For this article you should focus on the findings reported in the results section of Experiment 1.
Specifically, you should attempt to reproduce all descriptive and inferential analyses reported in the text below and associated tables/figures:
Figures 2, 3, and 4 summarize results for all age groups and traits; higher percentages of expected responses (i.e., those predicted on the basis of prior data—e.g., that trustworthy faces would be identified as nice and untrustworthy faces as mean) indicate stronger consensus. Combined, all four age groups showed significant consensus compared with chance (50%) when identifying faces as mean or nice (93%; Fig. 2), strong or not strong (85%; Fig. 3), and smart or not smart (76%; Fig. 4). Critically, all age groups attributed all three traits with significant consensus, ps < .001, ds > 1.08. However, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant main effect of age group, F(3, 236) = 17.91, p < .001. Although 3- to 4-year-olds responded with robust and adult like consensus (72% across all traits), they were less consistent than 5- to 6-year-olds (81%), 7- to 10-year-olds (88%), and adults (89%). One-way ANOVAs followed by post hoc tests with Sidak corrections for multiple comparisons were used to analyze age differences for each trait. These analyses revealed that when attributing both trustworthiness and dominance, 3- to 4-year-olds were less consistent than all other age groups (all ps < .01, ds > 0.59), which exhibited equivalent consistency (all ps > .23, ds < 0.40).
Note Make sure to use the original article for additional context and information about any necessary pre-processing steps. Also check for additional supplementary materials that may provide supporting documentation for analysis procedures.