Figure 1
Parallel mediation model for the effect of neuroticism and/or trait anxiety on ambivalent EC.
Figure 2
Example of a CS–US pairing for the ambivalent condition.
Note. An ambivalent pairing shows the CS on the left and the US on the right, composed of two elements of opposite valence merged together. Monovalent USs comprise two elements of the same valence.
Figure 3
Box-plot with average pre/post CS ratings by US condition.
Note. Means represented by yellow squares with error bars indicating the 95% confidence interval (CI). Horizontal lines and circles visualize the medians and outliers. Significance levels: ***(p < .001), **(p < .01), *(p < .05), ns (not significant).
Figure 4
Pearson correlations between the variables of interest.
Note. Significance levels: ***(p < .001), **(p < .01), *(p < .05), +(p < .10), ns (not significant).
Figure 5
Example of CS–US pairing for the ambivalent condition.
Note. Ambivalent stimuli consisted of a happy and an angry portrait placed on each side of a centered fractal as CS. Monovalent stimuli comprised two portraits expressing the same emotion.
Figure 6
Box-plot with average pre/post CS ratings by US condition.
Note. Means represented by yellow squares with error bars indicating the 95% CI. Horizontal lines and circles visualize the medians and outliers. Significance levels: ***(p < .001), **(p < .01), *(p < .05), ns (not significant).
Figure 7
Pearson correlations between variables of interest.
Note. Significance levels: ***(p < .001), **(p < .01), *(p < .05), +(p < .10), ns (not significant).