Skip to main content
. 2016 Apr 6;6(2):169–178. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0401-0

Table 2.

Results from mediation and reciprocal effects analyses (N = 36)

Predictor Mediator Outcome Model R 2 Path a Path b Path c Path c′ Indirect effect
β (SE) β (SE) β (SE) β (SE) β (SE)
p p p p p [95% CI]
Changes from month 6 to month 12
 Model 1a
  ΔNegative mood ΔEmotional eating ΔFruit/vegetable .17 −.15 (.06) .07 (.04) −.02 (.01) −.01 (.01) −.01 (.01)
.047 .006 .038 .042 .183 −.03, .00
 Model 1b
  ΔNegative mood ΔEmotional eating ΔSweets .00 −.15 (.06) .01 (.02) .00 (.01) .00 (.01) .00 (.01)
.968 .006 .419 .439 .412 −.01, .01
 Model 2a
  ΔSelf-regulation-eating ΔSelf-efficacy-eating ΔFruit/vegetable .20 −.06 (.71) −.02 (.01) −.11 (.05) −.12 (.05) .00 (.03)
.023 .466 .032 .021 .016 −.04, .04
 Model 2b
  ΔSelf-regulation-eating ΔSelf-efficacy-eating ΔSweets .09 −.06 (.71) .00 (.01) −.05 (.03) −.05 (.03) .00 (.01)
.223 .466 .448 .041 .043 −.01, .01
 Model 3
  ΔSelf-regulation-exercise ΔExercise self-efficacy ΔPhysical activity .23 .78 (.26) .35 (.22) .93 (.35) .65 (.38) .27 (.18)
.007 .003 .061 .006 .050 .04, .67
 Model 3 (reciprocal analysis)
  ΔSelf-regulation-exercise ΔPhysical activity ΔExercise self-efficacy .23 .26 (.09) .65 (.38) .52 (.20) .35 (.22) .17 (.11)
.014 .003 .050 .008 .061 .02, .41
Changes from month 6 to month 24
 Model 4a
  ΔNegative mood ΔEmotional eating ΔFruit/vegetable .12 .24 (.12) −.07 (.04) −.05 (.03) −.03 (.03) −.02 (.02)
.050 .025 .040 .044 .135 −.06, .01
 Model 4b
  ΔNegative mood ΔEmotional eating ΔSweets .30 .24 (.12) .06 (.02) .03 (.01) .01 (.01) .01 (.01)
.003 .025 .002 .032 .161 .01, .03
 Model 4b (reciprocal analysis)
  ΔNegative mood ΔSweets ΔEmotional eating .31 .03 (.01) 3.80 (1.22) .24 (.12) .13 (.11) .11 (.08)
.002 .032 .002 .025 .122 .03, .30
 Model 5a
  ΔSelf-regulation-eating ΔSelf-efficacy-eating ΔFruit/vegetable .24 2.63 (.75) .02 (.01) .15 (.06) .09 (.07) .06 (.04)
.010 .001 .040 .006 .084 .01, .15
 Model 5a (reciprocal analysis)
  ΔSelf-regulation-eating ΔFruit/vegetable ΔSelf-efficacy-eating .33 .15 (.06) 3.88 (2.15) 2.63 (.75) 2.03 (.80) .59 (.41)
.001 .006 .040 .001 .084 .01, 1.35
 Model 5b
  ΔSelf-regulation-eating ΔSelf-efficacy-eating ΔSweets .32 2.63 (.75) −.004 (.01) −.11 (.03) −.10 (.03) −.01 (.01)
.001 .001 .295 <.001 .002 −.05, .01
 Model 6
  ΔSelf-regulation-exercise ΔExercise self-efficacy ΔPhysical activity .52 1.66 (.28) .64 (.27) 2.36 (.46) 1.30 (.62) 1.06 (.52)
<.001 <.001 .012 <.001 .022 .30, 1.99
 Model 6 (reciprocal analysis)
  ΔSelf-regulation-exercise ΔPhysical activity ΔExercise self-efficacy .58 2.36 (.46) .23 (.10) 1.66 (.28) 1.11 (.35) .54 (.24)
<.001 <.001 .012 <.001 .001 .19, .99
Changes from month 12 to month 24
 Model 7a
  ΔNegative mood ΔEmotional eating ΔFruit/vegetable .52 −.12 (.06) −.04 (.03) .06 (.01) .05 (.01) .01 (.01)
<.001 .022 .065 <.001 <.001 .00, .02
 Model 7b
  ΔNegative mood ΔEmotional eating ΔSweets .18 −.12 (.06) .03 (.02) −.01 (.01) −.01 (.01) .00 (.00)
.039 .022 .057 .022 .077 −.01, .00
 Model 8a
  ΔSelf-regulation-eating ΔSelf-efficacy-eating ΔFruit/vegetable .50 1.98 (.72) .06 (.01) .08 (.06) −.04 (.05) .12 (.06)
<.001 .005 <.001 .110 .216 .05, .24
 Model 8a (reciprocal analysis)
  ΔSelf-regulation-eating ΔFruit/vegetable ΔSelf-efficacy-eating .57 .08 (.06) 7.80 (1.43) 1.98 (.72) 1.36 (.54) .62 (.54)
<.001 .110 <.001 .005 .008 −.19, 1.58
 Model 8b
  ΔSelf-regulation-eating ΔSelf-efficacy-eating ΔSweets .27 1.98 (.72) −.01 (.01) −.09 (.03) −.08 (.03) −.01 (.01)
.005 .005 .189 <.001 .005 −.03, .01
 Model 9
  ΔSelf-regulation-exercise ΔExercise self-efficacy ΔPhysical activity .49 1.13 (.21) .92 (.31) 1.81 (.42) .78 (.51) 1.04 (.51)
<.001 <.001 .003 <.001 .070 .32, 2.00
 Model 9 (reciprocal analysis)
  ΔSelf-regulation-exercise ΔPhysical activity ΔExercise self-efficacy .57 1.81 (.42) .23 (.08) 1.13 (.21) .71 (.24) .42 (.22)
<.001 <.001 .003 <.001 .003 .12, .87

Analyses were based on a bootstrapping method for mediation incorporating 20,000 resamples (Preacher and Hayes 2008). A reciprocal analysis was conducted when mediation within the initial model was significant

Path a predictor → mediator, Path b mediator → outcome, Path c = predictor → outcome, Path c′ = predictor → outcome, after controlling for the mediator, 95% CI 95% confidence interval, one-tailed test