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. Initial Public Offerings and Venture Capital in Germany2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Two-Part Tax Controls for Forest Density and Rotation Time
5. The name is absent
6. Improvement of Access to Data Sets from the Official Statistics
7. On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making
8. The name is absent
9. Revisiting The Bell Curve Debate Regarding the Effects of Cognitive Ability on Wages
10. The name is absent