Page 186 - Demo

184AppendicesSupplemental 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 con,sent, 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, sub,mitted 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 pic,tures of the participants (ID photos, Puts et al., 2013) whereas, anotherresearcher collected the audio stimuli (Dutch equivalent of RAINBOW pas,sage; Van Lierde, Wuyts, De Bodt, & Van Cauwenberge, 2001) using aShure V5 microphone.Following stimulus collection, participants performed a battery of cog,nitive 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 olfac,tory). 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 min,utes. 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 be,lieved 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)Table S4. Model table for the Bayesian mixed model that predicts RTfrom Pre-date attractiveness rating and Gender.RTPredictors Estimates CI (95%)Intercept 0.52 -1.18 – 2.22Gender[Female] 0.34 -1.37 – 2.05AttractivenessDistractor 1.44 0.18 – 2.69AttractivenessProbe -1.09 -2.51 – 0.29Gender[Female]: AttractivenessDistractor -0.41 -1.68 – 0.86Gender[Female]: AttractivenessProbe 1.40 -0.02 – 2.82Random Effectsσ2 2588.90τ00Subject 0.97τ11Subject:AttractivenessDistractor 7.60τ11Subject:AttractivenessP robe 13.47NSubject 57Observations 4831Notes: Gender was sum-coded, while Pre-date attractiveness ratings werecentered around 4 (the middle option).Table S5. Model table for the Bayesian mixed model that predicts RTfrom Post-date attractiveness ratings and Gender.RTPredictors Estimates CI (95%)Intercept 0.36 -1.42 – 2.14Gender[Female] -0.24 -2.06 – 1.64AttractivenessDistractor 1.89 0.66 – 3.11AttractivenessProbe -0.89 -2.44 – 0.63Gender[Female]: AttractivenessDistractor 0.34 -0.89 – 1.59Gender[Female]: AttractivenessProbe 1.16 -0.41 – 2.71Random Effectsσ2 2580.38τ00Subject 1.29τ11Subject:AttractivenessDistractor 1.92τ11Subject:AttractivenessP robe 13.50NSubject 56Observations 3251Notes: Gender was sum-coded, while Post-date attractiveness ratings werecentered around 4 (the middle option).).Table S6. Total number of trials per level of the predictors per Gender.Female (N = 24) Male (N = 32)Date outcome probe0 (= no interest) 987 10561 (= interest) 377 831Date outcome distractor0 985 10631 379 824Table S7. Average RTs and SD (between brackets) per level of Date outcome of the probe picture and Gender.0 1female 365.36 (68.81) 384.14 (82.51)male 342.76 (66.9) 342.16 (62.73)Table S8. Average RTs and SD (between brackets) per level of Date outcome of the distractor picture and Gender.0 1female 364.71 (65.78) 385.75 (88.28)male 340.02 (67.32) 345.69 (61.96)Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 184 08-04-2024 16:37