Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 15;50:101843. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101843

Table 6.

Standardized estimates of path analyses for three models predicting a sense of danger and distress symptoms at T1 and T2.

Predictors Sense of danger T1 Sense of danger T2 Distress symptoms T1 Distress symptoms T2
Model 1 – Psychological predictors
Individual resilience -.244*** -.253*** -.158** -.208***
Well-Being -.181** -.150* -.468*** -.411***
Community resilience .022 -.143* .124* .013
National resilience. .026 -.021 .007 -.004
Explained variance (R2) .12 .18 .26 .30
Model 2 – Demographic predictors
Economic difficulties .178** .192*** .251*** .208***
Education -.039 -.097 .098 -.082
Age .009 .090 -.109** -.087
Gender .190*** .102 .137** .112*
Number of children -.080 -.191** .014 -.123
Religiosity -.046 .083 -.094 -.038
Political attitudes .146* -.013 -.011 -.009
Income -.034 -.019 -.039 .045
Explained variance (R2) .11 .10 .14 .12
Model 3 – Integrated model
Individual resilience -.216*** -.234*** -.147** -.199***
Well-being -.126* -.123* -.408*** -.380***
Community resilience .035 -.143** .113* .002
Economic difficulties .119* .091 .161*** .104*
Gender .127* .061 .134** .137**
Explained variance (R2) .14 .18 .31 .34

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.