Skip to main content
. 2023 May 25;23(4):1113–1128. doi: 10.3758/s13415-023-01105-4

Table 3.

Results of explicit emotion regulation during the active emotion regulation phase

ANOVA
(within-subject factor: condition; covariate: reappraisal score of ERQ)
look negative
M (SD)
re-interpretation
M (SD)
dis-tancing
M (SD)
planned comparisons
t-tests
main effect of condition interaction
condition * reappraisal score (ERQ)
look negative vs. reinter-pretation look negative vs. distancing distancing vs. reinter-pretation
Rating F(1.40, 75.66) = 91.93, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.63 F(1.40, 75.66) = 0.05, p = 0.894, ηp2 = 0.001 4.74 (1.58) 2.72 (1.01) 3.07 (1.18) t = 11.11, p < 0.001, d = 1.49 t = 9.18, p < 0.001, d = 1.23 t = 3.77, p < 0.001, d = 0.50

P3

(300–500 ms)

F(2,108) = 1.08, p = 0.344, ηp2 = 0.02 F(2,108) = 1.08, p = 0.344, ηp2 = 0.02 7.31 (3.46) 7.02 (3.67) 6.95 (3.99)

early LPP

(500–800 ms)

F(2,108) = 3.32, p = 0.040, ηp2 = 0.06 F(2,108) = 2.51, p = 0.086, ηp2 = 0.04 4.87 (2.95) 4.18 (2.81) 4.19 (3.20) t = 2.28, p = 0.081, d = 0.30 t = 1.96, p = 0.110, d = 0.26 t = 0.03, p = 0.974, d = 0.004

mid LPP

(800–1400 ms)

F(2,108) = 3.68, p = 0.028, ηp2 = 0.06 F(2,108) = 0.87, p = 0.421, ηp2 = 0.02 1.90 (2.72) 1.25 (2.85) 1.00 (2.97) t = 2.22, p = 0.062, d = 0.30 t = 2.33, p = 0.072, d = 0.31

t = −0.73, p = 0.467,

d = −0.01

late LPP

(1400–3000 ms)

F(2,108) = 4.05, p = 0.020, ηp2 = 0.07 F(2,108) = 0.81, p = 0.447, ηp2 = 0.02 1.38 (3.74) 0.40 (3.66) 0.45 (3.23) t = 2.57, p = 0.039, d = 0.34 t = 2.16, p = 0.070, d = 0.29 t = 0.13, p = 0.894, d = 0.02
3000 – 6000ms F(2,108) = 2.88, p = 0.060, ηp2 = 0.05 F(2,108) = 0.99, p = 0.375, ηp2 = 0.02 1.97 (6.33) 1.05 (6.23) 1.18 (5.65) t = 2.17, p = 0.102, d = 0.29 t = 1.86, p = 0.136, d = 0.25 t = 0.33, p = 0.742, d = 0.04

Planned post-hoc t-tests were only conducted, when indicated by a significant/trend level main effect in the ANOVA and p-values are Bonferroni-Holm corrected. ERQ = Emotion regulation questionnaire (Gross and John, 2003)