static-content.springer.com10.1007... · Web viewis the word of God? The distinction between good...
Transcript of static-content.springer.com10.1007... · Web viewis the word of God? The distinction between good...
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 40
Online Appendix
Measure of Religiosity in Study 1What is your religion?
1. Jewish2. Muslim3. Christian4. Other:______
People differ in their religious beliefs. To what extent do you believe in:1. The existence of God?2. Life after death?3. The existence of Heaven?4. The Torah is the word of God?5. The distinction between good and bad needs to be based on divine law
Scale:1. Not at all2. Probably not3. Probably4. Absolutely
How frequently do you attend a house of worship (Church, Synagogue, Temple, or Mosque)?
1. Never or almost never2. Less than once a year3. Several time a year4. About once a month5. Almost every week6. Once a week7. Several times a week
How often do you take part in religious events, such as discussions, lectures, or visiting holy sites, not including attendance at your house of worship?
1. Never or almost never2. Less than once a year3. Several time a year4. About once a month5. Almost every week6. Once a week7. Several times a week
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 41
How many of your friends and acquaintances are religious?1. None of my friends and acquaintances2. Very few of my friends and acquaintances 3. Some of my friends and acquaintances 4. Many of my friends and acquaintances 5. All of my friends and acquaintances
How frequently do you refer to the people who share your religion as “us” rather than “them”?1. Never 2. Infrequently 3. Sometimes 4. Frequently 5. Always
Measure of Religiosity in Study 2What is your religion?
1. Roman Catholic2. Protestant3. Muslim4. Buddhist5. Hindu6. Jewish7. Other8. None
People differ in their religious beliefs. To what extent do you believe in:1. The existence of God?2. The existence of heaven and hell?
Scale:1. Not at all2. 3. 4. 5. absolutely
How frequently do you attend a house of worship (Church, Synagogue, Temple, or Mosque)?
1. Never or almost never2. Less than once a year3. Several time a year4. About once a month5. Almost every week6. Once a week
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 42
7. Several times a week
How often do you take part in religious events, such as discussions, lectures, or visiting holy sites, not including attendance at your house of worship?
1. Never or almost never2. Less than once a year3. Several time a year4. About once a month5. Almost every week6. Once a week7. Several times a week
How many of your friends and acquaintances are religious?1. None of my friends and acquaintances2. Very few of my friends and acquaintances 3. Some of my friends and acquaintances 4. Many of my friends and acquaintances 5. All of my friends and acquaintances
How frequently do you refer to the people who share your religion as “us” rather than “them”?1. Never 2. Infrequently 3. Sometimes 4. Frequently 5. Always
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 43
Study 1 Results
Table A4 presents the indirect effect of religiosity on life satisfaction, as well as
its indirect effects (the product of their constituent paths, see MacKinnon, 2008)
through one or more intermediary variables, its direct effect where specified, the totals
of its indirect and overall effects for each of the three models, as well as bootstrapped
standard errors (see Table A1 for full path coefficients).
Starting with Model Ia, religiosity had a significant (positive) total effect on life
satisfaction; 70% of this total effect represents the total indirect effects of religion
through reappraisal and affect, while 30% represents its remaining direct effect. Two
of the four specified mediation paths yield statistical significance. First, and as
hypothesized, religiosity was associated with life satisfaction through increased
cognitive reappraisal, and then through greater positive affect, as indicated by the
significant three-path mediation effect. In addition, the effect of religiosity on life
satisfaction was also mediated by positive affect. Negative affect, on the other hand,
did not mediate the effect of religiosity or reappraisal on life satisfaction.
Next, results from Model Ia indicate that the path coefficient for the direct effect
of religiosity on life satisfaction is statistically insignificant (p=.207), suggesting that
all of the effect of religiosity on life satisfaction in our model is accounted for by the
mediation with reappraisal and affect. Thus, we re-estimated the structural equation
model when removing this direct effect (Model IIa, panel II in Figure A1). Results
remained intact, with some improvement in model fit, indicated by a lower BIC fit
index. Still, the LR test indicates that this improvement is not statistically significant.
For comparison, we estimated a model whereby the effect of religiosity on life
satisfaction in its entirety is doubly mediated by reappraisal frequency and by affect,
removing the mediation paths of religion through affect (Model IIIa, panel III in
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 44
Figure A1). The LR test indicated that the fit for model II was significantly superior to
the fit of model III. Additional fit statistics point to the same conclusion, with Model
II displaying a higher RMSEA, lower CFI, and insignificant χ2.
Study 2 Results
Table A5 presents the total and indirect effects of religiosity on life satisfaction
using the bias-corrected bootstrap approach, as well as the fit indices, for each of the
three models. For full path coefficients from these models, see Table A3.
As expected, religiosity had a significant positive total effect on life satisfaction,
of which 75% pertains to its total indirect effects through reappraisal and affect (see
Model I). As in the Jewish sample, results from Model Ia indicated that the path
coefficient for the direct effect of religiosity on life satisfaction was statistically
insignificant (p=.252). The structural equation model when removing this direct effect
(Model IIa, see Panel II in Figure A1) exhibited some improvement in model fit,
which is indicated by a lower BIC fit statistic. Still, the LR test indicated that this
improvement is not statistically significant.
In both specifications, and as hypothesized, religiosity was associated with
greater life satisfaction through more frequent use of cognitive reappraisal, and then
through increased positive affect, as indicated by the statistically significant three-
path mediation effect. As in the Jewish sample, the effect of religiosity on life
satisfaction was also mediated by positive affect independently of reappraisal.
Whereas in the Jewish sample, cognitive reappraisal mediated the link between
religiosity and positive, but not negative affect, in the Christian sample, cognitive
reappraisal mediated the link between religiosity and positive, as well as negative,
affect. These results hold when removing the direct effect of religiosity on affect
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 45
(Model IIIa, panel III in Figure A1), although this specification yields a significantly
worse fit to the data, as indicated by the fit indices as well as the statistically
significant LR test. As in Study 1, these results support the hypothesis that cognitive
reappraisal mediated the link between religiosity and affective experiences, which in
turn, are linked to life satisfaction.
Expressive suppression
We specified the structural equation models presented in Figure A1 (Panels I-
III) when substituting reappraisal for suppression, as well as a model including a
three-path mediated effect for both emotion regulation strategies (reappraisal and
suppression; see Panel IV in Figure A1). Contrary to the Jewish sample, results
indicated that the three-path mediation effect of religiosity on life satisfaction is
carried out both by reappraisal and by suppression, as indicated by the statistically
significant indirect effects in Table A5 (Models I-IIIb). Thus, religiosity is associated
with less frequent use of suppression, which in turn increases positive affect and life
satisfaction. The statistically significant effect of suppression through positive (but
not negative) affect is robust to the model specification, and holds when specifying
both emotion regulation mechanisms as potential mediators for the effect of
religiosity (see Model IV in Table A5 and Panel IV in Figure A1).
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 46
Figure A1. Diagrams of the Three-Path Mediated Effect Models
Model I. A model with direct effects from religiosity on reappraisal, positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction.
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 47
Model II. A model with direct effects from religiosity on reappraisal, positive affect, negative affect, but not life satisfaction.
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 48
Model III. A model with direct effects from religiosity on reappraisal, but not positive
affect, negative affect, or life satisfaction.
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 49
Model IV. A model with both reappraisal and suppression as mediators between
religiosity and positive and negative affect.
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 50
Table A1The three-path mediation models – Israeli Jewish sample (Study 1)
Model Ia
Model IIa Model IIIa Model
IbModel
IIb Model IIIb Model IV
Reappraisal -> Religiosity
.226 (.056)*
.226 (.056)* .226 (.056)* - - - .226 (.056)*
95% CI [.117, .336]
[.117, .336] [.117, .336] [.117, .336]
Suppression -> Religiosity
- - - .103 (.058)
.103 (.058) .103 (.058) .103 (.058)
95% CI [-.011, .217]
[-.011, .217] [-.011, .217] [-.011, .217]
Positive affect -> Reappraisal
.313 (.053)*
.313 (.053)* .350 (.052)* - - - .327 (.053)*
95% CI [.208, .417]
[.208, .417] [.249, .451] [.223, .432]
Positive affect -> Suppression
- - - -.055 (.057)
-.055 (.057) -.030 (.059) -.100 (.055)
95% CI [-.167, .058]
[-.167, .058] [-.145, .086] [-.207, .008]
Positive affect -> Religiosity
.164 (.055)*
.164 (.055)* - .240
(.056)*.240
(.056)* - .171 (.055)*
95% CI [.056, .272]
[..056, .272]
[.131, .350]
[.131, .350] [.063, .279]
Negative affect -> Reappraisal
-.087 (.060)
-.087 (.060) -.101 (.058) - - - -.112 (.059)*
95% CI [-.204, .030]
[-.204, .030] [-.216, .013] [-.228, .005]
Negative affect -> Suppression
- - - .158 (.058)*
.158 (.058)* .148 (.058)* .174 (.058)*
95% CI [.046, .271]
[.046, .271] [.035, .261] [.061, .287]
Negative affect -> Religiosity
-.063 (.060)
-.063 (.060) - -.099
(.058)-.099 (.058) - -.076 (.059)
95% CI [-.181, .054]
[-.181, .054]
[-.213, .014]
[-.213, .014] [-.192, .04]
Life satisfaction -> Positive affect
.571 (.046)*
.586 (.044)* .586 (.044)* .571
(.046)*.586
(.044)* .586 (.044)* .586 (.044)*
95% CI [.481, .661]
[.500, .673] [.500, .673] [.481, .66
1][.500, .67
3] [.500, .673] [.500, .673]
Life satisfaction -
-.089 (.051)
-.087 (.051)
-.087 (.051) -.089 (.051)
-.087 (.051)
-.087 (.051) -.087 (.051)
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 51
> Negative affect95% CI [-.189, .01
2][-.187, .01
4] [-.187, .014] [-.189, .012]
[-.187, .014] [-.187, .014] [-.187, .014]
Life satisfaction -> Religiosity
.060 (.047) - - .060
(.047) - - -
95% CI [-.032, .152]
[-.032, .152]
Positive affect <-> Negative affect
-.455 (.047)*
-.455 (.047)* -.458 (.047)* -.454
(.047)*-.454
(.047)* -.463 (.046)* -.446 (.047)*
95% CI [-.546, -.363]
[-.546, -.363] [-.549, -.366] [-.546,
-.363][-.546, -.363] [-.554, -.372] [-.538,
-.353]Reappraisal <-> Suppression
- - - - - .141 (.058)*
95% CI [.027, .254]InterceptsReappraisal 4.553
(.279)*4.553
(.279)* 4.553 (.279)* - - - 4.553 (.279)*
95% CI [4.007, 5.100]
[4.007, 5.100]
[4.007, 5.100]
[4.007, 5.100]
Suppression - - - 2.867 (.212)*
2.867 (.212)* 2.867 (.212)* 2.867
(.212)*
95% CI [2.451, 3.283]
[2.451, 3.283] [2.452, 3.283] [2.451,
3.283]Positive affect
2.864 (.368)*
2.864 (.368)* 3.090 (.365)* 4.445
(.314)*4.445
(.314)* 4.977 (.278)* 3.084 (.387)*
95% CI [2.143, 3.584]
[2.143, 3.584]
[2.374, 3.806]
[3.829, 5.060]
[3.829, 5.060] [4.433, 5.522] [2.327,
3.842]Negative affect
3.097 (.323)*
3.097 (.323)* 3.010 (.314)* 2.247
(.256)*2.247
(.256)* 2.027 (.224)* 2.712 (.351)*
95% CI [2.465, 3.730]
[2.465, 3.730]
[2.394, 3.626]
[1.746, 2.748]
[1.746, 2.748] [1.588, 2.466] [2.025,
3.399]Life satisfaction
1.394 (.366)*
1.468 (.363)* 1.468 (.363)* 1.394
(.366)*1.468
(.363)* 1.468 (.363)* 1.468 (.363)*
95% CI [.677, 2.110]
[.757, 2.180] [.757, 2.180] [.677,
2.110][.757, 2.180] [.757, 2.180] [.757, 2.180]
Residual variancesReappraisal .949
(.025)*.949
(.025)* .949 (.025)* - - - .949 (.025)*
95% CI [.899, .998]
[.899, .998] [.899, .998] [.899, .998]
Suppression - - - .989 (.012)*
.989 (.012)* .989 (.012)* .989 (.012)*
95% CI [.966, 1.013]
[.966, 1.013] [.966, 1.013] [.966, 1.013]
Positive affect
.852 (.039)*
.852 (.039)* .878 (.036)* .942
(.027)*.942
(.027)* .999 (.004)* .842 (.039)*
95% CI [.776, .928]
[.776, .928] [.807, .948] [.890, .99
4][.890, .99
4] [.992, 1.006] [.765, .920]
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 52
Negative affect
.986 (.014)*
.986 (.014)* .990 (.012)* .968
(.020)*.968
(.020)* .978 (.017)* .957 (.023)*
95% CI [.959, 1.013]
[.959, 1.013] [.967, 1.013] [.928,
1.008][.928, 1.008] [.945, 1.012] [.911, 1.003]
Life satisfaction
.598 (.045)*
.602 (.045)* .602 (.045)* .598
(.045)*.602
(.045)* .602 (.045)* .602 (.045)*
95% CI [.511, .686]
[.514, .689] [.514, .689] [.511, .68
6][.514, .68
9] [.514, .689] [.514, .689]
Goodness of fitCFI .999 .997 .973 .995 .992 .928 .994TLI .994 .986 .932 .946 .960 .821 .972RMSEA .023 .037 .080 .066 .058 .121 .043SRMR .010 .017 .052 .015 .021 .075 .021χ2
fit 1.150 n.s. 2.786 n.s. 11.379* 2.272 n.s. 3.908 n.s. 20.921* 4.626 n.s.χ2
baseline 281.060* 281.060* 281.060* 246.370* 246.370* 246.370* 300.706BIC 2898.975 2894.948 2892.216 3073.725 3069.698 3075.385 3870.625
-2LL I:IIa=1.636, ns
II:IIIa=8.594*
I:IIb=1.636, ns
II:IIIb=17.014*
N 288 288 288 288 288 288 288Note. Table entries are indirect and total effects of religiosity on life satisfaction, with bootstrapped standard errors in brackets (5000 bootstrap samples). * The 95% confidence interval of the effect based on 5,000 bootstrap samples does not include zero (as per the bias-corrected bootstrap approach).
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 53
Table A2 SEM with latent variables, indirect and total effects
Israeli Jewish sample American-Christian sampleModel I Model II Model III Model I Model II Model III
Specific indirect effectsReligiosity->PA-> Life satisfaction
.099 (.043)*
.112 (.046)* - .080
(.028)*.081
(.028)* -
95% CI [.007, .122] [.022, .201] [.025, .136] [.025, .137]Religiosity -> Reappraisal -> Positive affect -> Life satisfaction
.057 (.019)*
.060 (.020)*
.068 (.022)*
.033 (.014)*
.033 (.014)*
.040 (.015)*
95% CI [.009, .064] [.020, .099] [.024, .112] [.005, .060] [.005, .061] [.010, .070]Religiosity -> Negative affect -> Life satisfaction .003 (.005) .002 (.005) - .027 (.022) .026 (.022) -
95% CI [-.005, .009]
[-.007, .011]
[-.016, .069]
[-.016, .068]
Religiosity -> Reappraisal -> Negative affect -> Life satisfaction
.002 (.003) .002 (.003) .002 (.003) .019 (.009)* 019 (.009)* .022
(.009)*
95% CI [-.002, .005]
[-.004, .007]
[-.004, .008] [.002, .036] [.002, .036] [.004, .041]
Sum of indirect effects (total indirect)
.161 (.046)*
.176 (.048)*
.070 (.023)*
.159 (.044)*
.159 (.045)*
.062 (.023)*
95% CI [.038, .170] [.081, .271] [.026, .114] [.073, .246] [.070, .247] [.017, .107]Direct effect of religiosity .100 (.056) - - .018 (.053) - -95% CI [-.006, .135
][-.085, .122
]Total effect of religiosity .262
(.065)*. 176
(.048)*.070
(.023)*.177
(.070)*.159
(.045)*.062
(.023)*95% CI [.080, .259] [.081, .271] [.026, .114] [.041, .314] [.070, .247] [.017, .107]
Goodness of fitCFI .955 .955 .954 .948 .948 .947RMSEA .045 .045 .046 .053 .053 .054SRMR .050 .051 .062 .052 .052 .066χ2
fit 690.003* 693.041* 699.602* 738.411* 738.531* 747.492*BIC 24037.274 24034.649 24029.884 28812.751 28807.247 28804.959N 288 288 288 277 277 277
Note. Table entries are standardized regression weights, robust standard errors in brackets. *p<.05. Factor loadings and the complete correlation matrix for all items are available from the authors.
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 54
Table A3The three-path mediation models – American Christian sample (Study 2)
Model Ia Model IIa Model IIIa Model Ib Model IIb Model IIIb Model IVReappraisal -> Religiosity
.133 (.059)*.133 (.059)*.133 (.059)* - - - .133 (.059)*
95% CI [.018, .249] [.018, .249] [.018, .249] [.018, .249]Suppression -> Religiosity
- - - -.187 (.058)*
-.187 (.058)* -.187 (.058)* -.187
(.058)*
95% CI [-.301, -.074]
[-.301, -.074] [-.301, -.074] [-.301,
-.074]Positive affect -> Reappraisal
.340 (.052)*.340 (.052)*.370 (.052)* - - - .338 (.050)*
95% CI [.239, .442] [.239, .442] [.268, .472] [.240, .436]Positive affect -> Suppression
- - - -.243 (.056)*
-.243 (.056)* -.285 (.055)* -.240
(.052)*
95% CI [-.352, -.134]
[-.352, -.134] [-.393, -.177] [-.342,
-.138]Positive affect -> Religiosity
.224 (.054)*.224 (.054)* - .224 (.056)*.224 (.056)* - .179 (.053)*
95% CI [.119, .329] [.119, .329] [.114, .333] [.114, .333] [.075, .283]Negative affect -> Reappraisal
-.328 (.054)*
-.328 (.054)*
-.336 (.053)* - - - -.327
(.054)*
95% CI [-.433, -.222]
[-.433, -.222]
[-.441, -.232]
[-.432, -.222]
Negative affect -> Suppression
- - - .078 (.060) .078 (.060) .095 (.060) .075 (.057)
95% CI [-.040, .197]
[-.040, .197] [-.021, .212] [-.037, .187
]Negative affect -> Religiosity
-.063 (.057) -.063 (.057) - -.092 (.060) -.092 (.060) - -.049 (.058)
95% CI [-.174, .049]
[-.174, .049]
[-.210, .027]
[-.210, .027]
[-.162, .064]
Life satisfaction -> Positive affect
.464 (.047)*.479 (.045)*.479 (.045)* .464 (.047)*.479 (.045)* .479 (.045)* .479 (.045)*
95% CI [.372, .556] [.390, .567] [.390, .567] [.372, .556] [.390, .567] [.390, .567] [.390, .567]Life satisfaction -> Negative affect
-.294 (.048)*
-.294 (.048)*
-.294 (.048)*
-.294 (.048)*
-.294 (.048)* -.294 (.048)* -.294
(.048)*
95% CI [-.389, -.200]
[-.389, -.200]
[-.389, -.200]
[-.389, -.200]
[-.389, -.200] [-.389, -.200] [-.389,
-.200]Life .054 (.047) - - .054 (.047) - - -
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 55
satisfaction -> Religiosity95% CI [-.039, .146
][-.039, .146
]Positive affect <-> Negative affect
-.299 (.055)*
-.299 (.055)*
-.306 (.054)*
-.373 (.052)*
-.373 (.052)* -.382 (.051)* -.290
(.055)*
95% CI [-.407, -.192]
[-.407, -.192]
[-.413, -.199]
[-.474, -.272]
[-.474, -.272] [-.483, -.282] [-.398,
-.182]Reappraisal <-> Suppression
- - - - - - -.010 (.060)
95% CI [-.128, .108]
InterceptsReappraisal 4.998
(.243)*4.999
(.243)*4.999
(.243)* - - - 4.999 (.243)*
95% CI [4.522, 5.475]
[4.522, 5.475]
[4.522, 5.475]
[4.522, 5.475]
Suppression - - - 3.258 (.150)*
3.258 (.150)*
3.258 (.150)*
3.258 (.150)*
95% CI [2.964, 3.552]
[2.964, 3.552]
[2.964, 3.552]
[2.964, 3.552]
Positive affect
1.335 (.317)*
1.335 (.317)*
1.445 (.327)*
3.828 (.239)*
3.828 (.239)*
4.218 (.204)*
2.128 (.360)*
95% CI [.713, 1.957]
[.713, 1.957]
[.804, 2.085]
[3.360, 4.296]
[3.360, 4.296]
[3.817, 4.619]
[1.423, 2.834]
Negative affect
3.735 (.268)*
3.735 (.268)*
3.704 (.268)*
1.842 (.235)*
1.842 (.235)*
1.682 (.213)*
3.487 (.335)*
95% CI [3.209, 4.260]
[3.209, 4.260]
[3.178, 4.230]
[1.381, 2.303]
[1.381, 2.303]
[1.265, 2.098]
[2.830, 4.145]
Life satisfaction
1.597 (.251)*
1.612 (.252)*
1.612 (.252)*
1.597 (.251)*
1.612 (.252)*
1.612 (.252)*
1.612 (.252)*
95% CI [1.105, 2.090]
[1.119, 2.105]
[1.119, 2.105]
[1.105, 2.090]
[1.119, 2.105]
[1.119, 2.105]
[1.119, 2.105]
Residual VariancesReappraisal .982 (.016)*.982 (.016)*.982 (.016)* - - - .982 (.016)*
95% CI [.951, 1.013]
[.951, 1.013]
[.951, 1.013]
[.951, 1.013]
Suppression - - - .965 (.022)*.965 (.022)* .965 (.022)* .965 (.022)*
95% CI [.922, 1.008]
[.922, 1.008] [.922, 1.008] [.922,
1.008]Positive affect .814 (.042)*.814 (.042)*.863 (.038)* .870 (.038)*.870 (.038)* .919 (.031)* .758 (.045)*
95% CI [.731, .897] [.731, .897] [.788, .938] [.797, .944] [.797, .944] [.857, .980] [.671, .846]Negative affect .883 (.036)*.883 (.036)*.887 (.036)* .983 (.015)*.983 (.015)* .991 (.011)* .878 (.037)*
95% CI [.812, .954] [.812, .954] [.817, .957] [.952, 1.013]
[.952, 1.013] [.969, 1.010] [.805, .950]
Life satisfaction .571 (.045)*.574 (.045)*.574 (.045)* .571 (.045)*.574 (.045)* .574 (.045)* .574 (.045)*
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 56
95% CI [.483, .659] [.485, .662] [.485, .662] [.483, .659] [.485, .662] [.485, .662] [.485, .662]Goodness of fitCFI 1.000 1.000 .947 1.000 1.000 .949 1.000TLI 1.016 1.003 .868 1.042 1.015 .872 1.019RMSEA .000 .000 .113 .000 .000 .105 .000SRMR .007 .013 .064 .000 .011 .066 .011χ2
fit .561 n.s. 1.857 n.s. 18.141* .0001 n.s. 1.298 n.s. 16.251* 1.867 n.s.χ2
baseline 278.265* 278.265* 278.265* 249.862* 249.862* 249.862* 307.746*BIC 3834.746 3830.418 3835.454 3992.069 3987.742 3991.447 4749.312-2LL test I:IIa=1.269, ns; II:IIIa=16.284* I:IIb=1.296, ns; II:IIIb=14.952*N 277 277 277 277 277 277 277
Note. Table entries are indirect and total effects of religiosity on life satisfaction, with bootstrapped standard errors in brackets (5000 bootstrap samples). * The 95% confidence interval of the effect based on 5,000 bootstrap samples does not include zero (as per the bias-corrected bootstrap approach).
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 57
Table A4 Indirect effects and bootstrapped standard errors for the three-path mediation models – Israeli Jewish sample (Study 1)
Model Ia Model IIa Model IIIa Model Ib Model IIb Model IIIb Model IVSpecific indirect effectsReligiosity->PA-> Life satisfaction .094 (.032)* .096 (.033)* - .141 (.035)* .141 (.035)* - .100 (.033)*
95% CI [.030, .157] [.031, .162] [.071, .204] [.072, .210] [.035, .166]Religiosity -> Reappraisal -> Positive affect -> Life satisfaction
.040 (.013)* .041 (.013)* .046 (.014)* - - - .043 (.014)*
95% CI [.015, .066] [.016, .067] [.019, .074] [.017, .070]Religiosity -> Suppression -> Positive affect -> Life satisfaction
- - - -.003 (.004) -.003 (.004) -.002 (.004) -.006 (.005)
95% CI [-.011, .004] [-.011, .004] [-.009, .005] [-.015, .003]Religiosity -> Negative affect -> Life satisfaction .006 (.006) .005 (.006) - .009 (.007) .009 (.007) - .007 (.006)
95% CI [-.007, .018] [-.007, .018] [-.005, .023] [-.005, .023] [-.006, .019]Religiosity -> Reappraisal -> Negative affect -> Life satisfaction
.002 (.002) .002 (.002) .002 (.002) - - - .002 (.002)
95% CI [-.001, .005] [-.001, .005] [-.001, .005] [-.001, .006]Religiosity -> Suppression -> Negative affect -> Life satisfaction
- - - -.001 (.001) -.001 (.001) -.001 (.001) -.002 (.001)
95% CI [-.004, .001] [-.004, .001] [-.004, .001] [-.004, .001]Sum of indirect effects (total indirect) .141(.036)* .145 (.037)* .048 (.015)* .141 (.036)* .145 (.037)* -.003 (.004) .145 (.037)*
95% CI [.071, .212] [.073, .217] [.019, .077] [.071, .212] [.073, .217] [-.012, .005] [.073, .217]Direct effect of religiosity .060 (.047) - - .060 (.047) - - -95% CI [-.032, .152] [-.032, .152]Total effect of religiosity .202( .057)* .145 (.037)* .048 (.015)* .202 (.057)* .145 (.037)* -.003 (.004) .145 (.037)*95% CI [.091, .312] [.073, .217] [.019, .077] [.091, .312] [.073, .217] [-.012, .005] [.073, .217]Goodness of fitCFI .999 .997 .973 .995 .992 .928 .994RMSEA .023 .037 .080 .066 .058 .121 .043SRMR .010 .017 .052 .015 .021 .075 .021χ2
fit 1.150, n.s. 2.786, n.s. 11.379* 2.272, n.s. 3.908, n.s. 20.921* 4.626, n.s.BIC 2898.975 2894.948 2892.216 3073.725 3069.698 3075.385 3870.625-2LL test I:IIa=1.636, ns; II:IIIa=8.594* I:IIb=1.636, ns; II:IIIb=17.014*N 288 288 288 288 288 288 288Note. Table entries are indirect and total effects of religiosity on life satisfaction, with bootstrapped standard errors in brackets (5000 bootstrap samples). * The 95% confidence interval of the effect based on 5,000 bootstrap samples does not include zero (as per the bias-corrected bootstrap approach)
RELIGIOSITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND WELL-BEING 58
Table A5Indirect and total effects for the three-path mediation models – American Christian sample (Study 2)
Model Ia Model IIa Model IIIa Model Ib Model IIb Model IIIb Model IVSpecific indirect effectsReligiosity->PA-> Life satisfaction .104 (.027)* .107 (.028)* - .104 (.028)* .107 (.029)* - .086 (.027)*
95% CI [.051, .157] [.052, .162] [.049, .159] [.050, .164] [.033, .138]Religiosity -> Reappraisal -> Positive affect -> Life satisfaction
.021 (.001)* .022 (.010)* .024 (.011)* - - - .022 (.010)*
95% CI [.001, .041] [.001, .042] [.001, .046] [.001, .042]Religiosity -> Suppression -> Positive affect -> Life satisfaction
- - - .021 (.009)* .022 (.009)* .026 (.010)* .021 (.008)*
95% CI [.004, .038] [.005, .039] [.006, .045] [.005, .038]Religiosity -> Negative affect -> Life satisfaction .018 (.017) .018 (.017) - .027 (.018) .027 (.018) - .014 (.017)
95% CI [-.015, .052] [-.015, .052] [-.009, .063] [-.009, .063] [-.019, .048]Religiosity -> Reappraisal -> Negative affect -> Life satisfaction
.013 (.006)* .013 (.006)* .013 (.007)* - - - .013 (.006)*
95% CI [.000, .026] [.000, .026] [.000, .026] [.000, .025]Religiosity -> Suppression -> Negative affect -> Life satisfaction
- - - .004 (.004) .004 (.004) .005 (.004) .004 (.003)
95% CI [-.003, .011] [-.003, .011] [-.002, .013] [-.003, .011]Sum of indirect effects (total indirect) .126 (.030)* .160 (.039)* .037 (.017)* .156 (.038)* .160 (.039)* .031 (.012)* .160 (.039)*
95% CI [.156, .038] [.084, .236] [.003, .070] [.082, .231] [.084, .236] [.007, .062] [.084, .236]Direct effect of religiosity .054 (.047) - - .054 (.047) - - -95% CI [-.039, .146] [-.039, .146]Total effect of religiosity .210 (.057)* .160 (.039)* .037 (.017)* .210 (.057)* .160 (.039)* .031 (.012)* .160 (.039)*95% CI [.077, .258] [.084, .236] [.003, .070] [.097, .323] [.084, .236] [.007, .062] [.084, .236]Goodness of fitCFI 1.000 1.000 .947 1.000 1.000 .949 1.000RMSEA .000 .000 .113 .000 .000 .105 .000SRMR .007 .013 .064 .000 .011 .066 .011χ2
fit .561 n.s. 1.857 n.s. 18.141* .001 n.s. 1.298 n.s. 16.251* 1.867BIC 3834.746 3830.418 3835.454 3992.069 3987.742 3991.447 4749.312-2LL test I:IIa=1.296, ns; II:IIIa=16.284* I:IIb=1.296, ns; II:IIIb=14.952*N 277 277 277 277 277 277 277
Note. Table entries are indirect and total effects of religiosity on life satisfaction, with bootstrapped standard errors in brackets (5000 bootstrap samples). * The 95% confidence interval of the effect based on 5,000 bootstrap samples does not include zero (as per the bias-corrected bootstrap approach).