Dear Steve,

that is brillant, thank you for this!

Emotion_type, with values "complex" or "simple", depends on which of the specific emotion (out of 14 emotions) were displayed in each of the 42 videos: some of the emotions are considered complex, while others are considered simple.

Each of the 14 emotions was presented in three different videos, and the order of presentation of the 42 video was randomized - hence (in principle) different for each participant.  

I run the syntax you sent on the dataset, which I add in attachment here (exportx). I attach also the article. The description of the model is in Experiment 1, but the data that I am working on are those of Experiment 2.

A few things:

1. This PROC Glimmix takes 30 minutes on my SAS studio to run!

2. I get an interaction between the fixed factors (emotion_type and cent_trans_ART), while the authors report not finding an interaction:

"Participants were not better at recognizing one type of emotion (simple/complex) over another, as indicated by similar rates of recognition for simple and complex emotions and a non-significant effect of emotion type, X2(1) = 0.49, p = .48. Furthermore, participants who had higher ART scores were not better at recognizing emotions, overall, as indicated by a non-significant effect of ART score, X2(1) = 2.34, p = .13. However, the interaction between the emotion type and ART score was significant, b = 0.18, X2(1) = 4.24, p < .05, indicating that participants who had higher ART scores were better able to recognize complex emotions."

3. From what they write in the paper (which I mentioned earlier) it looks like they included four, not 2 random factors. This might be the reason for the different results.