Table 1.
Overview of the different stimulus combinations.
Table 2.
Choice frequencies and reaction times for the four categories across the three congruence conditions.
Table 3.
Emotional intelligence assessed with help of the MSCEIT.
Fig 1.
Classification as “ironic” expressions.
Bars represent (A) the mean choice frequencies and (B) mean reaction times for the three congruence conditions. Error bars represent the standard errors of the means (N = 20). Significant differences are marked with asterisks (*** p < .001, ** p < .01).
Table 4.
Spearman’s rho values between emotional intelligence and the mean choice frequencies for the four categories across the three congruence conditions.
Fig 2.
Impact of emotional intelligence on reaction times.
Scatterplots illustrate the correlation between total EI and the reaction times for the “ironic” category calculated for slightly incongruent stimuli (N = 20, r = -.48, p = .02, one-tailed).
Table 5.
Pearson’s correlation coefficient values between emotional intelligence and the mean reaction times for the four categories across the three congruence conditions.
Fig 3.
The bars represent the average nonverbal dominance observed while rating slightly (left bar) and strongly incongruent stimuli (right bar). Error bars represent the standard errors of the means (N = 18). Significant differences are marked with asterisks (*** p < .001).
Fig 4.
Impact of emotional intelligence on nonverbal dominance.
Scatterplots illustrate the correlation between total EI and nonverbal dominance observed while rating slightly incongruent stimuli (N = 18, rs = .52, p = .01, one-tailed).
Table 6.
Spearman’s rho values between emotional intelligence and nonverbal dominance for the two incongruent conditions.