(Mendes, Reis, Seery, Blascovich, 2003). Onesample ttests confirmed that both heart rate
(Mendes, Reis, Seery, Blascovich, 2003). Onesample ttests confirmed that both heart rate and ventricular contractility in the course of the memory job showed a important increase from baseline (p’s .00). We then calculated the TCRI collapsing across all 5 minutes on the memory job phase. We subjected the resulting TCRI to a moderated regression analysis in which we entered meancentered rejection sensitivity, situation (coded Latina, White), meancentered SOMI, and also the condition x SOMI interaction as predictors.three,Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript3We also ran analyses with no the covariate of rejection sensitivity included within the model. For TCRI, the interaction involving situation and SOMI became nonsignificant, .28, t (27) .60, p .two, partial r .29. Importantly, on the other hand, amongst suspicious Latinas ( SD on SOMI), the PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20818753 straightforward impact of condition on TCRI remained important, .60, t (27) 2.five, p .04, partial r .38. 4We also ran similar analyses on cardiac output (CO) reactivity and total peripheral resistance (TPR) reactivity separately. These revealed a pattern of outcomes consistent with all the analysis of TCRI. The SOMI by situation interaction on TPR was substantial, .35, t (26) two.04, p .05, plus the SOMI by situation interaction on CO was inside the predicted direction, .26, t (26) .43, p .six. Inside the White companion situation, SOMI scores had been positively ATP-polyamine-biotin related to TPR, .64, p .04, and negatively but not drastically connected to CO, .37, p .26.. J Exp Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; offered in PMC 207 January 0.Key et al.PageWe observed a negative relationship involving TCRI as well as the rejection sensitivity covariate, .4, t (26) .98, p .06, r partial .36, indicating that the greater folks had been in rejection sensitivity, the much more they tended to show a challengeapproach profile throughout the memory activity (recall that all participants had just been positively evaluated by their companion). Neither the conditional principal effect of situation nor the primary impact of SOMI was substantial (ps .30). Importantly, the predicted SOMI x situation interaction on TCRI was substantial, .38, t (26) two.six, p .04, r partial .39. As shown in Figure , amongst Latinas interacting having a White companion, scores around the SOMI had been positively connected to higher threatavoidance even though performing the memory activity, .62, t (26) 2.00, p .06, r partial .37. In contrast, among Latinas interacting using a sameethnicity companion, scores on the SOMI have been unrelated to TCRI during the memory activity, .2, t (26) .76, p . 40, r partial .five. As anticipated, suspicious participants ( SD on SOMI) had been substantially a lot more threatened when interacting using a White companion versus a Latina partner who had evaluated them favorably ( .57, p .04). In contrast, the TCRI amongst nonsuspicious participants ( SD on SOMI) did not differ significantly by ethnicity of partner ( .29, p .30). Suspicious participants interacting with a sameethnicity companion, and nonsuspicious participants irrespective of ethnicity of companion, showed relatively more challengeapproach than threatavoidant cardiovascular reactivity following positive feedback. As theorized, ethnic minorities’ suspicions about Whites’ motives predicted their patterns of cardiovascular reactivity beneath attributionally ambiguous circumstances, but not when attributional ambiguity was removed. Especially, greater suspicion predicted somewhat higher threatavoidance among Latinas interacting with.