Also, the negative total effect means in my case that more cortisol at time 6 leads to less intense reactions to angry faces (while more cortisol at a later time, time 7, leads to more intense reactions to angry faces). Can anyone explain this?

- Thread starter britth
- Start date

Also, the negative total effect means in my case that more cortisol at time 6 leads to less intense reactions to angry faces (while more cortisol at a later time, time 7, leads to more intense reactions to angry faces). Can anyone explain this?

Psychology. The design of the study is rather complex, but we will look at only three

variables within one subgroup of patients. The data are in the file Cortisol.sav.

After a lot of preliminary measurements, all subjects in our patient group were subjected

to a stressor. After that, three measures of cortisol level (a physiological indicator of stress)

were taken, of which we will look at the last two (variables cort6 and cort7). Almost

immediately after measuring cort7, subjects' reaction to subliminally presented angry faces

was measured, with higher scores indicating more intense negative reactions to these angry

faces (variable angryfac). So the temporal order of measurement of our three variables is:

cort6 -- cort7 -- angryfac.

This was the information we got. I did three regressionanalyses (cort6 on angryfac, cort6 on cort7 and cort6 + cort7 on angryfac). My results are:

In the first step of the mediation model, the regression of the independent variable

The second step showed that the effect of the independent variable

In the final regression analysis, the predictors

How can it be explained that my direct effect of cort6 on angryfac is not significant, but my total effect of cort6 on angryfac is significant?