Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки 3 Clear-Cut Information Regarding Pictilisib Discussed

3 and 7.8, respectively. Materials, design, and procedure As in Study 2, this study included two major parts, the zero-sum questions and a set of individual differences covariates, the findings for which are reported in Smithson and Shou (2016). The covariates consisted of subscales of two psychopathy inventories, the LSRP (Levenson et al., 1995), and the SRP II (Lester et al., 2012). The order of presentation of the zero-sum-like items and psychopathy inventories was counterbalanced in each of the four samples. Table ?Table77 displays the zero-sum-like propositions used in this study. Two of them (S2 and S3) are replicates of statements from Study 1 that were not retested in Study 2. Four others (S1, S4, S5, and S6) are replicates of items from Study 2 that also were employed in Study 1. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azastene Azastene] remaining two (S7 and S8) are new items, designed to test hypotheses regarding marginalizing racism (Smithson et al., 2015). They are analyzed here because they also were predicted to exhibit the AGP pattern. Endorsement of the zero-sum-like propositions was measured by a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ��strongly disagree�� to ��strongly agree.�� Table 7 Study 3 zero-sum propositions. The Chinese version of the online survey was translated into simplified Chinese and back-translated into English by two native-speakers of Chinese who are fluent in [http://www.selleckchem.com/products/ve-821.html VE-821 solubility dmso] English. The S7 and S8 items are not relevant in Chinese society because immigration to China is rare, so substitutes [http://www.selleckchem.com/products/GDC-0941.html this website] were constructed that refer to a Chinese citizen migrating from one province to another. The substitute for statement 1 had the person immigrating to the home province of the respondent, while the substitute for statement 2 had the person immigrating to another province (Xinjiang). This study was conducted as an online experiment administered through a Qualtrics? panel, subsequent to approval by The Australian National University Human Research Ethics Committee. The procedure was identical to that in Study 2. Results Ordinal logistic regression was employed for analyzing the data in the same way that it was in Study 2. The same criteria for model comparison also were used. The LL Ratio p column in Table ?Table88 displays the p-values for the likelihood-ratio tests between main-effects and moderator-effects models (all p-values for main-effects models compared to intercept-only models were