Table 5 Coefficients of gratitude predicting triglyceride levels in sensitivity analyses.

Variation in analysis	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Variation in analysis	β	p	β	p	β	p
Original results (for comparison)	− .10	< .001	− .06	.007	− .06	.028
Alternative data pre-processing choices
Gratitude reflected and log-transformed	.10^a	< .001	.06^a	.011	.05^a	.033
Triglyceride level log-transformed (after winsorization at 3 SD)	− .10	< .001	− .06	.013	− .05	.058
Winsorization (3 SD) applied to all variables	− .11	< .001	− .07	.004	− .06	.017
Winsorization (4 SD) applied to all variables	− .10	< .001	− .07	.004	− .07	.013
Sub-sample analyses
Only participants with complete data (i.e., listwise deletion; n = 1704)	− .11	< .001	− .07	.003	− .07	.010
Only participants not taking antihyperlipidemic medication (n = 1266)	− .11	< .001	− .07	.022	− .05	.089
Only MIDUS 2 data (n = 1054)	− .09	.002	− .05	.124	− .05	.175
Only MIDUS Refresher data (n = 746)	− .12	.002	− .08	.022	− .06	.130
Adjustment for multiple comparisons^b
Adjustment with Hommel procedure	− .10	< .001	− .06	.050	− .06	.168
Adjustment with Bonferroni procedure	− .10	< .001	− .06	.064	− .06	.252
Adjustment with Benjamini–Hochberg procedure	− .10	< .001	− .06	.021	− .06	.063

Bolded p-values indicate statistical significance at the .05 level.
^aCoefficients were opposite in sign compared to the rest of the results because gratitude was reflected (i.e., reversed).
^bp-value adjustments were conducted taking into account all three dependent variables (triglycerides, LDL, HDL) across the first three models (i.e., a total of nine p-values).

Quick links

Search