Y 19,15 /Validation of the ADFES-BIV(n = 10), Masters students (n = 1), and staff (n = 3) and came from diverse departments. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Participants were compensated with ? or gained course credit (Psychology students) for participation. The age ranged from 18 to 60 years (M = 27.67, SD = 9.85). One person indicated having a diagnosis of an Anxiety Disorder. Since the data for this participant was comparable to the other participants, their data was included in the analysis. Due to a jasp.12117 technical fault response time data were only available for 29 participants (-1 male). Stimuli. From the 360 videos of the ADFES-BIV (Study 1) the first and last frame were extracted for each video. Video sequences were created with the first frame (neutral expression) being presented 13 times and then the last frame (emotional expression) for the same amount of repetitions with a speed of 25 frames/sec. It was chosen to apply the same characteristics to the control stimuli as to the ADFES-BIV videos, i.e. equal amount of frames (26) and speed of presentation (25 frames/sec) as well as QVD-OPH custom synthesis starting with a neutral image and ending with an emotional expression. Thereby, highly standardised videos in regards to timings were created. Procedure and task. The same procedure and task were applied as in Study 1. Raw hit rates and response times were the DVs. Ethical approval for this study was given by the University of Bath Psychology Ethics Committee and all participants gave written informed consent prior to participation.ResultsDV 1: Raw hit rates. Raw hit rates were calculated for intensity. The overall accuracy of response for the 360 videos was 66 (SD = 8.72). For all low intensity videos taken together an accuracy of 51 was achieved (SD = 9.16), 66 for PX-478 site intermediate intensity (SD = 11.78), and 74 for high intensity (SD = 9.91). Inspection of the Shapiro-Wilk statistics revealed the raw hit rates data for the intensities were normally distributed (low: S-W = .98, df = 30, p = .698; intermediate: S-W = .94, df = 30, p = .115; high: S-W = .95, df = 30, p = .201). A repeated measures ANOVA with intensity as within-subject factor was conducted and a significant main effect of intensity was found (F(2,58) = 252.70, p < .001, partial ?= .897, power = 1.000) and pairwise comparisons showed the three intensity levels were all significantly different from each other (p's < .001). DV 2: Response times. Response times were calculated for intensity (correct trials only). Inspection of the Shapiro-Wilk statistics revealed the response time data for the intensities were non-normally distributed (low: S-W = .93, df = 29, p = .048; intermediate: S-W = .90, df = 29, p = .009; high: S-W = .93, df = 29, p = .062) and therefore normalised using log transformation (low: S-W = .99, df = 29, p = .994; intermediate: S-W j.jebo.2013.04.005 = .97, df = 29, p = .656; high: S-W = .98, df = 29, p = .764). A repeated measures ANOVA with intensity as within-subject factor was conducted to test if the intensities (correct trials only) differed significantly in response time. A significant main effect of intensity was found (F(2, 56) = 4.28, p = .019, partial ?= .133, power = .724). Pairwise comparisons showed that the responses occurred significantly faster for the high intensity level (M = 1054ms, SD = 399) than the intermediate intensity (M = 1137ms, SD = 491, p = .014). Responses did not occur significantly faster for the intermediate intensity than the low in.Y 19,15 /Validation of the ADFES-BIV(n = 10), Masters students (n = 1), and staff (n = 3) and came from diverse departments. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Participants were compensated with ? or gained course credit (Psychology students) for participation. The age ranged from 18 to 60 years (M = 27.67, SD = 9.85). One person indicated having a diagnosis of an Anxiety Disorder. Since the data for this participant was comparable to the other participants, their data was included in the analysis. Due to a jasp.12117 technical fault response time data were only available for 29 participants (-1 male). Stimuli. From the 360 videos of the ADFES-BIV (Study 1) the first and last frame were extracted for each video. Video sequences were created with the first frame (neutral expression) being presented 13 times and then the last frame (emotional expression) for the same amount of repetitions with a speed of 25 frames/sec. It was chosen to apply the same characteristics to the control stimuli as to the ADFES-BIV videos, i.e. equal amount of frames (26) and speed of presentation (25 frames/sec) as well as starting with a neutral image and ending with an emotional expression. Thereby, highly standardised videos in regards to timings were created. Procedure and task. The same procedure and task were applied as in Study 1. Raw hit rates and response times were the DVs. Ethical approval for this study was given by the University of Bath Psychology Ethics Committee and all participants gave written informed consent prior to participation.ResultsDV 1: Raw hit rates. Raw hit rates were calculated for intensity. The overall accuracy of response for the 360 videos was 66 (SD = 8.72). For all low intensity videos taken together an accuracy of 51 was achieved (SD = 9.16), 66 for intermediate intensity (SD = 11.78), and 74 for high intensity (SD = 9.91). Inspection of the Shapiro-Wilk statistics revealed the raw hit rates data for the intensities were normally distributed (low: S-W = .98, df = 30, p = .698; intermediate: S-W = .94, df = 30, p = .115; high: S-W = .95, df = 30, p = .201). A repeated measures ANOVA with intensity as within-subject factor was conducted and a significant main effect of intensity was found (F(2,58) = 252.70, p < .001, partial ?= .897, power = 1.000) and pairwise comparisons showed the three intensity levels were all significantly different from each other (p's < .001). DV 2: Response times. Response times were calculated for intensity (correct trials only). Inspection of the Shapiro-Wilk statistics revealed the response time data for the intensities were non-normally distributed (low: S-W = .93, df = 29, p = .048; intermediate: S-W = .90, df = 29, p = .009; high: S-W = .93, df = 29, p = .062) and therefore normalised using log transformation (low: S-W = .99, df = 29, p = .994; intermediate: S-W j.jebo.2013.04.005 = .97, df = 29, p = .656; high: S-W = .98, df = 29, p = .764). A repeated measures ANOVA with intensity as within-subject factor was conducted to test if the intensities (correct trials only) differed significantly in response time. A significant main effect of intensity was found (F(2, 56) = 4.28, p = .019, partial ?= .133, power = .724). Pairwise comparisons showed that the responses occurred significantly faster for the high intensity level (M = 1054ms, SD = 399) than the intermediate intensity (M = 1137ms, SD = 491, p = .014). Responses did not occur significantly faster for the intermediate intensity than the low in.