6 165 Eyes on you: ensuring empathic accuracy or signaling empathy? Figure 6.1 Mean individual ratings of perceivers, plotted for negative and positive videos, rated on a Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) after each video. Significance was tested with generalized linear mixed regression model analyses. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Significant p-values <.05 were indicated by *, p <.01 by **, and p <.001 by ***. The mean raw r between perceivers’ and targets’ EA scores was 0.53 and did not differ between males and females. We ran generalized linear mixed regression model analyses in which we assessed the influence of valence, target expressivity, and trait EC and PT on EA. As expected, but in contrast to the impact of valence on perceivers’ state empathy levels, perceivers were less empathically accurate during negative versus positive videos (B = -0.46, SE = 0.06, t(881.9) = -8.25, p <.001, d = 0.56). Target expressivity and trait EC and PT of perceivers were not significantly associated with perceivers’ EA (all p ≥ .796). All outcomes remained significant after controlling for age, gender, or intellectual abilities of perceivers in separate analyses. On average, perceivers gazed for 85.7% (SD = 8.65%) of the total duration of the videos towards the faces of targets, indicating that the targets’ faces substantially attracted and maintained perceivers’ attention. In addition, perceivers gazed on average for 33.38% (SD = 18.49%) of the total duration of the videos to the eye region of the targets. There was no significant difference between males and females in the percentage of dwell time within the eye region of the targets. Perceivers gazed more into the eyes of others during negative versus positive videos (B = 3.77,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw