Fig 1.
The evaluation of the presenters.
Note: Female 1: attractive (N = 789), likeable (N = 795), intelligent (N = 798), competent (N = 799). Female 2: attractive (N = 753), likable (N = 754), intelligent (N = 752), competent (N = 754). Male 1: attractive (N = 788), likeable (N = 787), intelligent (N = 786), competent (N = 785). Male 2: attractive (N = 686), likeable (N = 686), intelligent (N = 685), competent (N = 686).
Fig 2.
Note: Female 1: Geoengineering (N = 261), Training methods (N = 261), Pedagogical approach (N = 274). Female 2: Geoengineering (N = 264), Training methods (N = 265), Pedagogical approach (N = 225). Male 1: Geoengineering (N = 280), Training methods (N = 257), Pedagogical approach (N = 252). Male 2: Geoengineering (N = 236), Training methods (N = 236), Pedagogical approach (N = 216).
Fig 3.
The perceived convincibility of the presentations.
Note: Female 1: Geoengineering (N = 263), Training methods (N = 261), Pedagogical approach (N = 273). Female 2: Geoengineering (N = 264), Training methods (N = 265), Pedagogical approach (N = 225). Male 1: Geoengineering (N = 280), Training methods (N = 257), Pedagogical approach (N = 252). Male 2: Geoengineering (N = 236), Training methods (N = 236), Pedagogical approach (N = 216).
Fig 4.
Results of OLS regressions for competence and intelligence ratings, as well as for how convincing presentations were and grade.
Note: N of competence rating = 2,987 (adj. R2 = 0.014), N of intelligence rating = 2,984 (adj. R2 = 0.011), N of convincibility = 2,992 (adj. R2 = 0.084), N of grade = 2,991 (adj. R2 = 0.018).
Fig 5.
OLS regressions for how convincing presentations were, and the grade of the presentation, separated by the gender of the presenter.
Note: N of convincibility for women = 1541 (adj. R2 = 0.093), N of convincibility for men = 1,451 (adj. R2 = 0.081), N of grade for women = 1,540 (adj. R2 = 0.001), N of grade for men = 1,451 (adj. R2 = 0.049).
Fig 6.
Note: N Female 1 = 335. N Female 2 = 342. N Male 1 = 353. N Male 2 = 360.
Fig 7.
Note: Female 1: Geoengineering (N = 116), Training methods (N = 93), Pedagogical approach (N = 126). Female 2: Geoengineering (N = 120), Training methods (N = 126), Pedagogical approach (N = 96). Male 1: Geoengineering (N = 111), Training methods (N = 108), Pedagogical approach (N = 134). Male 2: Geoengineering (N = 128), Training methods (N = 113), Pedagogical approach (N = 119).
Fig 8.
Note: Female 1: Geoengineering (N = 116), Training methods (N = 93), Pedagogical approach (N = 126). Female 2: Geoengineering (N = 120), Training methods (N = 126), Pedagogical approach (N = 96). Male 1: Geoengineering (N = 111), Training methods (N = 108), Pedagogical approach (N = 134). Male 2: Geoengineering (N = 128), Training methods (N = 113), Pedagogical approach (N = 119).
Fig 9.
OLS regressions of intelligence, competence, convincibility and grades.
Note: N of competence rating = 1,385 (adj. R2 = 0.039), N of intelligence rating = 1,385 (adj. R2 = 0.019), N of convincibility = 1,385 (adj. R2 = 0.165), N of grade = 1,385 (adj. R2 = 0.022).
Fig 10.
OLS regressions of convincibility and grade separated by gender.
Note: N of convincibility for women = 675 (adj. R2 = 0.152), N of convincibility for men = 710 (adj. R2 = 0.180), N of grade for women = 675 (adj. R2 = 0.032), N of grade for men = 710 (adj. R2 = 0.013).