Page 111 - Demo

Facial Mimicry and Metacognition in Facial Emotion Recognition1094Figure 2. Predicted emotion recognition accuracies depending on (A) social anxiety trait levels and (B) autistic trait levels by emotion category (anger, fear, sadness, surprise happiness, neutral). In the model fits, accuracy was coded binomial (0-1 values). For illustrative purposes, predicted accuracies for mean values as well as mean values +/- 1 SD of the continuous variables social anxiety traits and autistic traits are depicted in percentages. Whiskers represent confidence intervals and significant effects are marked with an asterisk. The dashed horizontal line indicates mean predicted accuracy (across all categories and trait levels). Confidence in Emotion RecognitionSocial anxiety traits. In the first LMM on confidence in emotion recognition, with emotion category, social anxiety traits, and their interaction as predictors, significant effects of both emotion category, F(5, 3344) = 118.666, p < .001, and social anxiety, F(1,3344) = 5.362, p = .024, could be observed. Compared to the average confidence judgments across emotion categories, participants were significantly more confident in judging happy expressions, %u03b2 = 0.614, t(3344) = 19.695, p < .001, neutral expressions, %u03b2 = 0.193, z = 6.186, p < .001, and surprised expressions, %u03b2 = 0.084, t(3344) = 2.699, p = .007. For the other emotional expressions, confidence was significantly reduced compared to the average, angry: %u03b2 = -0.247, t(3344) = -7.932, p < .001, fearful: %u03b2 = -0.287, t(6761) = -9.209, < .001, sad: %u03b2 = -0.356, t(3344) = -11.438, p < .001. The association between social anxiety traits and confidence was negative, , %u03b2 = - 0.132, t(3344) = -2.316, p = 0.024,