Page 30 - Demo

28Chapter 2StimuliStimuli were selected from the Chicago Face Database (CFD) 2.3 (D. S. Ma,Correll, & Wittenbrink, 2015). This face database consists of 597 highresolution, standardized colour photographs of male and female faces ofvarying ethnicity between the ages of 18 and 65 years old. The faces havebeen validated previously by independent judges on several scales, includingon attractiveness (D. S. Ma et al., 2015). Based on these CFD attractivenessratings, we selected stimuli depicting 10 attractive, 10 unattractive and 20intermediately attractive White individuals.We tested whether age differed between the stimulus categories, usinga Bayesian 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; Sex ⇥ Attractiveness Category), since older faces may be perceived as less attractive than youngerfaces (Ebner, 2008). We found moderate evidence for the null hypothesisthat age did not differ between the sexes (BF01 = 4.18 ± 0.02%) and attractiveness categories (BF01 = 3.72 ± 0.03%). In addition, we found strongevidence for the null hypothesis when testing the interaction between sexand attractiveness category (BF01 = 78.95 ± 0.67%); suggesting that agedid not substantially differ across stimulus categories.ProcedureThe experiment involved a dot-probe paradigm (for a review, see van Rooijen et al., 2017)1. In the task, two stimuli were presented next to eachother, each centralized in one half of the screen. All paired images consistedof an attractive or unattractive face and an intermediately attractive face.Location of the stimuli and the probe was balanced between trials. Participants only saw pictures of opposite-sex individuals. In total, participantsperformed 80 trials presented in random order (excluding 5 practice trials).The sole instruction participants received was to tap on a black dot asfast as they could (see Figure 1). Every trial started with a dot appearingin the mid-bottom of the screen until participant response. Subsequently,two stimuli (i.e., an (un)attractive and an intermediately attractive face)were displayed for 300ms. Next, a dot (probe) appeared in place of either the (un)attractive face or in place of the intermediately attractive face.The probe remained on the screen until participant response. Every trialended with a 2000ms inter-trial interval (ITI). The reaction time (RT) ofthe participant from tapping on the probe from stimulus offset was used as1Due to a coding error, an additional sensitive, touchable area was presented in themiddle of the screen on the slide showing the probe. Technically, a participant’s RT couldbe logged if they clicked this additional sensitive area instead of the probe. However,because this sensitive area was transparent and thus invisible to the participants, it ishighly unlikely that they tapped within that area instead of tapping the probe. Also,the fact that no participants had an extreme amount of extremely fast or extremely slowresponses suggests that they were following the instruction to tap the probe properly.Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 28 08-04-2024 16:34