the significant interaction was driven by a greater difference between the synchronous and asynchronous conditions for the ratings for the statements comprising the component scores (mean difference ± SE = 1.03 ± “self-identification” .14; t(55) = 7.5, p < .0001) and (mean difference ± SE =.85 ± .15; t(55) = “similarity” 5.5, p < .0001) than for those comprising the component score (mean “affect” difference ± SE = .35 ± .14; t(55) = 2.5, p = .014). Follow-up paired samples t-tests between the calculated difference for all “synchronous minus asynchronous” component scores revealed a significant difference between the score and “affect” the scores (t(55) = 3.8, p < .0001) and (t(49) = 2.7, p = “self-identification” “similarity” .009). These findings replicate the main results of Experiment 1. Furthermore, the interaction of condition with the IS group was significant (F(1, 54) = 4.11, p < .05, p2 = .07), because as shown in Figure 4, participants with low IS gave overall higher ratings to all three components following synchronous stimulation (M ± SE = 4.19 ± .14) than participants with high IS (M ± SE = 3.81 ± .14), while for both groups ratings following asynchronous stimulation were comparable (for low IS, ± = 3.23 ± .16; for high IS, ± = 3.28 ± .16). M SE M SE Figure 4. Mean component scores (± SE) for both synchronous and asynchronous conditions and for each interoceptive sensitivity group (HIGH and LOW groups) in Experiment 2.
the significant interaction was driven by a greater difference between the synchronous and asynchronous conditions for the ratings for the statements comprising the component scores “self-identification” (mean difference ± SE = 1.03 ± .14; t(55) = 7.5, p < .0001) and “similarity” (mean difference ± SE =.85 ± .15; t(55) = 5.5, p < .0001) than for those comprising the component score “affect” (mean difference ± SE = .35 ± .14; t(55) = 2.5, p = .014). Follow-up paired samples t-tests between the calculated difference “synchronous minus asynchronous” for all component scores revealed a significant difference between the score “affect” and the scores “self-identification” (t(55) = 3.8, p < .0001) and “similarity” (t(49) = 2.7, p = .009). These findings replicate the main results of Experiment 1. Furthermore, the interaction of condition with the IS group was significant (F(1, 54) = 4.11, p < .05, p2 = .07), because as shown in Figure 4, participants with low IS gave overall higher ratings to all three components following synchronous stimulation (M ± SE = 4.19 ± .14) than participants with high IS (M ± SE = 3.81 ± .14), while for both groups ratings following asynchronous stimulation were comparable (for low IS, M ± SE = 3.23 ± .16; for high IS, M ± SE = 3.28 ± .16). Figure 4. Mean component scores (± SE) for both synchronous and asynchronous conditions and for each interoceptive sensitivity group (HIGH and LOW groups) in Experiment 2.
TajaduraJimenez_etal_2012_ConCog.docx