Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 7;26:201–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.10.001

Table 3.

Standardized total, direct, total indirect, and partial indirect effects of psychological inflexibility on well-being and ill-being via coping strategies.

Paths Effect SE p 95% CI
Psychological inflexibility → ill-being
Psychological inflexibility → ill-being (total) .565 .021 <.001 [.522, .604]
 Psychological inflexibility → ill-being (direct) .354 .025 <.001 [.306, .402]
 Psychological inflexibility → ill-being (total indirect) .211 .016 <.001 [.180, .242]
 Psychological inflexibility → AVC → ill-being .132 .012 <.001 [.109, .157]
 Psychological inflexibility → MCC → ill-being .078 .011 <.001 [.058, .101]
Psychological inflexibility → well-being
Psychological inflexibility → well-being (total) −.620 .020 <.001 [−.658, −.581]
 Psychological inflexibility → well-being (direct) −.432 .021 <.001 [−.473, −.390]
 Psychological inflexibility → well-being (total indirect) −.188 .016 <.001 [−.220, −.158]
 Psychological inflexibility → APC → well-being −.014 .004 .001 [−.022, −.007]
 Psychological inflexibility → MCC → well-being −.174 .016 <.001 [−.206, −.145]

Note. Bootstrapping sample size = 2000. CI – confidence interval. AVC – avoidance coping, APC – approach coping, MCC – meaning-centered coping.