## 5 Results
### Regression Analysis
These effects might be investigated in future work. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Experiment 1–Urban Soundscapes**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Experiment 2–Restaurant Soundscapes**} \\  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(12 x 43 = 516 Cases)**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(15 x 45 = 675 Cases)**} \\ \hline
**Statistic** & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Plassentness_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Eventfulness_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Plassentness_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Eventfulness_} \\ \hline \(R^{2}\) & 0.508 & - & - & 0.379 & - & - & 0.247 & - & - & 0.225 & - & - \\ Ad. \(R^{2}\) & 0.498 & - & - & 0.346 & - & - & 0.224 & - & - & 0.212 & - & - \\ Cross-val. adj. \(R^{2}\) & 0.485 (0.31... 0.65) & & 0.352 (0.17... 0.55) & & 0.222 (0.09... 0.41) & & 0.207 (0.08... 0.39) & & \\ \hline
**Variable** & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_P_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_s_\({}^{2}\)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_p_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_s_\({}^{2}\)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_p_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_s_\({}^{2}\)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_p_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_s_\({}^{2}\)} \\ \hline Type & 0.893 & 0.000... & 0.118 & 0.842 & 0.000... & 0.092 & 1.296 & 0.000... & 0.105 & 0.396 & 0.003... & 0.052 \\ \(N_{0}\) & \(-0.393\) & 0.000... & 0.066 & 0.325 & 0.000... & 0.003 & 0.025 & 0.615 & - & 0.395 & 0.000... & 0.074 \\ Extraversion & 0.005 & 0.891 & - & 0.112 & 0.003... & 0.006 & -0.059 & 0.141 & - & -0.081 & 0.048 * & 0.005 \\ Agreeableness & \(-0.046\) & 0.156 & - & \(-0.065\) & 0.075 & - & 0.126 & 0.000... & 0.013 & -0.021 & 0.549 & - \\ Conscientiousness & 0.037 & 0.250 & - & 0.044 & 0.224 & - & 0.110 & 0.007... & 0.007 & 0.007 & 0.023 & 0.582 & - \\ _Eentional stability_ & \(-0.111\) & 0.000... & 0.009 & \(-0.112\) & 0.002... & 0.008 & \(-0.102\) & 0.004... & 0.008 & \(-0.026\) & 0.479 & - \\ _Openness_ & \(-0.0053\) & 0.096 & - & \(-0.005\) & 0.889 & - & \(-0.018\) & 0.612 & 0.012 & 0.735 & - \\ _Noise sensitivity_ & - & - & - & - & - & - & -0.262 & 0.000... & 0.046 & \(-0.047\) & 0.251 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Regression analysis results for Experiment 1 and 2. \(R^{2}\) = amount explained. Adj. \(R^{2}\) = \(R^{2}\) adjusted for the number of predictor variables. Cross-val. adj. \(R^{2}\) = mean 10-fold cross-validated adjusted \(R^{2}\) across 3000 iterations [52], with 95% confidence interval around the mean in parenthesis. \(\delta\) = standardized beta coefficient. \(p\) = probability value. \(sr^{2}\) = squared semipartial correlation. Note that since _type_ is a dummy encoded categorical variable, the numerical values given are for the pair of levels that was associated with the largest shift in the dependent variable. * \(p\leq 0.05\), ** \(p\leq 0.01\), *** \(p\leq 0.001\). The influence of _emotional stability_ on _Pleasantness_ was significant in both experiments. _Emotional stability_ was associated with rating the sonic environment as less pleasant, over and above the effects of _type_ and _loudness_. Alternatively, we can say that neuroticism was associated with rating environments as more pleasant. The influence of this trait on the soundscape is illustrated in Figure 2, and discussed more thoroughly below. _Noise sensitivity_ was significantly and negatively related with _Pleasantness_. In other words, the more noise-tolerant participants were, the higher they rated the restaurant environments in terms of pleasantness, controlling for the effects of _type_ and _loudness_. This was an expected finding given well-established theory, thus supported by new empirical evidence in restaurants. The negative influence of _emotional stability_ on _Eventfulness_ was strong in the first experiment with urban soundscapes, so that neuroticism was associated with rating these environments as more eventful. It did not reach significance for the restaurant soundscapes in Experiment 2. The squared semipartial correlation of a predictor indicates the amount of variation it explains in response variable, controlling for other predictors.