. 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 2. Study 2: Comparison of GAD Clusters.

	Intrusive Cluster (N = 14)	Exploitable Cluster (N = 18)	Cold Cluster (N = 31)	Nonassertive Cluster (N = 20)	F-value	η²_p
Elevation	.40^a	.33^a	.31^a	.62^a	.641	.024
Amplitude	.89^a ^b	.80^a	.57^a	1.25^b	12.01^***	.313
*Octants:*					F-value
PA (Domineering)	1.31^a	-.10^b ^c	.61^a ^b	-.43^c	11.63^***	.306
BC (Vindictive)	0.32^a	-.08^a	.61^a	.23^a	1.69	.060
DE (Cold)	-0.30^a ^b	-.31^a	.72^a ^b	.86^b	6.98^***	.209
FG (Socially-Avoidant)	-0.33^a	-.003^a	.28^a	1.64	14.67^***	.358
HI (Nonassertive)	0.08^a	1.37^b ^c	.43^a ^b	1.80^c	12.05^***	.314
JK (Exploitable)	0.22^a ^b ^c	1.04^b ^c	-.01^a	1.15^c	8.04^***	.234
LM (Overly-Nurturant)	0.57^a	.84^a	-.11^a	.33^a	3.08	.105
NO (Intrusive)	1.34^a	-.12^b	-.06^b	-.62^b	9.82^***	.272
*Axes:*
Dominance	.62	-.59	.10	-1.12	65.70^***	.714
Love	.50^a	.47^a	-.38^b	-.37^b	31.10^***	.542

Note:

^{a, b, c}

Values sharing superscripts across rows are not statistically significant.

^***

p < .001