# Correlation Analysis

## 4.2. Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis was conducted to examine the connection between the
variables of the present study, the results of which revealed several
statistically significant relationships. Refer to Table 4 for the
correlation matrix. Since all scales used in the study had 13 subscales
in total, as well as their overall score, which adds up to 16 variables,
only their overall scores are presented in the table. The subscales’ and
components’ correlation results with literary exposure can be seen in
Table 5. All other significant findings not present in either table are
discussed below.

| Variable             |    1     |    2    |    3    |   4   |  5   |    6    |    7     |    8    |    9     | 10  |
| -------------------- | :------: | :-----: | :-----: | :---: | :--: | :-----: | :------: | :-----: | :------: | :-: |
| 1\. Age              |    —     |         |         |       |      |         |          |         |          |     |
| 2\. Books count      |   .08    |    —    |         |       |      |         |          |         |          |     |
| 3\. Academic hours   |   -.08   | .22\*\* |    —    |       |      |         |          |         |          |     |
| 4\. Nonfiction hours |   .12    | .32\*\* | .29\*\* |   —   |      |         |          |         |          |     |
| 5\. Internet hours   |   .03    |  -.01   |  .13\*  |  .01  |  —   |         |          |         |          |     |
| 6\. STAI–S           |   -.08   |   .09   |   .03   |  .03  | .03  |    —    |          |         |          |     |
| 7\. STAI–T           |  -.15\*  |   .02   |   .03   | -.02  | .02  | .61\*\* |    —     |         |          |     |
| 8\. ECQ              | -.21\*\* |   .08   |   .10   |  .09  | .04  | .47\*\* | .66\*\*  |    —    |          |     |
| 9\. MentS            |  .16\*   |   .08   |  -.03   |  .03  | -.03 | -.17\*  | -.34\*\* | -.18\*  |    —     |     |
| 10\. QCAE            |   -.04   |  .17\*  |  -.01   | .14\* | .03  |   .12   |   .12    | .25\*\* | 0.52\*\* |  —  |

<span id="_Toc203393442" class="anchor"></span>**Table 4**\ *Correlation matrix
for key variables*

_Note._ \* _p_ \< .05; \*\* _p_ \< .001; Academic hours = average of
textbook hours and academic hours; Nonfiction hours = average of
Magazine and Newspaper hours; Internet hours = average of E-Mail and
Internet hours.

Age was found to be significantly correlated with a number of
psychological and behavioural variables. It was negatively correlated
with trait anxiety (_r_ = -.15, _p_ \< .05). It was also negatively
correlated with overall existential concerns (_r_ = -.21, _p_ \< .001),
and each of its subscales; namely, general existential anxiety (_r_ =
-.22, _p_ \< .001), death anxiety (_r_ = -.14, _p_ \< .05), and
avoidance (_r_ = -.17, _p_ \< .05). Additionally, age was positively
correlated with overall mentalisation (_r_ = .16, _p_ \< .05) and its
self-related subscale (_r_ = .18, _p_ \< .05). Age was not correlated
with overall empathy and any of its subscales or components.

The number of books read by the participant was significantly correlated
with time spent reading academic materials, such as textbooks and
academic journal articles, (_r_ = 0.22, _p_ \< .001) and nonfiction
reading material (newspapers and magazines) (_r_ = 0.32, _p_ \< .001),
reflecting a broader pattern of reading engagement across formats.

| Scale | Subscale   | Component               |   _r_ |
| ----- | ---------- | ----------------------- | ----: |
| ECQ   |            |                         |   .08 |
|       | General EA |                         | .12\* |
|       | Death      |                         |   .00 |
|       | Avoidance  |                         |   .03 |
| MentS |            |                         |   .08 |
|       | Self       |                         |  -.02 |
|       | Other      |                         |   .10 |
|       | Motivation |                         | .13\* |
| QCAE  |            |                         | .17\* |
|       | Cognitive  |                         | .14\* |
|       |            | Perspective Taking      |   .09 |
|       |            | Online Simulation       | .16\* |
|       | Affective  |                         | .16\* |
|       |            | Emotion Contagion       |   .07 |
|       |            | Proximal Responsivity   | .17\* |
|       |            | Peripheral Responsivity | .14\* |

<span id="_Toc203393443" class="anchor"></span>**Table 5**\ *Correlation
analysis for the questionnaires and literary exposure*

_Note_. \* _p_ \< .05.

Literary exposure was positively correlated with the ECQ’s general
existential anxiety subscale (_r_ = 0.12, _p_ \< .05) and MentS’
other-related mentalisation (_r_ = 0.13, _p_ \< .05) and motivation to
mentalise (_r_ = .13, _p_ \< .05) subscales. As for empathy, book count
was positively correlated with overall empathy (_r_ = .17, _p_ \< .05),
cognitive empathy (_r_ = .14, _p_ \< .05), online simulation (_r_ = .16,
_p_ \< .05), affective empathy (_r_ = .16, _p_ \< .05), proximal
responsivity (_r_ = .17, _p_ \< .05), and peripheral responsivity (_r_ =
.14, _p_ \< .05).

Overall mentalisation was associated with diminished state anxiety (_r_
= -.17, _p_ \< .05), trait anxiety (_r_ = -.34, _p_ \< .001), overall
existential concerns (_r_ = -.18, _p_ \< .05), general existential
anxiety (_r_ = -.17, _p_ \< .05), and avoidance (_r_ = -.31, _p_ \<
.001). On the other hand, overall mentalisation was linked to heightened
overall empathy (_r_ = .52, _p_ \< .001), cognitive empathy (_r_ = .54,
_p_ \< .001), perspective taking (_r_ = .50, _p_ \< .001), online
simulation (_r_ = .41, _p_ \< .001), affective empathy (_r_ = .32, _p_
\< .001), proximal responsivity (_r_ = .38, _p_ \< .001), and peripheral
responsivity (_r_ = .29, _p_ \< .001), though not emotion contagion (_r_
= .09, _p_ ≥ .05). An important finding here is that self-related
mentalisation and other-related mentalisation differed in their
relationship to both state anxiety and trait anxiety. Self-related
mentalisation was much more strongly negatively associated with both
(_r_ = -.36, _p_ \< .001 and _r_ = -.58, _p_ \< .001, respectively),
while other mentalisation showed either non-significant or weak results
(_r_ = -.02, _p_ ≥ .05 and _r_ = -.13, _p_ \< .05, respectively). The
same pattern emerges in relation to existential concerns as well.
Self-related mentalisation is negatively associated with the overall
score as well as each of its subscales (-.55 ≥ *r*s ≥ -.35, *p*s \<
.001), whereas other-related mentalisation is not (-.07 ≤ *r*s ≤ 12,
*p*s ≥ .05).

Overall empathy was significantly correlated with overall existential
concerns (_r_ = 0.25, _p_ \< .001) as well as its subscales general
existential anxiety (_r_ = .26, _p_ \< .001) and death anxiety (_r_ =
.24, _p_ \< .001), though not avoidance (_r_ = .09, _p_ ≥ .05). This
reveals a connection between empathy and heightened sensitivity to
existential themes, without an inclination to avoid such themes. While
overall empathy and cognitive empathy were not associated with either
state anxiety or trait anxiety, affective empathy was associated with
both (_r_ = .22, _p_ \< .001 and _r_ = .27, _p_ \< .001, respectively).

To summarise and clarify these distinct patterns regarding mentalisation
and empathy, Table 6 presents a side-by-side comparison of the
correlations between each key construct and the primary distress-related
variables. This layout highlights their divergent associations and
functional profiles.

<table>
  <caption>
    <p>
      <span id="_Toc203393444" class="anchor"></span>
      <strong>Table 6</strong>
      <br />
      <em>
        Correlation analysis for key variables across MentS and QCAE subscales
      </em>
    </p>
  </caption>
  <colgroup>
    <col style="width: 24%" />
    <col style="width: 18%" />
    <col style="width: 18%" />
    <col style="width: 18%" />
    <col style="width: 18%" />
  </colgroup>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th style="text-align: center;"></th>
      <th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">
        MentS
      </th>
      <th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">
        QCAE
      </th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td style="text-align: center;">Variable</td>
      <td style="text-align: center;">Self</td>
      <td style="text-align: center;">Other</td>
      <td style="text-align: center;">Cognitive</td>
      <td style="text-align: center;">Affective</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="text-align: center;">STAI–S</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.36**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.02</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.03</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.22**</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="text-align: center;">STAI–T</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.58**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.13*</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.01</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.27**</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="text-align: center;">ECQ – Overall</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.55**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.06</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.16*</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.31**</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="text-align: center;">ECQ – General EA</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.54**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.07</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.18*</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.30**</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="text-align: center;">ECQ – Death</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.35**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.12</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.14*</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.32**</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="text-align: center;">ECQ – Avoidance</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.55**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">-.07</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.02</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.16*</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="text-align: center;">MentS – Overall</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.73**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.76**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.54**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.32**</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="text-align: center;">QCAE – Overall</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.04</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.64**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.92**</td>
      <td style="text-align: right;">.81**</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

_Note_. \* _p_ \< .05; \*\* _p_ \< .001

Table 6 displays a consistent pattern of associations: self-related
mentalisation was negatively correlated with all anxiety and existential
concern variables, while affective empathy was positively correlated
with the same variables. In contrast, other-oriented mentalisation and
cognitive empathy showed weak or non-significant correlations with
distress-related outcomes. These results suggest that, within this
sample, the self-related and affective dimensions of these constructs
are more closely linked to reported anxiety and existential concern than
their other-related or cognitive counterparts. Additionally, Table 6
highlights a clear distinction between self- and other-related
Mentalisation in their associations with overall empathy. While
other-related mentalisation was strongly correlated with overall empathy
(_r_ = .64, _p_ \< .001), self-related mentalisation showed no
significant relationship (_r_ = .04, _p_ ≥ .05). This is also the case
with empathy’s subscales and their components. This suggests that
individual differences in empathy, as measured by the QCAE, are more
closely aligned with other-related mentalising capacities than with
self-related ones, supporting the theoretical linkage between the
ability to reflect on others’ mental states and empathy.

Trait anxiety was positively correlated with state anxiety (_r_ = .61,
_p_ \< .001). Both showed significant positive correlation with
existential concerns (STAI–S with ECQ – Overall, _r_ = .47, _p_ \< .001;
STAI–T with ECQ – Overall, _r_ = .66, _p_ \< .001), and all of its
subscales, supporting the conceptual overlap between trait anxiety and
existential insecurity. Notably, trait anxiety showed consistently
stronger correlations across all existential concern subdimensions,
including general existential anxiety (_r_ = .66, _p_ \< .001), death
anxiety (_r_ = .45, _p_ \< .001), and avoidance (_r_ = 0.54, _p_ \<
.001), compared to state anxiety (general existential anxiety: _r_ =
.48, _p_ \< .001; death anxiety: _r_ = 0.32, _p_ \< .001; avoidance: _r_
= .39, _p_ \< .001). These differences suggest that while both forms of
anxiety are connected to existential concerns, trait anxiety, which
reflects a stable predisposition to experience anxiety, may be more
strongly linked to existential distress than situational anxiety,
represented by State Anxiety.