. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Nov 12.

Published in final edited form as: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011 Oct 17;79(6):814–825. doi: 10.1037/a0025874

Table 4.

Statistically Significant Indirect Effects of the Predictor Variables on Relationship Stability

Predictor	Effect estimate	95% CI	Standardized effect estimate
His education	.149	[0.045, 0.230]	.193
a. His education > his income > her financial strain > her quality > stability (+)
b. His education >his income > married >her quality >stability (+)
c. His education > his income > biofamily > stability (+)
d. His education > his income > biofamily > her quality > stability (−)
His income	.029	[0.010, 0.044]	.305
Same paths as a through d above, beginning at the second step.	.029	[0.010, 0.044]	.305
Her religiosity	.742	[0.197, 1.380]	.238
e. Her religiosity > married > her quality > stability (+)
f. Her religiosity > biofamily > stability (+)
g. Her religiosity > biofamily > her quality > stability (−)
Biological family	−.259	[−0.598, −0.011]	−.195
h. Biofamily > stability (+)
i. Biofamily > her quality > stability (−)
Her financial strain	−.680	[−1.336, −0.149]	−.183
j. Her financial strain > her quality > stability	−.680	[−1.336, −0.149]	−.183

Note. The 95% confidence interval (CI) shows the lower and upper 2.5% of the bootstrap estimates for the indirect effects. Cases where the confidence interval does not include zero are statistically significant. Specific significant indirect pathways are listed for each predictor. The sign of the net effect of each pathway is provided in parentheses.