Page 103 - Demo

101Underlying factors of the sexual overperception bias 5Table 1. Percentage of menand women’s dating choice.Women MenYes 26% 44%No 74% 56%Table 2. Overview of all accuracy predicting models (1–3).Predictors Accuracy (Median odds ratios with 95% highest density intervals)Model 1 Model 2 Model 3Intercept 1.14 [.86–1.52] 1.22 1.22 1.16 [.88–1.53]Sex 1.04 [.79–1.38] 1.03 [.78–1.36] 1.13 [.85–1.48]Own interest .71 [.57–.88]Sexual desire 1.23 [.96–1.58]Self-rated attractiveness .82 [.64–1.05]Sex × own interest .73 [.59–.90]Sex × sexual desire .84 [.66–1.07]Self-rated attractiveness × sex 1.09 [.86–1.39]Random EffectsVar(Participant) .37 .32 .33Var(Partner) .26 .31 .31Reliable effects (95% HDIs not containing 0) are presented in boldoverall participants were not able to reliably detect attraction. Own Interestdecreased accuracy (see Figure 1a). Sex did not reliably predict attractiondetection accuracy. We further examined whether the interaction betweenSex × Own Interest was reliable by comparing the more complex model (i.e.,including the interaction) with a more parsimonious model (i.e., excludingthe interaction). The calculated Bayes Factor showed moderate evidencein favor of the complex model (BF10 = 7.39); indicating that the interac,tion was reliable. The interaction indicated that men were more accuratein detecting attraction when they were not interested compared to whenthey were interested in their partner (see Figure 1b); whereas, there was nodifference in accuracy for women when they were interested in their partnercompared to when they were not.Figure 1. (a) Mean participant accuracy as a function of interest in theirpartner (interested vs. not interested). The figure shows that participants wereless accurate when they were attracted to their partner than when they werenot. (b) Interaction graph between Sex and Own Interest. The figure illustratesthat men were less accurate in detecting attraction in their partner when theywere interested in the partner compared to when they were not interested. Allerror bars reflect 95% CrI and the red line denotes chance accuracy level (0.5).To further examine whether the reduced accuracy observed in men wasdriven by over- or underperceiving attraction when they were interested intheir partner, we modeled the estimation variable as a function of Sex ×Own Interest. The model (Table 3; Model 1) showed that participants weremore likely to accurately detect than underperceive attraction when theywere interested in their partner compared to when they were not, consistentwith the projection hypothesis. The coefficient for the interaction betweenSex × Own Interest in predicting spanned over 0, therefore, was not reliable.Regarding overperception, the coefficient of Sex was not reliable. Participants were more likely to overperceive than accurately detect attractionwhen they were interested in their partner than when they were not. Theinteraction between Sex × Own Interest was not robust (Fig. 2). However,since our aim was to explore the difference between sexes in overperceptionof attraction, we conducted further point-null tests, which revealed that menwere more likely than women to overperceive than accurately detect attraction when interested in their partner (BF10 > 10), whereas there was nodifference between men and women when they were not interested in theirpartner (BF10 = 0.95).Table 1. Percentage of menand women’s dating choice.Women MenYes 26% 44%No 74% 56%Table 2. Overview of all accuracy predicting models (1–3).Predictors Accuracy (Median odds ratios with 95% highest density intervals)Model 1 Model 2 Model 3Intercept 1.14 [.86–1.52] 1.22 1.22 1.16 [.88–1.53]Sex 1.04 [.79–1.38] 1.03 [.78–1.36] 1.13 [.85–1.48]Own interest .71 [.57–.88]Sexual desire 1.23 [.96–1.58]Self-rated attractiveness .82 [.64–1.05]Sex × own interest .73 [.59–.90]Sex × sexual desire .84 [.66–1.07]Self-rated attractiveness × sex 1.09 [.86–1.39]Random EffectsVar(Participant) .37 .32 .33Var(Partner) .26 .31 .31Reliable effects (95% HDIs not containing 0) are presented in boldoverall participants were not able to reliably detect attraction. Own Interestdecreased accuracy (see Figure 1a). Sex did not reliably predict attractiondetection accuracy. We further examined whether the interaction betweenSex × Own Interest was reliable by comparing the more complex model (i.e.,including the interaction) with a more parsimonious model (i.e., excludingthe interaction). The calculated Bayes Factor showed moderate evidencein favor of the complex model (BF10 = 7.39); indicating that the interac,tion was reliable. The interaction indicated that men were more accuratein detecting attraction when they were not interested compared to whenthey were interested in their partner (see Figure 1b); whereas, there was nodifference in accuracy for women when they were interested in their partnercompared to when they were not.Table 1. Percentage of menand women’s dating choice.Women MenYes 26% 44%No 74% 56%Table 2. Overview of all accuracy predicting models (1–3).Predictors Accuracy (Median odds ratios with 95% highest density intervals)Model 1 Model 2 Model 3Intercept 1.14 [.86–1.52] 1.22 1.22 1.16 [.88–1.53]Sex 1.04 [.79–1.38] 1.03 [.78–1.36] 1.13 [.85–1.48]Own interest .71 [.57–.88]Sexual desire 1.23 [.96–1.58]Self-rated attractiveness .82 [.64–1.05]Sex × own interest .73 [.59–.90]Sex × sexual desire .84 [.66–1.07]Self-rated attractiveness × sex 1.09 [.86–1.39]Random EffectsVar(Participant) .37 .32 .33Var(Partner) .26 .31 .31Reliable effects (95% HDIs not containing 0) are presented in boldoverall participants were not able to reliably detect attraction. Own Interestdecreased accuracy (see Figure 1a). Sex did not reliably predict attractiondetection accuracy. We further examined whether the interaction betweenSex × Own Interest was reliable by comparing the more complex model (i.e.,including the interaction) with a more parsimonious model (i.e., excludingthe interaction). The calculated Bayes Factor showed moderate evidencein favor of the complex model (BF10 = 7.39); indicating that the interac,tion was reliable. The interaction indicated that men were more accuratein detecting attraction when they were not interested compared to whenthey were interested in their partner (see Figure 1b); whereas, there was nodifference in accuracy for women when they were interested in their partnercompared to when they were not.Figure 1. (a) Mean participant accuracy as a function of interest in theirpartner (interested vs. not interested). The figure shows that participantswere less accurate when they were attracted to their partner than whenthey were not. (b) Interaction graph between Sex and Own Interest. Thefigure illustrates that men were less accurate in detecting attraction in theirpartner when they were interested in the partner compared to when theywere not interested. All error bars reflect 95% CrI and the red line denoteschance accuracy level (0.5).To further examine whether the reduced accuracy observed in men wasdriven by over- or underperceiving attraction when they were interested intheir partner, we modeled the estimation variable as a function of Sex ⇥Own Interest. The model (Table 3; Model 1) showed that participants weremore likely to accurately detect than underperceive attraction when theywere interested in their partner compared to when they were not, consistentwith the projection hypothesis. The coefficient for the interaction betweenSex ⇥ Own Interest spanned over 0, therefore, was not reliable.Regarding overperception, the coefficient of Sex was not reliable. Participants were more likely to overperceive than accurately detect attractionwhen they were interested in their partner than when they were not. Theinteraction between Sex ⇥ Own Interest was not robust (see Figure 2). However, since our aim was to explore the difference between sexes in overperception of attraction, we conducted further point-null tests, which revealedthat men were more likely than women to overperceive than accurately detect attraction when interested in their partner (BF10�>�10), whereas therewas no difference between men and women when they were not interestedin their partner (BF10�=�0.95).Figure 1. (a) Mean participant accuracy as a function of interest in theirpartner (interested vs. not interested). The figure shows that participantswere less accurate when they were attracted to their partner than whenthey were not. (b) Interaction graph between Sex and Own Interest. Thefigure illustrates that men were less accurate in detecting attraction in theirpartner when they were interested in the partner compared to when theywere not interested. All error bars reflect 95% CrI and the red line denoteschance accuracy level (0.5).To further examine whether the reduced accuracy observed in men wasdriven by over- or underperceiving attraction when they were interested intheir partner, we modeled the estimation variable as a function of Sex ⇥Own Interest. The model (Table 3; Model 1) showed that participants weremore likely to accurately detect than underperceive attraction when theywere interested in their partner compared to when they were not, consistentwith the projection hypothesis. The coefficient for the interaction betweenSex ⇥ Own Interest spanned over 0, therefore, was not reliable.Regarding overperception, the coefficient of Sex was not reliable. Participants were more likely to overperceive than accurately detect attractionwhen they were interested in their partner than when they were not. Theinteraction between Sex ⇥ Own Interest was not robust (see Figure 2). However, since our aim was to explore the difference between sexes in overperception of attraction, we conducted further point-null tests, which revealedthat men were more likely than women to overperceive than accurately detect attraction when interested in their partner (BF10�>�10), whereas therewas no difference between men and women when they were not interestedin their partner (BF10�=�0.95).Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 101 08-04-2024 16:36