How does power affect happiness and mental illness? The mediating role of proactive coping

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model of the present study, controlling for age and gender

Note. The product of path coefficient A and B (A$\times$B) represents the indirect effect. The path coefficient C represents the total effect (The effect of predictor on outcomes). The path coefficient C′ represents the direct effect (The effect of predictor on outcomes, controlling for a mediator).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of variables in Study 1 (N = 150)

	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5
1. Dispositional power	4.73 (0.85)	-
2. Proactive coping	2.72 (0.42)	.69***	-
3. Life satisfaction	4.36 (1.33)	.58***	.65***	-
4. Affective well-being	0.43 (1.10)	.54***	.55***	.60***	-
5. Trait depression	2.24 (0.58)	−.58***	−.59***	−.73***	−.79***	-
6. Trait anxiety	2.36 (0.42)	−.57***	−.56***	−.68***	−.80***	.88***

Note. Affective well-being was calculated by subtracting the NA scores from the PA scores.

*** p <.001.

Table 2. Indirect effect of power on happiness and mental illness via proactive coping controlling for age and gender in Study 1 (N = 150)

	Unstandardized estimates		Bootstrapping procedure
Mediation route	Total effect	Direct effect	Indirect effect	BCa 95% CI
dispositional power → proactive coping → life satisfaction	.91***	.37***	.53	0.30 ∼ 0.78
dispositional power → proactive coping → affective well-being	.69***	.39***	.30	0.15 ∼ 0.49
dispositional power → proactive coping → trait depression	−.39***	−.22***	−.17	−0.28 ∼ −0.08
dispositional power → proactive coping → trait anxiety	−.35***	−.21***	−.13	−0.32 ∼ −0.10

Note. Confidence intervals for the indirect effects were estimated based on 10,000 bootstrap resamples. CIs excluding zero are interpreted as significant.

** p <.05. *** p <.001.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and t-test results between groups in Study 2 (N = 143)

	High-power (n = 72)	Low-power (n = 71)	t	d
	M (SD)	M (SD)
Manipulated power	5.12 (0.79)	3.67 (1.03)	9.47***	1.57
State proactive coping	2.84 (0.42)	2.69 (0.36)	2.26***	0.37
State life satisfaction	4.33 (1.16)	4.34 (1.25)	−0.04***	−0.01
State affective well-being	0.64 (0.94)	0.43 (1.08)	1.26***	0.21
State depression	2.11 (0.46)	2.16 (0.60)	−0.63***	−0.10
State anxiety	2.15 (0.52)	2.22 (0.58)	−0.67***	−0.11

Note. Affective well-being was calculated by subtracting the NA scores from the PA scores.

* p <.05. *** p <.001.

Table 4. Indirect effect of power on happiness and mental illness via proactive coping controlling for age and gender in Study 2 (N = 143)

	Unstandardized estimates		Bootstrapping procedure
Mediation route	Total effect	Direct effect	Indirect effect	BCa 95% CI
manipulated power → proactive coping → life satisfaction	−.03	−.26	.23	0.03 ∼ 0.49
manipulated power → proactive coping → affective well-being	.18	−.02	.20	0.03 ∼ 0.43
manipulated power → proactive coping → state depression	−.04	.05	−.09	−0.19 ∼ −0.02
manipulated power → proactive coping → state anxiety	−.05	.03	−.08	−0.18 ∼ −0.01

Note. Confidence intervals for the indirect effects were estimated based on 10,000 bootstrap resamples. CIs excluding zero are interpreted as significant.