scores of the items that loaded in each component. These component scores, then, quantify the experience of the participants for each of the dimensions in the same Likert scale that participants used to give their ratings for each individual statement (summated scales; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2006). They can be used for direct comparison between synchronous and asynchronous conditions since they reflect an experience common to both conditions. The component scores were submitted in a mixed ANOVA with factors condition (synchronous vs. asynchronous) and component or and between-subjects factors gender and the “similarity” “affect”), order of presentation (i.e., whether the synchronous or the asynchronous condition was first presented). The main effects of condition (F(1, 252) = 76.2, p < .0001, p2 = .23) and component (F(2, 504) = 193.8, p < .0001, p2 = .43) were significant, as well as their 2-way interaction (F(2, 504) = 13.2, p < .0001, p2 = .05). The significant effect of indicates that, overall, participants agreed more with the ‘condition’ statements after synchronous (M ± SE = 3.54 ± .07) than after asynchronous stimulation (M 2.99 ± .05). The significant effect of indicates that, ± SE = ‘component’ overall, participants agreed more with the statements comprising the component (M ± SE = 4.00 ± .06) than with those comprising the components “affect” (M ± SE = 2.64 ± .06) and (M ± SE = 3.16 ± .07), “similarity” independent of the pattern of stimulation. The significant interaction (see Figure 2) was driven by a greater difference between the synchronous and asynchronous conditions for the ratings for the statements comprising the component scores and than for those comprising the component “similarity” score “affect”. To investigate this interaction, we calculated the difference “synchronous minus for each component score. The resulting values reflect the magnitude asynchronous”
scores of the items that loaded in each component. These component scores, then, quantify the experience of the participants for each of the dimensions in the same Likert scale that participants used to give their ratings for each individual statement (summated scales; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2006). They can be used for direct comparison between synchronous and asynchronous conditions since they reflect an experience common to both conditions. The component scores were submitted in a mixed ANOVA with factors condition (synchronous vs. asynchronous) and component “similarity” or “affect”), and between-subjects factors gender and the order of presentation (i.e., whether the synchronous or the asynchronous condition was first presented). The main effects of condition (F(1, 252) = 76.2, p < .0001, p2 = .23) and component (F(2, 504) = 193.8, p < .0001, p2 = .43) were significant, as well as their 2-way interaction (F(2, 504) = 13.2, p < .0001, p2 = .05). The significant effect of ‘condition’ indicates that, overall, participants agreed more with the statements after synchronous (M ± SE = 3.54 ± .07) than after asynchronous stimulation (M ± SE = 2.99 ± .05). The significant effect of ‘component’ indicates that, overall, participants agreed more with the statements comprising the component “affect” (M ± SE = 4.00 ± .06) than with those comprising the components (M ± SE = 2.64 ± .06) and “similarity” (M ± SE = 3.16 ± .07), independent of the pattern of stimulation. The significant interaction (see Figure 2) was driven by a greater difference between the synchronous and asynchronous conditions for the ratings for the statements comprising the component scores and “similarity” than for those comprising the component score “affect”. To investigate this interaction, we calculated the difference “synchronous minus asynchronous” for each component score. The resulting values reflect the magnitude
TajaduraJimenez_etal_2012_ConCog.docx