Table 4.
Summary of the indirect effects between EI (T1) and suicidal ideation (T2) through CER strategies (T2) (Study 2).
| Antecedent | Consequent | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 (Adaptive CER Strategies T2) | M2 (Maladaptive CER Strategies T2) | DV (Suicidal Ideation T2) | |||||||||||||
| B | SE | t | BCa 95% CI | B | SE | t | BCa 95% CI | B | SE | t | BCa 95% CI | ||||
| IV (EI) | a1 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 8.02 *** | (0.16, 0.26) | a2 | −0.03 | 0.02 | −1.34 | (−0.07, 0.01) | c’ | −0.16 | 0.03 | −5.28 *** | (−0.22, −0.10) |
| M1 (Adaptive CER strategies) | b1 | −0.18 | 0.04 | −4.08 *** | (−0.26, −0.09) | ||||||||||
| M2 (Maladaptive CER strategies) | b2 | 0.52 | 0.05 | 9.90 *** | (0.42, 0.63) | ||||||||||
| Constant | 2.93 | 0.50 | 5.92 *** | (1.96, 3.90) | 2.21 | 0.41 | 5.40 *** | (1.41, 3.01) | 0.69 | 0.55 | 1.24 | (−0.40, 1.77) | |||
| Age a | −0.05 | 0.03 | −1.71 | (−0.11, 0.01) | 0.03 | 0.02 | 1.14 | (−0.02, 0.08) | 0.04 | 0.03 | 1.14 | (−0.03, 0.10) | |||
| Gender a | 0.14 | 0.05 | 2.64 ** | (0.04, 0.25) | 0.12 | 0.04 | 2.61 ** | (0.03, 0.20) | 0.27 | 0.06 | 4.55 *** | (0.15, 0.38) | |||
| Grade a | −0.05 | 0.02 | −3.23 ** | (−0.08, −0.02) | −0.02 | 0.01 | −1.40 | (−0.04, 0.01) | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.33 | (−0.03, 0.04) | |||
| Total effect | c | −0.21 | 0.03 | −7.02 *** | (−0.27, −0.15) | ||||||||||
| Indirect effect | a1b1 | −0.04 | 0.01 | (−0.06, −0.02) | a2b2 | −0.02 | 0.01 | (−0.04, 0.01) | ab | −0.05 | 0.02 | (−0.09, −0.02) | |||
| R2 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.19 | ||||||||||||
| F (df) | 22.59 *** (4, 791) | 5.24 *** (4, 791) | 30.73 *** (6, 789) | ||||||||||||
Notes. N = 796. 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 < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.