Table A1.

Study 2: Mediation analysis with control variables

 Auxiliary regressions
 VariablesFeeling of contaminationImpact on well-beingNaturalness importance
Constant4.64***(0.51)4.36***(0.58)2.91***(0.71)
Medium proximity0.23(0.23)1.15***(0.27)0.24(0.27)
High proximity0.83***(0.23)1.58***(0.27)0.18(0.28)
Feeling of contamination0.17**(0.08)
Impact on well-being0.40***(0.07)
Gender−0.28(0.18)−0.46**(0.21)−0.36*(0.20)
Education−0.07(0.09)−0.09(0.10)0.03(0.09)
R² = 0.08R² = 0.18R² = 0.25
Indirect effects
Indirect effect: Proximity → feeling of contamination → naturalness importance
Medium proximityIE =0.04, SE =0.05, 95%CI = [−0.04, 0.14]
High proximityIE =0.14, SE =0.09, 95%CI = [0.01, 0.34]
Indirect effect: Proximity → impact on well-being → naturalness importance
Medium proximityIE =0.46, SE =0.14, 95%CI = [0.22, 0.74]
High proximityIE =0.63, SE =0.17, 95%CI = [0.33, 0.98]
Note(s):

PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2018) with 10,000 bootstrap samples. n = 209. Significance: *** = p < 0.01, ** = p < 0.05 and * = p < 0.10. Low proximity = 0 (baseline category)

Source(s): Authors’ own work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal