Learn How To Get Better At APO866 Like A Champion
, 2009, and Del Giudice and Colle, 2007, examined variations in intensity within happy only). Note that our method and analyses are designed to establish (1) the contribution of intensity to authenticity discrimination and (2) if additional cues contribute. They are not intended to establish what these additional cues are. We first examined the mean intensity ratings for Fleroxacin our stimulus items from the three emotions, shown in Table ?Table22 averaged across emotions and in Figure ?Figure55 for individual stimulus pairs. These values are potentially consistent with the idea that children (and adults) judge authenticity based on the intensity of the expression, such that they perceive the more intense expression of each trial pair as the more genuine, and the less intense as less genuine (more likely to be pretend). Specifically, for happy��the expression for which children were able to reliably discriminate authenticity��comparison of mean ratings showed the genuine items we used were on average significantly more intense than the pretend items, t(25) = 7.65, p click here in average intensity, t(25) = 1.54, p = 0.137; and for these stimuli children were not able to discriminate authenticity above chance (while adults could). Finally, for fear, the pretend items were significantly more intense overall than the genuine items, t(25) = 5.55, p APO866 ic50 could not discriminate authenticity above chance (indeed, they showed a trend in the opposite direction, i.e., toward perceiving the pretend item as more authentic than the genuine one). Table 2 Mean intensity ratings (n = 26 adults) for genuine and pretend versions of each emotional expression, with SDs in parentheses. FIGURE 5 Mean intensity ratings (n = 26) for individual stimulus pairs (e.g., Happy Pair 1 = genuine and posed happy expressions shown by the same person). Error bars = �� 1 SEM. Taking this intensity analysis one step further, we then examined correlations between authenticity discrimination performance and intensity of individual items. Note our use of paired stimuli (for 2-AFC) for the authenticity trials requires a somewhat complicated way to analyze the data (i.e., we cannot just plot discrimination accuracy against intensity of the face, since there were two faces presented on each trial). In Figure ?Figure6,6, we illustrate the format of our data plots. On the x-axis, we plot the difference in mean intensity ratings for each genuine-pretend pair. On this scale: a score of zero indicates that the genuine and pretend items on the trial were of equal intensity; a score to the right of zero indicates that the genuine face was more intense than the pretend face; and a score to the left of zero indicates that the pretend face was more intense than the genuine face.
