Page 203 - Demo

201AppendicesASupplemental Material for Chapter 6Expressions of attraction in videosThe video segments were coded to examine whether daters exhibited ex,pressions signalling attraction during the dates. All video segments (N =32; 16 female) were coded offline using the Observer XT 11.5 event-loggingsoftware (Noldus, Trienes, Hendriksen, Jansen, & Jansen, 2000) for boththe 3-second First Impression (FI) and 9-second Verbal Interaction (VI)conditions, for a total of 64 videos. We used a coding scheme includingmultiple composite and single-unit behaviours associated with positive ex,perience during romantic interactions. Specifically, we coded the followingexpressions: a) coyness; b) flirting; c) interest; d) positive affect; e) em,barrassment, and minor variations of these expressions thereof (e.g., coysmiles with and without raised cheeks; see Table 1) based on Cordaro etal. (Cordaro et al., 2018). The video segments were coded by two inde,pendent coders following extensive training. To assess inter-rater reliability,Cohen’s intra-class correlation (ICC) for absolute agreement was calculatedfor 4 video segments (12.5% percent of video segments; IIC > 0.60, for allcontinuous behaviours, except embarrassment which was not included in theanalyses and kappa = 1.00 for all categorical behaviors). The durations andfrequencies were extracted and analysed in JASP (version 0.16; JASP Team,2021). For all coded behaviours, we compared daters who were interestedto their partner versus daters who were not interested in their partner. Weused either independent Bayesian t-tests or chi square tests for continuousand count data, respectively. All tests were conducted using default priordistributions.Regarding the 3 second videos, there were no robust differences in ex,pression duration between daters that were interested in their partner anddaters that were not interested in their partner. However, there were nu,merical trends between conditions (see Table 2) suggesting that the numberof videos might have limited our power to detect these differences.Regarding the 9 second videos, daters showed more coyness when theywere attracted to their partner (M = 2740.00 ms; SD = 1137.52) than whenthey were not (M = 1700.00 ms; SD = 916.52; BF10 = 3.13; see Table 3).All other expressions had a BF10 < 3 (indicating anecdotal evidence) andthus were not interpreted (BF10: coyness (with cheek raised) = 0.54; flirting= 1.47; genuine smile = 0.35; polite smile = 0.58). Bayesian contingencytables showed no robust differences in head nodding, blushing, and rollingthe pelvis (coded 1 if present; 0 if absent) between daters who were interestedin their partner than not (BF10: blushing = 0.43; rolling the pelvis = 0.59).Table 1. Description of coded behaviours including Event Type, Description, and associated Reliability Values (IIC forabsolute agreement or Cohen’s kappa)Variable Event type Description ReliabilityLeaning forward Event Leaning toward the partner 1Coyness State A smile with a gaze aversion 0.99Coyness (cheeks raised) State A genuine smile (incl. cheeks raised) with gaze aversion & 0.94Flirting State A smile with eye-contact and head tilt 0.69Head nod State Nodding 1Genuine smile State Lip corners up with cheeks raised 0.76Polite smile State lip corners up without cheeks raised 0.86Blushing Event 1Rolling the pelvis Event 1Supplemental Material for Chapter 6Expressions of attraction in videosThe video segments were coded to examine whether daters exhibited ex,pressions signalling attraction during the dates. All video segments (N =32; 16 female) were coded offline using the Observer XT 11.5 event-loggingsoftware (Noldus, Trienes, Hendriksen, Jansen, & Jansen, 2000) for boththe 3-second First Impression (FI) and 9-second Verbal Interaction (VI)conditions, for a total of 64 videos. We used a coding scheme includingmultiple composite and single-unit behaviours associated with positive ex,perience during romantic interactions. Specifically, we coded the followingexpressions: a) coyness; b) flirting; c) interest; d) positive affect; e) em,barrassment, and minor variations of these expressions thereof (e.g., coysmiles with and without raised cheeks; see Table 1) based on Cordaro etal. (Cordaro et al., 2018). The video segments were coded by two inde,pendent coders following extensive training. To assess inter-rater reliability,Cohen’s intra-class correlation (ICC) for absolute agreement was calculatedfor 4 video segments (12.5% percent of video segments; IIC > 0.60, for allcontinuous behaviours, except embarrassment which was not included in theanalyses and kappa = 1.00 for all categorical behaviors). The durations andfrequencies were extracted and analysed in JASP (version 0.16; JASP Team,2021). For all coded behaviours, we compared daters who were interestedto their partner versus daters who were not interested in their partner. Weused either independent Bayesian t-tests or chi square tests for continuousand count data, respectively. All tests were conducted using default priordistributions.Regarding the 3 second videos, there were no robust differences in ex,pression duration between daters that were interested in their partner anddaters that were not interested in their partner. However, there were nu,merical trends between conditions (see Table 2) suggesting that the numberof videos might have limited our power to detect these differences.Regarding the 9 second videos, daters showed more coyness when theywere attracted to their partner (M = 2740.00 ms; SD = 1137.52) than whenthey were not (M = 1700.00 ms; SD = 916.52; BF10 = 3.13; see Table 3).All other expressions had a BF10 < 3 (indicating anecdotal evidence) andthus were not interpreted (BF10: coyness (with cheek raised) = 0.54; flirting= 1.47; genuine smile = 0.35; polite smile = 0.58). Bayesian contingencytables showed no robust differences in head nodding, blushing, and rollingthe pelvis (coded 1 if present; 0 if absent) between daters who were interestedin their partner than not (BF10: blushing = 0.43; rolling the pelvis = 0.59).Table 1. Description of coded behaviours including Event Type, Description, and associated Reliability Values (IIC forabsolute agreement or Cohen’s kappa)Variable Event type Description ReliabilityLeaning forward Event Leaning toward the partner 1Coyness State A smile with a gaze aversion 0.99Coyness (cheeks raised) State A genuine smile (incl. cheeks raised) with gaze aversion & 0.94Flirting State A smile with eye-contact and head tilt 0.69Head nod State Nodding 1Genuine smile State Lip corners up with cheeks raised 0.76Polite smile State lip corners up without cheeks raised 0.86Blushing Event 1Rolling the pelvis Event 1Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 201 08-04-2024 16:37