Participants
Nineteen people participated in this study. They certainly were most of the hired from inside the Hong-kong, speaking Cantonese since their first code, and school-experienced (possibly up coming-most recent students or recently graduated). All of them in addition to spoke English and you will Mandarin while the second dialects. The suggest level was 159.cuatro cm (SD ± cuatro.4). Involvement try voluntary and no that received one monetary remuneration. No one said one (reputation for) message and you can reading handicap.
Warm-Up Task
This study manufactured three employment: warm-right up, face attractiveness rating, and speech production activity. All of the jobs have been completed in the same concept inside the a quiet room for the college or university campus. Participants had been filed using a great Logitech H340 Sex dating site free microphone on a sampling rates from forty two.1 kHz.
For the warm-upwards session, people was indeed questioned to say the brand new semantically natural utterance ???,?????? “Hello. What’s your major?” 3 x without having to be showed any artwork stimulus. The reason for this task would be to familiarize the participants with main design task, that will be described lower than.
Facial Attractiveness Score
50 other male face stimuli were utilized. We merely provided face out-of East Far-eastern ethnicities as his or her features be common to the people (cf. Coetzee ainsi que al., 2014). 40 of confronts was in fact relatively attractive Far eastern male faces (celebs and you will if you don’t). The rest stimuli were apparently faster attractive male face (again and a-listers). The pictures regarding men stars was in fact the individuals regarding Hong kong, Korea, Japan, and you may Mainland China. Every stimulus was in fact publicly available photo extracted from the web.
Players have been questioned so you can rates new beauty of this type of fifty faces towards the a-1 ? 10 level (10 = very attractive) and you can write down their impulse into the a reply piece. They were informed so you can foot the analysis strictly regarding how far these people were attracted to for each and every deal with, and forget about people prior expertise in the fresh respective boys or sense they could possess with folks away from comparable styles. Stimuli was in fact demonstrated in a good randomized order from inside the Microsoft Powerpoint slides.
Development Activity
According to the feedback of above, for each fellow member the 5 really glamorous and five the very least glamorous faces were utilized because address stimulus within the a subsequent creation activity. In case there is confronts with the exact same get, those that was in fact presented after have been selected. Each deal with is actually exhibited 3 times towards separate times within the random purchase. Professionals was in fact instructed to visualize by themselves when you look at the a class form, which the male deal with was out-of an excellent classmate resting next in it. People was in fact up coming to ask the male classmate ???,?????? “Hello. What’s your own biggest?” From for each participant, 30 utterances had been recorded. Tracks was indeed then assessed having fun with ProsodyPro (Xu, 2013 ver. 5.eight.2), enabling guide checking from singing pulses and you will instantly extracts multiple acoustic dimensions, due to the fact will be given less than.
Article hoc Survey
Preliminary data analysis revealed a bimodal distribution which was seemingly related to participants’ height. Specifically, we seemed to observe that taller participants seemed to behave in the opposite direction from the rest. To verify this, we sent out a questionnaire to gather information on participants’ height and how satisfied they were about it. There were four questions in the questionnaire: (1) “How tall are you?,” (2) “On a scale of 1 to 10, how satisfied are you about your own height?,” (3) “If you are not satisfied, how much taller/shorter would you like to be (in centimeters)?,” and (4) “What are you doing to address your unsatisfactory height (e.g., wearing high heels)?” All participants bar one responded (i.e., N = 18). Based on their response, participants were then classified in terms of how satisfied they were about their height, namely (H)ighly satisfied, (M)oderately satisfied, and (L)east satisfied. There were six participants in each category. The correlation between participants’ height and their satisfaction with their own height was nearly but not significant, rs = 0.446, N = 18, p = 0.063.