Attractiveness reviews failed to are different with regards to the gender of your own model, F(1,281) = dos

Attractiveness reviews failed to are different with regards to the gender of your own model, F(1,281) = dos

I computed suggest recommendations for every single of one’s 283 stimulus around the the latest eight evaluative dimensions and you can conducted three ine the latest influence out of face expression, the brand new sex and you can race/ethnicity of your design for each varying (post-hoc reviews had been conducted which have Bonferroni correction and only the ultimate values will be given). Descriptive performance (form and you may standard deviations) are described in the Desk 6.

Expertise.

Familiarity ratings varied according to the type of facial expression, F(1,6) = 7.53, MSE = 1.27, p 2 = .14. Photographs displaying surprise obtained the highest familiarity ratings, all ps ? .008 (but not different from sadness, p = .053, fear, p = .617 and happiness, p = 1.000), and neutral photographs obtained the lowest familiarity ratings, all ps 2 = .01, or race/ethnicity, F(4,278) = 1.57, MSE = 0.28, p = .182, ?p 2 = .02.

Attractiveness.

Elegance evaluations including ranged according to face phrase, F(step 1,six) = 6.69, MSE = https://datingmentor.org/pl/soulsingles-recenzja/ step 1.forty two, p 2 = .13. Photos showing pleasure gotten the best elegance critiques, all ps ? .019 ( not unlike fear, simple and you may shock, the ps = step 1.000), and the ones demonstrating disgust received a minimal elegance analysis, all of the ps ? .002 (but not distinct from rage, anxiety, simple and you will despair, every ps > .099).

61, MSE = 0.65, p = .107, ?p 2 = .01. However, results show the impact of model’s race/ethnicity on attractiveness ratings, F(4,278) = 7.96, MSE = 1.80, p 2 = .10. Specifically, African-American models obtained the highest attractiveness ratings, all ps ? .007 (but not different from Asian and European, both ps = 1.000) and South Asian models obtained the lowest attractiveness ratings, all ps 2 = .75. Specifically, we observed that models displaying anger were perceived as more aroused, all ps ? .001 (but not different from surprise, p = .214), and that those with neutral expressions obtained the lowest arousal ratings, all ps 2 = .87, such that photographs displaying happiness were rated as the most positive, all ps 2 = .00, or the model’s race/ethnicity, F 2 = .49. Specifically, happiness was perceived as the clearest expression, all ps 2 = .19, with photographs displaying happiness perceived as the most genuine, all ps ? .031 (but not different from fear and surprise, both ps = 1.000), and photographs displaying sadness rated as the least genuine, all ps ? .016 (but not different from anger, p = .112).

Genuineness ratings did not vary according to the sex of the model, or its race/ethnicity, both F 2 = .67, with photographs displaying anger perceived as the most intense, all ps 2 = .16 (see Table 6). Post-hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction, showed that photographs displaying happiness obtained the highest accuracy rates, all ps ? .001 (but not different from anger, p = .080, and surprise, p = .252), and that photographs displaying fear obtained the lowest accuracy rates, all ps ? .040 (but not different from sadness, p = .839, and disgust, p = .869). Accuracy rates did not vary according to the sex, F(1,281) = 1.37, MSE = , p = .243, ?p 2 = .01, or the model’s race/ethnicity, F 2 = .01, such that the accuracy rates observed with the Portuguese sample (M = 74.3%, SE = .94) were lower than the ones reported in the original validation sample (M = 77.8%, SE = .94). We also observed a main effect of emotion, F(6,552) = , MSE = , p 2 = .20, such that photographs displaying happiness obtained the highest accuracy rates, all ps 2 = .04 (see Fig 1).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.