We then used d to calculate for each participant the magnitude

We then used d to calculate for each participant the magnitude of the SRM bias (d self-referential minus d social desirability). Statistical tests were performed using SPSS version 18.0 for Windows. We compared demographic data between groups using Student t tests for independent samples, except for the sex variable, for which we used 2. We performed a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group as a between-subject factor and encoding condition (structural, social desirability, and self-referential) as a within-subject factor, to compareNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptSchizophr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 1.Harvey et al.Pagepatients and controls on response time. A student t test for independent samples was used to compare groups for the letter case judgment accuracy (structural condition). Repeated measures ANOVAs with group as a between-subject factor and valence (positive or negative) as a within-subject factor were also conducted to compare groups for desirability classification accuracy and mean proportion of self-attribution. For the recognition phase, a 2 ?3 ?2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group as a between-subject factor and encoding condition and valence as within-subject factors to compare groups on sensitivity (d). The mean magnitude of the SRM bias was compared between groups using a Student t test for independent samples.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptRESULTSTable 1 provides demographic and clinical data for participants. The groups were wellmatched for age, parental education and sex ratio. Patients were chronically ill with mild to moderate symptom levels. Encoding phase Table 2 shows the data for the encoding phase. Response time analysis showed a significant main effect of group (F1,45 = 9.16, p = 0.004) and a significant main effect of condition (F2,90 = 3.97, p = 0.02) but no significant group by condition GGTI298 web interaction (F2,90 = 0.49, p = 0.62). Patients were slower overall than controls to rate adjectives, and all participants were slower to classify the desirability of an adjective (social desirability) compared to AZD-8835 supplier identifying the case of letters (pairwise comparison, Bonferroni corrected: p = 0.005). For the structural condition, patients were less accurate than controls in identifying the case of letters (80 versus 94 for patients and controls, respectively, t = 2.58, df = 45, p = 0.01). Regarding desirability classification accuracy for the social desirability condition, the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of group (F1,45 = 9.21, p = 0.004), but neither a significant main effect of valence (F1,45 = 1.16, p = 0.29) nor a group by valence interaction (F1,45 = 0.73, p = 0.40). Patients were less accurate than controls in classifying the adjectives as positive or negative, but accuracy was generally high (> 80 in both groups). Self attribution of adjectives for the self-referential condition showed a non-significant main effect of group (F1,45 = 1.09, p = 0.30), but a significant main effect of valence (F1,45 = 148.80, p < 0.001) and a significant group by valence interaction (F1,45 = 12.13, p = 0.001). Decomposing the interaction revealed that controls attributed a greater proportion of positive adjectives to themselves (90 ) than did patients (72 ) (pairwise comparison, Bonferroni corrected: p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a trend towards greater self attribution.We then used d to calculate for each participant the magnitude of the SRM bias (d self-referential minus d social desirability). Statistical tests were performed using SPSS version 18.0 for Windows. We compared demographic data between groups using Student t tests for independent samples, except for the sex variable, for which we used 2. We performed a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group as a between-subject factor and encoding condition (structural, social desirability, and self-referential) as a within-subject factor, to compareNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptSchizophr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 1.Harvey et al.Pagepatients and controls on response time. A student t test for independent samples was used to compare groups for the letter case judgment accuracy (structural condition). Repeated measures ANOVAs with group as a between-subject factor and valence (positive or negative) as a within-subject factor were also conducted to compare groups for desirability classification accuracy and mean proportion of self-attribution. For the recognition phase, a 2 ?3 ?2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group as a between-subject factor and encoding condition and valence as within-subject factors to compare groups on sensitivity (d). The mean magnitude of the SRM bias was compared between groups using a Student t test for independent samples.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptRESULTSTable 1 provides demographic and clinical data for participants. The groups were wellmatched for age, parental education and sex ratio. Patients were chronically ill with mild to moderate symptom levels. Encoding phase Table 2 shows the data for the encoding phase. Response time analysis showed a significant main effect of group (F1,45 = 9.16, p = 0.004) and a significant main effect of condition (F2,90 = 3.97, p = 0.02) but no significant group by condition interaction (F2,90 = 0.49, p = 0.62). Patients were slower overall than controls to rate adjectives, and all participants were slower to classify the desirability of an adjective (social desirability) compared to identifying the case of letters (pairwise comparison, Bonferroni corrected: p = 0.005). For the structural condition, patients were less accurate than controls in identifying the case of letters (80 versus 94 for patients and controls, respectively, t = 2.58, df = 45, p = 0.01). Regarding desirability classification accuracy for the social desirability condition, the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of group (F1,45 = 9.21, p = 0.004), but neither a significant main effect of valence (F1,45 = 1.16, p = 0.29) nor a group by valence interaction (F1,45 = 0.73, p = 0.40). Patients were less accurate than controls in classifying the adjectives as positive or negative, but accuracy was generally high (> 80 in both groups). Self attribution of adjectives for the self-referential condition showed a non-significant main effect of group (F1,45 = 1.09, p = 0.30), but a significant main effect of valence (F1,45 = 148.80, p < 0.001) and a significant group by valence interaction (F1,45 = 12.13, p = 0.001). Decomposing the interaction revealed that controls attributed a greater proportion of positive adjectives to themselves (90 ) than did patients (72 ) (pairwise comparison, Bonferroni corrected: p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a trend towards greater self attribution.