Skill that proved to be significantly correlated with the dependent variable

Skill that proved to be significantly correlated with the dependent variable (pain rating to pain pictures), and when the MRT-67307 custom synthesis R 115777 interaction term between acute stress induction (Group) and mean centered emotion regulation skill was significantly correlated to the pain rating. In step one, we predicted the pain rating by gender, acute psychosocial stress induction (as independent variable) and the specific emotion regulation skill (as predictor). In step two, we added the interaction term between acute psychosocialRESULTSPAIN PARADIGM AND STRESS MANIPULATION CHECKFirst, we analyzed whether the participants gave pain ratings according to the pain intensities depicted in the presented stimuli. Results showed that the pain ratings increased with the presented pain intensity [Main Effect Intensities F(3, 303) = 1.065, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.913, Interaction Intensities ?Group F(3, 303) = 1.313, p = 0.27, 2 = 0.013]. Similarly, reaction times increased from non-pain pictures, over pain pictures with intensity 1 and 2 to intensity 3 [Main Effect Intensities F(3, 303) = 71.285, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.414, Interaction Intensities ?Group F(3, 303) = 0.374, p = 0.77, 2 = 0.004]. In comparison to the Placebo-Group, the Stress-Group reported a significant reduction in mood from preTSST to postTSST [Interaction Time ?Group: F(1, 100) = 43.916, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.305] and from preTSST to postPain [Interaction Time ?Group: F(1, 100) = 11.345, p = 0.001, 2 = 0.102] as well as in calmness from preTSST to postTSST [Interaction Time ?Group: F(1, 102) = 29.854, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.230] while calmness increased again from postTSST to postPain [Interaction Time ?Group: F(1, 100) = 5.231, p < 0.024, 2 = 0.050] as measured by MDBF scales (see Figure 3). The Placebo-Group did not report any change in their mood and calmness [F(1, 49) < 2.000, p > 0.10]. Additionally, the participants assigned to the Stress-Group showed a higher increase in heart rate during stress induction than participants in the Placebo-Group [Interaction Time ?Group: F(2, 178) = 32.739, p < 0.001; 2 = 0.269]. Afterwards values declined rapidly to stabilize during Post-TSSTprocedures. PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19906222 However, for participants in the Stress-Group heart rate remained elevated compared to the Placebo-Group during these time points [F(1, 89) = 7.601, p = 0.007, 2 = 0.079, see Figure 4]. This main effect was not modified by Time [F(2, 178) = 2.617, p = 0.076, 2 = 0.029], Gender [F(1, 89) = 0.614, p = 0.435, 2 = 0.007], or Time ?Gender [F(2, 178) = 1.069, p = 0.346, 2 = 0.012]. Furthermore, females showed a higher heart rate than males throughout the experiment [F(1, 89) = 5.633, p = 0.020, 2 = 0.060]. This gender effect was not modified by Time [F(1, 88) = 2.081, p = 0.153, 2 = 0.023], Group [F(1, 88) = 1.790, p = 0.184, 2 = 0.020], or Phase [stress induction vs. pain ratings; F(1, 88) = 0.038, p = 0.846, 2 = 0.000].ACUTE PSYCHOSOCIAL STRESS AND PAIN RATINGSWhereas pain pictures were rated significantly more painful than non-painful pictures [Main Effect Pain: F(1, 101) = 1062.235, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.913], this difference was reduced in the StressGroup [Interaction Pain ?Group: F(1, 101) = 5291, p = 0.023, 2 = 0.050]. Post-hoc T-tests revealed that participants of the Stress-Group rated the pain pictures less painful than the Placebo-Group [T(102) = 2.280, p = 0.025, d = 0.482]. Figure 5 presents the interaction between psychosocial stress and pain judgments.www.frontiersin.orgMay 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 517 |Buruck et al.Stress, emotio.Skill that proved to be significantly correlated with the dependent variable (pain rating to pain pictures), and when the interaction term between acute stress induction (Group) and mean centered emotion regulation skill was significantly correlated to the pain rating. In step one, we predicted the pain rating by gender, acute psychosocial stress induction (as independent variable) and the specific emotion regulation skill (as predictor). In step two, we added the interaction term between acute psychosocialRESULTSPAIN PARADIGM AND STRESS MANIPULATION CHECKFirst, we analyzed whether the participants gave pain ratings according to the pain intensities depicted in the presented stimuli. Results showed that the pain ratings increased with the presented pain intensity [Main Effect Intensities F(3, 303) = 1.065, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.913, Interaction Intensities ?Group F(3, 303) = 1.313, p = 0.27, 2 = 0.013]. Similarly, reaction times increased from non-pain pictures, over pain pictures with intensity 1 and 2 to intensity 3 [Main Effect Intensities F(3, 303) = 71.285, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.414, Interaction Intensities ?Group F(3, 303) = 0.374, p = 0.77, 2 = 0.004]. In comparison to the Placebo-Group, the Stress-Group reported a significant reduction in mood from preTSST to postTSST [Interaction Time ?Group: F(1, 100) = 43.916, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.305] and from preTSST to postPain [Interaction Time ?Group: F(1, 100) = 11.345, p = 0.001, 2 = 0.102] as well as in calmness from preTSST to postTSST [Interaction Time ?Group: F(1, 102) = 29.854, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.230] while calmness increased again from postTSST to postPain [Interaction Time ?Group: F(1, 100) = 5.231, p < 0.024, 2 = 0.050] as measured by MDBF scales (see Figure 3). The Placebo-Group did not report any change in their mood and calmness [F(1, 49) < 2.000, p > 0.10]. Additionally, the participants assigned to the Stress-Group showed a higher increase in heart rate during stress induction than participants in the Placebo-Group [Interaction Time ?Group: F(2, 178) = 32.739, p < 0.001; 2 = 0.269]. Afterwards values declined rapidly to stabilize during Post-TSSTprocedures. PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19906222 However, for participants in the Stress-Group heart rate remained elevated compared to the Placebo-Group during these time points [F(1, 89) = 7.601, p = 0.007, 2 = 0.079, see Figure 4]. This main effect was not modified by Time [F(2, 178) = 2.617, p = 0.076, 2 = 0.029], Gender [F(1, 89) = 0.614, p = 0.435, 2 = 0.007], or Time ?Gender [F(2, 178) = 1.069, p = 0.346, 2 = 0.012]. Furthermore, females showed a higher heart rate than males throughout the experiment [F(1, 89) = 5.633, p = 0.020, 2 = 0.060]. This gender effect was not modified by Time [F(1, 88) = 2.081, p = 0.153, 2 = 0.023], Group [F(1, 88) = 1.790, p = 0.184, 2 = 0.020], or Phase [stress induction vs. pain ratings; F(1, 88) = 0.038, p = 0.846, 2 = 0.000].ACUTE PSYCHOSOCIAL STRESS AND PAIN RATINGSWhereas pain pictures were rated significantly more painful than non-painful pictures [Main Effect Pain: F(1, 101) = 1062.235, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.913], this difference was reduced in the StressGroup [Interaction Pain ?Group: F(1, 101) = 5291, p = 0.023, 2 = 0.050]. Post-hoc T-tests revealed that participants of the Stress-Group rated the pain pictures less painful than the Placebo-Group [T(102) = 2.280, p = 0.025, d = 0.482]. Figure 5 presents the interaction between psychosocial stress and pain judgments.www.frontiersin.orgMay 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 517 |Buruck et al.Stress, emotio.