Table 2.
Summary of the indirect effects between EI and suicidal ideation through CER strategies (Study 1).
| Antecedent | Consequent | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 (Adaptive CER Strategies) | M2 (Maladaptive CER Strategies) | DV (Suicidal Ideation) | |||||||||||||
| B | SE | t | BCa 95% CI | B | SE | t | BCa 95% CI | B | SE | t | BCa 95% CI | ||||
| IV (EI) | a1 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 18.13 *** | (0.23, 0.28) | a2 | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.55 | (−0.03, 0.02) | c’ | −0.16 | 0.02 | −8.24 *** | (−0.20, −0.13) |
| M1 (Adaptive CER strategies) | b1 | −0.13 | 0.03 | −4.20 *** | (−0.19, −0.07) | ||||||||||
| M2 (Maladaptive CER strategies) | b2 | 0.41 | 0.03 | 12.72 *** | (0.35, 0.47) | ||||||||||
| Constant | 1.33 | 0.27 | 5.00 *** | (0.81, 1.85) | 2.57 | 0.26 | 9.95 *** | (2.07, 3.08) | 0.72 | 0.35 | 2.03 * | (0.02, 1.41) | |||
| Age a | 0.06 | 0.02 | 2.83 ** | (0.02, 0.10) | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.53 | (−0.03, 0.05) | 0.06 | 0.03 | 2.05 * | (0.00, 0.11) | |||
| Gender a | −0.03 | 0.03 | −1.00 | (−0.08, 0.03) | 0.04 | 0.03 | 1.50 | (−0.01, 0.09) | 0.22 | 0.03 | 6.27 *** | (0.15, 0.28) | |||
| Grade a | −0.05 | 0.02 | −2.47 * | (−0.10, −0.01) | −0.02 | 0.02 | −0.86 | (−0.06, 0.02) | −0.03 | 0.03 | −1.18 | (−0.09, 0.02) | |||
| Total effect | c | −0.20 | 0.02 | −10.57 *** | (−0.24, −0.16) | ||||||||||
| Indirect effect | a1b1 | −0.03 | 0.01 | (−0.05, −0.02) | a2b2 | −0.00 | 0.01 | (−0.02, 0.01) | ab | −0.04 | 0.01 | (−0.06, −0.02) | |||
| R2 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.17 | ||||||||||||
| F (df) | 85.37 *** (4, 1819) | 0.91 (4, 1819) | 59.64 *** (6, 1817) | ||||||||||||
Notes. N = 1824. Abbreviations DV = Dependent Variable; IV = Independent Variable; M = Mediator; a, b, c, and c’ represent unstandardized regression coefficients; CER = cognitive emotion regulation. a Control variables. BCa 95% CI = bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence interval. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.