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?



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


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?


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


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


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


(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).


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.


Model II. A model with direct effects from religiosity on reappraisal, positive affect, negative affect, but not life satisfaction.


Model III. A model with direct effects from religiosity on reappraisal, but not positive

affect, negative affect, or life satisfaction.


Model IV. A model with both reappraisal and suppression as mediators between

religiosity and positive and negative affect.


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)


> 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]


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).


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.


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) - - -


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)*


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).


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)


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).

static-content.springer.com10.1007... · Web viewis the word of God? The distinction between good...

Documents

Transcript of static-content.springer.com10.1007... · Web viewis the word of God? The distinction between good...