Elegance product reviews did not differ with respect to the gender of one’s design, F(step one,281) = 2
I computed suggest product reviews for each and every of 283 stimuli round the the brand new 7 evaluative proportions and you will presented about three ine new influence regarding face term, the new gender and you can race/ethnicity of design on every varying (post-hoc reviews was basically used that have Bonferroni correction and simply the ultimate opinions will be provided). Detailed overall performance (form and standard deviations) try described for the Table 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.
Elegance.
Appeal studies together with varied considering face phrase, F(step 1,six) = 6.69, MSE = step 1.49, p dos = .thirteen. Photo demonstrating happiness gotten the best attractiveness analysis, every ps ? .019 (but not not the same as fear, neutral and you will surprise, all the ps = step one.000), and people exhibiting disgust obtained a reduced attractiveness feedback, every ps ? .002 (however unlike outrage, fear, basic and you can sadness, the 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 want Middle Eastern dating site review 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).