Table 2.
Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||
R2 | R2 change | Sig. F Change | Partial r | t(β) | p | Partial r | t(β) | p | Partial r | t(β) | p | |
| ||||||||||||
Step 1: (df = 2, 67) | .008 | .008 | .776 | |||||||||
RCOPE | .064 | .526 | .601 | .238 | 1.986 | .051 | .249 | 2.059 | .044 | |||
Caregiver status | −.046 | −.377 | .707 | .221 | 1.839 | .070 | .223 | 1.830 | .072 | |||
| ||||||||||||
Step 2: (df = 1, 66) | .060 | .052 | .060 | |||||||||
RCOPE × Caregiver status | −.229 | −1.913 | .060 | −.228 | −1.872 | .066 | ||||||
| ||||||||||||
Step 3: (df = 2, 64) | .114 | .054 | .149 | |||||||||
Age | −.240 | −1.979 | .052 | |||||||||
Education | −.127 | −1.021 | .311 |
Note: β = standardized beta coefficient.
Note: Supplemental Univariate ANOVA tests were run to assess if the unexpected direction of the findings in the caregiver group could be explained by higher engagement in negative religious coping that happens to be accompanied by higher positive coping in the same persons. The results in general were consistent with those above for caregivers with any combination including high positive religious coping associated with significantly flatter cortisol slope scores than any combination with low positive religious coping [p(t) < .07].