Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34630246›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Reliability of Online Surveys in Investigating Perceptions and Impressions of Faces.

Naoyasu Hirao, Koyo Koizumi, Hanako Ikeda, Hideki Ohira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Naoyasu HiraoShiseido Global Innovation Center, Yokohama-Shi, Japan.
Koyo KoizumiShiseido Global Innovation Center, Yokohama-Shi, Japan.
Hanako IkedaShiseido Global Innovation Center, Yokohama-Shi, Japan.
Hideki OhiraDepartment of Psychology, Graduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Online experimental methods are used in psychological studies investigating the perceptions and impressions of facial photographs, even without substantial evidence supporting their reliability and validity. Although, the quality of visual stimuli is more difficult to control remotely, the methods might allow us to obtain a large amount of data. Then the statistical analysis of a larger volume of data may reduce errors and suggest significant difference in the stimuli. Therefore, we analyzed the reliability and validity of online surveys in investigating the perceptions (shine, red, and dark) and impressions (attractiveness, trustworthy, and so on) of facial photographs created from averaged faces with skin tones modified using computer graphics (CG). In this study, we conducted online (Online1) and laboratory experiments with well-controlled conditions (Control). For each experiment, 50 participants (men and women in Japan, age: 20-59years) completed the same questionnaire regarding their impressions of the same 28 CG facial photographs. The results showed significant correlations between the two experiments for all 19 items in the questionnaire. SD in the Online1 compared to the Control from the stimuli and individual differences were 56-84 and 88-104% in each questionnaire items, respectively. Moreover, the rates of mismatching perceptual evaluations to the corresponding physical features demonstrated in the photographs were 4.9-9.7% on average in an additional online survey of another 2,000 participants (Online2). These results suggest that online surveys can be applied to experiments to investigate impressions from CG facial photographs instead of general laboratory experiment by obtaining an appropriate number of participants to offset larger statistical errors that may result from the increased noise in the data from conducting the experiment online.

Indexed as

faceimpressiononlinereliability – reproducibility of resultssurvey

Identifiers

PMID34630246
PMCPMC8492930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.