Table 1.
Participant characteristics for all analyses in Experiment 1.
| Sham-GSM |
Sham-UMTS |
GSM-UMTS |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | IEI-EMF (n = 29) | Control (n = 62) | Statisticsa | IEI-EMF (n = 24) | Control (n = 43) | Statistics | IEI-EMF (n = 19) | Control (n = 49) | Statistics |
| Age (years)b | 48.52 (13.51) | 50.98 (15.37) | t(89) = −0.74, p = 0.46 | 50.08 (12.99) | 47.77 (16.33) | t(65) = 0.60, p = 0.55 | 41.53 (12.12) | 53.53 (14.14) | t(66) = −3.26, p = 0.002 |
| Gender (% male) | 55.2 | 51.6 | χ2(1) = 0.10, p = 0.75 | 62.5 | 58.1 | χ2(1) = 0.12, p = 0.73 | 47.4 | 38.8 | χ2(1) = 0.42, p = 0.52 |
| Ethnicity (% White British) | 69.0 | 79.0 | χ2(9) = 10.46, p = 0.31 | 87.5 | 74.4 | χ2(9) = 8.95, p = 0.44 | 68.4 | 83.7 | χ2(6) = 8.22, p = 0.22 |
| Marital status (%) | χ2(5) = 13.90, p = 0.016 | χ2(5) = 7.01, p = 0.22 | χ2(4) = 10.11, p = 0.040 | ||||||
| Cohabiting | 10.3 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 2.3 | 10.5 | 2.0 | |||
| Divorced | 6.9 | 6.5 | 8.3 | 9.3 | 0.0 | 4.1 | |||
| Married | 51.7 | 69.4 | 54.2 | 62.8 | 42.1 | 73.5 | |||
| Separated | 6.9 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 20.4 | |||
| Single | 20.7 | 24.2 | 16.7 | 25.6 | 42.1 | 0.0 | |||
| Widowed | 3.4 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Chronic illness (% No) | 75.9 | 67.7 | χ2(1) = 0.62, p = 0.43 | 62.5 | 65.1 | χ2(1) = 0.05, p = 0.83 | 78.9 | 69.4 | χ2(1) = 0.62, p = 0.43 |
| Judgments (% concordant) | 58.6 | 46.8 | χ2(1) = 1.11, p = .29 | 58.3 | 58.1 | χ2(1) < 0.01, p = 0.99 | 52.6c | 38.8c | χ2(1) = 1.08, p = 0.30 |
| Exposure order (% Sham – real) | 55.2 | 50.0 | χ2(1) = 0.21, p = 0.65 | 50.0 | 48.8 | χ2(1) < 0.01, p = 0.93 | 42.1d | 53.1d | χ2(1) = 0.66, p = 0.42 |
aChi-square, df, and p-values for all analyzes except age, which was analyzed using independent samples t-tests in which case t-values instead of Chi-square values are reported. bM (SD). cGSM concordant meaning participants judged “on” during the GSM and “off” during the UMTS condition. dGSM – UMTS.