Page 204 - Demo
P. 204
202AppendicesTable 2. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not inFirst Impression 3-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 293.75 392.38 84.67, 502.83 443.75 847.72 -7.97, 895.47 0.39Coyness 800.00 752.77 398.88, 1201.12 693.75 813.61 260.21, 1127.29 0.36Genuine smile 1175.00 1216.28 526.89, 1823.11 618.75 1059.07 54.41, 1183.09 618.75Polite smile 1562.50 1071.37 991.61, 2133.39 2081.25 1366.37 1353.17, 2809.34 0.58Flirting 4 12 0.52Blush 6 10 0.53Rolling pelvis 0 1 1.03Note: Flirting was treated as categorical due to the low variance in duration.Table 3. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not in9-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 1546.67 1326.70 792.03, 2301.31 1081.25 977.90 560.16, 1602.34 0.54Coyness 2740.00 1385.02 1973.00, 3507.00 1700.00 916.52 1211.62, 2188.38 3.13Genuine smile 2833.33 1776.30 1849.65, 3817.02 2643.75 2275.95 1430.98, 3856.52 0.35Polite smile 2683.33 1831.30 761.50, 4605.17 3580.00 2025.29 2131.20, 5028.80 0.58Flirting 446.67 552.74 140.57, 752.77 1093.75 1137.52 487.61, 1699.89 1.47Blush 6 10 0.43Rolling pelvis 3 2 0.59Participant accuracy per actorHere, we explored whether participants were more likely to detect attraction in some videos than others. We plotted the mean accuracy in detectingattraction by Actor (person depicted in the video; see Figure 1). Interestingly, it can be noted that 10 videos (2 women; 7 attracted to partner) wereconsistently rated with over 0.5 level accuracy (henceforth referred to asconspicuous) compared to all other videos in our stimulus set (henceforthreferred to as inconspicuous). This pattern suggests that these video segments might have specific elements that rendered them easier to interpret,such as higher duration of behaviours associated with attraction.To investigate this question, we split the data between the Conspicuous(N = 10) and Inconspicuous videos (N = 22) and analysed whether the duration of behaviours associated with attraction differed between these twogroups (for an overview of all descriptives see Table 3). Bayesian indepenTable 2. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not inFirst Impression 3-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 293.75 392.38 84.67, 502.83 443.75 847.72 -7.97, 895.47 0.39Coyness 800.00 752.77 398.88, 1201.12 693.75 813.61 260.21, 1127.29 0.36Genuine smile 1175.00 1216.28 526.89, 1823.11 618.75 1059.07 54.41, 1183.09 618.75Polite smile 1562.50 1071.37 991.61, 2133.39 2081.25 1366.37 1353.17, 2809.34 0.58Flirting 4 12 0.52Blush 6 10 0.53Rolling pelvis 0 1 1.03Note: Flirting was treated as categorical due to the low variance in duration.Table 3. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not in9-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 1546.67 1326.70 792.03, 2301.31 1081.25 977.90 560.16, 1602.34 0.54Coyness 2740.00 1385.02 1973.00, 3507.00 1700.00 916.52 1211.62, 2188.38 3.13Genuine smile 2833.33 1776.30 1849.65, 3817.02 2643.75 2275.95 1430.98, 3856.52 0.35Polite smile 2683.33 1831.30 761.50, 4605.17 3580.00 2025.29 2131.20, 5028.80 0.58Flirting 446.67 552.74 140.57, 752.77 1093.75 1137.52 487.61, 1699.89 1.47Blush 6 10 0.43Rolling pelvis 3 2 0.59Participant accuracy per actorHere, we explored whether participants were more likely to detect attraction in some videos than others. We plotted the mean accuracy in detectingattraction by Actor (person depicted in the video; see Figure 1). Interestingly, it can be noted that 10 videos (2 women; 7 attracted to partner) wereconsistently rated with over 0.5 level accuracy (henceforth referred to asconspicuous) compared to all other videos in our stimulus set (henceforthreferred to as inconspicuous). This pattern suggests that these video segments might have specific elements that rendered them easier to interpret,such as higher duration of behaviours associated with attraction.To investigate this question, we split the data between the Conspicuous(N = 10) and Inconspicuous videos (N = 22) and analysed whether the duration of behaviours associated with attraction differed between these twogroups (for an overview of all descriptives see Table 3). Bayesian indepenTable 2. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not inFirst Impression 3-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 293.75 392.38 84.67, 502.83 443.75 847.72 -7.97, 895.47 0.39Coyness 800.00 752.77 398.88, 1201.12 693.75 813.61 260.21, 1127.29 0.36Genuine smile 1175.00 1216.28 526.89, 1823.11 618.75 1059.07 54.41, 1183.09 618.75Polite smile 1562.50 1071.37 991.61, 2133.39 2081.25 1366.37 1353.17, 2809.34 0.58Flirting 4 12 0.52Blush 6 10 0.53Rolling pelvis 0 1 1.03Note: Flirting was treated as categorical due to the low variance in duration.Table 3. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not in9-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 1546.67 1326.70 792.03, 2301.31 1081.25 977.90 560.16, 1602.34 0.54Coyness 2740.00 1385.02 1973.00, 3507.00 1700.00 916.52 1211.62, 2188.38 3.13Genuine smile 2833.33 1776.30 1849.65, 3817.02 2643.75 2275.95 1430.98, 3856.52 0.35Polite smile 2683.33 1831.30 761.50, 4605.17 3580.00 2025.29 2131.20, 5028.80 0.58Flirting 446.67 552.74 140.57, 752.77 1093.75 1137.52 487.61, 1699.89 1.47Blush 6 10 0.43Rolling pelvis 3 2 0.59Participant accuracy per actorHere, we explored whether participants were more likely to detect attraction in some videos than others. We plotted the mean accuracy in detectingattraction by Actor (person depicted in the video; see Figure 1). Interestingly, it can be noted that 10 videos (2 women; 7 attracted to partner) wereconsistently rated with over 0.5 level accuracy (henceforth referred to asconspicuous) compared to all other videos in our stimulus set (henceforthreferred to as inconspicuous). This pattern suggests that these video segments might have specific elements that rendered them easier to interpret,such as higher duration of behaviours associated with attraction.To investigate this question, we split the data between the Conspicuous(N = 10) and Inconspicuous videos (N = 22) and analysed whether the duration of behaviours associated with attraction differed between these twogroups (for an overview of all descriptives see Table 3). Bayesian indepenTable 2. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not inFirst Impression 3-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 293.75 392.38 84.67, 502.83 443.75 847.72 -7.97, 895.47 0.39Coyness 800.00 752.77 398.88, 1201.12 693.75 813.61 260.21, 1127.29 0.36Genuine smile 1175.00 1216.28 526.89, 1823.11 618.75 1059.07 54.41, 1183.09 618.75Polite smile 1562.50 1071.37 991.61, 2133.39 2081.25 1366.37 1353.17, 2809.34 0.58Flirting 4 12 0.52Blush 6 10 0.53Rolling pelvis 0 1 1.03Note: Flirting was treated as categorical due to the low variance in duration.Table 3. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not in9-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 1546.67 1326.70 792.03, 2301.31 1081.25 977.90 560.16, 1602.34 0.54Coyness 2740.00 1385.02 1973.00, 3507.00 1700.00 916.52 1211.62, 2188.38 3.13Genuine smile 2833.33 1776.30 1849.65, 3817.02 2643.75 2275.95 1430.98, 3856.52 0.35Polite smile 2683.33 1831.30 761.50, 4605.17 3580.00 2025.29 2131.20, 5028.80 0.58Flirting 446.67 552.74 140.57, 752.77 1093.75 1137.52 487.61, 1699.89 1.47Blush 6 10 0.43Rolling pelvis 3 2 0.59Participant accuracy per actorHere, we explored whether participants were more likely to detect attraction in some videos than others. We plotted the mean accuracy in detectingattraction by Actor (person depicted in the video; see Figure 1). Interestingly, it can be noted that 10 videos (2 women; 7 attracted to partner) wereconsistently rated with over 0.5 level accuracy (henceforth referred to asconspicuous) compared to all other videos in our stimulus set (henceforthreferred to as inconspicuous). This pattern suggests that these video segments might have specific elements that rendered them easier to interpret,such as higher duration of behaviours associated with attraction.To investigate this question, we split the data between the Conspicuous(N = 10) and Inconspicuous videos (N = 22) and analysed whether the duration of behaviours associated with attraction differed between these twogroups (for an overview of all descriptives see Table 3). Bayesian indepenTable 2. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not inFirst Impression 3-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 293.75 392.38 84.67, 502.83 443.75 847.72 -7.97, 895.47 0.39Coyness 800.00 752.77 398.88, 1201.12 693.75 813.61 260.21, 1127.29 0.36Genuine smile 1175.00 1216.28 526.89, 1823.11 618.75 1059.07 54.41, 1183.09 618.75Polite smile 1562.50 1071.37 991.61, 2133.39 2081.25 1366.37 1353.17, 2809.34 0.58Flirting 4 12 0.52Blush 6 10 0.53Rolling pelvis 0 1 1.03Note: Flirting was treated as categorical due to the low variance in duration.Table 3. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not in9-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 1546.67 1326.70 792.03, 2301.31 1081.25 977.90 560.16, 1602.34 0.54Coyness 2740.00 1385.02 1973.00, 3507.00 1700.00 916.52 1211.62, 2188.38 3.13Genuine smile 2833.33 1776.30 1849.65, 3817.02 2643.75 2275.95 1430.98, 3856.52 0.35Polite smile 2683.33 1831.30 761.50, 4605.17 3580.00 2025.29 2131.20, 5028.80 0.58Flirting 446.67 552.74 140.57, 752.77 1093.75 1137.52 487.61, 1699.89 1.47Blush 6 10 0.43Rolling pelvis 3 2 0.59Participant accuracy per actorHere, we explored whether participants were more likely to detect attraction in some videos than others. We plotted the mean accuracy in detectingattraction by Actor (person depicted in the video; see Figure 1). Interestingly, it can be noted that 10 videos (2 women; 7 attracted to partner) wereconsistently rated with over 0.5 level accuracy (henceforth referred to asconspicuous) compared to all other videos in our stimulus set (henceforthreferred to as inconspicuous). This pattern suggests that these video segments might have specific elements that rendered them easier to interpret,such as higher duration of behaviours associated with attraction.To investigate this question, we split the data between the Conspicuous(N = 10) and Inconspicuous videos (N = 22) and analysed whether the duration of behaviours associated with attraction differed between these twogroups (for an overview of all descriptives see Table 3). Bayesian indepenTable 2. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not inFirst Impression 3-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 293.75 392.38 84.67, 502.83 443.75 847.72 -7.97, 895.47 0.39Coyness 800.00 752.77 398.88, 1201.12 693.75 813.61 260.21, 1127.29 0.36Genuine smile 1175.00 1216.28 526.89, 1823.11 618.75 1059.07 54.41, 1183.09 618.75Polite smile 1562.50 1071.37 991.61, 2133.39 2081.25 1366.37 1353.17, 2809.34 0.58Flirting 4 12 0.52Blush 6 10 0.53Rolling pelvis 0 1 1.03Note: Flirting was treated as categorical due to the low variance in duration.Table 3. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not in9-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 1546.67 1326.70 792.03, 2301.31 1081.25 977.90 560.16, 1602.34 0.54Coyness 2740.00 1385.02 1973.00, 3507.00 1700.00 916.52 1211.62, 2188.38 3.13Genuine smile 2833.33 1776.30 1849.65, 3817.02 2643.75 2275.95 1430.98, 3856.52 0.35Polite smile 2683.33 1831.30 761.50, 4605.17 3580.00 2025.29 2131.20, 5028.80 0.58Flirting 446.67 552.74 140.57, 752.77 1093.75 1137.52 487.61, 1699.89 1.47Blush 6 10 0.43Rolling pelvis 3 2 0.59Participant accuracy per actorHere, we explored whether participants were more likely to detect attraction in some videos than others. We plotted the mean accuracy in detectingattraction by Actor (person depicted in the video; see Figure 1). Interestingly, it can be noted that 10 videos (2 women; 7 attracted to partner) wereconsistently rated with over 0.5 level accuracy (henceforth referred to asconspicuous) compared to all other videos in our stimulus set (henceforthreferred to as inconspicuous). This pattern suggests that these video segments might have specific elements that rendered them easier to interpret,such as higher duration of behaviours associated with attraction.To investigate this question, we split the data between the Conspicuous(N = 10) and Inconspicuous videos (N = 22) and analysed whether the duration of behaviours associated with attraction differed between these twogroups (for an overview of all descriptives see Table 3). Bayesian indepenTable 2. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not inFirst Impression 3-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 293.75 392.38 84.67, 502.83 443.75 847.72 -7.97, 895.47 0.39Coyness 800.00 752.77 398.88, 1201.12 693.75 813.61 260.21, 1127.29 0.36Genuine smile 1175.00 1216.28 526.89, 1823.11 618.75 1059.07 54.41, 1183.09 618.75Polite smile 1562.50 1071.37 991.61, 2133.39 2081.25 1366.37 1353.17, 2809.34 0.58Flirting 4 12 0.52Blush 6 10 0.53Rolling pelvis 0 1 1.03Note: Flirting was treated as categorical due to the low variance in duration.Table 3. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not in9-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 1546.67 1326.70 792.03, 2301.31 1081.25 977.90 560.16, 1602.34 0.54Coyness 2740.00 1385.02 1973.00, 3507.00 1700.00 916.52 1211.62, 2188.38 3.13Genuine smile 2833.33 1776.30 1849.65, 3817.02 2643.75 2275.95 1430.98, 3856.52 0.35Polite smile 2683.33 1831.30 761.50, 4605.17 3580.00 2025.29 2131.20, 5028.80 0.58Flirting 446.67 552.74 140.57, 752.77 1093.75 1137.52 487.61, 1699.89 1.47Blush 6 10 0.43Rolling pelvis 3 2 0.59Participant accuracy per actorHere, we explored whether participants were more likely to detect attraction in some videos than others. We plotted the mean accuracy in detectingattraction by Actor (person depicted in the video; see Figure 1). Interestingly, it can be noted that 10 videos (2 women; 7 attracted to partner) wereconsistently rated with over 0.5 level accuracy (henceforth referred to asconspicuous) compared to all other videos in our stimulus set (henceforthreferred to as inconspicuous). This pattern suggests that these video segments might have specific elements that rendered them easier to interpret,such as higher duration of behaviours associated with attraction.To investigate this question, we split the data between the Conspicuous(N = 10) and Inconspicuous videos (N = 22) and analysed whether the duration of behaviours associated with attraction differed between these twogroups (for an overview of all descriptives see Table 3). Bayesian indepenTable 2. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not inFirst Impression 3-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 293.75 392.38 84.67, 502.83 443.75 847.72 -7.97, 895.47 0.39Coyness 800.00 752.77 398.88, 1201.12 693.75 813.61 260.21, 1127.29 0.36Genuine smile 1175.00 1216.28 526.89, 1823.11 618.75 1059.07 54.41, 1183.09 618.75Polite smile 1562.50 1071.37 991.61, 2133.39 2081.25 1366.37 1353.17, 2809.34 0.58Flirting 4 12 0.52Blush 6 10 0.53Rolling pelvis 0 1 1.03Note: Flirting was treated as categorical due to the low variance in duration.Table 3. Overview of differences in duration of emotional expressions between videos in which the daters were attracted to their partner or not in9-second videos.)Attracted to Partner Not Attracted to PartnerBehavior M SD 95% CrIs M SD 95% CrIs BF10Coyness cheek raised 1546.67 1326.70 792.03, 2301.31 1081.25 977.90 560.16, 1602.34 0.54Coyness 2740.00 1385.02 1973.00, 3507.00 1700.00 916.52 1211.62, 2188.38 3.13Genuine smile 2833.33 1776.30 1849.65, 3817.02 2643.75 2275.95 1430.98, 3856.52 0.35Polite smile 2683.33 1831.30 761.50, 4605.17 3580.00 2025.29 2131.20, 5028.80 0.58Flirting 446.67 552.74 140.57, 752.77 1093.75 1137.52 487.61, 1699.89 1.47Blush 6 10 0.43Rolling pelvis 3 2 0.59Participant accuracy per actorHere, we explored whether participants were more likely to detect attraction in some videos than others. We plotted the mean accuracy in detectingattraction by Actor (person depicted in the video; see Figure 1). Interestingly, it can be noted that 10 videos (2 women; 7 attracted to partner) wereconsistently rated with over 0.5 level accuracy (henceforth referred to asconspicuous) compared to all other videos in our stimulus set (henceforthreferred to as inconspicuous). This pattern suggests that these video segments might have specific elements that rendered them easier to interpret,such as higher duration of behaviours associated with attraction.To investigate this question, we split the data between the Conspicuous(N = 10) and Inconspicuous videos (N = 22) and analysed whether the duration of behaviours associated with attraction differed between these twogroups (for an overview of all descriptives see Table 3). Bayesian independent t-tests showed that in Conspicuous videos, daters exhibited a greaterduration of happiness (M = 1540.00, SD = 1200.19) compared to all remaining videos (M = 604.55, SD = 1035.32; BF10 = 2.20). Furthermore,in the Conspicuous videos, daters exhibited lower duration of polite smiles(M = 1040.00; SD = 915.55) compared to the Inconspicuous videos (M =2177.27; SD = 1213.78; BF10 = 4.09).Figure 1. Mean accuracy as a function of Actor (person depicted in video)for Experiments 1-3. Only accuracy from the FI3 Condition are presentedin all experiments. The red line denotes chance level (0.5) accuracy. Stimulithat were consistently rated with over 0.5 accuracy are presented in lightblue.Positive response biasHere, we examined whether differences in attraction detection accuracy asa function of whether the dater depicted was attracted to their partner ornot can be explained by a general propensity of the participants to indicatethat a dater is attracted to their partner more often than that a dater is notdent t-tests showed that in Conspicuous videos, daters exhibited a greaterduration of happiness (M = 1540.00, SD = 1200.19) compared to all remaining videos (M = 604.55, SD = 1035.32; BF10 = 2.20). Furthermore,in the Conspicuous videos, daters exhibited lower duration of polite smiles(M = 1040.00; SD = 915.55) compared to the Inconspicuous videos (M =2177.27; SD = 1213.78; BF10 = 4.09).Figure 1. Mean accuracy as a function of Actor (person depicted in video)for Experiments 1-3. Only accuracy from the FI3 Condition are presentedin all experiments. The red line denotes chance level (0.5) accuracy. Stimulithat were consistently rated with over 0.5 accuracy are presented in lightblue.Positive response biasHere, we examined whether differences in attraction detection accuracy asa function of whether the dater depicted was attracted to their partner ornot can be explained by a general propensity of the participants to indicatethat a dater is attracted to their partner more often than that a dater is notdent t-tests showed that in Conspicuous videos, daters exhibited a greaterduration of happiness (M = 1540.00, SD = 1200.19) compared to all remaining videos (M = 604.55, SD = 1035.32; BF10 = 2.20). Furthermore,in the Conspicuous videos, daters exhibited lower duration of polite smiles(M = 1040.00; SD = 915.55) compared to the Inconspicuous videos (M =2177.27; SD = 1213.78; BF10 = 4.09).Figure 1. Mean accuracy as a function of Actor (person depicted in video)for Experiments 1-3. Only accuracy from the FI3 Condition are presentedin all experiments. The red line denotes chance level (0.5) accuracy. Stimulithat were consistently rated with over 0.5 accuracy are presented in lightblue.Positive response biasHere, we examined whether differences in attraction detection accuracy asa function of whether the dater depicted was attracted to their partner ornot can be explained by a general propensity of the participants to indicatethat a dater is attracted to their partner more often than that a dater is notIliana Samara 17x24.indd 202 08-04-2024 16:37
