N regulation, and empathyFIGURE 3 | Manipulation Check–Changes in (A) Mood and (B) Calmness during the experiment, higher values indicate a better mood and more calmness, respectively. Interaction Effect Time ?Group, p < 0.01.FIGURE 4 | Manipulation Check--Changes in Heart Rate during the experiment. Between Group Effects p < 0.01. *Between Group Effect p < 0.05.PREDICTORS OF PAIN RATINGSFIGURE 5 | Influences of acute psychosocial stress on ratings to pain in others. Between Group Effect <0.05.First, we used a partial correlational analysis (adjusting for gender) to examine the specific role of cardiovascular activation for the prediction of the pain ratings to pain pictures. However, individual heart rate during postTSST (r = -0.165, p = 0.117), and Pain (r = -0.139, p = 0.186) were unrelated to the pain ratings. Furthermore, the separate repetition of this analysis for both experimental subgroups (Stress vs. PlaceboGroup, adjusting for gender) and both types of gender (females vs. males, adjusting for stress manipulation) revealed no significant differences in the reported intercorrelations (all p 0.408). Additional analyses, using the Process plugin (Hayes, 2013) for SPSS (5000 bias corrected bootstrapped samples, all analyses adjusted for baseline heart rate), revealed that none of the mean heart rate values for the five measurement intervals during the experiment was a mediator (simple mediation adjusting for gender, model 4 in Process) for the stress ain judgment relation and these potential mediational effects were furthermorenot moderated by gender and the measured emotion AGI-5198 biological activity regulation skills (moderated mediation, model 7 in Process, results are not shown here). Subsequently, to select potential predictors of the pain ratings to pain pictures in addition to psychosocial stress, we conducted a further correlational analysis. There were small, but significant by trend correlations of the pain judgments during painful situations with gender, Group (Stress vs. Placebo-Group), and the emotion regulation skill clarity (p < 0.10). Furthermore, we found significant correlations between pain ratings PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19906222 and the emotion regulation 
skills purchase LGX-818 acceptance as well as tolerance (p < 0.05). For detailed correlations between the independent variable, the covariates and relevant variables with the dependent variable see Table 1.Frontiers in Psychology | Emotion ScienceMay 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 517 |Buruck et al.Stress, emotion regulation, and empathySubsequently, based on the intercorrelations (Table 1) the variables mentioned above (gender, Group and emotion regulation skills as predictors of the pain ratings on painful pictures) were included in a stepwise multiple regression analysis. In the first block, gender was included as covariate since it showed a significant (although small) intercorrelation with the pain ratings to painful pictures. This resulted in a beta weight of ?= -0.180 (p = 0.068) for gender and the model was significant with 2 explained variance (R2 = 0.023). In the second block, the experimental manipulation of acute psychosocial stress (Stress-Group vs. Placebo-Group) was included in the statistical prediction. This resulted in a significant beta weight of ?= -0.214 (p = 0.028) for the experimental induction of stress. The model summary shows that there is a significant increase (p < 0.01) in explained variance from model 1 (2 explained variance) to model 2 (6 explained variance). In the third step, emotion regulation skil.N regulation, and empathyFIGURE 3 | Manipulation Check--Changes in (A) Mood and (B) Calmness during the experiment, higher values indicate a better mood and more calmness, respectively. Interaction Effect Time ?Group, p < 0.01.FIGURE 4 | Manipulation Check--Changes in Heart Rate during the experiment. Between Group Effects p < 0.01. *Between Group Effect p < 0.05.PREDICTORS OF PAIN RATINGSFIGURE 5 | Influences of acute psychosocial stress on ratings to pain in others. Between Group Effect <0.05.First, we used a partial correlational analysis (adjusting for gender) to examine the specific role of cardiovascular activation for the prediction of the pain ratings to pain pictures. However, individual heart rate during postTSST (r = -0.165, p = 0.117), and Pain (r = -0.139, p = 0.186) were unrelated to the pain ratings. Furthermore, the separate repetition of this analysis for both experimental subgroups (Stress vs. PlaceboGroup, adjusting for gender) and both types of gender (females vs. males, adjusting for stress manipulation) revealed no significant differences in the reported intercorrelations (all p 0.408). Additional analyses, using the Process plugin (Hayes, 2013) for SPSS (5000 bias corrected bootstrapped samples, all analyses adjusted for baseline heart rate), revealed that none of the mean heart rate values for the five measurement intervals during the experiment was a mediator (simple mediation adjusting for gender, model 4 in Process) for the stress ain judgment relation and these potential mediational effects were furthermorenot moderated by gender and the measured emotion regulation skills (moderated mediation, model 7 in Process, results are not shown here). Subsequently, to select potential predictors of the pain ratings to pain pictures in addition to psychosocial stress, we conducted a further correlational analysis. There were small, but significant by trend correlations of the pain judgments during painful situations with gender, Group (Stress vs. Placebo-Group), and the emotion regulation skill clarity (p < 0.10). Furthermore, we found significant correlations between pain ratings PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19906222 and the emotion regulation skills acceptance as well as tolerance (p < 0.05). For detailed correlations between the independent variable, the covariates and relevant variables with the dependent variable see Table 1.Frontiers in Psychology | Emotion ScienceMay 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 517 |Buruck et al.Stress, emotion regulation, and empathySubsequently, based on the intercorrelations (Table 1) the variables mentioned above (gender, Group and emotion regulation skills as predictors of the pain ratings on painful pictures) were included in a stepwise multiple regression analysis. In the first block, gender was included as covariate since it showed a significant (although small) intercorrelation with the pain ratings to painful pictures. This resulted in a beta weight of ?= -0.180 (p = 0.068) for gender and the model was significant with 2 explained variance (R2 = 0.023). In the second block, the experimental manipulation of acute psychosocial stress (Stress-Group vs. Placebo-Group) was included in the statistical prediction. This resulted in a significant beta weight of ?= -0.214 (p = 0.028) for the experimental induction of stress. The model summary shows that there is a significant increase (p < 0.01) in explained variance from model 1 (2 explained variance) to model 2 (6 explained variance). In the third step, emotion regulation skil.
