Page 185 - Demo

183AppendicesAAppendix ASupplemental Material for Chapter 3Supplementary methods Participants registered for the experiment using anonline form (Qualtrics). They were asked to provide informed consent andindicate that they met the inclusion criteria. After providing informed consent, participants were divided in 4 groups of 20 (10 women) and indicatedtheir preferred timeslot. Upon arrival to the lab, participants were askedto sign an informed consent. Next, participants received a unique ID, submitted the olfactory stimuli and filled in 3 questionnaires (a) demographicinformation; b) 7-level Kinsey scale; (Kinsey et al., 1948); c) Sexual DesireInventory, (SDI, Elaut et al., 2010). Next, a researcher took portrait pictures of the participants (ID photos, Puts et al., 2013) whereas, anotherresearcher collected the audio stimuli (Dutch equivalent of RAINBOW passage; Van Lierde, Wuyts, De Bodt, & Van Cauwenberge, 2001) using aShure V5 microphone.Following stimulus collection, participants performed a battery of cognitive tasks. Specifically, participants were asked to perform a dot-probe(van Rooijen et al., 2017), effort (Hahn, Xiao, Sprengelmeyer, & Perrett,2013), and preferential looking task (Leder et al., 2016) to measure visualattentional biases, and three rating tasks (i.e., visual, auditory, and olfactory). The task section of the study lasted approximately one hour. Afterall participants had completed the tasks, they were led into the speed-datingroom to conduct 10 speed-dating sessions. Each speed date lasted for 5 minutes. Both individuals were videotaped during the date. After each date,they indicated a) how attractive they found their partner (7-point scale);b) how suitable they found their partner as a long-term romantic partner(7-point scale); c) how attractive they believed their partner perceived themto be (7-point scale); d) how suitable their partner perceived them to beas a long-term romantic partner (7-point scale); e) whether they would liketo go on another date with their partner (yes/no); and f) whether they believed their partner would like to go on another date with them (yes/no).The speed-dating section of the study lasted approximately one hour. Afterthe study was completed, participants were asked to give consent for use oftheir stimuli and contact information, debriefed, and given a complementaryticket to Apenheul Primate Park (Apeldoorn, the Netherlands).Table S1. Total number of trials per level of the predictors per Gender.Female (N = 24) Male (N = 33)Pre-date attractiveness probe1 205 2432 513 5823 471 5814 415 6095 280 4556 126 2657 9 77Pre-date attractiveness distractor1 202 2482 514 5923 464 5764 4120 6075 281 4616 129 2597 9 69Table S2. Average RTs and SD (between brackets) per level of Pre-dateattractiveness rating of the probe picture and Gender.Female Male1 389 (81.12) 356.58 (74.03)2 361.49 (65.70) 344.52 (64.13)3 363.53 (70.26) 338.63 (56.72)4 378.03 (82.65) 334.11 (54.17)5 378.34 (74.00) 349.36 (77.09)6 361.76 (74.39) 349.23 (67.19)7 402.67 (53.85) 363.77 (76.67)Table S3. Average RTs and SD (between brackets) per level of Pre-dateattractiveness rating of the distractor picture and Gender.Female Male1 381.74 (75.91) 354.61 (72.68)2 366.26 (77.78) 339.59 (58.72)3 362.66 (70.47) 336.26 (61.75)4 377.14 (75.75) 333.73 (53.79)5 378.8 (71.48) 346.07 (70.15)6 358.84 (67.49) 366.64 (76.74)7 427.56 (48.28) 393.35 (72.23)Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 183 08-04-2024 16:37