. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Nov 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2016 Nov;44(8):1527–1541. doi: 10.1007/s10802-016-0139-7

Table 6. Autonomic Reactivity and Child Social Functioning Predicting Peer Prosocial Competence.

	Step 2			Step 3

Variable	R²	β	ΔF	R²	β	ΔF
Step 1	<.01		1.09
Age		.11			.12
Sex		−.09			−.02
Race		<.01			−.02
Vocabulary		.05			.06
Resting RSA		−.07			−.05
Resting HR		−.14			−.07
Resting PEP		−.09			−.07
Step 2	.15		3.97^**	.15		4.14^**
Anger RSA		.16			.23^*
Anger HR		−.02			−.05
Anger PEP		−.17			−.18
Fear RSA		.02			.03
Fear HR		−.17			−.07
Fear PEP		.13			.16
Sad RSA		−.07			−.13
Sad HR		−.07			−.13
Sad PEP		.27⁺			.25
Step 3				.19		2.97^*
Externalizing (T)					−.13
Externalizing (P)					.11
Internalizing (T)					−.17⁺
Internalizing (P)					.12

Note. In step 1, df = 7, 154; in step 2, df = 16, 145; in step 3, df = 20, 141. RSA = Respiratory sinus arrhythmia, HR = Heart rate, PEP = Pre-ejection period, T = Teacher rating, P = Peer nomination. Resting physiology measures were taken prior to the start of the emotion induction series. Reactivity scores represent raw scores during each emotional clip minus baseline levels averaged across neutral film clips; since RSA reactivity = RSA withdrawal, HR reactivity = increased HR, and PEP reactivity = PEP shortening, increased reactivity is indicated by negative RSA and PEP scores and positive HR scores. No significant interactions emerged between physiological markers (e.g., PEP × RSA).

p < .05,

^**

p < .01.