Academic Integrity: tutoring, explanations, and feedback — we don’t complete graded work or submit on a student’s behalf.

Langlois and Roggman (1990) took facial photographs of males and females. They t

ID: 3182664 • Letter: L

Question

Langlois and Roggman (1990) took facial photographs of males and females. They then created five groups of composite photographs by computer-averaging the individual faces. For one group the computer averaged 32 randomly selected same-gender faces, producing a quite recognizable face with average width, height, eyes, nose length, and so on. For the other groups the composite faces were averaged over either 2, 4, 8, or 16 individual faces. Each group saw six separate photographs, all of which were computer-averaged over the appropriate number of individual photographs. Langlois and Roggman asked participants to rate the attractiveness of the faces on a 1–5 scale, where 5 represents “very attractive.” The data have been constructed to have the same means and variances as those reported by Langlois and Roggman.

Data on rated attractiveness

Group 1: 2.201 2.411 2.407 2.403 2.826 3.380

Group 2: 1.893 3.102 2.355 3.644 2.767 2.109

Group 3: 2.906 2.118 3.226 2.811 2.857 3.422

Group 4: 3.233 3.505 3.192 3.209 2.860 3.111

Group 5: 3.200 3.253 3.357 3.169 3.291 3.290

a) Run the appropriate analysis of variance.

b) What do these data tell us about how people judge attractiveness?

Explanation / Answer

applying analysis of ANOVa on above data with level of 0.05 :

as p vlaue is less then 0.05 ; we can conclude that people judge attractiveness is not equal at least for two groups

SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 6 15.628 2.604667 0.186065 Group 2 6 15.87 2.645 0.431727 Group 3 6 17.34 2.89 0.199898 Group 4 6 19.11 3.185 0.043286 Group 5 6 19.56 3.26 0.00464 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 2.170429 4 0.542607 3.134226 0.032168 2.75871 Within Groups 4.328079 25 0.173123 Total 6.498508 29