Anxiety Outcome
Post RNT Post obsessions Post non-obsession OCD
symptoms Predictor B Std.
Error b
t p B Std.
Error b
t p B Std.
Error b
t p
Step 1
Exploratory analyses: Interactive effects on post-sleep restriction obsessions
Subjective sleep efficiency. There was a significant interaction between subjective pre- sleep restriction sleep efficiency and post-sleep restriction inhibition to predict post-sleep restriction obsessions, DR2 = .09, F = 5.66, p < .05. Conditional effects analysis revealed that there was a significant relation between post-sleep restriction inhibition on post-sleep restriction obsessions at low, B = .01, t = 3.29, p < .01, and moderate levels of subjective pre-sleep
restriction sleep efficiency, B = .01, t = 3.26, p < .01. However, at high levels of subjective pre- sleep restriction sleep efficiency, post-sleep restriction inhibition was unrelated to post-sleep restriction obsessions, suggesting a protective effect of high sleep efficiency prior to acute sleep loss (see Figure 8). A regions of significance analysis identified 91.17% sleep efficiency as the point at which the effect of post-sleep restriction inhibition on post-sleep restriction obsessions is no longer significant. That is, those with 91.17% subjective sleep efficiency or higher prior to sleep restriction exhibited no link between post-sleep restriction inhibition and obsessions; in contrast, for those with subjective sleep efficiency lower than 91.17% prior to sleep restriction, post-sleep restriction obsessions increases with decreasing post-sleep restriction inhibition.
Figure 8. Simple regression slopes of inhibition predicting obsessions following sleep restriction at values of pre-sleep restriction subjective sleep efficiency, controlling for pre-sleep restriction inhibition and obsessions Inhibition and subjective sleep efficiency were mean-centered prior to analysis, such that low, medium, and high represent the mean +/- one standard deviation.
Objective sleep efficiency. A similar effect was observed for objective pre-sleep restriction sleep efficiency, such that there was a significant interaction between objective pre- sleep restriction sleep efficiency and post-sleep restriction inhibition to predict post-sleep restriction obsessions, DR2 = .05, F = 6.46, p < .05. Conditional effects analysis revealed that there was a significant relation between post-sleep restriction inhibition on post-sleep restriction obsessions at low, B = .01, t = 4.13, p < .01, and moderate levels of objective pre-sleep
restriction sleep efficiency, B = .01, t = 3.52, p < .01. However, at high levels of objective pre- sleep restriction sleep efficiency, post-sleep restriction inhibition was unrelated to post-sleep restriction obsessions, suggesting a protective effect of high sleep efficiency prior to acute sleep loss (see Figure 9). A regions of significance analysis identified 86.22% sleep efficiency as the
point at which the effect of post-sleep restriction inhibition on post-sleep restriction obsessions is no longer significant. That is, those with 86.22% objective sleep efficiency or higher prior to sleep restriction exhibited no link between post-sleep restriction inhibition and obsessions; in contrast, for those with objective sleep efficiency lower than 86.22% prior to sleep restriction, post-sleep restriction obsessions increases with decreasing post-sleep restriction inhibition.
Figure 9. Simple regression slopes of inhibition predicting obsessions following sleep restriction at values of pre-sleep restriction objective sleep efficiency, controlling for pre-sleep restriction inhibition and obsessions. Inhibition and objective sleep efficiency were mean-centered prior to analysis, such that low, medium, and high represent the mean +/- one standard deviation.
Exploratory analyses: Interactive effects on post-sleep restriction non-obsession OCD symptoms
There were no significant interactions between post-sleep restriction inhibition and pre-sleep restriction subjective (p = .23) or objective sleep efficiency (p = .20) to predict post-sleep restriction non-obsession OCD symptoms.
Exploratory analyses: Interactive effects on post-sleep restriction repetitive negative thinking
Subjective sleep efficiency. There was a significant interaction between subjective pre- sleep restriction sleep efficiency and post-sleep restriction inhibition to predict post-sleep
restriction RNT, DR2 = .06, F = 7.07, p < .05. Conditional effects analysis revealed that there was a significant relation between post-sleep restriction inhibition on post-sleep restriction RNT at low, B = .08, t = 3.68, p < .01, and moderate levels of subjective pre-sleep restriction sleep efficiency, B = .05, t = 3.18, p < .01. However, at high levels of subjective pre-sleep restriction sleep efficiency, post-sleep restriction inhibition was unrelated to post-sleep restriction RNT, suggesting a protective effect of high sleep efficiency prior to acute sleep loss (see Figure 10). A regions of significance analysis identified 91.98% sleep efficiency as the point at which the effect of post-sleep restriction inhibition on post-sleep restriction RNT is no longer significant.
That is, those with 91.98% subjective sleep efficiency or higher prior to sleep restriction exhibited no link between post-sleep restriction inhibition and RNT; in contrast, for those with subjective sleep efficiency lower than 91.98% prior to sleep restriction, post-sleep restriction RNT increases with decreasing post-sleep restriction inhibition.
Figure 10. Simple regression slopes of inhibition predicting repetitive negative thinking (RNT) following sleep restriction at values of pre-sleep restriction subjective sleep efficiency,
controlling for pre-sleep restriction inhibition and RNT. Inhibition and subjective sleep
efficiency were mean-centered prior to analysis, such that low, medium, and high represent the mean +/- one standard deviation.
Objective sleep efficiency. A similar effect was observed for objective pre-sleep restriction sleep efficiency, such that there was a significant interaction between objective pre-sleep restriction sleep efficiency and post-sleep restriction inhibition to predict post-sleep restriction RNT, DR2 = .06, F = 5.75, p < .05. Conditional effects analysis revealed that there was a
significant relation between post-sleep restriction inhibition on post-sleep restriction RNT at low, B = .08, t = 3.56, p < .01, and moderate levels of objective pre-sleep restriction sleep efficiency, B = .05, t = 3.25, p < .01. However, at high levels of objective pre-sleep restriction sleep
efficiency, post-sleep restriction inhibition was unrelated to post-sleep restriction RNT,
suggesting a protective effect of high sleep efficiency prior to acute sleep loss (see Figure 11). A regions of significance analysis identified 86.48% sleep efficiency as the point at which the
effect of post-sleep restriction inhibition on post-sleep restriction RNT is no longer significant.
That is, those with 86.48% objective sleep efficiency or higher prior to sleep restriction exhibited no link between post-sleep restriction inhibition and RNT; in contrast, for those with objective sleep efficiency lower than 86.48% prior to sleep restriction, post-sleep restriction RNT increases with decreasing post-sleep restriction inhibition.
Figure 11. Simple regression slopes of inhibition predicting repetitive negative thinking (RNT) following sleep restriction at values of pre-sleep restriction objective sleep efficiency, controlling for pre-sleep restriction inhibition and RNT. Inhibition and objective sleep efficiency were mean-centered prior to analysis, such that low, medium, and high represent the mean +/- one standard deviation.