Subject Sentic Results

 

Sub#19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 1.000 .580** -.137 .451** -.467** -.048 .457**

2 .580** 1.000 -.360** .028 -.360** .133 .225*

3 -.137 -.360** 1.000 .536** .376** .585** .365**

4 .451** .028 .536** 1.000 -.082 .502** .513*

5 -.467** -.360** .376** -.082 1.000 .306** .372**

6 -.048 .133 .585** .502** .306** 1.000 .385**

7 .457** .225* .365 .513** .372** .385** 1.000 Significance

1 . .000 .150 .000 .000 .617 .000

2 .000 . .000 .771 .000 .164 .018

3 .150 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000

4 .000 .771 .000 . .395 .000 .000

5 .000 .000 .000 .395 . .001 .000

6 .617 .164 .000 .000 .001 . .000

7 .000 .018 .000 .000 .000 .000 .

The sentic data for zero valence had a significant correlation both within and between subjects. Within subjects, for subject #19, the correlation ranged from being significantly negative to significantly positive (p<0.001). Between subjects, the zero valence sentic signal also had a highly positive correlation (p<=0.002).

sub#17 sub#19 sub#20

sub#17 1.000 .319** .295**

sub#19 .319** 1.000 .794**

sub#20 .295** .794** 1.000 Significance

sub#17 . .001 .002

sub#19 .001 . .000

sub#20 .002 .000 .

[Figure E-1: The mean subject sentic form for zero valence for subjects #17, #19, and #20.]

[Figure E-2: Positive valence subject #17]

[Figure E-3: Positive valence subject #19]

[Figure E-4: Positive valence subject #20]

The positive valence sentic data between subjects was also significant (p<0.001).

 

17_1 17_2 17_3 19_1 19_2 19_3 20_1 20_2 20_3

17_1 1.000 .784** .830** .601** .824** .873** .584** .263** -.177

17_2 .784** 1.000 .572** .873** .838** .915** .761** .704** .174

17_3 .830** .572** 1.000 .468** .655** .604** .262** -.057 -.364**

19_1 .601** .873** .468** 1.000 .774** .818** .824** .760** 157

19_2 .824** .838** .655** .774** 1.000 .874** .722** .506** 198*

19_3 .873** .915** .604** .818** .874** 1.000 .830** .650** .031

20_1 .584** .761** .262** .824** .722** .830** 1.000 .803** .275**

20_2 .263** .704** -.057 .760** .506** .650** .803** 1.000 .513**

20_3 -.177 .174 -.364** .157 .198* .031 .275** .513** 1.000 Significance

17_1 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .005 .063

17_2 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .067

17_3 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .006 .553 .000

19_1 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .100

19_2 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .037

19_3 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .745

20_1 .000 .000 .006 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .004

20_2 .005 .000 .053 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000

20_3 .063 .067 .000 .100 .037 .745 .004 .000 .

[Figure E-5: Negative valence subject #17]

[Figure E-6: Negative valence subject #19]

[Figure E-7: Negative valence subject #20]

The negative valence sentic data demonstrated significance with at Pearson from -.507 to .636 with (p<0.001).

 

17_n1 17_n2 17_n3 19_n1 19_n2 19_n3 20_n1 20_n2

17_n1 1.000 .434** .349** -.277** .126** -.507** -.138 .528**

17_n2 .434** 1.000 .644** .395** -.239* .368** .247** .957**

17_n3 .349** .644** 1.000 .188* -.402** .107 -.051** .636

19_n1 -.277** .395** .188* 1.000 -.536** .758** -.018** .284**

19_n2 .126** -.239** -.402** -.536** 1.000 -.386** .348** -.187**

19_n3 -.507** .368** .107 .758** -.386** 1.000 .398** .259**

20_n1 -.138 .247** -.051 -.018 .348** .398** 1.000 .189*

20_n2 .528** .957** .636** .284** -.187** .259** .189* 1.000

17_n1 . .000 .000 .003 .188 .000 .149 .000

17_n2 .000 . .000 .000 .012 .000 .009 .000

17_n3 .000 .000 . .048 .000 .262 .598 .000

19_n1 .003 .000 .048 . .000 .000 .854 .003

19_n2 .188 .012 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .050

19_n3 .000 .000 .262 .000 .000 . .000 .006

20_n1 .149 .009 .598 .854 .000 .000 . .047

20_n2 .005 .000 .000 .003 .050 .006 .047 .

** Signifies that correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
* Signifies that correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).