note: Final.xlsx includes information about which participants passed the attention checks
Code
df5_attention <- readxl::read_excel("../data/Arslanova2022/Participants2.xlsx", sheet ="FINAL") |>filter(ActorHR ==1) |>select(Subj.ID, Gender, Age) |>mutate(Gender =as.numeric(Gender), Age =as.numeric(Age)) |>filter(!is.na(Age)) |>#error on the documentation of this participant - attention check failed but not notedmutate(Gender =case_when( Gender==0~"Male", Gender==1~"Female"# based on paper reporting 65 women ))
Warning: There were 6 warnings in `mutate()`.
The first warning was:
ℹ In argument: `id = .Primitive("as.double")(id)`.
Caused by warning:
! NAs introduced by coercion
ℹ Run `dplyr::last_dplyr_warnings()` to see the 5 remaining warnings.
Sample 1a: Data from Murphy’s (2020) study 1, downloaded from OSF, included 451 participants (Mean age = 25.8, SD = 8.4, range: [18, 69]; Gender: 69.4% women, 29.5% men, 1.11% non-binary).
Sample 1b: Data from Murphy’s (2020) study 6, downloaded from OSF, included 375 participants (Mean age = 35.3, SD = 16.9, range: [18, 91]; Gender: 70.1% women, 28.5% men, 1.33% non-binary).
Sample 2: Data from Gaggero’s(2020) study, downloaded from OSF, included 814 participants (Mean age = 24.9, SD = 5.3, range: [18, 58], 0.2% missing; Gender: 60.3% women, 39.4% men, 0.25% non-binary).
Sample 3: Data from Campos’s(2022) study, downloaded from OSF, included 515 participants (Mean age = 30.7, SD = 10.5, range: [18, 72]; Sex: 0.0% females, 0.0% males, 100.0% other; Gender: 59.6% women, 40.4% men, 0.00% non-binary).
Sample 4: Data from Todd’s(2022) study, downloaded from OSF, included 802 participants ().
Sample 5: Data from Arslanova (2022) study, downloaded from OSF, included 143 participants (Mean age = 28.5, SD = 7.6, range: [18, 73]; Gender: 45.5% women, 54.5% men, 0.00% non-binary).
Sample 6: Data from Brand’s(2022) study, downloaded from OSF, included 619 participants (Mean age = 43.9, SD = 14.5, range: [18, 78]; Gender: 78.7% women, 20.2% men, 1.13% non-binary).
Sample 7a: Data from Brand’s(2023) study, downloaded from OSF, included 522 participants (Mean age = 23.4, SD = 6.7, range: [18, 79]; Gender: 79.5% women, 19.7% men, 0.77% non-binary).
Sample 7b: Data from Brand’s(2023) study, downloaded from OSF, included 1993 participants (Mean age = 32.0, SD = 12.6, range: [16, 81]; Gender: 77.7% women, 21.7% men, 0.60% non-binary).
Sample 7c: Data from Brand’s(2023) study, downloaded from OSF, included 808 participants (Mean age = 27.3, SD = 9.3, range: [18, 72], 0.5% missing; Gender: 68.9% women, 30.2% men, 0.87% non-binary).
Sample 8a: Data from Lin’s(2023) study, downloaded from OSF, included 1166 participants (Mean age = 32.5, SD = 8.4, range: [16, 60]; Gender: 57.0% women, 43.0% men, 0.00% non-binary).
Sample 8b: Data from Lin’s(2023) study, downloaded from OSF, included 500 participants (Mean age = 37.4, SD = 7.4, range: [20, 60]; Sex: 0.0% females, 0.0% males, 100.0% other; Gender: 56.2% women, 43.8% men, 0.00% non-binary).
Sample 9: Data from VonMohr’s(2023) study 3, downloaded from OSF, included 21843 participants (Mean age = 56.5, SD = 14.4, range: [18, 93], 0.2% missing; Gender: 73.2% women, 25.1% men, 1.55% non-binary, 0.15% missing).
Sample 10: Data from [Makowski’s(2023)] study , downloaded from OSF, included 485 participants (Mean age = 30.1, SD = 10.1, range: [18, 73]; Gender: 50.3% women, 49.7% men, 0.00% non-binary; Education: Bachelor, 45.15%; Doctorate, 1.86%; High school, 34.43%; Master, 15.88%; Other, 2.47%; Prefer not to say, 0.21%).
Sample 11: Data from [Makowski’s(2023)] study , downloaded from OSF, included 836 participants (Mean age = 25.1, SD = 11.3, range: [18, 76], 0.1% missing; Gender: 73.8% women, 22.6% men, 2.87% non-binary, 0.72% missing; Education: Bachelor, 22.85%; Doctorate, 2.15%; High School, 63.52%; Master, 6.22%; missing, 0.24%; Other, 5.02%).
Sample 12: Data from [Makowski’s(2023)] study , downloaded from OSF, included 146 participants (Mean age = 21.1, SD = 4.3, range: [18, 50], 0.7% missing; Gender: 80.8% women, 15.1% men, 2.74% non-binary, 1.37% missing).
Sample 13: Data from [Makowski’s(2023)] study , downloaded from OSF, included 737 participants (Mean age = 36.8, SD = 14.9, range: [17, 87]; Gender: 57.3% women, 41.1% men, 1.63% non-binary).
Sample 14: Data from Poerio’s(2024) study , included 107 participants (Mean age = 26.8, SD = 9.2, range: [18, 57]; Gender: 74.8% women, 23.4% men, 1.87% non-binary)
Sample 15 : Data from [Poerio’s] study , included 131 participants (Mean age = 30.9, SD = 12.0, range: [18, 60]; Gender: 76.3% women, 22.9% men, 0.76% non-binary)
Sample 16 : Data from [Arjona’s] study , included 279 participants (Mean age = 26.4, SD = 13.2, range: [18, 79]; Gender: 67.7% women, 24.7% men, 6.09% non-binary, 1.43% missing; Education: Bachelor, 18.28%; Doctorate, 1.08%; High School, 62.72%; Master, 10.39%; missing, 0.36%; No education, 0.72%; Other, 6.45%)
Sample 17 : Data from Petzke’s (2024) study, downloaded from OSF, included 254 participants (Mean age = 31.5, SD = 10.7, range: [22, 69]; Gender: 68.5% women, 30.7% men, 0.79% non-binary).
Unique Variable Analysis (Christensen, Garrido, & Golino, 2023) uses the weighted topological overlap measure (Nowick et al., 2009) on an estimated network. Values greater than 0.25 are determined to have considerable local dependence (i.e., redundancy) that should be handled (variables with the highest maximum weighted topological overlap to all other variables (other than the one it is redundant with) should be removed).
Warning: Some variables did not belong to a dimension: Blood_Sugar, Affective_touch
Use caution: These variables have been removed from the TEFI calculation
Code
uva5
Variable pairs with wTO > 0.30 (large-to-very large redundancy)
----
Variable pairs with wTO > 0.25 (moderate-to-large redundancy)
----
Variable pairs with wTO > 0.20 (small-to-moderate redundancy)
node_i node_j wto
Tickle Itch 0.247
Bruise Itch 0.246
Breathing Vomit 0.207
Warning: Could not access model information.
Warning: Could not access model information.
Warning: Could not access model information.
Warning: Could not access model information.
Warning: Could not access model information.
Warning: Could not access model information.
Warning: Could not access model information.
Warning: When comparing models, please note that probably not all models were fit
from same data.
When comparing models, please note that probably not all models were fit
from same data.
Warning: Some values were outside the color scale and will be treated as NA
The structural analysis seem to converge on the idea of small clusters (of pairs or triplets) that are potentially inter-related parts of larger clusters (although with unstable associations). Best way to assess the values of this new granular structure is to assess its predictive value against convergent measures, and see if it’s superior to a unique score (-> Study 2).
the first optimal number of factors was 11, which, although too large for practical higher-order structure description, hints at the scattered nature of the items