Attractiveness product reviews don’t vary with regards to the intercourse of one’s model, F(step 1,281) = dos

Attractiveness product reviews don’t vary with regards to the intercourse of one’s model, F(step 1,281) = dos

I computed imply evaluations for every single of your own 283 stimuli around the the fresh eight evaluative size and you may used about three ine the fresh new dictate off facial phrase, the latest gender and race/ethnicity of your design for each changeable (post-hoc evaluations were presented that have Bonferroni correction and simply the ultimate opinions will be provided). Detailed performance (setting and you can important deviations) are described from inside the Dining table 6.

Familiarity.

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.

Attractiveness evaluations plus varied based on facial expression, F(step 1,six) = six.69, MSE = step 1.forty two, p dos = .thirteen. Photo showing glee received the best appeal ratings, all ps ? .019 (however distinctive from anxiety, simple and treat, all the ps = step one.000), and those exhibiting disgust obtained a decreased appeal evaluations, all the ps ? .002 (but not not the same as fury, concern, basic and you can despair, all the ps > .099).

61, MSE = 0.65, mГ­t rГЎd 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).