Table 3: Participants’ state of mind scores for the parallel interview, and correlations
with AAI state of mind scores
|
Parallel interview scores |
Parallel mean (SD |
AAI mean (SD) |
Correlation |
|
Metacognitive monitoring |
1 |
2.78 (1.75)** |
NA |
|
Coherence of transcript |
5.23 (2.13) |
3.35 (1.73)* |
-.14 |
|
Idealising |
2.23 (1.96) |
2.50 (1.69) |
.27 |
|
Lack memory |
1.85 (1.91) |
2.70 (2.66) |
.71** |
|
Anger |
1.92 (1.38) |
2.20 (1.56) |
.79*** |
|
Passivity |
2.85 (2.08) |
3.10 (2.02) |
.65* |
|
Derogation |
1 |
1.60 (1.04)* |
NA |
|
Coherence of mind |
5.38 (2.26) |
3.43 (1.74)* |
-.04 |
All participants scored 1 on “metacognitive monitoring” and “derogation” in the
parallel interview.
NA: could not be calculated, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Correlations are Spearman’s rho. Highlighted AAI means are significantly different from
parallel interview means (Wilcoxon signed ranks test).
39
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The urban sprawl dynamics: does a neural network understand the spatial logic better than a cellular automata?
3. Intertemporal Risk Management Decisions of Farmers under Preference, Market, and Policy Dynamics
4. On the job rotation problem
5. How we might be able to understand the brain
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Work Rich, Time Poor? Time-Use of Women and Men in Ireland
9. Disturbing the fiscal theory of the price level: Can it fit the eu-15?
10. The resources and strategies that 10-11 year old boys use to construct masculinities in the school setting