Serial dependence of separate facial traits was first analyzed using conventional modeling fitting (
Liberman et al.,2014;
Manassi et al., 2017;
Fritsche et al., 2020). Judgment errors were computed as the difference between the participants’ ratings and the estimated scores (calculated by averaging the judgments of all participants) of the target faces in terms of each facial trait. Judgment errors were then compared to the differences in scores of the facial traits between the current and previous trials (
Liberman et al., 2014). We pooled the judgment errors of all participants (excluding the first two trials, leaving 178 trials for fitting) and fitted the first DoG to the group data. The DoG was calculated by the function
y=xawce−(wx)2, where parameter
x is the difference in trait value between the current and 1-back target faces (1-back target face − current target face),
a is half the peak-to-trough amplitude of the DoG,
w scales the width of the DoG, and
c is a constant (√2/e
−0.5) that scales the curve to make the
a parameter equal to the peak amplitude. The amplitude parameter
a was taken as the strength of the serial dependence bias, indicating the degree to which participants’ judgments of each facial trait were biased towards the direction of the previous faces (
Liberman et al., 2014;
Manassi et al., 2017;
Fritsche et al., 2020). Here, we averaged the ratings of all participants for each facial trait and fitted the DoG function, which is a default protocol used by previous studies (
Bliss et al., 2017;
Fritsche et al., 2020;
Ceylan et al., 2021) because it can systematically test serial dependence effect by measuring how the group average of response errors changes as a function of the difference between the previous and current facial trait value (
Bliss et al., 2017;
Fritsche et al., 2020;
Ceylan et al., 2021). The value of parameter
a of the DoG can reveal the level of serial dependence effect. To be specific, if participants’ judgments of the facial traits were systematically repelled or not influenced by the previous faces, then the parameter
a of the DoG should be a negative value or even at zero, respectively. The width parameter
w of the DoG curve was treated as a free parameter, constrained to a range of plausible values (
w was set between 0 and 5, corresponding to the difference in facial trait value distributed between 0 to 5). We then fitted the Gaussian derivative using constrained nonlinear minimization of the residual sum of squares (
Fischer & Whitney, 2014).