Table 1.
RF and General Distress Comparisons: CA (n = 638) versus No-CA (n = 501) Groups.
| Variable*1/*2 | CA | no-CA | t*3/X2*4 (DF) | p | 95% CI*5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Friendship support (high) | −0.07 | 0.06 | 2.23(1054.8) | 0.03 | 0.02–0.25 |
| Family support (high) | −0.08 | 0.09 | 2.79(1045.3) | 0.01 | 0.05–0.29 |
| Family cohesion (high) | −0.18 | 0.20 | 6.41(1066.4) | <0.001 | 0.27–0.50 |
| Negative self-esteem (low) | −0.13 | 0.10 | 3.79(1071.5) | <0.001 | 0.11–0.35 |
| Positive self-esteem (high) | −0.14 | 0.17 | 5.07(1070.9) | <0.001 | 0.19–0.42 |
| Brooding (low) | −0.09 | 0.09 | 2.96(1046.4) | <0.005 | 0.06–0.30 |
| Reflective rumination (low) | −0.06 | 0.01 | 1.21(1047.5) | 0.23 | −0.05–0.19 |
| Distress tolerance (high) | −0.13 | 0.14 | 4.56(1072.4) | <0.001 | 0.16–0.39 |
| Aggression (low) | low: 494 (score = 1) high: 119 (score = 0) | low: 435 (score = 1) high: 56 (score = 0) | 12.51(1) | <0.001 | |
| Expressive suppression (low) | low: 408 (score = 1) high: 209 (score = 0) | low: 366 (score = 1) high: 129 (score = 0) | 7.56(1) | 0.01 | |
| General Distress | 0.13 | −0.16 | −4.85(1049.4) | <0.001 | −0.41–−0.17 |
Note. CA = childhood adversity. *1All RFs are scored in such a way that high values are protective (e.g. high levels of high friendship support or high levels of low negative self-esteem) and low values are harmful (e.g. low levels of high friendship support or low levels of low negative self-esteem). *2The continuous general distress variable is scored in such a way that the higher the value the higher the level of general distress. *3We applied Welsh’s two-tailed independent sample t-test to account for potentially unequal variances across groups. *4We applied two-tailed Pearson’s chi-square tests. *5The confidence interval (CI) for the difference in location estimates, corresponding to the alternative hypothesis.