For the third hypothesis, we used multiple mediation analysis, in which the three BAVQ belief subscales were the mediating variables.
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the variables of interest for testing our hypotheses: the VAY subscales, the BAVQ belief subscales, the BAI and the BDI-II.
This table shows a significant direct effect between the VAY Dominance subscale and the scores on the BAI (c' = .87, p < .05), and a significant indirect effect between the VAY Dominance and BDI-II (axb = 0.38, 95% CI: .08 to .85, p < .05), showing full mediation of the BAVQ omnipotence subscale between VAY dominance and BDI-II, explaining 42% of the variance in BDI-II scores.
A significant indirect effect between the VAY Intrusiveness and the BAI is observed (axb = .67, 95% CI: .15 to 1.36, p < .05), in which the BAVQ malevolence subscale showed full mediation, explaining 33% of the variance in the BAI scores.
A significant indirect effect is observed between this subscale and the BAI (axb = 1.16, 95% CI: .39 to 2.07, p < .05), in which the BAVQ malevolence subscale functions as a complete mediator, explaining 32% of the variance in the BAI scores.
Furthermore, in the version of the BAVQ validated for the Spanish population, although it uses a four-point Likert scale (as did the English version by Chadwick et al., 2000) as the measure of response, the Omnipotence subscale has only one item, which could affect the validity of our results with respect to that subscale.