Table 3.
Outfit by Gender interaction on all the dependent variables (Study 3).
| Sexy M (SD) |
Professional M (SD) |
F-values | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Male | Female | ||
| Thesis points | 6.77 (1.12) | 6.50 (1.28) | 7.28 (0.94) | 7.43 (0.91) |
F(1,71) = 2.96, p = 0.09,  = 0.04 |
| Final mark | 98.59 (6.77) | 95.45 (9.62) | 101.02 (7.41) | 100.35 (7.26) |
F(1,71) = 2.34, p = 0.13, = 0.03 |
| Competence | 4.36 (0.83)a | 3.83 (0.93)b | 4.94 (0.84)c | 4.81 (0.85)c |
F(1,71) = 3.75, p = 0.06, = 0.05 |
| Sexiness | 4.36 (1.16)a | 3.25 (1.14)b | 3.14 (1.12)c | 3.30 (0.95)c |
F(1,71) = 20.27, p < 0.001, = 0.22 |
| Outfit appropriateness | 3.99 (1.14)a | 3.12 (1.22)b | 5.00 (1.20)c | 4.98 (1.16)c |
F(1,71) = 5.11, p = 0.03, = 0.07 |
When a significant interaction was found, pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) were performed and, for each dependent variable, means were associated with a superscript. Means with different subscripts are significantly different from each other at p < 0.05. For instance, the mean with superscript “a” was significantly different from the means with superscript “b” and “c” reported on the same row. When two means have the same superscript, they were not statistically different from each other. No subscripts are reported for non-significant interaction effects.