Adverse childhood experiences, belief in a just world, and prosocial behavior among university students
Main Article Content
Cite this article:
Zhang, Z., Ding, X., Wang, R., & Wu, C.
(2026). Adverse childhood experiences, belief in a just world, and prosocial behavior among university students.
Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal,
54(4),
e15570.
Abstract
Full Text
References
Tables and Figures
Acknowledgments
Author Contact
This study explored the association between adverse childhood experiences and prosocial behavior among university students, along with the mediating function of belief in a just world. We recruited 785 university students across three universities, who completed the Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale, the Belief in a Just World Scale, and the Prosocial Tendencies Measures. The results of correlation and mediation analysis showed that adverse childhood experiences significantly and negatively predicted university students’ prosocial behavior, and belief in a just world had a positive association with university students’ prosocial behavior. Further, belief in a just world mediated the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and prosocial behavior. These findings highlight the importance of adverse childhood experiences and belief in a just world in promoting the development of prosocial skills in university students.
Article Highlights
Adverse childhood experiences were found to negatively predict university students’ prosocial behavior.
Belief in a just world was positively associated with university students’ prosocial behavior.
Belief in a just world mediated the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and university students’ prosocial behavior.
Prosocial behavior is a significant predictor of psychological well-being (Kakulte & Shaikh, 2023). For university students, it contributes to their personal development (Peng et al., 2024), academic success (Getahun Abera, 2023), mental health and well-being (Bayne & Shillington, 2025), and interpersonal relationships (Laible et al., 2004). Research has shown that adverse childhood experiences have a profound impact on socioemotional development in children and adolescents, with higher levels of adverse childhood experiences being associated with decreased prosocial behavior (Bevilacqua et al., 2021). Another factor relating to university students’ prosocial behavior is belief in a just world. The greater an adolescent’s belief in a just world, the more likely they are to engage in prosocial behavior (Guo et al., 2022).
This study explored the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and prosocial behavior among university students, as well as the mediating role of belief in a just world. Previous studies have not included all three variables simultaneously, nor have they tested the mediating role of belief in a just world.
Adverse Childhood Experiences and Prosocial Behavior
Adverse childhood experiences are common, with about 64% of adults in the United States having had at least one such experience before the age of 18 years, and over 17% of adults having had four or more of these experiences (Swedo et al., 2023). The term adverse childhood experience (ACE) refers to a range of negative situations that a child may face or witness while growing up. ACEs can have lasting effects on health and well-being in childhood, and on life opportunities well into adulthood (Anderson et al., 2022). In a study of 8,823 participants from the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort Study (Connelly & Platt, 2014), Bevilacqua et al. (2021) found that ACE scores were negatively associated with prosocial behavior. Further, Hunt et al. (2017), using data from the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study (Waldfogel et al., 2010), indicated that children exposed to ACEs began to show behavioral problems as young as the age of 9 years. ACEs can hinder the development of prosocial behavior, leading to increased psychosocial adjustment difficulties (Bevilacqua et al., 2021), with physical abuse being a positive predictor of deviant behavior (Gomis-Pomares & Villanueva, 2020).
Belief in a Just World and Prosocial Behavior
In 1965, Lerner proposed the concept of belief in a just world (BJW), which holds that good things often happen to good people, and bad things often happen to bad people (Lerner & Miller, 1978). BJW is cross-culturally generalizable (Furnham, 2003), and it is regarded as a stable personality trait, with the crux resting in the conviction that individuals receive what they deserve, and deserve what they receive (Reich & Wang, 2015). Previous studies have shown that BJW contributes to the maintenance of social order and encourages individuals to exhibit prosocial behavior (Li et al., 2022). Individuals with strong BJW may feel a greater sense of moral responsibility to engage in prosocial behavior (Zhang et al., 2023). Previous research has demonstrated that individuals with high (vs. low) levels of BJW are more likely to help others in need, perceive altruism in others, and score higher on interpersonal trust (De Caroli & Sagone, 2014).
Previous studies have provided a foundation for verifying the relationships between ACE, BJW, and prosocial behavior. However, the possible mediating role of BJW in the relationship between ACE and prosocial behavior has not been examined in a university population. Guided by the findings of previous research, we put forward the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: University students’ adverse childhood experiences will negatively predict their prosocial behavior.
Hypothesis 2: University students’ belief in a just world will mediate the relationship between their adverse childhood experiences and prosocial behavior.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from three universities in Jinzhou, China. We employed a simple random sampling method to select individuals from the population, ensuring that the sample was representative and unbiased. A multichannel method was adopted for distributing the questionnaires both online and offline. Only full-time, on-campus undergraduate students were included in the study to maintain the focus on investigating the associations between ACEs, BJW, and prosocial behavior within the specific context of higher education in China.
Of the 850 participants across three universities, 785 completed the entire questionnaire, yielding a 92.4% response rate. The sample consisted of 440 (56.1%) men and 345 (43.9%) women. Descriptive statistics for categorical data are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Categorical Data
Note. N = 785.
Procedure
The study was conducted between September and December 2024. We stated the purpose of the research and provided participants with relevant information to ensure a thorough understanding of the project details before the survey began. We reassured them of the confidentiality of their responses and emphasized that their participation was entirely voluntary. All respondents completed written consent forms. This study adhered to ethical regulations in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and subsequent amendments, and it was approved by Ethical Review Committees of Bohai University (BHU-2024023).
Measures
Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale
We used the Chinese version (Y. R. Wang et al., 2018) of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale (Finkelhor et al., 2015), which comprises 14 items measuring childhood exposure to trauma (e.g., psychological, physical, or sexual abuse), neglect, mental illness, domestic violence, divorce, and having a parent in prison. Participants responded to 14 items using a binary response scale (i.e., 0 = no, 1 = yes), ranging from 0 to 14, with 0 indicating no reported ACEs and 14 indicating exposure to all types of ACEs. Thus, higher scores mean that participants have gone through more types of childhood trauma. The Chinese version of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale has been found to have adequate reliability and validity (Y. R. Wang et al., 2018).
Belief in a Just World Scale
We used the Chinese version (Su et al., 2012) of the Belief in a Just World Scale designed by Dalbert (1999), which consists of 13 items across two dimensions: general BJW (six items, e.g., “I am confident that justice always prevails over injustice”) and personal BJW (seven items, e.g., “I believe that I usually get what I deserve”). Items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree, with higher scores indicating higher levels of BJW. In this study Cronbach’s alpha values were .94 for the full scale and .91 for general BJW and .92 for personal BJW.
We used confirmatory factor analysis to confirm a good model fit, root-mean-square error of approximation = .050, goodness-of-fit index = .96, incremental fit index = .98, comparative fit index = .98, relative fit index = .95, normed fit index = .97. The average variance extracted (AVE) values for general BJW and personal BJW were .68 and .62, respectively, and the composite reliability (CR) values for general BJW and personal BJW were .93 and .92, respectively; thus, the scale had adequate reliability and validity.
Prosocial Tendencies Measures
We used the Prosocial Tendencies Measure developed by Carlo and Randall (2002), which was translated into Chinese and revised by Kou et al. (2007). The Chinese version of the scale has 26 items across six dimensions: public (four items, e.g., “I can help others best when people are watching me”), anonymous (five items, e.g., “I prefer to donate money without anyone knowing”), altruistic (four items, e.g., “I often help even if I don’t think I will get anything out of helping”), compliant (five items, e.g., “When people ask me to help them‚ I don’t hesitate”), emotional (five items, e.g., “It makes me feel good when I can comfort someone who is very upset”), and dire (three items, e.g., “I tend to help people who are in a real crisis or need”). The items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = does not describe me at all to 5 = describes me accurately. Higher scores indicate higher levels of prosocial tendency. Cronbach’s alpha for the full scale in this study was .95, and for the six dimensions was as follows: public = .84, anonymous = .86, altruistic = .88, compliant = .89, emotional = .90, and dire = .91.
Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the fit indices of the scale were good, χ²/df = 2.95, comparative fit index = .95, goodness-of-fit index = .92, incremental fit index = .95, root-mean-square error of approximation = .05. Further, the six dimensions showed acceptable CR and AVE values, public: CR = .84, AVE = .57; anonymous: CR = .86, AVE = .57; altruistic: CR = .88, AVE = .65; compliant: CR = .89, AVE = .62; emotional: CR = .80, AVE = .65; and dire: CR = .91; AVE = .72. Thus, adequate reliability and validity were demonstrated.
Data Analysis
We used SPSS 27.0 and Amos 26.0 to analyze the data. The relationships among ACEs, BJW, and prosocial behavior were initially explored through correlation analysis. To gain a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between these three variables, we further conducted a bootstrapping mediation analysis to ascertain whether BJW mediated the relationship between ACEs and prosocial behavior.
Results
Correlation Analysis
As shown in Table 2, correlation analysis revealed significant associations between ACEs, BJW, and prosocial behavior.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Note. ** p < .01.
Mediation Analysis
The results of mediation analysis are presented in Table 3. ACEs had a significant negative predictive effect on BJW and prosocial behavior, implying that individuals who had experienced a higher number of ACEs were more likely to exhibit problematic behavior and less likely to engage in prosocial actions later in life. Even after including both ACEs and BJW in the model, ACEs still exhibited a significant negative predictive effect on prosocial behavior, and BJW also demonstrated a significant positive predictive effect on prosocial behavior.
Table 3. Mediating Effect of Belief in a Just World Between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Prosocial Behavior
Note. N = 785.
*** p < .001.
To further investigate the mediating effect of ACEs, BJW, and prosocial behavior, we utilized the bootstrapping method (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). As shown in Table 4, the total effect value of ACEs on prosocial behavior was significant. Further, the direct effect value of ACEs on prosocial behavior accounted for 69.5% of the total effect. Moreover, the indirect effect of ACEs on prosocial behavior accounted for 30.4% of the total effect. Thus, BJW mediated the relationship between ACEs and prosocial behavior.
Table 4. Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Belief in a Just World on the Relationship Between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Prosocial Behavior
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL= lower limit; UL = upper limit.
*** p < .001.
Discussion
First, we found that ACEs significantly and negatively predicted university students’ prosocial behavior, supporting Hypothesis 1. ACEs can impair an individual’s capacity for empathy, trust, and cooperation, thereby reducing their inclination toward prosocial behavior. In addition, ACEs such as abuse, neglect, household dysfunction, or witnessing violence can cause deep emotional trauma in children, which often persists into adulthood (Merrick et al., 2017). This significantly impacts the ability to form healthy relationships and engage in prosocial behavior.
Second, we found BJW to be positively associated with university students’ prosocial behavior, suggesting that individuals with high BJW are more likely to engage in prosocial actions. Those with higher (vs. lower) levels of BJW are more inclined to solve problems with positive thoughts and attitudes, and to exhibit more prosocial behavior (Kaliuzhna, 2020). BJW can also lead to enhanced self-esteem among students, making them feel more positive about themselves and their surroundings (Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2019). Such individuals may believe that it is their duty to help those in need, as this aligns with their inclination toward BJW and perceived fairness.
Third, we found that BJW mediated the relationship between ACEs and university students’ prosocial behavior. Exposure to adversity in childhood may lead individuals to question the fairness and justice of the world, which can, in turn, weaken their BJW (Zhu et al., 2024). Low BJW may affect an individual’s motivation and willingness to engage in prosocial behavior (Chen et al., 2022). Conversely, high BJW will increase prosocial tendencies, such as altruism and cooperation (De Caroli & Sagone, 2014).
Practical Implications
Addressing ACEs and their impact on BJW and prosocial behavior is crucial for promoting the well-being and success of university students (Getahun Abera, 2023). Universities and educators could develop targeted interventions and support systems to mitigate their effects, such as offering counseling services (Craig et al., 2023), creating inclusive and supportive campuses (Murphey & Sacks, 2019), and incorporating trauma-informed practices into teaching and learning (Goddard, 2021).
Limitations and Future Research
This study has some limitations. We employed a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to establish causal relationships between ACEs, BJW, and prosocial behavior. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore how these variables interact over time and to determine the directionality of their effects. In addition, this study was conducted within a specific cultural context, which may affect the interpretation of BJW and prosocial behavior. Cross-cultural studies are needed to examine how ACEs, BJW, and prosocial behavior interact in different cultural settings. Moreover, both situational and individual factors can affect prosocial behaviors (Dovidio et al., 2017), such as personality traits (Amani, 2022), family (Zhang et al., 2022) and peer effects (Choukas-Bradley et al., 2015), or socioeconomic status (Y. Wang et al., 2021). Exploring these factors could provide a more nuanced understanding of how ACEs and BJW affect prosocial behavior.
Conclusion
We found significant associations between ACEs, BJW, and prosocial behavior among university students. Given the statistical relationships identified, we can argue that ACEs and BJW are significant factors that should be considered when examining prosocial behavior in this population.
Amani, M. (2022). Relationship between personality traits and prosocial behavior: The moderating role of emotional intelligence. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 226–234.
Anderson, K. N., Swedo, E. A., Trinh, E., Ray, C. M., Krause, K. H., Verlenden, J. V., Clayton, H. B., Villaveces, A., Massetti, G. M., & Holditch Niolon, P. (2022). Adverse childhood experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and associations with poor mental health and suicidal behaviors among high school students—Adolescent behaviors and experiences survey, United States, January–June 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 71(41), 1301–1305. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7141a2
Bayne, D., & Shillington, K. J. (2025). Prosocial behavior interventions implemented among undergraduate student populations: A scoping review. Journal of American College Health, 29, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2024.2447826
Bevilacqua, L., Kelly, Y., Heilmann, A., Priest, N., & Lacey, R. E. (2021). Adverse childhood experiences and trajectories of internalizing, externalizing, and prosocial behaviors from childhood to adolescence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 112, Article 104890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104890
Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002) Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM). APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t51302-000
Chen, O., Guan, F., Hu, Y., Wu, T., Liu, L., Sheng, J., & Chen, J. (2022). The relationship between belief and prosocial behavior. Current Psychology, 41(7), 4341–4349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00943-6
Choukas-Bradley, S., Giletta, M., Cohen, G. L., & Prinstein, M. J. (2015). Peer influence, peer status, and prosocial behavior: An experimental investigation of peer socialization of adolescents’ intentions to volunteer. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2197–2210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0373-2
Connelly, R., & Platt, L. (2014). Cohort profile: UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(6), 1719–1725.https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu001
Craig, F., Servidio, R., Calomino, M. L., Candreva, F., Nardi, L., Palermo, A., Polito, A., Spina, M. F., Tenuta, F., & Costabile, A. (2023). Adverse childhood experiences and mental health among students seeking psychological counseling services. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10), Article 5906. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105906
Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the Personal Belief in a Just World Scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022091609047
De Caroli, M. E., & Sagone, E. (2014). Belief in a just world, prosocial behavior, and moral disengagement in adolescence. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 596–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.263
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2017). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315085241
Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. (2015). A revised inventory of adverse childhood experiences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 48, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.07.011
Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00072-7
Getahun Abera, W. (2023). Emotional intelligence and pro-social behavior as predictors of academic achievement among university students. Community Health Equity Research & Policy, 43(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684X211033447
Goddard, A. (2021). Adverse childhood experiences and trauma-informed care. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 35(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2020.09.001
Gomis-Pomares, A., & Villanueva, L. (2020). The effect of adverse childhood experiences on deviant and altruistic behavior during emerging adulthood [In Spanish]. Psicothema, 32(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.142
Guo, Y., Chen, X., Ma, J., Li, Y., & Hommey, C. (2022). How belief in a just world leads to prosocial behaviours: The role of communal orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 195, Article 11642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111642
Hunt, T. K. A., Slack, K. S., & Berger, L. M. (2017). Adverse childhood experiences and behavioral problems in middle childhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.005
Kakulte, A., & Shaikh, S. (2023). Prosocial behavior, psychological well-being, positive and negative affect among young adults: A cross-sectional study. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 32 (Suppl. 1), S127–S130. https://doi.org/10.4103/ipj.ipj_214_23
Kaliuzhna, M. (2020). Symmetries and asymmetries in the belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences, 161, Article 109940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109940
Kou, Y., Hong, H. F., Tan, C., & Li, L. (2007). Revising the Prosocial Tendencies Measure for use with adolescents [In Chinese]. Psychological Development and Education, 1, 112–117.
Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. C. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviours. Journal of Adolescence, 27(6), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.05.005
Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021806
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030
Li, L., Liu, H., Wang, G., Chen, Y., & Huang, L. (2022). The relationship between ego depletion and prosocial behavior of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of social self-efficacy and personal belief in a just world. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 801006. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.801006
Merrick, M. T., Ports, K. A., Ford, D. C., Afifi, T. O., Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2017). Unpacking the impact of adverse childhood experiences on adult mental health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.03.016
Murphey, D., & Sacks, V. (2019). Supporting students with adverse childhood experiences: How educators and schools can help. American Educator, 43(3), 8–11.
Nartova-Bochaver, S., Donat, M., & Rüprich, C. (2019). Subjective well-being from a just-world perspective: A multi-dimensional approach in a student sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1739. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01739
Peng, L., Jiang, Y., Ye, J., & Xiong, Z. (2024). The impact of empathy on prosocial behavior among college students: The mediating role of moral identity and the moderating role of sense of security. Behavioral Sciences, 14(11), Article 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111024
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Reich, B., & Wang, X. (2015). And justice for all: Revisiting the Global Belief in a Just World Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.031
Su, Z. Q., Zhang, D. J., & Wang, X. Q. (2012). Revising the Belief in a Just World Scale and testing its reliability and validity with college students [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science, 21(6), 561–563.
Swedo, E. A., Aslam, M. V., Dahlberg, L. L., Niolon, P. H., Guinn, A. S., Simon, T. R., & Mercy, J. A. (2023). Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences among U.S. adults—Behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2011–2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(26), 707–715. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7226a2
Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T.-A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 20(2), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2010.0002
Wang, Y., Yang, C., Zhang, Y., & Hu, X. (2021). Socioeconomic status and prosocial behavior: The mediating roles of community identity and perceived control. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), Article 10308. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910308
Wang, Y. R., Lin, P. Z., & Cao, F. L. (2018). Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Revised Adverse Childhood Experience Questionnaire [In Chinese]. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 32(9), 760–764.
Zhang, W., Chen, Y., & Zhu, L. (2023). ‘Attraction of the like’: The influence of peer’s donation choice on prosocial behavior of adolescents and the role of the belief in a just world [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(9), 1453–1464. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01453
Zhang, W., Yu, G., Fu, W., & Li, R. (2022). Parental psychological control and children’s prosocial behavior: The mediating role of social anxiety and the moderating role of socioeconomic status. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), Article 11691. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811691
Zhu, Q., Ting, T., Zhong, N., & Zhang, F. (2024). Bullying victimization and mental health of Chinese adolescents: The chain of tragedy effect of belief in a just world and health promoting lifestyle. Journal of Affective Disorders, 350, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.01.039
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Categorical Data
Note. N = 785.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Note. ** p < .01.
Table 3. Mediating Effect of Belief in a Just World Between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Prosocial Behavior
Note. N = 785.
*** p < .001.
Table 4. Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Belief in a Just World on the Relationship Between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Prosocial Behavior
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL= lower limit; UL = upper limit.
*** p < .001.
This study was supported by the project “Development and Application of Children’s Picture Books on Life Education Themes” (JG24CB162) sponsored by Liaoning Province Office for Education Sciences Planning, the Guangxi Minzu University Xiangsi Lake Young Scholars Innovation team (2022GXUNXSHQN06), the Scientific Research Foundation of Guangxi Minzu University (2021KJQD33), the 2022 Guangxi University Young and Middle Aged Teachers’ Basic Scientific Research Ability Improvement Project (2022KY0117), and the 2021 Guangxi University Students’ Ideological and Political Education Theory and Practice Research Project (2021SZ063).
The authors thank the participants for their support and assistance with data collection.
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Chuyi Wu, College of Education, Guangxi Minzu University, No. 188 East University Road, Nanning, 530006, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]
Article Details
© 2026 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.