Page 121 - Demo

119Can third-party observers detect attraction?6Table 1. Overview of all accuracy predicting models (1–3) for Experiment1.Predictors Accuracy (Median β with 95% HDIs)Model 1 Model 2 Model 3β(95% HDI) β(95% HDI) β(95% HDI)Intercept -0.06 [-0.15, 0.02] -0.06 [-0.13, 0.01] -0.06 [-0.13, 0.01]Age Group -0.14 [-0.21, -0.07] -0.15 [-0.22, -0.07]Shuffled -0.01 [-0.07, 0.06] -0.01 [-0.07, 0.05]Attracted to Partner 0.36 [0.29, 0.42]Age Group ⇥ Shuffled 0.04 [-0.02, 0.10]Age Group ⇥ Attracted to Partner 0.14 [0.07, 0.20]Shuffled ⇥ Attracted to Partner 0.08 [0.02, 0.15]Age Group ⇥ Shuffled ⇥ Attracted to Partner -0.01 [-0.08, 0.05]Random EffectsVar(Group ID) 0.02 0.00 0.01Var(Participant) 0.00 0.00 0.00Statistical AnalysesWe performed all analyses as detailed in the Statistical Analyses [GeneralMethods section] with the following adjustments: To account for the factthat the videos were shuffled, we included the fixed effect of Shuffled and itsinteraction with Age Group and Attraction to Partner in Models 2 and 3,respectively. Furthermore, given that participants performed the study inthe presence of other participants, we recorded their subgroups (GroupID)and included a random intercept per Participant nested in GroupID.ResultsAll models are presented in Table 1. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did notfind robust evidence that participants could detect attraction overall (β =-0.06; 95% HDI [-0.15, 0.02]; p− = 93.62%). Our hypothesis that age wouldinfluence the detection of attraction was confirmed: the model showed thatchildren performed worse than adults (β = -0.14, 95% HDI [-0.21, -0.07],p− = 99.99%); however, adults did not substantially differ from chance level(i.e., 0.5; see Figure 4a). There was no substantial difference in accuracyas a function of Shuffled (β = -0.01, 95% HDI [-0.07, 0.06], p+ = 60.64%)or an interaction between Shuffled and Age Group (β = 0.04, 95% HDI [-0.02, 0.10], p+ = 90.76%; BF01 = 12.59) indicating that synchrony did notinfluence accuracy in detecting attraction.Table 1. Overview of all accuracy predicting models (1–3) for Experiment1.Predictors Accuracy (Median β with 95% HDIs)Model 1 Model 2 Model 3β(95% HDI) β(95% HDI) β(95% HDI)Intercept -0.06 [-0.15, 0.02] -0.06 [-0.13, 0.01] -0.06 [-0.13, 0.01]Age Group -0.14 [-0.21, -0.07] -0.15 [-0.22, -0.07]Shuffled -0.01 [-0.07, 0.06] -0.01 [-0.07, 0.05]Attracted to Partner 0.36 [0.29, 0.42]Age Group ⇥ Shuffled 0.04 [-0.02, 0.10]Age Group ⇥ Attracted to Partner 0.14 [0.07, 0.20]Shuffled ⇥ Attracted to Partner 0.08 [0.02, 0.15]Age Group ⇥ Shuffled ⇥ Attracted to Partner -0.01 [-0.08, 0.05]Random EffectsVar(Group ID) 0.02 0.00 0.01Var(Participant) 0.00 0.00 0.00Statistical AnalysesWe performed all analyses as detailed in the Statistical Analyses [GeneralMethods section] with the following adjustments: To account for the factthat the videos were shuffled, we included the fixed effect of Shuffled and itsinteraction with Age Group and Attraction to Partner in Models 2 and 3,respectively. Furthermore, given that participants performed the study inthe presence of other participants, we recorded their subgroups (GroupID)and included a random intercept per Participant nested in GroupID.ResultsAll models are presented in Table 1. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did notfind robust evidence that participants could detect attraction overall (β =-0.06; 95% HDI [-0.15, 0.02]; p− = 93.62%). Our hypothesis that age wouldinfluence the detection of attraction was confirmed: the model showed thatchildren performed worse than adults (β = -0.14, 95% HDI [-0.21, -0.07],p− = 99.99%); however, adults did not substantially differ from chance level(i.e., 0.5; see Figure 4a). There was no substantial difference in accuracyas a function of Shuffled (β = -0.01, 95% HDI [-0.07, 0.06], p+ = 60.64%)or an interaction between Shuffled and Age Group (β = 0.04, 95% HDI [-0.02, 0.10], p+ = 90.76%; BF01 = 12.59) indicating that synchrony did notinfluence accuracy in detecting attraction.Table 1. Overview of all accuracy predicting models (1–3) for Experiment1.Predictors Accuracy (Median β with 95% HDIs)Model 1 Model 2 Model 3β(95% HDI) β(95% HDI) β(95% HDI)Intercept -0.06 [-0.15, 0.02] -0.06 [-0.13, 0.01] -0.06 [-0.13, 0.01]Age Group -0.14 [-0.21, -0.07] -0.15 [-0.22, -0.07]Shuffled -0.01 [-0.07, 0.06] -0.01 [-0.07, 0.05]Attracted to Partner 0.36 [0.29, 0.42]Age Group ⇥ Shuffled 0.04 [-0.02, 0.10]Age Group ⇥ Attracted to Partner 0.14 [0.07, 0.20]Shuffled ⇥ Attracted to Partner 0.08 [0.02, 0.15]Age Group ⇥ Shuffled ⇥ Attracted to Partner -0.01 [-0.08, 0.05]Random EffectsVar(Group ID) 0.02 0.00 0.01Var(Participant) 0.00 0.00 0.00Statistical AnalysesWe performed all analyses as detailed in the Statistical Analyses [GeneralMethods section] with the following adjustments: To account for the factthat the videos were shuffled, we included the fixed effect of Shuffled and itsinteraction with Age Group and Attraction to Partner in Models 2 and 3,respectively. Furthermore, given that participants performed the study inthe presence of other participants, we recorded their subgroups (GroupID)and included a random intercept per Participant nested in GroupID.ResultsAll models are presented in Table 1. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did notfind robust evidence that participants could detect attraction overall (β =-0.06; 95% HDI [-0.15, 0.02]; p− = 93.62%). Our hypothesis that age wouldinfluence the detection of attraction was confirmed: the model showed thatchildren performed worse than adults (β = -0.14, 95% HDI [-0.21, -0.07],p− = 99.99%); however, adults did not substantially differ from chance level(i.e., 0.5; see Figure 4a). There was no substantial difference in accuracyas a function of Shuffled (β = -0.01, 95% HDI [-0.07, 0.06], p+ = 60.64%)or an interaction between Shuffled and Age Group (β = 0.04, 95% HDI [-0.02, 0.10], p+ = 90.76%; BF01 = 12.59) indicating that synchrony did notinfluence accuracy in detecting attraction.Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 119 08-04-2024 16:36