PDF (PhD Thesis Susan Chipchase) - Nottingham eTheses ...

A meta-analysis analysis was conducted to compare the study phase
ratings of approach/ avoidance given to the stimuli in Experiments 6 – 10. A 3
x 5 ANOVA with the within participants factor of emotion (negative, neutral,
positive) and the between participants factor of experiment (6,7,8,9,10) was
conducted. There was a significant main effect of emotion (F(1.54,126.49) =
259.97, MSe = 81.33, p < .001, partial eta 2 = .76), a main effect of experiment
(F(4,82) = 2.47, MSe = 0.61, p = .05, partial eta 2 = .11) and a significant
interaction between emotion and experiment (F(8,164) = 2.32, MSe = 0.72, p <
.05, partial eta 2 = .10). Planned comparisons for the main effect of emotion
revealed significantly greater ratings for negative than neutral (F(1,82) =
179.110, p < .001) and for neutral than positive (F(1,82) = 146.58, p < .001).
Post-hoc analyses of Tukey’s HSD were conducted to examine the interaction
between emotion and experiment. This revealed only one significant result
which was that ratings for neutral stimuli were significantly lower in
Experiment 6 than in Experiment 9 (p < .05).
Section 5.2. Memory Results
The experimental stimuli were exactly the same for Experiments 6 – 10.
In experiments 9 and 10 there were some adjustments made to the presentation
of stimuli. These were as follows: Experiment 9 - stimuli were presented in
blocks of emotion type rather than in a pseudorandomised list and participants
were warned of the emotion of the stimuli in the upcoming block; Experiment
10 – participants were given a warning of the emotion of the next stimulus. The
results across all of these experiments (6 – 10) showed the same pattern of
238