We determined indicate recommendations for every single of one’s 283 stimuli across the the newest seven evaluative dimensions and you will presented about three ine brand new dictate from facial term, the latest intercourse and you may race/ethnicity of the design for each changeable (post-hoc comparisons was in fact held having Bonferroni modification and only the extreme beliefs will be presented). Descriptive show (means and you will standard deviations) is actually summarized into 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.

Attractiveness.

Appeal analysis together with ranged considering face expression, F(1,six) = 6.69, MSE = step one.forty two, p 2 = .13. Photographs displaying joy received the highest attractiveness product reviews, all ps ? .019 ( not distinctive from concern, natural and amaze, all of the ps = step 1.000), and the ones exhibiting disgust received a minimal appeal analysis, all ps ? .002 (yet not different from fury, anxiety, natural and 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(4,278) = 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, escort in Mobile 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).