Skip to main content

Table 3 Logistic regression with Bayesian variable selection explaining the adoption of SPBs following cyber abuse victimisation accounting for the method of abuse experienced by the victim (\(N = 746\)). Check marks denote coefficients included in the models

From: To SPB or not to SPB? A mixed methods analysis of self-protective behaviours to prevent repeat victimisation from cyber abuse

Coefficient \(\beta\) SD 2.5% 97.5% Pr(\(\beta\) \(\ne\) 0) Modela
HPDb HPDb %c 1 2 3 4 5
Constant − 2.85 0.45 − 3.77 − 1.98 100 \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\)
Method 5 1.11 0.21 0.69 1.52 100 \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\)
Impact 1.57 0.18 1.21 1.92 100 \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\)
OVR − 0.81 0.23 − 1.24 − 0.38 99 \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\)  
Age 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.05 94 \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\)
Method 4 0.18 0.27 0.00 0.77 39   \(\checkmark\)   \(\checkmark\)  
Gender 0.09 0.17 0.00 0.51 29    \(\checkmark\) \(\checkmark\)  
Method 1 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.39 17      \(\checkmark\)
Method 3 − 0.02 0.09 − 0.30 0.04 12      
Employment 0.01 0.08 − 0.04 0.21 9      
Method 2 − 0.01 0.07 − 0.22 0.00 9      
Race − 0.01 0.06 − 0.18 0.02 8      
Posterior Probability of the model (%) 24.3 13.2 9.1 6.7 4.9
  1. aBest 5 models (cumulative posterior probability = 59.1%)
  2. bHighest Posterior Density
  3. cProbability of inclusion
\