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).
Relationship Standing
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 1,131 = 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 (Fstep one,131 = 2.36, p = 0.13, ? 2 = 0.018) or same-sex person appears (Fstep one,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” vs. “Nice” Rating Perspective
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 (F1,131 = 0.01, p = 0.91, ? 2 2 = 0.029).
Shared Analysis away from Training step one and you can 2
Ultimately, we combined related ratings from per rater in training, leaving out twenty-eight raters who altered connection reputation among them analysis. Area of the function of it investigation were to attempt when the our the newest methodology included in Investigation dos, namely get how “sexy” and you can “nice” a person featured, supplies other abilities in comparison to the fresh usually used appeal get inside vocally discussed hypothetic small-name or long-identity contexts regarding Analysis 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) San Jose city free gay dating sites 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 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 1,85 = 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 (Fstep 1,83 = 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 1,83 = 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).