Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Abnorm Psychol. 2011 May;120(2):286–298. doi: 10.1037/a0023334

Table 1. Study 1: Comparison of GAD Clusters.

Study 1: Comparisons of Final Four GAD Clusters.	Intrusive Cluster (N = 13)	Exploitable Cluster (N = 15)	Cold Cluster (N = 10)	Nonassertive Cluster (N = 9)	F-value	η²_p
Elevation	0.77^a	0.70^a	0.51^a	0.42^a	.592	.040
Amplitude	0.81^a ^b	0.74^a	0.60^a	1.32^b	7.69^*	.349
*Octants:*					F-value
PA (Domineering)	1.33^a	0.28^b	0.39^a ^b	-0.76^c	15.34^*	.517
BC (Vindictive)	0.56^a	0.16^a	1.18^a	-0.02^a	3.25	.185
DE (Cold)	0.18^a	0.05^a	1.04^a	0.85^a	3.61	.201
FG (Socially-Avoidant)	-0.06^a	0.49^a ^b	0.51^a ^b	1.43^b	4.72^*	.248
HI (Nonassertive)	0.60^a	1.49^a	0.47^a	1.69^a	4.67	.246
JK (Exploitable)	0.65^a	1.28^a	0.18^a	1.09^a	3.78	.209
LM (Overly-Nurturant)	1.21^a	1.10^a ^b	-0.02^b ^c	-0.21^c	8.83^*	.381
NO (Intrusive)	1.67^a	0.74^a ^b ^c	0.32^a ^b ^c	-0.68^c	9.87^*	.408
*Axes:*
Dominance	0.47^a	-0.46	0.12^a	-1.18	49.40^*	.775
Love	0.58^a	0.50^a	-0.48^b	-0.44^b	32.02^*	.691

Note:

^{a, b, c}

Values sharing superscripts across rows are not statistically significant.

^*

p<.006