Skip to main content

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of independent and dependent variables in the two experimental groups

From: Does precautionary information about electromagnetic fields trigger nocebo responses? An experimental risk communication study

  Experimental condition Test statistic for differences between groups
Basic information
(n = 62–64)
Basic + precautionary information (n = 71–73)
Independent variables M (90% CI) M (90% CI)  
 Mean trait anxiety 2.22 (2.15–2.29) 2.23 (2.16–2.31) tdf = 133 = −.22 (p = .82)
 Mean somatosensory amplification 2.71 (2.61–2.82) 2.83 (2.72–2.94) tdf = 135 = −1.3 (p = .20)
 Sum social desirability 10.58 (10.05–11.10) 10.58 (10.02–11.13) tdf = 135 = .01 (p = .99)
 T0 risk perception WLAN score 2.56 (2.33–2.79) 2.59 (2.38–2.79) tdf = 135 = −.14 (p = .89)
 Mean T1 state anxiety 1.36 (1.29–1.42) 1.50 (1.41–1.59) tdf = 134 = −2.18 (p = .03)
 Mean T2 state anxiety 1.29 (1.22–1.35) 1.42 (1.33–1.50) tdf = 134 = − 1.96 (p = .05)
Dependent variables
 Mean symptom difference T3 – T2 .09 (.04–.14) .12 (.07–.17) tdf = 135 = −.65 (p = .52)
 Mean attributed symptoms 1.13 (1.09–1.16) 1.15 (1.11–1.19) tdf = 135 = −.74 (p = .46)
 Sum of trials with belief to perceive sham EMF format 1.53 (1.17–1.90) 2.10 (1.70–2.49) tdf = 135 = − 1.74 (p = .08)