ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Emotional regulation self-efficacy and impulsivity effects on college students' risk-taking behavior: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adverse childhood experiences and cyber aggression among college students: the mediating role of psychological resilience and the moderating role of physical exercise.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Enhancing emotional intelligence through sleep therapy in high-stress professionals: a case-control study on efficacy and predictive factors.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The adventurous behaviors of college students are becoming increasingly diverse. This study is grounded in the dual-process theory model of impulsivity. To explore the impact of the match between impulsivity and emotional regulation self-efficacy on college student multi-domain risk-taking behavior and examine whether impulsivity played a mediating role, using a polynomial regression and response surface analysis. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted with 638 college students from online and offline, to investigate their impulsivity, emotional self-efficacy, multi-domain risk-taking behavior. Results: (1) Impulsivity is significantly positively correlated with risk-taking behavior across various domains. Emotional self-efficacy is significantly negatively correlated with impulsivity, as well as with risk-taking behaviors in the health/safety and moral domains. (2) College students with high impulsivity and high emotional regulation self-efficacy engage in more health/safety, moral, and recreational risk-taking behaviors than those with low impulsivity and low emotional regulation self-efficacy. (3) College students with high impulsivity and low emotional regulation self-efficacy exhibit a greater number of health/safety, moral, and recreational risk-taking behaviors than those with low impulsivity and high emotional regulation self-efficacy. (4) In the male population, impulsivity plays a full mediating role between emotional regulation self-efficacy and various domains of risk-taking behavior. In the female population, impulsivity serves as a full mediator only in the domains of health/safety, moral, and economic risk-taking behaviors, while it acts as a partial mediator in the domains of recreational and social risk-taking behaviors. Conclusion: The present study reveals the mechanisms through which different combinations of high and low impulsivity and emotional self-efficacy influence multi-domain risk-taking behaviors among college students and validated the mediating role of impulsivity. This study validates the dual-process theory of impulsivity and provides research experience for future interventions targeting risk-taking behaviors across various domains among college students of different genders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.