Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Mindfulness (N Y). 2016 Aug 1;8(1):159–170. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0589-6

Table 3.

Mindfulness Facet as Predictor: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, Standardized Regression Coefficients, and Indirect Effects

A. Accepting Without Judgment → Social Anxiety → Drinking to Cope → Drinking Problems Model
M1
(Social Anxiety)
M2
(DTC-SA)
Y
(Drinking Problems)
b SE p β b SE p β b SE p β
X (Accepting
Without Judgment)
a1 −1.07 .23 <.01 −.45 a2 .02 .04 .68 .05 c’ −.35 .40 .39 −.08
M1 (Social Anxiety) -- -- -- -- d21 .06 .02 <.01 .43 b1 .53 .19 <.01 .29
M2 (DTC-SA) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- b2 3.34 1.44 .02 .26

Total Effect (c)

    b = −1.08, SE = .40, p =.007, β= −.25

Specific Indirect Effects

1. Accepting without judgment → Social anxiety symptoms → Drinking problems
    Estimate = −.57, SE = .22, 95% CI (−1.07, −.21), PM = .52
2. Accepting without judgment → Drinking to cope with social anxiety → Drinking problems
    Estimate = .05, SE = .15, 95% CI (−.21, .43), PM = −.05
3. Accepting without judgment → Social anxiety symptoms → Drinking to Cope with social anxiety → Drinking problems
    Estimate = −.22, SE = .11, 95% CI (−.52, −.05), PM = .20
B. Acting with Awareness → Social Anxiety → Drinking to Cope → Drinking Problems Model
M1
(Social Anxiety)
M2
(DTC-SA)
Y
(Drinking Problems)
b SE p β B SE p β B SE p β
X (Acting with
Awareness)
a1 −1.15 .20 <.01 −.55 a2 −.04 .04 .33 −.13 c’ −.35 .43 .41 −.09
M1 (Social Anxiety) -- -- -- -- d21 .05 .02 <.01 .34 b1 .51 .20 .01 .28
M2 (DTC-SA) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- b2 3.17 1.46 .03 .25

Total Effect (c)

    b = −1.23, SE = .38, p =.001, β= −.32

Specific Indirect Effects

1. Acting with awareness → Social anxiety symptoms → Drinking problems
    Estimate -.59, SE = .25, 95% CI (−1.13, −.17), PM = .47
2. Acting with awareness → Drinking to cope with social anxiety → Drinking problems
    Estimate = −.12, SE = .15, 95% CI (−.53, .08), PM = .10
3. Acting with awareness → Social anxiety symptoms → Drinking to Cope with social anxiety → Drinking problems
    Estimate = −.18, SE = .12, 95% CI (−.53, −.03), PM = .14
C. Describe → Social Anxiety → Drinking to Cope → Drinking Problems Model
M1
(Social Anxiety)
M2
(DTC-SA)
Y
(Drinking Problems)
b SE p β b SE p β b SE p β
X (Describe) a1 −.78 .30 <.01 −.33 a2 −.02 .04 .63 −.05 c’ −.63 .49 .20 −.14
M1 (Social Anxiety) -- -- -- -- d21 .06 .02 <.01 .40 b1 .52 .19 <.01 .28
M2 (DTC-SA) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- b2 3.20 1.46 .03 .25

Total Effect (c)

    b = −1.22, SE = .56, p = . 03, β =-.28

Specific Indirect Effects

1. Describe → Social anxiety symptoms → Drinking problems
    Estimate -.40, SE = .19, 95% CI (−.89, −.12), PM = .33
2. Describe → Drinking to cope with social anxiety → Drinking problems
    Estimate = −.05, SE = .12, 95% CI (−.36, .15), PM = .04
3. Describe → Social anxiety symptoms → Drinking to Cope with social anxiety → Drinking problems
    Estimate = −.14, SE = .09, 95% CI (−.44, −.02), PM = .11

Note. The pattern of findings for the specific indirect effects were the same when consumption was included as a covariate. However, for the third indirect effect (Acting with awareness → Social anxiety symptoms → Drinking to cope with social anxiety → Drinking problems), the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval crossed zero (Estimate = −.10, SE = .08, 95% CI [−.37, .001], 90% CI [−.31, −.01], PM = .10).