borderline significantp = 0.052
In support, we observed a borderline significant interaction effect between face type and inversion, F (1, 63) = 3.94, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.059.
In support, we observed a borderline significant interaction effect between face type and inversion, F (1, 63) = 3.94, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.059.
Although visual inspection of this figure suggests that sensitivity scores were slightly higher for real as compared with virtual faces, as predicted by H1, this effect failed to reach statistical significance, F (1, 63) = 2.75, p = 0.102, η p 2 = 0.04.