Erences in self-reported personal distress, we further included participants’ sex as

Erences in self-reported A-83-01 biological activity personal distress, we further included participants’ sex as a between-participants factor in the personal distress analyses.Exp Brain Res (2016) 234:499?10 Table 1 Statistical analyses for congruency, IRIdistress, and participants’ sex Error df = 126 Total sample F Congruency Men Women Sig. 2 p Low GSK-126 IRIdistress F Sig. 2 p High IRIdistress F Sig. 2 p503 Low versus PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889352 high IRIdistress F Sig. 2 p54.38 <.001 .30 27.87 <.001 .18 .001 .09 41.90 <.001 .50a 12.40 24.43 <.001 .23a 15.47 <.001 .11 .08 .02 .30 .58 .38.94 <.001 .24 4.30 .04 .03 24.89 <.001 .17 14.11 .001 .25b 16.88 <.001 .12 .49 .49 .01c 8.10 .005 .06 8.76 .004 .Men versus women 3.a b cdf = 128 df = 84 df =Confirmatory analyses Personal distress A repeated measures ANOVA with congruency (incongruent vs. congruent) as within-subjects variable, IRIdistress as standardized continuous predictor, and participants' sex (male vs. female) as between-subjects variable revealed the expected main effect of congruency. Participants were on average 10.07 ms faster to respond to congruent (M = 314.12, SD = 35.65) compared with incongruent (M = 324.19, SD = 36.18) stimuli. As expected, there was an interaction between congruency and IRIdistress (see upper right cell in Table 1). However, this interaction was qualified by an unexpected three-way interaction with participants' sex (see lower right cell in Table 1). Figure 3 presents the mean RTs for each cell in the design; Table 1 presents the statistics. In order to examine this three-way interaction and to test our specific hypothesis, the effect of congruency was assessed for male and female participants scoring low on IRIdistress (one standard deviation below the mean) andFig. 2 Schematic example of a congruent action trial in the social Simon task where the person on the left has to respond to green dotsfor male and female participants scoring high on IRIdistress (one standard deviation above the mean) separately (based on estimated marginal means; see Aiken and West 1991). These analyses revealed that male participants scoring high on IRIdistress had a larger congruency effect thanJoint Ac on Interference (RT incongruent - RT congruent)35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Low IRIdistress* ***** *High IRIdistressLow IRIdistressHigh IRIdistressMenWomenFig. 3 Joint action interference as a function of participants' sex and individual differences in personal distress in reaction to other people's emotions. Error bars represent 95 confidence intervals504 Table 2 Statistical analyses for congruency, CAPEpositive, and participants' sex Error df = 128 Congruency CAPEpositive Congruency * CAPEpositive F 44.96 1.63 .68 Sig. <.001 .20 .41 2 p .26 .01 .Exp Brain Res (2016) 234:499?Sex composition In our study, we included both male and female participants. It has been argued that participants' sex may affect the joint action effect because of in-group/out-group categorization processes (Powlishta 1995). For this purpose, some researchers took sex into account by studying the social Simon effect in matched gender pairs or even including only male or female participants in their studies (Liepelt et al. 2012; McClung et al. 2013; Philipp and Prinz 2010). As far as we know, there is only one study that showed effects of sex composition on the social Simon effect, such that the social Simon effect is stronger in samesex pairs than in opposite-sex pairs (Mussi et al. 2015). Furthermore, sample sizes are usually too small to analyze the effect of sex c.Erences in self-reported personal distress, we further included participants' sex as a between-participants factor in the personal distress analyses.Exp Brain Res (2016) 234:499?10 Table 1 Statistical analyses for congruency, IRIdistress, and participants' sex Error df = 126 Total sample F Congruency Men Women Sig. 2 p Low IRIdistress F Sig. 2 p High IRIdistress F Sig. 2 p503 Low versus PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889352 high IRIdistress F Sig. 2 p54.38 <.001 .30 27.87 <.001 .18 .001 .09 41.90 <.001 .50a 12.40 24.43 <.001 .23a 15.47 <.001 .11 .08 .02 .30 .58 .38.94 <.001 .24 4.30 .04 .03 24.89 <.001 .17 14.11 .001 .25b 16.88 <.001 .12 .49 .49 .01c 8.10 .005 .06 8.76 .004 .Men versus women 3.a b cdf = 128 df = 84 df =Confirmatory analyses Personal distress A repeated measures ANOVA with congruency (incongruent vs. congruent) as within-subjects variable, IRIdistress as standardized continuous predictor, and participants' sex (male vs. female) as between-subjects variable revealed the expected main effect of congruency. Participants were on average 10.07 ms faster to respond to congruent (M = 314.12, SD = 35.65) compared with incongruent (M = 324.19, SD = 36.18) stimuli. As expected, there was an interaction between congruency and IRIdistress (see upper right cell in Table 1). However, this interaction was qualified by an unexpected three-way interaction with participants' sex (see lower right cell in Table 1). Figure 3 presents the mean RTs for each cell in the design; Table 1 presents the statistics. In order to examine this three-way interaction and to test our specific hypothesis, the effect of congruency was assessed for male and female participants scoring low on IRIdistress (one standard deviation below the mean) andFig. 2 Schematic example of a congruent action trial in the social Simon task where the person on the left has to respond to green dotsfor male and female participants scoring high on IRIdistress (one standard deviation above the mean) separately (based on estimated marginal means; see Aiken and West 1991). These analyses revealed that male participants scoring high on IRIdistress had a larger congruency effect thanJoint Ac on Interference (RT incongruent - RT congruent)35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Low IRIdistress* ***** *High IRIdistressLow IRIdistressHigh IRIdistressMenWomenFig. 3 Joint action interference as a function of participants' sex and individual differences in personal distress in reaction to other people's emotions. Error bars represent 95 confidence intervals504 Table 2 Statistical analyses for congruency, CAPEpositive, and participants' sex Error df = 128 Congruency CAPEpositive Congruency * CAPEpositive F 44.96 1.63 .68 Sig. <.001 .20 .41 2 p .26 .01 .Exp Brain Res (2016) 234:499?Sex composition In our study, we included both male and female participants. It has been argued that participants' sex may affect the joint action effect because of in-group/out-group categorization processes (Powlishta 1995). For this purpose, some researchers took sex into account by studying the social Simon effect in matched gender pairs or even including only male or female participants in their studies (Liepelt et al. 2012; McClung et al. 2013; Philipp and Prinz 2010). As far as we know, there is only one study that showed effects of sex composition on the social Simon effect, such that the social Simon effect is stronger in samesex pairs than in opposite-sex pairs (Mussi et al. 2015). Furthermore, sample sizes are usually too small to analyze the effect of sex c.