Table 2.

Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting psychological consequences following a WPV incident.

Variable	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Sex	−0.68	0.29	−0.12*	−0.55	0.28	−0.10	−0.55	0.28	−0.10*	0.11	0.50	0.02
Age	0.44	0.12	0.19***	0.36	0.12	0.15**	0.34	0.12	0.14**	0.31	0.12	0.13**
Profession	0.12	0.33	0.02	0.03	0.32	0.01	0.08	0.32	0.01	0.07	0.32	0.02
Victim.	0.08	0.02	0.34***	0.07	0.02	0.29***	0.07	0.02	0.28***	0.07	0.02	0.28***
Witness	−0.02	0.01	−0.11	−0.02	0.01	−0.09	−0.01	0.01	−0.08	−0.01	0.01	−0.07
Inj. without	0.33	0.36	0.05	0.25	0.35	0.04	0.14	0.35	0.02	0.11	0.35	0.02
Inj. with	2.31	0.40	0.29***	2.14	0.38	0.27***	2.00	0.38	0.25***	2.01	0.38	0.25***
Coll. sup.				−0.41	0.18	−0.12*	−0.35	0.18	−0.11*	−0.35	0.18	−0.11*
Emp. sup.				−0.48	0.17	−0.15**	−0.36	0.18	−0.12*	−0.36	0.17	−0.12*
Normalization							−0.53	0.26	−0.10*	−0.01	0.35	−0.00
Taboo of complaining							0.80	0.28	0.14**	0.83	0.36	0.15*
Sex × normalization										−1.17	0.51	−0.19*
Sex × taboo										−0.01	0.52	−0.03
Adjusted R2		0.18			0.23			0.25			0.25
F for change in R2		12.02***			12.69***			5.70***			2.62

N = 359 for all models. ‘Victim.’ refers to ‘past victimization’; ‘inj. without’ refers to ‘Injury without hospitalization’; ‘inj. with’ refers to ‘injury with hospitalization’; ‘coll. sup.’ refers to ‘colleagues support’; ‘emp. sup’ refers to ‘employer support’; ‘sex × taboo’ refers to the interaction between sex and taboo of complaining.

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.