Свежие комментарии

    Июнь 2025
    Пн Вт Ср Чт Пт Сб Вс
    « Июн    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    30  

    Рубрики

    Посещаемость

    Сторонняя реклама

    Это тест.###This is an annoucement of
    Тест.

    Статьи

    Sex regarding people had no affect worry about-similarity taste

    17.03.2023 geek2geek-overzicht BRAND1-app  No comments

    Across the whole sample, self-resemblance had no significant effect on the ratings of how “sexy,” “nice,” and “trustworthy” the opposite or same-sex faces appeared: all average ratings were between 4.44 and 4.54 (t138 = -0.73 to 0.67, p > 0.46).

    Commitment Reputation

    The effect of partnership status on self-resemblance preference in the context of sexiness ratings of opposite-sex photographs was not significant, although the effect was close to p = 0.05 (F1,132 = 3.27, p = 0.073, ? 2 = 0.024), but we found a significant effect of partnership status on self-resemblance preference when rating same-sex sexiness (Fstep one,131 = 5.49, p = 0.021, ? 2 = 0.040). There was no effect of partnership status on self-resemblance preference in the context of ratings of how nice the opposite-sex (F1,131 = 2.36, p = 0.13, ? 2 = 0.018) or same-sex person appears (Fstep 1,132 = 0.73, p = 0.39, ? 2 = 0.006).

    Post hoc t-tests showed that single raters judged dissimilar opposite-sex faces as more sexy (mean rating 4.24, t39 = -2.05, p = 0.047, CI [-0.51, 0.00]) than self-resembling opposite-sex faces. They also rated dissimilar same-sex photographs as more sexy (mean = 4.11, t39 = -2.63, p = 0.012, CI [-0.69, -0.09]) than self-resembling same-sex photographs. Scores for the sample of coupled participants did not differ from chance (4.58 and 4.58, t97 = 0.93 and 0.80, ps = 0.35 and 0.42, CI [-0.08, 0.26] and [-0.11, 0.26] for sexiness ratings of opposite- and same-sex faces, respectively).

    “Sexy” against. “Nice” Get Framework

    A repeated measures GLM was performed to test for a possible effect of the rated characteristic (sexy vs. nice) on self-resemblance preference in opposite-sex photographs, controlling for sex, partnership status and attractiveness of rater. We found no effect of the repeated measure rated characteristic (Fstep one,131 = 0.01, p = 0.91, ? 2 2 = 0.029).

    Shared Studies away from Degree 1 and you can dos

    Finally, we combined involved feedback off for every rater in degree, excluding 28 raters exactly who altered union status among them reviews. Area of the reason for that it analysis was to sample if our very own the fresh strategy found in Study 2, specifically get just how “sexy” and you can “nice” a person featured, provides some other efficiency in comparison with this new have a tendency to put elegance rating into the vocally demonstrated hypothetic brief-term or much time-label contexts regarding Study step 1.

    We performed four GLM analyses with different pairs of repeated measures, namely (1) self-resemblance preference in short-term attractiveness ratings of opposite-sex faces (data from Study 1) and in opposite-sex sexiness ratings (data from Study 2), (2) self-resemblance preference in long-term attractiveness rating of opposite-sex faces (data from Study 1) and “nice” rating of opposite-sex faces (data from Study 2), (3) self-resemblance preference in attractiveness ratings of same-sex faces from the viewpoint of the opposite sex (data from Study 1) and same-sex sexiness rating (data from Study 2) and (4) self-resemblance preference when rating preference of same-sex faces as possible friends (data from Study 1) and when rating how “nice” same-sex faces appear (data from Study 2). We found no effect of either repeated factor (all Fs between 0.02 and 0.95, all ps between 0.33 and 0.89) which suggests that there is no difference between ratings of sexiness and short-term attractiveness, or between ratings of how nice the face appears and long-term attractiveness. In three out of these four GLM models, partnership status showed a significant effect whereas no other factor or interaction was significant. In the first GLM model, with short-term https://datingmentor.org/nl/geek2geek-overzicht/ attractiveness ratings of opposite-sex faces and opposite-sex sexiness ratings entered as repeated measures and with the control factors sex of rater, partnership status, and attractiveness of rater, the effect of partnership status was significant (Fstep one,85 = 5.35, p = 0.023, ? 2 = 0.059; Figure 2). In the second model, with the dependent repeated factor composed of the “nice” rating and long-term attractiveness rating of opposite-sex faces, partnership status was again a significant predictor (F1,83 = 4.00, p = 0.049, ? 2 = 0.045; Figure 3). A significant effect of partnership status was also found for ratings of same-sex attractiveness from the viewpoint of the other sex and same-sex sexiness rating (Fstep one,83 = 5.54, p = 0.021, ? 2 = 0.062; Figure 4). In all three models, singles preferred relatively higher facial dissimilarity than coupled participants. There was no effect of partnership status on self-resemblance preference for combined rating of preference of same-sex face as a possible friend and “nice” rating of same-sex face (Fstep 1,83 = 0.65, p = 0.42, ? 2 = 0.008; Figure 5).

    Related Posts

    Related Posts:

      No Related Posts

    Leave a reply

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>