. 2017 Oct 27;12(10):e0187137. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187137

Table 2. Multiple regression analysis of social factors on BHQ.

	Model 2.1				Model 2.2				Model 2.3
	GM-BHQ		FA-BHQ		GM-BHQ		FA-BHQ		GM-BHQ		FA-BHQ
	β^a	p-value	β	p-value	β	p-value	β	p-value	β	p-value	β	p-value
Age	-0.546	< 0.001^***	-0.420	< 0.001^***	-0.576	< 0.001^***	-0.375	< 0.001^***	-0.567	< 0.001^***	-0.382	< 0.001^***
Sex (male = 1, female = 2)	0.435	< 0.001^***	0.044	0.606	0.436	< 0.001^***	0.062	0.465	0.454	< 0.001^***	0.081	0.343
Subjective socioeconomic status
stratum identification	0.162	0.015^*	0.084	0.348	0.208	0.003^**	0.026	0.781	0.188	0.008^**	-0.014	0.881
financial worries^b	0.041	0.536	0.031	0.727	0.019	0.772	0.034	0.709	0.033	0.634	0.084	0.367
Subjective well-being
life satisfaction					-0.081	0.243	-0.031	0.740	-0.080	0.252	-0.051	0.591
life improvement					-0.095	0.176	0.221	0.020^*	-0.070	0.321	0.249	0.010^*
Post-materialism									0.077	0.249	0.184	0.044^*
Epicureanism^c									-0.126	0.093	-0.044	0.661
Asceticism									-0.050	0.510	-0.049	0.633
R	0.748	< 0.001^***	0.434	< 0.001^***	0.759	< 0.001^***	0.476	< 0.001^***	0.769	< 0.001^**	0.507	< 0.001^***
R²	0.559		0.189		0.576		0.227		0.592		0.257

n = 123

*p < 0.05

**p < 0.01

***p < 0.001

a Standardized regression coefficient

b Having worries and anxiety about present or future income and assets = 1, everything else = 0.

c Because a non-linear association with BHQ was shown, we used this variable as a categorical variable (Epicureanism/asceticism/don’t know).

The reference group was “don’t know.”