(higher vs. low) because the betweenparticipant variables. The results showed a
(high vs. low) because the betweenparticipant aspects. The results showed a significant major impact of social energy in that the gaze cueing impact was stronger amongst participants who had been primed with low social energy, when compared with those who had been primed with high social power (Ms537.23, 24.29 ms, respectively), F(, 48)55.70, p5.02, g2 five.06 (Figure two). The main impact of p participants’ gender was also significant, F(, 48)54.85, p5.033, g2 five.092, with a p stronger gaze cueing impact located in women, in comparison to men (Ms536.72, 24.80 ms, respectively). The interaction with the two variables was not considerable, F(,48)52.69, p5.. Even so, the planned contrast evaluation showed a predicted stronger gaze 
cueing effect in ladies than in males, amongst people who had been primed with low social power, F(,49)56.73, p5.0, g2 five.two; but not amongst p people who seasoned higher social power, F(,49)50.four, p5.7. Meanwhile, as we hypothesized, girls primed with higher social energy exhibited a weaker gaze cueing impact, in comparison with their low social energy counterparts, F(,49)57.52, p5.009, g2 5.33, even though this pattern was not observed amongst males, p F(,49)50.26, p5.63.ExperimentAs in Experiment , three postgraduate students independently evaluated the participants’ writing inside the priming task, and confirmed that all participants followed the directions in each and every condition.Quantity of trials with errors within the gaze cueing taskThe total quantity of trials with incorrect responses amounted to 0.82 of all trials. The amount of error responses had been analyzed having a 2626262 mixed ANOVA, with gaze cue congruency (congruent vs. incongruent) because the withinparticipantPLOS One particular DOI:0.37journal.pone.04077 December 2,eight Perceived Social Power and GazeInduced Social AttentionFigure 2. Gaze cueing effects for gender and primed high or low social power in Experiment . For this as well as the following figures, p05, p0. doi:0.37journal.pone.04077.gfactor, participants’ gender (girls vs. men), priming situation (high vs. low danger), and social energy (high vs. low social power) as the betweenparticipant components. The results showed only a substantial principal effect for gaze cue congruency, F(, 52)549.9, p00, g2 five.247, indicating that extra error responses p occurred inside the incongruent, in lieu of congruent gaze conditions (Ms50.88, 0 respectively).The gaze cueing effectTrials with error responses or intense reaction get BI-7273 occasions (beyond three regular deviations of participants’ imply response time) had been excluded in the information evaluation, which accounted for .98 of all trials. Like in Experiment , the reaction instances in the incongruent situation (M5357.8 ms) were longer than these inside the congruent condition (M5330.36 ms), t(59)52.63, p00, indicating the existence with the gaze cueing impact. We conducted a 26262 ANOVA on the gaze cueing impact (RT incongruent RT congruent), with participants’ gender (men vs. girls), priming scenario (high danger vs. low danger), and social power (high vs. low) because the betweenparticipant variables. The outcomes showed a considerable interaction amongst genderPLOS 1 DOI:0.37journal.pone.04077 December two,9 Perceived Social Energy and GazeInduced Social Attentionand social energy, F(,52)54.273, p5.040, g2 5.027. A simple impact analysis p revealed a marginal gender difference in the low social power condition, F(,57)53.29, p5.07, g2 PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25368524 five.02, but not in the higher social power condition, p F(,57)five.20, p5.276. Meanwhile, girls who had been primed with low social power exhibited a marginally stronger gaze cuing.