Descriptive Statistics
The significance level is used to determine whether the correlation coefficient is statistically significant, that is, whether it is caused by random factors. If the P-value is less than 0.05, the correlation between the variables is statistically significant and the null hypothesis can be rejected (correlation coefficient is 0). Spearman correlation analysis of the total scores of the variables revealed the following (see Table 1): There was a significant sex difference in the psychological trauma of the participants (F (464)=0.681, p< 0.05). However, there was no significant sex difference in terms of participants’ attention toward catastrophic events (F [464]=0.225, p>0.05). Further bivariate correlation analysis (see Table 1) revealed that psychological trauma was positively correlated with attention, emotion, empathy, and mindfulness (rs= 0.172–0.535, ps < 0.001), positively correlated with emotion and empathy (rs=0.126–0.401, ps<0.01), and negatively correlated with mindfulness (r=-0. 199, p<0.001).
[Table 1 here]
Mediation Effect Test
First, considering empathy and emotion as a single intermediary variable, attention as an independent variable, and psychological trauma as a dependent variable, Models M1 and M2 were established. The intermediary effect tests are presented in Table 2.
[Table 2 here]
In Model M1, the total, direct, and indirect effect of attention on psychological trauma was 0.265 (β=0.045, t=5.957, p<0.001), 0.219 (β=0.049, t=4.511, p<0.001), and 0.046, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was [0.0018,0.0932] (excluding 0), indicating that empathy had a significant mediating effect between attention and psychological trauma, with an effect size of 17.36%.
In Model M2, the total direct, and indirect effect of attention on psychological trauma was 0.265 (β=0.045, t=5.957, p<0.001), 0.202 (β=0.038, t=5.274, p<0.001), and 0.064, respectively, and the 95% CI was [0.0120, 0.1233] (excluding 0), indicating that emotion had a significant mediating effect between attention and psychological trauma, with an effect size of 24.15%.
Therefore, too much attention to catastrophic events is more likely to lead to negative public emotions, which, assuming that H1 is true, leads to psychological trauma. Individuals with strong empathy are more likely to experience psychological trauma, and H2 is also supported.
Considering empathy and emotion as chain intermediary variables, attention as an independent variable, and psychological trauma as a dependent variable, Model M3 is established. The results (see Table 2) indicate that in the mediating path of ‘attention → empathy → emotion → psychological trauma’, the total and direct effect of attention on psychological trauma was 0.268 (β=0.045, t = 5.983, p < 0.001) and 0.215 (β=0.042, t=5.151, p<0.001), respectively. The indirect effect was 0.047 and the 95% CI was [0.0240, 0.0730] (excluding 0), indicating that empathy and emotion had a significant mediating effect between attention and psychological trauma, with an effect size of 17.60%.
Moderating Effect Test
To test the moderating effect of different mindfulness levels on attention, empathy, emotion, and psychological trauma, Model 92 was used in the PROCESS plug-in Hayes (24) to estimate the 95% CI of the mediating effect by sampling 5000 Bootstrap samples based on sex control. The results document that different mindfulness levels have a multi-path regulatory effect on attention, empathy, emotion, and trauma. The test results are reported in Table 3.
[Table 3 here]
Attention, empathy, and emotion were used as independent variables, psychological trauma as the dependent variable, and mindfulness as the moderator variable. The effect of mindfulness on attention and psychological trauma was -0.001. The 95% CI was [-0.0746, 0.0732] (including 0), indicating that the mediating effect of mindfulness on attention and psychological trauma was insignificant. The effect value of mindfulness between empathy and psychological trauma was 0.012, and the 95% CI was [-0.0615, 0.0853] (including 0). This indicates that the moderating effect of mindfulness between empathy and psychological trauma was insignificant. The effect value of mindfulness between emotion and psychological trauma was -0.128, and the 95% CI was [-0.2090, -0.0466] (excluding 0), indicating that the regulatory effect of mindfulness on emotional and psychological trauma was significant.
This study further verified the moderating effect of mindfulness on emotional and psychological trauma. Simple slope analysis demonstrated that the positive predictive effect of emotion on psychological trauma was stronger for participants with low mindfulness levels (M-1SD). For those with high (M + 1SD) and middle (M) levels, the positive predictive effect of emotional tendency on psychological trauma was weaker (see Figure 1). The results indicated that the predictive effect of emotional biases on psychological trauma decreased with an increase in mindfulness level. Therefore, we assumed that H1 is true.
[Insert Figure 1 here]