Young men showed lower accuracy than women and older men. A Sex ? Age ANOVA showed significant main effects of sex and age and their interaction effect, F(1, 577) = , p 2 = 0.07; F(4, 577) = 3.82, p = 0.004, ?p 2 = 0.03; F(4, 577) = 7.04, p 2 = 0.05, respectively. When analyzed separately, men showed a significant age effect, F(4, 286) = 7.24, p 2 = 0.09, while women did not, F(4, 291) = 2.02, p = 0.092, ?p 2 = 0.03). Sex differences were significant in the 20s, 30s, and 40s (ps 0.392). The largest difference was found in the 20s. Women answered correctly (M = 92.0%, SD = 11.7, 95% CI [89.0, 95.0]) more than men (M = 74.9%, SD = 18.6, 95% CI [69.7, 80.1]), and the effect size was large (d = 1.12).
Contour 6A shows the results off sex and you will age with the precision out of discriminating within +50% and you will –50% versions of fifty chemical face
Contour 6. Intercourse and you can many years variations in cuteness discrimination accuracy. Members (Letter = 587) was basically requested to choose the cuter deal with throughout the couple. Error taverns indicate 95% depend on times. Observe that the precision to own prototype confronts does not have any error club given that worth indicates the latest proportion away from respondents which replied correctly on a single demo. (A) The info into the fifty ingredient face. (B) The info for the model face. (C) The content into controlled average faces.
Some ? Sex ? Age ANOVA presented extreme main effects of intercourse and age and you can its communication impact, F(1, 577) = , p dos = 0
The same trend where teenage boys have been shorter sensitive to cuteness differences is used in almost every other stimuli kits. Towards the evaluation of your own model face (Contour 6B, singular trial for each and every fellow member), young men showed straight down correct rates. How many participants whom responded accurately is actually 57 away from sixty ladies and 38 off 52 males within 20s (p = 0.001) and you may 58 regarding 59 girls and you may 52 out of 58 boys inside their 30s (p = 0.061), centered on Fisher’s accurate attempt.
Likewise, the data on average faces (Figure 6C) showed a similar result. 06; F(4, 577) = 5.47, p 2 = 0.04; F(4, 577) = 5.05, p = 0.001, ?p 2 = 0.03, respectively, which resembled the results of the ANOVA for the 50 composite faces. The main effect of pair was also significant, F(2, 1154) = , p 2 = 0.09. A post hoc comparison showed that all of the pairs differed from each other (p 2 -value increased significantly, F(1, 582) = 4.04, p = 0.045. The regression coefficient of parental status was positive (B = 2.48, 95% CI [0.06, 4.90]), indicating that having a child was associated with higher discrimination accuracy, although the size of the increase was small (about 2.5%). Then, the interaction terms including parental status were entered in a stepwise fashion. As a result, the predictor of parental status by age (centered at their means) was entered into the third model, with a significant increase in the R 2 -value, F(1, 581) = 3.88, p = 0.049. The regression coefficient of this interaction term was negative (B = –0.18, 95% CI [–0.35, –0.00]), indicating that the enhancing effect of parental status on cuteness discrimination accuracy reduced as age increased. Supplementary Figure 5 shows the relationship between parental status and cuteness discrimination accuracy by sex and age group.
Whenever an equivalent hierarchical several linear regression was used to cuteness score analysis, incorporating adult standing because the an excellent predictor adjustable did not boost R 2 -opinions rather, F(1, step 195) = step one.77, p = 0.step 185; F(step 1, 224) = 0.07, p = 0.792, toward mean rating of one’s 80 brand spanking new confronts and also the suggest rating of your 50 ingredient face, respectively.