7. 1 Im p le m en t at io n o f t h e C a rd Pi ck i ng G am e
Matlab 7.5 (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, USA) with Psychtoolbox (Brainard, 1997) and Cogent (John Romaya, The Wellcome Department of Imaging
Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK;
http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/Cogent/index.html) were used to present the Card Picking Game. The game interface comprised the monetary reserves of each player on the left side. A red superior panel and a blue inferior panel displayed the accumulated money of the fictive partner and the participant, respectively. A nickname chosen by the participant plus a portrait picture of each player were included in their respective panel to insure correct identification of each monetary reserve. Written statements displayed adjacently to each player’s portrait described each player’s current action (i.e. “[nickname] is watching” or “[nickname] is playing”).
The game was divided in 16 rounds where each player played 8 rounds successively. The sequence of events of each trial was as follows. First a fixation cross appeared for 5-10 s followed by a reminder of each player’s role and the current round count displayed for 3 s. Then, alongside a 5 s countdown, the two cards appeared in the centre of the screen side by side and showed their value for 3 s. Then the two cards turned over and remained face down for 2 s. Then, the two cards started to move and crossed each other’s path for 8 to 10 s before returning side by side to the centre of the screen, face down. Then the picture of a hand appeared on the screen, pointing in the direction of the middle of the screen and symbolizing the active player’s hand. Participant were asked to press the left or right arrow on the keyboard to indicate whether they choose the left or the right card respectively, and the pointing hand moved towards the chosen card. Finally, when the pointing hand arrived in front of the chosen card, the two cards turned over and showed their value. Before starting the game, participants played a 2 round warm-up session to become familiar with the interface and the card shuffling.
7. 2 I nd uc ti o n e ff ic a cy in E x p e ri m en ts 1 a nd 2
Table S1. List of items rated in the exit questionnaire
Feelings Body sensations Action tendencies Person appraisals
To what extent did you feel …?
To what extent did you feel …?
To what extent did you feel the willingness to…?
To what extent…?
Happy, thrilled, blooming
Lump in throat Go towards
someone/thing
Your partner was fair
Sad, depressed, blue Heart beating faster Leave, avoid Your partner was
nice
outraged breathing bite nice competent during the Card Picking Game* Scared, afraid,
frightened
Chest tightness Yell, scream, swear Were you
competent during the Card Picking Game*
Disdainful, scornful Stomach troubles Badmouth
Anxious, tensed, nervous
Perspiring Sing, dance, laugh,
jump
Disgusted, repulsed Hot flush Move, twist and turn,
Amused, joyful, cheerful Feeling cold, shivering Disappear, dissolve Surprised, stunned, astonished
Muscles tensing Cry, sob
Attentive,
concentrating, alert
Trembling Protect, shelter
Ashamed, disgraced, humiliated
Relaxed Bing paralysed,
unable to react Guilty, blameworthy,
responsible
Boiling
Feeling hot, cheeks burning
Note: * Present in the replication experiment and Experiment 2 only.
7.2.1 Experiment 1.
In terms of body sensations, the participants in the anger condition felt significantly less relaxation, t (32) = -3.976, p < .001, and more tension in the muscles, t (32) = 2.569, p = .015, a lump in the throat, t (32) = 2.557, p = .016, a tightness in the chest, t (32) = 2.376, p = .024, and their heart beating faster, t (32) = 2.101, p = .044, than those in the control condition. The participants in the guilt condition felt significantly less relaxation, t (33) = - 4.823, p < .001, and more a lump in the throat, t (33) = 3.331, p = .002, a tightness in the chest, t (33) = 3.174, p = .003, tension in the muscles, t (33) = 3.047, p = .005, their heart beating faster, t (33) = 2.448, p = .020, sensations of boiling, t (33) = 2.315, p = .027, and breath changes, t (33) = 2.197, p = .035, than those in the control condition.
In terms of action tendencies, the participants in the anger condition were significantly less willing to sing, dance, jump, or laugh, t (32) = -3.221, p = .003, and to move, t (32) = - 2.137, p = .040, but more willing to badmouth, t (32) = 2.996, p = .005, to go towards someone or something, t (32) = 2.806, p = .008, to kick, hit, or destroy, t (32) = 2.700, p = .011, to yell, scream, or swear, t (32) = 2.273, p = .030, and to feel paralyzed, t (32) = 2.218, p = .034, than those in the control condition. The participants in the guilt condition were significantly more willing to go towards someone or something, t (33) = 3.692, p = .001, and to disappear or dissolve, t (33) = 3.332, p = .002, than those in the control condition. Altogether, these results suggest that the participants in the guilt and anger
conditions felt a series of body sensations and actions tendencies to a greater extent than those in the control condition, which indicates that the emotional induction succeeded in inducing emotional “responses”
7.2.2 Experiment 2.
In terms of body sensations, the participants in the shame condition felt significantly more burning cheeks, t (32) = 2.209, p = .034, and heat, t (32) = 2.607, p = .014, than those in the control condition.
In terms of action tendencies, the participants in the shame condition were significantly more willing to avoid or leave, t (32) = 3.892, p < .001, to shelter or protect oneself, t (32) = 2.447, p = .020, to yell, scream, or swear, t (32) = 2.235, p = .033, than those in the control condition.
Altogether, these results suggest that the participants in shame condition felt a series of body sensations and actions tendencies to a greater extent than those in the control condition, which indicates that the emotional induction succeeded in inducing emotional “responses”.