Perception of Hidden Confidence in Neutral Expressions: Interactions of Facial Attractiveness, Self-Esteem, and Names to Be Addressed by
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current study explored the perception of attractiveness and confidence of models expressing neutral facial emotions while imagining being called by a name that they liked (positive condition), a name that they disliked (negative condition) and their real name (neutral condition) The results showed that people’s perceptions of attractiveness and confidence were higher in the positive condition when compared to the other two. These findings indicate that even neutral facial expressions can be affected by internal emotional states and these subtle distinctions can be detected by perceivers when asked to rate them on certain traits. Generally, the study is interesting and well-written. However, I have some comments that need to be addressed by the authors.
- Please provide more details on the participants. Please describe the inclusion/exclusion criteria. How were they recruited?
- Since the study was conducted online, it is possible that at least some of the participants could have taken this test on their mobile devices. This could have in turn affected the results. Please discuss.
- What about the timing of the stimulus presentation? Did it vary between participants?
- Why was rank ordering used instead of a rating scale for attractiveness and confidence perception, which would have been much better in my opinion.
- My biggest criticism of this study is its theoretical contributions. Other than replicating another study by using a slightly different methodology/context, what is the motivation for this study? The authors can perhaps discuss its importance to social communication. I encourage them to take a look at emotion as social information (EASI) model.
- What are the implications of the findings? Can they be applied to individuals with certain neurobehavioral disorders such as autism spectrum disorders (both as expressers and perceivers of emotions)? What are some future directions?
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the Authors report two experiments which lead to the conclusion that being addressed by a name we like can raise our (self-)confidence, and that this also reflects in our neutral expressions, making our appearance more attractive.
The subject is interesting, however, I see a few points worth being addressed before considering it for publication
1) The Authors never actually define what exactly are the "names" used in the experiments, nor give examples: are they simply second or third names, which can be more or less attractive? or are they nicknames? which kind of nicknames? of course this could change the degree of acceptance of the "alternative name" (e.g., simply less elegant, or frankly derogatory?)
2) Inclusione and exclusion criteria and recruitng methods of the models are not explained
3) A consequence of point 2 is that it appears the Authors did not pre-screen models for actually having "alternative names", as some models declared they had never been addressed by their "alternative name"; if such a name has never been used, how did the model select it? The additional separate analyses the Authors perform on these models can be misleading , and pictures obtained from these models should be excluded from the experiments. Otherwise, a separate experiment should be conducted to fully compare these and the other models
3) The first sentence in the title unduly generalizes the results to "emotions", whereas only the feeling of (self-)confidence is involved (attractiveness is not an emotion): this sentence should be removed
4) Finally, Results and Discussion should be separate (the discussion paragraphs should be included in the "General discussion" section)
Minor points:
- throughout the paper, references with more then two authors should be quoted by first author plus "et al."
- line 166-167: "faces that were clearly"
- line 236: "r (20) = 39" ?
- line 349-350: the sentence is quite obscure, please clarify
- line 387: "Finally, we discuss the limitations and cultural implications of the present research."
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would just like to comment that it is EASI model and not EAIS model. Please make that change throughout.
Author Response
Thank you for pointing out the mistake. They have been corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors have adequately addressed most points I raised in my previous review.
Still, I don't see the usefulness of separating "Discussion"for each experiment (2.3 and 3.3, respectively) from the "General discussion" (4)
Minor points: the Authors should have their English checked by a native speaker, see, e.g., line 216 ("They were remained to be used in the main studies") and line 218 ("...whether the imagined contents were really happened or fabricated.")
Author Response
We asked a native English speaker to check the manuscript and made corrections and improvements accordingly.
The corrections include the part you have pointed out.
About the separate discussion for Study 1 and 2, we have decided to keep them as they are.
It is because in psychology articles, which we are most familiar with, having separate discussion section for each study (or include discussion in “Results and discussion” section in each study) is common.
We think that having separate discussion section helps the logical flow of the paper. Besides, it is necessary for at least Study 1 because our motivation to conduct Study 2 had to be explained clearly by discussing the findings of Study 1.
Since we decided to have the section in Study 1, we did the same for Study 2 to be consistent.
We could not really understand your recommendation; whether you recommended to discuss everything in the general discussion and not to discuss the results at all in the study sections, or simply recommended to remove the “discussion” heading in each of the study section without changing the contents. This is another reason why we decided not to make any change for this matter.
We hope our revision is satisfactory.
