a b
Specific Phobia
The final model represented in Figure 4a investigates mediating factors
in the relationship with Specific Phobia (as measured by transformed
SMSP scores). The first step of the model demonstrated that SMSP
accounted for 2.1% of the variance in AQ,F (1,358)=8.73, p =0.003, and was a significant predictor,β =.15, SE= .26, t (358)=2.95, p =.003.
Secondly, transformed SMSP scores significantly predicted IU scoresβ =.24, SE= .31, t (358)=4.76,p <.001, accounting for 5.7% of the variance,F (1,358)=22.65, p <0.001. The significant
relationship between both mediators and AQ had already been established.
The final step with both IU and Specific Phobia scores as predictors
accounted for 23.7% of the variance in AQ score, F( 2,357)=56.91,p <0.001 with transformed SMSP scores no longer being a
significant predictor (β =.04., SE= .04, t (358)=.78,p =.439) when controlling for IU which remained significant
(β =.48, SE= .04, t (358)=10.13,p <.001). Therefore, IU is a significant mediator in the
relationship between Specific Phobia and ASC.
In the second part of the model for Specific Phobia (Figure 4b), the
mediating effect of SOR was investigated. Transformed SMSP scores were a
significant predictor of SOR scores (β =.32, SE= .71,t (358)=6.27, p <.001), accounting for 9.6% of
the variance, F (1,358)=39.33, p <0.001. With the
final mediation step revealing that both transformed SMSP and SOR scores
accounted for 27.8% of the variance, F( 2,357)=70.05,p <0.001, however SMSP was no longer a significant
predictor (β =.01, SE= .24, t (358)=.30,p =.766) when controlling for SOR (β =.54, SE= .02,t (358)=11.33, p <.001). Therefore, SOR
significantly mediates the relationship between Specific Phobia and ASC.