46 The Professional Counselor | Volume 13, Issue 1 correlation showed a statistically significant positive correlation between loneliness and avoidant attachment (r = .47, p < .001) and loneliness and anxious attachment (r = .58, p < .001), indicating that participants who had higher levels of avoidant attachment and anxious attachment experienced higher levels of loneliness. The results of Pearson correlation analysis showed a statistically significant negative correlation between loneliness and social self-efficacy (r = −.44, p < .001). The findings indicated that participants who experienced higher levels of social self-efficacy experienced lower levels of loneliness. Additionally, the results of Pearson correlation analysis showed a statistically significant, albeit weak, negative correlation between social self-efficacy and anxious attachment (r = −.21, p < .001), as well as avoidant attachment (r = −.17, p < .001). Both anxious attachment and avoidant attachment explained 34% and 22% of the variances in loneliness, respectively. Additionally, we found that anxious attachment accounted for 4% of the variance, and avoidant attachment explained 3% of the variance in social self-efficacy. When we analyzed the relationship between loneliness, social self-efficacy, avoidant attachment, and anxious attachment, we found that avoidant attachment was significantly negatively associated with loneliness, while all the other variables showed a significant positive (p < .001) association. Multiple Regression Analysis Multiple regression was used to answer the second research question: Do anxious attachment and avoidant attachment predict the levels of social self-efficacy? The results indicated that anxious attachment was a statistically significant predictor of social self-efficacy (F = 40.68, p < .001) with a β of .04 (p < .001), accounting for 5% of the variance in social self-efficacy (see Table 2). These results indicate that among students who participated in this study, higher levels of social self-efficacy were a result of lower levels of both anxious attachment and avoidant attachment styles. Overall, the model explains 5% of the variance of anxious attachment in social self-efficacy (r = .39). Table 2 Multiple Regression Analysis Predictor of Social Self-Efficacy Factor R R2* β t p F P Anxious attachment .21 .05 .04 −6.38 < .001 40.68 < .001 *Adjusted R2 = .04 Finally, we examined the third research question and the corresponding hypothesis: How does social self-efficacy mediate the relationship between loneliness and anxious attachment and avoidant attachment styles? In support of our hypothesis that social self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between avoidant attachment and anxious attachment and loneliness, we conducted two regression analyses using Baron and Kenny’s model (1986) for each. In the first model (Figure 1a), in Step 1 the predictor avoidant attachment was regressed on the outcome loneliness. This path provided the coefficient for path c = 5.13 as identified in Figure 1a and was statistically significant {t (861) = 15.42, p = < .001}. In Step 2, the mediator social self-efficacy was regressed against the outcome and provided the path coefficient, denoted a = −.55, with t (862) = −.55, p = < .001. In Step 3, social self-efficacy was regressed
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1