Emotion regulation and drunkorexia behaviors among Lebanese adults: the indirect effects of positive and negative metacognition

Table 5 Mediation analysis: Direct and indirect effects of the associations between emotion regulation strategies, positive and negative alcohol metacognitions subscales, and drunkorexia behaviors

Model 1: Cognitive reappraisal taken as independent variable
Mediator	Direct effect			Indirect effect
	Effect	SE	p	Effect	SE	95% BCa
PAMS Factor 1	0.25	0.06	< 0.001	0.02	0.02	-0.01–0.05
PAMS Factor 2	0.22	0.06	< 0.001	0.05	0.02	0.01–0.08
NAMS Factor 1	0.26	0.05	< 0.001	0.01	0.02	-0.03–0.05
NAMS Factor 2	0.26	0.06	< 0.001	0.01	0.02	-0.02—0.04
Model 2: Expressive suppression taken as independent variable
Mediator	Direct effect			Indirect effect
	Effect	SE	p	Effect	SE	95% BCa
PAMS Factor 1	0.41	0.08	< 0.001	0.02	0.02	-0.01—0.06
PAMS Factor 2	0.35	0.08	< 0.001	0.08	0.03	0.03–0.15
NAMS Factor 1	0.36	0.07	< 0.001	0.07	0.02	0.03–0.12
NAMS Factor 2	0.38	0.07	< 0.001	0.03	0.02	-0.01—0.07

Numbers in bold indicate significant mediation
Direct effect = effect of emotion regulation strategy on drunkorexia behaviors in the absence of the mediator; Indirect effect = Effect of the emotion regulation strategy on drunkorexia behaviors in the presence of the mediator; SE = Standard Error; BCa = Bootstrap Confidence Interval. Mediator in Model 1: Positive metacognition beliefs about emotional self-regulation; Mediator in Model 2: Positive metacognitive beliefs about cognitive self-regulation; Mediator in Model 3: Negative metacognitive beliefs about the uncontrollability of drinking. mediator in Model 4: Negative metacognitive beliefs about cognitive harm due to drinking

ISSN: 1471-244X