Two additional coders (both graduate students, who weren’t familiar with the concept in the safe base script or the hypotheses on the study) then independently read every single participant’s recall responses and, for every animation, counted the number of listed action units that the participant was capable to recall properly. Inter-rater reliability was excellent; intraclass correlations for the two raters have been 0.85, 0.84, and 0.93 for animations 1, two, and 3, respectively. These scores have been averaged across raters, then averaged across the 3 animations to supply a measure of every participant’s ability to recall literal specifics contained in the original animations (Cronbach’s alpha for the recall from the 3 animations was satisfactory; = 0.77).Results and DiscussionDescription of Animations (Safe Base Coding)Participants were fairly prosperous in recognizing the safe base script within the animations. A sample response that received high scores in the raters was:The triangle was exploring an location, and journal.pone.0075009 it felt safe when coming into make contact with with the two circles. Nevertheless, when it came across the green rectangle, it became frightened and shook. The square noticed this reaction and moved s10803-012-1616-7 toward the triangle. The square rocked the triangle to comfort it. The triangle felt safe to go explore the rectangle, then.Coding for Temporal Continuity, Causal Connections, and LY2606368 site Organization in the Original DescriptionsIf the animations are finest conceptualized in terms of the secure base script, descriptions incorporating that script ought to be far better organized when it comes to temporal continuity and causal connections. To test this hypothesis, two more undergraduate research assistants (each unfamiliar together with the secure base script and also the hypotheses of the study) coded the good quality of your organization of your descriptions, working with a coding scheme adapted in the a single Waters and Hou (1987) developed. 1st, the coders rated the temporal continuity from the descriptions making use of a 3-point scale. Descriptions received high scores if there was a sturdy temporal order with the sentences in order that in the event the order from the sentences had been to be switched, the meaning with the description would adjust substantially. Second, they counted the number of causal connections a description incorporated. An JVI.00652-15 instance of a causal connection was: “The kid lost his ball, so he got upset.” Finally, the coders rated (utilizing a 5-point scale) the general organization of your descriptions by taking into consideration how several temporal and causal/goal-directed sentences the participant made use of. These coders were not familiar with the safe base script and didn’t examine the safe base script ordering of events. Rather, they coded for any temporal order or causal connections. Intraclass correlations had been computed to examine interrater reliability on these ratings. Intraclass correlations ranged from 0.74 to 0.88 for the organization scores, from 0.78 to 0.86 for the causal connections, and from -0.06 to 0.82 for the temporal connections. These intraclass correlations recommend that coders agreed well in scoring for organization and causal connections, but not in scoring temporal connections. Additional analyses recommended that the explanation for low inter-rater reliability inSurprisingly, however, not everyone seems to recognize the safe base script readily. Some participants coul.