Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar 31;44(Suppl 2):S536–S546. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sby035

Table 2.

ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests Comparing the Schizotypy Clusters

LS (n = 64) NS (n = 66) MS (n = 27) PS (n = 33) F [3, 186] P Post Hoc Comparison
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
TEPS a
 Anti_Pl 36.34 6.95 32.40 6.19 29.37 6.31 37.18 5.32 11.83 <.001* LS, PS > NS, MS
 Cons_Pl 43.70 6.75 37.51 7.16 36.19 6.85 42.67 5.85 13.77 <.001* LS, PS > NS, MS
 Total 80.05 12.70 70.03 11.87 65.56 11.29 79.85 9.78 15.33 <.001* LS, PS > NS, MS
EES
 Supp 46.51 7.83 42.79 6.15 43.19 10.13 43.79 5.70 3.14 .027* LS > NS
 Exp 16.64 5.00 16.47 4.84 16.19 4.11 17.55 3.80 0.53 .660
 Total 63.16 9.59 59.26 7.42 59.37 11.34 61.33 6.13 2.55 .057

Note: ANOVA, analysis of variance; LS, low schizotypy; NS, negative schizotypy; MS, mixed schizotypy; PS, positive schizotypy; TEPS, the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale; Anti_Pl, anticipatory pleasure; Cons_Pl, consummatory pleasure; EES, the Emotional Expressivity Scale; Supp, suppression factor; Exp, expression factor.

aOne participant’s data are missing.

*P ≤ .05.