Table 3.
Moderator variables and their impact on self-affirmation interventions.
| Moderator | R2 | β | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample characteristics | |||
| Cultural origin | |||
| “Other” (Caucasian, European, or Asian) | 7.07% | β = −0.21, z = −3.87, p < 0.001 | (−) |
| Age Ranges (ARs) | |||
| 11–14 years old (AR1) | 5.66% | β = −0.22, z = −3.45, p < 0.001 | (−) |
| 18–23 years old (AR3) | 7.42% | β = 0.24, z = 3.98, p < 0.001 | (+) |
| Sample Size | |||
| Small sample (n > 500 students) | 7.72% | β = 0.28, z = 4.04, p < 0.001 | (+) |
| Large sample (n < 500 students) | 7.72% | β = −0.28, z = −4.04, p < 0.001 | (−) |
| Dominant Group in the Sample | |||
| American, European, or Asian (Caucasian) | 6.22% | β = −0.20, z = −3.59, p < 0.001 | (−) |
| African American, Latino, or ethnic minority | 7.07% | β = −0.18, z = −2.25, p < 0.05 | (−) |
| Design characteristics | |||
| Execution modality | |||
| Face-to-face | 5.26% | β = 0.26, z = 3.28, p < 0.05 | (+) |
| Virtual | 2.29% | β = −0.13, z = −2.14, p < 0.05 | (−) |
| Rigor of Randomization | |||
| Use of software | 4.33% | β = −0.25, z = −2.97, p < 0.05 | (−) |
| Does not use software | 3.52% | β = 0.19, z = 2.66, p < 0.05 | (+) |
| Dependent Variables | |||
| Psychological (DV1) | 12.08% | β = 0.28, z = 5.19, p < 0.001 | (+) |
| Academic performance (DV3) | 6.29% | β = −0.20, z = 3.59, p < 0.001 | (−) |
| Self-affirmation intervention style | |||
| Classical intervention (based on important values) | 7.87% | β = −0.27, z = −4.06, p < 0.001 | (−) |
| Timing of Intervention | |||
| Before stressful academic event | 7.79% | β = −0.22, z = −4.04, p < 0.001 | (−) |
| During stressful academic events | 3.70% | β = −0.23, z = −2.81, p < 0.05 | (−) |
| Teacher role | |||
| Active | 4.63% | β = −0.20, z = −3.10, p < 0.05 | (−) |
Abbreviations of the results: Indicator of improvement in the dependent variable (+), indicator of decrease in the dependent variable (−).