Patricia Gooding
Karolina Kluk-de Kort
Piers Ramsdale-Capper
Tracy Epton1- 1Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
- 2Division of Psychology, Communication and Human Neuroscience, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Background/objectives: Mental health problems among university students are increasing in prevalence, and it is vital to understand why. The detrimental effects of misalignments between corporate social-responsibility values and those of employees have been widely evidenced. We investigated how misalignments between the personal importance of social-responsibility values held by students versus those of their university affected their mental health. It was predicted that anti-mattering would mediate relationships between misalignments in social-responsibility values and mental health problems.
Methods: Student participants (N=171) completed an online survey assessing the personal importance of nine social-responsibility domains together with the perceived importance of these domains to the student’s university. Participants also completed a measure of anti-mattering which assesses perceptions of being insignificant and invisible, and a composite measure of depression-anxiety-stress. Direct and indirect pathways were assessed with linear regression models.
Results: There were four key findings. First, across the nine social-responsibility domains, personal importance ratings were significantly higher than those ascribed to the university. Second, misalignments in social-responsibility importance ratings were significantly associated with depression-anxiety-stress scores. Third, the relationship between the discrepancy in social-responsibility importance ratings and depression-anxiety-stress was mediated by anti-mattering. Fourth, the key characteristic of anti-mattering in this mediated pathway was perceived invisibility.
Conclusion: There is potential for a positive effect on mental health to be gained if institutions, such as universities, authentically co-develop, instantiate, and evaluate social-responsibility values with stakeholders in ways that genuinely combat invisibility, and instead, reflect that the views and feelings of stakeholders do matter.
1 Introduction
A robust and expanding literature evidences the severity of mental health problems, especially depression and anxiety, faced by young people, including university and college students (1–3). The importance of studying mattering and not mattering to better understand mental health has been emphasised in both young people and adults (4–14) including via a recent review article (15). Conceptually, mattering arose from sociological and positive psychology approaches and has both experiential impact and motivational functions (16). Mattering comprises perceptions of being of value to others; feeling significant or important; feeling cared for; being needed by others; and feeling appreciated (6, 17, 18). In contrast, not mattering (19) or anti-mattering, reflects enduring and pervasive feelings and perceptions of being unimportant, marginalised, unvalued, invisible, insignificant, and inconsequential to others which become internalised (20, 21). Anti-mattering is considered to reflect more than the polar opposite of mattering. Rather it represents distinct dimensions which signal vulnerabilities to mental health problems (22). Indeed, the central role of anti-mattering in a number of mental health problems has been evidenced across numerous contexts and samples (23–27), including in depression and anxiety in students (4). Furthermore, anti-mattering has been shown to act as a mediator in pathways to depression and anxiety from perfectionism in students (28), and between anxiety and burnout during the Covid-19 pandemic, also in students (29). Examining anti-mattering as a mediator in pathways to depression, anxiety, and stress in university students was central to the current study.
The concept of social-responsibility incorporates a sense of personal and collective responsibility to ensure social justice and the actualisation of equal opportunities across diverse communities that make a difference to society (30, 31). Many organisations, both large and small, promote social-responsibility at the core of their business models (32). Organisations with a focus on social-responsibility include universities. However, the grounding tenets of social-responsibility in universities often differ from those commonly found in corporate social-responsibility agendas in that universities can transcend corporate business models to evaluate and instantiate social-responsibility frameworks that encourage innovation, engagement, and scrutiny in ways that span the boundaries of science, business, industry, and policy (33). Furthermore, it has been argued that the role of universities in shaping social-responsibility agendas extends beyond the traditional principles of discovery and dissemination, with new perspectives being integrated across diverse research, scholastic, educational, and training platforms, thus impacting a broad range of stakeholders (34).
An issue considered important in organisational psychology is how perceived corporate social-responsibility goals and values affects employee loyalty, job satisfaction, and motivation, with positive perceptions of corporate social-responsibility activities being associated with increased employee productivity, commitment, and satisfaction (35–38). Some work has taken this further by examining the effects of alignments and misalignments in organisational values and personal values, with alignments having beneficial impacts and facilitating acceptance of positive dynamic change (39–42). The current study is grounded in this tradition, but presents an extension by examining how levels of alignments and misalignments between perceptions of the importance of institutional and personal social-responsibility values affect mental health.
Perceived misalignments, incongruence, and unresolved conflict in beliefs, attitudes, and expectations have been shown to play an important role in many mental health problems (43–47). The extent to which the health and wellbeing of university students is affected by alignments and misalignments between the perceived importance of social-responsibility values held by universities and the personal social-responsibility values held by students has received minimal, if any, research attention. The over-arching aim of the current study was to begin redressing this gap. This is important to understand because it has the potential to not only affect the mental health of students, including countering feelings and perceptions of anti-mattering, but speaks more broadly to how universities nurture social justice principles that endure and extend beyond the institution. We examined personal and perceived social-responsibility values overall, in addition to nine domains of social-responsibility which were derived, a priori, from the concept of social justice (30), United Nations Social and Environmental Standards (48), and informed by current concerns about global unrest and potential destabilisation.
It mut be emphasised from the outset that the current study was framed as a ‘proof of concept’ study and somewhat exploratory in nature. Nevertheless, there were two specific research questions. First, which domains of social-responsibility did participants rate as being most important a) to them personally, and b) to their university, and what were the differences between these two perspectives? Second, to what extent were disparities between the importance given to social-responsibility domains from a personal perspective and the importance ascribed to the university, associated with common mental health problems (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress), both directly and indirectly, with indirect pathways being mediated by perceptions of anti-mattering?
2 Methods
2.1 Design
The design was cross-sectional (49). Data were collected at one time-point, in two waves spanning the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 academic years. The difference between ratings of personal importance to the participants and perceived importance to the university, for social-responsibility overall, and for nine domains of social-responsibility were the predictor variables. The mediator variable was anti-mattering perceptions. The outcome variable was a composite measure of depression, anxiety, and stress (depression-anxiety-stress).
2.2 Participants
Non-probabilistic convenience sampling (50) was used to recruit students registered at a large UK, Russell Group university. The inclusion criterion was any student registered at the host institution. There were no exclusion criteria. Participants were not reimbursed for their time, other than first- and second-year BSc Psychology students who received four mandatory course credits for participating, equating to 60 minutes work.
There are no formal power calculations available for mediation analysis (Hayes, 2022) but requisite sample sizes were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation modelling (51, 52). From the simulation models, for.8 power, the minimum estimated sample sizes needed for a medium effect size for paths a and b were 78 and 71 for percentile bootstrapping and bias corrected bootstrapping procedures respectively.
2.3 Measures
2.3.1 Demographics
Demographics questions included age in years; ethnicity; self-identified gender identity; type of student (undergraduate [UG], postgraduate taught [PGT], MPhil, PhD, professional doctorate); discipline or programme/course studied; year of study; full or part-time status; UK or non-UK status; native English speaker; and self-identified minority status (“Please tell us to what extent you perceive yourself to be someone of minority status”).
2.3.2 Depression anxiety stress scale
Depression anxiety stress scale: DASS-21 (53) uses 21 items to measure depressed mood (e.g., “I felt down-hearted and blue”), anxiety (e.g., “I found myself getting agitated”), and stress (e.g., “I found it hard to wind down”) in the past month with a 4-point scale ranging from 0 to 3 (0 - Did not apply to me at all; 1 - Applied to me to some degree, or some of the time; 2 - Applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of time; 3 - Applied to me very much, or most of the time). High reliability coefficients have been reported for the total scale (r=.93) (54). The alpha reliability of the DASS total scores for this study was.93.
2.3.3 The anti-mattering scale
The anti-mattering scale (55) is a brief five item scale developed to capture feelings and perceptions of not mattering and marginalisation. The scale captures an overall sense of mattering (Item 1: “How much do you feel like you don’t matter?”), self-appraisals of being insignificant (Item 2: “How often have you been treated in a way that makes you feel like you are insignificant?”) and self-appraisals of being invisible (item 3: “To what extent have you been made to feel like you are invisible?”), together with appraisals of other people’s perceptions (Item 4: How much do you feel like you will never matter to certain people?; Item 5: How often have you been made to feel by someone that they don’t care about what you think or what you say?”). Using a 4-point scale from 0 (“Not at all”) to 3 (“A lot”) participants are asked to respond to each question. The reliability coefficients in student samples tend to exceed.75 (53), and was.93 for the current sample.
2.3.4 The social-responsibility importance rating
The social-responsibility importance rating scale comprises 31 items using a one-dimensional scale of 1 (low importance) to 10 (high importance) to rate the perceived importance of different domains of social-responsibility (e.g., Cultural, ethnic and religious communities; Economic & financial parity) to the participant personally, and to their university. The scale was generated and tailored, a-priori, specifically for this study based on five sources, three of which involved consultations with students:
i. the concept of social justice framed in the context of mental health (30)
ii. United Nations Social and Environmental Standards encompassing human rights, gender equality, inclusivity, cultural heritage, and climate change and environmental sustainability (48)
iii. experiences of extensive and sustained undergraduate and postgraduate (taught and research) advising, teaching, and supervising
iv. informal consultations with masters level students
v. current issues of relevance to students reflecting global and societal unrest and potential destabilisation.
The United Nations framework provided key elements of social and environmental standards which came into effect in January 2021, and were organised into (A) Programming Principles and (B) Project-level standards. Further information is available from the UN website (48), but in brief, demarcate Principles of i. Leave No One Behind, ii. Human Rights, iii. Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, iv. Sustainability and Resilience, and v. Accountability, and Project-Level Standards of Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management; Climate Change and Disaster Risks; Community Health, Safety and Security; Cultural Heritage; Displacement and Resettlement; Indigenous Peoples; Labour and Working Conditions; Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency.
Based on these five different sources, including the three sources of student input, the items were generated to fall-into nine domains of social-responsibility which were Marginalised groups (3 items); Gender identity and sexual orientation (3 items); Health, wellbeing & personal development (6 items); Human and animal rights, and ethical principles (6 items); Cultural, ethnic and religious communities (4 items); Economic & financial parity (3 items); Environmental sustainability (2 items); Social capability and social parity (2 items); and Wars & Global conflict (2 items). It should be noted that in the 2024–2025 wave of data collection item 13 was changed from Financial equality and wealth distribution to Financial equality and wealth distribution for students, and item 31 (A fair distribution of wealth across society) was added to reflect global economic inequalities. This was because an initial analysis of open responses probing social-responsibility values indicated that the majority of participants felt financial pressure from being students meaning that including one item that explicitly reflected the specific university/student context seemed appropriate. Cronbach’s alpha for all 31 items=.96. The items used together with their classification into nine social-responsibility domains, together with participant instructions can be found in Supplementary Table S1 in Supplementary Materials.
2.3.4.1 Content validity of social-responsibility domains: an analysis of open response questions
Participants were also invited to respond to several Social-Responsibility open response questions, two of which we examined in more detail to determine the extent to which the nine domains of social-responsibility resonated with the student participants, and to lend validity to the Social-Responsibility Importance rating scale. Specifically, we addressed questions of i. were the domains of social-responsibility represented in the scale similar to the domains spontaneously generated by students, and ii. did students endorse domains of social-responsibility not represented in the scale? The two items were:
1. Please tell us more about any types of social-responsibility that are particularly important to you, and why?
2. Please tell us more about any types of social-responsibility that seem particularly important to your university, and why?
In examining these two social-responsibility open questions qualitatively, we focused on any new social-responsibility domains that participants noted. For question 1 (personal importance) the vast majority of responses (N=89) echoed the nine identified domains with some reflecting the importance of social-responsibility across many explicit domains (e.g., “human rights, ethics, equality and anti-racism because they are issues of such extreme importance that they should be witnessed on a regular basis, whether that’s in the news or in person” ID=2), or the importance to them of social-responsibility broadly (e.g., “I think people have an obligation to do any small bit in their life where they can for all of the above. Even a small action can ripple out” ID=164). There were four new social domains identified by four separate participants of i. Providing a better education for youngsters (“Educate youngsters better” ID=3), ii. Social-responsibility in corporate law (“social responsibility in corporate law” ID=18), iii. Ensuring fair and safe working environments (“Fair Labour Practices. Ensuring a fair and safe workplace is critical to protecting employee rights and benefits. Fair labour practices contribute to an upright and productive work environment that promotes the overall well-being of society” ID=36) and iv. Social-responsibility in everyday actions (“I feel that the issues of social responsibility that are most important to me are those that affect or come up in my everyday life the most ID=5).
For question 2 (university social-responsibility), responses (N=88) reflected the perceived breadth of commitment to social-responsibility by the university in general (e.g., “All of them. The university needs to be a place everyone feels safe welcome and included” ID 123; “All types of social-responsibility are important to the university” ID=145) or by explicitly mentioning specific domains with cultural diversity and integration, climate action, mental health, gender equality, financial parity, and social justice being identified frequently. There were four new social-responsibility domains identified which were i. Ensuring employability (e.g., “getting a job” ID=136), ii. Personal identity (e.g., “Universities seem to take personal identity very seriously” ID=36), iii. Altruism in the context of mental health (e.g., “Looking after friends and their mental health” ID=93), and iv. Encouraging a work-life balance (e.g., “support mental health and work life balance whilst also helping us strive to do our very best at uni” ID=192). Overall, these open question response data demonstrated that the Social-Responsibility Importance rating scale reflected domains which were meaningful to students personally, and also with respect to their perceptions of their university. Examples of direct quotes to each of these two open response questions can be found in the Supplementary Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials.
2.4 Procedure
Participants were invited to take part in the study primarily via SONA systems (https://www.sona-systems.com/) which is an online platform used to advertise research projects to psychology undergraduates, together with wider online announcements to student cohorts. Interested participants followed a link to an online survey via Qualtrics. After reading the participant information sheet and providing informed consent digitally participants completed the online survey. Responses were completely anonymous. The same order of measures was used across participants. Signposting to mental health resources was presented at the beginning and end of the survey. Ethical approval was granted by the University Research Ethics Committee 3, Reference 2024-18434-32480.
2.5 Statistical analyses plan
Associations between variables were analysed with Pearson’s Product Moment correlation coefficients with bootstrapping at 5000 iterations, because some variables were not normally distributed (56). Differences in importance ratings between the nine social-responsibility domains for the self, versus those ascribed to the university were analysed with a MANOVA. A series of linear regression models were used to test indirect (mediated) and direct paths between the predictors (i.e., the difference between personal and institutional importance ratings of social-responsibility overall, and for nine domains of social-responsibility), and the outcome variable (i.e., DASS-21, Depression-Anxiety-Stress Scale scores) with the mediator of anti-mattering (total score plus scores for each of 5 items), using template 4 of the Process algorithm (57). The alpha level was.05, with Bootstrapped 95% percentile Confidence Intervals (CIs) at 5000 iterations. It must be noted that the design was cross-sectional which means that neither temporal precedence nor causality can be inferred from significant indirect effects in mediation models (58).
3 Results
3.1 Participant characteristics
The mean age of participants was 19.21 (SD=2.03; N=171), and all studied BSc (Hons) Psychology. The majority of participants identified as female/woman; were first year undergraduate students; studied full-time; were registered as UK students; and were native English speakers. About 50% of participants identified as White/White British and 45% identified as being of minority status at least to some extent. (Please see Supplementary Table S3 in Supplementary Materials).
3.2 Research question 1: which domains of social-responsibility did student participants rate as being most important a) to them personally, and b) to their university, and what were the differences between these two perspectives?
Table 1 presents the mean importance ratings across the nine domains of social-responsibility, from the perspectives of importance to the self, and importance to the university. The domain that was rated highest in terms of perceived personal importance was Health, wellbeing and personal development, and the lowest was Wars & Global conflict. In terms of perceived importance to the university, the highest rated domain was also Health, wellbeing and personal development, with the lowest being Economic and financial parity overall. All domains were rated as being significantly more important to the self, compared to ratings of the perceived importance ascribed to the university [F (9,163)=22.26, p <.0001, partial eta squared=.55; with partial eta squared ranging from.38 for Economic and financial parity overall to.015 [not significant] for Environmental sustainability].
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (Mean, Standard deviation [SD]) for i. personal and university social-responsibility (SR) importance ratings; ii. differences in those importance ratings between the self and the university, iii. mental health problems (DASS), and iv. anti-mattering scores.
As can be seen from Figure 1 and Table 1, the greatest difference, or disparity, between the importance of personal social-responsibility values versus those perceived to be held by the university was for the domain of Economic and financial parity overall. The domain of Environmental sustainability evidenced the least disparity.
Figure 1. Differences in social-responsibility importance ratings across 9 domains held personally (self) minus those perceived to be held by the university.
3.3 Research question 2: to what extent were disparities between the importance given to social-responsibility domains from a personal perspective and the importance ascribed to the university, associated with common mental health problems (depression-anxiety-stress), both directly and indirectly, with indirect pathways being mediated by perceptions of anti-mattering?
Each item of the DASS was scored 0 – 3, giving a possible range of 0 to 63, and a mean of 22.24 (SD=13.08). The mean for an undergraduate student sample was recently recorded as 25.22 and for non-clinical adult samples as 17.80 and 18.86 (59). The possible range of scores for the anti-mattering scale was 5 – 20, with a mean of 9.81 (SD=3.24). In a sample of Canadian undergraduate students a mean of 11.17 was recently documented (60). Differences between social-responsibility importance scores for self, versus those attributed to the university were significantly correlated with mental health problems (DASS) and anti-mattering across all domains, apart from Environmental sustainability and Wars & Global conflict (see Table 1).
As shown in Table 2, significant indirect effects, mediated by anti-mattering perceptions, were evident for the relationships between difference in social-responsibility importance ratings (overall, and for 8 of the 9 different domains of social-responsibility) and depression-anxiety-stress scale scores. Of note, and in accord with correlational analyses, the mediated pathway when the difference in social-responsibility importance ratings for Wars & Global conflict was the predictor variable was not significant. There were significant direct effects for the overall difference in social-responsibility importance ratings, and for domains of Health, wellbeing & personal development; Human and animal rights & ethical principles; Cultural, ethnic & religious communities; Economic & financial parity overall; and Social parity & development. Direct effects were not significant for Marginalised groups, Gender identity and sexual orientation, Environmental sustainability, and Wars and global conflict social-responsibility domains.
Table 2. Direct and indirect (mediated) effects for a pathway linking predictor variables of differences between the personal importance given to social-responsibility (SR) domains and those perceived as being held by the university, and the outcome variable of mental health problems (measured by DASS), mediated by anti-mattering perceptions.
3.4 Planned exploratory analyses
We attempted to gain a more in-depth understanding of the significant mediation effects by repeating the mediation models but with the five different items comprising the anti-mattering scale as parallel mediators. The correlation coefficients between the invisibility anti-mattering item and the not mattering and insignificance anti-mattering items were.57 and.49 respectively (p <.001). The associations between the difference in social-responsibility importance scores and both anti-mattering items was.17 (p <.05). The correlation coefficients between the depression-anxiety-stress scores and invisibility and insignificance were.46 and.38 respectively (p <.001). In the mediation model, the direct effect was significant – the difference in social-responsibility importance scores were associated with depression-anxiety-stress. The only significant mediated, indirect, effect was when anti-mattering item 3 depicting invisibility was the mediator (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Significant direct and indirect pathways between the disparity in the importance of social-responsibility perceived from personal (self) versus perceived university perspectives (predictor) and DASS depression-anxiety-stress total scores (outcome), with the invisibility component of anti-mattering acting as a mediator. Non-standardised and completely standardised indirect effects have been provided along with effect size (c’=cs) for the direct effect, path c’.
Of the nine social-responsibility domains, a significant indirect effect with the invisibility anti-mattering item as the mediator was observed for Health, wellbeing & personal development (Direct Effect=1.65, SE=.54, 95% CIs=.58 to 2.72, c’-cs=.21; Indirect Effect=.38, SE=.21, 95% CIs=.04 to.86; Standardised Indirect Effect (SIE)=.05, SE=.03, CIs=.006 to.11), Cultural, ethnic & religious communities (Direct Effect=1.25, SE=.48, 95% CIs=.30 to 2.19, c’-cs=.10; Indirect Effect=.31, SE=.17, 95% CIs=.02 to.67; SIE=.04, SE=.02, CIs=.003 to.10), Economic & financial parity overall (Direct Effect=.87, SE=.36, 95% CIs=.16 to 1.58, c’-cs=.17; Indirect Effect=.28, SE=.15, 95% CIs=.04 to.61; SIE=.05, SE=.03, CIs=.008 to.12), and Environmental sustainability (Direct Effect=.22, SE=.36, 95% CIs=-.50 to.93, c’-cs=.04 [not significant]; Indirect Effect=.23, SE=.13, 95% CIs=.008 to.53; SIE=.05, SE=.03, CIs=.002 to.10). A significant indirect effect was not found for five of the social domains of Marginalised groups, Gender identity & sexual orientation, Human and animal rights & ethical principles, Social parity & development and Wars & Global conflict.
4 Discussion
The overarching aim of the current study was to examine the extent to which misalignments in the perceived importance of social-responsibility to participants personally versus their university would be associated with mental health problems both directly, but also indirectly when mediated by appraisals of not mattering or anti-mattering (6). There were three key findings.
First, importance across all nine domains of social-responsibility was higher when rated from the perspective of the self, as opposed to the perceived importance attributed to the university. The greatest difference was observed for the domain of Economic and financial parity and the smallest difference was for Environmental sustainability. A large amount of literature has documented the considerable detrimental effect of financial pressures on students’ mental health (61–63). Currently, in the UK, students face serious financial pressures not only because of escalating austerity but also from rising university fees (64). This fits with a growing body of evidence documenting negative effects of austerity on mental health and mental health provision not only within the UK but more broadly, with an important point being that the expectations of young people and their perspectives of their future are somewhat pessimistic as a consequence of austerity measures and policies (65–72). Qualitative responses lent reassurance that the social-responsibility domains were of relevance to students. That said, at the time of writing, instability is acute across geopolitical, economic, and human rights platforms globally meaning that perceptions of needed social-responsibility priorities are likely to change.
The second finding was that disparities in importance ratings between students and those attributed to their university across seven domains of social-responsibility were significantly and positively associated with a composite measure of depression-anxiety-stress. The greater the disparity the more severe were the mental health problems. Studies investigating misalignments between corporate social-responsibility values and those of employees have noted ways in which positive perceptions of alignment can affect staff performance, productivity, cohesion and acceptance of change (39–42). We have expanded this literature by demonstrating the effect of such misalignments on the mental health of students. The two social-responsibility domains which did not evidence these associations were Wars and global conflict, and Environmental sustainability. The personal importance ratings of these two domains were the lowest which was somewhat surprising in the context of the number of serious conflict situations which were affecting global stability at the time of writing, and also due to significant concerns about climate change which can negatively impact mental health (73, 74). That said, many of the open-ended responses of the students noted the proactive attitude of the university with regard to climate change which may have countered climate change anxieties. During the reviewing process, one reviewer pointed out that misalignments in social-responsibility importance may not be inherently negative, with misalignments in certain domains being either less impactful for students or not imply any cause for concern. Hence, it seems important to explicitly examine participant’s own views of such misalignments in future work which we were not able to do in the current study.
The third finding expanded on the second, in that although there was a direct relationship between differences in social-responsibility importance ratings (personal minus university) and mental health problems, there was also an indirect, mediated, effect with feelings and perceptions of anti-mattering being the mediator. This indirect effect meant that social-responsibility misalignment scores were associated with anti-mattering scores, and anti-mattering scores were associated with depression-anxiety-stress. The detrimental effects of anti-mattering, or not mattering, on mental health in the student body have been documented, at least to an extent (4, 9, 24, 25, 27). When examining the different components of anti-mattering, it was perceptions of invisibility (“To what extent have you been made to feel like you are invisible?”) rather than insignificance which were key. In-depth qualitative research is now needed to explore from where this sense of invisibility emanates. Reflections from the authorship team, one of whom was a university student, highlighted a need to understand in university contexts how a sense of invisibility may i. fluctuate; ii. accumulate from numerous sources; iii. be affected by perceptions of not fitting-in, for example, with respect to culture, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual identity; iv. relate to the size of both the institution and the city (‘small fish in a large pond’); v. be driven by a sense of inferiority with respect to finance and financial back-ground; and vi. be related to perceptions that universities do not integrate enough personalisation into developing their goals. It was also felt important to better determine the extent to which perceptions of invisibility reflected an active attempt by students to make their voices heard, but felt that these active attempts were then thwarted, dismissed, or ignored by the institution.
4.1 Limitations
A number of limitations of the current study warrant discussion. First, the Social-Responsibility Importance ratings scale was constructed specifically for this study and was deliberately one-dimensional in only asking participants about perceptions of importance. The descriptors for each item were also intentionally as simple as possible. This seemed appropriate given that the work was framed as a ‘proof of concept’ study. Nevertheless, categorising each of the items into nine social-responsibility domains was somewhat artificial in that some items could suitably fit under more than one domain. Countering this concern, at least to a degree, the overall difference score across all the social-responsibility domains evidenced the same pattern as eight out of nine of the specific social-responsibility domains, and the one domain (Wars & Global conflict) that did not evidenced a significant mediation effect comprised only two items. Finally, responses to two open response questions probing social-responsibility lent reassurance that the scale was of relevance to participants, and was comprehensive. There is clear, and necessary, scope in further work in this area for developing the depth of individual’s social-responsibility perceptions beyond the one-dimensional construct of importance using convergent qualitative and quantitative techniques.
Second, only one UK institution was involved in this study with all participants studying psychology and the majority of participants being home students, limiting generalisability. Social-responsibility values may differ considerably between UK and non-UK universities. Furthermore, the institution is part of the Russell Group (https://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/our-universities) meaning that students might be expected to be ethnically and culturally homogenous, to largely come from a privileged background, and to insufficiently represent marginalised groups. Although the university is Russell Group, it is situated in Northern England, known for its working-class and industrial heritage. Furthermore, in the current study, 50% of the participants identified as not being white and approximately 45% indicated that they felt they were of minority status attesting to the heterogeneity of the sample, at least to some extent.
Third, and relatedly, the participants received mandatory course credits in return for participation. Students in the host institution are offered many studies in which to participate from a wide range of areas in psychology (e.g., qualitative, mental health, neurophysiology, language, cognitive experimental). This means that they were unlikely to have felt coerced into participating in this particular study. That said, they were quite likely to have been motivated to take part because they were interested in this area. Hence, they may have been more motivated compared to other similarly aged young adults.
Fourth, the design was cross-sectional meaning that neither temporal precedence nor causality can be inferred. A related design issue is that the impact of participant’s history of, or current, mental health problems at clinical severity levels could not be considered or statistically controlled for.
Finally, perceptions of the importance of social-responsibility values especially when considered in tandem with mattering and anti-mattering appraisals, require a convergent methods approach as the work develops which was beyond the scope of the current study. The findings that we present provide a starting point, and a platform for in-depth qualitative follow-up work which can better probe the complexities surrounding many social-responsibility domains, such as war and global conflict, and the impact of generative artificial intelligence.
In conclusion, it is important to understand ways of improving mental health from both individual and systemic perspectives. One way of doing this is to develop authentic alignments between the social-responsibility agendas of institutions and a broad range of stakeholders that go beyond imposing social-responsibility values that can seem akin to vacuous ‘tick-box’ exercises. It is essential to genuinely listen to, to actively understand, and to implement measures to embrace the social-responsibility values expressed by students, in particular. Furthermore, where alignments seem challenged or distant, it is vital to counter the perceptions of stakeholders that they do not matter and that they are invisible.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethical approval was granted by the University Research Ethics Committee 3, Reference 2024-18434-32480. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
PG: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft. KK-K: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. PR-C: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. TE: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative 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.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1639802/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Pedrelli P, Nyer M, Yeung A, Zulauf C, and Wilens T. College students: mental health problems and treatment considerations. Acad Psychiatry. (2015) 39:503–11.
2. Karyotaki E, Cuijpers P, Albor Y, Alonso J, Auerbach RP, Bantjes J, et al. Sources of stress and their associations with mental disorders among college students: results of the world health organization world mental health surveys international college student initiative. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:1759.
3. Cuijpers P, Auerbach RP, Benjet C, Bruffaerts R, Ebert D, Karyotaki E, et al. The World Health Organization World Mental Health International College Student initiative: An overview. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. (2019) 28:e1761.
4. Flett GL, Khan A, and Su C. Mattering and psychological well-being in college and university students: review and recommendations for campus-based initiatives. Int J Ment Health Addiction. (2019) 17:667–80.
5. Flett GL. Resilience to interpersonal stress: why mattering matters when building the foundation of mentally healthy schools. In: Leschied AW, Saklofske DH, and Flett GL, editors. Handbook of school-based mental health promotion: an evidence-informed framework for implementation. Switzerland: Springer Series on Human Exceptionality (2018). p. 383–410.
6. Flett GL. An introduction, review, and conceptual analysis of mattering as an essential construct and an essential way of life. J Psychoeducational Assessment. (2022) 40:3–36.
7. Flett GL and Heisel MJ. Aging and feeling valued versus expendable during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: a review and commentary of why mattering is fundamental to the health and well-being of older adults. Int J Ment Health Addiction. (2021) 19:2443–69.
8. Taylor J, McFarland MJ, and Carr DC. Age, perceptions of mattering, and allostatic load. J Aging Health. (2019) 31:1830–49.
9. Giangrasso B, Casale S, Fioravanti G, Flett GL, and Nepon T. Mattering and anti-mattering in emotion regulation and life satisfaction: A mediational analysis of stress and distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Psychoeducational Assessment. (2022) 40:125–41.
10. Deale CS and Lee JSH. Hospitality students’ Perceptions of their mental health: implications for teaching and learning. J Hospitality Tourism Education. (2024) 36:256–66.
11. Gorgol-Walerianczyk J, Walerianczyk W, and Flett GL. Morningness-eveningness and mental health: Initial evidence of the moderating roles of mattering and anti-mattering. Chronobiology Int. (2025) 42:213–24.
12. Kolak AM, Panasko OD, and Short SD. Mental health in emerging adulthood: Anti-mattering mediates the effects of attachment to mothers and fathers. Family Relations. (2025) 74(4):1930–45.
13. Liu W, Gamble JH, Cao CH, Liao XL, Chen IH, and Flett GL. The general mattering scale, the anti-mattering scale, and the fear of not mattering inventory: psychometric properties and links with distress and hope among chinese university students. Psychol Res Behav Management. (2023) 16:4445–59.
14. Smith D and McLellan R. Mental health and mattering in UK university students: A comparison between continuing-generation students and first-generation students. Educ Sci. (2024) 14(12):1317. doi: 10.3390/educsci14121317
15. Tonini B, Benucci SB, Flett G, Fioravanti G, and Casale S. General mattering, anti-mattering, and depressive symptoms: A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Review. (2025) 120:102626. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102626
16. Rosenberg M and McCullough BC. Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health among adolescents. Res Community Ment Health. (1981) 2:163–82.
17. France MK and Finney SJ. What matters in the measurement of mattering? Measurement Eval Couns Dev. (2009) 42:104–20.
18. Matera C, Bosco N, and Meringolo P. Perceived mattering to family and friends, self-esteem, and well-being. Psychology Health Med. (2020) 25:550–8.
19. Schlossberg NK. Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New Dir Student Services. (1989) 48:5–15.
20. Oyserman D, Uskul AK, Yoder N, Nesse RM, and Williams DR. Unfair treatment and self-regulatory focus. J Exp Soc Psychol. (2007) 43:505–12.
21. Flett GL, Goldstein AL, Pechenkov IG, Nepon T, and Wekerle C. Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of feeling like you don’t matter: Associations with maltreatment, loneliness, social anxiety, and the five-factor model. Pers Individ Differences. (2016) 92:52–6.
22. Flett GL, Nepon T, Goldberg JO, Rose AL, Atkey SK, and Zaki-Azat J. The anti-mattering scale: development, psychometric properties and associations with well-being and distress measures in adolescents and emerging adults. J Psychoeducational Assessment. (2022) 40:37–59.
23. Flett GL, Galfi-Pechenkov I, Molnar DS, Hewitt PL, and Goldstein AL. Perfectionism, mattering, and depression: A mediational analysis. Pers Individ Differences. (2012) 52:828–32.
24. McComb SE, Goldberg JO, Flett GL, and Rose AL. The double jeopardy of feeling lonely and unimportant: state and trait loneliness and feelings and fears of not mattering. Front Psychol. (2020) 11.
25. Shannon A, Flett GL, and Goldberg JO. Feelings of not mattering, perceived stigmatization for seeking help, and help-seeking attitudes among university students. Int J Ment Health Addiction. (2020) 18:1294–303.
26. Flett GL and Nepon T. Mattering versus self-esteem in university students: associations with regulatory focus, social feedback, and psychological distress. J Psychoeducational Assessment. (2020) 38:663–74.
27. Flett GL, Burdo R, and Nepon T. Mattering, insecure attachment, rumination, and self-criticism in distress among university students. Int J Ment Health Addiction. (2021) 19:1300–13.
28. Etherson ME, Smith MM, Hill AP, Sherry SB, Curran T, Flett GL, et al. Perfectionism, mattering, depressive symptoms, and suicide ideation in students: A test of the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model. Personality and Individual Differences. (2022) 191:111559. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111559
29. Mahamid F, Hafshejani SS, Dinani MM, Bokhan N, Chou P, Bdier D, et al. Covid-19 anxiety predicts burnout among university students: The mediating roles of hope, adaptability, and anti-mattering. J Ethnicity Subst Abuse. (2025) 74(4):1930–45.
31. Saunders C, Marcolin B, and Cherneski J. The role of students’ Personal values and ethical ideologies in increasing the importance of perceptions of social responsibility for business students: A PRME directive. J Manage Education. (2022) 46:920–50.
32. Shukla A, Geetika, and Shukla N. Corporate social responsibility measures: A brief review. Business Perspect Res. (2022) 10:101–20.
33. Baker-Shelley A, van Zeijl-Rozema A, and Martens P. A conceptual synthesis of organisational transformation: How to diagnose, and navigate, pathways for sustainability at universities? J Cleaner Production. (2017) 145:262–76.
34. Ali M, Mustapha I, Osman S, and Hassan U. University social responsibility: A review of conceptual evolution and its thematic analysis. J Cleaner Production. (2021) 286:124931.
35. Glavas A and Kelley K. The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly. (2014) 24:165–202.
36. Svergun O and Fairlie P. The interrelated roles of corporate social responsibility and stress in predicting job outcomes. J Workplace Behav Health. (2020) 35:193–210.
37. Jeong J-G, Choi SB, and Kang S-W. Leader’s perception of corporate social responsibility and team members’ Psychological well-being: mediating effects of value congruence climate and pro-social behavior. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19(6). doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063607
38. Schwepker CH, Valentine SR, Giacalone RA, and Promislo M. Good barrels yield healthy apples: organizational ethics as a mechanism for mitigating work-related stress and promoting employee well-being. J Business Ethics. (2021) 174:143–59.
39. Bezrukova K, Thatcher SM, Jehn KA, and Spell CS. The effects of alignments: examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. J Appl Psychol. (2012) 97:77–92.
40. Branson C. Achieving organisational change through values alignment. J Educ Administration. (2008) 46:376–95.
41. Tourky M, Osman S, and Harvey WS. Aligning employee and organizational values to build organizational reputation. Asian Business Management. (2023) 22:1618–48.
42. Sullivan W, Sullivan R, and Buffton B. Aligning individual and organisational values to support change. J Change Management. (2001) 2:247–54.
43. McPherson S and Armstrong D. General practitioner management of depression: A systematic review. Qual Health Res. (2012) 22:1150–9.
44. Kelly RE, Mansell W, and Wood AM. Goal conflict and well-being: A review and hierarchical model of goal conflict, ambivalence, self-discrepancy and self-concordance. Pers Individ Differences. (2015) 85:212–29.
45. Converse BA, Roberts AR, Hennecke M, and Fishbach A. On the experience of goals: Differentiating goal-generic value from goal-specific value. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. (2024) 18(9):e70006. doi: 10.1111/spc3.70006
46. Haight BL and Busseri MA. Examining the implications of perceiving one’s future health as a goal or a standard for affect, motivation, and health behaviour. Motivation Emotion. (2021) 45:473–88.
47. Nam SY, Crystal LCY, Charlton C, Christy HLM, Stephanie WMY, Michael WTH, et al. Unpacking the mediating role of resilience in the relationship between ideal-actual self-discrepancy, stressful life events, depression and anxiety: Results from 1,144 young people in an epidemiological study in Hong Kong. Int J Soc Psychiatry. (2023) 69:1166–75.
48. UNDP. United nations development programme: social and environmental standards. New York, NY, USA: UNDP (2021).
51. Fritz MS and Mackinnon DP. Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychol Sci. (2007) 18:233–9.
52. Qin X. Sample size and power calculations for causal mediation analysis: A Tutorial and Shiny App. Behav Res Methods. (2024) 56:1738–69.
53. Lovibond SH and Lovibond PF. Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. Australia: Sydney: Psychology Foundation (1995).
54. Henry JD and Crawford JR. The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol. (2005) 44:227–39.
55. Flett GL. The Psychology of Mattering: Understanding the human need to be significant. London: Academic Press (2018).
56. Wright DB, London K, and Field AP. Using bootstrap estimation and the plug-in principle for clinical psychology data. J Exp Psychopathology. (2011) 2:252–70.
57. Hayes A. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. UK: Guildford Press (2020).
58. Winer ES, Cervone D, Bryant J, McKinney C, Liu RT, and Nadorff MR. Distinguishing mediational models and analyses in clinical psychology: atemporal associations do not imply causation. J Clin Psychol. (2016) 72:947–55.
59. Gillies JCP and Dozois DJA. Chapter 22 - the depression anxiety stress scale: features and applications. In: Martin CR, Hunter L-A, Patel VB, Preedy VR, and Rajendram R, editors. The neuroscience of depression, vol. p . Switzerland: Academic Press (2021). p. 219–28.
60. Flett GL, Nepon T, and Scott X. The anti-mattering scale versus the general mattering scale in pathological narcissism: how an excessive need to matter informs the narcissism and mattering constructs. J Psychoeducational Assessment. (2023) 41:619–33.
61. Duraku ZH, Davis H, Arënliu A, Uka F, and Behluli V. Overcoming mental health challenges in higher education: a narrative review. Front Psychol. (2024) 15.
62. Mac-Ginty S, Lira D, Lillo I, Moraga E, Cáceres C, Araya R, et al. Association between socioeconomic position and depression, anxiety and eating disorders in university students: A systematic review. Adolesc Res Review. (2024) 9:435–51.
63. Masková I. Work-related coping behaviour and experience patterns in university students: a review of 20 years of research. Front Psychol. (2023) 14.
64. Lewis J. Students and the rising cost of living. London, UK: House of commons Library (2023). Available online at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9886/CBP-9886.pdf (Accessed September 22, 2025).
65. Brown S, Kontonikas A, Montagnoli A, Moro M, and Onnis L. Life satisfaction and austerity: Expectations and the macroeconomy. J Behav Exp Econ. (2021) 95:101780. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2021.101780
66. Cummins I. The impact of austerity on mental health service provision: A UK perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15(6). doi: 10.3390/ijerph15061145
67. Solar C and Smith M. Austerity and governance: coordinating policing and mental health policy in the UK. Policy Stud. (2022) 43:352–69.
68. Brown H, Gao N, and Song W. Regional trends in mental health inequalities in young people aged 16–25 in the UK and the role of cuts to local government expenditure: Repeated cross-sectional analysis using the British household panel Survey/UK household longitudinal survey. Soc Sci Med. (2024) 353:117068. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117068
69. Holding E, Crowder M, Woodrow N, Griffin N, Knights N, Goyder E, et al. Exploring young people’s perspectives on mental health support: A qualitative study across three geographical areas in England, UK. Health Soc Care Community. (2022) 30:E6366–E75.
70. Pinfold V, Thompson R, Lewington A, Samuel G, Jayacodi S, Jones O, et al. Public perspectives on inequality and mental health: A peer research study. Health Expectations. (2024) 27(1):e13868. doi: 10.1111/hex.13868
71. Price T. They pulled that funding away and we’re not recovering. it’s getting worse”: deaths of despair in post-austerity north east England. Int J Equity Health. (2024) 23(1):242. doi: 10.1186/s12939-024-02334-w
72. Price T, McGowan V, Vishram S, Wildman J, and Bambra C. They’re not mentally ill, their lives are just shit”: Stakeholders’ understanding of deaths of despair in a deindustrialised community in North East England. Health Place. (2024) 90:103346. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103346
Keywords: mattering, social-responsibility, mental health, depression, anxiety, stress
Citation: Gooding P, Kort KK-d, Ramsdale-Capper P and Epton T (2025) Anti-mattering mediates the relationship between social-responsibility misalignments and mental health problems in young people. Front. Psychiatry 16:1639802. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1639802
Received: 04 June 2025; Accepted: 29 September 2025;
Published: 15 October 2025.
Edited by:
Ottar Ness, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NorwayReviewed by:
Beate Emmi Margarete Brand-Saberi, Ruhr University Bochum, GermanyJonathan Martínez-Líbano, Universidad Andrés Bello, Chile
Vince Hooper, SPJ Global, United Arab Emirates
Copyright © 2025 Gooding, Kort, Ramsdale-Capper and Epton. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Patricia Gooding, cGF0cmljaWEuZ29vZGluZ0BtYW5jaGVzdGVyLmFjLnVr