When the donator was a human partner (B). Subjects perceived achange

When the donator was a human partner (B). Subjects perceived MedChemExpress SCH 58261 achange in the strength of emotions when applying the strategies with both partners. However the human condition showed larger effects (C). Lastly, a correlation was observed between the ability to take the perspective of others (IRI questionnaire) and the ability to apply reappraisal (D).queried emotions (anger, disgust, surprise, sadness, happiness, and disappointment) for both human and computer partners. Analyses returned a significant main effect of Partner [F (1, 23) = 4.385, p < 0.05], of Offer [F (1, 23) = 16.314, p < 0.001], and of Emotion [F (1, 23) = 24.356, p < 0.0001], as well as a significant Offer ?Emotion interaction [F (5, 115) = 101.034, p < 0.0001], and the triple interaction [F (5, 115) = 3.856, p < 0.005]. Next, we ran Fisher-corrected post hoc tests with participants' subjective ratings as dependent variables to compare between human and computer partners for each emotion and every offer. For the selfish unfair offers, disgust, and disappointment elicited when playing with a human were order 118414-82-7 stronger than when playing with a computer partner (p < 0.05, respectively: score = 3.54 vs. 2.16, score = 6.2 vs. 5.2). The other emotions were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05). For the altruistic fair offers, only happiness was stronger for human than computer partners (p < 0.05, score = 7.21 vs. 6.41). The other emotions were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05). See Figures 5A,B and Table 2. Participants felt their emotions change more strongly when interacting with a human rather a computer partner [respectively, 5.04 and 3.95, t (1, 23) = -3.137, p < 0.005]. See Figure 5C.Analysis of questionnaires revealed a positive correlation between the reported frequency of reappraisal usage in daily life (ERQ-reappraisal subscale) and the ability to take the psychological point of view of others (IRI-perspective taking subscale; rho = 0.471, p < 0.01). See Figure 5D.DISCUSSIONThe aim of this study was to test for differences in the regulation of emotions stemming from interaction with human and nonhuman partners respectively. Results indicated that even though reappraisal can be successfully applied to both contexts, participants showed a stronger effect on their perceived valence when playing with a human partner. Therefore, it seems that reappraisal PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19913904 leads participants to change the valence of their emotions to make them more positive for selfish offers, but also stronger and more vivid for fair offers. Moreover, emotional ratings indicated that on one hand, participants were more disappointed and disgusted when recipients of selfish behavior from human rather than computer partners, however when receiving altruistic offers participants were happier when the Allocator was a human partner. Last but not least, there was a positive correlation between IRI and ERQ questionnaires, indicating that the ability to takewww.frontiersin.orgJanuary 2013 | Volume 3 | Article 616 |Grecucci et al.Interpersonal emotion regulationTable 2 | Experiment 2-results from the experiment and from the questionnaires. Experiment ratings Valence ratings Computer-look C1* C2* C3* C4*?C5*?2.11 (1.17) 3.02 (1.29) 3.67 (1.19) 4.86 (1.11) 6.26 (1.30) Computer-reappraisal 4.06 (1.41) 4,77 (1.53) 5.05 (1.17) 5.77 (1.26) 6.71 (1.51) Arousal ratings Computer-look C1 C2 C3 C4 C5?Questionnaires Offer 1C Human Disappointment Anger Disgust Sadness Surprise Happiness 6.20 (2.22)** 4.33 (2.07) 3.54.When the donator was a human partner (B). Subjects perceived achange in the strength of emotions when applying the strategies with both partners. However the human condition showed larger effects (C). Lastly, a correlation was observed between the ability to take the perspective of others (IRI questionnaire) and the ability to apply reappraisal (D).queried emotions (anger, disgust, surprise, sadness, happiness, and disappointment) for both human and computer partners. Analyses returned a significant main effect of Partner [F (1, 23) = 4.385, p < 0.05], of Offer [F (1, 23) = 16.314, p < 0.001], and of Emotion [F (1, 23) = 24.356, p < 0.0001], as well as a significant Offer ?Emotion interaction [F (5, 115) = 101.034, p < 0.0001], and the triple interaction [F (5, 115) = 3.856, p < 0.005]. Next, we ran Fisher-corrected post hoc tests with participants' subjective ratings as dependent variables to compare between human and computer partners for each emotion and every offer. For the selfish unfair offers, disgust, and disappointment elicited when playing with a human were stronger than when playing with a computer partner (p < 0.05, respectively: score = 3.54 vs. 2.16, score = 6.2 vs. 5.2). The other emotions were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05). For the altruistic fair offers, only happiness was stronger for human than computer partners (p < 0.05, score = 7.21 vs. 6.41). The other emotions were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05). See Figures 5A,B and Table 2. Participants felt their emotions change more strongly when interacting with a human rather a computer partner [respectively, 5.04 and 3.95, t (1, 23) = -3.137, p < 0.005]. See Figure 5C.Analysis of questionnaires revealed a positive correlation between the reported frequency of reappraisal usage in daily life (ERQ-reappraisal subscale) and the ability to take the psychological point of view of others (IRI-perspective taking subscale; rho = 0.471, p < 0.01). See Figure 5D.DISCUSSIONThe aim of this study was to test for differences in the regulation of emotions stemming from interaction with human and nonhuman partners respectively. Results indicated that even though reappraisal can be successfully applied to both contexts, participants showed a stronger effect on their perceived valence when playing with a human partner. Therefore, it seems that reappraisal PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19913904 leads participants to change the valence of their emotions to make them more positive for selfish offers, but also stronger and more vivid for fair offers. Moreover, emotional ratings indicated that on one hand, participants were more disappointed and disgusted when recipients of selfish behavior from human rather than computer partners, however when receiving altruistic offers participants were happier when the Allocator was a human partner. Last but not least, there was a positive correlation between IRI and ERQ questionnaires, indicating that the ability to takewww.frontiersin.orgJanuary 2013 | Volume 3 | Article 616 |Grecucci et al.Interpersonal emotion regulationTable 2 | Experiment 2-results from the experiment and from the questionnaires. Experiment ratings Valence ratings Computer-look C1* C2* C3* C4*?C5*?2.11 (1.17) 3.02 (1.29) 3.67 (1.19) 4.86 (1.11) 6.26 (1.30) Computer-reappraisal 4.06 (1.41) 4,77 (1.53) 5.05 (1.17) 5.77 (1.26) 6.71 (1.51) Arousal ratings Computer-look C1 C2 C3 C4 C5?Questionnaires Offer 1C Human Disappointment Anger Disgust Sadness Surprise Happiness 6.20 (2.22)** 4.33 (2.07) 3.54.