Crisis-related stimuli do not increase the emotional attentional blink in a general university student population

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

Table 2 Results for each analysis of variance ran in Experiment 2

Source	df^a	F	p	η_p²	BF_inc^b
All valence conditions × lag
Lag	(3, 117)	7.42	< .001	0.16	346.30
Valence	(2, 78)	29.59	< .001	0.43	7.20 × 10⁸
Valence × Lag	(6, 78)	7.12	< .001	0.15	1.43 × 10⁴
Taboo vs. baseline × lag
Lag	(2.47, 96.44)	7.95	< .001	0.17	218.27
Valence	(1, 39)	43.43	< .001	0.53	2.42 × 10⁷
Valence × Lag	(3, 39)	11.16	< .001	0.22	9.59 × 10³
COVID vs. baseline × lag
Lag	(3, 117)	7.83	< .001	0.17	305.32
Valence	(1, 39)	4.59	.038	0.11	0.69
Valence × Lag	(3, 39)	4.13	.008	0.10	5.43
Taboo vs. COVID × lag
Lag	(3, 117)	6.32	< .001	0.14	127.80
Valence	(1, 39)	30.536	< .001	0.44	7.59 × 10⁴
Valence × Lag	(3, 39)	5.18	.002	0.12	5.99
Simple main effects of lag
Taboo	(3, 117)	9.04	< .001	0.19	981.48
COVID	(3, 117)	0.73	.539	0.02	0.08
Baseline	(3, 117)	9.99	< .001	0.20	2.66 × 10³

All valence conditions include COVID, Taboo, and Baseline. The Baseline condition included an additional filler word
^aSome tests violated the assumption of sphericity and the degrees of freedom reflect Greenhouse–Geisser correction
^bBF_inc refers to the Bayes Factor in favor of including the effect, calculated across matched models