Table 4.

Accuracy and response efficiency effects revealed by three-way mixed ANOVAs of the data for Experiments 1, 2, and 3. Significant results and interactions are reported in bold and marked with *. A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied where the assumption of sphericity was not met.

			Group	Cue Condition	Dominance	Cue condition x Group	Dominance x Group	Cue condition x Dominance	Cue condition x Dominance * Group
FACIAL EMOTIONS	Accuracy	F	140.9*	3.8*	68.0*	1.4	15.2*	0.0	1.3
		df	1, 24	2, 48	1, 24	2, 48	1, 24	2, 48	2, 48
		p	<.001	.029	<.001	.249	.001	.953	.296
		partial η2	0.9	0.1	0.7	0.1	0.4	0.0	0.0
	Response Efficiency	F	53.4*	5.7*	21.4*	5.7*	13.0*	0.7	0.1
		df	1, 24	2,48	1, 24	2,48	1,24	1.3, 30.0	2,48
		p	<.001	.006	<.001	.006	.001	.426	0.862
		partial η2	0.7	0.2	0.5	0.2	0.4	0.0	0.0
PROSODY	Accuracy	F	146.2*	0.1	44.3*	3.0	10.0*	1.3	1.6
		df	1, 24	2,48	1, 24	2,48	1, 24	2,48	2,48
		p	<.001	.894	<.001	.058	.004	.284	.210
		partial η2	0.9	0.0	0.6	0.1	0.3	0.1	0.1
	Response Efficiency	F	68.7*	3.0	39.5*	1.8	25.2*	5.3*	2.0
		df	1, 24	2,48	1, 24	2,48	1, 24	2,48	2,48
		p	<.001	.057	<.001	.182	<.001	.009	.153
		partial η2	0.7	0.1	0.6	0.1	0.5	0.2	0.1
VISUO-SPATIAL	Accuracy	F	144.7*	62.8*	17.8*	17.0*	12.7*	6.9*	6.5*
		df	1, 24	1.6, 38.3	1, 24	2, 48	1, 24	2, 48	2, 48
		p	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	.002	.002	.003
		partial η2	0.9	0.7	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.2
	Response Efficiency	F	109.2*	61.2*	24.7*	37.2*	13.2*	7.5*	4.9*
		df	1, 24	2,48	1, 24	2,48	1, 24	2,48	2,48
		p	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	.001	.001	.012
		partial η2	0.8	0.7	0.5	0.6	0.4	0.2	0.2