How evaluative pairings improve body dissatisfaction in adult women: evidence from a randomized-controlled online study

Table 2 Coefficient estimates with boot-strapped (10,000 samples) bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (CI) for the moderated mediation model based on disordered eating psychopathology

Path	b	SE	95% CI
X → M	0.07	0.02	[0.03; 0.12]
M × W → Y	0.58	0.25	[0.08; 1.08]
− SD	− 0.24	0.43	[− 1.08; 0.59]
M	0.59	0.35	[− 0.11; 1.28]
+ SD	1.41	0.5	[0.28; 2.54]
Direct and indirect effects
DE	0.00	0.09	[− 0.19; 0.19]
IMM	0.04	0.03	[0.01; 0.11]
IE at − SD	− 0.02	0.02	[− 0.07; 0.02]
IE at M	0.04	0.03	[0.00; 0.12]
IE at + SD	0.11	0.06	[0.01; 0.26]

X = predictor variable group (coded 1 0, for intervention and control conditions); M = mediator variable similar body → positive contingency learning; Y = criterion Body Image State Scale scores post-intervention (with baseline as covariate); W = moderator variable Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire short version mean score; DE = direct effect; IMM = Index of Moderated Mediation; IE = indirect effect at different levels of the moderator; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Model estimates are based on PROCESS v4.2 model 14 [44] with boot-strapped (10,000 samples) bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (CI)

ISSN: 2050-2974