We determined suggest feedback for each and every of 283 stimulus across brand new 7 evaluative proportions and you will held three ine the new influence of face phrase, new intercourse and you will competition/ethnicity of the design on each changeable (post-hoc contrasting have been conducted having Bonferroni correction and just the ultimate viewpoints will be given). Detailed overall performance (mode and you will standard deviations) was described in the Desk six.
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.
Appeal feedback including ranged based on facial term, F(step one,6) = six.69, MSE = step 1.forty two, p 2 = .13. Photos displaying contentment gotten the best attractiveness feedback, every ps ? .019 (although not different from worry, simple and you can surprise, most of the ps = step one.000), and people showing disgust gotten a low attractiveness feedback, all the ps ? .002 ( not distinctive from anger, anxiety, basic and you can despair, all of 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 https://datingmentor.org/escort/san-angelo/,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).