E rotated solution was 52.8 percent. In the GARS-avoidance ratings, 13 of the 17 items showed distinct PD98059 web loadings (r>.30) on one of the two factors. The two-Vesatolimod site Factor solution explained 46.4 Entinostat chemical information percent of the variance observed (factor loadings are given in Table 3).PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,5 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleTable 2. Reliability of the GARS. Internal consistency, split-half reliability and test-retest-reliability of the subscales and the total score. Test-Retest-Reliability Split-Half Reliability Cronbach’s (n = 353) GARS-Fear GARS-Avoidance GARS-Total Note.a bPearson Corr. 2-months .86 .79 .87 4-months .73 .71 .72 2-months (n = 76) .86 (.79?91) .76 (.64?84) .86 (.78?91)ICCb 4-months (n = 73) .72 (.58?81) .71 (.58?1) .70 (.56?80)rit range (n = 353) .38?70 .35?70 .32?uncorr. (n = 353) .86 .83 .corr.a (n = 353) .93 .93 ..91 .90 .Spearman-Brown correction; Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95 CI is given in brackets.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tThe factors revealed by the two factor analyses capture fear and avoidance of eye contact in two situational categories: (1) AM152 side effects everyday situations (e.g. “dealing with a cashier”, “PD98059 cost Having a routine talk with a close family member”) with 6 items, (2) situations involving high levels social threat (e.g. “speaking up at a meeting”, “inviting Nutlin (3a) web someone you don’t know well. . .”) with 8 items. Subscores calculated by summing up the items on each factor correlated positively for the fear ratings (r = .56; p<.001) and avoidance ratings (r = .53; p<.001). Exploring sex differences in fear of eye gaze in the different situational factors using a 2-way ANOVA, we noted a significant sex-by-situation interaction (F[1,351] = 23.84; p<.001). Posthoc tests revealed significantly higher levels of fear in women in conjunction with socialthreat situations (t[351] = 3.44; p<.001), but not in everyday situations (t[351] = 0.75; p = .46). We observed the same pattern in the avoidance ratings (sex-by-situation interaction: F[1,351] = 18.18; p<.001).Table 3. Factorial structure of the GARS. Factor loadings of the items in the two separate 2-factor solution confirmatory PCA with Varimax rotation for GARS-Fear and GARS-Avoidance. Only loadings with r>.30 are given. GARS-Fear Item 5. 6. 7. 11. 13. 14. 1. 3. 4. 9. 10. 12. 16. 17. 2. 8. 15. Dealing with a cashier Being introduced Greeting an acquaintance passing by on the street Feeling close to someone you love Having a routine talk j.jebo.2013.04.005 with a close family member Listening while a person speaks to you, in general Giving a speech Speaking up at a meeting Speaking in a discussion with a few people Speaking to someone you find attractive Inviting someone you don’t know well. . . Discussing the quality of your work with a boss or a teacher Expressing a disagreement Receiving a compliment Speaking to a group of people at a party Speaking with someone you don’t know well Speaking while a person listens to you, in general .496 .401 .507 Factor 1 .744 .655 .701 .638 .701 .664 .722 .741 .635 .694 .744 .692 .714 .652 .452 .598 .534 .408 .418 .471 Factor 2 GARS-Avoidance Factor 1 .690 .517 .518 .502 .689 .624 .607 .725 .674 .668 .678 .684 .725 .584 .551 SART.S23503 .547 .512 .420 Factordoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,6 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleValidity–Convergent and discriminant validityCorrelation analyses revealed positive correlations with trait anxiety, depression, fear of negative evaluation, and social.E rotated solution was 52.8 percent. In the GARS-avoidance ratings, 13 of the 17 items showed distinct loadings (r>.30) on one of the two factors. The two-factor solution explained 46.4 percent of the variance observed (factor loadings are given in Table 3).PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,5 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleTable 2. Reliability of the GARS. Internal consistency, split-half reliability and test-retest-reliability of the subscales and the total score. Test-Retest-Reliability Split-Half Reliability Cronbach’s (n = 353) GARS-Fear GARS-Avoidance GARS-Total Note.a bPearson Corr. 2-months .86 .79 .87 4-months .73 .71 .72 2-months (n = 76) .86 (.79?91) .76 (.64?84) .86 (.78?91)ICCb 4-months (n = 73) .72 (.58?81) .71 (.58?1) .70 (.56?80)rit range (n = 353) .38?70 .35?70 .32?uncorr. (n = 353) .86 .83 .corr.a (n = 353) .93 .93 ..91 .90 .Spearman-Brown correction; Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95 CI is given in brackets.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tThe factors revealed by the two factor analyses capture fear and avoidance of eye contact in two situational categories: (1) everyday situations (e.g. “dealing with a cashier”, “having a routine talk with a close family member”) with 6 items, (2) situations involving high levels social threat (e.g. “speaking up at a meeting”, “inviting someone you don’t know well. . .”) with 8 items. Subscores calculated by summing up the items on each factor correlated positively for the fear ratings (r = .56; p<.001) and avoidance ratings (r = .53; p<.001). Exploring sex differences in fear of eye gaze in the different situational factors using a 2-way ANOVA, we noted a significant sex-by-situation interaction (F[1,351] = 23.84; p<.001). Posthoc tests revealed significantly higher levels of fear in women in conjunction with socialthreat situations (t[351] = 3.44; p<.001), but not in everyday situations (t[351] = 0.75; p = .46). We observed the same pattern in the avoidance ratings (sex-by-situation interaction: F[1,351] = 18.18; p<.001).Table 3. Factorial structure of the GARS. Factor loadings of the items in the two separate 2-factor solution confirmatory PCA with Varimax rotation for GARS-Fear and GARS-Avoidance. Only loadings with r>.30 are given. GARS-Fear Item 5. 6. 7. 11. 13. 14. 1. 3. 4. 9. 10. 12. 16. 17. 2. 8. 15. Dealing with a cashier Being introduced Greeting an acquaintance passing by on the street Feeling close to someone you love Having a routine talk j.jebo.2013.04.005 with a close family member Listening while a person speaks to you, in general Giving a speech Speaking up at a meeting Speaking in a discussion with a few people Speaking to someone you find attractive Inviting someone you don’t know well. . . Discussing the quality of your work with a boss or a teacher Expressing a disagreement Receiving a compliment Speaking to a group of people at a party Speaking with someone you don’t know well Speaking while a person listens to you, in general .496 .401 .507 Factor 1 .744 .655 .701 .638 .701 .664 .722 .741 .635 .694 .744 .692 .714 .652 .452 .598 .534 .408 .418 .471 Factor 2 GARS-Avoidance Factor 1 .690 .517 .518 .502 .689 .624 .607 .725 .674 .668 .678 .684 .725 .584 .551 SART.S23503 .547 .512 .420 Factordoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,6 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleValidity–Convergent and discriminant validityCorrelation analyses revealed positive correlations with trait anxiety, depression, fear of negative evaluation, and social.E rotated solution was 52.8 percent. In the GARS-avoidance ratings, 13 of the 17 items showed distinct loadings (r>.30) on one of the two factors. The two-factor solution explained 46.4 percent of the variance observed (factor loadings are given in Table 3).PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,5 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleTable 2. Reliability of the GARS. Internal consistency, split-half reliability and test-retest-reliability of the subscales and the total score. Test-Retest-Reliability Split-Half Reliability Cronbach’s (n = 353) GARS-Fear GARS-Avoidance GARS-Total Note.a bPearson Corr. 2-months .86 .79 .87 4-months .73 .71 .72 2-months (n = 76) .86 (.79?91) .76 (.64?84) .86 (.78?91)ICCb 4-months (n = 73) .72 (.58?81) .71 (.58?1) .70 (.56?80)rit range (n = 353) .38?70 .35?70 .32?uncorr. (n = 353) .86 .83 .corr.a (n = 353) .93 .93 ..91 .90 .Spearman-Brown correction; Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95 CI is given in brackets.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tThe factors revealed by the two factor analyses capture fear and avoidance of eye contact in two situational categories: (1) everyday situations (e.g. “dealing with a cashier”, “having a routine talk with a close family member”) with 6 items, (2) situations involving high levels social threat (e.g. “speaking up at a meeting”, “inviting someone you don’t know well. . .”) with 8 items. Subscores calculated by summing up the items on each factor correlated positively for the fear ratings (r = .56; p<.001) and avoidance ratings (r = .53; p<.001). Exploring sex differences in fear of eye gaze in the different situational factors using a 2-way ANOVA, we noted a significant sex-by-situation interaction (F[1,351] = 23.84; p<.001). Posthoc tests revealed significantly higher levels of fear in women in conjunction with socialthreat situations (t[351] = 3.44; p<.001), but not in everyday situations (t[351] = 0.75; p = .46). We observed the same pattern in the avoidance ratings (sex-by-situation interaction: F[1,351] = 18.18; p<.001).Table 3. Factorial structure of the GARS. Factor loadings of the items in the two separate 2-factor solution confirmatory PCA with Varimax rotation for GARS-Fear and GARS-Avoidance. Only loadings with r>.30 are given. GARS-Fear Item 5. 6. 7. 11. 13. 14. 1. 3. 4. 9. 10. 12. 16. 17. 2. 8. 15. Dealing with a cashier Being introduced Greeting an acquaintance passing by on the street Feeling close to someone you love Having a routine talk j.jebo.2013.04.005 with a close family member Listening while a person speaks to you, in general Giving a speech Speaking up at a meeting Speaking in a discussion with a few people Speaking to someone you find attractive Inviting someone you don’t know well. . . Discussing the quality of your work with a boss or a teacher Expressing a disagreement Receiving a compliment Speaking to a group of people at a party Speaking with someone you don’t know well Speaking while a person listens to you, in general .496 .401 .507 Factor 1 .744 .655 .701 .638 .701 .664 .722 .741 .635 .694 .744 .692 .714 .652 .452 .598 .534 .408 .418 .471 Factor 2 GARS-Avoidance Factor 1 .690 .517 .518 .502 .689 .624 .607 .725 .674 .668 .678 .684 .725 .584 .551 SART.S23503 .547 .512 .420 Factordoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,6 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleValidity–Convergent and discriminant validityCorrelation analyses revealed positive correlations with trait anxiety, depression, fear of negative evaluation, and social.E rotated solution was 52.8 percent. In the GARS-avoidance ratings, 13 of the 17 items showed distinct loadings (r>.30) on one of the two factors. The two-factor solution explained 46.4 percent of the variance observed (factor loadings are given in Table 3).PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,5 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleTable 2. Reliability of the GARS. Internal consistency, split-half reliability and test-retest-reliability of the subscales and the total score. Test-Retest-Reliability Split-Half Reliability Cronbach’s (n = 353) GARS-Fear GARS-Avoidance GARS-Total Note.a bPearson Corr. 2-months .86 .79 .87 4-months .73 .71 .72 2-months (n = 76) .86 (.79?91) .76 (.64?84) .86 (.78?91)ICCb 4-months (n = 73) .72 (.58?81) .71 (.58?1) .70 (.56?80)rit range (n = 353) .38?70 .35?70 .32?uncorr. (n = 353) .86 .83 .corr.a (n = 353) .93 .93 ..91 .90 .Spearman-Brown correction; Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95 CI is given in brackets.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tThe factors revealed by the two factor analyses capture fear and avoidance of eye contact in two situational categories: (1) everyday situations (e.g. “dealing with a cashier”, “having a routine talk with a close family member”) with 6 items, (2) situations involving high levels social threat (e.g. “speaking up at a meeting”, “inviting someone you don’t know well. . .”) with 8 items. Subscores calculated by summing up the items on each factor correlated positively for the fear ratings (r = .56; p<.001) and avoidance ratings (r = .53; p<.001). Exploring sex differences in fear of eye gaze in the different situational factors using a 2-way ANOVA, we noted a significant sex-by-situation interaction (F[1,351] = 23.84; p<.001). Posthoc tests revealed significantly higher levels of fear in women in conjunction with socialthreat situations (t[351] = 3.44; p<.001), but not in everyday situations (t[351] = 0.75; p = .46). We observed the same pattern in the avoidance ratings (sex-by-situation interaction: F[1,351] = 18.18; p<.001).Table 3. Factorial structure of the GARS. Factor loadings of the items in the two separate 2-factor solution confirmatory PCA with Varimax rotation for GARS-Fear and GARS-Avoidance. Only loadings with r>.30 are given. GARS-Fear Item 5. 6. 7. 11. 13. 14. 1. 3. 4. 9. 10. 12. 16. 17. 2. 8. 15. Dealing with a cashier Being introduced Greeting an acquaintance passing by on the street Feeling close to someone you love Having a routine talk j.jebo.2013.04.005 with a close family member Listening while a person speaks to you, in general Giving a speech Speaking up at a meeting Speaking in a discussion with a few people Speaking to someone you find attractive Inviting someone you don’t know well. . . Discussing the quality of your work with a boss or a teacher Expressing a disagreement Receiving a compliment Speaking to a group of people at a party Speaking with someone you don’t know well Speaking while a person listens to you, in general .496 .401 .507 Factor 1 .744 .655 .701 .638 .701 .664 .722 .741 .635 .694 .744 .692 .714 .652 .452 .598 .534 .408 .418 .471 Factor 2 GARS-Avoidance Factor 1 .690 .517 .518 .502 .689 .624 .607 .725 .674 .668 .678 .684 .725 .584 .551 SART.S23503 .547 .512 .420 Factordoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,6 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleValidity–Convergent and discriminant validityCorrelation analyses revealed positive correlations with trait anxiety, depression, fear of negative evaluation, and social.E rotated solution was 52.8 percent. In the GARS-avoidance ratings, 13 of the 17 items showed distinct loadings (r>.30) on one of the two factors. The two-factor solution explained 46.4 percent of the variance observed (factor loadings are given in Table 3).PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,5 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleTable 2. Reliability of the GARS. Internal consistency, split-half reliability and test-retest-reliability of the subscales and the total score. Test-Retest-Reliability Split-Half Reliability Cronbach’s (n = 353) GARS-Fear GARS-Avoidance GARS-Total Note.a bPearson Corr. 2-months .86 .79 .87 4-months .73 .71 .72 2-months (n = 76) .86 (.79?91) .76 (.64?84) .86 (.78?91)ICCb 4-months (n = 73) .72 (.58?81) .71 (.58?1) .70 (.56?80)rit range (n = 353) .38?70 .35?70 .32?uncorr. (n = 353) .86 .83 .corr.a (n = 353) .93 .93 ..91 .90 .Spearman-Brown correction; Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95 CI is given in brackets.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tThe factors revealed by the two factor analyses capture fear and avoidance of eye contact in two situational categories: (1) everyday situations (e.g. “dealing with a cashier”, “having a routine talk with a close family member”) with 6 items, (2) situations involving high levels social threat (e.g. “speaking up at a meeting”, “inviting someone you don’t know well. . .”) with 8 items. Subscores calculated by summing up the items on each factor correlated positively for the fear ratings (r = .56; p<.001) and avoidance ratings (r = .53; p<.001). Exploring sex differences in fear of eye gaze in the different situational factors using a 2-way ANOVA, we noted a significant sex-by-situation interaction (F[1,351] = 23.84; p<.001). Posthoc tests revealed significantly higher levels of fear in women in conjunction with socialthreat situations (t[351] = 3.44; p<.001), but not in everyday situations (t[351] = 0.75; p = .46). We observed the same pattern in the avoidance ratings (sex-by-situation interaction: F[1,351] = 18.18; p<.001).Table 3. Factorial structure of the GARS. Factor loadings of the items in the two separate 2-factor solution confirmatory PCA with Varimax rotation for GARS-Fear and GARS-Avoidance. Only loadings with r>.30 are given. GARS-Fear Item 5. 6. 7. 11. 13. 14. 1. 3. 4. 9. 10. 12. 16. 17. 2. 8. 15. Dealing with a cashier Being introduced Greeting an acquaintance passing by on the street Feeling close to someone you love Having a routine talk j.jebo.2013.04.005 with a close family member Listening while a person speaks to you, in general Giving a speech Speaking up at a meeting Speaking in a discussion with a few people Speaking to someone you find attractive Inviting someone you don’t know well. . . Discussing the quality of your work with a boss or a teacher Expressing a disagreement Receiving a compliment Speaking to a group of people at a party Speaking with someone you don’t know well Speaking while a person listens to you, in general .496 .401 .507 Factor 1 .744 .655 .701 .638 .701 .664 .722 .741 .635 .694 .744 .692 .714 .652 .452 .598 .534 .408 .418 .471 Factor 2 GARS-Avoidance Factor 1 .690 .517 .518 .502 .689 .624 .607 .725 .674 .668 .678 .684 .725 .584 .551 SART.S23503 .547 .512 .420 Factordoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,6 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleValidity–Convergent and discriminant validityCorrelation analyses revealed positive correlations with trait anxiety, depression, fear of negative evaluation, and social.E rotated solution was 52.8 percent. In the GARS-avoidance ratings, 13 of the 17 items showed distinct loadings (r>.30) on one of the two factors. The two-factor solution explained 46.4 percent of the variance observed (factor loadings are given in Table 3).PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,5 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleTable 2. Reliability of the GARS. Internal consistency, split-half reliability and test-retest-reliability of the subscales and the total score. Test-Retest-Reliability Split-Half Reliability Cronbach’s (n = 353) GARS-Fear GARS-Avoidance GARS-Total Note.a bPearson Corr. 2-months .86 .79 .87 4-months .73 .71 .72 2-months (n = 76) .86 (.79?91) .76 (.64?84) .86 (.78?91)ICCb 4-months (n = 73) .72 (.58?81) .71 (.58?1) .70 (.56?80)rit range (n = 353) .38?70 .35?70 .32?uncorr. (n = 353) .86 .83 .corr.a (n = 353) .93 .93 ..91 .90 .Spearman-Brown correction; Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95 CI is given in brackets.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tThe factors revealed by the two factor analyses capture fear and avoidance of eye contact in two situational categories: (1) everyday situations (e.g. “dealing with a cashier”, “having a routine talk with a close family member”) with 6 items, (2) situations involving high levels social threat (e.g. “speaking up at a meeting”, “inviting someone you don’t know well. . .”) with 8 items. Subscores calculated by summing up the items on each factor correlated positively for the fear ratings (r = .56; p<.001) and avoidance ratings (r = .53; p<.001). Exploring sex differences in fear of eye gaze in the different situational factors using a 2-way ANOVA, we noted a significant sex-by-situation interaction (F[1,351] = 23.84; p<.001). Posthoc tests revealed significantly higher levels of fear in women in conjunction with socialthreat situations (t[351] = 3.44; p<.001), but not in everyday situations (t[351] = 0.75; p = .46). We observed the same pattern in the avoidance ratings (sex-by-situation interaction: F[1,351] = 18.18; p<.001).Table 3. Factorial structure of the GARS. Factor loadings of the items in the two separate 2-factor solution confirmatory PCA with Varimax rotation for GARS-Fear and GARS-Avoidance. Only loadings with r>.30 are given. GARS-Fear Item 5. 6. 7. 11. 13. 14. 1. 3. 4. 9. 10. 12. 16. 17. 2. 8. 15. Dealing with a cashier Being introduced Greeting an acquaintance passing by on the street Feeling close to someone you love Having a routine talk j.jebo.2013.04.005 with a close family member Listening while a person speaks to you, in general Giving a speech Speaking up at a meeting Speaking in a discussion with a few people Speaking to someone you find attractive Inviting someone you don’t know well. . . Discussing the quality of your work with a boss or a teacher Expressing a disagreement Receiving a compliment Speaking to a group of people at a party Speaking with someone you don’t know well Speaking while a person listens to you, in general .496 .401 .507 Factor 1 .744 .655 .701 .638 .701 .664 .722 .741 .635 .694 .744 .692 .714 .652 .452 .598 .534 .408 .418 .471 Factor 2 GARS-Avoidance Factor 1 .690 .517 .518 .502 .689 .624 .607 .725 .674 .668 .678 .684 .725 .584 .551 SART.S23503 .547 .512 .420 Factordoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0150807 March 3,6 /Gaze Anxiety Rating ScaleValidity–Convergent and discriminant validityCorrelation analyses revealed positive correlations with trait anxiety, depression, fear of negative evaluation, and social.