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.