N, F(3,108) = 0.236, p = 0.718, 2 = 0.007. p It can be seen in the top half of Figure 1B that the precipitating events were judged to be equally predictable CVT-3146 across the four emotion conditions, all ps > 0.250, all 2 < 0.038. However, the p individual emotion events (M = 6.88, SE = 0.203) were seen as more unexpected than those for group emotions (M = 6.09, SE = 0.204), F(3,108) = 10.49, p = 0.002, 2 = 0.091. The prep cipitating events were seen as equally changeable, all p > 0.214, all 2 < 0.042. There were no significant main effects of individp ual vs. group emotion, all p > 0.482, all 2 < 0.005. Together, p these results established that the four emotions were equivalent in these numerous ways, ruling out these appraisals as alternative explanations of our results.Appraisalsp < 0.001, 2 = 0.541, with the highest endorsement in the p schadenfreude condition (all ps < 0.001). Individual vs. group emotion was not significant, both ps > 0.241. Power. As shown in second 
section of Figure 2, participants’ appraisal that they did “not have the resources to affect what happened” was affected by emotion condition, F(3,104) = 16.48, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.322, with endorsement highest in the schadenp freude condition (all ps < 0.001). Individual vs. group emotion was not significant, both p > 0.074. In GFT505 chemical information addition, the appraisal that they were “powerless to change what happened” was significantly affected by emotion condition, F(3,105) = 14.06, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.287, with endorsement highest in the schadenfreude conp dition (all p < 0.001). Appraisals of power were higher in the individual (M = 4.34, SE = 0.214) than group (M = 3.82, SE = 0.204) emotion conditions, F(3,105) = 5.46, p = 0.021, 2 = 0.049. p Performance. As shown in the third section of Figure 2, participants' appraisal that they were"successful"was affected by emotion condition, F(3,104) = 12.24, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.255, with endorsep ment lowest in the schadenfreude condition (all p < 0.001). Also, participants' appraisal that they "succeeded" rather than "failed" was only significantly affected by emotion condition, F(3,104) = 13.09, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.269, with the schadenfreude p condition lower than all others (all ps < 0.001). Individual vs. group emotion had no significant main or interaction effect. Status. As shown in the final section of Figure 2, participants tended to appraise themselves as having the highest status in the gloating condition, although these effects were small and statistically marginal. Specifically, participants' appraisal that they were better than the other person was marginally affected by emotion condition, F(3,105) = 2.59, p = 0.057, 2 = 0.069. Pairwise comp parisons showed the gloating condition to be significantly higher than the joy (p = 0.025) and pride (p = 0.012) conditions, but not the schadenfreude condition (p = 0.109). Surprisingly, there was also an interaction between emotion condition and individual vs. group emotion, F(3,105) = 4.65, p = 0.004, 2 = 0.117. The p pattern of results was inconsistent across emotion conditions. Participants' appraisal that they were superior was marginally affected by emotion condition, F(3,104) = 2.21, p = 0.091, 2 = 0.060. p Pairwise comparisons showed the gloating condition to be significantly higher than the pride (p = 0.040) condition, but not the joy (p = 0.997) or schadenfreude (p = 0.153) conditions.ActionsThese single questions were again analyzed individually in a mixed-model ANOVA. Agency. As shown in first.N, F(3,108) = 0.236, p = 0.718, 2 = 0.007. p It can be seen in the top half of Figure 1B that the precipitating events were judged to be equally predictable across the four emotion conditions, all ps > 0.250, all 2 < 0.038. However, the p individual emotion events (M = 6.88, SE = 0.203) were seen as more unexpected than those for group emotions (M = 6.09, SE = 0.204), F(3,108) = 10.49, p = 0.002, 2 = 0.091. The prep cipitating events were seen as equally changeable, all p > 0.214, all 2 < 0.042. There were no significant main effects of individp ual vs. group emotion, all p > 0.482, all 2 < 0.005. Together, p these results established that the four emotions were equivalent in these numerous ways, ruling out these appraisals as alternative explanations of our results.Appraisalsp < 0.001, 2 = 0.541, with the highest endorsement in the p schadenfreude condition (all ps < 0.001). Individual vs. group emotion was not significant, both ps > 0.241. Power. As shown in second section of Figure 2, participants’ appraisal that they did “not have the resources to affect what happened” was affected by emotion condition, F(3,104) = 16.48, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.322, with endorsement highest in the schadenp freude condition (all ps < 0.001). Individual vs. group emotion was not significant, both p > 0.074. In addition, 
the appraisal that they were “powerless to change what happened” was significantly affected by emotion condition, F(3,105) = 14.06, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.287, with endorsement highest in the schadenfreude conp dition (all p < 0.001). Appraisals of power were higher in the individual (M = 4.34, SE = 0.214) than group (M = 3.82, SE = 0.204) emotion conditions, F(3,105) = 5.46, p = 0.021, 2 = 0.049. p Performance. As shown in the third section of Figure 2, participants' appraisal that they were"successful"was affected by emotion condition, F(3,104) = 12.24, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.255, with endorsep ment lowest in the schadenfreude condition (all p < 0.001). Also, participants' appraisal that they "succeeded" rather than "failed" was only significantly affected by emotion condition, F(3,104) = 13.09, p < 0.001, 2 = 0.269, with the schadenfreude p condition lower than all others (all ps < 0.001). Individual vs. group emotion had no significant main or interaction effect. Status. As shown in the final section of Figure 2, participants tended to appraise themselves as having the highest status in the gloating condition, although these effects were small and statistically marginal. Specifically, participants' appraisal that they were better than the other person was marginally affected by emotion condition, F(3,105) = 2.59, p = 0.057, 2 = 0.069. Pairwise comp parisons showed the gloating condition to be significantly higher than the joy (p = 0.025) and pride (p = 0.012) conditions, but not the schadenfreude condition (p = 0.109). Surprisingly, there was also an interaction between emotion condition and individual vs. group emotion, F(3,105) = 4.65, p = 0.004, 2 = 0.117. The p pattern of results was inconsistent across emotion conditions. Participants' appraisal that they were superior was marginally affected by emotion condition, F(3,104) = 2.21, p = 0.091, 2 = 0.060. p Pairwise comparisons showed the gloating condition to be significantly higher than the pride (p = 0.040) condition, but not the joy (p = 0.997) or schadenfreude (p = 0.153) conditions.ActionsThese single questions were again analyzed individually in a mixed-model ANOVA. Agency. As shown in first.