TABLE 3.

Pairwise comparisons in interaction between EDA, MA group, ER strategy, and stimulus type, with accuracy as an outcome measure.

Interaction: EDA × MA group × ER strategy × Stimulus type with accuracy
Condition		Group comparison β values	Pairwise comparison
Comparing MA groups
	Math-ES	HMA: β = −0.12 LMA: β = 0.31	t(270) = −3.404, p = 0.0008**
	Math-Look	HMA: β = 0.036 LMA: β = −0.18	t(269) = 2.09, p = 0.038*
	Math-CR	HMA: β = −0.02 LMA: β = 0.06	t(270) = −0.673, p = 0.50
Comparing ER strategies
	HMA	Look: β = 0.036 CR: β = −0.02	t(272) = 0.54, p = 0.92
	HMA	Look: β = 0.036 ES: β = −0.12	t(265) = 1.85, p = 0.19
	HMA	CR: β = −0.02 ES: β = −0.12	t(272) = 1.10, p = 0.62
	LMA	Look: β = −0.18 CR: β = 0.06	t(275) = −2.04, p = 0.12
	LMA	Look: β = −0.18 ES: β = 0.31	t(274) = −3.49, p = 0.0017**
	LMA	CR: β = 0.06 ES: β = 0.31	t(261) = −1.94, p = 0.15

This table depicts pairwise comparisons within the math condition in the four-way interaction with the factors EDA, MA group, ER Strategy and Stimulus type, with accuracy as an outcome measure. The table focuses on pairwise comparisons within the math condition only. Pairwise comparisons were made evaluating the differences between groups within each strategy. Additionally, within each group, pairwise comparisons were computed between each of the ER strategies. *indicates pairwise comparisons that are statistically significantly different, p < 0.05. **indicates pairwise comparisons that are statistically significantly different, p < 0.01.