另外，依據Dawson and Richter (2006)的建議進行

另外，依據Dawson and Richter (2006)的建議進行斜率差異檢定，結果如表4所示。在高知覺組織支持與高情緒調節時(圖3與表4的條件(1))，神經質對於反芻思考的效果(斜率)不顯著(b = .06, p = .48, 95% CI = [-.11, .24])；在低知覺組織支持與高情緒調節時(圖3與表4的條件(2))，神經質對於反芻思考的效果(斜率)同樣不顯著(b = -.07, p = .60, 95% CI = [-.34, .20])；在高知覺組織支持與低情緒調節時(圖3與表4的條件(3))，神經質對於反芻思考的效果(斜率)同樣不顯著(b = .15, p = .15, 95% CI = [-.05, .35])；在低知覺組織支持與低情緒調節時(圖3與表4的條件(4))，神經質對於反芻思考的效果(斜率)呈現正向顯著(b = .44, p < .01, 95% CI = [.18, .71])。另外，(1)與(4)相較，斜率差異達到顯著(t = -2.30, p < .05)，(2)與(4)相較，斜率差異同樣達到顯著(t = -2.72, p < .01)，雖然(3)與(4)相較，同樣在低情緒調節時，不同程度的知覺組織支持下，斜率差異僅達邊際顯著(p = .09)，但綜合以上結果，仍舊對假說3提供了支持。

結果 (英文) 1:

Further, a difference in slope assay based on recommendations Dawson and Richter (2006), the results shown in Table 4. At high perceived organizational support and high emotion regulation (FIG. 3 with the conditions of Table 4 (1)), neurotic for ruminant effect Reflection (slope) is not significant (b = .06, p = .48, 95% CI = [ -.11, .24]); organizational support at low perceived emotion regulation and high (FIG. 3 with the conditions of table 4 (2)), neurotic for ruminant effect Reflection (slope) is also not significant (b = -.07 , p = .60, 95% CI = [-.34, .20]); (3 4 table 3 and FIG condition ()), neurotic Consideration for ruminant perceptual effects at high and low organizational support emotion regulation ( slope) is also not significant (b = .15, p = .15, 95% CI = [-.05, .35]); organizational support at low perceived emotion regulation and low (condition (Figures 3 and 4 of table 4 )), neurotic for ruminant effect Reflection (slope) exhibit significant positive (b = .44, p <.01, 95% CI = [.18, .71]). Further, (1) as compared with (4), the slope of the difference was significant (t = -2.30, p <.05), (2) as compared with (4), to achieve the same significant difference in slope (t = -2.72, p <.01), although (3) compared with (4), also at low emotional regulation, under different degrees of perceived organizational support, the slope of the difference was only marginal significant (p = .09), but the above results, still 3 provides support for the hypothesis.

結果 (英文) 2:

In addition, the slope variance was checked on the recommendation of Dawson and Richter (2006), as shown in Table 4. In high-perception tissue support and high-emotional regulation (Figure 3 and Conditions of Table 4 (1), the effect of neuroticism on ruminant thinking (slope) is not significant (b .06, p .48, 95% CI s .11, .24) and in low-perceptive tissue support and conditions (2) of hypertension (Figure 3 and Table 4), the effect of neuroticism on ruminant thinking (2) is not significant . p .60, 95% CI , .34, .20) and neurotic effect on ruminant thinking (b s .15, p - s/s) when high-perception tissue support and low mood regulation (Figure 3 and Table 4 conditions (3)) .15, 95% CI , ..05, .35), when low-consciousness tissue support and low mood regulation (Figure 3 and Table 4 condition (4),), the effect of neuroticism on ruminant thinking (slope) is positive (b .44, p .01, 95% CI s.18, .71) ). In addition, (1) compared to (4), the slope difference is significant (t - -2.30, compared with p .05), (2) and (4), the slope difference was also significant (t - -2.72, p .01), although (3) compared with (4), the difference in slope was only significant in terms of marginality (p .09) with the support of different levels of perception organization in low mood regulation, but the above results still supported false statement 3.

結果 (英文) 3:

In addition, according to Dawson and Richter's (2006) recommendation, the slope difference test was carried out, and the results are shown in Table 4. When there is high perceived organizational support and high emotion regulation (conditions (1) in Figure 3 and table 4), the effect of neuroticism on ruminant thinking (slope) is not significant (b =. 06, P =. 48, 95% CI = [-. 11, . 24]); in low perceived organizational support and high emotional regulation (condition (2) of Figure 3 and table 4), neuroticism has no significant effect on ruminant thinking (slope) (b = -. 07, P =. 60, 95% CI = [-. 34,. 20]); in high perceived organizational support and low emotional regulation (condition (3) of Figure 3 and table 4), neuroticism has no significant effect on ruminant thinking (slope) (b =. 15, P =. 15, 95% CI = [-. 05,. 35]); in low perceptual tissue support and low emotional regulation (condition (4) in Figure 3 and table 4), neuroticism has a positive significant effect on ruminant thinking (slope) (b =. 44, P <. 01, 95% CI = [. 18,. 71]). In addition, compared with (1) and (4), the slope difference is significant (t = -2.30, P <. 05), (2) and (4), the slope difference is also significant (t = -2.72), P < 0.01). Although (3) and (4) are also in low emotion regulation, the slope difference is only marginal significant (P =. 09) under different levels of perceptual organization support, but the above results still support hypothesis 3.