Lticollinearity. Given that two ML240 cost regression models were tested, a Bonferronicorrected threshold
Lticollinearity. Provided that two regression models have been tested, a Bonferronicorrected threshold of statistical significance (p2 0.025) was adopted for these analyses. The model in which shameproneness was utilized as outcome was not considerable in Step (F[2, 637] .34, p 0.262) and Step two (F[3, 636] 0.90, p 0.439), which indicated that PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23432430 neither age and sex, nor the history of childhood trauma were drastically related to shameproneness (Table two). The model became important (F[2, 627] 5.60, p 0.00) in Step 3, following CERQ emotion regulation scores were added, and accounted for an further 22.57 of shameproneness (Fchange[9, 627] 20.4, p 0.00). As shown in Table two, CERQ SelfBlaming, Positive Refocusing and Catastrophizing scores have been important optimistic predictors of shameproneness, whereas CERQ Refocus on Arranging and Positive Reappraisal scores were damaging predictors of shameproneness.Table two. Coefficients in the multiple regression in which shameproneness was regressed on age and sex, childhood trauma and individual variations in emotion regulation. Step and variable Step Step two Step 3 Age Sex (boys 0; girls ) Childhood trauma (no trauma 0; a single or more trauma ) CERQ Selfblaming CERQ Acceptance CERQ Rumination CERQ Constructive Refocusing CERQ Refocus on Organizing CERQ Good Reappraisal CERQ Putting into Viewpoint CERQ Catastrophizing CERQ Blaming Other people B 0.05 0.04 0.0 0.08 0.02 0.0 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.03 SE B 0.03 0.07 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95 CI 0.three, 0.07 0.0, 0. 0.20, 0.24 0.04, 0. 0.04, 0 0.0, 0.04 0.0, 0.05 0.07, 0.0 0.08, 0.02 0, 0.04 0.04, 0.09 0, 0.06 Beta 0.05 0.02 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.05 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.08 0.22 0.07 0.004 0.229 R2 0.Note: B, unstandardized regression coefficient; Beta, standardized regression coefficient; CI, confidence interval; SE, typical error. Abbreviations: CERQ, Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. p 0.025; p 0.00. doi:0.37journal.pone.067299.tPLOS One DOI:0.37journal.pone.067299 November 29,7 Emotion Regulation, Trauma, and Proneness to Shame and GuiltTable 3. Coefficients from the several regression in which guiltproneness was regressed on age and sex, childhood trauma and person differences in emotion regulation. Step and variable Step Step two Step 3 Age Sex (boys 0; girls ) Childhood trauma (no trauma 0; one particular or additional trauma ) CERQ Selfblaming CERQ Acceptance CERQ Rumination CERQ Good Refocusing CERQ Refocus on Preparing CERQ Constructive Reappraisal CERQ Putting into Viewpoint CERQ Catastrophizing CERQ Blaming Other individuals B 0.06 0.two 0.35 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.06 SE B 0.03 0.07 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95 CI Beta 0.08 0.06 0.2 0.0 0.06 0.07 0. 0.three 0.2 0.08 0.0 0.7 0.025 0.28 R2 0.Note: B, unstandardized regression coefficient; Beta, standardized regression coefficient; CI, confidence interval; SE, normal error. Abbreviations: CERQ, Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. p 0.025; p 0.00. doi:0.37journal.pone.067299.tThe model in which guiltproneness was made use of as outcome was not important in Step (F[2, 637] 3.8, p 0.042). Neither age, nor sex was considerably related to guiltproneness (Table 3). The model became important (F[3, 636] 5.56, p 0.00) in Step two, right after adding the history of childhood trauma as predictor, and accounted for an added .57 with the variance of guilt proneness (Fchange[, 636] 0.22, p 0.00). The history of childhood trauma was a significant optimistic predictor of guiltprone.