The Influence of Self-Supporting Personality on Social Anxiety in College Students: The Serial- Mediating Roles of Attention Bias and Social Problem-Solving OrientationAuthor information

The Influence of Self-Supporting Personality on Social Anxiety in College Students: The Serial- Mediating Roles of Attention Bias and Social Problem-Solving OrientationAuthor information | 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 Influence of Self-Supporting Personality on Social Anxiety in College Students: The Serial- Mediating Roles of Attention Bias and Social Problem-Solving OrientationAuthor information Weiyi WANG, peibo wu, Jing Sun This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8371564/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 16 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Social anxiety is highly prevalent among college students and is associated with impaired academic functioning and long-term social maladjustment. Identifying culturally grounded personality resources and the psychological mechanisms through which they operate may contribute to more precise intervention strategies. Drawing on indigenous personality theory and cognitive–behavioral models, the present study examined the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety among Chinese college students, with a particular focus on the sequential mediating roles of attention bias and social problem-solving orientation. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 660 undergraduate students from three universities in Henan Province, China. Participants completed measures of self-supporting personality, positive and negative attention bias, social problem-solving orientation, and social anxiety. Serial mediation analyses were performed using the PROCESS macro (Model 6) with bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals. Results The results indicated that self-supporting personality was significantly associated with lower levels of social anxiety. Both positive and negative attention bias, as well as positive and negative social problem-solving orientation, independently mediated this association. Moreover, two valence-specific sequential mediation pathways were supported. On the positive pathway, self-supporting personality was associated with enhanced positive attention bias, which in turn predicted a more positive social problem-solving orientation and, subsequently, lower social anxiety. On the negative pathway, self-supporting personality was associated with reduced negative attention bias, which predicted lower negative social problem-solving orientation and reduced social anxiety. Notably, negative attention bias accounted for a larger proportion of the indirect effect than negative problem-solving orientation. Conclusion These findings suggest that self-supporting personality may influence social anxiety primarily through cognitive–behavioral mechanisms, with attentional processing playing a central role. The results highlight the importance of targeting modifiable attentional and problem-solving processes when designing interventions to reduce social anxiety among college students. Self-supporting personality social problem-solving social anxiety attentional bias Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction Social anxiety refers to a persistent tendency to experience fear, tension, and apprehension in social or interpersonal situations, particularly those involving actual or perceived evaluation by others [ 1 ]. Emerging adulthood, and especially the university period, is characterized by intensified social demands, frequent interpersonal interactions, and ongoing identity development. Within this context, social anxiety has been consistently identified as a prevalent psychological concern among college students. Cross-national studies suggest that approximately 15–20% of university students report social anxiety symptoms at a clinically significant level [ 2 ], with prevalence rates potentially higher in East Asian cultural contexts that emphasize interpersonal harmony and collective norms [ 3 ]. Elevated social anxiety during the college years has been linked to a range of adverse outcomes, including reduced classroom participation and academic performance [ 4 , 5 ], increased vulnerability to depressive symptoms [ 6 , 7 ], and persistent impairments in social functioning extending into adulthood [ 8 , 9 ]. Accordingly, identifying psychological factors that are associated with lower levels of social anxiety, as well as clarifying the mechanisms through which such factors operate, remains an important task for both theoretical development and intervention design. Recent research in indigenous and cross-cultural psychology has increasingly emphasized the role of culturally grounded personality resources in mental health. Within this line of work, self-supporting personality has been proposed as a multidimensional construct reflecting individuals’ tendencies toward independence, initiative, responsibility, flexibility, and openness across behavioral, cognitive, and emotional domains [ 10 ]. Conceptually, self-supporting personality represents an adaptive psychological resource that facilitates effective self-regulation and social adaptation, particularly in contexts that require autonomous coping and interpersonal engagement. Empirical studies have shown that higher levels of self-supporting personality are associated with greater perceived social support, lower social stress, enhanced psychological resilience, and stronger school belonging [ 11 – 13 ]. Despite growing evidence supporting its adaptive value, existing research has largely focused on the direct associations between self-supporting personality and psychosocial outcomes. Relatively little is known about the specific psychological processes through which self-supporting personality may be linked to social anxiety. From a process-oriented perspective, examining intermediate cognitive and behavioral mechanisms may provide a more precise understanding of how this personality resource operates in social contexts. Attention bias, defined as a systematic tendency to preferentially allocate attention toward certain types of information, has been identified as a core cognitive mechanism in cognitive–behavioral models of anxiety [ 14 , 15 ]. Individuals with elevated anxiety commonly display heightened attentional vigilance toward threatening social cues and reduced attention to positive or affiliative information. Conversely, a more adaptive attentional pattern—characterized by enhanced attention to positive social cues and attenuated attention to threat—has been associated with better emotional regulation and social functioning. It is therefore plausible that self-supporting personality is associated with social anxiety, at least in part, through its relationship with attentional processing tendencies. At a more downstream level, social problem-solving orientation represents a relatively stable cognitive–behavioral style in responding to interpersonal difficulties [ 16 ]. A positive problem-solving orientation involves constructive engagement with social challenges and confidence in one’s ability to resolve them, whereas a negative orientation is characterized by avoidance, pessimism, and perceived lack of control. Previous research has shown that problem-solving orientation is closely linked to anxiety outcomes and that interventions targeting social problem-solving can effectively reduce anxiety symptoms among college students [ 17 ]. From a cognitive–behavioral hierarchy perspective, attentional biases may shape individuals’ subsequent behavioral orientations, suggesting that social problem-solving orientation may function as a behavioral mechanism through which attentional processes influence social anxiety. Supporting this integrative view, recent empirical evidence has demonstrated that self-supporting personality predicts social problem-solving ability through intermediate cognitive biases, including attentional and interpretive biases [ 18 ]. This finding suggests the presence of a sequential process linking personality traits to cognitive processing and, subsequently, to behavioral responses in social contexts. However, the emotional consequences of this process—particularly its relevance to social anxiety—have not yet been systematically examined. Drawing on the valence-specificity principle, which posits that positive and negative information-processing systems operate relatively independently [ 19 ], as well as cognitive–behavioral hierarchical models [ 14 ], the present study proposes a dual-path sequential mediation framework. Specifically, self-supporting personality is expected to be associated with social anxiety through two valence-specific pathways: a positive pathway involving enhanced positive attention bias and positive social problem-solving orientation, and a negative pathway involving reduced negative attention bias and negative social problem-solving orientation (see Fig. 1 ). Examining these pathways concurrently allows for a more nuanced understanding of how cognitive and behavioral mechanisms jointly link personality resources to social anxiety. Based on the theoretical framework and empirical evidence reviewed above, the following hypotheses were proposed: H1. Self-supporting personality is negatively associated with social anxiety among college students. H2. Attention bias mediates the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety, such that H2a. positive attention bias mediates this association in a negative direction, and H2b. negative attention bias mediates this association in a positive direction. H3. Social problem-solving orientation mediates the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety, such that H3a. positive social problem-solving orientation mediates this association in a negative direction, and H3b. negative social problem-solving orientation mediates this association in a positive direction. H4. Attention bias and social problem-solving orientation sequentially mediate the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety. H4a. Self-supporting personality is associated with lower social anxiety through a sequential pathway involving reduced negative attention bias and reduced negative social problem-solving orientation. H4b. Self-supporting personality is associated with lower social anxiety through a sequential pathway involving enhanced positive attention bias and enhanced positive social problem-solving orientation. 2. Method 2.1 Participants This study employed a cross-sectional design. Data were collected from undergraduate students at three universities in Henan Province, China, via convenience sampling. All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the research guidelines of the Academic Committee of Zhongyuan Institute of Science and Technology. Faculty members distributed QR codes linking to an electronic survey, which included a research description and an informed consent form. Participation was entirely voluntary and anonymous; no personally identifiable information was collected. Participants were informed of the study purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, data confidentiality, and their right to decline participation or withdraw at any time without penalty. Only participants who provided electronic informed consent were allowed to proceed to the questionnaire. A total of 821 questionnaires were initially collected. To ensure data quality, invalid responses were removed based on the following criteria: (a) completion time was excessively short (less than 300 seconds, determined as twice the average completion time from a pilot test); (b) inconsistent response patterns were evident on embedded validity check items with reversed wording; and (c) all items were answered with the same option, indicating a patterned or non-diligent response. Following this rigorous screening, 660 valid questionnaires were retained, yielding an effective response rate of 80.4%. The final sample consisted of 125 male students (18.9%) and 535 female students (81.1%). In terms of academic year, the distribution was as follows: 372 freshmen (56.4%), 69 sophomores (10.5%), and 219 juniors (33.2%). 2.2 Instruments 2.2.1 Self-Supporting Personality Scale for Adolescents (SSPS-AS) The SSPS-AS was developed to measure ten personality traits rooted in Chinese cultural tradition that are conducive to positive mental health [ 20 ]. It assesses two broad domains: Interpersonal Self-Support (ISS) and Personal Self-Support (PSS). Each domain measures five specific and independent traits: independence, initiative, responsibility, flexibility, and openness. Thus, the scale comprises ten subscales, each represented by four items, resulting in a total of 40 items. Respondents rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( not at all true ) to 5 ( completely true ). Higher total scores indicate a more pronounced self-supporting personality. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total scale was 0.914. 2.2.2 Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R) Social problem-solving as assessed by using the Chinese version [ 21 ] of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R) [ 22 ]. This 32-item instrument uses a 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all true of me to 4 = extremely true of me ) to assess five dimensions: Positive Problem Orientation (PPO), Negative Problem Orientation (NPO), Rational Problem-Solving, Impulsivity/Carelessness Style, and Avoidance Style. Consistent with the study's focus on cognitive-behavioral orientations, only the PPO (10 items) and NPO (10 items) subscales were used for analysis. The higher the score, the stronger the corresponding problem-solving motivation was. The Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0.737 and 0.612, respectively. 2.2.3 ‌Attention to Positive and Negative Information Scale (APNI) The Chinese version of the Attention to Positive and Negative Information Scale [ 23 ] was used to assess attention bias. The scale consists of 26 items across four factors: Attention to Positive Information about Others, Attention to Negative Information about Others, Attention to Positive Information about the Self, and Attention to Negative Information about the Self. For the purpose of this study, composite scores for overall positive attention bias and overall negative attention bias were calculated by summing the relevant subscales. The scale demonstrated good reliability, with Cronbach's α coefficients from 0.761 to 0.971 in the current sample. 2.2.4 ‌Interaction Anxiousness Scale (IAS) The IAS was used to assess the subjective tendency to experience anxiety in social interactions, independent of actual behavior [ 24 ]. The Chinese revised version [ 25 ], which includes 13 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 ( not at all characteristic of me ) to 4 ( extremely characteristic of me ), was administered. Higher total scores indicate greater social interaction anxiety. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.866. 2.3 Procedure The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Ethics Committee of Zhongyuan Institute of Science and Technology (ZIST) (Protocol Approval ID: ZYKJ/PSY-20240507). All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments (or comparable ethical standards). Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants prior to participation. Data were collected via an online survey platform (WENJUANXING/Question Star). Trained educational faculty members distributed the survey link/QR code to student WeChat class groups across three colleges in Henan Province. Participants received information about the study purpose, voluntariness, and confidentiality before completing the instruments (SSPS-AS, SPSI-R-C, APNI, and IAS). 2.4 Data Analysis Data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 and the PROCESS macro (v3.4) for SPSS [ 26 ]. Analyses included descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations to examine the relationships among the primary variables. Hypothesis testing involved a series of regression analyses. To test the proposed mediation hypotheses (H2, H3, H4), a path analysis framework was implemented using Model 6 in PROCESS, which allows for testing sequential mediation. This model estimated the direct effect of self-supporting personality on social anxiety and its indirect effects through the proposed mediators (positive/negative attention bias and positive/negative social problem-solving orientation). Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (based on 5000 bootstrap samples) were used to assess the significance of the indirect effects. 3. Results 3.1 Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses Descriptive statistics for the primary study variables are presented in Table 1. Based on the valid sample ( N = 660), the mean score for social anxiety was 57.35 ( SD = 10.32), and the mean score for self-supporting personality was 126.62 ( SD = 24.19). With respect to the proposed mediators, the mean scores were 46.54 ( SD = 17.66) for positive attention bias, 38.70 ( SD = 6.82) for negative attention bias, 13.93 ( SD = 3.23) for positive social problem-solving orientation, and 16.19 ( SD = 3.52) for negative social problem-solving orientation. Independent-samples t tests and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine potential differences in the primary variables by gender and academic year. No statistically significant differences were observed across these demographic categories (all ps > .05). Therefore, all subsequent analyses were conducted on the full sample. 3.2 Bivariate Correlations Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to examine the associations among self-supporting personality, attention bias, social problem-solving orientation, and social anxiety (see Table 1). All correlations were statistically significant and in the expected directions. Self-supporting personality was significantly and negatively correlated with social anxiety ( r = −0.810, p <0.01). With respect to the relationships between the proposed mediators and social anxiety, positive attention bias was significantly negatively correlated with social anxiety ( r = −0.824, p < 0.01), whereas negative attention bias was significantly positively correlated with social anxiety ( r = 0.937, p < 0.01). Similarly, positive social problem-solving orientation was significantly negatively associated with social anxiety ( r = −0.880, p <0.01), whereas negative social problem-solving orientation was significantly positively associated with social anxiety ( r = 0.915, p < 0.01). Significant associations were also observed between self-supporting personality and the mediating variables. Specifically, self-supporting personality was positively correlated with positive attention bias ( r = 0.897, p < 0.01) and positive social problem-solving orientation ( r = 0.852, p < 0.01), and negatively correlated with negative attention bias ( r = −0.810, p < 0.01) and negative social problem-solving orientation ( r = −0.791, p < 0.01). In addition, the intercorrelations among the mediating variables were examined. Positive attention bias was significantly positively correlated with positive social problem-solving orientation ( r = 0.854, p < 0.01), whereas negative attention bias was significantly positively correlated with negative social problem-solving orientation ( r = 0.885, p < 0.01). Overall, the correlation results indicated that the study variables were significantly interrelated in a manner consistent with the proposed analytical model. Although the correlation coefficients were relatively large, they did not exceed commonly accepted thresholds, suggesting that multicollinearity was unlikely to pose a serious concern for the subsequent mediation analyses. 3.3 Mediation Model Testing 3.3.1 Sequential mediating effects of positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation in the relationship between self-supporting personality and social anxiety To examine the sequential mediating roles of positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation in the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety among college students, a serial mediation analysis was conducted using Model 6 of the PROCESS macro [26]. Bias-corrected bootstrap procedures with 5,000 resamples were applied to estimate 95% confidence intervals for indirect effects. Model fit and path analysis The unstandardized regression coefficients for each path in the proposed chain mediation model are presented in Table 1. All estimated paths were statistically significant. Self-supporting personality was positively associated with positive attentional bias ( B = 0.656, p < 0.001), accounting for 80.79% of the variance in positive attentional bias ( R² = 0.808). When self-supporting personality was controlled, positive attentional bias was positively associated with positive social problem-solving orientation ( B = 0.085, p < 0.001). Together, self-supporting personality and positive attentional bias explained 76.66% of the variance in positive social problem-solving orientation ( R² = 0.767). In the final regression model, self-supporting personality ( B = −0.037, p = 0.046), positive attentional bias ( B = −0.126, p < 0.001), and positive social problem-solving orientation ( B = −1.986, p < 0.001) were all negatively associated with social anxiety. This model accounted for 79.58% of the variance in social anxiety ( R² = 0.796). Total, direct, and indirect effects The total effect, direct effect, and decomposition of indirect effects of self-supporting personality on social anxiety are summarized in Table 2. The total effect of self-supporting personality on social anxiety was statistically significant (effect = −0.346, 95% CI [−0.365, −0.327]). After the inclusion of the mediating variables, the direct effect remained statistically significant but was substantially reduced (effect = −0.037, 95% CI [−0.073, −0.001]). The total indirect effect was statistically significant (effect = −0.309, 95% BootCI [−0.348, −0.270]), accounting for 89.3% of the total effect. All three specific indirect pathways were statistically significant. The indirect effect via positive attentional bias alone (PERtotal → POS → IAStotal) was −0.083, accounting for 26.8% of the total indirect effect. The indirect effect via positive social problem-solving orientation alone (PERtotal → PPO → IAStotal) was −0.115, accounting for 37.3% of the total indirect effect. In addition, the serial indirect effect via positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation (PERtotal → POS → PPO → IAStotal) was −0.111, accounting for 35.9% of the total indirect effect. Pairwise comparisons among the three indirect effects indicated no statistically significant differences, as all corresponding 95% bootstrap confidence intervals included zero (see Table 2). Summary of the positive pathway sequential mediation model The results of the serial mediation analysis indicated that the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety was partially mediated by positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation, both independently and sequentially. These results correspond to Hypothesis H4.2. Table 1 Unstandardized Regression Coefficients for Each Path in the Serial Mediation Model (Positive Pathway) Outcome Variable Predictor B SE t p 95% CI POS PERtotal 0.656 0.013 52.609 < 0.001 [0.632,0.681] PPO PERtotal 0.058 0.006 10.090 < 0.001 [0.047,0.069] POS 0.085 0.008 10.804 <0 .001 [0.070,0.101] IAStotal PERtotal -0.037 0.019 -1.997 0.046 [-0.073,-0.001] POS -0.126 0.026 -4.944 < 0.001 [-0.176,-0.076] PPO -1.986 0.117 -17.031 < 0.001 [-2.215,-1.757] Note: PERtotal = Self-supporting Personality, POS = Positive Attention Bias, PPO = Positive Problem-Solving Orientation, IAStotal = Social Anxiety Table 2 Decomposition of the Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Self-supporting Personality on Social Anxiety (Positive Pathway) Effect Type Effect SE 95% CI Total effect -0.346 0.010 [-0.365,-0.327] Direct effect -0.037 0.019 [-0.073,-0.001] Total indirect effect -0.309 0.020 [-0.348,-0.270] PERtotal → POS → IAStotal -0.083 0.018 [-0.117,-0.046] PERtotal → PPO → IAStotal -0.115 0.013 [-0.142,-0.091] PERtotal → POS → PPO → IAStotal -0.110 0.016 [-0.144,-0.082] Note: Based on 5000 Bootstrap samples; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (the same applies below). 3.3.2 Mediating effects of negative attentional bias and negative social problem-solving orientation in the relationship between self-supporting personality and social anxiety The serial mediation model representing the negative pathway was tested using the same analytical strategy as described above. The unstandardized regression coefficients for each path in the negative chain mediation model are presented in Table 3. All estimated paths were statistically significant. Model fit and path analysis Self-supporting personality was negatively associated with negative attentional bias ( B = −0.228, p < 0.001), accounting for 65.6% of the variance in negative attentional bias ( R² = 0.656). When self-supporting personality was controlled, negative attentional bias was positively associated with negative social problem-solving orientation ( B = 0.366, p < 0.001). Together, self-supporting personality and negative attentional bias explained 80.0% of the variance in negative social problem-solving orientation ( R² = 0.800). In the final regression model, self-supporting personality remained negatively associated with social anxiety ( B = −0.029, p = 0.001), whereas negative attentional bias ( B = 0.831, p < 0 .001) and negative social problem-solving orientation ( B = 1.099, p < 0.001) were positively associated with social anxiety. These three predictors jointly accounted for 91.3% of the variance in social anxiety ( R² = 0.913). Total, direct, and indirect effects The decomposition of total, direct, and indirect effects is presented in Table 4. The total effect of self-supporting personality on social anxiety was statistically significant (effect = −0.346, 95% CI [−0.365, −0.327]). The direct effect remained statistically significant after inclusion of the mediating variables (effect = −0.029, 95% CI [−0.047, −0.012]). The total indirect effect was also statistically significant (effect = −0.316, 95% BootCI [−0.341, −0.293]), accounting for 91.3% of the total effect. Specific indirect effects and pairwise comparisons All three specific indirect pathways were statistically significant. The indirect effect via negative attentional bias alone (PERtotal → NEG → IAStotal) was −0.190, accounting for 60.1% of the total indirect effect. The indirect effect via negative social problem-solving orientation alone (PERtotal → NPO → IAStotal) was −0.034. In addition, the serial indirect effect via negative attentional bias and negative social problem-solving orientation (PERtotal → NEG → NPO → IAStotal) was −0.092, accounting for 29.1% of the total indirect effect. Pairwise comparisons of the three indirect effects are reported in Table 5. The indirect effect via negative attentional bias alone was significantly larger than both the serial indirect effect and the indirect effect via negative social problem-solving orientation alone. In addition, the serial indirect effect was significantly larger than the indirect effect via negative social problem-solving orientation alone. Table 3 Unstandardized Regression Coefficients for the Serial Mediation Model (Negative Pathway) Outcome Variable Predictor B SE t p 95% CI NEG PERtotal -0.228 0.006 -35.435 < .001 [-0.241, -0.216] NPO PERtotal -0.031 0.004 -7.222 < .001 [-0.040, -0.023] NEG 0.366 0.015 23.886 < .001 [0.336, 0.396] IAStotal PERtotal -0.029 0.009 -3.390 0.001 [-0.047, -0.012] NEG 0.831 0.041 20.504 < .001 [0.752, 0.911] NPO 1.099 0.075 14.571 < .001 [0.951, 1.247] Note. PERtotal = Self-supporting personality; NEG = negative attentional bias; NPO = negative problem-solving orientation; IAStotal = social anxiety. All coefficients are unstandardized. Table 4 Decomposition of total, direct, and indirect effects of self-supporting personality on social anxiety (Negative Pathway) Effect Type Effect SE 95% CI Total effect -0.346 0.010 [-0.365, -0.327] Direct effect -0.029 0.009 [-0.047, -0.012] Total indirect effect -0.316 0.012 [-0.341, -0.293] PERtotal → NEG → IAStotal -0.190 0.013 [-0.217, -0.165] PERtotal → NPO → IAStotal -0.034 0.006 [-0.048, -0.022] PERtotal → NEG → NPO → IAStotal -0.092 0.009 [-0.112, -0.074] Table 5 Pairwise comparisons of specific indirect effects in the serial mediation model Effect Comparison Difference in Effect Size Boot SE 95% BootCI Ind1 vs Ind2 -0.365 0.038 [-0.437, -0.289] Ind1 vs Ind3 -0.229 0.046 [-0.321, -0.138] Ind2 vs Ind3 0.135 0.024 [0.091, 0.183] Dual-Pathway Mediation Model Figure 2 presents the dual-path serial mediation model, illustrating the standardized regression coefficients for both the positive and negative pathways. The model includes parallel serial mediation processes linking self-supporting personality to social anxiety via attentional bias and social problem-solving orientation. All displayed path coefficients are standardized estimates. The positive pathway revealed that self-supporting personality alleviates social anxiety by enhancing positive attentional bias ( β = 0.899), which both directly promotes positive social problem-solving orientation ( β = 0.434) and indirectly strengthens problem-solving competence through a cognitive-to-behavioral transmission process ( β = 0.465), ultimately yielding a substantial anxiety-reducing effect via combined cognitive and behavioral mediation (total indirect effect β = −0.309). In contrast, the negative pathway indicated that self-supporting personality primarily reduces social anxiety by suppressing negative attentional bias ( β = −0.429). Although self-supporting personality also partially attenuates negative social problem-solving orientation ( β = 0.379), the anxiety-buffering effect of this behavioral pathway was comparatively weaker ( β = 0.060). 4. Discussion 4.1 The mediating roles of positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation The present findings indicate that self-supporting personality is associated with lower levels of social anxiety through a sequential pathway involving positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation. This pattern suggests that the protective function of self-supporting personality may operate by facilitating a coordinated set of cognitive and behavioral tendencies rather than by directly suppressing anxious affect. Consistent with cognitive–behavioral models of anxiety [ 14 ], individuals with higher levels of self-supporting personality demonstrated a greater tendency to attend to positive social information, which was subsequently associated with a more positive orientation toward solving interpersonal problems. These cognitive and behavioral tendencies jointly predicted lower social anxiety. This finding aligns with prior research indicating that attentional allocation represents an early stage of information processing that shapes downstream behavioral responses and emotional outcomes[ 15 ]. Importantly, both positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation independently mediated the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety. This indicates that self-supporting personality functions as a multifaceted psychological resource, influencing anxiety-related outcomes through multiple, partially overlapping pathways. Similar patterns have been reported in previous studies showing that personality traits and psychological resources exert their influence on anxiety primarily through mediating cognitive and behavioral mechanisms rather than direct effects [ 27 , 28 ]. Notably, the positive pathway demonstrated greater overall explanatory power than the negative pathway, echoing recent findings from research on positive psychology interventions. Such studies suggest that enhancing positive cognitive and behavioral patterns predicts long-term mental health outcomes more effectively than merely reducing negative factors [ 29 ]. In practical terms, reducing social anxiety may depend less on diminishing threat perception alone and more on actively cultivating positive attentional biases, meaning-making processes, and problem-solving strategies. These processes not only alleviate existing anxiety but also serve a proactive, preventative function, strengthening individuals’ sense of safety, comprehension, and control before anxiety is triggered. This interpretation aligns with the original broaden-and-build theory [ 30 ] and recent evidence linking positive cognition to psychological resilience under social stress [ 31 ]. The sequential mediation pathway further suggests that positive attentional bias may facilitate adaptive behavioral engagement in social contexts by shaping the initial interpretation of interpersonal situations. Individuals who preferentially attend to positive or affiliative cues may be more likely to adopt constructive and confident problem-solving strategies, thereby reducing the likelihood of anxiety escalation. This interpretation is consistent with perspectives from positive psychology emphasizing the role of positive cognitive processing in building enduring psychological resources [ 30 , 32 , 33 ]. Overall, the positive pathway supports the view that enhancing positive cognitive and behavioral tendencies may represent an effective route through which self-supporting personality is associated with reduced social anxiety, complementing findings from resilience and cognitive–behavioral research [ 34 , 35 ]. 4.2 The Mediating Role of Negative Attentional Bias and Negative Problem-Solving Orientation In contrast to the positive pathway, the negative pathway revealed a more concentrated mechanism centered on attentional processing. The results indicated that negative attentional bias accounted for the largest proportion of the indirect effect linking self-supporting personality to social anxiety, whereas negative social problem-solving orientation played a comparatively smaller mediating role. This finding is consistent with cognitive models emphasizing the primacy of attentional bias in the development and maintenance of anxiety [ 14 , 15 ]. Individuals with higher levels of self-supporting personality exhibited reduced vigilance toward threatening social cues, such as perceived criticism or rejection. By attenuating threat-related attentional processing at an early stage, self-supporting personality may limit the initial activation of anxiety responses before more elaborated cognitive or behavioral strategies are engaged. Although negative social problem-solving orientation also mediated the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety, its effect was weaker than that of negative attentional bias. This pattern suggests that maladaptive problem-solving tendencies may function as downstream extensions of attentional processes rather than as primary drivers of anxiety. Previous research has shown that avoidant or pessimistic coping strategies can have complex and context-dependent relationships with anxiety, sometimes providing short-term relief while maintaining longer-term vulnerability [ 36 ]; [ 37 ]. The sequential mediation pathway involving negative attentional bias and negative social problem-solving orientation was statistically significant but smaller in magnitude than the pathway involving attentional bias alone. This result further supports the hierarchical positioning of attentional processes within anxiety-related information processing systems. From a neurocognitive perspective, attentional control mechanisms may regulate amygdala-driven emotional responses during early stages of processing, thereby exerting a disproportionate influence on anxiety outcomes [ 38 ]. Taken together, the negative pathway suggests that self-supporting personality primarily reduces social anxiety by weakening early-stage threat sensitivity. While reductions in negative problem-solving orientation may occur concurrently, attentional bias appears to represent the core mechanism through which anxiety is mitigated along this pathway. 4.3 Integrated interpretation and implications By simultaneously examining positive and negative pathways, the present study provides a more differentiated account of the cognitive–behavioral mechanisms linking self-supporting personality to social anxiety. The results indicate that the positive pathway is characterized by a coherent sequence from attentional processing to behavioral orientation, whereas the negative pathway is dominated by early-stage attentional modulation. This asymmetry suggests that interventions aimed at reducing social anxiety may benefit from a dual strategy. On the one hand, techniques targeting attentional bias—such as attentional bias modification or mindfulness-based approaches—may be effective in reducing immediate threat sensitivity and anxiety activation [ 39 ]. On the other hand, interventions designed to strengthen positive problem-solving orientation may support longer-term adaptive functioning by promoting constructive engagement with social challenges [ 17 ]. Importantly, these findings align with the valence-specificity principle, which posits relative independence between positive and negative information-processing systems [ 19 ]. Rather than representing mirror processes, the positive and negative pathways appear to operate through partially distinct mechanisms with different functional priorities. Integrating both pathways within a single model provides a more comprehensive understanding of how personality-related resources are associated with social anxiety outcomes. 5. Conclusion The present study examined the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety among college students and tested the sequential mediating roles of attention bias and social problem-solving orientation. The results indicated that self-supporting personality was associated with lower social anxiety through distinct positive and negative cognitive–behavioral pathways. The positive pathway revealed a complete sequential process in which enhanced attention to positive social information was associated with a more constructive problem-solving orientation and, subsequently, lower social anxiety. In contrast, the negative pathway was primarily characterized by reductions in threat-related attentional bias, with behavioral orientation playing a secondary role. Together, these findings suggest that attentional processing represents a central mechanism linking personality resources to anxiety outcomes, while behavioral tendencies reflect downstream extensions of cognitive processing. By integrating culturally grounded personality constructs with cognitive–behavioral models, this study contributes to a more detailed understanding of how personality-related resources are associated with social anxiety. The findings underscore the importance of targeting modifiable attentional and problem-solving processes in efforts to reduce social anxiety among college students. Declarations Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Ethics Committee (Ethics Review Committee) of Zhongyuan Institute of Science and Technology (ZIST) (Protocol Approval ID: ZYKJ/PSY-20240507). All research procedures involving human subjects comply with the regulations of this institution and/or relevant national ethics committees, and were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its subsequent revisions (or comparable ethical standards). Generative AI statement The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us. Funding This study was supported by the Key Project of Henan Provincial Educational Science Planning: "The Impact Mechanism and Cultivation Pathways of Social and Emotional Competencies of College Students in Henan under the Background of Artificial Intelligence", Project Number: 2025JKZD38. This study was supported by the Key Research Project of Higher Education Institutions of Henan Province for the Year 2025: "Research on the Construction of an Evaluation Indicator System for University Students' Innovation Vitality in the Context of Artificial Intelligence", Project Number: 25B190001. This study was supported by Zhongyuan Institute Of Science And Technology’s First Batch of Scientific Research Innovation Team Support Plan (Teacher Education and Teacher-Student Symbiotic Development Research Team, ZYKJCXTD202404) Author Contribution The authors affirmed that there is no conflict of interest in this article. WANG Weiyi carried out the field work, prepared the literature review and overlook the writeup of the whole article. WU Peibo the prepared the research methodology and did the data entry. Sun Jing carried out the statistical analysis and interpretation of the results. Acknowledgement We are grateful to the school administrators, teachers and students who actively cooperated with the researchers to collect data. Data Availability The data for this study have been uploaded to the manuscript submission system. As the dataset contains information that could potentially compromise the privacy of the research participants, we kindly request that the data be used solely for scientific research purposes and handled in accordance with confidentiality and data-protection requirements. References Schlenker BR, Leary MR. Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model[J]. Psychol Bull. 1982;92(3):641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.641 . Heimberg RG. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder: current status and future directions[J]. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51(1):101–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01183-0 . Norasakkunkit V, Kalick SM. Experimentally Detecting How Cultural Differences on Social Anxiety Measures Misrepresent Cultural Differences in Emotional Well-being[J]. J Happiness Stud. 2009;10(3):313–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9082-1 . Mou Q, Zhuang J, Gao Y, Zhong Y, Lu Q, Gao F, Zhao M. The relationship between social anxiety and academic engagement among Chinese college students: A serial mediation model[J]. J Affect Disord. 2022;311:247–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.158 . Russell G, Topham P. The impact of social anxiety on student learning and well-being in higher education[J]. J Mental Health. 2012;21(4):375–85. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2012.694505 . Kraft JD, Grant DM, White EJ, Taylor DL, Frosio KE. Cognitive mechanisms influence the relationship between social anxiety and depression among college students[J]. J Am Coll Health. 2021;69(3):245–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1661844 . Justin Hunt MD, Daniel Eisenberg MS, Amy PD, Kilbourne M. Consequences of Receipt of a Psychiatric Diagnosis for Completion of College[J]. Psychiatric Serv. 2010;61(4):399–404. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2010.61.4.399 . Chiu K, Clark DM, Leigh E. Prospective associations between peer functioning and social anxiety in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Affect Disord. 2021;279:650–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.055 . Stein MB, Stein DJ. Social anxiety disorder[J]. Lancet. 2008;371(9618):1115–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60488-2 . Xia L-X, Xu X-Y, Hollon SD, Zhang J-F. The Relation of Self-Supporting Personality, Big Five Personality and Depression[J]. Curr Psychol. 2014;33(4):630–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9233-6 . Xia L-X, Liu J, Ding C, Hollon SD, Shao B-T, Zhang Q. The relation of self-supporting personality, enacted social support, and perceived social support[J]. Pers Indiv Differ. 2012;52(2):156–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.002 . Xia L-X, Ding C, Hollon SD, Wan L. Self-supporting personality and psychological symptoms: The mediating effects of stress and social support[J]. Pers Indiv Differ. 2013;54(3):408–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.011 . Yao Z, Pang L, Xie J, Xiang W, Yu H, Hu W. The mediational role of self-support personality in the association of family function and school belonging in adolescents[J]. Front Psychol. 2022;12:790700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790700 . Beck AT, Clark DA. An information processing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes[J]. Behav Res Ther. 1997;35(1):49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00069-1 . Bar-Haim Y, Lamy D, Pergamin L, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van Ijzendoorn MH. Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study[J]. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1 . D'zurilla TJ, Nezu AM, Maydeu-Olivares A. Social problem solving: theory and assessment[J]. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1037/10805-001 Wang W, Ma’rof AM, Burhanuddin NAN. A scoping review on social problem-solving interventions for college students[C]. In: Frontiers in Education: 2025 . Front Media SA. 2025;10:1509641. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1509641 . Wang W, Ma'rof AM, Burhanuddin NAN. Influence of Interpersonal Self-Supporting Personality on Social Problem-Solving Among Chinese College Students in Zhengzhou City[J]. Asian J Univ Educ (AJUE). 2025;21(2). https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v21i1.36 . Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG. Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates[J]. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(3):401. Xia LX. Development of the Self-supporting Personality Scale for Adolescent Students[J]. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2008;40(5):593–603. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2008.00593 . Liu Y, Gu GC, Wang f. The relationship between social problem solving and internet addiction tendency among college students: the mediating effects of social avoidance and distress[J]. Special Educ China 2010(6):6. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-3728.2010.06.016 D’Zurilla TJ, Nezu AM, Maydeu-Olivares A. Social problem-solving inventory-revised[J]. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1037/t05068-000 Lv Y, Guo J, Zhang Y. A Revision of the Attention to Positive and Negative Information Scale(APNI) in Chinese Children[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2016;24(5):4. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2016.05.021 . Leary MR, Dobbins SE. Social anxiety, sexual behavior, and contraceptive use[J]. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1983;45(6):1347. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1347 . Li D, Li Z, Wang Z. Reliability and validity test of the Interpersonal Anxiety Scale in Chinese college students[J]. Applied Psychology 2023(7). https://doi.org/10.20058/j.cnki.CJAP.023054 Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models[J]. Behav Res methods instruments computers. 2004;36(4):717–31. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553 . Li Y, Zheng P. Trait resilience protects against social anxiety in college students through emotion regulation and coping strategies[J]. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):28143. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-13674-0 . Macovei CM, Bumbuc Ș, Martinescu-Bădălan F. The role of personality traits in mediating the relation between fear of negative evaluation and social interaction anxiety[J]. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1268052. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1268052 . Heintzelman SJ, Kushlev K, Diener E. Personalizing a positive psychology intervention improves well-being[J]. Appl Psychology: Health Well‐Being. 2023;15(4):1271–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12436 . Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions[J]. Am Psychol. 2001;56(3):218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 . Shuai J, Cai G, Wei X. Social exclusion and social anxiety among Chinese undergraduate students: Fear of negative evaluation and resilience as mediators[J]. J Psychol Afr. 2024;34(1):44–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2023.2290432 . Seligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: An introduction[M]//Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2014: 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_18 Fredrickson BL. Positive emotions broaden and build[M]//Advances in experimental social psychology. Acad Press. 2013;47:1–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- . 00001-2Get rights and content. 407236-7. Chen S, Bonanno GA. Components of Emotion Regulation Flexibility: Linking Latent Profiles to Depressive and Anxious Symptoms[J]. Clin Psychol Sci. 2021;9(2):236–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620956972 . Petrova K, Gross JJ. Emotion regulation in self and others[J]. Emot Regul Parent, 2023: 35–54. Shi C, Taylor S, Witthöft M, Du X, Zhang T, Lu S, Ren Z. Attentional bias toward health-threat in health anxiety: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2022;52(4):604–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721005432 . Liu R, Bell MA. Fearful temperament in middle childhood predicts adolescent attention bias and anxiety symptoms: The moderating role of frontal EEG asymmetry[J]. Dev Psychopathol. 2023;35(3):1335–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001231 . Berboth S, Morawetz C. Amygdala-prefrontal connectivity during emotion regulation: A meta-analysis of psychophysiological interactions. Neuropsychologia. 2021;153:107767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107767 . Hsu KJ, Shumake J, Caffey K, Risom S, Labrada J, Smits JAJ, Schnyer DM, Beevers CG. Efficacy of attention bias modification training for depressed adults: a randomized clinical trial. Psychol Med. 2022;52(16):3865–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721000702 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 23 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 21 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 09 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 09 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 16 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 14 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 14 Jan, 2026 Editor invited by journal 06 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 06 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 06 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-8371564","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":576438082,"identity":"a5c9bc96-fa4d-44a6-b74e-9e6a93ad53c9","order_by":0,"name":"Weiyi WANG","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhongyuan Institute Of Science And Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Weiyi","middleName":"","lastName":"WANG","suffix":""},{"id":576438083,"identity":"f943938d-235e-4695-95dc-f6db5e5cff25","order_by":1,"name":"peibo wu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Henan Institution of Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"peibo","middleName":"","lastName":"wu","suffix":""},{"id":576438084,"identity":"e60c444d-f5bc-4ec3-8032-110d2cf699ca","order_by":2,"name":"Jing Sun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Xiamen University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jing","middleName":"","lastName":"Sun","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-16 04:08:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8371564/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8371564/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100599946,"identity":"fbd403e4-5da6-42f7-993a-eb7a11df8e0f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:45:46","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":174652,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript260106.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/dcda45e6ee63cc4328bc6120.docx"},{"id":100600162,"identity":"0fb73c2f-b05f-45df-95f3-fd7b5d3c94eb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:46:44","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6367,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"3a2da9b000a8430d94c44342cdfdb163.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/531e76297e6e6ca3fc7cf7c7.json"},{"id":100599943,"identity":"ca71dad9-a0be-4778-bca5-63138b2474e1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:45:45","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":46547,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/e9d44cefba75c599ea046ba2.jpg"},{"id":100599913,"identity":"22169f50-1865-4451-b932-3f6115496e12","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:45:32","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":137568,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"3a2da9b000a8430d94c44342cdfdb1631enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/f3e818493d8a74598f47eb1f.xml"},{"id":100600218,"identity":"bfcb39dc-883e-46cc-91fe-1ffc9a005c4f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:46:56","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":11856,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/8d41bcda3fe59f51e30998bc.png"},{"id":100599876,"identity":"0bb8e622-791c-4f32-8a80-91f2962f0e9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:45:27","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":96188,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/227ebc74dc535ffd354dac11.png"},{"id":100600153,"identity":"609241eb-18c6-4e68-ba04-0ca8e29b2433","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:46:41","extension":"xml","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":131948,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"3a2da9b000a8430d94c44342cdfdb1631structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/ce4228128da0f2ce5726eac2.xml"},{"id":100600065,"identity":"5c0f90ce-6c54-40ab-8ae5-cb08955416d6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:46:08","extension":"html","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":150045,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/7807e37bd90f4e6db9545b14.html"},{"id":100600345,"identity":"4eea60bd-435c-4897-aef0-9bfdac51819e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:47:39","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29454,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMediation model of the influence of cognitive bias and social problem-solving ability on social anxiety in the context of self-supporting personality.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/609d2825dc1582daa4bec6e9.png"},{"id":100600044,"identity":"505f087c-d155-4f5a-9053-769a08067154","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 14:46:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":181071,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDual-path serial mediation model illustrating standardized regression coefficients linking self-supporting personality to social anxiety via positive and negative attentional bias and social problem-solving orientation\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/b695e5886194f1d337a8121f.jpeg"},{"id":100602718,"identity":"ce5d6a20-019c-4086-b286-ca0c82e11d3b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 15:18:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1669584,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8371564/v1/b5ecc6c0-fb63-4a6e-b963-28906a0380b4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Influence of Self-Supporting Personality on Social Anxiety in College Students: The Serial- Mediating Roles of Attention Bias and Social Problem-Solving OrientationAuthor information","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSocial anxiety refers to a persistent tendency to experience fear, tension, and apprehension in social or interpersonal situations, particularly those involving actual or perceived evaluation by others [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Emerging adulthood, and especially the university period, is characterized by intensified social demands, frequent interpersonal interactions, and ongoing identity development. Within this context, social anxiety has been consistently identified as a prevalent psychological concern among college students. Cross-national studies suggest that approximately 15\u0026ndash;20% of university students report social anxiety symptoms at a clinically significant level [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], with prevalence rates potentially higher in East Asian cultural contexts that emphasize interpersonal harmony and collective norms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElevated social anxiety during the college years has been linked to a range of adverse outcomes, including reduced classroom participation and academic performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e], increased vulnerability to depressive symptoms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], and persistent impairments in social functioning extending into adulthood [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Accordingly, identifying psychological factors that are associated with lower levels of social anxiety, as well as clarifying the mechanisms through which such factors operate, remains an important task for both theoretical development and intervention design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent research in indigenous and cross-cultural psychology has increasingly emphasized the role of culturally grounded personality resources in mental health. Within this line of work, self-supporting personality has been proposed as a multidimensional construct reflecting individuals\u0026rsquo; tendencies toward independence, initiative, responsibility, flexibility, and openness across behavioral, cognitive, and emotional domains [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Conceptually, self-supporting personality represents an adaptive psychological resource that facilitates effective self-regulation and social adaptation, particularly in contexts that require autonomous coping and interpersonal engagement. Empirical studies have shown that higher levels of self-supporting personality are associated with greater perceived social support, lower social stress, enhanced psychological resilience, and stronger school belonging [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR12\" citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite growing evidence supporting its adaptive value, existing research has largely focused on the direct associations between self-supporting personality and psychosocial outcomes. Relatively little is known about the specific psychological processes through which self-supporting personality may be linked to social anxiety. From a process-oriented perspective, examining intermediate cognitive and behavioral mechanisms may provide a more precise understanding of how this personality resource operates in social contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttention bias, defined as a systematic tendency to preferentially allocate attention toward certain types of information, has been identified as a core cognitive mechanism in cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral models of anxiety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Individuals with elevated anxiety commonly display heightened attentional vigilance toward threatening social cues and reduced attention to positive or affiliative information. Conversely, a more adaptive attentional pattern\u0026mdash;characterized by enhanced attention to positive social cues and attenuated attention to threat\u0026mdash;has been associated with better emotional regulation and social functioning. It is therefore plausible that self-supporting personality is associated with social anxiety, at least in part, through its relationship with attentional processing tendencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt a more downstream level, social problem-solving orientation represents a relatively stable cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral style in responding to interpersonal difficulties [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. A positive problem-solving orientation involves constructive engagement with social challenges and confidence in one\u0026rsquo;s ability to resolve them, whereas a negative orientation is characterized by avoidance, pessimism, and perceived lack of control. Previous research has shown that problem-solving orientation is closely linked to anxiety outcomes and that interventions targeting social problem-solving can effectively reduce anxiety symptoms among college students [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. From a cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral hierarchy perspective, attentional biases may shape individuals\u0026rsquo; subsequent behavioral orientations, suggesting that social problem-solving orientation may function as a behavioral mechanism through which attentional processes influence social anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupporting this integrative view, recent empirical evidence has demonstrated that self-supporting personality predicts social problem-solving ability through intermediate cognitive biases, including attentional and interpretive biases [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. This finding suggests the presence of a sequential process linking personality traits to cognitive processing and, subsequently, to behavioral responses in social contexts. However, the emotional consequences of this process\u0026mdash;particularly its relevance to social anxiety\u0026mdash;have not yet been systematically examined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrawing on the valence-specificity principle, which posits that positive and negative information-processing systems operate relatively independently [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], as well as cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral hierarchical models [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], the present study proposes a dual-path sequential mediation framework. Specifically, self-supporting personality is expected to be associated with social anxiety through two valence-specific pathways: a positive pathway involving enhanced positive attention bias and positive social problem-solving orientation, and a negative pathway involving reduced negative attention bias and negative social problem-solving orientation (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Examining these pathways concurrently allows for a more nuanced understanding of how cognitive and behavioral mechanisms jointly link personality resources to social anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the theoretical framework and empirical evidence reviewed above, the following hypotheses were proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH1.\u003c/b\u003e Self-supporting personality is negatively associated with social anxiety among college students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH2.\u003c/b\u003e Attention bias mediates the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety, such that \u003cb\u003eH2a.\u003c/b\u003e positive attention bias mediates this association in a negative direction, and \u003cb\u003eH2b.\u003c/b\u003e negative attention bias mediates this association in a positive direction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH3.\u003c/b\u003e Social problem-solving orientation mediates the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety, such that \u003cb\u003eH3a.\u003c/b\u003e positive social problem-solving orientation mediates this association in a negative direction, and \u003cb\u003eH3b.\u003c/b\u003e negative social problem-solving orientation mediates this association in a positive direction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH4.\u003c/b\u003e Attention bias and social problem-solving orientation sequentially mediate the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH4a.\u003c/b\u003e Self-supporting personality is associated with lower social anxiety through a sequential pathway involving reduced negative attention bias and reduced negative social problem-solving orientation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH4b.\u003c/b\u003e Self-supporting personality is associated with lower social anxiety through a sequential pathway involving enhanced positive attention bias and enhanced positive social problem-solving orientation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employed a cross-sectional design. Data were collected from undergraduate students at three universities in Henan Province, China, via convenience sampling. All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the research guidelines of the Academic Committee of Zhongyuan Institute of Science and Technology. Faculty members distributed QR codes linking to an electronic survey, which included a research description and an informed consent form. Participation was entirely voluntary and anonymous; no personally identifiable information was collected. Participants were informed of the study purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, data confidentiality, and their right to decline participation or withdraw at any time without penalty. Only participants who provided electronic informed consent were allowed to proceed to the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 821 questionnaires were initially collected. To ensure data quality, invalid responses were removed based on the following criteria: (a) completion time was excessively short (less than 300 seconds, determined as twice the average completion time from a pilot test); (b) inconsistent response patterns were evident on embedded validity check items with reversed wording; and (c) all items were answered with the same option, indicating a patterned or non-diligent response. Following this rigorous screening, 660 valid questionnaires were retained, yielding an effective response rate of 80.4%. The final sample consisted of 125 male students (18.9%) and 535 female students (81.1%). In terms of academic year, the distribution was as follows: 372 freshmen (56.4%), 69 sophomores (10.5%), and 219 juniors (33.2%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1 Self-Supporting Personality Scale for Adolescents (SSPS-AS)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SSPS-AS was developed to measure ten personality traits rooted in Chinese cultural tradition that are conducive to positive mental health [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. It assesses two broad domains: Interpersonal Self-Support (ISS) and Personal Self-Support (PSS). Each domain measures five specific and independent traits: independence, initiative, responsibility, flexibility, and openness. Thus, the scale comprises ten subscales, each represented by four items, resulting in a total of 40 items. Respondents rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003enot at all true\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003ecompletely true\u003c/em\u003e). Higher total scores indicate a more pronounced self-supporting personality. In the present study, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficient for the total scale was 0.914.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial problem-solving as assessed by using the Chinese version [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. This 32-item instrument uses a 5-point Likert scale (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003enot at all true of me\u003c/em\u003e to 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eextremely true of me\u003c/em\u003e) to assess five dimensions: Positive Problem Orientation (PPO), Negative Problem Orientation (NPO), Rational Problem-Solving, Impulsivity/Carelessness Style, and Avoidance Style. Consistent with the study's focus on cognitive-behavioral orientations, only the PPO (10 items) and NPO (10 items) subscales were used for analysis. The higher the score, the stronger the corresponding problem-solving motivation was. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α coefficients were 0.737 and 0.612, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.3 \u0026zwnj;Attention to Positive and Negative Information Scale (APNI)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Chinese version of the Attention to Positive and Negative Information Scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] was used to assess attention bias. The scale consists of 26 items across four factors: Attention to Positive Information about Others, Attention to Negative Information about Others, Attention to Positive Information about the Self, and Attention to Negative Information about the Self. For the purpose of this study, composite scores for overall positive attention bias and overall negative attention bias were calculated by summing the relevant subscales. The scale demonstrated good reliability, with Cronbach's α coefficients from 0.761 to 0.971 in the current sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.4 \u0026zwnj;Interaction Anxiousness Scale (IAS)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe IAS was used to assess the subjective tendency to experience anxiety in social interactions, independent of actual behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. The Chinese revised version [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], which includes 13 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (\u003cem\u003enot at all characteristic of me\u003c/em\u003e) to 4 (\u003cem\u003eextremely characteristic of me\u003c/em\u003e), was administered. Higher total scores indicate greater social interaction anxiety. In this study, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α coefficient was 0.866.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Ethics Committee of Zhongyuan Institute of Science and Technology (ZIST) (Protocol Approval ID: ZYKJ/PSY-20240507). All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments (or comparable ethical standards). Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants prior to participation. Data were collected via an online survey platform (WENJUANXING/Question Star). Trained educational faculty members distributed the survey link/QR code to student WeChat class groups across three colleges in Henan Province. Participants received information about the study purpose, voluntariness, and confidentiality before completing the instruments (SSPS-AS, SPSI-R-C, APNI, and IAS).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 and the PROCESS macro (v3.4) for SPSS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Analyses included descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations to examine the relationships among the primary variables. Hypothesis testing involved a series of regression analyses. To test the proposed mediation hypotheses (H2, H3, H4), a path analysis framework was implemented using Model 6 in PROCESS, which allows for testing sequential mediation. This model estimated the direct effect of self-supporting personality on social anxiety and its indirect effects through the proposed mediators (positive/negative attention bias and positive/negative social problem-solving orientation). Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (based on 5000 bootstrap samples) were used to assess the significance of the indirect effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics for the primary study variables are presented in Table 1. Based on the valid sample (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 660), the mean score for social anxiety was 57.35 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 10.32), and the mean score for self-supporting personality was 126.62 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 24.19). With respect to the proposed mediators, the mean scores were 46.54 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 17.66) for positive attention bias, 38.70 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 6.82) for negative attention bias, 13.93 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 3.23) for positive social problem-solving orientation, and 16.19 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 3.52) for negative social problem-solving orientation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndependent-samples \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e tests and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine potential differences in the primary variables by gender and academic year. No statistically significant differences were observed across these demographic categories (all ps \u0026gt; .05). Therefore, all subsequent analyses were conducted on the full sample.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBivariate Correlations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePearson correlation analyses were conducted to examine the associations among self-supporting personality, attention bias, social problem-solving orientation, and social anxiety (see Table 1). All correlations were statistically significant and in the expected directions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-supporting personality was significantly and negatively correlated with social anxiety (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.810, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;0.01). With respect to the relationships between the proposed mediators and social anxiety, positive attention bias was significantly negatively correlated with social anxiety (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.824, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), whereas negative attention bias was significantly positively correlated with social anxiety (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.937, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01). Similarly, positive social problem-solving orientation was significantly negatively associated with social anxiety (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.880, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;0.01), whereas negative social problem-solving orientation was significantly positively associated with social anxiety (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.915, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSignificant associations were also observed between self-supporting personality and the mediating variables. Specifically, self-supporting personality was positively correlated with positive attention bias (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.897, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01) and positive social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.852, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), and negatively correlated with negative attention bias (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.810, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01) and negative social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.791, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the intercorrelations among the mediating variables were examined. Positive attention bias was significantly positively correlated with positive social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.854, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01), whereas negative attention bias was significantly positively correlated with negative social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.885, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the correlation results indicated that the study variables were significantly interrelated in a manner consistent with the proposed analytical model. Although the correlation coefficients were relatively large, they did not exceed commonly accepted thresholds, suggesting that multicollinearity was unlikely to pose a serious concern for the subsequent mediation analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3 Mediation Model Testing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3.1 Sequential mediating effects of positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation in the relationship between self-supporting personality and social anxiety\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine the sequential\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003emediating roles of positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation in the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety among college students, a serial mediation analysis was conducted using Model 6 of the PROCESS macro [26]. Bias-corrected bootstrap procedures with 5,000 resamples were applied to estimate 95% confidence intervals for indirect effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel fit and path analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe unstandardized regression coefficients for each path in the proposed chain mediation model are presented in Table 1. All estimated paths were statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-supporting personality was positively associated with positive attentional bias (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = 0.656, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), accounting for 80.79% of the variance in positive attentional bias (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.808). When self-supporting personality was controlled, positive attentional bias was positively associated with positive social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = 0.085, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Together, self-supporting personality and positive attentional bias explained 76.66% of the variance in positive social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.767).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the final regression model, self-supporting personality (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.037, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.046), positive attentional bias (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.126, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), and positive social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;1.986, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) were all negatively associated with social anxiety. This model accounted for 79.58% of the variance in social anxiety (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.796).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal, direct, and indirect effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe total effect, direct effect, and decomposition of indirect effects of self-supporting personality on social anxiety are summarized in Table 2. The total effect of self-supporting personality on social anxiety was statistically significant (effect = \u0026minus;0.346, 95% \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e [\u0026minus;0.365, \u0026minus;0.327]). After the inclusion of the mediating variables, the direct effect remained statistically significant but was substantially reduced (effect = \u0026minus;0.037, 95% \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e [\u0026minus;0.073, \u0026minus;0.001]).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe total indirect effect was statistically significant (effect = \u0026minus;0.309, 95% \u003cem\u003eBootCI\u003c/em\u003e [\u0026minus;0.348, \u0026minus;0.270]), accounting for 89.3% of the total effect. All three specific indirect pathways were statistically significant. The indirect effect via positive attentional bias alone (PERtotal \u0026rarr; POS \u0026rarr; IAStotal) was \u0026minus;0.083, accounting for 26.8% of the total indirect effect. The indirect effect via positive social problem-solving orientation alone (PERtotal \u0026rarr; PPO \u0026rarr; IAStotal) was \u0026minus;0.115, accounting for 37.3% of the total indirect effect. In addition, the serial indirect effect via positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation (PERtotal \u0026rarr; POS \u0026rarr; PPO \u0026rarr; IAStotal) was \u0026minus;0.111, accounting for 35.9% of the total indirect effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePairwise comparisons among the three indirect effects indicated no statistically significant differences, as all corresponding 95% bootstrap confidence intervals included zero (see Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary of the positive pathway sequential mediation model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the serial mediation analysis indicated that the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety was partially mediated by positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation, both independently and sequentially. These results correspond to Hypothesis H4.2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1 Unstandardized Regression Coefficients for Each Path in the Serial Mediation Model (Positive Pathway)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutcome Variable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredictor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePOS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.656\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.609\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.632,0.681]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePPO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.047,0.069]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePOS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.085\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.804\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0 .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.070,0.101]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIAStotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.997\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.073,-0.001]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePOS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.944\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.176,-0.076]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePPO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.986\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.117\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-17.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-2.215,-1.757]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: PERtotal = Self-supporting Personality, POS = Positive Attention Bias, PPO = Positive Problem-Solving Orientation, IAStotal = Social Anxiety\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2 Decomposition of the Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Self-supporting Personality on Social Anxiety (Positive Pathway)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.346\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.365,-0.327]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.073,-0.001]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal indirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.309\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.348,-0.270]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal \u0026rarr; POS \u0026rarr; IAStotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.083\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.117,-0.046]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal \u0026rarr; PPO \u0026rarr; IAStotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.142,-0.091]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal \u0026rarr; POS \u0026rarr; PPO \u0026rarr; IAStotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.144,-0.082]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: Based on 5000 Bootstrap samples; *p \u0026lt; 0.05, **p \u0026lt; 0.01 (the same applies below).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3.2 Mediating effects of negative attentional bias and negative social problem-solving orientation in the relationship between self-supporting personality and social anxiety\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe serial mediation model representing the negative pathway was tested using the same analytical strategy as described above. The unstandardized regression coefficients for each path in the negative chain mediation model are presented in Table 3. All estimated paths were statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel fit and path analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-supporting personality was negatively associated with negative attentional bias (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.228, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), accounting for 65.6% of the variance in negative attentional bias (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.656). When self-supporting personality was controlled, negative attentional bias was positively associated with negative social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = 0.366, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Together, self-supporting personality and negative attentional bias explained 80.0% of the variance in negative social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.800).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the final regression model, self-supporting personality remained negatively associated with social anxiety (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.029, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.001), whereas negative attentional bias (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = 0.831, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0 .001) and negative social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = 1.099, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) were positively associated with social anxiety. These three predictors jointly accounted for 91.3% of the variance in social anxiety (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.913).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal, direct, and indirect effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe decomposition of total, direct, and indirect effects is presented in Table 4. The total effect of self-supporting personality on social anxiety was statistically significant (effect = \u0026minus;0.346, 95% \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e [\u0026minus;0.365, \u0026minus;0.327]). The direct effect remained statistically significant after inclusion of the mediating variables (effect = \u0026minus;0.029, 95% \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e [\u0026minus;0.047, \u0026minus;0.012]). The total indirect effect was also statistically significant (effect = \u0026minus;0.316, 95% \u003cem\u003eBootCI\u003c/em\u003e [\u0026minus;0.341, \u0026minus;0.293]), accounting for 91.3% of the total effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecific indirect effects and pairwise comparisons\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll three specific indirect pathways were statistically significant. The indirect effect via negative attentional bias alone (PERtotal \u0026rarr; NEG \u0026rarr; IAStotal) was \u0026minus;0.190, accounting for 60.1% of the total indirect effect. The indirect effect via negative social problem-solving orientation alone (PERtotal \u0026rarr; NPO \u0026rarr; IAStotal) was \u0026minus;0.034. In addition, the serial indirect effect via negative attentional bias and negative social problem-solving orientation (PERtotal \u0026rarr; NEG \u0026rarr; NPO \u0026rarr; IAStotal) was \u0026minus;0.092, accounting for 29.1% of the total indirect effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePairwise comparisons of the three indirect effects are reported in Table 5. The indirect effect via negative attentional bias alone was significantly larger than both the serial indirect effect and the indirect effect via negative social problem-solving orientation alone. In addition, the serial indirect effect was significantly larger than the indirect effect via negative social problem-solving orientation alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3 Unstandardized Regression Coefficients for the Serial Mediation Model (Negative Pathway)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutcome Variable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredictor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNEG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.228\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-35.435\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.241, -0.216]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNPO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.222\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.040, -0.023]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNEG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.366\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.886\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.336, 0.396]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIAStotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.390\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.047, -0.012]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNEG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.831\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.752, 0.911]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNPO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.099\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.571\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.951, 1.247]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. PERtotal = Self-supporting personality; NEG = negative attentional bias; NPO = negative problem-solving orientation; IAStotal = social anxiety.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;All coefficients are unstandardized.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4 Decomposition of total, direct, and indirect effects of self-supporting personality on social anxiety (Negative Pathway)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.346\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.365, -0.327]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.047, -0.012]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal indirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.316\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.012\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[-0.341, -0.293]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal \u0026rarr; NEG \u0026rarr; IAStotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.190\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.013\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[-0.217, -0.165]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal \u0026rarr; NPO \u0026rarr; IAStotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.034\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.006\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[-0.048, -0.022]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERtotal \u0026rarr; NEG \u0026rarr; NPO \u0026rarr; IAStotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.092\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.009\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[-0.112, -0.074]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5 Pairwise comparisons of specific indirect effects in the serial mediation model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect Comparison\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference in Effect Size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoot SE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% BootCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInd1 vs Ind2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.365\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.038\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[-0.437, -0.289]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInd1 vs Ind3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.229\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.046\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[-0.321, -0.138]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInd2 vs Ind3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.135\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.024\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[0.091, 0.183]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDual-Pathway Mediation Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 2 presents the dual-path serial mediation model, illustrating the standardized regression coefficients for both the positive and negative pathways. The model includes parallel serial mediation processes linking self-supporting personality to social anxiety via attentional bias and social problem-solving orientation. All displayed path coefficients are standardized estimates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe positive pathway revealed that self-supporting personality alleviates social anxiety by enhancing positive attentional bias (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.899), which both directly promotes positive social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.434) and indirectly strengthens problem-solving competence through a cognitive-to-behavioral transmission process (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.465), ultimately yielding a substantial anxiety-reducing effect via combined cognitive and behavioral mediation (total indirect effect \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= \u0026minus;0.309).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the negative pathway indicated that self-supporting personality primarily reduces social anxiety by suppressing negative attentional bias (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= \u0026minus;0.429). Although self-supporting personality also partially attenuates negative social problem-solving orientation (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.379), the anxiety-buffering effect of this behavioral pathway was comparatively weaker (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.060).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 The mediating roles of positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present findings indicate that self-supporting personality is associated with lower levels of social anxiety through a sequential pathway involving positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation. This pattern suggests that the protective function of self-supporting personality may operate by facilitating a coordinated set of cognitive and behavioral tendencies rather than by directly suppressing anxious affect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral models of anxiety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], individuals with higher levels of self-supporting personality demonstrated a greater tendency to attend to positive social information, which was subsequently associated with a more positive orientation toward solving interpersonal problems. These cognitive and behavioral tendencies jointly predicted lower social anxiety. This finding aligns with prior research indicating that attentional allocation represents an early stage of information processing that shapes downstream behavioral responses and emotional outcomes[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, both positive attentional bias and positive social problem-solving orientation independently mediated the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety. This indicates that self-supporting personality functions as a multifaceted psychological resource, influencing anxiety-related outcomes through multiple, partially overlapping pathways. Similar patterns have been reported in previous studies showing that personality traits and psychological resources exert their influence on anxiety primarily through mediating cognitive and behavioral mechanisms rather than direct effects [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, the positive pathway demonstrated greater overall explanatory power than the negative pathway, echoing recent findings from research on positive psychology interventions. Such studies suggest that enhancing positive cognitive and behavioral patterns predicts long-term mental health outcomes more effectively than merely reducing negative factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. In practical terms, reducing social anxiety may depend less on diminishing threat perception alone and more on actively cultivating positive attentional biases, meaning-making processes, and problem-solving strategies. These processes not only alleviate existing anxiety but also serve a proactive, preventative function, strengthening individuals\u0026rsquo; sense of safety, comprehension, and control before anxiety is triggered. This interpretation aligns with the original broaden-and-build theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] and recent evidence linking positive cognition to psychological resilience under social stress [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sequential mediation pathway further suggests that positive attentional bias may facilitate adaptive behavioral engagement in social contexts by shaping the initial interpretation of interpersonal situations. Individuals who preferentially attend to positive or affiliative cues may be more likely to adopt constructive and confident problem-solving strategies, thereby reducing the likelihood of anxiety escalation. This interpretation is consistent with perspectives from positive psychology emphasizing the role of positive cognitive processing in building enduring psychological resources [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the positive pathway supports the view that enhancing positive cognitive and behavioral tendencies may represent an effective route through which self-supporting personality is associated with reduced social anxiety, complementing findings from resilience and cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 The Mediating Role of Negative Attentional Bias and Negative Problem-Solving Orientation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the positive pathway, the negative pathway revealed a more concentrated mechanism centered on attentional processing. The results indicated that negative attentional bias accounted for the largest proportion of the indirect effect linking self-supporting personality to social anxiety, whereas negative social problem-solving orientation played a comparatively smaller mediating role.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis finding is consistent with cognitive models emphasizing the primacy of attentional bias in the development and maintenance of anxiety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Individuals with higher levels of self-supporting personality exhibited reduced vigilance toward threatening social cues, such as perceived criticism or rejection. By attenuating threat-related attentional processing at an early stage, self-supporting personality may limit the initial activation of anxiety responses before more elaborated cognitive or behavioral strategies are engaged.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough negative social problem-solving orientation also mediated the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety, its effect was weaker than that of negative attentional bias. This pattern suggests that maladaptive problem-solving tendencies may function as downstream extensions of attentional processes rather than as primary drivers of anxiety. Previous research has shown that avoidant or pessimistic coping strategies can have complex and context-dependent relationships with anxiety, sometimes providing short-term relief while maintaining longer-term vulnerability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sequential mediation pathway involving negative attentional bias and negative social problem-solving orientation was statistically significant but smaller in magnitude than the pathway involving attentional bias alone. This result further supports the hierarchical positioning of attentional processes within anxiety-related information processing systems. From a neurocognitive perspective, attentional control mechanisms may regulate amygdala-driven emotional responses during early stages of processing, thereby exerting a disproportionate influence on anxiety outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the negative pathway suggests that self-supporting personality primarily reduces social anxiety by weakening early-stage threat sensitivity. While reductions in negative problem-solving orientation may occur concurrently, attentional bias appears to represent the core mechanism through which anxiety is mitigated along this pathway.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Integrated interpretation and implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy simultaneously examining positive and negative pathways, the present study provides a more differentiated account of the cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral mechanisms linking self-supporting personality to social anxiety. The results indicate that the positive pathway is characterized by a coherent sequence from attentional processing to behavioral orientation, whereas the negative pathway is dominated by early-stage attentional modulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis asymmetry suggests that interventions aimed at reducing social anxiety may benefit from a dual strategy. On the one hand, techniques targeting attentional bias\u0026mdash;such as attentional bias modification or mindfulness-based approaches\u0026mdash;may be effective in reducing immediate threat sensitivity and anxiety activation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. On the other hand, interventions designed to strengthen positive problem-solving orientation may support longer-term adaptive functioning by promoting constructive engagement with social challenges [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, these findings align with the valence-specificity principle, which posits relative independence between positive and negative information-processing systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Rather than representing mirror processes, the positive and negative pathways appear to operate through partially distinct mechanisms with different functional priorities. Integrating both pathways within a single model provides a more comprehensive understanding of how personality-related resources are associated with social anxiety outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study examined the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety among college students and tested the sequential mediating roles of attention bias and social problem-solving orientation. The results indicated that self-supporting personality was associated with lower social anxiety through distinct positive and negative cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral pathways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe positive pathway revealed a complete sequential process in which enhanced attention to positive social information was associated with a more constructive problem-solving orientation and, subsequently, lower social anxiety. In contrast, the negative pathway was primarily characterized by reductions in threat-related attentional bias, with behavioral orientation playing a secondary role. Together, these findings suggest that attentional processing represents a central mechanism linking personality resources to anxiety outcomes, while behavioral tendencies reflect downstream extensions of cognitive processing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy integrating culturally grounded personality constructs with cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral models, this study contributes to a more detailed understanding of how personality-related resources are associated with social anxiety. The findings underscore the importance of targeting modifiable attentional and problem-solving processes in efforts to reduce social anxiety among college students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Ethics Committee (Ethics Review Committee) of Zhongyuan Institute of Science and Technology (ZIST) (Protocol Approval ID: ZYKJ/PSY-20240507). All research procedures involving human subjects comply with the regulations of this institution and/or relevant national ethics committees, and were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its subsequent revisions (or comparable ethical standards).\u003c/p\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGenerative AI statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAny alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.\u003c/p\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by the Key Project of Henan Provincial Educational Science Planning: \"The Impact Mechanism and Cultivation Pathways of Social and Emotional Competencies of College Students in Henan under the Background of Artificial Intelligence\", Project Number: 2025JKZD38.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by the Key Research Project of Higher Education Institutions of Henan Province for the Year 2025: \"Research on the Construction of an Evaluation Indicator System for University Students' Innovation Vitality in the Context of Artificial Intelligence\", Project Number: 25B190001.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by Zhongyuan Institute Of Science And Technology\u0026rsquo;s First Batch of Scientific Research Innovation Team Support Plan (Teacher Education and Teacher-Student Symbiotic Development Research Team, ZYKJCXTD202404)\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors affirmed that there is no conflict of interest in this article. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWANG Weiyi carried out the field work, prepared the literature review and overlook the writeup of the whole article. WU Peibo the prepared the research methodology and did the data entry. Sun Jing carried out the statistical analysis and interpretation of the results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are grateful to the school administrators, teachers and students who actively cooperated with the researchers to collect data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data for this study have been uploaded to the manuscript submission system. As the dataset contains information that could potentially compromise the privacy of the research participants, we kindly request that the data be used solely for scientific research purposes and handled in accordance with confidentiality and data-protection requirements.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchlenker BR, Leary MR. Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model[J]. Psychol Bull. 1982;92(3):641. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.641\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.641\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeimberg RG. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder: current status and future directions[J]. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51(1):101\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01183-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01183-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorasakkunkit V, Kalick SM. Experimentally Detecting How Cultural Differences on Social Anxiety Measures Misrepresent Cultural Differences in Emotional Well-being[J]. J Happiness Stud. 2009;10(3):313\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9082-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10902-007-9082-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMou Q, Zhuang J, Gao Y, Zhong Y, Lu Q, Gao F, Zhao M. The relationship between social anxiety and academic engagement among Chinese college students: A serial mediation model[J]. J Affect Disord. 2022;311:247\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.158\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.158\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRussell G, Topham P. The impact of social anxiety on student learning and well-being in higher education[J]. J Mental Health. 2012;21(4):375\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2012.694505\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3109/09638237.2012.694505\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKraft JD, Grant DM, White EJ, Taylor DL, Frosio KE. Cognitive mechanisms influence the relationship between social anxiety and depression among college students[J]. J Am Coll Health. 2021;69(3):245\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1661844\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07448481.2019.1661844\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJustin Hunt MD, Daniel Eisenberg MS, Amy PD, Kilbourne M. Consequences of Receipt of a Psychiatric Diagnosis for Completion of College[J]. Psychiatric Serv. 2010;61(4):399\u0026ndash;404. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2010.61.4.399\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1176/ps.2010.61.4.399\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChiu K, Clark DM, Leigh E. Prospective associations between peer functioning and social anxiety in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Affect Disord. 2021;279:650\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.055\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.055\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStein MB, Stein DJ. Social anxiety disorder[J]. Lancet. 2008;371(9618):1115\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60488-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60488-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXia L-X, Xu X-Y, Hollon SD, Zhang J-F. The Relation of Self-Supporting Personality, Big Five Personality and Depression[J]. Curr Psychol. 2014;33(4):630\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9233-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-014-9233-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXia L-X, Liu J, Ding C, Hollon SD, Shao B-T, Zhang Q. The relation of self-supporting personality, enacted social support, and perceived social support[J]. Pers Indiv Differ. 2012;52(2):156\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXia L-X, Ding C, Hollon SD, Wan L. Self-supporting personality and psychological symptoms: The mediating effects of stress and social support[J]. Pers Indiv Differ. 2013;54(3):408\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYao Z, Pang L, Xie J, Xiang W, Yu H, Hu W. The mediational role of self-support personality in the association of family function and school belonging in adolescents[J]. Front Psychol. 2022;12:790700. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790700\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790700\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeck AT, Clark DA. An information processing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes[J]. Behav Res Ther. 1997;35(1):49\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00069-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00069-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBar-Haim Y, Lamy D, Pergamin L, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van Ijzendoorn MH. Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study[J]. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(1):1. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD'zurilla TJ, Nezu AM, Maydeu-Olivares A. Social problem solving: theory and assessment[J]. 2004. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/10805-001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/10805-001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang W, Ma\u0026rsquo;rof AM, Burhanuddin NAN. A scoping review on social problem-solving interventions for college students[C]. In: \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education: 2025\u003c/em\u003e. Front Media SA. 2025;10:1509641. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1509641\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2025.1509641\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang W, Ma'rof AM, Burhanuddin NAN. Influence of Interpersonal Self-Supporting Personality on Social Problem-Solving Among Chinese College Students in Zhengzhou City[J]. Asian J Univ Educ (AJUE). 2025;21(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v21i1.36\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24191/ajue.v21i1.36\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCacioppo JT, Berntson GG. Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates[J]. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(3):401.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXia LX. Development of the Self-supporting Personality Scale for Adolescent Students[J]. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2008;40(5):593\u0026ndash;603. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2008.00593\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3724/SP.J.1041.2008.00593\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu Y, Gu GC, Wang f. The relationship between social problem solving and internet addiction tendency among college students: the mediating effects of social avoidance and distress[J]. Special Educ China 2010(6):6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-3728.2010.06.016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3969/j.issn.1007-3728.2010.06.016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD\u0026rsquo;Zurilla TJ, Nezu AM, Maydeu-Olivares A. Social problem-solving inventory-revised[J]. 2002. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/t05068-000\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/t05068-000\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLv Y, Guo J, Zhang Y. A Revision of the Attention to Positive and Negative Information Scale(APNI) in Chinese Children[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2016;24(5):4. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2016.05.021\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2016.05.021\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeary MR, Dobbins SE. Social anxiety, sexual behavior, and contraceptive use[J]. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1983;45(6):1347. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1347\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1347\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi D, Li Z, Wang Z. Reliability and validity test of the Interpersonal Anxiety Scale in Chinese college students[J]. \u003cem\u003eApplied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 2023(7). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20058/j.cnki.CJAP.023054\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20058/j.cnki.CJAP.023054\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePreacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models[J]. Behav Res methods instruments computers. 2004;36(4):717\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/BF03206553\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Y, Zheng P. Trait resilience protects against social anxiety in college students through emotion regulation and coping strategies[J]. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):28143. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-13674-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-025-13674-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacovei CM, Bumbuc Ș, Martinescu-Bădălan F. The role of personality traits in mediating the relation between fear of negative evaluation and social interaction anxiety[J]. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1268052. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1268052\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1268052\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeintzelman SJ, Kushlev K, Diener E. Personalizing a positive psychology intervention improves well-being[J]. Appl Psychology: Health Well‐Being. 2023;15(4):1271\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12436\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/aphw.12436\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions[J]. Am Psychol. 2001;56(3):218. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShuai J, Cai G, Wei X. Social exclusion and social anxiety among Chinese undergraduate students: Fear of negative evaluation and resilience as mediators[J]. J Psychol Afr. 2024;34(1):44\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2023.2290432\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14330237.2023.2290432\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: An introduction[M]//Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2014: 279\u0026ndash;298.\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_18\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_18\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFredrickson BL. Positive emotions broaden and build[M]//Advances in experimental social psychology. Acad Press. 2013;47:1\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/B978-0-12-\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. 00001-2Get rights and content. 407236-7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen S, Bonanno GA. Components of Emotion Regulation Flexibility: Linking Latent Profiles to Depressive and Anxious Symptoms[J]. Clin Psychol Sci. 2021;9(2):236\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620956972\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/2167702620956972\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetrova K, Gross JJ. Emotion regulation in self and others[J]. Emot Regul Parent, 2023: 35\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShi C, Taylor S, Witth\u0026ouml;ft M, Du X, Zhang T, Lu S, Ren Z. Attentional bias toward health-threat in health anxiety: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2022;52(4):604\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721005432\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0033291721005432\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu R, Bell MA. Fearful temperament in middle childhood predicts adolescent attention bias and anxiety symptoms: The moderating role of frontal EEG asymmetry[J]. Dev Psychopathol. 2023;35(3):1335\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001231\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0954579421001231\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerboth S, Morawetz C. Amygdala-prefrontal connectivity during emotion regulation: A meta-analysis of psychophysiological interactions. Neuropsychologia. 2021;153:107767. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107767\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107767\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHsu KJ, Shumake J, Caffey K, Risom S, Labrada J, Smits JAJ, Schnyer DM, Beevers CG. Efficacy of attention bias modification training for depressed adults: a randomized clinical trial. Psychol Med. 2022;52(16):3865\u0026ndash;73. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721000702\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0033291721000702\" 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":"Self-supporting personality, social problem-solving, social anxiety, attentional bias","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8371564/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8371564/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial anxiety is highly prevalent among college students and is associated with impaired academic functioning and long-term social maladjustment. Identifying culturally grounded personality resources and the psychological mechanisms through which they operate may contribute to more precise intervention strategies. Drawing on indigenous personality theory and cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral models, the present study examined the association between self-supporting personality and social anxiety among Chinese college students, with a particular focus on the sequential mediating roles of attention bias and social problem-solving orientation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 660 undergraduate students from three universities in Henan Province, China. Participants completed measures of self-supporting personality, positive and negative attention bias, social problem-solving orientation, and social anxiety. Serial mediation analyses were performed using the PROCESS macro (Model 6) with bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicated that self-supporting personality was significantly associated with lower levels of social anxiety. Both positive and negative attention bias, as well as positive and negative social problem-solving orientation, independently mediated this association. Moreover, two valence-specific sequential mediation pathways were supported. On the positive pathway, self-supporting personality was associated with enhanced positive attention bias, which in turn predicted a more positive social problem-solving orientation and, subsequently, lower social anxiety. On the negative pathway, self-supporting personality was associated with reduced negative attention bias, which predicted lower negative social problem-solving orientation and reduced social anxiety. Notably, negative attention bias accounted for a larger proportion of the indirect effect than negative problem-solving orientation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that self-supporting personality may influence social anxiety primarily through cognitive\u0026ndash;behavioral mechanisms, with attentional processing playing a central role. The results highlight the importance of targeting modifiable attentional and problem-solving processes when designing interventions to reduce social anxiety among college students.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Influence of Self-Supporting Personality on Social Anxiety in College Students: The Serial- Mediating Roles of Attention Bias and Social Problem-Solving OrientationAuthor information","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-19 13:42:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8371564/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-23T08:04:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-22T03:23:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"11007981475866972733409376732839490468","date":"2026-02-13T09:43:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-10T02:33:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-09T13:09:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"315819274338028042829090856828311129946","date":"2026-02-09T11:42:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"297926013725687216117731163692374926126","date":"2026-02-08T09:22:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"273042960830476653837337014256401210017","date":"2026-01-20T03:39:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-16T08:36:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"154271375173401263809213405934670684336","date":"2026-01-16T01:53:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"27390627249610041073936459350213073866","date":"2026-01-15T06:38:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-15T03:25:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-15T02:48:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-06T10:02:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-06T09:07:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2026-01-06T08:56:21+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":"6f0b907c-fd5c-42c6-aa0a-931b1a77462e","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 19th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-06T07:23:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-19 13:42:39","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8371564","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8371564","identity":"rs-8371564","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}