174 variable and the outcome variable both with and without the mediator in the analysis. The regression was carried out in three steps (Figure 7). Step 1 (path c) determined that group significantly predicted nocebo magnitude (F (1,46) = 4.32, R2 = 0.09, b = 0.83, t (46) = 2.08, P = 0.04). Step 2 (path a) determined that group significantly predicted reported fear (F (1,46) = 10.99, R2 = 0.19, b = 1.37, t (46) = 3.32, P = 0.002). Group and reported fear together significantly predicted nocebo magnitude (F (2,45) = 19.25, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.46) and step 3 (path c′) determined that group did not remain a significant predictor of the nocebo magnitude after controlling for reported fear (b = -0.02, t (45) = -0.05, P = 0.96). The bootstrap analysis confirmed a significant indirect effect of group on the magnitude of nocebo responses through reported fear levels (ab = 0.85, BCa CI [0.34, 1.44]). These analyses indicate that full mediation occurred, as the relationship between the group and nocebo magnitude was no longer statistically significant when fear was entered into the model 44. The same mediation analysis was performed with EMG fear scores as the mediator variable. EMG startle responses were not a significant mediator of relationship between the group and the nocebo magnitude, with a non-significant indirect effect of group on the magnitude of nocebo responses through EMG fear levels (ab = 0.05, BCa CI [-0.14, 0.27]).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw