Page 162 - Demo

160Chapter 9Table 1. Description of coded behaviours including Event Type and DescriptionVariable Event Type DescriptionCoyness State A smile (lip corners raised) with gaze aversion or head-tiltGenuine smile State Lip corners up with cheeks raised and eye contactPolite smile State Lip corners up without cheeks raised and eye-contactEyebrow flush Event Eyebrows raisedin 277 dates. Each speed date lasted 4 minutes, after which, participantsindicated their interest on meeting their partner for another date.VideosWe selected only couples in which both partners indicated that they wouldlike to go on another date with their partner (mutually attracted) or thatthey would not like to go on another date with their partner (mutually notattracted), which resulted in 62 dates being selected for this study. Thirteendates were excluded because of technical difficulties (9 couples because thepartner’s video was not recorded and four because the starting bell was notrecorded or because their partner obscured the view of one dater). Thisresulted in 49 couples that were coded and included in the analysis for thepresent study. In twenty-five of these dates (n = 25) both partners indicatedthat they were attracted to their partner, whereas in twenty-four couples,both partners indicated that they were not attracted to their partner.All videos were coded offline using the Observer XT 15 event-logging software (Noldus Information Technology Inc., Wageningen, The Netherlands).We used a coding scheme including multiple composite and single-unit behaviors associated with a positive experience and attraction during romanticinteractions. Specifically, we coded the following expressions: a) coyness; b)genuine smiles; c) polite smiles; d) eyebrow flushes (see Table 1; see alsoSamara et al., 2022, for a similar approach). The videos were coded by twoindependent coders following extensive training who were also blind to theoutcome of the speed dates. Inter-rater reliability between the coders wascalculated using 12 videos. The inter-rater reliability was good (Cohen’s > .60 for all behaviors; (see Table 1; Bakeman, 2000); therefore, all codedbehaviors were included in the analyses.Data preprocessing and analysesThe durations and frequencies of all behaviours were extracted and preprocessed using a custom MATLAB script to measure mimicry betweendaters. For each participant in a couple and for each behavior, we countedas mimicry of behaviour each instance where a partner responded to a dater’sTable 1. Description of coded behaviours including Event Type and DescriptionVariable Event Type DescriptionCoyness State A smile (lip corners raised) with gaze aversion or head-tiltGenuine smile State Lip corners up with cheeks raised and eye contactPolite smile State Lip corners up without cheeks raised and eye-contactEyebrow flush Event Eyebrows raisedin 277 dates. Each speed date lasted 4 minutes, after which, participantsindicated their interest on meeting their partner for another date.VideosWe selected only couples in which both partners indicated that they wouldlike to go on another date with their partner (mutually attracted) or thatthey would not like to go on another date with their partner (mutually notattracted), which resulted in 62 dates being selected for this study. Thirteendates were excluded because of technical difficulties (9 couples because thepartner’s video was not recorded and four because the starting bell was notrecorded or because their partner obscured the view of one dater). Thisresulted in 49 couples that were coded and included in the analysis for thepresent study. In twenty-five of these dates (n = 25) both partners indicatedthat they were attracted to their partner, whereas in twenty-four couples,both partners indicated that they were not attracted to their partner.All videos were coded offline using the Observer XT 15 event-logging software (Noldus Information Technology Inc., Wageningen, The Netherlands).We used a coding scheme including multiple composite and single-unit behaviors associated with a positive experience and attraction during romanticinteractions. Specifically, we coded the following expressions: a) coyness; b)genuine smiles; c) polite smiles; d) eyebrow flushes (see Table 1; see alsoSamara et al., 2022, for a similar approach). The videos were coded by twoindependent coders following extensive training who were also blind to theoutcome of the speed dates. Inter-rater reliability between the coders wascalculated using 12 videos. The inter-rater reliability was good (Cohen’s > .60 for all behaviors; (see Table 1; Bakeman, 2000); therefore, all codedbehaviors were included in the analyses.Data preprocessing and analysesThe durations and frequencies of all behaviours were extracted and preprocessed using a custom MATLAB script to measure mimicry betweendaters. For each participant in a couple and for each behavior, we countedas mimicry of behaviour each instance where a partner responded to a dater’sIliana Samara 17x24.indd 160 08-04-2024 16:36