self-evaluation, and depression. Conclusion Loneliness is not only directly affected by social behavior but is also closely related to the depletion and imbalance of psychological resources caused by social avoidance— including core self-evaluation, interpersonal trust, and emotional regulation ability. Social avoidance reduces core self-evaluation, weakens interpersonal trust, and increases depressive emotions, forming a self-reinforcing vicious cycle that exacerbates loneliness. We refer to this mechanism as the Social Avoidance–Psychological Resource Imbalance Theory (SAPRI). This finding suggests that psychological practitioners should focus on reducing social avoidance, enhancing self-evaluation, rebuilding interpersonal trust, and regulating negative emotions to effectively alleviate loneliness and promote mental well-being. Social Avoidance Core Self-Evaluation Interpersonal Trust Depression Loneliness Figures Figure 1 Introduction In ancient China, there was a tragic love story similar to Romeo and Juliet—the tale of Liang Shanbo and Zhu Yingtai. Zhu Yingtai disguised herself as a man to pursue her studies in Hangzhou, where she met and befriended Liang Shanbo. The two studied together for three years, forming a deep bond. Upon parting, Zhu Yingtai hinted at her true feelings several times, but Liang Shanbo failed to perceive them. When Liang finally discovered that Zhu was a woman—and that she had already been betrothed to the Ma family—it was too late for him to propose. They met one last time, tearfully confessing their love. Liang soon died in loneliness and despair. On her wedding day, Zhu Yingtai passed by Liang’s grave, where a storm erupted, the tomb split open, and she threw herself into it. Moments later, the two transformed into butterflies, flying together for eternity. Although the ending may sound fantastical, both protagonists ultimately perished in isolation—illustrating the profound destructiveness of loneliness on the human psyche. Loneliness is a subjective negative psychological experience that arises when an individual’s interpersonal relationships fail to meet their emotional or belongingness needs. It manifests as emotional deprivation, feelings of alienation, and social disconnection (Roberts & Krueger, 2021 ). Structurally, loneliness can be divided into emotional loneliness and social loneliness: the former stems from a lack or loss of intimate relationships, while the latter arises from insufficient social networks or group belongingness (Wolters et al., 2023 ). Studies have shown that the development of loneliness is influenced by multiple factors, including individual traits (e.g., self-esteem, core self-evaluation), the degree of interpersonal trust, social support levels, and tendencies toward social avoidance (Li et al., 2023 ; Giordano et al., 2025 ; Jia et al., 2024 ). Regarding the measurement of loneliness, the most widely used tool is the UCLA Loneliness Scale, developed by Russell and colleagues, whose reliability and validity have been confirmed by numerous studies (Russell, 1996 ). The scale includes multiple items that assess the degree of loneliness experienced in social interactions, with higher scores indicating stronger loneliness. Studying loneliness is of great importance, as it helps deepen our understanding of individual mental health and social adaptation, while also providing theoretical and practical guidance for education, community-based psychological interventions, and the development of social support systems (Franco-O’Byrne et al., 2023 ). Social Avoidance refers to an individual’s behavioral tendency to intentionally reduce or avoid social situations due to worries about negative evaluation, tension, or discomfort during social interactions (Zhu et al., 2025 ). It is generally regarded as a strategy for regulating negative emotions, reflecting both one’s fear of social contexts and the defensive need to maintain a positive self-image (Shang et al., 2025 ). Researchers generally divide Social Avoidance into two dimensions: (1) Social Avoidance, referring to behaviors in which individuals deliberately withdraw from or minimize interaction with others, and (2) Social Distress, referring to feelings of uneasiness, embarrassment, or anxiety experienced in social situations (Jiang & Bai, 2014 ). The development of Social Avoidance is influenced by multiple factors, including personality traits (e.g., low self-esteem or low core self-evaluation), insufficient social support, negative interpersonal experiences, and cultural influences (Zheng et al., 2025 ; Wong et al., 2023 ). Excessive Social Avoidance not only weakens social adaptability but may also trigger psychological problems such as loneliness and depression (Li et al., 2023 ). In terms of measurement, the most representative tool is the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (SADS), developed by Rotter ( 1967 ). It includes two dimensions—“Social Avoidance” and “Social Distress”—and is commonly used to assess social anxiety and avoidance tendencies. The Chinese version revised by Jiang and Bai has demonstrated good reliability and validity among Chinese populations(Jiang & Bai, 2014 ). The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), proposed by Bandura ( 1986 ), emphasizes the reciprocal determinism among behavior, cognition, and environment. The theory posits that an individual’s psychological state and social behavior are not only influenced by external social contexts but also shaped by self-cognitive and self-evaluative processes. In other words, the formation of personality, emotions, and social behaviors results from the interaction between internal cognitive mechanisms and social experiences (Bandura, 1986 ). Within this theoretical framework, Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) serves as a key component of the “self-system,” representing an individual’s overall judgment of their own competence and self-worth. Individuals with high CSE tend to develop strong self-efficacy beliefs, establish greater interpersonal trust, and actively engage in social interactions; conversely, individuals with low CSE often lack confidence and a sense of security, are more prone to social avoidance, and consequently experience reduced social support and emotional connectedness (Li et al., 2024 ). From the perspective of social cognitive theory, Social Avoidance is not merely an external behavioral manifestation but also reflects internal social-cognitive biases and negative self-beliefs. When individuals excessively avoid social interactions, their needs for social feedback and belonging remain unmet, gradually leading to loneliness. This loneliness experience reinforces negative cognitive patterns—such as beliefs of “self-inefficacy” and “others being untrustworthy”—which further diminish interpersonal trust and ultimately exacerbate depressive emotions (Bandura, 2001 ). Based on this theoretical framework, the present study investigates Social Avoidance as the independent variable and Loneliness as the dependent variable, with Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, and Interpersonal Trust serving as mediating variables. The Relationship Between Social Avoidance and Loneliness The Need to Belong Theory posits that the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation, comparable to physiological needs such as food or safety, and is a core foundation for human survival and psychological health. Humans are inherently motivated to establish and maintain stable, positive, and enduring social relationships, which manifest in family, friendship, romantic relationships, and group belonging, and deeply influence individuals’ emotions, cognition, and behavior (Baumeister & Leary, 1995 ). When individuals obtain positive social connections and acceptance, they experience a sense of security, well-being, and self-worth; conversely, if this need for social belonging remains unmet over time, individuals may experience loneliness, depression, anxiety, and decreased self-evaluation (Pardede & Kovac, 2023 ). Empirical studies also support a positive relationship between social avoidance and loneliness (Li et al., 2023 ). Based on this, Hypothesis 1 of the present study is proposed: Social Avoidance significantly predicts Loneliness. The Indirect Effect of Core Self-Evaluation Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) refers to an individual’s fundamental beliefs about their own worth and abilities, representing a stable, trait-like self-assessment (Chen et al., 2022 ). It comprises four dimensions: self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control, reflecting overall self-concept and psychological resilience (Dennis & Owoseni, 2022 ). According to Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954 ), individuals have an intrinsic motivation to evaluate their abilities, opinions, and values by comparing themselves with others. In the absence of objective standards, people tend to use others as reference points to determine their relative social standing. Social comparisons can be upward (comparing with those better off) or downward (comparing with those worse off). Upward comparisons may motivate self-improvement but can also induce feelings of inferiority, while downward comparisons may enhance self-worth or generate a sense of superiority. Through continuous social comparison, individuals form and adjust their self-concept and self-evaluation. However, when individuals engage in social avoidance and lack comparison opportunities, they lose important sources of self-referential information, potentially leading to blurred self-perception and decreased CSE (Festinger, 1954 ). Existing research has found a negative correlation between social avoidance and CSE (Song et al., 2020 ). Individuals with high CSE tend to interpret external events positively, believing in their ability to manage life and interpersonal relationships; in contrast, those with low CSE are more prone to helplessness and negative self-perceptions, exhibiting greater anxiety and avoidance in social interactions (Gong et al., 2023 ). According to Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), individuals’ self-efficacy and self-concept directly influence their behavioral choices and emotional responses in social contexts (Nwosu et al., 2022 ). When individuals have low CSE, they often doubt their social competence and self-worth, worry more about negative evaluation, and adopt avoidance strategies to reduce psychological threats. Prolonged social avoidance reduces positive social feedback, further weakening self-esteem and self-efficacy, ultimately intensifying loneliness (Yan-Hui et al., 2021 ). Studies have confirmed a significant negative correlation between CSE and loneliness (Tan & Xiao, 2025 ). Based on this, Hypothesis 2 is proposed: Core Self-Evaluation mediates the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness. The Indirect Effect of Depression The Cognitive–Interpersonal Theory posits that psychological problems arise from the interaction between cognitive processing biases and difficulties in interpersonal interactions, which both cause and maintain mental health issues (Treasure & Schmidt, 2013 ). The theory emphasizes that core beliefs and cognitive schemas formed during early experiences influence how individuals perceive and interpret others’ behaviors—for example, heightened sensitivity or misinterpretation of social cues—leading to maladaptive interpersonal responses such as social avoidance, over-defensiveness, or people-pleasing behaviors. These interpersonal behaviors often elicit negative feedback from others (e.g., rejection or distancing), which reinforces individuals’ preexisting negative self-cognitions, forming a cyclical pattern of “cognitive bias → interpersonal behavior → social feedback” (Brewin, 2006 ). In this process, cognitive factors determine how social information is interpreted, while interpersonal interactions continuously validate or strengthen these cognitive structures, ultimately sustaining psychological distress. Cognitive–interpersonal theory has been widely applied to depression, social anxiety, eating disorders, and other fields, providing a theoretical basis for integrative psychological interventions that simultaneously address maladaptive cognitions and interpersonal strategies to break negative cycles and promote psychological recovery (Treasure & Schmidt, 2013 ). Empirical studies have shown a positive correlation between social avoidance and depression (Yuan et al., 2022b ). The Interpersonal Theory of Depression emphasizes that the onset and maintenance of depression are closely related to an individual’s interpersonal interaction patterns. Individuals with depression, due to inherent low mood and self-denial, often seek excessive reassurance or express negative emotions to obtain support and comfort from others (Joiner & Metalsky, 1995 ). Others’ distancing responses further reinforce the depressed individual’s sense of rejection and loneliness, deepening self-denial and helplessness, forming a vicious cycle of “depression → interpersonal rejection → deeper depression” (Malli et al., 2023 ). Depression is not only a consequence of impaired social functioning but can also reinforce social withdrawal behaviors, further increasing loneliness (Osler, 2022 ). A meta-analysis of 44 studies from MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate) found a moderate positive correlation between loneliness and depressive symptoms in children and adolescents (Dunn & Sicouri, 2022 ). Based on this, Hypothesis 3 is proposed: Depression mediates the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness. The Indirect Effect of Interpersonal Trust Interpersonal Trust refers to an individual’s willingness to voluntarily provide personal resources to others based on positive expectations of reciprocal behavior (Fu et al., 2024 ). The Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) posits that when encountering new interpersonal relationships, individuals experience cognitive uncertainty, which can trigger anxiety and unease, motivating them to adopt various strategies to gather information in order to predict others’ attitudes, behaviors, and intentions. These strategies include passive observation, active inquiry, and direct interaction. When individuals reduce social interactions (e.g., through social avoidance), opportunities to obtain such information are limited, increasing cognitive uncertainty, potentially reducing trust in others and negatively affecting social interactions and psychological well-being (Berger & Calabrese, 1975 ). Individuals with a tendency toward social avoidance typically adopt defensive attitudes toward others, fearing rejection or negative evaluation, which further reduces opportunities to build trust (Yuan et al., 2022a ). Research has shown a negative correlation between social avoidance and interpersonal trust (Tu et al., 2025 ). According to Social Exchange Theory, interpersonal trust is a key resource for maintaining social relationships. Reduced trust levels weaken the quality of social interactions and deepen experiences of social isolation (Darmawan & Gani, 2024 ). This lack of trust not only hinders the acquisition of social support but also diminishes feelings of belonging and social connectedness, making individuals more susceptible to loneliness (Bellucci & Park, 2024 ). Empirical studies have confirmed a negative correlation between interpersonal trust and loneliness (Myszka-Strychalska, 2022 ). Based on this, Hypothesis 4 is proposed: Interpersonal Trust mediates the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness. The Relationship Between Core Self-Evaluation and Depression Cognitive Theory posits that individuals’ emotions and behaviors are not directly caused by external events but are interpreted and filtered through cognitive processing. Core beliefs and automatic thoughts formed during development influence how individuals evaluate themselves, others, and the world (Dozois et al., 2006 ). Research has shown a significant negative correlation between Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and depression, such that individuals with low CSE are more likely to exhibit avoidance, social withdrawal, and other maladaptive behaviors under stress, reducing social support and emotion regulation capacity and thereby exacerbating depressive symptoms (Li et al., 2025 ). Based on this, Hypothesis 5 is proposed: Core Self-Evaluation and Depression mediate the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness. The Relationship Between Core Self-Evaluation and Interpersonal Trust Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), proposed by Bandura ( 1986 ), emphasizes the reciprocal determinism among cognition, behavior, and environment. The theory suggests that human behavior is influenced not only by external environmental factors but also by self-evaluations, beliefs, and perceived self-efficacy. Through observation, imitation, and social feedback, individuals form cognitive judgments about their abilities and the consequences of their actions, which in turn influence emotions, behavioral choices, and social interactions (Bandura, 1986 ). Some studies have found a positive correlation between CSE and interpersonal trust, indicating that high self-efficacy and positive self-evaluation facilitate trust-building, social engagement, and coping with stress, whereas low self-efficacy or negative self-evaluation may lead to social avoidance, loneliness, and negative emotions (Zeb et al., 2025 ; Yao et al., 2025 ). Based on this, Hypothesis 6 is proposed: Core Self-Evaluation and Interpersonal Trust mediate the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness. The Relationship Between Interpersonal Trust and Depression Attachment Theory posits that the attachment relationships individuals form with their primary caregivers during infancy have profound effects on their interpersonal relationships and emotional regulation in adulthood. Individuals with secure attachment tend to establish stable and trusting interpersonal relationships and demonstrate strong emotional regulation abilities, whereas those with avoidant or anxious attachment styles often exhibit low interpersonal trust, social avoidance, or excessive dependence on others, thereby increasing the risk of depression and psychological distress (Ainsworth et al., 2015 ). Empirical studies have demonstrated a significant negative correlation between interpersonal trust and depression (Li et al., 2025 ). Based on this, the study proposes: Hypothesis 7 Interpersonal Trust and Depression mediate the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness. Hypothesis 8 Core Self-Evaluation, Interpersonal Trust, and Depression jointly mediate the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness. Method Participants This study employed a longitudinal design, with three waves of data collection conducted at universities in eastern and central China, with a six-month interval between each wave. The first measurement (T1) was conducted on October 9, 2024, focusing on social avoidance. A total of 1,187 participants, all full-time undergraduates from a comprehensive university in eastern China, completed the questionnaire. The second measurement (T2) was conducted on April 11, 2025, collecting data on core self-evaluations, depression, and interpersonal trust, with 1,195 participants completing the questionnaire. The third measurement (T3) took place on October 17, 2025, collecting data on loneliness, with 1,180 participants completing all measurement tasks. After excluding invalid questionnaires and participants who did not complete all three waves, a total of 1,166 valid questionnaires were retained. Regarding demographic distribution: by gender, there were 335 males and 831 females; by academic year, 861 first-year students, 250 second-year students, and 55 third-year students; by age, 17 participants were under 18, 1,141 were between 18 and 21, and 8 were over 21; by household registration, 879 participants were from rural areas and 287 from urban areas. All participants completed the questionnaires either online or offline, which included the Interpersonal Trust Scale, Depression Scale, UCLA Loneliness Scale, Social Avoidance and Distress Scale, and Core Self-Evaluation Scale. Prior to data collection, participants were informed about the purpose of the study and confidentiality principles. Participation was voluntary and based on informed consent; participants could withdraw at any point without any academic or personal consequences. All collected data were used solely for academic research and strictly adhered to ethical guidelines for psychological studies. Research Instruments Interpersonal Trust Scale This scale consists of two factors with a total of 25 items, including 13 reverse-scored items. It adopts a five-point Likert scoring method, with response options ranging from “Strongly agree” (1 point), “Somewhat agree” (2 points), “Neutral” (3 points), “Somewhat disagree” (4 points), to “Strongly disagree” (5 points). Lower total scores indicate a higher level of interpersonal trust. It is important to note that the scoring of this interpersonal trust scale is reversed, meaning that its relationships with other variables are in the opposite direction (Rotter, 1967 ). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.81) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.04, and SRMR = 0.05. Depression Scale In this study, the depression subscale of the DASS-21 was used independently as the measurement tool. This factor consists of 7 items, each rated on a four-point scale: “Did not apply to me at all,” “Applied to me to some degree,” “Applied to me a considerable degree,” and “Applied to me very much,” scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Higher total scores indicate higher levels of depression (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995 ). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.87) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.02. UCLA Loneliness Scale This scale consists of two dimensions with a total of 20 items, including 11 positively worded and 9 reverse-scored items. Participants respond on a four-point scale ranging from “Never” to “Always,” scored from 1 to 4, respectively. Higher scores indicate a stronger sense of loneliness (Russell, 1996 ). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.90) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, and SRMR = 0.05. Social Avoidance and Distress Scale This scale consists of two factors with a total of 28 items, including 14 positively worded and 14 reverse-scored items. It adopts a dichotomous (two-point) scoring method, with each item offering two response options: “Yes” and “No,” scored as 1 and 0, respectively. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency toward social avoidance (Jiang & Bai, 2014 ). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.89) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.04. Core Self-Evaluation Scale This scale is a single-factor measure consisting of 10 items (4 positively worded and 6 reverse-scored). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale: “Strongly disagree,” “Disagree,” “Uncertain,” “Agree,” and “Strongly agree,” scored from 1 to 5, respectively. Higher total scores indicate higher levels of core self-evaluation (Du et al., 2012 ). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.87) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, and SRMR = 0.03. Data Analysis Strategy The data analysis in this study consisted of the following four steps. First, SPSS 26.0 was used for data organization and preliminary statistical analyses, including calculation of means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and correlation coefficients of the variables. Second, to ensure the internal consistency of the scales, reliability coefficients and construct validity were examined for each variable. Third, all items from the scales were included in an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to test and control for potential common method bias arising from different measurement tools. Finally, Mplus 8.0 was used to construct and validate the structural equation model (SEM) and to test the significance of indirect effects. In the first step, a measurement model was established to verify the adequacy of latent variable measurement; subsequently, based on the good fit of the measurement model, a structural model was built to test the theoretical hypotheses. Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including RMSEA < 0.1, SRMR 0.9, and CFI > 0.9 (Brown, 2015 ). In the second step, the Bootstrap method (with 5,000 resamples) was employed to estimate the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of indirect effects, with significance determined by whether the CI excluded zero. Results Common Method Bias Test Using Harman’s single-factor test, all measurement items from the scales in this study were subjected to an unrotated exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The results showed that the first factor accounted for 17.95% of the total variance, which is below the 40% threshold (Aw et al., 2024). Therefore, the data were suitable for further analysis. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis Before conducting the structural equation modeling (SEM), the normality of the data distribution was examined to ensure that the assumptions for model analysis were met. Specifically, SPSS 26.0 was used to calculate the skewness and kurtosis of the main variables, including Interpersonal Trust, Depression, Loneliness, Social Avoidance, and Core Self-Evaluation. According to Kim (2013), when the absolute value of skewness is less than 2 and the absolute value of kurtosis is less than 7, the data can be considered approximately normally distributed. The results showed that the skewness values ranged from − 0.36 to 0.08, and kurtosis values ranged from − 0.77 to 1.85, all within acceptable limits. This indicates that the data in this study were approximately normally distributed without significant deviation. Correlation analysis revealed the following: Gender was significantly correlated with grade ( χ²/df = 5.16, p < 0.01), Social Avoidance ( r = − 0.09, p < 0.01), and Depression ( r = − 0.09, p 0.05), household registration ( χ²/df = 0.27, p > 0.05), Core Self-Evaluation ( r = 0.01, p > 0.05), Loneliness ( r = − 0.01, p > 0.05), or Interpersonal Trust ( r = − 0.05, p > 0.05).Age was significantly related to grade ( χ²/df = 15.54, p 0.05), Social Avoidance ( r = 0.03, p > 0.05), Core Self-Evaluation ( r = − 0.03, p > 0.05), Depression ( r = 0.01, p > 0.05), Loneliness ( r = 0.02, p > 0.05), or Interpersonal Trust ( r = 0.03, p > 0.05). Grade was significantly correlated with Social Avoidance ( r = 0.11, p < 0.01), Depression ( r = 0.16, p < 0.01), and Loneliness ( r = 0.10, p 0.05), Core Self-Evaluation ( r = − 0.05, p > 0.05), or Interpersonal Trust ( r = − 0.03, p > 0.05). Household registration was significantly correlated with Core Self-Evaluation ( r = 0.09, p < 0.01) and Loneliness ( r = − 0.07, p 0.05), Depression ( r = − 0.04, p > 0.05), or Interpersonal Trust ( r = 0.02, p > 0.05). The correlation coefficients among Social Avoidance, Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, Interpersonal Trust, and Loneliness ranged between − 0.19 and 0.60, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlation Coefficients, Skewness, and Kurtosis of Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Gender 1 2 Age 0.69(χ²/df) 1 3 Grade 5.16 ** (χ²/df) 15.54* ** (χ²/df) 1 4 Household Registration 0.27(χ²/df) 0.55(χ²/df) 0.02(χ²/df) 1 5 Social Avoidance 0.09 ** 0.03 0.11 ** -0.05 1 6 Core Self-evaluation 0.01 -0.03 -0.05 0.09 ** -0.50 ** 1 7 Depression -0.09 ** 0.01 0.16 ** -0.04 0.39 ** -0.50 ** 1 8 Interpersonal Trust -0.05 0.03 -0.03 0.02 0.26 ** -0.19 ** 0.24 ** 1 9 Loneliness -0.01 0.02 0.10 ** -0.07 * 0.55 ** -0.58 ** 0.60 ** 0.30 ** 1 Quantity 1166 1166 1166 1166 1166 Minimum Value 0.00 14.00 0.00 46.00 20.00 Maximum Value 28.00 50.00 20.00 94.00 72.00 Mean 14.17 28.76 4.85 66.00 44.48 Standard Deviation 6.86 6.32 3.46 6.73 8.44 Skewness 0.08 0.71 0.89 0.92 -0.36 Standard Error of Skewness 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 Kurtosis -0.77 0.08 0.83 1.85 0.16 Standard Error of Kurtosis 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Note : N=1166. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Independent Sample t-Test. Regarding gender, significant differences were found between male and female students in Social Avoidance ( t = − 3.04, p < 0.01) and Depression ( t = 2.97, p 0.05), Interpersonal Trust ( t = 1.60, p > 0.05), or Loneliness ( t = 0.19, p > 0.05). Regarding household registration, significant differences were found between rural and urban students in Loneliness ( t = 2.51, p 0.05), Social Avoidance ( t = 1.75, p > 0.05), Depression ( t = 1.30, p > 0.05), and Core Self-Evaluation ( t = − 2.98, p > 0.05) were not significant. See Table 2 for details. Table 2 Gender and Household Registration Differences in Interpersonal Trust, Depression, Loneliness, Social Avoidance, and Core Self-Evaluation Dependent variable Independent variable F Significance t Sig (two-tailed) Social Avoidance Gender Assume equal variances 1.74 0.19 -3.04 0.00 Do not assume equal variances -3.09 0.00 Core Self-evaluation Assume equal variances 3.32 0.07 -0.21 0.84 Do not assume equal variances -0.20 0.84 Depression Assume equal variances 13.74 0.00 3.18 0.00 Do not assume equal variances 2.97 0.00 Interpersonal Trust Assume equal variances 0.28 0.60 1.60 0.11 Do not assume equal variances 1.56 0.12 Loneliness Assume equal variances 1.36 0.24 0.19 0.85 Do not assume equal variances 0.19 0.85 Social Avoidance Household Registration Assume equal variances 1.38 0.24 1.75 0.08 Do not assume equal variances 1.77 0.08 Core Self-evaluation Assume equal variances 1.03 0.31 -2.98 0.00 Do not assume equal variances -2.92 0.00 Depression Assume equal variances 0.01 0.91 1.30 0.19 Do not assume equal variances 1.28 0.20 Interpersonal Trust Assume equal variances 3.25 0.07 -0.78 0.44 Do not assume equal variances -0.74 0.46 Loneliness Assume equal variances 0.70 0.41 2.51 0.01 Do not assume equal variances 2.45 0.02 One-Way ANOVA. The results showed that participants of different ages did not differ significantly in Social Avoidance ( F = 0.44, p > 0.05), Interpersonal Trust ( F = 0.66, p > 0.05), Loneliness ( F = 0.71, p > 0.05), Depression ( F = 1.81, p > 0.05), or Core Self-Evaluation ( F = 1.02, p > 0.05). However, participants of different grade levels showed significant differences in Social Avoidance ( F = 7.57, p < 0.05), Depression ( F = 19.30, p < 0.05), and Loneliness ( F = 8.13, p 0.05) or Core Self-Evaluation ( F = 2.60, p > 0.05). See Table 3 for details. Table 3 Age and Grade Differences in Interpersonal Trust, Depression, Loneliness, Social Avoidance, and Core Self-Evaluation Dependent Variable Independent Variable Type Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Significance Social Avoidance Age Between Groups 41.04 2 20.52 0.44 0.65 Within Groups 54818.02 1163 47.14 Core Self-evaluation Between Groups 81.29 2 40.65 1.02 0.36 Within Groups 46370.85 1163 39.87 Depression Between Groups 43.12 2 21.56 1.81 0.17 Within Groups 13889.71 1163 11.94 Interpersonal Trust Between Groups 59.69 2 29.85 0.66 0.52 Within Groups 52658.30 1163 45.28 Loneliness Between Groups 101.38 2 50.69 0.71 0.49 Within Groups 82857.40 1163 71.25 Social Avoidance Grade Between Groups 705.08 2 352.54 7.57 0.00 Within Groups 54153.97 1163 46.56 Core Self-evaluation Between Groups 206.62 2 103.31 2.60 0.08 Within Groups 46245.53 1163 39.76 Depression Between Groups 447.48 2 223.74 19.30 0.00 Within Groups 13485.35 1163 11.60 Interpersonal Trust Between Groups 224.30 2 112.15 2.49 0.08 Within Groups 52493.69 1163 45.14 Loneliness Between Groups 1144.41 2 572.20 8.13 0.00 Within Groups 81814.37 1163 70.35 Construction and Testing of the Structural Equation Model In this study, Social Avoidance and Loneliness were used as the independent and dependent variables, respectively, while Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, and Interpersonal Trust were included as mediating variables to construct the model.The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) indicated that the model demonstrated a good fit: RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.03, CFI = 0.97, and TLI = 0.93. The total effect of the model was 0.67, consisting of a direct effect of 0.30 and an indirect effect of 0.37. Demographic variables — gender ( β = 0.21, p > 0.05), grade ( β = 0.01, p > 0.05), age ( β = − 0.03, p > 0.05), and household registration ( β = − 0.53, p > 0.05) — had no significant effects on Loneliness. Social Avoidance significantly and positively predicted Loneliness ( β = 0.32, p < 0.001), Interpersonal Trust ( β = 0.21, p < 0.001), and Depression ( β = 0.08, p < 0.001), while it negatively predicted Core Self-Evaluation ( β = − 0.46, p < 0.001). Core Self-Evaluation negatively predicted Depression ( β = − 0.22, p < 0.001), Interpersonal Trust ( β = − 0.08, p < 0.05), and Loneliness ( β = − 0.25, p < 0.001). Interpersonal Trust positively predicted Depression ( β = 0.06, p < 0.001) and Loneliness ( β = 0.13, p < 0.001), while Depression positively predicted Loneliness ( β = 0.86, p < 0.001), as shown in Fig. 1. This study employed the Bootstrap method for significance testing. Specifically, 5,000 random resamples were drawn from the original dataset to generate a resampling distribution and estimate the standard errors of the parameters. When the 95% confidence interval did not include zero, the effect was considered significant. The results showed that all seven indirect paths in this study reached a significant level, as presented in Table 4. Table 4 Bootstrap Analysis for Significance Testing of Indirect effects Mediation Pathway Effect Size 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Social Avoidance-Core Self-evaluation-Loneliness 0.16 0.12 0.20 Social Avoidance-Depression-Loneliness 0.07 0.04 0.10 Social Avoidance-Interpersonal Trust-Loneliness 0.03 0.01 0.04 Social Avoidance-Core Self-evaluation-Depression-Loneliness 0.09 0.07 0.11 Social Avoidance-Core Self-evaluation-Interpersonal Trust-Loneliness 0.01 0.00 0.01 Social Avoidance-Interpersonal Trust-Depression-Loneliness 0.01 0.01 0.02 Social Avoidance-Core Self-evaluation-Interpersonal Trust-Depression-Loneliness 0.00 0.00 0.01 Discussion This study found that Social Avoidance significantly predicted Loneliness ( β = 0.32, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1, which is consistent with previous research (Zhang et al., 2024 ) and aligns closely with the perspective of Need to Belong Theory. According to this theory, humans have a fundamental “need to belong,” reflecting a desire to form and maintain stable, positive social relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995 ). When individuals reduce opportunities for social interaction due to Social Avoidance, their social connectedness and sense of acceptance decrease, leaving their belongingness needs unmet and making them more prone to experience Loneliness. These findings suggest that psychological interventions should focus on reducing Social Avoidance behaviors and helping individuals rebuild positive social networks to satisfy their need for belonging, thereby decreasing Loneliness and promoting psychological well-being. This study further found that Core Self-evaluation plays a significant mediating role between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 2. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and negatively predicted Core Self-evaluation ( β = -0.46, p < 0.001), and Core Self-evaluation significantly and negatively predicted Loneliness ( β = -0.25, p < 0.001). This finding can be explained by Social Comparison Theory and Social Cognitive Theory. According to Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954 ), individuals evaluate their self-worth by comparing themselves with others. Social Avoidance reduces opportunities for interaction and comparison, limiting access to positive social feedback, which can lead to a blurred self-concept and decreased self-esteem. Furthermore, based on Social Cognitive Theory (Nwosu et al., 2022 ), low levels of Core Self-evaluation weaken individuals’ self-efficacy and social confidence, increasing sensitivity to interpersonal rejection and thereby intensifying feelings of loneliness. Therefore, interventions aimed at enhancing Core Self-evaluation and self-efficacy, fostering a positive social comparison perspective, and building healthy self-perceptions can reduce Social Avoidance behaviors and Loneliness, promoting psychological adaptation and social integration. This study further found that Depression plays a significant mediating role between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 3. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and positively predicted Depression ( β = 0.08, p < 0.001), and Depression significantly and positively predicted Loneliness ( β = 0.86, p < 0.001). This finding can be explained through the Interpersonal Theory of Depression and Cognitive–Interpersonal Theory. According to Cognitive–Interpersonal Theory (Treasure & Schmidt, 2013 ), Social Avoidance stems from individuals’ cognitive biases and negative self-schemas, making them overly sensitive to interpersonal cues and prone to misinterpret others’ intentions. This reduces social interactions, elicits distancing behaviors from others, and reinforces negative beliefs, creating a vicious cycle of cognitive and interpersonal distress. The Interpersonal Theory of Depression (Coyne, 1976) further emphasizes that individuals with Depression often display negative affect and excessive reassurance-seeking in social interactions. Rather than obtaining support, these behaviors may trigger avoidance or rejection from others, deepening feelings of isolation and exacerbating the experience of Loneliness. This study further found that Interpersonal Trust plays a significant mediating role between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 4. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and positively predicted Interpersonal Trust ( β = 0.21, p < 0.001), and Interpersonal Trust significantly and positively predicted Loneliness ( β = 0.13, p < 0.001). This finding can be explained by Uncertainty Reduction Theory and Social Exchange Theory. According to Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975 ), when individuals tend to engage in Social Avoidance and reduce interactions with others, their opportunities to gather social information and verify others’ intentions are limited. This increases interpersonal cognitive uncertainty and undermines trust in others. According to Social Exchange Theory (Darmawan & Gani, 2024 ), trust is a core psychological resource in social interactions, determining whether individuals are willing to invest emotion and support to maintain relationships. When trust levels decrease, the quality of interpersonal interactions declines, social connectedness and sense of belonging are impaired, and individuals are more prone to Loneliness. In socially challenged populations, individuals may form unstable or idealized Interpersonal Trust due to a lack of real social interaction experience. This “superficial trust” is easily frustrated in actual interactions, further exacerbating Loneliness. Therefore, in practical interventions, attention should be given to establishing a realistic and stable Interpersonal Trust system through social skills training, situational simulations, and psychological counseling to help individuals accurately assess others’ trustworthiness and develop healthy trust boundaries. Simultaneously, Social Avoidance behaviors should be gradually reduced, and opportunities for positive social contact increased, promoting genuine social connections and effectively alleviating Loneliness. This study further found that Core Self-Evaluation and Depression play significant mediating roles between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 5. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and negatively predicted Core Self-Evaluation ( β = -0.46, p < 0.001); Core Self-Evaluation significantly and negatively predicted Depression ( β = -0.22, p < 0.001); and Depression significantly and positively predicted Loneliness ( β = 0.86, p < 0.001). This finding can be explained through Cognitive Theory. According to Cognitive Theory (Dozois et al., 2006 ), core beliefs and automatic thoughts formed during an individual’s development influence their cognitive processing of the self and others. Individuals with Social Avoidance, due to a lack of positive social feedback, are prone to developing negative self-beliefs (e.g., "I am not liked" or "I am not good enough"), which leads to decreased Core Self-Evaluation. Holding such negative cognitions makes individuals more susceptible to feelings of helplessness and despair, triggering Depression; in turn, the depressive state exacerbates social withdrawal and Loneliness, forming a vicious cycle. In educational and counseling practice, interventions such as self-cognition training, positive psychological interventions, or group counseling can help individuals build positive self-evaluations, enhancing self-worth and self-efficacy. At the same time, attention should be given to the emotional states of socially avoidant individuals, using emotion management and psychological guidance techniques to alleviate Depression and prevent the formation of social isolation and negative cycles. Through this integrated intervention approach, the negative psychological consequences of Social Avoidance can be effectively reduced, promoting mental health and social adaptation. This study further found that Core Self-Evaluation and Interpersonal Trust play significant mediating roles between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 6. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and negatively predicted Core Self-Evaluation ( β = -0.46, p < 0.001); Core Self-Evaluation significantly and negatively predicted Interpersonal Trust ( β = -0.08, p < 0.05); and Interpersonal Trust significantly and positively predicted Loneliness ( β = 0.13, p < 0.001). This result can be explained by Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986 ), which emphasizes the dynamic interaction between an individual’s cognition, self-beliefs, and social environment. Individuals exhibiting Social Avoidance, due to a lack of positive social experiences and feedback, tend to develop negative self-cognitions and low self-efficacy, thereby reducing their Core Self-Evaluation. Lower self-evaluation fosters insecurity and defensive tendencies in social interactions, which in turn weakens trust in others and hinders healthy interpersonal engagement. When Interpersonal Trust is compromised, individuals struggle to obtain social support and a sense of belonging, ultimately intensifying feelings of Loneliness. In psychological intervention and social support practices, efforts should target both self-cognition reconstruction and Interpersonal Trust cultivation. On one hand, interventions such as counseling and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) can enhance Core Self-Evaluation, helping individuals develop a positive self-concept and sense of social identity. On the other hand, group counseling, social skills training, or team-based activities can strengthen Interpersonal Trust and social connectedness, thereby reducing Social Avoidance behaviors, alleviating Loneliness, and promoting overall psychological well-being and social adaptation. This study further found that Interpersonal Trust and Depression play significant mediating roles between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, providing support for Hypotheses 7 and 8. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and positively predicted Interpersonal Trust ( β = 0.21, p < 0.001); Interpersonal Trust significantly and negatively predicted Depression ( β = 0.06, p < 0.001); and Depression significantly and positively predicted Loneliness ( β = 0.86, p < 0.001). This result can be interpreted through the lens of Attachment Theory. The theory suggests that early attachment experiences shape individuals’ Interpersonal Trust and emotion regulation abilities in adulthood. Individuals with secure attachment tend to trust others and regulate their emotions effectively, thereby forming positive social relationships. In contrast, avoidant attachment individuals, characterized by defensiveness and insecurity toward intimacy, are more likely to exhibit Social Avoidance and low trust. A low level of Interpersonal Trust hinders access to social support, increases negative affect and depressive experiences, and ultimately deepens Loneliness (Ainsworth et al., 2015 ). Moreover, early attachment relationships influence an individual’s self-concept and Interpersonal Trust in adulthood. Securely attached individuals generally possess a positive self-evaluation and a stronger tendency to trust others, whereas those with avoidant or anxious attachment are more likely to develop negative self-schemas and a lack of security, leading to defensive and avoidant behaviors in social interactions (Ainsworth et al., 2015 ). From the perspective of Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986 ), an individual’s Core Self-Evaluation reflects their beliefs about self-efficacy and self-worth, which in turn shape the quality of social behaviors and interpersonal interactions. Individuals with low self-evaluation often anticipate social rejection, exhibit less willingness to trust others, and maintain weaker social support networks, all of which contribute to heightened feelings of loneliness. Therefore, the key implication of this study is that interventions aimed at reducing Social Avoidance and Loneliness should address early attachment formation and its cognitive extensions in adulthood. By enhancing self-efficacy, reconstructing positive self-cognition, and building secure trust patterns, individuals can be supported in developing healthier interpersonal interactions and better psychological adjustment. Limitations and Implications We acknowledge that there are still areas for improvement in our research design. First, the sample may have demographic limitations—such as concentration in age, cultural background, or educational level—which could affect the external validity of the results. Second, this study did not fully control for potential confounding variables, such as social support, personality traits, or coping styles, which may influence social avoidance, depression, and loneliness. Third, although the model includes multiple indirect pathways, there may still be unexamined psychological or environmental factors, suggesting that future research should further expand the comprehensiveness and complexity of the underlying mechanisms. Conclusion The findings indicate that Social Avoidance undermines Core Self-Evaluation, reduces Interpersonal Trust, and increases Depressive symptoms, thereby intensifying Loneliness and creating a self-reinforcing vicious cycle. We refer to this mechanism as the Social Avoidance–Psychological Resource Imbalance Theory (SAPRI). This theory integrates perspectives from Social Cognitive Theory, Attachment Theory, and the Cognitive-Interpersonal Model, emphasizing the mediating role of psychological resource imbalance between Social Avoidance and Loneliness. The SAPRI framework provides a multi-level theoretical foundation for loneliness intervention: it suggests that effective intervention should not only reduce avoidant social behaviors, but also enhance self-evaluation, rebuild interpersonal trust, and regulate negative emotions, thereby breaking the vicious cycle and promoting psychological well-being. Declarations Informed Consent Statement The privacy of participants was taken very seriously. All participants voluntarily took part in this research project, and written informed consent forms were provided to their guardians, with support from the guardians. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Ethics statement During the research process, the relevant provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki were strictly followed.This research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Institute of Judicial Psychology and Behavior at Zhejiang Police Vocational Academy (Approval No: IJPB284890529). All participants volunteered to participate in the experiment, and written informed consent was given to and supported by their guardians. Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all the participants who took the time to complete the questionnaires and share their experiences. Their active cooperation and honest responses made this research possible. Consent to Publish We declare that the submitted manuscript is an original work and has not been previously published in any domestic or international journal or other publication, nor is it under consideration by any other journal. The manuscript involves no plagiarism, duplication, or other forms of academic misconduct; all data are true and reliable, and all sources have been appropriately cited in accordance with academic standards. I (and all co-authors) have read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree with the authorship and order of authors. In the event that the manuscript is accepted for publication, I (and all co-authors) agree to grant the journal the relevant publication rights, including the rights of reproduction, distribution, and online dissemination, for lawful editing, publication, and dissemination purposes. Funding This study was supported by a research grant from 2026 Soft Science Research Program of Zhejiang Province (No. 2026C35082) Author's Contribution In this study, L. Z. was mainly responsible for the search of scientific literature and the signing of the informed consent form of the subjects, S. X. and D. J. mainly responsible for the distribution and retrieval of the questionnaires and data processing, J. Z. and J. H. were mainly responsible for the writing of the thesis, the development of the research methodology, and the selection of the statistical analysis software. All authors were involved in data analysis, drafting or revising the article, ultimately approving the published version of the article, and agreeing to take responsibility for all aspects of the work. Data Availability Statement The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that might influence the work reported here. References Aw ECX, Tan GWH, Ooi KB, Hajli N. Tap here to power up! Mobile augmented reality for consumer empowerment. Internet Res. 2024;34(3):960–93. Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall SN. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology; 2015. Bellucci G, Park SQ. Loneliness is associated with more trust but worse trustworthiness expectations. Br J Psychol. 2024;115(4):641–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12713 . Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Guilford; 2015. Brewin CR. Understanding cognitive behaviour therapy: A retrieval competition account. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44(6):765–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.02.005 . Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Ann Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):1–26. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull. 1995;117(3):497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 . Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986. Berger CR, Calabrese RJ. Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Hum Commun Res. 1975;1(2):99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x . Chen W, Yang T, Luo J. Core self-evaluation and subjective wellbeing: A moderated mediation model. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1036071. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1036071 . Darmawan D, Gani A. Reciprocal Relationships between Psychological Well-Being and Quality of Social Interaction: A Review of Social Exchange Theory. Int J Service Sci Manage Eng Technol. 2024;5(3):5–10. Dunn C, Sicouri G. The relationship between loneliness and depressive symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Behav Change. 2022;39(3):134–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2022.13 . Dennis UD, Owoseni SU. (2022). Core Self–Evaluations as Predicates of Clinical Decision Making in Selected Team of Perioperative Nurses in Ondo State, Nigeria. MedPress Psychiatry Behav Sci, 1 (1). Du JZ, Zhang X, Zhao Y. (2012). Structural validation and revision of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale. Psychol Res, (3), 54–60. Dozois DJ, Frewen PA, Covin ROGER. Cognitive theories. Compr Handb personality Psychopathol. 2006;1:173–91. Fu C, Yang S, Zhai M, Yong T, Zheng C, Ma X, Su P. (2024). The component and structure of interpersonal trust. Heliyon, 10 (9). Franco-O’Byrne D, Gonzalez-Gomez R, Morales Sepulveda JP, Vergara M, Ibanez A, Huepe D. The impact of loneliness and social adaptation on depressive symptoms: Behavioral and brain measures evidence from a brain health perspective. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1096178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096178 . Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat. 1954;7(2):117–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 . Giordano F, Calaresi D, Saladino V, Verrastro V. Perception of Loneliness in Adolescence: Role of Maladaptive Personality Traits and Trauma-Related Symptomatology. Brain Sci. 2025;15(1):86. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15010086 . Gong J, Li Y, Niu B, Liu X, Wang Y, Zhou B, Hai M. The relationship between openness and social anxiety: the chain mediating roles of social networking site use and self-evaluation. BMC Psychol. 2023;11(1):391. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01412-y . Jia W, Liu L, Peng G. The impact of social media on users’ self-efficacy and loneliness: An analysis of the mediating mechanism of social support. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2024;593–612. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S449079 . Jiang YZ, Bai XL. Reliability and validity of the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale among Mongolian college students. Chin J Behav Med Brain Sci. 2014;23(6):3. Joiner TE, Metalsky GI. A prospective test of an integrative interpersonal theory of depression: A naturalistic study of college roommates. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1995;69(4):778. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dentistry Endodontics. 2013;38(1):52–4. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52 . Li L, Tang L, Lai YH, Liu J. Interpersonal trust and depression in female adolescents: Negative attributional style and self-esteem as mediators. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2025;53(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.13842 . Li T, Meng C, Cheng Y, Wang J, Zhang Y. The relationship between core self-evaluation and cognitive failure in Chinese adolescents: the sequential mediating role of alexithymia and depression. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02613-3 . Li J, Ding W, Sun Z, Xie R. The reciprocal relationships between core self-evaluation, academic burnout and deviant peer affiliation in adolescence. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(40):31159–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06672-4 . Li S, Kong K, Zhang K, Niu H. The relation between college students’ neuroticism and loneliness: The chain mediating roles of self-efficacy, social avoidance and distress. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1124588. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1124588 . Li S, Kong K, Zhang K, Niu H. The relation between college students’ neuroticism and loneliness: The chain mediating roles of self-efficacy, social avoidance and distress. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1124588. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1124588 . Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. (1995). Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) instrument. Malli MA, Ryan S, Maddison J, Kharicha K. Experiences and meaning of loneliness beyond age and group identity. Sociol Health Illn. 2023;45(1):70–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13539 . Myszka-Strychalska LK. Sense of Loneliness, Sense of Effectiveness, Interpersonal Trust and Interpersonal Relations of Academic Youth During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Przegląd Badan Edukacyjnych (Educational Stud Review). 2022;2(40):275–301. https://doi.org/10.12775/PBE.2022.028 . Nwosu HE, Obidike PC, Ugwu JN, Udeze CC, Okolie UC. Applying social cognitive theory to placement learning in business firms and students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Manage Educ. 2022;20(1):100602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100602 . Osler L. An illness of isolation, a disease of disconnection: Depression and the erosion of we-experiences. Front Psychol. 2022;13:928186. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928186 . Pardede S, Kovac VB. Distinguishing the need to belong and sense of belongingness: The relation between need to belong and personal appraisals under two different belongingness–conditions. Eur J Invest health Psychol Educ. 2023;13(2):331–44. Roberts T, Krueger J. Loneliness and the emotional experience of absence. South J Philos. 2021;59(2):185–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12387 . Russell DW. UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess. 1996;66(1):20–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2 . Rotter JB. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. J Pers. 1967;35(4):651–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x . Shang A, Feng L, Yan G, Sun L. The relationship between self-esteem and social avoidance among university students: chain mediating effects of resilience and social distress. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02444-2 . Song CR, Chen M, Li WQ, Li LH, Li YY. The effect of perceived social support on college students’ depression: The serial mediation of social avoidance, distress, and core self-evaluation. Psychology: Techniques Appl. 2020;8(7):8. Tu Y, Su Y, Yang K, Jin L, Li B, Chen W, Wu D. The role of depression and interpersonal trust between anxiety and social avoidance among college students: a structural equation model. Curr Psychol. 2025;44(5):3420–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07261-1 . Tan H, Xiao W. The mediating role of core self-evaluation in the association between perceived peer relationship quality and loneliness in university students. PLoS ONE. 2025;20(1):e0317310. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317310 . Treasure J, Schmidt U. The cognitive–interpersonal maintenance model of anorexia nervosa revisited: A summary of the evidence for cognitive, socio-emotional and interpersonal predisposing and perpetuating factors. J Eat Disorders. 2013;1(13):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-2974-1-13 . Wolters NE, Mobach L, Wuthrich VM, Vonk P, Van der Heijde CM, Wiers RW, Klein AM. Emotional and social loneliness and their unique links with social isolation, depression and anxiety. J Affect Disord. 2023;329:207–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.096 . Wong AH, Aslanidou A, Malbec M, Pittig A, Wieser MJ, Andreatta M. A systematic review of the inter-individual differences in avoidance learning. Collabra: Psychol. 2023;9(1):77856. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77856 . Yan-Hui XIANG, Rong YUAN, Jia-Xu DIAO. The Relationship between Childhood Maltreatment and Loneliness: The Mediating Roles of Rumination and Core Self-Evaluation. J Psychol Sci. 2021;44(1):197–204. Yao Y, Fan X, Chen G, Li P, Liu S. Online verbal aggression on interpersonal trust among college students: the chain-mediating effect of core self-evaluation and emotional intelligence. Front Psychiatry. 2025;16:1556046. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1556046 . Yuan Y, Jiang S, Wen X, Han Z, Wu D, Wang X, Xiang M. The chain-mediation pathway of social avoidance to depression in college students is regulated by self-esteem. Front Psychol. 2022a;13:802161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.119 . Yuan Y, Jiang S, Yan S, Chen L, Zhang M, Zhang J, Jiang K. The relationship between depression and social avoidance of college students: a moderated mediation model. J Affect Disord. 2022b;300:249–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.119 . Zeb I, Yan Z, Fang S, Khan A. Building resilient learners: understanding the role of core self-evaluation, academic self-efficacy and interpersonal relationships among students. J Appl Res High Educ. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2024-0473 . Zhu Y, Yan Y, Zhang D. The effects of observed ostracism on social avoidance: The role of fear of negative evaluation and rumination. Pers Indiv Differ. 2025;238:113080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113080 . Zheng X, Xie J, Cai R, Liu Z, Xu L. Why avoidance? The impact of childhood emotional abuse on social avoidance. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):558. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02852-4 . Zhang S, Xiao B, Zhang Y, Zhu X, Dong Q, Ding X. Relation between social avoidance and loneliness in urban Chinese children: A moderated-mediation model. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2024;21(2):171–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2024.2315753 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 30 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 27 Jan, 2026 Editor invited by journal 08 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 07 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 07 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8505519","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":583743228,"identity":"93ebe1af-642f-41c6-84f6-7a56c8f41d58","order_by":0,"name":"Jun ZHANG","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Soochow University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jun","middleName":"","lastName":"ZHANG","suffix":""},{"id":583743229,"identity":"2cff9d00-b2d1-4566-a3ec-045cb051aa49","order_by":1,"name":"Shungui XIANG","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tourism College of Zhejiang","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shungui","middleName":"","lastName":"XIANG","suffix":""},{"id":583743230,"identity":"29f30b75-d6f0-47e4-9173-4c272d39eb23","order_by":2,"name":"Jimyeong Hong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sehan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jimyeong","middleName":"","lastName":"Hong","suffix":""},{"id":583743236,"identity":"9ad451b6-45e7-4b17-809d-cd4004b03e14","order_by":3,"name":"Lei ZHAO","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Police Vocational College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lei","middleName":"","lastName":"ZHAO","suffix":""},{"id":583743237,"identity":"c298a93b-01a3-4ac3-b1d9-e6666cb1c2d0","order_by":4,"name":"Dongming JIA","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Police Vocational College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dongming","middleName":"","lastName":"JIA","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-03 08:38:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8505519/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8505519/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101655676,"identity":"3c39fda8-63b9-4511-9dbb-4b26928c2d90","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-02 09:59:31","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":221149,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Indirect Effect Model of Interpersonal Trust, Depression, and Core Self-Evaluation on Social Avoidance and Loneliness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBasic demographic information and Social Avoidance data: from the first wave of the survey (\u003cstrong\u003eT1 time point\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003cbr\u003e\n Interpersonal Trust, Depression, and Core Self-Evaluation data: from the second wave of the survey (\u003cstrong\u003eT2 time point\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003cbr\u003e\n Loneliness data: from the third wave of the survey (\u003cstrong\u003eT3 time point\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8505519/v1/9e3b4dee03ec71157f9f416e.png"},{"id":101753289,"identity":"94fd5da4-cc05-4d68-a2b6-ab697a750ba7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 10:39:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1685028,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8505519/v1/d5b3bc14-fd98-4583-87e6-4a90711fd557.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Relationship Between Social Avoidance and Loneliness: The Indirect Effects of Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, and Interpersonal Trust","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn ancient China, there was a tragic love story similar to Romeo and Juliet\u0026mdash;the tale of Liang Shanbo and Zhu Yingtai. Zhu Yingtai disguised herself as a man to pursue her studies in Hangzhou, where she met and befriended Liang Shanbo. The two studied together for three years, forming a deep bond. Upon parting, Zhu Yingtai hinted at her true feelings several times, but Liang Shanbo failed to perceive them. When Liang finally discovered that Zhu was a woman\u0026mdash;and that she had already been betrothed to the Ma family\u0026mdash;it was too late for him to propose. They met one last time, tearfully confessing their love. Liang soon died in loneliness and despair. On her wedding day, Zhu Yingtai passed by Liang\u0026rsquo;s grave, where a storm erupted, the tomb split open, and she threw herself into it. Moments later, the two transformed into butterflies, flying together for eternity. Although the ending may sound fantastical, both protagonists ultimately perished in isolation\u0026mdash;illustrating the profound destructiveness of loneliness on the human psyche.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoneliness is a subjective negative psychological experience that arises when an individual\u0026rsquo;s interpersonal relationships fail to meet their emotional or belongingness needs. It manifests as emotional deprivation, feelings of alienation, and social disconnection (Roberts \u0026amp; Krueger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Structurally, loneliness can be divided into emotional loneliness and social loneliness: the former stems from a lack or loss of intimate relationships, while the latter arises from insufficient social networks or group belongingness (Wolters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Studies have shown that the development of loneliness is influenced by multiple factors, including individual traits (e.g., self-esteem, core self-evaluation), the degree of interpersonal trust, social support levels, and tendencies toward social avoidance (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Giordano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Jia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding the measurement of loneliness, the most widely used tool is the UCLA Loneliness Scale, developed by Russell and colleagues, whose reliability and validity have been confirmed by numerous studies (Russell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). The scale includes multiple items that assess the degree of loneliness experienced in social interactions, with higher scores indicating stronger loneliness. Studying loneliness is of great importance, as it helps deepen our understanding of individual mental health and social adaptation, while also providing theoretical and practical guidance for education, community-based psychological interventions, and the development of social support systems (Franco-O\u0026rsquo;Byrne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance refers to an individual\u0026rsquo;s behavioral tendency to intentionally reduce or avoid social situations due to worries about negative evaluation, tension, or discomfort during social interactions (Zhu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). It is generally regarded as a strategy for regulating negative emotions, reflecting both one\u0026rsquo;s fear of social contexts and the defensive need to maintain a positive self-image (Shang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Researchers generally divide Social Avoidance into two dimensions: (1) Social Avoidance, referring to behaviors in which individuals deliberately withdraw from or minimize interaction with others, and (2) Social Distress, referring to feelings of uneasiness, embarrassment, or anxiety experienced in social situations (Jiang \u0026amp; Bai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The development of Social Avoidance is influenced by multiple factors, including personality traits (e.g., low self-esteem or low core self-evaluation), insufficient social support, negative interpersonal experiences, and cultural influences (Zheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Wong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Excessive Social Avoidance not only weakens social adaptability but may also trigger psychological problems such as loneliness and depression (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In terms of measurement, the most representative tool is the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (SADS), developed by Rotter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1967\u003c/span\u003e). It includes two dimensions\u0026mdash;\u0026ldquo;Social Avoidance\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Social Distress\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;and is commonly used to assess social anxiety and avoidance tendencies. The Chinese version revised by Jiang and Bai has demonstrated good reliability and validity among Chinese populations(Jiang \u0026amp; Bai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), proposed by Bandura (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), emphasizes the reciprocal determinism among behavior, cognition, and environment. The theory posits that an individual\u0026rsquo;s psychological state and social behavior are not only influenced by external social contexts but also shaped by self-cognitive and self-evaluative processes. In other words, the formation of personality, emotions, and social behaviors results from the interaction between internal cognitive mechanisms and social experiences (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Within this theoretical framework, Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) serves as a key component of the \u0026ldquo;self-system,\u0026rdquo; representing an individual\u0026rsquo;s overall judgment of their own competence and self-worth. Individuals with high CSE tend to develop strong self-efficacy beliefs, establish greater interpersonal trust, and actively engage in social interactions; conversely, individuals with low CSE often lack confidence and a sense of security, are more prone to social avoidance, and consequently experience reduced social support and emotional connectedness (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). From the perspective of social cognitive theory, Social Avoidance is not merely an external behavioral manifestation but also reflects internal social-cognitive biases and negative self-beliefs. When individuals excessively avoid social interactions, their needs for social feedback and belonging remain unmet, gradually leading to loneliness. This loneliness experience reinforces negative cognitive patterns\u0026mdash;such as beliefs of \u0026ldquo;self-inefficacy\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;others being untrustworthy\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;which further diminish interpersonal trust and ultimately exacerbate depressive emotions (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this theoretical framework, the present study investigates Social Avoidance as the independent variable and Loneliness as the dependent variable, with Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, and Interpersonal Trust serving as mediating variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Relationship Between Social Avoidance and Loneliness\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Need to Belong Theory posits that the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation, comparable to physiological needs such as food or safety, and is a core foundation for human survival and psychological health. Humans are inherently motivated to establish and maintain stable, positive, and enduring social relationships, which manifest in family, friendship, romantic relationships, and group belonging, and deeply influence individuals\u0026rsquo; emotions, cognition, and behavior (Baumeister \u0026amp; Leary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). When individuals obtain positive social connections and acceptance, they experience a sense of security, well-being, and self-worth; conversely, if this need for social belonging remains unmet over time, individuals may experience loneliness, depression, anxiety, and decreased self-evaluation (Pardede \u0026amp; Kovac, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Empirical studies also support a positive relationship between social avoidance and loneliness (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this, Hypothesis 1 of the present study is proposed: Social Avoidance significantly predicts Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Indirect Effect of Core Self-Evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCore Self-Evaluation (CSE) refers to an individual\u0026rsquo;s fundamental beliefs about their own worth and abilities, representing a stable, trait-like self-assessment (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). It comprises four dimensions: self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control, reflecting overall self-concept and psychological resilience (Dennis \u0026amp; Owoseni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). According to Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1954\u003c/span\u003e), individuals have an intrinsic motivation to evaluate their abilities, opinions, and values by comparing themselves with others. In the absence of objective standards, people tend to use others as reference points to determine their relative social standing. Social comparisons can be upward (comparing with those better off) or downward (comparing with those worse off). Upward comparisons may motivate self-improvement but can also induce feelings of inferiority, while downward comparisons may enhance self-worth or generate a sense of superiority. Through continuous social comparison, individuals form and adjust their self-concept and self-evaluation. However, when individuals engage in social avoidance and lack comparison opportunities, they lose important sources of self-referential information, potentially leading to blurred self-perception and decreased CSE (Festinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1954\u003c/span\u003e). Existing research has found a negative correlation between social avoidance and CSE (Song et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals with high CSE tend to interpret external events positively, believing in their ability to manage life and interpersonal relationships; in contrast, those with low CSE are more prone to helplessness and negative self-perceptions, exhibiting greater anxiety and avoidance in social interactions (Gong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), individuals\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy and self-concept directly influence their behavioral choices and emotional responses in social contexts (Nwosu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). When individuals have low CSE, they often doubt their social competence and self-worth, worry more about negative evaluation, and adopt avoidance strategies to reduce psychological threats. Prolonged social avoidance reduces positive social feedback, further weakening self-esteem and self-efficacy, ultimately intensifying loneliness (Yan-Hui et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Studies have confirmed a significant negative correlation between CSE and loneliness (Tan \u0026amp; Xiao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this, Hypothesis 2 is proposed: Core Self-Evaluation mediates the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Indirect Effect of Depression\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Cognitive\u0026ndash;Interpersonal Theory posits that psychological problems arise from the interaction between cognitive processing biases and difficulties in interpersonal interactions, which both cause and maintain mental health issues (Treasure \u0026amp; Schmidt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The theory emphasizes that core beliefs and cognitive schemas formed during early experiences influence how individuals perceive and interpret others\u0026rsquo; behaviors\u0026mdash;for example, heightened sensitivity or misinterpretation of social cues\u0026mdash;leading to maladaptive interpersonal responses such as social avoidance, over-defensiveness, or people-pleasing behaviors. These interpersonal behaviors often elicit negative feedback from others (e.g., rejection or distancing), which reinforces individuals\u0026rsquo; preexisting negative self-cognitions, forming a cyclical pattern of \u0026ldquo;cognitive bias \u0026rarr; interpersonal behavior \u0026rarr; social feedback\u0026rdquo; (Brewin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In this process, cognitive factors determine how social information is interpreted, while interpersonal interactions continuously validate or strengthen these cognitive structures, ultimately sustaining psychological distress. Cognitive\u0026ndash;interpersonal theory has been widely applied to depression, social anxiety, eating disorders, and other fields, providing a theoretical basis for integrative psychological interventions that simultaneously address maladaptive cognitions and interpersonal strategies to break negative cycles and promote psychological recovery (Treasure \u0026amp; Schmidt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Empirical studies have shown a positive correlation between social avoidance and depression (Yuan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022b\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Interpersonal Theory of Depression emphasizes that the onset and maintenance of depression are closely related to an individual\u0026rsquo;s interpersonal interaction patterns. Individuals with depression, due to inherent low mood and self-denial, often seek excessive reassurance or express negative emotions to obtain support and comfort from others (Joiner \u0026amp; Metalsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Others\u0026rsquo; distancing responses further reinforce the depressed individual\u0026rsquo;s sense of rejection and loneliness, deepening self-denial and helplessness, forming a vicious cycle of \u0026ldquo;depression \u0026rarr; interpersonal rejection \u0026rarr; deeper depression\u0026rdquo; (Malli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDepression is not only a consequence of impaired social functioning but can also reinforce social withdrawal behaviors, further increasing loneliness (Osler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). A meta-analysis of 44 studies from MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate) found a moderate positive correlation between loneliness and depressive symptoms in children and adolescents (Dunn \u0026amp; Sicouri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this, Hypothesis 3 is proposed: Depression mediates the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Indirect Effect of Interpersonal Trust\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust refers to an individual\u0026rsquo;s willingness to voluntarily provide personal resources to others based on positive expectations of reciprocal behavior (Fu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) posits that when encountering new interpersonal relationships, individuals experience cognitive uncertainty, which can trigger anxiety and unease, motivating them to adopt various strategies to gather information in order to predict others\u0026rsquo; attitudes, behaviors, and intentions. These strategies include passive observation, active inquiry, and direct interaction. When individuals reduce social interactions (e.g., through social avoidance), opportunities to obtain such information are limited, increasing cognitive uncertainty, potentially reducing trust in others and negatively affecting social interactions and psychological well-being (Berger \u0026amp; Calabrese, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals with a tendency toward social avoidance typically adopt defensive attitudes toward others, fearing rejection or negative evaluation, which further reduces opportunities to build trust (Yuan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e). Research has shown a negative correlation between social avoidance and interpersonal trust (Tu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Social Exchange Theory, interpersonal trust is a key resource for maintaining social relationships. Reduced trust levels weaken the quality of social interactions and deepen experiences of social isolation (Darmawan \u0026amp; Gani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This lack of trust not only hinders the acquisition of social support but also diminishes feelings of belonging and social connectedness, making individuals more susceptible to loneliness (Bellucci \u0026amp; Park, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Empirical studies have confirmed a negative correlation between interpersonal trust and loneliness (Myszka-Strychalska, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this, Hypothesis 4 is proposed: Interpersonal Trust mediates the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Relationship Between Core Self-Evaluation and Depression\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCognitive Theory posits that individuals\u0026rsquo; emotions and behaviors are not directly caused by external events but are interpreted and filtered through cognitive processing. Core beliefs and automatic thoughts formed during development influence how individuals evaluate themselves, others, and the world (Dozois et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Research has shown a significant negative correlation between Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and depression, such that individuals with low CSE are more likely to exhibit avoidance, social withdrawal, and other maladaptive behaviors under stress, reducing social support and emotion regulation capacity and thereby exacerbating depressive symptoms (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this, Hypothesis 5 is proposed: Core Self-Evaluation and Depression mediate the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Relationship Between Core Self-Evaluation and Interpersonal Trust\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial Cognitive Theory (SCT), proposed by Bandura (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), emphasizes the reciprocal determinism among cognition, behavior, and environment. The theory suggests that human behavior is influenced not only by external environmental factors but also by self-evaluations, beliefs, and perceived self-efficacy. Through observation, imitation, and social feedback, individuals form cognitive judgments about their abilities and the consequences of their actions, which in turn influence emotions, behavioral choices, and social interactions (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Some studies have found a positive correlation between CSE and interpersonal trust, indicating that high self-efficacy and positive self-evaluation facilitate trust-building, social engagement, and coping with stress, whereas low self-efficacy or negative self-evaluation may lead to social avoidance, loneliness, and negative emotions (Zeb et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Yao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this, Hypothesis 6 is proposed: Core Self-Evaluation and Interpersonal Trust mediate the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Relationship Between Interpersonal Trust and Depression\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Theory posits that the attachment relationships individuals form with their primary caregivers during infancy have profound effects on their interpersonal relationships and emotional regulation in adulthood. Individuals with secure attachment tend to establish stable and trusting interpersonal relationships and demonstrate strong emotional regulation abilities, whereas those with avoidant or anxious attachment styles often exhibit low interpersonal trust, social avoidance, or excessive dependence on others, thereby increasing the risk of depression and psychological distress (Ainsworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Empirical studies have demonstrated a significant negative correlation between interpersonal trust and depression (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this, the study proposes:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 7\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust and Depression mediate the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 8\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eCore Self-Evaluation, Interpersonal Trust, and Depression jointly mediate the relationship between Social Avoidance and Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employed a longitudinal design, with three waves of data collection conducted at universities in eastern and central China, with a six-month interval between each wave. The first measurement (T1) was conducted on October 9, 2024, focusing on social avoidance. A total of 1,187 participants, all full-time undergraduates from a comprehensive university in eastern China, completed the questionnaire. The second measurement (T2) was conducted on April 11, 2025, collecting data on core self-evaluations, depression, and interpersonal trust, with 1,195 participants completing the questionnaire. The third measurement (T3) took place on October 17, 2025, collecting data on loneliness, with 1,180 participants completing all measurement tasks. After excluding invalid questionnaires and participants who did not complete all three waves, a total of 1,166 valid questionnaires were retained. Regarding demographic distribution: by gender, there were 335 males and 831 females; by academic year, 861 first-year students, 250 second-year students, and 55 third-year students; by age, 17 participants were under 18, 1,141 were between 18 and 21, and 8 were over 21; by household registration, 879 participants were from rural areas and 287 from urban areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll participants completed the questionnaires either online or offline, which included the Interpersonal Trust Scale, Depression Scale, UCLA Loneliness Scale, Social Avoidance and Distress Scale, and Core Self-Evaluation Scale. Prior to data collection, participants were informed about the purpose of the study and confidentiality principles. Participation was voluntary and based on informed consent; participants could withdraw at any point without any academic or personal consequences. All collected data were used solely for academic research and strictly adhered to ethical guidelines for psychological studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInterpersonal Trust Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scale consists of two factors with a total of 25 items, including 13 reverse-scored items. It adopts a five-point Likert scoring method, with response options ranging from \u0026ldquo;Strongly agree\u0026rdquo; (1 point), \u0026ldquo;Somewhat agree\u0026rdquo; (2 points), \u0026ldquo;Neutral\u0026rdquo; (3 points), \u0026ldquo;Somewhat disagree\u0026rdquo; (4 points), to \u0026ldquo;Strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; (5 points). Lower total scores indicate a higher level of interpersonal trust. It is important to note that the scoring of this interpersonal trust scale is reversed, meaning that its relationships with other variables are in the opposite direction (Rotter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1967\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.81) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.91, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.90, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04, and SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDepression Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, the depression subscale of the DASS-21 was used independently as the measurement tool. This factor consists of 7 items, each rated on a four-point scale: \u0026ldquo;Did not apply to me at all,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Applied to me to some degree,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Applied to me a considerable degree,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Applied to me very much,\u0026rdquo; scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Higher total scores indicate higher levels of depression (Lovibond \u0026amp; Lovibond, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.87) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.99, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.98, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, and SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eUCLA Loneliness Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scale consists of two dimensions with a total of 20 items, including 11 positively worded and 9 reverse-scored items. Participants respond on a four-point scale ranging from \u0026ldquo;Never\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;Always,\u0026rdquo; scored from 1 to 4, respectively. Higher scores indicate a stronger sense of loneliness (Russell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.90) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.92, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.91, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, and SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial Avoidance and Distress Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scale consists of two factors with a total of 28 items, including 14 positively worded and 14 reverse-scored items. It adopts a dichotomous (two-point) scoring method, with each item offering two response options: \u0026ldquo;Yes\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;No,\u0026rdquo; scored as 1 and 0, respectively. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency toward social avoidance (Jiang \u0026amp; Bai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.89) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.90, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.90, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, and SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCore Self-Evaluation Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scale is a single-factor measure consisting of 10 items (4 positively worded and 6 reverse-scored). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale: \u0026ldquo;Strongly disagree,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Disagree,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Uncertain,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Agree,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Strongly agree,\u0026rdquo; scored from 1 to 5, respectively. Higher total scores indicate higher levels of core self-evaluation (Du et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.87) and satisfactory construct validity, with fit indices as follows: CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.98, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.96, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, and SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data analysis in this study consisted of the following four steps. First, SPSS 26.0 was used for data organization and preliminary statistical analyses, including calculation of means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and correlation coefficients of the variables. Second, to ensure the internal consistency of the scales, reliability coefficients and construct validity were examined for each variable. Third, all items from the scales were included in an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to test and control for potential common method bias arising from different measurement tools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, Mplus 8.0 was used to construct and validate the structural equation model (SEM) and to test the significance of indirect effects. In the first step, a measurement model was established to verify the adequacy of latent variable measurement; subsequently, based on the good fit of the measurement model, a structural model was built to test the theoretical hypotheses. Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including RMSEA\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1, SRMR\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1, TLI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9, and CFI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9 (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In the second step, the Bootstrap method (with 5,000 resamples) was employed to estimate the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of indirect effects, with significance determined by whether the CI excluded zero.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eCommon Method Bias Test\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUsing Harman’s single-factor test, all measurement items from the scales in this study were subjected to an unrotated exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The results showed that the first factor accounted for 17.95% of the total variance, which is below the 40% threshold (Aw et al., 2024). Therefore, the data were suitable for further analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBefore conducting the structural equation modeling (SEM), the normality of the data distribution was examined to ensure that the assumptions for model analysis were met. Specifically, SPSS 26.0 was used to calculate the skewness and kurtosis of the main variables, including Interpersonal Trust, Depression, Loneliness, Social Avoidance, and Core Self-Evaluation. According to Kim (2013), when the absolute value of skewness is less than 2 and the absolute value of kurtosis is less than 7, the data can be considered approximately normally distributed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe results showed that the skewness values ranged from − 0.36 to 0.08, and kurtosis values ranged from − 0.77 to 1.85, all within acceptable limits. This indicates that the data in this study were approximately normally distributed without significant deviation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCorrelation analysis revealed the following: Gender was significantly correlated with grade (\u003cem\u003eχ²/df\u003c/em\u003e = 5.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), Social Avoidance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), and Depression (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), but not significantly related to age (\u003cem\u003eχ²/df\u003c/em\u003e = 0.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), household registration (\u003cem\u003eχ²/df\u003c/em\u003e = 0.27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Loneliness (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), or Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05).Age was significantly related to grade (\u003cem\u003eχ²/df\u003c/em\u003e = 15.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), but not to household registration (\u003cem\u003eχ²/df\u003c/em\u003e = 0.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Social Avoidance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Depression (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Loneliness (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), or Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05). Grade was significantly correlated with Social Avoidance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), Depression (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), and Loneliness (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), but not with household registration (\u003cem\u003eχ²/df\u003c/em\u003e = 0.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), or Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05). Household registration was significantly correlated with Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01) and Loneliness (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.07, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05), but not with Social Avoidance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Depression (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), or Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05). The correlation coefficients among Social Avoidance, Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, Interpersonal Trust, and Loneliness ranged between − 0.19 and 0.60, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeans, Standard Deviations, Correlation Coefficients, Skewness, and Kurtosis of Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1Gender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 Age\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69(χ²/df)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 Grade\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.16\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e(χ²/df)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.54*\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e(χ²/df)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 Household Registration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.27(χ²/df)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55(χ²/df)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02(χ²/df)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 Social Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 Core Self-evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.50\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 Depression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.09\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.50\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 Interpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.19\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.07\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.58\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuantity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimum Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaximum Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Error of Skewness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Error of Kurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e: N=1166. *p \u0026lt; 0.05, **p \u0026lt; 0.01, ***p \u0026lt; 0.001.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndependent Sample t-Test. Regarding gender, significant differences were found between male and female students in Social Avoidance (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = − 3.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01) and Depression (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 2.97, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01). However, no significant differences were observed in Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 1.60, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), or Loneliness (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 0.19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05). Regarding household registration, significant differences were found between rural and urban students in Loneliness (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 2.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05). However, the differences in Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.78, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Social Avoidance (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 1.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Depression (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 1.30, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), and Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = − 2.98, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05) were not significant. See Table\u0026nbsp;2 for details.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender and Household Registration Differences in Interpersonal Trust, Depression, Loneliness, Social Avoidance, and Core Self-Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDependent variable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndependent variable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig (two-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"10\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCore Self-evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDepression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"10\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHousehold Registration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCore Self-evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDepression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo not assume equal variances\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne-Way ANOVA. The results showed that participants of different ages did not differ significantly in Social Avoidance (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 0.44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 0.66, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 0.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), Depression (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 1.81, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), or Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 1.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05). However, participants of different grade levels showed significant differences in Social Avoidance (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 7.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05), Depression (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 19.30, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05), and Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 8.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05), but not in Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 2.49, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05) or Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 2.60, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05). See Table\u0026nbsp;3 for details.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge and Grade Differences in Interpersonal Trust, Depression, Loneliness, Social Avoidance, and Core Self-Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDependent Variable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndependent Variable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eType\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSum of Squares\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDegrees of Freedom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"10\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54818.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCore Self-evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46370.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDepression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13889.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52658.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82857.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"10\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrade\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e705.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e352.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54153.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCore Self-evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e206.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46245.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDepression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e447.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e223.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13485.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e224.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e112.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52493.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1144.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e572.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81814.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eConstruction and Testing of the Structural Equation Model\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn this study, Social Avoidance and Loneliness were used as the independent and dependent variables, respectively, while Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, and Interpersonal Trust were included as mediating variables to construct the model.The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) indicated that the model demonstrated a good fit: RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.03, CFI = 0.97, and TLI = 0.93. The total effect of the model was 0.67, consisting of a direct effect of 0.30 and an indirect effect of 0.37. Demographic variables — gender (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), grade (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), age (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05), and household registration (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.53, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05) — had no significant effects on Loneliness. Social Avoidance significantly and positively predicted Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), and Depression (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), while it negatively predicted Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Core Self-Evaluation negatively predicted Depression (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05), and Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = − 0.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Interpersonal Trust positively predicted Depression (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) and Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), while Depression positively predicted Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.86, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study employed the Bootstrap method for significance testing. Specifically, 5,000 random resamples were drawn from the original dataset to generate a resampling distribution and estimate the standard errors of the parameters. When the 95% confidence interval did not include zero, the effect was considered significant. The results showed that all seven indirect paths in this study reached a significant level, as presented in Table\u0026nbsp;4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootstrap Analysis for Significance Testing of Indirect effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMediation Pathway\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect Size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% Confidence Interval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower Bound\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpper Bound\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance-Core Self-evaluation-Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance-Depression-Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance-Interpersonal Trust-Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance-Core Self-evaluation-Depression-Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance-Core Self-evaluation-Interpersonal Trust-Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance-Interpersonal Trust-Depression-Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Avoidance-Core Self-evaluation-Interpersonal Trust-Depression-Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study found that Social Avoidance significantly predicted Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1, which is consistent with previous research (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and aligns closely with the perspective of Need to Belong Theory. According to this theory, humans have a fundamental \u0026ldquo;need to belong,\u0026rdquo; reflecting a desire to form and maintain stable, positive social relationships (Baumeister \u0026amp; Leary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). When individuals reduce opportunities for social interaction due to Social Avoidance, their social connectedness and sense of acceptance decrease, leaving their belongingness needs unmet and making them more prone to experience Loneliness. These findings suggest that psychological interventions should focus on reducing Social Avoidance behaviors and helping individuals rebuild positive social networks to satisfy their need for belonging, thereby decreasing Loneliness and promoting psychological well-being.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study further found that Core Self-evaluation plays a significant mediating role between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 2. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and negatively predicted Core Self-evaluation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = -0.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and Core Self-evaluation significantly and negatively predicted Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = -0.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This finding can be explained by Social Comparison Theory and Social Cognitive Theory. According to Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1954\u003c/span\u003e), individuals evaluate their self-worth by comparing themselves with others. Social Avoidance reduces opportunities for interaction and comparison, limiting access to positive social feedback, which can lead to a blurred self-concept and decreased self-esteem. Furthermore, based on Social Cognitive Theory (Nwosu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), low levels of Core Self-evaluation weaken individuals\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy and social confidence, increasing sensitivity to interpersonal rejection and thereby intensifying feelings of loneliness. Therefore, interventions aimed at enhancing Core Self-evaluation and self-efficacy, fostering a positive social comparison perspective, and building healthy self-perceptions can reduce Social Avoidance behaviors and Loneliness, promoting psychological adaptation and social integration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study further found that Depression plays a significant mediating role between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 3. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and positively predicted Depression (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and Depression significantly and positively predicted Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.86, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This finding can be explained through the Interpersonal Theory of Depression and Cognitive\u0026ndash;Interpersonal Theory. According to Cognitive\u0026ndash;Interpersonal Theory (Treasure \u0026amp; Schmidt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), Social Avoidance stems from individuals\u0026rsquo; cognitive biases and negative self-schemas, making them overly sensitive to interpersonal cues and prone to misinterpret others\u0026rsquo; intentions. This reduces social interactions, elicits distancing behaviors from others, and reinforces negative beliefs, creating a vicious cycle of cognitive and interpersonal distress. The Interpersonal Theory of Depression (Coyne, 1976) further emphasizes that individuals with Depression often display negative affect and excessive reassurance-seeking in social interactions. Rather than obtaining support, these behaviors may trigger avoidance or rejection from others, deepening feelings of isolation and exacerbating the experience of Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study further found that Interpersonal Trust plays a significant mediating role between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 4. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and positively predicted Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and Interpersonal Trust significantly and positively predicted Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This finding can be explained by Uncertainty Reduction Theory and Social Exchange Theory. According to Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger \u0026amp; Calabrese, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e), when individuals tend to engage in Social Avoidance and reduce interactions with others, their opportunities to gather social information and verify others\u0026rsquo; intentions are limited. This increases interpersonal cognitive uncertainty and undermines trust in others. According to Social Exchange Theory (Darmawan \u0026amp; Gani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), trust is a core psychological resource in social interactions, determining whether individuals are willing to invest emotion and support to maintain relationships. When trust levels decrease, the quality of interpersonal interactions declines, social connectedness and sense of belonging are impaired, and individuals are more prone to Loneliness. In socially challenged populations, individuals may form unstable or idealized Interpersonal Trust due to a lack of real social interaction experience. This \u0026ldquo;superficial trust\u0026rdquo; is easily frustrated in actual interactions, further exacerbating Loneliness. Therefore, in practical interventions, attention should be given to establishing a realistic and stable Interpersonal Trust system through social skills training, situational simulations, and psychological counseling to help individuals accurately assess others\u0026rsquo; trustworthiness and develop healthy trust boundaries. Simultaneously, Social Avoidance behaviors should be gradually reduced, and opportunities for positive social contact increased, promoting genuine social connections and effectively alleviating Loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study further found that Core Self-Evaluation and Depression play significant mediating roles between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 5. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and negatively predicted Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = -0.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001); Core Self-Evaluation significantly and negatively predicted Depression (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = -0.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001); and Depression significantly and positively predicted Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.86, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This finding can be explained through Cognitive Theory. According to Cognitive Theory (Dozois et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), core beliefs and automatic thoughts formed during an individual\u0026rsquo;s development influence their cognitive processing of the self and others. Individuals with Social Avoidance, due to a lack of positive social feedback, are prone to developing negative self-beliefs (e.g., \"I am not liked\" or \"I am not good enough\"), which leads to decreased Core Self-Evaluation. Holding such negative cognitions makes individuals more susceptible to feelings of helplessness and despair, triggering Depression; in turn, the depressive state exacerbates social withdrawal and Loneliness, forming a vicious cycle. In educational and counseling practice, interventions such as self-cognition training, positive psychological interventions, or group counseling can help individuals build positive self-evaluations, enhancing self-worth and self-efficacy. At the same time, attention should be given to the emotional states of socially avoidant individuals, using emotion management and psychological guidance techniques to alleviate Depression and prevent the formation of social isolation and negative cycles. Through this integrated intervention approach, the negative psychological consequences of Social Avoidance can be effectively reduced, promoting mental health and social adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study further found that Core Self-Evaluation and Interpersonal Trust play significant mediating roles between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, supporting Hypothesis 6. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and negatively predicted Core Self-Evaluation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = -0.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001); Core Self-Evaluation significantly and negatively predicted Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = -0.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05); and Interpersonal Trust significantly and positively predicted Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This result can be explained by Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), which emphasizes the dynamic interaction between an individual\u0026rsquo;s cognition, self-beliefs, and social environment. Individuals exhibiting Social Avoidance, due to a lack of positive social experiences and feedback, tend to develop negative self-cognitions and low self-efficacy, thereby reducing their Core Self-Evaluation. Lower self-evaluation fosters insecurity and defensive tendencies in social interactions, which in turn weakens trust in others and hinders healthy interpersonal engagement. When Interpersonal Trust is compromised, individuals struggle to obtain social support and a sense of belonging, ultimately intensifying feelings of Loneliness. In psychological intervention and social support practices, efforts should target both self-cognition reconstruction and Interpersonal Trust cultivation. On one hand, interventions such as counseling and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) can enhance Core Self-Evaluation, helping individuals develop a positive self-concept and sense of social identity. On the other hand, group counseling, social skills training, or team-based activities can strengthen Interpersonal Trust and social connectedness, thereby reducing Social Avoidance behaviors, alleviating Loneliness, and promoting overall psychological well-being and social adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study further found that Interpersonal Trust and Depression play significant mediating roles between Social Avoidance and Loneliness, providing support for Hypotheses 7 and 8. Specifically, Social Avoidance significantly and positively predicted Interpersonal Trust (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001); Interpersonal Trust significantly and negatively predicted Depression (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001); and Depression significantly and positively predicted Loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.86, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This result can be interpreted through the lens of Attachment Theory. The theory suggests that early attachment experiences shape individuals\u0026rsquo; Interpersonal Trust and emotion regulation abilities in adulthood. Individuals with secure attachment tend to trust others and regulate their emotions effectively, thereby forming positive social relationships. In contrast, avoidant attachment individuals, characterized by defensiveness and insecurity toward intimacy, are more likely to exhibit Social Avoidance and low trust. A low level of Interpersonal Trust hinders access to social support, increases negative affect and depressive experiences, and ultimately deepens Loneliness (Ainsworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, early attachment relationships influence an individual\u0026rsquo;s self-concept and Interpersonal Trust in adulthood. Securely attached individuals generally possess a positive self-evaluation and a stronger tendency to trust others, whereas those with avoidant or anxious attachment are more likely to develop negative self-schemas and a lack of security, leading to defensive and avoidant behaviors in social interactions (Ainsworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). From the perspective of Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), an individual\u0026rsquo;s Core Self-Evaluation reflects their beliefs about self-efficacy and self-worth, which in turn shape the quality of social behaviors and interpersonal interactions. Individuals with low self-evaluation often anticipate social rejection, exhibit less willingness to trust others, and maintain weaker social support networks, all of which contribute to heightened feelings of loneliness. Therefore, the key implication of this study is that interventions aimed at reducing Social Avoidance and Loneliness should address early attachment formation and its cognitive extensions in adulthood. By enhancing self-efficacy, reconstructing positive self-cognition, and building secure trust patterns, individuals can be supported in developing healthier interpersonal interactions and better psychological adjustment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe acknowledge that there are still areas for improvement in our research design. First, the sample may have demographic limitations\u0026mdash;such as concentration in age, cultural background, or educational level\u0026mdash;which could affect the external validity of the results. Second, this study did not fully control for potential confounding variables, such as social support, personality traits, or coping styles, which may influence social avoidance, depression, and loneliness. Third, although the model includes multiple indirect pathways, there may still be unexamined psychological or environmental factors, suggesting that future research should further expand the comprehensiveness and complexity of the underlying mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings indicate that Social Avoidance undermines Core Self-Evaluation, reduces Interpersonal Trust, and increases Depressive symptoms, thereby intensifying Loneliness and creating a self-reinforcing vicious cycle. We refer to this mechanism as the Social Avoidance\u0026ndash;Psychological Resource Imbalance Theory (SAPRI). This theory integrates perspectives from Social Cognitive Theory, Attachment Theory, and the Cognitive-Interpersonal Model, emphasizing the mediating role of psychological resource imbalance between Social Avoidance and Loneliness. The SAPRI framework provides a multi-level theoretical foundation for loneliness intervention: it suggests that effective intervention should not only reduce avoidant social behaviors, but also enhance self-evaluation, rebuild interpersonal trust, and regulate negative emotions, thereby breaking the vicious cycle and promoting psychological well-being.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe privacy of participants was taken very seriously. All participants voluntarily took part in this research project, and written informed consent forms were provided to their guardians, with support from the guardians.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the research process, the relevant provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki were strictly followed.This research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Institute of Judicial Psychology and Behavior at Zhejiang Police Vocational Academy (Approval No: IJPB284890529). All participants volunteered to participate in the experiment, and written informed consent was given to and supported by their guardians.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all the participants who took the time to complete the questionnaires and share their experiences. Their active cooperation and honest responses made this research possible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe declare that the submitted manuscript is an original work and has not been previously published in any domestic or international journal or other publication, nor is it under consideration by any other journal. The manuscript involves no plagiarism, duplication, or other forms of academic misconduct; all data are true and reliable, and all sources have been appropriately cited in accordance with academic standards. I (and all co-authors) have read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree with the authorship and order of authors. In the event that the manuscript is accepted for publication, I (and all co-authors) agree to grant the journal the relevant publication rights, including the rights of reproduction, distribution, and online dissemination, for lawful editing, publication, and dissemination purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by a research grant from 2026 Soft Science Research Program of Zhejiang Province (No. 2026C35082)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u0026apos;s Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, L. Z. was mainly responsible for the search of scientific literature and the signing of the informed consent form of the subjects, S. X. and D. J. mainly responsible for the distribution and retrieval of the questionnaires and data processing, J. Z. and J. H. were mainly responsible for the writing of the thesis, the development of the research methodology, and the selection of the statistical analysis software. All authors were involved in data analysis, drafting or revising the article, ultimately approving the published version of the article, and agreeing to take responsibility for all aspects of the work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that might influence the work reported here.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAw ECX, Tan GWH, Ooi KB, Hajli N. Tap here to power up! Mobile augmented reality for consumer empowerment. Internet Res. 2024;34(3):960\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAinsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall SN. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBellucci G, Park SQ. Loneliness is associated with more trust but worse trustworthiness expectations. Br J Psychol. 2024;115(4):641\u0026ndash;64. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12713\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/bjop.12713\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Guilford; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrewin CR. Understanding cognitive behaviour therapy: A retrieval competition account. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44(6):765\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.02.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.brat.2006.02.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Ann Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):1\u0026ndash;26. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull. 1995;117(3):497\u0026ndash;529. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerger CR, Calabrese RJ. Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Hum Commun Res. 1975;1(2):99\u0026ndash;112. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen W, Yang T, Luo J. Core self-evaluation and subjective wellbeing: A moderated mediation model. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1036071. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1036071\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpubh.2022.1036071\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDarmawan D, Gani A. Reciprocal Relationships between Psychological Well-Being and Quality of Social Interaction: A Review of Social Exchange Theory. Int J Service Sci Manage Eng Technol. 2024;5(3):5\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunn C, Sicouri G. The relationship between loneliness and depressive symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Behav Change. 2022;39(3):134\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2022.13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/bec.2022.13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDennis UD, Owoseni SU. (2022). Core Self\u0026ndash;Evaluations as Predicates of Clinical Decision Making in Selected Team of Perioperative Nurses in Ondo State, Nigeria. MedPress Psychiatry Behav Sci, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDu JZ, Zhang X, Zhao Y. (2012). Structural validation and revision of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale. Psychol Res, (3), 54\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDozois DJ, Frewen PA, Covin ROGER. Cognitive theories. Compr Handb personality Psychopathol. 2006;1:173\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFu C, Yang S, Zhai M, Yong T, Zheng C, Ma X, Su P. (2024). The component and structure of interpersonal trust. Heliyon, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(9).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFranco-O\u0026rsquo;Byrne D, Gonzalez-Gomez R, Morales Sepulveda JP, Vergara M, Ibanez A, Huepe D. The impact of loneliness and social adaptation on depressive symptoms: Behavioral and brain measures evidence from a brain health perspective. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1096178. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096178\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096178\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFestinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat. 1954;7(2):117\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/001872675400700202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiordano F, Calaresi D, Saladino V, Verrastro V. Perception of Loneliness in Adolescence: Role of Maladaptive Personality Traits and Trauma-Related Symptomatology. Brain Sci. 2025;15(1):86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15010086\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/brainsci15010086\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGong J, Li Y, Niu B, Liu X, Wang Y, Zhou B, Hai M. The relationship between openness and social anxiety: the chain mediating roles of social networking site use and self-evaluation. BMC Psychol. 2023;11(1):391. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01412-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40359-023-01412-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJia W, Liu L, Peng G. The impact of social media on users\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy and loneliness: An analysis of the mediating mechanism of social support. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2024;593\u0026ndash;612. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S449079\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2147/PRBM.S449079\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang YZ, Bai XL. Reliability and validity of the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale among Mongolian college students. Chin J Behav Med Brain Sci. 2014;23(6):3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJoiner TE, Metalsky GI. A prospective test of an integrative interpersonal theory of depression: A naturalistic study of college roommates. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1995;69(4):778.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dentistry Endodontics. 2013;38(1):52\u0026ndash;4. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi L, Tang L, Lai YH, Liu J. Interpersonal trust and depression in female adolescents: Negative attributional style and self-esteem as mediators. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2025;53(2):1\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.13842\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2224/sbp.13842\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi T, Meng C, Cheng Y, Wang J, Zhang Y. The relationship between core self-evaluation and cognitive failure in Chinese adolescents: the sequential mediating role of alexithymia and depression. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02613-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40359-025-02613-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi J, Ding W, Sun Z, Xie R. The reciprocal relationships between core self-evaluation, academic burnout and deviant peer affiliation in adolescence. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(40):31159\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06672-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-024-06672-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi S, Kong K, Zhang K, Niu H. The relation between college students\u0026rsquo; neuroticism and loneliness: The chain mediating roles of self-efficacy, social avoidance and distress. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1124588. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1124588\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1124588\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi S, Kong K, Zhang K, Niu H. The relation between college students\u0026rsquo; neuroticism and loneliness: The chain mediating roles of self-efficacy, social avoidance and distress. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1124588. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1124588\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1124588\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLovibond SH, Lovibond PF. (1995). \u003cem\u003eDepression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) instrument.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalli MA, Ryan S, Maddison J, Kharicha K. Experiences and meaning of loneliness beyond age and group identity. Sociol Health Illn. 2023;45(1):70\u0026ndash;89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13539\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1467-9566.13539\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMyszka-Strychalska LK. Sense of Loneliness, Sense of Effectiveness, Interpersonal Trust and Interpersonal Relations of Academic Youth During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Przegląd Badan Edukacyjnych (Educational Stud Review). 2022;2(40):275\u0026ndash;301. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12775/PBE.2022.028\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.12775/PBE.2022.028\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNwosu HE, Obidike PC, Ugwu JN, Udeze CC, Okolie UC. Applying social cognitive theory to placement learning in business firms and students\u0026rsquo; entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Manage Educ. 2022;20(1):100602. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100602\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100602\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOsler L. An illness of isolation, a disease of disconnection: Depression and the erosion of we-experiences. Front Psychol. 2022;13:928186. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928186\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928186\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePardede S, Kovac VB. Distinguishing the need to belong and sense of belongingness: The relation between need to belong and personal appraisals under two different belongingness\u0026ndash;conditions. Eur J Invest health Psychol Educ. 2023;13(2):331\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoberts T, Krueger J. Loneliness and the emotional experience of absence. South J Philos. 2021;59(2):185\u0026ndash;204. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12387\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/sjp.12387\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRussell DW. UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess. 1996;66(1):20\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRotter JB. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. J Pers. 1967;35(4):651\u0026ndash;65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShang A, Feng L, Yan G, Sun L. The relationship between self-esteem and social avoidance among university students: chain mediating effects of resilience and social distress. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):116. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02444-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40359-025-02444-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSong CR, Chen M, Li WQ, Li LH, Li YY. The effect of perceived social support on college students\u0026rsquo; depression: The serial mediation of social avoidance, distress, and core self-evaluation. Psychology: Techniques Appl. 2020;8(7):8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTu Y, Su Y, Yang K, Jin L, Li B, Chen W, Wu D. The role of depression and interpersonal trust between anxiety and social avoidance among college students: a structural equation model. Curr Psychol. 2025;44(5):3420\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07261-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-024-07261-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan H, Xiao W. The mediating role of core self-evaluation in the association between perceived peer relationship quality and loneliness in university students. PLoS ONE. 2025;20(1):e0317310. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317310\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0317310\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTreasure J, Schmidt U. The cognitive\u0026ndash;interpersonal maintenance model of anorexia nervosa revisited: A summary of the evidence for cognitive, socio-emotional and interpersonal predisposing and perpetuating factors. J Eat Disorders. 2013;1(13):1\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/2050-2974-1-13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/2050-2974-1-13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWolters NE, Mobach L, Wuthrich VM, Vonk P, Van der Heijde CM, Wiers RW, Klein AM. Emotional and social loneliness and their unique links with social isolation, depression and anxiety. J Affect Disord. 2023;329:207\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.096\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.096\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWong AH, Aslanidou A, Malbec M, Pittig A, Wieser MJ, Andreatta M. A systematic review of the inter-individual differences in avoidance learning. Collabra: Psychol. 2023;9(1):77856. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77856\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1525/collabra.77856\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYan-Hui XIANG, Rong YUAN, Jia-Xu DIAO. The Relationship between Childhood Maltreatment and Loneliness: The Mediating Roles of Rumination and Core Self-Evaluation. J Psychol Sci. 2021;44(1):197\u0026ndash;204.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYao Y, Fan X, Chen G, Li P, Liu S. Online verbal aggression on interpersonal trust among college students: the chain-mediating effect of core self-evaluation and emotional intelligence. Front Psychiatry. 2025;16:1556046. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1556046\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1556046\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYuan Y, Jiang S, Wen X, Han Z, Wu D, Wang X, Xiang M. The chain-mediation pathway of social avoidance to depression in college students is regulated by self-esteem. Front Psychol. 2022a;13:802161. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.119\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.119\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYuan Y, Jiang S, Yan S, Chen L, Zhang M, Zhang J, Jiang K. The relationship between depression and social avoidance of college students: a moderated mediation model. J Affect Disord. 2022b;300:249\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.119\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.119\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeb I, Yan Z, Fang S, Khan A. Building resilient learners: understanding the role of core self-evaluation, academic self-efficacy and interpersonal relationships among students. J Appl Res High Educ. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2024-0473\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JARHE-09-2024-0473\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu Y, Yan Y, Zhang D. The effects of observed ostracism on social avoidance: The role of fear of negative evaluation and rumination. Pers Indiv Differ. 2025;238:113080. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113080\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113080\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng X, Xie J, Cai R, Liu Z, Xu L. Why avoidance? The impact of childhood emotional abuse on social avoidance. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):558. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02852-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40359-025-02852-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang S, Xiao B, Zhang Y, Zhu X, Dong Q, Ding X. Relation between social avoidance and loneliness in urban Chinese children: A moderated-mediation model. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2024;21(2):171\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2024.2315753\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17405629.2024.2315753\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Social Avoidance, Core Self-Evaluation, Interpersonal Trust, Depression, Loneliness","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8505519/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8505519/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eObjective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to explore the mechanisms through which social avoidance influences loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLongitudinal data were collected using the Interpersonal Trust Scale, Depression Scale, Loneliness Questionnaire, Social Avoidance Scale, and Core Self-Evaluation Scale to conduct correlational analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial avoidance directly predicted loneliness and also indirectly influenced it through dual or triple mediation paths involving interpersonal trust, core self-evaluation, and depression.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoneliness is not only directly affected by social behavior but is also closely related to the depletion and imbalance of psychological resources caused by social avoidance\u0026mdash; including core self-evaluation, interpersonal trust, and emotional regulation ability. Social avoidance reduces core self-evaluation, weakens interpersonal trust, and increases depressive emotions, forming a self-reinforcing vicious cycle that exacerbates loneliness. We refer to this mechanism as the Social Avoidance\u0026ndash;Psychological Resource Imbalance Theory (SAPRI). This finding suggests that psychological practitioners should focus on reducing social avoidance, enhancing self-evaluation, rebuilding interpersonal trust, and regulating negative emotions to effectively alleviate loneliness and promote mental well-being.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Relationship Between Social Avoidance and Loneliness: The Indirect Effects of Core Self-Evaluation, Depression, and Interpersonal Trust","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-02 09:59:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8505519/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-30T07:08:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-27T09:55:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-08T17:37:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-07T08:18:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2026-01-07T08:07:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"17bf586d-0d40-46cb-8865-c9d3d44ba0a0","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 2nd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-02T09:59:27+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-02 09:59:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8505519","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8505519","identity":"rs-8505519","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}