Commentary: The relationship between stress and academic burnout in college students: evidence from longitudinal data on indirect effects
Year: 2026
Type: editorial
Abstract: 1 Introduction Zhang et al. (2025) offered an important contribution to understand the mechanisms linking stress and academic burnout among college students. Their Dual Buffering Pathway Model of Academic Burnout illuminated how self-esteem (an internal resource) and social support (an external resource) sequentially mediate the stress-burnout relationship (Zhang et al., 2025). Zhang et al. (2025) found that higher stress increases burnout and reduces perceived social support. Their Dual Buffering Pathway Model of Academic Burnout showed that self-esteem (an internal resource) and social support (an external resource) independently mediated the relationship between stress and academic burnout and sequentially mediated this relationship.While the study exhibited methodological rigor, the conceptualization of self-esteem and social support could be further refined. Specifically, self-esteem was treated as a monolithic construct, without distinguishing between secure and fragile self-esteem-a distinction increasingly recognized as pivotal in predicting burnout risk. Furthermore, although the authors emphasized social support as a buffering factor, they did not consider its quality or conditionality. the study treated self-esteem as a single construct rather than distinguishing secure from fragile forms, and it assessed social support without considering its quality or conditionality.This commentary therefore argues that (a) differentiating between secure and fragile self-esteem explains variability in academic burnout outcomes, and (b) examining the role of non-contingent social support provides insights into practical procedures for educational support. Integrating these dimensions would enhance both the explanatory depth and the practical implications of Zhang et al.(2025)'s findings. This commentary therefore advances two theoretical expansions. First, it argues that differentiating between secure and fragile self-esteem offers a more precise explanation for variability in academic burnout outcomes. Second, it proposes that identifying unconditionality in social support provides insight into a theoretical shift from its quantity to its quality in reducing burnout risks. Integrating these dimensions would enhance both the explanatory depth and the practical implications of Zhang et al. (2025)'s findings.Reassessing Self-Esteem: Secure vs. Fragile Pathways to Burnout Zhang et al. (2025)'s research positioned self-esteem as an internal buffer against academic burnout. However, it assumed that greater self-esteem uniformly predicts lower burnout (Zhang et al., 2025). This was also contradicted by the authors' own discussion, where self-esteem was found to positively predict burnout in certain cases (Zhang et al., 2025). Zhang et al. (2025) viewed self-esteem as a burnout buffer, yet their own results showed that higher self-esteem sometimes predicted greater burnout. This inconsistency invites a reconsideration of the quality of self-esteem rather than its level. Although Zhang et al. (2025) acknowledged that this unexpected result may reflect unstable self-esteem, their model did not explicitly capture or validate this distinction. This limitation stems from the original dataset's lack of indicators of self-esteem contingency;This is because the selfesteem scale they used (Rosenberg, 1965) measures greater or lower levels of self-esteem, not its type.Contemporary self-esteem theory differentiates between secure self-esteem-a stable sense of selfworth independent of external evaluation (Deci & Ryan, 1995;Kernis & Goldman, 2006;Rogers, 1951)-and fragile self-esteem, which depends on achievement or approval (Crocker and Wolfe, 2001). Contemporary self-esteem theory distinguishes secure self-esteem, marked by stable selfworth, from fragile self-esteem, which is contingent on achievement or approval (Crocker and Wolfe, 2001;Deci and Ryan, 1995;Kernis and Goldman, 2006;Rogers, 1951). Secure self-esteem promotes resilience and adaptive coping, while fragile self-esteem heightens sensitivity to failure and criticism, thereby intensifying burnout symptoms Secure self-esteem supports resilience, whereas fragile selfesteem heightens sensitivity to failure and increases burnout risk (Freudenberger & Richelson, 1981).In academic settings, an empirical study showed that contingencies of self-worth predict academic difficulties experienced by college freshmen beyond the level of self-esteem (Crocker & Luhtanen, 2003).Applying this distinction between secure and fragile self-esteem, the unexpected positive link between self-esteem and burnout in Zhang et al. (2025) can be reinterpreted: participants with fragile self-esteem may have scored high on the Rosenberg's self-esteem scale ( 1965), yet their self-worth was contingent upon academic success. This form of "fragile high self-esteem" often drives overcommitment, perfectionism, and vulnerability to burnout (Freudenberger & Richelson, 1981).Incorporating this differentiation into future models would clarify why self-esteem may, under certain conditions, act as a risk factor rather than a protective buffer.The authors demonstrated that social support negatively predicts academic burnout and positively predicts self-esteem (Zhang et al., 2025). Yet, the construct of social support is treated primarily as a quantitative resource-the more support received, the less burnout experienced. This view neglects its qualitative dimension, particularly the distinction between conditional (performance-contingent) and non-conditional (acceptance-based) support.Research on unconditional positive regard showed that affirming individuals' worth regardless of their achievements helps cultivate secure self-esteem (Rogers, 1951). In academic settings, an empirical study showed that both parental and teacher conditional regard-where affection depends on academic performance-contribute to school burnout in adolescents, mainly by fostering academic contingent self-esteem (Lavrijsen et al., 2023). This suggests that certain forms of support play a crucial role in predicting burnout risk. However, Zhang et al. (2025) used the Social Support Scale (Xiao, 1994), which does not capture a dimension of unconditional support; three dimensions of the Social Support Scale (objective support, subjective support, and the utilization of social support) can be offered both conditionally and unconditionally. assess unconditional support. A higher score simply reflects more support (Xiao, 1994), not whether that support was unconditional.Because its three dimensions (objective support, subjective support, and support utilization) can be offered either conditionally or unconditionally, the measure cannot distinguish between these forms. Therefore, Zhang et al. ( 2025)'s findings could not address the role of support conditionality in the stress-burnout process.Integrating the dimension of unconditional positive regard could significantly strengthen its explanatory and practical power of the Dual Buffering Pathway Model of Academic Burnout. This explains which types of support enhance secure self-esteem and thereby mitigate the risk of academic burnout. Practically, this helps determine which forms of support are necessary to mitigate academic burnout risks. Zhang et al.'s (2025) findings. Theoretically, it clarifies which types of support enhance secure self-esteem and thereby mitigate academic burnout risk. Practically, it helps identify which forms of support are most effective for reducing students' vulnerability to academic burnout.A refined interpretation of the "Dual Buffering Pathway Model of Academic Burnout" can thus be proposed:1. Internal buffering (Self-Esteem) functions through secure rather than fragile self-esteem, which enables students to tolerate stress without overidentifying with performance outcomes.2. External buffering (Social Support) operates not merely through the presence of social support, but through its non-conditionality-a factor that fosters internal stability.These refinements integrate secure self-esteem (internal mediator) and non-conditional social support (external antecedent) as mutually reinforcing mechanisms that reduce vulnerability to burnout. In a refined buffering model, non-conditional social support would enhance secure self-esteem, which then mediates the effect of stress on burnout.Operationalizing these constructs requires more targeted measurement. FEmpirically, future studies could employ multidimensional self-esteem measures, such as the Contingent Self-Esteem Scale (Kernis and Goldman, 2006), to capture secure vs. fragile self-esteem. Additionally, qualitative assessments of perceived conditionality in social support networks would help understand noncontingent vs. contingent social support. developing a non-contingent support measure or incorporating qualitative assessments would clarify distinctions between contingent and noncontingent support. This Qualitative assessments can be done through in-depth interviews to understand these dynamics in a real-life setting. Those scales and in-depth interviews would enable a nuanced analysis of how fragile versus secure self-worth interacts with perceived support to influence burnout risks.Zhang et al.'s study (2025) was effective for identifying sequential mediation through self-esteem and social support. However, conceptual integration with different self-esteem theory and social psychology could further enhance interpretive depth. Future research should both differentiate between secure and fragile self-esteem and examine the conditionality of social support. In doing so, it can explore the relationship between non-conditional support and secure self-esteem, wherein secure self-esteem mediates the stress-burnout link most effectively under non-conditional social climates. Zhang et al.'s (2025) study can be strengthened by integrating different self-esteem and social support theories. Future research should distinguish secure from fragile self-esteem and assess support conditionality to clarify their buffering effects. Zhang et al. (2025) argued that reducing academic burnout requires schools and families to shift their focus from solely academic achievement to students' holistic development, supporting their emotional well-being. However, without further investigation, specific initiatives should not be implemented. This is because those with fragile self-esteem may contribute to society's prosperity through their relentless pursuit of excellence. Additionally, it may be stressful for individuals with fragile self-esteem to receive non-contingent social support, as their sense of self-worth is closely tied to performance. Zhang et al. (2025) argued that reducing academic burnout requires shifting from an exclusive focus on achievement to supporting students' holistic development. Such unconditional support may foster secure self-esteem, thereby reducing burnout risks, as seen in the refined buffering model. However, without further investigation, specific initiatives should not be implemented because no form of self-esteem is inherently superior, and individuals can thrive with either type. While secure self-esteem protects against burnout, it is also true that those with fragile self-esteem are often high achievers due to their relentless pursuit of excellence (Freudenberger & Richelson, 1981).
Source: Frontiers in Psychology
Author: Aika Suzuki
Language: English
Topic: Stress and Burnout Research
Subfield: Social Psychology
Field: Psychology
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $3,801
OpenAlex ID: W7123358675