Results

Run MATRIX procedure:

***************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 4.1
*****************
Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com
Documentation available in Hayes (2022). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3
**********************************************************************
****
Model : 4
Y : MI
X : CI
M : PCPT
Sample
Size: 249
**********************************************************************
****
OUTCOME VARIABLE:PCPT
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.7691 .5916 357.7867 1.0000 247.0000 .0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI
ULCI
constant .9608 .1475 6.5136 .0000 .6702
1.2513
CI .7294 .0386 18.9153
.0000 .6534 .8053
**********************************************************************
****
OUTCOME VARIABLE:MI
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2
p
.3610 .1304 .6290 18.4363 2.0000 246.0000
.0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI
ULCI
constant 2.0148 .1968 10.2405 .0000 1.6273
2.4024
CI .1438 .0744 1.9338 .0543
-.0027 .2902
PCPT .1718 .0784 2.1911
.0294 .0174 .3262
************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL **********************
OUTCOME VARIABLE: MI

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2
p
.3367 .1134 .6387 31.5855 1.0000 247.0000
.0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI
ULCI
constant 2.1799 .1832 11.9020 .0000 1.8191
2.5406
CI .2691 .0479 5.6201
.0000 .1748 .3634

************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y ********

Total effect of X on Y
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

.2691 .0479 5.6201 .0000 .1748 .3634

Direct effect of X on Y
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

.1438 .0744 1.9338 .0543 -.0027 .2902

Indirect effect(s) of X on Y:
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
PCPT .1253 .0665 -.0019 .2649

Completely standardized indirect effect(s) of X on Y:

Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
PCPT .1568 .0833 -.0026 .3305

*********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS *******************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:
95.0000

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence

intervals:
5000

------ END MATRIX -----

Interpretation
In step 1 of the mediation mode, the regression of CI on MI, ignoring the mediator, was
significant, p<.001. Step 2 showed that the regression of the CI on the mediation, PCPT was also
significant b = .73, t= 18.92, p=< .001. Step 3 of the mediation process showed that the mediator
(PCPT), controlling for CI was significant, b = .14, t = 1.93, p=.05. Step 4 of the analysis
revealed that, controlling for the mediator (PCPT), CI scores was not a significant predictor of
MI, b = .17, t= 2.19, p=.0294. It was found that, PCP fully mediated the relationship between CI
and MI.