228 RElS AND ZAIDEL
variables in the ANOVA were Face Sex (women, men) and Face Side (left-left,
right-right, same). A significant main effect for face side emerged,
F(2,46) = 32.39, p <.00001, reflecting a lower mean for left-left than for
right-right. The main effect for Face Sex was not significant, F(l, 23) = 4.02, p
<.06. The two-way interaction, Face Sex × Face Side, was significant,
F(2,46) = 4.76,p<.01. Figure 1 shows the nature of this interaction.
In view of the significant interaction, analyses for simple effects were applied
to the data. A significant difference between left-left and right-right emerged
only for women’s faces, (t= —2.95; d.f. = 23; p=.007), with a nonsignificant
difference for men’s faces (f= — 1.79; d.f. = 23; p = 0.09). The mean forjudging
both faces “same” was low by comparison, in both women’s and men’s faces
(see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The mean percent preference for left-left, right-right, or same (i.e.. no difference) by
subjects viewing pairs of faces and deciding which one looks healthier.
More intriguing information
1. Cross-Country Evidence on the Link between the Level of Infrastructure and Capital Inflows2. The name is absent
3. TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF RESEARCH ON WOMEN FARMERS IN AFRICA: LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS; WITH AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
4. Alzheimer’s Disease and Herpes Simplex Encephalitis
5. TLRP: academic challenges for moral purposes
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Distortions in a multi-level co-financing system: the case of the agri-environmental programme of Saxony-Anhalt
9. The urban sprawl dynamics: does a neural network understand the spatial logic better than a cellular automata?
10. The name is absent